Bøger af U S Environmental Protection Agency

The presence of trees in a streetscape, neighborhood, and community can decrease the amount of stormwater runoff and pollutants that reach local waters. Cities employ a variety of measures to manage stormwater runoff. However, most do not take advantage of the stormwater utility benefits trees provide. In urban areas, trees are part of the managed municipal infrastructure. Installing trees in locations that are engineered to retain stormwater is a great way to augment existing stormwater management systems, increasing their capacity and improving water quality while greatly improving urban forest canopy. This guide is an introduction to those engineered systems available, and in use today, that utilize trees to manage a volume of stormwater.

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.

information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable This information quality guidelines. It has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency determination or policy. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

The National Program Manager Guidance: (1) provides information on priorities; (2) provides a general identification of the types of activities that are the responsibility of HQ, regions, and air agencies;1 (3) identifies specific activities expected to be major tasks in FY 2014; and (4) provides information on the State and Tribal Grant program (STAG). The guidance provides the basis for negotiations between HQ and regions and between regions and air agencies as to resource allocation and expected performance. Specific expectations and deliverables will be as established through negotiations in grant agreements between regions and air agencies. EPA does not expect all air agencies to undertake all activities listed, and there may be activities not listed that will be appropriate in certain grant agreements. The guidance is a guide and not a comprehensive compendium of activities and requirements-other requirements exist through laws, regulations, court orders, delegation agreements, etc. Additionally, regions might have other or additional priorities and business practices. OAR recognizes that there will not be enough resources to do everything and that not all programs and requirements apply in the same way everywhere. The highest priority work is that related to meeting statutory, regulatory, and court-ordered requirements. Regions can tailor work expectations and resource allocation to meet local circumstances, and work with air agencies to do the same, as long as priority work continues. Through the joint ECOS/NACAA/EPA Prioritization Process completed in 2011, the EPA/State Priorities Workgroup identified the "Top 10 opportunities for greater efficiencyorreducedburdenwithoutcompromisingpublichealth."2 TheWorkgroup

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). The results of these tests are used in calculating risk quotients (RQ) by comparing the reported no-observed-adverse-effect concentration (NOAEC) for the most sensitive measured endpoint(s) with estimates of the maximum dietary exposure expected for a given application rate. As a screening tool, RQs are compared to an established regulatory level-of-concern to categorize the potential for unacceptable risk. Because of the high degree of uncertainty in these simple tools for characterizing risk, RQs typically incorporate conservative or worst-case assumptions about exposure and toxicity to reduce the chances of concluding a chemical has an acceptable level of risk when in fact it does not (i.e., false negative conclusion). Consequently, risk quotients can be used to identify the environmental concentration above which adverse effects to avian reproduction may occur, but they cannot determine the probability or magnitude of potential reproductive effects.

During this reporting period, we focused our efforts on Departmental programs and operations that are critical to the success of the Department's core mission. Our work focused on areas such as cyber security, small business innovation research and technology transfer, stockpile stewardship, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act)-related programs, environmental clean-up and contractor governance. As a result of limited resources, our efforts in these and other areas are designed to assist the Department in making thoughtful and consistent programmatic and management choices that maximize impact.

We sought to determine to what extent management at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-owned research facilities establish and implement information security practices to protect Agency information technology assets. Agency IT assets must be maintained in accordance with security requirements defined by applicable federal laws, executive orders, directives, policies, standards, and regulations to ensure adequate confidentiality, availability, and integrity of the resources and information stored on or transmitted through the EPA network. Network vulnerabilities can expose IT assets to significant risk and disrupt operations if not identified and resolved.

In our opinion, the financial statements, including the accompanying notes, present fairly, in all material respects, the assets, liabilities, net position, changes in net position and budgetary resources of the FIFRA Fund, as of and for the years ending September 30, 2012 and 2011, as restated, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Recently states and local communities have passed hundreds of ballot initiatives preserving open space, increasing development around transit, and providing for increased brownfield redevelopment. Each of these places has had different reasons--economic, environmental or community goals--for pursuing a chosen development path. Environmentally, these decisions can help communities reduce vehicular emissions, improve water quality, and remediate contaminated lands. States and communities are interested in accounting for the air quality benefits of their development choices. This guidance presents the conditions under which the benefits of land use activities could be included in air quality and transportation planning processes. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intends that this guidance be an additional tool to encourage the development of land use policies and projects which improve livability in general, and air quality in particular. This effort is intended to complement the efforts of states and local areas, and to provide guidance, flexibility and technical assistance to areas that wish to implement these measures and use them towards meeting their air quality goals. The goal of this guidance is to assist air quality and transportation planners in accounting for the air quality impacts of land use policies and projects which state and local governments voluntarily adopt. EPA is providing this guidance to give flexibility to state and local governments by expanding the number of strategies an area can use to meet its air quality planning requirements. Properly modeled and quantified land use activities have the potential to help local areas meet their air quality goals, and impact the quality of life of all citizens. In general, states can account for the air quality benefits of land use activities for nonattainment and maintenance areas in one of three ways: Including land use activities in the initial forecast of future emissions in the SIP; Including land use activities as control strategies in the SIP; and Including land use activities in a conformity determination, without including them in the SIP.

The aim of this booklet is to respond to some frequently asked questions about asbestos and to provide information to help the homeowner make informed decisions about its care and maintenance. Asbestos is the name for the group of naturally occurring minerals that separate into strong, very fine fibers. The fibers are heat-resistant and extremely durable, and because of these qualities, asbestos has become very useful in construction and industry. In the home it may or may not pose a health hazard to the occupants, depending on its condition. When it can be crushed by hand pressure or the surface is not sealed, to prevent small pieces from escaping, the material is considered friable. In this condition fibers can be released and pose a health risk. However, as long as the surface is stable and well-sealed against the release of its fibers and not damaged, the material is considered safe until damaged in some way.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is offering a 2013 Construction Equipment Funding Opportunity to reduce diesel emissions from existing fleets of nonroad construction equipment. The Diesel Emission Reduction Act program (DERA) was originally authorized by Title VII, Subtitle G (Sections 791 to 797) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109- 58). DERA was amended by the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2010 (Public Law 111- 364), codified at 42 U.S.C. 16131 et seq, adding, among other provisions, a rebate program option. These provisions provide the Environmental Protection Agency with the authority to award rebates, competitive grants and low-cost revolving loans to eligible entities to fund the costs of a clean diesel strategy that significantly reduces diesel emissions from mobile sources through implementation of a certified engine configuration or verified technology. The objective of this program is to achieve significant reductions in diesel emissions in terms of tons of pollution produced and reductions in diesel emissions exposure, particularly from fleets operating in areas designated by the Administrator as poor air quality areas.

We found that EPA regions differed in how they documented decisions and justified penalties related to FIFRA and TSCA enforcement penalty reductions. EPA regions generally did not consistently determine and document reductions in proposed penalties based on good faith of the violators, and in some regions reductions appeared automatic without adequate justification. The lack of adequate guidance for determining good faith reductions and supporting documentation for good faith reductions creates a risk that violators may not be treated equitably. In addition, EPA may be losing opportunities to fully collect all penalties due. We found that the EPA lacks a sufficient policy to address violators who are unable to pay FIFRA and TSCA penalties. The current "ability to pay" model and policy are limited to cases where an individual may not have the cash to pay a penalty. However, no guidance exists for applying non-monetary penalty alternatives such as public service for FIFRA and TSCA inability to pay cases when cash is not available to pay a penalty. Also, training for enforcement staff needs to be updated to include more guidance on ability to pay cases. Therefore EPA's enforcement actions for FIFRA and TSCA ability to pay cases may be limited by its outdated policy, model and training, which could impact the regions' consistent handling of the growing number of ability to pay claims being received from individuals.

Rainwater harvesting has been used throughout history as a water conservation measure, particularly in regions where other water resources are scarce or difficult to access. In recent years, researchers and policy makers have shown renewed interest in water use strategies due to rising water demand, increased interest in conservation (both water and energy), and an increased regulatory emphasis on reducing stormwater runoff volumes and associated pollutant loads. In the last decade, as interest in the practice has grown, numerous state, municipal, and regional agencies have adopted or amended codes and guidelines to encourage responsible and effective rainwater harvesting practices. In addition, researchers from universities and non-government organizations, as well as industry consultants, have published papers and articles addressing a broad range of topics related to the installation, maintenance, costs, and performance of harvest and use systems. A literature review of existing research and policy documents related to rainwater harvesting has been conducted, with particular focus on characterizing the current state of the practice in the areas of: (1) water conservation, (2) stormwater volume and pollutant load reduction, (3) code and administration considerations and (4) cost factors. The purpose of this report is to summarize the existing knowledge base in these four areas, assess factors affecting economic benefits of rainwater harvesting, and identify topics requiring additional research.

This Handbook is a guide and reference for the development of Area Contingency Plans (ACPs) for environmental emergencies. While it is primarily intended for use by EPA emergency response program personnel, area contingency planning is necessarily an inter-agency process, and the use of this handbook to inform other agencies of EPA's planning process is encouraged. Because area plans are focused on specific geographic domains, with many physical and jurisdictional variables, there can be no 'one size fits all' plan format, but maintaining a national consistency in the basic content is important, particularly considering the statutory and regulatory requirements by which EPA and other agencies are bound. This handbook was developed by EPA's Area Planning Workgroup during 2011 and 2012 and incorporates the accumulated knowledge of years of contingency planning experience. Although ACPs are specifically mandated by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), EPA's responsibilities under other laws, including CERCLA, make an all-hazards approach to contingency planning desirable. The processes of planning for responses to all types of environmental emergencies (e.g., oil spills, hazardous materials releases, natural disasters) share common elements that have been demonstrably successful in major responses.

This manual was originally developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for Tribal Nations, but content also pertains to U.S. Territories and Insular Areas. Exception: U.S. Territories and Insular Areas are treated as states under Part 31 (and also under Part 35, Subpart A for PPGs, unlike Tribes that are covered under Subpart B).

This guidance describes how to complete quantitative hot-spot analyses for certain highway and transit projects in PM2.5 and PM10 (PM) nonattainment and maintenance areas. This guidance describes transportation conformity requirements for hot-spot analyses, and provides technical guidance on estimating project emissions with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) MOVES model, California's EMFAC model, and other methods. It also outlines how to apply air quality models for PM hot-spot analyses and includes additional references and examples. However, the guidance does not change the specific transportation conformity rule requirements for quantitative PM hot-spot analyses, such as what projects require these analyses. EPA has coordinated with the Department of Transportation (DOT) during the development of this guidance. Transportation conformity is required under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) to ensure that federally supported highway and transit project activities are consistent with (conform to) the purpose of a state air quality implementation plan (SIP). Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause or contribute to new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) or required interim milestones. EPA's transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 51.390 and Part 93) establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether transportation activities conform to the SIP. Conformity applies to transportation activities in nonattainment and maintenance areas for transportation-related pollutants, including PM2.5 and PM10. This guidance is consistent with existing regulations and guidance for the PM NAAQS, SIP development, and other regulatory programs as applicable. This guidance does not address carbon monoxide (CO) hot-spot requirements or modeling procedures.

We found that the EPA complied with applicable regulations and guidance in procuring both the chemical fume hood retrofit kits and fume hood testing contracts. The EPA awarded both contracts using competition as opposed to using sole source procurement contracting methods. However, the same subcontractor, operating under the same prime contractor, is performing both the retrofitting of the chemical fume hoods and the annual testing of the hoods, which presents a potential conflict of interest. The agency already completed corrective action in response to our preliminary recommendation for this finding. In addition, our technical expert's review of a sample of testing results for the chemical fume hoods raises numerous concerns with the way the testing was performed at the EPA's Research Triangle Park laboratories. The subcontractor rated the hoods as pass: When not all of the EPA requirements were met. When controllers or monitors were not functional. When the testing results did not include all required documentation. The agency's 2009 testing protocol spells out the criteria for testing and evaluating the performance of fume hoods at the EPA's laboratories, and would also be applicable to fume hood retrofitting. The EPA relied on the prime contractor to ensure the subcontractor's fume hood testing met all requirements, and did not retest any of the hoods, without a user's specific report of a problem. As a result, the EPA has limited assurance as to the safety of the chemical fume hoods, and there is a risk to the health and safety of the laboratory workers.

This is our report on the subject evaluation 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 resolution procedures.

EPA does not have adequate information to ensure effective E-waste management and enforcement to protect public health and conserve valuable resources. For example, EPA manages E-waste without a consistent approach for defining E-waste. This hampers EPA's ability to effectively collect relevant information and set goals. Further, EPA lacks complete information on E-waste disposition, which hinders the effective use of its resources. EPA enforcement is hampered by the lack of complete information on cathode ray tube (CRT) exporters in the United States. This incomplete information hinders EPA's ability to set enforcement targets for the CRT Rule. EPA also does not have a practical process to determine the hazardous nature of non-CRT waste. Potentially toxic E-waste could be disposed in municipal landfills or incinerated without potential hazards being identified as required. Further, EPA advocates certified E-waste recyclers but has limited knowledge of the extent of compliance by certified recyclers with federal environmental regulations. In addition, EPA staff stated that E-waste management and enforcement are hampered by federal information collection restrictions and a lack of resources.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the nation's air, water, and land resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, the EPA's Office of Research and Development provides data and science support that can be used to solve environmental problems and build the scientific knowledge base needed to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks.

EPA has had varied opinions on the scientific merit of the OIG Scientific Analysis of Perchlorate (External Review Draft). In January 2009, after consultation with EPA scientists, George Gray, the former ORD Assistant Administrator and EPA Science Advisor, recommended that the major finding of the OIG Scientific Analysis of Perchlorate should be reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). By contrast, in March 2009, EPA's OW and ORD comments provided unfavorable opinions on the approach and findings presented in the OIG Scientific Analysis of Perchlorate. The opinions of the other commenters are both favorable and unfavorable. Although the scientific community has been actively studying perchlorate toxicity over the last 17 years - since EPA's issuance of a provisional RfD in 1992 - a consensus opinion on the toxicity of perchlorate eludes the risk assessor community.

This guide is intended for use by school officials and child care providers responsible for the maintenance and/or safety of school and child care facilities including the drinking water. The purpose of this guide is to describe the importance of implementing best management practices for drinking water in schools and child care facilities and how a school or child care facility would go about implementing these practices. This guide is specifically designed for schools and child care facilities that have their own well and, therefore, are classified as a public water system. This guide is not a regulation itself, nor does it change or substitute for those provisions and regulations. Thus, it does not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, states, public water systems, schools or child care facilities. This guide does not confer legal rights or impose legal obligations upon any member of the public. While EPA has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information in this guide the obligations of the regulated community are determined by statutes, regulations or other legally binding requirements. In the event of a conflict between the information in this guide and any statute or regulation, this document would not be controlling.

This national management measures guidance for marinas and recreational boating provides guidance to states, territories, authorized tribes, and the public regarding management measures that may be used to reduce nonpoint source pollution from marinas and recreational boating activities. The guidance is intended to provide technical assistance to state program managers and others on the best practicable means of reducing nonpoint source pollution of surface waters from marinas and recreational boating. The guidance provides background information about nonpoint source pollution from marinas and recreational boating-including where it comes from and how it enters the nation's waters-and technical information about how to reduce nonpoint source pollution from marinas and recreational boating. It also discusses the relationship of marinas to the watersheds in which they are located. The guidance can assist marina managers in identifying possible sources of nonpoint source pollution and offers potential solutions. Finding a solution to nonpoint source pollution problems at a marina requires taking into account the site-specific factors that together compose the setting of a marina.

Sediment contamination, primarily caused by industrialization in the Midwest, has been a problem in the Great Lakes for several decades. Historically, Great Lakes stakeholders have pursued sediment remediation through a variety of mechanisms, such as enforcement agreements and voluntary partnerships. It has been reported that polluted sediment is the largest major source of contaminants entering the food chain from Great Lakes rivers and harbors. This includes most of the areas of concern designated by the United States and Canada, the parties to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was first signed in 1972 and renewed in 1978. The agreement expresses the commitment of each country to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) was established in 1978 to oversee U.S. efforts to implement the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Congress passed GLLA to expedite the remediation of contaminated sediment sites and improve the ability of the United States to meet its commitments under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. GLLA established an innovative approach to conducting sediment remediation in that it uses partnerships with nonfederal sponsors to accomplish the work. Project agreements under these partnerships require that the nonfederal sponsor provide a minimum of 35 percent of the effort in cash or in-kind contributions to the project.

Recommendations are issued by EPA's OIG to improve the economy, efficiency, effectiveness, or integrity of EPA programs and operations. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-50, Audit Followup, dated September 29, 1982, affirms that corrective action taken by management on resolved findings and recommendations is essential for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of government operations, and that audit follow-up is a shared responsibility of agency management officials and auditors. OMB Circular A-50 requires each agency to ensure that systems are in place for the prompt and proper resolution and implementation of audit recommendations. EPA Manual 2750, based in part on OMB Circular A-50, details EPA's audit management procedures. The Chief Financial Officer is the Agency Audit Follow-Up Official and has responsibility for Agency-wide audit resolution and ensuring action officials implement corrective actions. EPA uses the Management Audit Tracking System (MATS) to track information on Agency implementation of OIG recommendations. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer maintains and operates MATS. Report data, such as the title, issue date, and recommendations, are downloaded into MATS from the Inspector General Enterprise Management System.

Emissions from diesel exhaust can lead to serious health conditions like asthma and allergies, and can worsen heart and lung disease, especially in vulnerable populations such as children and the elderly. These emissions can also damage plants, animals, crops, and water resources. Under the authority of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency awarded almost $3 million to the Railroad Research Foundation to reduce diesel emissions by repowering five locomotives in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, an ozone nonattainment area. Our objective was to determine whether the Railroad Research Foundation used these funds to fulfill its obligations under the terms of the agreement and applicable laws and regulations.

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 review, and represent the opinions of the optimization review team. These recommendations do not constitute requirements for future action, but rather are provided for consideration by the EPA Region and other site stakeholders. Also note that while the recommendations may provide some details to consider during implementation, the recommendations are not meant to replace other, more comprehensive, planning documents such as work plans, sampling plans and quality assurance project plans (QAPP).

The Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 requires that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) annually identify Agency management challenges. On April 28, 2009, we issued a memorandum listing Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 management challenges for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).1 One challenge urged EPA to apply threat and risk assessment methodologies in Agency priority setting and decisionmaking. In August 2009, we met with EPA officials to discuss updating the threat and risk assessments challenge for FY 2010. Based on that discussion, we reviewed and revised the FY 2009 challenge and conducted additional research on the need for a national environmental policy and a quadrennial review.

With an increased focus on air quality in this country, there are more and more incentive programs available to diesel equipment and vehicle owners to encourage them to replace older equipment with newer, cleaner ones, to rebuild old engines, or to retrofit current engines with new technologies that help lower emissions. However, in order to apply for funding from many of these programs, you must collect detailed information on your current equipment and/or vehicle(s). Gathering all of the necessary information for program application can prove daunting, as the information requested is not always readily available. Information of interest may include, among others: Equipment or Vehicle Type, Engine Make, Engine Model, Engine Model Year, Engine Displacement, Engine Horsepower, Engine Tier Level, and Annual Activity. The purpose of this guide is to aid in collecting the information needed to create an accurate inventory for construction fleet. The information collected from vehicles/equipment, with the aid of this guide, will assist in assessing fleet for its ability to qualify for various clean diesel incentive programs. This guide also outlines best practices for collecting the required information and removing some of the barriers to finding and identifying the required information about fleet. Using this guide to collect vital information about fleet will aid in identifying ways to make fleet "cleaner" through volunteer measures, or to meet state and federal mandates.

Enacted in 2009, ARRA bolstered the economy, in part, by funding six EPA programs. These programs included drinking water and clean water infrastructure projects through the State Revolving Funds (SRFs) and environmental initiatives through Superfund, Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA), Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) and Brownfields programs. The EPA contracted with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), and their subcontractor Toeroek Associates, Inc., to review the activities and process for funds distribution, management, and reporting for each of the six programs that received ARRA funding. The objective of the review was to capture, verify and analyze the critical lessons learned and successful strategies related to ARRA funds management. To achieve this objective, the SAIC Team gathered information on three specific aspects: timely obligation and expenditure of funds; additional mandates of ARRA (Section 1512 reporting requirements, Section 1605 Buy American mandate, Section 1606 Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage mandate and Green Project Reserve mandate); and grants management processes for the previously mentioned programs.