Bøger af U S Environmental Protection Agency

This draft document has been prepared by staff from the Risk and Benefits Group, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Any findings and conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency. This draft document is being circulated to facilitate discussion with the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee to inform the EPA's consideration of the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

EPA OIG has policies and procedures or other guidance to satisfy Silver Book requirements in all except one area. The one area lacking guidance pertains to training for the auditors and evaluators and the responsibility of key managers to ensure their staff members have the skills necessary to match the OIG's needs. We noted that 21 of the 28 policies and procedures reviewed, or 75 percent, are past the required review date prescribed by EPA OIG Policy 001, OIG Directives System. Of those 21 that are out of date, 48 percent are at least 3 years overdue for review/update. We concluded that our Policy 503, Allegations Against OIG Employees (last approved September 2001), needs to be updated to be consistent with current law and provisions. Further, we concluded that additional policies and procedures need to be assessed by the responsible offices to determine whether they are subject to Silver Book requirements or are sufficient to meet those requirements. These policies and procedures cover management challenges; annual plans; training provided to the Agency on fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement; and the need for independent external peer reviews.

The Nation's aquatic resources are among its most valuable assets. Although environmental protection programs in the United States have successfully improved water quality during the past 25 years, many challenges remain. Significant strides have been made in reducing the effects of discrete pollutant sources, such as factories and sewage treatment plants (called point sources). But aquatic ecosystems remain impaired, mostly because of complex problems caused by polluted runoff, known as nonpoint source pollution. This guidance document is intended to provide technical assistance to state water quality and forestry program managers, nonindustrial private forest owners, industrial forest owners, and others involved with forest management on the best available, most economically achievable means of reducing the nonpoint source pollution of surface and groundwaters that can result from forestry activities. The guidance provides background information about nonpoint source pollution from forestry activities, including where it comes from and how it enters our waters. It presents the most current technical information about how to minimize and reduce nonpoint source pollution to forest waters, and it discusses the broad concept of assessing and addressing water quality problems on a watershed level. By assessing and addressing water quality problems at the watershed level, state program managers and others involved with forest management can integrate concerns about forestry activities with those of other resource management activities to identify conflicting requirements and provide balance between short-term impacts and long-term benefits. This approach can maximize the potential for overall improvement and protection of watershed conditions and provide multiple environmental benefits. This document provides guidance to states, territories, authorized tribes; commercial and nonindustrial private forest owners and managers; and the public regarding management measures that may be used to reduce nonpoint source pollution from forestry activities. At times this document refers to statutory and regulatory provisions that contain legally binding requirements.

The information in this document has been funded wholly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review, and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

In planning and performing our audit, we considered the EPA's internal control over the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) financial reporting by obtaining an understanding of the agency's internal controls, determining whether internal controls had been placed in operation, assessing control risk, and performing tests of controls. We did this as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the financial statements and to comply with OMB audit guidance, not to express an opinion on internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on internal control over financial reporting or on management's assertion on internal controls included in Management's Discussion and Analysis. We limited our internal control testing to those controls necessary to achieve the objectives described in OMB Bulletin No. 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, as Amended. We did not test all internal controls relevant to operating objectives as broadly defined by the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) of 1982, such as those controls relevant to ensuring efficient operations.

The STAR program of ORD's National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) funds research grants and graduate fellowships in numerous environmental science and engineering disciplines through a competitive solicitation process and independent peer review. The program engages scientists and engineers in targeted research that complements EPA's intramural research program and those of its partners in other federal agencies. STAR research is funded through RFAs that are derived from the ORD Strategic Plan and from research plans for specific topics developed by ORD. RFAs are prepared in cooperation with other parts of the Agency and concentrate on areasof special significance to the EPA mission. Once applications are received by the Agency in response to an RFA, NCER conducts a multi-stage review process to determine which applications it will recommend for funding. According to EPA, STAR research is currently focusing on the health effects of particulate matter, drinking water, water quality, global change, ecosystem assessment and restoration, human health risk assessment, endocrine disrupting chemicals, pollution prevention and new technologies, children's health, and socio-economic research.

The 1992 Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act established Title IV of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA required EPA to issue a rule by 1996 to regulate the lead hazards created from renovation work. In 2005, EPA was sued by environmental groups for failure to issue the Lead Rule by 1996. In a January 2008 settlement agreement, EPA committed to issuing the Lead Rule on or before March 31, 2008. In addition, under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, the EPA Administrator was directed to finalize the Lead Rule by March 31, 2008. EPA issued the final rule on April 22, 2008. The purpose of the 2008 Lead Rule was to address lead-based paint hazards created by renovation, repair, and painting activities that disturb lead-based paint in target housing1 and child-occupied facilities.2 Under the Lead Rule, firms that perform renovation, repair, or painting activities for compensation in buildings covered by the regulation must be EPA certified, train at least one of their employees as a certified renovator, use a certified renovator to train other workers to perform renovation activities, and ensure that lead-safe work practices are used for projects that disturb lead-based paint.

The discovery of a variety of pharmaceuticals in surface, ground, and drinking waters around the country has raised concerns about the potentially adverse environmental consequences of these contaminants. Although the effects on humans are unknown, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that some research has demonstrated the potential impact to human health from exposure to pharmaceuticals found in drinking water, such as antibiotics and those that interfere with human hormone development. In addition, minute concentrations of some pharmaceuticals can have detrimental effects on aquatic species, such as hormonal imbalances leading to feminization and reproductive problems in fish populations. Studies have suggested the detection of pharmaceutical compounds in treated wastewater effluent, streams, lakes, seawater, and groundwater, as well as in sediments and fish tissue. For example, during 1999 and 2000, the United States Geological Survey conducted a study of 139 streams across the country and detected pharmaceutical compounds in 80 percent of the streams sampled. In the 2008 proposed universal waste rule, EPA defines a pharmaceutical as any chemical product, vaccine, or allergenic, not containing a radioactive component, that is intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease or injury in humans or animals. This definition also refers to any product with the primary purpose of dispensing or delivering a pharmaceutical.

Communities around the country are adopting smart growth strategies to reach environmental, community, and economic goals. The environmental goals include water benefits that accrue when development strategies use compact development forms, a mix of uses, better use of existing infrastructure, and preservation of critical environmental areas. While the water quality and stormwater benefits of smart growth are widely acknowledged, there has been little explicit regulatory recognition of these benefits to date. Regulations under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater program offer a structure for considering the water quality benefits associated with smart growth techniques. Compliance with federal, state, and local stormwater programs revolves around the use of "best management practices" (BMPs) to manage stormwater. Given the water benefits of smart growth at the site, neighborhood, and watershed levels, many smart growth techniques and policies are emerging as BMPs. The goal of this document is to help communities that have adopted smart growth policies and plans recognize the water benefits of those smart growth techniques and suggest ways to integrate those policies into stormwater planning and compliance. Taking credit for the work a community is already doing can be a low-cost and practical approach to meeting water quality goals and regulatory commitments.

Project Managers (PMs) may make and document periodic inquiries concerning the Agency's/auditee's progress in implementing corrective actions resulting from OIG work. As part of this process, OIG may also request documentation supporting the progress or completion of actions taken to implement the Agency's corrective actions plan. OIG may also request the Agency's views and concurrence on the actual benefits resulting from the report. When a report is closed upon issuance, the transmittal memorandum should state that OIG will make periodic inquiries of the Agency's/auditee's progress in implementing corrective actions resulting from OIG work.

There is a growing need for urban water managers to take a more holistic view of their water resource systems as population growth, urbanization, and current operations put different stresses on the environment and urban infrastructure. Total Water Management (TWM) is an approach that examines urban water systems in a more interconnected manner, focusing on reducing water demands, increasing water recycling and reuse, creating water supply assets from stormwater management, matching water quality to end-use needs, and achieving environmental goals through multi-purpose, multi-benefit infrastructure. This study documents the benefits of TWM to water management decision-makers and can be used to support the development of management techniques that could be adopted in order to improve urban systems. This study includes a comprehensive literature review that summarizes TWM principles and real world applications in the United States and abroad. The literature review was organized into different regions of the country in order to reflect geographic water management drivers and challenges.

Every laboratory measurement involves uncertainty. When there is little or no radioactivity in a sample, one consequence of measurement uncertainty is the possibility of obtaining a measured value that is less than zero. Such a negative result occurs when random effects in the measure- ment process cause the measured value for the sample to be less than that of the blank or back- ground, which is subtracted from it. From April 1991 to December 1995, negative results were reported as "not detected" or "ND," and gamma analysis results that were less than their estimated measurement uncertainties were also reported as "ND." In January 1996, both of these practices were discontinued. Although negative activities are physically impossible, the inclusion of negative results in the report allows better statistical analysis of the data.

Water quality standards and criteria are the regulatory and scientific foundation of programs established under the Clean Water Act to protect the Nation's waters. As such, they are among the most critical clean water programs. Due to the many new demands on the program, and since the nature of water pollution problems and required solutions have changed dramatically in recent years, water quality standards and criteria need to be made a high priority and given a renewed focus. The water quality standards and criteria program needs clear priorities to address these critical demands. This strategy is the product of a wide-ranging review of the existing water quality standards and criteria program within the context of all clean water programs. The review covered clean water goals, mandates and authorities; EPA's current strategic goals for clean water and other strategic planning efforts; and major needs of the current EPA standards and criteria program and key programs linked to it including water quality monitoring, total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, nonpoint source programs, oceans and wetlands programs, and source water protection. The review considered the results of more than 50 listening sessions with over 350 people during April-September 2001 and recent recommendations from the National Research Council, the General Accounting Office, and EPA's Inspector General. States support this long-term vision and look to EPA to help fulfill it, beginning with the priority strategic actions contained in this strategy. These actions in the strategy are designed to address the following strategic themes: Filling major program gaps to achieve critical environmental results. For example, the water quality standards and criteria program needs to help states strengthen water quality criteria for three pollutants (sedimentation, pathogens, and nutrients) that are responsible for an estimated 40 percent of water quality impairments nationally; Strengthening and maintaining the scientific foundation of water quality programs, including targeting criteria development for specific pollutants of highest importance; Clarifying for states how to implement key scientific and technical components of standards and criteria when regulating discharges; Establishing important technical and policy linkages between the water quality standards and criteria program and other programs such as those that protect drinking water; Broadening participation in the water quality standards and criteria program with states and other stakeholders. The strategy describes and sets milestones for the ten strategic actions of highest priority for addressing these findings.

If you handle, manufacture, use, or store toxic and flammable substances above the specified threshold quantities in a process, you are required to develop and implement a risk management program rule issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This rule, "Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions" (part 68 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)), applies to a wide variety of facilities that handle, manufacture, store, or use toxic substances, including chlorine and ammonia and highly flammable substances such as propane; flammable substances used solely as fuels are not covered. This document provides guidance for chemical distributors on how to determine if you are subject to part 68 and how to comply with part 68. If you are subject to part 68, you must be in compliance no later than June 21, 1999, or the date on which you first have more than a threshold quantity in a process, whichever is later. The goal of part 68 - the risk management program - is to prevent accidental releases of substances that can cause serious harm to the public and the environment from short-term exposures and to mitigate the severity of releases that do occur. The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA) require EPA to issue a rule specifying the type of actions to be taken by facilities (referred to in the law as stationary sources) to prevent accidental releases of such hazardous chemicals into the atmosphere and reduce their potential impact on the public and the environment. Part 68 is that rule.

If you handle, manufacture, use, or store any of the toxic and flammable substances listed in 40 CFR 68.130 above the specified threshold quantities in a process, you are required to develop and implement a risk management program rule issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This rule, "Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions" (part 68 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)), applies to a wide variety of facilities that handle, manufacture, store, or use toxic substances, including chlorine and ammonia and highly flammable substances such as propane. This document provides guidance on how to determine if you are subject to part 68 and how to comply with part 68. If you are subject to part 68, you must be in compliance no later than June 21, 1999, or the date on which you first have more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process, whichever is later. This guidance is intended for warehouses that handle or store chemicals; some of these warehouses may repackage chemicals, but most limit their activities to storing substances in containers designed to meet DOT transportation regulations. Information that is not applicable to warehouses has been omitted. If your warehouse is part of a larger facility that processes or uses chemicals or stores large quantities of chemicals for its own use, there will be information that is applicable to those other operations that is not presented in this document. For those operations, you should consult the General Guidance of Risk Management Programs or EPA's other industry-specific guidance documents, as appropriate. The goal of part 68 - the risk management program - is to prevent accidental releases of substances that can cause serious harm to the public and the environment from short-term exposures and to mitigate the severity of releases that do occur. The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA) require EPA to issue a rule specifying the type of actions to be taken by facilities (referred to in the statute as stationary sources) to prevent accidental releases of such hazardous chemicals into the atmosphere and reduce their potential impact on the public and the environment. Part 68 is that rule.

The first edition of the EPA Peer Review Handbook was issued in 1998 and was intended to serve as a single, centralized source of implementation guidance on peer review for EPA staff and managers. Subsequent revisions of the Handbook have added necessary clarifications, incorporated insights and experiences gained through its use, and integrated changes to reflect updated government-wide guidance or policy related to peer review. These revisions have increased the transparency and accountability of peer review and helped ensure that Agency decisions are based on sound and defensible science. For the 4th edition, the EPA's STPC determined that revisions were needed to incorporate several recent EPA policy and process changes related to peer review. Although the 4th edition draws heavily from the 3rd edition, it has been reorganized to emphasize the elements and tools needed to implement a systematic peer review. It retains, however, the "question and answer" format throughout. New flowcharts and checklists have been added, and several substantial updates are included, such as the additional guidance on appearance of a loss of impartiality in external peer reviews, new information on organizational changes and oversight responsibilities, and changes related to the issuance of recent policies and procedures associated with the EPA's Information Quality Guidelines (IQG). The 4th edition also describes process changes for contractor-managed panel peer reviews of scientific and technical documents designated as Influential Scientific Information (lSI). The process is intended to reduce the potential for organizational or personal conflict-of-interest (COl) concerns. Early public participation in the nomination and selection of peer reviewers and increased internal oversight are features of the process.

The United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is directed by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to annually report on public water system (PWS) compliance in the United States. To meet this requirement, EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) publishes the annual National Public Water Systems Compliance Report (Report) summarizing the incidence of significant violations, which include all health-based violations and a subset of other violations, as shown in Table A-1. The Report for 2011 documents that, while the majority of the U.S. population served by PWSs receives safe drinking water, many PWSs incurred significant violations of federal drinking water quality standards. The number of PWSs with significant violations decreased from 39,716 in 2010 to 37,631 in 2011.

This manual provides guidance to inspectors conducting pesticide inspections under the authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). It includes recommended procedures and forms for federal inspections. Inspections are conducted in five phases: (1) inspection preparation; (2) entry and opening conference; (3) observations and evidence collection; (4) receipt for samples/statement(s), and closing conference; and (5) inspection reporting. Conducting all inspections in this manner will ensure that the inspector fulfills the statutory requirements for conducting inspections authorized under Sections 8 and 9 of FIFRA. EPA has developed forms for use during inspections that will assist the inspector in completing all phases.

ICF developed the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to support analysis of the electric sector. The EPA, in addition to other state air regulatory agencies, utilities, and public and private sector clients, has used IPM extensively for various air regulatory analyses, market studies, strategy planning, and economic impact assessments.

The Patriot Act of 2001 defined critical infrastructure as assets so vital to the United States that their incapacity or destruction would have a debilitating impact on public health or safety. Homeland Security Presidential Directive No. 7, December 17, 2003, required federal agencies to identify, prioritize, and protect Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources Protection Plan (CIPP) assets. EPA's December 2004 CIPP identified RadNet monitors as critical infrastructure. The June 2008 Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex to the National Response Framework lists EPA and RadNet as a key federal radiological resource and asset.

In the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) current pesticide risk assessment process, a pair of laboratory avian reproduction tests with mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) and northern bobwhites (Colinus virginianus) is conducted to evaluate how dietary pesticide exposure affects a standard suite of reproduction endpoints (USEPA 1996). This report was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by ICF International under contract. Additionally, we gratefully acknowledge the programs and individuals mentioned below for their contributions to this project.

Attached is the semiannual Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2014, prepared by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). By law, the OIG serves as the Inspector General for the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) as well as the EPA. As such, this report includes information pertaining to the EPA and the CSB. This Compendium fulfills the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, requirement to include an identification of each significant recommendation described in previous semiannual reports on which corrective action has not been completed. It is included as a part of the semiannual reports summarizing the activities of the OIG. The information included in part 1 of the report identifies those significant recommendations with corrective actions that have not been implemented 1 year or more past the agreed-to completion date and are past due. The information in part 2 identifies those recommendations with corrective actions that have not been completed less than 1 year past the agreed-to date or have agreed-to dates that are in the future. Corrective actions are being reported as past due if they have not been completed within 1 year of the original agreed-to date. This Compendium is issued in conjunction with the Semiannual Report to Congress, October 1, 2013- March 31, 2014, and as a separate report to the EPA's leadership. As part of the OIG's results-oriented culture, we perform follow-up assessments to determine whether planned actions by the EPA in response to OIG recommendations were taken. Follow-up is done in collaboration with the EPA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer and the EPA's audit follow-up coordinators. The goal is to improve overall audit management by increasing the EPA's managers' awareness of outstanding agreed-to commitments for action on OIG report recommendations. Implementing these recommendations will correct weaknesses, reduce vulnerabilities to risk, and leverage opportunities for improved performance.

The discussion draft concluded that EPA should recover all costs incurred ($1,192,500) under the grant. Both the NCREDC and Region 4 disagreed with the discussion draft findings. In its September 11, 2009, response, the NCREDC stated that the findings resulted from a misunderstanding about the manner in which costs were allocated to multiple funding sources, and from differences in its interpretations of regulations regarding federal grant administration. The NCREDC believes it spent EPA funds in an appropriate manner on a project of significance for the people of North Carolina. At the time of the initial grant award, Region 4 was notified of the various funding sources and the estimated total costs of the Water 2030 Initiative. Region 4 recognized that the original grant application described the project as "North Carolina Water 2030" and that Grant No. X96418405 should have been awarded to include all funds associated with the complete project, including state funding sources. The region believes that the grant should have been awarded to include all funds associated with the complete project, reflecting the entire cost of $2,204,031, of which EPA was to pay $1,192,500. In addition, Region 4 asserted that the $178,556 of questioned indirect costs would be eligible direct costs if the grantee executed a budget revision to remove the indirect costs and claim additional subcontract costs. According to Region 4, the EPA project officer and EPA grants specialist contacted the grantee to reopen and revise the grant to address the concerns identified in the discussion draft report. On December 3, 2009, Region 4 reopened the grant and amended it to reflect full project cost of $2,204,031, minus indirect costs, and extended the budget/project period from December 31, 2007, to December 31, 2010. On September 14, 2011, we issued a draft report to the NCREDC and Region 4. The draft report stated that the NCREDC did not comply with 2 CFR Part 230 with respect to financial management. Specifically, the NCREDC did not properly allocate direct costs between state and federal funding sources. The draft report concluded that EPA should recover all costs incurred ($1,192,500) under the grant. Both the NCREDC and Region 4 disagreed with the draft report findings. We received responses to our draft report from the NCREDC and Region 4. Each commenter disagreed with our audit findings and corresponding recommendations, and in some cases, disagreed with each other. However, neither party provided any information that would cause the OIG to change its audit findings and recommendations.

The recommendations are intended to help the site team identify opportunities for improvements in these areas. In many cases, further analysis of a recommendation, beyond that provided in this report, may be needed prior to implementation of the recommendation. Note that the recommendations are based on an independent evaluation, and represent the opinions of the evaluation team. These recommendations do not constitute requirements for future action, but rather are provided for consideration by the Region and other site stakeholders. Also note that while the recommendations may provide some details to consider during their implementation, the recommendations are not meant to replace other, more comprehensive, planning documents such as work plans, sampling plans, and quality assurance project plans.

This guidance is intended for propane storage facilities, such as wholesale distribution facilities and bulk storage terminals. This document is a revision of EPA's October 1998 guidance for propane storage facilities. The document has been revised to reflect changes resulting from the 1999 Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act. If you have more than 10,000 pounds of propane stored in a single vessel or in a group of vessels (tanks, cylinders) that are connected or stored close together, you may need to comply with the Chemical Accident Prevention rule issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act. The rule is codified as part 68 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The goal of this rule is to prevent accidental releases that could affect the public or the environment. If you are subject to part 68 for propane storage, you must be in compliance no later than January 5, 2000, or the date on which you first have more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process, whichever is later. If you have more than 10,000 pounds of propane, you are subject to part 68 unless one of the following applies to you: The propane is stored for use as a fuel at your facility; The propane is held for sale, and the facility is a retail facility. A retail facility is one at which more than half of the income is obtained from direct sales to end users or at which more than half the fuel sold, by volume, is sold through a cylinder exchange program. If you have more than 10,000 pounds of propane and you manufacture propane, use it as a feedstock, or store it in bulk for sale, other than to end users, or if your retail sales do not make up more than half of your income, you are subject to part 68. If you manufacture or use propane as a feedstock or store it for wholesale distribution and use it as a fuel, the propane used for fuel is not covered by part 68; the propane manufactured, processed, or stored for wholesale distribution is subject to part 68 provided the quantity is greater than 10,000 pounds. If you use propane to fuel a covered process containing other regulated substances above their thresholds, the propane is not covered, but you will have to consider the hazards created by the propane when you conduct your process hazard analysis or hazard review. For most propane storage facilities, complying with this rule will be easy because most of the requirements are similar to those you already comply with under state or local rules based on the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard number 58 on propane. If you are complying with NFPA-58 and implementing other safe engineering practices for propane, you should have little more to do for this rule besides filing a report with EPA.

This National Water Program Guidance (Guidance) for fiscal year (FY) 2014 describes how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states, territories, and tribal governments will work together to protect and improve the quality of the Nation's waters, including wetlands, and ensure safe drinking water. Within EPA, the Office of Water (OW) oversees the delivery of the national water programs, while the regional offices work with states, tribes, territories, and others to implement these programs and other supporting efforts. In drafting this Guidance, OW recognizes that the federal budget is shrinking and that states, tribes, territories, and municipalities may be experiencing budget shortfall due to a slowly recovering economy. In this environment, it is important for EPA to work with partners to focus resources on the highest priorities and find the most efficient path towards achieving clean and safe water goals. Section II, National Areas of Focus Guidance, describes priority program areas for FY 2014. EPA, states, and tribes need to give special attention to these national priority areas to ensure safe and clean water for all Americans. In doing so, OW recognizes that EPA regional offices, states, and tribes need flexibility in determining the best allocation of resources for achieving clean water goals and safe drinking water at the regional, state, and tribal level. Section III, Program Specific Guidance, describes the key actions needed to accomplish the public health and environmental goals in the EPA Strategic Plan1. The Strategic Plan addresses water programs in Goal 2, Protecting America's Waters. In Goal 2, two key objectives, Protect Human Health and Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems, are supported by subobjectives that define specific environmental or public health results to be accomplished by the National Water Program.

This handbook provides information on developing and implementing watershed management plans that help to restore and protect water quality. A watershed is the area of land that contributes runoff to a lake, river, stream, wetland, estuary, or bay. A watershed management plan defines and addresses existing or future water quality problems from both point sources and nonpoint sources of pollutants. Experience over the past decade has shown that effective watershed management includes active participation from stakeholders, analysis and quantification of the specific causes and sources of water quality problems, identification of measurable water quality goals, and implementation of specific actions needed to solve those problems. This handbook is intended to serve as the basis for developing and implementing watershed plans to meet water quality standards and protect water resources. Although watershed plans are useful for all watersheds to protect and restore water resources, as well as to meet other community resource goals, they are critical for impaired or threatened waterbodies.

The workshop on Technologies and Innovative Solutions for Harvesting and Nonpotable Use of Rain and Stormwater in Urban Settings was held on April 24-25, 2013, in Cincinnati, Ohio. The purpose of this workshop was to identify: (1) innovative strategies currently being employed for the use of urban rain and stormwater; (2) water quality characteristics and standards that are protective of public health; (3) barriers and challenges to use of rain and stormwater; (4) technology gaps, needs and opportunities for innovative solutions, including those requiring further research and development; and (5) potential opportunities for collaboration among workshop participants and regional companies interested in local and national rain and stormwater use markets. Approximately 100 individuals attended. This document contains summaries of presentations, questions and answers, and discussion sessions held at the workshop. A list of common terms and definitions related to water reuse, as well as a list of workshop participants and their affiliations are included as appendices to this document.

This is our report on the subject audit conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepared the Superfund Remedy Report (SRR) 14th Edition to provide information and analyses on remedies selected to address contamination at Superfund sites. The EPA is particularly interested in documenting and disseminating information on innovative treatment technologies that advance its mission of protecting human health and the environment at contaminated sites. This report is the latest in a series, prepared since 1991, on Superfund remedy selection. The SRR 14th Edition focuses on the analysis of Superfund remedial actions from fiscal years (FY) 2009 to 2011. The report includes remedies selected in 459 decision documents signed in this three-year period. These documents include 361 Records of Decision (RODs) and ROD amendments, and 98 Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs). Only ESDs that included changes to remedy components were included in this analysis. The SRR compiles data on overall remedy selection and on remedies for source materials (such as soil and sediments), groundwater and air related to vapor intrusion. The report also analyzes characteristics of sites under investigation that do not yet have a decision document. In the most recent period (FY 2009 to 2011), about 40 percent of all decision documents addressed only sources, 20 percent addressed only contaminated groundwater, and 25 percent addressed both. The remainder included other remedies, such as mitigation of vapor intrusion or specified no action/no further action. Treatment, on-site containment, and off- site disposal of contaminated source media and groundwater were selected at nearly the same rate as in the previous timeframe evaluated (FY 2005 to 2008). Overall, remedies included a mix of approaches, primarily treatment; on-site containment; off-site disposal; monitored natural attenuation (MNA) or recovery (MNR); and institutional controls (ICs). Decision documents selecting only ICs were found to be for sites that had previous remedial or removal actions.