Direction for the Future 
EPA

S MISSION

and the Environment 

: 

To Protect Human Health 
September 30, 2003 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Direction for the Future 

2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan: 
I am pleased to present the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 2003 

Strategic Plan, which will guide the Agency’s work over the next five years. 

This Strategic Plan offers a new, more workable approach to our environmental 

protection efforts in the near future. We have established five new long-term, 

results-based goals to replace the ten goals of our previous plans. By focusing 

on few outcome-oriented goals, we can achieve better environmental results; 

provide greater flexibility in our internal operations to state, tribal, and federal 

partners; and use taxpayer dollars more wisely and effectively. 

The events of the past two years have brought many changes in the way 

we as citizens have come to look upon our government and communities. Our 

desire for improvements in the quality-of-life—cleaner and safer air, water, and 

land, and the protection of natural resources—remains sustained and strong. 

More Americans than ever before are traveling our country. They are enjoying 

the scenic and recreational opportunities of our rivers, parks, and forests, along 

with the attractions of our large cities and small towns, for which we are known 

and understandably proud. 

Ensuring that our citizens live in a healthy, safe environment that supports 

these and many other beneficial uses is a responsibility that we at EPA welcome. 

Our 2003-2008 Strategic Plan maps out our approach to protecting and enhancing 

environmental quality and human health. We thank our partners and stakeholders 

for their continuing help toward achieving these goals. We are especially grateful 

to the American public for its unwavering support of our efforts to safeguard an 

environmental legacy that we and future generations can appreciate and enjoy. 

Marianne Lamont Horinko 

Acting Administrator 
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30


Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56


Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76


Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108


Cross-Goal Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128


Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131


Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134


Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140


Human Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146


Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153


Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .161


Economic and Policy Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165


Appendix 1: Social Costs and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173


Appendix 2: Program Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215


Appendix 3: Summary of Consultation Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .227


Appendix 4: Coordination Between EPA and Other 


Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .233

8

87

6

8

56

59

59

59

59 59 

55

55

55

55

55

55

58

58

58

58

68

68

66

66

66

66

63

61

64

62

65

60

61

64

63

62

75

79

78

74 76

74

77 78

79

73

70

75

70

78

79

78

74

87

83

84

80

86

87

8

82

1016

1024 1024 H 1008

L1002

L1004

L1006

1012 H

1016 H

1019 H 72

71

88 77

71

1020

1012

63

6

61 6

define, and possible solutions are more difficult to identify. Population growth, and t

resources are consumed to sustain this growth, are altering the Earth in unprecedent

Scientific advances and technological developments pose new issues for human heal

environmental protection. Today more than ever, we recognize the need to look tow

future to anticipate potential threats to human health and the environment, establis

orities, and prepare ourselves for addressing them. 

Our success will depend on a variety of critical factors: 

• First, we must set the right goals for protecting the environment and human 

We believe that close collaboration and good communications with our fede

and tribal partners are critical if we are to set meaningful goals and develop 

gies and approaches that will achieve the intended environmental results. 

• We and our partners will need the best available scientific and economic inf

to establish priorities and make decisions. Sound science and technology wi

determine which problems pose important risks to our natural environment, 

health, and quality of life. Reliable economic information will ensure our ab

make cost-efficient decisions. 

• We must also collect the environmental information we need to assess wher

and where we need to go. Establishing a baseline of current conditions by id

and monitoring a variety of environmental indicators can help us not only t

and develop strategies, but also to assess our progress and evaluate our perfor

• As we plan, the Agency must continue to explore new and creative ways to 

our goals. We must look for innovative ways to address high-priority environ

problems and make full use of technology, market-based incentives, and env

management systems. 

• Finally, our future success dep

our ability to develop and sustain 

skilled, adaptable, results-oriented 

force. We must ensure that EPA w

workforce with the right mix of t

expertise, experience, and leaders

bilities to achieve our goals and c

our mission. 

In planning our work for the 

years and beyond, we have been 

2 
South Main

S treet 

Central Street 

Grand Avenu

enu

Aspen S tree

O

t

ak S treet 

Maple

S treet 

Avenue 

m ber

B oulevard 

Central PLaza 

Park Boulevard 

our goals. These themes have shaped our 

strategic planning discussions over the past 

months, and they are reflected in this 

Strategic Plan for 2003 to 2008. 

FOCUSING ON RESULTS: 

A NEW SET OF GOALS 

EPA’s 2003 Strategic Plan reflects a new 

perspective on the Agency’s work—a sharpened focus on achieving measurable 

environmental results. Our 1997 and 2000 

Strategic Plans were based on 10 strategic 

goals, including both outcome-oriented 

goals, such as Clean Air, and functional or 

support goals, such as Effective 

Management. In contrast, EPA has constructed its 2003 Strategic Plan around five 

new goals that describe the results we are 

striving to achieve: Clean Air and Global 

Climate Change, Clean and Safe Water, Land Preservation and Restoration, Healthy 

Communities and Ecosystems, and Compliance and Environmental Stewardship. 

Under its new Strategic Plan, the Agency treats critical functions, such as sound science, 

quality environmental information, and innovation, not as goals in themselves, but as important means to an environmental end. These functions are part- and-parcel of the strategies and 

approaches the Agency intends to use to achieve each of its five goals, and they are discussed 

in general terms in the “Cross-Goal Strategies” chapter of this Strategic Plan. 

EPA leaders believe that taking this broader approach of establishing five goals focused on 

environmental results and streamlining EPA’s planning and budgeting structure will facilitate 

the Agency’s ability to promote multimedia, cross-program approaches to solving environmental problems. Establishing goals that are less rigorously aligned with Agency programs or 

organizational units will provide greater flexibility, both within the Agency and for state and 

tribal environmental programs. EPA regional offices, for example, working with their state and 

tribal partners, will be better able to conduct regional strategic planning activities and address 

regional or geographic priorities under the Agency’s five national goals. 

3

• Land Preservation and Restoration 

• Healthy Communities and Ecosystems 

• Compliance and Environmental Stewardship 

CROSS-GOAL STRATEGIES 

• Partnerships 

• Information 

• Innovation 

• Human Capital 

• Science 

• Homeland Security 

• Economic and Policy Analysis 
1749

1251

1600

1694

867

1000

the National Environmental Performance Partnership System, a system established in 1

reflect commitments made by states and EPA to work together for environmental prote

Currently, we are collaborating with the Environmental Council of the States to im

opportunities for joint state-EPA regional office planning and priority-setting and to 

that the results of these strategic discussions meaningfully influence EPA’s planning 

eting. Together, we are also reviewing our use of Performance Partnership Agreemen

negotiated agreements that define EPA and state responsibilities—to make them mo

and definitive and to reduce transaction costs. In keeping with our sharpened focus 

ing results, EPA believes that these agreements can be used more effectively to set o

performance expectations for both states and EPA regional offices, to explain how w

together, and to describe how we will hold one another mutually accountable for ac

ing our objectives and achieving measurable results. 

Just as we work in partnership with states, EPA is committed to working with tr

government-to-government relationship to improve environmental and human heal

tion throughout the Nation. The Agency is particularly concerned about the poor st

environment often found in Indian country. As a result, the work described in our S

that focuses on communities must also provide for safeguarding tribes and tribal land

IMPLEMENTING REFORMS: 

THE PRESIDENT’S MANAGEMENT AGENDA 

Streamlining our goal structure to focus on the achieve

environmental results is an important, far-reaching reform. 

not the only reform reflected in EPA’s 2003 Strategic Plan. T

President’s Management Agenda, issued in August 2001, pr

three basic principles for reform: Government should be ci

tered, results-oriented, and market-based.1 EPA has kept th

principles in mind as it developed its Strategic Plan. In parti

EPA’s Strategic Plan reflects five government-wide initiative

in the President’s Management Agenda: (1) strategic mana

human capital, (2) competitive sourcing, (3) expanded elec

government, (4) improved financial performance, and (5) b

performance integration. 

In developing plans for each of its five environmental g

establishing objectives and sub-objectives and developing t

and strategies for achieving them—EPA has considered opp

4 
16 17

18

17 18

23

26

20

18

18

17 21

19

21

13 13 10

22

29

32 23

31

24

21

26

23

27

34

40

34

33

34 24

27 22

23

31

32

31

38

22 38

44

47

32

33

39

44

23

23

23

2

25

9960-X

380

385

390

395

9960-X-27400

405

410

415

420

27425

12 14

12

12

12

24

23

23

43

47

54

43

43

44

48 41

2

42

48

44

44

43

43

66

36

48

55

44

56

70

105

89

61

67

its state and tribal partners and with the public. For example, the 

Agency was recently chosen to be managing partner of an online rulemaking initiative and is working toward moving current federal 

rule-making systems into a uniform online approach. 

In June 2003, EPA was recognized as the second Executive 

Branch agency (along with the Social Security Administration) to 

achieve a “green” status rating from the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for improved financial performance. The Agency’s 

record of superior accomplishments includes clean audit opinions on 

annual financial statements; effective internal controls to prevent 

erroneous payments; and resolving all outstanding material weaknesses for the first time since the Federal Manager’s Financial Integrity 

Act2 became law. Equally important to EPA’s financial performance is 

the Agency’s financial management system, which promotes integrated information to provide timely and reliable financial and 

performance data to program managers, who use it to support day-today decision-making. 

EPA has long been a model for integrating budget and performance, having linked its budget to its long-range Strategic Plan and 

Annual Performance Plan since fiscal year 1999. By integrating its 

planning and budgeting efforts and implementing other systems 

changes, the Agency has been better able to evaluate its programs, assess its performance, and 

use the results to make budget and program improvement decisions. The Agency will continue 

to strengthen links between budget and performance through its new goal structure. In addition, EPA is enhancing its financial reporting system, further integrating program performance 

and cost information and making it available to Agency managers and decision-makers on a 

real-time basis. 

STRENGTHENING GRANTS MANAGEMENT 

Key to our efforts to improve EPA’s financial performance are the steps we are taking to 

strengthen our management of grants. To benefit from our partners’ innovations and expertise, 

EPA awards over one-half of its budget annually in grants to state, local, and tribal agencies; 

educational institutions; and nonprofit organizations. Over the past several years, we have been 

working with them to develop an effective system for grants management that ensures we use 

federal funds responsibly to produce measurable environmental results. 
6

promote the Agency’s effort to m

results. Our Grants Management 

lishes five goals: (1) enhance the 

EPA personnel involved in grant

ment; (2) promote competition i

award of grants; (3) leverage technology to improve program performance; (4) stren

oversight of grants; and (5) support efforts to identify and achieve environmental ou

We are committed to accomplishing these goals, and we will be working with our pa

the coming years to address the challenges involved in managing grants efficiently a

tively. We will report on our progress to the U.S. Congress through EPA’s Annual Re

IMPROVING ACCOUNTABILITY: ASSESSING THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMEN

The American public—taxpayers, communities, business and industry, environme

groups—have invested billions of dollars to control pollution and improve the environ

believes that it is essential to assess our progress and review the results of those investm

To help assess the current state of the environment and to provide a baseline again

can measure future performance, the Agency has launched an “Environmental Indicato

Initiative,” under which we will collect data and information about the quality of our e

and develop an Agency-wide system for tracking and reporting on our progress. We are 

ing with our federal, state, and tribal partners to develop a set of measurements that can 

track environmental conditions over time. In 2003, we presented this information in ou

Report on the Environment, which will give Americans a better understanding of the con

our Nation’s environment and human health and allow the public to evaluate environm

programs and policies.3 The information we collected for the Draft Report on the Environ

will collect for future updates will also be critical to the Agency’s strategic planning, he

establish future goals and objectives, develop strategies, review our performance, and ad

policies and approaches as necessary. The Agency’s work on environmental indicators a

Report on the Environment are critical steps in our more comprehensive effort to identify 

focus resources on areas of greatest concern, manage our work effectively to achieve me

results, and report regularly on our progress to the American public. In the coming mon

will be consulting with partners and stakeholders on how best to align and integrate ou

mental indicators work with our strategic planning. 
NOTES

1. U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 2002. The President’s Management Agenda: FY 2002. Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/

mgmt.pdf, Executive Office of the President, OMB Web Site. Date of access: September 15, 2003.

2. Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act of 1982, available online at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/integrity/integrity.htm.

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. 2003. Draft Report on the

Environment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/

indicators/roe/, EPA Environmental Indicators Initiative Web Site. Date of access: September 15, 2003.

In preparing our Strategic Plan, we have been guided by a commitment to the highest standards of management and to ensuring a strong, cost-effective system for protecting the

environment and human health. In carrying out these efforts, we will continue to work closely

with our governmental partners and to communicate our progress as clearly and effectively as

possible to the American people whom we serve.
8 

g 

mental results we intend? 

To plan strategically, to adjust our 

approaches and activities to 

improve results, and to be able to 

report to the American people on 

our progress, EPA must routinely 

assess its performance and accomplishments. The Government 

Performance and Results Act 

(GPRA) requires agencies to 

report to Congress each year on 

their progress toward their strategic goals. Under GPRA, agencies 

set annual performance goals and 

establish measures to determine 

how well they are achieving those 

goals. Annual Performance Reports 

summarizing these findings are due 

to Congress after the end of every 

fiscal year. 

EPA’s strategic “architecture”—the 

goals, objectives, and sub-objectives that we use to plan our work, 

develop our budget, and account 

for our resources—is also designed 

to help us track our performance. 

Restoration, Healthy Communities 

and Ecosystems, and Compliance 

and Environmental Stewardship) is 

broken down into a number of 

objectives that describe what we 

intend to accomplish over 5 years 

in order to attain our larger goals. 

In turn, the objectives are supported by a series of sub-objectives, 

which are focused on more specific results the Agency intends to 

achieve during those 5 years. 

EPA’s 2003 Strategic Plan introduces another element to many of 

the sub-objectives in the Agency’s 

architecture: strategic targets. 

These 5-year targets will help us 

chart our course more quantitatively and track our progress from 

different perspectives. In most 

cases, we will develop our annual 

performance goals and measures 

to mirror each of our strategic targets, so that we can measure our 

progress each year toward these 

targets and the sub-objectives that 

they support. In this way our 

g 

the Agency conducts du

given year ultimately wi

reach our five goals. 

Taken in its entirety, EPA

architecture presents a 

map for achieving our g

shows how accomplishm

each level—annual perf

goals, strategic targets, s

tives, and objectives—“

the next level and, ultim

toward a strategic goal 

Air” or “Clean and Safe 

This structure also enab

measure our performan

annual basis and to trac

progress over the long t

importantly, it allows EP

ent our partners, our st

and the public with a co

step-by-step plan for ac

goals, accounting for ou

measuring and evaluatin

formance, and managing 

to achieve environment

human health protectio

IMPROVING PERFORMANCE AND EFFICIENCY MEASURES 

In addition to measuring our 

progress toward the objectives 

described in the Strategic Plan, we 

are developing improved long-term 

measures of our performance in 

key program areas. We are building on work being conducted in 

EPA and elsewhere to continue 

development of improved environmental and human health 

indicators. EPA’s recent Draft 

Report on the Environment1 and 

the ecosystem indicator report 

published by the H. John Heinz III 

Center for Science, Economics, and 

the Environment2 demonstrate the 

challenges of developing 

ly sound indicators of th

of the environment and 

health. Nonetheless, the 

continues to commit its

ing steady progress in b

tracking the outcomes o

For instance, to better 
programs. A national air toxics 

monitoring network—a part of this 

effort—will track changes in ambient levels of a set of high-risk toxics 

over time. As another example, 

Agency cleanup programs are 

developing ways to measure the 

number of sites ready for reuse 

and the area of land now in use or 

ready for reuse. Once in place, 

such measures of effectiveness can 

supplement or replace objectives, 

sub-objectives, and targets in future 

EPA strategic plans. 

program results to the resources 

invested or time spent to achieve 

those results. Efficiency measures 

are embedded in the architecture 

of this Strategic Plan. For example, 

one of the strategic targets under 

Goal 4 is an efficiency measure 

that will track the Agency’s perchemical costs of reviewing new 

chemicals prior to their entry into 

U.S. commerce. As a further commitment to making efficiency 

measures an integral tool in 

Agency management and account

Goal 5, an efficiency measure will 

track the pounds of pollutants 

reduced against the time EPA staff 

spends in enforcement activities. 

We will continue to develop and 

refine efficiency measures, as well 

as effectiveness measures, as we 

work to improve measurement of 

our performance over the long 

term. 

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. 2003. Draft Report on the Environment. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/, EPA Environmental Indicators Initiative 

Web Site. Date of access: September 15, 2003. 

2. The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. September 2002. The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems: 

Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press. 
GOAL 1
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. 

Clean Air and 

Change 

Global Climate
Climate Change 

Clean Air and Global 

Air quality in the United States has steadily States, since air pollution can travel great dista

improved, according to EPA’s annual summary of air across international boundaries. 

quality trends since the 1970s.1 This trend toward 

cleaner air has occurred even as our 

economy has increased by 161 

percent in gross domestic product, 

miles traveled by cars and trucks have 

increased by 149 percent, and energy 

consumption has increased by 42 

percent. EPA continues to look for 

progressive solutions to remaining 

indoor and outdoor air pollution 

problems, which can cause breathing 

difficulties, long-term damage to 

respiratory and reproductive systems, 

cancer, and premature death. 

Air pollution also can affect the 

environment by reducing visibility; 

damaging crops, forests, and buildings; acidifying lakes and streams; 

and stimulating the growth of algae 

in estuaries and the build-up, or 

OBJECTIVES 

Objective 1.1: 

Healthier Outdoor Air . . . .13 

Objective 1.2: 

Healthier Indoor Air . . . . . .18 

Objective 1.3: 

Protect the Ozone Layer . .20 

Objective 1.4: 

Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 

Objective 1.5: Reduce 

Greenhouse Gas Intensity .23 

Objective 1.6: Enhance 

Science and Research . . . . .24 

EPA is addressing this 

range of problems strategic

applying a variety of appro

appropriate tools. We have 

that problems with broad n

global impact—emissions f

plants and other large sour

tion from motor vehicles an

and stratospheric ozone dep

are best handled primarily 

federal level. A national ap

allows for the use of traditi

regulatory tools where appr

and enables us to impleme

tive, market-based techniq

as emissions trading, bank

aging, and other national p

cost-effectively. 

States, tribes, and loca

can best address the region

bioaccumulation, of toxics in fish. Bioaccumulation 

poses particular risks to Native Americans and others 

who subsist on plants, fish, and game. Certain chemicals 

emitted into the air diminish the protective ozone layer in 

the upper atmosphere. Rapid development and urbanization in other countries is creating air pollution that 

threatens not only those countries but also the United 

local problems that remain after federal measu

been fully applied. EPA works closely with pu

private-sector partners and stakeholders to dev

tools—such as monitoring, modeling, and emi

inventories—that allow states, tribes, and loca

address these more localized problems. Many o
Sub-objective 1.1.1: More People Breathing 

Cleaner Air. By 2010, working with partners, 

improve air quality to healthy levels for 39 

percent of the people who live in areas where 

the air does not meet new national standards 

for fine particles in 2001 and for 60 percent 

who live in areas not meeting new national 

standards for 8-hour ozone in 2001.2,3 While 

some areas may not reach attainment of 

these new standards because of air pollutant 

concentrations that sometimes exceed the 

allowable levels, air quality will improve for 

an additional 27 percent of the people who 

live in areas not meeting new standards for 8-

hour ozone in 2001. Maintain attainment 

status for the 123.7 million people who had 

healthy air for the criteria pollutants in 2001. 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2010, reduce stationary source 

emissions of sulfur dioxide by 6.7 million tons from the 2000 level of 11.2 

million tons, and by 2008, reduce 

stationary source emissions of nitrogen oxides by 3 million tons from the 

2000 level of 5.1 million tons.4 

• By 2010, reduce mobile source emissions of nitrogen oxides by 3.4 million tons from the 2000 level of 11.8 

million tons; volatile organic compounds by 1.7 million tons from the 

2000 level of 7.7 million tons; and 

fine particles by 122,400 tons from 

the 2000 level of 510,550 tons.5 

Sub-objective 

1.1.2: Reduced 

Risk from Toxic 

Air Pollutants. 

By 2010, working 

with partners, 

reduce air toxics 

emissions and 

implement areaspecific approaches 

to reduce the risk 

to public health 

and the environment from toxic air 

pollutants. 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2007, through maximum achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards, reduce air toxics emissions 

from major stationary sources by 1.7 

million tons from the 1993 level of 

2.7 million tons.6 

• By 2010, through the President’s 

Clear Skies legislation, reduce mercury emissions from electric-generating 

units by 22 tons from the 2000 level 

of 48 tons.7 

OBJECTIVE 11HEALTHIER OUTDOOR AIR 

THROUGH 2010, WORKING WITH PARTNERS, PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE 

ENVIRONMENT BY ATTAINING AND MAINTAINING HEALTH-BASED AIR-QUALITY 

STANDARDS AND REDUCING THE RISK FROM TOXIC AIR POLLUTANTS. 
controls or equipment allowing use of 

cleaner fuels, and all 130,000 buses 

manufactured before 1991 but still in 

use in 2003 will be replaced.9 

Our strategy for reducing outdoor air pollution combines national and local measures, 

reflecting different federal, state, tribal, and 

local government roles. EPA, states, and local 

agencies work together to meet clean air 

goals cost-effectively by employing various 

regulatory, market-based, and voluntary 

approaches and programs. States are primarily 

responsible for improving air quality and 

meeting national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). States first develop 

emission inventories, operate and maintain 

air monitoring networks, and perform air 

quality modeling. They then develop state 

implementation plans (SIPs) that lay out the 

mobile and stationary source control strategies they will employ to improve air quality 

and meet NAAQS. 

EPA assists states by providing technical 

guidance and financial assistance, issuing regulations, and implementing programs 

designed to reduce pollution from the most 

widespread and significant sources of air pollution: mobile sources, such as cars, trucks, 

buses, and construction equipment; and stationary sources, such as power plants, oil 

refineries, chemical plants, and dry cleaning 

operations. Interstate transport of pollutants—a problem no state can solve on its 

are working to increase the current

information on air quality on tribal 

build tribal capacity to administer a

grams in Indian country, and establ

and state mechanisms to work effec

tribal governments on regulatory d

and regional and national policy is

Over the next several years, w

on implementing the fine particul

8-hour ozone standards, reducing e

from electric-generating units thro

President’s Clear Skies cap-and-tra

tion, and implementing EPA’s air t

program using progressive, market

methods to gain improvements in 

most cost-effectively. We will cont

work with multi-state planning gro

develop strategies for reducing reg

and with individual states to devel

mentation approaches to reduce em

particulate matter (PM) and ozone 

sors. In addition, we will work wit

identify opportunities for better in

ozone and PM efforts, such as imp

emission inventories and compreh

quality modeling approaches, cont

sources of precursors common to b

tants, and coordinating control str

planning cycles. 

MEANS AND STRATEGIES FOR 

ACHIEVING OBJECTIVE 1.1 

14 
bo; ooeorg NOx; a

d voate 

organic compounds (VOCs). 

The President’s Clear Skies legislation is a 

cornerstone of our strategy. Clear Skies sets 

strict, mandatory emission caps on three air 

pollutants from power generators—SO2, NOx, 

and mercury. Clear Skies, combined with other 

control programs, will bring many counties 

into attainment with EPA’s new health-based 

standards for ozone and fine particles. By 2020, 

Clear Skies, EPA’s proposed rule to decrease 

emissions from heavy-duty nonroad diesel 

engines, and other existing state and federal 

control programs, such as pollution controls 

for cars, trucks, and industrial boilers, will 

together bring all but 18 counties nationwide 

(including only 8 counties in the East) into 

attainment with the fine particle standards 

and all but 27 counties nationwide (including 

only 20 counties in the East) into attainment 

with the ozone standards. (In comparison, current [1991-2001] data show that today 129 

counties nationwide [114 in the East] exceed 

the fine particle standard, and 290 counties 

nationwide [268 in the East] exceed the new 

ozone standard.) In terms of benefits, by 2010, 

improvements in air quality under Clear Skies 

will result in 7,900 fewer premature deaths and 

$54 billion in health benefits nationwide each 

year. By 2020, improvements in air quality will 

result in 14,100 fewer premature deaths and 

$110 billion in health benefits nationwide 

each year. 

10 

Supporting our strategic goal of achieving 

progressive, cost-effective improvements in 

air quality, Clear Skies will not significantly 

change national electricity prices. Power generators will continue to rely on diverse 

EPA is now implementing national programs that will dramatically reduce future 

emissions from a wide range of mobile 

sources, including cars, minivans, sport utility 

vehicles, trucks, buses, motorcycles, recreational vehicles, forklifts, generators, marine 

engines, locomotives, and lawn and garden 

equipment. To enhance compliance with 

recently promulgated heavy-duty vehicle 

standards, for example, we are developing 

rules for in-use emissions and on-board diagnostics. EPA estimates that, when fully 

implemented, the heavy-duty vehicle standards will prevent 8,300 premature deaths, 

more than 9,500 hospitalizations, and 1.5 

million lost work days every year. 

11 We are 

also developing a program to establish new 

standards for non-road diesel engines, including sulfur requirements for non-road diesel 

fuel, and we are planning to address emissions from locomotives and marine engines. 

EPA is addressing diesel exhaust from onroad and non-road sectors not only by 

establishing new standards, but also through 

voluntary programs to reduce emissions from 

existing diesel engines in trucks, buses, and 

construction equipment. These programs will 

greatly reduce emission of air toxics, as well as 

Working with our local, 

state, national, tribal, and 

international partners helps 

us achieve the best results. 
16 

grants for retrofitting and replacing diesel 

school buses and reducing idling. We will also 

work with the trucking and railroad industries 

to adopt pollution control and energy-saving 

technologies. To address emissions from trucks 

idling at truck stops and rest areas, EPA will 

continue to develop agreements with truck 

fleets, the truck-stop industry, manufacturers 

of idle-control technologies, and state and 

local governments to create incentives for 

implementing idle-control technologies. 

We will continue to implement the reformulated gasoline program, while working to 

address issues associated with the use of oxygenates (e.g., methyl tertiary-butyl ether 

[MTBE] and ethanol). With our partners, we 

will create a compliance program to ensure 

that vehicles and engines are clean, and we 

will help states incorporate on-board diagnostic inspections into their vehicle inspection 

Finally, recognizing that efforts to 

emissions need to be accompanied 

to reduce the effects of unmanaged 

and development, EPA will work w

and local governments, assisting th

crafting comprehensive strategies t

modate necessary growth and econ

development while minimizing adv

on air quality and other quality-of-

REDUCING RISKS FROM TOXIC 

POLLUTANTS 

The Clean Air Act requires EP

late emission of 188 toxic air pollut

including dioxin, asbestos, toluene, 

metals as cadmium, mercury, chrom

lead compounds.12 To further reduce 

to air toxics, EPA will develop and 

al standards for major stationary sou

which, when implemented through 

grams, will reduce toxic emissions b

million tons. In addition, we will c

national, regional, and community-

efforts to reduce multimedia and cu

risks. Characterizing emissions and 

they pose on national and local sca

in Indian country, will require signi

effort. We will need to update the s

to keep the public informed about 

We will develop and refine too

ing, handbooks, and information t

our partners in characterizing risks 

toxics, and we will work with them 

gies for making local decisions to r

those risks. We are working with s

local agencies to design a national 

HUMAN CAPITAL FOCUS FOR ACHIEVING GOAL 1 

EPA’s workforce planning, hiring, and training activities 

will emphasize: 

• Risk assessment, environmental/risk modeling and 

monitoring, economic analysis, and standard-setting. 

• Communication and coalition-building. 

• Energy efficiency and clean-energy technology. 

• Waste management and cleanup, radiation monitoring, and radiological emergency response. 

• Toxicity mechanisms; chronic health effects; emissions measurement and estimation methods; 

exposure, dose, and response modeling; atmospheric modeling; monitoring methods; and control and 

prevention technologies. 
develop the infrastructure and skills tribes 

need to assess, understand, and control air 

quality on their lands. We will increase air 

monitoring in Indian country, and, in consultation with tribes, we will establish needed 

federal regulatory authorities and help tribes 

develop and manage their own air programs 

in a manner consistent with EPA Indian 

Policy and tribal traditions and culture. We 

plan to complete a policy determining when 

Federal Implementation Plans are appropriate 

for bringing Clean Air Act programs to 

Indian country. We will support tribal air 

programs by providing technical support, 

assistance with data development, and training and outreach, and we will help tribes 

participate in discussions of national policy 

and operations and in regional planning and 

coordination activities. Where tribes choose 

not to develop their own programs, we will 

implement air quality programs directly. 

As we develop and implement clean air 

strategies, we will work with other federal 

agencies to ensure a coordinated approach. 

Our federal partners include the Department 

of Agriculture (in the areas of animal feeding 

operations, agricultural burning, and controlled burning), the Department of 

Transportation (for transportation-related air 

quality issues), the Department of Energy (for 

electric utilities, electricity generation, and 

energy efficiency issues), and the Department 

of Interior (concerning visibility in national 

parks and wilderness areas). 

EPA will also work to address sources of 

air pollutants that lie outside our borders, but 

pose risks to public health and air quality 

within the United States. We will work with 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

standing of international 

flows and our tools for 

analyzing and evaluating 

response policies. 

Working through bilateral agreements and 

multilateral international 

organizations (such as the 

United Nations 

Environment Programme 

and the Organisation for 

Economic Cooperation 

and Development), we 

will promote capacitybuilding, technology 

transfer, and other strategies to reduce foreign 

sources of pollution. EPA will also help represent the United States in existing multilateral 

international agreements (such as the 

Convention on Long-Range Transboundary 

Air Pollution and the United Nations 

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic 

Pollutants) to control sources of internationally transported pollutants and protect U.S. 

interests. In North America, we will work 

with Canada and Mexico within such existing 

agreements as the U.S.-Mexico La Paz 

Agreement (http://air.utep.edu/bca/jac/

agreement.html), the U.S.-Canada Air 

Quality Agreement (http://www.epa.gov/ 

airmarkt/ usca/agreement.html), and the 

North American Agreement on 

Environmental Cooperation 

(http://www.naaec.gc.ca/eng/agreement/

agreement_e.htm), to control the cross-border 

flow of pollutants. We will also work with 

Canada, Mexico, and key stakeholders to 

identify and explore new approaches to managing air quality along our common borders. 
million additional people will be 

living in homes with healthier indoor 

air. These include people living in 

homes with radon-resistant features, 

children not being exposed to environmental tobacco smoke, and asthmatics with reduced exposure to 

indoor asthma triggers. 

• By 2008, approximately 7.8 million 

additional students and staff will 

experience improved air quality in 

their schools. 

• By 2008, approximately 2 million 

additional office workers will experience improved air quality in their 

workplaces. 

Air within homes, schools, an

places can be more polluted than o

in the largest and most industrializ

And because people typically spen

90 percent of their time indoors,15 

have a greater exposure to indoor 

than to outdoor air pollution. Rela

reports issued by EPA,16 the Scienc

Board,17 and several states18 rank in

pollution among the top four envi

risks. Moreover, people who may s

most time indoors, thus exposed to 

pollutants for long periods of time

those who may be most susceptible 

effects: the young, the elderly, and 

ically ill, especially those suffering 

respiratory or cardiovascular diseas

To address indoor air quality is

develops and implements voluntar

and partnership programs that info

educate the public about indoor ai

and actions that can reduce poten

homes, schools, and workplaces. T

these voluntary programs, EPA dis

information and works with state, 

local governments; industry and p

groups; and the public to promote 

reduce exposures to possibly harmf

indoor air pollutants, including rad

Educational literature, multim

materials, media campaigns, hotlin

inghouse operations, and other ou

efforts provide the public, our part

the professional and research comm

with information about indoor air 

risks and actions that can reduce t

We also transfer technology by pro

18 
detailed guidance on indoor-air-related building design, operation, and maintenance 

practices to building owners, building managers, and school facility managers and 

easy-to-use tools to educators and school 

facility managers. Our partners—including 

health care providers who treat children with 

asthma; school personnel who manage school 

environments; county and local environmental health officials; and populations that 

might be disproportionately affected by 

indoor air pollution—have the expertise 

and/or credibility that allow EPA to reach a 

larger audience than we could on our own. 

To support these voluntary approaches, we 

will base our recommendations for reducing 

potential exposure to indoor contaminants 

on the most current science available. 

EPA will also provide tribes with appropriate tools and assistance to address indoor 

air toxics, such as radon, environmental 

tobacco smoke, PM, and biological issues, 

such as mold contamination. We will work 

as local community-based 

organizations to design and 

implement programs that 

address critical indoor air quality problems, including radon, 

secondhand smoke, asthma, 

and mold contamination in 

homes, child care and school 

facilities, and other residential 

environments. Through our 

State Indoor Radon Grant 

Program, we will continue to 

help states that have not yet 

established the basic elements 

of an effective radon assessment and mitigation program, and will support innovation 

and expansion in states that already have 

programs. Other indoor environment programs will focus on expanding national 

awareness of asthma triggers through outreach to schools, child care centers, health 

care providers, and the general public. 

, pg y 

to track our progress in reducing the costs of developing acid rain and related market-based programs: 

EPA is in the process of developing efficiency measures to 

evaluate progress in reducing transaction costs for Acid 

Rain and related market-based programs. ansaction cost efficiencies deal with e-Gov practices and minimizing emissions data reporting transaction costs. or 

example, the Agency plans by 2005 to reduce annual 

emissions and monitor certification data reporting costs by 

50 percent from approximately $4,000 per unit in the 

baseline year of 2000. 

These tr

F
• By 2010, atmospheric concentrations 

of the ozone-depleting substances 

CFC-11 and CFC-12 will have 

peaked at no more than 300 and 570 

parts per trillion respectively, while 

production of these chemicals will be 

allowed only for very limited essential uses. 

• By 2010, all methyl bromide production and import, except for exemptions permitted by the Montreal 

Protocol, and 45 percent of all 

hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) 

production and import, will be 

phased out, further accelerating the 

recovery of the stratospheric ozone 

layer. 

Scientific evidence amassed over the past 

25 years has shown that chlorofluorocarbons 

(CFCs) and HCFCs (refrigerants), halons 

(fire-extinguishing agents), methyl bromide (a 

pesticide), and other halogenated chemicals 

used around the world are depleting the 

stratospheric ozone layer. As a result, more 

harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation is reaching 

the Earth,19 increasing the risk of overexposure 

to radiation and consequent health effects, 

including skin cancer, cataracts, and other illnesses. More than a million new cases of skin 

cancer are diagnosed each year, 

20 and more 

than half of all Americans develop cataracts 

by the time they are 80 years old.21 

As a signatory to the Montreal 

Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone 

States is obligated to regulate and 

terms domestically. In accordance 

international treaty and related C

Act requirements,23 EPA will cont

implement the domestic rule-mak

for the reduction and control of o

depleting substances (ODS) and e

controlling their production, impo

emission. This implementation in

bining market-based regulatory ap

with sector-specific technology gu

and facilitating the development a

mercialization of alternatives to m

bromide and HCFCs. We will stre

outreach efforts to ensure efficient 

tive compliance, and continue to 

and promote safer alternatives to 

ozone depletion. To help reduce in

al emissions, we will assist with th

of technology to developing coun

work with them to accelerate the 

of ozone-depleting compounds. EP

mates that in the United States al

between 1990 and 2165, the world

phase-out of ODS will save 6.3 m

from fatal cases of skin cancer, avo

lion cases of nonfatal skin cancers

27.5 million cases of cataracts.24 

Because the ozone layer is not 

to recover until the middle of this 

the earliest,25 the public will conti

exposed to higher levels of UV ra

than existed prior to the use and e

ODS.26 Recognizing this fact and t

current sun-exposure practices, EP

tinue education and outreach effo

encourage behavioral changes as t

means of reducing UV-related hea

MEANS AND STRATEGIES FOR 

ACHIEVING 

OBJECTIVE 1.3 

20 
health and the environment from unwanted 

releases of EPA-regulated radioactive waste 

and minimize impacts to public health from 

radiation exposure. By 2008, increase the 

total number of drums of radioactive waste 

certified by EPA as properly disposed to 

140,171 (420.5 million millicuries) from 

47,171 (141.5 million millicuries) in 2003. 

(The estimated total drums to be deposited at 

the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant [WIPP] is 

860,000 [2.6 billion millicuries] over the next 

35 years.27) 

Sub-objective 1.4.2: 

Maintain Emergency 

Response Readiness. 

By 2008, ensure Agency 

readiness to inform the 

public about and protect them from airborne 

releases of radiation. By 2008, 80 percent of 

EPA’s 300-person Radiation Emergency 

Response Team will meet scenario-based 

response criteria, up from 50 percent in 2005. 

By 2008, EPA’s National Radiation 

Monitoring System will cover 70 percent of 

the U.S. population. (2005 baseline: 

37 percent of the U.S. population.) 

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. 

One of EPA’s major responsibilities related 

to radiation is certifying that all radioactive 

waste shipped by the Department of Energy 

(DOE) to the WIPP is disposed of safely and 

according to EPA’s standards. We inspect 

waste generator facilities and biennially evaluate DOE’s compliance with 

applicable environmental laws 

and regulations. Every 5 years, 

EPA must recertify that the 

WIPP will comply with EPA’s 

radioactive waste disposal regulations. 

Mining and processing 

naturally occurring radioactive 

materials for use in medicine, 

J4 

EPA works with states, tribes, and industry to 

develop innovative training, public information, and 

voluntary programs to minimize radiation exposures. 
22 

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 radiation monitoring; radiological 

emergency response; and provision of federal 

other federal agencies to prevent m

finished products suspected of hav

radioactive contamination from en

country. We will create partnershi

states, local agencies, and tribes to 

secure lost, stolen, or abandoned r

sources within the United States a

develop voluntary programs with s

local agencies and industry to inve

promote pollution prevention and 

tional practices and technologies t

industrial radioactive releases. 

EPA also operates the Environ

Radiation Ambient Monitoring Sy

(ERAMS), the only national envi

radiation program that provides in

about the wide-scale spread of rad

material from nuclear or radiologic

dents. Over the next several years

improve ERAMS by adding deplo

toring instruments that can quickl

shipped to affected areas, by condu

time monitoring for contaminatio

and by replacing old equipment w

the-art air samplers. 
Strategic Targets: 

• Through EPA’s ENERGY STAR® 

program, prevent 27 MMTCE in the 

buildings sector in 2012, in addition 

to the 20 MMTCE prevented annually in 2002.29 

• Through EPA’s industrial sector programs, prevent 80 MMTCE in 2012, 

in addition to the 43 MMTCE prevented annually in 2002.30 

• Through EPA’s transportation programs, prevent 13 MMTCE in 2012, 

in addition to the 2 MMTCE being 

prevented annually as of 2002. 

This objective will accomplish the portion of the goal that addresses reducing GHG 

intensity by enhancing partnerships with 

businesses and other sectors. In 2002, 

President Bush announced a U.S. climate 

policy to reduce the GHG intensity of the 

U.S. economy by 18 percent over the next 

decade. EPA’s strategy for helping to reduce 

GHG intensity is to enhance its partnerships 

with businesses and other sectors through 

programs that deliver multiple benefits in 

addition to reducing GHG intensity—from 

cleaner air to lower energy bills. At the core 

of these efforts are voluntary governmentindustry partnership programs designed to 

capitalize on the opportunities that 

consumers, businesses, and organizations 

have for making sound investments in efficient equipment, policies and practices, and 

transportation choices. 

EPA manages a 

number of voluntary climate efforts 

to improve information in the 

marketplace and 

more quickly 

deploy technology 

in the residential, 

commercial, and 

transportation sectors of the 

economy. The ENERGY STAR® partnership 

(http://www.energystar.gov/) has been successful in profitably avoiding GHG emissions. 

EPA will continue SmartWay Transport 

Partnership (http://www.epa.gov/smartway/) 

efforts with the trucking and railroad industries to reduce GHGs voluntarily through 

efficiency or energy-saving technologies and 

to promote cleaner vehicles and the adoption 

of pollution control and energy-saving technologies that reduce NOx and PM emissions. 

EPA’s Best Workplaces for Commuters program (http://www.commuterchoice.gov/) will 

also continue developing innovative solutions 

to commuting challenges faced by U.S. 

employers and employees by promoting commuter benefits that reduce vehicle trips and 

miles traveled. Other activities at EPA will 

further advance fuel-efficient and clean automotive technology, thus saving energy and 

reducing GHG emissions. 

MEANS AND STRATEGIES FOR 

ACHIEVING OBJECTIVE 1.5 
Sub-objective 1.6.1: Provide Science to 

Support Air Programs. Through 2010, 

use the best available scientific information, 

models, methods, and analyses to support 

air-program-related guidance and policy decisions. 

Sub-objective 1.6.2: Conduct Air Pollution 

Research. Through 2010, provide methods, 

models, data, and assessment research associated 

with air pollutants. Focus 

criteria pollutant research 

on emissions, fate and 

transport, exposures, mechanisms of injury, and health 

effects to support the periodic revision and 

implementation of 

NAAQS and to develop 

information and tools for 

understanding and characterizing 

mental outcomes associated with c

pollutants. Focus air toxics researc

oping and improving air quality m

source receptor tools; cost-effectiv

prevention and other control opti

scientific information and tools fo

standing and characterizing enviro

outcomes associated with national

and residual air toxic risks. 

emissions of the high-global-warming-potential gases. EPA’s goals for these efforts are to 

cost-effectively return emissions of methane 

to 1990 levels or below by 2012; to costeffectively limit emissions of the more potent 

services abou

change impa

tion and ada

options, and related issues so that 

more effectively and comprehensiv

their goals. Internationally, EPA w

the voluntary use of low- and zero

technologies. 

public and promote positive action. 

OBJECTIVE 1.6: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH 

THROUGH 2010, PROVIDE AND APPLY SOUND SCIENCE TO SUPPORT EPA’S GOAL O

AIR BY CONDUCTING LEADING-EDGE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPING A BETTER UND

AND CHARACTERIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES UNDER GOAL 1. 

24 
ting, and implementation work. Once these 

scientific tools are in use, we can identify 

data gaps and determine our needs for further 

research. 

SCIENCE TO SUPPORT AIR PROGRAMS 

EPA will continue to use sound science 

to determine the relative risks that air pollution poses to human health and the 

environment; identify the best means to 

detect, abate, and avoid environmental problems associated with air pollutants; and 

evaluate the effectiveness of control programs 

in reducing exposure to harmful levels of air 

pollution. The Agency will base its efforts to 

reduce environmental risks on the best available scientific information and will continue 

to integrate critical scientific assessment with 

policy, regulatory, and nonregulatory activities. 

Science activities related to air quality 

fall into three broad categories: (1) exposure 

and risk assessment, (2) program development and assessment, and (3) development 

and assessment of technology. 

Risk Assessment 

EPA conducts risk assessments on both 

criteria and hazardous air pollutants to support our air toxics program and to assist in 

estimating the risks associated with exposure 

to criteria pollutants, such as fine particulates. We also conduct radiation-risk 

assessments to evaluate health risks from 

radiation exposure; to determine appropriate 

levels for cleaning up contaminated sites; and 

Using mathematical models, 

EPA works with 

states and tribes 

to evaluate control options, control plans, 

the impacts of alternative emission scenarios, 

and the effect of federal rules. EPA’s Acid 

Rain Program uses deposition models to evaluate our allowance trading program and to 

support the National Acid Precipitation 

Assessment Program, which coordinates federal acid deposition research. In addition, we 

use mathematical models, ambient monitoring information, and other data to determine 

the effectiveness of control strategies. 

Technology Development and Assessment 

Developing and assessing innovations in 

environmental protection is another important aspect of EPA’s clean air program. 

Through its clean automotive technology 

program, EPA will continue to develop 

advanced clean and fuel-efficient automotive technology. We will collaborate with 

industry to transfer the unique EPA-patented, highly efficient hybrid engine and 

powertrain components, originally developed for passenger cars, to meet the more 

demanding size, performance, durability, and 

towing requirements of sport utility and 

urban delivery vehicles, without compromising performance, safety, or reductions in 

emissions. 

EPA is committed to common-sense, 

cost-effective solutions that result in cleaner 

air. To control air toxics reasonably and effectively, EPA will continue to evaluate control 
atmospheric measurements, and modeling to 

develop a consistent, national numerical air 

quality model for short-term air quality forecasts for ozone and PM. We are contributing 

our national collection, analysis, and distribution of ambient air quality (our AIRNow 

program) and emissions data; air quality 

modeling; and detailed research analysis of 

air quality impacts on human health. NOAA 

brings expertise in operational meteorological 

modeling, air quality research, and product 

development and distribution. AIR POLLUTION RESEARCH To meet our objectives for clean outdoor 

and indoor air, EPA’s Office of Research and 

Development (ORD) has developed multiyear plans for research on PM, tropospheric 

ozone (and other criteria pollutants), and air 

toxics that lay out long-term goals for the 

Particulate Matter 

EPA’s research on PM represen

largest portion of its clean air resea

gram. Guided by expert advice fro

National Research Council of the 

Academy of Sciences and several o

organizations outside the Agency, 

addressing its PM research goals b

house laboratory resources and pa

with numerous academic institut

including five PM research cente

the Nation. To achieve our objectives for 

outdoor air, the PM research prog

vides health and exposure inform

needed to establish standards and 

tools, such as emissions measurem

ods, air quality models, and ambi

measurement methods, that allow 

local agencies, and tribes to achie

NAAQS cost-effectively. From F

FY 2007, research will focus on d

data and tools needed for implem

the current PM standard and for th

required review of the standard. B

there is a 5-year cycle for reviewin

future research will focus on the in

needed to determine whether stan

should be retained or revised and t

ment new or revised standards. Tropospheric Ozone 

The tropospheric ozone resear

addresses not only ozone, but othe

pollutants such as SO

2, nitrogen d

bon monoxide, and lead. Under th

program, EPA will develop scienti

documents that can be used to est

26 
critical scientific questions that will result in 

more certain risk assessments and more effec

program. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

State implementation of delegated air programs, state and local implementation of 

federal regulations, and state and local agencies’ implementation of their own air pollution 

control regulations and programs are necessary 

for achieving our objectives and sub-objectives 

for clean air. However, many states are currently facing reduced budgets and resource 

constraints that might impede their ability to 

carry out environmental protection programs. 

Lawsuits and court action might require 

the Agency to adjust schedules and delay its 

accomplishment of certain goals and objectives. Achievement of the clean air objectives 

can also be affected by economic conditions 

and development patterns in the United States 

and the world and by choices made for energy 

and transportation policies. 

Weather conditions and meteorological 

patterns have very important effects on air 

quality. For example, high temperatures and 

bright sunlight can increase the formation of 

ozone. Wind can carry air pollution from one 

area to another, while conditions of little or no 

wind can cause air pollutants to remain in an 

area and build up to unhealthy levels. These 

effects must be considered when developing 

and implementing plans and strategies to 

achieve and maintain clean air. 

Finally, Objective 1.1 and Sub-objectives 

1.1.1 and 1.1.2 assume enactment and implementation of the Clear Skies legislation 

proposed by the President in 2002. As this proposed legislation is still in the early stages of 

the legislative process, it is not possible to predict at this time what action the U.S. Congress 

will take. 
28 

3. In 2001, the number of people living in areas not meeting new standards was 110,839,831 for 8-h

65,119,817 for particulate matter (PM)2.5. In 2010, the number of people living in areas meeting n

is expected to be 66,339,377 for 8-hour ozone and 25,173,130 for PM2.5. 

4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. July 2003. Clear Skies Act Fa

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/air/c

fact2003.html. Date of access: September 8, 2003. 

5. Baseline is from: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. September 

Regulatory Support Document: Control of Emissions from Unregulated Nonroad Engines. EPA 420-R-0

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

nonroad/2002/r02022.pdf. Date of access: September 8, 2003. 

6. Baseline is from: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. May 2001. 

National Toxics Inventory: Baseline 1993 NTI Raw Data. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print

7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. July 2003. Clear Skies Act Fa

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/air/c

fact2003.html. Date of access: September 8, 2003. 

8. Baseline is from: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. 1996 Natio

Inventory. 1996 Inventory Documentation and Data. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing O

Available online at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/1996inventory.html. Date of access: Septemb

9. Data on number of school buses manufactured taken from: Monahan, Patricia. February 2002. Pol

Card: Grading America’s School Bus Fleets. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists. 

10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. July 2003. 2003 Technical Su

for Clear Skies, Section B: 2003 Human Health and Environmental Benefits. Washington, DC: U.S. G

Printing Office. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/air/clearskies/technical.html. Date of acce

8, 2003. 

An alternative methodology projects that by 2010, Clear Skies will prevent 4,700 premature deat

$10 billion in health benefits annually and, by 2020, prevent 8,400 premature deaths and deliver 

public health benefits annually. 

11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. December 2000. Regulatory 

Announcement: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Re

EPA 420-F-00-057. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/hd2007/frm/f00057.pdf. Date of access: September 8, 2003. 

12. Clean Air Act, Title I, Section 112. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/caa112.txt, EP

Act Web Site. Date of access: September 8, 2003. 

13. The 1994 baseline is assumed to be zero for purposes of tracking the results of EPA indoor air prog

the number of Americans experiencing healthier indoor air prior to 1994 is unknown. 

14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. The Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAM

Summary and Analysis: Volume I. EPA 600-6-87-002a. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printin

15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Report to Congress on Indoor Air Quality, Volume II: 

and Control of Indoor Air Pollution. EPA 400-1-89-001C. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Prin

16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of E

Problems. EPA 230287025a. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 
p, 

19. United Nations Environment Programme. 2002. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion. Available online at 

http://www.unep.org/ozone/sap2002.shtml, UNEP, The Ozone Secretariat Web Site. Date of access: September 

8, 2003. 

20. American Cancer Society Inc. 2003. Cancer Facts and Figures: 2003. No. 5008.03. Available online at 

http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2003PWSecured.pdf. Date of access: September 8, 2003. 

21. Prevent Blindness America. 2003. Cataract Fact Sheet, FS32. Available online at 

http://www.preventblindness.org/resources/factsheets/CataractsFS32.PDF. Date of access: September 8, 2003. 

22. United Nations Environment Programme. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, as 

adjusted Beijing 1999. Nairobi, Kenya. Available online at http://www.unep.org/ozone/montreal.shtml, UNEP, 

The Ozone Secretariat Web Site. Date of access: September 8, 2003. 

23. Clean Air Act, Title VI. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/title6.html, EPA Clean Air Act Web 

Site. Date of access: September 8, 2003. 

24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. 1999. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean 

Air Act 1990-2010, EPA Report to Congress. EPA-410-R-99-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/1990-2010/chap1130.pdf. Date of access: September 

8, 2003. 

25. United Nations Environment Programme. 2002. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion. Available online at 

http://www.unep.org/ozone/sap2002.shtml, UNEP, The Ozone Secretariat Web Site. Date of access: September 

8, 2003. 

26. UV irradiance has increased since the early 1980s by 6 to 14 percent at more than 10 sites distributed over 

mid- and high latitudes of both hemispheres. Information from: United Nations Environment Programme. 

2002. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion. Available online at http://www.unep.org/ozone/sap2002.shtml, 

UNEP, The Ozone Secretariat Web Site. Date of access: September 8, 2003. 

27. U.S. Department of Energy. August 2002. Transuranic Waste Performance Management Plan. Carlsbad. Available 

online at http://www.wipp.carlsbad.nm.us/, DOE, Carlsbad Field Office, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Web Site. 

Date of access: September 8, 2003. 

28. Overall, EPA’s climate protection programs will prevent 185 MMTCE annually by 2012, up from 65 MMTCE 

in 2002. Of the additional 120 MMTCE that will be prevented annually by 2012, 75 MMTCE will result 

directly from the sustained growth in many of the climate programs and are reflected in the Administration’s 

business-as-usual projection for GHG intensity improvement; 45 MMTCE will contribute to the attainment of 

the President’s 18 percent GHG intensity improvement goal. The strategic targets outline the path for preventing the 120 MMTCE by 2012. 

29. MMTCE being prevented annually in 2002 is an estimate based on an analysis of actions that EPA’s program 

partners have taken through the end of 2002. 

30. Target includes the Agency’s work with state and local governments, and state and local governments’ work 

with industry to prevent GHG emissions. 

31. For more detailed information on ORD’s multi-year plans, see: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office 

of Research and Development. Research Directions: Multi-Year Plans. Washington, DC. Available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp.htm. Date of access: September 8, 2003. 
GOAL 2
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. 

Clean and Safe 

Water 
Safe W

Clean and 

ater 

Over the 30 years since the 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. 

Nation’s waters were open sewers posing healt

and many water bodies were so polluted that t

uses, such as swimming, fishing, and recreatio

impossible. Today, the number of polluted wat

been dramatically reduced, and 

Thirty years ago, many of the 

Nation’s drinking-water systems provided water to the tap with either very 

limited treatment (usually disinfection) or no treatment at all. Drinking 

water was too often the cause of 

acute illnesses linked to microbiological contaminants or of longer-term 

health problems resulting from exposure to low levels of toxic and other 

contaminants. Today, drinking-water 

OBJECTIVES 

Objective 2.1: Protect 

Human Health. . . . . . 33 

Objective 2.2: Protect 

Water Quality . . . . . . 41 

Objective 2.3: 

Enhance Science and 

Research. . . . . . . . . . . 49 

clean waters are even healthier. 

investment of federal, state, an

funds has resulted in a new gen

sewage treatment facilities able 

“secondary” treatment or better

than 50 categories of industry n

with nationally consistent disch

lations. In addition, sustained e

implement “best management p

have helped reduce runoff of po

from diffuse, or “nonpoint,” so

systems monitor the quality of the


water they provide and treat water to ensure compliance


with standards covering a wide range of contaminants. In


addition, new efforts to prevent contaminants from


entering drinking-water sources are helping to keep drink­


ing water safe. We now regulate disposal of wastes to


ground waters that are potential sources of drinking


water. 


Thirty years ago, 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 

Cleaner, safer water has re

recreational, ecological, and economic interest

munities across the Nation. The recreation, to

travel industry is one of the largest employers i

Nation, and a significant portion of recreation

comes from swimming, boating, sport fishing, 

ing.2 Each year, more than 180 million people 

shore for recreation.3 In 2001, people spent a 

$70 billion—$35.6 billion on fishing, $20.6 b

hunting, and $13.8 million on items used for 

ing and fishing. Wildlife watchers spent an add

$38.4 billion on activities around the home an
Sub-objective 2.1.1: Water Safe To Drink. 

By 2008, 95 percent 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. (2002 Baseline: 93.6 percent of 

population; note that year-to-year performance is expected to change over time as new 

standards take effect.) 

(Note: Routine data analyses of the Safe 

Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) 

have revealed a degree of nonreporting of violations of health-based drinking water standards 

and of violations of regulatory monitoring and 

reporting requirements. 

quality problems, the baseline statistic of national 

compliance with health-based drinking water 

standards is likely lower than reported. 

tations with states, the Agency is currently 

engaged in statistical analysis to more accurately 

quantify the impact of these data quality problems, and this has resulted in significant improvements in data accuracy and completeness. 

as these improvements are made, SDWIS serves 

as the best source of national information on 

compliance with SDWA requirements and is a 

critical database for program management, the 

development of drinking water regulations, trends 

analyses, and public information.) 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2008, the percentage of the population served by community water 

systems that receives drinking water 

that meets health-based standards 

will be: 

– 95 percent for those requirements 

with which systems need to comply as of December 2001. (2002 

Baseline: 93.6 percent of the 

population.7

) 

– 80 percent for those requirements 

with a compliance date of 

January 2002 or later. (2002 

Baseline: percent of population 

to be determined starting in 

January 2004 and revised as new 

standards take effect. Covered 

standards include: Stage 1 disinOBJECTIVE 2.1: PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH 

PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH BY REDUCING EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINANTS IN DRINKING 

WATER (INCLUDING PROTECTING SOURCE WATERS), IN FISH AND SHELLFISH, AND IN 

RECREATIONAL WATERS. 

now busy with boats and harbor businesses 

that generate substantial revenue for the city 

of Cleveland. Oregon’s Willamette River has 

been restored to provide swimming, fishing, 

and water sports. Even Lake Erie, once infa

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. 

As a result of these data 

In consulEven 
centage of community 

water systems that 

provide drinking 

water that meets 

health-based standards will be: 

– 

those requirements 

with which systems 

need to comply as of 

December 2001. 

(2002 Baseline: 91.6 

percent of community 

water systems.

8

) 

– 80 percent for those requirements 

with a compliance date of 

January 2002 or later. (2002 

Baseline: percent of community 

water systems to be determined 

starting in January 2004 and 

revised as new standards take 

effect. Covered standards 

include: Stage 1 disinfection 

by- products/interim enhanced 

surface-water treatment 

rule/long-term enhanced surfacewater treatment rule/arsenic; 

year-to-year performance is 

expected to change as new 

standards take effect.) 

• By 2008, 95 percent of the population served by community water 

systems in Indian country will 

receive drinking water that meets all 

applicable health-based drinkingwater standards. (2002 Baseline: 91.1 

be 5 percent; minimized r

achieved by substantial im

tion, as determined by the 

source water protection ac

source water protection str

• By 2015, in coordination w

federal agencies, reduce by 

cent the number of househ

tribal lands lacking access 

drinking water. (2000 Base

Indian Health Service dat

ing 31,000 homes on triba

access to safe drinking wat

Sub-objective 2.1.2: Fish and Sh

to Eat. By 2008, improve the qual

and sediments to allow increased c

tion of fish and shellfish as measur

strategic targets described below. 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2008, improve the qua

water and sediments to all

increased consumption of 

not less than 3 percent of 

miles/acres identified by st

tribes as having a fish con

advisory in 2002. (2002 B

485,205 river miles and 11

lake acres were identified 

tribes in 2002 as having fi

chemical contamination le

ing in an advisory of poten

human health risk from co

tion.12) 

34 

95 percent for 
gy , qy 

allow swimming in not less than 5 percent of 

the stream miles and lake acres identified by 

states in 2000 as having water quality unsafe 

for swimming. (2000 Baseline: approximately 

90,000 stream miles and 2.6 million lake 

acres reported by states as not meeting a primary contact recreational use in the 2000 

reports under section 305(b) of the Clean 

Water Act.14) 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2008, protect the quality of recreational waters nationwide so that the 

number of waterborne disease outbreaks attributable to swimming in, 

or other recreational contact with, 

the ocean, rivers, lakes, or streams 

will be reduced to not more than 8, 

measured as a 5-year average. (2002 

Baseline: an average of 9 recreational 

contact waterborne disease outbreaks 

reported per year by the Centers for 

Disease Control over the years 1994 

to 1998; adjusted by the Heinz 

Center to remove outbreaks associated with waters other than natural 

surface waters [such as pools or water 

parks].15) 

• By 2008, coastal and Great Lakes 

beaches monitored by state beach 

safety programs will be open and safe 

for swimming in more than 96 percent of the days of the beach season. 

(2002 Baseline: monitored beaches 

open 94 percent of the days of the 

beach season.16) 

health. More than 260 million Americans 

rely on the safety of tap water provided by 

water systems that comply with national 

drinking-water standards.17 EPA’s strategy for 

ensuring safe drinking water over the next 

several years includes four key elements: 

• Developing or revising drinkingwater standards 

• Supporting states, tribes, and water 

systems in implementing standards 

• Promoting sustainable management 

of drinking-water infrastructure 

• Protecting sources of drinking water 

from contamination. 

Develop Drinking-Water Standards 

The Safe Drinking Water Act directs 

EPA to establish national standards for contaminants in drinking water provided to 

consumers by water systems. Over the past 30 

years, EPA has established standards for some 
36 

Through 2008, 

EPA will continue 

to assess the need for 

new or revised 

drinking-water standards. Based on 

recommendations 

from the National 

Research Council, 

the National Drinking Water Advisory 

Council, and other stakeholders, the Agency 

will continue to evaluate health effects data 

and risks of exposure to contaminants; information on technologies that prevent, detect, 

and remove contaminants; and compliance 

costs. If there is adequate information, EPA 

will determine whether a new risk-based 

drinking-water standard is necessary, or 

whether revision to an existing standard is 

warranted. Where the source of the contamination is surface water, the Agency will also 

consider applying the pollution control 

authorities of the Clean Water Act, including development of water quality criteria for 

human health under Section 304 of the Act. 

These criteria, once adopted by states and 

authorized tribes, will form the basis for limits 

on discharges of the contaminants to surface 

waters and guide programs to reduce runoff. 

Implement Drinking-Water Regulations 

EPA works closely with states, tribes, and 

owners and operators of municipal water systems to ensure the full and effective 

implementation of drinking-water standards 

and to support the highest possible rate of 

compliance with those standards. Over the 

next 5 years, EPA will provide guidance, 

training, and technical assistance to states, 

standards. 

with the A

Small Sys

Strategy, E

provide tr

assistance 

the use of 

tive treatm

nologies, p

waste disposal, and compliance with 

for high-priority contaminants, incl

arsenic in drinking water and micro

fectants, and disinfection by-produc

High-quality information is ne

support the effective implementati

drinking-water standards. The Safe 

Water Information System serves a

mary source of national informatio

compliance with all Safe Drinking 

requirements and is a critical datab

gram management. EPA will work 

that all applicable drinking-water r

requirements are incorporated into 

data system to help states and auth

tribes manage their drinking-water 

EPA will also continue to work wit

and others to improve data comple

accuracy, timeliness, and consisten

Support Sustainable Drinking-Wa

Infrastructure 

Providing drinking water that 

standards often requires an investm

construction or maintenance of in

ture. The Drinking Water State R

Fund (DWSRF) provides water sys

low-interest loans to make infrastr

improvements. 
adopt sustainable management systems. 

In a related effort, EPA will work with 

other federal agencies to develop a coordinated approach to improving access to safe 

drinking water. The 2002 World Summit in 

Johannesburg adopted the goal of reducing the 

number of people lacking access to safe drinking water by 50 percent by 2015.19 EPA will 

contribute to this work through its support for 

development of drinking-water facilities in 

Indian country and Alaskan Native villages, 

using set-aside funds from the DWSRF and 

targeted grants. Other federal agencies, such as 

the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), also play 

key roles in addressing this problem. EPA will 

work with these agencies to develop a coordinated strategy by 2005 and to begin 

implementing the strategy in 2006. In addition, Mexico Border infrastructure projects, 

described under Goal 4: Healthy 

Communities and Ecosystems, will also 

increase access to safe drinking water. 

Prevent Contamination of Sources of 

Drinking Water 

There is growing recognition that protecting the quality of sources of drinking 

water, including surface water and ground 

water, can reduce violations of drinkingwater standards. EPA will support protection 

of drinking-water sources through training 

and technical assistance to states, tribes, and 

communities that are taking voluntary 

measures to prevent or reduce contamination of source water. The Agency will foster 

coordination of contamination prevention 

ing with states and tribes to educate and 

assist underground injection control well 

operators; working with industry and stakeholders to collect and evaluate data on 

potential ground-water contamination from 

more than two dozen types of Class V (shallow) wells, including agricultural and 

storm-water drainage wells and large-capacity 

septic systems; and exploring best management practices for protecting underground 

sources of drinking water. 

Safeguarding Water Infrastructure 

EPA is also the federal organization 

responsible for ensuring the safety of critical 

water infrastructure in the event of terrorist 

or other intentional acts. Over the next several years, EPA will continue to provide 

HUMAN CAPITAL FOCUS 

FOR ACHIEVING GOAL 2 

EPA needs to strengthen the knowledge, skills, and 

abilities of staff involved in implementing core water 

programs, including those of the scientists involved in 

establishing drinking-water standards and developing 

water quality criteria. takeholder partnerships and cooperation. A will: 

• Train federal, state, local, and tribal employees in 

such areas as community development, communication, and effective listening. 

• Exchange staff with other federal agencies, such as 

USDA. 

• Enter into intergovernmental assignments between 

EPA and our state and tribal partners. 

Success also depends on s

EP
Act) requires community water 

systems supplying 

drinking water to 

more than 3,300 

people (of which 

there are about 

9,000 nationwide) 

to conduct vulnerability assessments 

and prepare emergency response plans by certain dates. Wastewater systems have also 

been conducting vulnerability assessments 

and developing emergency response plans 

through technical assistance provided by 

EPA. While the deadlines in the Bioterrorism 

Act and the statutory mandates are time-specific for vulnerability assessments and 

emergency response plans, EPA and the 

water infrastructure community agree that 

these protective activities are not “one time 

only” endeavors, but represent an iterative 

process based on new and emerging information, science, and technology. 

The Agency will spearhead and support 

efforts to develop effective and affordable 

methods, technologies, equipment, and other 

tools needed to protect drinking-water and 

wastewater systems from attack. Another 

aspect of maintaining a secure infrastructure 

is ensuring that critical information reaches 

the right people by the fastest means necessary. 

the operation of a secure, Internet-based, 

password-protected Information Sharing and 

Analysis Center that provides data on threats 

of attacks or actual alerts and notices to 

drinking-water and wastewater utilities. 

acres.

Shellfish also can accumul

causing microorganisms and toxic 

1995, shellfishing was prohibited i

cent of the approximately 25 milli

that support shellfishing.21 EPA is 

with states, tribes, and other feder

to improve water and sediment qu

fish and shellfish are safe to eat an

tect the public from consuming fis

shellfish that pose unacceptable he

Make More Fish Safe to Eat 

Most fish consumption adviso

are issued because of unhealthy lev

mercury in fish. Although small am

of mercury are discharged to water

mercury in fish originates from com

sources, such as coal-fired power p

incinerators, which release it into 

The mercury is then deposited by 

onto land and water, where it is co

in water bodies and moves up the 

through fish to people. EPA is wor

reduce releases of mercury to the a

controls on combustion sources. F

EPA expects that by 2010, federal 

based and other air regulatory prog

reduce electric-generating unit em

mercury by 22 tons from their 200

48 tons (see Goal 1 of this Strategi

Improving water and sediment 

another key element of the strategy 

ing more fish safe to eat. Implemen

Clean Water Act programs will imp

quality by reducing discharges from 

water systems, combined sewer ove

concentrated animal feeding operat

by reducing runoff from nonpoint s

The Agency will continue to support 

38 
health criteria” for contaminants found in surface 

waters. This new methodology reflects recent 

research on the health effects of contaminants 

and their potential in water to be concentrated 

in the food chain and to pose a greater risk to 

people who consume fish. EPA partly recalculated the criteria for 83 pollutants and will be revising these criteria and additional criteria more 

completely over the next several years. 

EPA is also working to restore the quality 

of aquatic sediment in critical water bodies, 

with special emphasis on the Great Lakes. In 

addition, EPA will use Superfund program 

authorities to restore the quality of sediment. 

To reduce the potential for future sediment 

contamination, EPA is working to reduce the 

use of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), a 

major sediment contaminant, in electrical 

equipment. (See Goal 4 of this Strategic Plan.) 

Another key element of EPA’s strategy 

for making more fish safe to eat is expanding 

the amount and type of information about 

fish safety and making this information available to the public. EPA provides guidance 

to states and tribes on monitoring and fish 

sampling. EPA also provides funding and 

technical training to help states and tribes 

assess fish safety in more of their waters every 

year. The Agency expects that by 2008, the 

percentage of rivers and lakes monitored to 

determine the need for fish advisories will 

continue to increase. EPA is also conducting 

a nationwide survey of contamination in fish. 

A key public information tool is the 

Internet-based National Listing of Fish and 

Wildlife Consumption Advisories.22 This website allows states and tribes to enter their advisories and provides the public with information 

and coastal states. States monitor shellfishing 

waters and can restrict harvesting if shellfish 

taken from the waters are unsafe. 

Although a sound system for monitoring 

the condition of shellfishing waters and limiting public exposure to unsafe shellfish is in 

place, shellfish harvesting is restricted in 

many acres of otherwise productive shellfishing waters. EPA is working with states, the 

FDA, the ISSC, and the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

to increase the percentage of shellfishing 

acres where harvesting is permitted from the 

estimated 1995 level 

of 77 percent to 85 

percent in 2008. 

Over the past 

several years, the 

ISSC, working with 

states and federal 

agencies, has developed a new 

information system 

that uses state monitoring data to 

pinpoint areas 

where shellfishing 

has been restricted. 

This information system will enable EPA and 

the states to more readily identify possible 

sources of pollutants restricting the use of 

shellfishing waters. This information can also 

be used to strengthen water pollution control 

activities, including development of watershed plans, implementation of National 

Estuary Program plans, issuance or reissuance 

of permits to point sources, enforcement of 

existing permits, and implementation of controls over diffuse sources of polluted runoff. 
c roarueves opatoges caave 

significant economic impacts. In some cases, 

these pathogens can be traced to sewage treatment plants, malfunctioning septic systems, 

and discharges from storm-water systems and 

animal feeding operations. EPA is implementing a three-part strategy to protect the quality 

of the Nation’s recreational waters. The 

Agency will work to protect recreational water 

generally, control combined sewer overflows 

(CSOs), and protect the quality of public 

beaches along the coasts and Great Lakes. 

Protect Recreational Waters 

The first element of the strategy is broadly focused on all recreational waters. To 

protect and restore these waters, EPA works 

with state, tribal, and local governments to 

implement the core programs of the Clean Water Act. For example, development and 

implementation of total maximum daily loads 

(TMDLs) will generally benefit recreational 

waters that are impaired. The continuing 

implementation of the discharge permit program, urban storm-water controls, and 

nonpoint pollution control programs will also 

reduce pollution to recreational waters. 

al waters. EPA, states, and local gov

are making steady progress toward r

overflows under the “CSO Policy.”

communities with CSOs have now 

mented basic control measures. Som

percent of these communities have 

long-term plans for controlling ove

16 percent have begun implementa

Protect Coastal and Great Lakes 

The third element of the strat

tect and restore recreational water

on public beaches along coastal ar

Great Lakes. Under the recently e

Beaches Environmental Assessmen

Coastal Health (BEACH) Act, EP

grants to state, tribal, and local go

for programs to monitor beach wat

and notify the public when bacter

ination poses a risk to swimmers. E

expects that 100 percent of signifi

beaches will be managed under BE

programs by 2008. 

The BEACH Act requires that 

and Great Lakes states adopt scient

sound water quality criteria for bac

expects that all 35 coastal and Gre

states will have adopted such criter

beaches by 2008. As a result of a re

Agency-approved analytic methods 

available for pathogens of concern 

Finally, EPA will continue to e

public access to Internet-based bea

mation on its website. Governmen

BEACH Act grants and communit

responding to EPA’s annual Nation

Health Protection Survey will prov

mation on water quality, beach mo

40 and advisory programs, and beach 
approaches, so that: 

– In 600 of the Nation’s watersheds, water 

quality standards are met in at least 80 

percent of the assessed water segments 

(2002 Baseline: 453 watersheds of the 

total 2,262 U.S. Geological Survey 

[USGS] cataloguing unit scale watersheds 

across the Nation.25) 

– In 200 watersheds, all assessed water segments maintain their quality and at least 

20 percent of assessed water segments 

show improvement above conditions as 

of 2002. (2002 Baseline: 0 USGS cataloging unit scale watersheds.) 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2012, fully attain water quality standards in over 25 percent of those water 

bodies identified in 2000 as not attaining standards, with an interim milestone of restoring 5 percent of these 

waters by 2006. (2002 Baseline: 

0 percent of the 255,408 miles and 

6,803,419 acres of waters on 1998/2000 

lists of impaired waters developed by 

states and approved by EPA under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.26) 

• By 2008, reduce levels of phosphorus 

contamination in rivers and streams 

so that phosphorus levels are below 

levels of concern established by 

USGS or levels adopted by a state or 

authorized tribe in a water quality 

standard in: 

– 55 percent of test sites for major 

rivers (1992-1998 Baseline: 50 

percent.27) 

– 30 percent of test sites for farmland streams (1992-1998 

Baseline: 25 percent.29) 

• By 2008, improve water quality in 

Indian country at not fewer than 90 

monitoring stations in tribal waters 

for which baseline data are available 

(i.e., show at least a 10 percent 

improvement for each of four key 

parameters: total nitrogen, total 

phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, and 

fecal coliform). (2002 Baseline: four 

key parameters available at 900 sampling stations in Indian country.) 

• By 2015, in coordination with other 

federal partners, reduce by 50 percent 

the number of households on tribal 

lands lacking access to basic sanitation. (2000 Baseline: Indian Health 

Service data indicating that 71,000 

households on tribal lands lack access 

to basic sanitation.30) 
42 

areally weighted mean of regional scores 

using the National Coastal Condition Report 

indicators addressing water clarity, dissolved 

oxygen, coastal wetlands loss, eutrophic conditions, sediment contamination, benthic 

health, and fish tissue contamination.31) 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2008, maintain water clarity and 

dissolved oxygen in coastal waters at 

the national levels reported in the 

2002 National Coastal Condition 

Report. (2002 Baseline: 4.3 for water 

clarity; 4.5 for dissolved oxygen.) 

• By 2008, improve ratings reported on 

the national “good/fair/poor” scale of 

the National Coastal Condition 

Report for: 

– Coastal wetlands loss by at least 

0.2 points (2002 Baseline: 1.4.) 

– Contamination of sediments in 

coastal waters by at least 0.2 

points (2002 Baseline: 1.3.) 

– Benthic quality by at least 0.2 

points (2002 Baseline: 1.4.) 

– Eutrophic conditions by at least 

0.2 points (2002 Baseline: 1.7.) 

• By 2010, in cooperation with other 

nations, federal agencies, states, tribes, 

and local governments, reduce the 

rate of increase in the number of invasions by non-native invertebrate and 

algae species of marine and estuarine 

waters. (2000 Baseline: rate of increase 

approximately 1 percent per year. 

32) 

with states, interstate agencies, tri

others on six key areas: (1) strengt

water quality standards program; (

ing water quality monitoring; (3) d

effective watershed plans and TMD

implementing effective nonpoint p

control programs; (5) strengthenin

National Pollutant Discharge Elim

System (NPDES) permit program; 

effectively managing infrastructure 

programs. 

While EPA expects to work w

interstate agencies, and tribes in e

these areas, progress toward water 

improvements will largely depend 

in integrating programs on a water

engaging diverse stakeholders in so

problems; and applying innovative 

such as water quality trading, to de

effective water pollution control. 
adoption of water quality standards that 

protect water for such 

uses as swimming, public water supply, and 

fish and wildlife. 

In July 2003, EPA 

published the Water 

Quality Standards and 

Criteria Strategy. 

33 Developed in cooperation 

with states, tribes, and the public, the strategy provides a foundation for EPA’s work to 

strengthen state and tribal water quality standards programs. Over the next 5 years, the 

strategy calls for EPA to develop guidance for 

implementing new and existing water quality 

criteria; develop a criteria methodology for 

waterbody sedimentation; develop a revised 

aquatic life criteria methodology; publish 

additional nutrient criteria (for example, for 

coastal waters and wetlands) and provide 

implementation guidance; and promote 

increased use of biological criteria and ecological evaluation to support assessment of 

water conditions on a watershed scale. 

In addition, the strategy identifies some 

key efforts to strengthen the program in the 

coming years, including developing nutrient 

standards, adopting biological criteria, and 

assisting tribal governments in adopting 

water quality standards. In a complementary 

effort, EPA will review risk assessment 

methodologies applied to chemical pollutants 

and pathogens in biosolids generated by 

wastewater treatment plants and will assess 

the need for new or revised standards to protect public health and the environment. 

Improve Water Quality Monitoring 

Scientifically defensible data and information are essential tools in the Information 

Age. Water quality monitoring and assessment programs—the essential underpinning 

of all aspects of the watershed approach— 

must be strengthened and upgraded across 

the country. 

Over the next 5 years, EPA will assist 

states and tribes in significantly improving 

information concerning the condition of the 

Nation’s rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands, and 

ground water (to the extent possible). 

Specifically, EPA will work with other federal 

agencies, states, and tribes to adopt comprehensive monitoring strategies, addressing 

all the elements essential to an effective 

monitoring program, and statistically valid 

monitoring networks. EPA will also encourage 

them to develop biological monitoring programs and will provide states with technical 

assistance to increase their submission of 

monitoring data to the STORET national 

water quality data repository. This monitoring 

work will be coordinated with assessments of 

fish tissue contamination, the condition of 

water at beaches, the condition of coastal 

waters, and the condition of ground water. 

Water quality monitoring and assessment 

programs—the essential underpinning of all 

aspects of the watershed approach—must be 

strengthened and upgraded across the country. 
of diverse pollution control, and financing 

projects. States have successfully adopted 

watershed approaches that use a “rotating 

basin” approach as well as other methods. 

Where necessary, states will upgrade their 

continuing planning processes to ensure 

development of a watershed approach. EPA is 

also working with tribes to support development of watershed approaches to protecting 

tribal waters. 

EPA is supporting the development of 

watershed plans in specific geographic areas. 

In addition to continuing watershed protection programs as part of the National Estuary 

Program, the Chesapeake Bay Program, the 

Great Lakes Program, and the Gulf of 

Mexico Program, EPA has provided grants for 

watershed-based plans in recent years and is 

beginning a new watershed grant program in 

2003. EPA expects to continue supporting 

development of plans in key watersheds over 

the next 5 years. 

nity for innovations such as water 

trading and watershed-based perm

Trading is a valuable tool that allo

of pollution to share responsibility 

trolling pollution within a watersh

achieve pollution reductions at th

possible cost. 

While supporting state watersh

EPA will continue working with st

develop TMDLs consistent with st

development schedules and court-

deadlines. States and EPA have m

cant progress in the development 

approval of TMDLs and expect to 

the current pace of approximately 

TMDLs per year. 

Control Nonpoint Source Pollutio

Watershed plans and TMDLs 

pollution control efforts for impair

on a range of pollution sources, in

runoff from diffuse, or “nonpoint,” 

EPA will also support state, interst

tribal, and other federal agency eff

implement management practices 

reduce levels of nonpoint source p

both impaired waters and in other 

including surface water and ground 

nationwide. 

A critical step in this effort is 

forge strategic partnerships with a 

range of agricultural interests at al

EPA will work with USDA to ens

federal resources, including grants 

tion 319 of the Clean Water Act a

Bill funds, are managed in a coord

As part of this effort, EPA will wo

44 

EFFICIENCY MEASURES FOR GOAL 2 

Efficiency measures relate results to the resources or 

time invested to achieve those results and augment 

effectiveness measures in evaluating performance. 

They help us integrate EPA’s budget and performance—part of the President’s Management Agenda— 

and demonstrate the cost-effectiveness and timeliness 

of program activities. 

Under this goal, EPA’s efficiency measures will track 

the utilization rate—the ratio of the cumulative dollars 

lent to the cumulative funds available for projects—for 

both the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds and 

Clean Water State Revolving Funds. 
animal feeding operations (not covered by 

regulations) and to implement riparian and 

stream bank protection measures over the 

next 5 years. 

In related efforts, EPA will collaborate 

with state managers of Clean Water 

Revolving Loan Funds to increase investments in projects to reduce nonpoint source 

pollution. Properly managed on-site/decentralized systems are an important part of the 

Nation’s wastewater infrastructure. EPA will 

encourage state, tribal, and local governments to adopt voluntary guidelines for the 

effective management of these systems and to 

use Clean Water Revolving Loan Funds to 

finance systems where appropriate. 

Strengthen the NPDES Permit Program 

and Implement National Industrial 

Regulation Strategy 

The NPDES requires point sources discharging to water bodies to be permitted and 

pretreatment programs to control discharges 

from industrial facilities to the Nation’s 

sewage treatment plants. This program provides a management framework for protecting 

the Nation’s waters through the control of 

billions of pounds of pollutants. EPA has five 

key strategic objectives for the program over 

the next five years: (1) ensure effective management of the permit program, including 

focusing on permits that have the greatest 

benefit for water quality; (2) implement wetweather point source controls, including the 

storm-water program; (3) implement the 

newly developed program for permits at large, 

concentrated animal feeding operations 

state NPDES programs. The strategy focuses 

limited resources on 

the most critical 

environmental 

problems by targeting three key areas: 

(1) developing and 

strengthening systems to ensure 

program integrity; 

(2) focusing EPA 

and states on 

achieving environmental results; and 

(3) fostering efficient permitting operations. The need to 

increase data quality and quantity, including 

modernizing the Permits Compliance System 

and integrating it with other environmental 

databases, is common to all three areas. 

Beginning in FY 2004, EPA will assess 

NPDES program integrity and track the 

implementation of followup actions that 

result from the assessments. 

EPA is working with states, tribes, and 

other interested parties to strengthen the permit program in several other areas that will 

benefit water quality. The Agency recently 

finalized new rules for discharges from 

CAFOs and will work with states to ensure 

that most CAFOs are covered by permits by 

2008. In addition, over the next 5 years, EPA 

expects that 100 percent of NPDES programs 

will have issued general permits requiring 

storm-water management programs for Phase 

II (mid-sized) municipalities and requiring 

storm-water pollution prevention plans for 

construction sites covered by Phase II of the 
46 

permit limits or pretreatment 

controls based on national 

regulations developed for the 

class of industrial activity. 

Regulations are now in place 

for most major industrial 

classes. Over the next 5 

years, EPA will complete 

national regulations now 

under development (including, for example, meat and 

poultry processing, construction and development sites, 

aquaculture farms, and cooling-water intake structures). 

In consultation with the public, EPA will 

also establish program priorities based on 

sound science and demonstrated benefits, 

including the potential for cost-effective risk 

reduction. In addition to evaluation of regulatory options, EPA will consider other 

approaches (including clarifying guidance, 

environmental management systems, and 

permit writer support). 

Support Sustainable Wastewater Infrastructure 

Much of the dramatic progress in improving water quality is directly attributable to 

investment in wastewater infrastructure—the 

pipes and facilities that treat the Nation’s 

sewage. But the job is far from over. 

Communities are challenged to find the fiscal 

resources to replace aging infrastructure, meet 

growing infrastructure demands fueled by 

population growth, and secure their infrastructure against threats. 

Clean Water State Revolving Funds 

(CWSRFs) provide low-interest loans to help 

finance wastewater treatment facilities and 

Recognizing the sub

remaining need for 

infrastructure, EPA 

continue to provide 

annual capitalizatio

CWSRFs for the for

future. This continu

investment in state 

funds, along with ot

tional sources of fin

(including increased 

revenues), will resu

significant progress 

addressing the Nati

water treatment nee

Over the next 5 years, EPA wi

with CWSRFs to meet several key 

• Fund projects designed as 

integrated watershed appro

• Link projects to environm

results through the use of 

ly sound water quality and 

health data. 

• Support development of in

priority lists addressing no

pollution and estuaries pro

projects, as well as wastew

projects. 

• Maintain the CWSRF’s ex

fiduciary condition. 

Another important approach t

the gap between the need for clean 

projects and available funding is to 

tainable management systems to e

infrastructure investments are tailo

needs of the watershed and are we
agencies, that focus on improved compliance, 

environmental performance beyond compliance, pollution prevention, and sustainable 

water infrastructure. Response to date is very 

positive, and support for adoption of environmental management systems in the public 

sector is growing rapidly. 

In a related effort, EPA will work with 

other federal agencies to improve access to 

basic sanitation. The 2002 World Summit in 

Johannesburg adopted the goal of reducing 

the number of people lacking access to safe 

drinking water and basic sanitation by 50 

percent by 2015.36 EPA will contribute to this 

work through its support for development of 

sanitation facilities in Indian country and 

Alaskan Native villages, using funds set aside 

from the CWSRF and targeted grants. Other 

federal agencies, such as DOI and USDA, 

also play key roles in addressing this problem. 

In addition, Mexico Border infrastructure 

projects, described under Goal 4: Healthy 

Communities and Ecosystems, will improve 

access to basic sanitation. 

IMPROVING COASTAL AND OCEAN 

WATER QUALITY 

Coastal and ocean waters are environmentally and economically valuable to the 

Nation. Key programs focused on and critical 

to improving coastal waters are: 

• Assessing coastal conditions. 

• Reducing vessel discharges. 

• Controlling coastal nonpoint pollution. 

• Managing dredged material. 

in inland watersheds (see Sub-objective 

2.2.1). Progress in protecting and restoring 

coastal waters is also directly tied to geographically focused projects, such as the 

Chesapeake Bay Program, the Gulf of Mexico 

Program, and the National Estuary Program. 

These programs are described under Goal 4: 

Healthy Communities and Ecosystems. 

Assess Coastal Conditions 

Progress in meeting these strategic targets 

will be tracked through the National Coastal 

Condition Report, created in 2002 as a cooperative project of EPA, NOAA, USDA, and 

DOI. The report describes the ecological and 

environmental condition of U.S. coastal 

waters according to seven key parameters. 

EPA and other federal agencies will review 

changing conditions and periodically issue 

updated assessments of the health of coastal 

waters. In support of this work, EPA is developing indices for measuring the health of 

coral reefs and guidance for protecting such 

back-reef ecosystems as mangroves, seagrass 

beds, and sandflats. EPA is also developing 

guidance to assist states, tribes, and local governments in anticipating and responding to 

harmful algal blooms. 

Reduce Vessel 

Discharges 

To improve 

the health of the 

Nation’s ocean 

and coastal 

waters, EPA will 

focus on enhancing regulation of 
Implement Coastal 

Nonpoint Source 

Pollution Programs 

Rapid population growth in 

coastal areas can 

result in significant 

increases in pollution from nonpoint 

sources. For the past 

10 years, EPA and 

NOAA have been 

working with coastal and Great Lakes states 

to improve and expand programs to reduce 

nonpoint source pollution in the “coastal 

zone” identified by states. Most states have 

used federal grant funds to develop coastal 

nonpoint programs, and EPA and NOAA are 

working with the remaining states to complete the program by providing continued 

support and assistance. These nonpoint control programs, focused on the critical coastal 

zone areas, will play an important role in 

accomplishing the environmental improvements sought for coastal waters by 2008. 

Manage Dredged Material 

Several hundred million cubic yards of 

sediment are dredged from waterways, ports, 

and harbors every year to maintain the 

Nation’s navigation system for commercial, 

national defense, and recreational purposes. 

All of this sediment must be disposed of safely. 

EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(COE) share responsibility for regulating how 

and where the disposal of sediment occurs. 

EPA and COE will focus additional resources 

on improving how disposal of dredged material 

is managed, including evaluating disposal sites, 

dredged material, are developed an

mented in major ports and harbors

Manage Invasive Species 

One of the greatest threats to U

and ecosystems is the uncontrolled 

invasive species. Invasive species co

enter U.S. waters through the disch

last water from ships. Although the 

these organisms never become estab

new ecosystem, an increasing numb

are harming the environment and l

economies and posing risks to huma

EPA is assisting the U.S. Coast Gua

efforts to develop ballast water exch

requirements and discharge standar

addressing this issue at the internat

Support International Marine Pollu

EPA works closely with the Co

NOAA, and the Department of S

address environmental threats to U

that require international coopera

Recognizing the effect of internati

ping on the quality of the U.S. wa

heavily involved in the negotiatio

national standards at the Internati

Maritime Organization. These stan

the principal mechanism EPA is u

address invasive aquatic species, tr

and other harmful antifoulants, an

debris. Negotiations are currently 

for a global treaty designed to prev

introductions of invasive aquatic s

through ballast water. EPA is also 

cooperative efforts to reduce other 

pollution affecting the Gulf of Me

Lakes, Arctic Ocean, Straits of Flo

the Wider Caribbean Basin. 

48 
y ppy 

available science (e.g., tools, technologies, 

and scientific information) to support 

Agency regulations and decision-making for 

current and future environmental and human 

health hazards related to reducing exposure 

to contaminants in drinking water, fish and 

shellfish, and recreational waters, and protecting aquatic ecosystems. 

Sub-objective 2.3.2: Conduct Leading-Edge 

Research. By 2008, conduct leading-edge, 

sound scientific research to support the protection of human health through the 

reduction of human exposure to contaminants in drinking water, fish and shellfish, 

and recreational waters and to support the 

protection of aquatic ecosystems—specifically, the quality of rivers, lakes and streams, 

and coastal and ocean waters. 

DRAWING ON CLEAN AND 

SAFE WATER SCIENCE 

Meeting the goal of clean and safe water 

requires that EPA effectively apply basic 

research findings to the specific needs of 

water programs. The Agency will draw on the 

results of basic research to prove and refine 

existing conclusions about drinking water 

safety and water quality. Critical scientific 

aspects of water program research include 

development of analytic test methods to support programs’ scientific integrity; laboratory 

certification; and analysis of questions more 

g 

water and healthy aquatic ecosystems. 

Develop Analytic 

Test Methods 

EPA establishes 

analytic test methods 

that describe laboratory procedures for 

measuring contaminant levels in drinking 

and surface waters. In 

some cases, EPA itself 

develops methods; in 

other cases, the 

Agency approves alternative test procedures. 

Approximately 550 

EPA-approved analytical methods exist for 

nearly 300 contaminants. These test 

methods support the 

development of drinking-water standards, 

surface-water quality criteria and standards, 

industrial discharge regulations, water monitoring, discharge permitting, pretreatment, 

and compliance. 

EPA has several goals for improving the 

analytic methods program over the next 5 

years. These include reducing the backlog of 

applications for approval of alternative test 

procedures, many involving new technology; 

developing new analytic methods that support increasingly more stringent levels of 

protection for some contaminants; and making analytic methods readily available to the 

public through a new Internet-based system. 

MEANS AND STRATEGIES FOR 

ACHIEVING OBJECTIVE 2.3 
whether Agency, state, and privately owned 

laboratories are analyzing drinking-water 

samples accurately using approved laboratory 

methods and procedures, and whether they 

are properly implementing quality assurance 

plans. Only certified laboratories may analyze 

drinking-water samples. 

Over the next 5 years, EPA will work to 

ensure that laboratories are appropriately 

classified as “certified,” “provisionally certified,” “interim certified,” or “not certified.” In 

making certification decisions, EPA will consider laboratory certification criteria, on-site 

audits conducted at least once every 3 years, 

and analysis of test samples. 

Develop Methods for Valuing Ecological 

and Recreation Benefits 

A related scientific effort is developing 

improved methods to assess and value ecological and recreational benefits that result from 

improvements in water quality. EPA is supporting studies of the monetary value of 

cleaner water for aquatic life and other ecological and recreational benefits, such as 

EPA’s water research program 

EPA to pursue its objectives for pr

human health and water quality. T

Agency’s Office of Research and 

Development (ORD) has develop

year plans for drinking water and w

quality that describe the research 

conduct over the next 5 to 10 yea

Conduct Research to Protect Hum

The Safe Drinking Water Act 

Amendments of 1996 direct EPA 

research to strengthen the scientif

tion for standards that limit public 

to drinking-water contaminants. T

Amendments contain specific requ

for research on waterborne pathog

as Cryptosporidium and Norwalk v

fection by-products; arsenic; and o

harmful substances in drinking wa

also directed to conduct studies to 

and characterize population group

children, that may be at greater ris

exposure to contaminants in drink

than is the general population. 

50 
on developing and 

implementing ambient water quality 

criteria to protect uses 

of aquatic ecosystems, 

including fishing and 

recreation. 

Conduct Research 

to Protect Water 

Quality 

The water quality research program supports the Agency and its partners in 

developing and applying criteria for designated uses and in developing tools to diagnose 

and assess impairment and restore and protect aquatic systems. While water quality 

research addresses a wide spectrum 

of aquatic ecosystem stressors, it pays particular attention to stressors that the Agency 

most often cites as impairing water bodies: 

and restoration of 

waters impaired by 

sediment will be helpful to the TMDL 

program, as well as to 

voluntary watershed 

protection initiatives, 

in developing sitespecific management 

alternatives. A report 

to be developed 

demonstrating the use 

of time series analysis to identify nonpoint 

source impacts can be used by the Agency’s 

nonpoint source, TMDL, and monitoring 

programs to identify sources of water quality 

impairment. And a report to be developed 

describing factors and processes that control 

the fate of nutrients in streams will assist the 

Agency in determining in-stream nutrient 

thresholds and developing TMDLs. 

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 implementing 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. 

Tribal resource needs are great. Unlike states, 

many tribes are still developing programs to 

administer clean and safe water programs. 

Inadequate progress in developing these 

programs will limit progress toward clean 

water goals. 

Local governments play a critical role in 

implementing clean and safe water programs. 

Municipalities and other local entities have 
agement of 

drinking-water 

systems, including 

protection of 

source waters, is 

essential to maintaining high rates 

of compliance 

with drinkingwater standards. 

Ninety-five 

percent of the 

160,000 or more 

public water systems responsible for meeting drinking-water 

safety standards are small systems that often 

struggle to provide safe drinking water.38 

Continued consultation with local governments is critical to achieving clean and safe 

water. 

Several key elements of the national 

water program, including nonpoint source 

control, source water protection, and watershed management, require broad partnerships 

among many federal, state, and local agencies. Over the next several years, building 

partnerships 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 

also continue to provide water quality data 

and technical assistance that can help USDA 

target its runoff control programs. 

EPA relies on many other agencies to provide monitoring data to measure progress 

toward its goal of clean and safe water. States 

of its c

project

ing dre

materia

ment a

issues i

waters. 

tion to 

domest

that su

2002 W

Summi

will co

workin

tionally in support of the U.S. gov

effort to help fulfill this goal. We w

continue to work with the U.S. Ag

International Development, the U

Department of State, and other int

stakeholders to improve access to s

ing water and sanitation. 

Finally, all of the EPA’s coasta

oceans activities are carried out in 

ship with other federal agencies an

cases, international, state, local an

entities as well. EPA relies on its w

the Department of Defense, the C

Alaska and other states, and a num

cruise ship and environmental and 

governmental organizations regard

regulatory and nonregulatory appr

managing wastewater discharges fr

Meeting ocean and coastal goals w

depend on the extent to which th

coastal areas is directed in ways th

mize effects on water quality. 

52 
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

5. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2002. Fisheries of the United State 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting America’s 

Waters. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Accessing, Drinking 

Water Data in SDWIS/Fed (Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal Version) Web Site, 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html. 

8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Accessing, Drinking 

Water Data in SDWIS/Fed (Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal Version) Web Site, 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html. 

9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Accessing, Drinking 

Water Data in SDWIS/Fed (Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal Version) Web Site, 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html. 

10. Information collected from EPA regions and housed in an internal EPA database. For more information, contact the Drinking Water Protection Division, Prevention Branch, at 202 564-3797. 

11. Indian Health Service. 2001. The Sanitation Facilities Construction Program of the Indian Health Service Public Law 

86-121 Annual Report for 2001. Bethesda, MD: Indian Health Service Division of Sanitation Facilities 

Construction. 

12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. National Listing of 

Fish and Wildlife Advisories Web Site. Washington, DC. Available online at http://map1.epa.gov. Date of 

access: May 1, 2003. 

13. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1998. Classified Shellfish Growing Waters. In State 

of the Coast Report. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

14. 2000 303(d) information (waters impaired for swimming) comes from: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

States’ Listing of Impaired Waters as Required by Clean Water Act Section 303(d). Washington, DC. vailable 

online at http://epa.gov/waters/. Date of access: June 2002. 

15. The Heinz Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. 2002. The State of the Nations’s Ecosystems; 

Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States. Washington, DC: Cambridge University 

Press. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2002. Surveillance for Waterborne Diseases Outbreaks – United 

States, 1999 – 2000 Web Site. Atlanta, GA. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/ 

mmwrhtml/ss5108a1.htm, CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review. 

16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. National Health Protection Survey of Beaches. 

Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/. Date of access: May 23, 2003. 

17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Accessing, Drinking 

Water Data in SDWIS/Fed (Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal Version) Web Site, 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html. 

A
54 

gy, , gy

Fish and Wildlife Advisories. Washington, DC. Available online at http://map1.epa.gov. Date of acc

2003. 

23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Tuesday, April 19, 1994. Combined Sewer Overflow (CS

Policy. Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 75, page 18788. 

24. Data from a Report to Congress under development. Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Y

Public Law 106-554 requires that EPA submit a Report to Congress by December 2003, addressing 

caused by CSOs and SSOs. Data collected for this report as of November 2002, indicate 842 CSO 

by 772 communities with CSOs; 748 (88.8 percent) include requirements for the Nine Minimum 

(NMC). 34 percent have submitted draft LTCPs; 17 percent have begun implementation. 

25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Accomplishments Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Go

Printing Office 

26. 2000 303(d) information (waters impaired for swimming) comes from: U.S. Environmental Protec

States’ Listing of Impaired Waters as Required by Clean Water Act Section 303(d). Washington, DC. 

online at http://epa.gov/waters/. Date of access: June 2002. 

27. The Heinz Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. 2002. The State of the Nations’s 

Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States. Washington, DC: Cambridg

Press. 

28. The Heinz Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. 2002. The State of the Nations’s 

Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States. Washington, DC: Cambridg

Press. 

29. The Heinz Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. 2002. The State of the Nations’s 

Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States. Washington, DC: Cambridg

Press. 

30. Indian Health Service. 2001. The Sanitation Facilities Construction Program of the Indian Health Serv

86-121 Annual Report for 2001. Bethesda, MD: Indian Health Service Division of Sanitation Faci

Construction. 

31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. National Coastal Condition Report. Washington, DC

Government Printing Office. 

32. Ruiz, Gregory. 2000. Invasion of coastal marine communities in North America: Apparent pattern

and biases. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31: 481-531. 

33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. August 2003. Strategy for Water Quality S

Criteria: Setting Priorities to Strengthen the Foundation for Protecting and Restoring the Nation’s Waters

03-010. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at http://www.epa.g

waterscience/standards/strategy, EPA’s Office of Water, Water Quality Standards. 

34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June, 2002. CWNIMS National Report. CWSRF Funds A

Projects, Net Sources. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

GOAL 3
Land 

Restoration 

and 

Preservation 

to reduce risks posed by releases of harmful substances. 

management practices and cleaning up contaminated properties 

Preserve and restore the land by using innovative waste 
and Restoration 

Land Preservation 

Left uncontrolled, hazardous and nonhazardous 

wastes on the land can migrate to the air, ground water, 

and surface water, contaminating drinking-water 

supplies, causing acute illnesses or chronic diseases, and 

threatening healthy ecosystems in 

Recovery Act (RCRA)2 provide the legal auth

most of EPA’s work toward this goal. The Age

partners use Superfund authority to clean up 

uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste si

return the land to productive us

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. 

EPA will work to preserve and 

restore the land using the most 

effective waste management and 

RCRA, EPA works in partners

states and tribes to address risks 

with leaking underground storag

(USTs) and with the generation 

management of hazardous and 

nonhazardous wastes. 

EPA also uses authorities p

under the Clean Air Act,3 Clea

Act,4 and Oil Pollution Act of 

protect against spills and release

hazardous materials. Controllin

cleanup methods available. We use a


hierarchy of approaches to protect the land: reducing


waste at its source, recycling waste, managing waste


effectively by preventing spills and releases of toxic


materials, and cleaning up contaminated properties. The


Agency 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 

OBJECTIVES 

Objective 3.1: 

Preserve Land . . . . . . 59 

Objective 3.2: 

Restore Land. . . . . . . 64 

Objective 3.3: 

Enhance Science and 

Research. . . . . . . . . . . 70 

many risks posed by accidental 

intentional releases of harmful substances pres

significant challenge to protecting the land. EP

approach that integrates prevention, preparedn

response activities to minimize these risks. Spil

prevention activities keep harmful substances f

released to the environment. Improving EPA’s 

to respond to emergencies through training, de

of clear authorities, and provision of proper eq

will ensure that we are adequately prepared to 

contamination and harm to the environment w

do occur. 
2008, reduce materials use through product 

and process redesign, and increase materials 

and energy recovery from wastes otherwise 

requiring disposal. 

Strategic Targets: 

• Each year through 2008, maintain 

the national average municipal solid 

waste generation rate at no more 

than 4.5 pounds per person per day. 

6 

• By 2008, increase recycling of the 

total annual municipal solid waste 

produced to 35 percent from 31 percent in 2002.7 

Sub-objective 3.1.2: Manage Hazardous 

Wastes and Petroleum Products Properly. 

By 2008, reduce releases to the environment 

by managing hazardous wastes and petroleum 

products properly. 

Strategic Targets: 

• By the end of 2008, prevent releases 

from RCRA hazardous waste management facilities by increasing the 

number of facilities with permits or 

other approved controls from 79 percent at the end of FY 2002 to 95 

reassessed in FY 2006.9

) 

• By 2008, update controls for preventing releases at the 150 facilities that 

are due for permit renewal by the end 

of 2006. (By 2006, we will complete 

a system for tracking the number of 

facilities due 

for permit 

renewals. 

Currently, we 

estimate that, 

through 2008, 

a total of 450 

facilities will be 

due for permit 

renewal.) 

• By 2008, reduce hazardous waste 

combustion facility emissions of 

dioxins and furans by 90 percent and 

particulate matter by 50 percent from 

1994 levels of 880 grams/year and 

9,500 tons/year, respectively. 

10 

• By 2008, increase the percentage 

of UST facilities that are in significant operational compliance11 with 

both release detection and release 

prevention requirements by 4 percent 

compared to 2004, out of a total estimated universe of approximately 

263,000 facilities. (The baseline 

compliance rate will be determined 

in 2004, but is estimated to be 

approximately 60 percent.12) 

• Each year through 2008, minimize 

the number of confirmed releases at 

UST facilities to 10,000 or fewer. 

(Between FY 1999 and FY 2002, confirmed releases averaged 13,980.13) 

APPROACHES TO 

LAND PROTECTION 

• Reduce waste at its source 

• Recycle waste 

• Manage waste safely 

• Clean up contamination 
, , , , 

and consumers; (2) stimulating infrastructure 

development, new technologies, and environmentally responsible behavior by product 

manufacturers, users, and disposers (“product 

stewardship”); and (3) helping businesses, 

government, institutions, and consumers by 

providing education, outreach, training, and 

technical assistance. 

Promoting the Resource 

Conservation Challenge 

The Resource 

Conservation Challenge 

(RCC), the Agency’s 

primary vehicle for 

implementing this multicomponent strategy, 

represents a major national effort to find flexible 

yet protective ways to 

conserve our valuable 

natural resources through 

waste reduction, recycling, and energy recovery. 

14 The RCC is designed to elicit a response 

from all Americans, since we all have opportunities to reduce the waste we produce and 

to increase recycling. Through the RCC, EPA 

challenges Americans to make purchasing 

and disposal decisions that 

conserve our natural 

resources, save energy, 

reduce costs, and preserve 

the environment for future 

generations. 

Currently, we are working with our partners to 

identify additional perform

recycling and recovery, and promo

beneficial uses. To further promote 

waste recycling, we will analyze ch

the amount of hazardous waste rec

the factors influencing these chan

ing non-regulatory factors. Our ult

is to move the Nation from a wast

to a life-cycle management way of 

about materials. (The Agency is a

aging industry to minimize the gen

priority-list chemicals in hazardou

streams, an effort presented in 5.2

Goal 5: Compliance and Environm

Stewardship.) 

Establishing and Expanding Part

EPA will establish and expand 

nerships with industry, states, and 

entities to reduce waste and develo

deliver tools that can help busines

facturers, and consumers. Nationa

recognized programs, such as Wast

which uses voluntary partnerships 

age waste prevention and recyclin

as models for new alliances among 

state, and local governments and b

that capitalize on voluntary efforts 

waste and increase recycling. EPA 

60 

The Resource Conservation Cha

all Americans to make purchasing 

disposal decisions that conserve n

resources, save energy, reduce co

preserve the environment. 
Nation will continue to benefit from wellestablished programs. 

Another example of an expanded partnership program is the WasteWise Building 

Challenge, which EPA initiated in 2002.16 

This program will continue to promote 

development of new tools, such as wastehauling contracts that provide financial 

incentives for haulers to identify and implement cost-effective, resource-efficient source 

reduction and recovery. 

EPA will also continue to help our tribal 

partners improve practices for managing 

solid waste on Indian lands. EPA has direct 

implementation responsibility for RCRA 

hazardous waste and UST programs in 

Indian country. Recognizing the unique 

challenges encountered on tribal lands, EPA 

will work with tribes on a government-togovernment basis that affirms the federal 

government’s vital trust responsibility to 

572 tribal governments and recognizes the 

importance of conserving natural resources 

for cultural uses. We will conduct joint projects to upgrade tribal solid waste 

management infrastructure, including 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 cleanup of existing dumps, reducing 

the risks that such dumps pose to human 

health and the environment. 

materials. EPA will continue to promote 

development of new and better recycling 

technologies and to explore ways to obtain 

energy or products from waste. 

Several initiatives already underway 

demonstrate the potential of such efforts. 

EPA has established voluntary product stewardship partnerships with manufacturers, 

retailers, and governmental and nongovernmental organizations to reduce the impacts 

that electronics and carpets can have on the 

environment throughout their lives. In 

January 2002, EPA, a carpet trade association, major manufacturers, and a variety of 

HUMAN CAPITAL FOCUS FOR 

ACHIEVING GOAL 3 

EPA’s workforce planning, hiring, and training activities 

will emphasize: 

• State-of-the-art techniques to detect, analyze, and 

respond to chemical, biological, and radiological 

agents. 

• Incident command system response management 

processes. 

• Insurance, real estate, and remediation strategies. 

• Characterization, monitoring, and sampling methods. 

• Multimedia and health/ecosystem effects estimation 

modeling methodologies. 

• Chemical treatment, land, combustion, and containment technologies. 

Success also depends on using innovative education 

methods and providing a variety of tools to state, tribal, and local government partners to promote energy 

efficiency, conservation, and reuse of materials. 
62 

new and better recycling technologies and 

will explore ways to obtain energy or products from waste. For example, through 

bioreactor technology, the collection of landfill gases containing methane offers promise 

as a future source of energy. The Agency will 

continue to support initiatives that revamp 

technologies to reduce or eliminate the use of 

virgin materials, recover energy to produce 

power, and improve waste management. 

Providing 

Education, 

Outreach, Training, and Technical 

Assistance 

EPA will 

continue to work 

with major retailers, electronics 

manufacturers, and the amusement and 

motion picture industries to revitalize, create, 

and display conservation, waste prevention, 

and recycling messages. Communicated via 

movie and video trailers, posters targeted to 

schoolchildren, in-store displays and advertisements, and print and broadcast public 

service announcements, the messages will 

encourage consumers, young people, and 

underserved communities to make smarter, 

more responsible environmental decisions. 

The Agency and its partners will design activities that encourage students and teachers to 

start innovative recycling programs and will 

develop unique tools and projects to promote 

waste reduction, recycling, and neighborhood 

revitalization in Hispanic and AfricanAmerican communities and on Indian lands. 

Preventing Hazardous Releases 

from RCRA Facilities 

EPA’s strategy for addressing h

wastes that must be treated or stor

on achieving greater efficiencies a

management facilities through mo

permitting processes and tightenin

where appropriate. We will work w

state, tribal, and local government 

to ensure that hazardous waste ma

facilities have approved controls in 

continue to strive for safe waste m

EPA will work with authorized 

specifically, those with a large num

facilities lacking approved control

place—to help resolve issues and t

cessful strategies from other states. 

plan to study the universe of unpe

facilities and work with states to id

resolve issues that might be preven

categories of facilities from obtain

or putting other approved controls 

To achieve greater efficiencies at f

that treat or store hazardous waste

Agency will also promote innovat

nologies that streamline permittin

and improve protection of human 

the environment. 

Reducing Emissions from Hazard

Combustion 

EPA will continue to develop 

regulations regarding emission stan

hazardous waste combustion facilit

Implementation of these regulatio

reducing the emission of dioxins, f

ticulate matter, and acid gases. Wi

years from the date when EPA issu
authorities in the best position to regulate 

USTs and to set priorities. RCRA Subtitle I 

allows state UST programs approved by EPA 

to operate in lieu of the federal program.17 

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. 

Improved release prevention and tank management practices and effective compliance 

assistance and enforcement activities can help 

reduce the number of confirmed releases. 

In any given year, however, it is possible 

that factors such as greater field presence and 

discovery of older releases during site closures 

will increase the number of confirmed releases 

reported, potentially exceeding the Agency’s 

annual strategic target numbers. Despite such 

apparent increases in releases, however, 

human health and the environment are being 

better protected than if the releases went 

undetected or unreported. EPA will continue 

to work with its state and tribal partners to 

prevent and detect petroleum releases from 

USTs by ensuring that compliance with 

release detection requirements and with 

release prevention requirements (e.g., spill, 

overfill, and corrosion protection) is a national priority. While the vast majority of the 

approximately 698,000 active USTs have the 

equipment required under the regulations, significant work remains to ensure that UST 

owners and operators maintain and operate 

their systems properly. 

18 Therefore, in FY 2004, 

will continue to support state programs; 

strengthen partnerships among stakeholders; 

and provide technical assistance, 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. For example, multi-site 

agreements can be effective in bringing a single 

tank owner with multiple sites into compliance. In Region 6, EPA successfully used a 

multi-site agreement to achieve 

compliance at 

approximately 25 

UST facilities 

owned by a single 

company. 

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. Because releases that contain MTBE often require 

complicated ground-water cleanups, they are 

generally more expensive and take longer to 

address, affecting achievement of our national cleanup goals.19 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. 
Releases. By 2008, 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. 

Strategic Targets: 

• 

through 2008, 

improve the 

Agency’s emergency preparedness 

by achieving and 

maintaining the 

capability to 

respond to simultaneous large-scale 

emergencies and by 

increasing response 

readiness by 10 

percent from a 

baseline established by the end 

of 2003 using the 

core emergency 

response criteria. 

• Each year through 2008, respond to 

350 hazardous substance releases and 

300 oil spills. 

• Each year through 2008, minimize 

impacts of potential oil spills by 

inspecting or conducting exercises or 

drills at 6 percent of approximately 

6,000 oil storage facilities required to 

have Facility Response Plans. 

(Between FY 1997 and FY 2002, 30 

Sub-objective 3.2.2: Clean Up an

Contaminated Land. By 2008, con

risks to human health and the env

at contaminated properties or sites 

cleanup, stabilization, or other act

make land available for reuse. 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2008, perform 88,000 h

environmentally based site 

ments and make 41,700 

final-assessment decisions 

Superfund, and assess 100 

(approximately 1,714) RC

line facilities.21 The univer

RCRA baseline facilities w

uated and, if necessary, adj

FY 2004. 

• By 2008, control all identi

ceptable human exposures 

contamination to at or bel

based levels for current lan

ground-water use conditio

percent (approximately 1,

RCRA baseline facilities22 

percent (1,259) of 1,49423 

human exposure sites (as o

2002). 

• By 2008, control the migr

contaminated ground wate

engineered remedies or na

processes at 80 percent (ap

mately 1,371) of RCRA b

facilities24 and 65 percent 

1,27525 Superfund ground-

exposure sites (as of FY 20

64 

Each year 
complete construction of remedies at 

20 percent (approximately 343) of 

RCRA baseline facilities28 and 

approximately 72 percent (1,086) of 

1,49829 Superfund sites (as of FY 

2002). (Construction completion is a 

benchmark used to show that all significant construction activity has 

been completed, even though additional remediation may be needed for 

all cleanup goals to be met.) 

Sub-objective 3.2.3: Maximize Potentially 

Responsible Party Participation at 

Superfund Sites. Through 2008, conserve 

Superfund trust fund resources by ensuring 

that potentially responsible parties conduct 

or pay for Superfund cleanups whenever possible.30 

Strategic Targets: 

• Each year 

through 2008, 

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. 

• Each year through 2008, address all 

Statute of Limitations cases for 

Superfund sites with unaddressed 

total past costs equal to or greater 

than $200,000. 

capabilities, and maximizing the effectiveness 

of response and cleanup actions. This 

approach will help ensure that human health 

and the environment are protected and that 

land is returned to beneficial use. 

PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE 

EPA plays a major role in reducing the 

risks that accidental and intentional releases of 

harmful substances and oil pose to human 

health and the environment. 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), composed of 16 federal agencies; 13 

Regional Response Teams; and federal OnScene 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 evaluates and responds to thousands of 

harmful substance and oil releases annually. 
66 

We will continue to develop technical personnel in the field, ensuring their readiness 

and protecting their health and safety when 

responding to releases of dangerous materials. 

In addition, EPA will strengthen its information infrastructure by making information 

management decisions Agency-wide and by 

improving operations and the security, collection, and exchange of information. 

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 weapons 

of mass destruction. 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 and will improve coordination mechanisms to enable response to 

simultaneous, large-scale national emergencies, including homeland security incidents. 

level of overall readiness througho

Agency and improve our ability to 

multi-regional responses. 

In addition to enhancing our r

capabilities, EPA will work to imp

nal and external coordination and 

communication mechanisms. For e

part of the National Incident Coo

Team, EPA will continue to impro

cies, plans, procedures, and decisio

processes for coordinating response

national emergencies. Under the C

of Operations/Continuity of Gove

program, we will upgrade and test 

facilities, training, and equipment 

that essential government business 

tinue during a catastrophic emerge

capabilities are being expanded to 

interagency activities during large

responses. EPA will coordinate its 

with the Department of Homeland 

Federal Emergency Management 

Administration (FEMA), Federal 

Investigat

other fede

cies, and 

local gove

EPA will 

tinue to c

roles and 

bilities to 

that Agen

programs 

tent with 

national h

security st

EFFICIENCY MEASURES FOR GOAL 3 

Efficiency measures relate results to the resources or time invested to achieve 

those results and augment effectiveness measures in evaluating performance. 

They help us integrate EPA’s budget and performance—part of the President’s 

Management Agenda—and demonstrate the cost-effectiveness and timeliness 

of program activities. 

Under this goal, the RCRA Corrective Action Program is developing an efficiency measure that tracks the cost over time of meeting current objectives, 

such as controlling unacceptable human exposures from site contamination or 

the migration of contaminated ground water through engineered remedies or 

natural processes. 
World Trade Center/Pentagon and anthrax 

attacks, and the 

2003 Columbia 

shuttle tragedy. 

EPA will work 

to improve its capability to respond 

effectively to incidents that can 

involve harmful 

chemical, oil, biological, and 

radiological substances. As part of its strategy 

for improving effectiveness, the Agency will 

explore improvements in response readiness 

levels, including 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 and Preparing for Oil Spills 

An important component of EPA’s land 

strategy is preventing potential oil spills and 

being prepared for spills that do occur from 

reaching our Nation’s waters. Under the Oil 

Pollution Act,31 the Agency requires certain 

facilities (defined in 40 CFR 112.2) to develop Facility Response Plans and to practice 

implementing the plans by conducting drills 

and exercises to be prepared in the event of a 

spill. Compliance with these requirements 

reduces the number of oil spills that reach 

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 due to treaties between federal 

and tribal governments. Furthermore, 

because of the risks it poses, contaminated 

land may not be available for use. 

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 ground water, and bioremediation. 

EPA uses a variety of tools to accomplish 

cleanups: permits, enforcement actions, consent agreements, Federal Facilities 

Agreements, and many other mechanisms. 

As part of EPA’s One Cleanup Program 

Initiative, programs at all levels of government 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 
68 

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 will 

continue to forge partnerships and develop 

outreach and education strategies. 

Assessment, 

Stabilization, 

and Cleanup 

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. We will continue to work with our 

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, addressing new 

priority sites or removing previously identified 

facilities that will be addressed through other 

mechanisms. For example, EPA is collecting 

tribal program baseline data for the Superfund 

program and has modified the Superfund data 

system to record sites of concern to tribes, 

along with those situated on Indian lands. 

require priority action to protect h

health and the environment and a

site owners and operators to the ap

authorities for followup. To establi

mon base of information for all sta

EPA conducts site assessments wit

ners who share authority for the si

STABILIZING SITES 

“Stabilization” refers to the in

taken to control actual or potentia

based on current land and ground-

Site stabilization activities can inc

installing hazardous waste contain

dies (such as slurry walls or imperm

caps) and ground-water remedies (

pump-and-treat systems or permea

tive walls). Where appropriate, th

are taken immediately to protect p

located within a reasonable distan

site from exposure to harmful cont

SELECTING SITE REMEDIES 

In selecting final remedies, the 

seeks to address all current and po

sources of contamination that thre

human health and the environmen

Remedies are selected based on ma

including the protectiveness they 

ronmental media cleanup objectiv

short- and long-term effectiveness

mentation issues, and their accept

state and tribal governments and t

community. In selecting remedies, 

its partners also consider reasonab

pated future land use. 

IMPLEMENTING SITE REMEDIE

Implementation or constructio

the site remedy is the first step in 
categories based on cleanup progress, (2) the 

degree to which ecological receptors are protected from hazardous substances through 

cleanup activities, and (3) the economic 

impact of cleanup activities. 

REUSING AND RESTORING LAND 

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 reasonably anticipated future land 

use options and 

provide greater 

economic and 

social benefits. 

We are evaluating our policies and 

guidelines to determine where we can 

refine our approach 

to cleanups to facilitate beneficial site 

reuse. We are also forming partnerships with 

states, tribes, other federal agencies, local governments, communities, landowners, lenders, 

developers, and parties potentially responsible 

for contamination that can help bring about 

reuse of formerly contaminated sites. 

(Also see the discussion of EPA’s 

Brownfields Program under Goal 4: Healthy 

Communities and Ecosystems.) 

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” 

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 needed 

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 privateparty resources 

through enforcement. Under 

Superfund, EPA has 

the authority to 

compel private parties to pay back 

Trust Fund money spent to conduct cleanup 

activities.33 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. 
j

Preserve and Remediate Land. Through 

2008, provide sound science and constantly 

integrate smarter technical solutions and protection strategies that enhance our ability to 

preserve land quality and remediate contaminated land for beneficial reuse. 

Sub-objective 3.3.2: Conduct Research to 

Support Land Activities. Through 2008, 

conduct sound, leading-edge scientific 

research to provide a foundation for preserving 

land quality and remediating contaminated 

land. Research will result in documented 

methods, models, assessments, and risk 

management options for program and regional 

offices, facilitating their accurate evaluation 

of effects on human health and the environment, understanding of exposure pathways, 

and implementation of effective risk-management options. Conduct research affecting 

Indian country in partnership with tribes. SCIENCE TO PRESERVE AND REMEDIATE LAND 

EPA will continue to improve its capability to assess environmental conditions and 

determine the relative risks that contaminated 

land poses to health and the environment. 

The Agency will ensure that the environmental data it collects are of known, documented, 

and acceptable quality by implementing 

necessary field and lab procedures, practices, 

technological advances to enhance 

investigation capabilities, implemen

effective remedies, and improve the 

and maintenance of existing remed

addition, we will continue to coord

other agencies to identify and comm

program research priorities. RESEARCH TO PRESERVE AND REMEDIATE LAND To achieve our objectives for l

Office of Research and Developme

has developed multi-year plans for 

on contaminated sites and RCRA 

Each of these research plans outlin

long-term goals for the next 5 to 1

describes targets the Agency inten

to reduce scientific uncertainties a

with these topics.34 

Research to Clean Up and Reuse 

Contaminated Land To support cleanup and reuse 

inated lands, we will conduct rese

provide improved methods for site 

ization, risk assessment and exposu

analysis, and mitigation approache

Through the Superfund Innovativ

Technology Evaluation Program, w

demonstrate and verify cost-effect

nologies for characterizing and rem

contaminated sites. By providing s

technical support to site managers

enhance our communication of st

art methods. In addition, we will p

research results and advice to furth

MEANS AND STRATEGIES FOR 

ACHIEVING 

OBJECTIVE 3.3 

70 
• Provide decision-makers with 

performance and cost information 

on alternatives to pump-and-treat 

remedies for ground water and tools 

for characterizing and assessing 

ground water. 

• Provide tools and methods for assessing, remediating, and managing soil 

and land efficiently at contaminated 

sites. 

• Provide scientific tools, methods, 

models, and technical support to 

characterize multimedia site contamination; assess, predict, and 

communicate risks; evaluate innovative remediation options; develop 

testing protocols and risk management strategies; and identify the fate 

and effects of oil spills. 

Research to Preserve Land 

EPA will provide a tested multimedia 

modeling system, peer-reviewed technical 

reports, and technical support to enable scientifically sound, consistent decision-making 

at RCRA sites and facilities. ORD is directing resources to assist in implementing RCC 

and will evaluate waste-derived products to 

ensure that materials that would otherwise 

require waste disposal are not presenting 

other environmental issues. To support our 

goals for increasing materials recovery and 

recycling, ORD is also investing in research 

on electronics waste recycling and plans to 

develop sampling guidance and risk screening, which we can provide to states and other 

different liners and landfill covers. ORD 

bioreactor research is supporting such current 

regulatory efforts as the Research 

Development and Demonstration rule for 

landfills and is producing products, such as a 

recently developed monitoring approach, 

that states can use in managing landfill sites. 

Finally, by evaluating dioxin/furan emissions, 

surrogates, and continuous monitoring 

systems, ORD’s in-house and grants programs 

also support our objective for reducing hazardous waste facility combustion emissions of 

dioxins and furans. 
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, our Removal 

Program resources will most likely be concentrated on that response, thus reducing our 

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. 

In addition, a number of external factors 

could substantially affect the Agency’s ability 

to achieve its objectives for cleanup and 

prevention. These factors include Agency 

reliance on private-party response and state 

that have been authorized or appro

the primary implementors of these 

Attaining our waste reduction 

recycling objectives will depend on 

participation of federal agencies, s

tribes, local governments, industri

general public in partnerships aim

reducing waste generation and inc

recycling rates. EPA provides natio

ship in the areas of waste reductio

recycling 

public and 

partnershi

provide th

for govern

nesses, an

to join in 

paign to s

reduce the 

waste gen

ultimately 

disposal. H

both dom

foreign economic stresses can adve

markets for recovered materials. 

State programs are primarily re

for implementing the RCRA Haza

Waste and UST programs. Our ab

achieve our goals for these program

on the strength and funding levels 

programs. Similarly, our success in 

compliance standards depends on 

training and a strong state presenc

increase UST compliance, EPA w

upon its commitment to provide s

tribes with technical support and t

Attaining our 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. 

72 
 2000 Update. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/ 

epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm. Last updated October 29, 2002. 

7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 2002. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States 

- 2000 Update. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/ 

epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm. Last updated October 29, 2002. 

8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System 

(RCRAInfo), Hazardous Waste Facility Permitting Accomplishments. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/ 

epaoswer/hazwaste/permit/charts/charts.pdf, EPA Office of Solid Waste. 

9. Approximately 2,750 hazardous waste management facilities are currently regulated under RCRA. EPA plans to 

reassess this “universe” in FY 2006. Facilities that started activities subject to hazardous waste permitting after 

October 1, 1997, will be included in the count; facilities that should not have been counted (such as those 

coded as “never regulated,” “protective filers,” or “state regulated”) will be removed. 

10. Information derived from: Database of permit and compliance demonstration test results. Database available at 

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/combust/comwsite/cmb-noda.htm. Data availability was also published 

in 67 Federal Register 44452 - 44460, July 2, 2002 and 65 Federal Register 39581, June 27, 2000. 

11. Determination of “significant operational compliance” begins in FY 2004. Previously, compliance depended on 

two determinations. Recently, an EPA/state workgroup adjusted the definition of significant operational compliance to increase consistent national reporting. Therefore, the current baseline of 60 percent compliance is 

uncertain, since FY 2004 is the first reporting period. 

12. Memorandum from Sammy K. Ng, Acting Director, EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks to 

Underground Storage Tank Regional Program Managers. November 19, 1999. FY99 End of Year Semi-Annual 

Activity Report. 

Memorandum from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks to Underground 

Storage Tank Regional Program Managers. November 16, 2000. FY00 End of Year Semi-Annual Activity Report. 

Memorandum from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks to Underground 

Storage Tank Regional Division Directors, Regions 1-10. January 29, 2002. FY2001 Semi-Annual (End of Year) 

Activity Report. 

Memorandum from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks to Underground 

Storage Tank Regional Division Directors, Regions 1-10. December 23, 2002. FY 2002 End-of-Year Activity 

Report. 

13. Memorandum from Sammy K. Ng, Acting Director, EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks to 

Underground Storage Tank Regional Program Managers. November 19, 1999. FY99 End of Year Semi-Annual 

Activity Report. 

Memorandum from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks to Underground 

Storage Tank Regional Program Managers. November 16, 2000. FY00 End of Year Semi-Annual Activity Report. 

Memorandum from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks to Underground 

Storage Tank Regional Division Directors, Regions 1-10. January 29, 2002. FY2001 Semi-Annual (End of Year) 

Activity Report. 

Memorandum from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks to Underground 

Storage Tank Regional Division Directors, Regions 1-10. December 23, 2002. FY 2002 End-of-Year Activity Report. 

Last updated July 1, 2003. 
74 

, , gg

Storage Tank Division Directors in EPA Regions 1-10. June 19, 2003. FY 2003 Semi-Annual (Mid-

Report. 

19. New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. 2000. A Survey of State Experiences 

Contamination at LUST Sites. Available online at http://www.neiwpcc.org/mtbemain.html. 

20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. CERCLIS Database, Superfund Comprehensive Accomp

Plan Report, Version 8. (30 percent equals approximately 1,800 oil storage facilities.) 

21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Correcti

Action/Facility Information Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/facility.htm#RCR

Washington, DC. Last updated October 8, 2002. 

RCRA baseline facilities are RCRA facilities with corrective action obligations that EPA and the 

states have identified as highest priority. In FY 2004, EPA and the authorized states will reevaluat

essary, adjust the current list of 1,714 facilities. 

22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Correcti

Action/Facility Information Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/facility.htm#RCR

Washington, DC. Last updated October 8, 2002. 

RCRA baseline facilities are RCRA facilities with corrective action obligations that EPA and the 

states have identified as highest priority. In FY 2004, EPA and the authorized states will reevaluat

essary, adjust the current list of 1,714 facilities. 

23. Analysis of information of final and deleted NPL sites, excluding four sites deleted and deferred to 

authority, collected from CERCLIS database on October 16, 2002. 

24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Correcti

Action/Facility Information Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/facility.htm#RCR

Washington, DC. Last updated October 8, 2002. 

RCRA baseline facilities are RCRA facilities with corrective action obligations that EPA and the 

states have identified as highest priority. In FY 2004, EPA and the authorized states will reevaluat

essary, adjust the current list of 1,714 facilities. 

25. Analysis of information from CERCLIS database conducted by EPA’s Office of Superfund Remedi

Technology Innovation /Planning Analysis and Resources Management staff, March 2001. 

26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Correcti

Action/Facility Information Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/facility.htm#RCR

Washington, DC. Last updated October 8, 2002. 

RCRA baseline facilities are RCRA facilities with corrective action obligations that EPA and the 

states have identified as highest priority. In FY 2004, EPA and the authorized states will reevaluat

essary, adjust the current list of 1,714 facilities. 

27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Superfun

Accomplishment Figures, Summary Fiscal Year 2003 Web Site: 

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/numbers.htm. Last updated April 7, 2003. 
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in 1980. The law created a revolving Trust Fund, which is also 

known as the Superfund. This large pot of money is used by EPA and other agencies to clean up hazardous 

waste sites. The Trust Fund is used primarily when those companies or people responsible for the contamination at Superfund sites cannot be found or cannot perform the cleanup or pay for the cleanup work. To make 

sure that those responsible clean up or pay for the cleanup as much as possible, EPA’s Superfund Enforcement 

program identifies the companies or people responsible for contamination at a site and negotiates with them to 

do the cleanup. If EPA pays for some or all of the cleanup at a site and then finds the people responsible, EPA 

can recover from them the money it spent. The Fund was largely financed by a tax on crude oil and 42 commercially used chemicals. The taxing authority expired December 31, 1995. 

31. 33 U.S. Code 2701-2761 

32. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. One Cleanup 

Program Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/swerrims/onecleanupprogram/index.htm. Washington, DC. Last updated 

May 9, 2003. 

33. 42 U.S. Code 9601-9675, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), Sec. 107. 

34. For more information on ORD’s multi-year plans, visit: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Research and Development. Research Directions, Multi-Year Plans Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp.htm. 

Last updated August 26, 2003. 
GOAL 4
and 

Communities 

Healthy 

and partnerships. 

and comprehensive approaches 

and ecosystems using integrated 

health of people, communities, 

Protect, sustain, or restore the 

Ecosystems 
and Ecosystems 

Healthy Communities 

To protect, sustain, or restore the health of communities and ecosystems, EPA must bring together a variety 

of programs, tools, approaches, and resources; create 

strong partnerships with federal, state, tribal, and local 

government agencies; and enlist the 

A key component of this goal is protecting 

health and the environment by identifying, ass

reducing the risks presented by the thousands o

on which our society and economy have come 

These include the pesticides use

support of many stakeholders. 

OBJECTIVES 

Objective 4.1: 

Chemical, Organism, 

and Pesticide Risks . . 80 

Objective 4.2: 

Communities . . . . . . . 89 

Objective 4.3: 

Ecosystems . . . . . . . . 94 

Objective 4.4: 

Enhance Science 

and Research. . . . . . . 99 

national and global demands fo

Because Goal 4 is unique in its cross- the industrial and commercial c

media, cross-Agency approach, build- found in products and througho

ing a cohesive, integrated strategy is homes and workplaces. 

critical for achieving results. Some pest control methods 

EPA must manage environmental ensure an abundant and afford

risks to watersheds, communities, supply can cause unwanted env

homes, and workplaces to protect or health effects. Apart from ag

human health and the environmental effective pest control is also esse

integrity of ecosystems. The Agency homes, gardens, highways and 

will employ a mix of regulatory pro- lines, hospitals, and drinking-w

grams and alternative voluntary ment facilities. Pesticides are an 

approaches to achieve results efficiently part of pest management in eac

and in innovative, sustainable ways. settings. Licensing pesticides he

For example, preventing pollution at ensure that they can be used sa

the source is the preferred strategy for


reducing risk and environmental impact. However, where


programs to prevent pollution or ecosystem damage are not


viable, EPA promotes waste minimization, avoidance of


impact on habitat, and disposal and remediation. In man-


aging risk, EPA will direct its efforts toward the greatest


threats in our communities, homes, and workplaces,


including threats to sensitive populations, such as children,


the elderly, and Native Americans. 


beneficially while avoiding unin

harm to human health or environment. EPA m

address the emerging challenges posed by a gro

of biological organisms—naturally occurring a

increasingly, genetically engineered—that are 

in industrial and agricultural processes. 

Building a community’s capability to make 

that affect the environment is at the heart of th
planned development or redevelopment. 

EPA’s ecosystem protection programs 

encompass a wide range of approaches that 

address specific at-risk regional areas along 

with larger categories of threatened systems, 

such as estuaries and wetlands. Locally generated pollution, combined with pollution carried by rivers and streams and through air 

deposition, can collect in these closed and 

semi-closed ecosystems, degrading them over 

time. 

Large water bodies, such as the Gulf of 

Mexico, the Great Lakes, and 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 their 

vulnerabilities. At the Mexican Border, for 

example, addressing local pollution and 

infrastructure are priorities for the Mexican 

and the U.S. governments under the Border 

2012 agreement. Safe drinking water is a 

particular priority. Coastal estuaries and 

wetlands are also vulnerable. As the population in coastal regions grows, the challenges 

to preserve and protect these important 

ecosystems increase. Coastal areas are testing grounds for combining innovative and 

community-based approaches with national 

guidelines and inter-agency coordination to 

achieve results. 

asthma, lead-based paint in older homes, 

microbes that may be resistant to treatment 

in drinking water, and persistent chemicals 

that may cause cancer or induce reproductive 

or developmental changes. 

Due to the normal decrease in biological 

capacity that accompanies the aging process, 

even older Americans in good health may be 

at increased risk from exposure to environmental pollutants. As people age, their bodies are less able to detoxify and eliminate 

toxins. Native Americans represent another 

segment of the population with a different 

risk profile. Their traditional foods and ways 

of life may lead to higher levels of exposure 

to certain toxics. EPA will focus on these 

sensitive populations by increasing our 

understanding of these issues, building infrastructure and capacity, and providing information and tools needed to assess and 

prevent adverse impacts. 
OBJECTIVE 4.1: CHEMICAL, ORGANISM, AND PESTICIDE 

PREVENT AND REDUCE PESTICIDE, CHEMICAL, AND GENETICALLY ENGINEERE

BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM RISKS TO HUMANS, COMMUNITIES, AND ECOSYSTEMS

Sub-objective 4.1.1: Reduce Exposure to 

Toxic Pesticides. Through 2008, protect 

human health, communities, and ecosystems 

from pesticide use by reducing exposure to 

the pesticides posing the greatest risk. 

Strategic Targets: 

• Through 2008, systematically review 

pesticides in the marketplace to 

ensure that they meet the most current safety standards: reregistration 

(100 percent by 2008), tolerance 

reassessment (100 percent by 2006), 

and registration review (12 percent 

by 2008, based on 15-year review 

cycle for all registrations). 

• 

through 2008, protect endangered and 

threatened species by 

ensuring that none of 

the 15 species on the 

EPA/Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

(FWS)/ 

U.S. Department of Agric

(USDA) priority list of th

endangered species will be 

ized by exposure to pestici

• By 2008, reduce by 30 per

number of mortalities to n

terrestrial and aquatic wild

by pesticides compared to 

of 80 reported bird inciden

reported fish incidents (3-

age 1994-1996). (Baseline

cent reduction by 2006.) 

• Through 2008, develop 10 

tive total) biogeographical 

which enable the Agency 

unique tribal pesticide exp

narios into all appropriate 

reviews. (Baseline: pilot of 

in FY 2003; total number 

to be determined, 16-18 c

mate.) 

• By 2008, decrease by 30 p

occurrence of residues of c

genic and cholinesterase-i

achievement of a particular environmental 

outcome has been included under the goal 

with which it is associated. However, EPA 

improve its development and use o

mental indicators. 

80 

Each year 
baseline of 30 months. 

• By 2008, reduce by 20 percent the 

inventories of obsolete persistent 

organic pesticides from the key 

source countries of Russia and 

Mexico1 (i.e., those pesticides with 

the greatest potential for contributing to long-range environmental 

transport to the United States). 

(2003 baseline of over 21,000 tons 

for the Russian Federation; 2001 

baseline of 1,151 tons for Mexico.) 

Sub-objective 4.1.2 License Pesticides 

Meeting Safety Standards. Through 2008, 

protect human health, communities, and 

ecosystems from pests and disease by ensuring 

the availability of pesticides, including public 

health pesticides and antimicrobial products, 

that meet the latest safety standards. 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2008, at least 11 percent of acre 

treatments2 will use applications of 

reduced-risk pesticides. (Baseline: 3.6 

percent in 1998.) 

• Each year through 2008, expedite the 

registration of four to six new active 

ingredients that meet the criteria for 

reduced-risk pesticides or 

organophosphate alternatives to 

make safer pest management tools 

available sooner. (Expedited registration time is 24 months versus the 

standard 40 months.) (Baseline: In 

2002, four expedited registrations 

were done for reduced-risk conventional active ingredients.) 

• Each year through 2008, ensure new 

pesticide registration actions (including new active ingredients, new uses) 

meet new health standards and are 

environmentally safe. (In 2002, there 

were registration actions for 26 active 

ingredients and 720 new uses.) 

• Each year through 2008, maintain 

the timeliness of Section 18 emergency exemption decisions. (2002 

baseline of 35 days.) 

Sub-objective 4.1.3: Reduce Chemical and 

Biological Risks. Through 2008, prevent and 

reduce chemical and biological organism risks 

to humans, communities, and ecosystems. 

HUMAN CAPITAL FOCUS 

FOR ACHIEVING GOAL 4 

EPA will require staff with very specialized technical 

and coalition-building expertise: 

• Developmental and molecular biologists, toxicologists, modelers, engineers, chemists, and statisticians 

to develop methodologies, data, models, risk-assessment guidance, and toxicity testing methods and 

protocols. 

• Land-use attorneys, public health experts, and other 

professionals with experience at the local level in 

land-use planning, geographic information systems, 

and facilitation. 

• Chemical engineers with experience at industrial 

facilities. 

• Professionals with communication, facilitation, and 

consensus-building skills. 
82 

ments for at least 10 chemicals to 

which children may be exposed to 

enable effective management of identified risks. (Baseline is 0 chemicals 

with completed risk assessments in 

FY 2003.) 

• Through 2008, increase the efficiency of EPA’s efforts to eliminate or 

effectively manage risks associated 

with HPV chemicals and chemicals 

to which children may be exposed by 

employing collaborative strategies 

with chemical producers and users 

and leveraging strategies with other 

governmental entities upon initial 

identification of such risks. Efficiency 

will be measured in terms of EPA’s 

per-chemical review costs compared 

to 2005. 

• Each year through 2008, prevent 

the introduction of new chemicals 

or organisms into commerce that 

pose unreasonable risks to workers, 

risks associated with the e

chemicals into U.S. comm

training chemical develop

EPA’s risk screening tools 

research and development

the Agency receives at lea

screened PMNs per year. E

will be measured in terms 

per-chemical review costs 

to 2002. (Baseline to be d

FY 2004 for number of PM

• Through 2008, reduce rela

to chronic human health a

with environmental releas

trial chemicals in commer

7 percent from 2001 levels

ured by EPA’s Risk Screen

Environmental Indicators 

• By 2008, establish short-te

sure limits for 75 percent o

chemicals identified as hig

ty by the Acute Exposure 

Levels (AEGL) Program. 

is 0 chemicals with AEGL 

in 1996. There are approx

240 chemicals on the high

priority list.) 

• Through 2008, reduce the 

childhood lead poisoning 

90,000, from approximatel

cases in 1999/2000.7 

• By 2008, the health risks a

with air pollution from lea

line use in numerous coun

be mitigated by eliminatin

of leaded gasoline worldwi
large capacitors and 4,885 transformers safely disposed.8

) 

• By 2008, reduce by 20 percent the 

inventories of PCBs in Russia that 

have the greatest potential for contributing to the long-range environmental transport of these pollutants 

to the United States. (2000 baseline 

is 35,000 tons.9

) 

• By 2008, decrease releases of persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) 

chemicals by 15 percent and toxic 

chemicals (including dioxin) by 

10 percent as reported in the 

Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), 

compared to 2001 levels. (Baseline: 

462,635,529 pounds of PBT chemicals and 5,744,530,557 pounds of all 

other toxic chemicals, including 328 

pounds of dioxin.) 

Sub-objective 4.1.4: Reduce Risks at 

Facilities. Through 2008, protect human 

health, communities, and ecosystems from 

chemical risks and releases through facility 

risk reduction efforts and building community infrastructures. 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2008, 30 percent of those facilities 

with hazardous chemicals, including 

Risk Management Plan facilities, will 

have reduced their risk of a major 

chemical accident out of a universe 

of approximately 15,000 facilities. 

(This includes reducing inventories 

of chemicals; reducing chemical acci

• By 2008, 50 percent of local communities or Local 

Emergency Planning Committees 

(LEPC) will have incorporated facility risk information into their emergency preparedness and community 

right-to-know programs out of a universe of approximately 3,200 LEPCs. 

Chemicals, microorganisms, and pesticides can pose risks to individuals, communities, and ecosystems. Under this objective, 

EPA aims to prevent or significantly reduce 

these risks by: 

• 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. 

MEANS AND STRATEGIES FOR 

ACHIEVING OBJECTIVE 4.1 
• Reducing or eliminating risks from 

potential chemical releases. 

In coordination with our state and tribal 

co-regulators and co-implementors and with 

the support of industry, environmental 

groups, and other stakeholders, EPA will use 

these 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. REDUCING 

EXPOSURE TO PESTICIDES 

Pesticides are essential for controlling 

insects, weeds, bacteria, and other pests on 

farms and in homes, gardens, and hospitals. It 

is estimated that 

pesticides are used 

on more than 1 

million farms and 

in 90 million 

households.10 These 

products are regulated and held to 

safety standards 

prescribed by the 

Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act. 

Exposure to Pesticides in Food 

People can be exposed to pesticides 

through their food. EPA is working to reduce 

this exposure, particularly to the more toxic 

pesticides. One of our priorities is to review 

older pesticides in light of Food Quality 

establish a program to review pesti

15-year cycle.11 As the reregistratio

draws to a close, this registration re

gram will ensure that pesticides in 

marketplace continue to meet the 

rent FQPA safety standards. The c

registration review program will all

continually to apply new science a

teria to ensure that risk evaluation 

management information remain c

These changes will help to reduce 

posed by newly licensed pesticides 

the risks of exposure that workers, 

lies, and vulnerable populations m

We will continue to improve o

es to reflect lessons learned, additi

information from scientific advanc

sophisticated methods and tools, a

cation o

or benef

example

biotechn

improve 

cultural 

an accel

trend, w

ducing a

new and 

products

genetica

neered p

microorg

EPA will continue to work closely 

USDA and the Food and Drug 

Administration to ensure the safet

food supply and to identify additio

tific reviews or data that may be n

these products. 

84 
antimicrobials are of growing importance as 

many serious disease-causing organisms 

become resistant to antibiotic procedures. To 

provide environmental, public health, and 

economic benefits, we will continue to work 

to make new pesticides available and to 

address emergency health or pest damage 

issues flexibly and efficiently. 

EPA is also working to protect employers, 

applicators, handlers, and the public from the 

potential dangers posed by pesticides by 

implementing certification and training and 

worker protection programs. The Agency 

conducts outreach and education on using 

pesticides properly as well as implementing 

risk mitigation measures spelled out during 

the pesticide licensing process. 

Since pesticide use also affects ecosystems, our reviews consider impacts to water 

resources, soil, and wildlife to prevent unreasonable harm. For example, EPA is 

collaborating with FWS and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service to improve our 

efforts to protect endangered species. We will 

be working to identify changes to existing 

policies, regulations, and the regulatory 

processes that will enhance protection of 

endangered species with minimal impact on 

food producers and pesticide users. 

Outreach, training, and partnerships will 

play an integral role in meeting our goals. 

Providing information on alternatives for 

pest control, translating materials into other 

languages for nonnative speakers, and 

emphasizing the importance of following pesticide labels will help to reduce risks 

associated with using pesticides in and 

the Agency will 

work to promote a 

better understanding of the impact of 

pollutants from 

other countries and 

regions on the 

United States, and 

the impact of U.S. 

emissions on other countries. We will reduce 

pollution sources abroad through outreach, 

pollution prevention, and capacity-building 

measures, such as cost-effective and appropriate technology transfer. 

REDUCING RISKS FROM CHEMICALS 

AND MICROORGANISMS 

Screening, Assessing, and Reducing Risk 

EPA’s strategy to prevent and reduce 

risks posed by chemicals and microorganisms 

consists of three primary approaches: (1) preventing the introduction of chemicals and 

organisms that pose unreasonable risks into 

U.S. commerce; (2) effectively screening 

the stock of chemicals already in use for 

potential risk; and (3) developing and implementing action plans to reduce the 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 elderly a fundamental goal of public health and 

environmental protection. 
ed to continue 

through 2008. 

While TSCA gives 

EPA a 90-day 

review period, new 

criteria, such as 

preventing the 

introduction of 

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 industry’s efficiency by using the 

data that companies provide in their PMN 

submissions to predict potential hazards, 

exposures, and risks quickly and effectively. Tools include the PBT Profiler and other 

models that estimate the fate and concentrations of chemicals released to the 

environment, including chemicals that may 

be released from consumer products, and 

models to estimate workplace exposures.13 

These tools will be critical for meeting the 

zero-tolerance standard implicit in our 2008 

strategic target for these reviews. 

Such tools are also a critical component 

of EPA’s sustainable futures strategy to discourage development of potentially risky new 

chemicals at the earliest stages of product, 

process, and service design. The Sustainable 

Futures-P2 Framework initiative14 provides 

chemical manufacturers with the same 

screening tools that EPA uses to evaluate 

potential risks to workers and the public and 

possible impacts to the environment. Over 

the next several years, the Agency will provide these tools and training to companies, 

enabling them to design and develop safer, 

less risky chemicals. Under the current pilot 

Organisms will continue to po

challenges to the review program. 

reviewed a number of proposed mi

products that posed risks to human

the environment because of genes 

into the bacteria (for traits such as 

resistance and/or altered metabolic 

or because of inherent pathogenic

ed with the parent microorganism

for example, the Agency issued a p

Significant New Use Rule coverin

eight microorganisms that, if used 

can be fatal to individuals with cy

Newly developed risk evaluation p

will address exposure and hazard p

an increasing number organisms w

never before encountered. 

By 2008, EPA will make subst

progress in screening, assessing, an

risks posed by the 66,600 chemica

in use prior to the enactment of T

Thousands of these chemicals are 

today, and nearly 3,000 of them ar

chemicals, produced or imported i

United States in quantities exceed

lion pounds per year. More than 3

companies and 101 consortia are v

providing data that EPA will make 

available and screen for potential 

risks. We will then identify and se

for further assessment and determi

future action is necessary to elimin

effectively manage the risks identi

support these efforts, we will draw 

already obtained through the TSC

Inventory Update Rule, particular

exposure-related data to be provid

ning in 2005. 

86 
assessments was essential to ensure a process 

that could be recognized as impartial and of 

significant technical merit and value. EPA 

will also continue to identify and reduce the 

risks associated with other chemicals and 

classes of chemicals already in commerce. 

By 2008, the broader risk screening and 

data assessment to be conducted through 

these efforts will provide a much better 

knowledge base from which to assess and 

reduce chemical risks. The chemical risk 

information developed under this goal is critical to EPA’s success in achieving its other 

goals, providing the basis for virtually all 

chemical risk assessments that support EPA’s 

air, water, and waste programs. The Agency 

will work to increase the availability of useful 

health and environmental information, 

including information about toxic releases, 

tools to increase access to and analysis of TRI 

data, and incentives for source reduction by 

facilities that report to TRI. 

Protecting First Responders 

In the event of a chemical emergency, 

protecting first responders or other on-site 

personnel is critical. Many chemicals that 

pose a potential threat emit toxic fumes, are 

toxic when in contact with skin, or present 

other direct effects. To increase the Nation’s 

preparedness, EPA, in collaboration with 

other federal, private, and academic organizations, is increasing the pace for developing 

AEGLs.16 These guidelines are short-term 

exposure limits, representing three tiers of 

health effect endpoints (i.e., discomfort, disability, and death) for five different exposure 

durations. EPA will provide emergency per

hood lead poisoning. Since 1973, we have 

reduced environmental lead levels by phasing 

out leaded gasoline and addressing other 

sources of exposure. Since the 1990s, EPA 

has focused on reducing children’s exposure 

to lead in paint and dust through a regulatory 

framework, through federal interagency collaboration, and by educating parents and the 

medical community about prevention. 

As a result of these efforts, in the United 

States, children’s blood-lead levels have 

declined nearly 90 percent since the mid1970s, and the incidence of childhood lead 

poisoning has declined from 900,000 cases in 

the early 1990s to approximately 400,000 

cases in 1999-2000.17 EPA will collaborate 

with industry and other federal agencies on a 

campaign to increase lead-safe work practices 

in home renovation and remodeling and to 

improve handling of lead paint on buildings 

and structures through market-based incentives and other innovative approaches. 
88 

Health Organization, the Asian 

Development Bank, the National Safety 

Council, and the Alliance to End Childhood 

Lead Poisoning. By leveraging resources from 

other U.S. government agencies, including 

the U.S. Agency for International 

Development, the U.S. Department of State, 

and the Centers for Disease Control, we have 

established on-the-ground technical assistance projects in several parts of the world. 

The Implementer’s Guide to Lead Phase-Out, 

an important technical-assistance tool, 

outlines fundamental policy, technical, and 

operational elements that will help countries 

manage the transition to unleaded gasoline.19 

EPA is employing a multimedia, crossAgency 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 have been used in 

the past. New information to be developed 

meet ambitious new targets for saf

by 2008. Because these chemicals 

various levels and exposure pathw

sets are often uneven. Through 20

fore, EPA intends to examine poss

measurement opportunities to bett

the environmental and human he

of our high-risk chemical program

Long-range and transboundary 

pheric transport and deposition of 

organic pollutants and other PBTs

mercury, are a continuing threat to 

health and the ecosystems in Nort

These pollutants can be transporte

released far from their sources, ent

ecosystem, and bioaccumulate thro

food chain. EPA believes that to r

recognized risks these pollutants p

American public, we will need to 

their international sources. For ex

can most immediately reduce the r

by PCB emissions by cooperating w

priate domestic and international 

reduce existing stockpiles of equip

generate these emissions and prov

ed technical assistance and capaci

REDUCING RISKS AT FACILITIE

To reduce or eliminate the risk

ed with chemical releases, EPA mu

identify and understand potential 

risks and releases. During 2003 an

EPA will review and analyze data 

already collected, as well as the in

it will receive under the Agency’s 

Management Plan program. This a
Sub-objective 4.2.1: Sustain Community 

Health. By 2008, 220 U.S. communities, 

working with EPA, will adopt and begin to 

implement environmental planning and 

management processes for sustaining local 

ecosystems and pursuing ecologically compatible development (2002 baseline of 0 

communities). On the international front, 

EPA will work with selected trading partners 

to address potential sources of environmental 

degradation associated with trade-related 

development. All trade agreements negotiated between 2003 and 2008 will contain 

environmental protection provisions and 

commitments to enforce environmental laws 

and regulations effectively. 

Sub-objective 4.2.2: Restore Community 

Health. Through 2008, facilitate the 

restoration of communities impacted by environmental problems. By 2008, increase by 50 

percent the number of communities, working 

with EPA, that have addressed disproportionate environmental impacts and risks through 

comprehensive, integrated planning and 

environmental management, compared to 

the 2002 baseline of 30 communities. 

Sub-objective 4.2.3: Assess and Clean Up 

Brownfields. By 2008, provide funding to 

eligible grant recipients, and, working with 

our state and tribal partners, assess and promote the cleanup and reuse of 9,200 

brownfields properties, leveraging 33,700 jobs 

and $10.2 billion in cleanup/redevelopment 

funding. (Second quarter FY 2003 baselines 

are 4,300 properties assessed, 24,900 jobs 

leveraged, and $5.0 billion leveraged.) 

Sub-objective 4.2.4: Sustain and Restore 

U.S.-Mexico Border Ecosystems. In the 

U.S.-Mexico border region, sustain and 

restore community health and preserve the 

ecological systems that support it. 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2012, assess significant shared and 

transboundary surface waters and 

achieve a majority of water quality 

standards currently being exceeded in 

those waters. (The baseline is the 

shared and transboundary surface 

waters as defined, identified, and 

evaluated for the United States in 

the Clean Water Act §305(b) reports 

and for Mexico by the Secretariat for 

OBJECTIVE 4.2: COMMUNITIES 

SUSTAIN, CLEAN UP, AND RESTORE COMMUNITIES AND THE ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS 

THAT SUPPORT THEM. 

Countermeasure program, to supplement data 

on potential chemical risks and to develop 

those risks and prepare to address and mitigate risks should a chemical release occur. 
provided with access to potable water 

and wastewater collection and treatment systems; estimated 2002 

baseline of 790,000 persons provided 

with access.) 

People often feel most closely connected 

to the environment in their communities, 

where they experience first-hand the benefits 

of safe drinking water, clean air, and healthy 

lakes, streams, and rivers that are safe for 

swimming and fishing. Decisions are made 

every day at the local level that affect air and 

water quality, habitat and biodiversity, and 

land use. For example, transportation and 

land-use planning, water supply and treatment, and waste management are all primarily 

local activities, and community decisions can 

either systematically advance clean air, clean 

and safe water, and 

restored and preserved land or can 

incrementally chip 

away at these goals. 

Because healthy, 

sustainable communities are the 

components of a 

healthy, sustainable 

country, EPA is 

committed to sustaining and 

restoring community health and the 

ecological systems 

that support it. 

stronger partnerships in communit

those along the U.S.-Mexico bord

influence neighboring jurisdiction

SUSTAINING HEALTHY COMMU

One of the most important str

achieving healthy communities an

tems is protecting and sustaining n

resources that are at risk. EPA will 

approaches to facilitate communit

protection of local natural resourc

First, EPA recognizes its impor

in supporting local resource protec

serving as a primary source of info

about new community assessment 

ning tools, the latest research, and 

of what other communities are do

address similar issues. To better inf

decision-making, EPA will continu

improve methods for information 

and access to environmental data 

mation at the community level. 

Second, we will strive to build 

capacity by developing and distrib

that integrate media-specific infor

supporting multimedia planning; a

developing training for local agenc

community groups on how to use d

information, and tools effectively 

mental assessment and planning a

work collaboratively and cooperat

a range of stakeholders. EPA will c

identify and provide opportunities 

participation in environmental de

making. 

MEANS AND STRATEGIES FOR 

ACHIEVING 

OBJECTIVE 4.2 

90 
strategic partnerships. As a result of ongoing 

Administration efforts to negotiate international free trade agreements, our assistance to 

communities also extends to specific trading 

partners. In this context, EPA will undertake 

the environmental reviews and technical 

assistance necessary to promote ecologically 

compatible development. 

Finally, EPA will work to ensure that 

national policies and programs support, 

rather than hinder, comprehensive, integrated local resource management. To this end, 

EPA will review new policies and regulations 

to ensure that programs are compatible and 

promote overall environmental improvement. The Agency will work to integrate 

existing programs to optimize their impacts 

and make them more compatible with local 

processes. In addition, EPA will partner with 

other federal agencies and national standardsetting organizations to create incentives for 

and remove barriers to smart growth and 

integrated environmental management. 

RESTORING HEALTHY COMMUNITIES: 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

“Environmental justice” is the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement of all 

people, regardless of race, color, national 

origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and policies. 

EPA works to integrate environmental justice 

into all aspects of the Agency’s programs and 

to promote constructive engagement and 

collaborative problem-solving among all 

exposure to environmental hazards and risks 

and, consequently, protect their families and 

their communities. 

The National Environmental Justice 

Advisory Council was created specifically to 

provide an Agency forum for communities 

disproportionately impacted by hazardous 

risks. The council’s six subcommittees 

(Air/Water, Enforcement, Health/Research, 

Indigenous People, International, and 

Waste/Facility Siting) will continue to 

address the implications of multiple sources 

of environmental degradation on the health 

of communities and to develop recommendations for the Agency. 

EPA will also continue to chair the 

Interagency Working Group (IWG) on 

Environmental Justice, which is composed of 

11 federal departments and agencies, as well 

as White House offices. The IWG will collaborate with all levels of government and 

with the private sector to address the environmental, health, economic, and social 

challenges facing our communities. One tool 
92 

Agency will add modules that promote consideration of environmental justice issues in 

permitting under the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act, the Clean Water Act, and 

the Clean Air Act. In addition, EPA will be 

expanding a 2002 pilot that emphasized 

training and multi-stakeholder partnering to 

increase Agency and community capacity to 

address issues through alternative dispute resolution. ASSESSING AND CLEANING UP BROWNFIELDS 

Brownfields 

are defined (with 

certain exclusions) 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, minescarred land, and sites contaminated with 

petroleum or petroleum products. EPA will 

continue to provide for the assessment and 

cleanup of these properties, leverage redevelopment opportunities, preserve green space, 

clarify liability, and offer job training. 

The Small Business Liability Relief and 

Brownfields Revitalization Act, signed into 

Brownfields grants will continu

vide several types of support to com

Brownfield assessment grants provi

to inventory, characterize, assess, an

planning and community involvem

ties related to brownfields. Brownfi

revolving-loan fund grantees can ca

revolving loan and make subgrants 

out cleanup activities. Cleanup gra

authorized by the Brownfields Law, 

cleanup 

by gran

ents. 

authori

the new 

address 

tial for 

funding 

tutiona

insuran

health 

ing. EP

provide 

funding 

that pr

nical a

trainin

researc

field communities. We will also pro

funding to create local environmen

training programs, ensuring that th

benefits derived from brownfield re

efforts remain in the community. 

EPA will continue to work in 

ship with state cleanup programs t

brownfield properties. We will pro

and tribes with tools, information, 

funding they can use to develop re

E
ALONG THE U.S.MEXICO BORDER 

EPA is working along the U.S.-Mexico 

border to reduce transboundary threats to 

human and ecosystem health in North 

America. The U.S.-Mexico Border 2012 

Program, a joint effort between the U.S. 

and Mexican governments, will work with 

the 10 border states and with border communities to improve the region’s 

environmental health.21 

Border communities face unique 

challenges in addressing environmental problems and coordinating efforts. To promote 

coordination, a number of regional workgroups and policy forums will collaborate 

with local communities to set priorities and 

plan and implement projects. These groups 

will also assist in establishing objectives, 

defining indicators, and measuring progress. 

The United States and Mexico will work to 

improve water quality along their border 

through a range of pollution control sanitation projects; our goal is to restore the quality 

of at least half of the currently impaired significant shared and transboundary surface 

waters by 2012. 

Inadequate water and sewage treatment 

cause border residents to suffer disproportionately from hepatitis A and other waterborne 

diseases. Increasing the number of connections to safe drinking-water systems and the 

number of homes with access to basic sanitation will reduce health risks to residents. Our 

planned assessment of transboundary surface 

waters will facilitate the development of 

environmental data essential for effective 

water management. To achieve Border 2012’s 

goal of increasing by 25 percent the number 

of homes with access to safe drinking water 

and wastewater treatment systems, we are 

working with Mexican officials to determine 

the number of homes currently lacking access 

to these basic sanitation services. 

In addition to water issues, EPA will 

focus on the environmental and human 

health risks posed by pesticides. By training 

migrant farm workers and others who routinely handle pesticides, we will reduce both 

the long-term chronic health effects of pesticide exposure as well as the incidence of 

acute pesticide poisoning. 
Strategic Targets: 

• By 2008, improve the overall aquatic 

system health of the 28 estuaries that 

are part of the National Estuary 

Program (NEP) compared to 2006, as 

measured using the National Coastal 

Condition Report and NEP indicators. (Baseline to be determined in 

2006.) 

• By 2008, working with NEP partners, 

protect or restore an additional 

250,000 acres of habitat within the 

study areas for the 28 estuaries that 

are part of the NEP. (2002 Baseline: 

0 acres of habitat restored.) 

Sub-objective 

4.3.2: Increase Wetlands. By 2008, 

working with partners, achieve a net 

increase of 400,000 

acres of wetlands 

with additional 

focus on biological 

and functional 

measures. (2002 Baseline: annual net loss of 

an estimated 58,500 acres.) 

Strategic Targets: 

• Annually, beginning in FY 2004, 

work with the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (COE) and other partners 

to achieve no net loss of wetlands 

under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulatory program. 

tion based on quantifying 

gained and lost through m

for authorized wetlands im

Sub-objective 4.3.3: Improve the 

Great Lakes Ecosystems. By 2008

water pollution and improve the o

aquatic ecosystem health of the G

by at least 2 points. (2002 Baselin

Lakes rating of 20 on a 40-point sc

the rating uses select Great Lakes 

the Lakes Ecosystem indicators, ba

to 5 rating system for each indicat

1 is poor and 5 is good.) 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2007, the average conc

of PCBs in whole lake trou

walleye samples will declin

percent. (2000 Baseline: c

tion for Lake Superior of 0

Lake Huron, 0.8 ug/g; for 

Michigan, 1.6 ug/g; for Lak

ug/g; and for Lake Ontario

• By 2008, the annual conce

of toxic chemicals in the a

Great Lakes basin will dec

percent. (2002 Baseline: c

tion for Lake Superior of 6

for Lake Huron, 19 pg/m3

Michigan, 87 pg/m3; for L

183 pg/m3; and for Lake O

36 pg/m3.) 

• By 2010, restore and delist 

tive total of at least 10 Ar

Concern within the Great 

basin. (2002 Baseline: 0 A

Concern restored.) 

94 
jpq

Health of the Chesapeake Bay. By 2008, 

prevent water pollution and improve the 

overall aquatic ecosystem health of the 

Chesapeake Bay so that there are 120,000 

acres of submerged aquatic vegetation. (2002 

Baseline: 85,252 acres.) 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2008, reduce nitrogen loads entering Chesapeake Bay by 94 million 

pounds per year, from 1985 levels. 

(2002 Baseline: 51 million pounds 

per year reduced.) 

• By 2008, reduce phosphorus loads 

entering Chesapeake Bay by 9.7 million pounds per year, from 1985 

levels. (2002 Baseline: 8 million 

pounds per year reduced.) 

• By 2008, reduce sediment loads 

entering Chesapeake Bay by 1.37 

million tons per year, from 1985 levels. (2002 Baseline: 0.8 million tons 

per year reduced.) 

Sub-objective 4.3.5: Improve the Aquatic 

Health of the Gulf of Mexico. Prevent 

water pollution and protect aquatic systems 

to improve the overall health of the Gulf 

of Mexico. 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2008, prevent water pollution and 

improve the overall aquatic ecosystem health of coastal waters of the 

Gulf of Mexico by 0.2 on the 

“good/fair/poor” scale of the National 

tions, sediment contamination, 

benthic health, and fish tissue contamination.) 

• By 2015, reduce releases of nutrients 

throughout the Mississippi River 

Basin to reduce the size of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico to less 

than 5,000 km2, as measured by the 

5-year running average of the size of 

the zone. (Baseline: 1996-2000 running average size is 14,128 km2.) 

EPA is working to protect, sustain, and 

restore the health of natural habitats and 

ecosystems by identifying and evaluating 

problem areas, developing tools, and improving community capacity to address problems. 

Some activities will continue to be targeted 

to such high-priority areas as Long Island 

Sound, Lake Champlain, Lake Pontchartrain, 

and South Florida. Targeted watershed grants 

that provide tools, training, and technical 

assistance will support community efforts to 

expand and 

improve existing 

watershed protection 

measures. These 

various placedbased ecosystem 

protection 

efforts provide 

an opportunity 

MEANS AND STRATEGIES FOR 

ACHIEVING OBJECTIVE 4.3 
96 

ESTUARIES PROGRAM 

Estuaries are among the most productive 

ecosystems on Earth, providing numerous 

ecological, economic, cultural, and aesthetic 

benefits and services. They are also among 

the most threatened ecosystems, largely as a 

result of rapidly increasing growth and development. About half of the U.S. population 

now lives in coastal areas, and coastal counties are growing three times faster than 

counties elsewhere in the Nation.22 Overuse 

of resources and poor land use practices have 

resulted in a host of human health and natural resource problems. 

EPA plans to implement key activities 

under the NEP to help address these growing 

threats to the Nation’s estuarine resources.23 

The NEP, which provides inclusive, community-based planning and action at the 

watershed level, is an important initiative in 

conserving our estuarine resources. We will 

facilitate the ecosystem-scale protection and 

restoration of natural areas by supporting 

developing monitoring protocols f

nuisance species and rapid respons

expanding mercury deposition mo

and developing and implementing 

management strategies. 

The health of the Nation’s est

ecosystems also depends on the ma

of high-quality habitat. Diminishe

degraded habitats are less able to s

healthy populations of wildlife and 

organisms and perform the econom

ronmental, and aesthetic function

coastal populations depend for the

hood. INCREASING WETLANDS 

Over the years, the United Sta

lost more than 115 million acres o

to development, agriculture, and o

Today, the Nation loses an estimat

acres of wetlands every year, and o

lands are being degraded by excess

sedimentation, nutrient overenrich

ticides, invasive species, habitat lo

fragmentation.25 

The Administration is comm

regulatory program aimed at no ne

wetlands and to initiatives and par

to improve their overall condition

December 2002, COE, in cooperat

EPA, issued a Regulatory Guidanc

improve wetland protection throu

compensatory mitigation. Also, th

Administration unveiled a Nation

Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan2

17 action items that federal agenc
target restoration 

within the 

watershed, 

address significant stressors, 

and report on 

condition. EPA 

will work for 

national gains in 

wetland acreage 

by implementing 

an innovative 

and partner-based wetlands and stream corridor restoration program. Working with states, 

COE, and other partners, we will build our 

capacity to measure wetland function and 

condition, as well as wetland acreage. The 

Agency will assist its federal, state, and tribal 

partners in building capacity to implement 

more effective wetland programs, including 

those that protect wetlands and waters not 

covered by the Clean Water Act. EPA’s support will help avoid or minimize wetland 

losses and provide for full compensation for 

unavoidable losses of wetland functions. We 

will continue to focus on wetlands and 

stream corridor restoration to regain lost 

aquatic resources. 

IMPROVING THE AQUATIC HEALTH OF 

THE GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM 

The Great Lakes are the largest system of 

surface freshwater on Earth, containing 20 

percent of the world’s surface freshwater and 

accounting for more than 90 percent of the 

surface freshwater in the United States. The 

watershed includes two nations, eight 

Millennium, on 

behalf of the 

U.S. Policy 

Committee.27 

The strategy 

presents a basinwide vision for 

Great Lakes protection and 

restoration, identifying the major 

environmental issues in the Great Lakes; 

establishing common goals for federal, state, 

and tribal agencies; and helping to fulfill U.S. 

responsibilities under the U.S.-Canada Great 

Lakes Water Quality Agreement.28 

The Great Lakes Strategy incorporates 

the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy, 

a groundbreaking international toxics reduction effort that targets a common set of 

persistent, toxic substances for reduction and 

elimination.29 The Toxics Strategy applies 

voluntary and regulatory tools focused on 

pollution prevention to a targeted set of 

substances, including mercury, PCBs, dioxins/ 

furans, and certain canceled pesticides. The 

strategy outlines activities for states, industry, 

tribes, nongovernmental organizations, and 

other stakeholders. 

These efforts will be reinforced by the 

Great Lakes Legacy Act, which targets additional resources to clean up contaminated 

sediments. Sediment contamination is a significant source of Great Lakes toxic pollutants and can threaten human health via the 

bioaccumulation of toxic substances through 

the food chain. 
islative body; EPA, which represents the 

federal government; and participating citizen 

advisory groups. Chesapeake 2000, a comprehensive and far-reaching agreement, will 

guide restoration and protection efforts 

through 2010 and will focus on improving 

water quality as the most critical element in 

the overall protection and restoration of the 

bay and its tributaries.30 

One of the key measures of success in 

achieving improved bay water quality will be 

the restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). SAV produces oxygen; nourishes 

a variety of animals; provides shelter and 

nursery areas for fish and shellfish; reduces 

wave action and shoreline erosion; absorbs 

nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen; 

and traps sediments. While recent improvements in water quality have contributed to a 

resurgence in SAV (from a low of 38,000 

acres in 1984 to more than 85,000 acres 

today31), more improvements are needed. To achieve improved water quality and 

restore SAV, 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. Key elements of state strategies to achieve these reductions include 

GULF OF MEXICO ECOSYSTEM 

EPA’s efforts in the Gulf of Me

represent a broad, multi-organizati

nership. EPA, Gulf states, and stak

are developing a regional, ecosyste

watershed-based framework for res

protecting the Gulf of Mexico in w

tent with the economic well-being 

region. Partners voluntarily identi

environmental problems and work 

regional, state, and local levels to 

recommend solutions. 

Gulf of Mexico issues can be b

categorized as affecting water qual

health, and habitat loss. The first 

restoring and protecting the biolog

integrity of the waters and importa

of the Gulf of Mexico is to restore 

aquatic life and recreational uses (

safe consumption of seafood) of hi

coastal watersheds and estuaries, in

the watersheds of the Mississippi R

Continued implementation of EPA

Clean Water Act water protection 

and efforts to address the hypoxic 

help to restore the waters of the G

tributaries. Restoring aquatic life a

ational uses will directly benefit co

as well. 

98 
j44ppy 

Available Science. Through 2008, identify 

and synthesize the best available scientific 

information, models, methods and analyses to 

support Agency guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people, 

communities, and ecosystems. 

Sub-objective 4.4.2: Conduct Relevant 

Research. Through 2008, conduct research 

that contributes to the overall health of people, communities, and ecosystems. Focus 

research on pesticides and toxics; global climate change; homeland security; and 

comprehensive, cross-cutting studies of 

human, community, and ecosystem health. 

PROVIDING THE BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE 

Protecting, sustaining, and restoring 

the health of people, communities, and 

ecosystems requires the commitment and 

coordination of a number of EPA programs; 

brings together expertise and resources from 

across the Agency; and cultivates relationships with our external partners and 

stakeholders. To meet this goal, EPA must 

use the best available science and apply its 

findings effectively to make sound decisions 

and meet a broad range of program needs. 

Environmental Indicators 

Environmental indicators are an important tool for analyzing and communicating 

and human health. EPA will continue to 

implement the Environmental Indicators 

Initiative to establish a set of performance 

indicators that measure environmental status. 

For environmental indicators 

to signal change 

effectively, they 

must be scientifically valid for 

answering environmental questions 

from many perspectives. In many 

cases, one environmental indicator 

may not be sufficient to address 

local, state, regional, or national 

questions. Therefore, as explained in our 

2003 Draft Report on the Environment, EPA 

and its partners must select environmental 

indicators carefully. 

To adequately report on environmental 

conditions, by 2008 EPA will work with other 

federal agencies to develop scientifically valid 

environmental indicators that reflect national, 

regional, and state interests and address six 

ecological attributes: landscape condition, 

biotic condition, chemical and physical characteristics, ecological processes, hydrology/ 

geomorphology, and natural disturbances 

regimes. In addition, based on sound science, 

EPA regions and states will identify ecosystems 

with highest priority for protection and 

restoration. 

MEANS AND STRATEGIES FOR 

ACHIEVING OBJECTIVE 4.4 
100 

to improve ecosystem health. 

EPA’s regional offices will continue to 

improve their ability to identify baseline 

community and ecosystem health conditions 

in priority geographic areas. The Agency will 

continue to assess the status and trends of 

ecosystem health and develop community 

and ecosystem indicators. 

We will continue to ensure that highquality environmental data are used to 

make sound environmental decisions by 

conducting laboratory evaluations and investigations, data validations, quality assurance 

management and project plan reviews, and 

geographic information system analyses and 

by managing regional quality assurance 

improve public access to environm

information that we, our partners, 

stakeholders collect. 

Endocrine Disruptors 

Over the last several years, con

grown about exposure to endocrin

ing, or hormonally active, chemic

Evidence suggests that exposure to 

that mimic hormones (endocrine d

may cause adverse health effects in 

and may affect human health as w

is working to reduce uncertainty in 

knowledge of endocrine disruptors

chemicals’ potential for endocrine 

and identify the nature of adverse 

The Agency needs valid tests 

new chemicals’ and pesticides’ pot

endocrine disruption. We will com

dation of screens and tests that are 

before large-scale reviews can take 

a Federal Advisory Subcommittee 

tinue to provide EPA with scientif

technical advice. We are working 

mize the use of animals for these t

Regional Laboratories 

Through its regional offices, E

participate in the National Enviro

Laboratory Accreditation Confere

(NELAC), an association of state 

agencies and private organizations 

establish and promote mutually ac

performance standards for the insp

operation of environmental labora

will support implementation of the 

standards to ensure that decisions 

EFFICIENCY MEASURES FOR GOAL 4 

Efficiency measures relate results to the resources or 

time invested to achieve those results and augment 

effectiveness measures in evaluating performance. 

They help us integrate EPA’s budget and performance—part of the President’s Management Agenda— 

and demonstrate the cost-effectiveness and timeliness 

of program activities. 

Among the strategic targets in this goal are three efficiency measures, including one that targets a reduction 

in the length of time EPA requires to make registration 

decisions for conventional and new reduced-risk pesticide active ingredients: 

By 2008, reduce registration decision times by 10 percent 

for conventional new active ingredients and 5 percent for 

reduced-risk new active ingredients from the 1995-2002 

baseline of 40 months for conventional new active ingredients and 24 months for reduced-risk conventional new 

active ingredients. 
To enable us to meet our regulatory and 

policy objectives for healthy people, communities, and ecosystems, EPA’s Office of 

Research and Development has developed 

multi-year plans for research on safe food, 

pesticides, and toxics; global change; ecological assessment; human health; endocrine 

disruptors; and mercury. These plans lay out 

long-term research goals for the next 5 to 10 

years and annual milestones needed to 

achieve these goals.34 In addition, we will 

conduct research on computational toxicology and PBT pollutants. 

Safer Food, Pesticides, and Chemical 

Products 

The Safe Food Research Program, developed in response to FQPA, builds on earlier 

research to reduce scientific uncertainty in 

risk assessment. Research will provide data 

needed to develop refined aggregate and 

cumulative risk assessments, develop appropriate safety factors to protect children 

and other sensitive populations, refine risk 

assessments, and provide risk mitigation technologies to reduce risks to humans. By 2008, 

EPA will provide scientific tools that can be 

used to characterize, assess, and manage risks 

addressed under FQPA. 

Additional research on pesticides and 

toxics provides results that support the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act and TSCA. EPA’s multiyear plans for safe pesticides/safe products 

outline research designed to enhance the 

Agency’s human health and ecological risk 

assessment and risk management capabilities 

and includes the development of predictive 

Global Change 

The Global Change Research Act of 

1990 establishes a coordinated, comprehensive, interagency research program on global 

change, in which EPA participates. In conducting research and analysis on the 

potential impacts of global climate change, 

EPA will make certain that our work is coordinated and consistent with the Climate 

Change Science Program (CCSP) Strategic 

Plan that was released on July 24, 2003. 

Further, we will collaborate closely with the 

CCSP Director (who also serves as the 

Deputy Administrator of the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) 

to assist in ensuring appropriate prioritization, efficiency, avoidance of duplication, and 

a consistently high standard of scientific 

review for all aspects of supported studies and 

analyses across the federal government. 

Ecosystem Protection 

Global change, loss and destruction of 

habitat due to sprawl and exploitation of natural resources, invasive species, nonpoint 

source pollution, and the accumulation and 
dynamics, ecological stressors, and ecosystem 

conditions; tools they can use to predict 

stressors on ecological resources; and scientifically defensible methods for protecting and 

restoring ecosystem conditions. 

Human Health 

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. EPA’s 

human health research will focus on a unified 

risk assessment approach that incorporates 

biological modes of toxicity, aggregate and 

cumulative exposures, susceptible subpopulations, and evaluations of public health 

outcomes resulting from risk management 

actions. 

Endocrine Disruptors To support our regulatory mandates, 

EPA’s research will focus on improving our 

scientific understanding of exposures to, 

effects from, and management of endocrinedisruptor chemicals and advancing our 

screening and testing program. We will also 

conduct research to determine the extent 

activities that release mercury from 

and combustion sources in the Un

and methylmercury concentration

humans and wildlife. Regulatory m

require EPA to address these risks. 

Agency’s risk management researc

address managing emissions from c

utilities (critical information for ru

and noncombustion sources of me

fate and transport of mercury to fis

ally-based ecological assessments o

effects of methylmercury on birds; 

methylmercury in human populati

developing risk communication m

and tools. 

Persistent, Bioaccumulative Toxi

Pollutants (PBTs) 

EPA is developing a strategy fo

ing and reducing risks to humans a

environment posed by current and 

exposures to priority PBT chemica

research will help us establish acti

ties for a select list of PBT polluta

and select additional priority PBT 

for action; and develop a cross-cut

routine monitoring strategy. 

Computational Toxicology To enhance the scientific basi

nostic/predictive capabilities of ex

proposed chemical testing program

use in vitro tests (carried out in te

artificial environments instead of 

organisms) or such other approach

molecular profiling, bioinformatics

quantitative structure-activity rela

The term “computational toxicolo

102 
health and safeguard the environment, EPA 

has developed unique scientific and technical 

expertise and possesses capabilities that complement other federal agencies’ homeland 

security efforts. As a key agency charged with 

crisis and consequence management responsibilities under the National Strategy for 

Homeland Security, EPA must be ready to 

deploy its expertise to help detect, prevent, 

protect against, respond to, and recover from 

a terrorist act against the United States. To 

meet this responsibility, EPA will perform a 

number of functions. 

EPA will continue to identify and evaluate biological agents that terrorists may use as 

weapons against the United States. We have 

begun to conduct scientific assessments and 

develop test protocols to determine the efficacy and safety of products that can be used 

against these potential biological threats and 

to develop detection and decontamination 

processes. To provide added protection, we 

will work to educate our partners and the 

public about these pesticides, strengthen the 

certification and training program, and 

improve storage and disposal procedures. 

To support homeland security, EPA conducts research in three main areas: building 

decontamination, water security, and rapid 

risk assessment. 

• Research on decontamination of 

buildings will focus on methods and 

technologies for (1) preventing, 

detecting, and containing biological 

and chemical agents intentionally 

introduced into large buildings or 

structures; (2) decontaminating 

biological and chemical agents intentionally introduced into drinkingwater and wastewater systems. 

• Rapid risk assessment research will 

focus on developing practices and 

procedures that provide elected officials, decision-makers, the public, and 

first responders with rapid risk assessment protocols for chemical and 

biological threats. For more efficient 

emergency response, EPA will also 

inventory the Agency’s, the federal 

government’s, and the private sector’s 

expertise to provide quick access to 

nationally recognized, highly specialized experts in such homeland 

security areas as biology, chemistry, 

exposure assessment, and detection 

and treatment technologies. 

EPA will also provide technical expertise 

to federal, state, and local governments and 

to other institutions. We will use customized 

situational analysis tools for emergency management that deliver secure, reliable, and 

timely data access and communications to 

on-scene coordinators, emergency response 

teams, and field investigators. 
104 

tion, international 

collaboration, global harmonization, 

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. 

Leveraging Partnerships 

EPA depends on its partnerships with 

other federal agencies, states, tribes, local 

governments, and regulated parties to 

achieve results. We use information from a 

variety of federal, state, and international 

organizations and agencies to protect our 

health and our environment from hazardous 

or higher-risk pesticides and toxics. We rely 

especially on states as co-implementors of our 

Nation’s environmental protection programs. 

The Brownfields Program, which partners 

EPA with more than 21 agencies and departments as well as with local communities, 

exemplifies the effectiveness of the collaborative approach. Although federal and state 

programs may be in place to address the difficult issues communities face, too often the 

programs operate in isolation. Successfully 

lead prog

which de

our state 

to encou

owners t

lead-base

in their 

The lead 

also depe

schools a

to screen 

for high 

els of lead. Disrupting these partne

significantly compromise our abilit

achieve our risk reduction goals. 

EPA often relies on such agenc

U.S. Department of Health and H

Services, USDA, the U.S. Departm

Housing and Urban Development 

COE, and FWS to carry out aspect

ronmental protection programs. Th

of EPA’s lead program, for example

depends on HUD’s ability to renov

Nation’s public housing. Annual o

tracking of wetlands inventory info

will depend upon the ability of FW

USDA to deliver national wetland

information more frequently. Simil

USDA’s successful implementation 

Farm Bill’s wetlands provisions is c

reducing wetland losses in rural are

As we rely on other federal age

our state and local government par

EPA’s pesticide programs depend, i

on the voluntary cooperation of th

sector and the public. Farmers favo

spectrum pesticides that are cheape

easier to apply. While EPA reviews 
building other nations capacity to reduce risk 

also contribute to achieving our risk reduction goals. For example, it will be essential for 

both the United States and Mexico to invest 

the necessary resources to achieve the goals 

of the Border 2012 binational effort and to 

collect the data needed to measure progress. 

Continued ecological improvement in 

the Great Lakes will rely on local, state, federal, and the Canadian government’s 

participation in the Great Lakes Strategy 

under the Great Lakes Water Quality 

Agreement. Until invasive species can be 

prevented from entering the Great Lakes 

through cargo ships, they will likely continue 

to impede the achievement of Great Lakes 

ecosystem goals. 

Industry Response 

Progress in reducing risks is often highly 

dependent on industry’s response to EPA 

assistance and initiatives. EPA has no 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. Voluntary programs, such as 

the HPV Challenge Program, operate exclusively on the basis of industry commitments 

for participation. If industry fails to respond 

to such initiatives, the Agency will be less 

able to achieve effective new chemical 

screening efficiently. 

tives, since the ability of grant recipients to 

leverage needed cleanup and redevelopment 

funding and to create jobs depends on economic conditions external to EPA. 

Finally, large-scale accidental releases, 

such as chemical spills, or rare catastrophic 

natural events, such as hurricanes or largescale flooding, could hinder our ability to 

achieve objectives in the short term. Newly 

identified environmental problems and priorities could have a similar effect on long-term 

goals. For example, pesticide use may be 

affected by unanticipated pest infestations or 

disease factors, which would require EPA to 

review emergency uses to avoid unreasonable 

risks to health or the environment. 
106 

gpp()pf

HPV Chemicals (SIDS Manual). Paris, France. Available online at http://www.oecd.org (enter “HP

Chemicals”) at the search window. Accessed September 9, 2003. 

4. Under Section 5 of TSCA, EPA is mandated to determine whether “the manufacture, processing, 

in commerce, use, or disposal of a ‘new’ chemical substance or any combination of such activities 

may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.” Methods for determinin

able risk under TSCA Section 5 are contained in an internal document that is not currently mad

the public. Information from: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevent

Toxics. New Chemicals Program: TSCA 5(e) Exposure-Based Policy: Criteria Web Site. Available 

http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/expbased.htm. Accessed September 9, 2003. 

5. Investigations are underway for baseline development by an internal EPA New Chemicals Program 

Performance workgroup. Results are expected by January 2004 and may be available in the FY 200

Performance Plan to Congress submitted in late January 2004. 

6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 2004. FY 2005 Annual Performance Plan Verifica

Validation of Annual Performance Measures. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

7. Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and Nutrition Exa

Survey: 1999–2002. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. December 22, 2000. Blood Lead Levels in Young Ch

United States and Selected States, 1996-1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Volume 49, 

page 1133. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4950a3.htm. Da

September 24, 2003. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 2004. FY 2005 Annual Performance Plan Verifica

Validation of Annual Performance Measures. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 2004. FY 2005 Annual Performance Plan Verifica

Validation of Annual Performance Measures. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

40 CFR 761.180(a) requires storers and disposers of PCB waste to submit an annual report to thei

regional offices. The annual report is based on a calendar year but is not required until the followi

ing in a delay in generation of the trend summary. The regions send summaries of annual report d

Headquarters for generation of an annual report summary. These data provide PCB disposal trend

information for the last 3 years (1999-2001) indicate a downward trend in PCB disposal. 

9. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme. 2000. PCBs in the Russian Federation: Inventory an

Priority Remedial Actions (AMAP Report 2000.3). Moscow: Center for International Projects. 

10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. December 1999, Biennial Re

1998/1999. EPA 735-R-99-02. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

11. Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by Food Quality Protection Act (FQ

408(a)(2)(B). 

12. Toxic Substances Control Act Section 5: Manufacturing and Processing Notices, Public Law 94-46

11, 1976. 

13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. PBT Profiler W

http://www.PBTProfiler.net. Washington, DC. Accessed September 3, 2003. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Pollution Prev

Framework Web Site, http://www.epa.gov/oppt/p2framework/. Washington, DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. January 2003. 

Prevention (P2) Framework. EPA-748-B-03-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Off

Accessed Septem
17. Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics. 2003. National Health and Nutrition Examination 

Survey: 1999-2002. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/htm or at http://www.cdc.gov/ 

nchs/about/major/nhanes/datalink.htm#1999. Washington, DC. Date of access: September 24, 2003. 

18. Octel Worldwide Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Survey. 1998. Octel. 

19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Agency for International Development. Publication 160-B-99-001. 

20. Public Law 107-118, Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, 2002. 

21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.-Mexico Border Program, Border 2012 Program Web Site, 

http://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/. 

22. Beach, Dana. 2002. Coastal Sprawl: The Effects of Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems in the United States. 

Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans Commission. Available online at http://www.pewoceans.org/reports/ 

water_pollution_sprawl.pdf. 

23. The means and strategies outlined here for achieving Sub-objective 4.3.1 must be viewed in tandem with the 

means and strategies outlined under Goal 2, Objective 2, Sub-objective 2.2.2, “Improve Ocean and Coastal 

Waters.” Sub-objective 2.2.2 contains strategic targets for EPA’s vessel discharge, dredged material management, 

and ocean disposal programs, which are integral to the Agency’s efforts to facilitating the ecosystem-scale protection and restoration of natural areas. 

24. Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands Losses in the United States, 1780s to 1980s. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available online at http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/ 

wetloss/wetloss.htm. 

25. Dahl, T.E. 2000. 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 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. 

26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers. December 26, 2002. National 

Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan and Wetlands Mitigation Regulatory Guidance Letter. Available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/map1226withsign.pdf, EPA Office of Water. 

27. U.S. Policy Committee for the Great Lakes. April 2002. A Strategic Plan for the Great Lakes Ecosystem. 

Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/gls/glsvideotest.html. 

28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office. First signed in 1972 and 

Renewed in 1978. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Washington, DC. Available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glwqa/index.html. 

29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office. April 1997. The Great Lakes 

Binational Toxics Strategy. Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/p2/bns.html. 

30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program. June 2000. Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. 

Annapolis, Maryland. Available online at http://chesapeakebay.net/pubs/chesapeake2000agreement.pdf. 

31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program. April 2003. Acres of Bay Grasses. 

Annapolis, Maryland. Available online at http://chesapeakebay.net/status.cfm?sid=88. 

32. EPA’s water quality protection programs are discussed under Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water. 

33. Damstra, T., S. Barlow, A. Bergman, R.Kavlock, and G. Van der Kraak World Health Organization. 2002. 

Global Assessment of the State-of-the-Science of Endocrine Disruptors. International Programme on Chemical 

Safety. Available online at http://www.who.int/pcs/emerg_site/edc/global_edc_toc.htm. 

34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Research Directions: Multi-Year 

Plans Web Site, http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp.htm. 
GOAL 5
Stewardship 

and 

Environmental 

Compliance 

promote environmental stewardship. 

incentives for governments, businesses, and the public that 

the environment by encouraging innovation and providing 

promoting environmental stewardship. Protect human health and 

with environmental requirements, preventing pollution, and 

Improve environmental performance through compliance 
Environmental Stewardsh

Compliance and 

This goal is designed to protect human health and the 

environment by improving environmental behavior 

through regulatory and nonregulatory 

compliance. Stewards of the environment recycle 

the greatest extent possible, minimize or eliminate 

its sources, and use energy a

means. Under this goal, EPA will 

OBJECTIVES 

Objective 5.1: Improve 

Compliance . . . . . . . . 111 

Objective 5.2: 

Improve Environmental 

Performance Through 

Pollution Prevention 

and Innovation . . . . . 114 

Objective 5.3: Build 

Tribal Capacity . . . . . 120 

Objective 5.4: 

Enhance Science and 

Research . . . . . . . . . . 121 

resources efficiently to reduc

work to ensure that government, on the environment. Under 

business, and the public meet federal EPA will strive to use scienc

environmental requirements and will research more strategically an

empower and assist them to do more. ly to inform Agency policy d

EPA programs designed to ensure to guide compliance, pollutio

compliance with federal environmen- tion, and environmental stew

tal laws and regulations, to increase efforts. Finally, EPA will wo

voluntary and self-directed actions to vide necessary environmenta

minimize or eliminate pollution before to the Nation’s tribes and wi

it is generated (pollution prevention), them in building the capacity 

and to promote environmental stew- ment environmental program

ardship behavior all contribute to the needed and feasible. 

achievement of this goal. 

EPA uses the term “environmental stewardship” to 

describe behavior that includes, but also exceeds, required 
Sub-objective 5.1.1: Compliance 

Assistance. By 2008, prevent noncompliance 

or reduce environmental risks through EPA 

compliance assistance by achieving: a 

5 percentage point increase in the percent of 

regulated entities that improve their understanding of environmental requirements; a 

5 percent increase in the number of regulated 

entities that improve environmental management practices; and a 5 percentage point 

increase in the percent of regulated entities 

that reduce, treat, or eliminate pollution. 

(Baseline to be determined for 2005.3

) 

Sub-objective 5.1.2: Compliance 

Incentives. By 2008, identify and correct 

noncompliance and reduce environmental 

risks through a 5 percentage point increase in 

the percent of facilities that use EPA incentive policies to conduct environmental audits 

or other actions that reduce, treat, or eliminate pollution or improve environmental 

management practices. (Baseline to be 

determined for 2005.4

) 

Sub-objective 5.1.3: Monitoring and 

Enforcement. By 2008, identify, correct, and 

deter noncompliance and reduce environmental risks through monitoring and enforcement 

by achieving: a 5 percent increase in complying actions taken during inspections; a 

5 percentage point increase in the percent of 

enforcement actions requiring that pollutants 

be reduced, treated, or eliminated; and a 

5 percentage point increase in the percent of 

enforcement actions requiring improvement of 

environmental management practices. 

(Baseline to be determined for 2005.5

) 

Environmental laws and regulations are 

designed to protect human health and safeguard the environment. But they can achieve 

their purpose only when companies and facilities comply with requirements. Companies 

or facilities that do not comply with statutory 

or regulatory requirements can gain an unfair 

economic advantage over those that invest 

the resources necessary to comply. EPA works 

cooperatively with state, local, and tribal 

agencies to secure and maintain compliance 

by the maximum number of the Nation’s 41 

million regulated entities.6 To reduce noncompliance and the 

environmental risks 

that can result, EPA 

and its partners 

provide compliance 

assistance to promote 

understanding of 

environmental 

regulations; offer 

incentives that 

encourage facilities 

to identify violations; 

monitor compliance 

through inspections 

and investigations; 

and conduct civil and criminal enforcement 

actions to correct violations and deter future 

noncompliance. By combining these tools 

appropriately to address specific problems, we 

and our partners can prevent and reduce pollution, thereby protecting human health and 

the environment. 

MEANS AND STRATEGIES FOR 

ACHIEVING OBJECTIVE 5.1 
112 

We will continue to improve our working 

relationships with state, local, and tribal 

environmental compliance programs to produce maximum compliance by regulated 

facilities. Specifically, EPA will (1) work with 

states to ensure a consistent level of effort in 

state enforcement and compliance assurance 

programs; (2) expand the role of its partners 

in identifying national priorities for the federal enforcement and compliance assurance 

programs; (3) better integrate strategic planning efforts at the state, regional, and 

national levels; (4) share information about 

patterns of noncompliance or emerging risks 

which need to be addressed; and (5) explore 

development of common performance measures for state enforcement and compliance 

assurance programs. 

The four elements of EPA’s compliance 

program—assistance, incentives, monitoring 

and enforcement—are described in more 

detail below. 

cotue to parter wtstate ad 

ernments and to collaborate with 

associations to equip those workin

with the regulated community wit

ance information. We will continu

as a national repository and point 

for information and materials. Our 

Compliance Assistance Centers w

assistance directly to the regulated 

ty. We will also interact directly w

regulated entities through training

visits, and workshops, and we will 

results of our assistance efforts.7 

The Agency’s partnership acti

include a compliance assistance ex

forum for sharing information on b

tices, outcome measurement, and 

compliance assistance materials; a

agency roundtable of representativ

federal compliance assistance prog

clearinghouse of compliance assist

rials available from federal, state, a

governments; academia; and trade 

tions.8 We will continue to publici

compliance assistance efforts to he

ulated community anticipate and p

violations of federal environmenta

could lead to enforcement actions

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES 

EPA offers a suite of incentive

encourage government, industry, a

facilities to assess their overall com

with environmental requirements 

tarily correct and report complianc

problems. The Agency will contin

the Audit Policy (Self-Policing Po

pg, y 

measures will track the pounds of pollutants reduced 

against the time EPA staff spends in enforcement activities: 

For FY 2005, the two efficiency measures will be pounds 

of pollutants reduced per FTE, and dollars of injunctive 

relief collected per FTE. Since achievement of the Civil 

Enforcement Program’s annual and long-term goals is 

highly dependent on the enforcement cases concluded in 

a given year, there can be significant variability in a 

measure from one year to the next. To partially address 

this variability these efficiency measures are based on 

3-year rolling averages. 
hensively, providing a 

greater overall benefit to 

the environment. 

We will continue to 

work with stakeholders to improve opportunities for industries voluntarily to 

self-disclose and correct violations. The 

Small Business Compliance Policy has 

recently been modified to encourage greater 

participation by small businesses.10 As part of 

the marketing and outreach it conducts to 

support this approach, EPA will work with 

small business compliance assistance 

providers to develop tools small businesses 

can use to understand applicable environmental requirements and take advantage of 

the flexibility offered by the policy. EPA also 

will continue to encourage states to adopt 

and communities to use the policy. 

identify the most egregious violators and 

return them to compliance as quickly as possible. Federal environmental regulations 

establish a baseline for consistent compliance 

levels nationwide. States that have been delegated responsibilities for specific programs 

may make these baseline standards more 

stringent and enforce against the more stringent standards.11 

We will continue to base our compliance 

monitoring and enforcement efforts on 

inspections, investigations, and enforcement 

actions carried out by the Agency and our 

state, tribal, and local government regulatory 

partners. To address the most significant risks 

to human health and the environment, 

including disproportionate burdens on certain populations, we will target inspections, 

civil investigations, and criminal investigations to achieve the greatest reduction in 

pollution. For example, we and our partners 

review compliance data, the results of inspections and investigations, and citizen “tips” 

and complaints to target those areas that 

present high rates of noncompliance and significant risks to human health and the 

environment. 

EPAs compliance program consists of assistance, 

incentives, monitoring, and enforcement. 
Sub-objective 5.2.1: Prevent Pollution and 

Promote Environmental Stewardship by 

Government and the Public. Through 2008, 

reduce pollution and improve environmental 

stewardship practices of all levels of government. Demonstrate how government 

agencies can serve as stewards of the environment and assist them in meeting their 

responsibilities under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Raise 

the public’s awareness of actions it can take 

to prevent pollution. 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2006, reduce Toxic Release 

Inventory (TRI)-reported toxic chemical releases at federal facilities by 40 

percent, from a baseline year of 2001.12 

• By 2008, EPA will go beyond compliance with executive orders to “green” 

federal government operations in its 

purchases of “green” products and 

services from a baseline year of 2002.13 

• By 2008, all federal agencies will have 

defined Environmentally Preferable 

Purchasing programs and p

place and will be expandin

purchases of available “gre

ucts and services, from a b

one federal agency in 2002

• Through 2008, 70 percent 

cant impacts identified by 

the NEPA review of all ma

posed federal actions are m

• Through 2008, 90 percent 

projects subject to NEPA 

Environmental Assessmen

Environmental Impact Sta

requirements result in a fin

significant environmental 

Sub-objective 5.2.2: Prevent Poll

Promote Environmental Stewards

Business. Through 2008, reduce p

and improve environmental stewar

tices in business operations by adop

efficient, sustainable, and protectiv

practices, materials, and technolog

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2008, reduce by 40 per

chemical releases to the en

from the business sector pe

production (“Clean Index

reduce by 20 percent TRI 

in production-related wast

ed by the business sector p

production (“Green Index

the baseline year of 2001.1

GENERATE LESS POLLUTION, THE REDUCTION OF REGULATORY BARRIERS, AN

ADOPTION OF RESULTS

-BASED, INNOVATIVE, AND MULTIMEDIA APPROACHES. 

114 
• By 2008, reduce 165 thousand metric 

tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions through the Green Chemistry 

Challenge Awards, from a baseline 

year of 1996.17 

Sub-objective 5.2.3: Business and 

Community Innovation. Through 2008, 

achieve measurably improved environmental 

performance through sector-based approaches, performance-based programs, and 

assistance to small business. 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2008, Performance Track members collectively will achieve an 

annual reduction of: 1.5 billion 

gallons in water use; 3,300,000 

MMBTUs in energy use; 25,000 tons 

in materials use; 450,000 tons of solid 

waste; 10,000 tons of air releases; and 

19,000 tons in water discharges compared to 2001.18 

• Through 2008, the Sector Strategies 

Program will work with participating 

business and service sectors to 

achieve aggregate reductions in environmental impacts of 15 percent in 

water use, energy use, waste generation or disposal, air releases, or water 

discharges. (Improvements will be 

measured from baselines selected in 

2004 for individual sectors.) 

Sub-objective 5.2.4: Environmental Policy 

Innovation. Through 2008, achieve measurably improved environmental and economic 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2008, facilities that 

partner to demonstrate alternative 

regulatory or technological approaches will 

collectively achieve 

an environmental improvement of 

10 percent in water use, energy use, 

waste generation or disposal, air 

releases, or water discharges, or an 

increase of 10 percent in cost effectiveness or efficiency while achieving 

equal or improved environmental 

results. (Improved environmental 

performance from alternative 

approaches will be measured against 

the baseline year in which each project is initiated.19) 

• By 2008, state projects conducted 

under the State Innovation Grant 

Program, Environmental Results 

Program, and the Joint EPA/State 

Agreement to Pursue Regulatory 

Innovation will collectively achieve 

an environmental improvement of 

15 percent in water and energy use, 

waste generation or disposal, releases 

of contaminants into the air or water, 

or habitat quality, or an increase of 

15 percent in cost effectiveness or 

efficiency while achieving equal or 

improved environmental results. 

(Improved environmental performance from alternative approaches will 

be measured against the baseline year 

in which each project is initiated.20) 
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. 

EPA intends to achieve its 

pollution prevention goals 

through voluntary partnerships. The Agency will work 

with industry to build pollution prevention into the 

design of manufacturing 

processes and products and 

will team with states, tribes, 

and governments at all levels 

to find simple, voluntary, and 

cost-effective pollution prevention solutions. EPA will 

promote the principles of 

responsible stewardship, sustainability, and accountability 

in developing approaches to 

prevent pollution. 

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing 

Executive Order 13101 mandates that 

EPA assist executive agencies in making purchasing decisions that minimize damage to the 

environment.22 The Agency established the 

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) 

program to provide guidance and carry out a 

variety of initiatives and outreach activities for 

a wide constituency, including federal agencies.23 Under the EPP program, EPA will help 

purchasers conduct thorough life-cycle analyses to identify those products that generate the 

impacts on the environment). The 

will also invest in the development 

such as life-cycle analysis tools, tha

and purchasers can use to identify k

ronmental attributes and evaluate t

environmental performance of prod

developing and distributing these t

will coordinate and cooperate with 

states, tribes, and environmental gr

will rely on the expertise of other f

cies, such as the National Institute 

Standards and Technology. 

Biobased Products and Energy 

Under Executive Order 13134 

Farm Bill,24 EPA has an important 

developing and promoting biobase

and energy. Biobased products are 

renewable agricultural, animal, or 

materials, such as vegetable-based 

biofuels, and compost. The Order 

of tripling U.S. use of bioenergy an

ucts by 2010. To meet this goal, EP

work closely with the U.S. Depart

Agriculture not only to promote th

these renewable resources, but also 

that they protect the environment

Pollution Prevention State Grant 

EPA remains committed to hel

try further prevent pollution by ado

efficient, sustainable, and protectiv

practices, materials, and technologi

component of our strategy is the co

of the Pollution Prevention State G

gram.25 Annually, EPA provides $6 

states and tribes to support their eff

vide industry with technical assista

116 
Apart from its work with business, the 

Agency will continue to target prevention of 

hazardous chemical releases and wastes generated by federal facilities. Working with the 

states, in coordination with other federal 

agencies, and armed with pollution prevention 

tools, technologies, and data generated 

through TRI, we will work to reduce toxic 

chemical releases at federal facilities by 40 percent (from a 2001 baseline) by 2006.26 To help 

achieve this goal, and to continue reducing 

other environmental impacts at federal facilities, we will promote the use of environmental 

management systems (EMSs) under Executive 

Order 13148.27 These systems help to address 

environmental impacts through measured 

problem identification and response, rather 

than crisis management. Leading by example, 

EPA will be implementing EMSs at 34 of its 

own facilities. 

Green Chemistry 

EPA’s Green 

Chemistry Program28 

supports research and fosters development and 

implementation of innovative chemical technologies to prevent pollution in a scientifically 

sound, cost-effective manner. 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. 

Green Engineering and Design for the 

Environment 

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 (GE) program29 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. A goal of the GE 

program is 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 Program30 

promotes integration of cleaner, cheaper, and 

smarter pollution prevention solutions into 

everyday business practices. DfE 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. 

 The regulatory development process. 

• Collaboration and communication. 

• Grant management. 

• Federal Indian legal and other issues. 

We will also use a range of flexible hiring authorities 

to quickly recruit skilled scientists, researchers, and 

others, and we will further develop our existing workforce by rotating senior-level managers and staff across 

air, water, and land programs. 
Conservation Challenge, or 

RCC). This program encourages EPA, state and local 

governments, manufacturers, 

and other nongovernmental 

organizations to form voluntary partnerships to reduce 

the generation of hazardous wastes containing 

any of 30 priority chemicals. Companies that 

become Waste Minimization Partners are publicly recognized for their contribution to the 

national reduction goal. In 2003, EPA worked 

with a limited number of Charter Members in 

a pilot effort to ensure that all aspects of the 

program were operating smoothly. EPA will 

now be accepting applications from additional 

companies that meet membership criteria, 

with the goal of recruiting 100 new partners, 

including Fortune 500 companies and small 

businesses, over the next 5 years. Our primary 

goal, however, will remain not the number of 

program participants, but the reductions in 

chemical wastes that can be achieved. 

The RCC also 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 

reward stewardship. In collaboratio

state and tribal partners, the Agen

continue to focus its efforts on inn

that will assist small businesses and 

nities in improving both their env

performance and their bottom line

prepared an Innovations Strategy 

our efforts in this and other areas. 

gy relies on continued outreach to 

tribes, and business to help identif

tive approaches that merit testing, 

evaluation, and implementation. 

Improving Business and Communi

Environmental Performance 

EPA will continue to advance 

mental protection through innova

collaborative approaches with bus

other governmental entities. EPA’s 

Environment Performance Track p

example, recognizes and rewards su

environmental performance and m

improvement. Through Performan

the Agency will continue to recru

forming facilities that have the 

environmental policies and manag

tems needed to deliver better resul

create mechanisms and resources f

information that can help other P

Track members and prospective m

improve their performance. 

Under its Sector Performance I

ment Program, EPA tailors environ

performance improvement efforts t

industry sectors. The Agency will c

to select sectors based on criteria, s

impact on national and regional pr

trade association interest, and facil

EMS development. The Agency w

118 
To foster innovation in environmental 

protection, the Agency reaches out to states, 

tribes, businesses, and others to identify new 

approaches that merit further testing, development, and potential dissemination. Over the 

next 5 years, EPA plans to test and demonstrate various innovations. In partnership with 

states and industry, and through programs and 

agreements that have been created since the 

mid-1990s, we will focus on priority environmental problems to improve environmental 

protection while increasing efficiency and cost 

savings. For example, the State Innovation 

Grant Program will fund projects that use 

innovative approaches to permitting. The program will broaden its solicitation of state and 

tribal projects and will continue to provide 

direct assistance on a number of the most 

promising projects. The Agency also will continue to collect, review, approve, and help 

implement state proposals through the Joint 

EPA/State Agreement to Pursue Regulatory 

Innovation. 

EPA will continue to promote promising 

innovations that provide for the use of more 

flexible and performance-based regulation, 

multimedia approaches, incentives for superior 

performance, market-based approaches, public 

involvement processes, and programs tailored 

for small sources. In some cases these improvements will be brought about through changes 

in national rules or policies; in others, they 

may occur through a more gradual process of 

adopting new techniques across states or 

Agency programs. EPA will facilitate these 

processes by encouraging Agency, state, and 

tribal staff to submit innovative ideas and suggestions to a central point; using the Agency’s 

Innovation Action Council as a forum to 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT 

EPA actions that are subject to NEPA 

requirements include wastewater and drinkingwater treatment plant construction and other 

grants, EPA-issued new-source water discharge 

permits, and EPA facility construction. For 

actions that may impact the environment, 

EPA prepares either an environmental assessment that supports a finding of no significant 

impact or an environmental impact statement. 

The Agency will continue to comply fully 

with NEPA requirements and to implement 

mitigation measures to ensure that EPA-sponsored activities result in no significant 

environmental impact. 

Section 309 of the 

Clean Air Act requires 

EPA to review and make 

public its comments on 

other federal agencies’ 

environmental impact 

statements. EPA performs this role in 

consultation with the 

White House Council on 

Environmental Quality. 

EPA also promotes environmental stewardship by establishing strong 

working relationships with other agencies. For 

example, EPA helps other agencies scope out 

their environmental impact statements; assists 

them in developing projects to avoid environmental impacts; supports streamlined 

environmental review processes; participates in 

rotational assignment programs; participates in 

interagency work groups; and provides training 

and guidance. 
120 

Strategic Targets: 

• By 2008, increase tribes’ ability to 

develop environmental program 

capacity by ensuring that 100 percent 

of federally recognized tribes have 

access to an environmental presence. 

(FY 2002 baseline: 82 percent of 

tribes.31) 

• By 2008, develop or integrate 15 

(cumulative) EPA and interagency 

data systems to facilitate the use of 

EPA Tribal Enterprise Architecture 

information in setting environmental 

priorities and informing policy decisions. (FY 2003 baseline: 2.32) 

• By 2008, eliminate 20 percent of the 

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. 

(FY 2003 baseline: 26 data gaps.33) 

• By 2008, increase implementation of 

environmental programs in Indian 

country to 189 (cumulative total) as 

determined by program delegations, 

approvals, or primacies issued to 

tribes and EPA direct implementation. (FY 2002 Baseline: 149.34) 

• By 2008, increase by 52 the number of 

EPA-approved quality assurance plans 

for tribal environmental monitoring 

and assessment activities. (FY 2003 

baseline: approximately 243 plans.35) 

• By 2008, increase by 50 percent the 

number of EPA agreements with tribes 

that reflect holistic program integration 

and traditional use of natur

(FY 2003 baseline: 45 Perfo

Partnership Grants and EPA

Environmental Agreements

EPA’s strategy for achieving its 

in Indian country has three major 

nents. First, the Agency will work 

the information technology infrast

needed to measure environmental 

in Indian country and related land

ure the environmental results that 

from the implementation of enviro

programs on those lands. Second, E

continue to distribute Indian Gene

Assistance Program capacity-build

with the goal of establishing an en

tal presence in all 572 federally rec

tribes in the United States.37 Third

American Indian Environmental O

continue to coordinate closely with 

programs to guide and track the tim

appropriate implementation of tho

directly on Indian lands.38 This wo

related to efforts described under th

component of EPA’s cross-goal part

strategy in the following chapter. 

EPA will continue to construc

information technology infrastruct

organizes environmental data on a 

enabling a clear, up-to-date picture 

ronmental activities in Indian coun

will take advantage of new techno

establish direct links with other fed

cies (including the U.S. Geologica

MEANS AND 

STRATEGIES FOR 

ACHIEVING OBJECTIVE 5.3 
Performance and Results Act [GPRA] tracking 

systems) to follow progress in achieving tribal 

objectives, sub-objectives, and strategic targets 

on a real-time basis. The Agency will use data 

available through the Tribal Enterprise 

Architecture and allied GPRA tracking systems to adjust approaches and activities as 

necessary to achieve improved results on tribal 

lands and to report to the tribes on the 

Agency’s progress. These tools will also help 

EPA determine the resources and skills needed 

over the 5-year cycle of the Strategic Plan. 

Consultation and direct partnerships with 

tribes are integral to EPA’s strategy. The Tribal 

Caucus, which has advised the Agency on 

tribal issues for several years, will serve as the 

focal point for work under this objective and 

will help facilitate continued development of 

EPA-tribal partnerships. To improve the environment in Indian country, the Agency will 

also engage other EPA-sponsored tribal 

groups, such as the Tribal Committee of the 

Forum on State and Tribal Toxics Action,39 

the Tribal Pesticides Program Council,40 and 

the Tribal Science Council.41 

OBJECTIVE 5.4: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH 

THROUGH 2008, STRENGTHEN THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH 

SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES AND DECISIONS ON COMPLIANCE, POLLUTION 

PREVENTION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP. 

Sub-objective 5.4.1: Strengthening Science. 

By 2008, all (100 percent of) routine 

National Enforcement Investigations Center 

environmental measurements (field or 

laboratory) will be accredited by an internationally recognized, third-party organization. 

(FY 2001 baseline: 30 areas of environmental 

data collection.42) 

Sub-objective 5.4.2: Conducting Research. 

Conduct leading-edge, sound scientific 

research on pollution prevention, new technology development, socioeconomics, and 

decision-making. By 2008, the products of 

this research will be independently recognized as providing critical and key evidence 

in informing Agency policies and decisions 

and solving problems for the Agency and its 

partners. (Also see Research, under CrossAgency and Support-Program Evaluations in 

Appendix 2 of this Strategic Plan.) 

EPA is working to strengthen the science 

that it needs to make sound decisions and 

establish effective compliance and enforcement policies. The Agency is continuing to 

conduct research on pollution prevention, 

new and developing technologies, social and 

MEANS AND STRATEGIES FOR 

ACHIEVING OBJECTIVE 5.4 
122 

of the regulated community and will provide 

tools and strategies to help them meet those 

requirements. 

STRENGTHENING SCIENCE 

EPA’s science 

work under Goal 5 

has a two-fold purpose: (1) to improve 

the science that supports compliance monitoring, inspections, investigations, case 

support, and selected regulations; and (2) to 

continue to provide premier investigatory 

work to support the Agency’s enforcement 

and compliance assistance activities. To 

accomplish these ends, EPA’s National 

Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC)43 

and EPA regional laboratories will implement 

a nationally and/or internationally recognized 

quality system that provides for third-party 

oversight and features both technical/ 

scientific and the forensic elements of environmental data collection and measurement. 

Through NEIC and our regional laboratories, 

we will also work to improve field and laboratory measurement techniques and to 

advance innovative analytical approaches to 

support compliance and enforcement efforts. CONDUCTING RESEARCH 

EPA will work with its partners and 

stakeholders to identify research needs, set 

priorities, and develop project plans. We will 

concentrate on (1) research that will help 

Development will conduct researc

pare reports and assessments on re

resources, metal processing fluids, 

and buildings. We will share these 

with industry, academia, and other 

to further their work in preventing 

Other research efforts will resu

generic, sustainable environmental 

methodologies for watershed mana

(using market incentives, ecologica

models, hydrological models, and p

ance management frameworks); an 

of the effectiveness and efficiency 

based incentive approaches, as com

traditional environmental regulatio

efforts to make innovative environ

technologies commercially availab

technologies EPA would use for bu

decontamination and water securit

EPA has developed Multi-Year 

Plans that describe the research w

duct on pollution prevention and 

technologies and on economics an

sciences during the next 5 to 10 ye

plans lay out long-term research go

as the annual milestones needed to 

these goals.44 

Pollution Prevention and New Te

Over the last decade, the Age

increasingly focused on pollution p

in addressing high-risk human hea

environmental problems. A preven

approach requires (1) innovative d

production techniques that minim

inate adverse environmental impa

holistic approaches that make the 
control pollution by targeting sources and sectors that pose the greatest risks to human 

health and the environment. For example, 

this research will provide credible performance 

data for commercial environmental technologies to aid vendors in marketing innovative 

technologies, buyers in making purchasing 

decisions, and permitters in making decisions 

about environmental technologies. Research 

results can assist EPA and states in improving 

compliance performance by providing information and tools for cleaner, cost-effective 

industrial processes and new technologies and 

verifying the performance of commercial technologies. Research results will also provide 

technical options and alternatives for improving environmental management. Approaches 

to sustainable environmental systems developed through this research will provide 

cost-effective methods of protecting sensitive 

ecosystems. For instance, this research can 

help build tribal capacity by providing holistic, 

multimedia solutions at the watershed scale 

that take local cultural values into account 

and promote sustainable practices. 

Economics and Decision Sciences 

EPA conducts economics and decisionsciences research to increase our 

understanding of human behavior toward the 

environment, enabling us to develop policies 

that can alter behaviors that contribute to 

environmental problems. This research also 

informs state and other federal agencies on 

how to best and most cost-effectively accomplish three overarching responsibilities: 

(1) anticipating, identifying, and setting priorities for managing environmental problems 

to protect ecological and human health; 

public preferences, and developing implementation strategies that provide incentives for 

desirable behavioral responses to government 

interventions. For example, this research will 

help us understand the motivations driving 

human behavior toward protecting the environment, the techniques for implementing 

environmental policy most effectively and efficiently (e.g., traditional regulation, market and 

economic incentives, information disclosure), 

and the monetary value society attaches to 

healthy people and healthy ecosystems. 

The results of our research on compliance behavior of regulated entities will help 

EPA and states improve compliance performance and promote environmental 

stewardship. We and our partners will rely on 

research into market-based approaches and 

economic incentives to develop innovative 

alternatives to traditional regulatory 

approaches. As we establish regulations to 

protect human health and the environment, 

research on valuation will enable us to make 

informed decisions on which environmental 

problems to address and the public benefits 

to be derived from various types of standards 

and levels of stringency. 
124 

security and responding to real or potential 

terrorist threats—may require the Agency to 

revise its priorities and redirect its resources. 

The Agency relies heavily on its partnerships to advance protection of human health 

and the environment. For example, many of 

the strategic targets the Agency has set under 

this goal are predicated on the assumption 

that states and tribes will be able to maintain 

or increase their levels of compliance and 

enforcement work, or that the U.S. 

Department of Justice will accept or prosecute cases. 

In the area of pollution prevention, for 

example, 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 DfE 

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. And 

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 might not realize an immediate payoff. EPA’s ability to carry out its 

voluntary pollution prevention initiatives 

uses EPAs data and information is 

ing. As states and tribes develop th

to integrate their environmental in

EPA will need to adjust its systems 

that it can receive and process rep

states and industry under Agency 

requirements. Citizen and commu

zations and the public at large are 

increasingly involved in environm

decision-making, and their need fo

information and more sophisticate

cal tools is growing. 

Finally, the regulated commun

ingness to comply with the law and 

minimum requirements is an obvio

the Agency’s achievement of its co

and environmental stewardship go

component of our waste minimizat

for reducing priority chemicals from 

streams, for example, is the commi

small and large businesses make to 

EPA and other governmental organ

address the targeted chemicals. 
environmental management practicesfor 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 in EPA’s Case Conclusion Data 

Sheet Training Booklet, available online at www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/planning/ 

caseconc.pdf, EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Washington, DC. 

3. The performance results achieved in FY 2005 will serve as the baseline from which future performance results 

will be compared. EPA will establish this objective’s baseline in FY 2005 by analyzing data collected through 

EPA’s Reporting Compliance Assistance Tracking System (RCATS), Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance, Washington, DC. RCATS is an internal tracking system and not available to the public. 

4. The performance results achieved in FY 2005 will serve as the baseline from which future performance results 

are compared. EPA will establish this objective’s baseline in FY 2005 by analyzing data collected through EPA’s 

Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS), Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, 

Washington, DC. ICIS is an internal EPA database and not available to the public 

5. The performance results achieved in FY 2005 will serve as the baseline from which future performance results 

will be compared. EPA will establish this objective’s baseline in FY 2005 by analyzing data collected through 

EPA’s Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis, (IDEA) database and data collected manually on Inspection 

Conclusion Data Sheets (ICDS), Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Washington, DC. 

Accessed September 10, 2003. Information on IDEA is available at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ 

planning/data/multimedia/idea/users.html. 

6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. November 15, 

2001. OECA Regulatory Universe Identification Table. Internal memorandum. 

7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Compliance 

Assistance Centers Web Site: http://www.assistancecenters.net. Washington, DC. Accessed August 28, 2003. 

8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. National 

Environmental Compliance Assistance Clearinghouse Web Site: http://cfpub.epa.gov/clearinghouse/. 

Washington, DC. Accessed August 28, 2003. 

9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. EPA’s Audit Policy 

Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/incentives/auditing/auditpolicy.html. Washington, DC. Accessed 

August 28, 2003. 

10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Small Business 

Compliance Policy. Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/ 

incentives/smallbusiness/sbcomppolicy.pdf. Accessed August 28, 2003. 

11. The Environmental Council of States (ECOS), State Information Web Site: http://www.sso.org/ecos/states/ 

StateInfo.htm#Delegations. Washington, DC. Accessed August 28, 2003. 

12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. 2001 Toxic Release Inventory 

Public Data Release. Washington, DC. vailable online at http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri01/pdr/ 

chapter2.pdf. Accessed September 26, 2003. 

13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Administration and Resources Management. In development: New EPA tracking system to track the purchase of environmentally preferable procurements. 

A
126 

Public Data Release. Washington, DC. vailable online at http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri01/pdr

chapter2.pdf. Accessed September 26, 2003. 

17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. 2001 Toxic Release 

Public Data Release. Washington, DC. vailable online at http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri01/pdr

chapter2.pdf. Accessed September 26, 2003. 

18. These improvements are beyond existing regulatory requirements. 

19. For every EPA-supported project, assistance agreements or other mechanisms will include a provis

ing recipients to quantify changes (i.e., improvements) to their environmental media, cost effectiv

workload efficiency. These changes will be measured against a baseline year in which the projecte

20. For every EPA-supported project, assistance agreements or other mechanisms will include a provis

ing recipients to quantify changes (i.e., improvements) to their environmental media, cost effectiv

workload efficiency. These changes will be measured against a baseline year in which the projecte

21. Pollution Prevention Act. U.S. Code Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, Chapter 133, sec. 

Policy. 

22. Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition, 63 Fe

49643. September 16, 1998. 

23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Environmenta

Purchasing Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/epp. Accessed September 9, 2003. 

24. Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-17). 

Executive Order 13134, Developing and Promoting Biobased Products and Bioenergy (Federal Reg

No. 157, 8/16/99). 

25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Pollution Prev

Grants Web Site, http://www.epa.gov/p2/grants/index.htm. Accessed September 9, 2003. 

26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. 2001 Toxic Release 

Public Data Release. Washington, DC. vailable online at http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri01/pdr

chapter2.pdf. Accessed September 26, 2003. 

27. Greening the Government Through Leadership in Environmental Management. 65 Federal Registe

April 26, 2000. 

28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Green Chemi

Site: http://www.epa.gov/greenchemistry. Washington, DC. Accessed September 9, 2003. 

29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Green Engine

Site: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/greenengineering. Washington, DC. Accessed September 9, 2003. 

30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Design for the 

Environment Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/dfe. Washington, DC. Accessed September 9, 2003 

31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, American Indian Environmental Office. 

Tracking System:: http://gap.tetratech-ffx.com. Washington, DC. Internal EPA data base, not acce

public. 

A

A

A
gy, , 

Accountability Tracking System. Washington, DC. Password-protected database; not accessible to the public. 

37. Federal Register 67: 46328 (July 12, 2002). 

38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, American Indian Environmental Office. American 

Indian Environmental Office Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/indian. Washington, DC. 

39. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of 

Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Assistance Division. ECOS FOSTTA Activities Web Site: 

http://www.sso.org/ecos/projects/FOSTTA/ECOSFOSTTA.html. Washington, DC. 

40. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide 

Programs. Tribal Pesticide Program Council Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/tribes/tppc.htm. 

Washington, DC. 

41. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Office of Science Policy. Tribal 

Science Council Mission Statement Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/osp/tribes/tsc.htm. Washington, DC. 

42. Accreditation standard based upon ISO 17025. Available online at: http://www.asq.org and 

http://www.nfstc.org. 

43. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. National 

Enforcement Investigations Center Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/about/offices/division/neic.html.

Washington, DC. Accessed August 19, 2003. 

44. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. ear 

Plans Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp.htm. Washington, DC. Accessed August 26, 2003. 

Research Directions: Multi-Y

Cross-Goal 

Strategies 
Strategies 

Many of EPA’s efforts—strengthening our partnerships with states and tribes, improving the quality and 

availability of the environmental and 

health information on which we base 

Each of these efforts is a significant compo

our work and plays a critical role in the accom

of all of our goals. This chapte

a few of these cross-goal strate

our decisions, and improving our 

management systems to achieve 

better results—contribute to our 

progress toward all five of our goals. 

This cross-Agency, cross-media 

work includes both support functions, such as administrative and 

CONTENTS 

Partnerships. . . . . . . 131 

Information . . . . . . . 134 

Innovation . . . . . . . . 140 

Human Capital . . . . 146 

Science . . . . . . . . . . . 153 

Homeland 

Security. . . . . . . . . . . 161 

Economic and Policy 

Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 165 

Partnerships, Information, Inn

Human Capital, Science, Hom

Security, and Economic and P

Analysis. For each, we will di

Agency’s approach, explain ho

strategy will contribute to the a

ment of our goals, and describ

financial management or legal services, and the strategies 

or means we employ to help accomplish our objectives, 

such as science and research or information management. 

the activities we will conduct and results we ho

achieve using this approach. 
recogniing the unique concerns and contri

butions that each of us brings to the table, 

working together to address environmental 

problems and achieve results. The discussion 

that follows outlines our approach to establishing and improving our partnerships with 

states and tribes. 

STATE PARTNERSHIPS 

EPA’s partnership strategy is based on the 

belief that states and EPA are equal partners 

in the national effort to protect human 

health and the environment. Progress toward 

all five of our Strategic Plan goals depends not 

only on EPA’s efforts, but on the efforts of all 

50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto 

Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Islands of 

the Pacific Insular areas. 

Most of the Nation’s environmental laws 

envision a strong role for state governments 

in managing environmental and human 

health protection programs. National laws set 

certain goals, standards, and approaches for 

environmental protection to which EPA and 

our state partners are committed. But environmental issues and problems can vary from 

region to region, and EPA is also committed 

to adapting to these situations. 

As state environmental authority and 

management capacity have grown over the 

past three decades, EPA has delegated or 

authorized primary responsibility to states for 

implementing many day-to-day program 

activities, such as issuing permits, conducting 

compliance and enforcement programs, and 

monitoring environmental conditions. States’ 

direct administration of environmental 

the environment and human health across 

the country. 

In 1995, the states and EPA agreed 

on the series of principles that guide our 

collaborative work. Articulated in the Joint 

Commitment to Reform Oversight and 

Create the National Environmental 

Performance Partnership System, the 

“NEPPS Agreement,” these principles call 

upon the states and EPA to set priorities 

jointly; develop performance agreements to 

define their roles, responsibilities, and 

accountability; encourage innovative environmental and human health protection 

strategies; agree upon performance measures; 

and jointly evaluate the results achieved. 

The states and EPA use a variety of tools 

to define their relationship and guide their 

implementation of the Nation’s environmental laws and the principles of the NEPPS 

Agreement. These tools include performance 

partnership agreements (PPAs), performance 

partnership grants (PPGs) and/or categorical 

program grants to states, enforcement agreework with state agricultural and public health 

agencies on environmental protection efforts. 

In 2002 and 2003, state environmental 

commissioners and senior EPA managers 

conducted a joint evaluation of the 

Performance Partnership System. They found 

the Partnership to be based on sound principles, which guide a flexible process for 

adapting environmental goals to local conditions. The evaluation indicated that, by 

breaking down organizational and mediaprogram barriers, states and EPA regional 

offices are building trust. Increased joint 

planning and priority-setting have focused 

state and EPA regional office efforts on 

achieving results, increased work sharing and 

emphasized cross-media approaches, allowed 

more flexibility in funding, and reduced oversight and reporting that is not value-added. 

In addition to these positive findings, the 

joint evaluation identified several problem 

areas for improvement. These included concerns that EPA’s priority-setting and planning 

processes (including PPAs, issuance of 

national program guidance, budgeting, and 

accountability systems) are not aligned in a 

way that fosters 

joint planning and 

priority-setting 

across media program lines. 

In addition, 

transaction costs for 

developing PPAs 

were believed to be 

too high for the 

benefits obtained. 

planning and budgeting processes 

op PPAs that can definitively guid

relationship. Aligning EPA and st

gic planning processes will allow u

inform, influence, and reflect one 

priorities and approaches to achiev

environmental protection goals. In 

ing this Strategic Plan, for example

sought earlier state input on strate

priorities. Similarly, soliciting state 

early in developing EPA’s new Reg

will influence how EPA regions wi

with their state and tribal partners 

achieve the Agency’s strategic goa

objectives. 

This early consultation with ou

is also important as we develop Na

Program Guidance and conduct ou

planning and budgeting. We are re

these processes to lower transaction 

focusing on results, synchronizing p

across program areas, and reducing 

indicators to the fewest necessary t

accountability for results and infor

program management. We will con

work with our partners to develop 

better performance measures that f

outcomes and provide accountabil

Improving Performance Partners

Agreements and Grants We are working to make deve

PPAs less burdensome and more m

by engaging our state partners earl

through more transparent processe

state input to EPA’s Strategic Plan, 

plans, Annual Plan and Budget, an

program guidance will lower transa

132 
tions and provide for joint EPA-state 

performance evaluations that will hold both 

accountable. We will continue to work with 

our state partners through a joint evaluation 

process to identify ways to improve and 

advance PPAs and the methods by which 

they are developed and negotiated. 

Further, recognizing that states and their 

environmental issues and concerns are 

diverse, EPA will continue to develop a range 

of PPAs tailored to state needs. These PPAs 

will contain elements essential to ensure 

alignment, accountability, and a clear definition of the agreement. We will base 

priorities, strategies, and activities on a level 

of reasonable strategic thinking. The PPA 

will be related to architecture presented in 

EPA’s Strategic Plan, will include both programmatic and environmental measures, and 

will outline a process for possible changes 

during its term. 

In addition, EPA is working with states 

to achieve greater value from PPGs. We are 

conducting a structured, three-part effort to 

evaluate and remove barriers that prevent 

EPA and states from taking greater advantage 

of the flexibility that PPGs provide. First, we 

will identify and assess legal and administrative barriers. Next, state and federal 

front-line grant managers and negotiators 

will develop plans for reducing barriers and 

increasing use of PPG flexibility. Finally we 

will build on these efforts to develop a training module and a best practices guide. 

The movement across all levels of government to focus on achieving performance 

demonstrate our support 

for this burgeoning movement. Strengthening our working 

relationship with the states is an important 

part of this performance management effort. 

Together, these initiatives will help to focus 

the entire national environmental protection 

system on achieving improved results. 

TRIBAL PARTNERSHIPS 

EPA’s mission—to protect human health 

and the environment—applies to all our 

Nation, including Indian country and Alaska 

Native villages. In carrying out our mission, 

we will build on our strong foundation of 

working with our tribal partners to ensure 

that our efforts encompass all U.S. lands, 

regardless of ownership status or jurisdiction. 

Tribes have unique cultural, jurisdictional, and legal issues that present special 

challenges to the coordination and implementation of environmental management 

activities in Indian country. EPA’s 1984 

Indian Policy formally recognized the uniqueness of tribal jurisdictional lands. Vital to 

that policy is the principle that EPA works 

with tribes on a government-to-government 

basis that reaffirms the federal trust responsibility to tribes. Therefore, EPA’s work toward 

a comprehensive plan of environmental protection activities in Indian country and 

Alaska Native Villages must use innovative 

approaches and coordinated programs that 

complement tribal government structures, 

incorporate tribal priorities, and recognize 

tribal cultural considerations. 
134 

and Alaska Native Villages is critical to 

maintaining the vibrancy of tribal culture. 

The Agency will collaborate with tribes 

by tailoring environmental programs to pro

results for tribes. Where we lack en

tal data for Indian country, we wil

our work to reduce those data gaps

INFORMATION 

Accurate, timely, and usable information 

is the foundation for decisions and actions 

taken by EPA, states, and others responsible 

for protecting human health and the environment. Effective information management 

is vital to the success of EPA’s mission and 

contributes to the achievement of all Agency 

strategic goals. The federal community has 

recognized and commended EPA for ensuring 

that information investments are made wisely 

to achieve environmental results. 

EPA develops, collects, analyzes, and provides integrated access to information to 

promote more knowledgeable and environmentally responsible attitudes, decisions, and 

actions. EPA strives to provide the 

information, at the right time, in t

format, to the right people. This m

ing quality environmental and ma

information available for developi

mental policies and priorities. It m

making environmental data public

ble to support individual and comm

involvement in decisions that can 

environmental quality and public 

And it means building the necessa

structure to provide secure informa

reliable data, efficient and timely a

analytic information tools. 

New ways of conducting busine

required to meet new, more comple

tion challenges, especially for EPA’s 

responsibility to work with federal, 

local partners to ensure homeland s

The Agency’s cross-cutting informa

strategy, developed in the framewor

President’s Management Agenda, is 

pronged approach to meeting these 

To achieve EPA’s mission, over the 

years EPA’s information strategy wil

• Analytic Capacity—Provi

to new analytic tools that 

data interpretation and en

users to respond to environ

EPA’S CROSS-CUTTING ENVIRONMENTAL 

INFORMATION STRATEGY 

Enhance environmental results through the improved 

use of quality environmental information by EPA 

decision-makers, states, tribes, other partners, and the 

public to: 

• Promote environmentally beneficial action 

• Improve environmental decisions 

• Promote more environmentally responsible attitudes 

• Improve knowledge 
• Excellence in Information Service 

Delivery—Working collaboratively 

with states, tribes, other federal agencies, and key stakeholders to improve 

the efficiency and utility of environmental information. 

Finally, the need to make environmental 

information accessible and usable by the 

American public, including populations that 

have been historically disenfranchised, is critical to solving problems and addressing 

challenges. 

Decisions regarding 

Agency information management can affect EPA 

employees; state, tribal, and 

local partners; and the regulated community. EPA 

employees rely on the 

Agency’s information management systems, central 

information services, and special information resources to 

achieve the Agency’s mission. 

EPA has adapted information 

models that show the clear linkages between 

information investments and achievement of 

efficient, effective environmental results. 

These logical models are part of the business 

case methodology that EPA uses to evaluate 

proposed investments in information technology.1 We will continue to ensure that 

information technology and data initiatives 

directly support EPA’s mission, and are fully 

coordinated within EPA and with the efforts 

of our federal, state, tribal, and local agency 

partners to avoid duplication, reduce burden, 

and increase effectiveness. 

to meeting the 

Agency’s five goals. To 

meet the objectives 

under each goal, EPA, 

other federal agencies, 

states, tribes, and other partners require specific information on environmental and 

human health conditions and analytic tools 

capable of isolating specific stressors associated with those conditions. These capabilities 

must be designed to meet the needs of specific objectives—whether assessing global issues, 

such as stratospheric ozone 

depletion; regional issues, 

such as haze; state-level issues, 

such as watershed protection; 

or local issues, such as ambient air quality protection 

within a particular metropolitan area. 

Improved capacity to 

integrate and analyze environmental data will support crossmedia solutions to complex 

environmental and human 

health problems. Better 

analytic tools will also help EPA fulfill its 

homeland security responsibilities by providing a clear picture of spatial relationships and 

corporate ownership of regulated facilities. 

What We Intend to Accomplish 

Better analytic capabilities will help 

managers to assess existing baseline conditions, isolate data gaps and identify research 

needs, track the implementation of specific 

solutions, and develop methods for evaluating the results achieved. By 2008, EPA will 

Improved use of environmen

information to strengthen EP

states’, and the public’s decisi
136 

assessments of the effectiveness of 

environmental programs. 

• Implement a suite of customized 

tools for emergency management. 

These tools will deliver secure, reliable, and timely data access and 

communications to on-scene coordinators, emergency response teams, 

and investigators from field locations. 

• Continue to increase the availability 

of useful health and environmental 

information. EPA will continue to 

implement the Toxics Release 

Inventory (TRI) Program to provide 

the public with information on 

releases of toxic chemicals to the 

environment.2 The Agency will build 

on the foundation of existing public 

access tools, such as Envirofacts3 

and Window to My Environment4 

(a geographic portal to communitybased environmental information), 

by providing additional access to 

information collected by EPA, its 

partners and stakeholders, and the 

public. 

ae ey orato, tecoogy

ing investments that improve the 

and effectiveness of services and o

Ultimately, this enterprise-wide ap

environmental information manag

benefit EPA and its partners by str

access to and exchange of informa

In 1998, through the State/EP

Information Management Workgr

(IMWG), states and EPA commit

partnership for building locally an

ly accessible, cohesive, and cohere

environmental information system

commitment was codified in the IM

Vision and Operating Principles. 

Improvements made through this 

will help ensure that public and re

agencies have access to informatio

ment environmental performance, 

understand environmental conditi

make sound decisions that ensure 

mental protection. 

Now, with more than 5 years o

experience, the IMWG has develo

specific vision for how this partner

be realized. The National Environ

Information Exchange Network5 is 

to revolutionize the management o

mental information by improving 

of environmental data, providing r

agencies and the public ready acce

and increasing their ability to use 

mation to protect human health a

environment. The Network will b

dards-based, highly interconnected

flexible, and secure and will opera

broad-based, voluntary participatio

environmental agencies and EPA. 

next 5 years, EPA will: 

DESIRED OUTCOMES BY 2008 

• Improved Agency operations including the security, 

collection, and exchange of information by implementing an EPA-wide approach to managing 

technology and information. 

• A highly diverse, well-trained workforce able to fully 

benefit from information technology investments 

and deliver quality and timely information products 

and services. 
• Continue to develop its enterprise 

architecture. Enterprise architecture 

involves identifying the business 

processes that support Agency goals, 

the data needed for measuring environmental results, and the technology 

that most efficiently secures and 

delivers the data. Enterprise architecture promotes wise investments in 

information technology. 

6 

• Continue to focus on partnering. 

EPA will continue to strengthen 

emerging partnerships, identify collaborative goals, promote integrated 

planning, and foster interagency 

coordination with other federal agencies, states, and tribes. The 

foundation for meeting these goals is 

access to the collective data resources 

of all partners. 

• Improve existing governance 

processes. EPA will continue to pursue an investment strategy to support 

a strong Agency information architecture program and investment 

management process, as outlined by 

the Federal Chief Information Officer 

Council and as required by the 

Clinger-Cohen Act.7 The architecture and investment review processes 

that use integrated information systems or more advanced applications 

of the Exchange Network will govern 

funding for individual systems development and modernization. 

tinually adapt to emerging technologies, such 

as electronic-commerce and web services that 

enable organizations to become more productive, effective, and proactive in service 

delivery. Three major themes of change in 

information service delivery are streamlining 

management processes, linking data partners, 

and improving information access. 

Streamlining 

Management 

Processes 

EPA, like 

other public and 

private organizations, is exploiting 

information 

technology to 

streamline internal management processes. 

New administrative systems for financial, personnel, and program management will 

integrate data, eliminating database fragmentation and limited information access. 

Groupware applications are enhancing the 

traditional Agency workgroup process by 

improving information flow, facilitating 

meeting scheduling, and encouraging more 

frequent team member involvement. In other 

organizational settings, changes such as these 

have been shown to deliver measurable 

improvements in the quality and efficiency of 

administrative work processes. 

Linking Data Partners 

Networks will link EPA to federal, state, 

tribal, and other public and private agency 

partners throughout the country to exchange 

policy, research, management, and performance information. In the U.S. economy, 

DESIRED OUTCOME BY 2008 

Enhanced information integrity, 

analysis, and access strengthened 

by software tools and the 

collection of quality and appropriate data. 
138 

Explosive growth 

in data processing 

and storage capacity 

has opened up new 

opportunities for 

accessing data from 

multiple sources. 

Fine-resolution data from local monitoring 

organizations can be assembled into geographic information systems, providing holistic 

environmental pictures on large and small 

geographic scales. Mountains of data collected 

using advanced monitoring technologies in 

space, in the air, and on the ground can be 

placed at the public’s fingertips in usable formats. Integrated public information has been 

shown to deliver bottom-line improvements 

in environmental programs, by closing the 

behavioral gap between environmental policy 

and private actions. 

Improved information service delivery is 

key to the implementation of many of the 

objectives detailed under the Agency’s five 

strategic goals. The utility of environmental 

information, from ambient monitoring data 

to compliance assistance material, will 

depend largely upon the Agency’s ability to 

ensure that the right information is provided 

to the right user at the right time. 

By 2008, EPA will increase the operational efficiency of all Agency business 

processes through the use of information 

technology. Over the next 5 years, EPA will: 

• Solicit partner feedback. Through 

various techniques, EPA will solicit 

feedback to systematically improve 

national environmental sy

will require that data qual

known and appropriate for 

uses. Usability testing and 

satisfaction baselines will e

the information the Agen

is meeting the needs of its 

• Streamline information co

Streamlining will help reg

ties meet regulatory requir

while eventually easing bu

placed on states and the A

collect information. The A

continue to assess the info

reporting burdens placed o

ners and on the regulated 

community, and will align 

tion collection requiremen

specific needs. EPA will im

timeliness and completene

requests for information by 

menting an Agency-wide 

records and document man

system. The Agency plans 

and acquire the necessary 

and hardware to begin pha

mentation of the system th

the Agency. 

9 

• Continue to develop the E

Network. The Exchange N

comprehensive, integrated 

tion exchange program des

strengthen the partnership 

tate information sharing am

states, other federal agenci

localities, the research com

and the regulated commun
multimedia approach to environmental information exchange that is 

standards-based, highly connected, 

flexible, and secure. Additionally, 

through the National Environmental 

Information Exchange Grant Program 

begun in 2002, states and tribes will 

be better positioned to participate in 

the Exchange Network.10 

The Central Data Exchange (CDX)11 

is the electronic portal of the 

Exchange Network, through which 

information is securely received, translated, and forwarded to EPA’s data 

systems. We anticipate that, by 2004, 

the CDX infrastructure will service 46 

states, and more than 25,000 facilities, 

companies, and laboratories will use it 

to provide data to EPA electronically. 

By widely implementing an electronic 

reporting infrastructure, CDX will 

reduce reliance on less efficient, paperbased processes, resulting in reduced 

reporting burden and the creation of 

new opportunities for simplifying the 

reporting process. Electronic reporting 

through CDX will be possible for all of 

the national environmental systems. 

CDX will serve as the Agency’s node 

on the Exchange Network, providing 

data exchange services for states and 

other EPA partners. The Agency will 

make strategic investments in the 

information infrastructure that supports our 10 regional offices. 

• Continue to focus on data quality. 

EPA plays a key role in working with 

data partners to develop and promote 

continue to work with data partners 

to develop and implement data standards. The Agency will also continue 

to implement its Information Quality 

Guidelines to help ensure that information EPA provides to the public is 

of the highest quality. 

12 

FEDERAL INNOVATION IN 

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 

All of EPA’s emerging information 

capabilities will continue to support and 

further the President’s Management Agenda 

Electronic Government (e-Gov) Strategy for 

improving service to individuals, business, 

and others while increasing efficiencies.13 

EPA will continue to collaborate with other 

federal agencies; states; tribes; environmental, public health, and research organizations; 

and local partners to expand Internet access, 

improve the quality of services, and drive 

down the cost of basic government functions. 

The approach of the e-Gov Strategy is to 

simplify processes and unify operations to 

better serve citizens’ needs. EPA will continue to implement 

this vision and 

eliminate redundancies and 

overlaps in such 

functions as small 

business compliance, payroll and 

other resource 

functions, and 

geospatial 

information. 
140 

In addition, the Federal Financial 

Assistance Management Improvement Act of 

1999 mandates that federal agencies work 

together to streamline grant application and 

reporting requirements for all grants and to 

develop a central electronic portal for grant 

application and reporting. EPA continues to 

officer in the Agency for better dec

ing. The system, which supports tra

grant milestones, products, and pos

management activities, will save tim

resources by eliminating duplicate d

avoiding mail and photocopy costs

ing the time it takes to track grants 

and maintain separate grant trackin

INNOVATION 

EPA and many other environmental 

policy leaders see a critical need for 

environmental innovation.15 The U.S. 

environmental protection system is widely 

recognized as one of the strongest in the 

world. For more than 30 years, this system 

has succeeded in cleaning up some of the 

most visible and egregious forms of pollution 

and has provided Americans with strong 

environmental and public health protection. 

But that legacy of progress is challenged 

by an increasingly complex set of environmental problems, such as global climate 

change and polluted runoff, that will require 

a broader set of tools than we have relied 

upon in the past. At the same time, EPA and 

other agencies are experiencing the reality of 

tight budgets and pressure to be m

accountable for results. Other fact

environmental innovation include 

availability of powerful new inform

technologies that can advance env

tal knowledge and public and priv

interests in making environmenta

ment a value-added endeavor. Yet 

factor is the need to address sustai

environmental justice, and other i

interwoven social, economic, and 

mental dimensions. Together, such 

make environmental innovation a

imperative. 

In 2002, EPA released a strate

strengthen environmental protect

the power and promise of innovat

Innovating for Better Environmental 

Strategy To Guide the Next Generat

Environmental Protection is designe

innovation in environmental prog

provides a vision for what our env

protection system should be.16 Tha

one that is now widely shared in t

environmental policy community—

system that puts more emphasis on 

EPA’S INNOVATION STRATEGY 

• Enable state and tribal innovation 

• Use innovation to solve priority problems 

• Develop problem-solving tools and approaches 

• Create a culture and organizational systems to 

foster innovation 
THE STRATEGY’S FOUR ELEMENTS 

Developed in consultation with states, 

the Innovation Strategy consists of four 

interconnected elements that will enable 

progress toward this long-term vision and, in 

the shorter term, progress under EPA’s 

Strategic Plan. 

Promoting State and Tribal Innovation 

The first element of the Innovation 

Strategy is designed to strengthen our partnership with states and tribes. With shared 

responsibilities for environmental programs, 

states and tribes are EPA’s most important 

partners, and they share our interest in innovations that can improve results. The 

Innovation Strategy lays out a set of actions 

designed to enable state and tribal innovation. These include finding ways to improve 

the National Environmental Performance 

Partnership System and the Joint State/ 

EPA Agreement to Pursue Regulatory 

Innovations—two policy tools that provide a 

means for jointly advancing innovation initiatives. Another priority is providing states 

with opportunities for earlier, more meaningful input in EPA’s planning and budgeting 

processes, where decisions about resources for 

innovation are made. 

Using Innovation to Solve Priority Problems 

The second element of the Innovation 

Strategy focuses on using innovation to solve 

a set of priority environmental problems— 

greenhouse gases, smog, degrading water 

quality, and deteriorating water infrastructure. 

making, the Innovation Strategy calls for a 

suite of creative approaches for making 

progress on these priority problems. 

Developing ProblemSolving Tools and 

Approaches 

The problems 

described in the 

previous section highlight the importance of 

continuously developing 

new tools and approaches that can expand and 

enhance environmental 

problem-solving. The 

third element of the 

Innovation Strategy 

focuses EPA on the continued development of tools that have already 

proven effective on a limited scale and that 

have applicability across many environmental 

programs. They include information tools that 

can improve our understanding of problems 

and solutions, environmental management 

systems (EMSs)17 that can foster a more comprehensive approach to environmental 

protection, incentives that can motivate better 

environmental performance, environmental 

technologies that can improve results and 

lower costs, and performance measures that 

show how well innovations are working. 

Creating a Culture and Organizational 

Systems to Foster Innovation 

Finally, the Innovation Strategy focuses 

on what may be the most important element 

of all—creating a culture and set of organiza-
realize our innovation potential. INNOVATIVE APPROACHES FOR ACHIEVING NATIONAL GOALS With its comprehensive focus 

and detailed plan 

for implementation, 

EPA’s Innovation 

Strategy identifies a number of actions that 

will drive innovation throughout the Agency 

and ensure progress toward each of our 

national environmental goals. 

Clean Air and Global Climate Change 

From indoor environments to global climate change, EPA faces the challenge of 

developing air strategies that are workable on 

very different scales and for very different circumstances. We will meet this challenge by 

innovating in air programs, policies, and regulations. For example, our strategy for 

reducing smog calls for national leadership— 

creating new inherently innovative programs 

such as the Clear Skies Initiative, a new market-based cap-and-trade program modeled 

after the acid rain trading program.18 We 

will continue to develop new regulations 

where needed, but those regulations will be 

crafted in innovative ways to improve results, 

ease implementation, and decrease costs. 

Outside the regulatory arena, we will work to 

reduce smog and greenhouse gas emissions by 

developing new cleaner technologies and 

community groups, air quality offic

other interested stakeholders who 

work for cleaner, healthier air. 

The Innovation Strategy also c

management actions that will lead 

efficient and effective regulatory ap

to clean air. One action is to evalu

projects that can show whether an 

has value. For example, in the mid

EPA launched a series of innovativ

mitting projects designed to stream

regulatory process and foster pollut

vention. The results show that flex

permits can help companies achiev

greater environmental protection, 

competitiveness, and encourage po

prevention, while still retaining pr

enforceable capabilities.19 

Over the years we have develo

number of innovative programs an

tools to achieve environmental im

ments. Now the key is to learn fro

innovative approaches and use our 

ence to create additional options f

the air. In this way, we can tailor c

strategies, using new and tradition

ensure that we are using the appro

will achieve the best possible resul

Clean and Safe Water 

The national water program fo

watersheds—those naturally define

that encompass and affect our rive

and lakes. By looking at watershed

whole, rather than as a set of unre

ponents, watershed management o

more advanced and effective appro

142 
tection and restoration activities in 20 

priority watersheds.20 

Another priority for the national water 

program—and one that can clearly benefit 

from innovative solutions—is water infrastructure. A 2002 EPA study revealed a 

critical funding gap for meeting U.S. wastewater and drinking-water infrastructure 

needs.21 Recognizing this gap, the Innovation 

Strategy called for a national forum to discuss 

innovative management mechanisms, such as 

EMSs, that can reduce the life-cycle costs of 

infrastructure and more flexible financial 

mechanisms to fund improvements. EPA held 

that forum in January 2003,22 and many of 

the ideas that emerged are reflected in this 

Strategic Plan. 

Preserved and Restored Land 

The Innovation Strategy’s emphasis on 

testing, evaluating, and implementing innovative approaches to environmental problems; 

fostering a more innovation-friendly culture 

within EPA; and working through partnerships 

and stakeholder collaboration will promote 

better waste management and cleanup of contaminated waste sites. In particular, innovative 

tools and approaches will be used for land 

revitalization; consistency and enhanced 

effectiveness in site cleanups; and waste minimization, recycling, and energy recovery of 

hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. 

Building upon the success of its 

Brownfields Program, EPA will pilot projects 

that integrate land reuse into all land 

cleanup processes, explore the use of innovative public and private property reuse and 

Recognizing that many changes have 

taken place since the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act23 was passed, EPA is 

launching a national Resource Conservation 

Challenge that is designed to find flexible, 

yet more protective, ways to conserve our 

natural resources through waste reduction 

and energy recovery. 

24 This new program will 

take a comprehensive, integrated approach 

that includes traditional waste management 

programs and lesser recognized avenues, 

inside and outside of EPA, for promoting 

waste minimization and natural resource conservation. This approach will involve 

forming diverse partnerships to test innovative approaches to waste reduction and to 

stimulate development of new environmental 

management infrastructure and technologies. 
144 

of comprehensive, community-based focus. For 

example, the national air program is supporting 

the development of a regional strategy to 

comprehensively address multiple air quality 

problems, as well as economic growth, land-use 

patterns, transportation, and energy issues, in a 

growing urban area along the North CarolinaSouth Carolina border. Likewise, the national 

water program’s watershed strategy will enable 

a more comprehensive, stakeholder-driven 

approach to achieving water quality goals. 

The Innovation Strategy also calls 

for environmental protection tools and 

approaches that can be used to protect 

people, communities, and ecosystems. For 

example, improving the use and deployment 

of information resources and technology 

means we will have more powerful tools to 

make environmental management decisions. 

It will also enable us to give citizens information they can use in their own lives, and if 

they choose, to become more involved in 

environmental decision-making. The emphasis on developing results-based performance 

goals and measures will have similar consequences, creating information that agencies 

can use to manage programs and provide 

public accountability. 

means through which we will enha

tion for people, communities, and e

Compliance and Environmental S

The vision described in the In

Strategy would raise the bar for en

tal performance by creating an env

protection system that encourages 

environmental stewardship across 

society. Getting there means findin

bring together compliance, pollutio

tion, and environmental leadership 

in a way that facilitates environme

management and maximizes enviro

results. It also means meeting the v

needs that exist along the environm

performance spectrum, from the le

are pursuing advanced environmen

improvements to those enterprises

small businesses, that require assist

meeting regulatory responsibilities. 

One way toward these ends is 

partnership with industry sectors o

environmental management strate

recognize the unique issues affectin

operations. Through its Sector Str

Program,25 EPA works with industr

address sector-specific barriers to im

performance and develop EMSs an

innovative tools that are designed 

sector’s needs in mind. Sector-base

enable EPA to better understand t

tries we oversee and to tap into th

thinking of others who can help u

new and better ways of improving 

mental and economic results. 

The Innovation Strategy calls f

support and encouragement for env
level of membership for the 

very top performers. While 

the program clearly benefits 

members, its greatest value is in creating role 

models and mentors from whom other facilities can learn as they pursue their own 

environmental improvements. 

The Innovation Strategy also recognizes 

the value of smart and strategic compliance 

assurance in helping companies meet their 

environmental responsibilities. To this end, it 

focuses EPA on using the full range of compliance assurance tools and combining them 

in ways that improve environmental management by regulated entities, maximize 

compliance, and address the needs of environmental justice communities. These 

integrated approaches include voluntary 

compliance incentives, such as the Audit, 

Small Business, and Small Communities 

Policies27 to encourage self-auditing, reporting, and correction; the use of EMSs in 

enforcement settlements to address serious 

environmental management problems; and 

creative supplemental environmental projects 

that return significant, tangible benefits to 

communities harmed by noncompliance. 

The award-winning environmental 

results program represents another successful 

approach.28 Pioneered by Massachusetts, this 

program merits expansion because it 

improves the performance of small businesses, 

results in savings for those businesses, and 

allows EPA and states to focus resources on 

priority environmental problems. 

Providing smart, strategic compliance 

assurance also means providing additional tools 

to help facilities understand environmental 

innovative resources harness the power of the 

Internet to meet small business needs. The Innovation Strategy will direct 

more attention to small business needs, starting 

with a national small business environmental 

summit and development of a comprehensive 

small business assistance strategy. 

MANAGING INNOVATION AT EPA 

The complexity of today’s environmental 

challenges, coupled with the need to achieve 

environmental results more cost-effectively, 

make environmental innovation an imperative. 

But innovation brings its own set of challenges. 

As EPA pursues new approaches for improving 

environmental results, we are faced with the 

difficulty of crafting multimedia solutions within a single-medium-based organization, the 

complexity of sharing responsibilities across 

several layers of government, and the need to 

maintain baseline environmental protections 

while still creating room for experimentation. 

EPA’s Innovation Action Council provides 

experienced leadership for addressing these and 

other challenges. This group of EPA’s most senior career managers provides overall direction 

for innovation, demonstrated most recently 

through the development of the Innovation 

Strategy. The Innovation Action Council also 

helps resolve policy issues that invariably arise 

when exploring new approaches. 

EPA is also making strategic organizational changes to support and facilitate 

innovation. In 2003, EPA formed a National 

Center for Environmental Innovation to 

advance innovation in environmental pro-
146 

Protecting human health and the environment requires a diverse, highly skilled, 

and motivated workforce that seeks creative 

solutions to environmental problems and is 

committed to achieving excellence. To develop and retain such a workforce, EPA was 

among the first agencies to publish a human 

capital strategy. Issued in 2000, Investing in 

Our People, EPA’s Strategy for Human Capital, 

2001 - 200331 has guided our human capital 

efforts over the past few years. 

We are now updating our human capital 

strategy to address the President’s 

Management Agenda and to better integrate 

human capital issues into EPA’s strategic 

planning for the coming 5 years. Investing in 

Our People II, EPA’s Strategy for Human 

Capital, 2003 - 200832 (our updated “human 

capital strategy”) will ensure that the 

Agency’s workforce is high-perform

results-oriented, and aligned with 

gic goals and objectives for air, wa

communities and ecosystems, and 

ance and environmental stewardsh

Our upd

capital strate

help us integ

force plannin

employee de

and targeted 

ment with ou

strategic plan

resource man

processes. By 

strong national leadership and effe

ning and implementation of huma

programs across the Agency, the h

tal strategy addresses both our curr

future workforce needs to accompl

goals and objectives. 

As part of the President’s Man

Agenda, the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) is leading th

government’s Strategic Manageme

Human Capital Initiative. New H

Capital Standards for Success,33 de

proponent for replicating innovations that 

prove successful. The Center also stays at the 

forefront of scientific, economic, and other 

social trends to bring the value of new developments to EPA’s strategic thinking, planning, 

and management. 

innovation office that will help dr

tion in its programs and policies. 

Together, these moves will ens

EPA has the innovation leadership 

to achieve better environmental re

HUMAN CAPITAL 

EPA will integrate workforce planning, 

employee development, and targeted recruitment 

with Agency processes for strategic planning and 

resource management. 
Standards for Success. Our updated human 

capital strategy will help to ensure that EPA: 

• Aligns its workforce to accomplish 

strategic goals and objectives to protect human health and the 

environment through effective integration of Agency-wide planning 

and management processes. 

• Conducts workforce planning and 

deployment at the regional and program levels and deploys employees 

or assigns work based on missioncritical needs. 

• Maintains continuity of leadership 

and employee skills and competencies through strong knowledge 

management, employee development programs, and succession 

planning. 

• Encourages a results-oriented workplace and culture by emphasizing 

performance management. 

• Identifies, hires, and retains a diversity of talented individuals, using 

innovative and progressive tools for 

recruitment and retention. 

• Evaluates its human capital programs to ensure they are 

data-driven, cost-effective, and held 

accountable for results by developing and linking program 

performance to organizational goals. 

of the Agencys five strategic goals and (2) by 

explicitly linking human capital activities 

with annual Agency-wide processes for 

strategic planning and budgeting. EPA will 

make planning, reporting, and accountability 

for effective human capital management an 

EPA'S HUMAN CAPITAL STRATEGY 

VISION 

EPA has people with the right skills, in the right place, 

at the right time to protect human health and the 

environment. 

VALUES 

EPA respects and values integrity, the trust and confidence of the public, diversity of cultures and thinking, 

competence, innovation, continuous learning, and 

sound science. We treat our people fairly and with 

respect, and we encourage a spirit of teamwork and 

the consistent practice of these values. 

HUMAN CAPITAL GOALS 

1. Agency systems and organizational structures are 

well designed and work together to position and 

support EPA employees in accomplishing the 

Agency's strategic goals. 

2. EPA attracts and retains a diverse and talented 

workforce. 

3. EPA's employees are highly capable and perform to 

their highest potential to support the Agency mission. 

4. EPA employees at all levels are results-focused, act 

with integrity, and help to improve environmental 

programs through innovation, creativity and reasonable risk-taking. 

5. Teamwork and collaboration are routinely practiced 

with internal and external partners. 
Agencys vision for 

human capital to 

EPA employees at 

every level and will 

continue to provide staff with 

information on 

human capital 

planning activities. 

Concurrently, 

EPA’s Senior Policy 

Council—composed of Assistant 

and Regional 

Administrators to 

address cross-cutting Agency 

issues—is expected to communicate human 

capital roles and responsibilities and inspire 

employee commitment to the President’s and 

the Administrator’s vision. Senior Policy 

Council members will also ensure that 

resources and tools for sharing knowledge are 

available to their organizations and across the 

Agency and foster a culture of continuous 

learning. Both councils will support Agency 

efforts to develop performance measures for 

evaluating the effectiveness of EPA’s human 

capital programs. 

As we implement our human capital 

strategy, we will continue to benchmark 

other federal agencies’ best practices and 

evaluate whether EPA should implement 

similar strategies or processes. We also expect 

to strengthen our human capital strategy as a 

result of our ongoing work with OPM, OMB, 

and GAO and to consider lessons learned to 

improve our strategies. 

workforce. To facilitate this alignm

developed a National Strategic Wo

Planning methodology and online s

system and is in the midst of phased 

mentation.34 The Agency’s workforc

system will enable line managers to 

decisions on deploying employees w

mission-critical skills and competen

programmatically and geographical

EPA’s mission. By 2005, EPA’s work

ning system, in conjunction with es

Agency planning and budgeting sys

support analysis and decision-makin

tively managing human capital. 

In making sound workforce de

decisions, EPA recognizes the need 

beyond numbers of employees and 

respective skills. We continuously 

environmental objectives, changin

ties, and emerging technologies. O

competitive sourcing efforts compl

human capital strategy by providin

opportunity to analyze the Agency

and increase the efficiency and eff

of our operations. We are examini

activities with potential for efficie

either through internal improveme

competition/direct conversion. To leverage the skills and talen

workforce, the Agency will evalua

tions in human capital manageme

potential nationwide. Examples in

• Assignments, Not Position

EPA Region 10 offers volun

tions every 3 years to encou

employees to swap jobs and 

about technical programs o

immediate areas of expertis

148 
senior executives and optimize their 

talents, EPA moved more than 60 

executives into new positions across 

the Agency in 2002 through the SES 

Mobility Program. The Mobility 

Program concept may be extended to 

other EPA levels of management to 

strengthen leadership skills and provide exposure to programs across the 

Agency. Such flexibility supports 

continued development of EPA managers by challenging them with new 

learning experiences and broadening 

their view of the Agency. If implemented, these development 

opportunities would strengthen EPA’s 

succession planning and management 

efforts as well. 

EPA is using advances in information 

technology to improve managers’ and 

employees’ access to personnel data through 

its automated human resources information 

system, PeoplePlus.35 Improved access to personnel data will help employees manage their 

careers and help Agency leaders make critical 

decisions in managing their organizations’ 

human capital resources. 

• Employee Profiles will provide 

employees with access to their official personnel records to update 

personal information, such as emergency contacts, home address/phone, 

handicap/special needs designations, 

and other business process-related 

information. 

• E-Development provides web-based 

access for employees and managers to 

update/review training information, 

electronically. 

EPA is also supporting the President’s 

government-wide E-Gov Internal Efficiencies 

and Effectiveness initiatives36 to bring commercial best practices to key government 

operations. The Agency is an active participant in a number of government-wide human 

resources-related E-Gov activities: 

• E-Payroll consolidates systems at 

more than 14 processing centers 

across government and eliminates 

duplication in purchasing enterprise 

resource planning software. 

• Enterprise Human Resources 

Integration integrates personnel 

records across government electronically and reduces delays in processing 

security clearances. 

• Recruitment One-Stop modifies 

USA Jobs to create an automated 

resource for federal government 

information and career opportunities. 

It allows for automated resume and 

assessment tools to route resumes, 

assess candidates, and streamline the 

federal hiring process, and it provides 

an up-to-the-minute status on job 

applications.37 

EPA has annually awarded over half of 

its budget in grants to state, local, and tribal 

governments, educational institutions, and 

nonprofit organizations and uses grants as a key 

means to achieve its strategic goals. Therefore, 

we need grant specialists and project officers 

skilled in grants management. They will be 

responsible for reviewing, negotiating, and 

administering EPA’s grant agreements—from 
150 

ed, will enable specialists to verify grantee 

compliance with procurement and other 

administrative 

requirements, identify 

unallowable costs, 

and ensure that the 

rare exemptions made 

to allow noncompetitive awards are 

appropriately justified. In addition, we 

will improve accountability for grants 

oversight by requiring 

that grant specialists’ 

and project officers’ 

performance standards adequately address 

their grant management responsibilities. 

Investing in human capital for grants 

management is linked to and complements 

EPA’s human resources plan and the 

President’s Management Agenda initiative 

on strategic management of human capital. MANAGING LEADERSHIP AND KNOWLEDGE 

The loss of institutional knowledge that 

can result as managers and employees retire 

clearly highlights the need for effective 

systems to retain leadership and knowledge. To meet this need, EPA relies on three core 

strategies: (1) developing leaders throughout 

the organization, (2) promoting continuous 

learning, and (3) enabling knowledge transfer. 

Through EPA’s Workforce Development 

Strategy, the Agency develops leaders by 

offering programs centered on EPA’s core 

EPA SES candidates will graduate 

the retiring SES corps. We will co

strengthen 

CDP to en

nuity of lea

EPA is 

ing a conti

learning cu

enables em

and manag

adapt to th

changing p

social, and 

environme

Feedback s

key to developing this culture. EPA

ance management system, PERFO

(Performance Planning, Employee 

Feedback, Opportunity, and Recog

Management System), provides re

formance feedback to employees a

them understand how their work a

the Agency’s mission. To help Age

agers assess and improve their perf

EPA has implemented a 360-degre

program that enables employees an

provide feedback on managers’ per

Evaluating EPA’s human capit

will provide feedback at the organ

level. In 2003, we evaluated our E

Program to assess its effectiveness 

ing and preparing a diverse group 

Agency leaders.39 In 2004, we will 

uating other EPA workforce devel

programs, and we will use the resu

improve and refine our leadership 

ment and knowledge management 
DEVELOPING A PERFORMANCE CULTURE 

EPA is implementing three core strategies to build a results-oriented workforce and 

culture: (1) enhancing performance management, (2) fostering workplace diversity, and 

(3) improving employee-labor relations management. 

In 1998, EPA redesigned PERFORMS to 

more clearly, simply, and easily communicate 

performance expectations to managers and 

employees. PERFORMS reduces administrative burden and minimizes paperwork for 

managers by providing broader spans of control and promotes more frequent, meaningful, 

two-way communication between supervisors 

and employees. An essential aspect of PERFORMS is separating cash awards from 

ratings of record, so that feedback and 

rewards occur not just at appraisal time, but 

throughout the year to highlight and reinforce excellence in a timely manner. 

A variety of monetary and non-monetary 

awards are available to supervisors and managers to motivate or recognize individual 

employees, teams, or organizations for high 

performance. Although the Agency has pay 

and performance systems in place to provide 

timely feedback and pay for increased contributions, we are reviewing these systems to 

ascertain that skilled individuals are indeed 

attracted, encouraged, and rewarded for their 

high performance. We are also evaluating 

PERFORMS to confirm that the system 

improves communication between employees 

and managers and sets appropriate performance expectations. We will continue to 

benchmark other federal and private-sector 

ing a diverse workforce, and developing and 

implementing concrete solutions to EPA’s 

diversity issues. We are also expanding our 

targeted recruitment initiatives to identify 

well-qualified candidates for mission-critical 

positions. 

EPA and its National Partnership 

Council are working to foster collaborative 

relationships between Agency managers, 

unions, and employees to improve working 

conditions, career development, and employee morale. We have established the 

Workplace Solutions Staff41 to provide 

employees with one-stop service for preventing and resolving workplace conflicts, 

including informal mediation, conflict resolution, Alternative Dispute Resolution 

Awareness training, outreach, and consultation. The Workplace Solutions Staff coaches 

employees in dealing with workplace conflicts more effectively to resolve disputes 

before filing formal grievances or complaints. 

To improve labor management accountability, PeoplePlus provides modules to manage 

labor-employee relations by creating a corporate database for tracking labor-management 

agreements, decisions, and disputes. 

RECRUITING 

AND RETAINING 

TALENT 

In light of changing Agency priorities, 

the growing number 

of senior managers 

and employees eligible for retirement, 
152 

system to identify gaps 

in mission-critical skills, 

knowledge, and competencies, and we are 

employing a variety of 

human resource tools to recruit and retain a 

diverse and highly skilled workforce. Toward this end, EPA is maximizing its 

use of special hiring authorities, incentives, 

and internship and fellowship programs. For 

example, to recruit and retain talented 

researchers and scientists, the Agency is 

examining the use of a pilot program to hire 

up to five researchers a year. Under the pilot, 

the Agency will be able to offer the competitive salaries needed to attract and retain 

world-class scientists and researchers. In addition, we are reviewing innovative pay 

strategies being used across government, 

focusing on pay structures; flexibility; and 

opportunities related to the Agency’s workforce needs, program requirements, and 

job-market conditions. We are also exploring flexible organization structures, collaborative work 

arrangements, multi-skilled teams, and 

options to promote a family-friendly, quality 

work environment. EPA is interested in 

reviewing the proposed civil service retirement system computations for part-time 

service, which would eliminate disincentives 

for employees nearing the end of their careers 

who would like to phase into retirement by 

working part-time schedules. This would 

allow EPA to retain senior staff in hard-to-fill 

positions as part of our succession 

planning/management effort. 

ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY To manage our human capital 

effectively, the Agency has establi

continues to improve its Human R

Management (HRM) Accountabi

Program.43 The HRM Accountabil

Program provides a template to en

all Agency employees, from the 

Administrator to EPA’s rank and f

stand their human capital roles an

responsibilities. EPA’s senior politi

career leaders are taking an active 

communicating EPA’s human capi

at all levels of the Agency. The H

the Administrator and Deputy Ad

on human resource issues, maintai

tained commitment to managing h

resources within EPA, and oversee

mentation of Agency-wide human 

initiatives and policies. The Senio

Council advises the Administrator 

Deputy Administrator on cross-cu

Agency issues and helps to commu

impact of human capital issues on 

Agency. 

EPA’s human resource program 

in headquarters and regional office

that employees are recruited and h

meet Agency needs in accordance 

merit-based principles and other c

personnel requirements. Our new 

Accountability Program ensures ef

merit-based decision-making by co

substantive data that serve as a pri

nostic tool and provide informatio
• Determine whether human resource 

management is accomplishing its 

objectives. 

• Establish a database that can assist 

managers in making human resource 

decisions. 

• Identify strengths and weaknesses of 

human resource programs and 

processes. 

As a part of EPA’s future human capital 

planning process, we will prepare annual 

human capital plans in concert with the 

needed to achieve EPA’s goals and objectives. 

We are also developing results-oriented 

performance goals and measures and a tracking mechanism to link the effectiveness of 

the human capital program with the 

Agency’s environmental protection mission. 

These performance goals and measures will 

help to guide implementation of our human 

capital strategy, track our progress toward our 

human capital objectives, and evaluate our 

approach for aligning human capital with 

EPA’s Strategic Plan. 

Today, scientific knowledge and technical 

information are more important than ever as 

we seek to understand, and successfully 

address, the increasingly complex environmental problems facing our Nation.44 EPA has 

identified reliance on sound science and credible data among the guiding principles we will 

follow to fulfill our mission to protect human 

health and the environment. EPA depends on 

science, technology, and scientifically defensible data and models to evaluate risk, develop 

and defend protective standards, anticipate 

future health and environmental threats, and 

identify their solutions. 

To conduct science of the highest quality 

and relevance, we promote collaborative partnerships and expert peer review. Our approach 

to addressing science issues is centered on generating and using scientific information based 

on science priorities (“doing the right science”) 

"Sound science is the 

foundation of EPA’s work. 

We rely upon science and 

technology to help us determine 

which environmental problems 

pose important risks to our 

natural environment, human 

health, and our quality of life." 

—Governor Christine Todd Whitman, 

Administrator, EPA Science Forum 

(May 2002) 

SCIENCE 
154 

GENERATING AND USING SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION 

EPA’s organizing principle for generating 

and using scientific information is the risk 

assessment/risk management paradigm 

(Figure 1). Risk assessment is the process that 

scientists use to understand and evaluate the 

relative size (magnitude) and likelihood 

(probability) of risk posed to human health 

and ecosystems by environmental stressors, 

such as air pollution or chemicals in drinking 

water. Risk assessments play an important 

role in Agency decisions and, as appropriate, 

they are integrated with other scientific 

information, such as economic data and engineering studies, as part of a complete 

scientific analysis to inform decisions. Risk 

management involves determining whether 

body of scientific literature. EPA c

gathers scientific information thro

laboratories, centers, and program 

regional offices, and from external 

such as states, tribes, other federal 

and the academic and regulated co

ties. Making environmental decisi

on sound science includes ensurin

entific findings are properly descri

(characterized). To characterize sc

findings properly, the knowledge, a

tions, and uncertainties regarding 

must be clearly stated. 

EPA SCIENCE 

PRIORITIES: 

“DOING THE 

RIGHT SCIENCE” 

EPA determines its science pri

through coordinated science plann

also taking into account the partic

sions and mandates of individual p

For example, EPA uses “analytic b

to plan and guide scientific analys

out the regulatory decision-making 

Analytic blueprints lay out the seq

nature of the scientific analyses an

needed to inform regulatory decisi

more complex environmental scie

included in the Agency’s regulator

regulatory decision-making proces

scientists are increasingly involved 

out the decision-making process an

determine additional research and 

needed to ensure that EPA’s polici

informed by the best possible scien

complex environmental managem

requiring close coordination across 

programs and regions, EPA may de

Figure 1. Risk Assessment/Risk Management Paradigm45 
data management 

support, and quality assurance for 

Agency programs 

nationwide. EPA 

regions have developed special capabilities and expertise 

(Centers of Applied Science) based on 

unique geographic and demographic issues. 

Centers have been designated for ambient 

monitoring, environmental biology, chemistry, microbiology, and analytic pollution 

prevention methodologies. EPA’s quality 

assurance programs ensure the integrity of 

environmental data by overseeing management of monitoring 

programs, approving data 

collection activity plans, and 

evaluating monitoring and 

laboratory practices. The fast 

pace of emerging technologies and science requires that 

Agency programs remain at 

the forefront of new analytic 

procedures, and developing and adapting 

analytic methods and procedures are increasingly important. These capabilities enable us 

to provide technical advice and assistance to 

our federal, state, and local government 

agency partners. 

The Agency’s research program is 

designed to conduct leading-edge research 

and foster the sound use of science and technology. EPA research both addresses specific 

needs to support Agency decisions and, by 

increasing our understanding of key processes—biological, physical/chemical, social, and 

others—that underlie and drive environmen

of our research program, we use a 

coordinated, cooperative research 

planning process; 

rigorous, independent peer review; and interagency partnerships and extramural grants to 

academia to complement EPA’s own scientific expertise. This approach allows EPA to 

keep its leading edge in environmental 

research and focuses our efforts and resources 

on those areas where we can add the most 

value toward reducing uncertainty in risk 

assessments and enhancing environmental 

management. 

EPA is implementing the President’s 

Management Agenda to improve research 

and development (R&D) program management and effectiveness through our 

application of explicit R&D investment criteria.47 By carefully examining the relevance, 

quality, and performance of our research program, we are improving R&D program 

management, better informing R&D program 

funding decisions, and increasing public 

understanding of the possible benefits and 

effectiveness of the federal investment in 

R&D. Agency R&D programs strive to articulate why this investment is important, 

relevant, and appropriate. R&D programs 

EPA’s approach to addressing science issues 

includes setting science priorities—“doing the 

right science”—and using sound science 

practices—“doing the science right.” 
emissions, fate and transport, exposures, mechanisms of injury, and 

health effects of criteria air pollutants. Activities 

include routine 

monitoring, air 

quality modeling, 

fuel and fuel additive toxicity 

testing review, and 

risk assessments. 

Air toxics priorities include 

developing and 

improving air 

quality models and 

source receptor 

tools; cost-effective pollution prevention and other control options; and 

scientific information and tools for 

quantitative assessment of nationwide, urban, and residual air toxic 

risks. Other significant activities 

include analyses of the impacts of 

atmospheric change, the collection 

and analysis of solar ultraviolet (UV) 

monitoring data, community-based 

assessments, and building surveys. 

• Goal 2, Clean and Safe Water: 

Science priorities address water quality and drinking water. Water quality 

priorities focus on approaches and 

methods to develop and apply criteria to support designated uses and to 

diagnose impairment of and protect 

and restore aquatic ecosystems. 

Drinking water priorities include 

assessing and managing risks to 

enhancing methods and m

estimating ecological effec

ing uncertainty in human 

ecological risks; and devel

cost-effective and reliable 

tion and treatment techno

• Goal 4, Healthy Commun

Ecosystems: Science prior

wide ranging and comprise 

of priorities among multip

offices. These priorities in

assessment/management o

existing chemicals, protec

geted aquatic ecosystems, 

and enhancement of hum

and ecological risk assessm

acterization of global clim

development and support 

ing scientific advancemen

homeland security. 

• Goal 5, Compliance and 

Environmental Stewardsh

Science priorities are pollu

vention practices; new tec

development; socioeconom

decision-making related to 

ance, enforcement, incent

monitoring, and innovativ

approaches to environmen

ardship and sustainable de

In addition, EPA has identifie

ting science priorities that span se

programs and help the Agency acc

multiple science objectives. We ha

fied aggregate and cumulative risk 

assessment, genomics, computation

ogy, and susceptible subpopulation

156 
medium affecting one endpoint to consider

ing aggregate and cumulative risks. Aggregate 

risk assessments consider exposure to a single 

stressor, such as a chemical, by multiple pathways and all relevant routes of exposure. 

Cumulative risk assessments describe and, 

where possible, quantify a wide variety of 

health and ecological effects from radiation, 

biological stressors, and chemicals. An example is the estimation of risks posed from 

concurrent exposure, through all relevant 

pathways and routes of exposure, to multiple 

chemicals that act the same way in the body. 

Cumulative assessments also consider characteristics of the population potentially at risk. 

These range from individuals to sensitive 

subgroups who may be highly susceptible to 

risks from stressors or groups of stressors due 

to their age, gender, disease history, size, or 

developmental stage. 

Genomics 

Advances in genetic toxicology will have 

an enormous impact on EPA’s ability to assess 

potential risk. Our initial research is focusing 

on the use of genomics as a tool to identify 

and, ultimately solve human and environmental problems. Genomics examines the 

molecular basis of toxicity and develops biomarkers of exposure, effects, and 

susceptibility to chemicals and other stressors. Before genomics information can be 

used effectively in Agency risk assessments, 

such issues as accuracy, reproducibility, data 

quality, and understanding whether a genetic 

change indicates an adverse effect, need to be 

resolved. An important goal for EPA is to use 

genomics approaches to provide data for the 

computational modeling of toxicological 

bioinformatics, and quantitative structure

activity relationships. These techniques will 

be used in attempting to determine genes 

that may be responsible for specific mechanisms of toxicity, diagnosing patterns of genes 

associated with known mechanisms of toxicity, and characterizing and modeling chemical 

structures associated with known mechanisms 

of toxicity, respectively. The term “computational toxicology” refers to using these 

alternative approaches in conjunction with 

highly sophisticated computer-based models. 

This approach is expected to greatly reduce 

the use of animal testing to obtain chemical 

toxicity information. 

Environmental Indicators 

EPA is committed to identifying, developing, and applying indicators that can 

improve our ability to assess environmental 

progress. While they complement more traditional process indicators, such as measures of 

emissions or discharges, these new “outcome” 

measures are intended to more closely reflect 

the actual impact on ecological or public 

health from environmental decisions and 

help clarify—quantitatively and qualitatively—the benefits and costs associated with 
Susceptible 

Subpopulations 

The Agency conducts a continuing 

research program to 

protect the general 

public as well as 

groups of individuals 

(for example, older 

people, children, and 

tribal peoples) who 

might be more sensitive/susceptible than 

the general population to the harmful 

effects of exposure to 

environmental 

agents, such as contaminants in drinking water. Studies 

conducted or supported by EPA to identify 

and characterize susceptible subpopulations 

can be described in the context of the various 

intrinsic (e.g., age, genetic traits) or acquired 

(e.g., pre-existing disease, exposure) characteristics that can modify the risk of illness or 

disease. Studies of susceptible subpopulations 

typically involve multi-disciplinary research 

and assessments to identify a range of possible 

adverse health effects, including cancer, 

reproductive toxicity, and gastrointestinal illness. Because of the importance and broad 

scope of this issue, EPA has established partnerships with various federal and state 

agencies, universities, and other public or private research entities to leverage resources 

and capabilities. Examples of activities at EPA 

include developing supplemental guidance to 

the cancer guidelines on cancer risk to chil

Toxicology and Chemistry, is “orga

investigations and observations co

qualified personnel using documen

ods and leading to verifiable result

conclusions.”48 The R&D investm

on of quality, mentioned earlier, re

Agency “doing the science right.” 

ence or “doing the science right” m

supporting, enhancing, and implem

sound science practices and approa

as peer review, quality assurance, s

coordination, and oversight. 

Peer Review 

External review of scientific wo

by qualified, independent, knowled

scientists enhances credibility, unco

technical problems, identifies addit

mation needs, and ensures that con

follow from data using generally ac

scientific standards. The goal of the 

Peer Review Policy49 is to enhance 

and credibility of Agency decisions 

ing that the scientific and technica

products underlying these decisions 

appropriate levels of peer review by 

ent scientific and technical experts

External Advisory Groups 

External advisory groups play 

tant role in “doing the right scienc

“doing the science right.” In partic

National Academy of Sciences (N

Science Advisory Board (SAB), an

Board of Scientific Counselors (BO

vide scientific and technical advic

Agency. Each of these advisory gro

composed of a distinguished body 

158 
SAB has a broad mandate to advise the 

Agency on technical matters.51 Among its 

principal missions are reviewing the quality 

and relevance of scientific and technical 

information being used or proposed as the 

basis for Agency regulations; reviewing 

research programs and the technical basis of 

applied programs; and advising the Agency 

on broad scientific matters in science, technology, social, and economic issues. 

BOSC’s mission is to provide advice, 

information, and recommendations about 

Office of Research and Development (ORD) 

research programs.52 Its specific responsibilities 

include evaluating ORD’s science and engineering research, programs and plans, 

laboratories, and research management practices and recommending actions to improve 

their quality and/or strengthen their relevance 

to EPA’s mission. BOSC also evaluates and 

provides advice on using peer review within 

ORD to sustain and enhance the quality of 

EPA’s science and reviews ORD’s program 

development and progress, research planning 

process, and research program balance. 

Quality Assurance 

Quality assurance involves planning, 

implementing, and reviewing data collection 

activities to ensure that the data collected by 

or on behalf of the Agency are of the type, 

quantity, and quality needed. EPA’s peer 

review policy and quality system are 

described in our Information Quality 

Guidelines, which outline how we maximize 

the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity 

of our scientific information.53 

Science Coordination and Oversight 

The Science Policy Council (SPC) serves 

as a mechanism for addressing EPA’s many 

significant science policy issues that go beyond 

regional and program boundaries54. To integrate 

the policies that guide Agency decision-makers 

in their use of scientific and technical information, the SPC works to implement and ensure 

the success of selected initiatives recommended 

by external advisory bodies, such as NAS and 

the SAB, as well as the U.S. Congress, industry, environmental groups, and Agency staff. 

Examples of SPC issues include: revision of 

the cancer guidelines to provide a current 

state-of-the-art approach for determining 

cancer risk, harmonization of cancer and noncancer risk assessment approaches, evaluation 

of toxicity testing approaches, and validation 

of laboratory methods. 

The Risk Assessment Forum (RAF) is a 

standing committee of senior EPA scientists.55 

It was established to promote Agency-wide 

consensus on difficult and controversial risk 

assessment issues and to ensure that this consensus is incorporated into appropriate Agency 

risk assessment guidance. The RAF focuses on 

generic issues fundamental to the risk assessment process and related science policy issues. 

Another effort to ensure Agency dialogue 

and coordination is the Council for 

Regulatory Environmental Modeling 

(CREM).56 CREM was established to promote consistency and consensus between 

environmental model developers and users. 
160 

ad oter easures

Tribal Partnerships 

The Tribal Science Council (TSC)57 

represents a new paradigm for how the 

Agency works with tribal governments. The 

mission of the TSC is to provide a forum for 

interaction between tribal and Agency representatives to work collaboratively on 

environmental scientific issues, including 

research, monitoring, modeling, information, 

technology, and training in Indian country. 

In conjunction with our tribal partners, the 

Agency is exploring a new approach, Health 

and Well-Being, that incorporates the cultural interconnectedness between tribes and the 

Our emphasis on building part

also extends to our relationships w

federal agencies. EPA has ongoing 

ships with many federal agencies e

environmental research. We activ

pate in the Committee on Environ

Natural Resources (CENR) of the 

Science and Technology Council, 

established to foster and implemen

nated multi-agency and interdiscip

focus for federal environmental R&

Through partnerships with CENR 

bers—such as the Departments of 

Agriculture, and the Interior and t

National Institutes of Health—we 

abreast of emerging technologies, 

new approaches, and provide a bro

edge base to inform EPA decisions

ACHIEVING RESULTS 

EPA’s approach to conducting 

science in service to the Agency’s 

will ensure that Agency policies, d

and other activities reflect high-qu

tific information relevant to curren

future environmental issues. We w

plish this goal by ensuring that we 

together, both across the Agency a

our partners, to identify the highe

science activities and that our wor

the highest standards of scientific 
in lower Manhattan, along with the Agency’s 

efforts to decontaminate the Hart Senate 

Office Building and other facilities on Capitol 

Hill, revealed the extent to which we will be 

on the front lines in the war against terrorism. 

EPA’s mission is clear: to protect human 

health and the environment. In pursuing this 

mission, we have developed certain unique 

scientific and technical expertise and possess 

additional capabilities that complement 

those of other federal 

agencies, including the 

new Department of 

Homeland Security. 

The events of 

September 11 and 

thereafter led us to 

reassess our capabilities 

relating to national 

security and determine 

whether they can be 

enhanced to better protect the American people. Our role in 

homeland security reflects certain responsibilities given to the Agency under such laws 

as the Public Health Security and 

Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act 

of 2002,58 several Presidential decision directives,59 and the President’s July 2002 National 

Strategy for Homeland Security. 

60 

ORGANIZING THE WORK 

EPA’s homeland security efforts are centered on four main areas of responsibility: 

(1) critical infrastructure protection; (2) 

preparedness, response, and recovery; 

(3) communication and information; and 

(4) protection of EPA personnel and infrastructure. Each of these areas draws on 

expertise the Agency already possesses and 

expands on that experience to meet the challenges we face in protecting the Nation 

against the threat of terrorism. 

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION 

Under the National Strategy for 

Homeland Security, EPA is named the lead 

federal agency for protecting two of the 

Nation’s critical infrastructure sectors: the 

Water Sector and the Chemical Industry and 

Hazardous Materials Sector. 

61 In addition, the 

Public Health Security and Bioterrorism 

Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 gives 

EPA specific responsibilities for promoting 

the security of the Nation’s public drinkingwater infrastructure.62 

These missions draw on EPA’s unique 

programmatic responsibilities and expertise 

related to the drinking-water and wastewater 

EPA’s homeland security efforts focus on: 

• Protecting critical infrastructure 

• Preparedness, response, and recovery 

• Communication and providing information 

• Protecting EPA personnel and infrastructure. 
162 

ical contaminants. 

In these 

areas, EPA is 

committed to 

assessing and 

reducing vulnerabilities and 

strengthening 

detection and 

response capabilities for critical 

infrastructures. In 

addition, EPA 

will contribute to 

similar efforts by 

other federal 

departments and agencies addressing food, 

transportation, and energy, and will provide 

environmental expertise to support federal 

law-enforcement activities. Among EPA’s 

program offices involved in this area are the 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response (OSWER), the Office of Water 

(OW), the Office of Research and 

Development (ORD), the Office of Air and 

Radiation (OAR), and the Office of 

Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances 

(OPPTS). EPA’s goals for protecting critical 

infrastructure include: 

• Work with the states, tribes, drinking-water and wastewater utilities 

(water utilities), and other partners 

to enhance the security of water and 

wastewater utilities. 

• Work with the states, tribes, and 

other partners to enhance security in 

the chemical and oil industries. 

and state and local govern

assist in detecting threats. 

• Actively participate in nat

rity and homeland security 

pertaining to food, transpo

and energy. 

• Manage its federal, civil, a

nal enforcement programs 

our homeland security, cou

rorism, and anti-terrorism 

responsibilities under Pres

Decision Directives 39,63 6

6365 and environmental, c

criminal statutes. 

PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY 

Under the National Strategy f

Homeland Security and various fe

response plans, EPA has specific re

recovery responsibilities. As the A

experience since September 11 ha

clear, we must expand and enhanc

ty to provide response and recover

to any future terrorist events. EPA 

on strengthening and broadening 

capabilities, clarifying its roles and 

bilities to ensure an effective respo

promoting improved response capa

across government and industry in 

in which the Agency has unique k

experience, and expertise. Among 

gram offices involved in this effort 

OSWER, OPPTS, and ORD. To f

responsibilities for preparedness, re

and recovery, EPA will: 
local agencies its roles, responsibilities, authorities, capabilities, and 

interdependencies under all applicable emergency plans consistent with 

the National Strategy for Homeland 

Security and efforts undertaken by 

the new Department of Homeland 

Security. The Agency will also 

understand the roles, responsibilities, 

authorities, capabilities, and interdependencies of its partners. 

• Support and develop the preparedness 

of state, local, and tribal governments 

and private industry to respond to, 

recover from, and continue operations after a terrorist attack. 

• Advance the state of knowledge in the 

areas relevant to homeland security to 

provide first responders and decisionmakers with the tools and scientific 

and technical understanding they need 

to manage existing and potential 

threats to homeland security. 

COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION 

Comprehensive, accurate, well-organized, 

and timely information is critical to sound 

decision-making internally and to maintaining public confidence in times of threat. EPA 

possesses unique capabilities to collect, synthesize, interpret, manage, disseminate, and 

enhance understanding of complex information about environmental and human-made 

contaminants and the condition of the environment. Effectively managing and sharing 

this information within the Agency, among 

our partners at all levels of government, with 

• Effectively disseminate timely, quality 

environmental information to all levels of government, industry, and the 

public, allowing them to make 

informed decisions about human 

health and the environment. 

• Exchange information with the 

national security community to prevent, detect, and respond to terrorist 

threats or attacks. 

• Continuously and reliably communicate with employees and managers. 

PROTECTION OF EPA PERSONNEL 

AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

The security and protection of EPA’s personnel and infrastructure are critical to 

ensuring our ability to respond to terrorist 

incidents as well as continue to fulfill our 

mission. To further safeguard our staff, ensure 
164 

the continuity of our operations, and protect 

the operational capability of our vital infrastructure assets, EPA is taking steps to: 

• Safeguard our employees. 

• Ensure the continuation of the 

Agency’s essential functions and 

operations. 

• Maintain a secure technology infrastructure capable of supporting lab 

data transport and analysis functions, 

continual telecommunications to all 

EPA locations, and management of 

critical data and information. 

• Ensure that the Agency’s physical 

structures and assets are secure and 

operational. 

COORDINATING THE EFFORT 

EPA’s homeland security efforts are very 

much an extension of our traditional mission 

and involve a number of our program offices. To coordinate these efforts, the Agency has 

established the EPA Office of Homeland 

Security within the Office of the 

Administrator. This new office will serve as 

the central coordinating body in the Agency 

for homeland security and as a single point of 

entry for homeland security matters with 

other federal departments and agencies. 

Homeland Security, EPAthroug

gram and regional offices—will wo

the department on a host of home

rity issues, including critical infras

protection, research, and response 

ery. EPA’s Office of Homeland Sec

be responsible for ensuring that th

various external efforts are properl

nated and receive clear direction f

Office of the Administrator and ot

leadership. ACHIEVING 

RESULTS 

EPA is capable of meeting our h

security mission without compromis

ability to fulfill our traditional missi

keeping the operational aspects of h

security in existing programs (as opp

creating a new homeland security p

office), EPA should realize numerou

ting benefits from its homeland secu

For example, our work in enha

technologies for detecting chemic

biological contaminants that could 

erately introduced into a public w

might prove useful in detecting na

occurring contaminants. Similarly

enhance our response capacity to m

challenges of several simultaneous 

acts could help the Agency respon

effectively, for example, to an acci

release at a chemical facility. As w

to build our capacity to meet our h

security responsibilities, we will br

expertise and experience to bear in 

efforts to protect human health an

ronment under all of our strategic 
gggg 

major economic benefits and costs. The 

quality of the analyses on which we base our 

decisions and the clarity of policies and 

regulations we develop determine how well 

environmental programs actually work and 

achieve health and environmental goals. 

Sound economic and policy analysis builds 

the foundation for EPA to meet its goals and 

use its resources wisely to do so. 

To ensure that EPA uses sound analysis 

in developing priority regulations and guidance, we have adopted procedures to leverage 

cross-Agency expertise, emphasize early 

analytic planning, promote option development, and encourage timely management 

involvement. A recent review of our process 

for developing regulations found our current 

system to be well designed, but recommended 

several improvements, including strengthening economic and science analysis, 

considering a broader range of options, and 

increasing management attention. 

To address these recommendations, we 

have developed a strategy for improving our 

internal processes. In particular, we will 

emphasize sound economic and policy analysis by continually investigating emerging 

analytic approaches and adopting them as 

appropriate, fostering consistent techniques 

across Agency programs, and ensuring that 

appropriate environmental results are 

achieved cost-efficiently. In addition, we 

have named an Economics Advisor who will 

work across the Agency to ensure that EPA 

uses the best economic science to support 

Agency regulations, policies, procedures, and 

decisions. 

mining the value of ecological systems and 

the benefits of preserving these systems will 

be critical in our work toward healthy communities and ecosystems. Sound economic 

and policy analysis will also support EPA’s 

goals for promoting stewardship and 

improved compliance by fostering consideration of such nonregulatory approaches as 

voluntary programs, innovative compliance 

tools, and flexible, market-based solutions. 

Sound analyses help gain support for Agency 

decisions, allowing us to implement regulations, policies, and programs effectively and 

efficiently. In addition, our analysis of issues 

and priorities established under statute or by 

executive order that cut across Agency programs—such as small business and unfunded 

mandates—help us better understand the 

economic effects of various approaches and 

ensure that we use the Nation’s resources 

wisely. Carefully allocating resources is particularly important today, as many states face 

severe budget constraints. 
o accopstese objectves, our strategy 

emphasizes analytic planning, management 

involvement, cross-office participation, and 

public input. 

Enhancing the Quality of Agency Decisions 

As suggested by our recent review of our 

regulatory development process, EPA is 

strongly committed to strengthening the 

quality and consistency of the economic science and policy analysis supporting Agency 

decisions. Typically, EPA forms workgroups of 

technical experts to develop regulations and 

policies. We will strive to bolster workgroup 

expertise by engaging economists, policy analysts, scientists, and legal staff from offices 

across the Agency throughout the regulation 

and policy development process. 

In addition, we will work to apply sound 

economic science and promote consistency. 

In FY 2001, following extensive peer review 

by the Economics Subcommittee of EPA’s 

Science Advisory Board (SAB), the Agency 

released its Guidelines for Preparing 

Economic Analyses. In its final review report, 

SAB concluded that the guidelines “succeed 

in reflecting methods and practices that 

key cross-cutting environmental p

Historically, EPA has addressed en

tal problems by medium—air, wate

However, many problems might be 

more efficiently using holistic or m

approaches. We will continue to u

ic and policy analysis to identify e

environmental concerns, such as c

health, and assess cross-media, cro

issues, such as Agency policy on m

Improving Analytic Tools and Ca

EPA must use the most up-to-

information and economic analysi

in developing regulations and poli

are working to advance the tools a

niques we can use to assess the effe

Agency actions, communicate wit

ners and the public, and strengthe

regulations and policies. 

In the coming months, the Ag

issue an Ecological Benefits Strate

provide a framework for using ecol

economics to evaluate the impact 

and regulations. We will also estab

research agenda to better account 

cal impacts in benefit-cost analyse

166 
determining the 

value of reducing 

health risks; 

improving our cost 

estimation; and 

treating uncertainty 

in benefit-cost 

analysis. 

Through our 

SAB affiliation, 

EPA will work 

closely with preeminent economic scientists. 

We will continue to consult with the SAB 

Environmental Economics Advisory 

Committee to ensure that our Economic 

Guidelines comport with current economic 

science in mortality risk valuation, uncertainty analysis, and ecological benefits valuation. 

Finally, to improve our staff ’s capability to 

provide sound economic and policy analysis, 

our internal Economics Forum will continue 

to address economic issues. We will train staff 

in such key areas as economic analysis guidance, children’s health valuation, 

quantitative uncertainty analysis, and incorporating analysis in regulation and policy 

development effectively. 

Addressing Policy Priorities 

EPA actions are bounded by many policy 

priorities and initiatives, including 

Congressional priorities provided in environmental or other statutes, Executive Office 

priorities presented in executive orders, and 

Agency initiatives. We will use appropriate 

economic and policy analysis to further the 

Agency’s policy priorities. 

entities. When 

appropriate, we 

will continue to 

convene a Small 

Business Advocacy 

Panel with the 

Office of Management and Budget 

and Small Business 

Administration. 

To date, EPA has 

convened 26 panels 

and continues to assess the need for additional panels. 

In addressing our policy priorities, we will 

continue to promote innovative analytic 

approaches, work with our federal, state, tribal, and local government partners, and 

encourage public participation to ensure that 

Agency decision-makers consider a broad 

range of approaches and perspectives. 
168 

Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/wme. Date of access: August 25, 2003. 

5. Network Steering Board. Exchange Network Net Web Site: http://www.exchangenetwork.net. Wa

Date of access: August 26, 2003. 

6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA’s Enterprise Architecture 2003, Submitted to the Offi

Management and Budget, September 8, 2003. Internal document. 

7. Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-106, February 10, 1996). Available online at 

http://www.tricare.osd.mil/imtr/ppm/documents/clingercohen.pdf. Date of access: August 25, 2003

8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. Environmental Da

Council Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/edsc. Washington DC. Date of access: August 21, 2003. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. System of Registrie

http://www.epa.gov/sor. Washington DC. Date of access: August 21, 2003. 

9. Mark Luttner and Mark Day, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental In

August 15, 2003. Electronic Records and Document Management System (ERDMS) Update Mem

Washington DC. 

10. Network Steering Board. Exchange Network Net Web Site: http://www.exchangenetwork.net. Wa

Date of access: August 26, 2003. 

11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. Central Data Exch

Site: http://www.epa.gov/cdx. Washington DC. Date of access: August 26, 2003. 

12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 2002. Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the 

Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity, of Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency, 

02-008. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at http://www.epa.g

tyguidelines, EPA Information Quality Guidelines Web Site. Date of access: September 17, 2003. 

13. U.S. Office of Management and Budget. April 2003. Implementing the President’s Management Agen

Government. Washington DC. Available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/2003egov

Date of access: September 17, 2003. 

14. U.S. Office of Management and Budget. April 2003. Implementing the President’s Management Agen

Government. Washington DC. Available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/2003egov

Date of access: September 17, 2003. 

15. National Academy of Public Administration. 2000. Environment.gov: Transforming Environmental P

the 21st Century. Washington, DC. 

Gibson, Thomas. March/April 2002. The innovation imperative. Environmental Forum Volume 19

22 - 31. 

16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation. April 2002. 

Better Environmental Results: A Strategy To Guide the Next Generation of Environmental Protection, E

002. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Available online at www.epa.gov/opei/strateg

17. Information about Environmental Management Systems (EMS) and EPA’s EMS activities is availa

www.epa.gov/ems. Date of access: August 2003. 

18. Information about EPA’s Clear Skies Initiative is available online at: www.epa.gov/clearskies. Date 

August 2003. 
y , /q() 

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/ch82.html. 

24. Information about EPA’s Resource Conservation Challenge is available online at www.epa.gov/epaoswer/ 

osw/conserve. Date of access: August 2003. 

25. Information about EPA’s Sector Strategies Program is available online at www.epa.gov/sectors. Date of access: 

August 2003. 

26. Information about EPA’s National Environmental Performance Track program is available online at 

www.epa.gov/performancetrack. Date of access: August 2003. 

27. Information on the Audit, Small Business, and Small Communities policies is available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/incentives/index.html. Date of access: June 2003. 

28. Information about EPA’s Environmental Results Program can be found online at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/incentives/innovations/programresults.html. Date of access: August 2003. 

29. Information about the National Compliance Assistance Clearinghouse is available online at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/clearinghouse/index.cfm. Date of access: August 2003. 

Information about Industry-specific Compliance Assistance Centers can be found online at http://www.assistancecenters.net. Date of access: August 2003. 

30. Information about EPA’s National Center for Environmental Innovation can be found online at 

http://www.epa.gov/innovation. Date of access: August 2003. 

31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Human Resources and Organizational Services (OHROS). 

June 2000. Investing in Our People, EPA’s Strategy for Human Capital, 2001 through 2003, Draft. Washington, 

DC. 

32. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Human Resources and Organizational Services (OHROS). 

August 2003. Investing in Our People II, EPA’s Strategy for Human Capital, 2003 - 2008, Draft. Washington, DC. 

33. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework. 

Washington, DC: Office of Human Capital Leadership and Merit System Accountability, c/o Human Capital 

Liaison. 

34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Human Resources and Organizational Services (OHROS). 

June 2002. National Strategic Workforce Planning methodology, Draft. Washington, DC. 

35. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Human Resources and Organizational Services (OHROS). 

EPA’s PeoplePlus system is built using PeopleSoft, Inc., Human Resources Management System Software. For 

additional information about PeopleSoft products and services, visit: http://www.PeopleSoft.com. Date of 

access: August 28, 2003. 

36. Office of Management and Budget. The Official Site of the President’s E-Government Initiatives Web Site: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov. Washington, DC. Date of access: August 28, 2003. 

37. Office of Personnel Management. Overview of OPM’s E?Government Initiatives Web Site: 

http://apps.opm.gov/egov. Washington, DC. Date of access: August, 28, 2003. 

38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM). 

September 2001. EPA Senior Executive Service Candidate Development Program, EPA210-F-01-001. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 
170 

gy, g

August 2003. EPA’s Human Capital Accountability Plan, Draft. Washington, DC 

44. National Research Council. 2000. Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Management and Peer Review Practices. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

45. National Academy of Sciences. 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government Managing the Proc

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

National Research Council. 1994. Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: Nati

Academy Press. 

46. National Research Council. 1997. Building a Foundation for Sound Environmental Decisions. Washin

National Academy Press.. 

47. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. June 5, 2003. FY 2005 Inter

Research and Development Priorities). Available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoran

15.pdf. Accessed September 15, 2003. 

48. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 1999. Sound Science Technical Issue Paper. Pe

Florida. 

49. Carol M. Browner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 2, 1994. Peer Review and Peer Inv

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/osp/spc/perevme

Accessed September 15, 2003. 

50. The National Academies. The National Academies Web Site: http://www.nas.edu. Accessed Sept

2003. 

51. Information about EPA’s Science Advisory Board is available online at http://www.epa.gov/sab/. 

52. Information about EPA’s Board of Scientific Counselors is available online at http://www.epa.gov/

bosc/index.htm. 

53. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Information Quality Guidelines Web Site: http://ww

oei/qualityguidelines/. Accessed September 15, 2003. 

54. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Policy Council, Science Policy Council Web Sit

http://www.epa.gov/osp/spc/. Accessed September 15, 2003. 

55. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Risk Assessment Forum Web Si

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/raf/index.cfm.cfm?ActType=default. Accessed September 15, 2003. 

56. Regulatory Environmental Modeling, About CREM, July 29, 2003, available online at http://cfpub

crem/aboutcrem.cfm. Date of access: September 15, 2003. 

57. Tribal Science Council, Tribal Science Council Mission Statement, available online at http://www.ep

tribes/tsc.htm. Date of access: September 15, 2003. 

58. Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, 42 U.S. Code 2

107-188, June 12, 2002. 

59. Presidential Decision Directive 39 (PDD-39), U.S. Policy on Counterterrorism, June 21, 1995. Av

online at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/pdd39.htm, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

Domestic Preparedness Web Site. Date of access: September 17, 2003. 
61. White House Office of Homeland Security. July 2002. National Strategy for Homeland Security. Washington, DC: 

GPO. Available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/book/nat_strat_hls.pdf, The White House, 

Homeland Security Web Site. Date of access: September 17, 2003. 

62. Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, 42 U.S. Code 201, Public Law 

107-188, June 12, 2002, Title IV, “Drinking Water Security and Safety.” 

63. Presidential Decision Directive 39 (PDD-39), U.S. Policy on Counterterrorism, June 21, 1995. Available 

online at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/pdd39.htm, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for 

Domestic Preparedness Web Site. Date of access: September 17, 2003. 

64. Presidential Decision Directive 62 (PDD-62), Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland 

and Americans Overseas, May 22, 1998. Available online at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/pdd62.htm, 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness Web Site. Date of access: September 

17, 2003. 

65. Presidential Decision Directive 63 (PDD-63), Policy on Critical Infrastructure Protection, May 22, 1998. 

Available online at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/pdd63.htm, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

Office for Domestic Preparedness Web Site. Date of access: September 17, 2003. 
Social Costs


and Benefits

President’s Management Agenda.1 The 

Agency would like to have provided estimates of the social costs and benefits of 

attaining our strategic goals. However, such 

an analysis is infeasible, largely because EPA’s 

economic models and tools have not been 

developed to estimate the aggregate costs or 

benefits of achieving the kind of ambitious, 

broad, long-term goals adopted in this 

Strategic Plan. 

As part of its ongoing assessment of EPA’s 

progress toward Budget and Performance 

Integration, OMB has recognized the 

methodological difficulties of estimating the 

future social costs of achieving our strategic 

goals. This appendix, therefore, describes the 

current social costs and benefits of EPA’s programs and policies under each of our strategic 

goal areas for the year 2002. It is important 

to note that although the results are presented here by strategic goal area, they do not 

reflect the costs and benefits of achieving the 

specific strategic goals in this plan. 

Scope and Methodology 

The methods used here are generally 

based on those used in EPA’s 1990 report, 

Environmental Investments: The Cost of a 

Clean Environment.

2 In that report, EPA presented a comprehensive assessment of the 

costs of environmental programs based on 

readily available data, including those from 

the U.S. Census Pollution Abatement Costs 

and Expenditures (PACE) survey.

3 Many 

parts of the analysis in this appendix draw 

upon the most recent version of this survey. 

The analysis in this report is also guided by 

dards or attainment of goals. 

For the purposes of this report

defined social costs as nonfederal ex

due to EPA policies, regulations, a

grams. This includes compliance c

private sector as well as costs born

and local governments. It does no

the costs of “basic services,” such a

removal or sewer lines, under the 

that these activities would occur r

EPA activities. Also, our definition 

costs is narrower than that typicall

economists. Economists usually de

costs as all opportunity costs assoc

resource use, which would include 

vant indirect effects throughout th

economy. Additionally, we include 

report some expenditures that are 

sified as transfers than as social co

This appendix is based on read

able information assembled in way

methodologically convenient. It d

existing data, reports, summaries, a

of the costs and benefits of environ

regulation. While there are many 

address these economic effects in p

regulatory impact analyses), studie

support the analysis of social costs 

fits for strategic goal purposes are n

generally available. Even the most 

existing analyses, such as those est

the benefits and costs of the Clean 

(CAA) mandated under Section 8

1990 Clean Air Act Amendments 

are substantially limited by curren

data and models.6 

174 
limitations in data and methods prohibited 

quantification and monetization. 

Key Limitations of the Analysis 

While this appendix presents an assessment of benefits and costs of EPA activities 

in the year 2002, it is not a benefit-cost 

analysis. A benefit-cost analysis would evaluate EPA activities over time and calculate 

the present value of future costs and benefits. 

Efficiency could then be gauged by comparing the present value of benefits with the 

present value of costs. An analysis of current 

costs and benefits, like this report, only presents information for a single year. The 

distinction between assessing current (singleyear) costs and benefits and assessing the 

present value of all costs and benefits is important because even a program that is net 

beneficial may have costs exceeding benefits 

in any particular year. For example, a regulation promulgated in 2001 may result in 

compliance costs during 2002, but may not 

produce benefits until future years. This 

could be the case for a regulation that 

reduces exposure to carcinogens and leads to 

cancers avoided after a period of latency. 

The cost and benefit estimates in this 

appendix cannot be aggregated across goal 

areas without some double-counting, due to 

the overlapping of many EPA activities. For 

example, the costs and benefits of enforcement activities are subsumed in the estimates 

under other goals because of compliance 

assumptions in analyses of specific programs 

in those goals. 

aggregated results even within narrowly 

defined programs should generally be regarded as suggestive rather than conclusive. 

This analysis was completed in a relatively brief period of time in order to be included 

with the Strategic Plan. The timeframe was 

much shorter than that provided for analyses 

that are narrower in scope and did not allow 

for a more thorough and rigorous assessment 

of all benefits and costs. However, this 

appendix has been subject to limited external 

peer review by four experts in economic 

analysis of environmental programs. 

Additionally, the appendix was subject to an 

internal Information Quality Guidelines predissemination review. The appendix was 

subsequently revised. More information on 

peer review comments and supporting documents may be found on the website for the 

National Center for Environmental 

Economics (www.epa.gov/economics) following publication of this document. 

Specific limitations and uncertainties 

associated with estimates of individual programs and Agency activities are detailed 

below. In many cases the appendix reports 

several separate estimates for individual programs under a goal area. Generally we have 

not added these separate estimates to produce 

an overall estimate for the goal area because 

of concerns about double-counting costs 

and/or benefits described earlier. 

Appendix Overview 

This appendix presents costs and benefits 

individually by strategic goal area. Under 

each goal we begin by discussing the scope of 
mobile sources, and area source compli

ance—as well as for the compliance costs and 

benefits associated with the stratospheric 

ozone program. 

Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water 

This appendix reports the benefits and 

costs of programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the Clean Water 

Act (CWA). All actions evaluated under the 

SDWA are regulations that improve the 

quality of drinking water in the United 

States. CWA programs assessed in this report 

include industrial and municipal pollution 

control performance standards for point 

sources of pollutants. 

Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration 

Most of the activities associated with the 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response, including Superfund, the Oil Spill 

Program, and activities under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act and 

Underground Storage Tank program, fall 

under this goal. Quantitative and qualitative 

descriptions of benefits and costs are reported 

for each of these activities. 

Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems 

The analysis includes EPA’s pesticide programs, such as registration and 

re-registration, worker protection and certification, and ecological resource protection. 

The Toxics Release Inventory Program also 

falls under this goal, and the section provides 

an assessment of its costs and benefits. 

these in the appendix as nonfede

ditures.” Also included are pollutio

prevention programs under Office 

Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic 

and the Office of Solid Waste and 

Response. 

GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR A

GLOBAL CLIMATE CH

DISCUSSION 

Although the Office of Air an

Radiation (OAR) administers seve

grams in addition to the CAA7 reg

the estimates presented in this sec

based upon assessments of CAA a

CAAA.8 Of OAR’s programs and 

CAA- and CAAA-related activiti

the most significant costs and ben

addition, several programs, such as 

tion program, are voluntary and re

expenditures from private firms. METHODOLOGY To estimate the costs and bene

of CAA and its Amendments, we 

the comprehensive economic asses

the legislation that Congress requi

Agency to conduct under Section 

CAAA. To date, EPA has complet

reports to Congress in this series: 

1.The Benefits and Costs of th

Act: 1970 to 19909 (hereaf

Retrospective”) was delive

Congress in 1997 

176 
pliance with all National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (Title I of the Act); 

measures to control air pollutant emissions 

from mobile sources, primarily cars and trucks 

(Title II); measures to control the release of 

hazardous air Pollutants (Title III); measures 

to control acid rain, including the sulfur emissions trading program that primarily affects 

electric utilities (Title IV); permitting requirements (Title V); and measures to control 

pollutants that contribute to the depletion of 

stratospheric ozone (Title VI). 

We generate separate cost and benefit 

estimates for CAA and CAAA and, for reasons noted in the appendix, we present only 

estimates based on the Prospective. While 

estimate-specific discussions appear in the 

appendix, for the most part estimates related 

to this appendix have been calculated by linearly interpolating estimates provided in the 

Prospective. We present estimates for three 

source categories—point sources, mobile 

sources, and area source compliance—as well 

compliance costs associated with Title VI of 

the Amendments. 

LIMITATIONS 

A variety of uncertainties and limitations 

are associated with the estimates discussed in 

the appendix. As previously noted, these estimates are not reflective of all of OAR’s 

program. 

Because of the comprehensive nature of 

the Retrospective and Prospective, an ideal 

measure of the social costs and benefits 

would reflect the combined effect of CAA 

co-control efficiencies, the cost-reducing 

effects of 12 years of learning-by-doing, major 

advancements in technologies for extracting 

and using low-sulfur coal that reduces costs of 

all compliance, and a significant shift in U.S. 

economic activity away from higher-polluting 

manufacturing industries. As a result, 

attempting to extrapolate the cost and benefit estimates from the Retrospective to 2002 

is too problematic to undertake. We therefore 

report only estimates from the Prospective. 

The likely effect on the cost estimates we 

report is that they are underestimated somewhat. The recent PACE survey suggests that 

the degree of underestimation in costs may 

be small. The likely effect on benefit estimates is a substantial underestimation, as the 

Prospective measures benefits relative to a 

baseline of CAA compliance. 

The PACE survey suggests that the total 

point source costs of complying with CAA 

and CAAA are much less than the sum of 

the Retrospective and Prospective cost estimates and are close to those estimated for the 

Prospective alone. According to PACE 

results, point source expenditures in 1999 

were $10 billion in 2002 dollars. Adjusting 

for inflation and increased abatement and 

prevention activity between 1999 and 2002, 

these costs would be $11.5 billion in 2002, 

which is significantly lower than the $44.4 

billion sum of point source compliance costs 

as estimated in the Retrospective and 

Prospective analyses. 

With regard to the benefit estimates, 

monetized social benefits include only 

improvements in human health, enhanced 
1990 were approximately $1.2 trillion in 

1990 dollars, which translates to over $1.8 

trillion in 2002 dollars. While we cannot 

reliably estimate the effects of a shift in economic activity away from more polluting 

activities, some of which may actually have 

been hastened by CAA, it is reasonable to 

expect that some substantial portion of this 

very large benefit estimate still applies in 

2002. As a result, we expect that our estimates are a substantial understatement. 

SUMMARY OF RESULTS 

A summary of the estimated costs and 

benefits appears in Table 1. Using a 5 percent 

discount rate, the estimated 2002 monetized 

benefits associated with OAR regulations and 

programs are $118.9 billion, while the estimated costs are $30.9 billion. 

To estimate 2002 CAAA com

costs, we linearly interpolated cost 

from the 2000 and 2010 target yea

Prospective analysis. Table 2 show

tion-adjusted point source costs of 

the two target years. Using the 20

2010 data from the Prospective an

estimated the annual change in co

ferent types of point sources. Based 

per year average change, we estim

point source CAAA compliance c

approximately $10.0 billion in 200

Mobile and Area Sources 

The Prospective presents 2000 

compliance cost estimates for both 

and off-road mobile sources. We u

estimates to linearly interpolate 20

ance costs for motor vehicles and 

engines. Mobile source costs for C

TABLE 1 

SUMMARY OF 2002 MONETIZED COSTS AND BENEFITS OF 

OAR REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS 

(billions of 2002 dollars) 

Regulation or Program Costs Be

CAAA, Titles I through V $29.1 $

CAAA, Title VI $1.8 $

TOTAL, CAAA $30.9 $

Note: The above estimates were generated using a 5 percent discount rate, consistent with advice recei

from the Science Advisory Board panel that oversaw development of the section 812 reports. A discou

tivity analysis performed in the Prospective found that annual costs in 2010 are 0.746 percent lower wh

discount rate is 3 percent, but the analysis could only be completed for a subset of the relevant regulati

of the effect of a modeled cessation lag, the use of a lower discount rate would increase benefits. 

178 
Utility Point 

Sources $4,610 $6,841 $223 $5,056 

Permits $446 $446 $0 $446 

Total $9,369 $12,343 $297 $9,963 

approximately $19.2 billion in 2002. As was 

the case with point sources, cost estimates 

derived from the sum of Retrospective and 

Prospective analysis estimates may substantially overestimate total 2002 mobile source 

costs because of the reasons previously discussed. 

We performed a separate calculation for 

area source compliance costs with CAAA. 

Our method for calculating area source costs 

related to CAAA was identical to our 

method for calculating mobile source costs. 

Stratospheric Ozone 

In calculating the costs of Title VI of 

CAAA in 2002, we used data that formed 

the basis of EPA’s present-value stratospheric 

ozone cost estimate in the Prospective analysis. We present only the costs associated with 

compliance with Sections 604 and 606, as 

most of CAAA stratospheric ozone costs are 

associated with these sections. Adjusting the 

Prospective estimates for inflation, we estimate the 2002 cost of the stratospheric ozone 

provisions is approximately $1,752 million. 

However, the costs of the stratospheric ozone 

program were highest during its earlier years. 

By 2008, the last year covered in this Strategic 

Plan, annual costs of the program will have 

fallen by 36 percent. 

SOCIAL BENEFITS 

Monetized social benefits include 

improvements in human health, enhanced 

worker productivity, and increased recreational services. OAR programs also generate 

ecological benefits that have not been quantified. Benefit estimates are based upon the 

Prospective analyses of the legislation, which 

provides monetized benefits estimates for the 

human health and welfare improvements 

resulting from CAAA. 

The Prospective analysis provides annual 

benefits estimates for the target years 2000 

and 2010. To estimate the 2002 benefits of 

CAAA, we linearly interpolated the inflation-adjusted annual change in benefits 

between the years 2000 and 2010. Based on 

this average rate of change, we estimate 2002 

health and welfare benefits of $118 billion 

(Table 3). 

Stratospheric Ozone 

We estimated the annual benefits of the 

stratospheric ozone provisions of Title VI of 

CAAA with annual benefits data used to calculate the present value of benefits estimated 

in the Prospective. According to these data 

and adjusting for inflation, benefits are $893 

million in 2002. Although the 2002 annual 
Hospitalization $414 $775 $36 

Minor Illness $1,538 $2,443 $91 

Welfare $4,327 $6,186 $186 

Total $105,527 $166,707 $6,118 $

Notes: Mortality benefits include only the deaths of people who are least 30 years of age. Chronic illnes

chronic bronchitis and chronic asthma. Hospitalization benefits include all hospital visits due to respirat

cardiovascular conditions, as well as asthma-related emergency room visits. Minor illnesses include acut

tis, upper respiratory symptoms, lower respiratory symptoms, asthma attacks, work-loss days, and several 

conditions. Welfare benefits include enhanced worker productivity, increased recreational activity, and i

agricultural productivity. For a complete list of minor illnesses, refer to Table H-5 of US EPA (1999). 

benefits are less than 2002 costs, most of the 

benefits of the program will not be realized 

until after 2015. Estimates of annual benefits 

climb rapidly after 2015, to well over $1 billion 

annually through the end of the 21st century. 

GOAL 2: 


CLEAN AND SAFE WATER


DISCUSSION 

EPA’s programs related to this goal are 

primarily administered under the SDWA11 

and CWA.12 

In 2002, 14 federal regulations aimed at 

improving the quality of drinking water in 

the United States were in effect (see Table 

4). These regulations require public drinking 

water systems to monitor for contaminants, 

provide finished water in compliance with 

maximum contaminant levels, install 

required drinking water treatment technologies, and inform their customers when water 

quality is compromised. In addition, these 

regulations impose primacy requirements on 

the states to implement and enforc

regulations. The public health issu

addressed by these rules are far-rea

They include, among other effects

cancer cases, reduced incidences o

trointestinal illnesses associated w

microbial infections, and reduced 

of brain damage associated with le

sure in children. 

With regard to surface water, E

lishes industrial and municipal pol

control performance standards for 

sources of conventional, nonconve

and toxic pollutants. It charges st

tribes with setting specific water q

ria appropriate for their waters and 

developing pollution control progr

including controls on nonpoint so

meet them. The Agency also prov

ing to states and communities to h

meet their clean water infrastructu

EPA’s efforts to implement the CW

benefits to businesses that use wat

input and to households, which va

for a variety of services including r

aesthetics, existence, and fish cons

180 
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Fluoride 

(51 Federal Register 11396, April 2, 1986) 1986 $4.4 No estimate 

Reduction in incidences of 

osteosclerosis and fluorosis. 

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Synthetic Organic 

Chemicals (Phase I) (52 Federal Register 25690, July 8, 1987) 1987 $63.4 No estimate 27-32 cancer cases avoided. 

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Total Coliform 

Rule (54 Federal Register 27544, June 29, 1989) 1989 $86.3 -$102.4 

No 

estimate 

Identification of public water sys

tems that are contaminated or 

vulnerable to contamination. 

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Surface Water 

Treatment Rule (54 Federal Register 27486, June 29, 1989) 1989 $672.5 -$955.6 

No 

estimate 

Reduction in 83,194 cases of wa

borne microbiological disease. 

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Synthetic 

Organic Chemicals; Inorganic Chemicals; (Phase II) 

(56 Federal Register 3526, January 30, 1991) 

1991 $147.3 $39.0 -

$778.3 

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Lead and 

Copper (56 Federal Register 26460, June 7, 1991) 1991 $699.8 -$1,105.7 

$4,016.8 -

$6,215.1 

Corrosion control extends the 

of distribution system. 

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Volatile 

Organic Chemicals (Phase IIB) 

(56 Federal Register 30266, July 1, 1991) 

1991 No 

estimate 

No 

estimate 

280,000 reduced exposures to 

aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, and 

aldicarb sulfone. 960,000 people 

will have reduced exposure to 

pentachlorophenol. 

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Synthetic 

Organic Chemicals and Inorganic Chemicals (Phase V) 

(57 Federal Register 31776, July 17, 1992) 

1992 $59.7 No 

estimate 

0.01 cases of cancer avoided pe

year. 

National Primary Drinking Water Regulation; Consumer 

Confidence Reports 

(63 Federal Register 44512, August 19, 1998) 

1998 $25.5 No 

estimate 

Increased consumer awareness 

concerning source water protec

tion. Encourages consumers to 

more aware of decisions that af

their health. 

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Disinfectants 

and Disinfection By-products (Stage 1) 

(63 Federal Register 69389, December 16, 1998) 

1998 $676.7 $0 -

$4,324.2 

Possibly reduces mutagenicity, k

ney disorders, developmental 

effects, immunotoxicity, liver d

orders, kidney disorders, and 

spleen disorders. 

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Interim 

Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 

(63 Federal Register 69478, December 16, 1998) 

1998 $310.3 $376.2 -

$1,732.9 

Reduces the risk of outbreaks a

exposure to other pathogens su

as giardia. 

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Radionuclides 

(65 Federal Register 76707, December 7, 2000) 2000 $86.4 $5.0 

Avoidance of kidney toxicity d

to reductions in exposure to ura

um. Treatments may also reduc

exposure to other contaminant

TOTAL 

$3,125.6 

to 

$3,830.7 

$4,730.3 

to 

$13,348.8 

1 All prices were adjusted to Year 2002 dollars using the estimated GDP price index as found in Historical Table 10.1 of the FY2003 Federal Bud
gp

SDWA regulations. Specifically, the cost of 

compliance with the two earliest drinking 

water standards (the National Interim 

Primary Drinking Water Regulations14 and 

the Total Trihalomethane Rule15) estimate is 

based on information from Cost of Clean, 

while the incremental cost of the remaining 

12 regulations rely upon the other types of 

documents. For each of these 12 federal regulations, the annualized capital cost was added 

to the annual operation and maintenance 

costs to derive an estimate of 2002 social 

costs. 

An estimate of the benefits associated 

with the two earliest regulations is not readily available. For the purpose of this analysis, 

it is assumed that the annual benefits of these 

two rules are equal to the annual costs.16 For 

each of the 12 regulations, the annualized 

benefits were applied to derive an estimate of 

2002 benefits. In some cases, we were not 

able to monetize or quantify the estimated 

benefits of a regulation. 

Clean Water Act 

Cost estimates related to CWA are based 

on partial estimates through the mid-1990s 

from EPA’s retrospective study of the costs of 

CWA17 and are supplemented by data on 

water pollution abatement expenditures from PACE surveys, the Census of Governments 

through 2000/2001 for state/local spending, 

and EPA 2002 budget for information on federal spending.18 Data through 1994 

(industrial) and 2000/2001 (state/local) are 

extrapolated to 2002 using the methods 

described in the retrospective cost study. The 

EPA program if the program prom

spending is carried out by EPA or 

enforced by EPA. The estimate do

include most nonpoint source cost

of which are voluntarily initiated 

to incentive-based voluntary progr

ever, these programs are also often 

cost-shared. Likewise, it does not i

clean water programs implemented 

federal agencies. We also assume t

would be some spending on water 

abatement even in the absence of 

grams.19 LIMITATIONS 

Safe Drinking Water Act To estimate the costs and bene

SDWA programs, we used the econ

analyses developed in support of 14 

actions. While aggregating the val

paratively straightforward, it is imp

note that the approach taken in th

ses typically involves comparing th

the world before the regulation to 

the world after the regulation. Thi

and-after approach ignores the pot

the future state of the world to be 

than it is today even without the r

It is, however, analytically more tra

since a sophisticated baseline forec

necessary. 

Clean Water Act To estimate CWA benefits and 

used a “with-and-without” approac

improves the quality of the baselin

182 
expenditures administered by federal agencies 

other than EPA which may provide federal 

contributions toward state/local clean water 

activities. However, we are uncertain how 

much of this spending may simply fund basic 

services or further CWA activities. 

Furthermore, we did not separate some funds 

in EPA’s water budget that are provided to 

state and local governments because 

state/local spending on these items was not 

considered to be pursuant to an EPA mandate in the first place. Finally, our process for 

extrapolating to 2002 from data series that 

end in 1994 (PACE) and 2000/2001 (Census 

of Governments) omits any increments of 

spending due to EPA programs or requirements that have ramped up sharply over 

this period. 

There are also uncertainties and omissions associated with the CWA social benefit 

estimate. The partial estimate of benefits 

through the mid-1990s does not include 

improvements to the Great Lakes, ocean 

shorelines, bays and estuaries, and lakes and 

reservoirs; benefits from reductions in nonconventional and toxic pollutants and 

controls on nonpoint sources; or withdrawal 

benefits. These omissions likely result in a 

substantial underestimate of benefits. No 

benefits are counted for the National Toxics 

Rule (NTR),21 state water quality standards 

for toxics not included in the NTR, or the 

Combined Sewer Overflow policy.

22 Only 

partial estimates were possible for other regulations implemented since the 1990s. 

Although EPA policies may be reflected in 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System permits by 2002, factors such as com

SDWA programs are estimated to be between 

$4.8 billion and $13.5 billion in 2002, while 

the costs are estimated to be between $3.1 

billion and $3.8 billion. The monetized portion of the benefits of CWA programs are 

estimated to be $12.8 billion, while the costs 

are estimated to be $11.2 billion. Potentially 

significant effects were not valued in monetary terms, in large part as a result of missing 

or incomplete data and/or methods. For 

example, the data, information, and/or 

methodologies required to reasonably estimate and monetize the benefits associated 

with CWA programs are often entirely 

unavailable, particularly with regard to ecological benefits. 

SOCIAL COSTS 

Safe Drinking Water Act 

The estimated social costs of SDWA programs are presented in Table 4. 

Clean Water Act 

Annual 2002 monetized social costs for 

the public and private sectors pursuant to 

EPA clean surface water programs implemented under CWA are presented in Table 5. 

SOCIAL BENEFITS 

Safe Drinking Water Act 

The estimated monetized social benefits 

of SDWA programs are presented in Table 4. 
ventional pollutants, improvements to rivers 

and streams, and in place and existence benefit values. EPA has estimated the benefits of 

some of these missing elements, listed in 

Table 6: 

•Great Lakes Water Quality 

Guidance.24 

• California Toxics Rule.25 

•Effluent limitation guidelines for 

seven industries.26 

GOAL 3: 


LAND PRESERVATION 

AND RESTORATION


DISCUSSION 

In general, most of the activit

ed with Office of Solid Waste and 

Response (OSWER) programs sup

TABLE 5 

ESTIMATED 2002 SOCIAL COSTS OF CWA PROGRAMS 

(millions of 2002 dollars) 

Item 

Total 

CWA-Prompted 

Public & Private 

Spending 

(Net of nonCWA Spending) 

Federal 

Contribution 

Soc

Net 

Con

(“no

expen

Industry: 

Capital 

O&M (net of cost savings) 

$3,156.3 

$2,608.2 

$0.0 

$0.0 

$3

$2

Public sewerage and wastewater 

treatment: 

Capital 

O&M 

$2,340.7 

$4,401.8 

$1,599.5 

$0.0 

$

$4

Regulation and monitoring and other $766.4 $604.8 $

Research and development $133.0 $55.5 

Public electric utilities $93.9 $0.0 

Total $13,500.3 $2,259.8 $1

184 
and Reuse; activities of the Technology and 

Innovations Office; 2002 Oil Pollution 

Prevention Revisions;28 and Hazardous Waste 

Combustion maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) standards.29 

Three OSWER activities that support 

other goals are activities implemented by the 

Office of Brownfields Cleanup and 

Redevelopment to restore brownfields; chemical facility planning and preparedness under 

the Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act,30 which is implemented 

by the Chemical Emergency Preparedness 

and Prevention Office; and waste reduction 

and resource efficiency efforts managed by 

the Office of Solid Waste (OSW). The 

brownfields and chemical facility activities 

support EPA’s Goal 4, which entails the 

development and protection of healthy communities and ecosystems. OSWER’s waste 

reduction initiatives assist in achieving EPA’s 

Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental 

Stewardship. It is important to note that 

OSWER programs also contribute to the protection of water and air (i.e., by ensuring the 

proper management and rapid cleanup of 

volatile wastes and by encouraging pollution 

prevention). The limitations of available 

data, however, prevent the accurate assignment of benefits among multiple goals. 

Ideally, a broad benefits analysis would start 

with a discussion of what the benefits are and 

then associate (multiple) program activities 

with those benefits. 

by O, OSWuses a sped de

tion of annual social costs that includes all 

private and nonfederal public (i.e., state, tribal, and municipal) expenditures to 

implement OSWER regulations and programs.32 Benefits include estimates of human 

health and ecological impacts that have been 

avoided as a result of OSWER programs, estimates of the costs avoided as a result of 

regulations preventing releases (e.g., emergency cleanup and response costs), and 

estimates of economic welfare improvements 

resulting from reduced waste-related pollution (e.g., quality of life). 

To estimate private sector social costs, 

OSWER relied primarily on data from the 

1999 PACE survey, adjusted to remove categories and costs that are not in response to 

OSWER programs. Where PACE data do not 

address specific costs (e.g., non-manufacturing industry hazardous waste management 

and underground storage tank cleanup costs) 

OSWER used available EPA data to estimate 

costs. 

To estimate state and local government 

costs, OSWER relied on the Environmental 

Council of States’ report, States Put Their 

Money Where Their Environment Is (State 

Environmental Spending),

33 to estimate costs 

associated with hazardous waste management 

under RCRA; the Regulatory Impact Analysis 

for the Final Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills (Municipal Solid Waste Landfill 

RIA)34 to estimate state and local costs associated with nonhazardous waste 

management; the Association of State and 

Territorial Solid Waste Management 
Great Lakes Water Quality 

Guidance (40 CFR 132) 

(OH, IN, PA, MI, MN, NY, 

WI) (GLI, final, 1995; 

assumed fully implemented 

by 2002) 

Major municipal: 316 

Major industrial: 272 

5.8 million to 7.6 million 

toxic pounds-equivalent 

Evaluated (human health-carcin

$0.9 to $8.2 

Not evaluated: human health-sys

recreational fishing, commercial 

recreational swimming, recreatio

nonconsumptive recreation, hun

Ohio (GLI, final, 1995; 

assumed fully implemented 

2002) - case study 

Major municipal: 3 

Major industrials: 2 

11,000 toxic poundsequivalent Evaluated (recreational fishing, r

boating, waterskiing, sailboardin

ming, nonuse): $1.1* 

Not evaluated: human health 

Michigan (GLI, final, 1995; 

assumed fully implemented 

by 2002) -case study 

Major municipal: 18 

Major industrial: 10 

135,000 toxic poundsequivalent Evaluated (recreational fishing, w

ing, waterfowl and other huntin

commercial fishing, human heal

genic risks, nonuse): $4.9* 

Not evaluated: human health-sys

Wisconsin (GLI, final, 1995; 

assumed fully implemented 

by 2002) -case study 

Major municipal: 6 

Major industrial: 13 

824,000 toxic poundsequivalent Evaluated (recreational fishing, w

ing, commercial fishing, human 

health-carcinogenic risks, nonus

Not evaluated: human health-sys

Idaho (ID WQS, final, 

1997; assumed fully implemented by 2002) (40 CFR 

131.33) 

Major municipals: 1 

Major industrials: 5 

14,772 to 70,000 toxic 

pounds-equivalent 

Not evaluated 

Alabama (AL WQS Phase 

1, final, 1999; assumed fully 

implemented by 2002) (40 

CFR 131.34) 

Major municipals: 6 

Major industrials: 5 

29,000 toxic poundsequivalent (does not 

include BOD reductions) 

Not evaluated 

California (CTR; 40 CFR 

131.38) final, 1999; assumed 

fully implemented by 2002) 

Major municipals: 128 

Major industrials: 56 

1.1 million to 2.7 million 

toxic pounds-equivalent 

Evaluated (human health-carcin

recreational angling-San Francis

freshwater, nonuse): $7.7 to $83

Not evaluated: human health-sys

recreational angling-other estua

resources, recreational boating, s

and related in-stream and stream

ties, wildlife viewing, hunting 

Qualitative 

Evaluated: Nonuse (ecologic) 

186 
Centralized Waste 

Treatment Effluent 

Limitation Guidelines 

(40 CFR Parts 136 and 437) 

(Final rule published 

December 22, 2000) 

223 facilities 9.7 million pounds of 

conventional pollutant 

9.3 million pounds of 

toxic and nonconventional pollutants 

Reduced cancer risk: $0.08  $0.45 

Reduced Lead Health Risk: $0.54 - $1.75 

Reduced Non-Carcinogen Hazard: Unquantified 

Improved Recreation Value: $1.35 - $3.84 

Improved Intrinsic Value 

(including ecological conditions): Unquantified 

Reduced Biosolid Contamination 

at POTW Operation (Inhabition): Unquantified 

Commercial Hazardous 

Waste Combustor 

Subcategory (40 CFR Part 

444) (Final rule published 

January 27, 2000) 

8 facilities 170,000 pounds of pollutants Recreational fishing $0.10 - $0.18 

Nonuse (intrinsic) $0.05 - $0.18 

Avoided cancer cases $0.02 - $0.10 

POTW Operation (Sludge) Unquantified 

Landfills Point Source 

Category (40 CFR Parts 136 

and 445) (Final rule published January 19, 2000) 

143 facilities 323,150 pounds of toxics 

pollutants 

600, 000 pounds of conventional pollutants 

Reduced cancer risk $0.002 - $0.01 

Recreational fishing 0 

Transportation Equipment 

Cleaning Point Source 

Category (40 CFR Part 442) 

(Final rule published August 

14, 2000) 

692 facilities 20,979,069 pounds of 

toxic pollutants 

60,875 pounds of conventional pollutants 

25,574,670 pounds of nonconventional pollutants 

Cancer benefits $0.06 - $0.32 

Recreational benefits $1.08 - $3.78 

Nonuse benefits $0.54 - $1.84 

Pesticide Formulating, 

Packaging, and Repackaging 

Point Source Category (40 

CFR Part 455) (Final rule 

published November 6, 1996) 

2,600 facilities 7,600,000 toxic pounds Benefits not monetized: annualized costs are 

less than $100 million 

Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 

Point Source Category (40 

CFR Part 430) (Published 

April 15, 1998 as part of the 

“Cluster Rule”) 

96 mills AOX: 28,210 kkg 

Chloroform: 45kkg 

Dioxin and 

Furan: 125gm 

Human health: $2.3 - $25.3 

Recreation angling: $2.3- $21.85 

Reduced sludge disposal cost: $9.2 - $18.4 

Oil and Gas Extraction 

(Synthetic-Based Drilling 

Fluids) (40 CFR Part 435) 

(Final rule published January 

22, 2001) 

Gulf of Mexico: 

1,047 shallow wells, 

138 deep wells 

Offshore California: 

7 shallow wells, 0 deep 

wells, Alaska: 6 shallow wells, 0 deep wells 

118 million pounds of 

cuttings per year 

Cost savings: $52.8 million 

NA = not applicable. 

1. Benefit estimates updated to 2002 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. 

* Represents midpoint of the estimated range. 
(EA of RMP Regulations)37 to estimate state 

and local costs associated with chemical 

emergency preparedness and prevention. 

OSWER then adjusted these estimates to net 

out federal distributions through grants and 

cooperative agreements. To the extent possible, costs are allocated among specific 

OSWER programs using available reports on 

office activity and existing regulatory impact 

analyses (RIAs). To estimate annual benefits, OSWER 

compiled benefits estimates from a number of 

existing published reports and adjusted them 

to constant 2002 dollars using BEA’s GDP 

deflator.

38, 39 Where possible, OSWER used 

comprehensive program-level assessments of 

benefits (e.g., the Oil Spill Program).40 The 

analysis in this appendix estimates the total 

benefits of program regulations against a 

“without regulation” baseline. For programs 

that have not been able to perform a comprehensive assessment of benefits, OSWER used 

partial estimates of benefits based on assessments of specific regulations. RIAs provided 

a significant amount of information; our estimates draw from RIAs related to nine major 

OSWER regulations: the municipal solid 

waste landfill design criteria, RCRA 

Corrective Action, the five land disposal 

restriction regulations, and the technical 

standards for USTs.41 and 42 However, RIAs do 

not address benefits related to voluntary 

OSWER programs and initiatives, and, in 

many cases (e.g., RCRA) RIAs provide only 

a partial estimate of benefits because RIAs do 

not address voluntary or pre-compliance 

efforts that change the baseline.43 Several 

mental modeling and economic 

methodologies at the time that som

available studies were developed, a 

portion of the benefits presented b

not quantified. As a result, the mo

and quantified benefits outlined be

sent a lower bound estimate of the 

associated with OSWER programs 

Goal 3. LIMITATIONS 

Estimates of costs reflect a num

uncertainties. Several of these are 

with the 1999 PACE data, includi

1999 PACE survey covers only a s

ber of non-manufacturing industri

mining and electric-power generat

estimate of total costs. To address 

OSWER used data on waste gener

small quantity generators along wi

data to estimate cost for industries 

ered in the 1999 PACE survey. Se

assumptions regarding the calculat

vate costs were also made, and the

detailed in the supporting docume

appendix. 

A number of general and impo

assumptions are reflected in the de

of the cost and benefit estimates: 

•Representative Annual C

general, these estimates as

the most recent reports of 

private sector environmen

ditures are indicative of ex

today and in the near futu

188 
addresses social costs and benefits 

that would not have occurred in the 

absence of OSWER programs. 

Therefore, total social costs are 

adjusted to exclude “baseline” expenditures (e.g., trash removal) that 

would have occurred absent regulation. In the case of benefits, 

estimates generally assume a “without 

regulation baseline” and do not 

require adjustment. However, estimates based on RIAs address only 

the benefits of incremental improvements at facilities in response to 

specific rules and do not address any 

additional benefits associated with 

facilities that complied prior to rule 

publication. 

•Voluntary Expenditures: A portion 

of certain types of costs (e.g., brownfields redevelopment, pollution 

prevention, and recycling) likely represent voluntary business investments 

and do not necessarily result from 

OSWER programs. OSWER does not 

generally attempt to remove voluntary expenses from cost estimates, but 

does apply adjustments (i.e., offsets) 

to reflect cost savings and income 

associated with recycling and pollution prevention. In addition, social 

cost estimates do not include brownfields restoration costs incurred by 

real estate developers, both because 

these costs are difficult to identify 

accurately and because some portion 

of these costs represent business 

advances in health and ecological 

science and economics that allow 

more comprehensive measures of the 

economic value of environmental 

changes. By not incorporating these 

advances, the available estimates 

likely understate known benefits that 

could be measured and valued today. 

Where known benefits cannot be 

monetized, they are described in 

quantitative or qualitative terms. 

•Non-characterized Ecological 

Benefits: We are unable to provide a 

comprehensive quantitative analysis 

of ecosystem services (e.g., a description of the bio-physical functions 

preserved by OSWER programs, a 

discussion of the socially valuable 

services dependent on those functions, and an analysis of factors that 

contribute to the value of those services). Methodological limitations to a 

thorough assessment of ecological 

benefits include lack of quantitative 

information on ecological impacts 

and lack of “market” data on ecosystem services.45 Ecosystem services are 

typically not traded in markets and 

have no revealed monetary value. 

Even when monetary estimates can 

be obtained, they require a great deal 

of data and tend to focus on only a 

subset of services. Available data did 

not support an effort of this scope. 
eedatocosts are estated at about 

$1.2 billion. While most of these costs are 

allocated to the specific sets of programs listed in this section, approximately $1.5 billion 

are included in the total, but cannot be so 

allocated. These are listed as “OSW: Other” 

in the summary table. 

Benefits of programs supporting Goal 3 

that can be monetized total almost $6 billion 

and are also summarized in Table 7. These 

benefits include lower incidence of cancer 

and other ailments, avoided cleanup costs 

and product losses, increased recreational 

opportunities, and ecological improvements. 

The Technical Standards Program from 

OUST accounts for almost all of the monetized benefits in Goal 3; uncertainty in 

estimating the benefits of this rule results in 

the range reported. However, many of the 

benefits of programs under this goal are not 

monetized in this report due to the limitations described in the previous section. These 

non-monetized benefits are diverse and range 

from large numbers of reduced cancers and 

other health effects to the preservation of 

animal habitat and ground water. Non-monetized benefits are detailed below for specific 

sets of programs. SOCIAL COSTS 

Superfund Emergency Response and Oil Spill 

Response 

The quantitative cost estimates of these 

programs are included in the analysis of 

RCRA Prevention and Technical Standards 

SubtitleD Technical Standards, w

Subtitle-C Prevention contributes 

billion of the total. The remaining 

lion is associated with Subtitle-C C

Action. State and local costs assoc

the Corrective Action Program ar

mated separately, but are included 

other RCRA estimates. 

OUST Technical Standards and Cle

Program 

The costs of these OUST prog

estimated at $917 million. The OU

Cleanup Program accounts for $87

of this total, most of which are cos

and local governments. OUST Te

Standards account for $42 million 

ed costs. Private cost estimates for 

Technical Standards Program are n

mated separately. 

Superfund Site Remediation and Fed

Facilities Restoration and Reuse 

The total quantified social cos

set of programs is around $1.2 billi

which are from Superfund Site Re

Most of this cost, about $870 milli

the private sector. Costs associated 

Federal Facilities Restoration and 

on state and local governments an

believed to be minimal. Technology and Innovations 

Social costs for programs unde

Technology and Innovations Offic

believed to be minimal and are no

quantitatively in the total. 

190 
TABLE 7 

SUMMARY OF MONETIZED COSTS AND BENEFITS OF 

OSWER GOAL 3 PROGRAMS 

(millions of 2002 dollars) 

Office and Program State and Local 

Cost Estimate 

Private Cost 

Estimate 

Total Cost 

Estimate 

Monetized 

Benefitsa 

OERR: Superfund 

Emergency Response Included elsewhere in table Not monetized 

OERR: Oil Spill Response Included elsewhere in table $51.2 - $119.5 

OSW: RCRA Subtitle-C 

Prevention $179.8 $1,693.8 $1,873.6 Not monetized 

OSW: RCRA Subtitle-C 

Corrective Action 

Included with RCRA 

Subtitle-C Prevention $136.0 $136.0 Not monetized 

OSW: RCRA Subtitle-D 

Technical Standards $1,138 $1,116.8 $2,254.8 Not monetized 

OSW: Other (recycling, 

pollution prevention, 

other expenditures and 

payments) 

None $1,467.0 $1,467.0 Not monetized 

OUST: Technical 

Standards $42.6 Included 

in Total $42.6 $5,868.1 

OUST: Cleanup Program $826.8 $47.9 $874.6 Not monetized 

OERR: Superfund Site 

Remediation $319.7-$366.1 $872.9 $1,192.6 -

$1,239.0 Not monetized 

Federal Facilities 

Restoration and Reuse Minimal None Minimal $12 

Technology and 

Innovations Office None Minimal Minimal 

Not monetized, 

or reflected in 

reduced costs 

Total Monetized 

Costs & Benefits 

$2,351.7 -

$2,388.1b $5,334.4 $7,686.1 -$7,722.5 

$5,931.3 -

$5,999.6 

a Does not include non-monetized benefits of OSWER programs. 

bThis total estimate includes an adjustment of $165.2 million to account for federal grants to support state and 

local waste programs. 
Programs are diverse and substantial, but are 

not monetized. In total, the non-monetized 

benefits of these programs include 10 to 11 

fewer cases of cancer each year and approximately 150 fewer cases of other illnesses. 

These may be conservative estimates of benefits. RCRA Corrective Actions may also lead 

to 102 fewer cancer cases per year and over 

98,000 reduced non-cancer illnesses. 

Additional benefits arise from long term protection of ground water and land for future 

use, reduced ecological impacts from location 

of facilities, restoration of ecosystems, 

reduced releases of waste near sensitive systems, and avoided costs of replacing 

contaminated drinking water. 

OUST Technical Standards and Cleanup Program 

Monetized benefits are estimated only for 

the OUST Technical Standards Program. 

These benefits total approximately $5.9 billion, which accounts for most of the 

monetized benefits of Goal 3 programs. Other 

benefits include reduced cases of cancer and 

non-cancer health effects, as well as longterm protection of ground water. Benefits also 

arise from approximately 13,600 fewer tanks 

per year releasing pollutants into streams, 

particularly into small, vulnerable streams. 

Benefits from UST Cleanup are not monetized, but include avoided fires and 

explosions, reduced health risks from drinking water contamination, and long-term 

protection of ground water for future use. 

control, and enhanced recreationa

These programs also improve regio

use patterns leading to preservatio

spaces that would otherwise be dev

and to local revitalization. Technology and Innovations 

Benefits from programs under 

Technology and Innovations Offic

OSWER are reflected in reduced r

costs. Non-monetized benefits from 

programs include information from 

documents per year distributed to 

ers and information to 14,000 indi

reached monthly via Tech Direct. 

benefits result from training 6,100 

state cleanup professionals per yea

development and adoption of seve

nologies that quicken the pace and 

cost of site analysis and remediatio

GOAL 4: 


HEALTHY COMMUNIT

AND ECOSYSTEMS
 DISCUSSION 

This goal is supported by a wid

of EPA programs. As is the case fo

goals, the estimates and discussion 

costs and benefits we provide here 

a portion of the objectives include

4. The EPA programs under Goal 

we have some information on soci

and/or benefits include: 

192 
•The Office of Prevention, Pesticides and 

Toxic Substances (OPPTS), Office of 

Pesticide Programs (OPP). OPP, with 

assistance from its regional offices 

and state and tribal partners, protects 

human health and the environment 

from unreasonable risks associated 

with pesticide use, while ensuring 

that human health and economic 

welfare are protected from damages 

caused by insects, weeds, and other 

pathogens. OPP regulates pesticides 

under two statutes. The Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)47 requires 

that pesticides be registered 

(licensed) by EPA before they may 

be sold or distributed for use in the 

United States and that they not 

cause unreasonable adverse effects to 

people or the environment when 

used according to EPA-approved 

label directions. Under the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act 

(FFDCA),48 as amended by the Food 

Quality Protection Act (FQPA),49 

EPA sets tolerances for pesticide 

residues in food and must ensure that 

there is a reasonable certainty of no 

harm to human health as a result of 

pesticide residues in food. 

•OPPTS, Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Lead Safe Housing 

Program. Lead-based paint used in 

houses built prior to 1978 is the 

largest remaining source of lead 

exposure to Americans. Individuals, 

including hazard identification, laboratory procedures, training 

requirements, and information programs. No EPA program requires that 

any lead paint abatement be undertaken, but the TSCA program does 

ensure that all abatements that occur 

are done correctly and safely. 

•OPPTS, Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Asbestos Regulations. 

Long-term exposure to asbestos can 

lead to fatal lung disease (asbestosis) 

and cancer, among other respiratory 

diseases. EPA’s asbestos program for 

schools,52 which also includes guidance for owners of other buildings,53 

regulates the inspection of in-place 

asbestos insulation, as well as the 

proper removal and disposal of 

asbestos if necessary or during remodeling. 

•OPPTS, Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, New Chemicals Program. 

EPA’s New Chemicals Program functions as a “gatekeeper” to ensure that 

new chemicals being introduced into 

commercial use in the United States 

pose low risk or manage risk properly. 

Entities considering manufacturing or 

importing a new chemical must notify EPA of their intent by filing a 

Pre-Manufacture Notice (PMN), 

through which they provide EPA 

with information about the chemical’s use, potential volume, possible 

health risks, disposal practices, and 

human exposures. EPA reviews the 
health risk, safety, and exposure characteristics of chemicals and mixtures 

used in the United States. The 

Inventory Update Rule (IUR)54 

requires manufacturers and importers 

of certain chemical substances 

included on the TSCA Inventory to 

report current data (in 4-year cycles) 

on the production volume, plant site, 

and site-limited status of these substances. Data not considered to be 

confidential business information 

(CBI) are made accessible to the 

public. All the data, CBI and nonCBI, are intended to provide input 

for efforts to evaluate and manage 

risk from exposures to these chemicals. Elements of the Existing 

Chemicals Program addressed here 

are the TSCA Inventory,

55 which 

contains data on the more than 

75,000 chemicals in U.S. commerce, 

and the Testing Program,56 which collects human health and 

environmental data on chemicals for 

which this information is lacking. 

The Testing Program has a particular 

focus on high production volume 

chemicals (greater than 1 million 

pounds/year) and the Voluntary 

Children’s Chemical Exposure 

Program (VCCEP),57 both voluntary 

programs. 

•OSWER, Office of Brownfields 

Cleanup and Redevelopment, 

Brownfields Economic Redevelopment 

Program. EPA’s Brownfields Program 

is designed to empower states, cities, 

environmental assessment

and job training. Four bro

ties serve as the program’s 

cornerstones; these includ

ing the environment, prom

partnerships, sustaining re

strengthening the marketp

•Office of Environmental Inf

Toxics Release Inventory (T

Program. The TRI Program 

annual reporting on toxic 

releases and other waste m

from facilities in manufact

other industry sectors, as w

federal facilities. Section 3

Emergency Planning and C

Right-to-Know Act of 198

owners and operators of fa

manufacture, process, or o

use any of the approximat

ed toxic chemicals and ch

categories in excess of app

threshold quantities to rep

ly to EPA.59 In addition, S

6607 of the Pollution Prev

of 199060 requires that faci

vide information on the q

the toxic chemicals in was

and the efforts they have m

reduce or eliminate those 

Data gathered under these 

are available through a pu

base maintained by EPA.61 

194 
ses used are descrbed te oowg 

sections and more fully in the supporting 

documents for this appendix. 

LIMITATIONS 

Due to a lack of data, many of the social 

costs and benefits for Goal 4 are not monetized. A variety of uncertainties and 

limitations that are associated with the estimates that do exist are described in the 

following sections. As previously noted, an 

overwhelming limitation is that the estimates 

we do have do not represent the full scope of 

EPA programs that strive to achieve Goal 4. 

SOCIAL COSTS 

Risk Management Plans 

The Economic Analysis in Support of the 

Final Rule on Risk Management Program 

Regulations for Chemical Accident Release 

Prevention, as Required by Section 112 (r) of 

the Clean Air Act62 provides an estimate of 

$113.1 million for private compliance costs 

and $34.2 million for state and local government compliance costs.63 Total social costs for 

the Risk Management Plan Program are 

$147.3 million. 

Pesticide Programs 

Nonfederal costs of pesticide regulation 

may be imposed upon registrants (pesticide 

manufacturers or formulators), state agencies, 

pesticide users (most significantly, agricultural and residential users), laborers, and 

consumers. To estimate these costs, we gener

industry actions due to regulations from 

actions due to market forces and in determining how many uses may be effected by a 

general regulation. OPP makes a large number of decisions annually, although the 

impact of a particular decision may be quite 

narrow. In 2002, OPP registered 26 new 

active ingredients (a.i.), including antimicrobial substances, biopesticides, and 

conventional and reduced risk pesticides; registered 720 new uses for registered a.i.; and 

received and evaluated 503 requests for emergency exemptions to existing regulations. 

OPP also reviewed 23 registered chemicals in 

light of new health, safety, and environmental standards, each of which could have 

registrations for over 50 specified uses.64 

Because of the number and relatively 

narrow scope of individual actions that OPP 

takes each year and the limited resources 

available for impact assessments, OPP has 

not previously estimated the total yearly burden of regulatory activities of the pesticide 

programs. Available external studies have 

largely evaluated the impacts of actions OPP 

has never even considered, such as the total 

ban on all organophosphate pesticides or all 

herbicides.65 Therefore, estimates presented 

here were derived especially for this appendix 

using available studies within OPP, including 

estimates of burden for specific data requests, 

impact assessments for specific regulations, 

and unpublished analyses for proposed rulemaking. Details are available in the OPP 

report on costs and benefits, from which this 

summary is derived.66 

OPP estimates that the total net 

yearly burden of pesticide programs is $378.4 
subsets of costs is detailed in Table 8. 

Lead-Safe Housing 

TSCA regulations set standards for lead 

paint abatement-related activities, including 

the proper identification of a lead-based 

paint risk, training requirements for abatement workers, abatement work practices, and 

the disposal of removed hazardous materials. 

In 2002, approximately 30,000 housing units 

underwent at least a screening for lead paint 

hazards, and 11,000 units underwent some 

sort of abatement. The total cost of these 

abatements was $111.4 million, including 

$92.4 million in direct abatement work practice costs, $11.4 million for inspections and 

risk assessments, and $7.6 million for worker 

training.69 

Asbestos 

The current social costs of EPA’s asbestos 

program for schools include periodic reinspections, taking appropriate action to 

repair any deterioration, and the proper 

removal and disposal of asbestos products 

during renovation and remodeling. States 

must also maintain contractor and laboratory 

accreditation programs. 

New Chemicals 

The private costs of the PMN program 

come from the firms’ costs of preparing a 

notification, addressing any EPA concerns, 

and any costs associated with chemicals that 

are rejected as a result of the PMN process 

(0 in 2002) that would otherwise have been 

try of the pre-manufacturing and e

notices was $31 million.70 

Firms may also submit adminis

notices (including commencemen

withdrawals, etc.) that are in addit

aforementioned pre-manufacturing 

exemption notices. A total of 463 

beyond the basic PMN was filed in 

Unit cost information is not availa

these additional notices. 

If EPA requested additional in

or imposed restrictions, firms that 

begin commercial production or u

chemical that has received restrict

the cost of meeting the restriction

EPA does not have data available 

the cost of restrictions on these ch

Existing Chemicals 

Chemical manufacturers and i

that are required to report for the 

IUR incur costs as part of their rep

the production volume, plant site, 

of TSCA inventory chemicals. In 

industry filed reports from 2,666 fa

with a total of over 26,000 separat

reports. The estimated total cost t

of meeting the IUR reporting requ

that year was $17.7 to $27.9 millio

ing the cost of compliance determ

rule familiarization, report prepara

record keeping. Because the IUR r

facilities to submit the inventory i

only every 4 years, the cost in a ty

are less. The annualized social cos

to $7.3 million using a 3 percent d

196 
submitted as part of the High Production 

Volume Voluntary Challenge Program. The 

costs of this program are borne by the companies that manufacture and use these 

chemicals, with no costs to state or local governments. Using data from the 2000 

Information Collection Request (ICR),72 the 

total estimated cost of the program is $37.2 

million in 2002, but this is believed to be 

overstated. This estimate assumes each chemical underwent full testing, while few of the 

test plans submitted in 2002 contained complete data sets. 

The total cost to industry was previously 

estimated at $12.5 million in each of the 

3 years (2002-2004) of the VCCEP program.73 The volume of test result submissions 

in 2002 was significantly lower than assumed 

in the proposed ICR. Only Tier 1 test results 

were submitted for a single chemical in 2002. 

The industry cost for this single submission, 

per the proposed ICR, is estimated at 

$70,747. Additional Tier 1 submissions were 

received by EPA in spring 2003, indicating 

that some effort and expense by other industry sponsors occurred in 2002. Current data 

do not allow the separation of cost components, so these costs will be associated with 

the 2003 submissions. 

Brownfields Redevelopment 

Based on the limited data available 

regarding brownfields costs, we assume that 

at a minimum state brownfields budgets total 

$214.2 million, which is equal to the amount 

of grants ($170.5 million) and cooperative 

agreement funding ($43.6 million) provided 

by EPA in 2003. We believe that state spend

state-designated sites that are not related to 

OSWER programs. 

TRI 

For the 2002 reporting year, EPA expects 

that 24,308 facilities will file 88,117 Form R 

reports and 5,451 facilities will file Form A 

certification statements on 13,209 

chemicals.74 Using the 2002 burden-hour estimates from supporting statements for the TRI 

ICR and loaded hourly wage rates derived 

from data in the Employer Costs for 

Employee Compensation report from the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics as described in the 

TRI ICRs, the 2002 social costs of TRI are 

estimated to be $115 million.75 

SOCIAL BENEFITS 

Risk Management Plans 

In the 1996 Economic Analysis in Support 

of the Final Rule on Risk Management Program 

Regulations for Chemical Accident Release 

Prevention, EPA used data from the 

Accidental Release Information Program 

database to monetize damages prevented by 

the Risk Management Program. The 

Economic Analysis estimated $202.3 million 

in annual human health, property, and ecological benefits. To estimate the effectiveness 

of an additional dollar spent on risk management activities, EPA assumed that doubling 

spending reduces damages by 50 percent. In 

addition, the Economic Analysis assesses the 

probability of a catastrophic accident similar 

to the 1984 incident in Bhopal, India using 
198 

Total cost $391.4 

Government subsidies 

• registration support, minor crops $13.0 

Net cost $378.4 

PESTICIDE PROGRAMS’ COSTS TO REGISTRANTS ($306.5 MILLION) 

Costs to registrants consist of re-registrations and new registrations. The total cost to 

of OPP regulatory requirements is estimated at $306.5 million annually. (For details on 

and methodologies used in the OPP estimates, see Wyatt and Widawsky, 2003.) This i

percent of U.S. expenditures on pesticides, which in 1999 were $11.2 billion.67 

• Re-Registration costs to the pesticide industry may be around $70.2 million annually. 

includes test costs of about $23 million per year ($1 million per chemical with 23 ch

registered per year between 2000 and 2002) and other re-registration costs (e.g., m

OPP officials, legal counsel, and other administrative costs) at just under $900,000 p

cal. Recent re-registration decisions have involved special testing in 12 situations, with 

averaging around $200,000; and monitoring in 8 situations, with costs as much as $9

chemical. Finally, OPP levies maintenance fees on existing registrations that collected 

lion in 2002. 

• New Registrations cost registrants an estimated $236.3 million annually. These costs a

ed separately for conventional and reduced-risk pesticides, biopesticides, and antimic

— Conventional chemicals cost the industry almost $100 million per year for testi

OPP’s data requirements. Roughly half that amount is for the registration of ab

conventional active ingredients each year, with testing costs of about $10.3 milli

food-use chemical and averaging about $4.3 million for a non-food use chemica

costs are probably overstated, since some tests or equivalent tests would likely 

ducted in the course of research and development even without regulation. O

identify only three chemicals in the past 10 years that were denied registration, 

chemicals may not be registered on every use site (e.g., crop) for which registr

sought. Some chemicals are no doubt eliminated during research and developm

tests show they fail to pass the health and safety criteria. However, it is not clea

costs should be included in the social costs of regulation precisely because they 

meet health standards; certainly we have no way of measuring the comparative 

keeping such a chemical off the market. The rest of the costs are for registratio

products or new uses, which require significantly less data, but for which there 

more requests. 
for non-food uses. Finally, OPP also collects $11.6 million dollars in fees to pay for the establishment of tolerances, the maximum allowable residues that can be found on food products. 

PESTICIDE PROGRAMS’ COSTS TO STATE AGENCIES ($3.3 MILLION) 

State agencies face a relatively small annual burden from OPP regulations of around $3.3 million. 

Costs are mainly associated with supporting special local registrations under Section 24C of FIFRA 

and emergency exemptions from restrictions under Section 18. The estimate is based on an annual 

average of 350 local registration requests that cost agencies about $800 each, and an annual average 

of 600 emergency exemptions that cost about $5,000 each to prepare. 

PESTICIDE PROGRAMS’ COSTS TO AGRICULTURAL USERS ($81.6 MILLION) 

Agricultural users may face costs of around $81.6 million annually. This represents only 0.2 percent of 

net farm income (gross value of production less operating expenses) in 2000, estimated by U.S. 

Department of Agriculture to be $46.4 billion.68 This total includes regulations for dietary reasons of 

approximately $19.0 million, regulations to address occupational concerns of approximately $17.1 million, and regulations for environmental concerns of around $45.5 million. These figures are based on 

average ex-ante estimates of impacts from a small number of crop-chemical combinations. Estimates 

of these anticipated impacts are subject to a high degree of uncertainty due to the limited available 

information and widely varying conditions under which pesticides are regulated. 

OTHER, UNQUANTIFIED COSTS FROM PESTICIDE PROGRAMS 

Other users, principally residential users, could face higher pest control costs as a result of pesticide 

regulations, which may restrict their choices. Consumers and labor may also face higher food costs 

and fewer employment opportunities due to changes in production systems resulting from pesticide 

regulations. However, these impacts are likely to be small. Active ingredients make up only a small 

proportion of the cost of household pest control products. Changes in pesticide use have little 

impact on retail prices of agricultural commodities compared to the influence of international prices, 

and labor may well benefit from restrictions on labor-saving chemical inputs to production. 
The social benefits of pesticide regula

tions primarily accrue through reductions in 

risk to human health and the environment. 

The goal of OPP is to balance benefits of 

reducing pest damage to agricultural production, human health, and the quality of life 

with risks of inappropriate use of toxic materials. Testing pesticides for their impact on 

human health and the environment addresses 

a market information failure, whereby users 

and consumers would otherwise not know 

the true extent of risks. As scientific knowledge improves and social values change, 

re-evaluating previously registered pesticides 

offers a mechanism for OPP to continue to 

identify unacceptable levels of risk. 

For dietary risk, including drinking water, 

benefits accrue to more than 220 million 

consumers of agricultural products and, in 

particular, to the Nation’s children. 

Children’s lower body weight and specialized 

diet leads OPP to consider them explicitly 

when determining tolerable levels of residues. 

The benefits of worker protection 

requirements and certification and training 

accrue to the more than 1.5 million farm 

workers, including family labor as well as permanent hired, seasonal, and migrant labor, 

who might otherwise be exposed to excessive 

levels of toxic chemicals. The primary benefits include reductions in illness of those 

exposed individuals, which impose health 

costs and losses in wages and productivity. 

Unfortunately, measuring these reductions is 

complicated by difficulties in monitoring 

changes over time and statistically relating 

the changes to regulations. Incidents of work

sport fishermen, tourists) or existe

There may also be an option value

future goods or services may result 

serving the environment in the pr

with dietary and occupational con

ing regulations with data on reduc

mortality and morbidity of wildlife 

impossible, although incidents are 

ed, as in the cases of fish kills and 

deaths. 

Pesticides are toxic chemicals, 

benefits of their use accrue to agric

other commercial enterprises from 

production costs, improving worki

tions, protecting plants and structu

damage, and increasing productivi

control products are used througho

to maintain sanitary conditions an

ernments to ensure the public hea

Consumers benefit from a cheaper

and safe food supply. Benefits also 

society in general with the availab

ticides and antimicrobials that pro

and homes. However, the realizati

benefits depends on smoothly func

markets, which depend in turn on 

ability of trustworthy information 

appropriate uses and safety of the e

ucts. In the absence of federal regu

state governments would likely est

own regulations, which could well 

more costly to the regulated comm

Without the approval process gran

EPA, pesticide and agricultural pro

could find their markets subject to 

and uncertainties of unfounded co

Products may, in fact, face higher 

200 
ments has been monetized: the avoided loss of 

IQ in young children. The quantified benefit 

of avoiding lowered IQ includes both extra 

educational costs and lower lifetime earnings 

and is estimated using a value of a one point 

avoided IQ loss of $8,675 (with 3 percent discounting). The present value of the avoided 

IQ damages in the 11,000 housing units abated in 2002 is $171 million. The average 

benefit per abatement is $15,352. The estimate includes IQ benefits to children living 

in the housing units at the time of abatement 

as well as subsequent children living in that 

unit in the future. The benefit estimates also 

assume only 1 percent of the housing units 

have children living in them at the time of 

abatement.76 Additional health benefits that 

are unquantified include other neurologicalrelated benefits to children and all benefits to 

adults living in the abated housing or who 

conduct the abatements. 

Asbestos 

The asbestos regulations reduce not only 

the exposure and health risk during the normal use of the asbestos-containing products, 

but also reduce the much higher exposures 

and health risks associated with the eventual 

removal and disposal of the asbestos materials. Estimates are not currently available for 

the amount or value of avoided health effects 

of EPA’s asbestos actions. 

New Chemicals Program 

While the costs of the PMN program 

arise from a direct regulatory program, the 

benefits arise through both direct regulatory 

begins. For the very few (0 in 2002) chemicals that are found to pose an unreasonable 

risk, the restriction may be a ban. In many 

cases, manufacturers who submitted the 

notices decide not to actually begin use of 

the chemical once they receive the feedback 

of the PMN review, often selecting more 

environmentally benign products instead. 

Additional benefits may arise if PMN chemicals start to displace existing chemicals in the 

marketplace, if the new chemical is less risky 

than the older chemical. We are currently 

analyzing annual risk reduction data and 

believe that the program has resulted in 

reduced risks to the public in the 20 years 

since its inception. 

Existing Chemicals Program 

The Existing Chemicals Program serves 

to improve the quality and quantity of publicly available toxic chemical information so 

as to minimize information market failures. 

Prior to these programs, the information on 

toxic chemicals that was available to citizens, 

firms, or government organizations dealing 

with toxic chemical issues was inconsistent. 

The benefits of these information collection 

programs flow through their contribution in 

risk assessment and risk management to 

reductions in risk to human health and the 

environment. Having available current and 

accurate information on these chemicals 

enables government decision-makers and the 

public to assess the risks from chemicals in 

their communities, thus helping to support 

rapid and informed decision-making at all 

levels. 
estimate the level of annual greenfield preservation attributable to brownfields, since no 

data are available on the amount of land 

redeveloped through brownfields programs on 

an annual basis. Additional benefits not estimated by the report include increased 

economic activity, human health improvements, restoration of ecosystems, improved 

regional land-use patterns, the preservation 

of open spaces that would otherwise be 

developed, and the avoided cost of infrastructure associated with greenfield development. 

TRI 

The industries that have reported to TRI 

since its inception have reduced their onand offsite releases of TRI chemicals by a 

total of 48 percent, or 1.55 billion pounds.78 

The information reported to TRI increases 

knowledge of the levels of toxic chemicals 

released to the environment and the potential pathways of exposure, improving 

scientific understanding of the health and 

environmental risks of toxic chemicals; 

allows the public to make informed decisions 

on where to work and live; enhances the 

ability of corporate leaders and purchasers to 

more accurately gauge a facility’s potential 

environmental liabilities; provides reporting 

facilities with information that can be used 

to save money as well as to reduce emissions; 

and assists federal, state, and local authorities 

in making better decisions on acceptable levels of toxic chemicals in the environment.79 

Enforcement and Compliance Ass

(OECA) uses a mix of compliance 

compliance incentives, monitoring

enforcement to address environme

and patterns of noncompliance. T

ties produce direct environmental 

that result in better protection of h

health and the environment, and 

vide a general deterrent to noncom

that is the foundation of the Agen

tory and voluntary programs. In fa

activities of OECA allow the prog

Goals 1 through 4 to often make t

fying assumption of full complianc

therefore, state the benefits associa

full compliance. This would be a f

realistic assumption without the ac

both the media programs and the 

compliance and enforcement prog

ing in concert. In addition to gene

monitoring and enforcement activ

cific examples of OECA activities 

•
 Supplemental Environmenta

(SEPs) that are negotiated 

defendant at the end of a l

these projects can run the 

local community projects (

planting trees or implemen

quality improvement progr

concert with a local enviro

group) to more general pro

as voluntarily reducing em

certain pollutants or worki

atively with a state to use 

technologies to help impro

wide environmental perfor

202 
vides an incentive for regulated 

facilities to detect, disclose, and correct environmental violations in 

exchange for a waiver or significant 

reduction in penalties, thereby 

encouraging facilities to come into 

compliance more quickly and with 

the use of fewer government 

resources and ultimately reducing 

emissions. 

The second major type of EPA activity 

related to Goal 5 is the various pollution prevention programs within the Office of 

Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) and 

OSW. The Pollution Prevention Act of 

199080 recognized that one of the most effective ways of reducing public health risks from 

exposure to toxic chemicals, as well as lowering environmental risks, is to prevent 

pollution from being created in the first 

place. Rather than relying on traditional regulatory approaches, EPA’s pollution 

prevention programs use a broad array of 

cooperative approaches, working closely with 

industry, state and local governments, and 

citizens who volunteer to work with EPA to 

find better, smarter, and cleaner ways of 

doing business. Examples of EPA’s pollution 

prevention programs include: 

•
 OPPT’s Design for the Environment 

Program is a voluntary partnership 

program that works with individual 

industry sectors to develop and integrate cleaner, cheaper, and smarter 

environmental solutions into everyday business practices. 

more traditional waste minimization 

concerns—in the design, commercialization, and use of chemical 

products and the development of feasible, economical processes that 

minimize generation of pollution at 

the source. 

•
 OPPT’s Healthy Hospitals for the 

Environment Program is a voluntary 

program centered on reducing the 

amount of mercury used in hospitals 

and improving the efficiency of handling hospital wastes in general. 

•
 OPPT’s Environmentally Preferable 

Purchasing Program is a federal government-wide program that 

encourages and assists Executive 

agencies to prevent waste and pollution by considering environmental 

impacts along with price, performance, and other traditional factors 

when deciding what products and 

services to buy. 

•
 OPPT’s Pollution Prevention Grants 

comprises two programs: the 

Pollution Prevention Grant Program, 

which provides $5 million annually 

to states to help administer pollution 

prevention programs, and the 

Pollution Prevention Resource 

Exchange, which partially sponsors a 

consortium of eight regional pollution 

prevention information centers that 

provide pollution prevention information, networking opportunities, 

and other services to states and local 

governments and technical assistance 

to providers in their region. 
potential and toxicity—are of significant concern when released to the 

environment.81 Reductions of wastes 

that contain one or more of these 

chemicals are the focus of this program. EPA accomplishes waste 

reduction goals through a combination of regulatory actions, voluntary 

waste reduction partnerships, and 

technical support initiatives. EPA’s 

Hazardous Waste Minimization 

Program tracks the progress toward 

national reduction goals via the TRI 

database. Municipal solid wastes are 

similarly targeted through voluntary 

programs for reductions in waste rates 

and increases in recycling. Results are 

measured in terms of reduction in 

waste generation rates as compared to 

growth in the economy. 

METHODOLOGY 

Enforcement and Compliance Activities 

The national enforcement and compliance assurance program imposes three main 

categories of costs: administrative and judicial penalties, injunctive relief, and SEPs. 

Not all of these costs qualify as social costs. 

Though penalties do impose a monetary burden on those required to pay them, they are a 

transfer payment and do not incur a social 

cost. Regulated entities involved in enforcement activities are required to pay injunctive 

relief to bring a facility back into compliance 

and redress environmental harm caused. 

Since injunctive relief is offsetting environ

by violators as part of the settleme

enforcement action. Examples of p

include upgrading equipment or pr

reduce the amount of pollution pr

restoring habitats degraded by past 

pliance, and agreeing to help othe

reduce the amount of pollution th

ducing. Though not legally require

perform a SEP, EPA may reduce th

tude of a penalty if the violator ag

undertake an acceptable SEP. The 

SEPs amounted to approximately $

in 2002. 

Pollution Prevention Activities 

As pollution prevention activi

voluntary programs, private indust

only participate if they expect to f

reduce their costs and/or improve 

itability. Therefore, one can expec

no net social costs of these program

social costs are defined in this repo

Monetized estimates of social bene

utable to these programs are not a

description of the social benefits o

prevention programs along with qu

indicators of their success are summ

Goal 5’s Social Benefits section. LIMITATIONS 

Enforcement and Compliance Activi

As noted above, the simplifyin

ance assumptions made in analyses 

1 through 4 make it impossible to 

the estimates of social costs and be

attributable to OECA’s activities w

204 
ed by EPA.82 We also are unable to provide 

estimates of litigation fees/transaction costs 

related to noncompliance. This involves costs 

of attorney and other fees when a facility is 

involved in litigation over a violation of 

environmental law. No general estimates are 

available concerning the overall value of 

national expenditures on these fees; however 

a study done by RAND in 1991 reported that 

transaction costs accounted for 19 percent of 

outlays for five very large industrial firms 

involved in Superfund cleanups at 49 sites 

nationwide.83 A subsequent RAND study 

found that transaction cost percentages were 

much higher when including both large firms 

and smaller firms in the study sample. 

Transaction cost share estimates ranged from 

60 percent for firms with annual revenues less 

than $15 million to 15 percent for firms with 

annual revenues between $100 million and 

$1 billion.84 

Pollution Prevention Activities 

Data to assess either the costs or benefits 

of pollution prevention activities are scarce. 

Consequently, most of the information presented about these activities is qualitative. 

Quantitative information is presented whenever it is available. 

SOCIAL COSTS 

Enforcement and Compliance Activities 

The annualized cost arising from SEPs 

was approximately $56 million in 2002. 

more output with fewer inputs, reducing disposal of hazardous materials, increasing 

worker protection and productivity, reducing 

liability, improving public relations, or lowering environmental compliance expenses. 

SOCIAL BENEFITS 

Enforcement and Compliance Activities 

The direct human health and environmental benefits of the federal air, water, and 

hazardous waste laws are addressed in the 

social benefits section for Goals 1 through 4. 

However, the public benefits of clean air, 

water, and land are only achieved through 

regulated entities’ compliance with environmental laws. And compliance is achieved 

through a system that depends on the activities of media (e.g., air, water, solid waste) 

programs and the national compliance and 

enforcement program working in concert. 

The compliance assistance, compliance 

incentive, monitoring, and enforcement 

activities carried out by OECA serve not 

only to bring facilities back into compliance, 

but to deter and prevent facilities from operating outside the law. Thus, a percentage of 

the social benefits outlined in Goals 1 

through 4 is attributable to the activities of 

the national enforcement and compliance 

assurance program. 

Although enforcement activities clearly 

have a positive effect on compliance,85 it is 

virtually impossible to estimate the percentage of benefits estimated by the media offices 

(in Goals 1 through 4) that may be attributable to OECA activities. The effect of OECA 
that compliance rates in the paper industry 

would be about 13 percent lower without 

EPA enforcement activity. 

More generally, some of the reasons firms 

comply with environmental regulations is 

outside the realm of EPA control. For 

instance, firms may comply with environmental statutes to improve or simply 

maintain goodwill within the community in 

which they operate and with the consumers 

of their products or services. Private citizen 

or environmental interest group legal actions 

against “dirty” firms are also a motivating factor for firms to comply. It is difficult to 

disentangle the effect of enforcement activities from these other considerations on firms’ 

compliance behavior. 

Social benefits also accrue to the public 

solely as the result of OECA activities. The 

environmental outcomes resulting from the 

conclusion of enforcement cases (e.g., pounds 

of pollutants reduced, ground water treated, 

and contaminated soil to be cleaned) are a 

direct result of enforcement activity and 

would not have been achieved in the absence 

of enforcement actions. During FY 2002, the 

compliance and enforcement program 

secured 261 million pounds of pollutants to 

be reduced through settled enforcement 

cases. In addition, enforcement cases resulted 

in 2.8 billion gallons of polluted ground 

water to be treated, 503 million pounds of 

contaminated soils to be cleaned up, 40,000 

acres of wetlands to be protected, and 3.15 

million individuals served by drinking water 

systems brought back into compliance.88 

correct environmental violations i

for a waiver of or significant reduc

penalties. In FY 2002, more than 2

nies used the policy to resolve viol

1,467 facilities.91 The social benefi

policy and the Compliance Assista

Centers is that they help bring ma

ties into compliance that would ot

involved in a lengthy litigation pr

Therefore, facilities achieve enviro

benefits sooner and with the use o

government resources. 

One other note is relevant con

enforcement cases. Although SEP

some social cost, they also produce 

cant offsetting social benefits, whi

only in the presence of an enforce

action. Regulated entities agree to 

SEPs because of pending enforcem

ty. Consequently, those offsetting 

benefits are a direct result of enfor

well. 

Regarding enforcement and m

while there are costs associated wi

and penalties, the benefit to societ

resulting deterrent effect that this 

upon negative corporate behavior. 

Bowles, head of the U.S. Office of 

Administration during World War 

observed that 20 percent of the po

would likely comply with any regu

percent would not comply, and th

75 percent would go along with th

tion as long as there was certainty 

5 percent would be caught and pu

While Bowles’ assertion may or m

true in terms of percentages, resear

206 
violations and improves environmental performance. 

Pollution Prevention Activities 

Social benefits arising from pollution prevention programs include both private and 

public components. The private components 

include the net cost savings that motivate 

industry, municipalities, or federal agencies to 

participate in these voluntary programs. The 

public components flow from the lowering of 

exposure and risks from toxic chemicals. By 

helping develop and adopt pollution prevention approaches throughout the economy, 

EPA is permanently lowering the risks from 

toxic chemicals. We believe there are growing benefits from the pollution prevention 

program and are working to develop 

approaches to measure impacts to human 

health and environment. Examples of EPA’s 

pollution prevention programs, along with 

indicators of their benefits, are listed below. 

•
 OPPT’s Design for the Environment 

Program. Based on OPPT estimates, 

program partnerships have reached 

over 2 million workers at over 

170,000 facilities; evaluated over 500 

chemical substances; reduced diisocyanate exposure, formaldehyde use, 

lead and mercury use and exposure, 

perchloroethylene use, volatile 

organic compounds, hazardous air 

pollutants, and toxic chemical releases; and conserved millions of gallons 

of water and BTUs of energy every 

year. 

substances, 2,131,000 gallons of hazardous substances, and 57,000,000 

pounds of carbon dioxide and saved 

55,000,000 gallons of water. 

Additional reductions occurred in 

2002 from the many other firms that 

actively participated in the Green 

Chemistry Program that year and in 

prior years. 

•
 OPPT’s Green Engineering Program. 

Like other pollution prevention programs, the Green Engineering 

Program produces both private and 

public benefits. In particular, the program has produced a textbook and 

other instructional material to incorporate environmental considerations 

into engineering curricula. Human 

health and environmental risk reduction will become mainstreamed as 

students who are trained in the principles of Green Engineering move 

into the workforce and change the 

way firms design chemical processes. 

•
 OPPT’s Healthy Hospitals for the 

Environment Program. The benefits of 

this program include reduced private 

costs (associated with toxic materials) to health care facilities, as well as 

public benefits arising from the 

decrease in human health and environmental risks from exposure to 

mercury and other toxic chemicals 

that may have been otherwise incinerated and dispersed into the 

atmosphere. Private facilities could 

also be motivated by the possibility 
grams social benefits are the reduced 

health and environmental risks from 

decreased use and release of toxic 

chemicals. In addition, once these 

preferable products are available for 

the federal market, it becomes possible for manufacturers to also offer the 

EPP products to other purchasers of 

these goods and services, including 

consumers, industry, and other levels 

of government. The increased manufacturing and purchase of “greener” 

products will lead to a more sustainable standard of living and economy 

that preserves scarce natural 

resources like oil and clean water, 

uses fewer toxic chemicals, and generates less pollution within the 

federal government. 

•
 OPPT’s Pollution Prevention Grants. 

Benefits include the aforementioned 

private and public benefits that arise 

from the adoption of pollution prevention approaches. The pollution 

prevention grants support states in 

their outreach and technical assistance efforts. A recent study of only 

13 of the programs funded by the 

Pollution Prevention Resource 

Exchange found the program produced significant benefits. Quantified 

private benefits of the 13 programs 

include total cost savings of $32.8 

million. In addition, public benefits 

through pollution prevention actions 

included reductions of 39.8 million 

pounds in air, 155 million pounds in 

water, and 1.5 billion pounds of 

waste streams. Municipal w

eration is increasing at on

rate of GDP growth.95 Add

there has been a 44 percen

tion in disposal of Waste 

Minimization Priority Che

between 1991 and 1998.96 

waste reduction programs 

helped to increase municip

recycling on a per capita b

Waste generation reductio

waste recycling have helpe

about long-term protection 

water and both scarce reso

land for future use. 

208 
4.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Administrator. November 2000. Guidelines for Preparing 

Economic Analyses. EPA 240-R-00-003. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

5. 42 U.S. Code § 7401 et seq. [Nov. 15, 1990] 

6.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, and Office of Policy, Planning, and 

Evaluation. October 1997. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990: EPA Report to Congress. 

EPA 410-R-97-002. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air and Radiation, and Office of Policy. November 1999. 

The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990 to 2010: EPA Report to Congress. EPA 410-R-99-001. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

7. 42 U.S. Code § 7401 et seq. [Dec. 31, 1970] 

8. 42 U.S. Code § 7401 et seq. [Nov. 15, 1990] 

9.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air and Radiation, and Office of Policy, Planning, and 

Evaluation. October 1997. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990: EPA Report to Congress. 

EPA 410-R-97-002. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

10.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, and Office of Policy. November 1999. 

The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990 to 2010: EPA Report to Congress. EPA 410-R-99-001. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

11. Public Law No. 104-182, 110 Stat. 1613 (Aug. 6, 1996) 

12. 33 U.S. Code §§ 1251-1387 

13.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Planning and Evaluation. November 1990. Environmental 

Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment. EPA 230-11-90-083. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

14. 47 Federal Register 9350 (December 24, 1975) 

15. 44 Federal Register 68624, November 29, 1979) 

16.This is likely an underestimate of benefits, as these early rules were aimed at correcting gross public health 

concerns. 

17.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. A Retrospective Assessment of the Costs of the Clean Water Act: 

1972 to 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/ 

ost/economics. 

18.A Census of Governments is taken at 5-year intervals and covers three major subject fields—government 

organization, public employment, and government finance (U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division, May 

22 2003; http://www.census.gov/govs/www/index.html). 

19.Our approach in estimating the federal contributions, which are not included in social cost estimates, was to subtract the amounts provided toward state, local, and private spending in EPA’s 2002 enacted water program 

budget. There are certain clean water grant programs, subsidies, or tax expenditures administered by federal 

agencies other than EPA (e.g., USDA conservation assistance, HUD, Rural Utilities Service and Economic 

Development Administration grants, or the tax deductibility of bond interest for pollution control investments) 

that may provide federal contributions toward state/local CWA activities. However, we are uncertain how much 
22. 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 122 

23.Generally speaking, our benefit estimates represent the expected beneficial effects to the full natio

tion (“society”), making it reasonable to refer to the estimates as societal, or “social,” benefit estim

not the case with the cost estimates. Instead, these estimates generally reflect an “impact analysis

emphasizes the adverse effect on a subpopulation of society, typically the regulated community an

directly affected groups (e.g., state and local governments). Hence, a comparison of the benefit es

cost estimates presented here is questionable since one estimate reflects an impact on the full pop

the other estimate reflects an impact only on a subpopulation. 

Another methodological concern relates to establishing the baselines for estimating the effects of 

CWA programs. To estimate the costs and benefits of SDWA programs, we used the economic an

oped in support of 14 regulatory actions. To estimate the costs and benefits of CWA programs, we 

foundation two retrospective analyses conducted by EPA aimed at estimating the cumulative effec

grams and added supplemental data and other information from other sources to provide a more c

up-to-date impression of the effects of CWA programs. 

24.To obtain basin-wide benefits for the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance (40 Code of Federal Re

the average monetary benefit per toxic pound-equivalent reduced ($48) was computed across the 

studies (Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin), then multiplied by the estimated reduction in toxic pound-

for the basin as a whole (5.8 million to 7.6 million toxic pounds-equivalent). The estimate is only 

mate of anticipated benefits because benefits from noncancer human health risk reductions could 

monetized for the case studies. 

25. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 131.38 

26.Centralized Waste Treatment Point Source Category (40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 136 and 

Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor Subcategory (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 444); L

Source Category (40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 136 and 445); Transportation Equipment C

Source Category (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 442); Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and 

(40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 455); Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category (40 

Federal Regulations Part 430); Final Water Rule, and Oil and Gas Extraction (Synthetic Based Dri

(40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 435). 

27.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. November 2002. A Strategy for National Clean Water Indu

Regulations: Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Sources Performance St

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at http://epa.gov/guide/stra

304mstrategy.pdf. 

28.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Economic Analysis for the Final Revisions to the Oil P

Prevention Regulation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

29.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Division of Economics, Methods, 

Analysis Division. July 23, 1999. Addendum to the Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and O

the Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Standards: Final Rule. 

30. 42 U.S. Code 11001 et seq. (1986) 

31.U.S. Department of Commerce. 2003. Bureau of Economic Analysis National Income and Product A

7.1. Quantity and Price Indexes for Gross Domestic Product. Available online at http://www.bea.gov

nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=Y. Date of access: September 10, 2003. 

210 
35.Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) Tanks 

Subcommittee.1998. Report Card on the Federal UST/LUST Program. 

36.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks. December 23, 2002. 

Memorandum: FY 2002 End-of-Year Activity Report. 

37.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 1996. Economic Analysis in Support of the Final Rule on Risk 

Management Program Regulations for Chemical Accident Release Prevention, as Required by Section 112 (r) of the 

Clean Air Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/EE/epa/ria.nsf/vwRef/S.96.4+A?OpenDocument. Date of access: September 3, 2003. 

38.U.S. Department of Commerce. 2003. Bureau of Economic Analysis National Income and Product Accounts Table 

7.1. Quantity and Price Indexes for Gross Domestic Product. Available online at http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/ 

nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=Y. Date of access: September 10, 2003. 

39.Ideally, a comprehensive analysis would rely on current and future projections rather than past analyses. 

However, we are limited by the availability of such analyses. Some current and future projections are available 

and were consulted for this report (for example: Probst, et al. 2003. Superfund’s Future: What Will It Cost? 

Resources for the Future, Washington, DC). However, the bulk of available data are retrospective or older projections of costs and benefits. 

40.EPA is in the process of preparing an analysis of Superfund program benefits. This report is not yet ready for 

publication, but monetized estimates of Superfund benefits may be available in the near future. 

41.P. Balserak, “Analysis of the Efficiency of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Land Disposal Restrictions 

Program” (M.S. thesis, George Mason University, 1996). 

42.Although certain RIAs provide monetized estimates of human health benefits, EPA does not present these estimates here because those quantified represent a very small portion of the total health benefits provided by 

OSWER and would, therefore, provide a misleading estimate. RIAs assess only incremental benefits of specific 

rules and, in many cases, are limited to outdated understanding of health effects. To monetize the public health 

benefits accurately, one would have to revisit the approach used in the RIAs to update their estimates and 

address the benefits that are not reflected. 

43.There are also a number of voluntary OSWER programs and initiatives not addressed (e.g. WasteWise, 

Resource Conservation Challenge, and Product Stewardship Partnerships). While the costs associated with 

activities under these programs are likely reflected in the PACE data, benefits associated with these efforts have 

not been calculated. 

44.There are three exceptions to this assumption. First, 1999 PACE data likely reflect one-time charges for UST 

replacements to meet the 1998 deadline for compliance with technical standards. These replacement cost estimates have, therefore, been replaced with general estimates of recent UST activities. Second, the 1999 

Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT standards are not reflected in 1999 PACE estimates. Although implementation of these standards has been delayed through legal review, OSWER adjusts the PACE-based social 

cost estimates to include the costs and benefits of the rule since some facilities are already taking action in 

anticipation of the finalized rule. Finally, cost savings associated with the 2002 Oil Pollution Prevention and 

Response revisions are not included in 1999 PACE data. OSWER includes these savings of $11 million in our 

estimate. 
49.Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), Public Law 104-170, (August 3, 1996). Available online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/fqpa/gpogate.pdf.

50.Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550. Available onlin

http://www.hud.gov/offices/lead/regs/leatilex.pdf. 

51.Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Public Law 94-469. Available online at: http://www4.law.

uscode/15/ch53.html. 

52.Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Reauthorization Act of 1990, Public Law 101-637. Available 

http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/asbestos/200240CFR763.pdf. 

53.Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986, Public Law 99-519. Available online at: 

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/ch53schII.html. 

54.Inventory Update Rule (IUR), Federal Register: January 7, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 4); 40 Cod

Regulations Parts 9, 710, and 723, TSCA Inventory Update Rule Amendments. Available online a

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2003/January/Day-07/t32909.htm. 

55.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New Chemicals Program, TSCA Chemical Substance In

Site, http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/invntory.htm. Date of access: September 4, 2003. 

56.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chemical Information Collection and Data Developmen

Web Site, http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/index.htm. Date of access: September 4, 2003. 

57.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Voluntary Children’s Chemical Evaluation Program (VC

Site, http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/vccep. Date of access: September 4, 2003. 

58. Public Law 99-499 

59. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 372 

60. Public Law 101-508 

61.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. August 2002. 2000 

Release Inventory (TRI). Public Data Release. EPA 260-R-02-003. Washington, DC: U.S. Governm

Office. 

62.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 1996. Economic Analysis in Support of the Final Rule o

Management Program Regulations for Chemical Accident Release Prevention, as Required by Section 11

Clean Air Act. Washington, DC. Available online at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/EE/epa/ria.nsf/vwRe

S.96.4+A?OpenDocument: EPA National Center for Environmental Economics Web Site. Date o

September 3, 2003. 

63. Costs are reported in 1996 dollars. An inflation factor of 1.1046 is used to arrive at the 2002 estim

64.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 2003. Promoting Safety for America’s Future, Office o

Programs FY 2002 Annual Report. EPA735-R-03-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printin

65.Gianessi, L., and S. Sankula. April 2003. The Value of Herbicides in U.S. Crop Production. Washin

National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. 

Knutson, R., and D. Smith. April 1999. Impacts of Eliminating Organophosphates and Carbamates fro

Production: Agricultural and Food Policy Center Working Paper 99-2. Department of Agricultural Ec

Texas A&M University. 

212 
Requirements for New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements for Chemical Substances; Supporting Statement (May 5, 2000), and EPA data on PMN submissions filed in 2001, adjusted to 2002 dollars using the GDP price index. 

71.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August 2002. Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Final 

Rule. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at: 

72.TSCA Existing Chemical Test Rules, Consent Orders, Test Rule Exemptions, and Voluntary Test Data 

Submissions, EPA ICR #1139.06; OMB Control #2070-0033 (2000). 

73.Proposed ICR Supporting Statement for Data Submissions for the Voluntary Children’s Chemical Evaluation 

Program (VCCEP). Available online at http://cascade.epa.gov/RightSite/getcontent/ 

Tempfile.pdf?DMW_OBJECTID=090007d480098bd9&DMW_FORM AT=pdf. 

74.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. December. Supporting 

Statement for Information Collection Request for TRI Reporting Form R. EPA #1363.12 and OMB #2070-

0093. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. December. Supporting 

Statement for Information Collection Request for TRI Reporting Form A. EPA #1704.06 and OMB #2070-

0143. 

75.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. December. Supporting 

Statement for Information Collection Request for TRI Reporting Form R. EPA #1363.12 and OMB #2070-

0093. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. December. Supporting 

Statement for Information Collection Request for TRI Reporting Form A. EPA #1704.06 and OMB #2070-

0143. 

76.Average benefits/abatement from TSCA §402/404 Training & Certification Program for Lead-Based Paint 

Activities Economic Analysis (1996) adjusted to 2002 dollars using the GDP price index. 

77.Deason, Jonathan P., George W. Sherk, and Gary Carroll, 2001. Public Policies and Private Decisions Affecting the 

Redevelopment of Brownfields: An Analysis of Critical Factors, Relative Weights and Areal Differentials. Washington, 

DC: George Washington University and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available online at 

http://www.gwu.edu/%7Eeem/Brownfields/index.htm. 

78.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. November 2000. 

Case Conclusion Data Sheet: Training Booklet. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Available online 

at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/planning/caseconc.pdf. Date of access: September 10, 

2003. 

79.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. December 2002. Supporting 

Statement for Information Collection Request for TRI Reporting Form R. EPA #1363.12 and OMB #2070-

0093. 

80.Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S. Code 13101-13109, Public Law 101-508, 1990. Available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/p2home/p2policy/act1990.htm. 

http://cascade.epa.gov/RightSite/getcontent/Tempfile.pdf?DMW_OBJECTID=090007d4800ff957&DMW_FORMAT=pdf
85.Nadeau, L. 1997. EPA effectiveness at reducing the duration of plant-level noncompliance. Journa

Environmental Economics and Management 34: 54-78. 

Laplante, B. and P. Rilstone. 1996. Environmental inspections and emissions in the pulp and pape

Quebec. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31:19-36. 

Gray, W. and M.E. Deily. 1996. Compliance and enforcement: Air pollution regulation in the U.S

try. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31: 96-111. 

Magat, W.A. and K. Viscusi. 1990. Effectiveness of the EPA’s regulatory enforcement: The case of 

effluent standards. Journal of Law and Economics 33 (3): 331-360. 

86.Gray, W. and M.E. Deily. 1996. Compliance and enforcement: Air pollution regulation in the U.S

try. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31: 96-111. 

87.Gray, W. and R. Shadbegian. 2003. When and why do plants comply? Paper mills in the 1980s. U

manuscript. 

88.Data are derived from EPA’s Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) database, which t

tion from the Case Conclusion Data Sheets (CCDS). Available online at http://www.epa.gov/Com

planning/data/index.html. 

89.Data collected from exit surveys completed by users of the National Compliance Assistance Cent

online at http://www.assistancecenters.net.

90.For more information on EPA’s Audit Policy, visit EPA’s Compliance Incentives and Auditing/Au

Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/incentives/auditing/auditpolicy.html. 

91.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Nove

Case Conclusion Data Sheet: Training Booklet. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Ava

at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/planning/caseconc.pdf. Date of access: Se

2003. 

92.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award Recipi

744-K-02-002. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Available online at http://www.epa

greenchemistry/docs/award_recipients_1996_2002.pdf. Date of access: September 3, 2003. 

93. Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E) Web Site: http://www.h2e-online.org/index.cfm. 

94.National Pollution Prevention Roundtable. January 2003. An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth Over 1

Pounds of Cure: A Decade of Pollution Prevention Results 1990-2000. Available online at http://www

p2results/2418_historyfinal.pdf. Date of access: September 10, 2003. 

95.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. June 2002. Municipal Solid Waste in 

States: 2000 Facts and Figures. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

96.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. August 2002. 2000 

Release Inventory (TRI). Public Data Release. EPA 260-R-02-003. Washington, DC: U.S. Governm

Office. 

97.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. June 2002. Municipal Solid Waste in 

States: 2000 Facts and Figures. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

214 
Program


Evaluations

well and what is not. EPA program managers 

and staff use program evaluations to identify 

areas needing improvement, more effective 

strategies for achieving established goals, and 

ways to improve data collection or better 

measure program results. 

COMPLETED EVALUATIONS 

THAT INFLUENCED 

DEVELOPMENT OF THIS 

STRATEGIC PLAN 

•An Assessment of Water Quality 

Standards Review and Development 

Process (EPA’s Office of Science and Technology, 2000).1 The Office of Water (OW) assessed a select number 

of states’ processes for developing 

water quality standards and EPA 

regional offices’ efforts to review 

them. The results of the assessment 

contributed to this Strategic Plan by 

helping establish new draft Program 

Activity Measures for developing 

clear, consistent national guidance on 

water quality criteria and standards; 

formulating a multi-year Strategy for Water Quality Standards and Criteria; 

and improving coordination among 

EPA, states, and federal agencies. 

•Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management (National 

Academy of Sciences, National 

Research Council, 2001). The U.S. 

Congress directed EPA to contract 

with the National Academy of 

Sciences’ National Research Council 

to review the quality of the science 

new information as it beco

able. Most importantly, th

(along with our own unde

of current state programs) 

support our strategic thrus

more emphasis on working 

states to upgrade their amb

quality monitoring and ass

•2002 National Estuary Prog

Implementation Review (EPA

of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, 2002). This re

assessed the progress made 

NEPs in implementing the

Comprehensive Conservat

Management Plans develo

Section 320 of the Clean W

(CWA). The findings are u

determine whether an estu

gram is eligible for continu

under Section 320. The re

vided a comprehensive eva

progress in meeting progra

objectives as well as enviro

improvement in the estuar

ticular, it assessed the abili

NEPs to restore and protec

which resulted in a measur

tat protection. Key elemen

review were an assessment 

ority action plans are impl

and who is going to pay, w

ed in our including finance 

leveraging goals in this Str

•A Review of Statewide Wate

Management Approaches (E

Office of Wetlands, Ocean

Watersheds, 2002). OW ev

eight states’ experiences wi

216 
this Strategic Plan include: development of strategic goals that must be 

attained through contributions from 

programs that, historically, have been 

managed separately; development of 

integrated measures reflecting linkages 

between water protection activities 

and water quality monitoring and 

TMDL programs; and establishment 

of a new ecosystem-based goal within 

the Strategic Plan hierarchy. 

•Regulation and Innovation in the 

Chemical Industry. The Joint Research 

Center of the European Commission 

concluded that risk-based testing regulations, such as those employed in 

the United States, appear to provide 

more incentives to innovate than do 

other approaches, such as those used 

in the European Union. EPA was 

encouraged by this study to continue 

its strategy of emphasizing risk-based 

screening of new and existing chemicals. This approach is reflected 

throughout the Agency’s strategic 

architecture for measuring and assessing program effectiveness. 

•Great Lakes Program Evaluations. The 

Great Lakes Strategy and its updated 

Lakewide Management Plans include 

contributions from the State of the 

Lakes Ecosystem conferences and 

reports by EPA’s Inspector General, 

the General Accounting Office 

(GAO), and the International Joint 

Commission. Together, the Strategy 

and the Lakewide Management Plans 

set forth the goals, objectives, and 

drinking-water quality, and air toxics 

deposition) served as the basis for 

Great Lakes sub-objective targets. 

•Environmental Protection: EPA Should 

Strengthen Its Efforts to Measure and 

Encourage Pollution Prevention (GAO01-283). This February 2001 GAO 

report examined how extensively 

companies have adopted pollution 

prevention strategies and the major 

factors that either encourage or discourage private-sector decisions to 

employ such strategies. GAO concluded that improved data collection 

and measurement are critical needs, 

stating: “EPA officials note that the 

limitations of available data inhibit 

both their ability to ascertain the 

extent to which companies use pollution prevention practices, and their 

attempt to target efforts to further 

encourage these practices.” GAO’s 

recommendations focused on the 

need for EPA to clarify source-reduction reporting requirements and to 

obtain accurate data on the quantity 

of emissions reduced. In response to 

this study, EPA has taken steps to 

improve its ability to measure emission reductions from sources of 

pollution. As a result of these actions, 

performance goals in this Strategic 

Plan for the first time are composed of 

specific measurable targets for pollution prevention, expressed in terms of 

the quantity of waste reduced (e.g., 

“By 2008, reduce waste minimization 

priority list chemicals in hazardous 
determined rates of significant noncompliance at major NPDES facilities 

and assessed the timeliness and appropriateness of enforcement actions 

taken to address significant noncompliance. The evaluation measured the 

program’s success in meeting four key 

objectives: (1) protecting human 

health and the environment, (2) 

achieving appropriate levels of compliance, (3) achieving appropriate 

levels of enforcement activity, and 

(4) changing regulated community’s 

behavior. The evaluation also discussed such factors potentially 

influencing results as data gaps, state 

requirements for data collection, levels of enforcement activity, existing 

policies on NPDES majors, and guidance issued on permit limits. The 

information provided by this performance analysis helped senior managers 

make program adjustments to achieve 

results that will contribute to the 

compliance objective under Goal 5. 

EPA will structure future analyses on 

this pilot performance analysis. 

PROPOSED FUTURE PROGRAM 

EVALUATIONS IN SUPPORT OF 

EPA’S FIVE GOALS 

GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR 

Program Evaluations Planned 

•New Source Review and Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration. EPA’s 

Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) is 

efficiency, at affected facili

(5) other relevant data. Th

and the April 2003 NAS r

Breath of Fresh Air: Reviving 

Source Review Program,2 wi

to improve the new source 

prevention of significant d

programs. (FY 2003-2004) 

•Carbon Monoxide and Cold 

Inversions. At Congress’s r

NAS conducted an indepe

study of carbon monoxide 

episodes in meteorological 

graphical problem areas to 

potential approaches for p

assessing, and managing h

centrations of CO. In its 2

interim report,4 which focu

CO problem in Fairbanks, 

NAS found that Fairbanks 

great progress in reducing 

of the CO National Ambi

Quality Standards (NAAQ

has worked effectively to r

emissions. NAS provided 

dations that, if implement

help Fairbanks further red

NAAQS violations. The f

Managing Carbon Monoxid

more broadly addresses CO 

in other areas and will be 

help areas in nonattainme

health-based CO standard 

and evaluate strategies for 

clean air. (FY 2003-2004) 

•Health Benefits of Air Pollut

Regulations. Section 812 of 

Air Act requires EPA to re

218 
nomic methods EPA uses to estimate 

the health benefits of its air pollution 

regulations.7 (In that report, NAS 

concluded that EPA’s benefits analyses do provide valuable information 

to policymakers and the public, and 

that, generally, the Agency has used a 

reasonable approach to estimate 

health benefits.) OAR expects to submit the analytic blueprint for its study 

to the Science Advisory Board for 

review by the end of 2003. (FY 2003 

and beyond) 

•Community-Based Projects. Pilot projects are underway in such cities as 

Charlotte, North Carolina to assess 

the effectiveness and usefulness of air 

pollution regulatory requirements. 

Communities will use the evaluation 

results to set priorities for risks not 

addressed by the regulatory programs. 

(FY 2003-2007) 

•Permit Issuance. Pursuant to the 

March 2002 Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) report on permit 

issuance8 and OAR’s action plan for 

addressing each of OIG’s recommendations,9 OAR will evaluate the Title 

V permit program and how well state 

permitting authorities are implementing their permitting regulations. 

The results of the evaluations will be 

used to improve state permitting programs. (Summer 2003-FY 2006) 

•2007 Highway Progress Review. As 

part of rule promulgation, OAR will 

comprehensively review progress 

business plans to comply with the 

2007 emission standards. These visits 

will enable OAR to evaluate industry’s progress and factor results into 

next steps for implementing these 

rules. (FY 2003-2007) 

•Diesel Desulfurization Progress Review. 

To assist in implementing the rules, 

OAR will review the HD diesel 

engine industry’s progress in employing existing desulfurization 

technologies and developing new 

technologies to produce 15 ppm sulfur diesel fuel. OAR reviewers will 

visit companies, participate in conference calls, and study information 

submitted to meet the HD 2007 program’s registration and reporting 

requirements.11 (FY 2003-2007) 

•Impact Evaluation of ENERGY 

STAR® for the Commercial Sector. 

OAR is studying the extent to which 

EPA’s ENERGY STAR® program has 

reduced energy use or intensity in the 

commercial sector.

12 The evaluation 

will use information from the Energy 

Information Agency (EIA) on 

state-level electric-utility energy 

consumption/intensity as well as data 

from the Commercial Building 

Energy Consumption Survey on 

energy consumption by commercial 

buildings. Market-driven effects will 

be distinguished from ENERGY 

STAR® program effects using crosssectional and/or time-series 

econometric models. (FY 2003-2004) 
sectional databases, such as those 

that EIA and the U.S. Census 

Bureau maintain. Commercially 

available databases may also be 

required for analyzing industry- or 

firm-specific trends. (FY 2004-2005) 

GOAL 2: CLEAN 

AND SAFE WATER 

•A Study of Public Awareness of 

Required Consumer Confidence Reports 

(CCRs) by Public Water Supplies of Varying Sizes. This study would 

involve national survey research, or 

focus group research, to examine how 

CCRs have impacted awareness of 

drinking-water quality. (FY 2003) 

•Evaluation of Effectiveness of 

State/Regional Water Monitoring 

Councils. The purpose of this 

project is to determine the factors 

that contribute to an effective water 

monitoring council. The project will 

assess nine monitoring councils 

through a combinations of literature 

reviews and interviews. (FY 2003) 

•An Assessment of State NPDES 

Program Integrity and Regional 

Oversight. This evaluation will assess 

the factors that contribute to the 

weaknesses and vulnerabilities, as 

well as strengths, of state NPDES 

programs. It will also analyze to what 

extent EPA regional offices have adequate tools to effectively oversee and 

assess the integrity of state programs. 

The project approach will include 

alternate test procedure ap

process. Evaluation will ad

cerns related to technical 

resources, and coordinatio

EPA’s Office of Research a

Development, Office of G

and Drinking Water, and r

offices. (FY 2003-2004) 

•An Evaluation of the Non-P

Pollution Control Program. 

will assess whether CWA 

funds are being spent in a 

(a) will result in protectio

restoration of watersheds f

point source pollution and 

effectively leverage other a

federal, state, and local fun

tection and restoration of 

The study will specifically 

how well the states are im

EPA’s FY 2002 and 2003 3

lines regarding the use of i

section 319 funds to devel

shed-based plans and impl

them to restore 303(d)-list

Evaluation methods will in

review of program docume

interviews with selected re

states, and local project m

(FY 2004) 

•A Review of State 303(d) L

Methodologies. This projec

review the 2002 lists of im

waters approved by the reg

compare them with the 19

list to (a) evaluate whethe

fewer waters were listed, (b

rize the reasons for listing 

waters, and (c) evaluate w

220 
review process conducted by OW in 

FY 2001, OW plans to evaluate 

whether water quality standards are 

being implemented effectively in 

assessments, permits, TMDLs, and 

drinking-water source protection. 

(FY 2005-2006) 

•An Assessment of the Effectiveness of 

the On-Site/Decentralized Treatment 

Guidelines and other program activities 

in Achieving Public Health and 

Environmental Results. This 

project will look at the On-Site/ 

Decentralized Treatment Guidelines 

and other program activities to determine their effectiveness in achieving 

public health and environmental 

benefits. (FY 2005-2006) 

•A Regional Evaluation of State Drinking 

Water Programs. The proposed project 

is designed to be a process/implementation evaluation on the effectiveness 

of state programs as they implement 

the SDWA. The project will involve 

site visits in selected states and would 

be integrated with existing annual 

Data Verifications and Drinking 

Water State Revolving Fund evaluations. (FY 2006) 

GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION 

AND RESTORATION 

•Evaluation of the RCRA Waste 

Generator Program. This impact evaluation will assess the effectiveness of 

the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) regulatory 

•Evaluation of the Impacts and 

Effectiveness of Waste Recycling 

Incentives. EPA will study cases of regulatory relief initiatives to evaluate 

their success in increasing recycling of 

hazardous waste. The results of this 

impact evaluation will help to direct 

the Resource Conservation 

Challenge, one of EPA’s priority programs. (FY 2004-2006) 

•Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the 

Interagency Open Dump Cleanup 

Program for Tribes. This impact evaluation will assess the effectiveness of 

developing solid and hazardous waste 

management programs in Indian 

country by reviewing program results, 

changes in waste management, and 

the effectiveness of interagency relationships and implementation 

mechanisms. (FY 2004-2006) 

•Evaluation of the Impacts/Benefits of 

Community Involvement in Superfund 

Risk Assessment Process. This evaluation will assess the extent to which 

public involvement in risk assessment at Superfund sites has improved 

and how Office of Emergency and 

Remedial Response initiatives have 

contributed to community involvement. (FY 2004-2006) 

•Evaluation of Superfund Allocation of 

Human Capital Resources and the Need 

for Redistribution/Reallocation. This 

process evaluation will examine the 

human capital resource requirements 

for implementing the Superfund 

program and will assess the need for 
exceeded performance goals such as 

cleanups completed, backlogs 

reduced, or reductions in releases. 

(FY 2004-2006) 

•Evaluation of Multi-Statute 

Preparedness, Prevention, and Response 

Planning Requirements. To prevent and 

prepare for releases of oil and hazardous materials, facilities might be 

asked to meet multiple requirements 

for spill prevention and emergency 

response plans.14 This evaluation will 

identify potential redundancies, 

inconsistencies, and/or inefficiencies 

among the multiple requirements and 

opportunities to ameliorate those 

problems. (FY 2004-2006) 

GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES 

AND ECOSYSTEMS 

•Pre-Manufacture Notice Review 

Program. EPA will assess the performance of the Pre-Manufacture Notice 

Review Program, one of our largest 

and most visible chemicals programs, 

in meeting its zero-tolerance riskbased performance goal, given an 

increasing demand for adopting additional review criteria, an aging work 

force, and declining contract funding. (FY 2003-2004) 

•An Assessment of the Effectiveness of 

Participatory Processes in Achieving 

Environmental Results. EPA will 

determine the effectiveness of the 

National Estuary Program, the 

Fisheries Management Council, and 

that are not regulated by th

barriers to those programs, 

to overcome barriers. (FY 

•Great Lakes Programs. The 

International Joint Comm

evaluate the progress of G

programs every 2 years (FY 

2006, and 2008). Progress 

assessed through State of t

Ecosystem Conferences. 

(FY 2003, 2005, and 2007

•Reduced-Risk Initiative for 

Conventional Pesticides. EP

duct this program evaluati

determine the market shar

approved reduced-risk pest

gained in its respective cro

identify the extent to whic

risk pesticides have displac

pesticides in the market, a

gest factors contributing to 

success or failure of these p

in the marketplace. (FY 20

GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AN

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWA

•Wet Weather Performance A

complement its 2003 NPD

Performance Analysis (des

the Goal 2 section of this 

EPA’s OECA will evaluate 

Agency’s wet weather prog

(which encompass combin

feeding operations, combin

and sanitary sewer overflo

storm water). Because both 

weather areas and NPDES 

222 
enforcement priorities, may (1) fail 

to make proper hazardous waste 

determinations, (2) operate hazardous waste treatment units without 

appropriate permits, and 

(3) dispose of hazardous wastes illegally and unsafely. EPA’s Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance 

Assistance will examine enforcement 

and compliance assurance efforts 

directed toward RCRA permit 

evaders and determine the extent to 

which these efforts are improving 

compliance and affecting environmental and human health 

conditions. (FY 2004) 

CROSS-AGENCY AND SUPPORTPROGRAM EVALUATIONS 

•Research. EPA is exploring options 

for periodic evaluations of Agency 

research programs. Beginning in FY 

2005 (with possible pilot evaluations 

in FY 2004), independent and external panels will regularly review 

research programs’ relevance, quality, 

and performance to date, in accordance with the Office of 

Management and Budget’s (OMB) 

Investment Criteria for Research and 

Development.15 Evaluators will determine whether EPA research programs 

have complete plans with clear goals 

and priorities; articulate potential 

public benefits; relate to national, 

scientific, and customer needs; award 

funds competitively or otherwise 

demonstrate justifiable funding 

agement of its research programs and 

measure progress, as required under 

the Government Performance and 

Results Act.16 

•Assessment of Implementation of the 

Agency’s Quality System. Every EPA 

organization that maintains environmental data must implement a 

quality system to plan and document 

its quality assurance activities. EPA’s 

quality systems include preparation of 

a Quality Management Plan (QMP), 

which must be approved by the 

Agency’s Office of Environmental 

Information (OEI). On a 5-year 

schedule, OEI assesses QMPs for 

conformance to our quality systems 

and to ensure that the Agency is collecting and using appropriate, 

high-quality data for decision-making. (Several assessments are planned 

through 2006.) 

•Assessing EPA databases. The Agency 

will continue to assess and map several of its databases to ensure that 

the data are transparent and sufficient (suitable) to answer specific 

questions or inform decisions. 

Suitability assessments will describe 

characteristics of databases for both 

primary and secondary uses and may 

include information on coverage, 

spatial and temporal characteristics, 

consistency within data systems, ability to link to other systems, accuracy, 

limitations, access, and documentation. (FY 2004) 
media areas or “tracks” (Air, Water, 

Land, Cross-Media, and Good 

Government).17 OIG will conduct 

studies within each track to answer 

key questions and provide information on the extent to which the 

Agency is achieving desired results 

and benefits of environmental programs, as envisioned by the 

Administration and Congress. 

Planned OIG program evaluations 

include: Under Goal 1, Particulate 

Matter, Ozone, and Air Toxics; under 

Goal 2, Drinking Water, Watershed 

Protection, and Pollutant Loadings; 

Under Goal 3, Superfund, 

Brownfields, and Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act; 

under Goal 4, Environmental Justice 

and Homeland Security; under 

Goal 5, Compliance Assistance and 

Enforcement and Environmental 

Stewardship; and, as part of crossgoal efforts, Financial Management, 

Information Resources Management, 

Program Management, Assistance 

Agreements, Contracts, and Energy 

Conservation/Green Power. 

SCHEDULE OF OMB PART ASSESSMENTS FOR 

EPA PROGRAMS 

As part of the fiscal year 2004 budget 

process, OMB introduced a new instrument—the Program Assessment Rating Tool 

(PART)—for assessing government programs’ 

making funding decisions.18 

Approximately 27 percent of E

grams (by budget amount) were as

during the FY 2004 budget formul

process. Once a program is assesse

PART, it is reassessed annually the

Thus an additional 24 percent of E

grams are being assessed during th

process. An additional 20 percent 

added in fiscal years 2006, 2007, a

until 100 percent of EPA’s program

assessed in FY 2008 and every year 

FY 2004 

Leaking Underground Storage Tan

Air Toxics


Nonpoint Source


Superfund Removal


Drinking Water SRF


Pesticides Registration


Pesticides Reregistration


New Chemicals


Existing Chemicals
 Tribal GAP


Civil Enforcement


FY 2005 

RCRA Corrective Action 


RCRA State Grants


Ecosystem Research


Clean Water State Revolving Fun

(CWSRF) 


Criminal Enforcement


PM Research


224 
5.National Academy of Sciences. 2003. Managing Carbon Monoxide Pollution in Meteorological and 

Topographical Problem Areas. 

6.Clean Air Act, Title I, Section 112. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/caa112.txt, EPA Clean Air 

Act Web Site. Date of access: September 8, 2003. 

Clean Air Act Amendments, Title I (42 U.S.C. 7401-7514a), Clean Air Act Amendments, Title II (42 U.S.C. 

7521-7590), Clean Air Act Amendments, Title IV(42 U.S.C. 7651-7661f), Clean Air Act Amendments, Title 

IX (42 U.S.C. 7403-7404). 

7. National Academy of Sciences. 2002. Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air Pollution Regulations. 

8.Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General. March 29, 2002. Air: EPA and State Progress in 

Issuing Title V Permits (Report No. 2002-P-0008). 

9. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/permits/oig-actionplan.pdf.

10.See EPA’s Tier 2 / Gasoline Sulfur Final Rulemaking. (February 10, 2000) Regulatory Impact Analysis. Chapter VII: 

Benefit-Cost Analysis. (EPA 420-R-99-023, December 22, 1999) Available online at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

regs/ld-hwy/tier-2/frm/ria/chvii.pdf 

See also EPA’s Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements. 

(December 21, 2000). Chapter VII: Benefit-Cost Analysis. Regulatory Impact Analysis (EPA420-R-00-026, 

December 2000 ) Available online at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/hd2007/frm/ria-vii.pdf 

11.See EPA’s Tier 2 / Gasoline Sulfur Final Rulemaking. (February 10, 2000) Regulatory Impact Analysis. Chapter VII: 

Benefit-Cost Analysis. (EPA 420-R-99-023, December 22, 1999) Available online at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

regs/ld-hwy/tier-2/frm/ria/chvii.pdf 

See also EPA’s Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements. 

(December 21, 2000). Chapter VII: Benefit-Cost Analysis. Regulatory Impact Analysis (EPA420-R-00-026, 

December 2000 ) Available online at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/hd2007/frm/ria-vii.pdf 

12. For more information, see http://www.energystar.gov/.

13. Clean Water Act, 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 122. 

14.Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 264, Subpart D; Part 265, 

Subpart D; and Part 279.52. 

EPA’s Oil Pollution Prevention Regulation (40 CFR part 112) 

USCG-FRP (49 CFR part 194) 

DOT/RSPA-FRP (49 CFR part 194) 

OSHA Emergency Action Plans (29 CFR 1910.38(a)) and Process Safety (29 CFR 1910.119) 

OSHA HAZWOPER (29 CFR 1910.120) 

CAA RMP (40 CFR part 68) 

15.John H. Marburger, III and Mitchell E. Daniels, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and 

Agencies, June 5, 2003, pages 5-10. Available online at http://www.ostp.gov/html/OSTP-OMB%20Memo.pdf: 

Executive Office of the President of the United States, Office of Science and Technology Policy Web Site. 

Washington, DC. 
226 
Summary of


Consultation Efforts

launched an extensive national consultation 

effort to ensure that our many partners and 

stakeholders were offered opportunities to 

participate during each phase of the development of our 2003 Strategic Plan. 

The leaders of EPA’s five strategic architecture workgroups (one for each of our 

goals) and the Agency national and regional 

managers organized meetings, participated in 

conferences, and presented briefings to 

ensure that our partners and stakeholders 

fully understood our process for developing 

our Strategic Plan and had the opportunity to 

participate. We distributed our proposed 

strategic architecture—goals, objectives, and 

sub-objectives—and subsequently the fulltext draft of the Strategic Plan to hundreds of 

our partners and stakeholders, including 

other federal agencies, states, more than 550 

Indian tribes, environmental and industry 

groups, and academic and public policy 

groups. We posted information on EPA’s 

Internet site and solicited input, providing 

groups and individuals several options for 

submitting comments to the Agency. We 

carefully considered all of the comments we 

received at each stage of the development 

process. 

This appendix presents a chronology of 

major activities we conducted to consult with 

parties interested in or likely to be affected 

by EPA’s Strategic Plan. It briefly highlights 

our consultation with the U.S. Congress and 

with our state and tribal partners, and it 

includes a list of all organizations and federal 

agencies we contacted to solicit input as we 

developed this Strategic Plan.

1 

national meeting of Agenc

with organizations represe

partners and stakeholders 

views on the challenges an

nities we will face in prote

human health and the env

during the coming years. P

were asked to identify som

problems and issues that E

partners will need to addre

each of its five goal areas. 

Approximately 125 people 

representing such diverse g

the U.S. Congress, other f

agencies, states, tribes, loc

ments, environmental gro

policy and academic organ

and the regulated commun

•	 Release of Draft Goals an

Objectives 

EPA incorporated some of 

gathered during the Octob

in the draft strategic archi

that we released for public 

and comment on Decemb

2002. We provided the dra

tecture, which included ou

objectives, and sub-object

states and state organizatio

other federal agencies; me

environmental, academic, 

policy groups; and represen

the regulated community. 

posted the draft architectu

EPA’s Internet site and pro

mechanism for reviewers t

comments electronically. T

Agency solicited commen

January 31, 2003. 228 
mental, and public policy groups for a 

45-day public review period. EPA 

also posted the full-text draft Strategic 

Plan on its Internet site and provided 

a mechanism for electronic comment. During the comment period, 

EPA senior managers took advantage 

of meetings and conferences to 

obtain perspectives of various constituencies, including states, tribes, 

and other organizations. Discussion 

focused on the Agency’s proposed 

objectives and targets and the means 

and strategies presented for achieving 

these goals. 

CONSULTING WITH STATE 

AND TRIBAL PARTNERS 

Consulting States 

Much of EPA’s consultation and coordination with its state partners was conducted 

through the Agency’s collaboration with 

ECOS, the national association of state and 

territorial environmental commissioners. 

Throughout the development of this Strategic 

Plan, ECOS assisted the Agency by providing 

information and materials for review to individual state agencies. In particular, EPA 

worked closely with the ECOS Planning 

Committee to solicit state perspectives and 

to consider state input that we used to help 

frame the goals, objectives, and strategies 

presented in our 2003 Strategic Plan. 

provided the Agency a forum from which to 

solicit tribal perspectives on the most pressing and important environmental challenges 

we will face in Indian country and Alaskan 

Native villages in the years ahead. EPA continued to consult with tribes at the national 

and regional levels throughout the development of the Strategic Plan. The Agency 

communicated with tribes individually and 

through coordinated efforts led by the Tribal 

Caucus and the Tribal Operations 

Committee. 

Consulting with Congress 

EPA began its consultation with 

Congress in Fall 2002. We invited 

Congressional staff representing individual 

Members and authorizing and appropriating 

committees to our National Meeting of 

Partners and Stakeholders, and two staff 

members from the Senate Environment and 

Public Works Committee appeared on a 

panel which opened the facilitated plenary 

session of the meeting. During the afternoon, 

Congressional staff participated in smaller 

group discussions of EPA’s proposed new 

strategic goals and raised issues of specific 

interest and concern. 

In December and January, we provided 

chairmen and ranking minority Members of 

these committees, their staffs, and interested 

Members with copies of our draft strategic 

goals, objectives, and sub-objectives. We sent 

the full-text draft of the Agency’s Strategic 

Plan to Members and Congressional staff on 

March 18, 2003. Congressional contacts were 

encouraged to submit comments on these 

documents electronically, via the comments 
230 

Organizations 

Air and Waste Management Association 

Alaska Federation of Natives, Incorporated 

Alternatives for Community and 

Environment 

American Association for the Advancement 

of Science 

American Chemical Council 

American Chemical Society Task Force on 

Environmental Research 

American Farm Bureau Federation 

American Farmland Trust 

American Fisheries Society 

American Forest and Paper Association 

American Forests 

American Industrial Health Council 

American Lung Association 

American Petroleum Institute 

American Public Health Association 

American Recreation Coalition 

American Rivers 

American Society of Civil Engineers 

American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, 

and Air Conditioning Engineers 

American Society of Science & Engineering 

American Water Works Association 

Association of American Pesticide Control 

Officials 

Association of State and Interstate Water 

Pollution Control Administrators 

Association of State Drinking Water 

Administrators 

Association of State and Territoria

Officials 

Association of State and Territoria

Waste Management Officials 

Businesses for Social Responsibilit

Business Roundtable 

California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Center for Health, Environment a

Center for International Environm

Center for Plant Conservation 

Center for Regulatory Effectivenes

Chemical Industry Institute of Tox

Children’s Defense Fund 

Chippewa Ottawa Resource Autho

Citizens for a Sound Economy 

Clean Water Action 

Clean Water Network 

Coalition for Effective Environme

Information 

Coalition for Environmentally Res

Economics 

Conservation International 

Corporate Environmental Enforce

Council, Incorporated 

Council for Excellence in Govern

Council of Energy Resource Tribes 

Council of State Governments 

Council on Environmental Qualit

Defenders of Wildlife 

Doris Day Animal League 

Ducks Unlimited, Incorporated 

In preparing our 2003 Strategic Plan, EPA consulted with several hundred organi

individuals. In addition to the state and tribal groups mentioned above, EPA provid

documents to and solicited input from the following organizations. 
Environmental Law Institute


Environmental Working Group


Forest Guardians


Friends of the Earth


Fund for Animals


G.E. Energy and Environmental Research


Corporation 

Global Environment & Technology 

Foundation 

Greenpeace 

Heritage Foundation 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

H. John Heinz III Center for Science, 

Economics, and the Environment 

Indigenous Environmental Network 

INFORM, Inc. 

Institute for Advanced Study 

Inter-Tribal Timber Council 

International City/County Management 

Association 

International Institute for Energy 

Conservation 

International Wood Products Association 

Intertribal Agriculture Council 

IUCN US Multilateral Office 

Izaak Walton League of America 

Land Trust Alliance 

Law Engineering and Environmental 

Services, Inc. 

Maine Department of Agriculture 

Mercatus Center 

Minnesota Department of Agriculture 

Missouri Department of Agriculture 

Mni Cose Inter-Tribal Water Rights 

National Academies 

National Academy of Public Administration, 

Center for the Economy and the 

Environment 

of Agriculture 

National Association of State Universities 

and Land Grant Colleges 

National Audubon Society 

National Congress of American Indians 

National Council for Science and the 

Environment 

National Environmental Policy Institute 

National Environmental Trust 

National Federation of Independent Business 

National Fish and Wildlife Council 

National Fisheries Institute 

National Governors Association 

National Mining Association 

National Parks Conservation Association 

National Petroleum Council 

National Pollution Prevention Roundtable 

National Recreation and Park Association 

National Tribal Environmental Council 

National Tribal Development Association 

National Wildlife Federation 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Nelson Institute of Environmental 

Medicine/NY University, 

School of Medicine 

Nuclear Information and Resource Service 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

Oceana 

Ocean Conservancy 

OMB Watch 

Pan American Health Organization 

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals 

Performance Track Participants Association 

Quinault Indian Nation 

RAND Environmental Science and Policy 

Center 

Resources for the Future 
Pollution Control Officials 

Sustainable Ecosystems Institute


The Nature Conservancy


Tennessee Valley Authority


Tribal Pesticide Program Council 


Tribal Association on Solid Waste and


Emergency Response 

Trust for Public Land 

Urban Ecology Institute/Boston College 

Union of Concerned Scientists 

University of Delaware 

University of Maryland 

U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

West Harlem Environmental Action 

Western Governors’ Association 

Wilderness Society 

Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Council 

Woodrow Wilson School/Princeton 

University 

World Resources Institute 

World Wildlife Fund 

Worldwatch Institute 

Federal Agencies


Agency for International Development


Consumer Product Safety Commission


Department of Agriculture


Department of Commerce


Department of Defense


Department of Education


Department of Energy


Department of Health and Human Services


Department of Housing and Urban


Development 

Department of the Interior 

Department of Justice 

Department of Labor 

National Oceanographic and Atm

Administration 

National Science Foundation 

Office of Science Technology and 

Small Business Administration 

NOTES 

1.For a discussion of EPA’s consultation 

coordination with other federal agen

Appendix 4: Coordination Between 

Other Federal Agencies. 

232 
Coordination Between EPA an

Other Federal Agencies

Army Corp of Engineers ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ 

Commerce ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ 

Consumer Product Safety Commission ✖ ✖ 

Defense ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ 

Education ✖ ✖ 

Energy ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ 

Federal Emergency Management Agency ✖ ✖ ✖ 

General Services Administration ✖ 

Health and Human Services ✖ ✖ ✖ 

Homeland Security ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ 

Housing and Urban Development ✖ ✖ ✖ 

Interior ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ 

Justice ✖ ✖ ✖ 

Labor ✖ ✖ 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration ✖ ✖ 

National Science Foundation ✖ 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ✖ 

Office of Science and Technology Policy ✖ 

Small Business Administration ✖ ✖ ✖ 

State ✖ ✖ ✖ 

Transportation ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ 

Treasury ✖ 

Tennessee Valley Authority ✖ 

US Agency for International Development ✖ ✖ ✖ 

US Trade Representative ✖ 

Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosys

Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water 

Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration 

Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental S

234 
Land Preservation and Restoration 

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. 

Healthy Communities and Ecosystems 

Protect, sustain, or restore the health of people, communities, and ecosystems using 

integrated and comprehensive approaches and partnerships. 

Compliance and Environmental Stewardship 

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 environmental stewardship.