U.S. Department of Homeland Security 500 C Street, S.W. Mail Stop 3172 Washington, DC 20472-3172 FEMA September 27, 2019 SENT VIA E-MAIL TO: foia@americanoversight.org Austin R. Evers Executive Director American Oversight 1030 15th Street NW, Suite B255 Washington, DC 20005 Re: FEMA 2019-FEFO-00572 Final Response Letter EPA Litigation: American Oversight v. Commerce et al (EPA-17-0432) Dear Mr. Evers: This is the final response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), dated October 19, 2017, which was subsequently referred to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Your request and 44 pages of records were received by this office on May 23, 2019. You requested a copy of all calendar or calendar entries for a specified list of EPA employees. The EPA referred your request and 44 pages of records to this office for processing under the FOIA and direct response to you. We are granting your request under the FOIA, Title 5 U.S.C. § 552, as amended, and DHS’ implementing regulations, 6 C.F.R. Chapter I and Part 5. After carefully reviewing the responsive documents, I determined that they are appropriate for public release. The records are enclosed in their entirety; no deletions or exemptions have been claimed. You have the right to appeal if you disagree with FEMA’s response. The procedure for administrative appeals is outlined in the DHS regulations at 6 C.F.R. § 5.8. In the event you wish to submit an appeal, we encourage you to both state the reason(s) you believe FEMA’s initial determination on your FOIA request was erroneous in your correspondence and include a copy of this letter with your appeal. Should you wish to do so, you must send your appeal within 90 days from the date of this letter to fema-foia@fema.dhs.gov, or alternatively, via mail at the following address: FEMA Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Information Management Division (FOIA Appeals) 500 C Street, SW, Seventh Floor, Mail Stop 3172 Washington, D.C. 20472-3172 Austin R. Evers FEMA 2019-FEFO-00572 Page 2 As part of the 2007 amendments, the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) was created to offer mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies. You may contact OGIS in any of the following ways: Office of Government Information Services National Archives and Records Administration 8601 Adelphi Road- OGIS College Park, MD 20740-6001 E-mail: ogis@nara.gov Web: https://ogis.archives.gov Telephone: 202-741-5770/Toll-free: 1-877-684-6448 Facsimile: 202-741-5769 Provisions of the FOIA allow us to recover part of the cost of complying with your request. In this instance, because the cost is below the $25 minimum, there is no charge. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter, you may contact FEMA at (202) 646-3323, or you may contact FEMA’s Public Liaison in the same manner. Please reference the subsequent case identifier: FEMA 2019-FEFO-00572. Sincerely, Digitally signed by PEARLENE PEARLENE ROBINSON ROBINSON Date: 2019.09.25 16:25:51 -04'00' Pearlene Robinson Acting Disclosure Branch Chief Information Management Division Mission Support Enclosure(s): Responsive Record (44 pages) Senior Leadership Briefing and Recovery Snapshots Tropical Storm Maria and Post-Tropical Cyclones Irma and Harvey Monday, October 2, 2017 (5:00 a.m. EDT) Updates in Blue Current Situation: Drier air pushes into the region today into Tuesday making for coverage of afternoon thunderstorm activity to be fairly limited, and mainly confined to sea-breeze activity (especia lly NW Puerto Rico). Additional moderate to heavy rainfall moves towards the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico by Wednesday, with increasing rain chances and coverage expected through Friday. I Key : Rainfall in inches Additiona l rainfall will continue to effect areas along the east coast of Florida where 6 to 10 inches of rain with locally higher amo unt s has alr eady fallen the last 24 hours . Moderate to possibly major Tidal concerns will be an issue along the Southeast coast through Total Precipitation (in) • t hru Tue, Oct 3 2017 at 8 pm EDT Thursday. Heavy rain showers and embedded strong Hea viest rain over NW Puerto Rico thunderstorms (with strong turbulence and wind shear), stretch ing from the easte rn Gulf of Mexico to well east of F lorida, could delay or divert aircraft flying to and from Puerto Rican theater from Atlanta, Miami and Hou ston. (NOAA Update, Octo ber 2, 20 17, 5: 14 tun. ED1) ~--- Population Impacts Territory Confirmed Fatalities PR Director of Public Safety confirmed 16 fatalities Shelters / Po ulation * Shelters: 145 (-1) Pop: 10, 177 (+ 121) USVI Shelters: Seven Pop:555 USVI 5 confirme d fatalities St. Thomas: Shelters: Two Pop:247 St. John: Shelters: Two Pop: 24 I • 5% (+ 1%) of customers have electricity Estimate 20% of transmission towers need to be rep laced Percentage of customers that have electricity St. Thomas: (15%) St. John: (0%) St. Croix: (10%) Hospitals Assessed 64 of 65 mainland hosp itals; two still require assessment 14 (20%) hospitals back on electrical grid with intermittent generator support Octob er 2 4: 05 a.m. EDT Curfew in effect from 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.; first responders and medical personnel exempt VA hospita ls: one ope n, five open with walk-ins, three closed Schneider Regional Medical Center on St. Thomas and Governor Juan Luis on St. Cro ix condemned St. Croix requested mobile medical facility equivalent to asset on St. Thomas (Area Medical Support Company); DOD working to fulfill request St. Croix: Shelters: Three Po : 284 October J 8:00 .111.EDT Other Curfew in place from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. in St. Thomas, St. John, and Water Island St. Croix curfew in place from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. 58 of68 Federal Government buildings closed 65% of grocery and big box stores open Planning for public schools to reopen October 9 15 of 19 Federal Government buildings closed VA hosp itals: All three closed October J October I October I October J 12:00 .111 . EDT 8:14 .m.EDT 10:00 .m.EDT 1:47 1.111. EDT (ESF-5, ESF-6, Lis ta de Hospira/es, ESF -7, ESF -8, ESF -12, ESF - 15, OHA, PREMA, USVIIPR) 1 EPA-17-0432-I-000001 Power Outa.r,u Total : 1,586,789 lJO Q,0011 tJOQ,0011 l,'O Q,0011 USYl . tJOQ,0011 .., ., !l ljlOQ,0011 2Q,QOO 1:0 ,CO:, lQ,0011 Cl 0 /:::::::::: spoo i:o ,,;o:, 0 •ro.= 1:0 ,CO:, 4i.:, s 0 S:. Cto~ USVl S:. Icl:.c.USVJ S:. 'l1iDa:ar,US\1 USVJ Plarmb o -- PM 919 IJ 6,sol l.S~l 19..5'4 19..m 6 1,lC3 PM P?J 921 lJ 2!.2'74 U9l P?J 9122.tH 2!1.ZH l.UJ. 19...574 ·P ., 41 P!J P!J PflJ 912.3Ii 9'74 li 92! Ji 2!1,2"; 4 2!1_l';4 ".li4 1.,91 l.S9l, 2..m U~l 19_!j4 19...574 1.9..lH 1.9.574 l9..l74 H , -41 H , i41 47,m 4 7.-4 1 4?.m l.JTO.,COO l..l69, i'96 l..l69,i'9~ l..l69.i'9~ J...l&;l.i'9~ l.5 9 J j6 92(H , 2!,2"74 P!J n6n 2!1.Zi4 P!J 9'2'7lr 2!1.Zi4 2.m 2.~3 19.574 19.574 47.m 47. m l.S9 .a 6 U 6~.H6 PM PN ~ 9(19 n 9 :;o1i ]011'1 2S.2i"4 2S,274 2S,214 2,893 2,593 2,593 19,574 19,574 L9,SM +?,HI ♦r.m H.~l H.~l l,5 69,i 96 l,S07,004 l,Hl,30 7 l,•91,307 PN 9'1S.l1 2S.2"t4 2,893 19,Si4 Shelter Population Total: 10,732 (+ 121) 12,000 10, 177 10,000 USVI 8,000 900 800 700 600 6,000 500 400 JOO 200 4,000 100 --S l John -- 2,000 ~ 0 USVI -e-PuenoRico --.,- AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM 9120/ 17 9/ 21117 9122/ 17 9123/ 17 9124/ 17 9125117 9/26/ 17 9127117 2~8 1,353 558 H I 575 39 1 62 1 618 9,981 10,.170 10,692 10,792 10,792 11,359 11,253 10, I~ Sl Thomas --Sl -- --- 555 AM AM A.\! AM AM 9128117 9/29117 9/30117 1011117 10/2/ 17 396 389 590 555 555 10, 114 11,375 11,326 10 ,056 10 , 177 •Due to limited co1111111111icalio11S , there are delays in regularshelter reporting. Updateswill bepro,·ided as they becomem·ailable. 2 Croix fESF-6 Cl ore,Oc.tobv01 . 2017. 4.()()o.m. ED T) EPA-17-0432-I-000002 Infrastructure Impacts Territory Ports Roads Fuel/Gas Water Boi l Water Advisory for water issued islandwide Four ports open: San Juan, Guayanilla , Salinas, Tall aboa 10 of 10 airports open San Juan Airport open for commercial flights Eight (+2) ports open with restrictions: Mayaguez, Arecibo, Fajardo , Vieques, Culebra, Guayama, Ponce, and Yabucoa . Two ports closed: Guanica (low priority) Roosevelt Roads (severe pier damage and debris) 15 roads open 3,209 (+1,284) public road incidents reported (lands lides, waterway issues, blockages , bridges, etc.) Of 52 waste water 11.3% of island with cell treatment plants, service; service around nine opera tional, 19 SJU airport restored 721 of 1,100 non-operational, 24 reta il gas statio ns unknown Pu blic Safety Answer operational Po ints (PSAPs)/9 11 50% of Puerto Rico centers operat ional Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) clients have access to drinking water; (PRASA serves 96% PR pop) St. Thomas Open: Charlotte Amalie, East Greger ie Channel , West Gregerie Channel (Crown Bay) St. Th omas open and receiving commerc ial aircraft; must contact tower 20 minutes out USVI St. Croix open under special condition s (military flights and air carriers with less than 35 pax) Open with restric tions: Red Hook Bay St. John Open with restrictions: Cruz Bay St. Croix Open: Frederik sted Communication s Num erous routes partially closed on St. Thomas and St. John. St . Croix: Most highways open with caut ion All traffic signals on St Thomas and St Croix completely destroyed 29.2% (-1) cell phone coverage in USVI; PSAP s non-opera tional St. Cro ix and St. Tho mas reports adeq uate fuel supp ly on island for power generation and response efforts, including gasoline, diese l, and propa ne Boil Water Advisory for water territory -wide October 2 5:00a.m. EDT October 1 l/:08fun. EDT St. Thomas: 38% (-2) of 55 cell towers operational St. John: No cell towers operational St. Croix: 28.6% (+7 .2) of 42 cell towers operational Open with restrictions : Krause Lagoon , Limetree Bay Closed: Christiansted October 2 J:/9c1.m. EDT October 2 2:01 a.m. EDT October 1 EDT 12:23 a.111. October 2 2:19a .m. EDT (ESF -1. ESF-2. ESF-10, ESF- 12. PRASA. USCG) Declaration Activity: Territory USVI Declaration Individual Assistance Declared Counties Public Assistance 9/20: DR-4339 54 municipalities 9/ 10: DR-4336 12 munici Jalities 31 munici alities 9/7: DR-4335 St. Croix, St. John, St. Th omas All (Categories A-G) 9/20: DR-4340 St. Croix , St. John, St. Thomas All Cost Share 100% for debri s removal and emergency protective measures for 180 da s from declarat ion date 75% 100% for debri s removal and emergency protective measures for 180 da s from declarat ion date 75% (FEMA Declarations Unit, Septe,nber 30, 2017, 9:35 p.m . EDT) 3 EPA-17-0432-I-000003 Department/Agency American Red Cross (ESF 6) Army Corps of Engineers (ESF 3) Civil Air Patrol (ESF 5) Customs and Border Protection (ESF 5, 9 & 13) Department of Agriculture (ESF 11) Department of Defense Title I 0* Department of Energy (ESF 12) Department of the Interior Department of Transportation (ESF I) OHS - NPPD / Federal Protective Service Environmental Protection Agency (ESF IO)* Federal Law Enforcement (ESF 13) FEMA Deployed Urban Search & Rescue (ESF 9) Forest Service (ESF 4) General Services Administration (ESF 7) Health and Human Services (ESF 8) Veterans Affairs (ESF 8) National Guard Bureau* National Weather Service - NOAA Small Business Administration (ESF 6) Transportation Security Administration (ESF I) United States Coast Guard (ESF I, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13 & 15)* I * Notes: Puerto Rico U.S. Virgin Islands St. Croix St. John St. Thomas 3 * 1 3,330 2 251 4 36 21 345 640 80 218 17 551 141 4,290 30 11 109 1,402 12,226 5 0 * * 0 0 * 65 * 5 0 * 1 21 2 3 0 45 0 0 28 0 26 2 27 5 267 0 20 0 29 0 2,475 0 2 5 0 0 6 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 47 0 26 0 13 0 * 3179 * 0 0 0 * 62 Totals * 0 2 5 * 219 1 3,330 31 317 32 41 48 350 960 80 264 17 601 141 6,765 30 15 119 1,402 15,686 Civil Air Patrol flights supporting all USVJ; DOD personnel numbers include personnel supporting from sea; Red Cross for St. Croix is for all of USVJ, breakout ,ma vai/able (Situational Awareness Info Analysis, October 2, 2017, 4:30 a.111.EDT) FEMA Headquarters: • Nationa l Respon se Coord ination Ce nter (NRCC) at Lev el I (Fu ll Act ivation), 24/7 operat ions • Nationa l Incid ent Management Assista nce Team (IMAT) East-2 at San Juan Co nvention Cente r Initial Op erating Faci lity (IOF) • Recovery o Strategic Workforce Augmentation Team taking ca lls at three National Pro cess ing Service Centers, FEMA pop-up call center s, Hea dquart ers, all FEMA Region s, and from hom e; 5 ,806 (+1,898) ca ll center agents avai lable to receive calls (Recove,y Contact Center Surge Staffing Time line, October I, 2017, 11:02 a.111.EDT) o Tot al Individual s and Househo lds Pro gram Re gistration s for PR: 72,072 ( +6,038) and USVI: 4,603 (+ 112) (Open Disaster IA Summary, October I, 2017, 3:07 p.m. EDT) • Mutual Aid (EMAC Sit Rep #78, Ocrober 1, 2017, 8:00 p.m. EDT) FEMA Region II: • Region II RRCC not activated; some RRCC staff suppor ting NRCC operations • FEMA Region II IMAT in St. Croix; Eight Region X IMAT members in St. Thoma s, one in St. Croix; Regio n III IMAT in PR, en route to St. Croix (FOD Updare, Ocrober 2. 2017. 4:20 a.111.EDT) • Lease signed October 1 for Joint Fie ld Office location at University of the Virgin Island s in St. Thom as, ant icipate partia l ope nin g by Octobe r 3 (GSA Update, October 1, 2017, 3.·21 p.m. EDT) • Puerto Rico : o EOC at Full Act ivation w ith limited operat ions and on genera tor power o Federal Coordi nat ing Officer (FCO) is Alejandro De La Campa (RI/ DSAR , Sepremb er 27, 2017, 3:00 p.m . EDT) 4 EPA-17-0432-I-000004 • U.S. Virgin Islands: 0 EOCs on eac h island at Full Activat ion (RI/ DSAR, September 27, 2017 , 3:00 p.m . ED1) o USVI IOF locate d at St. Th omas EOC 0 FCO is William Voge l (RI/ DSAR. September 27, 2017, 3:00 p.m. EDT) Interagency Coordination for Puerto Rico: • ESF-1: Transportation o T.S. Empire State (600 bed s) arriv ed in San Juan to provide responder berthing Octob er 1 (ESF -1 Updare, Octob er 2, 20 17, 12:38 a.m. EDT) o Airpor ts: • Lui s Mufioz Marin Internati onal Airport (SJU) in San Juan • 35 commercial departure s and arriva ls October 2 (TSA SitRep, October I, 2017, 7:00 p.m. EDT) • Passenger throughput continues to increase; 6,060 outbound passengers proce ssed Septemb er 30 (ESF- 1 Update, October/ , 2017, 1:50 p .m. EDT) o Roads : • Starting October 2nd, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will use one fixed-wing aircraft to conduct tran sportation infra structur e overflights once daily (DOI Updare, October 1. 2017, 11:53 p.111ED'I) • Major state road s continu e to reopen without exce ption in both dire ction s; PR-2 is open from Pon ce to San Juan on western side of the island (ESF- 1 Update, October/ , 20 /7 , 12:40 p .m. EDT) • Twenty-six chainsaw teams (52 personnel) and one Type-2 Incident Management Team (IMT) (29 personnel) cont inue clearing roads to fire stat ions and other cri tical fac ilities, includin g three miles of road along PR -3 (PR -192 South to Hum acao), four miles of road along PR -140 (Jayuya to Utuado), and entire road (two miles) to Federal Aviation Adminis trati on Doppler weather radar station (ESF-4 Update, October I , 2017, 12:40 p.m. ED7) • Sixty-two private contrac tor work-crews performing debri s-removal throughout the four region s and San Juan metro area • DOD comp leted seven road debri s clearance mi ssions to date including PR 31 , PR 924 , PR 60 and runw ay and taxiway clear ance at Roo seve lt Road s (DoD Updare, October 2, 2017, 1:00 a.m. EDT) o Tran sit: Autoridad Metropolitana de Autob uses (AMA) has eight ro utes open from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. , with 40 buses in service (ESF-1 Updare, October 1, 2017, 2:02 p.111.ED'I) • ESF-2: Communications o 280 satellite phones arrived in PR Septembe r 30 (520 to date), bein g tested and distributed throughout PR (ESF-2 Update, October 1, 2017, 10:09 p .m. EDT) o MERS per sonnel continu e to assess Land Mobile Radio (LMR) coverage to ensure all hospitals fall within coverage range s; working to develop tracking by primary, alternate, contingency and emergency comm unications capabilit ies (ESF-2 Update, October 1, 2017, 9:30a .m. EDT) o SMS text me ssag ing available to Iridium sate llite pho nes (ESF -2 Updare, October 1. 2017, 4:44 p.m . EDT) • ESF-3: Public Works and Engineering o Temporary Power: • Comp leted 80 of 135 req uested generato r pre- installation inspections; 17 installation s compl eted to date and 15 in progr ess at priolity medica l facilities and Roo seve lt Road s Naval Base; 79 reque sted generators available on hand (ESF-3 Update, October 2, 2017, 1:47 a.m. EDT) • Prioritie s for temporary power restoration are Mayagu ez la Conception Medical Center, Bayamon Public Ho spit al and Ho spital HIMA San Pablo Fajard o (ESF-3 Update. October 2. 20 17. 1:47 a.m. EDJJ • Temporary power installations comp leted for PR Electric Authority Data Center, Centro Cardiovascu lar de PR y del Caribe, and Departamento Recr eacion y Deporte s (ESF- 3 Update, October 2, 2017, l:47a.m. EDT! o Dam s: • Gu ajataca Dam spill way erodi ng; imm ediate risk reduction measu res ongo in g to stabilize dam spill way and clear outlet blockage • Civil Air Patrol (CAP) completed 4 sorties October 1; focused on Guajataca dam from multip le angles and observed no changes to situation (DoD Updare, October 2. 2017, l:OOa.m. EDT) • Loading 900 super sandb ags with grave l; add itional 900 sandb ags en rout e October 2 5 EPA-17-0432-I-000005 • United States Marine Corps (USMC) rotary wing assets will begin placin g concrete barriers and super sandbag reinforcement along compromi sed portions of spillway channel October 2, pendin g power line remova l by PREMA (ES F-3 Update, October 2, 2017, 1:47 a.m. EDT) • Eleven of 17 priority dam inspections complete (ESF-3 Updare. Oc1ober , . 2017, 11.-02 a.111.EDT) o Temporary Roofing: • Current estimates : 60K roofs damaged • Collected 656 Right of Entry Agreements, assesse d 26 homes • Task order issued to roofing contractor; will begin roofing after October 5 upon arrival of 10,000 rolls of sheeting (25,000 requested); p1iority is critical public facilities; additional tarps on order and will arrive throughout October (ESF -3 Updare, October}, 2017, 11:02 a.m. EDT) o Two USFWS fixed-wing aircraft arrived September 30; mission to provide infrastructure support for damaged facilities will start October 1; anticipate one rotary-wing aircraft will be available for deployment October 4 (DOI Update, Ocrober 1, 2017, l:30a.m. EDT) • ESF-4 : Firefighting o Type 1 IMT (49 person nel) coordinating ISB establishment at Rafael Hernandez Airport to support commodity distribution(ESF-4 Upda!e, October 2, 2017, 12:04 a.m. EDT) o One Type-2 IMT (85 personnel) coordinating resources and assessing firefigh ting capabiliti es in support of PR Fire department; 76 of 95 fire stations assessed, all have some structura l damage, limited communi cation s, and staffing and fuel needs (ES F-4 Updare, Ocrober 1, 2017, 5:30 p.m. EDT) • ESF-6: Mass Care, Emergency Assistance , Housing, and Human Service s o Feeding: • Salvation Army continuin g feeding at seven sites, distributed 65,000 shelf stable meals to three cities; Salvation Army commod ities beginning to arrive via air • American Red Cross distributed 13,800 bulk item s October 1 (23,000 to date) (ESF-6 Update. Ocrober 1. 2017, J:14 p.m . EDT) o Disaster Survivor Assistance (DSA) staff conducted Assess, Inform, and Report (AIR) missions in Barceloneta, Florida, Juan Diaz , Peneula s, Naranjito and Caguas (ESF-6 Updare. Ocrober2, 2017. J:17a ..m. EDT) • ESF-7: Logistics Management and Resource Support o Incident Support Bases (ISBs): • Rooseve lt Roads Airport and Rafael Hernandez Airport in Aguadilla open for air operations; Ponce Air/Sea port is open for operation s with sea port restriction s; Aguadilla contract signed October 1; ESF4 Type- 1 IMT (49 personnel) completed preparations for billeting and Resource Staging Areas (RSAs) at Rafael Hernandez Airport (ES F-7 Update, Octobe r 1, 2017, 3:11 p.m. EDT) • Preparing to open Ponce Air/ Sea Port and Marine Corps support facility at Blount Island (ESF-7 Upda1e, Oc1ober2 , 2017, 3:/0a.m. EDT) o Commodities: • DLA now sourcing a total of 334 (+30) generators to support USVI/PR needs (ESF -7 Vpda1e, October 1, 2017, 3:20 p.m. EDT) • 600K tarps on order; 124K will arrive by end of October on following delivery schedule: • October 6: 4K • October 20: 60K • October 27: 60K (ESF-3 Updare, Oc1ober 1, 2017, 11:02 a.m. EDT) • Puerto Rico National Guard armories will convert 12 facilities to serve as additional Resource Staging Areas (RSAs) for food and water for a total of 23 RSAs (NG B Update, October.I, 2017, 2:19 p.111.EDT) • Flights into Puerto Rico October 2: 15 flights transporting 136,000 liters of water, 230,000 meals , personnel, 12 black hawk helicopter s, 900 sandbags, and a VA Mobile Medical unit (MCC Tracki11g Schedul e, Ocrober 2, 2017, 3: 11 a.m. EDT) • Ships into Puerto Rico: • Buoy tender Elm and USCG Cutter Venturo us delivered 3000 gallons of po table water, seven pallets of bottled water, 12 pallets of MREs and 3800 gallons of diesel fuel to Vieques (USCG Update, October 1, 2017, 1:58 p.m. EDT) 6 EPA-17-0432-I-000006 • El Rey transportin g 756,000 liters of water, 694,000 meals, and four generators; expected to arrive and unload October 2 (ESF -7 Upd ate, October 1, 2017 , 7:16 p .111.EDT) • Seven DOD vessels scheduled to arrive in PR by October 5 with 3.5 million liters of water, 5.5 million meals, four generator s, and 11,500 roll s of blue roof sheeting (DOD Up date, September 30, 20 17, 12:35 p. m.) o Responder Lodging Name/Vessel Status Destination/Port Arrival Date PR Convention Center TS Kenned y TS Empire State La Supre ma Adriana Rhapsody JMC 3330 Operational Operational Operational En route En route En route Secured PR: San Juan PR: San Juan PR: San Juan Arrived Arrived Arrived 10/5 10/6 - 10/9 10/10 - 10/ 12 10/19 PR TOTAL: PR PR PR PR Heds Capacity 900 600 600 2,200 302 2,044 430 Heds Occupied 916 600 Heds Open 84 0 6,726 1,516 -16 (Responde r lo dging CAP Update, October /, 20 17, 4 :00 p.111.EDT) • USCG compl eted inspection of La Suprema; will ru.Tive in PR October 4; inspectors en rout e to complete inspections of contract ships Rhapsody and Adriann a (USCG Update, October 1, 2017, 1:58 p.m. EDT) • ESF-8: Public Health and Medical Services o Hospitals: • Pow er restored to fourt een (20%) hospitals (back on electrical grid), unconfirm ed whether hospitals still requir e generator power (ESF-8 Up date, October I , 20 17, 1:56 p. m. EDT) • Frensenius Kidn ey Care repor ts 3,43 1 of 3,483 patients accounted for and receiving treatmen t • Oxygen shortfall in PR, soluti ons include flying in liquid oxygen and sourcing six-megawatt generator for private facility • HHS Air Tasking Order missions are continuin g search and rescue in Utuado district on October 1 (ESF-8 Update, October I , 20 17, 7:00 a.m. EDT) o Dialysis Centers: • 46 of 48 open, 44 a.re fully operational, two are partially operation al, two clo sed • FEMA secured private contractor to pro vide fuel and water exclusively to functional dialysis clinics (ESF-8 Update, Octobe r/ , 2017, 7:00 a.m. EDT) o USNS Comfort is expected to arrive October 4 with 522 medical personnel and support staff; medical care capabilities include general practice, family medicine nephrolo gy, and pediatrics; the ship is capable of servicing 200 patients per day (DoD Upd ate, Ocrober 2, 20 17, 1:00 a.m. EDT) o Four boxes of platelets and one box of red blood cells expected to arrive in San Juan October 2 (ESF -8 Update, October 2, 2017, l :49 a.111 . ED T) o ESF-4 reassigning Type-2 IMT Parrish (26 personnel) from St. Thom as to PR to support commodit y distributi on to hospitals (ESF-4 Up date, October/ , 20/7 , 12:21 a.m. EDT) • ESF-9: Search and Rescue o Two FEM A Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) task forces (80 personnel) active in Puerto Rico (ESF -9 Update, October I , 2017, I 1:04 a.m. EDT) • ESF-11: Agriculture and Natural Resources o HSUS evacuated 259 animals to date; addition al animal evacuations planned throu ghout this coming week o Thirt een of 84 Food Safety Inspection Service regulated facilities open but not operational due to power outage and lack of potable water (ESF- 11 Upd ate, October I, 20 17, 1:50 p .111 . EDT) • ESF-12: Energy o Power: DOE, FEM A, and DLA working to facilitate fuel and conducting restora tion plans for critical facilities and emergency response (DOE SitRep #69, October 1, 2017, 12 :00 p .m. EDT) • ESF-13: Public Safety and Security o Four additional quick response teams (QRTs) (25 personnel each) arriving October 4 (ESF- 13 Update, October, . 20 17, 5:33 p .m. EDT) o Federal Protective Service (FPS) personnel conducting site security assessments at the severely damaged Hato Rey Federal Complex; 38 additional FPS personnel expected to ru.-rive October 2 to support sec urity at Disaster Recovery Centers (FPS Update, October I , 20 17, 1:22 p.m . EDT) 7 EPA-17-0432-I-000007 • ESF-15: Ext ernal Aff airs o Coordinatin g with White Hou se on outreach call to PR mayor s scheduled October 2; meeting with mayor s at the Joint Field Office scheduled October 4 o Developed a plan to leverage Coca-Cola 's truck fleet for distribution of medical supplies from UPS and FedEx • Plivate Sector Status: • Walmart: 27 of 46 stores open • Walgreens: 76 sites open and operating on a modified basis, 45 sites closed • CVS : 20 of 25 retail stores/p harmaci es open • Crowley: Shipping capacity at 50% • Banco Popular: 15% of ATMs functional with cash (ESF-15 Update , October 1. 2017, 10:00 p.m. EDT! • U.S. Department of Def ense (DOD) o USS WASP , USS KEARSARGE, and USS OAK HILL providing rotary wing support to FEMA mission sets as required; Marines and Sailors integrated with FEMA Task Forces and providin g manpow er, analy sis, route clearance, and commodity distribu tion support o Strategic airlift in support of FEMA ' s response operations: • Six C-5, nine C-17s, and three C-130s arrived on October 1 ■ Six C-5s, four C-17s, and one C-130 planned for Octob er 2 (DoD Upda!e, Oc!ober 2, 2017, 1:00 a.m. EDT) • Nation al Guard Bureau (NGB) o Coordinatin g to source additional water purification, route clearan ce, and sec urity capabilitie s from CO NUS states; most contributing states have EMA Cs in place and are awaiting movements of their units; 9 of 10 rotary-wing aircraft are full mission-capable (NGB Upda1e, October 1. 201 7, 10:00 p.m. EDT! o PR National Guard provided fuel for generators at Department of Health Laboratory and two hospitals o Coordinating movement of approximately 1,700 personnel through October 3, with as many as 6,000 personnel postured to respond to PR requests, pending flight availability (NGB Update, Ocrober 1, 12:23 p.m. EDT) • U.S. Departm ent of the Int erior (DOI) o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) supportin g DOI mission to include supplies and reconstruction of DOI facilities (DOI Update, Oclober I , 2017 , I 1:53 p.m . ED T) Interagency Coordination for U.S. Virgin Islands: • ESF-1: Transportation o All traffic signals on St. Thomas and St. Croix completely destroyed; new system will be necessary (ES F-J Update, October I , 2017, 4:00 p.m. EDT) o Airports : • St. Thomas: Limit ed com mercial air operations; inter-island commercial flights resumed Septe mber 30 (ES F-1 Update, October I , 2017, 2:02 p.m. EDT) • Four commercial departure s and arrivals per day (TSA SitRep, October 1, 2017, 9:26 p.m. EDIJ • Lack of local personnel to load/unload commercial aircraft may impact continuing commercial flights into St. Thomas; U.S . Air Force no longer able to augment capability rusv1SitR ep, October 1. 2017 , 10:09 p.m. EDT) • St. Croix : Hemy E. Rohl sen Airport in St. Croix (STX) open with restricted operations; milit ary/humanitarian flights and air carr iers with less than 35 passengers only (ESF- 1 Update, October 2, 2017, 12:48 a.m. ED T) o Roads: ■ All highwa ys on St. Croix open with at least one lane of traffic ; commercial vehicle movemen t remains limited due to clearance issues with leaning trees and power lines (ESF-1 Update, o c,ober 1, 2017, 6:03 p.m. EDT) • St. John: National Park Service (NPS) reports that 75% of roads assessed (three of four main roads) are mostly clear, allowing for passage of at least one lane (ESF-J Updare, October I , 2017. 12:09 p.m . EDI) ■ Mahagony Road is impassible; Mahagony Road and Bridges still need to be assessed (ESF- 1 Update, Ocwber , . 2017, 2:21 p.m. EDT) o Ports: NOAA vessel Thoma s Jeffer son comp leted channel surve y on October l ; USCG cutter Cypress assessed and corrected aids to navigation (AT ON) (USCG Update, Ocrober 1, 2017, 6:00 p.m. EDT) 8 EPA-17-0432-I-000008 • ESF-2: Communications o FEMA exec uted a contract with Hughe sNet to provide voice and data via satellit e services for the island s (USVI SJTREP #/6/#009, October/ , 20/7, 10:09 p.m. EDT) o SMS text messaging availab le to Iridium Satellite Phone s (ESF-2 Update, October 1, 2017, 4:44 p.m. EDT) • ESF-3: Public Works and Engineering o Temporary Power: • Completed 129 of 155 reque sted pre-in stallation inspection s; 23 generators installed to date and 6 more in progress; 55 generators availab le on hand ■ Generatorsbeing installed at Golden Grove Prison (ESF-3 Update, October 2, 2017, 1:47 a.m. EDT) o Employed Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) at VITEMA, satellite communications system that serve s home and business user s, on St. Croix October 1; expected to significantly improve USACE communications (ESF-3 Update, October 2, 2017, 1:47 a.m. EDT) o Debris: • St. Thoma s: USACE estimates debris volume at 355,000 cubic yards; debri s removal operations to begin October 2 • St. Croix: Estimated 1,500 cubic yards debris collected by Department of Publi c Works and subcontractors to date • St. John: USACE estimates debri s volume at 33,000 cubic yards; debri s removal operations to begin October 8 o Temporary Roofin g • Current blue roof estimates: St. Croix: 5,000, St. Thoma s: 7,000, and St. John: 1,000 • Assessed 128 home s, installed 43 roof s; collected 1,340 Right of Entry Agreement s (ESF-3 Updare, October 2, 2017, 1:47 a.m. EDT) • ESF-4: Firefighting o Type 2 IMT (20 personnel) assigned to logistical commodity distribution (MRE's, water, and other food) in St. Croix; waiting lease of wareho use near airport; ships on port providin g lod ging and food for IMT personnel(ES F-4 Update, October 2, 2017. 12:04 a.m. EDT) • ESF-6: Mass Care, Emergency Assistance, Housing, and Human Services o Feeding • 4,000 infant and toddler supplie s scheduled to arrive October 4 • ESF-7: Logistics Management and Resource Support o Preparing to open ISBs in St. Thoma s (Cyril E. King Airport) and St. Croix (Limetree Bay Terminal ); staging material s for lots (ESF-7 Updare, September 29, 2017, 2:46 p.m. EDT) o Commodities: • Planning to ship 1,152 rolls of Blue Roof Pla stic Sheeting from Miami , FL to St. Croix on October 2 (ES F-7 Update, October 2, 2017, 3:10 a.m. EDT) • Vehicle s: GSA working to secure an agreement with Hertz to source 58 vehicles for shipment to St. EDT) Thoma s (GSA Update, Ocrober /, 2017, 1:19 JJ.111. • Generators : DLA now sourcing a total of 334 (+30) generator s to support US VI/PR needs; ESF- 7 working logistic s of getti ng generator needs to St. Croix and St. John (ESF-7 Update, October 1, 2011, 3 :20 p.m. EDT) • ESF-4 Type-2 IMT Parri sh assigned to commodity distribution on St. Thoma s; will manage LSA at Haven- site dock; GSA contract for LSA warehouse not yet finalized; estimated completion October 3 (ESF-4 Update, September 30, 2017, 2:23 p.m. EDT) • Flight s into USVI October 2: • St. Thomas: One flight tran sportin g 40,000 meals • St. Croix: Six flight s transporting 80,000 meals , 30 generators , medical supplie s and per sonnel Tracking Schedule , Oc1ober 2, 20/7, 3: I J a.m. EDT) • Ships into Puerto Rico: USCG Cutter Win slow Griesser tran sferred four cases of prescription medi cation from St. Thomas to St. Croix (USCG Updare, Oclober I. 2017, 1:58 p.m. EDT) 9 EPA-17-0432-I-000009 (MCC o Respond er Lodgin g NameNessel Status Destination/Port Arrival Date Grand Celebration SS Wright Ocean Constructor Ocean Carrier Azura Operational Operational Operational En route En route USVI: St. Croix USVI: St. Tho mas USVI: St. Thomas USVI: St. Thoma s USVI: St. Thomas Arrived Arrived Arrived 10/8 10/ 10 - 10/ 12 TOTAL: Beds Capacity 1,700 315 196 123 1,808 4,142 Beds Occupied 1, 137 (+227) 180 (+23) 52(+3 ) Beds Open 563 135 144 1,116 1,369 (Responde r Lodging CAP Upda1e, October I , 2017, 4:00 p.111.EDT) • USCG must inspect Azzure before it can accept respond ers for berthin g; inspectors en rout e ( USCG Update, Oc10ber / , 2017, I :58 p.111.EDT) • ESF-8: Public Health and Medical Services o Royal Caribbean ship departed September 29 for Ft. Lauderdale , transporting 3,188 passenger s from St. Croix (533), St. John and St. Thoma s (533), and San Juan (1,791) and 121 pets; will ruTiveOctober 3 (ESF -15 Update, Oc10ber 1, 2017, /0:00p.m . EDT) o 65 dialysi s patient s that were evac uated from USVI to Florida prior to Hurricane Maria making landfall relocated to Atlan ta, GA October 1 (ESF -8 Update, October 2, 2017, l:49 a.m. ED7) • FEMA connected Safety Net Hosp ital Alliance of Florida with HHS regru·ding transfer and evacuatio n protocol s in the state of Florida (ES F-/5 Update, October'· 20/7, 10:00 p.m. EDT) • ESF -10: Oil and Hazardous Material Response o Environmental Protection Agency and USVI Department of Plannin g and Natura l Resources (DPNR) drinking water teams assesse d 101 of 161 total (62%) public water systems in St. Croix and tested the 66 that were still functional ; of 26 testing positive for E . Coli, 11 were disinfected or otherwise brought back into compliance, remaining 15 requir e follow-up from DPNR and EPA (ESF- 10 Update, October 1, 11:24 a.m. ED1) • ESF-11: Agriculture and Natural Resources o Only Food Safety Inspection Service facility, privately owned , remain s closed due to lack of power and potable water (ESF-11 Update, October 1, 2017, 1:50 p.m. EDT) • ESF -12: Energy o 45 mutual aid worker s from New England publi c Power Utilities and 2 10 contractors will travel by commercial air week of October 1 to support restoration efforts on St. Thoma s and St. Croix, date to be determined (ESF- 12 Updale, October I, 2017, 4 :00p.m.) O No fuel supply shortage s on St. Th omas or St. John (DOE SitRep #69, October/, 2017, 12:00 p.m. EDT) o DLA ship ment of appro ximately 15,000 gallon s of prop ane expected to arrive October 5; will proceed to St. Thoma s and St. Croix as needed (DLA Update, October 2, 2017, 5:00a.m.) • U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) o U.S . Tran sportation Command (USTRANSCOM): Three C-17s and six C-130 s arrived October 1 with water, meals, comm unicatio n support , High Mobilit y Multi -Wheeled Vehicle s with generators, helicopter s, and infant and toddler kits o Defense Logistics Agency (DLA): • Working requirement for up to 200 ,000 water ju gs and researching requirement for addition a l four water pump s (DoD Update, Octobe r I , 20 17, 2:06 a.m. ED7) • Received req uirement for 30 additiona l generators for St Thoma s, VI (DoD Update, October 2, 20 17, 1.-00cun. EDT) • National Guard Bureau (NGB) o Eight of ten rotary wing aircraft are fully mission-capable ; 2 HH-60 MEDV AC aircraft from VT arrived September 30th and will assume recovery mission once flight tested (NGB Update, October 1. 2017, 10.-00p.m. EDT) • U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) o Motor Vesse l Fort Jefferson en route from PR to St. John October 1, transportin g supplie s and displaced staff; will disembark National Park Service Law Enforcemen t Special Event T actical Team to relieve current team before continuing to St. Croix October 2 (DOI Update, October I, 2017, 1:45 p.m. EDT) o Nationa l Park Service: Virgin Island Nationa l Park (St. John) 400 foot pie r assessed October 1; due to debris and sediment add itiona l assessment needed before placing a hoteling barge at the dock (DOI Update, October 1, 2017, 1 I :53 p.m . ED7) 10 EPA-17-0432-I-000010 • U.S. Department of State (DoS) o Two -man advance Denmark Emer gency Mana gement Agency team arriving in St. Croix October 2, will collaborate with FEMA to better understand cunen t situation and match capabi lities offer by Denmark against requirement s on the ground (FEMA Inremational Affairs update, October 2, 2017) Commodities Tables Total Arrived Qty St. Thomas Meals Tarps Waler 3,436 ,785 15,485 1,840,213 St. Croix 738 ,960 10,000 427 ,000 l!SVI Total 4,175,745 25,485 2,267,213 (ESF -7 Update, Oc1ober / , 20/7 l:30p.m . EDT) Total Arrived Qt) PR ____ l\Ieals Taq>s Water Generator _ Cots (ESF-7 Update, Oc1ober / , 20/7 l: 30p.m . EDT) 11 EPA-17-0432-I-000011 Maria Force Laydown As of October 02, 2017 05:00 a.m. EDT St. Thomas : f'EMA: 1 RX-IMAT E.SF-1:SSWright Puerto Rico : FEMA.: N•IMAT-E2 ESF-1: TS KENNEDY; TS Emp ir e State ESF-13: QRTs CAP: Aerial Support CBP:SRT USCG: IMAT ; NSF; 9 Ortters DOD: OCE ESF-2: M ERS; MEOV 32 ESF-3 : Roofing Teams; Power & Debris PRTs; 249' h ESF-4: Type 1 IMT; 2 Type 2 IM T w/26 Saw Teams ESF-2: MERS ESF-3: Roofing Teams ; Power & Debris PRT; 249 '" ESF-4: Type 2 IMT ESF-8: HM TF ESF-12: IMAT Support ; Power Restoration Team VA:. 2 Mob i le Med ical Teams ESF-8: SAT; 11 OMAT ; CDC; APHT; DMORT; HMTF; M HT ESF-9: 1ST;2 Type 4 US&R ESF-1.2: IMAT Support CSP: SRT; OIT DOD: DCE; ASMC ; GST; CAISE USCG: NSF, 1 Cutter $; "11Ju,T AfeC:lllol ,. .1 n ...~•.-.:...i~.., f,, .111f ,• ------------------, C...-diNI Rl1~ 11fi(f :...... _.,~. ln .. )A I I 114 •I St. John : ESF-2 : MERS ,~"" ' Amd1 lb\ 'IJa..111 ~lAP'1 ."' ·tvf-"10~.K l11 y'U,) >U O I ESF-3: 249 '" ESF-8: HM TF DOD: Med ical Detachment Team CAP: Aerial Support • r·,m• ....... ~-~•~ {la.J St. Croix/Chris tia nsted: F'EMA:2 RII-IMAT & RX-IMAT E.SF-2: MERS; MEOV 51 ..,,, •• -.JJN N.Afll,-. ATSEA:. 000: USS KEARSARGE;USSOAK HIU IUSCG: S Cutters ESF-3: Roofing Teams ; Power & Debris PRT; 249 1h ESF-4: Type 2 IMT ESF-8: COC, HMTF, DMAT ESF-12: IMAT Suppo rt CSR: SRT; O IT DOD: DCE; CAISE USCG: NSF, 2 Cutte rs EPA-17-0432-I-000012 C's Hurricane Irma/Mar ia - FEMA Responder Laydown (As of October 2, 2017 2:00AM EDT) ITotal FEMA Supporting Aguadilla. Hurricane Irma/Maria A ction s on Puerto Rioo and US Virgin Island s: Responders on th e Ground : San Juan/ Carolina. PR: 561 Oth er FEMARespond ers: 453 N-IMATE2: 27 PR: 3 FEMA Responders: 3 960 Hato Rey. PR: 68 FEMA Respon ders: 66 SCF: 76 FEMACorps: 5 Ceiba, PR: 6 Responders: 6 I FEMA Culebra Island, PR: 1 (FEMA Corps will be retu rning : lv , de las Americas ,0 - I Fe!!): Oestinatlon Red Hook Cruz Bay Tortola Frenchman's Reef Vi,g)n Gotda Cluistlansted fa!)ardo Cruz Bay • Car Cruz Bay• P~nge STT STJ 8VI STT 8VI STC PR STJ r STJ Red Hook Bay,m Sratus running running running running running running notlmed running running 10 2C Virgin Gorda Jost Van Dyke BVI ruMlng BVI ruMlng Anepda BVI ruMlng Water l~land STT running Crown Bay, STT Chrlsti-ted, STC Charlotte Amahe STT ruMlng Culebr~PR Fa1ardo PR unknowr 111eques,PR Fa;ardo PR unknowr Farjardo, PR Charton.e Amal,e STT unknowr Vleques PR unknowr Culebra PR unknowr .~ ;:St. Thomas ·\ ~-~~~J _,.,.- 40 ) Farj.ordo , PR 1:250,000 -· ' ' IA•p 0.>'-" A ...,..._.., "....... ,,. llOI CISlaalt To!al PopBlabon o.,m 2,-..... l421 11111..cz:t. ,M llll ..aao.1101 .. .... 12,.,u. 0 2 4 8 12 16 11:la:J--= = =-- - 0111t111SOWl:IK : FEMA. HHS. ESRI 16 EPA-17-0432-I-000016 !HurricaneMaria Strategic Hospital RestorationPlanl .... .. San Juan Restoration Status ACS Tract 2012 Population O 1, Fu lly Mission m Capable (10) 0 - 2075 Two Needs 01Leso 2076- 342 1 (34) 3422 - 4799 Three or More Needs (11) StJucrurlli Damage ID Ill f, ( Moden,te to Maior) (J) 4800 - 6701 ""'" 6702 - 12755 ,.., ,._ 10 11D l!!lrllnlb«olhe1(ilal9 20 Unkoown (11) .. f- \'IArtRCC:C•S ~ ~,. ,., ,,. , !HURRICANEMARIA EVENTS! = = ROADS ALREADY IMPACTED ANO OPE NE D TO TRAFFIC ,, ROADS ALREADY IMPACTED AND OPENED TO TRAFFIC ROADS PARTIAllY 17 OPENED (WORK IN PROGRESS) ROA DS PARTIAUY OP ENED (WORK IN PROGR ESS) EPA-17-0432-I-000017 Recovery Snapshot Post-Tropical Cyclone Irma Monday, October 2, 2017 (5:00 a.m. EDT) Updates in Blue Declarations: State/Region Declaration Declared Counties Public Assistance Individual Assistance Cost Share I Georg ia Seminole Tribe of Florida 9/28: DR-4338 Florida 9/21: DR-4337 Alabama 9/11: EM -3389 South Carolina 917: EM-3386 9/27: DR-434 1 7 counties Seminole Tribe of Florida and associated lands 48 count.ies - All 159 counties (Cat A and B) 75% Seminole Tribe of Florida and 100% (Cat B) for 30 days associated lands 75% 69 counties (Cat A-G) 100% (Cat B) for 30 days All 67 count.ies and the Poarch 75% Creek Indian Tribe (Cat B) All 46 counties and Catawba 75% Indian Nation (Cat B ) Recovery Priorities, Issues, and Challenges: State Georgia Florida Recovery Priorities Deliver Individual Assistance Open Disaste r Assistance Centers Cond uct IA & PA preliminary damage assessments Public Information Public Assistance (PA) PDAs Housing in Lee, Hendry, and Collier Count ies HUD damage assessments Temporary housing Transitional Shelter ing Assistance (TSA) Flagler County requesting expediting processing of Category A and B and making funds available immediately. Requested priority assig nment from the state for fixed site registration at Flagler Beach and Hammock Communities 9. Req uest for Direct Housing - DHAT will deploy to the counties to conduct assessments 10. HUD has granted a 90-day moratorium on foreclosure s and forbearance on foreclosures of Fede ral Housing Administration (FHA)-insured home mortgag es. 11. Continuing to coordinate with State on STEP. 12. USACE feasibility inspectors are continu ing their rev iew of commercial park pads 13. Advanced Planning coordinated with GIS to create an interactive housing map and data sharing betwee n stakeho lders 14. EA IGA respo nded to inquiries from state legislator and local officials, primary focus of inquiries were related to debris removal, contractor procurement, constituent registration concerns and an inspector verification. 15. Developing Innovat ive Housing Solutions presentation for mission support , planning to Integrating FIU Extreme Event s Institute 16. The Economic Housing RSF Team identified several areas of major concern and will begin analysis immediately 17. At reque st of Patrick Air Force Base leadership, DSA conducted on-site registration for military famil ies l. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 8. 18 Issues/Challenges Not yet reported • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Staffing Individual Assistance and Disaster Survivor Assistance missions Need more IA Caseworkers for applicants, IA caseworkers need NEMI S/NACS rights Survivors continue to request temporary housing as shelters are closing Debris removal resources Some schools in the Keys will not open until October 2nd Need more language interpreters , Span ish and Creole (Haitian) Flagler County is very low on funding due to Hurrican e Matthew and initial Irma respo nse efforts; no reserve funds to draw upon. Frustrations with long wait times and dropped calls when call ing the 1.-800 FEMA number (capacity) Concern about the lack of information on Housing Strategie s/Resources for survivors Hernando County: mosquito concerns Survivor s leaving without assistance prior to registering at DRCs due to extreme temperatur es and extended wait times (3.5 hour wait times at the DRC in Miami-Dad e) Concerns over potential arrival of approximately 3,200 evacuees via cruise ship from Puerto Rico, St. Croix and St. Thomas. Evacuees are scheduled to dock on 3 Oct. in Port Everglades. Need more information from JFO on the coord ination for these incoming survivo rs DSA concerns over inability to check survivor cases on NEMIS The 30 day waiver for electrical work for damaged homes is set to expire Oct 13. Clay County is concerned about homeowners' electricity EPA-17-0432-I-000018 evacuated from Puerto Rico. 18. Initiate the Sheltering and Temporary Emergenc y Power (STEP) program in Broward, Charlotte , Collier, Glades, Hendry, Lee, Miami-Dade, Monroe and Palm Beach Counties. • function ality & home repair s not being up to code . Messaging may be needed Isolated Thunderstorms co uld produce gusty winds and brie f heavy rains through Sunda y 10/0 1/2017 . Survivors conc erned abo ut propo sed rainfall and threat to already flooded roads and damaged ho mes. PA PDAs: Tota l $29 .6 M • Category A: $14.4M Georgia • • Destroyed : 46 structures Major Damage: 17 1 structures • • Minor Damage: 111 structure s Affected Habitable: 127 structures Florida • • • • Category B: $5.SM Category C: $4.6M Category D: $0.l M Category E: $ 1.6M • • Category F: $1.9M Cate or G: $1.4M In process Interagency Coordination/Recovery: • Recovery Support Function (RSF): Housing Recovery State Georgia Florida Puerto Rico Seminole Tribe of Florida U.S. Virgin Islands State Georgia Florida Puerto Rico U.S. Vire:in Islands Individual Assistance rm of 1010112011. -I IA~p III EOTJ Total Individuals and Housing Assistance Total Registrations Households Program Aoorov ed Aooroved $8,057, 173 $5,379 ,539 28,609 2,072 ,233 $685,51 1,046 $448,867,468 4, 103 $14 1,653 $296,059 Other Needs Assistance Aooroved $2,677,6 34 $236,643 ,578 $15 4,406 21,487 Not yet reported Not yet reported Not yet reported 7,458 $4,592 $4,592 $0 Housing Inspections 1"' of 1010112011. -1.os 1,.111.LOI 1 Inspectors with Work Inspections Issued Inspections Complete 21 4,334 1,587 1,278 525, 143 112,800 23 1,285 500 5,669 4 5 % Complete 36.6% 2 1.4% 38.9% 0 .07% (Irma) National Flood Insurance Program Claims Estimate (m of 09/29/2017 . I 1-1p III EDT) State Claims Submitt ed Advanced Pavments to Insured Survivors Over 22,000 Over $28,000,000 Florida Georgia Over 1,800 Over $2, 000,000 Over2 ,000 Over $ 1, 100,000 South Carolina 45 Not yet reported U.S Virgin Islands Puerto Rico 4 Not yet reported 1 Not yet reported Alabama o Temporar y Housing: FEMA approved extension period of Transitional Sheltering Assistance (TSA) Program for DR-4337-FLfrom October 8, 20 17 through Nove mber 4, 2017 (Menwrandum signedb y Alex Amparo, State Florida Households Checked In to Hotel 9,446 19 Eli ible 709 ,449 EPA-17-0432-I-000019 o Small Business Administration (SBA) Home Loans SBA Home Loans Hurrica ne Irma Applica tions Received 22,557 (mo/ 10/01/2017, 8·08" % Processed 54% o US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Number of Properties in the Impacted (PDD ) Area 178 2 1 Hea lthcare Section 232/242 Florida Georgia South Carolina To ta l l\lultifamil y Housing EDT) Assisted Units Unit s 910 50 960 106,513 4,665 111.178 $9,148,400 (as of 1010112017; Number of Beds in the Impacted (PDD) Area 23,530 130 88 23,748 Florida Hou sing Choice Voucher (HCV) Florida Georoia South Carolina Tota l 100,847 55 639 25 706 182 192 0 0 0 Displaced Households 6 Returned Households 222 0 1 7 0 1 223 33 661 13,798 79.650 Total Number of Assisted Households Residents Returned 6 14 150 764 89 1 90 Total Number of' Assisted Units 32 ,191 7 0 663 Georgia South Carolina Tota l Propertie s w/ :\loderate Residents Displaced/ Evacuated or Major Damage 45,902 2, 145 48.047 Impacted Prooerties 656 Public Hou sing Average Loan Amount $42,950 Loan $ Approved 181 Impacted Properti es Florida Georgia Tota l 111 Applications Aoor oved 213 Displaced Households Returned Household s 13 0 0 14 0 0 14 13 • RSF: Economic Recovery o SBA Business Loans SBA Business Loans Hur ricane Ir ma App lications Received 1,348 1t11 of 1010112017.8. ost1.111 f-.lJJ! App lications Ao or oved 12 % Pr ocessed 35% Average Loa n Amount $55,175 Loa n $ App r oved $662,100 o USDA Risk Management Agency State Specific Crop Insurance Information Florida Liabilities $2.3 billion Largest Crop Liability (amount) Orange Tr ees ($ 1. I billion) for Hurricane Irma as of 9/4/2017 Geore:ia Puerto Rico * $818 .6 million $2.3 million Cotton ($581 .2 million) Coffee ($932,742) *PR crop liabili ly was $53,445,686 fo r 2016 Reinsurance Year. As of Jun e 9, 2017 only $2.3 million of liability was reporled and available lhrough !he RMA Summa ry of Busin ess. o USDA Farm Service Agency Total Combined $ Amount Sept 18-Sept 22: Florida Sept 10-Sept 12: Georgia Sept 18-Sept 22: Louisiana Loss for Crops/livestock 20 by State n/a $338,272,398 $4 1,000,000 EPA-17-0432-I-000020 Total Combined Loss for by Hurricane H.172 am. Total Irma Hurricane Total 33338272398 21 EPA-1 7-0432-I-000021 Recovery Snapshot Post- Tropical Cyclone Harvey Monda y, October 2, 2017 (5:00 a.m. EDT) Updat es in Blue Declarations: , . State/Region Texas . Declaration I 9/23: DR -4332 1. 2. 3. Declared Counties . . Pubhc Assi stance . . . Individual Ass istance I I 39 counties 47 counties Cost Share 1 90% (Cat A); 100% (Cat B) for 30 days, 90% thereafter Sheltering and temporary housing Debris Remov al Collect and disseminate accurate inc ide nt information to improve decision-making Accurate ly track inc ident costs assoc iated with ass igned resources for cost recove ry Texas 4. Not yet reported (TDEM Sir Re 1, Se tember 29, 2017 , 8:00 a.m. EDT ) Damage Assessments: State Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs) , including Categories C-G TAPDA PAPDA 21 counties requested, 20 counties complete, 1 Not yet repo rted county ongoing Texas Interagency Coordination/Recovery: • RSF: Housing Recovery State Texas Texas State Texas Louisiana - II Re istrations 843,078 Individual Assistance /mo/ I -- 1010112017. 3: 19 1,.m_ EDT! $839,194,969 I Housing Assistance A roved $619,865,760 I roved $219,329,209 Inspectors with Work 2,742 59% (Haney) National Flood Insurance Program Claims Estimate (a, of09/29:!0I7. I 34 p III EDT) Claims Submitted Advanced Payments to Insured Survivors Over 88,000 Over $ 1 billion Over 48 0 Over $2 billion Closure Rates : Over 4% of claims have been closed m Texa s with over $42,000,000 paid m closed claim s; over 11% of claims have been closed $1,200,000 paid in closed claims 111 Louisiana with over o Small Business Admini stration (SBA) Home Loans SBA Home Loans State Texas Applications Received 52,586 % Processed 64% (l/1 o/ 10101120n. 8 os Applications Approved 7,471 22 "m EDT/ Loan $ Approved Average Loan Amount $628, 18 1,700 $84,0 83 EPA-17-0432-I-000022 I o U.S. Depar tment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Hurricane Hane y Texas Number of Propertie s in Impacted Area Multifamily Housing Public and Indian Housing 454 66 HCY NIA Healthcare and Hospitals 40 Displaced (# of Beds for Healthcare Hospital) 20,971 10,965 148,205 5,236 (asof 1010112017; Displaced (# of Household for Public & Indian Housing l\Iultifamil y Housing ) 3,224 330 813 599 Returned or Permanent!)' Housed (# of Households/Beds) 844 263 655 501 • RSF: Economic Recove ry o SBA Business Loan s Applications Received 3,589 State Texas SBA Bu sines s Lo ans ({/\of rn10112017.8 osaIII F.OT! Applications Loan $ Approved % Processed Aooroved 69% 605 $57,132 ,900 Average Loan Amount $94,435 o U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Ri sk Man agemen t Agency St ate Spe ci fic Crop Insurance Inform ation for Hurri cane Harvey '"' of 9/23/21117! Texas* Louisiana* * $792.4 million Liabilities $133.5 million Rice ($104.1 million) Largest crop liability (total) Cotton ($352.3 million) >34,000 >2,900 Policies received ++ 4.9 million Units Covered (acres) ++ >504,000 * Crops removed from calculatwn are AFIPRF , Cabbage, Oats, O111011s, Potatoes and Wheat ** Parishes included are Aca;/ia, Allen, Beaurega rd, Calcasieu, Cameron , Jefferson Da vis, Vermillion and Vernon ++ lnfonnation collected from RMA 's Summar y of Business Reports h11p:l/www.rma .usda.gov/datalsob.ht1nl New Apps T aken I .. I 124,99 1 a New Approved Persons 361,328 - • • ! Households Den ied Benefits - Supplemen ts Approved Households Persons 10 34 $118,701 ,657 I Total New+ Ongoing Benefits 2,873 Benefits I $ 118,704,530 (Recove ,y Update, Septemb er 28, 2017, 11:02 cw,. EDT) o Natural Reso urces Conservation Service Texas* Loui s iana** EWPP Sponsor requests 5 new, 6-7 previous project s that may need assi stance EQIP Applications 0 CT A/Employees Providing Assistance 57 97 0 25 *57 EQUIP application for FYI 7 received 10 date for TX special sign -ups **Lirtle impa cts, 110 1anticipating EQIP applicarionsfor hurricane response but announced availabiliry of EQIP 23 EPA-17-0432-I-000023 Senior Leadership Briefing Tropical Depression Irma Tuesday, September 12, 2017 (5:00 a.m. EDT) Updates in Blue Current Situation: At 5:00 a.m. EDT, Tropical Depression Irma was located near Columbus, AL, with maximum sustained winds of 35 mph. The center of Irma is currently over Alabama and then will move into western Tenne ssee by this evening . Peak wind gusts (as of 5:00 a.m.) include 142 mph at Naples Airport, 130 mph at Marco Island, 122 mph in Lely, and 120 mph at Big Pine Key. Hurricane conditions are continuing across portions of central and northern portions of the FL Peninsula , with tropical storm and hurricane conditions expected to spread northward today. Irma is expected to produce rainfall amount s of 8 to 20 inches, locally 25 inches , from the Florida Keys to southeast Georgia through Wednesday . There is a high risk for flash floodin g across these areas. Moderate to major river flooding is forecast with the greatest risk across Pasco to Sarasota Counties, FL. (NOAA Update, September 12, 2017, 5 :00 a.m. EDT) Detennin isticRiverRoodForecast KeyPoints: • Severity:Moderate-major flooding forecast;localized recordfloodingpossib le • GreatestRisk: Northernand western Floridapeninsula, particularlyfrom Pascoto SarasotaCounties, and Duvalcounties This includesTampa and Jacksonville. • Timing: Rapid rises likely to continuethrough mid week. • Riverflood threat likely to expandinto portions of GA and SC middle of the week. • Floodingwill impact roads,homes, infrastructureand post-stormresponseactivities Southeast RFC RiverForecastCenter Area Waterway R Below Major . D ecess1on ate .. Add1t1onal Info Drop out of flood Saturday mo ming Elfers Anclote River 9/12 Zephyrhills Hillsborough River 9/12 Drop out of flood Sunday morning Lithia Alafia River 9/14 Falls to Minor flooding Saturday morning Wimauma Little Manatee River 9/13 Drop out of flood Sunday morning Rye Bridge Manatee River 9/12 Drop out of flood Wednesday afternoon Myakka River State Parle Myakka River 9/15 Arcadia Horse Creek 9/12 Fall to Minor flooding Friday afternoon Beyond 9/1 S Still nsmg to 17.5 feet crest on Thursday Stays elevated through Sunday Arcadia Peace River Palmdale Palmdale fi,hea\i _ng Creek 9/li Stay> elevated through Sunday Lake Hamey St John, River Beyond 9/ IS Still rising to IO feet Crest Thursday afternoon Middleburg North Fork Black Creek 9/14 Drop out of flood Saturday mom,ng St Mary'> Ri""r 9/li Falls to Minor flooding Sunday morning M,i~~t~nnY 1 EPA-17-0432-I-000024 Population Impacts Shelters/ Population Fatalities Evacuations Other I evacua ted/ closed NIA St. Thomas and St . John curfew 6 p.m. to 12 p.m. St. Cro ix schools will open 9/ 12 I closed; 6 on generator power NIA Schools and government offices remain closed At least 20 cities/co unties have overnight curfews between 9/ 10- 13 offices in 46 coun ties will be closed on Tues day; schools closed in 44 Facilities St. Thomas 19,574 St. John - 2,893 St. Croix - 6,905 368,682 (-62,382) (24% of territory) 4 Shelters: 7 (+ 1) Pop: 376 (+) 3 Shelters: 7 (+ 1) Pop: 171 (+ 17) Media reports 3 (not officia l) She lters: 427 (-153) Pop: 100,355 (83,784) 5,083,934 (- 1,033,090) (50% of state) 33 closed 35 cou nties mandatory 13 counties voluntary 0 Shelte rs: 5 (+ l) Pop: 39 (-133) No Power at Brighton & Hollywood reservations Not Reported No orders Leaking at lmmokalee and Big Cypress shelters NIA Shelters: 34 Pop: 4,860 (1,042) 1,187,518 (+320 ,836) (26% of state) 6 evacuated (5 full, I partial) All areas east, some areas west ofl -95, I county State government offices closed Monday and Tuesday GA has announced some schoo l closures until 9/12 220,870 (9% of state) I evacuated/closed Mandatory for barrier islands in 3 counties State build ings closed in 25 counties and schools closed in 43 count ies Assess ing vulnerab le dams 63,680 (1% of state) Not Report ed NIA 5,000 Not Reported NIA 400 Not Report.ed NIA Shelters: 24 (+I) Pop: 1,059 (+488) Shelters: 5 (0) Po :72(+39) Shelter s: 6 (+2) Po : 149 (+ 18) Shelters: 30 (+11) Pop: 707 (343) NIA NIA 0 NIA 4:00a.m. As of- Customer Power 2:00a.m. Multiple school closures. All state offices and building s are closed Monday 2:30a.m. 4:41 a.m. 3:30a.m . 3:30a .m.. (OCSO Email, RI/, ESF-6, ESF-12, ESF-8, RIV. Tribal Affairs Liaison Updates, September 12, 2017) Shelter Population Total: 107,791 (-83,879) lS0,000 (ARC. Sq,,cmber J].1017 .1: 00o .m. EDT) Shelter Pop. excluding Florida (Enlarged) 200.000 ,., ,,. .. U0,000 t00.l5S 100,000 AM 96 2017 PM 9-'6/rol1 AM 9?12017 --ri0r~ -PutnoRioo -- Geoma -Alabama 2.91I l,911 2,911 p I 9 1'7'2017 •• 2.911 "" ,1no11 98'20 17 1.679 H,266 I ll 1?2 99'2017 3&,021 ., ' P, I 9.'9n 0 l7 ,18,139 "'' 910/201 7 124,264 127,331 69 3.871 SJ SJ IJ 672 6'2 ., 672 ... -SouthC.olina -- Pd 9110'2017 ,., l-lS Tcnrxs~ NcnhCarollftl snninolt Tribt$o( 12 Florida 2 36 l6 A. I 9 llfl017 192,.330 ll4 l.90l .. , P, 9111"2017 IM ,139 ll4 5,90.? ,.. "' Il l l7I Ill 33 )) 91212017 100.155 "' 4.860 707 l ,0.S9 1<9 72 ,. EPA-17-0432-I-000025 Infra structure Impacts Transit St . Croix resuming service; no service in St . Thoma s and St . John due to power outa es Ferry: Relief only in Culebra , full service resumed in Vieque s; Rail: Tren Ubano fully operational; Bu s: 0 en daw n to du sk St . Croix: I clo sed St. Thoma s: 3 open /open with restrictions , 1 clo sed airport s open airports open airports open Asof: Water Boil water advis ories St. Thoma s & St. John s Some wate r tanks on St Thomas intact Normal supply cha in operat iona l; 4 gas sta tion s open on ge nerator s All maj or roads and interstate s open; priori ty is repairin g damaged traffic signals Not Repor ted 61 ,980 (-276 ,0 15) without water All closed exce pt Pen saco la Rail : No se rvice; nearly all public transportation suspended in southern FL Closed: US- I to FL Keys, Sunshine Skyway Brid ge; floodin g on major roads acro ss the stat e ; debris and downed powe r lines in Orlando, Miami Fue l shortages in gas stat ion s reported Not Reporte d NIA NIA Not Repo 11ed Not Repo rted Bo il water notice Not Report ed Not Reported Not Repo rted Not Reported Two open with restrictio ns; all other s open Closed: 4 Emergency only: 7 Open without Air Traffi c Control : I Fuel/Gas St. Thoma s and St . John major damage on coa stal road s; stil l difficult to fully assess Asses sments underway; Sid ney Lan ier Brid ge (SR 25) and Talmadge M emo rial Brid ge (US 17) closed Coordinating with SC and GA to handle re-entry traffic on I-95, 1-77, 1-26 All closed Rail: min imal service; All ope n Rail: CSX Rail closed along I-95 corrido r Char leston open with restriction s Rail: Cl osed; public transport ation suspended in Char leston and Sumter ; no tran sit service s through Lowcountry Regional Transit Authorit Asses sment s und erway; plannin g for re -entry traffic Not Reported Not Reporte d Al l ope n with restri ctio ns Not Repo1ted Not Repo1t ed Not Reported Not Reported 3:28 a.m. 3:28 c1.111. J :()(} Cl.Ill. 91114:00 p.m. 3:2 8 a.m. 2:/ 0 a.m. (ESF-1, USCG, Rll , RIV, ESF-12 , Tribal Affa irs Liaison, DOE Sit Rep Updates, Sept ember 12, 201 7) Power O uta ges Total : 6,95-1,056 (-612.175) vsn - .000.00 ------------- 6.000.()() l'.OOO JIJS14 ~------ ..........., _ 5,000.00 '·""" __ ... _____________ 6~5 ,n, -1.000.00 t ....... ! 6 'I IQl(,Uh 1 .....,_ ,t 'In.I.I'>\" ....,__ Tt , IJ.,>,,"I J.000 .00 '!,000 .000 1,000.000 Pfll M l 96 96 " --.nonda ._. PutrtORl (O . Al>l J l !'iY•s 1.0-- .J:?li 1.o.i.a~9 AM Pfll ,\. \I 98 98 99 1,o.u ,::s9 s..o..aoJ 26,880 P\\l 99 :?6.880 8..0,-iOJ 6"'-i,00 0 Afll 9 10 :H!.255 ~U ,000 P!\I 9 10 M l .f\1 .06.. -13 1,064 1l ,r 6 ....... Gco~ra P~I .\68 ,68:! .....,. N0tlh Caioh.i1.a 368.68:: 866.68'.! 1.18'".518 1s u-1 --- so111icaiotm.-. AM 9 II 9 II 9 I':? 1.-- 9_- -14 .f.98-1.34:: 6, 1. - ,0 '.!4 5,083,9 J.4 ::~o.s-o 63.680 3 EPA-17-0432-I-000026 De I A f 't f . State/Reg10n Region II Puert o Rico U.S. Virgin Islands . Declaration . . . Individual Assistance Declared Counties . . I Pu bltc Assistance Cost Share 75% (Su bject to Change) 90% (Cat A) 100% (Cat B) for 30 days 9/ 10: DR-4336 2 counties 2 9/7: DR-4335 St. Thom as; St. John All Region IV All 67 counties and Poarch Band of Creek Indi ans 75% 16 coun tie s All (67 count ies) 75% 100% (Cat B) for 30 day s 9/8: EM -3388 - Whole T ribe 75 % South Carolina 917: EM-3386 - Georgia 917: EM -3387 Alabama 9/11: EM-3389 Florida 9/10: DR-4337 Seminole Tribe of Florid a All 46 counties and Catawba Indian Na tion 94 counties - 75% 75 % (FEMA , Email, Amendmenl No. 1 Jo FEMA -3387-EM for Georgia, September JO, 2017 7:22 p.m .) FEMA - Deploy ed FEMA - Other Support Urban Search & Resc ue Health and Human Service s Departm ent of Transportation United States Coast Guard DHS - NPPD Department of Energy US Dep art me nt of Agr iculture Law Enforcement (ESF 13) Custom s and Border Protection Ci vil Air Patrol Immigration and Custom s Enforc ement 2,043 558 1,352 893 25 510 53 22 9 718 0 (+l) (+14) (+l) (+20) (0) (0) (-27) (+13) (+2) (+215) (-372) 24 (0) 73 (0) Natio nal W eather Servic e- NOAA National Gua rd DOD - Titl e IQ General Services Administration U.S. Anny Corp s of Engin eers Department of the Interior USDA - U.S. Forest Servi ce Small Bu sines s Admini stration (SBA) Tran spo rtation Security Admini stration Hou sing and Urban Dev elopment * Department of State Environment a l Prote ctive Agency (EPA ) Em ergency Manag em ent Ass ista nce Com act Tota l 343 19,255 7,395 20 220 209 49 0 253 (0) (+5293 ) (+3663) (0) (0) (+2) (+22) 266 (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) 11 (0) 0 19 34,320 (+8847) *Nwnber of Personnel Unknown/Nor Reporred (Situalional Awareness Info Analys is, Sep/ember 12, 2017, 3:20 p.m. EDT) FEMA Headquarters: • • • National Response Coordination Center activated at Level I (24/7) (NRCC Update, Sep1emb er 11, 20 17, 8:00a.m. EDT) National Incident Management Assistance Te am (!MAT) East-2 at FL Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and National IMA T East- I is deploying to FL EOC (Region JV Daily Sit Rep, Septemb er 1}, 2017, 2:49 p.m. EDT) Personne l mobilization center established at Anniston, AL to mobilize FEMA responders (FOD update, Septemb er 9, 20 17, J:OOa.,n EDT) • R Total Individual Assistance Registrations % of Projected Total Registrations % of Total Households in Disaster Area U.S. Virgin Island s 880 (+239) 6.8% 2.0% Pue rto Rico 770 (+262) 38.7% 11.6% 17,904 (+10,3 19) 2.4% 0.7 % State/Territory Florida (Pre-Process ing a11dReferral Statist ics, September 11, 2017. 11:03 p.m. EDT) (Open Disaster Summa,y, September 11, 2017, 11:02 p.111.EDT) 4 EPA-17-0432-I-000027 o Surge staffing continues for FEMA's Strategic Workforce Augmentation Team taking calls from three National Process ing Servic e Center s, FEMA pop -up call centers, Headquarter s, all FEMA Region s, and from home; 4,425 (+95) call center age nts are expected Online Sept ember 12, 2017 (Recove1yC011tactCenterSurge Staffing Ti111eli11e, September I} , 2017, I} :30 a.111.EDT) • o 376 Di saster Survivor Ass istance (DSA) cadre member s are deploy ed/deploy ed pending check -in & trainin g in support of Hurri cane Irma (DSA Cadre Manage ment Section Update, September/ /, 20 17, 7:30 Cl.Ill. EDT) o 10 joint Individual Assistance Preliminary Damag e Assessment Team s are identifi ed and ready to deploy , an additiona l 13 teams availab le to deploy (RIV Sit Rep, Septemb er 11, 2017, 7:00a.m. EDT) Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration o Approximately 2 million policie s in force across AL, FL , GA, SC, PR , and USVI in Irma 's path (FJMA Update, Septemb er 11, 20 17, I :00 p.111 . EDT) • Mutual Aid (£MAC Sit Rep#37 , September 12. 2017, l:OOa.m. EDT) Region II IV IV .Jurisdiction USVl IV FL GA SC # of Request(s) 2 118 (+8) 2 0 # of States Supporting 1 32 (+6) 1 3 (+ I) FEMA Region II: • • • Regional Re spon se Coordination Center (RRCC) at Leve l I (Full Activation) day shift , Leve l II (Partial Acti vation) night shift with ESF 1,3,6, 8, 12, 13, and 15 (Region II Sit Rep. September 11, 2017, 8:30a .m. EDT) FEMA Region II IMAT in St. Croix U.S. Virgin Islands: EOC at Full Activatio n, state of emerge ncy decl ared, and National Guard activated • Puerto Rico: EOC at Level IV (Fu ll Activatio n); state of emergen cy declar ed , and Natio nal Guard activated (Region 11Sit Rep, September 11, 2017, 8:30 a.m. EDT) (Region 11Sit Rep, Sept ember 11, 20 17, 8:30 a.111.EDT) FEMA Region IV: • • • RRCC at Level I (Full Act ivation); op erating on generator power (Region JV Update, September 11, 2017, 4:00 p.m. EDT) HQ National Tribal Affa irs Adv isor on site at RIV RRCC (Region IV Daily Sit Rep, Sept ember 11, 20 17, 2:49 p .m. EDT) Region IV IMAT-1 at FL EOC; and Reg ion IV IMAT-2 deployin g to GA EOC (Region IV Daily Sit Rep, September 11, 2017, 2:49 p.m. EDT) • Region IV Liai son Offi cers at FL , SC , GA, NC , AL, and Seminole Tribe EOC s ( 1 each) (Region 1v Daily Sit Rep, September 11, 2017, 2:49 p .m. ED1) • • Florida 0 EOC at Leve l I (Full Activation) (Region JV Shift Change Brief, September I/ , 20 17, 7:00 a.111.EDT) 0 State of Emergency declared for 67 counties (FL DEM , Sept emb er 11, 2017, 8:00 a.m. EDT) 0 FEMA Initial Op eratin g Faci lity operational in Tallaha ssee (Region rv Update, Sept ember 10, 2017, 2:00 p.m. EDT) o Miccos ukee Trib e : Two EOC s at Full Activat ion ; pow er is out , FEMA is puttin g together a team to support operations and logistics for the tribe (FEMA email updat e, Sept ember 1I, 2017, 2:30 p.m. EDT) Seminole Tribe of Florida: EOC at Full Activation (24/7, all ESFs); Imrnok alee, Brighton , and Big Cypress Reservation s on generator pow er; communications down on Brighton reserv ation s (Region rv Shift Chang e Brief, September 11, 2017, 7:00 a.m. EDT) • • • • Alabama: EOC a Lev el I (Fu ll Acti vat ion) Georgia: EOC at Lev el I (Full Act ivat ion) North Carolina: EOC at Level I (Full Activation) (Reg ion lV Shift Change Bri ef, Septemb er 11, 2017, 7:00a .m. EDT) South Carolina: EOC at OPCON 1 (Full Activation) (Region IV Shift Change Brief, Sept emb er 11, 201 7, 7:00 a.Ill. EDT) Interagency Coordination/Response: • ESF-1: Transportation o USVI/PR: • EPA is supporting infrastructure recovery by supporting requests for consultation , assessment, and/or miti gat ion of chron ic mo ld in the contro l tower at the airport in St. Thomas (ESF-J0 Update. September 11. 2017, 4:14p.m. EDT) 5 EPA-17-0432-I-000028 • SS Wright will depart Philadelphia on September 12, 2017 en route to St. Thoma s to provide berthing and meal s for emergency response personnel and to deliver relief supplie s (ESF-1 Updare, September 12. 2017. 2:28 a.111 . EDT) • DHS waive d Merchan t Marine Act of 1920 ("Jones Act") allowing interna tional vesse ls to dock at American seaports; acting DHS Sec retary approved req uest effec tive throu gh September 14 (ESF- 1 Update. September JO. 2017, 12:59 p.m. EDT) o FL: • Joint USCG , USACE and NOAA port survey s in Tampa , Miami and Port Everglade s commenced on September 11, 2017; 40 vessels awaiting port openings to arrive in FL port s (ESF-1 Update. September 12, 2017, 2:05 a.111. EDT) • Of the 11 airports closed in FL, six to reopen on September 12, 2017 (Tampa , Melbourne Int'l, Ft. Lauderdale, Kissimmee , Gainsville, and Orlando Sanford, and Boca Raton will reestablish Air Traffic Control service s); one to reopen on September 13, 2017 (Albert Whitted); three to reopen on September 15, 2017 (Key West Int'l, Naple s, Marathon Int'l) ; one to reopen on September 16 (Page Field at Ft. Myer s) (FAA Update, Sep/ember 12, 2017. 1:05 a.m. EDT) • Special Notices are in effect for Marathon lnt'I (FL) and the San Mateo area until September 20, 2017 • US-1 to FL Keys is closed; no resident s/visitors are permitted into Monroe County until an assessment by FDOT/FHPto roadway s and bridge s is complete (ESF-1 Update, Sep1ember 12, 3.·05 a.m. EDT) • U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) providing interagency support to ESF-1: flew an Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) from over FL Keys on September 11, 2017; aerial assessment indicates debris on road but vehicles on highway indicate FL Key s bridge s may be usable; will conduct additional UAS flyover s of I-75 and I-95 on September 12 (ESF-1 Update, September 1I, 2017, I 1.-06 p.m. EDT) • Federal Highway Association (FHW A) approved FDOT' s reque st for $25 Million in FHW A Emergency Relief funds on September 11, 2017 (ESF-1 Update, Sep/ember 12, I :50 a.Ill. EDT) • Ports : Crui se ships in FL have diverted from standard cruise homeports; further pa ssenger embarkation/disembarkation and upcoming crui ses pending post-storm assessment s and port openin gs; FL post-storm port assessment s estimated to begin September 11 and 12 as storm and condition s allow (USCG Upda/e, Seprember 12, 2017. 1:56 a.m. EDT) • o GA: Asse ssments of road damage underway as acce ssibility allows o Re-entry of evacuees: NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is coordinatin g with SCDOT and GDOT to handle re-entry traffic coming north on I-95 , I-77, and I-26; SCDOT will continue to monitor traffic and plan for reentry of SC, FL, and GA evacuee s and will provide motori st assistance patrol s during reentry (ESF-1 Update, September 12, 2017. 3:07 a.m. EDT) ESF-2: Communication s o Federal Communi cations Comm ission activated the Disaster Information Reporting System for all co unties in FL, PR, and USV I; data being .received for PR/VI; FL outage reporting began September 11 (ESF-2 Updare, Sept ember I I, 2017, 11:00a.m . EDT) o Initial damage assess ments and restoration activities to communi cations infr astructure is underway in FL , GA, and AL o USVI/ PR • Initial Maynard Mobil e Emer gency Respon se Support (MERS) airlift is complete; another aircraft from Westover Air Force Base to St. Thoma s is scheduled to depart September 12, 2017 (ESF-2 Update, Sept ember / 2, 2017, 2:2 1 a.111.EDT) • FEMA accep ted an offer from U.S. Secret Service on September 10 for 500 public safety radios; MERS Electronic Maintenance Shop will process the radios and ship to teams engaged in Regions II and IV; the radios are due to arri ve at Fred.rick MERS Sep tembe r 12 for staging (ESF-2 Updare, Sep1ember 12, 2017, 1:46 a.m. EDT) • Cell tower status (voluntar y reporting, the same towers do not report everyday): 23% outages in St. Croix ; 100% outages in St. John; 77% outages in St. Thomas; 19.4% outages in PR (ESF-2 Updare, September 12, 2017, 1:46 C/.111.EDT) o FL • 27 Public Service Answering Points (PSAPs) affec ted, 14 of which are down with no re-ro utes Updace, September 12, 2017, 1:46 c1.111. EDT) 6 EPA-17-0432-I-000029 (ESF-2 • 27.4% of cell sites in the disaster area are out of service; counties with 50% or greater of cell sites out include: Collier , Hendry, Highland s, Lee, Miami-Dade , and Monroe (FCCD /RS Si,Rep, Sep /ember 11, 2017, J:OOp.m. EDT) • • Coordination is underway for transportation waivers for oversized loads from states throughout Region IV; coordination is underway to aJlow communications carrier s to follow ESF-12 bucket trucks into areas that are being restored (ESF-2 Updale, Sep /emb er 11, 2017, 1:58 p.m. EDT) • DHS Gov ernment Emergency Telecommunication System(GETS)/Wirele ss Priorit y Service to maximi ze use of wireline priority service is fully functional through October 6, 2017 ; an extension has been requested for an additional 30 days (Reg ion IV SitRep, Sep tembe r 11. 2017, 7:00 a.m . EDT) • MERS and Mobile Communication s Office Vehicle assets assigned to support FEMA IMAT, US&R, ESF-8 NDMS , and Incid ent Staging Ba se teams on site in FL, GA, and SC anived and awaiting assignment based on identified gaps (ESF-2 Updare, September 11. 2017. J:58p.m. EDT) ESF-3: Public Works and Engineering o USVI • Assessments of critical facilities initiated in St. Thomas. Another Critical Publi c Facilities team is on stand-by and is prepared for deployment (ESF-3 Upda/e, September 11, 2017, 12:49 p.m. EDT) • USACE has received prioritized assessment requests from FEMA. The majority of temporary power support will be on St. Thom as; shipped generators with an expected arrival date of September 16 (ESF-3 Update, Seple111berJ2, 2017, 1:49 a.111 . EDT) • Blue Roof Mission : USACE Temporary Roofing Planning and Response Team (PRT) anived in USVI . The PRT conducted an assessment of high priority critical faci lities in St. Thomas (ESF-3 Update, September 11, 2017, 2:07 p.m. EDT) o PR • Five Debris subject matter experts (SMEs) assisting PR with plan for debri s manageme nt. Debris assessments have been initiated in north east PR (ESF-3 Update, Septe 111ber I I , 20 17, 2: 17 p. 111.EDT) • Hydro survey operat ions ongoing . Survey results will indicate if dredging is required to fully restore federal navigation channels (ESF-3 Upda/e, September l 1, 12:45 p .m. ED1) • Two Tempora ry Emergency Power Planning and Response Teams are in USVI and PR. Asses sments of FEMA assigned generators in PR has been initiat ed (ESF-3 Update, September 11. 2017. 12:49 p.m. EDT) • A supplemental Infrastruc ture Assessme nt Team arrived on 10 Sep and is engaged with FEMA & EPA to provide technical assistance (ESF-3 Update, September 11, 2017, 17:56 p.m. EDT) o FL • Debri s Planning and Response Team (PRT) is supportin g FL. The primary foc us is to support post storm mobility for first responder s and removal routes from shelter locations to major state highway arteries (ESF-3 Update, Sep 1ember 11, 20 17, 2:17 p .m. EDT) • Blue Roof Mission: USA CE Personne l and Advanced Contract Initiative (ACI) contrac tor attending meeting in Jacksonvi lle to discuss timeline for mobilization and execution. In addition , USACE temporary roofin g SMEs coordinating a flyover of South Florida residential areas . (ESF-3 Update. September 12, 2017, 2:47 CWl. EDT) • USACE Pow er teams are in Groveland and Tallahassee , FL and are prepared to respond (ESF-3 Update, September 11. 2017, 12:49 p.m . EDT) • USA CE dred ges are stationed near impacted region and are prepared to deploy (ESF-3 Update, September JJ.. 20 17, 12:45 p.m. EDT) • Mic cosukee Tribe: Two water pumps delivered on September 11, 2017 by US ACE (ESF-3, September 12, 2017, 3:39 a.m. EDT) o GA: Power team in place to provide temporary power via generators; addition al power team on alert (ESF-3 Upda te, September 11, 2017, 2:05 p.m. EDT) • ESF-4: Firefighting o USVI: Assessments of fire departm ents continue, no shortfall s at this time (ESF-4 Update, September 11, 2017, 4. 40 p.m. EDT) o A Type 3 All Hazard s IMT (AHIMT) from PA en rout e to support 17 2- person saw crews in Lake City, FL o ESF-4 supportin g ESF -13 with an AHIMT from Colorado to manage a law enforcement base camp at Moody Air Force Base , GA (ESF-4 Update, September 12, 2017, 2:48 a.m . EDT) 7 EPA-17-0432-I-000030 • o The 300 radios requested by the Semino le Tribe in Flor ida are available for distribution pending cost share discussio n (ESF -4 Update, September 12, 2017, 3:38 a.m. EDT) ESF-5: Information and Planning o USVI/PR: Civil Air Patrol: 2 aircraft, 22 per sonnel, 3 imaging sortie s completed over USVI , ima ges upload ed to FEMA site (CAP Update, September 11, 20/7 3:51 p .111.) o FL: • Working with USA CE and NOAA to conduct survey s of water ways and what recon stitution need s currentlyexist (USCG • Update. September 11, 2017, 1:43 p.m. EDT) • Senior USCG and elected officia ls including USCG Atlantic Area Commander , Flor ida Gov ernor Scott, and USCG District 7 Commander Rear Admira l Brown, Florid a Senators Rubio and Nelson, Congressman Curbe lo, and Congresswoman Ro s-Leh tinen participated in two USCG fixed wing damage assessment overflights on September 11, 2017 (ESF 15 Update, September 11. 2017 , 5:51 p.m. EDT) ESF-6: Mass Care, Emergency Assistance, Housing, and Human Services o ESF-6 coordinated with Region IV Donation s Manageme nt staff to identify warehouse location s, shortfaJls, and limiting factor s that might impact warehou sing capacity for donation s mana gement and movin g assets efforts. (ESF-6 Update, Septe mb er 12, 2017 , 0 1:05 a.m . EDT) • Relayed offer s of private sector donation s of warehouse space to complement existing warehousing efforts to Region IV • Red Cro ss Safe and Well webs ite has a total of 1552 reg istration s, an increase of 674 from the 9/11/2017 o PR: Salvation Army: expecting to hou se 80 more individual s at The Salv ation Army Kroc Center who have been evacuated from a health center in Guayama , PR. o USVI : Salvation Army : FEMA Reg ional Contractin g Officer coordi nated with a local propan e/fuel vendo r to have the St. Thoma s facility added as part of the daily mission runs. FEMA is working throu gh the territory to coordinate tran sportation of four generators from Phil adelphia , PA to St. Thoma s via barge along with other FEMA assets. o FL: • Temporary Hou sing Strategy TSA for 4337-F l has started and auto -dialer calls comm enced aro und 9:00pm. This is for applicants from the initial 9 designated countie s at this tim e (ESF-6 Update, September 12. 20 17, 0/:05 a.m. EDT) • ESF-6 project s po ssible shortfall s in shelter staffin g and the ability to sustain long term feeding mission; ESF -6 is negotiating with contract provid ers to establi sh mass care support capabilitie s_ • Salvation Army: 32 Mobile feeding units (with total 48,000 daily meal capacity) along with supportin g equipment are already positioned and ready to deploy once the storm passes, estimated arriva l is September 14, 2017; more than 3,000 trained volunteer s and personnel to support respon se efforts; • Salvation Army working on a potenti al airlift to move assets from Jackson, MS to Marathon , FL to support feeding operations; beginning to mobili ze resource s on Septembe r 11 • Southern Bapti st Disaster Relief currently ha s the capacity to pro vide 238, 000 meals using 15 kitchen s. o GA: Salvation Army supporting feedi ng at 19 locat ions in GA; capacity: 28 ,500 meals per day; able to maintain this level of feeding as long as required. o AL: Salvation Army supporting feedin g at two locations (Selma and Dothan) (ESF-6 Update , September 11, 2017, 2:05 p.m . EDT) • ESF-7: Logistics Management and Resource Support o USVI/PR: • USVI: 210 ,294 meals and 115,200 liters of wate r currently pre-po sitioned (ESF -7 update, September 11, 2017 . 10:49 p.111.EDT) ■ PR: 161,968 meals and 70 generator s are curre ntly on hand (ESF-7 updat e, September 11, 2017, 12:30p.m. EDT) • Maritime Sea Brid ge : • 1.68M liter s of water, 10,000 cots, and 31 generators on Conqui stador barge from Penn sauken , NJ with estimated arriva l in San Juan, PR September 18 8 EPA-17-0432-I-000031 • 903,000 meal s, 23 GSA vehicl es, and an MCOY being shipped on SS Wri ght , estimated anival in St. Thomas on September 19; ship has 325 berthing units and will be used for responder lodging • Air Brid ges: • Passenger air bridge operation al for Department of Defense airplanes to move federa l responders and vehicles to San Juan, PR • Commodity air bridge: a Boeing 767 plane continue s to fly meal s daily from Hou ston to San Juan; each trip bring s 90,000 meals; 360,000 meal s delivered to date; expecting six mor e trips over the next three days from TX (ESF-7 update, Sep tember 12, 20 17, J:30a,m, EDT) • Addition al commodi ties are being loaded onto a separate vesse l in NJ to supp ort USVI/P R • 252,720 meal s and 1,570 ,656 liters of water. Expected to depart NJ September 12 and arrive in PR on or around 9/ 18 (ESF-7 updat e, Sept ember 11, 2017. 12:45 p.m . EDT) o CONUS: 8,479 ,850 meals , 12,309,122 liters of water , and 199 generators on hand in the Southeast • Seminole Tribe of Florida identifying location for points of distribution (POD s); no need for mass care , food , or Red Cross assistance requested (Tribal Liaison, Septembe r 11, 2017, 9:13 p.m. EDT) • FL: 584,136 meals, 382,542 liters of water, and 112 generator s on hand (ESF -7 update, Sept emb er 11. 201 7. 12:30 p.111 . EDT) ■ AL: 7,171,153 meal s, 9,328,544 liters of water, and Ogenerato rs on hand (I .Ill . (ESF- 7 upda te,Septembe rl 2,20 17, 12:30 EDT) • NC: 341,473 meals, 1,827,031 liters of water , and 57 generators on hand (ES F-7 update , September 12, 20 17, 12:30 a.m. EDT) ■ SC: 383,088 meals, 771,005 liters of water, and O generators on hand (ESF-7 update, Sep tember 12, 20 17, 12:30a ,m, EDT) ■ GA: 0 meal s, 0 liter s of water , and 30 generator s on hand (ESF-7 upda te, September 12, 20 17, 12:30 a,m, EDT) • Fuel deliv eries to FL are pending subsidence of tropical storm force winds • Per the State, escorts are arranged to move commoditie s from Fort Bra gg to FL , with expec ted arrival on September 12 via ESF-13; vehicle traffic returning to FL may affect/delay arri val time s (ES F-7 upda te, September 12, 2017, I :30 a.m. EDT) • • Federa l buildin gs closed on September 11: FL 413 (all), GA +148, SC +35, AL +40, USVI + 3, PR + 1 (GSA update , September 11, 20 17, 7:00 p .m. EDT) ESF-8: Public Health and Medical Services o USV I and PR: • 3 Disaster Medi cal Assis tance T eams (DMAT) , 1 Inciden t Respon se Coordina tion Team (IRCT) are suppo1ting operat ions (ESF-8 Update, Sept emb er I I , 201 7, 11:4 1 a.m. ED T) • Major medical evacuatio ns from St. Thomas and St. John to St. Croix (STX) and Puerto Rico (PR) were completed and will remain ongoing on an as-needed ba sis At least 30 patient s have been evacuated for medical rea sons from STT to San Juan , PR for a cumulative total of appro ximately 100 (lncidem Starus Summary (JCS) 209 -FEMA FEMA -4335 -DR- VI) o FL: • Teams in Orlando : 1 IRCT, 1 Disaster Mortuary Operati onal Re spon se Assessme nt Tea m (DMORT) en route, 1 Mobiliz ation Team (MOB) , 3 Rapid Deploym ent Forc e Teams (RDF), 7 Disaster Medical Assistance Team s (DMA T), and 4 DMA T s en route (ESF -8 Update, September 12, 20 17, 2:55 a,m, EDT) • T he initial 100 ambu lances ass igned to FL being utilized; an additional 200 ambulances, 3,500 paratran sit seats, and 25 aircraft ( 15 rotary wing, 10 fixed wing) are staged in support of FL (FEMA. Sept ember /J , 2017, 4:06 p .111 . EDT) GA : 1 IRCT in Valdosta (ESF -8 Update, Sept emb er JO, 201 7, l:OOa.111.EDT) o Semino le Tribe of Florida: M any need medica l assistance teams for triage and transport of tribal members to other areas and hospita ls, depending on impact severity of impact s on tribal land s (Tribal liai son, 0 Sept emb er 11, 201 7, 2:05 p .m. ED1 ) • ESF-9: Search and Rescue o USVI/ PR • T hree FEMA Urba n Search & Resc ue (US&R) task forces and ESF-9 partner agencies contin ue operat ions on St. Thom as, St. John , USV I and PR ; search operations 95% comp lete on St. John • USCG Sector San Juan is coordina ting with cruise ships and interage ncy to evacua te tourists from St. Th omas, USV I o CONUS 9 EPA-17-0432-I-000032 FL: 10 lives saved by USCG (ESF-9 & USCG Updares, Seprember 12, 201 7, 2:00 a.m .) • Twelve task forces and three Hazardous Materia ls Equipment Push Packages staged in FL or GA; four of the eight task assigned to FL have beg un operat ions per direction from the State and Region IV • USCG forces re-opened Air Station Miami and reconstituting other Air Facilities; 23 inbound flights scheduled for today for post-storm assessment and response; overflights of the Florida Keys report no signs of distress; helicopter-equipped cutters en route to FL Keys to arrive September 12, 2017 ESF-10: Oil and Hazardous Materials Response o USCG has 47 National Strike Force personnel supporting the response to Hurricane Inna in St. Louis, Tallahassee , Savannah, Atlanta, Miami, Mobile, San Juan, and St. Thomas o USVI/PR • No reports of damage to high-risk facilities in PR and USVI; EPA responders deployed to lead assessments of fixed facilities and potentially contaminated hazardous debris in coordination with the USACE and the Virgin Island Emergency and Environmental Agencies • PR: EPA superfund site conditions are being assessed through responsible entities and by conducting ground verification as appropriate; EPA continues to assist the local water and health department s in prioritizing drinkin g water facilities needs for Federa l assista nce; two commu nities identified in need of generators (USCG Updare, Sept ember 12, 2017, 2:l0a.m. EDT) o CONUS • EPA and USCG providing assistance to the state of Florida as part of in Hazard ous Assessment Response Teams to assess the status of oil facilities and prioritize hazardous substance spill reports; initial pollution reports in Florida a.re being received and reso urces a.re being mobilized to conduct post-storm assessments • EPA has identified approximately 4,500 Community Drinking Water Systems in FL, AL, GA, and SC that serve approximate ly a population of 38 million; EPA is supporting USA CE in conducting damage assessments (USCG Update, Septemb er 12, 2017, 2:l0 a.m. EDT) ESF-11: Agriculture and Natural Resources o USVI/ PR : • U.S. Department of Agric ulture and U.S . Depar tment of Health and Hum an Services are coordinating on policy regarding evacuation of pets and other animal s from USVI, PR , and other Caribbean nations and importation to United States (ESF#l I Sit Rep Email, Situarion Reporr, Seprember 10, 3:15 p.m.) • G.reaterGood.o.rg/Resc ue Bank donated pet food and pe t supplies to support commodity distribution and pet sheltering operations; initial supply in Puerto Rico availab le to ship to USVI • St. Thom as Humane Society requested pet assessment teams (immediate priorit y), pet sheltering team s, and pet food/supp lies to meet pet support needs; teams are being mob ilized to fulfill request, arrival date unknown (ESF- 11 Update, Seprember II, 20 17, 4:00p .m. EDT) o CONUS: • FL reque sted 15 individua ls for an animal task force; ESF- 11 is planning to fulfill request by Septe mber 13, 2017 (ESF-11 Updare, Seprember JI, 2017, 2:18 p.m. EDT) • Response by National Animal Rescue and Sheltering Coalition teams staged in and around FL (animal assessment, anima l search and rescue, anim al transport, and animal sheltering) is pending subsidence of tropical storm conditions; teams staged in GA can assist in FL , as necessary (ESF -11 Update, September 11, ■ • • 2017, 9:45 a.m. EDT) • ESF-12: Energy o USVI/PR: Procur ement in process to deploy 30 crews and equ ipment for pole replacement, installation , and tree trimming for the Rio Grande municipality as part of a Mutual Aid Assistance requ est; work anticipated to take 3-5 weeks (ESF -12 Email Update, Sept ember 12, 20/ 7, 12:45 [I.Ill. EDT) o CONUS • There are termin als delivering fuel in Florida, but there are shortages and a number of station s without fuel; fuel shorta ges could worsen in Florida if Po.rt Everglades does not reopen soon (ESF 12 Up date, September 11, 2017, 6:00 p.m. EDT ) • Florid a Power and Light (FPL) has 17,000 personnel from over 30 states on standby to aid power restoration; FPL stood up 22 staging sites to facilitate exped ite restorat ion (ESF-12 Sit Rep September 11.2017, 8:30 Cl.Ill .. EDT) 10 EPA-17-0432-I-000033 • GA Power has mobi lized 3,4 00 per sonne l to respond and aid restoration efforts (ESF-12 Sir Rep, September 11, 2017, 8:30 a.111 . EDT) o Fu el Status • Service sta tion s in various FL metropolitan areas are without gaso lin e • Retai l sta tion outages do not indi cate a suppl y shorta ge, but are likel y due to increase d demand and chall enges resuppl ying sta tion s during the storm . • Florid a is working closely with shippers and tru ckers in the sta te to resupply stat ions (ESF12 Sitrep #36, September 11, 2017) o Turkey Point (FL) Unit s 3 and 4 are under "hot shutdown". Unit 3 will be assessed for restart pending a preliminary capability assessment by FEMA ; no schedule for restart yet for Unit 4 due to non-emergency valve malfunction ; both unit s rem ain in Mode 3 (hot shutdown ) and are stable at norm al operating temp era tur e and press ure (R-lV Sit Rep, Sep tember 11, 2017, 6:40 p.m. EDT) o St. Lucie (FL) Unit 1 shutd ow n due to saltw ater con tam ination issue s and planned to restart on September 11th. St. Lucie Unit 2 remains at 100% pow er; FEMA RIV performed a preliminary capability assessme nt for St. Lu cie Nuclear Pow er Pl ant and concluded that all five co unti es are capab le of impl ementin g their radiological eme rgency respon se plans and procedures in order to prot ec t the health and safe ty of the publi c in the event of an acciden t o Hatch (GA) and Farle y (AL) Nuclear Pow er Plants rem ain at 100% power with no reported storm imp acts (FEMA THD Update, September 12, 20 17, 4:OOa.m. £01) • ESF-13: Public Safety and Security o USVI/PR: ■ Coordinating sec urity det ail for FEMA Administrator to USV I (ESF- 13 Update, September 11, 2017, 9:45 p .111.EDT) • ESF-13 per sonne l in San Juan , PR and St. John , USVI report the "usual" amount of petty crime; report s from the fie ld sta te that 80% of USVI po lice force has ret urn ed to duty • Anticipated EMAC req uest for 100 officers from the NYC po lice depa rtme nt or NJ state police for USVI (ESF-13 Update, Sep tember 11, 20 17, 12:00 p.m. EDT) • Four quick reaction team s (QR Ts) deployed to San Juan , PR in support of ESF-8 and ESF-9 operatio ns in PR and USV I (ESF-13 Update, September 11, 2017, 10:10 a.Ill. EDT) o CONUS ■ Coordinating potenti al escort of co nvoy for FEMA commodi ties (ESF- 13 Update, September 11, 20 17, 9:45 p.m. EDT) • Coordinating with Florida on poten tial State Deput ation (ESF- 13 Updare, Septemb er 11, 2017, 9:45 p.m. EDT) • Law enforceme nt stag ing camp at Moody AFB, GA is operationa l • Sem inole Natio n is expected to submit a resou rce request form for approximate ly 125 federa l law enforcement officers to provide assistance • ESF-13 Field Support Team deploy ed a logistic s team to Orlando , FL to establi sh a Forward Operating Ba se at or near ESF -8 and ESF-9 forward deploy ed assets • 14 QRTs in Re gion IV ass igned to force protection mi ssions for ESF-9 and ESF -8; five additio nal QRT s will arrive by September 13; 14 additional QRT s on stand-by at their home station (ESF- 13 Update, September 1 / , 2017, JO: JO a.m. EDT) • ESF-15: External Affairs o Daily Congressiona l co nfer ence calls and advi sori es are being pro vided for operational updat es for tho se M embers and staff with affecte d Congressional Di stri cts (ESF 15 Update, Sepremb er 12, 2017, 12:12 a.m. EDT) o USVI • Inte rgove rnment al Affa irs coordinating with PR and USVI for FEMA Admi nistrator Lon g's visit on September 12, 2017 • USVI government providing information to the public via the USVI Depar tment of Touri sm website "usviupda te.com"; FEMA is promoting the site in intervi ews, press conferences and social media (ESF 15 Update, Septemb er 12, 2017, 12:12 a.m. EDI) o FL • Tribal Affairs: FEMA Tribal Li aison Offi cer and team are traveling to both Seminole Tribe and Miccosukee Tribe September 12, 20 17 to support opera tions and coordina te logistics needs • Priva te Sector: Initi al reports of sma ll busines ses openin g faster than big box stores, many of which are closed due to damage or ge nerator issues 11 EPA-17-0432-I-000034 • • • Social media: There is a growing concern on the availability of gas for those who evacuated and looking to return home in a few day s; people are seeking information on open gas station s and when it is safe to return hom e (ESP /5 Update, September 12, 2017. 12: 12 (I .Ill. EDT) U.S. Coast Guard o USVI/PR: USCG aircra ft and cutter fleet providing maritim e security , continuin g port assessments, and tran sportin g suppli es, equipm ent, and USCG and intera gency team s to St. Johns and St. Thomas for life safety and life sustaining missio ns o CONUS: USCG will assess and develop plan to reconstitute critical maritime communication towers; prelimin ary damag e assessments identified inoperabl e communi cation s towers in Islamorada, Princeton, Ramrod Key, Vaca Key, Naples, and Shell Point; USCG has a mobil e communi cat ion vehicle marked for flight to Key West once runw ays are cle ared/o peration al (USCG Update, September 12, 2017, 2:07 a.m. EDT) U.S. Departm ent of Def ense (DoD) o US Northern Comman d (USN ORTH COM): • USVI/P R: • USN ORTHCOM and USTRANSC OM mov ing an Army Medical Support Co mpa ny, two Critical Care Air Transpor t (CCA T) teams and the En Route Patient Staging System (ERP SS)- 10 from St. Croix to St. Thomas to establish temporary medical facilities, mission assig nme nt for sourcing surgical capability is anticipated to enh ance the ability to prov ide tempora ry medical suppo rt services • Tw enty-six th (26th) Marine Expeditionary Unit is conducting route clearance operations in St. Thoma s and will soon move to St. John (DOD Update, September 12. 2017 , 12:31 a.Ill. EDT) • The Civil Affairs Information Support Element (CAISE) arrived St. Thomas to distribute emergency me ssages in support of respo nse operations in USVI (DOD Update, September 12, 2017, 12.-3 1 tun . EDT) ■ FL: • USS Abraham Lincoln initiated air opera tion s Mond ay afternoon. Once the USS Iwo Jima and USS New York reach the southern tip of Florida Tu esday morning, the USS Abraham Lincoln will mov e up the western coas t of Florida to pro vide a wider array of support (DOD Updare, September 12. 2017. 12:3 I (I.Ill. EDT) • SAR reso urces from Moody AFB , Patrick AFB , Davis Mo nthan AFB, Ne lls AFB, and Fort Campb ell are pr epared to support opera tions in Fl orid a • Coor dina tion is ongoing for the Salvation Army to pursue other means of transport than Strategic Airlift for their mobile kitchens from Mi ssissippi to Key Wes t, FL o Defe nse Logis tics Age ncy (DLA) : • 3 1 genera tors delivered to Lakehurs t, NJ and 11 high-en d (1-2MW ) generators delivered to Grove land , FL in support of Hurricane Irma • Twe nty-eight of 3 1 forward shipped by FEMA to VI/PR • Additi onal 40 high-end genera tors (1.2-1. 8 MW) requested for support to FL and GA • Increased meal delivery miss ion assig nme nts to a total of $ 159M to includ e MREs and shelf-s table meals • Di verted remaining meals dedicated for Harvey to Maxwe ll AFB , AL in suppor t of Irma • Delivering 1.2M comm ercia l meals daily to Ellenwoo d, GA Septem ber 11-20 , 20 17; deliveries began on time • Provid ing SM MREs to Nort h Field, SC from Septembe r 12 to 15, 20 17 • Delivered 300K ga llons of motor gaso line and diese l at Robbin AFB , GA on September 9; rece iving requirements and develop ing "j oint solutions" suppo rt to issue fuel to first responders and age ncies. • Received Distributi on Ord er (DO ) to move 70 ,000 gallons of motor gaso line and 160,000 gals of diese l from For t Hood , TX to Robins AFB, GA (DoD Updale, September 11, 2017, 2:08 p.m. EDT) • Received Mi ssion Assignment for food ass istance in Florida up to $ 100M (DOD Update, September 12, 2017, 12:31 a.111.EDT) • National Guard o Received waiver request to allow Active Guard Reserves to remain engage d beyond the usual 72 -hour limit (NGB CEG Briefing. September I I . 20 17. 4:00 p .m. EDT) 12 EPA-17-0432-I-000035 o USVI/ PR : ■ Supported evacuation of 1,400 us evacuees from USVI (NGB CEG Briefing . Septemb er 11. 2017. 4:00 p.m. EDT) • National Guard personnel supp orting in USVI to impro ve com muni cat ions capabilities as part of the Joint Incident Site Communication Capability (NOB verbal update, September 11, 20 / 7, 4:08 p.m. EDT) • An estimated 12,000 citizens evacuated from PR to CO NUS in the last 48 hours (NGB CEO Briefing, Septemb er I/, 2017, 4:00 p .m. ED1) o CONUS • C-26 flights began tod ay to supp ort airlift s for logistics • EMAC support will begin for FL September 12, based on mission requireme nts (NGB Update, September 11. 2017, 1:57 p .m. EDT) ■ GA Nationa l Guard is coord inatin g request for more cots for GA shelters (NOB CEO Briefing, September/ / , 2017, 4:00 p.m. EDT) Providing support to 203 shelters (NOB CEO Briefing, September JO, 2017, 4 :00 p.m. ED1) U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) o USVI/PR • National Park Service (NPS) Eastern Incident Management Team (IMT) mobilized to USVI to coordinate debris removal for access to park areas • Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) Southeast Region partnered with the U.S. Forest Service to deliver supplies to FWS personnel in PR and USVI • US Geological Survey (USGS) Puerto Rico office continues to run on generator power and is closed to the public; two stream gauges are damaged and three stream gauges repaired, additional discharge measurements, repairing gages, and flagging for addition al measurements ongoing o FL • 31 stream gauges and 10 groundwater stations are not reporting; numerous gages reporting flows above current rating curves or above peak record and will be priority for discharge measurements as weather condition s allow • The USGS National Geospatial Program delivered 1,300 maps to the Florida Department of Emergency Management for use in SAR operations; additiona l maps ordered and will be delivered September 12, 2017 • The NPS IMT plans to send an insertion team to affected parks in sout h Florida as early as September 12 for early damage assessments; remainder of the team expected to arrive on September 15, 2017 o Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) • Seminole Tribe: BIA is coordinating with Depa1iment of Interior's Office of Law Enforcement and Security on Hollywood Reservation request for Law Enforcement support; the Tribe approves use of non-BIA Law Enforcement to supplement the BIA order • Major issues reported by the Tribe: two shelters leaking, public safety buildings have roof damage beyond repair , no utilit y power , no cell phone serv ice, land line capac ities limited o Miccosukee Tribe of Indians reports no ce ll phone service, no utility power curre ntly using generator for power, flooding, downed trees, cana l levels cresting, severe wind gusts o Bureau of Land Management: Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse has no power and restoration is estimated to be 48 hours (Doi Update, Septembe r 11, 2017, 11:21 a.m, EDT) U.S. Department of State (DoS) o 80 students and 70 animals evacuated from the University of America in the Caribbean and will arrive at Chicago, O'Hara Airport on September 12, 2017 at 4:30 p.m. o The Department of State Hurricane Response T ask Force has evacuated US Citizen and foreign national s from St. Maarten via air and ship with DOD suppor t; additional evacuations expected September 12, 2017 (DoS Update, September 12, 2017, 1:45 a.m. EDT) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) o USVI/ PR : • P-3 Airp lane with four Flight Crew personnel transported 15 Border Patrol agents to Puerto Rico (CBP ■ • • • Update, September I I , 20 17, 10:59 tun. EDT) • Conducted 10 transport missions for federal perso nnel, including four Special Agents from Posta l Service to cond uct search and rescue (SAR) for three missing Posta l emp loyees, who were located 13 EPA-17-0432-I-000036 safe on September 11, 2017 ; CBP assets including two Black Hawk Helicopters, two A-Star Helicopter , and ten Air-Marine Flight Crew Personnel continue to conduct SAR , transport , and reconnaissa nce missions. (CBP Update, September 11, 20/7, 11:04 a.111.EDT) o FL: • P-3 Airplane with eight Air-Marine Flight Crew personne l and MQ9 Predator (Unmanned Aircraft System) conducting reconnai ssance, damage assessment , and picture/video missions , including providing real-time video feedback to the NRCC • 36 Border Patrol Swift -Water Resc ue personnel deployed to FL and are active ly performing SAR mission s • Remaining 263 Border Patrol Agent s will deplo y at 4:00 a.m. EDT on September 12, 2017 (CBP Update. September I I, 2017, 11:04 a.m. EDT) Commodities Table • The followin g commoditi es are prepositioned in support of the incident Ordered To FEl\lA Staging Site En Route Io F El\lA Staging Site Meal 1,300,000 Water Current On H.md at F F,l\1A Staging Site Arrned At FEl\lA Staging Site 870,113 16 1,966 16 1,968 106,000 0 0 0 Generators 0 35 70 70 CUS I 0 84 0 0 - Ordered To FEl\lA Sta ino Site En Route To FEl\lA Sta in Site Arrived At FEl\lA Sta in Site Current On Hand at FEl\1A Sta in Site W ater 1,705,418 25,200 l 15,200 115,200 Meal 1,687,296 4 ,032 2 10,924 210,924 Cot 300 150 0 0 CUSI 100 5 0 0 28 28 0 0 Sheeti ng Ordered To FEMA Sta in Site En Route To FEMA Sta in Site Arrived At FEl\lA Sta in Site Current On Hand at FEMA Sta in Site Water 27,768,599 6,352,165 11,547 ,663 9,328,544 Meal 1 I ,453,243 308,592 11,687,734 7,171,153 Tarp 118,248 5,926 110,567 I 12,707 53,676 0 53,676 47,801 Blanket Hygiene 50,000 0 50,000 50,000 Sheeting 42 ,965 2,0 16 14,981 [5,379 Cot 20,385 0 20,984 19,496 Oth er 500 0 0 0 Generators 205 5 2 18 0 Ordered To FEl\lA Sta in Site En Route To FEl\lA Sta in Site Arrived At FEl\lA Sta in Site Current On Hand at FEMA Sta in Site Meal 1,390,288 1,024 ,009 584 ,136 584, 136 Water 1,095,552 802 ,028 382,542 382,5 42 70,000 0 0 0 CUSI 686 72 Gen 339 49 Fuel - M eal Ordered To FEl\lA Staging Site En Route To FEl\lA Staging Site 0 0 112 ll2 Arrived At FEl\lA Staging Site Current On Hand at FEl\1A Staging Site 0 12,000,000 0 Fuel 3 18,464 0 0 0 Gen 58 0 30 30 2 0 0 0 TRANS 14 0 EPA-17-0432-I-000037 I- • Current On Hand at FEMA Sta 1 in 1 Site I Water 3,000 ,000 55, 154 3,472, 755 1,827,03 1 Meal 1,676,904 17, 136 1,942,202 341,473 Blanket 40 ,000 8,094 36,738 13,853 Tarp 26 ,410 1,448 25,452 23,590 Other 500 0 0 I Gen THU 94 0 83 57 0 0 0 lJ Cot 0 0 2,389 2,6 77 CUSI 0 0 13 13 Ordered To FEMA Staging Site En Route To FEMA Staging Site Arrived At FEl\lA Staging Site Current On Hand at FEMA Staging Site 2,386 ,696 328 ,536 1,895,400 78 3,432 Hygiene 20 ,000 9,496 0 0 Water 16, 128 31, 104 1,651,296 1,570 ,656 Cot 10,000 978 9,684 9,684 200 0 0 0 Meal Other Gen 45 Ordered To FEMA Staging Site 0 En Route To FEMA Staging Site Arrived At FEMA Staging Site Current On Hand at FEMA Staging Site Meal 9,866 ,316 1,482, 178 383,088 383,088 Wat er 1,800,000 1,064 ,064 771,005 771,005 CUSI 87 0 0 0 • The following commodi ties have been ordered by and shipped to the State or Territory I-Meal Ordered To State/ Territory Wat er - Shipped To State/ Territory 3,290 ,240 2, 184,627 2, 367 ,680 1,785,890 Ordered To State / Territory Shipped To State/ Territory ■ Water 957,456 912 ,624 Meal 602 ,592 628,416 20,000 22 ,885 Blanket Tarp Cot 3,004 1,664 300 12,505 Ordered To State / Territory Shipped To State/ Territory Wat er 3,600 3,600 Cot 2, 150 2,252 Ordered To State/ Territory Shipped To State / TerritorJ"' M eal 500 ,000 0 Water 500 ,000 0 150 0 25 0 Cot CUSI * Some commod ities have been transferred to USVI; RSS is in the process of establishing formal accounting of commod ities transferre d to the territory (ESF 7 Updare, September 12,20 17, 12:30 a.m. ED1) 15 EPA-17-0432-I-000038 9 FEMA FEJ\1A.Logistics Pre -Positioned Sites - COl\TUS Commodities as Reported 9/12/2017 - 0300 EDT Logistics 'l\"mr (11ru:), o(0 w ) lJm b (toJ1 144.5650 I Il :) ~ P<:Con, .. .,, 86SCl lli ) Blsou ◄It): 6,0lt Cl TJ.l C.u.rac:on ( tL \t 'TO Bl1t•R.o.t(Nl>lo lU~ C5 !L ) CANADA r.--\, • . "t.: .. 4• \ ..., I "'"'"' (tia,,-,), ,i. ·){7 R, ) ~ c.. 11c....,, 4S.&:O O PPD!. :01'1(...,b 3 Bh,, ~ 1, .a•)· 1.- , \ tl§:§1.SDL'GXl HA Ar~ PPS (Pn-Positxn1:ug (F~l Sta~ /SB- -am Bra u111.1d.J..4 Wa tu(litm ): 0 (OTI.s) l!tals (ta.): 70S (0 TLs) Cols (u .): 0 (0 TI.s) EDS Cols (ta. ): 0 (0 11.) TIIJIS (u .): 1.560(I TLs) Suppon Base) * PPS•C41mp .\Jinitn, LA Cols (u .): 16.117 (24 11.s) Blall1i:eis (ta..): 44, 144 (10 11.s) PPS-SlunnH>dForni, L4 Cflltn.tors (ea.): 29 /SB- lRUA,l, Hill Et ISB - For1Bri1u,NC Water (li.Jm ): 1.827.031 (127 11.s) Mtah(ea.. ): 341.473 (16 TI.s) Cots: 2.677 (4 Tls ) FS.4-Lllfth. n- DC/MIil/ - &Ima, AL Water (littt'l) : 2,-14721 6 (170 TI:;) :Ueah (n, ): 913.926(43 fu ) Blnb ts (ta .): 13.835 (3 TI.s) Cu tralors : 55 Tarps (u .): '.B.590(9 TI.;) FS.4 - Nortltflt lli. SC Water (lifm ): i5U53 (52 TLs) Mtah : 383.099 (JS TLs) PPS ·Alba"l, C."4 Bln.ttts (u .): 7..~3l (2 tLs CMS • Cor.umlllia Xoc6col Suwbo1 D'\oll: • 0,,,,1,Jo Moda l ?qi,:iao• :D S · Eiwis:..t Diww Sim.+.w PPDS· Jlra..~,:!iomd Dis.nt \ ISJJ.Ra11do/Jl h..if..8A.IL~ Ldtllll rr1.NI Pf OS.: Oh ( ,a ,): l \ PPS-Dun'tr. CO JFO Kit : 2 * *() ISB • Cr111 ,:ln: .Pni1tsflllkt1U'il Wattr (litm ): 1.555.536 (!OS TLs) lhah ( ta.): i S3.432 (37 TI.s) Cots: 8,S92 (13 Il. s) I :i.:Jr:.(.., l• 7 C'US AltJ( n.},! DlIEKiu (u l,,! JfO Kie • (.. .J, ) willll ):4 ISB - Fort Dix. 'IL> TllJU (H .~ ' 61 I T.,.,, tu .It u.:r2cs'll4 JFOKiu(ta 1'£5-.51Zhmu, Jl I _____,-<" PPs..,1ar11ud, JIA TL= C--6Jy b:dl ft tniltr ._.. So=< O~·Sapfl! ~ lt.s:s l:o!'1!1t0. 8:udl ISB · Growl11.11d ll Waftr (li.ttrs): 382.542(2711.s ) }.(uls : 5~.136 (27 TLs) Ce,11uators(ta.): 109 EPA-17-0432-I-000039 Total FEMASupporting Hurri cane Irma Actiom Hurricane Irma - FEMA Responder Laydown Responders on the Ground: 2043 FEMA Corps Members available to support: 81 other FEMA staff supporting: 558 Rl RRCC: 12 R2 RRCC: 98 R4 RRCC: 162 NRCC:286 Fayett eville, NC: 41 Other FEMA Responders: 21 SCF:20 Columb ia, SC: 42 Other FEMA Responders: 30 SCF:12 Thoma sville , GA: 62 IFEMA Responders: 62 Montgom e ry/ Clanton, AL: 31 FEMA Corps Members: 6 Other FEMA Responders: 25 Atlanta/ Ellenwood/ Warner Robins, GA: 15, R-IMAT IV-2 : 12 FEMA Corps Members: 6 Other FEMA Responders: 138 SCF: 1 Tallahassee,FL:276 N-IMATE2: 27 N-IMATEl : 27 R-IMATI: 12 R-IMATIV-1: 11 Other FEMA Responders:117 SCF:82 Tampa/ Bradenton/ Largo,FL:4 Other FEMA Responders: 4 Napl es/ Fort Myer s/ LaBelle/ Moor e Haven, FL: 4 Other FEMA Responders: 4 , 20170200J Durham/ Raleigh, NC (DR-4285): 168 FEMA Responders: 168 Anniston, AL: 9 11 PMC Staff: 197 Other FEMA Responders: 43t: SCF:278 Jacksonville/ St Augustine, FL: 4 Other FEMA Responders: 4 (asofSep12 Ag,uedilla, PR: 5 FEMA Responders: 5 I Orlando/ Grov eland, FL: 17 other FEMA Responders: 17 , 1 r Miami/ West Palm Beach/ Ma rathon/ Plantation, FL: 5 other FEMA Responders: 4 SCF:1 c San Juan, PR: 234 R-IMAT X: 8 Other FEMA Responders: 201 SCF: 19 St . John/St. Thomas, USVI: 24 Other FEMA Responders: 24 St. Croix/Christiansted, USVI: 52 R-IMAT II: 10 Other FEMA Responders: 42 EPA-17-0432-I-000040 r-,- Hurricane Irma GEORGIA NPPD : PSA (9 1; CS&C"NC:C(21 FEMA RIV IAd anta GAi - RRCC Level I: F'EMA: N-IMAT El (27 ); RI-IMAT {12); R-IV IMAT (2) ( 12 FEMA Corps (6); Respo nders {138); SCf ( 1) ESF-8: OMAT (3] ESF-11: 5 personne l US&R: LNO (21 USCG: LNO (3 RRCCI EMAC: 2 RRCC, 1 EOC TSA: VIPR ( 14 1 Warner Rob ins : US&R: (Each Team =80 ) PA-Tf1 ; NV-Tf1 ; WA· Tfl ; TN-Tf1 ; MD-TF1 (HEPP- 4) USCG: 9 WRFP FP MCL8 Albany: US&R: OO·lf1 (4 • HEPP); CO·TF1 (82 ); A2·lf1 (80 ) Moody AF&(Valdostal : US&R: ( Each Tea m :8 0) CA-TF 1 & 4; IN-TFl (4 - HEPP) ESF-8: IRCT (1) ESF-13: ATF 1·3 (9 5); USMS (25); DOJ-OIG (S I; DOED-O IG (10 ); TIGTA 1 (17); 60P (100 ); 50 (C6P ); FAM 1 (14); DOI 2 (25) USFS: 1 IMT; TSA: VIPR ( 141 sava nnah : USCG: 9 He licop ters Thomasville : ESF-2.: MCOV (7); MERS (9) FEMA: Respo nd ers (62 ) A.LA.6AMA TSA.: Mobile : USCG: 6 NSF FP; 3 AB·SKF Montgomery : F£MA: FEMA co r ps (61; Responders (25 : An niston: FEMA: PMC staff {197 ); Respo nde r s (436 1; SCF 1278 1 IS6S &PPS: Ma xwe ll AFB, Al {ISBI MCL6 Albany , GA {ISl!I Ft A.P. Hill (ISBI Lakehur st / OU./McGu irE (ISB) Alba ny, GA (P PS) Va ldosta , GA ( PPS) Federal Force Laydown & Assets PROJECTEDASSETS: 11·-· -------... 7 l ~USCG c (as of Sep 12. 20110500) FEMA RII (NEW YORK, NY l'EMA: RRCCLEVEL II :LN0 (2) US&R:L N0 (2) EMAC: 2 New Jeney : NPPD PSA (2); cs& C-NCC (1) uk ehurst . NJ: ESF-2.:MCCV (1) USFS: 1 IMT ~.!l' .~! to Fa irview ~t~l'::= ~E=S ~F -~2~: =M=C =OV ~ {=Sl~--- -- FEMA HQ (WASHINGTON o.c.l FEMA: NRCCLevel I St3te E OC St3tUS VIRGINIA Win che ster. FEMA.: FEMA corps (71 Norfol k: ESF-8: DMAT (1) Richmond : FEMA: Riil lMAT- Purple (5); Respo nders (16 ) .tLh j_\),~ :::::::-,, <...:- JK£NTUC1CY : NP PD: PSA (1: C'..::::Z SOUTH CAROLINA NPPD: PSA {1) COiumbia FEMA: Res pond e rs (30 ); SCF: (12 ) USCG: LNO (1) ESF-2: M ERS (4) North : ESF-2.: MERS (31; MCOV (3] 0 Full IQ) Monl1onn9 0 Normal 0 Partl31 NORTH CAROLINA: NPPD : PSA (2} Rocky M t (ISTI: ESF-2: ME.RS(3) Dur ham : FEMA: Responders (168 ) Fayetteville : FEMA: Res ponde rs (21 1; SCF (20 1 Fort _6ra.J:g: ESF-1 (DOT}: 16 Levoll 1-.i n flORIDA NPPD : PSA (17); Cs& C-NCC (1); ICf_: 4 RRT(63 1 l.evol Ill TallahuSM: FEMA: N-IMAT El {27 ); N-IMAT E2 {27 1; RI-IMAl (12 ); RIV-IMAT 1 (11); Respon den (117 1; SCf: (8 2) EMAC: 4 PUERTO RICO US&R: LNO (2) ESF-2: MERS(9); MCOV (2) ESF-ll : 2 (J 1S8 FEMA: RX IMAT (8); FEMA Responde r s ( 207 ) SCF 19 ); US&R: personne l USCG: 7 State EOC; 13 Shallow w at er bo a ts NY-TFl [80 ); VA-TF1 (80 ); 1STAdvance (30 ); CA-TF6 (7); MA· Jackso nville: USCG: 12 WRFP; 7 Cutt e rs; 18 Sm bo ats l'EMA: J FO 1----------tn 1 (7); MA-TF1 ( 61; MO-Tl'l (SI; TX-TF1 (8 1;VA-TF2 {61 ) ESF-2 Re spo nde r s (4 1 M ERS (5) ESF-8: IRCT (1), DMAT (3) ESF-5: USGS (4 ) ESF-13: Orlando : US&R: A2-TF1 (BO); CA-TF1 (BO); CA-TF4 (BO); CO-TF Preposill0111fl9 Siles 2X QRTS; 2X PAX; FBI 1-2 (38 ) ESF-15: Civil Authority (8 2); CO-Tf1 ( HEPP- 4); IN-TFl (HEl'P - 4 ) FEMA.:Respond e , US& R .._ Info r ma ti on spt (52 pax ) USCG: LNO (1); Nationa l st rike fo r ce ♦ ( 17) ESF-2: M ERS (9]; MCOV (1) ESF-8: IRCT ( 1); SAT ( 1); DMAT (.:); 2 Helicopters ; 5 sm boats C&P: Air-Ma rine f light Cr ew (6 1; RDF {1); DMORT ( 11; MOB ( 1]; ESF-13: BOP Logs 1 ( 10) Pe r sonn el (10 ) DOS: offic e rs (19) NPPD : PSA ( 1) Miam i/Maratho n/plantation/we st Palm Beach : FEMA: ON SEPARATEMAP Re spo nde r s {4 1; SCF ( 1] USCG: IMT; NSF (4 1; 3 Fixed Wil\g SHAMROCK. TX aircraft ; 2 He lico pte r s; 10 Sm boa ts US VIRGIN ISLANDS ·o MOOV: (3) '"' St. Augustine: US&R: Red 1ST(621; 1STGrd Suppo rt {71 St. John/St. Thomas : valparaiso (Eglin AFB): US&R: ( Each Tea m~so l CA-TF 3 & 8; FEMA.: Responders (24) ESF-2.: MERS (20 ) ESF-8: HMTF NE-Tf1 ; NJ-TF1 C6P : SRT ESF-1 {2.51 {2) ESF-13: USFS (2.31; ICE (11); USOG: NSF (3) IOC 1 RRl Pensacola : ESF-2: M ERS (91 ON USS KEARSARGEENROUTE TO PR: OFF ODA.STOF PUERTO RICO: (10 ) Tampa / Bradenton/urg o: FEMA.: Respond er s (4) DOD Amphibious Readiness Group (A.RG) ooo: uss w as p (LHD); uss Kea rs arge st. cro ix/ c hristiansted : ESF-8: surgica l Tea m (18) Naple s/ Fo rt Meyers/LaBelle / Moo r e Haven : (LHD•3I; USS Oak Hill {LSD•Sl FEMA.: R•IIIMAT (10 ); Re sponders (42 ) ESF-2: MERS (1) ESF-2: M ERS (2) FEMA: Re.spend e rs (4 1 USCG: LNO (1) US&R: VA· Tf2 (61 ) USCG: LNO (1); a cutters ; 2 Helicopters Marco 1.sle: ESf-2: MERS 7 USCG: LNO (1) ESF-2: USS IWO JIMA (SAR) : MERS (2) ESF-2: PhiDy, PA in rout e to USVI [STT] M ERS (1) I* • '~ ~ EPA-17-0432-I-000041 00 Recovery Snapshot Post- Tropical Cyclone Harvey Tuesday , September 12, 2017 (5:00 a.m. EDT) Update s in Blue Housing • Indi vidual Assistance Individual Assistance ({II of State ~epte111hn. I I, 7.017. I I 0l ,, 111F.l) T) Total Registrations Total IHP$ Housing Assistance $ ONA $ 707,431 $3 13,643,240 $ l87 ,758,59 1 $] 25,884,649 rrexas Inspectors with Work Inspections Issued Inspections Complete 1,892 317,241 96,018 • Tran sitional Shelter As sistanc e (TSA ) Transitional Sheltering Assistance (ll\ of S,·pte 111/m State • Currently Eligible 2 1,520 281 ,788 I I I NFIP Claims Estimate State • I I I (ll.\ o(Se/>femher • I I. 20171 Claims Submitted Advanced Payments to Insured Survivors 83,000 $ 156.3M • Housin Pro - rams SBA Home Loans ((11 of Sepre111/Ji'1 // , 7.0 /7 ) Applications % Processed State Received Texas • 14,273 Applications Approved Loan $ Approved Average Loan Amount 1,046 $95,326,500 $9 1,134 65% US De artment of Housin and Urb an Develo Number of Properties in Impacted Area Displaced (# of Beds for Healthcare Hospital) Displaced (# of Household for Public & Indian Housing Multifamily Housing) Returned or Permanently Housed (# of Households/Beds) Multifamil y Housing 454 0 2,14 6 0 Public and Indian Housing 42 0 8 12 0 Health care and Hospitals 40 994 0 492 Hurricane Harvey - Texas Total 994 492 536 2 ,958 * (No change from 9/8/2017, HUD repott s that new data will be presented twice per week, on Tuesdays and Fridays, staiting Tuesday, Septe mber 12, 2017) . Infrastructure Systems • / / , 7.0 17, 3 14 p 111F,l)T) Currently Checked In to Hotel Texas I 30.3% (FEMA Recovery Update, September JO,2017, 3:30 pm EDT) Wate r and Wa stewate r o Texas Commi ssion on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and EPA have completed surveys of 4,852 drinking water facilities and 2,908 wastewater facilities in the impacted area found 37 Severe Damage, 30 Medium Damage, 248 Minor Damage • Aviation o All major airports are at normal operations o Texas Gulf Coast Regional Airport (LBX) has reopened with no restrictions 19 EPA-17-0432-I-000042 • • • • • o Sixty-three FAA employees continue to report impacts from the flooding ; eleven employees are living in temporary quarters Highway o FHW A-TX Division engineers (9) are going to Houston (5), Yoakum (2) and Corpus Christi (2) the week of September 11, 2017 to begin completing damage assessments jointly with TxDOT staff Maritime o USTS Kennedy is underway from FL to Houston, TX; expected to arrive on September 14, 2017 o USTS Empire State in Ft. Schuyler, NY ; departing on September 11, 2017 for Beaumont, TX ; estimated to arrive on September 17, 2017 o USTS General Rudder at Galveston, TX; FEMA responders on board o Beaumont Reserve Fleet (BRF) is conducting recovery operations Pipeline/HAZMA T o US Department of Transpo rtation Pipeline and Hazardous Mater ials Safety Administration communicating with Shell Pipeline regarding their potential release in the Trinity River due to Hurricane Harvey. Shell conducted pressure testing on their line on September 10, 2017, but the results were inconclusive. Shell is currently evaluating their next steps, but has Oil Spill Removal Organizations on standby to respond if necessary Rail o All southeast Texas industrial leads have returned to service except two on the Union Pacific (UP) Railroad. The two UP bridges sustained significant damages; no return-to-service date has been established o Amtrak route between San Antonio and New Orleans expected to resume on September 15 Oil and Gas o Four refineries in the Gulf Coast region were shut down, according to public reports. These refineries have a combined refining capacity of 734,300 b/d, equal to 7.6% of total Gulf Coast (PADD 3) refining capacity and 4.0% of total U.S. refining capacity. One refinery began restarting since the last report. o Seven refineries are in the process of restarting after being shut down. Production should be assumed to be minimal until restart is completed. These refineries have a combined capacity 2,479,899 b/d, equal to 25.6% of total Gulf Coast (PADD 3) refining capacity and 13.4% of total U.S. refining capacity. One refinery began restartin g since the last report. At least four refineries in the Gulf Coast region were operating at reduced rates, according to public reports. (Do£ Sit Rep, September 11, 2017, 8:30 a.Ill. EDT) U.S. Gulf Coast Impacted Refinery Status 6.0 - "C 5.0 :0c: ~ 4.0 .E >·o 3.o a. "' u"' ~ 2.0 ·2 ~ a: 1.0 ■ Shutdown ■ Began Restarting Operations 20 ■ Operating at Reduced Rates EPA-17-0432-I-000043 Economic Recovery • Small Business Administration • USDA Risk Management Agency o Due to the destruction of communication line s and the limited ability to travel in the impacted areas , many USDA RMA policyholder s are unable to communicate with their agents to report losses within the Common Crop Insurance Policy , Ba sic Provi sion s (17-BR) 72 hour requirement o RMA has authorized Approved Insurance Providers to consider individual circumstances in accepting delayed notice s of loss; initial reportable numbers may be available on September 12 (Recovery Updare, Seprember JO, 20 17, 3:30 p.m. EDT) Responder Lodging • USTS Empire State (650 beds) was delayed due to current weather conditions, and is now anticipated to arrive in Beaumont, TX aro und September 18; SS Kennedy (600 bed s) anticipated to arrive in Houston, TX September 18 21 EPA-17-0432-I-000044 19-318 Program Management Improvement Accountability Act {PMIAA) Implementation Approach PMC Meeting September 7, 2017 EPA-17-0432-K-000001 PMIAA Legal Provisions o Enacted in the December, 2016, the PMIAA requirements include: o 0MB guidance on government-wide program and project management standards o New Council on program and project management o New Program Management Improvement Officers at agencies responsible for implementing standards, and enhancing the role of program managers o Annual portfolio reviews of agency programs {incl. GAO High Risk issues) o OPM identification of program and project manager skills and competencies, and establishment of job series and new career paths for program and project managers o 0MB has completed a review and determined the PMIAA covers all program types o 0MB plans to issue guidance on implementation of the PMIAA in December, 2017, as required by the Act, with agency implementation activities to begin thereafter 5/21/2019 EPA-17-0432-K-000002 w" Fm Eb Key Pollcy Proposals I .7 4 1? Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 3:23:21 PM Pacific Standard Time Subject: Final Disposi+on, Request EPA-HQ-2018-000798 Date: Friday, January 31, 2020 at 1:09:17 PM Pacific Standard Time From: no-reply@foiaonline.gov To: FOIA EPA-HQ-2018-000798 has been processed with the following final disposi+on: Par+al Grant/Par+al Denial. In this final produc+on EPA released 69 records in full or in part and withheld the following seven records: ESA Issue Paper_industry leXers_5-5-17v2.docx Ex. 5 DPP/ACP/AWP Evalua+on results relevant to 2017 EPA Reorganiza+on Planning 6-12-17.docx Ex. 5 DPP Evalua+on results relevant to 2017 EPA Reorganiza+on Planning Execu+ve Summary 6-12-17.docx 17.06.21 EPA Version of No+onal Schedule rec 073117.docx EPA INSIDER THREAT Timeline -Mar18.docx Ex. 5 DPP Ex. 5 DPP Memo to Patrick Davis re Oil Gas issues 5.12.17.pdf PCC - Mercury Concept Note.docx Ex. 5 DPP Ex. 5 ACP Ex. 5 DPP Records were released to the public as a result of this request. You may retrieve these records immediately using the following link: View Records Over the next 2 hours, these records are also being added to FOIAonline's search pages, further enabling you to retrieve these documents associated with your FOIA request at any +me. Page 1 of 1 Issues to Address with EPA on Oil and Natural Gas Production Regulation NSPS Regulation should be based on Volatile Organic Compounds - Not Methane Air emissions from oil and natural gas production operations are a combination of VOC and methane. Technically, reducing VOC also reduces methane. Past efforts to regulate methane are principally based on opening a regulatory pathway to regulate existing sources Existing source regulation is complicated because - Oil and natural gas production facilities are constantly changing as natural depletion phases out old wells and requires development of new ones Requirements from 2012 NSPS (Subpart OOOO) are rapidly becoming the dominant component of existing sources that are not low producing wells Approximately 80 percent of existing oil wells and 2/3 of existing natural gas wells are low producing wells that cannot absorb the cost of NSPS requirements NSPS requirements are not based on managing low producing well emissions including when those requirements are imposed under the modification aspect of NSPS EPA should exclude low producing wells from the NSPS requirements Low producing oil wells average about 2.7 barrels/day; low producing natural gas wells average about 22 mcfd; cost effectiveness analyses for NSPS are not based on the economics of these small wells Triggering the array of regulations in Subparts OOOO and OOOOa when a well is refractured - and thereby, defined as a modification - will be too costly a burden and result in wells being shut in rather than continue to operate The costs of the fugitive emissions program in Subpart OOOOa will result in a reduction of new wells being drilled. Any wells that are drilled, because of the perpetual cost, will be shut in much earlier in their production life, reducing ultimate resource recovery. And, the regulatory costs will make the wells unappealing for sale to smaller producers - a common industry practice by larger producers - because these small producers survive with low-cost operations. EPA should not impose the NSPS requirements on modifications and it should terminate the fugitive emissions requirements when a well falls below the 15 barrels/day or 90 mcfd production threshold EPA should use its authority to subcategorize regulations to develop low producing well regulations - if needed EPA has the authority to subcategorize facilities under the Clean Air Act - "The Administrator may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within categories of new sources for the purpose of establishing such standards." 1 EPA-17-0432-L-000001 EPA should acquire data and cost information on low producing wells to determine - The significance of their emissions and the significant sources The costs and economics of their operations The impact of the 2012 NSPS on the distribution of these emissions over the next decade when new requirements would be phasing in EPA should determine whether meaningful additional regulations are needed and, if so, develop regulatory proposals based on the Best System of Emissions Regulations as developed for these specific low producing well operations EPA needs to revisit its cost effectiveness analyses generally EPA's benefits are largely based on economic values that are inconsistent with market prices - notably $4/mcf natural gas prices EPA's control costs are understated particularly as well production inevitably declines, an issue that comes into play significantly on the fugitive emissions regulations that are an enduring operating cost for the life of the well and with regard to modifications EPA should suspend or withdraw its Control Techniques Guidelines for existing oil and natural gas production operations in Ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas until it revises NSPS; EPA needs to develop RACT for CTG The current CTG essentially applies the same requirements to existing sources that apply to new ones These requirements will overwhelmingly fall on low producing wells EPA needs to develop Reasonably Available Control Technology that reflects existing operations and low producing wells EPA should work with industry to develop an array of voluntary programs to facilitate air emissions management Industry is prepared to work with EPA to develop potential voluntary reduction programs, including actions on existing operations These could be implemented faster than regulations EPA should base its test for modification consistent with Section 111 of the Clean Air Act "The term 'modification' means any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted" Refracturing a well does not necessarily increase emissions if the processing equipment is capable of managing the production Refracturing is generally necessary to recover production as a well declines; consequently, it will not likely raise production above its prior initial production Since the well would already be connected to gas handling equipment, emissions are not likely increased; therefore, EPA needs to determine under what 2 EPA-17-0432-L-000002 circumstances production changes actually increase emissions to determine what constitutes a modification under the Clean Air Act EPA should revise its definition of hydraulic fracturing and related provisions EPA bases its need for the emissions regulations on the development of high volume water fractured shale oil and natural gas wells with horizontal legs EPA's definitions capture small conventional vertical wells that use relatively small volumes of water and non-water fracturing fluids such as nitrogen that do not produce comparable completion emissions and are not economically manageable by the Reduced Emissions Completions (REC) technologies The definition in Subpart OOOOa should be amended to explicitly exclude conventional wells because the work performed does not meet the definition provided in the regulation While the operations do utilize pressurized fluids that contain water, proppant, and/or chemicals, the process neither penetrates tight formations like shale or coal, nor does the process utilize high rates or volumes; therefore, the operations rarely have extended flowback, and often have little to no flowback. Similar to the issue of redefining modification, some operations falling under the hydraulic fracturing definition, like refracturization acidizing and similar operations, do not generate a high rate of flowback and should not be subject to REC requirements Update definition of flowback to clarify that coil tubing cleanouts, screenouts, drilling plug outs are not subject to the hydraulic fracturing flowback provision Clarification is required regarding the location of a separator for well completion operations. The rule does not provide a definition of "on-site" - preamble language clearly considers allowance of "nearby" REC equipment EPA fugitive emissions requirements need to have the flexibility to change with experience The current Subpart OOOOa fugitive emissions program locks in a static testing structure (e.g., twice per year) and static processes (e.g., optical gas imaging) EPA should allow for permitting alternative approaches such as - EPA should assure that compliance with state regulatory requirements are considered equivalent to new federal regulations In particular, multiple states have developed or are developing fugitive emissions programs; none of these are the same as the NSPS Subpart OOOOa requirements In reviewing and revising Subpart OOOOa, EPA needs to assure that these state programs are recognized as alternative compliance under as state enforceable permits (e.g., like the storage vessel treatment under Subpart OOOO). EPA should allow for fugitive emissions monitoring to be altered based on experience with emissions management 3 EPA-17-0432-L-000003 If testing shows that maintenance programs are preventing emissions for extensive times, monitoring cycles should be extended to annually or biennially or longer EPA should allow for information that shows emissions patterns can target specific equipment to provide for maintenance based programs to supplant the emissions testing requirements and extend or eliminate regular emissions monitoring EPA should provide for an exemption or exclusion from the fugitive emissions requirements for oil wells based on Gas to Oil Ratio (GOR) such as the approach for REC that limits requirements for wells with less than 300 scf of gas per stock tank barrel of oil produced or such as the use of a gas throughput threshold EPA should allow for the fugitive emissions program to be altered based on emerging monitoring technologies that are more cost effective such as internet based monitors or other technical advances EPA should make the application and approval process easier so that new technologies can actually be approved and within a reasonable time for leak detection under this rule - EPA should specifically provide for a process in the regulations rather than rely on the "alternative method of emissions limitation" process under Sec. 111(h) of the Clean Air Act Alternative if 111(h) AMEL process is required: Clean Air Act 111(h) allows for "a person" to apply for AMEL so allow states (v. operators) to show EPA that their LDAR program qualifies as "equivalent" and allow vendors or manufacturers of new technology to make the case to EPA that their technology is "equivalent" per 111(h) Allow application/approval to be made for all upstream sites or specific of basin for example (not site-specific; 111(h) was written for large facility like refinery, not small individual sites spread over large areas Allow modeling to show "equivalency" in technologies. EPA should revise the fugitive emissions monitoring requirements to reflect that multiple wells are drilled at a single site and each well should not trigger redundant monitoring of support facilities that are already subject to fugitive emissions monitoring as a result of prior wells EPA should revise the approach to regulating storage vessels including: Its basis for flashing assumptions in storage vessels and its approach to address multiple tank batteries Its continuing application to storage vessels that subsequently fall below the threshold for application of the regulations 4 EPA-17-0432-L-000004 EPA needs to revisit its compressor requirements Some producers must use low volume compressors that are not on the well site to move gas production into pipeline systems The current requirements when applied to these low volume compressors, typically operated by small businesses, are not cost effective, including the required quarterly surveys EPA generally needs to revise its extensive recordkeeping requirements, such as those that compel detailed records for facilities (e.g., storage vessels) that fall below the threshold for an affected facility EPA should work with industry to develop common sense approaches to develop adequate information on facilities as they move from new operations to ongoing operations and their production and emissions decline Certification by Professional Engineer - CVS & Pneumatic Pump Feasibility Remove PE certification for Closed Vent Systems (CVS) and for pneumatic pump technical infeasibility determinations and replace with technical assessments Existing general duty obligations and the certifying official's acknowledgment of compliance within annual report PE certification process does not add any significant value beyond a technical assessment Not all PEs have expertise in facility design, while there are technical experts that could perform the assessment Most operators currently use consultants EPA has not justified the extra expense and burden of PE certifications One option is to update definition of Qualified Engineer: Qualified Professional Engineer means an individual who is licensed by a state as a Professional Engineer to practice one or more disciplines of engineering and or who is qualified by education, technical knowledge and experience to make the specific technical certifications required under this subpart. Professional engineers making these certifications must be currently licensed in at least one state in which the certifying official is located. Pneumatic Pumps Allow technical infeasibility assessment at all well sites and eliminate the classification of sites as "greenfield" and "non-greenfield" These terms were not proposed Concept is contradictory to the rule not requiring installation of a control device or process equipment for the sole purpose of controlling a pneumatic pump At a minimum, brownfield must be further clarified to mean "after start of production begins" (i.e., a site doesn't stay "greenfield" forever) 5 EPA-17-0432-L-000005 Simplification of CVS Compliance Assurance Short Term (minimum request) Align compliance assurance for pneumatic pumps to storage vessels (and not provisions for centrifugal and reciprocating compressors) If pumps not aligned to storage vessels, then at minimum remove annual M21 in 60.5416a(a)(2)(ii) Longer Term Simplification (full rework) of the CVS and cover requirements Align under a common framework - Desire to alignment across source types (pumps, compressors, storage vessels) as current requirements add complication and burden without providing benefits EPA has acknowledged that CVS requirements are confusing OGI - Seeking application of OGI to satisfy CVS and cover inspection requirements - Application of OGI (LDAR type provisions) to the CVS and cover inspections would provide same outcome through a more efficient approach that reduces burden on operators (e.g., only need OGI technicians for a given area and not Method 21 trained staff, efficiency of OGI, etc.) 6 EPA-17-0432-L-000006 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Caraballo, Mario Smith, Michael; Glazier, Kelly; Ulmer, Craig; Barnet, Henry; Anouilh, Jeffrey; Sullivan, Patrick F.; Kelley, Sean; Taylor, Jessica; Campbell, Jeff; Allen, Reginald; Jefferson, Gayle; Caraballo, Mario; McKinney, Robert; Collard, Erin; Kling, David; Youngblood, Charlotte; Mazakas, Pam; Noga, Vaughn; Petrole, Maryann; Kaminer, Joan; Sterling, Sherry Reeder, John; Chmielewski, Kevin ACTION: Reconvening EPA's Threat Working Group (TWG) @ 3-4 p.m. Thurs., 8/31 Thursday, August 17, 2017 3:18:04 PM EPA Colleagues -- I'd like to propose the next meeting of the Agency's Threat Working Group (TWG) for 3 4 p.m. Thursday, 8/31, in Room 6426 WJC North (OHS' conference room). The shift of the TWG meeting, which involves our several EPA offices, to alternate Thursdays (from previous alternate Friday mornings) to better facilitate coverage and participation was suggested and discussed at the 7/7 meeting. It appears, from your various calendars on the Outlook meeting scheduler, that this time and date might work best for our group, which does tend to be very busy. As you know, we've been asked by the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations to ensure coordination on EPA's security-related issues. We already collaborate regularly across offices, but the TWG meetings provide a venue for increased information flow and a forum to raise and jointly address security issues and concerns. At our 8/31 meeting, I'd suggest we once again clarify our various security roles and responsibilities so we can make sure all important functions are covered. In addition, I'd like to revisit TWG meeting "logistics," such as the proposed alternate Thursday meeting time, location, any standing agenda items and preparation, guest invitations, note-keeping, etc. O Please share your own thoughts about the TWG. We look forward to seeing you or your representative on Thursday, 8/31. v/r Mario Caraballo Deputy Associate Administrator Office of Homeland Security U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20460-0001 Office: 202.564.6971 iPhone: 202.836.1884 WJC North, Room 6426-F/Mail Code 1109A EPA-17-0432-L-000007 Warning: This document is UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U//FOUO). It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, and disposed of in accordance with EPA policy relating to FOUO information, and is not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know without prior approval of an authorized EPA official. This document is intended to identify and promulgate the strategic direction of the Intelligence Enterprise in order to focus analytic, collection, and reporting activities and efforts; and conveys no authority to engage in law enforcement or intelligence activities. EPA-17-0432-L-000008 &EPA United States Environmental Agency Protection Colonel (Retired) Reginald E. Allen is a member of the United States Government Senior Executive Service (SES), serving as the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, US Environmental Protection Agency HQ in Washington, DC. Prior to his SES selection in 2015, he served 30 years as an active duty combat arms officer in the United States Army. His last assignment was as the Special Assistant to the Director, Joint Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat Organization, where he led a large interagency task force (17 agencies) to reduce the effects of improvised explosives and precursors supporting Defense Department actions to defeat the IED as a weapon of strategic influence. COL (R) Allen was born in New York City, and was commissioned a second lieutenant of Cavalry in 1985. He served in numerous command, staff and leadership assignments around the world. His military career highlights include command of a United States Cavalry regiment. In 2009, he assumed command of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, the Brave Rifles. He deployed the Regiment in 2010, on its fourth combat deployment in Operation Iraqi Freedom/New Dawn in Iraq. The 8000-person Regimental Combat Team conducted a year of combat and training operations helping to set the conditions for an honorable US forces exit from Iraq at the end of 2011. COL (R) Allen's other major command was during the beginning of Operation Iraq Freedom in 2003. In June 2003, he assumed command of 1st Squadron, 10th United States Cavalry, the Buffalo Soldiers, on the IranIraq Border. The Buffalo Soldiers, the 4th Infantry Division's Cavalry Squadron, conducted a year of combat operations in Iraq. Task Force Saber consisted of three Battalion size units and over 2100 soldiers at the height of operations, the largest Battalion level combat formation in Iraq. COL (R) Allen led the Armored combat force in the operation that captured Saddam Hussein, secured the Iran-Iraq border, eastern Tikrit, and later Balad Joint Air Base, then the largest concentration of US Soldiers in Iraq. COL (R) Allen changed command in the summer 2005 and was assigned to Army Staff in the Pentagon where he served as a future operations planner and later as the Military Assistant to the Secretary of the Army. In 2012, COL (R) Allen became the Chief of Staff to the Under Secretary/Chief Management Officer of the United Staff States Army. In that role, he served as a principle military advisor providing advice and recommendations on all matters spanning the depth and breadth of Department of Army/Department of Defense activities. COL (R) Allen holds a Master of Science in National Security Strategy from the National War College, a Master of Arts in Education from the University of Louisville and a Bachelor's of Science in Business from North Carolina A&T University. COL (R) Allen is a graduate of the United Kingdom Ministry of Defense Higher Command Course in London. COL (R) Allen was awarded The Legion of Merit four times; the Bronze Star three times; the Defense Meritorious Service Medal twice; and the Army Meritorious Service Medal seven times. United States Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters, Washington DC EPA-17-0432-L-000009 REGINALD E. ALLEN (5) PROFILE EXPERIENCE SELECTED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: (b) (6) PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE/CAREER HIGHLIGHTS Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, SES US Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC Supervisor: John Reeder, ~ Telephone:- 10/2015 - Present Hours/week: 50 Salary: $187,000 Chief of Staff - may contact DUTIE S AND RESPONSIBILITIES / MISSION: ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP: In less than two year s with EPA I was recently selected to serve as the Acting Depu ty Chief of Staff of the US Environmental Protection Agency for several months during a transition . While acting in th.is role, I exercised important policy -making , policy detennining , and other senior level functions to effectively improve Agency and internal management processes. Ensuring that the Office of the Administrator decisions and operations are in full suppo1t of the Agency 's mission. I managed the strategic plan development and execution for the Office of the Administrator to ensure th.at stated measure of effectiveness and measures of pe1fo1mance are met or exceeded. I oversee budget development and execution ensuring all are aligned with the Administrators priorities in close coordination with the Chief of Staff, the Depu ty Administrator , the Chief Financial Officer , and subordinate senio r managers. I serve as a member of the Federal Government SES and the senior leadership team of the Environmental Protection Agency. As the Assistant Deputy Chief Staff, I provide leadership and direction in the Office of the EPA Ad1ninistrator (AO) that spans across the bread and depth of EPA Operations. I am also dual hatted as the Director, Administrative and Execu tive Services. (OAES). As Director of OAES I provide the Administrator , the Deputy Administrator , their Assistan t and Associate Administrators , Staff Office Directors and their staff , with Human Resources , Resource/Budget Management , Information Techno logy, Facilities Managemen t, contracts management , and grants management , and related functions. Provide administrati ve oversight and suppo1t of nearly 400 senior leaders and US government civilian and contractors. AGENCY WIDE IMPACT : Agency-Wide SES Executive Order Planning and Implemen tation. Upon airiving at EPA , I dete1mined that the agency had no real onboarding and training development program for the SES corps. I researched across the interagency looking at bes t practice s in several agencie s and developed multiple products to advance agency adoption of the Pre sidential SES Executive Order. I have championed and led development of the plan for a trne SES Onboardin g, training and development plan for executives at EPA. I developed and led the execution of our new SES Welcome Orientation Sessions with senior agency leadership. EPA-17-0432-L-000011 REGI NALD E ALL EN, (b) (6) Page 3 INNOVATIVE TECHNICAL LEADERSIDP: New HR Management System . In the cour se executing our Lean projec t to improve per sonnel management , I determined that while we could produce and field an in house interim solution to pro vide a tran sparent HR Tracking and Management system, a truly robu st system that is the center poin t of all HR and Budget actions and knowledge was beyond our limited in-house SharePo int development cap ability. After an exhau stive search of poten tial off the shelf solutions I selected HP Marketplace 's HR Modu le. I was able to pu sh through the pemli ssions and the contracting proce ss to procure the software which is now configured on EPA network. This system ha s the poten tial to become the stand ard for the agency to manage and con solidate inpu ts from multiple stovepiped system in one centrnl hub of HR and budge t info1mation . Special Assistant to the Director , Director of the HME TF Joint Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) The Pentagon, Washington, DC 06/2014 - 6/201 5 Hours/week: 60 Salary: $170,105 Supe1vi sor : Lieutenant General R JD Johnson Telephone: may contact DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES / MISSION: Executive Officer/Chief of Staff, Under Secretary/Chief Management Officer, US Army 06/2012 - 06/2014 Immediate Office of the Secreta1yof the Anny Hours/week: 80 The Pentagon, Washington, DC Salaiy: $170,105 ~ Brad Carson Telephone:~ - may contact EPA-17-0432-L-000012 REGINALD E ALLEN, (b) (6) Page4 OTHER SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS: United Kingdom Higher Command Course, London 01/2012 - 05/2012 Regimental (Brigade) Commander, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment III US Armored Corps and Fo1t Hood Fo1t Hood, TX, USA Supe1visor: Lieuten Telephone: 04/2009 -12 /2011 Hours/week: 65 Sala1y: $138,968 on Campbell may contact DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES / MISSION: COMPLEX ADMINI STRATION/LEADERSHIP: OTHER SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS: EPA-17-0432-L-000013 REGINALD E ALLEN, (b) (6) Page 5 Operations Officer (G3) (COO), III Corps and Fort Hood 06/2008 - 04/2009 Hours/week: 60 Salary: $154,354 Supe1visor:Lieutenant General Paul Funk - may contact Telephone:(b) (6) US.Anny Fo1tHood, TX, USA DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES / MISSION: COMPLEX ADMINI STRATION/LEADER SHIP: OTHER SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS: EDUCATIO N AND TRAINI NG - MS - National Security and Strategic Studie s, 2008 , Nationa l War College , Wash, DC MA- Education -Training Admin and Development , 1997, University of Louisville , Louis ville , KY BS - Business Administration , 1985, No1t h Carolina A&T State Uni versity, Greensboro , NC REFERENC ES SELECTED HONORS /AWARDS EPA-17-0432-L-000014 _ I I _ I ,I I -=-,- - . - I --=-- ~ i L I EPA-17-0432-L-000015 DO NOT CITEOR QUOTE EPA-17-0432-L-000016 DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE DO NOT CETE OR QUOTE DRAFT DELIBERATIVE January 8, 2018 DO NOT CETE OR DRAFT DELIBERATIVE January 8, 2018 - I I 8 HUD Lead Hazard Control Clearance Survey January 24, 2018 HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes (OLHCHH) administers several grant programs, including lead hazard control (LHC) grants intended to eliminate lead-based paint hazards from low-income housing. LHC projects can span a range of activities, including abatement of lead-based paint, abatement of lead-based paint hazards, interim controls, and paint stabilization. Grantees are typically state or local government agencies who hire contractors to perform the work. At the completion of the LHC, housing units must be tested for dust-lead, and achieve clearance levels. In response to the 2009 petition to EPA to revise the dust-lead hazard standards, HUD submitted an ICR to OMB to conduct a survey to determine the actual dust-lead levels routinely achieved following lead hazard control projects using current tools, methodologies, and systems (e.g., wet detergent wash, HEPA vacuuming, sealing or replacing flooring, sealing windowsills, installing window trough liners). The survey was conducted in 2015. HUD requested that all recipients of LHC grants from FY 2010, 2011, and 2012 complete a questionnaire and provide data on the actual clearance levels achieved for a random sample of housing units where work was conducted. Seventy-nine percent of the grantees completed the survey, providing data from 7,211 floor samples, 4,893 windowsill samples, and 2,787 window trough samples from 1,552 housing units. Tables 1 through 3 show that most units passed clearance on the first try following cleaning and other actions in preparation for clearance testing. A small percentage failed on the first try, and an even smaller percentage failed on the second try. In the case of a failure, it is up to the contractor to determine what work practices to use to achieve clearance. In the fraction of jobs that failed to achieve initial clearance, the vast majority were able to achieve clearance using only additional cleaning and/or sealing, which are relatively simple practices. Table 4 and Figures 1 through 3 show that HUD LHC grantees in the survey routinely achieved much lower clearance levels than the current standards. In particular, a final floor clearance level of 10 ug/ft2 was achieved in over 85% of cases even though the grantees were only attempting to clear at 40 ug/ft2. Window sills achieved a clearance level of 100 ug/ft2 in 97% of cases, and troughs achieved this level in 94% of cases. HUD concluded that a reduction in clearance level as requested in the original petition to EPA is technically feasible using the methods currently employed by HUD LHC grantees to prepare for clearance. On the basis of this study, in 2017, HUD OLHCHH issued policy guidance requiring its Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control (LBPHC) and Lead Hazard Reduction (LHRD) Demonstration grantees to use Dust Hazard Action Levels of 10 ug/ft2 for floors and 100 ug/ft2 for windowsills. They are also required to use Clearance Action Levels of 10 ug/ft2 for interior floors, 40 ug/ft2 for porch floors, 100 ug/ft2 for windowsills, and 100 ug/ft2 for window troughs. These action levels only apply to these grant programs, not all housing units subject to HUD's Lead Safe Housing Rule (LSHR). -- 1 EPA-17-0432-L-000019 Table 1. Actions Taken AfterClearanceFailureon Floors Action Fraction of Total ActionsTaken for UnitsFailingthe 1st Try Only (12.2% of units) 82.7% a. Re-cleanino 13.8% b. Sealino c. Replacement 0.9% d. OverlayinQ 0.4% 2.2% e. Other Totals 100% Actions Takenfor Units FailinaBoth the 1stand2ndTr (1.7% of units) 66.7% a. Re-cleanino 18.2% b. Sealino c. Replacement 6.1% d. OverlayinQ 3.0% e. Other 6.1% Totals 100% Table2. Actions TakenAfterClearance Failures on Windowsills Activity Fraction ofT otal Actions Takenfor UnitsFailinathe 1stTrv Onlv (3.1% of units) 75.9% a. Re-cleaninQ 14.8% b. Sealino c. Replacement 0.0% d. Other 9.3% Totals 100% ActionsTakenfor UnitsFailinaBoth the 1stand2ndTrv (0.3%of units) 750% a. Re-cleaninQ 0.0% b. SealinQ c. Replacement 0.0% d. Other 25.0% Totals 100% Table 3. Actions Taken AfterClearanceFailures on Window Trouahs Action Fraction of Total Actions Takenfor UnitsFailingthe 1stTry Only (1.7% of units) 93.1% a. Re-cleanino 6.9% b. Sealino c. Replacement 0.0% d. Installtrouqhliner 0.0% 0.0% e. Other Totals 100% ActionsTakenfor UnitsFailingBoth the 1stand2ndTry 0.1% of units) 1000% a. Re-cleaninQ 0.0% b. Sealino c. Replacement 0.0% 0.0% d. Installtrouohliner 0.0% e. Other 100% Totals 2 EPA-17-0432-L-000020 Table4. Distributionof final clearancesampleresults (ua/ft2) Window Troughs Floors WindowSills Level Percent Level Percent Level Percent < 40* 100% < 250* 100% < 400* 100% < 20 94% >97% < 150 >97% < 100** >94% < 15 90% < 80 >96% < 100** 85% < 60 > 91% < 80 >92% < 10 ** <5 72% <40 >87% <40 >82% o Current clearance levels ** Levels requested in petition to EPA. Figure 1. CumulativeDistribution of Final Floor ClearanceLevels(ug/ft2) Floor Cumulative% 120% ------------------------- 100% ----- ~=~; ..+4.~.~.~ ....... ..o.~o~.~.~.~.~. ........ "4.~tMt~t,-.t,-t..-t ooooo d~ 80% ---60% - ----.,; ~-- o ------------------- ....../ ..... ______________________ _ 40% ------------------------20% -------------------------- 0 5 10 15 25 20 3 30 35 40 45 EPA-17-0432-L-000021 Figure2. CumulativeDistributionof FinalWindowSill ClearanceLevels(ug/ft2) Sill Cumulative% 120% ---------------------100% _..iiiiii ____ .,..______ ,.___ _ ----- ---:::::::;jj ... 80% -- - ------------------- 60% ---- - ------------------- 40% ---------------------20% ---------------------- so 0 100 150 200 250 300 Figure3. CumulativeDistribution of FinalWindowTroughClearanceLevels(ug/ft2) Trough Cumulative% 120% ---------------------- --------=-= ~iiiiii-+----------- .... -- 100% 80% __ 60% - _,____________________ - _ -------------------- ____________________ 40% _ ..,., _ 20% ---------------------- 0 so 100 150 200 4 250 300 350 400 EPA-17-0432-L-000022 DLHS Regulatorv Impacts Discussion Febrnary 8, 2018 Lead-based paint hazard means hazardous lead-based paint, dust-lead hazard or soil-lead hazard as identified in ?745.65. Subpart D- Lead-based Paint Hazard s ?745.61 Scope and applicability. (a) This subpait identifies lead-based paint hazards. (b) The standai.dsfor lead-based paint hazards apply to target housing and child-occupied facilities. (c) Nothing in this subpart requires the owner of property{ies} subject to these standard s to evaluate the propertv(ies} for the presence of lead-ba sed paint hazard s or take anv action to control these conditions if one or more of them is identified Subpart E- Residential Property Renovation (RRP) ?745.80 Pmpose. This subpa1tcontains regulations developed under sections 402 and 406 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2682 and 2686) and applies to all renovations perfo1med for compensation in target housing ai1d child-occupied facilities. The pmpose of this subpart is to ensure the following: (a) Owners and occupants of target housing and child-occupied facilities receive information on lead-based paint hazard s before these renovations begin; and (b) Individualsperfo1ming renovations regulated in accordancewith ?745.82 ai.eproperly trained; ming these renovations are certified; and the work practices in renovators and fums pe1fo1 ?745.85 are followed dmin these renovations. Antici ated im act: Subpart F-Disclosure of Known Lead-Ba sed Paint and/or Lead-Ba sed Paint Hazards Upon Sale or Lease of Residential Propert y ?745.100 Ptup ose. This subpa1timplements the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 4852d, which impose ce1tain requirements on the sale or lease of target housing. Under this subpart, a seller or lessor of tai.get housing shall disclose to the purcha ser or lessee the presen ce of any known lead-ba sed paint and/or lead-based paint hazards; provide available records ai1drepo1ts; provide the purchaser or lessee with a lead hazard info1mation pamphlet; give purchasers a 10-day oppornmity to conduct a 1isk assessmentor inspection; and attach specific disclosure and warning language to the sales or leasing contract before the purchaser or lessee is obligated tmder a contract to purchase or lease target housing. ?745.101 Scope and applicability. This subpa1tapplies to all transactions to sell or lease target housing, including subleases, with the exception of the following: (a) Sales of target housing at foreclosure. (b) Leases of tai.get housing that have been found to be lead-based paint free by an inspector ce1t ified m1der the Federal ce1tification program or tmder a federally accreditedState or tiibal ce1t ification program. Until a Federal ce1t ification program or federally accredited State EPA-17-0432-L-000023 ce1t ification program is in place within the State, inspectors shall be consideredqualified to conduct an inspection for this purpose if they have received ce1t ification under any existing State or tribal inspector ce1t ification program. The lessor has the option of using the results of additional test(s) by a ce1tifiedinspector to confnm or refute a p1iorfinding. (c) Sho1t-term leases of 100 days or less, where no lease renewal or extension can occur. (d) Renewals of existing leases in target housing in which the lessor has previously disclosed all info1mation required under ?745. 107 and where no new info1mation described in ?745.107 has come into the possession of the lessor. For the purposes of this paragraph, renewal shall include both renegotiationof existin lease te1msand/or ratification of a new lease. ated im act: Subpart L-Lead-Ba sed Paint Activities (evaluation and abatement) ?745.220 Scope and applicability. (a) This subpa1tcontains procedures and requirementsfor the accreditation of training programs for lead-based paint activities and renovations, procedures and requirements for the ce1t ification of individuals and fnms engaged in lead-based paint activities, and work practice standards for perfo1ming such activities. This subpait also requires that, except as discussed below, all leadbased paint activities, as defined in this subpa1t, be pe1fo1med by ce1tified individuals and fnms. (b) This subpait applies to all individuals and firms who ai.eengaged in lead-based paint activities as defined in ?745.223 , except persons who pe1fo1mthese activities within residential dwellings that they own, unless the residential dwelling is occupied by a person or persons other than the owner or the owner's immediate family while these activities are being perfo1med,or a child residing in the building has been identified as having an elevated blood lead level. This subpait applies only in those States or Indian Countly that do not have ai1autho1ized State or Tiibal program pursuant to ?745.324 of subpa1tQ. (c) Each departm ent, agency, and instrumentalit y of the executive, legi slative, and judicial branch es of the Federal Governm ent having jmisdi ction over any proper ty or facility, or engag ed in any activity resulting, or which may result, in a lead-based paint hazard , and each officer, agent, or employee thereof shall be subject to, and comply with, all Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements, both substantive and procedural , includin g the requirements of this subpart regarding lead-ba sed paint, lead-ba sed paint activities, and lead-ba sed paint hazards. (d) Whil e this subpart establishes specific requirem ents for performing lead-based paint activitie s should they be undertaken, nothing in this subpart requires that the owner or ant undertake an articular lead-ba sed aint activi =---=---ct : EPA-17-0432-L-000024 Subpart Q- State and Indian Tribal Programs ?745.320 Scope and ptupose. (a) This subpait establishes the requirements that State or Tribal programs must meet for authorization by the Administrator to administer and enforce the standards, regulations, or other requirements established under TSCA section 402 and/or section 406 and establishes the procedures EPA will follow in approving, revising, and withdrawingapproval of State or Tribal programs. (b) For State or Tribal lead-based paint training and ce1t ification programs, a State or Indian Tiibe may seek authorization to administer and enforce ??745.225, 745.226, and 745.227. The provisions of ??745.220, 745.223, 745.233, 745.235, 745.237, and 745.239 shall be applicable for the purposes of such program authorization. (c) A State or India.ii Tiibe may seek autholization to administerand enforce all of the provisions of subpait E of this part, just the pre-renovation education provisions of subpa1t E of this pa.it , or just the training, certification, accreditation, and work practice provisions of subpa1tE of this pa.it.The provisions of ??745.324 and 745.326 apply for the pmposes of such program authorizations. (d) A State or Indian Tribe applying for program auth01ization may seek either interim approval or final approval of the compliance and enforcement portion of the State or Tribal lead-based paint program pursuai1t to the procedures at ?745.327(a). (e) State or T1ibalsubmissions for program authorization shall comply with the procedures set out in this subpa1t . (f) Any State or Tribal program approved by the Administrator m1der this subpa1tshall at all times comply with the requirements of this subpait. (g) In many cases States will lack autholity to regulate activities in Indian Count1y. This lack of authority does not impair a State's ability to obtain full program autho1ization in accordancewith this subpait . EPA will administer the program in Indian Com1t1yif neither the State nor Indian Tribe has been .anted ro .am authorization b EPA. EPA-17-0432-L-000025 Deliberative, Confidential - Do not cite Lead Rule Impacts and Cost/Benefits Febmary 8, 2018 CURRENT RULEMAKING (RESPONSE TO NINTH CIRCUIT COURT DECISION) (1) HAZARDSTANDARDS (A) H UD Lead-S afe Housing Rul e (i) Affected Housing Universe: Housing subject to ce11ain requirements of the HUD Lead-Safe Housing Rule (LSHR), specifically: o o o o o o o Subpart C (Dispo sition of a residential p rop erty by a federal agency other than H UD) Subpart D (Project-based assistance >$500 0 p rovided by federal agency other than H UD) Subpart G (Multi-fam ily mortgage insurance except conversions and major rehabilitations) Subpart H (Project-based assistance fo r multi-family prop erties receiving !11QJ:GBP than $5, 000) Subpart I (H UD-owned multi-family p rop erties) Subpa1t J (Properties receiving $5, 000 to $25,0 00 in rehabilitation assistance) Subpart J (Properties receiving more than $25, 000 in rehabilitation assistance) Depending on the subpai1 that applies, prope1ties may receive a visual assessment, a lead-based paint inspection, and/or a 1i sk assessment (which includes dust sampling). (ii) Affected Events: Pre-1978 housing units subj ect to LSHR that will test their dust-lead levels as pa1t of a risk assessment ai1dhave results that fall between the existin hazard standai.ds and the otential new levels ). (B) Elevated Blood Lead Level Investigati ons (i) Affected Housing Universe: Housing units with children who have been tested and found to have elevated blood lead levels. Many states and ce1tain federal programs (Medicaid and CHIP) require blood lead screening for children. An enviromnental investigation is triggered for children with blood lead levels above a threshold value (vaiying from 5 itg/dL to 25 gg/dL, depending on the state). (ii) Affected Events: Pre-1978 housing units that will test their dust-lead levels as pa1t of a risk assessment and have results that fall between the existin hazard standai.ds and the otential new levels 1 EPA-17-0432-L-000026 Deliberative, Confidential - Do not cite {C) EPA Real Estate Disclosure Rule Sellers and lessors must discloseto the purchaser or lessee the existence of any available records or reports pe1taining to lead-basedpaint and/or lead-based paint hazards. (Sellers and lessors are not required to generate any new testin data. This means that records of dust testin must be disclosed re ardless of what the results are. POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR OTHER LEAD RULES - NOT PART OF CURRENT RULEMAKING 2 EPA-17-0432-L-000027 Deliberative. Confidential D0 11m cite Deliberative. C?Ollfidential D0 not cite - Chemours/GenX Briefing Paper - Non-CBI Office Director Pre-Briefing: 2:00PM, February 2, 2018 DAA Briefing: 12:00PM, February 7, 2018 (b) (7)(A) . EPA-17-0432-L-000030 EPA-17-0432-L-000031 LCPFAC Significant New Use Rule; Supplemental Proposal Background o The supplemental proposa l on long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylate (LCPFAC) chemical substances is being issued to confon n the lifting of the articles exemption to be consistent with amended TSCA and the added subsection 5(a)(5), Att icle Consideration . o EPA had proposed to lift the articles exemption in the Janua1y 2 1, 20 15 SNUR ; however, it was not for specific categories as amended TSCA now requires. DAA Questions on Supplemental LCPFAC SNUR Proposal Page 1 of4 EPA-17-0432-L-000034 Page 2 of4 Appendix 1 Exce1pt from the proposed rnle at 80 FR 2889 -2890 ; Januaiy 21, 2015 E. What are the potential health and environmental effects of LCPFAC chemical substances? The following brief summa1y of chemistiy , environmental fate, exposure pathways , and health and environmental effects of LCPFAC chemical substa nces is based on the 2009 Action Plan (Ref. 1), references cited in the 2009 Action Plan, and additiona l selected references published after the 2009 Action Plan . PFOA is persistent, widely present in humans and the environment, has long half-lives in humans, and can cause adverse effects in laborato1y animals, includ ing cancer and developmental and systemic toxicity (Refs. 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15). PFOA precurso rs, chemicals which degrade or may degrade to PFOA , are also prese nt worldwide in humans and the environment and, in some cases , might be present at higher conce nn-ations than PFOA and be more toxic (Refs . 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20). PFOA higher homo logues are chemicals with carbon chain lengths longer than PFOA. Ava ilable evidence suggests that toxicity and bioaccumulation appear to be higher for chemical substances with longer carbon chain lengths compared to those with sh01ier chain lengths (Refs. 2 1, 22, 23, and 24) . LCPF AC chemical substances have been detected in biota, air, water, dust, and soil samp les collected throughout the world . Some LCPF AC chemical substances have the poten tial for longrange ti.ansp01i . They are ti.anspo1i ed over long distances by a combination of dissolved -phase ocean and gas-phase atmosp heric n-anspo1i; however , dete1m ining which is the predominant ti.anspo1i pathway is comp licated by many factors, including the unce1ia inty over water to atmosp here pa1i itioning . Fmthe1more, there is evidence that ti.anspoli and subsequent oxidat ion of volatile alcohol LCPFAC chemica l substance precursors conti-ibute to the levels of LCPFAC chemical substances in the environment. For a more detailed smmnaiy of background infonnation (e.g., chemishy, environmental fate, exposure pathways , and health and environmental effects) , as well as references pe1iaining to LCPFAC chemical substa nces , please refer to Unit IV. of EPA 's initial proposed SNUR on LCPFAC chemical substance s published in the Federal Reg~ r of August 15, 2012 (Ref. 10). Page 3 of4 EPA-17-0432-L-000036 F. What are the potential health and environmental effects of PFAS chemical substances? PFAS chemical substances degrade ultimately to perfluoroalkylsulfonic acid (PFASA), which can exist in the anionic form under environmental conditions. Further degradation of PFASA is not observed under normal environmental conditions. PFASA is highly persistent in the environment and has a tendency to bioaccumulate (Ref. 25). PFASA can continue to be formed by any PFAS containing chemical substances introduced into the environment. Studies have found PFAS chemical substances containing 5 to 14 carbons (C5-C14) in the blood of the general human population as well as in wildlife, indicating that exposure to these chemical substances is widespread (Refs. 1, 4, 26, 27, 28, and 29). The widespread presence of PFAS chemical substances in human blood samples nationwide suggests other pathways of exposure, possibly including the release of PFAS from treated articles. Biological sampling has shown the presence of certain perfluoroalkyl compounds in fish and in fish-eating birds across the United States and in locations in Canada, Sweden, and the South Pacific (Refs. 26 and 27). The wide distribution of the chemical substances in high trophic levels is strongly suggestive of the potential for bioaccumulation and/or bioconcentration. Based on currently available information, EPA believes that while all PFAS chemical substances are expected to persist, the length of the perfluorinated chain may also have an effect on bioaccumulation and toxicity, which are also characteristics of concern for these chemical substances. PFAS chemical substances with longer carbon chain lengths may be of greater concern than those with shorter chain lengths (Refs. 4, 21, and 22). The hazard assessment published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (Ref. 10) concluded that perfluorooctyl sulfonates (PFOS) are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic to mammalian species. While most studies to date have focused primarily on PFOS, structure-activity relationship analysis indicates that the results of those studies are applicable to the entire category of PFAS chemical substances, which includes PFOS. Available test data have raised concerns about their potential developmental, reproductive, and systemic toxicity (Refs. 1, 16, 26, and 27). For a more detailed summary of background information (e.g., chemistry, environmental fate, exposure pathways, and health and environmental effects), as well as references pertaining to PFAS chemical substances, please refer to EPA's proposed SNURs on PFAS chemical substances published in the Federal Register of October 18, 2000 (Ref. 30), March 11, 2002, and March 10, 2006 (Refs. 26 and 31). Also, refer to the 2009 Action Plan (Ref. 1). Page 4 of 4 EPA-17-0432-L-000037 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Inorganic Byproducts Meeting June 8-9th, 2017 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency William Jeffer son Clinton East Building , Room 1153 1201 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington , DC (Enter at the NW com er of Constitution Avenue and 12th Street NW) Draft Agenda (As of 5/22/ 1 7) I EPA-17-0432-L-000038 May 23, 2017 Internal - Deliberat ive CDR Inorganic Byproducts: Notices and Schedule Milestones o Statutory dead lines: o o o 3 years for proposal (June 2019) 6 months follow ing that for fina lization (December 2019) Next CDRsubm ission per iod : June - September 2020 Overview of Proposed Rule Schedule (Tier 3) I I I I I I o Statutory deadline for final rule June 2019 EPA-17-0432-L-000041 Internal - Deliberative May 11, 2017 Summary of Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Inorganic Byproducts Negotiating Committee: May Organizational Planning Meeting On May 9 - 10, 2017, EPA held a public meeting with prospective members of the committee to negotiate a proposed rule providing for limiting chemical data reporting requirements under subsection 8(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), for manufacturers of any inorganic byproducts, when such byproducts are subsequently recycled, reused, or reprocessed. This negotiation process is required by TSCA, as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. The objective of the negotiated rulemaking process is to develop and publish a proposed rule by the statutory deadline of June 22, 2019. Under the TSCA Section 8(a) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule, EPA collects data from manufacturers (including importers) on the manufacturing, processing, and use of chemical substances in commerce, for those chemical substances listed on the TSCA Inventory. Purpose of the Organizational Meeting held on May 9-10, 2017 o For EPA to convene with prospective committee members and the public to exchange information and to discuss the process of negotiated rulemaking. Meeting agenda is attached. Who Attended o o Prospective members: o Inorganic chemical manufacturers and processors, including metal mining and printed circuit board manufacturers; recyclers, including scrap recyclers; and industry advocacy groups o Environmental advocacy groups; State and Tribal government representatives o EPA prospective committee members (2) and advisors from OCSPP, OGC, OECA, OLEM, and OP Other members of the public or other Agencies o Small Business Administration (2 representatives) o Members of the public affiliated with prospective members Key Messages from the Meeting o o o o o Participants were very engaged. More than 30 prospective members actively participated in the two-day meeting. EPA and industry presentations generated significant discussion, including identification of substantive topics for discussion at the next meeting. Discussions related to CDR reporting included: o Prospective members' interest that EPA receive useful and accurate information under CDR. Participants were interested in gaining a better understanding of how the data are used and why it is needed in low-risk scenarios. o When reporting to CDR, how to properly identify inorganic byproducts when they are hard to identify to the level of granularity that TSCA 8(a) requires. For example, RCRA allows wastewater treatment sludge to be reported as F006; whereas TRI allows identification of copper or copper compounds but TSCA requires identification of inventory-listed chemical substances or a UVCB. Industry is reluctant to go through the PMN process for a byproduct UVCB. o Request that the byproduct exemption be further explored to determine if the current exemption could be expanded to include all types of recycling. Because this was an organizational meeting, substantial discussion also included procedures for how the Committee would operate. Some participants had concerns that the use of unanimous consensus could result in one individual blocking a successful effort; this was identified as an issue for further discussion. Issues outside the scope will be diverted to the CDR Revisions rule, which is under development and planned to be proposed and finalized for the next CDR submission period in 2020. Steps required to hold the first FACA meeting on June 7-8, 2017 o o Approval from the Deputy Administrator on the Charter and Membership Package (currently at the OA) Publishing of the Federal Register Notice for the first FACA committee meeting (2nd public meeting) Attached: Agenda from May meeting and Membership Grid (part of the Membership Package) EPA-17-0432-L-000042 Selection Process for Proposed CDR Reg Neg Committee Membership: o In Initial FR Notice of 12/15/16, EPA initially identified representative interests likely to be significantly affected by a rule: o These were industries that had previously contacted us about the byproduct report issue as well as environmental organizations o In the FR EPA took comment regarding our tentative list as well as asked those who were interested in being appointed to the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee to submit comments to this affect till 1/16/17. o The Negotiated Rule-Making Facilitators, who are under contract to EPA's Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center, then interviewed all of the potential interests by early February. o The results of these interviews, which also included a solicitation of potential topics for the Negotiated Rulemaking, were compiled into a Situation Assessment Report (SAR). o CCD reviewed the process, membership and Situation Assessment Report with OPPT and OSCPP IO management in February o The SAR explains that there are two representatives rather than one for each stakeholder group because: o o Given the technical nature of the deliberations, we aimed to maximize knowledge by having two representatives and preferably a technical/policy combination (e.g. trade association rep and industry company rep). Given the fast nature of the deliberations, we didn't want any one stakeholder group to miss a meeting, thus there would always be a substitute. o As guided by EPA's FACA office, the membership package was sent to FACAMD for processing thru to the Deputy Administrator for formal approval o Once DA approves members, the OCSPP AA will sign the transmittal memo that will start the formal process of alerting the prospective members to their new FACA status. EPA-17-0432-L-000043 INTERNALDELIBERATIVE - DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE May 8, 2017 Solvent Strategy The so lvent strategy is designed to more comprehensive ly look at chem icals that are subst itutes for each other. It was deve loped following stakeho lders' requests to be better prepared to plan for substitut ion or process changes as a result of regu lato ry action. This document presents a st rategy to address risks presented by solvents w hile also identify ing subst itutes that: o Are techn ically and econom ically feasible alternatives o Reduce overa ll risk to human health and the environment o Prevent the issue of regrettab le subst itut ions The design of the strategy can app ly more broad ly to groups of chem icals beyond so lvents e.g. flame retar dants. The strategy has three main elements : I I 1 EPA-17-0432-L-000044 INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE - DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE I I May 8, 2017 ( b ) ( 5 ) D e li b e r a ti v e P r o c e s s 2 EPA-17-0432-L-000045 INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE - DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE May 8, 2017 (b)(5) Deliberative Process - 3 EPA-17-0432-L-000046 INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE - DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE o May 8, 2017 (b)(5) Deliberative Process I I I 4 EPA-17-0432-L-000047 INTERNAL DELIBERATWE DO NOT OR CITE May 8, 201? INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE - DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE ii. May 8, 2017 (b)(5) Deliberative Process I 6 EPA-17-0432-L-000049 CPMAMeeting with Brittany Bolen, Deputy AssociateAdministratorfor Policy USEPAHQ Wednesday, June 7, 2017 1:00-1:30 PM Color Pigments Manufacturers Association EPA-17-0432-L-000050 Meeting Agenda ? Introductions ? Color pigments industry overview - John Marten, CPMAPresident ? CPMAoverview - David Wawer, CPMAExecutive Director ? Key EPAissues for CPMA: ? Level playing field and fairness ? Efficiency of EPAstaff ? NGO's influence ? Regional office overreach/ conflicts with state environmental agencies ? EPAstrategic policy objectives - Brittany Bolen ? Potential areas of collaboration; other next steps ? Adjournment ? MA Color Pigments Manufacturers Association EPA-17-0432-L-000051 Interna l - Deliberat ive - Planning June 1, 2017 TSCA Section 6(a) Rules: Methylene Chloride Furniture Refinishing (Proposed) o Paint Removers NPRM: Proposed regulat ion of methy lene chlor ide in most commer cial and all consumer paint and coating remova l, and NMP in all paint and coat ing remova l. o Published January 2017 . Comment per iod closed May 2017. o o Public comments under rev iew , w ith a focus on comments that re late to furn iture refinishing Commercial Furniture Refinishing with Methylene Chloride: o In the Paint Removers NPRM, EPA ident ified unreasonab le risks for paint and coating remova l w ith methy lene chlor ide in commerc ial furn iture refinish ing, but exp lained that restrict ions cou ld not be o proposed at that time due to lack of informat ion on the econom ic impacts of proposed regu lat ions . A section of the NPRM ident ified next steps regarding proposed regu lat ions on methylene chloride in commerc ial furn iture refin ishing: o "EPA plans to hold a series of stakeho lder meetings. These meet ings w ill focus on current practices related to methy lene chloride for paint and coating remova l in commerc ial furn iture refin ishing; any substitute chemicals or alternat ive methods current ly in use or under deve lopment; and current and best practices re lated to respiratory protect ion programs and exposure reduct ion." (Jan 19 82 FR 7497) o "EPA views th is section as an advanced not ice of proposed rulemak ing, and intends to issue a not ice of proposed ru lemak ing follow ing a series of stakeho lder meet ings and further analysis on the cost impacts of regulatory act ion on th is industry. Following that proposa l and pub lic comment per iod, EPA intends to fina lize together the regulat ions proposed and the future proposa l re lated to methy lene chlor ide in furniture refin ishing." (Jan 19 82 FR 7498) o I I EPA-17-0432-L-000052 Internal - Deliberat ive - Planning June 1, 2017 TSCA Section 6{a) Rules: TCE (final) o TCE N PRMs: o Spot cleaning and aeroso l deg reasing published December 2016; comment period closed March 2017 (22 comments) o o Vapor degreasing pub lished January 2017; comment per iod closed May 2017 ("'500 comments) Nota ble Com ments {TCE1}: In general, non- industry commenters supported the ru le. Industry and trade organ izations had adverse comments and argued that EPA shou ld w ithdraw the proposed ru le and reassess the TCE uses in th is rule as part of its ongo ing risk evaluation of TCE. Most notab le comments are listed below. o The risk management decision extends beyond the scope of the correspond ing risk assessment o and therefore lacks proper scientific support. EPA should not use the Johnson et al. study on cardiac malformat ion. o Spot cleaning in dry clean ing was included in the fina l risk assessment w ithout peer review. o Supplementa l analyses on occupat ional exposure for TCE use in aeroso l degreasing and exposure assessment for TCE in spot cleaning at dry clean ing faci lit ies have not been peer reviewed . o EPA shou ld also reassess the impacts of the rule on sma ll businesses and convene a SBREFA o panel fo r aeroso l degreasing and spot cleaning at dry cleaning fac ilit ies. Crit ical uses (such as energ ized electr ical cleaners) for aerosol degreas ing should be allowed . o EPA's analysis does not account for add it ional steps needed when using alternat ive products no r the feas ibility of the alternat ives in some processes. o EPA should reconside r whether the unreasonable risks ident ified in the ru lemak ing " may be prevented or reduced to a suffic ient extent " by OSHA and CPSC. o Final Rule Schedule Notes: I ( 5 ) D e I Ii b e r a I ti I EPA-17-0432-L-000053 REGULATING PESTICIDE USE ON CANNABIS JUNE 15, 2017 ISSUE Develop EPA's position regarding appropriate pesticide use for cannabis1 and related state requests. Specific issue to address is: 1) the Special Local Needs registrations in three states. BACKGROUND o o o o o Many states have legalized cannabis for medical and recreational use, yet cannabis remains a schedule I controlled substance under federal law. There are no pesticides registered by EPA specifically for use on marijuana; however, some pesticide labels do list industrial hemp among the crops. The lack of registered pesticides for use on cannabis poses pest control challenges and potential and unknown human health concerns where pesticides are illegally used on cannabis plants that are later inhaled, applied dermally and/or ingested. Human health risk assessments, including dietary and occupational assessments, required to register pesticides have not been conducted for cannabis. Some states have taken the position that certain registered pesticides that contain broad use directions (i.e., "may be used on bedding plants") may be used on cannabis. Additionally, several states have published lists of pesticide products with such broad label language and made those lists available to their cannabis producers. Also, pesticides that are exempt from federal registration requirements under section 25(b) can be used on cannabis without violating FIFRA. Some states have passed legislation which directly (identify specific pesticides) or indirectly (setting tolerances for pesticides) allows the use of pesticides on cannabis within their state, in a manner that is inconsistent with FIFRA. The use of certain pesticides on cannabis is a violation of FIFRA. However, most states have primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for pesticide use violations as long as the state pesticide use laws are consistent with FIFRA. 1 For the purposes of this document, the Agency is using the following draft definitions. Cannabis: Plants in the genus Cannabis that are grown for production purposes. Includes both "marijuana" and "hemp" as defined below. Both forms are controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act. Marijuana: Cannabis plants (Cannabis sativa L. or Cannabis indica) and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis. Hemp: The plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis. Also referred to as "industrial hemp." USDA further defines industrial hemp as "including seeds of such plant, whether growing or not, that is used exclusively for industrial purposes (fiber and seed)" and defines tetrahydrocannabinols as "all isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers of tetrahydrocannabinols" (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 156, page 53395-53396). EPA-17-0432-L-000054 o o o The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is responsible for the registration of pesticides and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) oversees the cooperative agreement program that confers primacy to the states for pesticide use. Most states have cooperative agreements with EPA and primacy to enforce pesticide use violations. There are, however, statutory and regulatory requirements that must be met in order for EPA to confer primacy: o Where primacy is obtained via: (1) an EPA primacy determination; or (2) an approved certification program, FIFRA requires that states must have adequate pesticide use laws/regulations and adequate procedures implementing those laws (FIFRA Section 26(a) and (b)). o Where primacy is obtained via a cooperative agreement, the adequacy criteria are not expressly required by statute (FIFRA Section 26(b)). However, the Agency's Final Interpretive Rule (48 FR 404-411, January 5, 1983) requires EPA to conduct an evaluation using the adequacy criteria in Section 26(a) before conferring primacy via cooperative agreement. OPP, OECA, OGC, and the Regions have worked together on issues pertaining to the regulation of pesticide use on cannabis. o (b)(5) Deliberative Process I o o EPA is also coordinating with DOJ and FDA. As the number of states and tribes who have legalized medical and/or recreational cannabis grows 2, the need is growing for the agency to take positions on the use of pesticides on cannabis: o Cannabis growers have significant issues with pests, most notably spider mites, aphids, and powdery mildew and other molds. Unregistered pesticides in cannabis production are used to improve yield and profits for growers. Illegal residues of insecticides/miticides and fungicides have been found on cannabis being grown for both medical and recreational uses. These pesticides have Eight states and the District of Columbia have legalized both recreational and medical marijuana; other states have decriminalized marijuana. Three tribes have legalized marijuana. Another 28 states, Guam and Puerto Rico have medical marijuana only (includes 14 states with CBD-only programs). In 2017, over 30 states will consider legislation related to cannabis, approximately half of those bills are for legalization of medical or recreational marijuana. 2 2 EPA-17-0432-L-000055 unknown health consequences when used on cannabis, and may pose serious risks to public health. o Recently, OPP received applications for "special local needs" registrations from three states: Nevada, Vermont, and Washington. ? Each state issued four 24(c) registrations on April 4, 2017. ? The products contain the pesticide active ingredients Capsicum oleoresin extract, garlic oil, & soybean oil; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain D747; Azadirachtin; and Potassium salts of fatty acids ? Section 24(c) provisions provide that use could begin immediately and while the agency considers the registrations. ? OPP conducted a baseline review of these actions and found that no human health or ecological risk issues of concern were identified. o States have been inquiring about whether additional products could be considered under FIFRA 24(c). o Recently, there had been pending Colorado state legislation, which would have allowed the use of certain pesticides on marijuana in Colorado despite there being no pesticides currently registered by EPA, potentially at odds with FIFRA and state primacy requirements. Ultimately, the pesticide-related provisions were not adopted by the state legislature. LEGAL ANALYSIS (b) (5) I I 3 EPA-17-0432-L-000056 o ACTION ITEM Special Local Needs Options I ) ( 5 ) D e Ii I r a ti V e p r 0 C e 4 EPA-17-0432-L-000057 Update on ESA Pesticide Consultations June 19, 2017 EPA-17- 00000 0000000 Background: Endangered Species Act (ESA) Obligations for Pesticide Decisions o Why are pesticide decisions impacted by the ESA? o Under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, Federal agencies must ensure that the "actions" they authorize will not result in jeopardy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for species listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (jointly the Services) o For EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), the actions we authorize are the sale, distribution, and use of pesticides according to the product labeling o Conventional pesticide decisions impacted by ESA: o o o o o Registration review actions (~50-60/yr) New chemical registrations (~10-12/yr) New use registrations (~50-60/yr) Section 18 Emergency Exemptions (~100/yr) Section 24(c) Special Local Need (SLN) registrations (~200/yr) EPA-17-0432-L-000059 2 Background o ESA Authority o Section 7(a)(2) of ESA: EPA makes "effects determination" for individual listed species in a biological evaluation (BE): o No effect (NE) - no consultation required o Overview Document-compliant method (2004): Risk Quotient (RQ) < listed species Level of Concern (LOC) o NAS-recommended method (2013): No geospatial co-occurrence of pesticide use footprint with listed species range o Not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) - informal consultation; concurrence from Services o Likely to adversely affect (LAA) - formal consultation including Biological Opinion (BiOp) from Services (jeopardy/no jeopardy determination) o Nationwide consultations must consider direct/indirect effects to 1850 listed species and 600+ designated critical habitats EPA-17-0432-L-000060 3 Background- OPPHistorywith the Services o o EPAhas completed over 200 chemical-specific BEs as the result of court-imposed ESAobligations. The Services have issued 9 BiOps based on court-mandated schedules. None of these BEs or BiOps were nationwide evaluations. o Of 7 BiOps for listed Pacific Northwest salmon species submitted by NMFS {covering 32 chemicals), EPAhas implemented only one {thiobencarb); NMFS 1st BiOp was overturned. o Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives {RPAs)/Reasonable and Prudent Measures {RPMs) not feasible/practical to implement: o Arbitrary spray drift buffers o Lack of a target concentration where effects to listed salmon do not cause jeopardy o EPAhas implemented 2 BiOps submitted by FWS for Rozol and Kaput rodenticides o Geographically-specific Bulletins which restrict product use or timing of application EPA-17-0432-L-000061 4 NAS Report Implementation o Released on April 30, 2013 o Developed in response to a joint request by EPA, NMFS, FWS, and USDA in 2011 to address scientific areas of disagreement o Recommended 3-step process that integrates ecological risk assessment methods with ESA Section 7 consultations o Goal: unified interagency approach with agreement on process across all steps o Multiple interagency workshops where interim methods for EPA's BEs (Steps 1 and 2) have been developed o Several stakeholder meetings held to engage public on potential refinements o Interim methods need streamlining to meet available resources o Final BEs for chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion released in January 2017 EPA-17-0432-L-000062 5 NAS Report Implementation o The Biological Evaluation (BE) determines whether registered pesticides adversely affect one or more individuals of a listed species and/or their designated critical habitats o Step 1 ["No Effect/May Affect" Determination] o Step 2 ["Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA)/Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA) Determination] o The Biological Opinion (BiOp) determines whether the registration of a pesticide is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its designated critical habitat o Step 3 ["Jeopardy/No Jeopardy" Determination and "Adverse Modification/No Adverse Modification" Determination] EPA-17-0432-L-000063 6 Methodology forr Pesticide Consultations The draft process follows the 2013 NAS recommendations for a 3-step approach: Three step consultation approach Probl em form ulatio (modified from.NAS NRCreport) ------- Step 1 May Aff ect ? No Risk Yes ------- Step 2 No li kely to Adversely Aff ect? Yes Concurrence ? Yes formulation St ep 3 No Jeop ardy? Adver..e Mod ification? Registratio or reregistration of pesticide -----.- No Ye .. EPAdeci des whether and The draft BE process was developed in close coordination with the Services - EPA has worked very hard to provide information in Steps 1 and 2 that the Services said they would need to conduct Step 3. de r what cond itio ns to register pestici de 0ft EPA - 'i Uniled $1a10. ~~v~m nlal Pro toclion 1 3'. USDA NOAAFISHERIES ??::::::::iiii5 EPA-17-0432-L-000064 7 Overviewof the BEMethod - Step 1 o Two sets of spatial data are compared o Pesticide exposure area o Based on national-level GIS data to identify potential use sites o Buffered to account for transport to levels that potentially represent effects (based on most sensitive toxicity data) o Species range - provided by Services o No Effect /May Affect determination o Based on whether or not there is overlap of the potential exposure area and the species range o No Effect (i.e., no overlap) - no need to seek consultation with Services o May Affect (i.e., overlap) - move to step 2 Off / srte tr.-ns-port wne Spedes 1 rang~ EPA-17-0432-L-000065 8 Overviewof the BEMethod -Step 2 o Step 2 o Weight-of-Evidence Approach o Risk and confide nce evaluated for mult iple lines of evidence (morta lity, grow th, reprodu ct ion and ot her sublethal effects) based on est imat ed exposure and effect s th reshold s o Incident data o Quali tat ive discussion of mixtu res and abiotic influe nce (e.g., tempe rat ure, pH) on t oxicity o Intended to answer the questions: o Is there a potential for an individual's fitness to be reduced? o Is there a potential for important physical and biological features of a species habitat to be adversely affected? o Describes the process for making Likely to Adversely Affect(LAA)/Not to Adversely Affect (NLAA) Determinations Likely o LAA- species/critical habitat moves to Step 3 (jeopardy/adverse modification determination) o NLAA- concurrence from the Services EPA-17-0432-L-000066 9 Step 3 - ServicesBiOps o Services are currently working on BiOps (Step 3) for chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion o Proposed delivery date of June 30, 2017 to EPA o EPAand Services have had several workshops discussing the methodology for population-level risk assessments of endangered species o To date, an interagency method has not been reached o EPAhas provided comments on specific sections of the BiOps to the Services o o EPAhas developed the MAG tool to facilitate analysis of large amounts of data generated in the BEsfor the population level risk assessments EPA-17-0432-L-000067 10 Litigation and Settlement Agreements o Settlement agreements on ESA-litigation o Grand Bargain resolved 4 cases to allow agencies to focus ESA compliance and NAS report implementation on nationwide effects determinations and BiOps for 5 pesticides (chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion, carbaryl, and methomyl) o Final BiOps for chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion due in Dec. 2017 o Final BiOps for carbaryl and methomyl due in Dec. 2018 o EPA and FWS resolved 2 cases with Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) to set schedules for next 4 nationwide pesticide consultations (atrazine, glyphosate, simazine, and propazine) o EPA to complete final BEs in June 2020 o FWS to complete final BiOps in June 2022 o Ongoing ESA challenges: o New chemical registrations (cyantraniliprole, flupyridifurone, bicyclopyrone, benzovindiflupyr, and one antimicrobial chemical (coupron couprous iodide) o Ellis v. Housenger (clothianidin and thiamethoxam) o Megasuit EPA-17-0432-L-000068 11 OPP Approach for ESA Compliance Three-pronged approach: . BEConclusions o LAA for most listed species o Chlorpyrifos and malathion - 97% LAA LAA o Diazinon - ~so% o Due to overlap of range/critical habitat and potential uses sites o Low thresholds {high toxicity), maximum use rates, other assumptions of exposure o Weight-of-evidence approach o LAA for single individual of a listed species o EPA-17-0432-L-000070 Stakeholder Concerns o April 13, 2017 letter from registrants of 3 pilot OPs to political leadership of EPA and the Services requesting: o EPA to withdraw the BEs o Services to stop work on the BiOps o Services to modify settlement agreements to allow more time to complete consultation o Registrants/Growers: o Too large and complex; inadequate comment period o Current methods are not sustainable o Do not account for taxon-specific toxicity data early enough in the process o Overly conservative o GIS layers used are too broad (for use site and species range layers) o Use of invalid and un-reviewed studies o Need to consider public health, usage data and benefits o NGOs o Too large and complex o Generally agreed with the overall process EPA-17-0432-L-000071 14 ChaHenges EPA-17-0432-L-000072 .. Next Steps: Future Consultations MOVING Background:ESATimeline o April 2013 - NAS report issued o November 2013 - release of interim scientific methods for implementing NAS recommendations o April 2016 - First draft BEs posted for public comment (chlorpyrifos, malathion, and diazinon) o June 2016 - 2-day stakeholder workshop o September 2016 to present - Interagency workshops on BO process o September 2016- Stakeholder meeting on mosquitocides uses o January 2017 - Final BEsfor chlorpyrifos, malathion, and diazinon o April 2017 - Industry requests current pesticide consultations be put on hold EPA-17-0432-L-000074 17 Update on Endangered Species Act Pesticide Consultations Meeting Agenda - June 19, 2017 o Introductions o Brief Background and History of ESA Related Issues o National Academy of Sciences Report Implementation o Litigation and Settlement Agreements o Stakeholder Concerns o Challenges o Group Discussion o Timeline o Next Steps EPA-17-0432-L-000075 EA~ ft 111...o~ ,, C SAFER CHOICE epa.gov/saferchoice United States Environmental Protection Agency Safer Chemical IngredientsList {SCIL) Briefing- July 26 , 2017 EPA-17-0432-L-000076 Outline: Presentation on the Safer Chemical Ingredients List (SCIL) ? Context for SCIL ? Public interface for SCIL ? Safer Choice criteria for listing on SCIL ? Uses of SCIL EA~United ft ._w~ ,,,. States Environmental Agency Protection Safer Choice Program EPA-17-0432-L-000077 2 Safer Choice-Certified Products ? About 2,000 labeled products from 500 American manufacturing partners o ~ 700 Retail o >1,300 Industrial & Institutional ? A majority of partners are small businesses - ? Participating chemical manufacturers include: o AkzoNobel, BASF, Dow, Eastman, Milliken, Novozymes, Rivertop Renewables, Stepan EA~United ft ._w~ ,,,. States Environmental Agency Protection Safer Choice Program EPA-17-0432-L-000078 3 Safer Chemical Ingredients List o The listed chemicals are safer alternatives, grouped by their functional-use dass.' o Chemicals are marked as a O greencircle, 8 green half-circle, 6 yellow triangle, or D grey square.' o This list includes many of the chemicals evaluated through the Safer Choice Program. It doesnot include confidential chemicals. There may be chemicals not included in this list that are also safer. o Someof tlhe listed chemicals may not be on the TSCAinventory and therefore may not be authorized/ allowed for TSCAuses.Those considering TSCAusesfor thesechemicals should first determine whether such use is authorized. Chemicals not listed on the TSCAinventory are indicated as such in a pop-up box that appears upon clicking the hyperlinked CASRN in the table below. ? Please Select : All Functional Use Classes ? or Select a Funct io nal Use Class: www.epa.gov/saferchoice/saferingredients o Chemicals searchable by Name and CAS RN 13Mi.M+Hi Chelating Age nts Note: When a functional usecategory is select ed, the search above will only apply to the chemicals assigned to this functional use. To select a different funct ional use, pleasescroll up. o Ant imicrobial Actives o Chelating Agents o Colorants o Defoamers Show o Emollients EJ Code o Enzymesand EnzymeStabilizers ~ e111 tries Co .m mon Name CAS Reg istry Number ~ Funct io nal Use ~ o Fragrances o Oxidants and Oxidant Stabilizers e 2-Butenedioic acid (2Z)-, ammo nium salt ( I :>), homo polymer, hydrolyzed, sodium salts 181828-06-8 Chelatingi\gents o Polymers o Preservatives and Antioxidants 0 Alanine, N,N-bis(carboxymethyl)-, sodium salt ( 1:3) 164462-16-2 Chelatingi\gents o Processing Aids and Additives e Aspa,t ic acid, N-( 1,2-, i... 40 35 30 .2_ ~ 25 co C sr-- >---- >---- >---- >---- 20 ro N Q) .c 15 >, 0 Cl) 10 5 0 Banvel + Roundup PM Clarity+ Roundup PM Engenia + Roundup PM Xtendimax + Roundup PM Xtendimax + Roundup PM + AMS EPA-17-0432-L-000106 m_u>L ow Tunnel Volatility Study (Soybean) 13 days aftertreatment Plants under dome injured Injury under dome Engenia Xtendimax S-mochtendimax Herbicide treatment EPA-17-0432-L-000108 I Enqtnio 2 . 21 OAT 60 55 2 treated acres 55 55 45 55 I XSMOC 2 o 2 1 OAT 55 55 2 treated acres 35 50 25 50 EPA-17-0432-L-000109 EPA-1 7-0432-L-0001 PhysicalDrift, Vapor Drift, and Overall Drift Comparison 640 ft 640 ft 20 acres t 20 acres 578 ft 578 ft 1 1280 ft I. ........ I 258 ft o 10ft (0 - 40 ft ) I 258 ft 258 ft 30 ft I T ._______ 578 ft .. ........ 258 ft 578 ft .....------------ EPA-17-0432-L-000111 EPA-17-0432-L-0001 12 Comparison of two dicamba formulations for risk of off-target movement to soybean GT Jones o, J.K . Norsworthy 1, LT. Barbe r2 , J.K Green 1, CJ _ Meyer' , and N.R. Stepp ig 1 of Crop, Soil,. and Environmenta l Sciences, University of Arkansas , Fayetteville , AR 2 Un ivers ity of Arkansas Research and Extension Service, Lonoke, AR 1Department Introduction o Yffth the advent of dica mba-re sistant cr ops, there wi ll be greate r possi bi lity for off.-target movement of dic.amba due to 0ist ..1f1tl!Cm) dicamba) has been docwne nt~ to be similar (Egan and Morbonsen 20121: It has y.t to be d.t ermined if soybean re-spons,eto Engenia (BAPMA dicamba) will be- similar. o Pre-viousrese.:arch has documented Clarity (diglycolam.ne dicamba) to have reduced sec ondary {volatile) lo ss of 94% 12 Ill ,. "' 36 when compared lo Banvel (dim.thylami no clic.amba l (Egan and Morbonsen 20121. o othe r research has documented a 50% decrease in detection by air samp lers when Cl>aritywa.sapp'lied o"er Banvel (Mueller etal 2013). o Engenia(N,N-Bis- [aminopropy ~ mettrylami no dicambal is clai med to have decreased s.econ dary loss in regard to Clarity: ho we-ver, n o pe-:r reviewed resea rch is ava il>a ble co ncern ing this.fom1ulatio n. " F1gUre1. Ae,;rialview of the large dr ift experimen t approximately 3 ~s after application of ta C ~ N 11 10 f----------l ~ .- 5 ::::s c ni ::::s .> U) ~ 0 -!-'-" - 0-2 hours 2-8 hours 8 -16 hours 16 -24 hours 24-72 hours Time After Treatment EPA-17-0432-L-000122 (C) Dr. Kevin Bradley, Univ. of Missouri Some PreliminaryAir Sampling Resultswith Engeniaand XtendiMax ::C 500 C. C. ...... C 0 427 400 ? ..c; 301 n, ~ +,I C D Banvel 300 Engenia D Xtendimax 245 C1' u C 0 u 200 107 n, .c E n, 100 u .c ? Data not ana lyzed yet 22 0 16 0 0 0 1 f \ 0 2 hrs . prior 0-2 hrs 2-5 hrs 5-8 8-16 16-24 24-72 hrs hrs hrs hrs Time in Comparisonto Treatment EPA-17-0432-L-000123 (C) Dr. Kevin Bradley, Univ . of Mi ssouri Briefing on Lead: August 4, 2017 Overview of Task Force, EJ2020 and Lead in Indian Country Amanda Hauff, OCSPP's Tribal and Environmental Justice Program Manager President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety to Children Background Information o o o o The President's Task Force is the focal point for coordinating the federal government's efforts to explore, understand, and improve children's environmental health. The Task Force was established by Executive Order 13045 in 1997 - calling for each federal agency to "ensure that its policies, programs, activities, and standards address disproportionate risks to children that result from environmental health risks and safety risk." Objectives of the President's Task Force are to: o Identify priority issues of environmental health and safety risks to children that can best addressed by federal interagency efforts o Recommend and implement interagency actions to protect and promote children's environmental health and safety o Communicate with federal, state, and local decision makers to protect children from environmental and safety risk Members o 11 Federal Agencies o 6 White House Offices o Co-chairs: EPA Administrator, HHS Secretary Structure o Senior Staff Steering Committee; Co-Chairs: EPA, HHS o Subcommittees: lead exposures, chemical exposures, asthma disparities, and healthy settings OCSPP's Role o o Serves on the Senior Staff Steering Committee to support the work of the Task Force Serves on the Lead and Chemical Exposures Sub-Committees OCSPP Activities and Accomplishments o Published the Key Federal Programs to Reduce Childhood Lead Exposures and Eliminate Associated Health Impacts report which identifies efforts of nine federal agencies activities to understand, prevent and reduce various source of lead exposures among children o Developed, and coordinated a new comprehensive federal strategy outline to reduce childhood lead exposures and eliminate associated health impacts; Fostered federal agencies efforts to compliment EPA's intra-agency efforts to focus on minority, low-income, vulnerable populations o Crafted research and development questions to advance scientific understanding of the effects, evaluation, and control of lead hazards in children's environments; these questions will serve as the starting point for federal agencies to conduct collaborative research in order to take meaningful action 1 EPA-17-0432-L-000124 o Fostered and facilitated new discussions and activities to examine, understand, and include childhood lead exposure and disparities in Indian country o Developed community engagement and dissemination plans for the Strategy Projected Timeline o TBD: First draft of the Federal Lead Strategy Environmental Justice Strategic Plan (EJ2020) Background Information o o o EPA's Environmental Justice Strategic Plan focused the Agency on environmental and public health issues and challenges confronting the nation's minority, low-income, tribal and indigenous populations EJ2020 consists of eight priority areas and four significant national environmental justice challenges Lead Disparities were identified a Significant National Environmental Justice Challenge o Goal: Eliminate disparities in childhood blood lead levels as an integral part of reducing lead exposures for all people o EPA will take action to address childhood lead exposures and health disparities in a holistic manner in order to focus Agency resources, technical assistance, and comprehensive solutions to reduce sources of lead contamination in overburdened communities OCSPP's Role o Serves as the Agency's principal on Lead Disparities actions, located on pages 37-41. Lead Disparities Overview The Lead Disparities section provides: o An aspirational goal to eliminate disparities in childhood blood lead levels, while reducing lead exposures for all people; o A program measure that identifies a comparison of blood lead levels in low-income children compared to non-low-income children; o Background information on the toxicity of lead and exposures; as well as o EPA's three main objectives on lead: I. Identify concentrated geographic areas with the most overburdened communities where lead exposures are highest; II. Create collaborative strategies and approaches to take action to reduce sources of lead contamination; and III. Take national actions to reduce lead in drinking water. Most importantly, EPA will seek to collaborate with partners to address the above objectives by leveraging existing projects and activities as well as identifying new opportunities to take collaborative action(s). 2 EPA-17-0432-L-000125 Lead Disparities Objectives EPA will take action to address childhood lead exposures and health disparities in a holistic manner in order to focus Agency resources, technical assistance and comprehensive solutions to reduce sources of lead contamination in overburdened communities. To eliminate disparities in childhood blood lead levels, EPA will convene partners including other federal agencies, state, tribes, local government, non-profit organizations and community stakeholders, to accomplish the following: I. Identify concentrated geographic areas with the most overburdened communities In collaboration with partners, EPA will take the following steps to address disparities in blood lead levels in children by focusing on communities where these disparities are most pronounced. EPA will define a subset of the most overburdened communities where lead exposures are highest, based on factors such as: o Household income; o Age of housing in the community; o Proximity to a Superfund site containing lead; o Proximity to other sources of lead contamination such as industrial sites and highways; o Drinking water supplied by utilities that exceed the Lead and Copper Rule action level for lead; o Non-attainment of the lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); and o Additional evidence of factors that contribute to elevated blood lead levels among children. The identification of targeted areas with the highest risk of lead exposure to children will better allow EPA and its partners to focus specific resources aimed at ultimately eliminating harmful exposures. This, in turn, will aid in the elimination of disparities in lead exposure currently seen in the United States. II. Reduce sources of lead contamination To reduce sources of lead contamination, EPA will develop strategies and unique approaches with all levels of government, the private sector, non-government organizations and community partners to: o Educate communities on sources of lead contamination and the health effects of lead; Raise awareness of lead-based paint exposure and prevention tactics; o Increase efforts to ensure adequate lead-based paint workforces (e.g., inspectors, contractors, trainers, etc.); o Increase technical assistance to states and public water systems to optimize corrosion control treatment and remove lead service lines, if lead in drinking water is a source contributor; o Raise awareness of actions residents and the community can take to reduce lead in drinking water; o Develop community-based sampling programs to test soil, paint and drinking water for elevated lead levels; o Identify best practices and transfer lessons learned; o Facilitate data-sharing between health and environmental agencies; o Improve the use of data from screening programs; and o Increase financial assistance to address lead hazards at the community level, to the extent resources are available. III. National actions to reduce lead in drinking water (Note: OW is the principal for this effort) 3 EPA-17-0432-L-000126 EPA plans to take actions to reduce lead in drinking water by strengthening protections provided by the Lead and Copper Rule. EPA will: o Work closely with states and public water systems to enhance oversight and provide guidance on tap water sampling; o Improve guidance and implementation for corrosion control and lead mitigation; and o Identify best practices that can be applied to communities. In addition, EPA plans to consider long-term revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule to improve public health protection by making substantive changes to streamline the rule requirements. EPA's primary goals in considering Lead and Copper Rule long-term revisions are to: o Improve the effectiveness of the corrosion control treatment in reducing exposure to lead and copper, and o Trigger additional actions that equitably reduce the public's exposures to lead and copper when corrosion control treatment alone is not effective. OCSPP Activities and Accomplishments o o o o o Cultivated, coordinated and published Lead Disparities chapter Conducted community engagement; Revised strategy based off of constituent's feedback Established intra-agency team and sub-committee(s) Developed and refined Lead Inventory Structure to create an interactive platform for information sharing and Agency use Drafting the methodology to accomplish Objective I o Identified potential products: 1) Interactive map for analyses; 2) National Lead Analysis Report (supplemental analyses of information and findings); 3) White Paper on data gaps and needs o Analyzing existing authoritative mapping layers and geo-coded data sets o Identify/obtain CDC data on national BLL; identify gaps; develop/take actions to populate information for gaps Lead Inventory Structure Outline EPA's Lead Disparities Team will develop a Lead Dashboard that provides an inventory of Agency resources, activities and information to be used as a platform for information sharing to analyze EPA's lead work and to be used to take actions towards eliminating disparities in childhood lead levels for vulnerable populations. In addition, this will serve as a platform to ensure Agency coordination, collaboration and communications. Information will be structured into the below major categories: I. Partnerships, Projects, and Grants a. Partnership - an arrangement where parties may be individuals, business, interest-based organizations, schools, government, or combinations b. Project - planned set of interrelated tasks to be executed over a fixed period and within certain cost and other limitations c. Grant - funding that does not have to be repaid 4 EPA-17-0432-L-000127 II. Outreach, Education, Training Materials and Events a. Outreach, Education, Training Materials - products designed to explain information and encourage people to take action b. Events - a planned public occasion III. EPA Data Visualization and Analytical Tools, Applications, and Statistical Models a. Data Visualization Tool - a tool used to present data in a pictorial, graphical, visual context to enable decision-makers to see analytics presented visually b. Data Analytical Tool - a tool used to display and analyze multiple sets of variation data on a single graph; usually provides high quality data for discrete chemicals; software that performs one or more functions and that's been specifically built for a specific solution data collection and analysis tools - box and whisker plot, control chart, histogram, scatter diagram, survey c. Application - an application, especially as downloaded by a user to a mobile device d. Statistical Model - a mathematical model, which embodies a set of assumptions concerning the generation of some sample data, and similar data from a larger population; a statistical model often in considerably idealized form, the data-generating process IV. Data Collection, Analysis, Evaluation, and Use a. Data collection - the process of gathering and measuring information on targeted variables in an established systematic function, which then enables one to answer relevant questions and evaluate outcome b. Data Analysis - the process of inspecting, cleansing, transforming, and modeling data with the goal of discovering useful information, suggesting conclusions and supporting decision-making c. Data Evaluation - the process of evaluating data using analytical and logical reasoning to examine each component of the data provided; data from various sources is gathered, reviewed, and then analyzed to form some sort of finding or conclusion d. Data Use - facts that can be used in calculating, reasoning, or planning V. EPA Data Analysis and Evaluation of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) Data a. NHANES Data Analysis - the process of inspecting, cleansing, transforming, and modeling data with the goal of discovering useful information, suggesting conclusions and supporting decision-making b. NHANES Data Evaluation - the process of evaluating data using analytical and logical reasoning to examine each component of the data provided; data from various sources is gathered, reviewed, and then analyzed to form some sort of finding or conclusion c. NHANES Data Use - facts that can be used in calculating, reasoning, or planning Projected Timeline o (b)(5) Deliberative Process I I 5 EPA-17-0432-L-000128 o o October: Obtain national BLL exposure information and identify data gaps January: Execute methodology plans Lead in Indian Country Background Information o Identified the need to take efforts to better understand, assess, and include childhood lead exposure and disparities in Indian country into Agency and Task Force efforts o For example, we need to: ? Understand and identify BLL data, exposures, and unique cultural exposures ? Identify success stories, best practices, needs, impacts, etc. ? Coordinate and collaborate further as an Agency and the Federal Government ? Coordinate and collaborate with tribes, tribal communities and tribal organizations OCSPP's Role o Serves as Agency and Task Force principal Objectives o o o o Assess current status of lead exposures in Indian country for the Agency and Task Force o Identify, understand, and explore information to address tribal lead disparities and exposures ? Quantify and qualify tribal disparities Build tribal-federal partnerships, networking and participation Enhance/leverage resources, technical assistance, and information sharing to improve outreach, education and actions in Indian country Allow for Tribal Partnerships Groups to take a principal role to improve and disseminate preventative communications, etc. OCSPP Activities and Accomplishments o o o Established networks to serve as resources, advocates, and collaborators; Facilitated organizational changes to include approaches to address childhood lead disparities and exposures in Indian country Facilitated inter and intra agency discussions on issues, needs and gaps Analyzing EPA work in Indian country to provide a sense of issues and leverage existing materials, resources, best practices, etc. Projected Timeline o o o Ongoing: Convene partners (e.g., NTTC, TSC, ORD, OCHP, OEJ, HUD, HHS, etc.) to discuss lead in Indian country and activities o Components include: data, outreach/education, planning, collaborations, etc. October: Finish EPA's Snapshot of work in Indian country which provides existing materials, information, success stories, challenges and feedback from EPA's Tribal Program November: Develop first draft of strategic plan 6 EPA-17-0432-L-000129 PFAS Work Group Activity Summary Cross-Agency PFAS Human Health Toxicity Workgroup - August 30. 2017 o Goal: Address public concerns and inform risk mit igat ion activities by filling data gaps related to human hea lth toxicity o Anticipated accomplishments: 0 I o Anticipated upcoming milestones: 0 o Agency leads: Workgroup co-chairs - Kath leen Raffaele (OLEM) and Lynn Flow ers (ORD) PFAS Priorities: Cross-Agency Data Quality Workgroup -July 13, 2017 o Goal : Identify data qua lity issues and guide lines to establish laboratory data submission and nat iona l data validat ion procedures re lated to PFASand LC/MS/MS . o Anticipated accomplishments: 0 o Anticipated upcoming milestones: 0 I Agency leads: Workgroup co-chairs - Barry Pepich (Region 10), Cynthia Capora le (Region 3), 1 EPA-17-0432-L-000130 PFAS Prioriti es: Cross-Agency Method s W orkgroup July 13 1 2017 o Goal: Establish validated met hods for measuring the amou nt of PFAS in different env ironmen t al med ia and for biomo nitor ing. o Anticipat ed accompli shment s: I o Anticip at ed upcomin g mil estones: 0 I I I Agency leads: Workg ro up co-chairs - Cynth ia Caporale (Region 3), Christophe r lmpe llite ri (ORD), and Schat zi Fit z-James (OLEM) o Not e: This pr iority activity is one of the th ree existi ng PFAS wo rking groups and close ly coo rd inates wit h the data q uality wo rkgroup. 2 EPA-17-0432-L-000131 OPP Human Health Risk Assessment Overview Briefing For Nancy Beck September 14, 2017 EPA-17-0432-L-000132 &EPA Roadmap ? Basis ? RiskAssessment o Hazard o Exposure oCharacterization ? Topical Issues EPA-17-0432-L-000133 2 &EPALegislative Basis FIFRA(Risk/ BenefitStandard) o o Occupational RiskAssessment R.s"hssessment Eco,ogica, FFDCA/FQPA (Risk-OnlyStandard) o Food Quality Protection Act " ... reasonable certainty that no harm wil l result from aggregate exposure to the pest icide chemical residue, incl ud ing a ll anticipa ted d iet ary exposures a nd a ll other exposures for which there is reliable information." HumanHealthRiskAssessment o DietaryExposure o ResidentialExposure 3 EPA-17-0432-L-000134 &EPA Basic Construct HazardIdentification , , Exposure Assessment Dose Response Assessment . ~ I . . Risk Charactenzat10n . I ~ *From the National Research Coun cil' s Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, 1983 . http ://books.nap.edu/books/030904894X/html/1.html 4 EPA-17-0432-L-000135 &EPA How RiskIs Expressed Dietary Risks:% of acute(aPAD) PAD = Point of Departure (e.g .o NOAEL) Uncertainty Factors (includes FQPA) Occupational/Residential & chronic (cPAD) 0 /oPAD = Exposure x 100 PAD Risks:MOE or Margin of Exposure MOE = Point of Departure (e.g .o NOAEL) Exposure Target MOE = Uncertainty Factors (Residential Includes FQPA) Cancer risksare expressed as population based estimate Typically a range of results presented , based on 1986 Barolo Memo guidance 5 EPA-17-0432-L-000136 &EPA Scientific Rigor o Well established guidelines and GLP criteria are basis of methods o Key approaches and data sources have undergone extensive external scientific peer review o Riskassessments are vetted in public participation process o Many methods are broadly accepted on an international level o Leaders in cutting edge science policy development EPA-17-0432-L-000137 6 &EPA Key Definitions o Endpoint: The adverseeffect upon which the risk assessment is based o Control: Backgroundresponsewith dosing (dose= zero) o Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level {LOAEL): Lowest dose from a study at which adverseeffects are observed o No Observed Adverse Effects Level {NOAEL): The dose at which no adverseeffects are observed o Point of Departure {POD): The dose level used to quantify risk (generic) o Population Adjusted Dose {PAD): Dose level used to quantify risks in dietary assessments,representsthe POD adjusted with all appropriate safety factors including FQPA o APAD = Acute PAD, CPAD = Chronic PAD o PAD = RfD with FQPA factor also applied EPA-17-0432-L-000138 7 &EPA Hazard Identification ? Battery of toxicology studies are required https:ewww.ef8a.~ov/test-guidelines-pesticides-and-toxic-substances/series-870-healtheffec s-test-gu1 e 1nes ? Data intended to identify variety of potential adverse effects o e.g. , neurotox ici ty , reproduct io n and developmental tox ici ty , cancer , im munotox ici ty ? Studies are conducted in a variety of species e.g., mice, rats, rabbits, dogs ? Treatments range from single (acute) exposure to repeated longer term exposures (up to 2 yrs) ? Non-guideline data important too ? e.g. , comparative thyro id (CTA) cholinesterase o Fit for Purpose approaches ? e.g. , HASPOC/data (CCA) and comparative being used as appropriate waiver process EPA-17-0432-L-000139 8 &EPA Hazard Identification o Proc ess of id e ntif ying th e po te ntial he alth effec ts a s a result of vario us types o f c he mic al expos ure o Out p ut is " Point s o f Dep artur e " o r POD o Go al is to mat c h ro ute & durati o n o f expos ure Typical Scenarios & Durations Acute ( 1 Day) Short-Term (up to 1 Month) Intermed iate -Term (up to 6 Months) Ch ronic (> 6 Months) Oral Dermal Inhalation ? ? ? ? ? Dietary ? Inciden t al ? Inciden t al ? Dietary EPA-17-0432-L-000140 9 &EPA Uncertainty /Safety Factors o lntraspecies - variability among humans o Interspecies - extrapolating animal data to humans o Extrapolating from less-than-lifetime to lifetime exposures o LOAEL to NOAEL o Incomplete data base o Increased concern for susceptibility of infants and children not addressed by other safety factors Generally lOX unless a smaller factor can be shown to be pro tective Maximum = 3000 P o pul at ion Adju st ed Do s e ( PAD ) Jt' RfD Jt' i'.lt'taspedes 11~ F actar Fad:ar t .. l , ..l LOA E L to NOA E L Subchronic to Ch r onic Incomp l e t e to Comp lete D at abas e Mod ifying Facto r ~ Tr a dition a l UF s .........................................................? Are as of ov erl a p wi t h Tr a di t ion a l UF s Un ique FQPA Concerns ' f F Q PASF . Example of fa ctor application to develop PAD for diet ary risk assessment s - w hi c h de a l w ith d a t a pr o blem s EPA-17-0432-L-000141 10 &EPA Exposure Types Dietary Exposure Residential Exposure (General Public) Occupational Exposure EPA-17-0432-L-000142 11 Key Factors In &EPA Exposure Assessment Human Behaviors Use Information (rate, type, & crop) Chemistry Fate & Transport EPA-17-0432-L-000143 12 Dietary Exposure &EPA _____ _J Food Consumpt ion (WW EIA) Food Recipe Database (FCID) X - Pesticide Residue Acceptable Level aPAD,cPAD,ssPAD,etc. EPA-17-0432-L-000144 13 &EPA Dietary Exposure Pestic ides I HIJI.I TI O Resi due 11 0H CO H C.rHrlA foo" ,tds -- CON.l'l'MED ( Consumption ) X ( Residue ) = Dietary Exposure o Assessments range from simple to complex, but based on same general exposure algorithm. o OPP uses a data-driven approach ? tomat oes ~ Ions talTOII po,ic ? potaloe o whe at mlll< o ? USDA's What We Eat In America (WWEIA) Survey Nationally representative food consumption survey U.S. EPA's Food Commodity Intake Database (FCID) Recipe database that links WWEIA foods to residue data Residue Data Sources vary depending on level of refinement Penon 001 DAY 0 A Y D A r J f 3 EPA-17-0432-L-000145 14 &EPARefinement Approach No refinements: Tolerance-level residues and 100%CT highly refined residues EPA-17-0432-L-000146 15 &EPA ? Amount Tolerances & MRLs that can legally remain in or on foods ? Label-compliance tool, not a health-based standard ? Tolerances set on food and/or feed crops o Based on results from field trials designed to identify the highest concentrations expected o Use maximum application rates o Maximum number of applications o Shortest application to harvest interval ? Generally, actual measured residues in food are lower than tolerances o e.g. , degradation during distribution and storage , washing EPA-17-0432-L-000147 16 &EPA Residential Exposure o Exposure from uses o In and around homes o Athletic fields and golf courses o Public areas o Exposure scenario based pathways o Handlers o Post-application o Index lifestages cons idered o Routes of exposure o Dermal (application and post-application) o Inhalation (application and post-application) o Oral (post-application; children only) o Key tool - SOPs For Residential Exposure Assessment EPA-17-0432-L-000148 17 &EPA Residential Handlers lb ChemX mg ChemX Exposure --x -Area x -------:Area day lb ChemX Handled MOE = Point of Departure . k g BW _ - Exposure (mg /k g /d} (e.g., NOAEL}/Exposure (mg/kg/day) o Key Inputs/Factors o Label/Use Directions o e.g., applicat ion rate o Activity/Amount per day o Unit Exposure (dermal and inhalation) o Exposure per amount of product handled o Use pattern spec ific va lues o Dermal Absorption o Body Weight EPA-17-0432-L-000149 18 Post-Application &EPA Residential Exposure o Complex compared to handler assessments o Exposure source characterization o e.g., Turf-Transferrable Residue (TTR) o Behavioral based approaches o o o o o o Index lifestage Dermal contact levels Mouthing rates Breathing Rates Frequency /Duration of Behaviors Types of behavior & how to address EPA-17-0432-L-000150 19 Post-Application &EPA Residential Exposure ug ch emX cm 2 T C - cm x ---hour 2 hours of a ctivit x -------da y y + k g BW = Exposure (mg /k g /d) MO E = Point of Depa rture (e.g. , NOA EL)/ Exposure (mg/kg/day) o Key Inpu ts/ Facto rs o Labe l/ use direc tions o Residue level o Depos ition on area basis & dissipation kinetics o Ac tivity w hic h de fines: o TC or Transfe r Coefficient {dermal rate of contact) o Inde x life sta ge (determ ines if mou th ing behavior co nside red) o Exposure nme o Dermal Absorp tion o Body Weig ht EPA-17-0432-L-000151 20 Aggregate Exposure 2] &EPA Aggregate Exposure FQPAdefines"safe" as: "there is a reasonablecertainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposureto the pesticidechemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposureand all other exposurefor which there is reliable information." ? Co m bi ne Routes o f Exp osure o Gene ra lly a sing le compound o Common effects ac ross routes o Reliab le estimates of exposu re o Avo id ove restimate + ove restimate + ove restimate ? Does not inc lude occupa tio na l exposu re EPA-17-0432-L-000153 22 Aggregate &EPA Scenarios o Acute (.S.1-day) o usually dietary food and DW only, occasionally includes refined residential exposures o Short-term (1-30 days) o food, DW,residential - only done when residential scenariosexist o Intermediate-term (1-6 months) o food, DW,residential - only done when residential scenariosexist o Chronic (6 months - lifetime) o usually dietary food and DW,occasionallyincludes residential exposures o Cancer o food, DW,residential EPA-17-0432-L-000154 23 &EPA Occupational Exposure o Handlers: those who may be exposed while mixing, loading, and/or applying pesticides o Post-application workers: those who enter previously treated areas to tend/ harvest crops that have been previously treated EPA-17-0432-L-000155 24 Scenario Based Approach &EPA Occupational Exposure _ Application (mg/day) Rate X Area Treated Handlers X Unit Exposure o Key Inputs oApplication Rate: ? based on the label or usage information (lb ai/Acre) o Acres treated: o standard values from data and surveys (Acres or gallons per day) o Unit exposure: o Exposure per pound of active ingredient handled (e.g., mg/ lb ai) o Distinct values based on task and level of personal protection o Extensive library of values developed through a collaborative multi-governmental and industry effort EPA-17-0432-L-000157 26 &EPA Unit Exposure Example USEPA/ Offooeof PesticidePrograms/ Health Effeds OMslon o, ciupatlona1P'estl, ide, HandleirUnit !Exposur,e Surroga.te.Refer,enceTabfe E)cposure !Personal Pirotective Data Stat1stlc Sc:enarlo 2 Route ,Equipment(PPE) Leve11 Souirce A.HET ,F (A) M@an SingJela,yer, no glov@js Singfe layeir, glove-s A.HEU Mean Oerma'I Doub1e lay@r , gfoves(B) A.HETF Mean Engineering contro! ..Sest fit'" PHEO (water-soluble pa(lkaging) Mixing/ LoadingDry Flowable Mean No Respirator AHETf PFS(C) AHETF Mean lnnalation PHO(D) AHETF Mean Engineeringcontrol ..Best fit"' PHEO (water-solublepaeikag ingl Derm al App licator , Open Cab Groundboom Inha lation Single layer, no gloves (A) Sing le layer , glov es Double layer , gloves (B) Engineering control (Enclosed Cab) No Respirator PFS(C) PFl0 (D) Engineering co ntrol (Enclosed Cab) Unit Exposure (pig/lbal) 227 51 .6 41.2 9.8 8.96 1.79 0.90 0.24 AHETF AHETF AHETF M ean M ean M ean 78.6 16.1 12.6 PHED " Best fit " 5.1 AHETF AHETF AHETF M ean M ean Me an 0.34 0.0 7 0.0 3 PHED " Best fit" 0.043 EPA-17-0432-L-000158 27 ETypes EPA-17-0432-L-000159 Engineering Controls Closed Looding EPA-17-0432-L-000160 29 &EPA Occup. Post-application ? Exposure occurs from contact with treated areas and crops o Varies by type of crop and activity being performed o > 7000 crop/activity combinations identified EPA-17-0432-L-000161 30 &EPAOccup. Post-application DFR or TTR TC X 2 (mg/day) - (ug/cm ) (cm 2 /hr) Exposure - X ET (hrs/day) o Key Inputs o Dislodgeable Foliar Residue (DFR) or Turf Transferable Reside (TTR): o Residue on foliage that can transfer to a worker's skin o Transfer Coefficient (TC) o Measure of contact with foliage while performing a specific activity o Exposure Time (ET) o Amount of time spent performing activity per day ? Risk estimates used to define Restricted Entry Intervals or RElsare key output o i.e., time-based exclusions from fields until residues dissipate EPA-17-0432-L-000162 3 1 TransferCoefficient &EPA Examples Crop Group Crop Crop Heigh t Foliage Density Activity TC Crop ac tivity Field/row crop , tall Swee t corn High Full Irrigation 1,900 Potato irrigation Field/row crop , tall Swee t corn High Full Scouting 210 Cotton and Tomato Scouting Field/row crop , tall Swee t corn High Full Detasse ling , hand harvest ing 17,600 Sweet corn Hand harves ting Vegetab le , "roo t" Swee t potato Low Full Irrigation 1,900 Potato Irrigation Vegetab le , "roo t" Swee t potato Low Full Mechanical weed ing and harvest ing 0 No TC No TC Vegetab le , "roo t" Swee t potato Low Full Hand weeding 70 Cotton Hand weeding EPA-17-0432-L-000163 32 Risk Characterization &EPA RiskAssessment gives you a number. RiskCharacterization tells what that number means. We routinely consider (among other factors): o Data Quality o Distributional Data o Interdependencies Between Variables o Co-Occurrence of Exposure We also follow EPA Risk Characterization Guidance EPA-17-0432-L-000164 33 &EPA Topical Issues o Hazard oThyroid, Tox 21, IVIVE ? Epidemiology use in risk assessment ? Exposure o Working children, spray drift, volatilization, probabilistic methods EPA-17-0432-L-000165 34 &EPAAntimicrobial Pesticides oAssessmentsfollow same framework as conventional pesticides. o Antimicrobials are defined by claims. If the product label makes antimicrobial claims, the active ingredient is considered an antimicrobial pesticide. o Many high production volume (HPV) compounds and/or overlap jurisdiction with FDA and other parts of EPA such as Offices of Air and Water. o Supporting data may be from open literature and not from guideline studies. EPA-17-0432-L-000166 35 &EPAAntimicrobial Pesticides o Occupational and residential exposure o o scenarios are unique. o Janitors, factory and processing facility workers, health care personnel, painters. o Task forces suc h a s A EJV and AEA TFsupp o rt AD a ssessment s o Cannot mitigate risk by PPEfor many occupational and residential uses. o End use products for material preservatives don't have pesticide labels informing users of potential exposures. EPA-17-0432-L-000167 36 &EPAAntimicrobial Pesticides ? Dietary exposures: o Direct dietary exposures from postharvest and . . processing rinses. o Indirect dietary exposures from transfer from items such as food packaging, countertops and cutting boards. ? ? Major issue is the assumption that Potable Water Rinses do not remove 100% of residues. AD is using new models developed with ACC such as Indirect Dietary Residential Exposure Assessment Model (IDREAM) and Food Contact Sanitizing Solutions Model (FCSSM). EPA-17-0432-L-000168 37 &EPABiopesticides ? Biochemical, Microbial and PIPs o Biochemical assessments similar to conventional pesticides with reduced and tiered testing requirements o Microbial assessments based on pathogenicity and infectivity hazard endpoint in addition to toxicity o Plant-Incorporated Protectants assessment for proteins and nucleic acids expressed in plants using bioinformatics and reduced testing requirements EPA-17-0432-L-000169 38 Responses to ESA Questions EPA-17-0432-L-000171 5 Agenda Meeting on Lead P&CB Survey 4:00 October 13, 2017 Decisions Needed I(b I)( Discussion 1) Background: Statute, Settlement Agreement, Corrective Action Plan with OIG 2) Need to revise survey screening question 3) Impact on burden 4) Possible OMB reactions Page 1 of 5 EPA-17-0432-L-000175 October 13, 2017 Potential Revision to Lead Publi c and Commercial Buildin g Survey Summa ry EPA is currently conducting a smvey of renovation, repair, and painting (RRP) activities in public and commercialbuildings (P&CBs) and the steps taken to control the dust created when lead-based paint (LBP) is disturbed. The smvey results will be used in the exposure assessment to determine if these RRP activities create LBP hazards. If there are LBP hazards, the smvey results will also be used to suppo1tthe economic analysis and the developmentof a mle. We are midway through the data collection and the ma.ori have not worked on LBP. - Project Background TSCA 402(c)(3) directs EPA to revise the lead paint abatementregulations by 1996 to address renovation or remodeling activities that create lead-based paint hazards in target housing and public and commercial buildings (P&CBs). After EPA issued the 2008 RRP mle for target housing, several lawsuits were filed because, among other things, the rule did not address public and commercial buildings. In 2009 EPA entered into a settlement agreementwhich has been amended several times. In the most recent amendment, EPA agreed to propose a rule for P&CBs by March 31, 2017 unless it concluded that renovation activities in pre-1978 P&CBs do not create LBP hazards. In response to a 2012 Office of Inspector General review of the 2008 RRP mle and the 2010 amendment, OCSPP agreed to conduct a smvey of work practices in P&CBs by the end ofFY20 15. Survey Background A primary purpose of conductingthis smvey is to provide EPA with data about the extent to which leadsafe work practices (LSWP) are already being used in situations where LBP might be distmbed (i.e., the baseline level of LSWP). To narrnw down the respondents to only those that might need to use LSWP, the questiom1aire starts with initial screening questions that ask respondents if they work in P&CB, if they ever disturb more than a de minimis amount of painted smfaces, etc. Page 2 of5 EPA-17-0432-L-000176 We have completed 3 small waves of mailings (5,000 letters each) to solicit pa1ti cipation in the sUivey, and are in the midst of following up on a large mailing (25,500 letters). A second large mailing (another 25,5000 letters) is planned for November. The majority of the contractorssurveyed so far that passed the screen and completedthe full questionnaire are reporting only disturbing painted surfaces that do NOT contain lead-based paint. Page 3 of5 EPA-17-0432-L-000177 Approved ICR Burden Estimates Questionnaire Contractors Lessors and Property Managers Building Occupants Summary for All Respondents Response Type Screening only Screening + Full Questionnaire Screening only Screening + Full Questionnaire Screening only Screening + Full Questionnaire Screening only Screening + Full Questionnaire Total Estimated Respondent Universe PerRespondent Burden (minutes) 1,391 3 Total Respondent Burden (hours) 70 254 33 140 1,972 3 99 68 8 9 4,720 3 236 80 8 10 8,083 - - 402 - - 8,485 - 564 (b)(5) Deliberative Process I Page 4 of 5 EPA-17-0432-L-000178 Public and Commercial Building Survey Status as of September 28, 2017 Survey Mailing Waves Date December 2016 February 2017 June 2017 September 2017 anticipated November 2017 Survey Contractor Manager Occupant TOTAL Mailing Size 5,000 letters 5,000 letters 5,000 letters 25,500 letters 25,500 letters Screening Survey Web Phone survey survey 273 2889 155 1763 101 1565 529 6217 Phone calls Completed Completed Completed Underway Planned for November & December TOTAL SCREENS 3162 1918 1666 6746 Full Survey Completions Survey Contractor Manager Occupant TOTAL Web 72 16 36 124 Phone survey 49 27 41 117 TOTAL Completes 121 43 77 241 Target Completes 254 68 80 402 % Complete 47.6% 63.2% 96.3% 60.0% Completes Still Needed 133 25 3 161 Page 5 of 5 EPA-17-0432-L-000179 October 26, 2017 Meeting IFRANA - the fragrance industry association Discussion Topics IFRANA is pleased to schedule a meeting between key members of its Board of Directors, its staff, and the Environmental Protection Agency. In advance of this meeting, please review this document for information about IFRANA and insight into the association's needs, including new chemicals, TSCA modernization (under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act/LSCA), and communications with the agency. About IFRANA IFRANA is the principal trade association representing the interests of the fragrance industry in the United States. Our member companies create and manufacture fragrances and scents for home care, personal care, home design, fine fragrance, and industrial and institutional products. IFRANA also represents companies that supply fragrance ingredients, including natural extracts and other raw materials, that are used in perfumery and fragrance mixtures. Recently, several consumer product companies joined IFRANA, which is a testament to the value fragrance offers throughout the supply chain. These companies are a key engine in our economy, as U.S consumers spend an estimated $80 billion/year on fragrance dependent products. Further, the fragrance sector supports 720,000 jobs directly and indirectly and 240,000 small businesses. New Chemicals IFRANA appreciates the agency's efforts to reduce the new chemicals backlog. In the fragrance industry, however, new chemical innovation has been completely halted. Fragrance houses that create new chemicals rely on the ability to sell these chemicals to consumer product companies. Consumer product companies will not accept materials with significant new use rules (SNURs). In the context of fragrance new chemicals, the issuance of a "not likely to present an unreasonable risk" finding is rare. Accordingly, SNURs render a new chemical unusable for fragrance companies. New chemicals lose their value and affected companies lose years of R&D and the millions of dollars invested in new chemicals. This system creates a twofold problem for international fragrance houses as (1) new, safe, highly tested chemicals can be (and are being) registered elsewhere in the world and (2) this alters the previously seamless process of near simultaneous registration of new chemicals in the U.S. and in Canada. The congressional intent behind the LSCA focused on safety, businesses, and innovation; the current processing of new chemicals undermines these priorities. Request: Our primary objective for this meeting is to communicate that the fragrance industry cannot continue to operate under the current PMN process; processing new chemical requests using SNURs cannot become the status quo. IFRANA asks that this message be communicated within the agency. The fragrance industry suggests a workable process for the registration of new chemicals without the overuse of SNURs. IFRANA and its members are willing to be flexible under EPA-17-0432-L-000180 October 26, 2017 Meeting IFRANA - the fragrance industry association Page 2 of 3 this process, especially as it pertains to timeline, thresholds, data requests, etc. If the agency is willing to implement a process that allows new chemicals to proceed without SNURs, our members are happy to cooperate as the agency deems appropriate, including more conversations between companies and EPA staff. TSCA Modernization/LSCA Implementation The fragrance industry commends EPA for its implementation efforts thus far and for its increased willingness to hold public meetings and webinars and to aid stakeholders. On the whole, the fragrance industry would like to communicate more with the agency on the following topics: o o o o o IFRANA looks forward to the upcoming prioritization public meeting and would appreciate any information about the agency's "pre prioritization" process and any potential reporting requirements for chemical processors. Our members, particularly SMEs, are interested in learning what information the agency will want and when. IFRANA appreciates EPA's efforts to put forth Q&A information on the inventory reset and guidance regarding animal testing; our members would be interested in hearing a status update on these documents. As the agency prepares for chemical data reporting (CDR) in 2020 and works to implement the LSCA, IFRANA encourages the use of voluntary data submissions whenever possible and believes it can be a resource to EPA. IFRANA submitted comments on the pending fees rule. As a summary, please consider the following: o PMN fees should not be substantially increased beyond the inflation adjusted version of $2,500; o EPA should not tie fees to uses; o EPA should establish volume based fees; o EPA should note charge fees for CBI claims; and o EPA should not attempt to model its fee authority on the pesticide or drug models. IFRANA has also submitted comments related to the reconsideration of the "small business definition." We would encourage this definition to be expanded (both in the context of fees and reporting requirements) and support collaboration with the Small Business Administration on this issue. Request: The industry asks for increased transparency and an open dialogue with EPA, specifically regarding prioritization and voluntary data submissions. As the agency proceeds with implementing final rules and drafting upcoming rules, IFRANA requests stakeholder engagement, careful consideration of fees, and a robust small business definition. EPA-17-0432-L-000181 October 26, 2017 Meeting IFRANA - the fragrance industry association Page 3 of 3 A Resource for the Agency IFRANA has worked with the agency and with its allied trades to improve and advance EPA's Safer Choice program. While the fragrance industry is not calling for an overhaul of the program, we hope to be a resource to the agency as issues arise. Similarly, we applaud Administrator Pruitt's decision to reinstate the Smart Sectors program to work with industry leaders on regulatory issues that affect certain sectors. IFRANA's membership includes upstream and downstream companies and we are happy to inform the agency on chemical specific issues. Request: Please contact IFRANA, especially if any developments occur with the Safer Choice program. IFRANA is eager to participate in the Smart Sectors program, and is willing to offer any additional insight. EPA-17-0432-L-000182 WHO WEARE Representing Manufactu rers That Make Scents IFRANA is the principal trade associatio n representing the U.S. fragrance industry. Our members manufacture scents used in home care, personal care, fine fragrance, home design, industrial, and institutional products . IFRANA member compa nies also supp ly fragrance ingredients - such as essential oils and other raw materials- used in perfumery and fragrance mixtures. IFRANA represents a variety of companies engaged in the business of fragrance, including multi-national companies, medium-sized enterprises, and artisanal fragrance houses. 7"' ~w, l in ,.~ fl 720.000 jobsare aependent on scented products The fragrance industry operates t hrough a business -to -bus iness model. Fragrance companies source and develop aroma materials that their perfume rs caref ully blend to crea te final sce nts. These proprie tary scent mixtures are sold to consumer product companies and incorporated into finished products. The creation, supply, and consumptio n of fragrance technolog ies generates wealt h, jobs and publ ic benefit s thr oug hout the cou ntry. Our ability to con tribute to the U.S. economy is predica ted on the protect ion of our trade secrets. Soundscienceisthe backboneof the fragranceindustryand IFRANA'smembershaveheavilyinvestedin ensuringthe safetyand the integrity of fragranceingredients.The ResearchInstitutefor FragranceMaterials conductsstringent,independently-reviewedsafetyassessments of materials.The industry affirmatively managespotentialrisk throughthe IFRACode of Practice . Thissafetyprogramisone of the mostrobust in the consumerproductmarketplace. ---i At IFRANA, we promote the IFRANA celebrates the creative social, economic, and sustainable value of fragrance and advocate artistry of its members and advances for our members' ability to innovate and grow. support the safety, sustainability and integrity of scented products. Learn more at ifra na.org intellectual property protections that Q. NORTH AMER Experience more at fragrancesnote s.org I CA EPA-17-0432-L-000183 ~ AGA ~\ ARO~ i~ AROMA CPEATIO NS Aromatics, lhc. IFHiN Do BASF Wec:te8le cheml&ry {18ell ft!~~,~ -~~ offindrea CHAMPION CONTAINER .BEDOUKIAN t: f S>+-" A A C H ~ !'trA ? & A lilbil ~ ~ O custom Essence ~o~'"'a"~., ,w, COSMO 1111:tmat>on al Ffa.o"a;!Kti CPL Aromas drom eerald ~ Kalama ' Chemical rRAGRANCES Flaroma Gl o bal ~ Es se nce [J Excellenti a evolva "firmen ic~ llt ? U$1d;:W I MACRA NCC Q II ESOU ll:C:ts fl n-:E9'"'o-IO? Olfl_,.,,..,,.,...,,.. -. (R) T HE .{_ ~HMONO COMPA ', " ~ Pnnova. MS per.:fume r ).,o., HLIN ~ q"&'~ 0 Givaudan :flavor isf P.tar> lchem Qt scent O . Process Ware ERP - (OUIII: f, "~ t CO. GINKGO BIOWORKS INNOVAT IVE t;fragrances 1nc uuu.,,~ LISAM SYSTE O 'L ~ I irrfonnation.&tinsights TheWercs. Fci F ,.ll tNc: H ~&, It\.~.Q.M~ o sc:eot-s!!l'lltt o nyto ? ,. --- PHOENIX IV\ Medallion * P RE ~ SPEC IER I AL T IES ....,. ....~--. symrise'5 t ru . EPA-17-0432-L-000184 10/26/17 IFRANA Meeting Participants Participant Tit le Compa ny Farah Ahmed Joy Atkinson President & CEO President, Body and Home Care, North America IFRANA Firmenich Bob Bedoukian President Shawn Blythe Vice President, Global Regulatory Affairs Bedoukian Research Internat ional Flavors & Fragrances (IFF) Karen Ma nheime r Vice President, Nat ural Products; IFRANA Treasurer Kerry Ingred ients & Flavours Employees Princeton, NJ = 1056 Newa rk, NJ = 104 St. Louis, MO = 98 New Ulm, MN= 103 Lakeland, FL= 150 New York, NY= 150 Anaheim, CA 110 Danbu ry, CT - 76 Union Beach, NJ= 255 Hazlet, NJ = 287 South Brunswic k, NJ = 452 Carrollton, TX= 108 Jacksonvil le, FL= 90 New York, NY = 239 Chicago, IL= 1 Philadelphia, PA= 285 Clifton, NJ = 45 Keyport, NJ= 31 San Bernardino, CA= 6 WI (US Corporate HQ+ R&D Flavors): ~800 Clark, NJ (fragrance raw materials): 195 (+~150 / 15 months) Amanda Nguyen Dan Renberg Steve Tanner Bob We instein Director, Government Affairs & Legal Partner President; IFRANAChairman President: IFRANAVice Chairman IFRANA Arent Fox Ary lessence, Inc. Robertet U.S. ~150 in Mar ietta, GA 300 in Piscataway & Mou nt Olive, NJ EPA-17-0432-L-000185 TSCA as Gap-Filler / Deference to Other Statutes Quest ions Presented o I Summary of Pert inent TSCAProvis ions o Sec. 6(b)(4)(F)-Requ ires, among other things, that a risk eva luat ion integrate and assess avai lable information on hazards and exposures for the condit ions of use; not consider costs or other non-risk factors; take into account as app licab le durat ion, intens ity, frequency and number of exposures; and descr ibe the we ight of the scientific evidence for the ident ified hazard and exposure . o Sec. 9(a)-Establ ishes an inter-agency referral process app licable when the Adm inistrator makes an unreasonab le risk find ing and determ ines, in his discret ion, that such risk may be prevented or reduced to a sufficient extent by action taken by another federa l agency. Once referral occurs, EPA may not take any action under secs. 6(a) or 7 wh ile the other agency considers the risks in the t ime per iod specified by the Adm inistrator. If the other agency does not act, then the Adm inistrator shal l initiate or comp lete the sec. 6(a) or 7 action. o Sec. 9(b)-Establ ishes an intra-agency coord inat ion process app licable when the Admin istrator determines that a risk associated w ith a chem ical could be el iminated or reduced to a sufficient extent by EPA actions under other federa l laws w ith in the Adm inistrator's jur isdict ion. Provides that the Adm inistrator shall use such other author it ies to protect against the risk un less he determines, in his discret ion, that it is in the pub lic interest to protect against such risk by actions taken under TSCA. In mak ing a pub lic interest determ ination , the Adm inistrator must consider the re levant risks and a compar ison of the costs and effic ienc ies of tak ing act ion under TSCAversus the other statute. o Sec. 26(h), (i), (k)-Requ ires that science-based decisions under sec. 6 use informat ion/ methods/etc. consistent w ith best available science; be based on the weight of the scient ific ev idence; and take into consideration reasonab ly availab le informat ion. TSCALegislat ive History (1976) o Senate and House comm ittee reports descr ibe TSCAas fi lli ng the following "gaps" that existed in the protect ions provided by other statutes and regu lations : o premarket review; o direct regu lat ion of chem icals (as opposed to discharges/emissions , regu lation of wh ich Congress believed may sometimes be a less eff icient way to manage hazards than o considerat ion of all the risks, inc luding cumu lat ive impact of all sources of exposure; and lim iting use of the chem ical in the first instance) ; 1 EPA-17-0432-L-000186 o o o collection of test data. S. Rep. No. 94-698 at 1-2; H. Rep. No. 94-1341 at 6-7. The Senate report explains: "While individual agencies may be authorized to regulate occupational, environmental, or direct consumer hazards with respect to a chemical substance, there is no agency which has the authority to look comprehensively at the hazards associated with the chemical. Existing authority allows the agencies to only look at the hazards within their jurisdiction in isolation from other hazards associated with the same chemical. The bill would grant [EPA] the authority to look at the hazards in total." S. Rep. No. 94-698 at 2. The Conference Report explains that sec. 9 is intended "to assure that overlapping or duplicative regulation is avoided while attempting to provide for the greatest possible measure of protection to health and the environment." S. Rep. No. 94-1302 at 84. Lautenberg Act Legislative History (2015-16) o o o o The House Report states that the intent of the amendments is to "reinforce TSCA's original purpose of filling gaps in Federal law," citing language in sec. 9(b)(2) to "help the Administrator decide whether using TSCA" is in the public interest particularly when disposal of a chemical substance is already regulated under RCRA. H. Rep. No. 114-176 at 28. Debate in the House among Republican members reflects their understanding that "Congress' intent is to avoid duplicative regulation through the TSCA law." 162 Cong. Rec. at H3028. The statement from the Senate Democratic members explains that the changes made in the Lautenberg Act as a whole make TSCA unable to "be construed as a 'gap-filler' statutory authority of last resort" except under the express procedures in sec. 9(a). 162 Cong. Rec. at S3517. It states that the language in sec. 9(b)(2) only applies when the Administrator has determined another statute could reduce the risk, and that sec. 9(b) "allows the Administrator substantial discretion to use TSCA nonetheless, and certainly does not reflect that TSCA is an authority of last resort in such cases." Senator Vitter stated that, under section 9(b), EPA should use other authorities, such as RCRA, to address disposal risks. S3522 col. 1. Considerations for Risk Evaluations o (b)(5) Attorney Client I 2 EPA-17-0432-L-000187 Briefing on Antibiotics for OCSPP Deputy Assistant Administrators November 15, 2017 EPA-17-0432-L-000189 OPP Team Members o RD: Fatima Sow, Heather Garvie, Hope Johnson, Cynthia Giles-Parker, Rosanna Louie-Juzwiak, Tawanda Maignan, Andrea Conrath, Andy Ertman, Tamica Cain o HED: Kelly Lowe, Linda Taylor, Peter Savoia, Michael Metzger, Christina Swartz, Linnea Hansen, William Drew, Gerad Thornton, Sarah Dobreniecki, Ume Hassan, Kristin Rickard o EFED: Andrew Shelby, Brian Kiernan, Monica Wait, Mark Corbin, Dana Spatz, Katherine Stebbins, Jim Hetrick, Karen Milians, Thomas Steeger, Jean Holmes o BEAD: Tara Chandgoyal, Leonard Yourman, Colwell Cook, Monisha Kaul o ARRT: Samantha Collins, Tara Chandgoyal, John Kough, Susan Jennings o IO: Susan Jennings o PRD: Matthew Manupella, Kevin Costello, Cathryn Britton o FEDERAL PARTNERS: CDC, FDA, USDA o OGC: Erin Koch EPA-17-0432-L-000190 2 Antibiotics as Agricultural Use Bactericides o There are 3 antibiotic active ingredients currently registered for agricultural use in the United States: Active Ingredient Class of Compound Year Registered Registered Uses Streptomycin aminoglycoside 1955 o o Oxytetracycline tetracycline 1974 o o Kasugamycin aminoglycoside 2014 o Pome fruit, beans, greenhouse seedlings (celery, pepper, tomato), potato seed piece, tobacco, ornamental, homeowner garden Current citrus Section 18 use approved in Florida through 12/31/2017 Apple, pear, peach, nectarine, nonagricultural uses (forest tree injection, ornamentals, non crop bearing trees, shrubs, palms Current citrus Section 18 use approved in Florida through 12/31/2017 Pome fruit group (time-limited registration expiring 12/31/2018) o Both Streptomycin and Kasugamycin are also approved for use by PMRA (Canada) for certain uses. o Of these active ingredients, both streptomycin and oxytetracycline also have human and animal drug uses approved with the Federal Drug Administration (FDA). Kasugamycin is not used for human or veterinary EPA-17-0432-L-000191 3 medical purposes. Currently Pending New Uses with the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) o Streptomycin o 1 action submitted by The Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4)/Geologic Corporation/Agrosource Inc on grapefruit, tomato (field plus expanded greenhouse use), and conversion of pome fruit crop group 11 to 11-10. o 1 petition submitted by Geologic Corporation/Agrosource Inc. on citrus crop group 10-10 o Oxytetracycline o 1 petition submitted by Geologic Corporation, Agrosource Inc. for uses on citrus crop group 10-10 o 1 petition submitted by Nufarm Americas, Inc. on citrus crop group 10-10* o 1 petition submitted by Nufarm Americas, Inc. on cherry* *these petitions are on a later review schedule o Kasugamycin o 1 petition submitted by IR-4, Arysta LifeScience North America LLC for uses on walnut and cherry subgroup 12-12a EPA-17-0432-L-000192 4 Registration Review o Only streptomycin and oxytetracycline are in this round of registration review; kasugamycin was registered in 2014 o Assessments from HED and EFED are complete, ARRT assessment pending o All assessments are scheduled to be published in June 2018 o Proposed Interim Decisions scheduled to be completed in March 2019, with Interim Decisions scheduled to be completed in September 2019 EPA-17-0432-L-000193 5 The Rationale for Antibiotic Use in Agriculture o There are few registered alternatives for most bacterial infections in crops. Different modes of action (MOAs) would help reduce the potential for resistance to develop in any current conventional/biopesticide tools approved. o Huanglongbing (HLB), also known as citrus greening disease, is one of the world's most serious citrus diseases, with no known cure. o Walnut growers/groups have reached out to the Agency over the past year greatly supporting the proposed use for kasugamycin on walnut to control walnut blight and have requested an expedited review. o Over the past 10 years, numerous sections 18 emergency exemptions have been issued to various States for the use of antibiotics (kasugamycin, gentamycin, oxytetracycline, and streptomycin) on pome fruit and citrus to address different diseases such as fire blight, citrus canker and HLB. EPA-17-0432-L-000194 6 How Antibiotic Assessments Differ from Conventional Pesticide Assessments o Conventional pesticide assessments comprise of: o Human health risk assessment o Toxicology, Occupational Exposure, Residue Chemistry o Ecological risk assessment o Environmental fate and effects o Benefits review o Efficacy, alternatives comparison o In addition to these, antibiotic assessments also include: o Antibiotic resistance review based on FDA's Guidance to Industry #152 assessment with the addition of active ingredient specific isolate study review o Federal Partner consultation with the FDA/CDC/USDA on our antibiotic resistance reviews o Review of Resistance Management proposal from the Registrant including label language review, efficacy, and review of proposals for educational materials/stewardship plan EPA-17-0432-L-000195 7 How Antibiotic Assessments Differ from Conventional Pesticide Assessments (Cont'd) o Generally speaking, the antibiotics registered for agricultural use have no traditional human health risk assessment concerns and few ecological risk concerns. Instead, our concerns come from the possibility of agriculture bactericide use contributing to antibiotic resistance developing in humans and plants EPA-17-0432-L-000196 8 Antibiotic Resistance Effects o At least 2 million people acquire serious antibiotic-resistant infections each year o At least 23,000 people die each year as a direct result of these antibiotic-resistant infections o Almost 250,000 people each year require hospital care for C. difficile infections o At least 14,000 people die each year in the United States from C. difficile infections o Antibiotic-resistant infections add costs to the already overburdened U.S. healthcare system o Antibiotic-resistant infections usually require long, costly treatments, extended hospital stays o Total economic cost of antibiotic resistance to the U.S. economy estimates vary but have ranged as high as $20 billion in excess direct healthcare costs EPA-17-0432-L-000197 9 How Resistance Develops o Bacteria will inevitably find ways of resisting antibiotics o Bacteria may adapt to become resistant to an antibiotic by o Restricting access of the antibiotic to the cell or using pumps to keep antibiotic drugs from entering o Destroying the antibiotic by using enzymes to break down the antibiotic drug and make it ineffective o Changing the antibiotic by using enzymes to alter the antibiotic drug so that it loses its effectiveness o Developing different and new processes to get around those disrupted by the antibiotics o Often, resistance genes are within plasmids, pieces of DNA that can move between bacterial species o Enables the spreading of resistance from one bacteria to another o CDC believes aggressive action is needed now to keep new resistance from developing and to prevent the resistance that already exists from spreading EPA-17-0432-L-000198 10 Antibiotic Resistance Review Team (ARRT) Assessment o Qualitative risk assessment evaluating the probability of antibiotic resistance in microbes of human health concern based on FDA's 152 guidance to industry for antibiotic use in food animals, with modifications appropriate to agricultural chemicals. o Assessment categories: release, exposure, consequence. o These three elements provide an overall qualitative risk estimate EPA-17-0432-L-000199 11 ARRT Assessment Criteria o RELEASE ASSESSMENT (rating scale: low, medium, or high) Product chemistry, Resistance mechanisms in microbes, Transfer of resistance, Selection Pressure o EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT (rating scale: low, medium, or high) Food contamination of crop, Food Commodity Consumption, Acreage treated o CONSEQUENCE ASSESSMENT (rating scale: important, highly important, critical) Rating of Clinical Importance of Antibiotic o RISK ESTIMATION (rating scale: low, medium, high) Integrates the components of the 3 assessments into an overall qualitative conclusion EPA-17-0432-L-000200 12 ARRT Assessment Outcomes Streptomycin- Citrus Crop Group 10-10 Release rating: high o Clinical microbe resistance common & mobile; interaction with environmental isolates; expanded acreage Exposure rating: medium o Increased acreage, citrus food commodity being consumed is high; contamination and food poisoning incidents are low Consequence rating: highly important o Member of aminoglycoside group, currently used in treatment of bacterial diseases and infections "Medium" qualitative risk estimation rating Uncertainties: information is lacking on presence of bacteria associated with food borne disease in citrus orchards and the movement of traits from the target and epiphytic bacteria to bacteria of concern for human health. For the exposure assessment, data on the actual level of contamination with bacteria of human concern on citrus and citrus commodities are not available. EPA-17-0432-L-000201 13 ARRT Assessment OutcomesOxytetracycline- Citrus Crop Group 10-10 Release rating: high o Resistance in clinical microbes common & mobile; interactions with environmental isolates; expanded acreage Exposure rating: medium o Increased acreage, citrus food commodity consumption high; contamination of citrus and food poisoning incidents are low Consequence rating: highly important o Member of tetracycline group, currently used in treatment of bacterial diseases and infections "Medium" qualitative risk estimation rating due to greatly expanded acreage for Citrus canker and Citrus Greening Uncertainties: limited information for resistance selection & mobility associated with environmental isolates. No robust information in public literature on rate of transfer for tetracycline resistance. EPA-17-0432-L-000203 15 ARRT Assessment OutcomesKasugamycin- Walnut, Cherry Subgroup 12-12a Release rating: low o Low selection for cross resistance to other antibiotics; not effective against human pathogenic species Exposure rating: low o Level of food commodity contamination low but variable; food poisoning incidents low Consequence rating: important o Lowest risk rating, field data shows no change in resistance frequency to other aminoglycosides in presence of kasugamycin resistance in bacteria; no clinical uses, different binding site in bacterial protein translation Overall risk estimation: "Low" o Lab data on lack of cross-resistance is confirmed by field monitoring data to date. o Uncertainties: No definitive data to cite for the resistance transfer endpoint. Information lacking on kasugamycin susceptibility for the range of bacteria associated with food borne incidents in crops proposed. Rating could change if agricultural use does co-select for resistance to other clinically important antibiotics in the future. EPA-17-0432-L-000204 16 Stewardship of Antibiotics o Managing antibiotic resistance is critical to keeping antibiotics working o OPP assessments consider resistance in the bacteria causing the plant disease and the potential contribution to antibiotic-resistant diseases in humans o Human pathogens and plant pathogens may exist together, so that resistance may develop in human pathogens as a result of antibiotic use on crops o Pathogens rarely share the same hosts o For pesticides, resistant species in or on food, the skin of workers, or indirectly through the environment or clothing can spread resistance. o By minimizing these three routes of exposure, EPA hopes to minimize the growth or spread of resistant microbes on humans or on the crop. EPA-17-0432-L-000205 17 Federal Response To Antibiotic Resistance o Other agencies (CDC, FDA, USDA) work in their areas of expertise o CDC cites "Improving Antibiotic Prescribing/Stewardship" as one of its Four Core Actions to Fight Resistance o FDA is committed to antimicrobial stewardship, fostering stewardship and assessing impact of intervention strategies in veterinary settings o USDA funds research to study the role of agriculture in antimicrobial resistance and identifying alternative strategies to mitigate antimicrobial resistance in the food chain EPA-17-0432-L-000206 18 EPA's Response to Antibiotic Resistance o EPA shares USDA's goal of "reducing potential negative impacts from the use of antibiotics, and identifying alternative strategies for mitigating [antibiotic resistance] in the food chain." o EPA believes that the management of pesticide resistance development is an important part of sustainable pest management o In support of these goals, EPA is assessing the potential development of antibiotic resistance as an adverse effect under FIFRA. EPA-17-0432-L-000207 19 Federal Partner Consultation Ongoing International Work o Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) is a Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Program that harmonizes international food safety standards and helps facilitates trade. o In December 2016, Codex established the Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance (TFAMR). The objective of TFAMR is to establish science-based guidance on the human health risk associated with antimicrobial resistance in different areas of use of antimicrobials, including veterinary applications, plant protection and food processing. o TFAMR recently issued a data call on antimicrobials used in plant protection and has requested -- through the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues -- guidance on data sources that characterize use practices of pesticides that may contribute to antimicrobial resistance. EPA-17-0432-L-000209 21 Benefits of Antibiotics for Plant Uses o OPP assesses the benefits of pesticides to the user and considers target pests and alternative control methods o The benefits of new uses of antibiotics can vary depending on several factors o Especially, the ability of the grower to acceptably manage a disease by other methods (including registered pesticides) o Severity and incidence of the disease o Bacterial diseases of crops can be difficult to manage o Occur sporadically and depend on weather conditions, especially humidity, temperature, and wetness o Generally, antibiotics can reduce effects of, but do not cure, plant disease o For citrus, antibiotics would be most effective when applied to replacement trees prior to development of severe disease symptoms EPA-17-0432-L-000210 22 EPA-1 .1 Kasugamycin, Oxytetracycline and Streptomycin: A Comparison EPA-1 5 Current PRIA due dates Active Ingredient Petitioner/Registrants Proposed Uses Current PRIA due date Oxytetracycline Agrosource Inc./Geologic Corp. Citrus crop group 10-10 2/13/2018 Nufarm Americas Inc. Citrus crop group 10-10 1/18/2018* Nufarm Americas Inc. cherry 5/9/2018* IR-4/Agrosource Inc./Geologic Corp. Grapefruit/tomato/pome fruit crop group conversion 4/3/2018 Agrosource Inc./Geologic Corp. Citrus crop group 10-10 4/3/2018 IR-4/Arysta LifeScience North America Inc. Walnut, cherry subgroup 1212a 1/16/2018 Streptomycin Kasugamycin *The Nufarm America's Inc. petitions will be renegotiated to later in 2018 (end of FY2018). EPA-17-0432-L-000217 29 TSCA SCOPE Objective : To discuss the nexus between TSCA an d oth er statutes. Date : 4:15pm, Friday, December 8, 2017 Location : 3371 EPA East Conferen ce Line: Call in Meeting Materials : o o o o TSCA as a Gap Filler TSCASection 2, 3, 6 & 9 and Rule Provisions, re: Risk Evaluation & Unreasonable Risk. Risk Evaluation Process and Timeline and First 10 Chemicals Example of Conceptual Models: o Methylen e Chloride (industrial and commercial) o Methylene Chloride (environmental release & wastes) o Carbon Tetrachloride Agenda o Welcome and Int rod uctio ns (All) o o Overvi ew of OPPT Risk Evaluat ion Approa ch and Conceptua l M odels o o Wrap Up and Next Ste ps (OCSPP) EPA-17-0432-L-000218 TSCA as Gap-Filler / Deference to Other Statutes Questions Presented I (b)(5) Deliberative Process I I I Summary of Pertinent TSCA Provisions ? ? ? ? Sec. 6(b)(4)(F)--Requires, among other things, that a risk evaluation integrate and assess available information on hazards and exposures for the conditions of use; not consider costs or other non-risk factors; take into account as applicable duration, intensity, frequency and number of exposures; and describe the weight of the scientific evidence for the identified hazard and exposure. Sec. 9(a)--Establishes an inter-agency referral process applicable when the Administrator makes an unreasonable risk finding and determines, in his discretion, that such risk may be prevented or reduced to a sufficient extent by action taken by another federal agency. Once referral occurs, EPA may not take any action under secs. 6(a) or 7 while the other agency considers the risks in the time period specified by the Administrator. If the other agency does not act, then the Administrator shall initiate or complete the sec. 6(a) or 7 action. Sec. 9(b)--Establishes an intra-agency coordination process applicable when the Administrator determines that a risk associated with a chemical could be eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent by EPA actions under other federal laws within the Administrator's jurisdiction. Provides that the Administrator shall use such other authorities to protect against the risk unless he determines, in his discretion, that it is in the public interest to protect against such risk by actions taken under TSCA. In making a public interest determination, the Administrator must consider the relevant risks and a comparison of the costs and efficiencies of taking action under TSCA versus the other statute. Sec. 26(h), (i), (k)--Requires that science-based decisions under sec. 6 use information/ methods/etc. consistent with best available science; be based on the weight of the scientific evidence; and take into consideration reasonably available information. TSCA Legislative History (1976) ? Senate and House committee reports describe TSCA as filling the following "gaps" that existed in the protections provided by other statutes and regulations: o premarket review; o direct regulation of chemicals (as opposed to discharges/emissions, regulation of which Congress believed may sometimes be a less efficient way to manage hazards than limiting use of the chemical in the first instance); o consideration of all the risks, including cumulative impact of all sources of exposure; and 1 EPA-17-0432-L-000219 ? ? o collection of test data. S. Rep. No. 94-698 at 1-2; H. Rep. No. 94-1341 at 6-7. The Senate report explains: "While individual agencies may be authorized to regulate occupational, environmental, or direct consumer hazards with respect to a chemical substance, there is no agency which has the authority to look comprehensively at the hazards associated with the chemical. Existing authority allows the agencies to only look at the hazards within their jurisdiction in isolation from other hazards associated with the same chemical. The bill would grant [EPA] the authority to look at the hazards in total." S. Rep. No. 94-698 at 2. The Conference Report explains that sec. 9 is intended "to assure that overlapping or duplicative regulation is avoided while attempting to provide for the greatest possible measure of protection to health and the environment." S. Rep. No. 94-1302 at 84. Lautenberg Act Legislative History (2015-16) ? ? ? ? The House Report states that the intent of the amendments is to "reinforce TSCA's original purpose of filling gaps in Federal law," citing language in sec. 9(b)(2) to "help the Administrator decide whether using TSCA" is in the public interest particularly when disposal of a chemical substance is already regulated under RCRA. H. Rep. No. 114-176 at 28. Debate in the House among Republican members reflects their understanding that "Congress' intent is to avoid duplicative regulation through the TSCA law." 162 Cong. Rec. at H3028. The statement from the Senate Democratic members explains that the changes made in the Lautenberg Act as a whole make TSCA unable to "be construed as a 'gap-filler' statutory authority of last resort" except under the express procedures in sec. 9(a). 162 Cong. Rec. at S3517. It states that the language in sec. 9(b)(2) only applies when the Administrator has determined another statute could reduce the risk, and that sec. 9(b) "allows the Administrator substantial discretion to use TSCA nonetheless, and certainly does not reflect that TSCA is an authority of last resort in such cases." Senator Vitter stated that, under section 9(b), EPA should use other authorities, such as RCRA, to address disposal risks. S3522 col. 1. Considerations for Risk Evaluations I (b)(5) Deliberative Process I I I 2 EPA-17-0432-L-000220 EPA-17-0432-L-000221 Prepared by Environmental Defense Fund based on the text of H.R. 2576, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (June 22, 2016) Track changes in this version reflect amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act made by H.R. 2576 as passed by the full House of Representatives on May 24, 2016, and by the full Senate on June 7, 2016, and signed into law by the President on June 22, 2016. Bill Sections 20 ("No Retroactivity") and 21 ("Trevor's Law") are included at the end but not integrated, as they do not amend TSCA. Note: In several sections, the bill amends TSCA by striking and replacing entire sections or subsections. Where possible, the marked changes below show the amendments integrated with a greater level of detail (to the level of specific words and phrases). In a few places text is marked as having been moved because a provision in the original now appears in a new location, even if the text has changed to some degree. TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT 1 [As Amended Through P.L. 114-182, Enacted June 22, 2016] TITLE I--CONTROL OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS. This Act may be cited as the ''Toxic Substances Control Act''. TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE I--CONTROL OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES Sec. 1. Sec. 2. Sec. 3. Sec. 4. Sec. 5. Sec. 6. Sec. 7. Sec. 8. Sec. 9. Sec. 10. Sec. 11. Sec. 12. Sec. 13. Sec. 14. Sec. 15. Sec. 16. Sec. 17. Sec. 18. Sec. 19. Sec. 20. Sec. 21. Sec. 22. Sec. 23. Sec. 24. Sec. 25. Sec. 26. Sec. 27. Sec. 28. Short title and table of contents. Findings, policy and intent. Definitions. Testing of chemical substances and mixtures. Manufacturing and processing notices. Prioritization, risk evaluation, and Rregulation of hazardous chemical substances and mixtures. Imminent hazards. Reporting and retention of information. Relationship to other Federal laws. Research, development, collection, dissemination, and utilization of informationdata. Inspections and subpoenas. Exports. Entry into customs territory of the United States. Confidential informationDisclosure of data. Prohibited acts. Penalties. Specific enforcement and seizure. Preemption. Judicial review. Citizens' civil actions. Citizens' petitions. National defense waiver. Employee protection. Employment effects. Studies. Administration of the Act. Development and evaluation of test methods. State programs. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SEC. 2. FINDINGS, POLICY, AND INTENT. (a) FINDINGS.--The Congress finds that-- 1 The Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601-2692) consists of Public Law 94-469 (Oct. 11, 1976; 90 Stat. 2003) and the amendments made by subsequent enactments. 1 EPA-17-0432-L-000222 (1) human beings and the environment are being exposed each year to a large number of chemical substances and mixtures. (2) among the many chemical substances and mixtures which are constantly being developed and produced, there are some whose manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal may present an unreasonable risk of in- jury to health or the environment; and (3) the effective regulation of interstate commerce in such chemical substances and mixtures also necessitates the regulation of intrastate commerce in such chemical substances and mixtures. (b) POLICY.--It is the policy of the United States that-- (1) adequate datainformation should be developed with respect to the effect of chemical substances and mixtures on health and the environment and that the development of such datainformation should be the responsibility of those who manufacture and those who process such chemical substances and mixtures; (2) adequate authority should exist to regulate chemical substances and mixtures which present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, and to take action with respect to chemical substances and mixtures which are imminent hazards; and (3) authority over chemical substances and mixtures should be exercised in such a manner as not to impede unduly or create unnecessary economic barriers to technological innovation while fulfilling the primary purpose of this Act to assure that such innovation and commerce in such chemical substances and mixtures do not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. (c) INTENT OF CONGRESS.--It is the intent of Congress that the Administrator shall carry out this Act in a reasonable and prudent manner, and that the Administrator shall consider the environmental, economic, and social impact of any action the Administrator takes or proposes as provided to take under this Act. [15 U.S.C. 2601] SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Act: (3) The term 'conditions of use' means the circumstances, as determined by the Administrator, under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of. SEC. 6. PRIORITIZATION, RISK EVALUATION, AND REGULATION OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES AND MIXTURES. (a) SCOPE OF REGULATION.--If the Administrator finds that there is a reasonable basis to conclude determines in accordance with subsection (b)(4)(A) that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of a chemical substance or mixture, or that any combination of such activities, presents, or will present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, the Administrator shall by rule, and subject to section 18, and in accordance with subsection (c)(2), apply one or more of the following requirements to such substance or mixture to the extent necessary so that the chemical substance no longer presents such riskto protect adequately against such risk using the least burdensome requirements: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (b) Risk Evaluations.-- (1) PRIORITIZATION FOR RISK EVALUATIONS.-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2 EPA-17-0432-L-000223 (A) IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITIES FOR RISK EVALUATION.-- (i) HIGH-PRIORITY SUBSTANCES.--The Administrator shall designate as a high-priority substance a chemical substance that the Administrator concludes, without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors, may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment because of a potential hazard and a potential route of exposure under the conditions of use, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant by the Administrator. (ii) LOW-PRIORITY SUBSTANCES.--The Administrator shall designate a chemical substance as a low- priority substance if the Administrator concludes, based on information sufficient to establish, without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors, that such substance does not meet the standard identified in clause (i) for designating a chemical substance a high-priority substance. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (4) RISK EVALUATION PROCESS AND DEADLINES.-- (A) IN GENERAL.--The Administrator shall conduct risk evaluations pursuant to this paragraph to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the Administrator, under the conditions of use. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Risk Evaluation Rule ?702.47 Unreasonable Risk Determination. As part of the risk evaluation, EPA will determine whether the chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under each condition of uses within the scope of the risk evaluation, either in a single decision document or in multiple decision documents ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SEC. 9. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER FEDERAL LAWS. (a) LAWS NOT ADMINISTERED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.--(1)If the Administrator determines has reasonable basis to conclude that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of a chemical substance or mixture, or that any combination of such activities, presents or will present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant by the Administrator, under the conditions of use, and determines, in the Administrator's discretion, that such risk may be prevented or reduced to a sufficient extent by action taken under a Federal law not administered by the Administrator, the Administrator shall submit to the agency which administers such law a report which describes such risk and includes in such description a specification of the activity or combination of activities which the Administrator has reason to believe so presents such risk. Such report shall also request such agency-- (A)(i) to determine if the risk described in such report may be prevented or reduced to a sufficient extent by action taken under such law, and (ii) if the agency determines that such risk may be so prevented or reduced, to issue an order declaring whether or not the activity or combination of activities specified in the description of such risk presents such risk; and (B) to respond to the Administrator with respect to the matters described in subparagraph (A). Any report of the Administrator shall include a detailed statement of the information on which it is based and shall be 3 EPA-17-0432-L-000224 published in the Federal Register. The agency receiving a request under such a report shall make the requested determination, issue the requested order, and make the requested response within such time as the Administrator specifies in the request, but such time specified may not be less than 90 days from the date the request was made. The response of an agency shall be accompanied by a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the agency and shall be published in the Federal Register. (2) If the Administrator makes a report under paragraph (1) with respect to a chemical substance or mixture and the agency to which such report was made either-- (A) issues an order, within the time period specified by the Administrator in the report, declaring that the activity or combination of activities specified in the description of the risk described in the report does not present the risk described in the report, or (B) responds within the time period specified by the Administrator in the report and initiates, within 90 days of the publication in the Federal Register of the response of the agency under paragraph (1), action under the law (or laws) administered by such agency to protect against such risk associated with such activity or combination of activities, the Administrator may not take any action under section 6(a) or 7 with respect to such risk. (3) The Administrator shall take the actions described in paragraph (4) if the Administrator makes a report under paragraph (1) with respect to a chemical substance or mixture and the agency to which the report was made does not-- (A) issue the order described in paragraph (2)(A) within the time period specified by the Administrator in the report; or (B)(i) respond under paragraph (1) within the timeframe specified by the Administrator in the report; and (ii) initiate action within 90 days of publication in the Federal Register of the response described in clause (i). (4) If an agency to which a report is submitted under paragraph (1) does not take the actions described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (3), the Administrator shall-- (A) initiate or complete appropriate action under section 6; or (B) take any action authorized or required under section 7, as applicable. (5) This subsection shall not relieve the Administrator of any obligation to take any appropriate action under section 6(a) or 7 to address risks from the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of a chemical substance or mixture, or any combination of those activities, that are not identified in a report issued by the Administrator under paragraph (1). (63) If the Administrator has initiated action under section 6(a) or 7 with respect to a risk associated with a chemical substance or mixture which was the subject of a report made to an agency under paragraph (1), such agency shall before taking action under the law (or laws) administered by it to protect against such risk consult with the Administrator for the purpose of avoiding duplication of Federal action against such risk. (b) LAWS ADMINISTERED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.--(1) The Administrator shall coordinate actions taken under this Act with actions taken under other Federal laws administered in whole or in part by the Administrator. If the Administrator determines that a risk to health or the environment associated with a chemical substance or mixture could be eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent by actions taken under the authorities contained in such other Federal laws, the Administrator shall use such authorities to protect against such risk unless the Administrator determines, in the Administrator's discretion, that it is in the public interest to protect against such risk by actions taken under this Act. This subsection shall not be construed to relieve the Administrator of any requirement imposed 4 EPA-17-0432-L-000225 on the Administrator by such other Federal laws. (2) If the Administrator determines that a risk of injury to health or the environment could be eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent by actions taken under another Federal law (or laws) administered in whole or in part by the Administrator, the Administrator may not promulgate a rule under subsection (a) to protect against such risk of injury unless the Administrator finds, in the Administrator's discretion, In making a determination under paragraph (1) that it is in the public interest for the Administrator to take an action under this title with respect to a chemical substance or mixture rather than under another law administered in whole or in part by the Administrator, to protect against such risk under this Act. In making such a finding the Administrator shall consider, based on information reasonably available to the Administrator, (i) all relevant aspects of the risk described in paragraph (1), as determined by the Administrator in the Administrator's discretion, (ii) and a comparison of the estimated costs of complying with actions taken under this Act and under such law (or laws), and (iii) the relative and efficienciesy of the actions to be taken under this title Act and an action to be taken under such other law (or laws) to protect against such risk of injury. (c) OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH.--In exercising any authority under this Act, the Administrator shall not, for purposes of section 4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, be deemed to be exercising statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational safety and health. (d) COORDINATION.--In administering this Act, the Administrator shall consult and coordinate with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Education, and Welfare and the heads of any other appropriate Federal executive department or agency, any relevant independent regulatory agency, and any other appropriate instrumentality of the Federal Government for the purpose of achieving the maximum enforcement of this Act while imposing the least burdens of duplicative requirements on those subject to the Act and for other purposes. The Administrator shall, in the report required by section 30, report annually to the Congress on actions taken to coordinate with such other Federal departments, agencies, or instrumentalities, and on actions taken to coordinate the authority under this Act with the authority granted under other Acts referred to in subsection (b). (e) EXPOSURE INFORMATION.--In addition to the requirements of subsection (a), if the Administrator obtains information related to exposures or releases of a chemical substance or mixture that may be prevented or reduced under another Federal law, including a law not administered by the Administrator, the Administrator shall make such information available to the relevant Federal agency or office of the Environmental Protection Agency. [15 U.S.C. 2608 ] 5 EPA-17-0432-L-000226 Risk Evaluation Process and Timeline Ir----- Prioritization I ~ First10 : I Chemicals 1 1 High-Priority .0. I ...- - - - - Scope o o Draft : Final oo 45-day public comment Manufacturer Requests lnteragency Collaboration Risk Evaluation ---.-.-.-------.-.-.--, Hazard ; Assessment l.-----.-.-.-.-------.-. 1 ~ , Exposure ; Assessment I l----.-. -. _ .-.-------._.I ! ! I oo oo Peer oo o Review ooo 60-day public comment ---------------------------~---~ Risk Draft Risk Characterization Evaluation ------------.-.-.-.-.-.-.-..__ ___ ____, ! Final Risk Evaluation Statutorv Deadlin es = 6 Months for Final Scope. 3 to 3.5 Years for Final Risk Evaluation -- Risk Management Action Statutory Deadline = 2 to 4 years for Final Rule c:::l Unreasonable Risk ~.-----No Unreasonable Risk EPA-17-0432-L-000227 Initial 1O Risk Evaluations o The list of the initial 10 chemicals was published on Dec. 19,2016 1, 4 Dioxane 1-Bromopropane Asbestos Carbon Tetrachloride Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster (HBCD) Methylene Chloride N-Methylpyrolidone Pigment Violet 29 Trichloroethylene Tetrachloroethylene o Scope documents published June 22, 2017 EPA-17-0432-L-000228 2 INDUSTRIALAND COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES/ USES EXPOSUREPATHWAY EXPOSUREROUTE RECEPTORS o HAZARDS Manufacturing Processing: o As Reactant o Incorpora ted int o Formulation, Mix t ure, or Reaction Product o Repackaging Liquid Contac t Recycling Dermal Workers Solvents for Cleaning or Degreasing Adhesives and Sealants Pain t s and Coat ings including Paints and CoatingsRemoversa 1, Occupational Vapor/ Mist Non-Users Hazards Potentially Associated with Acute and/or Chronic Exposures: See Section 2.4 .2 Inhala tio n' Fugit ive Emissions' Outdoor Air (See Figure 2-4 for Emissions to Air) Me tal Produc t s Fabric, Textile, and Leather Products Automotive Care Product s Stack Emissions ' Air Pollu tion Cont rol Apparel and Footwear Care Produc ts Laundry and Dishwash ing Produc ts Lubricantsand Greases Other Uses b Waste Handling, Treatmen t and Disposal 4 Workerst, Liquid Contac t, Vapor Dermal, Inhalat ion Wastewater, Liquid Wastes and Solid Wastes Occupat ional Non-Users c::::JPathway(s) (See Figure 2-4) assessed in U.S. EPA (2014a). See footno te a. Figure 2-2. Initial Methylene Chloride Conceptual Model for Industrial and Commercial Activities and Uses: Potential Exposures and Hazards The conceptual model presents the exposure pathways, exposure routes and hazards to human receptors from industrial and commercial activities and uses of methylene chloride. a U.S. EPA (2014a) assessed paint removal uses in industrial and commercial settings and therefore those uses are out of scope for the risk evaluation. Some products are used in both commercial and consumer applications such adhesives and sealants. Additional uses of methylene chloride are included in Table 2-3. c Stack air emissions are emissions that occur through stacks, confined vents, ducts, pipes or other confined air streams. Fugitive air emissions are those that are not stack emissions and include fugitive equipment leaks from valves, pump seals, flanges, compressors, sampling connections and open-ended lines; evaporative losses from surface impoundment and spills; and releases from building ventilation systems. d Exposure may occur through mists that deposit in the upper respiratory tract and are swallowed. e Receptors include potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations. f When data and information are available to support the analysis, EPA also considers the effect that engineering controls and/or personal protective equipment have on occupational exposure levels. b Page 41 of 72 EPA-17-0432-L-000229 RELEASES AND WASTESFROM INDUSTRIAL/ COMMERCIAL/ CONSUMER USES EXPOSUREPATHWAY EXPOSUREROUTE Indu st rial PreTreatmen t o r Indu strial WWT RECEPTORSo HAZARDS Hazards Potentially Associated with Acute and Chronic Exposures: See Section 2.4 . 1 Aqua t ic Sp ecies Oral Derm al, Inhalat ion' Was te wa te r or Liquid Wasteso Underground Inject io n Municipal, Hazard ous landfill o r Ot her land Disposal Ground Hazards Potentially Associated with Acute and/or Chronic Exposures: wate r See Section 2.4 .2 Solid Was t es Liquid Was t es Incin erat ors (Municipal & Hazardous Was te ) Off-site Was t e Trans fe r Inhalat io no Was t e Trans a rt Hazards Potentially Associated with Acute and Chronic Exposure: See Section 2.4.1 Recycling, Ot her Treat ment b Emissi ons to Air D Human Healt h Pat hw ay - Ecological Pat hw ay Figure 2-4. Initial Methylene Chloride Conceptual Model for Environmental Releases and Wastes: Potential Exposures and Hazards The conceptual model presents the exposure pathways, exposure routes and hazards to human and environmental receptors from environmental releases and wastes of methylene chloride. a Industrial wastewater may be treated on-site and then released to surface water (direct discharge), or pre-treated and released to POTW (indirect discharge). For consumer uses, wastewater may be released directly to POTW (i.e., down the drain). Drinking water will undergo further treatment in drinking water treatment plant. Ground water may also be a source of drinking water. b Additional releases may occur from recycling and other waste treatment. c Volatilization from or liquid contact with tap water in the home during showering, bathing, washing, etc. represents another potential in-home exposure pathway. d Presence of mist is not expected; dermal and oral exposures are negligible. e Receptors include potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations. Page 45 of 72 EPA-17-0432-L-000230 Methylene Chloride Regulatory Landscape Methylene Chloride is subject to the following EPA-administered statutes/sections Office of Air 1. Clean Air Act (CAA) - Section 112(b) Lists methylene chloride as a HAP (42 U.S. Code section 7412), and is considered an "urban air toxic" (CAA Section 112(k)). 2. CAA - Section 112(d) There are 161 source-specific NESHAPs for methylene chloride and 15 Risk and Technology Reviews completed for methylene chloride. 3. Clean Air Act - Section 612 Under the SNAP program, EPA listed methylene chloride as an acceptable substitute in multiple industries, including in foam blowing agents for polyurethane, in cleaning solvents, in aerosol solvents and in adhesives and coatings (1994). In 2016, methylene chloride was listed as an unacceptable substitute for use in flexible polyurethane. Office of Water 4. Clean Water Act - Section 304(a) Under section 304(a), methylene chloride has a national recommended human health ambient water quality criteria. 5. Clean Water Act - Section 307(a) Methylene chloride is designated as a toxic pollutant under section 307(a)(1) of the CWA and as such is subject to best available technology effluent limitations established on either a national basis through rules (Sections 301(b), 304(b), 307(b), 306) or on a case-by-case best professional judgement basis in NPDES permits (Section 402(a)(1)(B)). 6. Safe Drinking Water Act - Section 1412 Methylene chloride is subject to NPDWR under the SDWA with a MCLG of zero and an enforceable MCL of 0.005 mg/L or 5 ppb (Section 1412). 1 Flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication process; Aerospace +RTR; Boat manufacturing; Chemical manufacturing industry (agricultural chemicals and pesticides, cyclic crude and intermediate production, industrial inorganic chemicals, industrial and miscellaneous organic chemicals, inorganic pigments, plastic materials and resins, pharmaceutical production, synthetic rubber); Fabric printing, coating and dyeing; Halogenated Solvent Cleaning + RTR; Miscellaneous organic chemical production and processes (MON); Paint and allied products manufacturing (area sources); Paint stripping and miscellaneous surface coating operations (area sources); Paper and other web surface coating; Pesticide active ingredient production +RTR; Pharmaceutical production; Publicly Owned Treatment Works + RTR; Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE); Reinforced plastic composites production; Wood preserving (area sources). EPA-17-0432-L-000231 Office of Land and Emergency Response 7. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Section 3001 Methylene chloride is included on the list of hazardous wastes pursuant to RCRA 3001. RCRA Hazardous Waste Code: F001, F002; U080. In 2013, EPA modified its hazardous waste management regulations to conditionally exclude solvent-contaminated wipes that have been cleaned and reused from the definition of solid waste under RCRA (78 FR 46447 July 31, 2013, 40 CFR 261.4(a)(26)). 8. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) - Sections 102(a) and 103 Methylene chloride is a hazardous substance under CERCLA. Releases of methylene chloride in excess of 1,000 pounds must be reported (40 CFR 302.4). Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 9. Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know (EPCRA); Section 313 Methylene chloride is a listed substance subject to reporting requirements under 40 CFR 372.65 effective as of January 01, 1987. 10. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) - Section 408 Methylene chloride was registered as antimicrobial, conventional chemical in 1974, but this tolerance was revoked in 2002, and there are currently no registrations for use as a pesticide (67 FR 16027, April 4, 2002). 11. Toxic Substances Control Act - Sections 4 [test rules], 6 [proposed rule on paint strippers]; 8(a)[CDR], 8(b)[TSCA inventory], 8(d)[health& safety studies], 8(e)[information about substantial risk] EPA-17-0432-L-000232 INDUSTRIA L AND COMM ERCIAL ACTIVITIES/ USES EXPOSURE PATHWAY EX POSURE ROUT E RECEPTORS e, t HA ZARDS M anu fact ur i ng Pr ocess i ng : o As reac t a nt/ i nterm edi ate o Inco rporat ed into fo rm u lati on, mi xt ure, or react i on pr odu ct Liqui d Cont act o Incorp orate d into a rt icle o Re pac kag ing Derm a l Vapor/ M i st c M anu f act ur i ng Hazards Potenti ally A-ssociated wit h Acut e and/or Chr onic Exposures See Sect ion 2.4.2 Non-User s Re cycl ing Petr oc hemica l a nd Agricult ura l Produ cts W or ker s, Occupat iona l lnh a lat ion d Fugi ti ve Emi ssi ons b Out doo r Ai r (See fi gure 2-4 fo r So lve nts for Clea ning a nd Emi ssi ons to Ai r ) Degr eas i ng~ Adh es iv es and Seal ants~ Stac k Pa ints and Coat i ngs; Emi ss ions b Air Po llut ion Contr ol Labor atory Chemi ca l s~ Ot her Uses; W as t e Ha nd li ng, Trea tm ent a nd Dis posa l W or ker s, Liqui d Contac t, Vapor c Derm a l, lnh a lat ion d Occ upat iona l Non-User s wa stewa ter,. Uquid Wa stes~ Solid Wastes (See Figure 2-4 ) Figure 2-2. Initial Carbon Tetrachloride Conceptual Model for Industrial and Commercial Activities and Uses: Potential Exposures and Hazards The conceptual model presents the exposure pathways, exposure routes and hazards to human receptors from industrial and commercial activities and uses of carbon tetrachloride. a Some products are used in both commercial and consumer applications. Additional uses of carbon tetrachloride are included in Table 2-3. Stack air emissions are emissions that occur through stacks, confined vents, ducts, pipes or other confined air streams. Fugitive air emissions are those that are not stack emissions, and include fugitive equipment leaks from valves, pump seals, flanges, compressors, sampling connections, open-ended lines; evaporative losses from surface impoundment and spills; and releases from building ventilation systems. c Includes possible vapor intrusion into industrial or commercial facility from carbon tetrachloride contaminated soil and/or ground water. d Exposure through mists that deposit in the upper respiratory tract and are swallowed. e Receptors include potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations. f When data and information are available to support the analysis, EPA also considers the effect that engineering controls and/or personal protective equipment have on occupational exposure levels. b Page 37 of 65 EPA-17-0432-L-000233 RELEASE AND WASTESFROM INDUSTRIAL/CO MMERCIAL/CONSUMERUSES Ind ustr ial PreTreatment or Industria l WWT EXPOSURE PATHWAY Direct discharge EXPOSURE ROUTE Water o, RECEPTORSo Aquat ic Species Sediment HAZARDS Potent ial HazardsAssodated with Acute and Chronic Exposures See Section 2.4.1 Wastewa ter or Liquid Wastes Underground Inj ectio n Municipal, Hazardous Landfill ~~ o ~~ or Other Land Disposal Potent ial Hazards Associated w ith Acute and Oi ronlc Exposures See Section 2.4.2 Solid Wastes Liquid Wastes Incinerators (Municipa l& Hazardous Waste) Off-site W aste Transfer Inhalat io n o D Human Health Pathway - Ecological Pathway Waste Transport Potentia l Hazards Associated with Acute and Chronic Exposu res See Section 2.4.l Recycling, Other Treatmento Emissions to Alr Figure 2-4. Initial Carbon Tetrachloride Conceptual Model for Environmental Releases and Wastes: Potential Exposures and Hazards The co ncept ual mo del presents the exposure pathways, exposure ro utes and hazards to human and environmental receptors from environmenta l releases and wastes of carbon tetrachloride. "Industrial was te wate r or liqu id wastes may be treated on-site and then released to surface wate r (direct discha rge ), or pre-tre ated and released to pub licly owned treatm en t works (POTW) (indire ct discharge) . For cons um er uses , such waste s may be released directly to POTW (i.e., dow n t he drain). Drinking wate r will underg o furt her t reatme nt in drinking wa ter treatment plant. Ground water may also be a source of drinki ng water. b Additional relea ses may occur from recycling a nd other waste treatment. 'Vo lat ilization from or liquid contact with t ap wate r in t he home during showeri ng, bathing, wash ing, etc. rep rese nts another pote ntia l in-home exposure path way . d Presence of mist is not expected; de rmal and ora l exposure are negligible. e Recept ors include potent ially exposed or suscep t ible subpop ulations . Page 41 of 65 EPA-17-0432-L-000234 APPENDICES Appendix A A.1 REGULATORYHISTORY Federal Laws and Regulations Tabl e Apx A-1. Federal Law s and Regulation s Descripti on of Auth ority/R egulati on Descripti on of Regulati on TSCA- Section 6(b) EPA is direc t ed t o ident ify and begi n risk evaluations on 10 chemical substa nces d raw n from t he 2014 update of t he TSCAWork Plan for Chemical Assessment s. Carbon tetrachlori de is o n t he init ial list of chemicals to be evaluated for unreasonab le risk under TSCA (81 FR 91927 , December 19, 2016). TSCA- Sectio n 8(a) The TSCA section 8(a) CDR Rule requi res manufactu rers (inclu ding importe rs) to give EPA basic exposu re-re lated infor mat ion on the t ypes, quanti t ies and uses of chemical substa nces produced domestically and imported into the United States. Carbon tetrach loride manufac t ur ing (including impor ti ng), processi ng and use info rmat ion is repor t ed under th e CDR Rule (76 FR 50816 , August 16, 2011). TSCA- Section 8(b) EPA must comp ile, keep current and Carbon tetrach loride was on the publ ish a list (t he TSCA Inve nt ory) of init ial TSCA Inventory and the refore each che mical substance manufac t ured, was not subject to EPA' s new chemicals review process under processed, or impor t ed in the Unit ed TSCAsect ion 5 (60 FR 16309, Marc h States. 29, 1995). TSCA- Section 8(d) Provides EPA w it h auth ority to issue Two sub missions received (1947rules requir ing produce rs, importers and 1994) (U.S. EPA, ChemView. (if specified) processo rs of a chemical Accessed Ap ril 13, 2017). substa nce o r mixt ure to subm it lists and/o r copies of health and safet y st udies. TSCA- Section 8(e) Manufac t urers (including imports) , processors and distribu t ors must immed iat ely not ify EPA if t hey obtai n infor mat ion th at supports the conclusion t hat a chemi cal substa nce or mixture prese nt s a subst ant ial risk of injury to hea lth o r th e env ironment. Three subm issions received (19922010) (U.S. EPA,ChemView. Accessed Ap ril 13, 2017). TSCA- Section 4 Provides EPA w it h auth ority to issue rules and orders requir ing Seven sectio n 4 not ificat ions received for carbo n tetrac hlo ride : Statut es/Re gulation s EPA Regulati ons Page 49 of 65 EPA-17-0432-L-000235 Statute s/Regulation s Description of Authority/Regulati on Descripti on of Regulati on ma nufactu rers (includi ng importe rs) and two acute aquatic t oxicit y stud ies, processors t o t est chemical substances o ne bioaccumu lation report and and mixt ures. fou r moni t oring repo rt s (1978-1980 ) (U.S. EPA, ChemView . Accessed Ap ril 13, 2017). EPCRA- Section 313 Requires ann ual report ing from faci lities in specifi c industry sectors t hat emp loy 10 or mo re full time equ ivalent emp loyees and t hat manufactu re, process, o r otherwise use a TRI-listed che mical in quanti ti es above t hreshold levels. Carbon tetrach loride is a list ed substance subj ect to report ing requ irements unde r 40 CFR372 .65 effect ive as of January 1, 1987. Federal Insect icide, Fungicide, and Rodent icide Act (FIFRA) - Sections 3 and 6 FIFRAgove rn s the sale, dist ri buti on and use of pestic ides. Sectio n 3 of FIFRA generally requ ires tha t pest icide products be reg ist ered by EPA prior to d ist ribut ion o r sale. Pesticides may only be regist ered if, among ot her t hings, they do not cause " unreasona ble adverse effects on t he env ironment. " Section 6 of FIFRA provi des EPA w ith t he autho rit y to cancel pesticide reg istr atio ns if eit her (1) t he pest icide, labe ling, o r othe r material does not co mply w it h FIFRA; or (2) w hen used in accor dance wit h wi despread and co mmon ly recog nized practice , the pestic ide generally causes unreaso nable adverse effects on t he env ironment. Use of carbon tetrach lo ride as a grai n fumigant was banned under FIFRAin 1986 (51 FR 41004, Novembe r 12, 1986) . Federal Food , Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)- Secti on 408 FFDCA governs t he allowab le residues of pesti cides in foo d . Section 408 of t he FFDCAprovides EPA w it h th e aut hority to set to lerances (ru les tha t esta blish maxim um allowa ble residue limits), or exemptions from t he req uirement of a to lerance, fo r all residues of a pesti cide (including both active and inert ingred ient s) t hat are in o r on food. Prior to issuing a to lerance o r exempti o n from to lerance, EPA mu st dete rmi ne t hat t he to lerance or exemption is " safe." Sections 408(b) and (c) of t he FFDCA define "safe" to mea n the Agency has a EPA removed carbo n tet rachlo ride from it s list of pest icide product inert ingredient s used in pesticide products in 1998 (63 FR34384, June 24, 1998). Page 50 of 65 EPA-17-0432-L-000236 Statute s/Regulation s Description of Authority/Regulati on Descripti on of Regulati on reasonab le certa inty that no harm w ill result from aggregat e exposures to the pestic ide residue, including all dietary exposu re and all ot her exposure (e.g., non-occupational exposures) for which the re is reliable information. Pesticide to lerances or exemptions from to lerance tha t do not meet the FFDCA safet y sta ndar d are subject to revoca ti o n. In the absence of a to lerance or an exemp t ion fro m to lerance, a foo d co nt aining a pest icide residue is considered adu lte rat ed and may not be dist r ibut ed in intersta t e co mm erce. CAA - Section 112(b) This sect ion lists 189 HAPs t hat must be Lists carbon tetrach loride as a HAP addresse d by EPA and includes autho rit y (70 FR 75047, December 19, 2005). for EPA t o add or de lete poll utan t s. EPA may, by ru le, add pollutants t hat present, or may present, a t hreat of adverse human health effec t s or adverse env iron ment al effects. CAA - Section 112(d) Directs EPA to estab lish, by ru le, N ESHAPsfor each category or subcategory of major sources and area sources of HAPs. The standards must require the maximum degree of em issio n reduction t hat EPA det ermines is achievable by each particular source category. This is generally referred to as maxim um achievab le contro l tech nology (MACT). Page 51 of 65 There are a number of sourcespecific NESHAPsfor carbon tetrach loride , includ ing: Rubber tire manufact ur ing (67 FR 45588, July 9, 2002) Chem ical Ma nufact uring Area Sources (74 FR 56008, Octobe r 29, 2009) Use of carbon tetrach lo ride as a dilutent for NCl3 (59 FR 19402, Ap ril 22,1994) , Haloge nated solvent cleani ng o perations (59 FR 61801 , December 2, 1994) Woo d Furnit ure Manufac t ur ing Operati o ns (60 FR 62930, Decemb er 7,1995) Group 1 Po lymers and Resins (61 FR 46906, Septe mbe r 5, 1996) EPA-17-0432-L-000237 Statute s/Regulation s Description of Authority/Regulati on Descripti on of Regulati on Plywood and Composite Wood Products (69 FR45944, July 30, 2004) CAA - Section 604 Establishes a ma ndat ory phase-ou t of ozone dep leti ng subst ances. The production and impor t of most Class I Ozone Deplet ing Substances (ODS), including carbon tetrach lori de, was ban ned in 1996 (58 FR 65018, Decemb er 10, 1993). However, t his ban does not app ly to production and import of amou nts that are tra nsfo rmed. 40 CFR 82.4. "T ransfo rm" is defined as "to use and entire ly consume (except for trace quanti t ies) a co nt rolled substance in t he manufacture of ot her che micals for commercia l purposes." 40 CFR82 .3. CWA- Sectio n 304(a)( 1) Requires EPA t o deve lop and pub lish In 2015, EPA pu blished up date d am bient wate r qua lity crit eria (AWQC) AWQC fo r carbo n tetrac hlo ride, reflec tin g the lat est scientifi c know ledge including recommen dations fo r "wate r + o rganism" and "o rgan ism o n t he effects on human healt h th at o nly" human healt h crite ria for may be expected fro m the presence of polluta nts in any body of water. st ates and author ized t ribes to co nsider w hen adopting crite ria into the ir wate r qua lity standards . CWA - Sections 301( b), 304( b), 306, and 307(b) Requires est ablishment of Effl uent Limit ations Guidelines and Standards fo r co nventional, toxic, and non-conventional poll utant s. For toxic and non-conve nt iona l pollut ants, EPA ident ifies the best avai lable tech nology that is eco nomically achieva ble for t hat industry aft er consideri ng st atutor ily prescribed facto rs and set s reg ulat ory requ irements based on t he perfor mance of th at techno logy. CWA - Sectio n 307(a) Establishes a list of t oxic po llut ant s or comb inatio n of po llutants unde r t he CWA. The stat ute specifies a list of families of toxic pollutants also liste d in the Code of Federal Regulat ions at 40 CFR401.15. The "p rio rity pollutants" specified by th ose fam ilies are list ed in Page 52 of 65 Carbon tetrach loride is desig nated as a t oxic pollu t ant unde r section 307(a)(1) of the CWA and as such is subj ect to efflue nt limi t ations per sect io n 1317 of the Clean Water Act. EPA-17-0432-L-000238 Statute s/Regulation s Description of Authority/Regulati on Descripti on of Regulati on 40 CFRpart 423, Appendix A . These are polluta nts for which best availab le techno logy eff lue nt lim it ations must be est ab lished on eit her a national basis th rough rules, see section 30 1(b), 304(b), 307(b), 306, or on a case-by-case best pro f essional j udgment basis in NPDESper mits. CWA 402(a)( l )(B). SOWA - Sect ion 1412 Requires EPA t o pu blish a non- Carbon tetrach loride is subj ect to National Primary Drinki ng Water Regulations (NPDWR) under SOWA and EPA has set a MCLG of zero and enfo rceable maximu m contami nant level goa ls (MCLGs) for contamina nts wh ich 1. may have an adve rse effect on the healt h of pe rsons; 2. are known t o an enforceab le MCL of 0.005 mg/L occu r or there is a substa nti al likel ihood (56 FR 3526 January 30, 1991). that t he cont aminant w ill occur in pub lic wat er systems wit h a frequency and at levels of pub lic hea lth co ncern; and 3. in the sole j udgment of the Ad mi nistrat or, reg ulati o n of the co nt aminant presents a mea ningfu l oppor t un ity fo r healt h risk reduct ions fo r pe rsons served by public wat er systems. When EPA publishes an MCLG, EPA must also promu lgat e a National Primary Drinki ng Water Regulation (NPDWR) which includes eith er an enforceab le maximum co nta mi nant level (MCL), or a req uired treatment tech nique . Public wat er syst ems are req uired to comply wi th NPDWRs. Compre hensive Envi ro nmenta l Response, Compensa ti on and Liabil ity Act (CERCLA) - Sections 102(a) and 103 Authorizes EPA t o promu lgate reg ulati o ns desig nating as hazardo us substa nces t hose substa nces whic h, whe n released int o t he envi ro nment , Carbon tetrach loride is a hazardo us substance unde r CERCLA. Releases of carbo n tetrach lo ride in excess of 10 pou nds must be reported (40 may present subst anti al da nger t o the CFR302 .4). pub lic hea lth or we lfare or the environ ment . EPA m ust also promu lgate reg ulati o ns est ablishin g t he qu antity of any hazardous subst ance t he release of wh ich must be reported under Section 103 . Section 103 requires persons in charge of vessels or faci lit ies to report t o the National Response Cente r if t hey Page 53 of 65 EPA-17-0432-L-000239 Statute s/Regulation s Description of Authority/Regulati on Descripti on of Regulati on have know ledge of a release of a hazardous substance above the reportable q uant ity t hresho ld. RCRA- Section 3001 Directs EPAto deve lop and pro mu lgate criteria for ide nti fyi ng the charact eristics of hazardous waste, and for list ing hazardous waste , taki ng into account toxici t y, persiste nce, and degra dability in nature, pot entia l for accumu lation in tissue, and other relate d facto rs such as flammabi lit y, corrosive ness, and other hazardous characteristics. Carbon tetrach loride is incl uded o n the list of hazardous wast es pursuant t o RCRA3001 . Two cat ego ries of carbon tetrach lori de wastes are considered hazardous : d iscarded commercia l chemica ls {U211) (40 CFR261.31(a)), and spent degreasi ng solvent (F00l) (40 CFR261.33(f)) (45 FR 33084 May 19, 1980). RCRAsolid wast e that leaches 0.5 mg/Lo r more carbon tet rachlori de when t ested using th e TCLP leach test is RCRAhazardous (D019) under 40 CFR 261.24 (55 FR 11798 Marc h 29, 1990) . In 2013, EPA modified its hazardous waste manageme nt regu lations to condit ionally exclude solventcont ami nate d wi pes t hat have been cleane d and reused from the definit io n of sol id wast e unde r RCRA (40 CFR261.4(a)(26)) (78 FR46447 , July 31, 2013). Other Federal Regulation s Requires precautiona ry labe ling o n t he Federal Hazardous Substance Act (FHSA) im med iat e cont ainer of hazardous househo ld products and allows the Consume r Product Safety Commissio n (CPSC)to ban cert ain products that are so dangerous o r t he nature of t he hazard is such that required labe ling is not adequate t o protect consumers. FFDCA Provides t he U.S. Food and Drug Ad minist ration (FDA) w it h auth o rity to Page 54 of 65 Use of car bon tetrach lo ride in consume r prod uct s was banned in 1970 by the CPSC(16 CFR1500.17). The FDA regu lates carbon tetrach lori de in bot t led wat er. The maxim um permissib le leve l of EPA-17-0432-L-000240 Statute s/Regulation s Description of Authority/Regulati on oversee th e safety of food, drugs and cosme t ics. OSHA Ato mi c Energy Act Descripti on of Regulati on carbon t et rach lor ide in bott led wat er is 0.005 mg/L (21 CFR 165. 110). All medical dev ices co nt aining or ma nufactured wi th car bo n tetrach lori de must contai n a warn ing stat ement t hat t he compou nd may destr oy ozo ne in the atmos phere (21 CFR801.433). Carbon tetrach loride is also liste d as an " Inactive Ingred ient for app roved Drug Produ ct s" by FDA (FDA Inactive Ingredient Database. Accessed Ap ril 13, 2017). Requires emp loye rs to provi de their In 1970, OSHA issued occupationa l wo rkers with a place of emp loyment safet y and healt h standards fo r free from recogni zed hazards to safet y carbon t et rach lor ide that included a and health, such as exposure t o tox ic PEL of 10 ppm TWA, exposu re che micals, excessive no ise levels, mo nito ring, co nt rol measu res and mechanical dangers, heat o r cold stress, respiratory protection (29 CFR o r unsanit ary conditio ns. 1910.1000). Unde r th e Act, OSHA can issue occu pationa l safety and healt h st andards inclu ding such provisions as PELs, exposu re moni t or ing, engi neer ing and adm inistr at ive cont ro l measures, and resp irato ry protection. OSHA proh ibits all wo r kplaces from using port ab le fi re extinguishers co nt aini ng carbon t et rach lor ide (29 CFR 19 10.157(c)(3)). The Atom ic Energy Act auth ori zes the Depart ment of Energy to reg ulat e the healt h and safety of its co ntr act or emp loyees . 10 CFR851.23, Wo r ker Saf et y and Health Program, requi res the use of the 2005 ACGIH TLVs if t hey are mo re prot ect ive than t he OSHA PEL. The 2005 TLV fo r carbo n tetrach lori de is 5 ppm (8hr Time Weighte d Average) and 10 ppm Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL). Page 55 of 65 EPA-17-0432-L-000241 A.2 State Laws and Regulations Table Ap x A-2. Stat e Laws and Regul ation s State Acti ons Descripti on of Action St ate age ncies of int e rest Stat e per missible exposu re lim its California PEL:12.6 mg/L (Cal Code Regs. Title 8, section 5155), Hawaii PEL: 2 ppm (Hawaii Admi nistrative Rules sectio n 12-60-50). Stat e Right -to -Know Acts Massachuset ts (454 Code Mass. Regs. section 21.00), New Jersey (8:59 N.J. Admin . Code sectio n 9.1), Pennsylvania (34 Pa. Code sect ion 323). Stat e air regulations Allowable Ambient Levels (AAL): Rhode Island (12 R.I. Code R. 031-022) , New Hampsh ire (RSA 125-1:6, ENVA Chap. 1400). Stat e drinking wat er standards and guide lines Ar izona (14 Ariz. Adm in. Register 2978, August 1, 2008), California (Cal Code Regs. Title 26, section 2264444), Delaware (Del. Adm in. Code Title 16, section 4462), Connect icut (Conn. Agencies Regs. sect ion 1913- B102), Flo rida (Fla. Admin. Code R. Chap. 62-550), Ma ine (10 144 Me. Code R. Chap. 231), Massachusett s (310 Code Mass. Regs. section 22.00), Mi nnesota (Mi nn R. Chap. 4720), New Jersey (7:10 N.J Admin. Code sect io n 5.2), Pennsylvania (25 Pa. Code section 109.202), Rhode Island (14 R.I. Code R. section 180003) , Texas (30 Tex. Admi n. Code section 290.104) . Ot her A.3 In California, carbo n tetrac hlo ride was adde d to t he Proposition 65 list in 1987 (Cal. Code Regs. Title 27, section 27001) . Carbo n te tr achlor ide is on t he MA Toxic Use Reduction Act (TURA) list of 1989 (301 Code Mass. Regs. section 41.03). International Laws and Regulations Table Apx A-3. Regulatory Action s by Oth er Government s and Tribe s Country /Organization Requirement s and Restriction s Regulatory Action s by other Government s and Tribe s Mont real Protoco l Carbon tetrachlori de is considered an ODS and its prod ucti o n and use are cont ro lled under t he 1987 Mon t real Prot ocol on Subst ances That Deplet e the Ozone Layer and its amendmen t s (Mo ntr eal Protocol Annex B - Group II). Page 56 of 65 EPA-17-0432-L-000242 Internal deliberative - predecisional - enforcement and compliance Page 1 Human Health Hazard Assessment : Proposed Mile stone s and Options I I I EPA-17-0432-L-000243 Internal deliberative - predecisional - enforcement and compliance Page 2 (b)(5) Deliberative Process I EPA-17-0432-L-000244 Internal deliberative - predecisional - enforcement and compliance Page 3 Option s: I., I I I EPA-17-0432-L-000245 Internal deliberative - predecisional - enforcement and compliance Page 4 Supplemental Information 1. Brief Study Summary 1 In a combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in rats (OPPTS 870.4300; OECD 453), the test compound was administered to rats (80/sex/group) by oral gavage for up to 104 weeks. A cohort of 10/sex/group were terminated at 12 months (interim sacrifice). Dose levels were 0, 0.1, 1 or 50 mg/kgbw/day for males and 0, 1, 50 or 500 mg/kg-bw/day for females. With respect to non-cancer findings in males at 50 mg/kg-bw/day, increased incidences of focal cystic degeneration and centrilobular hepatocellular necrosis of the liver were observed microscopically, with associated increases in enzymes indicative of liver injury as well as centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy. At 500 mg/kg-bw/day, findings in females included reductions in body weight, body weight gain, and food efficiency; decreases in red cell mass with corresponding increases in reticulocytes; and microscopic findings in the liver, kidney, nonglandular stomach, and tongue. In the liver, there were increased incidences of focal cystic degeneration, individual hepatocyte necrosis, and centrilobular hepatocyte necrosis, as well as panlobular and centrilobular hypertrophy. For males, a NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 1 mg/kg-bw/day based on liver effects at 50 mg/kg-bw/day. For females, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 50 mg/kgbw/day based on numerous effects at 500 mg/kg-bw/day. Neoplastic Findings: Females. An induction of liver cancer was observed but only at the highest dose, where degenerative and necrotic changes also occurred in the liver. The tumor incidences were 0/70 (0%), 0/70 (0%), 0/70 (0%), and 11/70 (15.7%) for hepatocellular adenomas and 0/70 (0%), 0/70 (0%), 0/70 (0%), and 4/70 (5.7%) for hepatocellular carcinomas at the doses of 0, 1, 50, and 500 mg/kg-bw/day, respectively. The increased incidences of hepatocellular adenomas and carcinomas at the high dose were statistically significant and also exceeded the test laboratory historical control ranges 0-5% and 0-1.7% for adenomas and carcinomas, respectively. Males: There was a statistically significant increase in the incidence of pancreatic acinar cell adenomas/carcinomas combined (but not adenomas or carcinomas alone) at 50 mg/kg-bw-day. Incidences of adenomas were 0/70, 1/70 (1.4%), 0/70 (0%), 3/70 (4.3%) at 0, 0.1, 1, and 50 mg/kgbw/day, respectively (not statistically significant; within the test laboratory historical control range of 05%). The incidence of pancreatic acinar cell carcinomas was 0/70 (0%) in all groups other than the high dose group where 2/70 (2.9%) were observed (not statistically significant; slightly higher than upper end of historical control range of 0-1.7%). When combined, the incidences of adenoma/carcinoma were 0/70 (0%), 1/70 (1.4%), 0/70 (0%), 5/70 (7.1%) at 0, 0.1, 1, and 50 mg/kg-bw/day, respectively, with the increased incidence at the high dose statistically significant (trend test and Peto test). For reference, the incidences of pancreatic acinar cell hyperplasia were 16/70 (22.9%), 18/70 (25.7%), 7/70 (10%), and 21/70 (30%) at 0, 0.1, 1, and 50 mg/kg-bw/day, respectively. The increased incidence of hyperplasia at the high dose was not statistically significant, and a dose-related increase in the incidence across the range of doses tested was not apparent. In the testes, the incidences of interstitial cell adenomas were 4/70 (5.7%), 4/70 (5.7%), 1/70 (1.4%), and 8/70 (11.4%) at 0, 0.1, 1, and 50 mg/kg-bw/day, respectively. In addition, an interstitial cell adenoma was present in 1/10 high dose males at the interim sacrifice. The increased incidence at 50 mg/kgIn addition to submission of the full study report to EPA, this study was published in the scientific literature; Citation: JM Rae et al. Evaluation of chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity of ammonium 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2(heptafluoropropoxy)-propanoate in Sprague-Dawley rats. Toxicology Reports 2 (2015) 939-949. 1 EPA-17-0432-L-000246 Internal deliberative - predecisional - enforcement and compliance Page 5 bw/day (11.4%) was not statistically significant, but was slightly greater than the upper end of the testing laboratory's historical control range (0-8.3%). For reference, the incidences of interstitial cell hyperplasia were 7/70 (10%), 7/70 (10%), 3/70 (4.3%), and 15/70 (21.4%) at 0, 0.1, 1, and 50 mg/kgbw/day, respectively. The increased incidence of hyperplasia at the high dose was not statistically significant and while the incidence of hyperplasia at 50 mg/kg-bw/day exceeded the historical control range (0-8.3%), incidences in the control and low dose groups (both 10%) did also. Study Author Conclusions Regarding Liver, Pancreatic, and Testicular Tumor Findings. The study authors noted that the test article belongs to a class compounds knowns as peroxisome proliferators (PPAR? agonists), which produce liver, pancreatic, and testicular tumors in rodents. The study authors concluded that neoplastic findings in the liver, pancreas, and testes were not likely relevant to humans based on the following: "most research indicates that induction of these specific tumors in rats by non-genotoxic peroxisome proliferators likely has little or no relevance to humans, especially in plausible human exposure scenarios; the test material was determined to be non-genotoxic based on a battery of in vivo and in vitro genotoxicity studies; liver tumors were produced only in females and only at doses associated with marked hepatic and systemic toxicity (including lethality); and thresholds were established for all tumor types." For the liver, the study authors noted that the increased incidences of tumors in high dose females occurred in association with degenerative/necrotic changes in the liver at this dose level. For the pancreatic findings, the study authors indicate that while there were statistically significant increases in the incidence of acinar cell adenoma/carcinoma combined in high dose males which were slightly outside the historical control range, the increases in adenoma or carcinoma alone and hyperplasia were not statistically significant. Given this along with PPAR? agonist activity of the test compound, the study authors considered the marginal increase in pancreatic acinar cell tumors in the 50 mg/kg-bw/day male group as equivocal evidence of a test articlerelated effect. For the testes, the study authors concluded that the potential relationship of interstitial cell adenomas and hyperplasia observed at the high dose relative to treatment with test compound cannot be ruled out given that PPAR? agonists are known to produce proliferative interstitial cell lesions in the testes of rats. The testicular findings were concluded by the study authors to be equivocal however, given the marginal increase in the incidences of adenomas and hyperplasia, the lack of statistical significance, and the incidences of these findings in concurrent controls. 2. "Questions and Answers Regarding North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Updated Risk Assessment for GenX (Perfluoro-2-propoxypropanoic acid)" available at https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/GenX/NC%20DHHS%20Risk%20Assessment%20FAQ%20Final%20Clean%2007 1417%20PM.pdf This document states "Although the preliminary assessment was based upon a study with combined cancer and non-cancer endpoints, the updated health goal considers non-cancer endpoints only. There are no studies in humans on cancer related to GenX. Only one animal study is available for cancer analysis, and it has shown increases in certain cancers. Based on conversations with EPA, there is not enough information at this time to identify a specific level of GenX that might be associated with an increased risk for cancer." EPA-17-0432-L-000247 DRAFT: Federal Information Exchange on PFAS Febrnary 5- 6, 2018 Natcher Conferen ce Center El/E2, A, and Gl/G2 Bethesda, MD 20892 -2152 Description: The Federal Infonnation Exchange on PFAS is sponsored by the Toxics & Risks Sub committee of the NSTC Comm ittee on Enviromnent, Natural Resources , and Sustain ability , co-chai red by the DoD , EPA , and NIH . Participants will share emerging impa ctful data and impro ve unders tanding of the science behind decision-making regar ding PF AS. This work shop aims to establi sh a foundat ion of common knowledge across federal agencies , and to facilitate furore info1mation-s haring across federal agencies, from high-l evel officia ls to lab orato1y resear chers. Workshop Format: This one and a half day works hop will begin the afternoo n ofFebrnaiy 5th with openin g rem arks from senior governme nt leaders such as Dr. Linda Bimbaun1, Direc tor of the National Instihlte of Environm ental Health Sciences; Dr. Patrick Breysse, Director of the National Center for Environmental Health; Ms . Maureen Sullivan , Depu ty Assis tant Secretaiy of Defense, Environment , Safety & Occupational Health ; and Dr. Jennifer O1me-Zavaleta , Prin cipal Deputy Assis tant Administra tor for Science , USEP A Office of Research and Development. A panel discussion will feature issues confrontin g state health offic ials . Leadin g federally-fun ded resear chers will give plenaiy lectures about new findings in their respective ai.eas of exper tise. On Febrnaiy 6th , federal employees and federally-funded reseai.chers wi ll pa1ticipate in breakou t sessio ns to establish cune nt scientific knowledge and future directions with in key topic ai.eas, to be rep o1ted in a panel discussion. Specific topics are to-be-detennined but may include: I ' 5 I A fiiial sess ion will discuss risk assessme nt, considera tion of data needs for health-based values, and ongoing coord ination and communicatio n acros s federal agencies. The workshop will be imm ediately followed by a closed Toxics & Risks Subcomm ittee meeting to discuss how these findings will infonn agencies moving fo1wai.d. Objectives: Workshop pa1ticipant s will emerge with : o Info1med cune nt understanding of PF AS knowledge and knowledge gaps , across paiticipa ting federal agencies ; and o Operational-level cooperation and collaboratio n among decision-makers and tho se who are effecting the science at the lab bench and in the field. Toxics o o o and Risks Subcommittee will make progre ss towai.d : Common knowledge basis to info1m policy-makers within vai.ious federal agencies; Repo1t-out list of nee ds to info1m future federal PF AS strategy; and Continued open communication amo ng agencies. EPA-17-0432-L-000248 overvleWof Reg\'leg Mandate;f ACARulesand Reg\'legProcess for OPP1 \0 5/~5/~7 EPA-17-0432-L-000249 Overview of the Reg Neg Mandate ? On June 22, 2016, TSCAwas amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act to include the requirement that EPAconvene a negotiated rulemaking to develop and publish a proposed rule providing for limiting the reporting requirements under TSCAsection 8(a) for manufacturers of any inorganic byproducts, when such byproducts, whether by the byproduct manufacturer or by any other person, are subsequently recycled, reused, or reprocessed. ? The Act also required the EPAto publish a final rule resulting from the negotiated rulemaking not later than three and one-half years after June 22, 2016. (See TSCAsection 8(a)(6)) 2 EPA-17-0432-L-000250 Overview of the Reg Neg Mandate (continued) ? If there is a consensuswithin the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, EPAwill use the consensus to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the legal obligations of the Agency, as the basis for a rule proposed by the Agency for public notice and comment. ? The Agency is committed to working in good faith to seek consensus on a proposal that is consistent with the legal mandate of TSCA. ? The objective of the negotiated rulemaking process is to develop and publish a proposed rule by June 22, 2019. ? In the event a proposed ruled is developed, a final rule "resulting from such negotiated rulemaking" must be issued by December 22, 2019. 3 EPA-17-0432-L-000251 FACAFunction ? The sole function of an EPAadvisory committee is to provide advice and recommendations to EPA. ? The sole function of a subcommittee or workgroup is to provide advice and recommendations to the parent committee; a subcommittee or workgroup may not provide advice directly to EPA. EPA-17-0432-L-000252 FACA? S(b) - Balance ? FACArequires the membership of each advisory committee "to be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed." EPA-17-0432-L-000253 Negotiated Rulemaking: Description ? A balanced group of stakeholder representatives that ? Is chartered as a Federal Advisory (FACA)committee ? Joins with Federal representative ? Prior to the publication of an Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) ? To negotiate the text or outline of a proposed rule ? Which, if agreement is reached, is used as the basis of the NPRM EPA-17-0432-L-000254 Why then a Reg Neg? ? Statutory requirement ? Parties contribute their knowledge & constraints to seek mutually acceptable requirements ? Joint decision making= greater commitment ? If agreement reached, quicker implementation ? Can be less costly than litigation & delays due to dissatisfied stakeholders EPA-17-0432-L-000255 Negotiated Rulemaking Process Before Convening During Negotiations AfterNPRM o Final Agency oAgency interest in Reg Neg o Select facilitator o Conduct convening assessment o Plan & organize the process o Obtain FACA charter o Identify & invite participants Review o Assemble , analyze , agree on data o 0MB Review o Gonsult const-ituents o Administrator signs o Construct and analyze options o NPRM Published o Constituent ratification o Finalize agreement --- o Public comment o Final Rule based on public comments o8 EPA-17-0432-L-000256 AGENCYRESPONSIBILITES ? Provide leadership (ideas, schedule, options) ? Articulate Agency's needs and constraints ? Provide definition, direction, &: decisions in a timely manner ? Provide resources ? Provide data and information ? Keep promises ? Comply with FACAand other requirements o9 EPA-17-0432-L-000257 CONSENSUS on the Agreement ? The final agreement is a package of items on which all members of a group can agree ? All of the individual items in the package may not be everybody's first choice: ? Everyone has been able to express their views and be heard ? Everyone can live with the package ? To reach a consensus - group members agree to work together until they find a solution that meets as many members' interests as poss1bleand doesn't compromise strong convictions or principles ? A consensus agreement is the strongest form ? of an agreement. EPA-17-0432-L-000258 PROMISES, PROMISES if agreement is reached: ? The Government promises: ? to use the consensus of the group as the basis for the NPRM ? Advise members about any major changes due to public comment prior to final ? The outside members promise: ? to implement the rule , ? not to file negative comments, ? not to litigate the final rule (if no major changes were made) r- EPA-17-0432-L-000259 o FRN published 5/ 5/ 17 o Reviews: wkgrp , OPPT 10, AA sig. o Meeting held 5/ 9-10/ 17 o Establishes Committee, identifies scope and time period o Reviews: wkgrp, OPPT 10, OCSPP10 o Status: In OA, pending DA appro val o Published 12/ 15/ 16 o Reviews: wkgrp , OPPTIO, AA signature o Status: Comments closed 1/ 17/ 17 oSelected by EPAto ensure balance , based on Convening Report (background information and proposed committee membership) developed by facilitator. oRevie ws: wkgrp , OPPT 10, OCSPP10, FACMD oStatus: In OA, pending DA approval. oNext step: Following OA approval , formal package for OCSPPAA signature (transmittal memo ) and DA signature (letters) o Meeting planned for 6/8-9 / 17 o Status: AO needs OCSPP10 sign off (DAA) on committee membership prior to approval. FRN is for AA signature; in OCSPP10. \ o Meetings and negotiations planned to continue , under conditions of the Operating Protocol o Describes structure , roles, and rules of Committee. Negotiated by the Committee. o Reviews: wkgrp, OPPT 10 , OCSPP10, Committee o Status: Will be finalized at first committee meeting EPA-17-0432-L-000260 overvleWof Reg\'leg Mandate;f ACARulesand Reg\'legProcess for OPP1 \0 5/~5/~7 EPA-17-0432-L-000261 Overview of the Reg Neg Mandate ? On June 22, 2016, TSCAwas amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act to include the requirement that EPAconvene a negotiated rulemaking to develop and publish a proposed rule providing for limiting the reporting requirements under TSCAsection 8(a) for manufacturers of any inorganic byproducts, when such byproducts, whether by the byproduct manufacturer or by any other person, are subsequently recycled, reused, or reprocessed. ? The Act also required the EPAto publish a final rule resulting from the negotiated rulemaking not later than three and one-half years after June 22, 2016. (See TSCAsection 8(a)(6)) 2 EPA-17-0432-L-000262 Overview of the Reg Neg Mandate (continued) ? If there is a consensuswithin the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, EPAwill use the consensus to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the legal obligations of the Agency, as the basis for a rule proposed by the Agency for public notice and comment. ? The Agency is committed to working in good faith to seek consensus on a proposal that is consistent with the legal mandate of TSCA. ? The objective of the negotiated rulemaking process is to develop and publish a proposed rule by June 22, 2019. ? In the event a proposed ruled is developed, a final rule "resulting from such negotiated rulemaking" must be issued by December 22, 2019. 3 EPA-17-0432-L-000263 FACAFunction ? The sole function of an EPAadvisory committee is to provide advice and recommendations to EPA. ? The sole function of a subcommittee or workgroup is to provide advice and recommendations to the parent committee; a subcommittee or workgroup may not provide advice directly to EPA. EPA-17-0432-L-000264 FACA? S(b) - Balance ? FACArequires the membership of each advisory committee "to be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed." EPA-17-0432-L-000265 Negotiated Rulemaking: Description ? A balanced group of stakeholder representatives that ? Is chartered as a Federal Advisory (FACA)committee ? Joins with Federal representative ? Prior to the publication of an Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) ? To negotiate the text or outline of a proposed rule ? Which, if agreement is reached, is used as the basis of the NPRM EPA-17-0432-L-000266 Why then a Reg Neg? ? Statutory requirement ? Parties contribute their knowledge & constraints to seek mutually acceptable requirements ? Joint decision making= greater commitment ? If agreement reached, quicker implementation ? Can be less costly than litigation & delays due to dissatisfied stakeholders EPA-17-0432-L-000267 Negotiated Rulemaking Process Before Convening During Negotiations AfterNPRM o Final Agency oAgency interest in Reg Neg o Select facilitator o Conduct convening assessment o Plan & organize the process o Obtain FACA charter o Identify & invite participants Review o Assemble , analyze , agree on data o 0MB Review o Gonsult const-ituents o Administrator signs o Construct and analyze options o NPRM Published o Constituent ratification o Finalize agreement --- o Public comment o Final Rule based on public comments o8 EPA-17-0432-L-000268 AGENCYRESPONSIBILITES ? Provide leadership (ideas, schedule, options) ? Articulate Agency's needs and constraints ? Provide definition, direction, &: decisions in a timely manner ? Provide resources ? Provide data and information ? Keep promises ? Comply with FACAand other requirements o9 EPA-17-0432-L-000269 CONSENSUS on the Agreement ? The final agreement is a package of items on which all members of a group can agree ? All of the individual items in the package may not be everybody's first choice: ? Everyone has been able to express their views and be heard ? Everyone can live with the package ? To reach a consensus - group members agree to work together until they find a solution that meets as many members' interests as poss1bleand doesn't compromise strong convictions or principles ? A consensus agreement is the strongest form ? of an agreement. EPA-17-0432-L-000270 PROMISES, PROMISES if agreement is reached: ? The Government promises: ? to use the consensus of the group as the basis for the NPRM ? Advise members about any major changes due to public comment prior to final ? The outside members promise: ? to implement the rule , ? not to file negative comments, ? not to litigate the final rule (if no major changes were made) r- EPA-17-0432-L-000271 o FRN published 5/ 5/ 17 o Reviews: wkgrp , OPPT 10, AA sig. o Meeting held 5/ 9-10/ 17 o Establishes Committee, identifies scope and time period o Reviews: wkgrp, OPPT 10, OCSPP10 o Status: In OA, pending DA appro val o Published 12/ 15/ 16 o Reviews: wkgrp , OPPTIO, AA signature o Status: Comments closed 1/ 17/ 17 oSelected by EPAto ensure balance , based on Convening Report (background information and proposed committee membership) developed by facilitator. oRevie ws: wkgrp , OPPT 10, OCSPP10, FACMD oStatus: In OA, pending DA approval. oNext step: Following OA approval , formal package for OCSPPAA signature (transmittal memo ) and DA signature (letters) o Meeting planned for 6/8-9 / 17 o Status: AO needs OCSPP10 sign off (DAA) on committee membership prior to approval. FRN is for AA signature; in OCSPP10. \ o Meetings and negotiations planned to continue , under conditions of the Operating Protocol o Describes structure , roles, and rules of Committee. Negotiated by the Committee. o Reviews: wkgrp, OPPT 10 , OCSPP10, Committee o Status: Will be finalized at first committee meeting EPA-17-0432-L-000272 TSCA Lead Hazard Reduction Program Overview August 2017 The Lead Paint Problem in the U.S. o Lead is a potent neurotoxin that causes irreversible damage. CDC states that no level of lead in a child's blood can be specified as safe. o The most common source of lead exposure for children today is lead paint in older housing and the contaminated dust and soil it generates. Housing units constructed before 1950 are most likely to contain lead-based paint (LBP). The most recent national survey estimated that 37.1 million homes in the United States have some LBP. o Childhood blood lead levels have declined substantially since the 1970s, due largely to the phasing out of lead in gasoline and to the reduction in the number of homes with lead-based paint hazards. o 1.2% of children had BLL >= 5 ug/dL in 2011-2014, compared with 26% in 1988-1994 and 8.7% in 1999-2002 EPA's Statutory Responsibilities under the Residential LBP Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Title X) Title X assigns responsibilities to Federal Agencies with the overall goal of developing a "...national strategy to build the infrastructure necessary to eliminate LBP hazards in all housing as expeditiously as possible." Under Title X, EPA must: o Establish hazard standards pursuant to TSCA ? 403 - completed in 2001 (current subject of litigation) o Regulate LBP activities (abatement, inspection and risk assessment) in target housing and childoccupied facilities pursuant to TSCA ? 402 (completed in 1996) o Regulate renovation, repair and painting (RRP) in homes with LBP pursuant to TSCA ? 402 (completed in 2008); Evaluate if hazards are created by RRP activities in public and commercial buildings with LBP; if so, promulgate regulations pursuant to TSCA ? 402 (limited work ongoing; current subject of litigation) o Regulate the identification and/or removal of lead-based paint from bridges, or other structure or super-structures pursuant to TSCA ? 402 (no work underway) o Authorize State and Tribal programs interested in administering the LBP program, pursuant to TSCA ? 404 (ongoing) o EPA provides grants to authorized programs to implement LBP regulations o $13.8m in STAG funds in FY17; Approximately $10.9m is provided to authorized programs, while the remainder is used to support direct implementation by EPA, including development, operations and maintenance of the Federal Lead-based Paint Program database (FLPP) o EPA is required by statute to implement these programs in non-authorized areas o 39 States, DC, Puerto Rico, and 4 tribes are authorized to administer an abatement program o 14 States and the Bois Forte Tribe are currently authorized to administer an RRP program o Regulate information disclosure standards (with HUD) pursuant to ? 1018 of Title X (completed in 1996) o Establish laboratory standards pursuant to TSCA ? 405 -- National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (ongoing) o Work with HUD and CDC to educate the public about lead poisoning pursuant to TSCA ? 405 (ongoing) o National Lead Information Center (co-funded with HUD through IAG) supports bilingual tollfree hotline handles ~21,000 contacts per year and distributes ~125,000 documents per year o OPPT also conducts general outreach and RRP outreach as funding allows to increase compliance with RRP and to increase public awareness of lead exposure hazards and lead poisoning prevention. Activities have included: o Development and dissemination of brochures and materials o Coordinating ad campaigns EPA-17-0432-L-000273 o o o o National Lead Poisonin g Preventi on Week in October EPA's Lead Website Partn erships with national contractor locator organizat ions, includin g Angie's List, Consumers' CHECKLI ST, and Best Picks Regional RRP Lead-Safe Ce1tification trainin g an d outreach event s in 6 Cities in 201 6/2017. Follow-up en forcemen t activities plann ed for Sprin g/Summ er of 2017 : o Oakland, Memphis, El Paso, Denver, Kan sas City , Baltim ore Current Issues o Lead Hazard Standards - On August 10, 2009 , EPA received a petition requesting that EPA take action to lower EP A's regulatory dust lead hazard standards . On October 22 , 2009, EPA agreed to initi ate a pro ceeding to dete1mine whether the dust lead hazard standar ds should be revised . On August 24, 20 16, advoca tes filed a petiti on in the U.S . Comt of Appe als for the Ninth Circuit, askin g the comt to compel EPA to m ake such a revision . On Januai y 17, 2017, EPA filed its response brief and declarati on, and petitioner 's repl y brief was filed on Januar y 27 , 2017. In the signed declai.ation, EPA explained that it intends to issue a prop osed rnle revising the dust lead hazard stan dai.ds and clearan ce levels or conclud e that no such revision is necess aiy in an estimated fom years. Oral ai.gument be fore the 9th Circuit was held on June 12, 2017 . It is not kn own when the comt will rnle in this matter. o Test Kits - N o test kit that meets the positive resp onse criterion (i.e. detects lead-based paint at the regu latory lead concentration) specified in the RRP Rul e has been app roved for use. Note th at three kits are app rove d that meet the negative response criterion (no lead present) . The lack of lead test kits m eeting the positive response criterion has been controversial , resultin g in severa l congressional letters, tw o petitions, and failed bill s seeking to prohibit th e use of EPA resom ces to impl em ent RRP . Test kits were also mentioned in recent app ropri ations langua ge. o 6 10 Review - Sect ion 6 10 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requir es that federal agencies review each rnl e that has or will have a signifi cant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (SISNO SE) within ten years of publication of the final rnle. The 6 10 Review for the RRP rnle is due in April , 2018. o Publi c and Comm ercial Buil dings (P&CBs) - EPA was sued on the 2008 RRP rnle for failin g to meet its statutory obligation to address renovations in P&CBs. The resultant settlement agreemen t includ ed establi shment of a timeline for action on renovations in P&CBs. Follow ing several amen dments of the agreement, the m ost recent deadline for issuin g a prop osed rnl e was March 3 1, 2017, which EPA did not me et. A new schedule has not been establi shed. o FY 18 President 's Budg et-The FY 18 President 's Bud get vntuall y elimin ates the Lead Hazai.d Reduction Prograin exce pt for appli cation processing and database manag ement. Un der the prop osed budget, onl y the follow ing activities would continue , but at a signifi cantly redu ced level : o Manag ement of the FLPP datab ase o Ce1t ification of foms and individual s for the abat em ent and RRP prograins in all nonauthorized states and tribes o Accreditation of trainin g providers EPA-17-0432-L-000274 Byproducts Working Group (As of 8/25/17) Designates lead for convening and keeping the Working Group on track. The goal is to send all updates to the full Committee on Sept 6, 2017. Primary Working Groups: Approach A Exemptions o o o o o o o American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM): David Dunlap Earthworks: Aaron Mintzes EPA: Lynn Vendinello National Tribal Toxics Council (NTTC): Kristin K'eit or Fred Corey Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC): David Lennett North American Metals Council (NAMC): Kathleen Roberts State Rep: John Gilkeson or Mark Smith Approach A - Option of Reporting via Categories o o o o o o American Petroleum Institute (API): Uni Blake Association Connecting Electronics Industries (IPC): Bret Bruhn EPA: Susan Sharkey Guardian Industries Corp.: James Riley International Precious Metals Institute (IPMI): Gus Ruggiero State Rep: John Gilkeson or Mark Smith Approach A - Part 3 Data o o o o o EPA: Susan Sharkey National Tribal Toxics Council (NTTC): Kristin K'eit or Fred Corey Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC): David Lennett North American Metals Council (NAMC): Kathleen Roberts State Rep: John Gilkeson or Mark Smith Additional Working Groups: Approach E - Limit Reporting for Site-Specific Catalyst Recycling: As of 9/6, the current draft proposal provided by Industry doesn't make sense, and clarifying questions have not been addressed. Information provided seems to indicate that guidance is likely to be sufficient to clarify catalyst recycling issues. Approach F- Limit Reporting for Reuse of Inorganic Byproducts: As of 9/6, there is no proposal from this group. o American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM): Jim Cooper o American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM): David Dunlap o EPA: Susan Sharkey o Guardian Industries Corp.: James Riley o International Precious Metals Institute (IPMI): JP Rosso o International Precious Metals Institute (IPMI): Gus Ruggiero o Portland Cement Association: Michael Schon (note: has taken a new job and dropped off of Committee) o Portland Cement Association: Jay Willis o State Rep: John Gilkeson or Mark Smith Modernize Data Collection: The scope of this is beyond mandate of the negotiations and will likely be included in the final report as suggestions for EPA. o American Chemistry Council (ACC): Karyn Schmidt o National Pollution Prevention Roundtable (NPPR): Rick Reibstein o Sierra Club and CA Communities Against Toxics: Amy Kyle EPA-17-0432-L-000275 Byproducts Working Group (As of 8/25/17) Designates lead for convening and keeping the Working Group on track. The goal is to send all updates to the full Committee on Sept 6, 2017. Primary Working Groups: Approach A Exemptions o o o o o o o American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM): David Dunlap Earthworks: Aaron Mintzes EPA: Lynn Vendinello National Tribal Toxics Council (NTTC): Kristin K'eit or Fred Corey Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC): David Lennett North American Metals Council (NAMC): Kathleen Roberts State Rep: John Gilkeson or Mark Smith Approach A - Option of Reporting via Categories o o o o o o American Petroleum Institute (API): Uni Blake Association Connecting Electronics Industries (IPC): Bret Bruhn EPA: Susan Sharkey Guardian Industries Corp.: James Riley International Precious Metals Institute (IPMI): Gus Ruggiero State Rep: John Gilkeson or Mark Smith Approach A - Part 3 Data o o o o o EPA: Susan Sharkey National Tribal Toxics Council (NTTC): Kristin K'eit or Fred Corey Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC): David Lennett North American Metals Council (NAMC): Kathleen Roberts State Rep: John Gilkeson or Mark Smith Additional Working Groups: Approach E - Limit Reporting for Site-Specific Catalyst Recycling: As of 9/6, the current draft proposal provided by Industry doesn't make sense, and clarifying questions have not been addressed. Information provided seems to indicate that guidance is likely to be sufficient to clarify catalyst recycling issues. Approach F- Limit Reporting for Reuse of Inorganic Byproducts: As of 9/6, there is no proposal from this group. o American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM): Jim Cooper o American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM): David Dunlap o EPA: Susan Sharkey o Guardian Industries Corp.: James Riley o International Precious Metals Institute (IPMI): JP Rosso o International Precious Metals Institute (IPMI): Gus Ruggiero o Portland Cement Association: Michael Schon (note: has taken a new job and dropped off of Committee) o Portland Cement Association: Jay Willis o State Rep: John Gilkeson or Mark Smith Modernize Data Collection: The scope of this is beyond mandate of the negotiations and will likely be included in the final report as suggestions for EPA. o American Chemistry Council (ACC): Karyn Schmidt o National Pollution Prevention Roundtable (NPPR): Rick Reibstein o Sierra Club and CA Communities Against Toxics: Amy Kyle EPA-17-0432-L-000276 Berkshire Hathaway Energy Pending Issues involving Environmental Protection Agency Rules and Actions Berkshire Hathaway Energy's U.S. operating companies support scientifically-based environmental regulations that are appropriately and consistently applied and consider costs and benefits. Our regulated electricity generating companies serve approximately 4.7 million end users in 18 states utilizing geothermal, hydroelectric, wind, solar, natural gas, coal and nuclear resources. These operating companies include MidAmerican Energy Company, an Iowa-based utility providing regulated electric and natural gas service in Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska and South Dakota; PacifiCorp, which provides regulated electric service in California, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming; and NV Energy Inc., which provides regulated electric and natural gas service in Nevada. In addition, BHE Renewables, LLC, operates as an independent power producer and is the owner of natural gas, wind, geothermal, solar and hydro projects in New York, Arizona, Texas, California, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, and Hawaii. We also own and operate interstate gas pipelines - Kern River and Northern Natural Gas - that serve customers in Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota and Wisconsin. Regulatory certainty is key to advance our objectives in maintaining safe, reliable and affordable electric service for our customers. We have identified the issues below as important for Berkshire Hathaway Energy and EPA to work together to achieve a greater degree of certainty that achieves these objectives, as well as to appropriate safeguard the country's environment. One important theme is the need to recognize and respect the key role of states relative to delegated authorities and other state prerogatives. We work closely with the states we operate within and believe that the EPA should provide substantial respect for their processes and outcomes. Regional Haze - Utah Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) (PacifiCorp) - After many years of discussion and EPA's rejection of the Utah regional haze state implementation plan (SIP), Utah submitted an amended SIP which proposed a Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) alternative, after consideration of the appropriate factors, including cost. Ultimately, EPA, weighing only one element of visibility improvement, rejected the SIP and issued a FIP which would impose an additional $700 million in control costs for virtually no visibility improvement. The FIP has been appealed in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (Utah, et al. v. EPA) where a judicial stay has been requested and merits briefing is underway. In addition, multiple petitions for reconsideration and request for administrative stay were submitted to EPA in September 2016; however, EPA has taken no action on the petitions. We encourage EPA to grant the petitions for reconsideration and take action to hold the ongoing judicial appeal in abeyance pending EPA's action on the reconsideration petitions, as well as to issue an administrative stay and consent to the court issuing a judicial stay pending, at a minimum, further resolution of the administrative petitions. - Wyoming Regional Haze FIP (PacifiCorp) - Portions of the Wyoming regional haze FIP are being appealed before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (Wyoming, et al. v. EPA), which granted a judicial stay of the FIP's requirements. The case has been fully briefed 1 EPA-17-0432-L-000277 but oral argument has not yet been scheduled. Requests for reconsideration and administrative stay were filed in March 2014, and EPA has yet to take any action on those requests. We encourage EPA to take action on the request(s) for reconsideration and continue to support the judicial stay. - Regional Haze Rule Amendments (MidAmerican Energy Company, NV Energy Inc. and PacifiCorp) - On January 10, 2017, the final amendments to the regional haze rule were published in the Federal Register, which, among other things, allows states to delay their regional haze SIPs for the next planning period from July 31, 2018 to July 31, 2021. The final regional haze rule amendments were appealed in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Under the final rule, the planning period remained the same - 2018 to 2028, to advance reasonable further progress in improving visibility. In cases where EPA has rejected a SIP and issued a FIP and litigation is ongoing, EPA should accept the state's definition of BART and resolve the need for any additional controls as part of the long-term strategy in the second planning period from 2018 to 2028. Doing so would resolve outstanding litigation, free up EPA and DOJ resources, and lift the burden from states to submit new SIPs without knowing whether their appeals are successful. EPA has previously determined that many western Class I areas experience only slight improvement in visibility despite the installation of costly controls at stationary sources. During the second planning period, EPA should, as required, assess non-stationary sources and other drivers that have a greater impact on visibility in Class I areas. Management of Coal Combustion Residuals (MidAmerican Energy Company, NV Energy Inc. and PacifiCorp) - The regulation of coal combustion residuals (CCR) has the potential of imposing significant costs on both operating as well as retired or retiring coal-fueled units based on EPA's implementation of the program, resolution of outstanding litigation, and an upcoming rulemaking. EPA's review of the following specific items will be key in obtaining the desired degree of certainty to implement the rule cost effectively. - Implementation of the WIIN Act's CCR Provisions - On December 26, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Water Infrastructure Improvement for the Nation Act ("WIIN Act"). A section of the WIIN Act established procedures for EPA to authorize the states to implement the CCR rule through state permit programs. If the states do not seek permit program approval, EPA is directed to implement the CCR rule through a federal permit program, provided Congress provides specific funding for EPA to do so. Absent state or federal CCR rules, facilities face primary implementation through citizens' suits. It is important to Berkshire Hathaway Energy's operating companies that EPA express strong support for Congressional funding of the WIIN Act. Adequate funding would allow EPA to implement the CCR rule for states that do not choose to adopt their own permit program. We also request that EPA expeditiously approve state CCR permit programs, including those with risk-based management controls. Risk-Based Management Options - When the CCR rule was adopted, EPA did not have authority to implement the rule via a federal or state permitting program. Congressional passage of the WIIN Act changed this. As a result, the basis for EPA's previous concern regarding utilization of risk-based flexibility under a self-implementing rule no longer exists. 2 EPA-17-0432-L-000278 Therefore, EPA should amend the rule to incorporate risk-based management options contained in state and other EPA solid waste programs to eliminate the one-size-fits-all requirements and allow for assessment of risk in decision making for all facets of the rule, including groundwater monitoring. We understand EPA is positioned to issue guidance on state permitting programs in April 2017 and finalize the guidance in June 2017 and look forward to reviewing and providing comment on such guidance. Steam Electric Effluent Limitation Guidelines (MidAmerican Energy Company, NV Energy Inc. and PacifiCorp) - Distinct from the CCR requirements, the Steam Electric Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs) create additional impacts on coal, gas, nuclear and oil-fueled power plant operators related to the ability to discharge process-related wastes. A case in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (Southwestern Electric Power Co., et al. v. EPA), along with petitions for reconsideration, are pending. We encourage EPA to grant reconsideration, conduct a review of the guidelines, and implement action as appropriate. Air Quality Standards and Regulations - Western Interstate Ozone Transport (PacifiCorp) - EPA has relied on its modeling utilized in the eastern U.S. under the Cross State Air Pollution Rule to dispute modeling methodologies and results submitted by western states, including Utah and Wyoming, with respect to interstate transport of emissions, and particularly modeled impacts on the Denver, Colorado, metropolitan area. The states and other parties have raised concerns about EPA's modeling and analysis of interstate transport of emissions. In fact, Wyoming specifically requested more time to analyze the complex interstate transport issues that it felt EPA had failed to adequately address; however, the request was denied by EPA due to the alleged impact on a consent decree. In order to ensure reasonable and appropriate regulation based on scientifically supportable conclusions, EPA should allow states a reasonable period of time to conduct modeling that is more representative of western terrain. - One Hour SO2 Standard in the Western U.S. (PacifiCorp) - The one-hour SO2 standard requires that the states demonstrate compliance with the standard through modeling and/or monitoring. Complex terrain in the western U.S. makes the use of EPA's standards relating to predictive models and modeling protocol difficult, producing results that may not be scientifically supportable. EPA should examine its modeling protocols and required models and ensure that approved models take into consideration steep and complex terrain and restricted access when requiring modeling to be conducted. - Title V Permit Reviews (BHE Renewables LLC, MidAmerican Energy Company, NV Energy Inc. and PacifiCorp) - We encourage EPA to take prompt action on Title V operating permit reviews. For example, PacifiCorp's Hunter plant Title V permit renewal was issued by the state of Utah under its delegated authority. As part of the approval process, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality submitted the permit to EPA for review; EPA failed to conduct a timely review, resulting in the Sierra Club filing of a petition with EPA to object to the permit. EPA did not respond to the petition and, ultimately, the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit against EPA for failing to take timely action on the permit. EPA agreed in a court-approved stipulation to respond to the Petition for 3 EPA-17-0432-L-000279 Objection to the Hunter Title V permit no later than August 31, 2017. EPA should take action to approve the Title V permit and deny Sierra Club's petition for objection in advance of the August 31, 2017, deadline. Water Quality Regulations (BHE Renewables LLC, MidAmerican Energy Company, NV Energy Inc. and PacifiCorp) - Waters of the U.S Rule - Even as EPA works to rewrite the waters of the U.S. rule consistent with the February 28, 2017, Executive Order and the March 1, 2017, Federal Register notice, it is of critical importance for EPA to maintain the cooperative process with the states for state water quality certifications under Clean Water Act Section 401 so that the nationwide permit program and related permit programs proceed without interruption. The Berkshire Hathaway Energy operating companies routinely rely on nationwide permits for construction and maintenance activities for numerous projectrelated actions, such as renewable energy development, and other activities critical to maintaining safe, reliable electricity supplies to our customers. - Clean Water Act Section 401 - States have certification authority under Clean Water Act section 401 to impose a broad range of conditions on Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hydroelectric project licenses. While intended to protect water quality, states often impose conditions unrelated to water quality. EPA has little or no legal ability to limit the scope of state water quality certifications and FERC also has little authority to reject state certification conditions even when a federal agency believes that the state has exceeded its authority. We encourage EPA to explore the potential of adopting regulations more narrowly defining the scope of statutory terms such as "water quality standards" and "appropriate requirement of state law". - State Designations Under the Clean Water Act - By disapproving (or threatening to disapprove) state water quality standards and state Clean Water Act designations, EPA has leveraged the Clean Water Act to force states to adopt more aggressive water quality standards. For example, in the Pacific Northwest, this has resulted in states adopting water quality standards for temperature that are more stringent than natural stream conditions. These decisions make it difficult for states to issue discharge permits and 401 certifications with reasonable conditions. EPA should defer to states to implement reasonable water quality standards under section 303(d). Superfund (MidAmerican Energy Company, NV Energy Inc. and PacifiCorp) - Portland Harbor Superfund Site - We encourage EPA to address superfund sites in a manner that logically addresses the site and party dynamics and encourages cooperation among the potentially responsible parties. The Portland Harbor Superfund Site covers a large area and involves hundreds of potentially responsible parties. For remediation to effectively advance at sites such as this, it is critical that EPA entertain the idea of breaking up the site into smaller more workable pieces for remedial design and remedial action. The current mega-site approach taken by EPA is unwieldy and breeds expensive litigation; EPA should focus on smaller more targeted and manageable approaches. Further, EPA has failed to acknowledge the likelihood, given the site features, that recontamination will occur and established an extremely low cleanup standard. 4 EPA-17-0432-L-000280 Reasonable long-term performance standards should be established to reflect the likelihood of recontamination. EPA's Consultative Role (BHE Renewables LLC, MidAmerican Energy Company, NV Energy Inc. and PacifiCorp) - EPA Endangered Species Act Consultation on State Water Quality Standards - EPA (as well as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)) takes the position that it must consult with NMFS and the USFWS when it proposes to approve state water quality standards that are intended to protect designated uses that include Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species. Because of the large number of ESA-listed fish in the Pacific Northwest, this means that all state water quality standards intended to protect aquatic life must not only be approved by EPA, but they must also effectively be approved by NMFS and the USFWS and because the missions of NMFS and USFWS are narrowly focused on the protection of listed species, this results in extraordinarily stringent standards and substantial delays. In recent federal litigation in the state of Washington, EPA's position on consultation appears to have played an important role in the federal district court's decision to require EPA to consult. This issue is ultimately a question of statutory interpretation but EPA's position (as well as NMFS' and USFWS') will continue to carry substantial weight in future litigation on this issue. EPA should consider taking a position that it is not required to consult with NMFS and USFWS, under the ESA, when it proposes to approve state water quality standards. EPA Regional Offices (BHE Renewables LLC, MidAmerican Energy Company, NV Energy Inc., PacifiCorp) - Regional Office Staffing - As EPA considers potentially significant budget reductions, it is important to ensure that activities performed by regional offices are not stalled as a result of regional office consolidation or delegation of actions from EPA headquarters. There are a number of compliance programs that are maintained by the regional offices because the states have chosen not to accept delegation from EPA to administer those programs. For example, in Iowa, EPA Region 7 maintains the hazardous waste program as well as program oversight of manufactured gas plant activities and implementation of the Mercury and Air Toxics program. 5 EPA-17-0432-L-000281 Internal - Deliberative May 15, 2017 CDR Inorganic Byproducts FRNs and Related Materials FRN: Notice of intent to negotiation o o o o Published December 15, 2016 Notice of the Agency's intent to negotiate and to establish the Committee. Requested public comment and suggestions on the list of significantly affected interests, as well as the list of proposed representatives of those interests. Reviews: Workgroup (including OGC and OP), OPPT divisions, OPPT IO, OCSPP IO Status: Comment period closed January 17, 2017. FACA Charter o o o o Required by statute (FACA, NRA) The Charter establishes the Committee, including identifying its official designation; objectives and the scope of its activity; the period of time necessary to carry out its purposes, including the estimated number and frequency of meetings, the termination date, and the estimated annual operating costs; and the agency or official to whom the committee reports, including who is responsible for providing the necessary committee support. Reviews: Workgroup (including OGC and OP), OPPT divisions, OPPT IO, OCSPP IO and (previewed draft) FACMD Status: Currently in OA, for approval FACA Committee Membership (and Situation Assessment/Convening Report) o o o o o Required by statute (FACA, NRA) The Committee is comprised of representatives of the various interests with a definable stake in the outcome of the proposed requirements. The EPA Administrator will select members carefully to ensure that there is a balanced representation of such interests on the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. EPA anticipates that the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee will contain representatives from industry, environmental groups, and state, local, and tribal governments. The Situation Assessment (a.k.a. Convening Report) identifies the initial issues for negotiation, provides background information from all parties, and proposes committee membership. It is developed by an independent assessor (the facilitators) based on interviews with EPA and parties identified by EPA, as a result of the Intent to Negotiate FRN (published in Dec 2016), or by others (e.g., through the interview process). The Situation Assessment is the facilitator's product. Reviews: Workgroup (including OGC and OP), OPPT divisions, OPPT IO, OCSPP IO, the parties interviewed, and FACMD (Committee Membership only) Status: Currently in OA, for approval FACA Operating Protocol o o Required by statute (FACA, NRA) The Operating Protocol describes the structure, composition, and roles of the Committee; the expectations of Committee members; and how the Committee communicates and makes EPA-17-0432-L-000282 Internal - Deliberative o o May 15, 2017 decisions. Upon review, revision and approval by the Committee, it will guide and direct the Committee's collaborative efforts. Reviews: Workgroup (including OGC and OP), OPPT divisions, OPPT IO, OCSPP IO and the Committee Status: Will be finalized at first Committee meeting FRN: Public meeting (first meeting) o o o o Published May 5, 2017 Reviews: Workgroup (including OGC and OP), OPPT divisions, OPPT IO, OCSPP IO Meeting date: May 9- 10, 2017 Status: Meeting materials will be posted on website and docket FRN: Second public meeting, first FACA meeting o o o o Target for publication: May 24 (must be published 15 days before FACA meeting) Reviews: Workgroup (including OGC and OP), OPPT divisions, OPPT IO, OCSPP IO FACA meeting date: planned for June 8 - 9, 2017 Status: AO needs OCSPP IO sign off (DAA) on committee membership prior to approval. FRN is for AA signature. Package is in OCSPP IO. EPA-17-0432-L-000283 EPA & NHTSA Meeting on Light-duty Vehicle Mid-term Evaluation & CAFE Projects October 25, 2017; 4:30-6 pm Agenda o Introductions (5 min.) o Agency Coordination Expectations (5 min.) o EPA & NHTSA leaders o Schedule Discussion (15 min.) o EPA new Final Determination o NHTSA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking o NHTSA Technical Update (25 min.) o Presentation of new data o Model description o Assessments o Contract work o Modeling since the Draft TAR to support CAFE NPRM o EPA Technical Update (25 min.) o Presentation of new data o Model description o Assessments o Contract work o Modeling since the Draft TAR to support the re-assessment of the EPA Final Determination o Back validation o Next Steps (10 min.) EPA-17-0432-L-000284 EPA's Office of Environmental Justice Stakeholder Call on Upcoming Administrative Changes Briefing details o o o o When: Tuesday, September 26 Time: 3:30 PM (EDT) 3500 WJC North Participant Dial-in Number: (b) (6) (Calls are operator-monitored). Speakers o o o Introduction - Matthew Tejada, Director (Office of Environmental Justice) Briefing - Samantha Dravis, Associate Administrator (Office of Policy) Stakeholder Q&A - Led by Matt Participants OEJ holds stakeholder calls a few times each year. In 2016, we hosted a stakeholder call for the release of the Agency's environmental justice strategy, meetings and informational sessions with the NEJAC, and teleconferences hosted by the Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (EJ IWG). These calls can range from a few dozen individuals to a few hundred participants, with representatives from state, local and federal government, tribal nations, civil society and academia, community-based organizations and non-profits as well as business and industry. A sample of participants from a recent call is attached. Attachments o o Samantha Dravis Talking Points Sample Participant List EPA-17-0432-L-000285 Talking Points for Samantha Dravis (Introductory remarks from Matt Tejada) Thank you everyone for joining this call. We wanted to connect with you to share the news regarding the move of EPA's Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) to the Office of Policy (OP) within the Office of the Administrator. I appreciate the close bond that the EJ movement and many communities and leaders feel for the EJ program. I know that many of you share credit for helping to establish an EJ program and focus at EPA and across the federal government. Because of that, we wanted to make sure that lines of communication are open during this time of transition. It is important to both Administrator Pruitt and myself that the most underserved and overburdened communities have a meaningful say in environmental protection and regulation. I want to assure everyone that this move is being made so that EPA's EJ program can best pursue its mission to serve overburdened communities. OP provides strong analysis and support for some of EPA's most important responsibilities. One of those is managing the agency's regulatory process. Let me be clear - EPA will continue to consider and incorporate environmental justice concerns into our regulatory process and this move enhances our ability to achieve this core function. Through the Office of Sustainable Communities, soon to be renamed the Office of Community Revitalization, OP also provides technical assistance to help communities as they work to improve health, protect the environment, and grow their economies. We will continue to work on the ground alongside community leaders to understand their challenges and needs. And so by bringing together the collective resources and expertise of this organization and OEJ within the Office of Policy, each as independent offices, we will be better positioned to help those communities that need our assistance the most. EPA-17-0432-L-000286 We will provide a more comprehensive understanding of community needs and health disparities. That will allow us to better coordinate across our own programs and with our federal partners to ensure efforts are aligned and community needs are fully reflected in our actions and investments. It will also enable us to partner more effectively with states, tribes and local governments to support their efforts to engage with and answer the needs of their most vulnerable communities. And finally, it will allow us to collaborate more successfully with business and industry, academia, civil society and other stakeholders that share an interest in building strong, healthy and prosperous communities. Because we are located in the Administrator's office and have cross-agency responsibilities, OEJ's new position within OP will also enable better support for meaningful engagement and public participation on policy and regulatory decisions. Finally, it will allow quicker elevation of issues to the Administrator and direct support for his leadership role on the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice. I firmly believe bringing OEJ into OP will enhance EPA's ability to meet our mission of protecting human health and the environment. I look forward to working with all of you to advance shared goals for America's most vulnerable, underserved and overburdened communities. (Questions from Stakeholders - Fielded by Matt Tejada) EPA-17-0432-L-000287 Sample Participant List Media National Environmental Justice Advisory Council April 26 -27, 2017 Teleconference Meeting Attendees David Reynolds, Inside EPA newsletter NGOs Huda Alkaff Wisconsin, Green Muslims Claudia Barragan, DC Sierra Club EJ committee Kimberly Carpenter, Metro Blooms Michael Grossman, Stand Up for Kids Chet Kibble Sr, Inform The People Na'Taki Osborne Jelks, West Atlanta Watershed Alliance Quindaro Ruins / Underground Railroad- Exercise 2017 J. Smith, NAACP, Houston Branch Jamel Thompson, Urban Detox Universal Dana Wynn, Student Organization for Sustainability (SOS) Ben Passer, Fresh Energy Business Venu Ghanta, Duke Energy Stacey Mihallik, Caterpillar Inc. Monica Wright, CH2M Government Felicia Beltran, ADOT Juliet Bochicchio, DOE/General Counsel Craig Arquette, Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe Patience Caso, Hennepin County Environment and Energy Denise Freeman, U.S. Dept. of Energy Jolene Keplin, Turtle Mountain band of Chippewsa Tribal Health Cassandra Meyer, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Simeon Matthews, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Millie Piazza, Dept. of Ecology Sarah Rice, NCDEQ EPA-17-0432-L-000288 Gina Shirey, State of Alaska/Department of Environmental Conservation Matthew Taylor, TDEC Katherine Teiken, Minnesota Housing Zelma Maine-Jackson, WA. St. Dept of Ecology Academia Mary McGillicuddy, ASPPH Maya Carrasquillo, University of South Florida Marie Donahue, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities Institute on the Environment Jill Harrison, University of Colorado-Boulder Rachel Merriman-Goldring, William & Mary (Student) James Schaefer, Marquette University EPA-17-0432-L-000289 EPA's Office of Environmental Justice Briefing Details on Upcoming Administrative Changes September 26, 2017 at 3:30 PM EDT Briefing details: o o o o When: Tuesday, September 26 Time: 330 PM (EDT) Participant Dial-in Number: (b) (6) 3500 WJCNorth Agenda o o o Introduction - Matthew Tejada, Director (Office of Environmental Justice) Briefing - Samantha Dravis, Associate Administrator (Office of Policy) Q&A from Stakeholders Talking Points for Samantha Dravis Thank you everyone for joining this call. We wanted to connect with you to share the news regarding the move of EPA's Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) to the Office of Policy (OP) within the Office of the Administrator. I appreciate the close bond that the EJ movement and many communities and leaders feel for the EJ program. I know that many of you share credit for helping to establish an EJ program and focus at EPA and across the federal government. Because of that, we wanted to make sure that lines of communication are open during this time of transition. It is important to both Administrator Pruitt and myself that the most underserved and overburdened communities have a meaningful say in environmental protection and regulation. I want to assure everyone that this move is being made so that EPA's EJ program can best pursue its mission to serve overburdened communities. OP provides strong analysis and support for some of EPA's most important responsibilities. One of those is managing the agency's regulatory process. Let me be clear - EPA will continue to consider and incorporate environmental justice concerns into our regulatory process and this move enhances our ability to achieve this core function. Through the Office of Sustainable Communities, soon to be renamed the Office of Community Revitalization, OP also provides technical assistance to help communities as they work to improve health, protect the environment, EPA-17-0432-L-000290 and grow their economies. We will continue to work on the ground alongside community leaders to understand their challenges and needs. And so by bringing together the collective resources and expertise of this organization and OEJ within the Office of Policy, each as independent offices, we will be better positioned to help those communities that need our assistance the most. We will provide a more comprehensive understanding of community needs and health disparities. That will allow us to better coordinate across our own programs and with our federal partners to ensure efforts are aligned and community needs are fully reflected in our actions and investments. It will also enable us to partner more effectively with states, tribes and local governments to support their efforts to engage with and answer the needs of their most vulnerable communities. And finally, it will allow us to collaborate more successfully with business and industry, academia, civil society and other stakeholders that share an interest in building strong, healthy and prosperous communities. Because we are located in the Administrator's office and have cross-agency responsibilities, OEJ's new position within OP will also enable better support for meaningful engagement and public participation on policy and regulatory decisions. Finally, it will allow quicker elevation of issues to the Administrator and direct support for his leadership role on the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice. I firmly believe bringing OEJ into OP will enhance EPA's ability to meet our mission of protecting human health and the environment. I look forward to working with all of you to advance shared goals for America's most vulnerable, underserved and overburdened communities. EPA-17-0432-L-000291 External Meeting Request Form for Administrator E. Scott Pruitt U.S. Environmental Protection Agency To request the Administrator to attend and/or speak at your event, please complete and submit the following form. Today's Date: May 4, 2017 Meeting Date: May 15, 2017 Meeting Time: 2:15 p.m. Requested Location (if offsite, please list address, parking instructions, etc.): Administrator Pruitt's DC office Requestor: The Chemours Company Purpose of the Meeting: o o o o o Introduce Chemours to the Administrator Express Chemours' support for the Administrator's leadership of EPA. Share what Chemours is doing to put American innovation to work to create global, market-leading product opportunities, which support new U.S. manufacturing investments and jobs. Share Chemours' desire to see EPA maintain consistency vis-a-vis HFCs in order to help protect U.S. leadership in this space and protect significant new U.S. investments the company has made in reliance on previous EPA policy decisions. Share Chemours' desire to see EPA implement the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act in a fair, efficient, and reasonable manner, consistent with the new law and Congressional intent. Background on the Meeting: The Chemours Company commenced business as a stand-alone, publicly-traded corporation on July 1, 2015, after being separated from DuPont via a spin-off to DuPont shareholders. At its inception, Chemours was comprised of the former DuPont Chemical Solutions, Fluoroproducts and Titanium Technologies businesses. Chemours corporate headquarters and global innovation center are both located in Wilmington, DE. The company has approximately 7,000 employees globally, with more than 5,000 of those workers based in the United States. 25 of the company's 35 production facilities are located in the United States. I. Refrigerants The Chemours Fluoroproducts business has a nearly 90-year history of innovation creating products that have provided critical societal services such as refrigeration, air conditioning, insulation, fire suppression, personal care products and medical applications while constantly improving the safety of these applications. That pioneering innovation continues today with a new generation of products that provide enhanced environmental sustainability and superior performance across a variety of applications while as "drop-ins" or near drop-in substitutes for existing or slightly modified equipment. These new alternatives were designed to meet market demand and the requirements of a growing number of international regulations like Japan's high global warming potential (GWP) hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) reduction regulations, the European Union's Fluorinated Gas Regulations, and existing domestic regulations. EPA-17-0432-L-000292 New refrigerants represent a multi-billion dollar industry in which the United States has a clear advantage in the international marketplace. For example, all auto manufacturers in North America and the European Union have announced plans to convert their light-duty vehicle air conditioning systems to low-GWP refrigerants. Chemours has responded to this demand by investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the development of new refrigerants such as hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs). These refrigerants provide automobile manufacturers with a low-cost alternative to meeting light-duty vehicle standards that are already being implemented in the United States. Importantly, Chemours has also made parallel investments that will create additional American manufacturing and commercial jobs. For example, in May 2016, the company announced that it will invest approximately $250 million to construct a new HFO production facility at the Chemours Corpus Christi site in Ingleside, TX. American Innovation and Investment Chemours has invested (and continues to invest) hundreds of millions of dollars in the development and commercialization of zero ozone depletion potential (ODP) and very low GWP alternatives. This includes significant investment in new technology and significant production capacity in the United States, which has resulted in the creation of hundreds of jobs for Chemours, Chemours suppliers and the communities that support our new product portfolio development and production. o o o o o o o This commitment includes a world-class R&D center in Wilmington DE, for product and process development and significant manufacturing footprints in Corpus Christi, TX (new capacity) and Houston, TX, Louisville, KY; and Deepwater, NJ (existing product capacity). Chemours provides communities with high-paying jobs and associated top-shelf benefits. Chemours Fluorochemicals business employs more than 2,000 in the United States, with 125 employees currently assigned full-time to the development, production and commercialization of these new products. 50 out of 65 new permanent jobs at the Corpus Christi plant have been filled to operate the new facility, and approximately 300 additional positions will be added by suppliers and at businesses in the surrounding community to support this effort. In addition, Chemours currently employs 300 American contractors to build the new facility in Corpus Christi, Texas using American construction materials. Chemours and other American companies hold a significant patent portfolio globally for next generation replacement products. This is the outcome of hundreds of millions of dollars of investment and more than a decade of development. Many non-U.S. competitors chose not to make those investments because of the significant cost and the risk that the investment would never pay off. Now that these alternatives are in demand, global competitors are actively seeking to commercialize these products, potentially infringing on intellectual property of others, to enter this attractive market. Continued American Leadership is Needed Without leadership from the United States to compete vigorously to succeed in this segment, global competitors can quickly move into position to lead the HFC replacement industry. o o For example, the Chinese may want to leverage their natural resources/supply (fluorspar) and have already started producing HFOs domestically. They are also developing core manufacturing capabilities that they can leverage in the future. This strategy could increase challenges to U.S. company intellectual property rights abroad and encourage the exercise of domestic protectionism. It could also result in counterfeit products being shipped into the United States and other regulated markets. In fact, there have been two affirmative rulings in HFC anti-dumping cases recently, outlining unfair dumping by Chinese companies of HFCs into the United States. This behavior has EPA-17-0432-L-000293 o o caused significant injury to the U.S. industry forcing American companies to either exit business or participate at or below the cost of manufacture. In addition, in less developed countries, like China, companies have announced plans to commercialize alternative refrigerants. Without U.S. leadership and support for domestic technologies, these foreignbased alternatives to U.S. technologies could gain support, displacing our "first mover" advantage in international markets. At the same time, some environmental NGOs oppose some of the technically proven options developed by American companies. U.S. regulations are technically neutral and allow for the use and further development of fluorochemicals and so-called "natural" refrigerant solutions by American companies. Organizations like Greenpeace and Europe-based Shecco promote the use of carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons, ammonia, water and air as the only viable solutions for many applications, including refrigerants. While these options may indeed be preferred for some uses and equipment types, in many cases they are significantly more expensive for equipment manufacturers to implement than HFO solutions, and, in some cases, have poor energy performance, higher operating costs, and severe safety risks Therefore, continued U.S. leadership and engagement is needed to ensure a level playing field and fair consideration of all options. Policy Recommendations: o Continuity of the current regulatory structure managing fluorochemicals is critical as American companies continue to invest hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars in new technologies that will be used in the United States and around the world as other countries continue to regulate this space. o Continued EPA Funding is also needed for the Office of Air and Radiation for the approval of volatile organic compound (VOC) exemptions for fluorochemicals and for the Stratospheric Ozone Division Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program to approve new products and provide continued support to industry to ensure that new technologies can successfully enter the market. Other countries rely on EPA SNAP program approvals to allow the use of American patented products. II. TSCA Implementation Chemours was one of a number of chemical companies that strongly advocated for modernizing and improving the Toxic Substances Control Act via the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, the bi-partisan legislation that was signed into law in 2016. Implementation of the law is an EPA priority, and Chemours is fully committed to working with EPA to achieve that goal. o o o Chemours believes that fair and balanced implementation of the LCSA should: o Fully address the significant scientific principles and standards embedded in the statute; o Adopt workable, pragmatic processes in regulatory implementation - particularly to look to simple processes where those achieve Congressional intent; o Build public and industry confidence in EPA's ability to evaluate the safety of the products of chemistry efficiently and effectively through TSCA, especially for the new chemicals program; o Encourage technological innovation and globally competitive chemical industry through the strong protection of confidential business information. Chemours' most significant concern, to date, is with EPA's implementation of the modest changes to Section 5 - the new chemicals program. Chemours believes that Section 5 was working well before the LCSA was enacted. LCSA's new chemicals provisions require EPA to "show its work" and demonstrate it has sufficient information to make a decision on a new chemical. It also codified EPA's practice of considering potential exposures to new chemicals. LCSA did not change the legal standard for review. EPA-17-0432-L-000294 o o o Since enactment, the New Chemicals Program has experienced significant backlogs that jeopardize innovation and the competitive position of U.S. chemical companies. More than 500 new chemical applications are still pending, including many submitted before LCSA was enacted. The rate of new chemical approvals is down significantly from prior practice. Chemours believes the New Chemicals Program must reach a point where the vast majority (90%+) of pre-manufacture notices are addressed within the statutory review period (90 days, with a possible extension of 90 days). Chemours has been pleased to see EPA, under the leadership of the new Administrator, begin to take steps to remedy the implementation problems in Section 5. Role of the Administrator: o Strong leadership of EPA to deliver on its core mission of protecting human health and the environment and, at the same time, promote U.S. investment and job creation via responsible environmental policies and regulations. o Policy consistency on HFCs to promote and protect U.S. leadership, investments and job creation. o Prompt and fair implementation of the LCSA. Attendees: 1. Mark Vergnano, Chief Executive Officer, Chemours; 2. Greg Smith, Director - Government Affairs, Chemours; 3. Eddie Johnston, Manager - Federal Government Affairs, Chemours; and 4. Rich Gold, Partner, Holland & Knight. Point of Contact: Greg Smith, Director - Government Affairs The Chemours Company 300 New Jersey Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. Office Phone: (202) 469-3458; Cell Phone: (b) (6) E-mail: gregory.w.smith@chemours.com EPA-17-0432-L-000295 &EPA ORDER Classification No.: 3151 Approval Date: 11/27/2013 Administrative Change: 11/05/2014 Performance Appraisal and Recognition System I. PURPOSE This order establishes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's policy for its performance management system: the Performance Appraisal and Recognition System. The objective of the EPA's performance management systems is to communicate organizational goals and objectives, promote accountability for achieving those goals, assess performance using appropriate measures, and improve individual and organizational performance. PARS conforms to the performance management requirements of Chapter 43 of Title 5, United States Code and Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations Part 430. II. DEFINITIONS (a) Acceptable Level of Competence: The performance (i.e., fully successful) by an employee that warrants advancement of the employee's rate of basic pay to the next higher step of the grade in accordance with 5 CFR ?? 531.403 and 404. (b) Additional Performance Element: A dimension or aspect of individual, team or organizational performance that is not a critical or non-critical element. Such elements are not used in assigning a summary level but, like critical and non-critical elements, are useful for purposes such as communicating performance expectations and serving as the basis for granting awards. Such elements may include, but are not limited to, objectives, goals, program plans, work plans and other means of expressing expected performance. The use of additional elements is optional. (c) Appraisal: The process under which performance is reviewed and evaluated. (d) Appraisal Period: The established period of time for which performance will be reviewed and a rating of record will be prepared. (e) Appraisal System: The framework of policies and parameters established by the agency for the administration of the performance appraisal program. EPA-17-0432-L-000296 (f) Critical Element: A work assignment or responsibility of such importance that unacceptable performance on the element would result in a determination that an employee's overall performance is unacceptable. Critical elements shall be used to measure performance only at the individual level. (g) Exceeds Expectations: The level of performance above fully successful but below outstanding. This level signifies that the results achieved are clearly beyond what could be reasonably expected. (h) Fully Successful: The level of performance below exceeds expectations but above minimally satisfactory. This level signifies the employee's performance results achieved are those that can be reasonably expected of any employee on the job in order to fully and adequately achieve assigned responsibilities. (i) Goal Cascading Method: The downward flow of the agency's goals established in its strategic and annual performance plans to the work unit level. (j) Interim Rating: A written rating prepared as input to the employee's rating of record. An employee must have performed work under an approved performance plan for at least 90 days in an appraisal period to receive an interim rating. (k) Minimally Satisfactory: The level of performance below fully successful but above unacceptable. This level signifies that there is a significant problem(s) with the employee's performance although the performance has not reached the unacceptable level in any critical element. (l) Non-Critical Element: A dimension or aspect of individual, team or organizational performance, exclusive of a critical element, that is used in assigning a summary level. Such elements may include, but are not limited to, objectives, goals, program plans, work plans and other means of expressing expected performance. The use of non-critical elements is optional. (m) Outstanding: The highest performance level possible; above exceeds expectations. This level is reserved for the truly exemplary employee who demonstrates the highest degree of achievement in his or her area(s) of work. (n) Performance: Accomplishment of work assignments or responsibilities. (o) Performance Assistance Plan: An assistance plan that may be provided when an employee's performance falls to the minimally satisfactory level and no critical elements are rated unacceptable. (p) Performance Improvement Plan: A plan designed to inform an employee of the critical elements for which performance is unacceptable and of the performance requirement or standard(s) that must be reached in order to demonstrate acceptable, i.e., minimally satisfactory, performance in his or her position. (q) Performance Management: The systematic process by which an agency involves its employees, as individuals and members of a group, in improving organizational effectiveness in the accomplishment of agency mission and goals. (r) Performance Plan: All of the documented performance elements that set forth expected performance. A plan must include all critical elements, non-critical elements (if any) and their performance standards. This is commonly known as the performance agreement. 2 EPA-17-0432-L-000297 (s) Performance Standard: The management-approved expression of the performance threshold(s), requirement(s) or expectation(s) that must be met to be appraised at a particular level of performance. A performance standard is written in terms of specific measures that will be used to appraise performance which may include, but are not limited to, quality, quantity, timeliness and manner of performance. (t) Progress Review: A discussion with the employee communicating the employee's performance compared to the performance standards of critical and non-critical elements. (u) Rating: The documented appraisal of performance compared to the performance standard(s) for each critical and non-critical element on which there has been an opportunity to perform for a minimum period of 90 days. (v) Rating of Record: The performance rating prepared at the end of an appraisal period for performance of agency-assigned duties and the assignment of a summary level. This constitutes an official rating of record. (w) Summary Levels: Descriptors used to describe ratings of records. The five summary levels under PARS are: outstanding, exceeds expectations, fully successful, minimally satisfactory and unacceptable. (x) Unacceptable: The lowest level of performance. This level signifies that the employee consistently fails to meet the established performance standards in one or more critical elements. III. COVERAGE (a) This order applies to all general schedule employees (GS, GM and GL) and prevailing rate employees within the agency. It excludes: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Members of the Senior Executive Service; Senior Level Scientific and Professional Employees; Executives appointed by the President; Administrative Law Judges; Employees on emergency or temporary appointments not to exceed 120 days; Public health service officers; and Employees in the Office of the Inspector General. (b) If provisions of this order conflict with the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, the provisions of the CBA must be applied as long as they do not violate the law or government wide regulations in effect on the date the CBA was approved. For further guidance on performance management issues involving bargaining unit employees, please contact the servicing Labor and Employee Relations office. IV. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCES ? 5 USC Chapter 43: Performance Appraisal 3 EPA-17-0432-L-000298 ? ? ? ? 5 CFR Part 430: Performance Management 5 CFR Part 432: Performance Based Reduction in Grade and Removal Actions U.S. Office of Personnel Management: A Handbook for Measuring Employee Performance, September 2011 EPA Order 3110.16, Reduction in Grade and Removal Based on Unacceptable Performance V. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (a) Office of Human Resources (1) Will oversee the agency's performance management program. (2) Will ensure program compliance with laws, regulations, agency policy, pertinent government wide guidance, CBAs and sound management principles. (3) Will provide supervisors and employees training, assistance, guidance and distribute information on performance management issues. (4) Will coordinate and promulgate any required, agencywide, critical elements and performance standards. (5) Will evaluate the program and make improvements or corrections as needed. (6) Will provide reports and information to OPM as necessary. (7) Will take any action required by OPM to ensure conformance with applicable law, regulation, and OPM policy. (8) Must report ratings of record data to the Central Personnel Data File in compliance with instructions in the OPM's Operating Manual, Federal Workforce Reporting Systems. (b) Human Resources Shared Service Centers (1) Will record ratings of record in the agency's HR data system. (2) Will maintain employee performance ratings according to agency and the OPM record management requirements. (3) Must transfer the employee's ratings of record when an employee transfers to another agency or is assigned to another organization within the agency in compliance with 5 CFR Part 293 and the OPM's Operating Manual, The Guide to Personnel Recordkeeping. (c) Managers and Supervisors 4 EPA-17-0432-L-000299 (1) Must ensure that accomplishments of objectives are linked to the agency's strategic plan and mission goals. (2) Must adhere to law, regulations and agency policy on performance management. (3) Must be familiar with and adhere to applicable CBAs for covered employees. (4) Must maintain and update performance plans and position descriptions as conditions and duties change. (5) Must evaluate and rate employees fairly and objectively. (6) Must ensure a mid-year review and annual review are conducted and documented for each employee. (7) Should include employees in the development of annual performance plans and corrective action plans. (8) Should provide feedback, coaching and mentoring to employees. (9) Should provide developmental opportunities and experiences to employees. (10) Should acknowledge employees for their achievement of organizational goals throughout the year. (d) Servicing Labor and Employee Relations Specialists (1) Provides guidance to supervisors and managers on an individual employee's performance management issues. (2) Provides guidance on collective bargaining agreements and bargaining unit performance management issues. (e) Program Management Officers and Regional HR Officers (1) Will ensure program and regional managers and supervisors are aware of performance management policy and procedures. (2) Will be the first point of contact for regional and program performance management issues. (3) Will review program and regional performance plans for accuracy and completion before sending original performance plans with ratings to the servicing HR SSC. (4) Will communicate, collaborate and coordinate with the OHR on performance management issues (e.g., working with senior managers to complete mid-year and annual performance review certifications, performance appraisal assessment reviews, implementation of new standards, etc.) (f) Employees 5 EPA-17-0432-L-000300 (1) Should participate in developing their annual performance plan and work with their supervisors over the course of the rating cycle to maximize their performance. (2) Should understand how their work supports the agency's strategic plan and other organizational plans. (3) Should be actively engaged in their mid-year and annual performance reviews and are encouraged to provide a self-assessment to their supervisor prior to their mid-year review and final rating of record discussion. (4) Should request feedback from their supervisor on a regular basis. (5) Are encouraged to discuss training and development needs with supervisor. VI. POLICY (a) General Requirements of PARS (1) Supervisors and covered employees are required to adhere to the provisions of 5 USC Chapter 43, 5 CFR Part 430, this order, agency guidance and collective bargaining agreements. (2) The agency form for documenting rating of records and performance discussions is EPA Form 3115-35, EPA Performance Appraisal and Recognition System Performance Plan and Summary Appraisal Package (Appendix A). If an employee is covered by a certified collective bargaining unit, the applicable negotiated PARS 3115-35 form must be used to establish performance plans. (3) Performance plans must align with and support the agency's strategic plan and organizational goals. (4) Performance plans must include realistic measures. Performance measures should be reasonable with an expectation the employee will be able to achieve the goals within the timeframes and parameters set by the plan. Appropriate measures include, but are not limited to, quality, quantity, timeliness and cost-effectiveness. (5) Performance plans must differentiate levels of performance to appropriately rate employee performance and provide an equitable basis for personnel decisions. (6) Critical elements in the employee's performance plan must be established at the fully successful level. (7) Employees must receive assistance to address and improve less than fully successful performance. Supervisors and managers must consult the servicing LER specialist when performance issues arise, to determine proper next steps. Performance issues may result in the issuance of a performance assistance plan, performance improvement plan, or a minimally satisfactory counseling/conversation, as determined by the employee's level of performance. (i) If the employee fails to correct unacceptable performance after notification and assistance has been provided, the supervisor or manager must take appropriate action in 6 EPA-17-0432-L-000301 accordance with 5 CFR Part 432, EPA Order 3110.16, Reduction in Grade and Removal Based on Unacceptable Performance and any applicable CBA. (8) Generally, the supervisor of record must provide the rating of record; however, there will be times when the supervisor of record is unavailable (extended leave, detail, etc.) to conduct discussions so the acting supervisor will provide the rating of record. (9) If an employee is on a detail for a full rating cycle (i.e., one year), the detail supervisor is responsible for establishing the performance plan, conducting the mid-year and end of year discussions and providing a rating of record. (10) Changes to an employee's performance plan may be made during the year if justified (e.g., changes to the employee's position description or new duties are assigned to the organization) ; however, the supervisor of record (or the acting supervisor) and the employee must discuss, review, and initial any changes to the performance plan and the employee must receive a copy of the revised plan. (11) Performance plans should hold employees accountable for achieving results. (12) Supervisors should involve employees in the development and implementation of their performance plans so employees may obtain a clear understanding of performance expectations. (13) Supervisors and managers should have an ongoing dialogue with employees about their performance and developmental needs throughout the rating cycle. (b) Appraisal Period (1) The appraisal period for PARS is one year. The rating cycle runs on a fiscal year schedule (October 1 of current year through September 30 of the next year). (2) When a rating of record cannot be prepared at the time specified, the appraisal period shall be extended. Once the conditions necessary to complete a rating of record have been met, a rating of record shall be prepared as soon as practicable (see section VI(b)(5), below). (3) A PARS plan shall be established within 30 calendar days under the following circumstances: (i) The beginning of the appraisal period; (ii) The employee's entrance on duty; (iii) The assignment of an employee to a detail or temporary promotion scheduled for 120 days or longer; or (iv) The assignment of an employee to a new position. (4) Ratings of record shall be issued within 30 calendar days from the end of an appraisal period, including any extensions, if applicable, provided minimum requirements are met (see section VI(b)(5), below). 7 EPA-17-0432-L-000302 (5) To receive a rating of record an employee must: (i) Be permanent full-time or part-time and under established performance standards for at least 90 calendar days; or (ii) Be a temporary employee who has worked more than 120 days during the appraisal period under established standards for at least 90 calendar days. (c) Interim Ratings (1) Interim ratings are prepared when an employee has worked under performance standards in the position for at least 90 calendars days and if one or more of the following occurs: (i) The employee changes position (i.e., reassignment, promotion, change to lower grade, or transfer); (ii) The employee completes a temporary assignment of 120 days or longer (e.g., detail, temporary promotion, etc.); (iii) The supervisor of record leaves the supervisory position; or (iv) To document a level of competence determination for within-grade increase purposes when the employee's most recent rating of record is not at least fully successful. A rating for this purpose becomes the rating of record. (2) When interim ratings are required, the supervisor preparing the rating should discuss the interim rating with the employee before he or she departs the position or the employee changes position. (3) A copy of the interim appraisal will be provided to the supervisor of record who will issue the rating of record and to the employee. (4) Any interim rating must be considered by the supervisor of record in assigning an annual rating of record. (5) The interim rating should be attached to the employee's current performance plan (EPA Form 3115-35) for the supervisor of record's consideration; however, for level of competence determinations for within-grade increases (VI(c)(1)(iv) above), the rating should be entered on the applicable (non-bargaining or bargaining unit) PARS form. (d) Mid-Year Review 8 EPA-17-0432-L-000303 Progress reviews are encouraged throughout the year; however, one formal review must be conducted mid-way in the performance cycle and documented on EPA Form 3115-35 or the applicable bargaining unit 3115-35 PARS form. (e) Rating of Record (1) A rating of record must be given at the completion of the appraisal period (including any extensions, if applicable). The rating shall cover the specified appraisal period. A rating prepared for a previous appraisal period cannot be carried over for a subsequent appraisal period(s) without an actual evaluation of the employee's performance during the subsequent appraisal period. (2) When either a regular or an extended appraisal period ends and the deadline for providing a rating of record passes or a subsequent rating of record is issued, supervisors cannot produce or change retroactively a rating of record that covers the earlier appraisal period, except that a rating of record may be changed: (i) Within 60 calendar days of issuance based upon an informal request by the employee; (ii) As a result of a grievance, complaint or other formal proceeding permitted by law or regulation that results in a final determination by the appropriate authority that the rating of record must be changed or as part of a bona fide settlement of a formal proceeding; or (iii) When the agency determines that a rating of record was incorrectly recorded or calculated. (f) Special Circumstances (1) Employees on details or temporary promotions for less than 120 calendar days are not required to have critical elements or a performance plan established for the short-term detail or temporary promotion (i.e., the employee most likely would not meet the 90 days on standards requirement for an interim rating). The detail or promotion supervisor must still provide the supervisor of record with a written summary of the employee's performance. The supervisor of record will attach the summary to the employee's current performance plan and must consider the employee's performance on the short-term detail or promotion when assigning an official rating of record. (2) When an employee is detailed or temporarily promoted within the agency for a period which is expected to last 120 calendar days or longer, critical elements covering the temporary work assignment must be developed and included in the employee's performance plan established for the detail/temporary promotion position. The supervisor for the detail or temporary promotion should work with the employee to develop critical elements covering the temporary work assignment as soon as possible but no later than 30 calendar days after the beginning of the assignment. The supervisor for the detail or temporary promotion is responsible for evaluating the employee's performance against these critical elements and providing an interim rating to the employee's supervisor of record at the end of the temporary assignment. At the end of the appraisal period, the supervisor of record bases the rating of record on the interim rating and information on performance in all covered positions held during the appraisal period. The rating of record should reflect the relative period of time spent in each position. 9 EPA-17-0432-L-000304 (3) Before an employee transfers to a new agency after having served the 90-day minimum period in positions covered by the plan, the EPA supervisor of record must evaluate the employee's performance prior to the employee's departure, prepare a written summary and rating (on EPA Form 3115-35), and share it with the employee before forwarding it to the servicing HR SSC. Among other requirements, the servicing HR SSC will file the documentation in the employee's employee performance file before transferring it to the new agency. (4) If an employee transfers to the agency less than 90 calendar days before the end of the agency's appraisal period, the supervisor will extend the rating period for the period of time necessary to allow the employee to complete the 90-day minimum period. After the employee has completed the 90-day minimum period in the agency position, the supervisor prepares a rating of record. (i) If the employee starts a position at the agency 30 days or less before the end of the standard appraisal period (i.e., September 1 through September 30), the supervisor should not extend the appraisal period; instead, the supervisor will place the employee on a performance plan covering the subsequent rating period. For example, an employee starts at the agency on September 1. The supervisor places the employee on a performance plan on September 20. The rating period for this employee will last from September 20 of the current year until September 30 of the next year. After the extended first year, the employee's rating period will be on a normal cycle (barring any special circumstances). (5) In cases where employees are detailed outside of the agency, the supervisor of record must make a reasonable effort to obtain performance information from the outside organization or agency. This information shall be considered in deriving the employee's next rating of record. (i) If the employee has served in the agency for the 90-day minimum period at any time during the appraisal year, the employee must be rated by the supervisor of record at the end of the appraisal period. The rating of record shall take into consideration performance appraisal information obtained from the outside organizations. (6) Employees on an Intergovernmental Personnel Act Assignment (i) Supervisors are responsible for developing performance plans for any of their employees on an IPA assignment of more than 3 months in length. Agency employees on IPA assignments may receive a rating of record based on a combination of their IPA and agency service or solely on the basis of their IPA performance (if they did not work at the agency during the appraisal year) if the following conditions are met: (A) Critical elements and measures for the IPA assignment were approved by the agency supervisor of record; (B) The employee has had an opportunity to perform under the approved performance plan for at least 90 calendar days during the appraisal period; and 10 EPA-17-0432-L-000305 (C) The IPA supervisor supplies a list of accomplishments or performance highlights for the rating period. The agency supervisor of record evaluates the performance information, assigns a rating level for each critical element and assigns an overall rating of record. (g) Training and Development (1) Agency employees, supervisors and managers shall receive information on PARS to ensure they are familiar with the system. Awareness shall be provided using appropriate methods such as, but not limited to, memoranda, briefing sessions, on-line or instructor led training. (2) The process of performance management provides an excellent opportunity to identify developmental needs. Employees, supervisors and managers should be provided with training and development opportunities (formal and informal) to encourage good performance, strengthen job-related skills and competencies, and help keep up with changes in the work environment. (h) Performance-Based Actions: The rating of record has a bearing on certain personnel actions, as outlined below: (1) Within-Grade Increase: An employee's current rating of record must be fully successful or higher for the employee to receive a within-grade increase (along with meeting other requirements covered in 5 CFR 531, Subpart D). (2) Promotion: An employee must have a current rating of record of fully successful or higher, in addition to meeting any other prescribed requirements, in order to be non-competitively promoted to a higher grade in a career ladder position. (3) Quality Step Increase: May be awarded to employees who display high quality performance. A quality step increase may only be granted to an employee when the employee's most recent performance rating of record is outstanding. (i) Accountability (1) Supervisors and managers are responsible for ensuring that their employees have performance plans established annually, receive a formal mid-year review, and that a rating of record is issued in accordance with the policies and procedures outlined in this order. At the end of the mid-year review and annual appraisal cycle, each assistant administrator and regional administrator shall certify completion of these processes to OHR. (2) Each regional and program office shall maintain documentation in support of the certifications. Supporting documentation may include maintaining a copy of the certification sent from the subordinate organizations, along with the certification sent to OHR. (3) The agency must periodically evaluate the effectiveness of its performance management system and implement improvements as needed. OHR will notify programs and regions in advance of evaluations, provide results, or changes to policy or procedures and assist with implementation, as necessary. (j) Rewarding Performance 11 EPA-17-0432-L-000306 (1) Rewarding performance means providing incentives to, and recognition of, employee performance and acknowledging contributions in meeting the agency's goals and objectives throughout the year. Whenever possible, recognition should be immediate to recognize and reinforce the importance of good performance. (2) Supervisors have the flexibility to recognize employee achievements using a number of awards and forms of recognition. The award or recognition is at the discretion of the approving official. For additional guidance see EPA Manual 3130, Recognition Policy and Procedures. VII. PROCEDURES (a) Performance Plan Discussions (1) The purpose of the performance plan discussion is to discuss employee performance and expectations and to provide feedback. Supervisors are encouraged to have performance discussions with their staff throughout the year. At a minimum, a mid-year discussion and a closeout of current appraisal period and establishment of standards for the new appraisal period discussion must take place each appraisal period; in addition, any changes to the employee's PARS plan during the appraisal period warrant a discussion. (2) The supervisor should be prepared to discuss: (i) What the employee has accomplished; (ii) The strengths and areas for improvement of the employee's performance; (iii) Specific examples of the employee's performance to illustrate the points made in the discussion; and (iv) Any key points and questions to be discussed at the meeting. (3) In order to actively engage the employee in the performance discussion process, the supervisor of record should solicit input from the employee about his or her work accomplishments for the period being discussed. This can be as simple as a short narrative, a bulleted list, or some other form of documentation. Program offices and regions are free to specify a specific type of documentation (e.g., a bulleted list limited to two pages) for this purpose. (4) The supervisor of record must review the PARS plan to ensure it is on the correct form and the employee's information is correct when it is initially established. (5) The performance discussion should be scheduled in advance and enough time should be allotted to allow for meaningful communication. (6) Generally, performance discussions should be held only between the supervisor of record and the employee being assessed. Advance notice should be provided to the employee for circumstances when another official (e.g., a team leader; a second-level supervisor) will be 12 EPA-17-0432-L-000307 included in the discussion. Supervisors of record should contact their servicing labor and employee relations specialist for guidance when other attendees are being considered. (7) At the discussion, the supervisor of record should: (i) Discuss the employee's performance for the period being rated; (ii) Actively engage the employee in the discussion; (iii) Articulate any concerns and expectations; (iv) Discuss how the employee's performance links to the strategic goals of the organization; and (v) Ask the employee to articulate any concerns and expectations. (8) The supervisor of record should ensure the new performance plan established for the new rating period is accurate according to the specifications of this order. (9) Signing the PARS Plans (i) Closeout of current appraisal period and establishment of standards for the new appraisal period: once the discussion is complete, the supervisor of record and the employee must sign and date the appraisal form for the current appraisal period in the appropriate space on the form. The supervisor and employee must also sign and date the appraisal form for the new rating period in the appropriate space on that form. (ii) Mid-year: Once the discussion is complete, the supervisor of record and the employee must initial and date the appraisal form for the current appraisal period in the appropriate space on the form. (iii) If there are any changes to the employee's PARS plan during the rating period, both the supervisor of record and the employee must initial and date all changes. (iv) The employee must be provided with a copy of the PARS plan whenever it is signed or initialed. (v) The employee may refuse to sign the appraisal form (for any reason); however, the supervisor of record will move forward with the rating of record and/or new performance plan if the policy and procedures in this order have been followed. In such cases, the supervisor of record should document the circumstances and make sure the employee is informed of what has taken place and receives a copy of the form. Ratings of record may only be changed retroactively according to the provisions of section VI(e) of this order. (10) Completed PARS plans should be sent to the servicing HR SSC to be filed in the employee's Employee Performance File. The supervisor of record should maintain a copy of the appraisal form along with any attachments (individual development plans, performance narrative submitted by employee, etc.) in a local file according to the agency records retention schedule. 13 EPA-17-0432-L-000308 (b) Summary Levels (1) The agency has received approval from OPM to use a five level summary pattern (Pattern H according to 5 CFR ? 430.208(d)). The designations of the five summary levels are: outstanding, exceeds expectations, fully successful, minimally satisfactory and unacceptable. These patterns and summary level descriptors must be used to consistently describe ratings of records. The descriptors are also used as a reference point for applying other related regulations, including but not limited to, assigning additional retention service credit. (2) The descriptors and the level definitions are as follows: Definitions of Summary Rating Levels Outstanding (Level 5) This level is reserved for the truly exemplary employee who demonstrates the highest degree of achievement in his/her area(s) of work. This employee demonstrates an extraordinary degree of initiative and self-reliance in identifying and resolving problems or requirements of the work situation, and in developing, recommending or executing innovative solutions successfully to accomplish tasks ahead of target. The employee is extremely adaptable in adjusting to, and resolving, new, unusual, difficult or complex situations or problems in order to successfully accomplish program objectives. The employee's performance and contributions are of such a high level that they produce a significant and positive impact on the performance of others and the operations or reputation of the work unit. Exceeds Expectations (Level 4) This level signifies that the results achieved are clearly beyond what could be reasonably expected. Fully Successful (Level 3) This level signifies the employee's performance results achieved are those that can be reasonably expected of any employee on the job in order to fully and adequately achieve assigned responsibilities. Minimally Satisfactory (Level 2) This level signifies that there is a significant performance-related problem(s) although the performance has not reached "unacceptable" in any critical element. The employee demonstrates limited ability in producing work of acceptable volume and/or quality within established timeframes; or exhibits limited sense of personal responsibility and accountability in work assignments; or experiences difficulty in addressing new or unusual work situations under normal pressure; or require frequent guidance and assistance from supervisor or others. The supervisor of record is required to provide immediate assistance to help an employee improve performance that has slipped to the minimally satisfactory level in any critical element but has not yet reached the unacceptable level. Assistance is intended to help the employee improve his or her performance to "fully successful". Unacceptable (Level 1) This level signifies the performance of the employee consistently fails to meet the established performance standards in one or more critical elements of the employee's position. When performance is rated at this level, a Performance Improvement Plan must be implemented to help the employee improve his/her performance to an acceptable level; i.e. "minimally satisfactory." 14 EPA-17-0432-L-000309 (c) Elements, Standards and Measures (1) The agency reserves the right to establish required critical elements, standards, and measures for supervisors, managers, employees and certain job categories. Required critical elements and performance measures shall be simplified and synthesized as much as possible. The establishment of these elements requires timely coordination with the OHR prior to issuance for implementation. (2) An employee must have a minimum of two and no more than five critical elements in their PARS plan that must be linked to the agency's strategic plan, regional plan or other local or program specific goals and plans, as appropriate. The critical element is to describe the work assignments and responsibilities that are significantly influenced by an employee's work effort and within the employee's control. These elements cascade down from the senior executive, to the supervisor and then to the employee. (3) Critical elements in the employee's performance plan must be established at the fully successful level (i.e., if the employee meets all or most of the requirements and expectations under the critical element he or she would receive a fully successful rating for that element). This level is robust and reflects the employee's ability to fully and satisfactorily complete all or most of their assigned duties and responsibilities. (4) Critical elements established in an employee's performance plan must be realistic, designed to achieve results, in alignment with the employee's position description and hold the employee accountable for the work assignments and responsibilities of his or her position. (5) All critical elements should link to the goals or objectives of the agency's strategic plan, regional plan or other local or program specific goals and plans, as appropriate. If a critical element is linked to a goal, then the relevant objective(s) is used to more specifically define the linkage. If duties include the performance of cross-agency or cross-media work (including administrative, financial or legal support functions, or information management) then it may be more appropriate to link each critical element to a strategy, rather than an environmental goal. For management and support functions not captured by the cross-goal strategies, the following alternative linkage statement shall be used: "This work is an enabling and support function that supports the outcome of the agency's strategic goals." The goals and objectives of the agency's strategic plan, regional plan, or other local/program specific plan, shall be annotated for each critical element on the PARS plan. Cascading agency goals to work units Agency Strategic Plan .I Program/Regional Annual Performance Goals ,..____________I I Work Unit Products and Services .._____I____. (6) Non-critical elements affect the summary rating level and identify a dimension or aspect of individual, team or organizational performance, exclusive of a critical element. These elements are entirely optional but should be identified as non-critical elements in the employee's PARS plan. 15 EPA-17-0432-L-000310 (7) Additional elements do not affect the summary rating level but can be used to help focus employees on goals and achievements that are important to the organization. These elements are entirely optional but should be identified as additional elements in the employee's PARS plan. (8) The following uniform benchmark standards are mandatory and must be used for each critical element without modification. As necessary, measures and metrics may be added at the end of the mandatory standard for a specific position, regional office or program office. Benchmark Standards Outstanding Exceeds Expectations Fully Successful Minimally Satisfactory Delivers products or services that, to an extraordinary degree, support the agency's strategic plan, programs, policies, organizational annual performance plans, or budget priorities. Products or services are of exceptional quality and provide exemplary models for addressing the most difficult and complex work challenges and demonstrate the highest levels of creativity, skill, and knowledge of subject area. Products are consistently produced ahead of the expected timeframes and reliably comply with applicable statutes, regulations, and established policies and procedures. Adjusts with exceptional quickness and ease to changing priorities, consistently taking the lead. Products or services demonstrate exceptional research and analysis. Exhibits exceptional skills in independently planning, organizing, and prioritizing multiple assignments. Consistently develops and offers suggestions for organizational and work process improvements that substantially increase results, efficiency, or effectiveness. Communicates verbally and in writing with exceptional clarity and effectiveness, often on topics or issues that are emerging and without precedent. Written materials are always well received and easily understood by a range of individuals and groups and significantly promote the agency's programs and mission. Provides exceptional leadership in promoting teamwork and collaboration across organizations. Measures and metrics may be included. Delivers products or services that, to a degree beyond what can reasonably be expected, support the agency's strategic plan, programs, policies, organizational annual performance plans, or budget priorities. Products or services are of superior quality and provide excellent models for addressing the most difficult and complex work challenges and demonstrate high levels of creativity, skill, and knowledge of subject area. Products or services are frequently produced ahead of the expected timeframes and reliably comply with applicable statutes, regulations, and established policies and procedures. Adjusts quickly to changing priorities, often taking the lead. Products or services demonstrate high quality research and analysis. Exhibits excellent skills in independently planning, organizing, and prioritizing multiple assignments. Frequently develops and offers suggestions for organizational and work process improvements that increase results, efficiency, or effectiveness. Communicates verbally and in writing with excellent clarity and effectiveness, often on topics or issues that are emerging and without precedent. Written materials are consistently well received and easily understood by a range of individuals and groups, significantly promoting the agency's programs and mission. Provides high quality leadership in promoting teamwork and collaboration across organizations. Measures and metrics may be included. Delivers products or services that support the agency's strategic plan, programs, policies, organizational annual performance plans, or budget priorities. Products or services are of a good quality and provide good models for addressing work challenges and require high levels of creativity, skill, and knowledge of subject area. Products are produced within the expected timeframes and reliably comply with applicable statutes, regulations, and established policies and procedures. Adjusts to changing priorities. Products or services demonstrate thorough research and analysis. Exhibits effective skills in independently planning, organizing, and prioritizing multiple assignments. Develops and offers suggestions for organizational and work process improvements that increase results, efficiency, or effectiveness. Effectively communicates verbally and in writing. Written materials are well received and easily understood by a range o f individuals and groups, promoting the agency's programs and mission. Promotes teamwork and collaboration across organizations. Measures and metrics may be included. Delivers products or services that marginally support the agency's strategic plan, programs, policies, organizational annual performance plans, or budget priorities. Products or services demonstrate occasional deficiencies in creativity, skill, and knowledge of subject area. Products or services are occasionally produced in an untimely manner or do not comply with applicable statutes, regulations, and established policies and procedures. Has some difficulty adjusting to changing priorities. Products or services sometimes lack adequate research and analysis. Occasionally demonstrates difficulty with independently planning, organizing, and prioritizing 16 EPA-17-0432-L-000311 Unacceptable multiple assignments. Infrequently offers suggestions for organizational and work process improvements that increase results, efficiency or effectiveness. Verbal and written communications lack clarity. Written materials are generally not well received or understood by a range of individuals and groups. Infrequently promotes teamwork and collaboration across organizations. Measures and metrics may be included. Often delivers products or services that do not support the agency's strategic plan, programs, policies, organizational annual performance plans, or budget priorities. Products or services demonstrate frequent deficiencies in creativity, skill, and knowledge of subject area. Products are not produced in a timely manner and do not comply with applicable statutes, regulations, and established policies and procedures. Often has difficulty adjusting to changing priorities. Products or services often lack adequate research and analysis. Often demonstrates difficulty with independently planning, organizing, and prioritizing multiple assignments. Rarely offers suggestions for organizational and work process improvements that increase results, efficiency or effectiveness. Verbal and written communications often lack clarity. Written materials are frequently not well received or understood by a range of individuals and groups. Does not promote teamwork and collaboration across organizations. Measures and metrics may be included. (d) Determining a Summary Rating of Record (1) The supervisor of record shall not assign a rating of record under a forced distribution. (2) Ratings are based on objective, specific and measurable criteria using the following method and criteria: (i) For a summary performance rating of outstanding, one half or more of the critical elements are rated outstanding and none of the critical elements are rated lower than exceeds expectations. (ii) For a summary performance rating of exceeds expectations, one half or more of the critical elements are rated exceeds expectations and none of the critical elements are rated lower than fully successful. (iii) For a summary performance rating of fully successful, one half or more of the critical elements are rated fully successful, and none of the critical elements are rated lower than minimally satisfactory. (iv) For a summary rating of minimally satisfactory, one half or more of the critical elements in the employee's performance plan must be rated minimally satisfactory and no critical elements may be rated unacceptable. (v) For a summary rating of unacceptable one or more critical elements are rated unacceptable. (3) When an even number of critical elements are established for a performance plan and the ratings given for the critical elements are evenly divided, and none of the ratings are unacceptable, supervisors are to round-up and assign the higher summary rating. (4) A summary rating of minimally satisfactory or unacceptable must be reviewed and initialed by a higher level supervisor prior to communicating with the employee. (5) A narrative summary must be written for each critical element assigned a rating of outstanding, minimally satisfactory or unacceptable. This narrative should contain examples of 17 EPA-17-0432-L-000312 the employee's performance that substantiate and explain how the employee's performance falls within the levels assigned. The narrative summaries are recorded on the applicable PARS plan. A narrative summary is also encouraged, but not required, for ratings of exceeds expectations and fully successful. (e) Performance Measures (1) A good method to help supervisors and employees develop good performance measures is to use the SMART objectives process. Performance measures should be: (i) Specific: Clearly defined measures and expected results; (ii) Measurable: Readily observable, quantifiable, demonstrable or verifiable; (iii) Aligned: Measures are aligned with the work unit, program, regional and agency's goals; (iv) Realistic: Describe work expectations within the employee's control; and (v) Time constrained: Define appropriate timeframes for performance. (f) Addressing Minimally Satisfactory or Unacceptable Performance (1) The supervisor of record should document employee performance throughout the appraisal period. It is important to provide assistance as soon as possible after minimally satisfactory or unacceptable performance is noticed to allow sufficient time for a conversation with the employee and to pursue any necessary improvement measures during the current appraisal period. (2) The supervisor must follow the performance improvement provisions of the appropriate CBA for bargaining unit employees whose performance on a critical element is minimally satisfactory or unacceptable. Subparagraphs VII(f)(4)-(6) of this order covers non-bargaining unit employees and bargaining unit employees under CBAs that do not address the specific minimally satisfactory or unacceptable performance situations listed below. (3) Regardless of whether an employee is part of a bargaining unit or is non-bargaining, the supervisor of record must contact the servicing LER office for guidance before issuing a Performance Assistance Plan or Performance Improvement Plan (described below). (4) Minimally Satisfactory Counseling (i) If the employee has been on standards for at least 90 days and the employee's performance on a critical element falls to minimally satisfactory, but the employee's overall rating is still at least fully successful, the supervisor must conduct a counseling session or conversation with the employee to address the performance deficiencies that the supervisor has deemed minimally satisfactory. (ii) The points covered in this counseling session or conversation must be documented in writing. Appendix B, Record of the Minimally Satisfactory Counseling/Conversation, is a 18 EPA-17-0432-L-000313 template that supervisors may use to document the conversation. The employee must also receive a copy of this document. (iii) The supervisor must contact the servicing LER office when a counseling session has been conducted in accordance with VII(f)(4)(i) and (ii) and the employee's performance does not improve or falls to the unacceptable level. (5) Performance Assistance Plan (i) If an employee has been on standards for at least 90 days and the supervisor of record identifies that the employee's overall performance has fallen to the minimally satisfactory level (i.e., one half or more of the critical elements), the supervisor of record is required to provide immediate assistance with the issuance of a PAP with concurrence from the servicing LER office. (ii) A PAP should be put in place as soon as possible after the employee's overall performance has fallen from fully successful to minimally satisfactory. (iii) The employee should be provided with an opportunity to provide input in developing the PAP before it is finalized. Final approval of the PAP rests solely within the supervisor's discretion. (iv) The PAP will provide the employee with at least 45 days to resolve the identified performance-related problem(s). It will be tailored to the employee's specific needs and may include formal training, on-the-job training, counseling, assignment of a mentor or other assistance as deemed appropriate. (v) Once the PAP is in place, the rating cycle is extended, if needed, until the PAP period has ended. A PAP may also be extended at the discretion of the supervisor of record, if the employee's overall performance remains at the minimally satisfactory level. (vi) Once the PAP has expired or the supervisor of record determines that assistance is no longer needed, and with concurrence from the servicing LER office, the supervisor will provide the employee with a written notice of this determination. (vii) Assistance is provided to the employee to facilitate the employee reaching the fully successful level; however, an employee who performs at the minimally satisfactory level will not be reduced in grade (demoted) or removed solely on that basis. (6) Performance Improvement Plan (i) If the employee has been on standards for at least 90 days and the supervisor of record identifies that an employee's performance in one or more critical elements is at the unacceptable level, the supervisor of record is required to provide immediate assistance with the issuance of a PIP with concurrence from the servicing LER office. (ii) A PIP must be in place within 15 business days after the employee is notified in writing of his or her unacceptable performance; however, failure to put a PIP in place 19 EPA-17-0432-L-000314 within that period does not relieve an employee from having to comply with the requirements of the PIP. (iii) The employee should be provided with an opportunity to provide input in developing the PIP before it is finalized. Final approval of the PIP rests solely within management's discretion. (iv) The PIP will provide the employee with at least 60 days to demonstrate acceptable performance (minimally satisfactory performance under the agency's five-level rating system) under the critical element(s) at issue. The PIP will be tailored to the employee's specific needs and may include formal training, on-the-job training, counseling, assignment of a mentor or other assistance as deemed appropriate. The PIP will notify the employee of the critical element(s) for which performance is unacceptable and inform the employee of the performance requirement(s) or standard(s) that must be attained in order to demonstrate minimally satisfactory performance. The PIP may also inform the employee of the performance requirement(s) or standard(s) that must be attained in order to reach the fully successful level of performance. The PIP must inform the employee that unless his or her performance in the critical element(s) at issue improves and is sustained at a minimally satisfactory level, the employee may be demoted or removed from employment. (v) Once the PIP is in place the rating cycle is extended, if needed, until the PIP period has ended. (vi) Once the PIP has expired or the supervisor of record determines that assistance is no longer needed, and with concurrence from the servicing LER office, the supervisor will provide the employee with a written notice of this determination. (vi) Assistance is provided to the employee to facilitate the employee reaching the fully successful level. However, a minimally satisfactory rating of record is enough for an employee not to be demoted or removed for performance reasons. VIII. RECORDS Please see the agency's Record Schedules policies at http://www.epa.gov/records/policy/schedule/index.htm for detailed retention instructions for the following: (a) EPA Records Schedule 107: Employee Performance File System; and (b) EPA Records Schedule 563: Performance Rating Appeals. IX. MATERIALS SUPERSEDED This order supersedes Order 3151.1, Performance Management, approved September 30, 1997 20 EPA-17-0432-L-000315 X. APPENDICES Appendix A: EPA Performance Appraisal and Recognition System Performance Plan and Summary Appraisal Package Appendix B: Record of Minimally Satisfactory Counseling/Conversation 21 EPA-17-0432-L-000316 Development of Plan EPA's Plan to Maximize Employee Performance EPA's plan to maximize employee performance was developed by a workgroup comprised of senior agency officials, representatives from the first-line supervisor advisory group, an attorney-advisor from the Office of General Council and human resources professionals. EPA workgroup members met with representatives from the Office of Personnel Management, the Office of Management and Budget, the Merit Systems Protection Board and other government officials to discuss the plan and determine the best path forward for the agency. The development of this plan, along with the related implementation actions, are building upon many actions already in place at EPA to foster a culture where managers, supervisors and employees are accountable for their performance. Current Performance Management Initiatives and Agency Best Practices EPA is currently meeting several of the requirements prescribed by OMB's memorandum and has many best practices relevant to maximizing employee performance: 1. The First Line Supervisors Advisory Group (FLAG) was created in 2015; the FLAG has assisted and advised the agency on its supervisory training curriculum and is currently developing a supervisory toolkit on performance management. 2. In 2017, the agency mandated that all supervisors take 8 hours of training on management issues annually. OARM LER staff offer many trainings per year, including quarterly full-day training geared towards first-line supervisors, and monthly 2-hour trainings on common issues facing supervisors. Each EPA location also offers on-site support and training. All new supervisors must attend EPA's Successful Leaders Program within one-year of appointment. o In 2017, five of the monthly supervisory training sessions were on the performance management process (setting expectations, documenting performance and taking performance-based actions), and five of the monthly trainings were on employee misconduct (time and attendance issues, OIG investigations, taking effective disciplinary actions and handling medical issues in the workplace). These trainings meet the objectives set forth in the OMB memorandum. o This training is voluntary (but can be used to meet the 8-hour requirement); the training is routinely attended voluntarily by 1015% of EPA managers and supervisors, which demonstrates the value and success of the training. 3. Beginning in 2015, several of the agency's communities that address EPA performance and/or misconduct began meeting regularly to discuss process, efficiency, and consistency. These meetings have collectively resulted in more predictable, timely and supported processes for supervisors. o Since May 2015, representatives from OIG, OGC, and OARM have held bi-weekly coordination meetings to share information on matters related to employee misconduct. ? GAO recognized EPA for its model relationship with the OIG, and recently met with agency officials to gather info on agency's best practices for addressing misconduct to share government-wide. EPA-17-0432-L-000317 OGC and OARM LER staff conduct biweekly discussions around pending performance-based and adverse actions; the groups have jointly planned/held conferences on current issues in employee relations, including determining best practices and agency processes. The next conference is planned for August 2017. o The agency's LER community meets every 4 weeks to discuss LER issues of national importance, and to discuss best practices and consistent approaches. 4. The agency's Administrative Leave Policy (issued February 2016) requires all administrative leave requests over 10 cumulative workdays to be approved by OARM Assistant Administrator; requests are only approved when necessary for orderly operations of agency; policy encourages managers to consider alternative options prior to use of administrative leave. 5. Beginning in June 2017, supervisors can run real-time reports with probationary period end dates for their employees. o 2 EPA-17-0432-L-000318 Action Item Action 1 - Review and Update Formal Agency Policy A. Review, update or create agency policy, procedures and guidance on how to address poor performance and conduct. B. Specifically review whether policies create unnecessary barriers for addressing poor performance C. Remove steps not required in statute/regulation to streamline processes to the maximum extent. D. Once Administrative Leave Act implementing regulations are final, incorporate into policy the expectation to limit the use of unnecessary administrative leave. E. Provide clear guidance on performance improvement plans. Agency Plan EPA must revise agency policy to eliminate barriers (see 1B); policy must be negotiated with 5 national unions. The revised policy will be issued by OARM/OHR and implemented agency-wide. (long-term) The agency will review potential barriers, including number of tiers in the performance system, minimally satisfactory (level 2) rating, minimum period of observation, minimum duration of PIP, elimination of the PAP, grievability of PIP, etc. (near-term) The agency will ensure that potential barriers are removed from revised policy drafted pursuant to 1A above. See 1B (near-term) EPA issued an Administrative Leave Policy in February 2016 limiting use of unnecessary administrative leave. (see best practice #4) The agency will incorporate Administrative Leave Act into existing policy, once final regulations are issued by OPM (long-term). The agency will provide all agency managers with OPM's March 2017 guidance on "Addressing and Resolving Poor Performance" and include brief highlights on PIPs in June's Administrative Update to managers. (immediate) The agency will develop and distribute agency-specific guidance after revised policy implementation. (long-term) See 1A (long-term) F. Develop policy at agency level or highest major component level. G. Chief Human Capital Officer and General Counsel OHR will collaborate with OGC in development of revised policy; OCR and LER will collaborate to create policy; consult with EEO be consulted on applicable issues. (long-term) Office and Labor Relations. Action 2 - Provide Transparency Around the PIP Process A. Provide all supervisors a copy of the rules and See 1E (immediate) guidance regarding PIPs 3 EPA-17-0432-L-000319 B. Emphasize in guidance that PIPs can be started at any point and not just at the end of the rating period. OPM Guidance to be distributed pursuant to 1E above specifies that PIPs can be issued at any time an employee's performance becomes unacceptable. (immediate) Agency-specific guidance (to-be developed in conjunction with revised policy) will also emphasize that PIPs can be issued at any time (long-term). C. Maintain data on PIPs, including number of Agency will mandate, effective July 1, 2017, that all LER offices regularly track and employees placed on them and number who update all performance-based actions (including issuance and completion of PIPs) in successfully improve performance. EPA's Labor and Employee Relations Information System (LERIS) on at least a monthly basis. (immediate) Action 3 - Ensure Managers and Supporting HR Staff Are Appropriately Trained A. Provide training to all SES, supervisors, managers, EPA is currently offering the subject matter training to all managers, supervisors team leads, and employee relations staff on and employee relations staff (see best practice #2). For FY 2018, EPA will mandate managing employee performance and conduct. that all managers take training on managing employee performance and conduct. (near-term) In May 2017, EPA also signed an interagency agreement with the Department of the Interior to launch a learning management system named FedTalent. FedTalent will be integrated into existing HR systems, and will allow EPA to define and assign competencies and training and maintain records of training for compliance purposes. FedTalent is scheduled for full operating capability in March 2018. (nearterm) Action 4 - Ensure Accountability in Manager Performance Plans A. Ensure that supervisors and managers are held The agency will review and revise supervisor/managers performance plans to accountable for managing employee performance ensure they include language regarding managing employee performance and and conduct. conduct. Mandatory language to be included in FY 2018 performance plans. (nearterm) B. Review and update (if necessary) See 4A (near-term) supervisor/manager performance plans to reflect this responsibility. Action 5 - Ensure Real-Time Manager Support Mechanisms A. Identify approaches and plans for providing The agency will evaluate the best options for real-time support and determine accessible "just-in-time" expert assistance and support methods by September 30, 2017. (near-term) 4 EPA-17-0432-L-000320 guidance to managers who are addressing performance/conduct issues. B. Include a real-time forum (e.g., dedicated contact support lines) for managers to receive guidance on addressing performance or conduct issues that require immediate action. General Action - Review Agency Systems A. All agencies must develop a plan to maximize employee performance by reviewing the systems and structures currently in place within their agencies to support managers in managing employee performance, and developing a timeline for improvement. See 5A (near-term) The agency will complete a review of electronic performance-management systems and incorporate system into launch of revised policy, in conjunction with 1A. (longterm) 5 EPA-17-0432-L-000321 IEN1 .. Newtrient is a dairy driven venture focused on reducing the environmental footprint of dairy farming and making it economically viable to do so. Newtrient does this by advancing: 1. The state of manure management technologies 2. The marketplace for manure-based products 3. The adoption of environmental asset markets for voluntary, pollution prevention services Who is Newtrient? Forward-looking dairy industry leaders driving to play an increasingly important role in supplying the world with healthy food, stimulating the rural economy, and effectively protecting the environment. I. Farmers are perfectly situated to A. B. C. :9FA Doirv Formeni of Amerlc. (C). Foremost FAKMSo SA 0 .LANDO'LAKES, 1Nc. II. Environmental Asset Markets Are the Key to unlocking the potential environmental and economic potential of agricultural by-product. Environmental Asset Markets shift government's role from environmental "cop" to economic stimulator using an environmental services marketplace: A. M ~ ~~rs~ MILi<, - 11' "' S elec t Milk SOUTHEAST B. illamook These dairy cooperatives represent 50+% of the milk produced in the U.S. representing 20,000+ dairy farms of all sizes. Playing integral roles on Newtrient's Board of Managers, these two industry associations work on behalf of the entire dairy industry in terms of promotion, research, education, innovation, issues management, international trade and public policy. Our Team of Experts III. voluntarily protect the environment, reduce the total cost of environmental protection, receive economic value for the products and protections created Incentivizing the lowest cost pollution prevention to voluntarily act first, and Directing some of those economic savings to the benefit of those obligated to incur higher cost pollution prevention efforts The Result: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. Unleashed power of the marketplace Increased application of technologies Stimulated rural economies Increased economic opportunity for farmers performing voluntary environmental protection actions Reduced environmental protection costs for municipalities and other large sources Aligning of incentives between regulators and the regulated community Overall improved environmental protection EPA-17-0432-L-000322 I. Timely confluence of political change, technological opportunity and shift of focus from point sources to non-point sources of potential pollution A. B. EPA's command & control model was built on the belief that environmental protection required "negative drivers" to force certain behaviors Positive economic drivers, will result in both faster and less expensive environmental protection/improvement with the additional benefits of: 1. 2. 3. 4. II. Manure is a largely neglected valuable resource A. Manure's economic value is trapped 1. 2. 3. 4. B. Farmers are "price takers" for their products Commodity pricing Necessary cooperative structures Antiquated farm input supply chain Antiquated concepts of environmental protection 1. 2. III. Economic stimulation in rural (non-point source) America Cost reduction in urban (point source & stormwater) America Regulators welcomed rather than feared and avoided Farmers valued as the true protectors of the environment Command & Control works well in urban and point-source settings Command & Control is antithetical to rural outlook and non-point settings Newtrient's recently released Technology Catalog is a publicly available analysis of all relevant dairy manure management technologies in the U.S. A. Open source: available to all 1. 2. 3. 4. B. C. Dairy farmers The rest of the barnyard Regulators Technology vendors and consultants Designed to provide information and spur technological competition Views manure management as a means to generate economic value Newtrient: 10255 West Higgins Road, Suite 900 Rosemont, IL 60018 www.NEWTRIENT.com EPA-17-0432-L-000323 Green, LindaE From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: American OversightFOIA Thursday, October 19, 2017 2:49 PM FOIAHQ FOIA Request (EPA-17-0432) EPA-17-0432.pdf Dear FOIA Officer: Please find attached a request for records under the Freedomof InformationAct. Sincerely, Beth France Counsel AmericanOversight foia@americanoversight.org 1202.869.5246 EPA-17-0432 1 EPA-17-0432-L-000324 AMERICAN VERSIGHT October 19, 2017 VIA ELECrRONICMAil.. Records, FOIA, and Privacy Bran ch Office of Environmental Informatio n Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Penn sylvania Avenue, NW (2822'D Washington, DC 20460 hg.foia@epa.gov Re:ExpeditedFreedomof InformationAct Request Dear Freedom of Information Officer: Pursuant to the Freedom oflnformation Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. ? 552 and the implementing regulations of the Environmental Pro tection Agency (EPA), 40 C.F.R. Part 2, American Oversight makes the following request for records. Since taking office, Administrator Pruitt has shown a troubling tendency to give ample time to industry lobbyists without affording similar attention to public interest advocates. 1 This lopsided access appears to be part of Mr. Pruitt 's ongoing "war on the EPA," which began long before he took office and continues even as he has assumed responsibility for the agency/ and which has led to industry-friendly actions at the expense of critical protections for the environment. o American Oversight seeks records that will shed light on how senior EPA officials allocate their time, including the access they grant to industry representatives and lobbyists. 1 Eric Lipton & Lisa Friedman, E.P .A. Chiefs Calendar:A Stream of Industry Meetings and Trips Home, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 3, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/us/politics/epa-scott-pruittcalendar-industries-coal-oil-environmentalists.html. ' James Warren, The Climate Change Skeptic Leading Trump's 'War on the EPA, ' VAN/IT EUR (Oct. 11, 2017, 2:00 PM), https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/scott-pruitt-war-on-the-epa . "Timothy Cama, EPA La.unches Industry Partners Program for Regulating, THE HILL (Oct. 3, 2017, 4:40 PM), http://thehill.com/policy/energy-envir0nment/353703-epa-launches-industrypartnershi0:program-for-regulating; Meghan Keneally, Coal Industry Supporters Celebrate EPA Repeal of Clean Power Plan, ABC NEWS (Ocr.11, 2017,5:30 PM), http:// abcnews.go.com/US/coal-industry-supporters-celebrate-epa-repeal-cleanpower/story?id =50389885 . p 1030 15th Street NW, Suite 8255, Washington, DC 20005 I AmericanOversight .org EPA-17-0432-L-000325 Requested Records American Oversight requests that EPA produce the following within twenty business days: 1. All calendars or calendar entries for any of the following individuals from May 18, 2017, to the date a search is conducted, including any calendars maintained on behalf of these individuals (e.g., by an administrative assistant): o o Administrator Scott Pruitt Acting D eputy Administrator MikeFlynn 2. All calendars or calendar entries for any of the following individuals from February 17, 2017, to the date a search is conducted, including any calendars maintained on behalf of these individuals (e.g., by an administrative assistant): o o o o o o o Ryan Jackson, Chief of Staff Reginald Allen, Acting Deputy Chief of Staff Byron R. Brown, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Kevin Chmielewski, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations Nancy Beck, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Brittan y Bolen, Senior Deputy Associate Administrator for Policy EPA should provide all calendar entries in existenceas of the date of the search, including entries that have been created as of the search date but reflect events planned for later dates. For calendar entries created in Outlook or similar programs, the documents shou ld be produced in "memo" form to include all invitees, any notes, and all attachments. Please do not limit your search to Outlook calendars-we request the production of any calendarpaper or electronic, whether on government-issued or personal devices-used to track or coordinate how these individuals allocate their time on agency business. In addition to the records requested above, American Oversight also requests records describing the processing of this request, including records sufficient to identify search terms used and locations and custodians searched and any tracking sheets used to track the processing of this o On April 5, 2017, American Oversight submitted a request for calendar entries for any political appointee or SES appointees in the Office of the Administrator. This request, which was assigned the tracking number EPA-HQ-2017-005777, is now the subject of litigation and ongoing production. As of this time, American Oversight has not received calendars for any of the individuals listed in Item 2 of the present request To the extent EPA produces calendars for these individuals in response to American Oversight's previous request and the related litigation, EPA need to reproduce those calendars in response to this request However, EPA should still produce additional calendars for these individuals for the time period from May 18, 2017 (the cut-off date EPA and American Oversight have agreed to for request EPA-HQ-2017-005777 in the course of litigation on that request) forward. 2 EPA-17--0432 EPA-17-0432-L-000326 re qu est If EPAuses FO IA qu estionnaires or certifications comp leted by individual custodians or com ponents to dete rmin e whether they possess respo nsive ma terials or to describe how they cond ucte d searc hes, we also requ est any such records prepare d in connection with the processi ng of this reques t Ame rican O versight seeks all responsive records regardless of format, medi um, or physical characte ristics. In condu cting your search, please understand the terms "recor d," "document," and "information" in their broa dest sense, to include any written, typed, recor ded , graphi c, printe d , or audio materi al of any kind. We seek records of any kind, including electro nic recor ds, audiotapes, videota pes, and photo graph s, as well as letters, emails, facsimiles, telep hone messages, voice mail messages and tran scrip ts, notes, or minutes of any meetings, telep hone conversatio ns or discussions. Our requ est includ es any attachments to these recor ds. No category of materialshould be omittedfrom search,collection,and production. Please searc h all record s regardin g agency business. You may not exclude searchesof files or emails.inthe personalcustodyof your o.ffici.al.s , such as personalemailaccount.s.Reco rd s of official business condu cted using uno fficial systems or stored outside of official files is subject to the Federal Reco rd s Act and FO IA ."1 It is not adequateto rely on policies and proceduresthatrequire officialsto move suchinformationto officialsystemswithina certainperiod of time;American Oversighthas a rightto records containedin those files even if materialhasnot yet been moved to officialsystems or if officialshave, throughnegligenceor willfuJness,failed to meet their obligations.' In addition, please note that in cond ucting a "reasonable search" as require d by law, you must emp loy the most up-to-date techn ologies and tools available, in ad dition to searches by individu al custo dians likely to have respon sive information. Recent techno logy may have ren dere d EPA's prior FO IA pr actices unr eason able. In light of the government-widerequirementsto manage informationelectronicallyby the end of 2016, it is no longerreasonableto rely exclusivelyon custodian-drivensearches.' Furthermore, agenciesthathave adopted the NationalArchivesand "See Comp etitive Enter. Inst v. Oflice of Sci. & Tech. Policy, 827 F.3d 145, 149-50 (D.C. Cir. 2016); cl Judi cial Watch, Inc. v. Keny, 844 F.3d 952, 955-56 (D.C. Cir. 2016). o See Competitive Enter. Inst v. Oflice of Sci. & Tech. Policy, No. 14-cv-765, slip op. at 8 (D.D. C . Dec. 12, 2016) ("The Governm ent argues that because the agency had a policy requiring (the official] to forwar d all of his emails from his [personal] account to his business emai l, the [personal ] acco unt only contain s du plicate agency records at best Therefore, the Government claims that any hypothetical deletion of the [personal account) emails would still leave a copy of those recor ds intact in [the official's) work email. However, policies are rare ly followed to perfection by anyone. At this stage of the case, the Court cannot assume that each and every work relate d email in the [personal) account was duplicated in [the official's) work email acco un t." (citations omitte d)). ' Pr esidential Memoran dum-M anaging Government Records, 76 Fed. Reg. 75,423 (Nov. 28, 2011), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov /the-press-office /2011/ 11/28/presidentialmemorandum-managing-govemment-records ; Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office of the Presi dent, Mem orandum for the H eads of Executive Departments & Indepen dent Agencies, 3 EPA-17-0432 EPA-17-0432-L-000327 Records Agency (NARA) Capstone program, or similarpolicies, now maintain emails in a form that is reasonably likely to be more complete than individual custodians' files. For example, a custodian may have deleted a responsive email from his or her email program, but EPA's archiving tools would capture that email under Capstone. Accordingly, American Oversight insists that EPA use the most up-to-date technologies to search for responsive information and take steps to ensure that the most complete repositories of information are searched. American Oversight is available to work with you to craft appropriate search terms. However, custodian searches are still required; agencies may not have direct access to files stored in .PST files, outside of network drives, in paper format, or in personal email accounts. Under the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, agencies must adopt a presumption of disclosure, withholding information "only if ... disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption" or "disclosure is prohibited by law."o If it is your position that any portion of the requested records is exempt from disclosure, American Oversight requests that you provide an index of those documents as required under Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (197 4). As you are aware, a Vaughn index must describe each document claimed as exempt with sufficient specificity "to permit a reasoned judgment as to whether the material is actually exempt under FOIA. "" Moreov er, the Vaughn index "must describe each document or portion thereof withheld, and for each withholding it must discuss the consequences of disclosing 1 the sought-after information. " ? Further, "the withholding agency must supply 'a relatively detailed justification, specifically identifying the reasons why a particular exemption is relevant and 11 correlating those claims with the particular part of a withheld document to which they apply. '" In the event some portions of the requested records are properly exempt from disclosure, please disclose any reasonably segregable non-exempt portions of the requested records. If it is your position that a document contains non-exempt segments, but that those non-exempt segments are so dispersed throughout the docum ent as to make segregation impossible, please state what portion of the document is non-exempt, and how the material is dispersed throughout the document 12 Claims of nonsegregability must be made with the same degree of detail as required for claims of exemptions in a Vaughn index. If a request is denied in whole, please state specifically that it is not reasonable to segregate portions of the record for release. You shouldinstitutea preservationhold on informationresponsiveto thisrequest American Oversight intends to pursue all legal avenues to enforce its right of access under FOIA, including litigation if necessary. Accordingly, EPA is on notice that litigation is reasonably foreseeable. "Managing Government Records Dir ective," M-12-18 (Aug. 24, 2012), https://www.archives.gov/files/records-mgmt/m-12-18.pdf . ' FO IA Improvement Act of 2016 ? 2 (Pub. L No. 114-185). o Fow1diJ1g Church of Scie11tology v. Bell, 603 F.2d 945, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1979). '?King v. U.S. Dep 't of Justice, 830 F.2d 210, 223-24 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (emphasis in original). 11 Id. at 224 (citing Mead Dara Central, Inc. v. U.S. Dep 't of the Air Force, 566 F .2d 242, 251 (D.C. Cir. 1977)). " Mead Dara Central, 566 F.2d at 261. 4 EPA-17-0432 EPA-17-0432-L-000328 To ensure that this request is properly construed, that searches are conducted in an adequate but efficient manner, and that extraneous costs are not incurred, American Oversight welcomes an opportunity to discuss its request with you before you undertake your search or incur search or duplication costs. By working together at the outset, American Oversight and EPA can decrease the likelihood of costly and time-consuming litigation in the future. Where possible, please provide responsive material in electronic format by email or in PDF or TIF format on a USB drive. Please send any responsive material being sent by mail to American Oversight, 1030 lS' Street, NW, Suite B255, Washington, DC 20005. If it will accelerate release of responsive records to American Oversight, please also provide responsive material on a rolling basis. Fee Waiver Request In accordance with 5 U.S.C. ? 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) and 40 C.F.R. ? 2.107(1), American Oversight requests a waiver off ees associated with processing this request for records. The subject of this request concerns the operations of the federal government, and the disclosures will likely contribute to a better understanding of relevant government procedures by the general public in a significant way.'s Moreover, the request is primarily and fundamentally for non-commercial purposes. " American Oversight requests a waiver of fees because "disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding" of government operations and activities."' Conducting meetings on official time and to discuss official 1 agency business clearly concerns "identifiable operations or activities of the Federal government. " " Records providing information about these meetings-which are not currently available through public documents-will be "meaningfully informative" about EPA's operations, activities, and priorities and will contribute significantly to the public's understanding of them. " The EPA's activities affect, among other things, air and water quality for all Americans, so information regarding undue influences on these activities would be of interest to "a reasonably broad audience of persons," and, as described further below, American Oversight has demonstrated its "ability and intention to effectively convey" this information to the public. 1" This request is primarily and fundamentally for non-commercial purposes. 19 As a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit, American Oversight does not have a commercial purpose and the release of the information requested is not in American Oversight's financial interest. American Oversight's mission is to promote transparency in government, to educate the public about government activities, and to ensure the accountability of government officials. American Oversight uses the " 40 C.F.R. ? 2.1070)(1). " Id. 1 .' Id.; see also 40 C.F.R.? 2.107(1)(2)(i)-(iv). 40 C.F.R. ? 2.107(1)(2)(i). 11 40 C.F.R. ? 2.107(l)(2)(ii), (iv). 1 " 40 C.F.R. ? 2.107(l)(2)(iii). oo40 C.F.R. ? 2.107(1)(1);40 C.F.R. ? 2.107(1)(3)(i)-(ii). 1 o 5 EPA-17-0432 EPA-17-0432-L-000329 information gathered, and its analysis of it, to educate the public through reports, press releases, or other media. American Oversight also makes materials it gathers available on its public website and promotes their availability on social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter. ""American Oversight has demonstrated its commitment to the public disclosure of documents and creation of editorial content. For example, after receiving records regarding an ethics waiver received by a senior DOJ attomey ,21American Oversight promptly posted the records to its website and published an analysis of what the records reflected about DO]'s process for ethics waivers."' As another example, American Oversight has a project called "Audit the Wall," where the organization is gathering and analyzing information and commenting on public releases of information related to the administration's proposed construction of a barrier along the U.S.Mexico border. "'' Accordingly, American Oversight qualifies for a fee waiver. Conclusion We share a common mission to promote transparency in government. American Oversight looks forward to working with EPA on this request. If you do not understand any part of this request, have any questions, or foresee any problems in fully releasing the requested records, please contact Beth France at foia@americanoversight.org or 202.869.5246. Also, if American Oversight's request for a fee waiver is not granted in full, please contact us immediately upon making such a determination. Sincerely, Austin R. Evers Executive Director American Oversight ""American Oversight currently has over 11,500 page likes on Facebook, and over 35,200 followers on Twitter. American Oversight, FACEBOOK,https://www.facebook.com/weareoversight/ (last visited Oct. 19, 2017); American Oversight (@weareoversight), TWI1TER, https://twitter.com/weareoversight (last visited Oct. 19, 2017). 21 Vetting the Nominees: Solicitor General Nominee Nael Francisco, AMERICANOVERSIGHT, https://www.americanoversightorg/our-actions /vetting-nominees-solicitor-general-nominee-noelfrancisco . "'Francisco & the Travel Ban: ll'hat We Learned fro111the DO] Documents, AMERICAN OVERSIGHT,https://www.americanoversightorg/news /francisco-travel-ban-Ieamed-doj-documents . "''Audit the Wall, AMERICANOVERSIGHT,www.auditthewall.org. 6 EPA-I 7-0432 EPA-17-0432-L-000330 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Sensitivity: Johnson, Harvey (ORM) Conley, Leah (HRA); Allen, Reginald FW: Mr Allen - Potential Opportunity Tuesday, January 16, 2018 4:46:52 PM Allen EPA Bio 2017-Short.pdf Allen Federal 5 page Resume-General.docx Private Leah - Nathan wants to meet with Mr. Reginald Allen. Please work with Reggie (Cc'd) to get on Nathan's calendar. Thank you. Harvey Reggie let's chat and I'll fill you in. Thanks. Harvey From: Johnson, Harvey (ORM) Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 4:43 PM To: Shelby, Peter J.; Maenle, Nathan Subject: Mr Allen - Potential Opportunity Sensitivity: Private Gentlemen, as discussed, here's the information on Mr. Allen, EPA. Nathan - I'll link him up with Leah to get scheduled on your calendar. Thank you. Harvey From: Shelby, Peter J. Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 6:52 PM To: Anderson, Christopher; Balland, David; Blaha, Lydia B.; Bowman, Thomas; Byrne, Jim (OGC); Cashour, Curtis; Connell, Lawrence B.; Davis, Lynda; Haverstock, Cathleen; Hayes-Byrd, Jacquelyn; Hutton, James; Leinenkugel, Jake; Loren, Donald P.; Nicholas, Kirk; O'Rourke, Peter M.; Sandoval, Camilo J.; Selnick, Darin; Selnick, Darin S. EOP/WHO; Shelby, Peter J.; Spero, Casin D.; Syrek, Christopher D. (Chris); Tucker, Brooks; Ullyot, John; Verschoor, Thayer; Wagner, John (Wolf) Cc: Johnson, Harvey (ORM) Subject: FW: EPA Rotational Opportunity for VA Sensitivity: Private Another FREE staffing opportunity... Thanks for hearing, Harvey. If someone wants to claim him, what is the process? Sincerely, Peter Peter J. Shelby Assistant Secretary (HR&A) (b) (6) peter.shelby@va.gov From: Johnson, Harvey (ORM) Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 12:38:11 PM To: Shelby, Peter J.; Butler, Tia N.; Otero, Carin; Maenle, Nathan Cc: Therit, Tracey (ORM); Davis, Archie (ORM); Caponio, Francis Subject: EPA Rotational Opportunity for VA EPA-17-0432-L-000331 The Environmental Protection Agency participates in a program where they detail executive talent to other agencies for broadening opportunities. It's at no cost to the gaining agency as the detailed executive would remain on EPA's roles. Reginald Allen (Title below) is interested in a possible rotation to VA. Wanted to share his resume and bio for consideration of an opportunity within VA. Preferences: Northern Virginia would be great to avoid the commute - but DC works as well. Open to anything but something in VA HQ would be wonderful to get an overview of the entire department Great man, I hope VA can use him. Vr Harvey EPA-17-0432-L-000332 Org (GAO/ OIG) GAO Report Name (Number) Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Making Progress, but Planned Savings Goals Need to Be Established, GAO16-323 Report addresses organizational structure, data center duplication and efficiency in consolidation efforts. In 2010, as the focal point for information technology management across the government, OMB's Federal Chief Information Officer launched the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative to reduce the growing number of centers. Information technology reform legislation was subsequently enacted in December 2014 that included a series of provisions related to the federal data center consolidation effort, including requiring agencies to report on cost savings and requiring GAO to annually review agency inventories and strategies. GAO's objectives were to (1) review agencies' data center closures to date and plans for further closures, (2) evaluate agencies' progress in achieving consolidation savings and describe plans for future savings, and (3) assess agencies' progress against OMB's data center optimization targets. To do so, GAO assessed agencies' data center inventories, reviewed agency-reported cost savings and avoidance documentation, and compared agencies' data center optimization data as of November 2015 against OMB's established targets. Applicable Office or Region and Program OEI Finding GAO Recommendation: To better ensure that federal data center consolidation and optimization efforts improve governmental efficiency and achieve cost savings, we recommend that the Secretaries of the Departments of the Interior, State, Transportation, and the Treasury; the Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Small Business Administration; the Directors of the National Science Foundation and the Office of Personnel Management; and the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission take action to address challenges in establishing, and to complete, planned data center cost savings and avoidance targets for fiscal years 2016 through 2018. EPA Response: The EPA agrees with the recommendation. The EPA has established a revised and enhanced approach for meeting or exceeding the OMB's established data center cost savings and avoidance targets for fiscal years 2016 through 2018. This revised approach establishes a single data center within each of several specific geographic areas. For each data center selected for retention, necessary upgrades will be made to address any potential capacity or performance issues. Stakeholders will then consolidate applicable data center assets into the cloud, an agency core data center, or applicable agency geographic data center. Surplus data center assets will be decommissioned and excessed or appropriately scaled to be realigned with reduced capacity requirements. Specific plans for each data center slated for consolidation are currently under development. The resulting total cost savings are under assessment and have not yet been determined. GAO Recommendation: We also recommend that the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury and Veterans Affairs; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration and U.S. Agency for International Development, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management; the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration take action to improve progress in the data center optimization areas that we reported as not meeting OMB's established targets, including addressing any identified challenges. EPA Response: The EPA agrees with the recommendation. To improve the EPA's progress in data center optimization areas that 1 EPA-17-0432-L-000333 Org (GAO/ OIG) GAO Report Name (Number) Government Purchase Cards: Opportunities Exist to Leverage Buying Power, GAO16-526 Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) Report addresses duplication in purchasing efforts and methods to increase efficiency and achieve cost savings. The purchase card program was designed to streamline relatively small dollar value acquisitions of goods and services. In fiscal year 2015, the government spent approximately $19 billion using purchase cards. GAO was asked to review whether agencies are effectively leveraging their buying power when using purchase cards. This report assesses the extent to which selected (1) agencies analyze purchase card data to identify opportunities to leverage buying power agencywide and (2) purchase cardholders seek opportunities to achieve cost savings when using purchase cards. Applicable Office or Region and Program OARM Finding currently fall short of the OMB's established targets, the EPA stakeholders have been directed to place emphasis on virtualizing physical servers in concert with the revised data center consolidation efforts referenced above. Specific direction has also been given to have stakeholders give primary consideration for moving server-based applications to the cloud or a core data center. These efforts will increase the EPA values for core to non-core operating system, core to non-core physical server ratio, and facility utilization. The estimated increase for each optimization metric will be determined after data center consolidation plans are finalized. GAO Recommendation: To ensure that good practices are shared within agencies, we recommend that the Secretaries of Defense, Veterans Affairs, the Interior, Homeland Security, and Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency develop guidance that encourages local officials to examine purchase card spend patterns to identify opportunities to obtain savings and to share information on such efforts. Where applicable, we further recommend that these agencies determine the feasibility for broader application of these efforts across the agency or organization. EPA Response: As indicated in the report, the EPA's efforts to identify agency-wide spend patterns have achieved positive results in strategic sourcing savings, and opportunities to negotiate better terms and conditions on leveraged vehicles. In August 2015, the EPA implemented an automated purchase card management system, PaymentNet, which enhances the EPA's annual agency-wide spend analyses in support of its strategic sourcing program. The EPA also requires its purchase cardholders to use strategically sourced vehicles as set forth in the EPA's enclosed February 2016 policy "Requirements for Use of Strategic Sourcing Contract Vehicles." The EPA welcomes the opportunity to benchmark with other agencies and share the methodology and approaches undertaken to identify opportunities which lead to the positive outcomes identified in the report. GAO analyzed data from the three banks that work with the six selected agencies--selected in part on varying levels of purchase card spend volume--to manage their purchase card programs. GAO evaluated policies, reviewed strategic sourcing efforts related to purchase cards, and interviewed officials. GAO also interviewed officials 2 EPA-17-0432-L-000334 Org (GAO/ OIG) GAO Report Name (Number) IT DASHBOARD: Agencies Need to Fully Consider Risks When Rating Their Major Investments, GAO-16494 Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) from the General Services Administration who manage the government's purchase card contracts, and interviewed selected cardholders at the two agencies with the highest purchase card spend. Report addresses organizational structure in regard to the IT Portfolio and related risks in costs and in addressing agency and mission needs through IT investments. Although the government spends more than $80 billion in information technology (IT) annually, many of the investments have failed or have been troubled. In December 2014, provisions commonly referred to as the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) were enacted. Among other things, FITARA states that OMB shall make available to the public a list of each major IT investment including data on cost, schedule, and performance. OMB does so via the Federal IT Dashboard--its public website that reports on major IT investments, including ratings from CIOs which should reflect the level of risk facing an investment. GAO's objectives were to (1) describe agencies' processes for determining CIO risk ratings for major federal IT investments primarily in development and (2) assess the risk of federal IT investments and analyze any differences with the investments' CIO risk ratings. To do so, GAO selected major IT investments with at least Applicable Office or Region and Program OEI Finding GAO Recommendation: To better ensure that the Dashboard ratings more accurately reflect risk, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, State, Transportation, the Treasury, Veterans Affairs; the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration should direct their CIOs to ensure that their CIO ratings reflect the level of risk facing an investment relative to that investment's ability to accomplish its goals. EPA Response: As stated in the EPA's response to the GAO's Draft Report, while the EPA agrees all agency CIOs should "ensure that their CIO ratings reflect the level of risk facing an investment relative to that investment's ability to accomplish its goals," the recommendation, in citing only specific agencies, seems to indicate the EPA does not consider an investment's ability to accomplish its goals as part of its CIO rating. Appendix II of the Final Report, like the Draft Report, provides a limited set of criteria used by the EPA to determine the CIO rating. The criteria includes the statement "... factors that are important to forecasting future success." As before stated, it should be clear from this statement that EPA does consider an investment's ability to accomplish its goals as part of the CIO rating. During the GAO engagement, the EPA provided the GAO with the narrative which goes out monthly with our IT Dashboard update request to investment owners. In addition, the EPA provided the GAO the criteria which our Senior Information Officers use in establishing their recommended CIO rating for investments. In the EPA's response to the Draft Report, we provided both the narrative and the criteria in our response and showed that risks are considered. The EPA recognizes that there is a disagreement with the eManifest CIO Risk Rating on April 2015; however, that does not mean that the EPA does not consider risks in the designation as reflected in the GAO's ranking in Table 7. The EPA believes it should not be included in the list of agencies that do not consider an investment's ability to accomplish its goals when setting a CIO rating since this is a critical factor in the EPA CIO ratings. Lastly, the GAO gave the EPA an "A" on the related criteria on the FITARA dashboard. If the GAO gave the EPA an "A" in 3 EPA-17-0432-L-000335 Org (GAO/ OIG) GAO GAO Report Name (Number) Federal Information Security Officers: Opportunities Exist to Improve Roles and Address Challenges to Authority. GAO-16686 Grants Management: EPA Could Improve Certain Monitoring Practices, GAO-16-530 Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) 80 percent of their fiscal year 2015 budget allocated to development (resulting in 95 investments across 15 agencies) and compared CIO rating processes to OMB guidance. GAO also analyzed data on those investments to create its own risk assessments. Report addresses role of CISCO in assuring organizational approach to cyber security. Federal agencies face an everincreasing array of cyber threats to their information systems and information. To address these threats, FISMA 2014 requires agencies to designate a CISO--a key position in agency efforts to manage information security risks. GAO was asked to review current CISO authorities. This report identifies (1) the key responsibilities of federal CISOs established by federal law and guidance and the extent to which federal agencies have defined the role of the CISO in accordance with law and guidance and (2) key challenges of federal CISOs in fulfilling their responsibilities. GAO reviewed agency security policies, administered a survey to 24 CISOs, interviewed current CISOs, and spoke with officials from OMB. Report addresses efficiency and costs savings from grant monitoring. Grants comprised about half of EPA's budget in 2015, or about $4 billion. Through several grant programs, EPA headquarters and 10 regional offices award these grants to a variety of recipients, including Applicable Office or Region and Program OEI Finding that instance, it seems inconsistent for the GAO to then contend that the EPA is not considering risk as a factor. GAO Recommendation: To ensure that the role of the senior agency information security officer (SAISO) is defined in agency policy in accordance with FISMA 2014, we recommend that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency take the following three actions: o Define the SAISO's role in agency policy for ensuring that subordinate security plans are documented for the department's information systems. o Define the SAISO's role in agency policy for ensuring that plans and procedures are in place to ensure recovery and continued operations of the department's information systems in the event of a disruption. o Define the SAISO's role in agency policy in the periodic authorization of the department's information systems. EPA Response: As the GAO noted, in the EPA's July 14, 2016 response to the Draft Report, the EPA agreed with the recommendations and planned to implement them. The role of the senior agency information security officer is defined in the enclosed agency Information Security - Security Assessment and Authorization Procedures, dated May 27, 2016. The procedures cover the SAISO's role in the assessment and authorization process, which includes periodic authorizations, contingency planning and subordinate security plans. OARM Recommendation: The EPA Administrator should direct the Office of Grants and Debarment (OGD) and program and regional offices, as appropriate, as part of EPA's ongoing streamlining initiatives and the development of a grantee portal, to incorporate expanded search capability features, such as keyword searches, into its proposed web-based portal for collecting and accessing performance reports to improve their accessibility. The EPA agrees with this recommendation. The agency's vision for grants management includes having grant recipients submit performance reports and other 4 EPA-17-0432-L-000336 Org (GAO/ OIG) Report Name (Number) Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) state and local governments. EPA provides guidance through directives that seek to ensure the appropriate use of funds and achievement of environmental results or public health protection, among other purposes. GAO was asked to review how EPA monitors environmental and other grant results. This report examines (1) how EPA awards grants, (2) the federal and EPA requirements for monitoring grant and program results, and (3) how EPA monitors its grants to ensure that environmental and other program results are achieved. GAO analyzed relevant federal laws, regulations, and EPA guidance; reviewed processes for ensuring that environmental results are achieved for the three EPA program offices that award the majority of EPA grant dollars; and interviewed EPA officials and officials from eight state environmental agencies-- selected based on the amount of environmental funding they receive from EPA. Applicable Office or Region and Program Finding information to the agency through a web-based portal. The portal would incorporate capabilities such as key word searches to allow for easier access to performance report information. However, the portal is a long-term initiative, subject to the agency's budget process, and dependent on the completion of the Next Generation Grants System, which the EPA expects to fully deploy in Fiscal Year 2018. Recommendation: The EPA Administrator should direct OGD and program and regional offices, as appropriate, as part of EPA's ongoing streamlining initiatives and the development of a grantee portal, to identify grant programs where existing program-specific data reporting can meet EPA's performance reporting requirements for grants management purposes to reduce duplicative reporting by grantees. The EPA generally agrees with this recommendation and will work with recipient partners to identify where duplicative reporting can be reduced. It is important to note, however, that program-specific data cannot be relied upon to meet all grants management requirements. Performance reports often contain other information that allows the EPA's Project Officers to monitor a recipient's progress in meeting work plan commitments. This information cannot be gleaned from output data entered into program-specific tracking systems. An additional challenge is that not all POs have access to program-specific databases. This will require the EPA to consider the feasibility of expanding PO access to those databases to enhance grant performance monitoring. We anticipate completing the process for identifying where duplicative reporting can be reduced by the end of FY 2017. Recommendation: The EPA Administrator should direct OGD and program and regional offices, as appropriate, as part of EPA's ongoing streamlining initiatives and the development of a grantee portal, once EPA's new performance system is in place, to ensure that the Office of Water adopts software tools, as appropriate, to electronically transfer relevant data on program results from program-specific databases to EPA's national performance system. The EPA generally agrees with this recommendation and will apply it, where appropriate and cost-effective, to programspecific databases, not only the Office of Water databases. Not all data from program-specific databases may be appropriate for direct electronic transfer to the national performance system; some individual grant data may need to be analyzed before being rolled up into national data. Implementation of this recommendation will depend upon the agency's program offices modifying their databases to interface with the new performance system. In addition, implementation of this recommendation is dependent upon completion of the agency's new performance system, currently under development; anticipated deployment is in 2017. 5 EPA-17-0432-L-000337 Org (GAO/ OIG) Report Name (Number) Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) Applicable Office or Region and Program Finding Recommendation: The EPA Administrator should direct OGD and program and regional offices, as appropriate, as part of EPA's ongoing streamlining initiatives and the development of a grantee portal, to clarify the factors project officers should consider when determining whether performance reports are consistent with EPA's environmental results directive. The EPA agrees with this recommendation. The EPA will make conforming changes to the implementation guidance for the Environmental Results Order (Directive) in FY 2017. Recommendation: The EPA Administrator should direct OGD and program and regional offices, as appropriate, as part of EPA's ongoing streamlining initiatives and the development of a grantee portal, to expand aspects of EPA's policy for certain categorical grants, specifically, the call for an explicit reference to the planned results in grantees' work plans and their projected time frames for completion, to all grants. The EPA agrees with this recommendation. The EPA will make conforming changes to existing policy in FY 2017. Recommendation: The EPA Administrator should direct OGD and program and regional offices, as appropriate, as part of EPA's ongoing streamlining initiatives and the development of a grantee portal, to incorporate built-in data quality controls for performance reports into the planned webbased portal based on EPA's environmental results directive. The EPA generally agrees with this recommendation but emphasizes that identifying and deploying appropriate data quality controls is a long-term effort subject to budgetary considerations, completion of the Next Generation Grants System, and extensive collaboration with internal and external stakeholders. Specifically, the report's vision for built-in data quality controls involves the use of electronic templates and reduced reliance on manual data entry. Full achievement of that vision would require standardized work plan and performance report formats subject to clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The EPA appreciates the report's clarification that the GAO is not recommending that the agency repeat its earlier efforts to standardize performance measures across recipient work plans. However, as described in the agency's response to the draft report, this recommendation raises implementation challenges. The EPA's grant recipients generally have not supported standardizing the format of work plan and progress reports, with many large recipients, such as states, having their own institutionalized formats. Additionally, under its 2009-2013 Grants Management Plan, the EPA considered the use of standardized performance report formats but decided not to require them due to program office concerns that such formats would not meet programspecific needs. 6 EPA-17-0432-L-000338 Org (GAO/ OIG) GAO GAO Report Name (Number) Information Technology: Agencies Need to Improve Their Application Inventories to Achieve Additional Savings, GAO-16-511 Grants Management: EPA Has Taken Steps to Improve Competition for Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) Report addresses organizations application inventory to avoid duplication and achieve costs savings. The federal government is expected to spend more than $90 billion on IT in fiscal year 2017. This includes a variety of software applications supporting agencies' enterprise needs. Since 2013, OMB has advocated the use of application rationalization. This is a process by which an agency streamlines its portfolio of software applications with the goal of improving efficiency, reducing complexity and redundancy, and lowering the cost of ownership. GAO's objectives were to determine (1) whether agencies have established complete application inventories and (2) to what extent selected agencies have developed and implemented processes for rationalizing their portfolio of applications. To do this, GAO assessed the inventories of the 24 CFO Act agencies against four key practices and selected six agencies--the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, the Interior, Labor, and NASA and NSF--due to their IT spending, among other factors, to determine whether they had processes addressing applications. Report addresses organizations approach to managing discretionary grants to avoid Applicable Office or Region and Program OEI Finding Accordingly, as a first step in implementing this recommendation, the EPA will seek feedback from the recipient and program office community. The agency will initiate that process in FY 2017. GAO Recommendation: To improve federal agencies' efforts to rationalize their portfolio of applications, the heads of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; and heads of the Environmental Protection Agency; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Science Foundation; Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Office of Personnel Management; Small Business Administration; Social Security Administration; and U.S. Agency for International Development should direct their Chief Information Officers (CIOs) and other responsible officials to improve their inventories by taking steps to fully address the practices we identified as being partially met or not met. EPA Response: As in the Draft Report, overall, the EPA agrees with the recommendation. Both the GAO's Draft and Final Reports cite that the EPA only "partially met the practice for including application attributes in the inventory because... it does not identify the business function for every application". In the EPA response to the Draft Report, the agency asked the GAO to add clarifying language in the Final Report to provide the full context of the EPA's practices. The GAO added language that clarifies that the agency is taking steps to populate the business function associated with all applications. That clarifying language more accurately reflects the EPA's current inventory practices. OARM GAO Recommendations Recommendation 1: To improve the quality of the EPA's internal records and the information the EPA can 7 EPA-17-0432-L-000339 Org (GAO/ OIG) Report Name (Number) Discretionary Grants but Could Make Information More Readily Available, GAO-17-161 Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) duplication and efficient use of grant awards. EPA annually awards hundreds of discretionary grants, totaling about $500 million. EPA has the discretion to determine grantees and amounts for these grants, which fund a range of activities, from environmental research to wetlands restoration. EPA awards and manages discretionary grants at 10 headquarters program offices and 10 regional offices. Past reviews by GAO and EPA's Inspector General found that EPA has faced challenges managing such grants, including procuring insufficient competition for them and providing incomplete public information about them. GAO was asked to review EPA's management of discretionary grants. This report examines (1) how EPA manages competition for discretionary grants, (2) how much in discretionary grants EPA provided from fiscal years 2013 through 2015 and to what types of grantees, and (3) the information EPA makes publicly available on discretionary grants. GAO reviewed EPA's competition policy and guidance, examined internal evaluations of grant applications for competitions that were selected partly because they accounted for large portions of discretionary grant dollars, analyzed EPA data as well as information EPA made available on public websites, and interviewed EPA officials. Applicable Office or Region and Program Finding communicate to internal and external decision makers, the EPA Administrator should direct the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Administration and Resources Management to direct the Director of OGD to provide clear guidance to the EPA staff to help ensure that staff correctly identify all the EPA discretionary grant programs in the agency's internal grants management system. Agency Affected: Environmental Protection Agency The agency agrees with this recommendation. The Office of Grants and Debarment has already taken actions including developing, in coordination with EPA program offices and the Office of General Counsel, a list of active discretionary grant programs and posting it on the EPA intranet and internet to ensure dissemination to EPA staff and public transparency. As new programs are developed, the EPA will determine if they are discretionary or not and add them to the list as appropriate. The EPA has also added a statement in section 070 of its Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program descriptions on whether the program makes awards on a discretionary basis. In addition, the EPA intends to be involved in any General Services Administration efforts in 2017 to improve CFDA descriptions which may include changes to CFDA template language that could improve discretionary grant designations. Further, the EPA, in 2017, will assess whether other actions are necessary to help staff better identify discretionary grant programs in its internal grant management systems including staff training and reconciling any inconsistencies in defining discretionary grants. The EPA has no plans to coordinate/collaborate with other agencies other than with GSA in any efforts to improve CFDA descriptions. Recommendation 2: To better enable Congress and other decision makers to monitor the EPA's management of discretionary grants, the EPA Administrator should direct the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Administration and Resources Management to direct the Director of OGD to determine how to make more complete information on the EPA's discretionary grants publicly available, such as by posting timely and complete reports on its website. Agency Affected: Environmental Protection Agency The agency agrees with this recommendation. In 2017, OGD will begin the process to examine whether and how it can use its internal Next Generation Grants System to generate more timely and complete reports related to discretionary grants and make them publicly available. Two areas that the EPA will explore in 2017 are the ability to use NGGS to: (1) generate more timely and complete information that can be publicly posted related to the number of applications received (and from what types of entities) for the agency's open competitive opportunities and (2) produce an annual report on the amount of funds per discretionary grant 8 EPA-17-0432-L-000340 Org (GAO/ OIG) OIG Report Name (Number) Report: EPA's Purchase Order Process Needs to Improve and Achieve Better Value, Report #17-P-0001, October 13, 2016 Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) Report addresses efficiency and cost savings. EPA purchase order procedures were not implemented in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) or the EPA Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR). In fiscal year 2015, up to 1,714 purchases could have been made with purchase cards, as opposed to purchase orders, to achieve cost savings through the maximum use of purchase cards as required by the FAR. In addition, the EPA's acquisition system did not always provide descriptions for supplies and services purchased as required by the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123, the FAR, and General Services Administration criteria. These conditions occurred due to inadequate policies, procedures and training. As a result, competition, fairness and other economic opportunities may have been precluded. Also, the EPA is not realizing potential savings based on its current purchase card practices due to forfeited refunds, point-of-sale discounts, and reduced administrative costs. Applicable Office or Region and Program OARM Finding program and whether they were for new awards or amendments. The EPA has no plans to coordinate/collaborate with other agencies. The OIG recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management require the EPA to update its policy, procedures and checklists to cover applicable FAR and EPAAR requirements; require acquisition and program personnel to be trained; and promote greater use of purchase cards. The EPA provided alternative corrective actions for Recommendations 4 through 7, with a completion date of March 2017 for Recommendations 4 and 6, and a completion date of December 2016 for Recommendation 5. We believe the alternative corrective actions meet the intent of the original recommendations. Recommendations 4, 5, and 6 are considered open pending completion of proposed corrective actions. The EPA did not provide a completion date for Recommendation 7. Recommendation 7 is considered unresolved. The following is a summary of the agency's responses and our evaluation: Recommendations 4 and 6. For both of these recommendations, the EPA's initial response did not completely address the intent of the recommendation. However, on September 12, 2016, the EPA provided an acceptable corrective action. The EPA will develop a SAP checklist that will require users to indicate whether using a purchase card was considered and the reason why the purchase card was not used. We believe the alternative corrective action meets the intent of our recommendations. Recommendation 5. The EPA's initial response indicated that it disagreed with Recommendation 5. However, on September 12, 2016, the EPA provided an acceptable alternative corrective action with a completion date of December 2016. The EPA agreed to publish a "Flash Notice," which reiterates EPAAG 13.3.1.8 and 13.3.1.9, and advises COs that they may use purchase cards to place orders or make payments. We believe the alternative corrective action meets the intent of our recommendation. Recommendations 7. The EPA's initial response indicated that it disagreed with Recommendation 7. However, on September 12, 2016, the EPA provided an acceptable corrective action that we believe meets the intent of our recommendation. The EPA indicated that each OAM division will have at least one purchase cardholder per service center. However, the EPA did not provide a completion date for this alternative corrective action. The EPA concurred with Recommendations 8 through 10, and provided a completion date of April 2016 for Recommendations 8 and 9, and July 2016 for 17-P-0001 18 9 EPA-17-0432-L-000341 Org (GAO/ OIG) Report Name (Number) Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) Applicable Office or Region and Program Finding Recommendation 10. For Recommendations 8 and 9, the EPA implemented guidance to provide a complete description of supplies and services used to feed FPDS-NG and CDW. For Recommendation 10, OAM agreed with our recommendation and provided training to its divisions and the regions, which included information on the "description of requirement field." OAM also stated it would continue the activities of an annual Independent Verification and Validation Review and peer reviews to periodically check for accuracy and completeness of the description of requirement fields. These three recommendations are considered closed. OIG Report: Enhanced Controls Needed to Prevent Further Abuse of Religious Compensatory Time Report #16-P-0333, September 27, 2016 Report focuses on organizational policy and cost savings with enhanced controls. Based on our analysis, time and attendance records support that the retired OCSPP employee earned the accumulated Religious Compensatory Time hours. However, we identified concerns with the EPA's internal controls that allowed the excessive accumulation of Religious Compensatory hours by agency employees, and the OCSPP employee received a payout of $32,469 for unused Religious Compensatory Time upon retirement. EPA policy and procedures on accumulation and use of Religious Compensatory Time meet the requirements of federal laws and regulations, but are not specific enough to prevent abuse. The agency's controls do not enforce the requirement for employees to link the earning of Religious Compensatory Time to specific religious observances. The EPA lacks detailed controls covering the accumulation, use and monitoring of Religious Compensatory Time, resulting in practices OARM & OEI We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management enhance internal controls over Religious Compensatory Time by revising its policies and procedures, requiring documentation of intended use plans, prohibiting the earning of additional religious compensatory hours in excess of the maximum established balance, and developing training on proper use of Religious Compensatory Time. Further we recommend that the Chief Financial Officer modify the EPA's payroll and time and attendance system to prevent employees from accumulating excessive Religious Compensatory Time. The Office of Administration and Resources Management concurred with Recommendations 1 through 3, and provided proposed corrective actions. When implemented, we believe the proposed actions will meet the intent of our recommendations. The recommendations will remain open with corrective actions pending. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer concurred in principle with Recommendation 4, and indicated it intends to coordinate with the agency's payroll provider on the feasibility of modifying the payroll system. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer indicated it will submit a change request to the provider for review and approval. Once payroll changes are determined feasible, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer indicated it will make the necessary changes to the time and attendance system. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer's proposed corrective actions do not fully meet the intent of the recommendation, because they do not indicate what actions will be taken if the payroll system changes are not feasible. Further, an estimated completion date was not provided. Therefore, Recommendation 4 is unresolved. 10 EPA-17-0432-L-000342 Org (GAO/ OIG) OIG Report Name (Number) Report: EPA Oversight of Travel Cards Needs to Improve Report #16-P-0282, August 24, 2016 Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) being noncompliant with the intent of federal law and regulations, and not being consistent with U.S. Office of Personnel Management best practices. Inadequate controls allowed several agency employees to maintain significant positive Religious Compensatory Time balances for extended periods of time without intended use plans. Also, significant negative balances were retained without a plan to repay the hours. The agency has not provided staff with training or established adequate guidance to effectively manage and monitor Religious Compensatory Time. As a result, in addition to the OCSPP employee, the EPA paid 13 other employees $41,045 for unused Religious Compensatory Time upon separation. Further, if no action is taken to reduce additional employees' high balances, future payments totaling up to $81,927 could be made. This report addresses organizational control over travel card program and potential savings. The EPA does not check travel card bank rebates for accuracy. As a result, the agency does not know whether travel card rebates received from the bank are accurate. The EPA did not comply with the legal requirement to return rebates to each appropriation proportionally or to the U.S. Treasury (an option when rebates are not applied proportionally). Applicable Office or Region and Program OCFO Finding We recommend that the EPA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) institute a process to verify the accuracy of travel card rebates, and establish and implement policies and procedures to correctly distribute travel card rebates. We also recommend that OCFO develop controls and a timeline for addressing late vouchers, revise the travel card policy to institute stronger controls, and modify Concur so that lodging and rental car expenses can only result in a bank card payment. In addition, we recommend that the OCFO require travel cardholders to complete training that covers the importance of split payments, timely payments, and the consequences of failure to comply. The EPA agreed with Recommendation 1 and provided corrective actions that meet the intent of the recommendation. The EPA will verify the bank refund with the agency's calculation and spending. The new procedure became effective with third quarter FY 2016 rebates. The agency has completed a portion of the corrective actions. 11 EPA-17-0432-L-000343 Org (GAO/ OIG) Report Name (Number) Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) Instead, the agency selectively returned travel rebates to only a portion of EPA appropriations within a travel reserve account. As a result, rebates totaling $240,375 in fiscal year 2014 and $283,789 in fiscal year 2015 were incorrectly returned to only four of 11 EPA appropriations. EPA oversight does not maximize sales and productivity-based rebates. The agency's Cincinnati Finance Center does not emphasize that supervisors should hold late-paying travel cardholders responsible, require maximum use of the travel card for official government expenses, or require that all expenses charged on the card are paid directly to the bank. These practices may result in more delinquent accounts and fewer bank rebate dollars. Applicable Office or Region and Program Finding Recommendation 1 is open pending completion of the corrective actions. The EPA agreed with Recommendation 2 and completed a portion of the corrective actions in May 2016. In response to Recommendation 2, the EPA updated its Travel Rebate Standard Operating Procedures to require funds to be distributed to the original appropriations. The updated procedures describe how the EPA will distribute the rebates across appropriations based on the proration of travel obligations. According to the agency, this method of distribution will be retroactively applied to the beginning of FY 2016. The agency completed a portion of the corrective actions for Recommendation 2. This recommendation is open pending completion of the remaining corrective actions. The EPA agreed with Recommendations 3 through 6, and provided planned corrective actions with milestone dates. A summary of the agency's responses include the following: Recommendation 3. The EPA's initial response to Recommendation 3 did not completely address the intent of the recommendation. However, on July 12, 2016, the EPA provided an acceptable corrective action. The EPA will revise its travel card policy to require Senior Resource Officials and supervisors to utilize the Executive Resource Center Unpaid Travel Authorization tool to monitor timely voucher submissions. Recommendation 4. The EPA will revise travel card policy to institute stronger controls that include timely travel card payments, adverse actions for late payments, and the requirement to use the travel card for all travel expenses. Recommendation 5. The EPA will set Concur to default payments for hotel and rental car to the government credit card. The traveler will not be able to change the default payment. Recommendation 6. The EPA will require cardholders to complete GSA travel card training. The agency will also update its travel policy to cover the importance of split payments; timely payments; and the consequences of failure to comply, so that disciplinary action can be taken against late-paying cardholders. Once the travel card policy is updated, the EPA will notify the travel community by email, web posting and webinar; and through training sessions. The planned corrective actions meet the intent of Recommendations 3 through 6. Recommendations 3 through 6 are open with corrective actions pending. OIG Report: EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of Its Transit Subsidy Benefits Program This report addresses organization management of transit subsidy program and cost savings. The EPA OARM We recommend that the agency provide oversight to regions and field offices to enforce compliance with OMB's 10 minimum internal control policies. Also, the Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources 12 EPA-17-0432-L-000344 Org (GAO/ OIG) Report Name (Number) Report #16-P-0268, August 16, 2016 Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) operates a transit subsidy benefits Weak internal controls program for its employees covering 13 separate made EPA transit locations. Most of the locations did not comply with subsidies of about $10 million vulnerable all of the Office of Management and Budget's to potential abuse. We (OMB's) 10 minimum internal control requirements. Applicable Office or Region and Program Finding Management should implement internal controls for transit processors. In addition, Region 6 should update its transit policy, Region 9 should allow its employees to use only one transit payment system, and Region 10 should perform a commuting cost analysis to determine the most costbeneficial fare options. The agency concurred with Recommendations 1 and 2 and provided estimated completion dates of not later than December 31, 2016, for both recommendations. For Recommendation 1, the agency stated, "The agency will develop a transit subsidy policy covering all locations offering transit subsidy." For Recommendation 2, the agency stated, "The agency will require senior resource officials to certify annually that the 10 minimum controls are implemented." The OIG concurs with the agency's proposed actions and, when implemented, the corrective actions will satisfy the intent of Recommendations 1 and 2. These two recommendations will remain open pending completion of the proposed corrective actions. The agency concurred with Recommendations 3 and 4. For Recommendation 3, OARM stated, "The Headquarters will assess the current Headquarters separation check sheet and identify opportunities to strengthen controls." OARM provided an estimated completion date of no later than December 31, 2016. The OIG concurs with the agency's proposed actions and, when implemented, the corrective actions will satisfy the intent of Recommendation 3. This recommendation will remain open pending completion of the proposed corrective action. As of July 19, 2016, OARM had completed corrective actions for Recommendation 4. OARM stated that the Facilities Management and Services Division "has received the monthly separation report from OHR, and has confirmed the separated employees have been removed from the HQ transit subsidy program." The OIG concurs with the agency's new practice, and it satisfies the intent of Recommendation 4. Recommendation 4 is complete and thus closed. The agency concurred with Recommendation 5. For Recommendation 5, Region 6 stated, "The Region 6 will, upon receipt of the agency transit policy, develop and implement corresponding procedures." Region 6 provided an estimated completion date of no later than March 31, 2017. The OIG concurs with the agency's proposed actions and, when implemented, the corrective actions will satisfy the intent of Recommendation 5. This recommendation will remain open pending completion of the proposed corrective action. The agency concurred with Recommendations 6 through 8. As of June 28, 2016, Region 9 has completed corrective actions for Recommendation 6. Region 9 stated that it has completed an analysis and has selected one transit payment system (card program administered by the Cincinnati 13 EPA-17-0432-L-000345 Org (GAO/ OIG) Report Name (Number) Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) Applicable Office or Region and Program Finding Finance Center). This system is to be implemented by December 31, 2016. Recommendation 6 is thus closed. For Recommendation 7, the agency stated: The region completed an analysis in December 2014 covering the best option for providing a transit program to the Region 9 employees. The Region 9 Headquarters will coordinate with employees and local bargaining units to implement the change. Furthermore, the Region 9 will evaluate alternative approaches for other Region 9 locations. Region 9 provided an estimated completion date of no later than December 31, 2016. For Recommendation 8, the agency stated: The region will ensure that whichever transit payment system it chooses as described in response to recommendation seven will have appropriate internal controls consistent with the Office of Management and Budget and the Internal Revenue Service guidance. Region 9 provided an estimated completion date of no later than December 31, 2016. The OIG concurs with the agency's proposed actions and, when implemented, the corrective actions will satisfy the intent of Recommendations 6 through 8. These recommendations will remain open pending completion of the proposed corrective actions. The Regional Administrator, Region 10, concurred with Recommendations 9 and 10. As of July 8, 2016, Region 10 has completed corrective actions for both recommendations. For Recommendation 9, Region 10 stated it has: Determined that DOT Transerve Debit Card program (also used by Region 3) is our best choice. The available debit card programs operate in very similar ways and have very similar cost profiles. OIG Report: EPA Should Timely Deobligate Unneeded Contract, Purchase and Miscellaneous Funds Report #16-P-0135, April 11, 2016 Report addresses organizations management of contract, purchase and miscellaneous deobligation requirements and cost savings The EPA did not deobligate $583,875 from contract, purchase and miscellaneous obligations that had no activity in the last 18 months. Further, we estimated there could be an additional $2,962,058 that could be deobligated. OCFO For Recommendation 10, Region 10 stated that: The current agreement with DOT will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. We expect to have the new agreement in place effective Oct. 1, 2016.... [O]ur shift to a debit card program implements this recommendation or alternatively renders it moot. During the course of our audit, the agency deobligated $259,065 of the $583,875 in unliquidated obligations that we cited. We recommend that the agency deobligate the remaining $324,810, and review any obligations that have not had activity in the last 18 months to see if any of the additional $2,962,058 noted can be deobligated. We also recommend that the agency instruct personnel to annually use the unliquidated obligations desktop tool to timely identify and deobligate unneeded funds. The agency concurred with and provided acceptable corrective milestone completion dates for all recommendations. The agency deobligated $67,190 of the $324,810 in unliquidated obligations that were identified for deobligations. The agency plans on deobligating the remaining $257,620 in April 2016. Also, the agency implemented a new on-line unliquidated obligations database system to streamline and improve the agency's 14 EPA-17-0432-L-000346 Org (GAO/ OIG) Report Name (Number) Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) EPA guidance requires deobligating inactive obligations without any activity for 6 months or more. Further, federal and agency guidance requires unliquidated obligations to be reviewed at least annually. However, EPA personnel did not adequately review or monitor outstanding obligations to ensure amounts remaining were valid. Consequently, the EPA was unable to reprogram unneeded funds to other environmental activities that could result in benefits for human health and the environment. OIG Report: EPA's Tracking and Reporting of Its The report addresses the organizations Applicable Office or Region and Program OCFO Finding unliquidated obligations review process, and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer will provide training to Project Officers, Contracting Officers and Funds Control Officers on the unliquidated obligations desktop tool. OCFO and OARM concurred with Recommendations 1 through 3. For Recommendation 1, OCFO and OARM stated: EPA will re-examine remaining funds for potential deobligation identified under Table 1 of the subject audit report, and disposition with the appropriate actions based upon that review. Monies under contract C0S902300059 (Table 1) have been de-obligated. Contracts W0707404013 and EP11H000785 are HQ [Headquarter] contracts and will be dispositioned by April 29, 2016. Contracts W0600400011 and W0600400012 are Region 6 vehicles and must be dispositioned by Region 6. OAM [Office of Acquisition Management] will advise Region 6 of the need to disposition these items. OCFO and OARM provided a milestone completion date of April 29, 2016. The OIG concurs with the agency's proposed actions, and, when implemented, the corrective actions will satisfy the intent of Recommendation 1. This recommendation will remain open pending completion of the proposed corrective action. For Recommendation 2, OCFO and OARM stated: During the OIG's audit activities, EPA implemented a new on-line ULO database system in June 2015. This new system was a product of the FY [fiscal year] 2014 OCFO-chaired Lean Government exercise to streamline and improve the agency's ULO review process. Under the Lean review process conducted in the new system, ULOs under all EPA contracts approximated $1.052B as of early June 2015. As of September 30, 2015, this balance was reduced to approximately $120.9M - a decrease of approximately 89%. Accordingly, EPA considers ULO reviews to be completed until the next review cycle. OCFO initiated the annual ULO review cycle in February 2016. Reviews of current ULOs are conducted during the annual review process. OCFO and OARM provided a completion date of September 30, 2015. The OIG concurs with the agency's corrective actions and that they have met the intent of Recommendation 2. This recommendation is closed. For Recommendation 3, OCFO and OARM stated: In FY [fiscal year] 2016, OCFO will provide training to POs [Project Officers], COs [Contracting Officers], and FCOs [Funds Control Officers] on the ULO desktop tool. In addition, OCFO established a ULO SharePoint site with a number of resources, including ULO review statistics by office and region to help in the ULO review process. OCFO and OARM provided a milestone completion date of June 30, 2016. The OIG concurs with the agency's proposed actions, and, when implemented, the corrective actions will satisfy the intent of Recommendation 3. This recommendation will remain open pending completion of the proposed corrective action. We recommend that the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) provide additional guidance or training on how to 15 EPA-17-0432-L-000347 Org (GAO/ OIG) Report Name (Number) Conference Costs Need Improvement Report #16-P-0081, January 7, 2016 Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) management of conference spending and cost savings. The EPA established internal controls to report conferences both publicly and to the OIG as required by M-12-12 and Public Law 113-76. However, we found improvements are needed. Applicable Office or Region and Program Finding identify unallowable conference costs, use correct conference project codes, identify all conference costs in the financial system, report all conference costs paid with EPA funds, and classify conferences properly. We also recommend that OCFO work with program offices to identify EPA Form 5170A cost reporting issues and revise the form as needed. The EPA agreed with the recommendation and provided planned corrective actions with milestone dates. In response to Recommendation 3, the EPA included four corrective actions. These corrective actions include: ? Implementing a process/policy to ensure that procurements will utilize conference project codes. ? Working with the Funds Control Officer community to ensure travelers use the correct conference code on vouchers. ? Emphasizing the need to identify all costs in the financial system. ? Implementing enhancements to facilitate the reporting of all conference costs. (Completed May 2015) When all of these corrective actions are implemented, they should address Recommendation 3. OIG Report: EPA's 2014 Early-Out and Buyout Activities Aided Workforce Restructuring Goals, and Continued Monitoring of This report addresses the organization's use of various efforts to manage and address workforce issues. The EPA used its VERA-VSIP authority to buy out employees in OARM The EPA agreed with the recommendation and provided a planned corrective action with a milestone date. The EPA has agreed to revise the sponsor definition in the EPA's Conference Spending Guide to provide more specificity and clarity. When implemented, the corrective actions should address Recommendation 4. The EPA did not agree with the OIG's interpretation that the agency was a sponsor for WEFTEC in 2014. The EPA stated that it was not a sponsor of the WEFTEC conference because the EPA did not provide funding and was not shown in the sponsor section of WEFTEC materials. The OIG stands by its interpretation that EPA was a sponsor based on OCFO's conference spending guide definition. The definition states that the EPA is a sponsor of an event if the agency provided funding or tangible support to a conference or appeared as a sponsor on any event materials, and tangible support is the provision of financial assistance, material goods or services. The EPA participated in WEFTEC's 11 Technology Innovation Blueprint sessions and the program noted that "EPA and WEF are convening working sessions throughout WEFTEC." We note that the EPA had direct involvement in the development of those sessions and provided technical expertise. Therefore, the EPA was a sponsor by its own definition. We made two recommendations to the Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management to monitor the remaining VERA-VSIP activities and determine the value of VERA-VSIP as a workforce tool. In response to the draft report, OARM agreed with the recommendations and provided corrective actions and 16 EPA-17-0432-L-000348 Org (GAO/ OIG) Report Name (Number) Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) Progress Can Show Value of Restructuring certain targeted positions. This helped the agency accomplish certain restructuring goals, including reducing the size of program and regional offices, reducing the number of highly graded positions, and eliminating surplus positions. Although progress has been made in filling positions designated for restructuring under VERAVSIP, not all workforce restructuring goals had been achieved at the time we concluded our review. Two of five EPA organizations we reviewed reported that all the VERA-VSIP-vacated positions planned for restructuring had been filled. Overall, approximately 80 percent of the positions (57 of 73) in our sample targeted for restructuring had been filled. Other VERA-VSIP goals-- such as increasing the number of staff per supervisor and obtaining staff with new skill sets-- were also not complete at the time we concluded our review. Further, there are limitations in determining whether goals for increasing the staff-per-supervisor ratio and changing organizational structure were met, because some EPA organizations did not specify a metric for their goals or an identifiable end point for restructuring. Specific metrics were not required by OPM. The EPA complied with OPM's reporting requirements during and immediately after the completion of the earlyouts and buyouts. In Report #17-P-0140, March 23, 2017 Applicable Office or Region and Program Finding completion dates. OIG and OARM representatives met to discuss the recommendations and agency response. Recommendations 1 and 2 are resolved and closed. We also received separate comments from Region 1, which we incorporated into the report as appropriate. Prior to issuing the final report we received supplemental comments and information from OARM and OW, which were incorporated into the report as appropriate. 17 EPA-17-0432-L-000349 Org (GAO/ OIG) Report Name (Number) Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) addition, the agency developed "hiring templates," which were designed to track the status of positions vacated through the buyouts, so that positions targeted for elimination were not refilled and positions targeted for restructuring were filled using different position descriptions. However, the agency did not have a system to monitor its progress in achieving all of the remaining VERA-VSIP goals. As a result, the agency could not assess the overall impact, effectiveness and value of VERA-VSIP as a workforce restructuring tool. Applicable Office or Region and Program Finding 18 EPA-17-0432-L-000350 PFAS Work Group Activity Summary Cross-Agency PFAS Human Health Toxicity Workgroup - August 30, 2017 o o o o Goal: Address public concerns and inform risk mitigation activities by filling data gaps related to human health toxicity Anticipated accomplishments: o characterize the available toxicity information for approximately 30 PFAS of interest to various program offices or regions o develop quantitative toxicity values for multiple PFAS, other than PFOA and PFOS o inform evidence-based decisions by EPA offices and regions regarding potential human health risks from ongoing or future exposures Anticipated upcoming milestones: o Defining a set of PFAS of interest to program offices and regions for toxicity evaluation: September 2017 o Complete focused, systematic literature search: September 2017 o Cross-Agency decision point for toxicity evaluation approach: Fall 2017 o Completion of white paper for toxicity evaluation: TBD o Conduct peer review: TBD o Finalize evaluation: TBD Agency leads: Workgroup co-chairs - Kathleen Raffaele (OLEM) and Lynn Flowers (ORD) PFAS Priorities: Cross-Agency Data Quality Workgroup - July 13, 2017 o o o Goal: Identify data quality issues and guidelines to establish laboratory data submission and national data validation procedures related to PFAS and LC/MS/MS. Anticipated accomplishments: o Develop guidance on data submission requirements from laboratories to allow adequate assessment of data quality, based on PFAS Methods (e.g., Method 537 for non-drinking water compliance data or other available EPA methods) o Develop guidance on validating PFAS data when using LC/MS/MS methods o Assist in addressing national data quality related issues concerning PFAS sampling or analysis Anticipated upcoming milestones: o Complete Interim Data Submission Guidance: December 2017 o Complete Interim Data Validation Guidance: December 2017 o Coordinate potential revisions based on newer approved methods (e.g., Direct Inject Method): TBD Agency leads: Workgroup co-chairs - Barry Pepich (Region 10), Cynthia Caporale (Region 3), 1 EPA-17-0432-L-000351 PFAS Priorities: Cross-Agency Methods Workgroup July 13, 2017 o o o Goal: Establish validated methods for measuring the amount of PFAS in different environmental media and for biomonitoring. Anticipated accomplishments: o Develop sampling standard operating procedures for environmental media other than drinking water o Validate EPA-developed methods for environmental media o Inform risk-based investigations and clean up decisions by EPA regions and HQ program offices Anticipated upcoming milestones: o Complete PFAS Groundwater Sampling SOP: December 2017 o Complete waters (besides drinking water) method internal validation and external validation for 24 PFAS analytes: December 2017 o Complete external validation of additional waters method: TBD o Coordinate potential revisions to PFAS analyte list in conjunction with toxicity workgroup: TBD o Prioritize solids method validation based on guidance from PFAS Steering Committee: TBD Agency leads: Workgroup co-chairs - Cynthia Caporale (Region 3), Christopher Impelliteri (ORD), and Schatzi Fitz-James (OLEM) o Note: This priority activity is one of the three existing PFAS working groups and closely coordinates with the data quality workgroup. 2 EPA-17-0432-L-000352 ... .o;o o o: o. Securing America's ..o.o o.. Future Energy : . . Fuel Economy Standards and an America First Energy Policy March 2017 Reforming and Strengthening Fuel Economy Standards In its 2006 report, Recommendations to the Nation on Reducing U.S. Oil Dependence, SAFE and the Energy Security Leadership Council (ESLC) proposed reforming and increasing fuel economy standards. Working with Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Larry Craig (R-ID), the White House and others, those efforts culminated in the passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which among other things required that beginning in MY 2011, fuel economy standards be reformed and increased to reach an average of 35 mpg by 2020. These rules were updated in 2012 and projected to reach a level equivalent to 54.5 mpg by MY 2025. Another important aspect of these rules was the commitment between EPA, NHTSA, and California to work together to establish a national program. SAFE continues to support the National Program and sees clear opportunities for improvement. Last year, SAFE encouraged EPA to consider several issues as part of the Midterm Evaluation (MTE). These included extending the incentive multiplier for advanced fuel vehicles, examining the future role of autonomous and connected vehicle technologies, exploring the role of carsharing, ridesharing and other new mobility models on vehicle usage and fuel savings, and adjusting the energy security analysis. SAFE urges the administration to examine opportunities to account for the greater efficiencies and reduced oil consumption resulting from actual vehicle usage, focusing on the modern transit system as a whole rather than continuing to regulate individual vehicles. The administration may also be interested in pilot efforts and coordinating with industry to test autonomous vehicle fleets. SAFE encourages regulators to do the following: ? ? ? Incentivize development of more efficient autonomous vehicles: Just as fuel efficiency standards have led to more efficient engines, regulators must develop ways to measure fuel efficiency implications of advanced driver assist features and autonomous vehicles, which will incentivize software developers to create self-driving algorithms that improve fuel efficiency. Account for the "off-cycle" benefits of autonomy: Once quantifiable, gains from autonomy-- such as reduced congestion due to better traffic routing and reduced accident frequency resulting from improved safety--should also be accounted for. Recognize the different use profiles of shared and privately-owned vehicles: A shared vehicle, autonomous or otherwise, may drive 10 times as many miles in a year than a privately-owned vehicle. Fuel efficiency standards should recognize the increased impact of shared vehicles and increase their representation in calculating fleet-wide average fuel economies. This could be accomplished by including a credit multiplier for vehicle sales to a fleet operator. Current Political and Regulatory Landscape In its final weeks, the Obama administration expedited its approval following technical review of the standards--the MTE--and found them to be appropriate for the regulatory period through 2025. Reports have surfaced that the Trump administration plans to officially reopen the MTE. Moreover, the New York Times reports that Trump has instructed EPA to begin legal proceedings to revoke an eight- EPA-17-0432-L-000353 year-old waiver for California that was allowing the state to enforce tougher tailpipe standards for its drivers. SAFE welcomes the opportunity to reform and modernize existing fuel economy standards. SAFE urges federal and state regulators to do the following: 1. Recommit to one national program, as it was negotiated for the current standard, and avoid competing regulations at the federal and state level. 2. If necessary, provide modest relief to the auto industry in the final years of the standards and extend the national program through 2030 and 2035. This approach provides stringency to meet environmental and energy security goals while providing longer-term regulatory certainty that benefits the automotive industry. 3. Modernize standards to incorporate new technologies (such as autonomous and semiautonomous vehicles) and business models (such as ridesharing). Moving towards regulating the entire mobility system over individual vehicles could increase reductions in oil demand while reducing regulatory burdens on companies. SAFE recommends incentives that will encourage more efficient vehicles to be used in high-utilization deployments, as one example. 4. Institute five-year reviews into the new program to ensure that regulations keep pace with current technologies, fuel prices, and market dynamics. 5. Rather than provide minor adjustments to the current framework, leverage the restored timeline to create rules that are smart, effective, and fully integrate modern technologies and business models. The Importance of Fuel Economy Almost 40 percent of U.S. energy demand is met by oil, giving it a significance unmatched by any other fuel. The transportation sector accounts for more than 70 percent of total U.S. oil consumption, of approximately 19 mbd. This sector relies on oil for 92 percent of its total energy consumption and has no readily available substitutes. There are roughly 240 million registered light-duty vehicles (LDVs) in the United States accounting for more than 60 percent of transportation sector oil consumption. Oil is a globally traded commodity, meaning that prices are affected by events in oil-producing and oilconsuming countries and regions around the world. The key consequence is that changes in oil supply or demand anywhere tend to affect prices everywhere. Because there are no readily available substitutes to oil in the U.S. transportation sector, the primary and near-term impact of changes in prices on the U.S. economy is through the amount of oil consumed, not the amount produced or imported. The global oil market is also frequently subject to unpredictable--and sometimes anticompetitive--behavior from oil-producing countries that supply it, most notably members of OPEC. Moreover, approximately three-quarters of the world's proved oil reserves are held by governmentowned national oil companies whose investment and production decisions are far removed from the free market ideal. Improved LDV fuel efficiency has been critically important to enhancing U.S. economic and national security since the early 1970s. Most importantly, observed vehicle fuel economy has improved by more than 86 percent, from 13.6 mpg in 1974 to 25.3 mpg in 2016 (though much of that progress was made between 1975 and 1986). While the United States has faced serious challenges as a nation over the past several decades as a result of its dependence on oil, these would have been more serious without the progress made in improving the fuel efficiency of LDVs. -.~1'.,: .. Securing America's -.~.!f-~o -Future Energy (C) 2016 Securing America's Future Energy. All rights reserved. Page 2 of 3 EPA-17-0432-L-000354 Conclusion: Energy Security is More Important than Politics It is critical to focus on winning the larger war to reduce U.S. oil dependence than getting bogged down in counterproductive legal and rhetorical battles. The approach outlined above will provide additional certainty to the benefit of all stakeholders--offering automakers greater flexibility to achieve the standards, while reducing oil demand at a faster pace by integrating new technology and providing greater consumer choice. The consequences of failure for the nation's energy security are severe and the benefits of reaching a compromise are significant. Every American president since Richard Nixon has sought to break U.S. oil dependence and achieve true energy security. Today, we have the opportunity to implement a strategy that protects the nation, creates jobs, protects human health and keeps America on the forefront of new technology. . : . ooo .- S . A . ' .ooftoo . ecurmg mencas Future Energy -.~.!f-~o - (C) 2016 Securing America's Future Energy. All rights reserved. Page 3 of 3 EPA-17-0432-L-000355 COUNCIL FOR NATIONAL POLICY The Next 100 Days Friday, May 19, 2017 Gold Circle, Board of Governors & New Members Brunch Event The Ritz-Carlton, Tysons Corner McLean, Virginia May 18-20, 2017 Exclusively for Members, Spouses and Official Visitors of the Gold Circle, Board of Governors and Executive Committee as well as New Members and Spouses 9:30 - 11:30 a.m. The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom, Salon III, Fifth Floor *Members will be notified of final program changes and additions on the CNP App.* Award Presentation Edwin Meese III Award for Originalism & Religious Liberty, Alliance Defending Freedom Thursday, May 18, 2017 Gold Circle Reception & Dinner Recipients The Honorable Dan Forest Lieutenant Governor, State of North Carolina Exclusively for Members and Spouses of the Gold Circle and Executive Committee United States Capitol 4:00 - 10:00 p.m. Mr. Alan E. Sears, Esq. Founder, Alliance Defending Freedom Featured Speaker The Honorable Paul Ryan Speaker of the House and Member (WI-1) U.S. House of Representatives Thanks to Our Sponsors Alan Sears and Mike Farris Schedule 4:00 p.m. ~ Gather in Hotel Arrival Lobby, First Floor 4:15 p.m. ~ Buses Depart 5:30 p.m. ~ Reception 6:30 p.m. ~ Dinner & Program 9:00 p.m. ~ Depart Capitol 10:00 p.m. ~ Return to The Ritz-Carlton, Tysons Corner ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM William F. Buckley Jr. Council Meeting Exclusively for Members, Spouses and Official Visitors of the Buckley Council 10:00 - 11:30 a.m. Old Dominion Room, Fourth Floor Special Guest Dr. Edwin J. Feulner, Jr. Founder, The Heritage Foundation Friday, May 19, 2017 Executive Committee Meeting Exclusively for Members of the Executive Committee Light Lunch 8:00 - 9:30 a.m. Colonnade Room, Sixth Floor Open to All Attendees Open Seating in the Ballroom Foyer and on the Terrace 11:00 - 11:45 a.m. The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom Foyer, Fifth Floor Meeting Registration All Attendees Should Visit the CNP Registration Desk Prior to Attending Any Sessions 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom Foyer, Fifth Floor 1 EPA-17-0432-L-000356 Friday, May 19, 2017 General Session Friday, May 19, 2017 d Open to All Attendees 12:00 - 3:00 p.m. The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom, Salons I & II, Fifth Floor CNP Action .Inc. Do We Still Have a Constitution? 12:00 - 12:15 p.m. d Sponsored by CNP Action, Inc. Open to All Attendees 3:30 - 5:00 p.m. The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom, Salon I, Fifth Floor Welcome (Nf> lldlOll l nc. Action Session I Facilitator The Honorable Edwin Meese III Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow Emeritus The Heritage Foundation Candidate Introductions 12:15 - 12:25 p.m. Participants Mr. Charles J. Cooper Founding Member and Chairman Cooper & Kirk, PLLC Member & Visitor Introductions 12:25 - 1:15 p.m. General Session Speaker Mrs. Carrie Severino Chief Counsel and Policy Director Judicial Crisis Network 1:15 - 1:45 p.m. Capitol Hill Update Mr. Kelly J. Shackelford, Esq. President and CEO, First Liberty Institute The Honorable Mark Walker Chairman, Republican Study Committee Member (NC-6), U.S. House of Representatives ({ General Session Speaker CNP Action .Inc. Action Session II Sponsored by CNP Action, Inc. Open to All Attendees 3:30 - 5:00 p.m. The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom, Salon II, Fifth Floor 1:45 - 2:15 p.m. The Honorable Steve Scalise Majority Whip and Member (LA-1) U.S. House of Representatives Draining the Swamp: Fighting the Deep State Facilitator Mr. Thomas Fitton President, Judicial Watch, Inc. General Session Speaker 2:15 - 2:45 p.m. The Honorable E. Scott Pruitt Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Break Networking Room Catholic Caucus Meeting 5:00 - 6:00 p.m. 5:00 - 6:00 p.m. Boardroom, Sixth Floor 3:00 - 3:30 p.m. The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom, Salon III, Fifth Floor Thanks to Our Sponsors Lee Roy and Tandy Mitchell, Gold Circle Members 2 EPA-17-0432-L-000357 Friday, May 19, 2017 Evening Reception Saturday, May 20, 2017 Meeting Registration Open to All Attendees 7:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom Foyer, Fifth Floor 6:00 - 6:45 p.m. The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom Foyer, Fifth Floor Buffet Breakfast Thanks to Our Reception Sponsor Steve Hotze, M.D. Founder and CEO, Hotze Health and Wellness Center Author, Hypothyroidism, Health II Open to All Attendees Open Seating in the Ballroom O T Z E 7:30 - 9:30 a.m. The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom Foyer, Fifth Floor HEALTH & WELLNESS CENTER I I I I I A I IO I Al & Happiness Complimentary Copies Available for Signing Welcome & Member Reports Beer Tasting Hosted by: 8:20 - 10:00 a.m. The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom, Salons I & II, Fifth Floor Open to All Attendees Jeff and Amy Frederick Brew Republic Bierwerks Networking Room Dinner Seating 9:30 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom, Salon III, Fifth Floor 6:45 - 7:10 p.m. Thanks to Our Sponsors Assigned Seating for All Attendees Lee Roy and Tandy Mitchell, Gold Circle Members Evening Session Break Open to All Attendees 7:10 - 9:30 p.m. The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom, Salons I & II, Fifth Floor 10:00 - 10:15 a.m. General Session Welcome 7:10 - 7:15 p.m. Open to All Attendees Dinner 7:15 - 8:45 p.m. 10:15 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom, Salons I & II, Fifth Floor Award Presentation 8:45 - 9:30 p.m. General Session Speaker Mrs. Kellyanne Conway, Esq. Counselor to the President Recipient, Richard M. DeVos Free Enterprise Award for Exceptional Leadership Dr. Frank Luntz Founder and Chairman, Luntz Global 10:30 - 11:00 a.m. General Session Panel 11:00 a.m. - 12:15 p.m. Dessert Reception Foreign Policy & National Defense Discussion Open to All Attendees 9:30 - 10:30 p.m. The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom Foyer, Fifth Floor Participants Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin (Ret.) Executive Vice President Family Research Council Thanks to Our Sponsor Robert Alt The Buckeye Institute @ THE BUCKEYE INSTITUTE Mr. Herman Pirchner, Jr. Founding President American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC) Prayer Service Open to All Attendees 10:00 - 11:00 p.m. Colonnade Room, Sixth Floor 3 EPA-17-0432-L-000358 Saturday, May 20, 2017 Light Lunch Saturday, May 20, 2017 CNP Action, Inc. Board Meeting Open to All Attendees Open Seating in the Networking Room & Ballroom Foyer CNP Action .Inc. 3:30 - 4:30 p.m. Boardroom, Sixth Floor 12:45 - 1:30 p.m. The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom, Salon III, Fifth Floor Thanks to Our Sponsor Joan Lindsey Lindsey Communications ({ CNP Action .Inc. lindsey Catholic Mass 1munications Open to All Attendees b1ogra~ c;a/ mark t 1g programs 4:30 - 5:30 p.m. The Plaza Room, Sixth Floor Action Session I Celebrant Father Frank Pavone National Director, Priests for Life Sponsored by CNP Action, Inc. Open to All Attendees 1:30 - 3:00 p.m. The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom, Salon I, Fifth Floor Evening Reception Social Media's Impact on the Political Process Open to All Attendees Facilitator Mr. Michael W. Thompson, Jr. Senior Vice President, CRC Public Relations ({ CNP Action .Inc. Exclusively for Members of the CNP Action, Inc. Board of Directors 6:00 - 6:45 p.m. The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom Foyer, Fifth Floor Beer Tasting Hosted by: Jeff and Amy Frederick Brew Republic Bierwerks Action Session II Sponsored by CNP Action, Inc. Open to All Attendees 1:30 - 3:00 p.m. The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom, Salon II, Fifth Floor Dinner Seating Rein in Regulatory Overreach: The Power of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) 6:45 - 7:10 p.m. Assigned Seating for All Attendees Evening Session Facilitator Mr. Robert Alt President and CEO, The Buckeye Institute Open to All Attendees 7:10 - 9:30 p.m. The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom, Salons I & II, Fifth Floor Participants Mr. Todd F. Gaziano Executive Director, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Law Pacific Legal Foundation - DC Center Welcome 7:10 - 7:30 p.m. Dinner 7:30 - 8:45 p.m. Dr. Paul S. Teller Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs, The White House Program 8:45 - 9:30 p.m. Break Dessert Reception 3:00 - 6:00 p.m. ({ CNP Action .Inc. Open to All Attendees 9:30 - 10:30 p.m. The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom Foyer, Fifth Floor Social Media Training Thanks to Our Sponsor Sponsored by CNP Action, Inc. Open to All Attendees TIMOTHY Art Ally Timothy Partners, Ltd., Advisor to Timothy Plan 3:30 - 5:00 p.m. The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom, Salon I, Fifth Floor Facilitator Mr. Michael W. Thompson, Jr. Senior Vice President, CRC Public Relations Prayer Service Open to All Attendees 10:00 - 11:00 p.m. The Plaza Room, Sixth Floor 4 EPA-17-0432-L-000359 PLAN Sunday, May 21, 2017 Continental Breakfast & Worship Service Open to All Attendees Casual Attire 7:30 - 9:30 a.m. The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom, Salon III, Fifth Floor Breakfast 7:30 a.m. Worship Service 8:00 a.m. Message Dr. Gary D. Frazier Executive Vice President, United in Purpose 5 EPA-17-0432-L-000360 COUNCIL FOR NATIONAL POLICY Standard Speaker Guidelines Regarding Political Activity Council for National Policy (CNP) is exempt from federal income tax under ?501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. As such, it cannot "participate in, or intervene in (including through the making of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." This restriction applies only to election campaigns, and does not apply to lobbying activities regarding legislation or ballot initiatives or referendums (in which the public is the legislature). CNP Action, Inc. is exempt from federal income tax under ?501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. As such, it may engage in political activity to some extent, but such activity CNPAction.Inc. may not be its primary activity. However, under federal and state election laws, both CNP and CNP Action, Inc. are prohibited from making direct and in-kind contributions to or on behalf of federal and many state candidates, and both are subject to limits on the extent to which they may refer to candidates (even in discussions of public policy issues) during certain pre-election periods. ({ To help CNP and CNP Action, Inc. ensure that they comply with the requirements of ?501(c)(3) and ?501(c)(4), respectively, and with federal and state election laws, without compromising their message, CNP and CNP Action, Inc. respectfully request that you observe the following guidelines regarding political activity when you participate in any activity sponsored by CNP and CNP Action, Inc. Speakers: In any public presentation at an event sponsored by CNP and CNP Action, Inc., please do not endorse or denigrate any candidate for public office, or any political party, and do not use legislative issues in order to comment on, otherwise attempt to affect, any election. Favorable comments about a candidate's past actions as a private citizen or public official should be avoided if a reasonable person would construe them as an endorsement of his candidacy. Candidates: If you are a candidate for elective public office, please avoid any mention of your candidacy, or any impending election. Please do not conduct any fundraising or distribute any campaign literature on CNP's premises or at any event sponsored by CNP and CNP Action, Inc., and do not otherwise use CNP's resources, e.g., office equipment and supplies, for your campaign. Officeholders: In some cases, CNP and CNP Action, Inc. invites public officials to speak at or attend an event because of the office you hold in federal, state, or local government, and not because you are or may be a candidate for re-election, or for election to another public office. At such events, please do not engage in campaign activity, or otherwise suggest that your presence indicates endorsement of your incumbency or candidacy (if any), or opposition to your opponent (if any), by CNP and CNP Action, Inc. Others: Please do not distribute campaign literature, conduct fundraising activities, or otherwise engage in political activity immediately before, during, or immediately after any event sponsored by CNP and CNP Action, Inc. Thank you for your consideration. Your participation in any event sponsored by CNP and CNP Action, Inc. indicates that you have agreed to observe these guidelines. If you have any questions about the meaning or application of these guidelines, please contact Bob McEwen at (202) 207-0165. 444 NORTH CAPITOL PHONE STREET, (202) 207-0165 o FAX 830 o WASHINGTON, DC 20001 (202) 207-0173 o E-MAIL CNP@CFNP.ORG EPA-17-0432-L-000361 NWo SUITE CO UNCIL FOR N ATIONAL PO LICY May 5, 2017 The Honorable E. Scott Pru itt Administrator U.S. Environmenta l Pr otection Agency Office of the Administrator -1 101A 1200 Pennsy lvania Avenue , N.W. Wash ington , DC 20460 Dear Admin istra t or Pruitt: Thanks for accepting ou r invitatio n to speak at the May 18-20, 2017 Council for Nationa l Policy meet ing at The Ritz-Carlton , Tysons Cor ner in McLean , Virginia . Th is letter w ill esta blish the p re liminary details of yo ur pr ese ntatio n. Please review and respond to the information on the following page s at your earliest convenience . Included in this document is a copy of our st andard speaker release and ~uidelines form. Followi n g meetings , we distri b ute r ecor dings of spea k er rema r ks to members and guests an d occasiona lly p ost r emar ks to our webs ite . Howeve r , we on ly do these things with your pr ior ap proval. If you're will ing to have your rema r ks r ecorded and release d, please sign an d return the form by email t o amy@cf n p.org or by fax to (202) 207 -0173 . Oth erwise , we w ill record for archiva l purposes only and will send you a cop y. On ce again , we're gratefu l for yo ur participat ion, and I loo k forward to worki ng with y ou . Warmest r egards, Amy D. Greene Direct or of Programs 444 NW o S UITE 830 o W ASHINGTON,DC 20001 EPA-17-0432-L-000362 (202) 207-0 165 o FAX (202) 207-0 173 o E-MA I L CNP@CFNP.O RG N ORTH C APITOL STREET, PH ONE Council for National Policy First Confirmation The Honorable E. Scott Pruitt May 18-20, 2017 Presentation Specifics: Date: Friday, May 19, 2017 Location: The Ritz-Carlton, Tysons Corner 1700 Tysons Boulevard McLean, Virginia 22102 Phone: (703) 506-4300 www.ritzcarlton.com/tysons Point of Contact: Amy Greene, Amy@cfnp.org Work: (202) 207-0165 Cell: (b) (6) Room: The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom, Salons I & II, Fifth Floor Presentation Time: 2:15 - 2:45 PM (25 total minutes for remarks and Q&A) Title: Please send a title for your remarks. Audio/Visual Needs: Microphone and Podium (let me know if you need anything additional such as a lapel microphone or PowerPoint/video capabilities) Introducer: TBD Additional Information: Dress for CNP meetings is business attire * Please arrive at least 30 minutes before the start of your presentation. We do our best to keep the program running on schedule and can only be successful when all speakers arrive on time. Please send the following information: o o o o Preferred Program Listing (Full Name, Position Title, Organization/Company) Short Narrative Biography (Approximately 150 words) RSVP for Meals You Plan to Attend: Friday Brunch (9:30-11:30 am) ___yes ___no Friday Reception & Dinner (6:00-9:30 pm) ___yes ___no Saturday Breakfast Buffet (7:30-9:30 am) ___yes ___no Saturday Reception & Dinner (6:00-9:30 pm) ___yes ___no Name of Person Accompanying You (circle or add appropriate title): Mr./Mrs./Miss/Dr._______________________________________________ EPA-17-0432-L-000363 Council for National Policy First Confirmation The Honorable E. Scott Pruitt May 18-20, 2017 Speaker Contact Information: Please review your contact information below for accuracy and make any necessary updates. Please list the best cell phone number on which to reach you the day of your presentation. All contact information will remain confidential. Phone Number and Email: Work Phone: (b) (6) Work Email: hupp.sydney@epa.gov Cell Phone: - Mailing Address: Please let me know if the below address is current. The Honorable E. Scott Pruitt Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Administrator - 1101A 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 EPA-17-0432-L-000364 Council for National Policy Speaker Release & Speaker Guidelines Form The Honorable E. Scott Pruitt May 18-20, 2017 Speaker Release Form I authorize the Council for National Policy to distribute recordings and/or printed versions, including posting on our website, of the presentation entitled "Remarks" presented by The Honorable E. Scott Pruitt at the May 18-20, 2017 meeting of the Council for National Policy. Speaker Guidelines I acknowledge that I have read and agree to observe CNP's Standard Speaker Guidelines Document Regarding Political Activity. ________________________________________ The Honorable E. Scott Pruitt _________________________________ Date Please sign this page and return it to the attention of Amy Greene by email (Amy@cfnp.org) or fax (202-207-0173). EPA-17-0432-L-000365 ADMINISTRATOR PRUITT SPEAKER REQUEST FORM U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Deadline for Acceptance: May 1, 2017 Event Title: Council for National Policy Meeting Speech Date: Is the Above Date Flexible: May 19 or 20 No Speech Time & Duration: May 19 at 1:45 pm or 2:15 pm; May 20 at 11:00 am or 11:30 am; May 20 Evening Session (reception at 6:00 pm, dinner at 7:00 pm, remarks preferably after dinner). Remarks would be 25 minutes at any of these opportunities. Speaker Requested: Administrator Scott Pruitt Would You Consider a Surrogate: No Event Location: The Ritz-Carlton, Tysons Corner 1700 Tysons Blvd, McLean, Virginia 22102 703-506-4300 The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom, Salons I & II, Fifth Floor Open Press/Closed Press: Closed Is Event Webcast/Recorded/Transcribed: Recorded - audio & video. If a release is signed, we will share it with our members. If a release is not signed, we will record for archival purposes only. Purpose of the Event: CNP is the premier conservative membership organization comprised of more than 400 of America's most influential leaders. These educational events are held three times each year to build coalitions, strengthen the conservative movement, and thus seek to restore our nation to its founding principles. Speech Topic: Challenges and Opportunities at EPA - how Conservatives can help you achieve your policy objectives. Requested Presentation Format: Keynote (possibly with Q&A) Dress Code: Business Speech/Presentation Duration: 25 Minutes Teleprompter Available: No Microphone / Room Setup: Podium with Microphone (lapel can be requested). Two large screens on either side of the ballroom - tables will either be classroom or rounds, depending upon when the Administrator speaks. Event Sponsor: Council for National Policy (some of our members sponsor various portions of the event, such as our dessert receptions/lunches). I'm happy to share those, if necessary. They do not have any control, however, over planning of the event or program. Relationship to the EPA: N/A Page 1 of 2 EPA-17-0432-L-000366 ADMINI STRATOR PR UITT SPEAKER REQ UE ST FORM U.S. E nvironmental Protection Agency E vent Agenda/Program: Attached to email. Honorable Gue sts Attending: Congres sman Mark Walk er, Kellyanne Conway (counselor to the president), others TBD Notable Federal , State or Local Appointed or E lected official s attending : TBD Individual Introducing Admini strator: Person to contact fo1. speechwriting purpo ses: Person to contact fo1. media purpo ses: _TB _D________________________ Amy Greene Am cfu .org N IA ---------------------------- Origin of Invitation : Tony Perkins (CNP Pre sident) Bob McEwen (CNP Executive Director) BobMcEwen cfup.org Da y of Event Point of Contact: Amy Greene Am cfu .org Securi ty Contact : _ o I :.t. I I I I :_ (b) (6) Is the organi zati on or host of th e event a registered 501(c)(3), (4), or ha s a 527 Political Action ColDlllittee (PA C) : 501c3 Will the r e be a pre sentati on of a " gift " to th e Admini str ato r? No__________________________ If so, what is the US curr enc y value of the gift ? NIA ________________________ Will a meal be pr ovide d, if so what is the US ------------------------_ _ If he speaks at dinn er , yes. Appr oximatel y $125. A more accu r ate cost can be given once th e menu is finalized. _____________ _ cun ency value ? Please return this form complet ed to scheduling @epa .gov and Sydne y Hupp (hupp .svd nev@e pa .gov). EPA-17-0432-L-000367 ~ TH E Scotts Miracle-Gro COM P ANY Jim King Senior Vice President Chief Communications Officer 14111 Scottslawn Road Marysville, OH 43041 p 937.644.0011 April 14, 2017 John Zadrozny Domestic Policy Council Executive Office of the President Eisenhower Executive Office Building 1650 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20502 Mr. Zadrozny, Once again I want to express my appreciation for your time last week and the invitation to share our thoughts and recommendations about creating a more efficient regulatory environment for our business to operate. The willingness of this Administration to gather input from companies like ScottsMiracle-Gro is refreshing. As I shared with you when we met, we often feel as if President Trump is talking about our company when he discusses the burden of an uncompetitive tax rate and the time consuming and costly regulatory framework that has grown worse over time. To be sure, these challenges have made it more difficult to grow our business. I remain hopeful that we can create an ongoing dialogue with the Administration on these and other topics, including direct interaction between President Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt with our CEO, Jim Hagedorn, as well as myself and other members of our leadership team. Our company, which has employees in 42 states and derives more than 90 percent of its profit from the United States, has been operating in Marysville, Ohio since 1868 and is home to some of America's most iconic brands. I am confident our knowledge of the consumer marketplace would be valuable in the broader discussion of driving a higher level of economic growth. We share the thoughts outlined in this document with a simple goal in mind: to drive higher growth that allows us to increase our investment in innovation, which will drive even more growth that enables us to create jobs, enhance shareholder value and support the communities where we live and work. All of these will play a role in stimulating the American economy. Before I share our recommendations, I want to reinforce an important point: We support a robust regulatory framework that protects consumers and the environment. As the leader in the lawn and garden industry, we know our consumers physically interact with the environment every time they use our products. As gardeners ourselves, we share their love of nature. As a responsible corporate citizen, we also support the work of environmental groups around the country as evidenced by our formal partnerships with more than twenty environmental NGOs. These are among the reasons we also support the dedicated work of the career staff of the EPA who work every day to support the Agency's mission. We are especially appreciative of those who work in the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs, which operates a critical product-licensing program that is essential to the success of our business. EPA-17-0432-L-000368 With that said, we respectfully submit that the Agency's approach has grown overly burdensome with time. This has made it more difficult for consumers to make informed decisions and more costly and complicated than necessary to bring new products to market. Finally, we submit that some of the regulation in our industry serves no useful purpose at all and could be eliminated, benefitting U.S. taxpayers without risking consumer safety or the environment. It is through that perspective that we offer these four recommendations: 1) Improve the pesticide label to help the consumer We constantly are evaluating ways to improve our interactions with consumers. Our product labels provide the most direct way to communicate. We respectfully submit that the EPA's approach to product labeling is often unclear to the public and makes it more difficult for consumers to learn about products so they can make informed purchase decisions. This view is reinforced by consumer research that tells us the following: ? Consumers view pesticides as a necessity and not a discretionary purchase. However, roughly 30 percent of them walk away without making a purchase in part because they are confused about what to buy. ? More than 60 percent of consumers want to know the product they are buying is safe for use around their children or pets. This question is on their minds when they shop and they expect the label easily answer this question. ? More than 40 percent of consumers have difficulty deciding which pesticide to buy. They want the product label to help them conduct a side-by-side comparison of pesticide products when making a purchase, just like they do with most other household products. We submit that these consumer frustrations exist, in part, because of the EPA's labeling requirements. To improve consumer knowledge, we suggest the following improvements: ? ? ? Allow the use of consumer friendly language instead of scientific phrases and jargon that most consumers do not understand. Labels intended for consumer use are required to have the same language as those purchased in agriculture, where the purchaser is far more knowledgeable about the product and active ingredient. This one-size-fits-all approach negatively impacts the ability of consumers to make informed decisions. The adoption of "Plain English" standards should be applied to consumer pesticide labels. Allow for clear communication of product benefits, including claims like "safer for the environment." Product improvements like safer active ingredients often come at a higher cost to the manufacturer. Because EPA guidelines prohibit the use of words like "safer," the consumer has no way of gaining this knowledge. This creates an economic disincentive to innovate because the prohibitive language makes it difficult to convince consumers these products warrant a higher price. Eliminate unnecessary language on the label that intimidates consumers, prompting many of them to not read the label at all. Our research tells us that a small percentage of consumers fully read the label of a pesticide before using it, and research conducted by EPA supports this position. We believe the number of words on most labels could be significantly reduced and actually improve the label at the same time. This would result in more consumers reading and understanding the directions prior to use. EPA-17-0432-L-000369 Established in 1868, Marysville, OH Consumer pesticides are subject to different standards than other consumer products used around the home. Many items used in American households are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which is charged with protecting consumers from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard. Many of these products also have some level of risk associated with them. In fact, some are actually far more toxic than many pesticides sold to American consumers. Despite this fact, these products are not subject to the same overly restrictive language that is required on EPA approved labels. This inconsistency makes no sense. For the purpose of this discussion only, we have taken the liberty to redesign some current labels to highlight what they might look like if developed to conform with CPSC requirements. These are attached in a separate document and we welcome the opportunity to explain why such changes would be so important in our industry. 2) Make clear that the FTC, not EPA, regulates advertising The challenges outlined above are made even more difficult because of the EPA's ever-expanding view of its jurisdiction over advertising, including digital communications such as websites and social media platforms. We disagree with this view and submit this is a clear overreach not supported by law. Nonetheless, the Agency has recently litigated against a registrant for truthful claims made in television commercials because those claims were not part of the approved EPA label. Registrants need to be able to communicate effectively with their consumers including a description of how and to what extent their products work, particularly in comparison to competing products. EPA seems less concerned with the veracity of the claims - i.e. whether or not they can in fact be substantiated - and more concerned about whether or not they were "approved" on the Master Label. EPA takes this position despite a policy prohibiting the approval of comparative claims on the Master Label and even though EPA waives the requirement for registrants to submit efficacy data to support many performance claims on the pesticide label. The waiver was implemented in an attempt to conserve agency resources so that EPA is not bogged down in reviewing extensive studies and literature to support every possible claim that a registrant may want to make. EPA's recent view of its jurisdiction on advertising not only undermines this prudent attempt to conserve resources but leaves registrants with two options: (1) submit each and every proposed advertising performance claim for review and approval on the Master Label, requiring EPA to incur the cost of reviewing each to ensure they are supported by reliable scientific data, meanwhile significantly slowing down the registration process; or (2) elect not to submit such claims to EPA and face potential compliance challenges any time the registrant wishes to communicate to its consumers how the product works, even where such claims are truthful. This issue is presenting an even greater challenge in the rapidly evolving area of social media when consumers require instantaneous and truthful answers from the companies with whom they conduct business. A consumer standing at the retail shelf who Tweets the question "is this product safe to use around my dog?" should receive a simple answer, whether it be "yes" or "no." If the answer is "no," then the consumer should expect the company to offer the suggestion "use Product X instead." Clearly, what American consumers in an era of social media do not want are complicated answers that are written by lawyers in order to comply with overreach from the federal government. As nearly one-third of our marketing dollars are now committed to digital communications, it is imperative that this issue be resolved in a way that reflects the reality of today's technology driven world. To that end, we respectfully submit the following: EPA-17-0432-L-000370 Established in 1868, Marysville, OH ? The Administration should make clear that authority for advertising and digital communications resides exclusively with the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC exists to protect the public from false and misleading advertising claims, and is therefore duplicative to what the EPA is also trying to regulate. Clarity on this issue would save EPA registrants literally millions of dollars annually and greatly improve our relationship and reputation with the consumers who buy our products. 3) Fix the Registration Process The EPA has an important mandate to protect consumers and the environment under the federal pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). It takes years of research and resources to obtain approval from EPA of an initial product registration. We believe this rigor is justified. That said, the process for amending, revising or updating an existing registration is inflexible and simply broken. These problems have grown worse in recent years as the Agency, we respectfully submit, has overreached its authority and/or reduced staffing in critical areas. These actions have created unnecessary and expensive delays in bringing products to market and created an uncertain business climate for companies operating in under this regulatory framework, including ScottsMiracle-Gro. In 2004, we supported the creation of PRIA (Pesticide Registration Improvement Act) a fee-for-service structure that allows industry to help defray the costs of the agency to register products and established statutory timelines for decisions. This support does not imply an expectation that EPA will approve every application, but that it will provide a 'yes' or 'no' response in a timely fashion. Because PRIA activities are reported to Congress annually, there is a public scorecard to demonstrate whether EPA is meeting its timelines. While PRIA has largely worked as designed, those areas of the registration process that fall outside of PRIA have suffered demonstrably. EPA staff has told us that limited resources are often shifted to focus on PRIA activities because of the reporting requirement to Congress. This reallocation of resources has meant that processes known as "Notifications" and, ironically, "Fast Track Amendments" - which are designed to accommodate minor changes to previously approved labels - have become bogged down in bureaucracy. At a high level, "notifications" were created to execute non-substantive changes to a registration, typically the modification of a few words on a previously approved product label. In recent years, the Agency has given itself the right to use the notification process to re-evaluate the label in its entirety, even though companies self-certify that no other changes have been made to that label. Fast Track Amendments are exactly what the name implies: a quick (no more than 90 days) process to make slightly more extensive changes to labels already approved by the EPA. These tasks also are not tracked under the PRIA guidelines. At present, our company has five pending "Fast Track" amendments where decisions are four to six months late. Given the seasonal nature of our business, these delays cost a full business cycle, perhaps even two, before we can make a routine change to a previously approved label. To remedy these problems, we respectfully submit two possible solutions: ? Hold the Agency accountable for the deadlines established in FIFRA regardless of whether those actions are included in a scorecard reported to Congress. This change will create a more EPA-17-0432-L-000371 Established in 1868, Marysville, OH ? stable and predictable business climate, allowing registrants to create sales and marketing plans that are often done in conjunction with retail outlets or other business partners such as distributors. Expand the entire registration process to allow a broader fee-based system so long it has established and rigid guidelines. This approach already exists under PRIA and would essentially create a cost neutral outcome for the Agency. The action would likely draw the support from others in industry as it would provide a higher level of predictability, even if this concept is only applied to a set of registrations or amendment processes. 4) Streamline Processes and Paperwork The EPA has the important job of protecting the public and it has a number of functions specifically designed towards that purpose. Over time, that mission has wandered and diverged into processes and paperwork that, we submit, no longer serve those end goals. We propose eliminating these activities to save extraneous efforts and realign them to more productive outcomes. ? ? Modify the regulation of the Registration Review process for all active ingredients and instead utilize the process only when there is evidence of a need of review. The Registration Review process requires that all active ingredients be reviewed every fifteen years. These reviews are required by statute and are performed regardless of whether new science has been presented that would suggest a new review is actually warranted. In other words, most active ingredients sold in the market today have been repeatedly reviewed and re-registered by the Agency, a redundant, timeconsuming and costly process. It takes a team of EPA personnel to process this work, which seldom results in a change from previous conclusions. We suggest that such reviews only be conducted when significant new information about an active ingredient becomes known to the Agency. Eliminating this process would allow the Agency to reassign the majority of the staff doing this work to perform other tasks that support the mission of the Agency. For example, recent questions about the potential impact of a class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids on bee health triggered a special review, which is still ongoing. This example highlights that this approach would allow EPA to address pressing questions about registered products while eliminating reviews that may not be needed at that time. Eliminate select forms and reporting that does not add value to the core EPA mission of protecting the environment. In addition to streamlining processes, eliminating forms and paperwork that do not protect the public or provide any additional information needed by the Agency would provide additional resources for the most important functions. We would suggest the following reports and forms be immediately ended to allow EPA to focus on other important tasks: Final Printed Labels (FPLs), Foreign Purchaser Acknowledgement Statements (FPAS), Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage Report and Pesticide Establishment Reporting. Before closing, I want to reiterate our belief that regulation in our industry is important and that we support a healthy and well-funded EPA, especially the Office of Pesticide Programs. After leaving your office last week, I also met with newly appointed members of the EPA staff who said the Agency intends to recommit itself to a science-based approach to regulation and conduct business within the framework of existing law. Such an approach would be a refreshing change. As I have stated many times in this memo, we respectfully submit that the Agency has given itself more authority in recent years and has overstepped the authority that was actually intended by Congress. EPA-17-0432-L-000372 Established in 1868, Marysville, OH I am hopeful that the completeness of the explanations I have provided you in this document show the seriousness with which we view these issues. As the largest seller of lawn and garden pesticides to consumers in the U.S., we know a productive relationship with the EPA is critical to our ongoing success. However, we agree whole-heartedly with President Trump that businesses like ours have become overly burdened by costly and unnecessary regulation. Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide our thoughts to you. I will reach out to you in the days ahead and look forward to the opportunity to share our views with other members of the Administration, including Administrator Pruitt and members of his leadership team. I believe we can participate in a constructive and productive discussion on how to improve and enhance EPA operations to best serve our citizens and protect the environment. Sincerely, Jim King Senior Vice President, Corporate Affairs Chief Communications Officer The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company EPA-17-0432-L-000373 Established in 1868, Marysville, OH Threat Coordination Group September 28, 2017 Meeting Agenda 5355 North o Discussion of Purpose o Information Sharing o Sharing Protocols o Expectations of the Group EPA-17-0432-L-000374 Threat Working Group Agenda July 7, 2017 11:00 - 11:30 Location : 6426C OHS O Conference Room Remote Call-in: OHS host establishe s call atRemote caller s call OHS host must enter Conference Extension then Leader Code Remote Callers mu st enter Conference Extensio ) then Participant Code- 1. We lcome 2. Upcom ing Activi t ies 3. General Discussion 4. Final Comments 5. Adjo urn EPA-17-0432-L-000375 Threat Working Group Agenda July 20, 2017 11:00 - 11:30 Location : 6426C OHS O Conference Room Remote Call-in: OHS host establishe s call at-; Remote caller s call OHS host must enter Conference Extension then Leader Code Remote Callers mu st enter Conference Extension then Participant Code- 1. We lcome 2. Upcom ing Activi t ies 3. General Discussion 4. Final Comments 5. Adjo urn EPA-17-0432-L-000376 Threat Working Group Agenda March 31, 2017 11:00 - 11:30 Location : 6426C OHS O Conference Room Remote Call-in: OHS host establishe s call at-; Remote caller s call OHS host must enter Conference Extension then Leader Code Remote Callers must enter Conference Extension then Participant Code- 1. We lcome 2. Upcom ing Activi t ies 3. General Discussion 4. Final Comments 5. Adj ourn EPA-17-0432-L-000377 Threat Working Group Agenda February 17, 2017 11:00 - 11:30 Location: Remote Call-in OHS host establishe s call at[IDJGJJ; Remote callers call OHS host must enter Conference Extension then Leader Code Remote Callers mu st enter Conference Exten sio 1. Welcome 2. Upcoming Activities 4. General Discussion 5. Final Comments 6. Adj ourn EPA-17-0432-L-000378 US EPA - ScottsMiracle-Gro Meeting Tuesday June 27, 2017 Attendees from The ScottsMiracle-Gro Company: 1) The Honorable Steve Johnson, Former US EPA Administrator and Member, Board of Directors, The ScottsMiracle-Gro Company 2) Jim King, Senior Vice President, Corporate Affairs, The ScottsMiracle-Gro Company 3) Ann Aquillo, Vice President, Corporate Affairs, The ScottsMiracle-Gro Company Topics for Discussion 1) Introductions and Brief Company Overview 2) Regulatory Reform Suggestions for Consideration by the US EPA: We submitted a letter to the White House in April 2017 which provides background on the topics listed below. We also will bring some examples to show labels can be improved for the consumer. a. Improve the pesticide label to help the consumer b. Make clear that the FTC, not EPA, regulates advertising c. Fix the Registration process d. Streamline processes and paperwork 3) 24c Update: We would like to discuss the use of the SLN process to help address unique needs in key states related to pesticide use. EPA-17-0432-L-000379 Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center St Paul, VA Powers 150 ,000 hom e s Brief Fac ts o Net generating capacity Is 600-megawans. o Commercial op erations began July 2012. o Uses coal and up to 20 percent biomass (up to 537.000 tons/year) for i..s fuel. providing 117-megawatts o The station gen e'a tes abou t $6 mi llion a year in annual property tax paymen ts to Wise County and St Paul. and $25 rn1llion annually for the local economy . o VCHEC is part of our respons e to meeti ng a proIect ed growth in demand for elec tricny of 4,000-megawatts from cus tomers by 2022. or enough electnc 1ty to power one mill ion homes. o The facility contains enough conc rete 10 fill a foo tball field 35 feet high enough struct ural steel 10 equal the we ight of 9,646 automobiles. plus 45 miles of piping and 639 m iles of elec trical w iring . SPEC IAL FEAT UR E - Use o f Wa s t e Coa l in M ajor Clea n-up Pro je ct Uhbrary/domcom/p dfs/electnc-genera11on/fossil/vchec-gob-cleanup -prese ntation-0720 16.pd f ?la=en)Dornin1on Energy, government agencies and a company that spec ializes In removing waste coal are completing a maIor clean-up project rn Southwes t Virginia dunng the sum me r of 2016. protecting the Clinch River and reclaim ing a marred slope of land by removi ng thousands of tons of otherwrse worthless " gob " coal and usrng n to make electrrcrty at the Virg 1nra City Hybrid Energy Center. Using a technology called 'circulat ing fluidized bed' (detailed be low). the station can burn wa ste coal and biomass as part o f rts fuel stream . We continue to work wr th Gobco LLC of Ab ingdon. Va.. a company that specializes In mrnrng gob coal. to rdentrfy, mrne and reclaim the hundreds of old waste coal sites in Southwes t Vrrginia The company. which has wo n mu ltiple award s for its work in environme ntal reclamation. separates the was te coal from rock. cleans It and provides it to VCHEC for use rn the pow er station . The srte rs then cleaned down to the cng1nal ground. covered wi th top sorl. sloped as needed for proper drainage and replanted w it h appropriate grasses and crees o View our news release (ht1p://dom inio11energy.medi aroo m.corn /20 16-CB-30-Dorninion-Powers-Removaloof- Larges tPollutron-Source-of-Clinch-~iver ) dated Aug . 30. 2016 for detarls. o View a presen tation Uhbrary/d omcom/pd fs/e lectric-gene rauon/fo ssrl/vchec-gob -cleanup-presenta tion-072016 .pdf ? la=en l showing reclarmed was te coal srtes In Southwest V1rg1nia CFB Tec h nol og y Advanced circu lating fluidized bed tec hnology (/l1brary/domcom/lmages/gra::ihics/electric-genera tro n/na 1-gas-coal-oil/cfb-diagram. 91f?la=enl rs proven clean-coal techno logy that also enables the using of run-of-min e coa l, was te coa l and renewa ble energy sources. such as wood waste CFB tech nology combined wi th modern post-comb ustion con trols has low emIssrons of sulfur d1ox1de, nit roge n oxide, partic ulate matt er and mercury Thrs technology EPA-17-0432-L-000380 1scompauble wn h the need 10 be able to use a wide va11e ty of fuels available in the region and compa tible wi th the requirement to construc t and operate a iac,hty in an environmentally respons ible manner that minimizes overall rmpact to air. wa ter and land resources Station Pho tos - Aeria l views, October 2012 Wood-1,poer del,vermg av.we wooa 10.omass/to VCI-IEC Copyright (C) 2017 Dom rnion Energy, Inc. EPA-17-0432-L-000381 =7J# Dominion Energy . Power Stations RENEWA BLES Wat e r: o Bath County - Warm Sp rings, VA o Gas ton - Roanoke Rapids , NC o Roanoke Rapids - Roanoke Rapids , NC Solar: o Azalea Solar Power Facil ity - Augusta, GA o Cal ifornia Solar Projects - Various locations in CA o Four Brothers - Iron Co. and Beaver Co ., UT o Indianapolis Solar Projects - Franklin Township , IN o Morgans Corner - Pasquotank Co., NC o Mul berry Farm - McNairy Co ., TN o Pavant So lar Project - Millard Co ., UT o Richland Solar Cente r - Jeffersonville , GA o Scott - Powhatan Co ., VA o Selmer Farm - McNairy Co ., TN o Somers Solar Center - Somers, CT o Summit Farms - Currituck , NC o Th ree Cedars - Iron Co ., UT o UVA Hollyfield (under construction) - King William Co ., VA o Whitehouse - Lousia Co., VA o Woodland - Isle of Wight Co ., VA FOSSI L FUELS Coal: o Chesterfield (units 3-6) - Chester, VA o Clover - Clover , VA o Mecklenburg - Cla rksvi lle , VA o Mt . Storm - Mt. Storm , WV o Vi rginia City Hybr id Energy Center Virg inia City , VA o Yo rkt own (units 1-2) - Yorktown, VA Ga s: o o o o o o o o o o o Low Moo r CT - Covington , VA Northern Nec k CT - Warsaw , VA Possum Point CT - Dumfries , VA Yorktown (un it 3) - Yorktown , VA o o o o o o o o Wind: o Fowler Ridge Wind Farm - Benton Co ., IN o NedPower Mount Storm - Mt. Storm, WV Biomass: o Altavista - Al tavista , VA o Hopewe ll - Hopewell , VA o Pittsylvania - Hurt , VA o So uthampton - Southampton, VA o Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center Virginia City , VA o o o Bear Garden CC - Buckingham Co. , VA Bellemeade CC - Richmond , VA Bremo - Bremo Bluff , VA Bru nswick County - Brunsw ick Co. , VA Ches terfield CC - Chester , VA Darbytown CT - Richmond, VA Dominion Bridgeport Fuel Cell - Bridgeport , CT Elizabeth River CT - Chesapeake , VA Fa irless Works CC - Fairless Hills , PA Grave l Neck CT (units 3-6) - Surry , VA Gordonsville CC - Go rdonsville , VA Greensville (under construct ion) Greensville Co ., VA Ladysm ith CT - Ladysmith, VA Manchester Street - Providence , RI Possum Point CC (unit 3,4,6) - Dumfr ies, VA Rem ington CT - Remington , VA Rosemary CC - Roanoke Rapids , NC Warren County - Warren Co., VA Oil: NUCLEAR o o o NOTE: (CT) denotes combustion turbine and (CC) denotes combined cycle. Millstone - Waterford , CT North Anna - Mineral , VA Surry - Surry , VA EPA-17-0432-L-000382May2017 EPA Reform Plan Workgroup - Planning Meeting June 12, 2017, 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm Executive Order: Comprehensive Plan for Reforming the Federal Government and Reducing the Federal Civilian Workforce 4:00 - 4:15 Review Employee Performance Improvement Plan Krysti Corbett 4:15 - 4:30 Review OIG/GAO/Evaluations Reports David/Shannon 4:30 -4:55 Begin Review of Mike's List and SLT Submissions Mike 4:55 - 5:00 Review Action Items Donna EPA-17-0432-L-000383 GregAbel Chairman, President and CEO April 7, 2017 The Honorable Scott Pruitt Administrator-U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. Dear Administrator Pruitt: Please accept my thanks for your recent attendance and remarks at the March 14, 2017 Edison Electric Institute CEO meeting. As I'm sure you felt, your remarks were very well received. I particularly appreciated our exchange and the invitation to provide a list of items of importance to our businesses, which is attached . Berkshire Hathaway Energy's operating companies - MidAmerican Energy Company, NV Energy Inc., PacifiCorp, BHE Renewables LLC, Northern Natural Gas and Kem River Gas Transmission Company - are primarily involved in the generation, transmission, and distribution of energy, serving 4.7 million end users in the U.S. located 18 states. Eight percent of all of the natural gas used domestically flows through our pipelines. In addition, we own 7 .5% of all wind generation and 4.5% of all solar generation in the U.S. The large geographic scope of our businesses means that we are subject not only to numerous federal regulations and rulemakings, but also to the determinations of multiple regional administrators and offices. We are supportive of scientifically-based environmental regulations that are appropriately and consistently applied and consider costs and benefits. This is particularly important for our regulated utilities, since these environmental requirements have a direct impact on the energy costs and competitiveness of our customers and communities . Accordingly, we have a strong stake in advocating for balanced solutions. We also have worked closely with the states in which we serve or have assets, and support a strong respect for their processes and outcomes. We appreciate that the change in administration will result in adjustments to both personnel and policy. We make long-term investments, requiring clear policy signals and a stable and consistent policy environment that will continue to allow us to best serve our customers while delivering sustainable energy solutions through the implementation of our core principles of customer service, employee commitment, environmental respect, regulatory integrity, financial strength and operational excellence. BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY ENERGY P.O. BOX 657 o DES MOINES , IA 50306-0657 , U.S.A .o 515-242-4000 o FAX: 515-242-4031 EPA-17-0432-L-000384 The attached list of projects and issues demonstrates both the substantial interaction of our companies with the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the need to move forward to provide clarity on a host of matters that are currently in flux. I appreciate the efforts of you and your team in reviewing these as part of your overall assessment of the Administration's policies going forward. We believe strongly that you have a unique opportunity to work constructively with the electric sector to advance measures that will benefit the country's environmental resources. Please let me know if I or my team can provide any follow-up information as you review these issues. Sincerely, /. Attachment EPA-17-0432-L-000385 5/13/2020 Mail - Dylan Winters - Outlook From: no-reply@foiaonline.gov Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 7:58 AM To: FOIA Subject: [Ext]Interim Release, Request EPA-2018-000798 EPA-2018-000798 has been approved for an interim release. Records were released to the public as a result of this request. You may retrieve these records immediately using the following link: View Records Over the next 2 hours, these records are also being added to FOIAonline's search pages, further enabling you to retrieve these documents associated with your FOIA request at any time. AMEHICAN PVERSIGHT https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGJmZjIxNGNhLTM3ZDAtNDFkNy1hZjNjLTVhN2Y1ODc1NWFkNAAQAMz%2Fapl6PO1HkMj94rNrvmo%... 1/1 Issues to Address with EPA on Oil and Natural Gas Production Regulation NSPS Regulation should be based on Volatile Organic Compounds - Not Methane Air emissions from oil and natural gas production operations are a combination of VOC and methane. Technically, reducing VOC also reduces methane. Past efforts to regulate methane are principally based on opening a regulatory pathway to regulate existing sources Existing source regulation is complicated because - Oil and natural gas production facilities are constantly changing as natural depletion phases out old wells and requires development of new ones Requirements from 2012 NSPS (Subpart OOOO) are rapidly becoming the dominant component of existing sources that are not low producing wells Approximately 80 percent of existing oil wells and 2/3 of existing natural gas wells are low producing wells that cannot absorb the cost of NSPS requirements NSPS requirements are not based on managing low producing well emissions including when those requirements are imposed under the modification aspect of NSPS EPA should exclude low producing wells from the NSPS requirements Low producing oil wells average about 2.7 barrels/day; low producing natural gas wells average about 22 mcfd; cost effectiveness analyses for NSPS are not based on the economics of these small wells Triggering the array of regulations in Subparts OOOO and OOOOa when a well is refractured - and thereby, defined as a modification - will be too costly a burden and result in wells being shut in rather than continue to operate The costs of the fugitive emissions program in Subpart OOOOa will result in a reduction of new wells being drilled. Any wells that are drilled, because of the perpetual cost, will be shut in much earlier in their production life, reducing ultimate resource recovery. And, the regulatory costs will make the wells unappealing for sale to smaller producers - a common industry practice by larger producers - because these small producers survive with low-cost operations. EPA should not impose the NSPS requirements on modifications and it should terminate the fugitive emissions requirements when a well falls below the 15 barrels/day or 90 mcfd production threshold EPA should use its authority to subcategorize regulations to develop low producing well regulations - if needed EPA has the authority to subcategorize facilities under the Clean Air Act - "The Administrator may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within categories of new sources for the purpose of establishing such standards." 1 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000001 EPA should acquire data and cost information on low producing wells to determine - The significance of their emissions and the significant sources The costs and economics of their operations The impact of the 2012 NSPS on the distribution of these emissions over the next decade when new requirements would be phasing in EPA should determine whether meaningful additional regulations are needed and, if so, develop regulatory proposals based on the Best System of Emissions Regulations as developed for these specific low producing well operations EPA needs to revisit its cost effectiveness analyses generally EPA's benefits are largely based on economic values that are inconsistent with market prices - notably $4/mcf natural gas prices EPA's control costs are understated particularly as well production inevitably declines, an issue that comes into play significantly on the fugitive emissions regulations that are an enduring operating cost for the life of the well and with regard to modifications EPA should suspend or withdraw its Control Techniques Guidelines for existing oil and natural gas production operations in Ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas until it revises NSPS; EPA needs to develop RACT for CTG The current CTG essentially applies the same requirements to existing sources that apply to new ones These requirements will overwhelmingly fall on low producing wells EPA needs to develop Reasonably Available Control Technology that reflects existing operations and low producing wells EPA should work with industry to develop an array of voluntary programs to facilitate air emissions management Industry is prepared to work with EPA to develop potential voluntary reduction programs, including actions on existing operations These could be implemented faster than regulations EPA should base its test for modification consistent with Section 111 of the Clean Air Act "The term 'modification' means any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted" Refracturing a well does not necessarily increase emissions if the processing equipment is capable of managing the production Refracturing is generally necessary to recover production as a well declines; consequently, it will not likely raise production above its prior initial production Since the well would already be connected to gas handling equipment, emissions are not likely increased; therefore, EPA needs to determine under what 2 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000002 circumstances production changes actually increase emissions to determine what constitutes a modification under the Clean Air Act EPA should revise its definition of hydraulic fracturing and related provisions EPA bases its need for the emissions regulations on the development of high volume water fractured shale oil and natural gas wells with horizontal legs EPA's definitions capture small conventional vertical wells that use relatively small volumes of water and non-water fracturing fluids such as nitrogen that do not produce comparable completion emissions and are not economically manageable by the Reduced Emissions Completions (REC) technologies The definition in Subpart OOOOa should be amended to explicitly exclude conventional wells because the work performed does not meet the definition provided in the regulation While the operations do utilize pressurized fluids that contain water, proppant, and/or chemicals, the process neither penetrates tight formations like shale or coal, nor does the process utilize high rates or volumes; therefore, the operations rarely have extended flowback, and often have little to no flowback. Similar to the issue of redefining modification, some operations falling under the hydraulic fracturing definition, like refracturization acidizing and similar operations, do not generate a high rate of flowback and should not be subject to REC requirements Update definition of flowback to clarify that coil tubing cleanouts, screenouts, drilling plug outs are not subject to the hydraulic fracturing flowback provision Clarification is required regarding the location of a separator for well completion operations. The rule does not provide a definition of "on-site" - preamble language clearly considers allowance of "nearby" REC equipment EPA fugitive emissions requirements need to have the flexibility to change with experience The current Subpart OOOOa fugitive emissions program locks in a static testing structure (e.g., twice per year) and static processes (e.g., optical gas imaging) EPA should allow for permitting alternative approaches such as - EPA should assure that compliance with state regulatory requirements are considered equivalent to new federal regulations In particular, multiple states have developed or are developing fugitive emissions programs; none of these are the same as the NSPS Subpart OOOOa requirements In reviewing and revising Subpart OOOOa, EPA needs to assure that these state programs are recognized as alternative compliance under as state enforceable permits (e.g., like the storage vessel treatment under Subpart OOOO). EPA should allow for fugitive emissions monitoring to be altered based on experience with emissions management 3 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000003 If testing shows that maintenance programs are preventing emissions for extensive times, monitoring cycles should be extended to annually or biennially or longer EPA should allow for information that shows emissions patterns can target specific equipment to provide for maintenance based programs to supplant the emissions testing requirements and extend or eliminate regular emissions monitoring EPA should provide for an exemption or exclusion from the fugitive emissions requirements for oil wells based on Gas to Oil Ratio (GOR) such as the approach for REC that limits requirements for wells with less than 300 scf of gas per stock tank barrel of oil produced or such as the use of a gas throughput threshold EPA should allow for the fugitive emissions program to be altered based on emerging monitoring technologies that are more cost effective such as internet based monitors or other technical advances EPA should make the application and approval process easier so that new technologies can actually be approved and within a reasonable time for leak detection under this rule - EPA should specifically provide for a process in the regulations rather than rely on the "alternative method of emissions limitation" process under Sec. 111(h) of the Clean Air Act Alternative if 111(h) AMEL process is required: Clean Air Act 111(h) allows for "a person" to apply for AMEL so allow states (v. operators) to show EPA that their LDAR program qualifies as "equivalent" and allow vendors or manufacturers of new technology to make the case to EPA that their technology is "equivalent" per 111(h) Allow application/approval to be made for all upstream sites or specific of basin for example (not site-specific; 111(h) was written for large facility like refinery, not small individual sites spread over large areas Allow modeling to show "equivalency" in technologies. EPA should revise the fugitive emissions monitoring requirements to reflect that multiple wells are drilled at a single site and each well should not trigger redundant monitoring of support facilities that are already subject to fugitive emissions monitoring as a result of prior wells EPA should revise the approach to regulating storage vessels including: Its basis for flashing assumptions in storage vessels and its approach to address multiple tank batteries Its continuing application to storage vessels that subsequently fall below the threshold for application of the regulations 4 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000004 EPA needs to revisit its compressor requirements Some producers must use low volume compressors that are not on the well site to move gas production into pipeline systems The current requirements when applied to these low volume compressors, typically operated by small businesses, are not cost effective, including the required quarterly surveys EPA generally needs to revise its extensive recordkeeping requirements, such as those that compel detailed records for facilities (e.g., storage vessels) that fall below the threshold for an affected facility EPA should work with industry to develop common sense approaches to develop adequate information on facilities as they move from new operations to ongoing operations and their production and emissions decline Certification by Professional Engineer - CVS & Pneumatic Pump Feasibility Remove PE certification for Closed Vent Systems (CVS) and for pneumatic pump technical infeasibility determinations and replace with technical assessments Existing general duty obligations and the certifying official's acknowledgment of compliance within annual report PE certification process does not add any significant value beyond a technical assessment Not all PEs have expertise in facility design, while there are technical experts that could perform the assessment Most operators currently use consultants EPA has not justified the extra expense and burden of PE certifications One option is to update definition of Qualified Engineer: Qualified Professional Engineer means an individual who is licensed by a state as a Professional Engineer to practice one or more disciplines of engineering and or who is qualified by education, technical knowledge and experience to make the specific technical certifications required under this subpart. Professional engineers making these certifications must be currently licensed in at least one state in which the certifying official is located. Pneumatic Pumps Allow technical infeasibility assessment at all well sites and eliminate the classification of sites as "greenfield" and "non-greenfield" These terms were not proposed Concept is contradictory to the rule not requiring installation of a control device or process equipment for the sole purpose of controlling a pneumatic pump At a minimum, brownfield must be further clarified to mean "after start of production begins" (i.e., a site doesn't stay "greenfield" forever) 5 A\11 IC/\ PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000005 Simplification of CVS Compliance Assurance Short Term (minimum request) Align compliance assurance for pneumatic pumps to storage vessels (and not provisions for centrifugal and reciprocating compressors) If pumps not aligned to storage vessels, then at minimum remove annual M21 in 60.5416a(a)(2)(ii) Longer Term Simplification (full rework) of the CVS and cover requirements Align under a common framework - Desire to alignment across source types (pumps, compressors, storage vessels) as current requirements add complication and burden without providing benefits EPA has acknowledged that CVS requirements are confusing OGI - Seeking application of OGI to satisfy CVS and cover inspection requirements - Application of OGI (LDAR type provisions) to the CVS and cover inspections would provide same outcome through a more efficient approach that reduces burden on operators (e.g., only need OGI technicians for a given area and not Method 21 trained staff, efficiency of OGI, etc.) 6 A\11 IC/\ PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000006 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Caraballo, Mario Smith, Michael; Glazier, Kelly; Ulmer, Craig; Barnet, Henry; Anouilh, Jeffrey; Sullivan, Patrick F.; Kelley, Sean; Taylor, Jessica; Campbell, Jeff; Allen, Reginald; Jefferson, Gayle; Caraballo, Mario; McKinney, Robert; Collard, Erin; Kling, David; Youngblood, Charlotte; Mazakas, Pam; Noga, Vaughn; Petrole, Maryann; Kaminer, Joan; Sterling, Sherry Reeder, John; Chmielewski, Kevin ACTION: Reconvening EPA's Threat Working Group (TWG) @ 3-4 p.m. Thurs., 8/31 Thursday, August 17, 2017 3:18:04 PM EPA Colleagues -- I'd like to propose the next meeting of the Agency's Threat Working Group (TWG) for 3 4 p.m. Thursday, 8/31, in Room 6426 WJC North (OHS' conference room). The shift of the TWG meeting, which involves our several EPA offices, to alternate Thursdays (from previous alternate Friday mornings) to better facilitate coverage and participation was suggested and discussed at the 7/7 meeting. It appears, from your various calendars on the Outlook meeting scheduler, that this time and date might work best for our group, which does tend to be very busy. As you know, we've been asked by the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations to ensure coordination on EPA's security-related issues. We already collaborate regularly across offices, but the TWG meetings provide a venue for increased information flow and a forum to raise and jointly address security issues and concerns. At our 8/31 meeting, I'd suggest we once again clarify our various security roles and responsibilities so we can make sure all important functions are covered. In addition, I'd like to revisit TWG meeting "logistics," such as the proposed alternate Thursday meeting time, location, any standing agenda items and preparation, guest invitations, note-keeping, etc. ? Please share your own thoughts about the TWG. We look forward to seeing you or your representative on Thursday, 8/31. v/r Mario Caraballo Deputy Associate Administrator Office of Homeland Security U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20460-0001 Office: 202.564.6971 iPhone: 202.836.1884 WJC North, Room 6426-F/Mail Code 1109A A ICA PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000007 Warning: This document is UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U//FOUO). It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, and disposed of in accordance with EPA policy relating to FOUO information, and is not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know without prior approval of an authorized EPA official. This document is intended to identify and promulgate the strategic direction of the Intelligence Enterprise in order to focus analytic, collection, and reporting activities and efforts; and conveys no authority to engage in law enforcement or intelligence activities. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000008 Internal - Deliberative May 15, 2017 CDR Inorganic Byproducts FRNs and Related Materials FRN: Notice of intent to negotiation o o o o Published December 15, 2016 Notice of the Agency's intent to negotiate and to establish the Committee. Requested public comment and suggestions on the list of significantly affected interests, as well as the list of proposed representatives of those interests. Reviews: Workgroup (including OGC and OP), OPPT divisions, OPPT IO, OCSPP IO Status: Comment period closed January 17, 2017. FACA Charter o o o o Required by statute (FACA, NRA) The Charter establishes the Committee, including identifying its official designation; objectives and the scope of its activity; the period of time necessary to carry out its purposes, including the estimated number and frequency of meetings, the termination date, and the estimated annual operating costs; and the agency or official to whom the committee reports, including who is responsible for providing the necessary committee support. Reviews: Workgroup (including OGC and OP), OPPT divisions, OPPT IO, OCSPP IO and (previewed draft) FACMD Status: Currently in OA, for approval FACA Committee Membership (and Situation Assessment/Convening Report) o o o o o Required by statute (FACA, NRA) The Committee is comprised of representatives of the various interests with a definable stake in the outcome of the proposed requirements. The EPA Administrator will select members carefully to ensure that there is a balanced representation of such interests on the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. EPA anticipates that the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee will contain representatives from industry, environmental groups, and state, local, and tribal governments. The Situation Assessment (a.k.a. Convening Report) identifies the initial issues for negotiation, provides background information from all parties, and proposes committee membership. It is developed by an independent assessor (the facilitators) based on interviews with EPA and parties identified by EPA, as a result of the Intent to Negotiate FRN (published in Dec 2016), or by others (e.g., through the interview process). The Situation Assessment is the facilitator's product. Reviews: Workgroup (including OGC and OP), OPPT divisions, OPPT IO, OCSPP IO, the parties interviewed, and FACMD (Committee Membership only) Status: Currently in OA, for approval FACA Operating Protocol o o Required by statute (FACA, NRA) The Operating Protocol describes the structure, composition, and roles of the Committee; the expectations of Committee members; and how the Committee communicates and makes A\11 IC/\ PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000009 Internal - Deliberative o o May 15, 2017 decisions. Upon review, revision and approval by the Committee, it will guide and direct the Committee's collaborative efforts. Reviews: Workgroup (including OGC and OP), OPPT divisions, OPPT IO, OCSPP IO and the Committee Status: Will be finalized at first Committee meeting FRN: Public meeting (first meeting) o o o o Published May 5, 2017 Reviews: Workgroup (including OGC and OP), OPPT divisions, OPPT IO, OCSPP IO Meeting date: May 9- 10, 2017 Status: Meeting materials will be posted on website and docket FRN: Second public meeting, first FACA meeting o o o o Target for publication: May 24 (must be published 15 days before FACA meeting) Reviews: Workgroup (including OGC and OP), OPPT divisions, OPPT IO, OCSPP IO FACA meeting date: planned for June 8 - 9, 2017 Status: AO needs OCSPP IO sign off (DAA) on committee membership prior to approval. FRN is for AA signature. Package is in OCSPP IO. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000010 Development of Plan EPA's Plan to Maximize Employee Performance EPA's plan to maximize employee performance was developed by a workgroup comprised of senior agency officials, representatives from the first-line supervisor advisory group, an attorney-advisor from the Office of General Council and human resources professionals. EPA workgroup members met with representatives from the Office of Personnel Management, the Office of Management and Budget, the Merit Systems Protection Board and other government officials to discuss the plan and determine the best path forward for the agency. The development of this plan, along with the related implementation actions, are building upon many actions already in place at EPA to foster a culture where managers, supervisors and employees are accountable for their performance. Current Performance Management Initiatives and Agency Best Practices EPA is currently meeting several of the requirements prescribed by OMB's memorandum and has many best practices relevant to maximizing employee performance: 1. The First Line Supervisors Advisory Group (FLAG) was created in 2015; the FLAG has assisted and advised the agency on its supervisory training curriculum and is currently developing a supervisory toolkit on performance management. 2. In 2017, the agency mandated that all supervisors take 8 hours of training on management issues annually. OARM LER staff offer many trainings per year, including quarterly full-day training geared towards first-line supervisors, and monthly 2-hour trainings on common issues facing supervisors. Each EPA location also offers on-site support and training. All new supervisors must attend EPA's Successful Leaders Program within one-year of appointment. o In 2017, five of the monthly supervisory training sessions were on the performance management process (setting expectations, documenting performance and taking performance-based actions), and five of the monthly trainings were on employee misconduct (time and attendance issues, OIG investigations, taking effective disciplinary actions and handling medical issues in the workplace). These trainings meet the objectives set forth in the OMB memorandum. o This training is voluntary (but can be used to meet the 8-hour requirement); the training is routinely attended voluntarily by 1015% of EPA managers and supervisors, which demonstrates the value and success of the training. 3. Beginning in 2015, several of the agency's communities that address EPA performance and/or misconduct began meeting regularly to discuss process, efficiency, and consistency. These meetings have collectively resulted in more predictable, timely and supported processes for supervisors. o Since May 2015, representatives from OIG, OGC, and OARM have held bi-weekly coordination meetings to share information on matters related to employee misconduct. ? GAO recognized EPA for its model relationship with the OIG, and recently met with agency officials to gather info on agency's best practices for addressing misconduct to share government-wide. A l RICAN VERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000011 OGC and OARM LER staff conduct biweekly discussions around pending performance-based and adverse actions; the groups have jointly planned/held conferences on current issues in employee relations, including determining best practices and agency processes. The next conference is planned for August 2017. o The agency's LER community meets every 4 weeks to discuss LER issues of national importance, and to discuss best practices and consistent approaches. 4. The agency's Administrative Leave Policy (issued February 2016) requires all administrative leave requests over 10 cumulative workdays to be approved by OARM Assistant Administrator; requests are only approved when necessary for orderly operations of agency; policy encourages managers to consider alternative options prior to use of administrative leave. 5. Beginning in June 2017, supervisors can run real-time reports with probationary period end dates for their employees. o AMERICAN pVERSIGHT 2 EPA-17-0432-M-000012 Action Item Action 1 - Review and Update Formal Agency Policy A. Review, update or create agency policy, procedures and guidance on how to address poor performance and conduct. B. Specifically review whether policies create unnecessary barriers for addressing poor performance C. Remove steps not required in statute/regulation to streamline processes to the maximum extent. D. Once Administrative Leave Act implementing regulations are final, incorporate into policy the expectation to limit the use of unnecessary administrative leave. E. Provide clear guidance on performance improvement plans. Agency Plan EPA must revise agency policy to eliminate barriers (see 1B); policy must be negotiated with 5 national unions. The revised policy will be issued by OARM/OHR and implemented agency-wide. (long-term) The agency will review potential barriers, including number of tiers in the performance system, minimally satisfactory (level 2) rating, minimum period of observation, minimum duration of PIP, elimination of the PAP, grievability of PIP, etc. (near-term) The agency will ensure that potential barriers are removed from revised policy drafted pursuant to 1A above. See 1B (near-term) EPA issued an Administrative Leave Policy in February 2016 limiting use of unnecessary administrative leave. (see best practice #4) The agency will incorporate Administrative Leave Act into existing policy, once final regulations are issued by OPM (long-term). The agency will provide all agency managers with OPM's March 2017 guidance on "Addressing and Resolving Poor Performance" and include brief highlights on PIPs in June's Administrative Update to managers. (immediate) The agency will develop and distribute agency-specific guidance after revised policy implementation. (long-term) See 1A (long-term) F. Develop policy at agency level or highest major component level. G. Chief Human Capital Officer and General Counsel OHR will collaborate with OGC in development of revised policy; OCR and LER will collaborate to create policy; consult with EEO be consulted on applicable issues. (long-term) Office and Labor Relations. Action 2 - Provide Transparency Around the PIP Process A. Provide all supervisors a copy of the rules and See 1E (immediate) guidance regarding PIPs A l RICAN VERSIGHT 3 EPA-17-0432-M-000013 B. Emphasize in guidance that PIPs can be started at any point and not just at the end of the rating period. OPM Guidance to be distributed pursuant to 1E above specifies that PIPs can be issued at any time an employee's performance becomes unacceptable. (immediate) Agency-specific guidance (to-be developed in conjunction with revised policy) will also emphasize that PIPs can be issued at any time (long-term). C. Maintain data on PIPs, including number of Agency will mandate, effective July 1, 2017, that all LER offices regularly track and employees placed on them and number who update all performance-based actions (including issuance and completion of PIPs) in successfully improve performance. EPA's Labor and Employee Relations Information System (LERIS) on at least a monthly basis. (immediate) Action 3 - Ensure Managers and Supporting HR Staff Are Appropriately Trained A. Provide training to all SES, supervisors, managers, EPA is currently offering the subject matter training to all managers, supervisors team leads, and employee relations staff on and employee relations staff (see best practice #2). For FY 2018, EPA will mandate managing employee performance and conduct. that all managers take training on managing employee performance and conduct. (near-term) In May 2017, EPA also signed an interagency agreement with the Department of the Interior to launch a learning management system named FedTalent. FedTalent will be integrated into existing HR systems, and will allow EPA to define and assign competencies and training and maintain records of training for compliance purposes. FedTalent is scheduled for full operating capability in March 2018. (nearterm) Action 4 - Ensure Accountability in Manager Performance Plans A. Ensure that supervisors and managers are held The agency will review and revise supervisor/managers performance plans to accountable for managing employee performance ensure they include language regarding managing employee performance and and conduct. conduct. Mandatory language to be included in FY 2018 performance plans. (nearterm) B. Review and update (if necessary) See 4A (near-term) supervisor/manager performance plans to reflect this responsibility. Action 5 - Ensure Real-Time Manager Support Mechanisms A. Identify approaches and plans for providing The agency will evaluate the best options for real-time support and determine accessible "just-in-time" expert assistance and support methods by September 30, 2017. (near-term) A l RICAN VERSIGHT 4 EPA-17-0432-M-000014 guidance to managers who are addressing performance/conduct issues. B. Include a real-time forum (e.g., dedicated contact support lines) for managers to receive guidance on addressing performance or conduct issues that require immediate action. General Action - Review Agency Systems A. All agencies must develop a plan to maximize employee performance by reviewing the systems and structures currently in place within their agencies to support managers in managing employee performance, and developing a timeline for improvement. A l RICAN VERSIGHT See 5A (near-term) The agency will complete a review of electronic performance-management systems and incorporate system into launch of revised policy, in conjunction with 1A. (longterm) 5 EPA-17-0432-M-000015 Org (GAO/ OIG) GAO Report Name (Number) Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Making Progress, but Planned Savings Goals Need to Be Established, GAO16-323 Report addresses organizational structure, data center duplication and efficiency in consolidation efforts. In 2010, as the focal point for information technology management across the government, OMB's Federal Chief Information Officer launched the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative to reduce the growing number of centers. Information technology reform legislation was subsequently enacted in December 2014 that included a series of provisions related to the federal data center consolidation effort, including requiring agencies to report on cost savings and requiring GAO to annually review agency inventories and strategies. GAO's objectives were to (1) review agencies' data center closures to date and plans for further closures, (2) evaluate agencies' progress in achieving consolidation savings and describe plans for future savings, and (3) assess agencies' progress against OMB's data center optimization targets. To do so, GAO assessed agencies' data center inventories, reviewed agency-reported cost savings and avoidance documentation, and compared agencies' data center optimization data as of November 2015 against OMB's established targets. Applicable Office or Region and Program OEI Finding GAO Recommendation: To better ensure that federal data center consolidation and optimization efforts improve governmental efficiency and achieve cost savings, we recommend that the Secretaries of the Departments of the Interior, State, Transportation, and the Treasury; the Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Small Business Administration; the Directors of the National Science Foundation and the Office of Personnel Management; and the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission take action to address challenges in establishing, and to complete, planned data center cost savings and avoidance targets for fiscal years 2016 through 2018. EPA Response: The EPA agrees with the recommendation. The EPA has established a revised and enhanced approach for meeting or exceeding the OMB's established data center cost savings and avoidance targets for fiscal years 2016 through 2018. This revised approach establishes a single data center within each of several specific geographic areas. For each data center selected for retention, necessary upgrades will be made to address any potential capacity or performance issues. Stakeholders will then consolidate applicable data center assets into the cloud, an agency core data center, or applicable agency geographic data center. Surplus data center assets will be decommissioned and excessed or appropriately scaled to be realigned with reduced capacity requirements. Specific plans for each data center slated for consolidation are currently under development. The resulting total cost savings are under assessment and have not yet been determined. GAO Recommendation: We also recommend that the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury and Veterans Affairs; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration and U.S. Agency for International Development, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management; the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration take action to improve progress in the data center optimization areas that we reported as not meeting OMB's established targets, including addressing any identified challenges. EPA Response: The EPA agrees with the recommendation. To improve the EPA's progress in data center optimization areas that 1 A\11 ICA PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000016 Org (GAO/ OIG) GAO Report Name (Number) Government Purchase Cards: Opportunities Exist to Leverage Buying Power, GAO16-526 Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) Report addresses duplication in purchasing efforts and methods to increase efficiency and achieve cost savings. The purchase card program was designed to streamline relatively small dollar value acquisitions of goods and services. In fiscal year 2015, the government spent approximately $19 billion using purchase cards. GAO was asked to review whether agencies are effectively leveraging their buying power when using purchase cards. This report assesses the extent to which selected (1) agencies analyze purchase card data to identify opportunities to leverage buying power agencywide and (2) purchase cardholders seek opportunities to achieve cost savings when using purchase cards. Applicable Office or Region and Program OARM Finding currently fall short of the OMB's established targets, the EPA stakeholders have been directed to place emphasis on virtualizing physical servers in concert with the revised data center consolidation efforts referenced above. Specific direction has also been given to have stakeholders give primary consideration for moving server-based applications to the cloud or a core data center. These efforts will increase the EPA values for core to non-core operating system, core to non-core physical server ratio, and facility utilization. The estimated increase for each optimization metric will be determined after data center consolidation plans are finalized. GAO Recommendation: To ensure that good practices are shared within agencies, we recommend that the Secretaries of Defense, Veterans Affairs, the Interior, Homeland Security, and Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency develop guidance that encourages local officials to examine purchase card spend patterns to identify opportunities to obtain savings and to share information on such efforts. Where applicable, we further recommend that these agencies determine the feasibility for broader application of these efforts across the agency or organization. EPA Response: As indicated in the report, the EPA's efforts to identify agency-wide spend patterns have achieved positive results in strategic sourcing savings, and opportunities to negotiate better terms and conditions on leveraged vehicles. In August 2015, the EPA implemented an automated purchase card management system, PaymentNet, which enhances the EPA's annual agency-wide spend analyses in support of its strategic sourcing program. The EPA also requires its purchase cardholders to use strategically sourced vehicles as set forth in the EPA's enclosed February 2016 policy "Requirements for Use of Strategic Sourcing Contract Vehicles." The EPA welcomes the opportunity to benchmark with other agencies and share the methodology and approaches undertaken to identify opportunities which lead to the positive outcomes identified in the report. GAO analyzed data from the three banks that work with the six selected agencies--selected in part on varying levels of purchase card spend volume--to manage their purchase card programs. GAO evaluated policies, reviewed strategic sourcing efforts related to purchase cards, and interviewed officials. GAO also interviewed officials 2 A\11 ICA PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000017 Org (GAO/ OIG) GAO Report Name (Number) IT DASHBOARD: Agencies Need to Fully Consider Risks When Rating Their Major Investments, GAO-16494 Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) from the General Services Administration who manage the government's purchase card contracts, and interviewed selected cardholders at the two agencies with the highest purchase card spend. Report addresses organizational structure in regard to the IT Portfolio and related risks in costs and in addressing agency and mission needs through IT investments. Although the government spends more than $80 billion in information technology (IT) annually, many of the investments have failed or have been troubled. In December 2014, provisions commonly referred to as the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) were enacted. Among other things, FITARA states that OMB shall make available to the public a list of each major IT investment including data on cost, schedule, and performance. OMB does so via the Federal IT Dashboard--its public website that reports on major IT investments, including ratings from CIOs which should reflect the level of risk facing an investment. GAO's objectives were to (1) describe agencies' processes for determining CIO risk ratings for major federal IT investments primarily in development and (2) assess the risk of federal IT investments and analyze any differences with the investments' CIO risk ratings. To do so, GAO selected major IT investments with at least Applicable Office or Region and Program OEI Finding GAO Recommendation: To better ensure that the Dashboard ratings more accurately reflect risk, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, State, Transportation, the Treasury, Veterans Affairs; the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration should direct their CIOs to ensure that their CIO ratings reflect the level of risk facing an investment relative to that investment's ability to accomplish its goals. EPA Response: As stated in the EPA's response to the GAO's Draft Report, while the EPA agrees all agency CIOs should "ensure that their CIO ratings reflect the level of risk facing an investment relative to that investment's ability to accomplish its goals," the recommendation, in citing only specific agencies, seems to indicate the EPA does not consider an investment's ability to accomplish its goals as part of its CIO rating. Appendix II of the Final Report, like the Draft Report, provides a limited set of criteria used by the EPA to determine the CIO rating. The criteria includes the statement "... factors that are important to forecasting future success." As before stated, it should be clear from this statement that EPA does consider an investment's ability to accomplish its goals as part of the CIO rating. During the GAO engagement, the EPA provided the GAO with the narrative which goes out monthly with our IT Dashboard update request to investment owners. In addition, the EPA provided the GAO the criteria which our Senior Information Officers use in establishing their recommended CIO rating for investments. In the EPA's response to the Draft Report, we provided both the narrative and the criteria in our response and showed that risks are considered. The EPA recognizes that there is a disagreement with the eManifest CIO Risk Rating on April 2015; however, that does not mean that the EPA does not consider risks in the designation as reflected in the GAO's ranking in Table 7. The EPA believes it should not be included in the list of agencies that do not consider an investment's ability to accomplish its goals when setting a CIO rating since this is a critical factor in the EPA CIO ratings. Lastly, the GAO gave the EPA an "A" on the related criteria on the FITARA dashboard. If the GAO gave the EPA an "A" in 3 A\11 ICA PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000018 Org (GAO/ OIG) GAO GAO Report Name (Number) Federal Information Security Officers: Opportunities Exist to Improve Roles and Address Challenges to Authority. GAO-16686 Grants Management: EPA Could Improve Certain Monitoring Practices, GAO-16-530 Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) 80 percent of their fiscal year 2015 budget allocated to development (resulting in 95 investments across 15 agencies) and compared CIO rating processes to OMB guidance. GAO also analyzed data on those investments to create its own risk assessments. Report addresses role of CISCO in assuring organizational approach to cyber security. Federal agencies face an everincreasing array of cyber threats to their information systems and information. To address these threats, FISMA 2014 requires agencies to designate a CISO--a key position in agency efforts to manage information security risks. GAO was asked to review current CISO authorities. This report identifies (1) the key responsibilities of federal CISOs established by federal law and guidance and the extent to which federal agencies have defined the role of the CISO in accordance with law and guidance and (2) key challenges of federal CISOs in fulfilling their responsibilities. GAO reviewed agency security policies, administered a survey to 24 CISOs, interviewed current CISOs, and spoke with officials from OMB. Report addresses efficiency and costs savings from grant monitoring. Grants comprised about half of EPA's budget in 2015, or about $4 billion. Through several grant programs, EPA headquarters and 10 regional offices award these grants to a variety of recipients, including Applicable Office or Region and Program OEI Finding that instance, it seems inconsistent for the GAO to then contend that the EPA is not considering risk as a factor. GAO Recommendation: To ensure that the role of the senior agency information security officer (SAISO) is defined in agency policy in accordance with FISMA 2014, we recommend that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency take the following three actions: o Define the SAISO's role in agency policy for ensuring that subordinate security plans are documented for the department's information systems. o Define the SAISO's role in agency policy for ensuring that plans and procedures are in place to ensure recovery and continued operations of the department's information systems in the event of a disruption. o Define the SAISO's role in agency policy in the periodic authorization of the department's information systems. EPA Response: As the GAO noted, in the EPA's July 14, 2016 response to the Draft Report, the EPA agreed with the recommendations and planned to implement them. The role of the senior agency information security officer is defined in the enclosed agency Information Security - Security Assessment and Authorization Procedures, dated May 27, 2016. The procedures cover the SAISO's role in the assessment and authorization process, which includes periodic authorizations, contingency planning and subordinate security plans. OARM Recommendation: The EPA Administrator should direct the Office of Grants and Debarment (OGD) and program and regional offices, as appropriate, as part of EPA's ongoing streamlining initiatives and the development of a grantee portal, to incorporate expanded search capability features, such as keyword searches, into its proposed web-based portal for collecting and accessing performance reports to improve their accessibility. The EPA agrees with this recommendation. The agency's vision for grants management includes having grant recipients submit performance reports and other 4 A\11 ICA PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000019 Org (GAO/ OIG) Report Name (Number) Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) state and local governments. EPA provides guidance through directives that seek to ensure the appropriate use of funds and achievement of environmental results or public health protection, among other purposes. GAO was asked to review how EPA monitors environmental and other grant results. This report examines (1) how EPA awards grants, (2) the federal and EPA requirements for monitoring grant and program results, and (3) how EPA monitors its grants to ensure that environmental and other program results are achieved. GAO analyzed relevant federal laws, regulations, and EPA guidance; reviewed processes for ensuring that environmental results are achieved for the three EPA program offices that award the majority of EPA grant dollars; and interviewed EPA officials and officials from eight state environmental agencies-- selected based on the amount of environmental funding they receive from EPA. Applicable Office or Region and Program Finding information to the agency through a web-based portal. The portal would incorporate capabilities such as key word searches to allow for easier access to performance report information. However, the portal is a long-term initiative, subject to the agency's budget process, and dependent on the completion of the Next Generation Grants System, which the EPA expects to fully deploy in Fiscal Year 2018. Recommendation: The EPA Administrator should direct OGD and program and regional offices, as appropriate, as part of EPA's ongoing streamlining initiatives and the development of a grantee portal, to identify grant programs where existing program-specific data reporting can meet EPA's performance reporting requirements for grants management purposes to reduce duplicative reporting by grantees. The EPA generally agrees with this recommendation and will work with recipient partners to identify where duplicative reporting can be reduced. It is important to note, however, that program-specific data cannot be relied upon to meet all grants management requirements. Performance reports often contain other information that allows the EPA's Project Officers to monitor a recipient's progress in meeting work plan commitments. This information cannot be gleaned from output data entered into program-specific tracking systems. An additional challenge is that not all POs have access to program-specific databases. This will require the EPA to consider the feasibility of expanding PO access to those databases to enhance grant performance monitoring. We anticipate completing the process for identifying where duplicative reporting can be reduced by the end of FY 2017. Recommendation: The EPA Administrator should direct OGD and program and regional offices, as appropriate, as part of EPA's ongoing streamlining initiatives and the development of a grantee portal, once EPA's new performance system is in place, to ensure that the Office of Water adopts software tools, as appropriate, to electronically transfer relevant data on program results from program-specific databases to EPA's national performance system. The EPA generally agrees with this recommendation and will apply it, where appropriate and cost-effective, to programspecific databases, not only the Office of Water databases. Not all data from program-specific databases may be appropriate for direct electronic transfer to the national performance system; some individual grant data may need to be analyzed before being rolled up into national data. Implementation of this recommendation will depend upon the agency's program offices modifying their databases to interface with the new performance system. In addition, implementation of this recommendation is dependent upon completion of the agency's new performance system, currently under development; anticipated deployment is in 2017. 5 A\11 ICA PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000020 Org (GAO/ OIG) Report Name (Number) Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) Applicable Office or Region and Program Finding Recommendation: The EPA Administrator should direct OGD and program and regional offices, as appropriate, as part of EPA's ongoing streamlining initiatives and the development of a grantee portal, to clarify the factors project officers should consider when determining whether performance reports are consistent with EPA's environmental results directive. The EPA agrees with this recommendation. The EPA will make conforming changes to the implementation guidance for the Environmental Results Order (Directive) in FY 2017. Recommendation: The EPA Administrator should direct OGD and program and regional offices, as appropriate, as part of EPA's ongoing streamlining initiatives and the development of a grantee portal, to expand aspects of EPA's policy for certain categorical grants, specifically, the call for an explicit reference to the planned results in grantees' work plans and their projected time frames for completion, to all grants. The EPA agrees with this recommendation. The EPA will make conforming changes to existing policy in FY 2017. Recommendation: The EPA Administrator should direct OGD and program and regional offices, as appropriate, as part of EPA's ongoing streamlining initiatives and the development of a grantee portal, to incorporate built-in data quality controls for performance reports into the planned webbased portal based on EPA's environmental results directive. The EPA generally agrees with this recommendation but emphasizes that identifying and deploying appropriate data quality controls is a long-term effort subject to budgetary considerations, completion of the Next Generation Grants System, and extensive collaboration with internal and external stakeholders. Specifically, the report's vision for built-in data quality controls involves the use of electronic templates and reduced reliance on manual data entry. Full achievement of that vision would require standardized work plan and performance report formats subject to clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The EPA appreciates the report's clarification that the GAO is not recommending that the agency repeat its earlier efforts to standardize performance measures across recipient work plans. However, as described in the agency's response to the draft report, this recommendation raises implementation challenges. The EPA's grant recipients generally have not supported standardizing the format of work plan and progress reports, with many large recipients, such as states, having their own institutionalized formats. Additionally, under its 2009-2013 Grants Management Plan, the EPA considered the use of standardized performance report formats but decided not to require them due to program office concerns that such formats would not meet programspecific needs. 6 A\11 ICA PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000021 Org (GAO/ OIG) GAO GAO Report Name (Number) Information Technology: Agencies Need to Improve Their Application Inventories to Achieve Additional Savings, GAO-16-511 Grants Management: EPA Has Taken Steps to Improve Competition for Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) Report addresses organizations application inventory to avoid duplication and achieve costs savings. The federal government is expected to spend more than $90 billion on IT in fiscal year 2017. This includes a variety of software applications supporting agencies' enterprise needs. Since 2013, OMB has advocated the use of application rationalization. This is a process by which an agency streamlines its portfolio of software applications with the goal of improving efficiency, reducing complexity and redundancy, and lowering the cost of ownership. GAO's objectives were to determine (1) whether agencies have established complete application inventories and (2) to what extent selected agencies have developed and implemented processes for rationalizing their portfolio of applications. To do this, GAO assessed the inventories of the 24 CFO Act agencies against four key practices and selected six agencies--the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, the Interior, Labor, and NASA and NSF--due to their IT spending, among other factors, to determine whether they had processes addressing applications. Report addresses organizations approach to managing discretionary grants to avoid Applicable Office or Region and Program OEI Finding Accordingly, as a first step in implementing this recommendation, the EPA will seek feedback from the recipient and program office community. The agency will initiate that process in FY 2017. GAO Recommendation: To improve federal agencies' efforts to rationalize their portfolio of applications, the heads of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; and heads of the Environmental Protection Agency; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Science Foundation; Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Office of Personnel Management; Small Business Administration; Social Security Administration; and U.S. Agency for International Development should direct their Chief Information Officers (CIOs) and other responsible officials to improve their inventories by taking steps to fully address the practices we identified as being partially met or not met. EPA Response: As in the Draft Report, overall, the EPA agrees with the recommendation. Both the GAO's Draft and Final Reports cite that the EPA only "partially met the practice for including application attributes in the inventory because... it does not identify the business function for every application". In the EPA response to the Draft Report, the agency asked the GAO to add clarifying language in the Final Report to provide the full context of the EPA's practices. The GAO added language that clarifies that the agency is taking steps to populate the business function associated with all applications. That clarifying language more accurately reflects the EPA's current inventory practices. OARM GAO Recommendations Recommendation 1: To improve the quality of the EPA's internal records and the information the EPA can 7 A\11 ICA PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000022 Org (GAO/ OIG) Report Name (Number) Discretionary Grants but Could Make Information More Readily Available, GAO-17-161 Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) duplication and efficient use of grant awards. EPA annually awards hundreds of discretionary grants, totaling about $500 million. EPA has the discretion to determine grantees and amounts for these grants, which fund a range of activities, from environmental research to wetlands restoration. EPA awards and manages discretionary grants at 10 headquarters program offices and 10 regional offices. Past reviews by GAO and EPA's Inspector General found that EPA has faced challenges managing such grants, including procuring insufficient competition for them and providing incomplete public information about them. GAO was asked to review EPA's management of discretionary grants. This report examines (1) how EPA manages competition for discretionary grants, (2) how much in discretionary grants EPA provided from fiscal years 2013 through 2015 and to what types of grantees, and (3) the information EPA makes publicly available on discretionary grants. GAO reviewed EPA's competition policy and guidance, examined internal evaluations of grant applications for competitions that were selected partly because they accounted for large portions of discretionary grant dollars, analyzed EPA data as well as information EPA made available on public websites, and interviewed EPA officials. Applicable Office or Region and Program Finding communicate to internal and external decision makers, the EPA Administrator should direct the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Administration and Resources Management to direct the Director of OGD to provide clear guidance to the EPA staff to help ensure that staff correctly identify all the EPA discretionary grant programs in the agency's internal grants management system. Agency Affected: Environmental Protection Agency The agency agrees with this recommendation. The Office of Grants and Debarment has already taken actions including developing, in coordination with EPA program offices and the Office of General Counsel, a list of active discretionary grant programs and posting it on the EPA intranet and internet to ensure dissemination to EPA staff and public transparency. As new programs are developed, the EPA will determine if they are discretionary or not and add them to the list as appropriate. The EPA has also added a statement in section 070 of its Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program descriptions on whether the program makes awards on a discretionary basis. In addition, the EPA intends to be involved in any General Services Administration efforts in 2017 to improve CFDA descriptions which may include changes to CFDA template language that could improve discretionary grant designations. Further, the EPA, in 2017, will assess whether other actions are necessary to help staff better identify discretionary grant programs in its internal grant management systems including staff training and reconciling any inconsistencies in defining discretionary grants. The EPA has no plans to coordinate/collaborate with other agencies other than with GSA in any efforts to improve CFDA descriptions. Recommendation 2: To better enable Congress and other decision makers to monitor the EPA's management of discretionary grants, the EPA Administrator should direct the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Administration and Resources Management to direct the Director of OGD to determine how to make more complete information on the EPA's discretionary grants publicly available, such as by posting timely and complete reports on its website. Agency Affected: Environmental Protection Agency The agency agrees with this recommendation. In 2017, OGD will begin the process to examine whether and how it can use its internal Next Generation Grants System to generate more timely and complete reports related to discretionary grants and make them publicly available. Two areas that the EPA will explore in 2017 are the ability to use NGGS to: (1) generate more timely and complete information that can be publicly posted related to the number of applications received (and from what types of entities) for the agency's open competitive opportunities and (2) produce an annual report on the amount of funds per discretionary grant 8 A\11 ICA PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000023 Org (GAO/ OIG) OIG Report Name (Number) Report: EPA's Purchase Order Process Needs to Improve and Achieve Better Value, Report #17-P-0001, October 13, 2016 Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) Report addresses efficiency and cost savings. EPA purchase order procedures were not implemented in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) or the EPA Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR). In fiscal year 2015, up to 1,714 purchases could have been made with purchase cards, as opposed to purchase orders, to achieve cost savings through the maximum use of purchase cards as required by the FAR. In addition, the EPA's acquisition system did not always provide descriptions for supplies and services purchased as required by the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123, the FAR, and General Services Administration criteria. These conditions occurred due to inadequate policies, procedures and training. As a result, competition, fairness and other economic opportunities may have been precluded. Also, the EPA is not realizing potential savings based on its current purchase card practices due to forfeited refunds, point-of-sale discounts, and reduced administrative costs. Applicable Office or Region and Program OARM Finding program and whether they were for new awards or amendments. The EPA has no plans to coordinate/collaborate with other agencies. The OIG recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management require the EPA to update its policy, procedures and checklists to cover applicable FAR and EPAAR requirements; require acquisition and program personnel to be trained; and promote greater use of purchase cards. The EPA provided alternative corrective actions for Recommendations 4 through 7, with a completion date of March 2017 for Recommendations 4 and 6, and a completion date of December 2016 for Recommendation 5. We believe the alternative corrective actions meet the intent of the original recommendations. Recommendations 4, 5, and 6 are considered open pending completion of proposed corrective actions. The EPA did not provide a completion date for Recommendation 7. Recommendation 7 is considered unresolved. The following is a summary of the agency's responses and our evaluation: Recommendations 4 and 6. For both of these recommendations, the EPA's initial response did not completely address the intent of the recommendation. However, on September 12, 2016, the EPA provided an acceptable corrective action. The EPA will develop a SAP checklist that will require users to indicate whether using a purchase card was considered and the reason why the purchase card was not used. We believe the alternative corrective action meets the intent of our recommendations. Recommendation 5. The EPA's initial response indicated that it disagreed with Recommendation 5. However, on September 12, 2016, the EPA provided an acceptable alternative corrective action with a completion date of December 2016. The EPA agreed to publish a "Flash Notice," which reiterates EPAAG 13.3.1.8 and 13.3.1.9, and advises COs that they may use purchase cards to place orders or make payments. We believe the alternative corrective action meets the intent of our recommendation. Recommendations 7. The EPA's initial response indicated that it disagreed with Recommendation 7. However, on September 12, 2016, the EPA provided an acceptable corrective action that we believe meets the intent of our recommendation. The EPA indicated that each OAM division will have at least one purchase cardholder per service center. However, the EPA did not provide a completion date for this alternative corrective action. The EPA concurred with Recommendations 8 through 10, and provided a completion date of April 2016 for Recommendations 8 and 9, and July 2016 for 17-P-0001 18 9 A\11 ICA PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000024 Org (GAO/ OIG) Report Name (Number) Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) Applicable Office or Region and Program Finding Recommendation 10. For Recommendations 8 and 9, the EPA implemented guidance to provide a complete description of supplies and services used to feed FPDS-NG and CDW. For Recommendation 10, OAM agreed with our recommendation and provided training to its divisions and the regions, which included information on the "description of requirement field." OAM also stated it would continue the activities of an annual Independent Verification and Validation Review and peer reviews to periodically check for accuracy and completeness of the description of requirement fields. These three recommendations are considered closed. OIG Report: Enhanced Controls Needed to Prevent Further Abuse of Religious Compensatory Time Report #16-P-0333, September 27, 2016 Report focuses on organizational policy and cost savings with enhanced controls. Based on our analysis, time and attendance records support that the retired OCSPP employee earned the accumulated Religious Compensatory Time hours. However, we identified concerns with the EPA's internal controls that allowed the excessive accumulation of Religious Compensatory hours by agency employees, and the OCSPP employee received a payout of $32,469 for unused Religious Compensatory Time upon retirement. EPA policy and procedures on accumulation and use of Religious Compensatory Time meet the requirements of federal laws and regulations, but are not specific enough to prevent abuse. The agency's controls do not enforce the requirement for employees to link the earning of Religious Compensatory Time to specific religious observances. The EPA lacks detailed controls covering the accumulation, use and monitoring of Religious Compensatory Time, resulting in practices OARM & OEI We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management enhance internal controls over Religious Compensatory Time by revising its policies and procedures, requiring documentation of intended use plans, prohibiting the earning of additional religious compensatory hours in excess of the maximum established balance, and developing training on proper use of Religious Compensatory Time. Further we recommend that the Chief Financial Officer modify the EPA's payroll and time and attendance system to prevent employees from accumulating excessive Religious Compensatory Time. The Office of Administration and Resources Management concurred with Recommendations 1 through 3, and provided proposed corrective actions. When implemented, we believe the proposed actions will meet the intent of our recommendations. The recommendations will remain open with corrective actions pending. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer concurred in principle with Recommendation 4, and indicated it intends to coordinate with the agency's payroll provider on the feasibility of modifying the payroll system. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer indicated it will submit a change request to the provider for review and approval. Once payroll changes are determined feasible, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer indicated it will make the necessary changes to the time and attendance system. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer's proposed corrective actions do not fully meet the intent of the recommendation, because they do not indicate what actions will be taken if the payroll system changes are not feasible. Further, an estimated completion date was not provided. Therefore, Recommendation 4 is unresolved. 10 A\11 ICA PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000025 Org (GAO/ OIG) OIG Report Name (Number) Report: EPA Oversight of Travel Cards Needs to Improve Report #16-P-0282, August 24, 2016 Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) being noncompliant with the intent of federal law and regulations, and not being consistent with U.S. Office of Personnel Management best practices. Inadequate controls allowed several agency employees to maintain significant positive Religious Compensatory Time balances for extended periods of time without intended use plans. Also, significant negative balances were retained without a plan to repay the hours. The agency has not provided staff with training or established adequate guidance to effectively manage and monitor Religious Compensatory Time. As a result, in addition to the OCSPP employee, the EPA paid 13 other employees $41,045 for unused Religious Compensatory Time upon separation. Further, if no action is taken to reduce additional employees' high balances, future payments totaling up to $81,927 could be made. This report addresses organizational control over travel card program and potential savings. The EPA does not check travel card bank rebates for accuracy. As a result, the agency does not know whether travel card rebates received from the bank are accurate. The EPA did not comply with the legal requirement to return rebates to each appropriation proportionally or to the U.S. Treasury (an option when rebates are not applied proportionally). Applicable Office or Region and Program OCFO Finding We recommend that the EPA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) institute a process to verify the accuracy of travel card rebates, and establish and implement policies and procedures to correctly distribute travel card rebates. We also recommend that OCFO develop controls and a timeline for addressing late vouchers, revise the travel card policy to institute stronger controls, and modify Concur so that lodging and rental car expenses can only result in a bank card payment. In addition, we recommend that the OCFO require travel cardholders to complete training that covers the importance of split payments, timely payments, and the consequences of failure to comply. The EPA agreed with Recommendation 1 and provided corrective actions that meet the intent of the recommendation. The EPA will verify the bank refund with the agency's calculation and spending. The new procedure became effective with third quarter FY 2016 rebates. The agency has completed a portion of the corrective actions. 11 A\11 ICA PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000026 Org (GAO/ OIG) Report Name (Number) Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) Instead, the agency selectively returned travel rebates to only a portion of EPA appropriations within a travel reserve account. As a result, rebates totaling $240,375 in fiscal year 2014 and $283,789 in fiscal year 2015 were incorrectly returned to only four of 11 EPA appropriations. EPA oversight does not maximize sales and productivity-based rebates. The agency's Cincinnati Finance Center does not emphasize that supervisors should hold late-paying travel cardholders responsible, require maximum use of the travel card for official government expenses, or require that all expenses charged on the card are paid directly to the bank. These practices may result in more delinquent accounts and fewer bank rebate dollars. Applicable Office or Region and Program Finding Recommendation 1 is open pending completion of the corrective actions. The EPA agreed with Recommendation 2 and completed a portion of the corrective actions in May 2016. In response to Recommendation 2, the EPA updated its Travel Rebate Standard Operating Procedures to require funds to be distributed to the original appropriations. The updated procedures describe how the EPA will distribute the rebates across appropriations based on the proration of travel obligations. According to the agency, this method of distribution will be retroactively applied to the beginning of FY 2016. The agency completed a portion of the corrective actions for Recommendation 2. This recommendation is open pending completion of the remaining corrective actions. The EPA agreed with Recommendations 3 through 6, and provided planned corrective actions with milestone dates. A summary of the agency's responses include the following: Recommendation 3. The EPA's initial response to Recommendation 3 did not completely address the intent of the recommendation. However, on July 12, 2016, the EPA provided an acceptable corrective action. The EPA will revise its travel card policy to require Senior Resource Officials and supervisors to utilize the Executive Resource Center Unpaid Travel Authorization tool to monitor timely voucher submissions. Recommendation 4. The EPA will revise travel card policy to institute stronger controls that include timely travel card payments, adverse actions for late payments, and the requirement to use the travel card for all travel expenses. Recommendation 5. The EPA will set Concur to default payments for hotel and rental car to the government credit card. The traveler will not be able to change the default payment. Recommendation 6. The EPA will require cardholders to complete GSA travel card training. The agency will also update its travel policy to cover the importance of split payments; timely payments; and the consequences of failure to comply, so that disciplinary action can be taken against late-paying cardholders. Once the travel card policy is updated, the EPA will notify the travel community by email, web posting and webinar; and through training sessions. The planned corrective actions meet the intent of Recommendations 3 through 6. Recommendations 3 through 6 are open with corrective actions pending. OIG Report: EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of Its Transit Subsidy Benefits Program This report addresses organization management of transit subsidy program and cost savings. The EPA OARM We recommend that the agency provide oversight to regions and field offices to enforce compliance with OMB's 10 minimum internal control policies. Also, the Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources 12 A\11 ICA PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000027 Org (GAO/ OIG) Report Name (Number) Report #16-P-0268, August 16, 2016 Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) operates a transit subsidy benefits Weak internal controls program for its employees covering 13 separate made EPA transit locations. Most of the locations did not comply with subsidies of about $10 million vulnerable all of the Office of Management and Budget's to potential abuse. We (OMB's) 10 minimum internal control requirements. Applicable Office or Region and Program Finding Management should implement internal controls for transit processors. In addition, Region 6 should update its transit policy, Region 9 should allow its employees to use only one transit payment system, and Region 10 should perform a commuting cost analysis to determine the most costbeneficial fare options. The agency concurred with Recommendations 1 and 2 and provided estimated completion dates of not later than December 31, 2016, for both recommendations. For Recommendation 1, the agency stated, "The agency will develop a transit subsidy policy covering all locations offering transit subsidy." For Recommendation 2, the agency stated, "The agency will require senior resource officials to certify annually that the 10 minimum controls are implemented." The OIG concurs with the agency's proposed actions and, when implemented, the corrective actions will satisfy the intent of Recommendations 1 and 2. These two recommendations will remain open pending completion of the proposed corrective actions. The agency concurred with Recommendations 3 and 4. For Recommendation 3, OARM stated, "The Headquarters will assess the current Headquarters separation check sheet and identify opportunities to strengthen controls." OARM provided an estimated completion date of no later than December 31, 2016. The OIG concurs with the agency's proposed actions and, when implemented, the corrective actions will satisfy the intent of Recommendation 3. This recommendation will remain open pending completion of the proposed corrective action. As of July 19, 2016, OARM had completed corrective actions for Recommendation 4. OARM stated that the Facilities Management and Services Division "has received the monthly separation report from OHR, and has confirmed the separated employees have been removed from the HQ transit subsidy program." The OIG concurs with the agency's new practice, and it satisfies the intent of Recommendation 4. Recommendation 4 is complete and thus closed. The agency concurred with Recommendation 5. For Recommendation 5, Region 6 stated, "The Region 6 will, upon receipt of the agency transit policy, develop and implement corresponding procedures." Region 6 provided an estimated completion date of no later than March 31, 2017. The OIG concurs with the agency's proposed actions and, when implemented, the corrective actions will satisfy the intent of Recommendation 5. This recommendation will remain open pending completion of the proposed corrective action. The agency concurred with Recommendations 6 through 8. As of June 28, 2016, Region 9 has completed corrective actions for Recommendation 6. Region 9 stated that it has completed an analysis and has selected one transit payment system (card program administered by the Cincinnati 13 A\11 ICA PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000028 Org (GAO/ OIG) Report Name (Number) Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) Applicable Office or Region and Program Finding Finance Center). This system is to be implemented by December 31, 2016. Recommendation 6 is thus closed. For Recommendation 7, the agency stated: The region completed an analysis in December 2014 covering the best option for providing a transit program to the Region 9 employees. The Region 9 Headquarters will coordinate with employees and local bargaining units to implement the change. Furthermore, the Region 9 will evaluate alternative approaches for other Region 9 locations. Region 9 provided an estimated completion date of no later than December 31, 2016. For Recommendation 8, the agency stated: The region will ensure that whichever transit payment system it chooses as described in response to recommendation seven will have appropriate internal controls consistent with the Office of Management and Budget and the Internal Revenue Service guidance. Region 9 provided an estimated completion date of no later than December 31, 2016. The OIG concurs with the agency's proposed actions and, when implemented, the corrective actions will satisfy the intent of Recommendations 6 through 8. These recommendations will remain open pending completion of the proposed corrective actions. The Regional Administrator, Region 10, concurred with Recommendations 9 and 10. As of July 8, 2016, Region 10 has completed corrective actions for both recommendations. For Recommendation 9, Region 10 stated it has: Determined that DOT Transerve Debit Card program (also used by Region 3) is our best choice. The available debit card programs operate in very similar ways and have very similar cost profiles. OIG Report: EPA Should Timely Deobligate Unneeded Contract, Purchase and Miscellaneous Funds Report #16-P-0135, April 11, 2016 Report addresses organizations management of contract, purchase and miscellaneous deobligation requirements and cost savings The EPA did not deobligate $583,875 from contract, purchase and miscellaneous obligations that had no activity in the last 18 months. Further, we estimated there could be an additional $2,962,058 that could be deobligated. OCFO For Recommendation 10, Region 10 stated that: The current agreement with DOT will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. We expect to have the new agreement in place effective Oct. 1, 2016.... [O]ur shift to a debit card program implements this recommendation or alternatively renders it moot. During the course of our audit, the agency deobligated $259,065 of the $583,875 in unliquidated obligations that we cited. We recommend that the agency deobligate the remaining $324,810, and review any obligations that have not had activity in the last 18 months to see if any of the additional $2,962,058 noted can be deobligated. We also recommend that the agency instruct personnel to annually use the unliquidated obligations desktop tool to timely identify and deobligate unneeded funds. The agency concurred with and provided acceptable corrective milestone completion dates for all recommendations. The agency deobligated $67,190 of the $324,810 in unliquidated obligations that were identified for deobligations. The agency plans on deobligating the remaining $257,620 in April 2016. Also, the agency implemented a new on-line unliquidated obligations database system to streamline and improve the agency's 14 A\11 ICA PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000029 Org (GAO/ OIG) Report Name (Number) Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) EPA guidance requires deobligating inactive obligations without any activity for 6 months or more. Further, federal and agency guidance requires unliquidated obligations to be reviewed at least annually. However, EPA personnel did not adequately review or monitor outstanding obligations to ensure amounts remaining were valid. Consequently, the EPA was unable to reprogram unneeded funds to other environmental activities that could result in benefits for human health and the environment. OIG Report: EPA's Tracking and Reporting of Its The report addresses the organizations Applicable Office or Region and Program OCFO Finding unliquidated obligations review process, and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer will provide training to Project Officers, Contracting Officers and Funds Control Officers on the unliquidated obligations desktop tool. OCFO and OARM concurred with Recommendations 1 through 3. For Recommendation 1, OCFO and OARM stated: EPA will re-examine remaining funds for potential deobligation identified under Table 1 of the subject audit report, and disposition with the appropriate actions based upon that review. Monies under contract C0S902300059 (Table 1) have been de-obligated. Contracts W0707404013 and EP11H000785 are HQ [Headquarter] contracts and will be dispositioned by April 29, 2016. Contracts W0600400011 and W0600400012 are Region 6 vehicles and must be dispositioned by Region 6. OAM [Office of Acquisition Management] will advise Region 6 of the need to disposition these items. OCFO and OARM provided a milestone completion date of April 29, 2016. The OIG concurs with the agency's proposed actions, and, when implemented, the corrective actions will satisfy the intent of Recommendation 1. This recommendation will remain open pending completion of the proposed corrective action. For Recommendation 2, OCFO and OARM stated: During the OIG's audit activities, EPA implemented a new on-line ULO database system in June 2015. This new system was a product of the FY [fiscal year] 2014 OCFO-chaired Lean Government exercise to streamline and improve the agency's ULO review process. Under the Lean review process conducted in the new system, ULOs under all EPA contracts approximated $1.052B as of early June 2015. As of September 30, 2015, this balance was reduced to approximately $120.9M - a decrease of approximately 89%. Accordingly, EPA considers ULO reviews to be completed until the next review cycle. OCFO initiated the annual ULO review cycle in February 2016. Reviews of current ULOs are conducted during the annual review process. OCFO and OARM provided a completion date of September 30, 2015. The OIG concurs with the agency's corrective actions and that they have met the intent of Recommendation 2. This recommendation is closed. For Recommendation 3, OCFO and OARM stated: In FY [fiscal year] 2016, OCFO will provide training to POs [Project Officers], COs [Contracting Officers], and FCOs [Funds Control Officers] on the ULO desktop tool. In addition, OCFO established a ULO SharePoint site with a number of resources, including ULO review statistics by office and region to help in the ULO review process. OCFO and OARM provided a milestone completion date of June 30, 2016. The OIG concurs with the agency's proposed actions, and, when implemented, the corrective actions will satisfy the intent of Recommendation 3. This recommendation will remain open pending completion of the proposed corrective action. We recommend that the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) provide additional guidance or training on how to 15 A\11 ICA PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000030 Org (GAO/ OIG) Report Name (Number) Conference Costs Need Improvement Report #16-P-0081, January 7, 2016 Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) management of conference spending and cost savings. The EPA established internal controls to report conferences both publicly and to the OIG as required by M-12-12 and Public Law 113-76. However, we found improvements are needed. Applicable Office or Region and Program Finding identify unallowable conference costs, use correct conference project codes, identify all conference costs in the financial system, report all conference costs paid with EPA funds, and classify conferences properly. We also recommend that OCFO work with program offices to identify EPA Form 5170A cost reporting issues and revise the form as needed. The EPA agreed with the recommendation and provided planned corrective actions with milestone dates. In response to Recommendation 3, the EPA included four corrective actions. These corrective actions include: ? Implementing a process/policy to ensure that procurements will utilize conference project codes. ? Working with the Funds Control Officer community to ensure travelers use the correct conference code on vouchers. ? Emphasizing the need to identify all costs in the financial system. ? Implementing enhancements to facilitate the reporting of all conference costs. (Completed May 2015) When all of these corrective actions are implemented, they should address Recommendation 3. OIG Report: EPA's 2014 Early-Out and Buyout Activities Aided Workforce Restructuring Goals, and Continued Monitoring of This report addresses the organization's use of various efforts to manage and address workforce issues. The EPA used its VERA-VSIP authority to buy out employees in OARM The EPA agreed with the recommendation and provided a planned corrective action with a milestone date. The EPA has agreed to revise the sponsor definition in the EPA's Conference Spending Guide to provide more specificity and clarity. When implemented, the corrective actions should address Recommendation 4. The EPA did not agree with the OIG's interpretation that the agency was a sponsor for WEFTEC in 2014. The EPA stated that it was not a sponsor of the WEFTEC conference because the EPA did not provide funding and was not shown in the sponsor section of WEFTEC materials. The OIG stands by its interpretation that EPA was a sponsor based on OCFO's conference spending guide definition. The definition states that the EPA is a sponsor of an event if the agency provided funding or tangible support to a conference or appeared as a sponsor on any event materials, and tangible support is the provision of financial assistance, material goods or services. The EPA participated in WEFTEC's 11 Technology Innovation Blueprint sessions and the program noted that "EPA and WEF are convening working sessions throughout WEFTEC." We note that the EPA had direct involvement in the development of those sessions and provided technical expertise. Therefore, the EPA was a sponsor by its own definition. We made two recommendations to the Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management to monitor the remaining VERA-VSIP activities and determine the value of VERA-VSIP as a workforce tool. In response to the draft report, OARM agreed with the recommendations and provided corrective actions and 16 A\11 ICA PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000031 Org (GAO/ OIG) Report Name (Number) Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) Progress Can Show Value of Restructuring certain targeted positions. This helped the agency accomplish certain restructuring goals, including reducing the size of program and regional offices, reducing the number of highly graded positions, and eliminating surplus positions. Although progress has been made in filling positions designated for restructuring under VERAVSIP, not all workforce restructuring goals had been achieved at the time we concluded our review. Two of five EPA organizations we reviewed reported that all the VERA-VSIP-vacated positions planned for restructuring had been filled. Overall, approximately 80 percent of the positions (57 of 73) in our sample targeted for restructuring had been filled. Other VERA-VSIP goals-- such as increasing the number of staff per supervisor and obtaining staff with new skill sets-- were also not complete at the time we concluded our review. Further, there are limitations in determining whether goals for increasing the staff-per-supervisor ratio and changing organizational structure were met, because some EPA organizations did not specify a metric for their goals or an identifiable end point for restructuring. Specific metrics were not required by OPM. The EPA complied with OPM's reporting requirements during and immediately after the completion of the earlyouts and buyouts. In Report #17-P-0140, March 23, 2017 Applicable Office or Region and Program Finding completion dates. OIG and OARM representatives met to discuss the recommendations and agency response. Recommendations 1 and 2 are resolved and closed. We also received separate comments from Region 1, which we incorporated into the report as appropriate. Prior to issuing the final report we received supplemental comments and information from OARM and OW, which were incorporated into the report as appropriate. 17 A\11 ICA PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000032 Org (GAO/ OIG) Report Name (Number) Finding Type (Organization, Duplication, Efficiency) addition, the agency developed "hiring templates," which were designed to track the status of positions vacated through the buyouts, so that positions targeted for elimination were not refilled and positions targeted for restructuring were filled using different position descriptions. However, the agency did not have a system to monitor its progress in achieving all of the remaining VERA-VSIP goals. As a result, the agency could not assess the overall impact, effectiveness and value of VERA-VSIP as a workforce restructuring tool. Applicable Office or Region and Program Finding 18 A\11 ICA PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000033 CO UNCIL FOR N ATIONAL PO LICY May 5, 2017 The Honorable E. Scott Pru itt Administrator U.S. Environmenta l Pr otection Agency Office of the Administrator -1 101A 1200 Pennsy lvania Avenue, N.W. Wash ington, DC 20460 Dear Admin istra t or Pruitt: Thanks for accepting ou r invitatio n to speak at the May 18-20, 2017 Council for Nationa l Policy meet ing at The Ritz-Carlton , Tysons Cor ner in McLean, Virginia . Th is letter w ill esta blish the p re liminary details of yo ur pr ese ntatio n. Please review and respond to the information on the following page s at your earliest convenience . Included in this document is a copy of our st andard speaker release and ~uidelines form. Followi n g meetings, we distri b ute r ecor dings of spea k er rema r ks to members and guests an d occasiona lly p ost r emar ks to our webs ite . Howeve r , we on ly do these things with your pr ior ap proval. If you're will ing to have your rema r ks r ecorded and release d, please sign an d return the form by email t o amy@cf n p.org or by fax to (202) 207 -0173 . Oth erwise, we w ill record for archiva l purposes only and will send you a cop y. On ce again, we're gratefu l for yo ur participat ion, and I loo k forward to worki ng with y ou . Warmest r egards, Amy D. Greene Direct or of Programs 444 N ORTH C APITOL S TREET, NW o S UITE 830 o W ASHINGTON, DC 20001 EPA-17-0432-M-000034 PH ON E (202) 207-0165 o FAX (202) 207-0 173 o E - M A I L CNP@CF NP.OR G Council for National Policy First Confirmation The Honorable E. Scott Pruitt May 18-20, 2017 Presentation Specifics: Date: Friday, May 19, 2017 Location: The Ritz-Carlton, Tysons Corner 1700 Tysons Boulevard McLean, Virginia 22102 Phone: (703) 506-4300 www.ritzcarlton.com/tysons Point of Contact: Amy Greene, Amy@cfnp.org Work: (202) 207-0165 Cell: (b) (6) Room: The Ritz-Carlton Ballroom, Salons I & II, Fifth Floor Presentation Time: 2:15 - 2:45 PM (25 total minutes for remarks and Q&A) Title: Please send a title for your remarks. Audio/Visual Needs: Microphone and Podium (let me know if you need anything additional such as a lapel microphone or PowerPoint/video capabilities) Introducer: TBD Additional Information: Dress for CNP meetings is business attire * Please arrive at least 30 minutes before the start of your presentation. We do our best to keep the program running on schedule and can only be successful when all speakers arrive on time. Please send the following information: o o o o Preferred Program Listing (Full Name, Position Title, Organization/Company) Short Narrative Biography (Approximately 150 words) RSVP for Meals You Plan to Attend: Friday Brunch (9:30-11:30 am) ___yes ___no Friday Reception & Dinner (6:00-9:30 pm) ___yes ___no Saturday Breakfast Buffet (7:30-9:30 am) ___yes ___no Saturday Reception & Dinner (6:00-9:30 pm) ___yes ___no Name of Person Accompanying You (circle or add appropriate title): Mr./Mrs./Miss/Dr._______________________________________________ VERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000035 Council for National Policy First Confirmation The Honorable E. Scott Pruitt May 18-20, 2017 Speaker Contact Information: Please review your contact information below for accuracy and make any necessary updates. Please list the best cell phone number on which to reach you the day of your presentation. All contact information will remain confidential. Phone Number and Email: Work Phone: (b) (6) Work Email: hupp.sydney@epa.gov Cell Phone: - Mailing Address: Please let me know if the below address is current. The Honorable E. Scott Pruitt Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Administrator - 1101A 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 VERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000036 Council for National Policy Speaker Release & Speaker Guidelines Form The Honorable E. Scott Pruitt May 18-20, 2017 Speaker Release Form I authorize the Council for National Policy to distribute recordings and/or printed versions, including posting on our website, of the presentation entitled "Remarks" presented by The Honorable E. Scott Pruitt at the May 18-20, 2017 meeting of the Council for National Policy. Speaker Guidelines I acknowledge that I have read and agree to observe CNP's Standard Speaker Guidelines Document Regarding Political Activity. ________________________________________ The Honorable E. Scott Pruitt _________________________________ Date Please sign this page and return it to the attention of Amy Greene by email (Amy@cfnp.org) or fax (202-207-0173). VERSIGHT EPA-17-0432-M-000037