Bøger af U S Environmental Protection Agency

In this guide you will learn about: 1) Basic SmartWay information, 2) Joining SmartWay Transport Partnership as a shipper company, 3) Understanding the details of the SmartWay partnership agreement, 4) Meeting software/hardware requirements for participating in the program, and 5) Gathering the necessary data to become a SmartWay Shipper Partner.

The purpose of our review was determine whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has planned and conducted the requisite research and testing to evaluate and regulate endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

Guidance for facilities on how to determine whether they're required to report to the TRI Program, how to fill out reporting forms, changes to reporting requirements (if any) for RY 2012, and other important information. The TRI Reporting Forms and Instructions manual contains detailed explanations of how to report quantities of routine and accidental chemical releases, and releases resulting from catastrophic or other one-time events of EPCRA Section 313 chemicals, as well as the maximum amount of chemicals held on-site during the calendar year and the amount contained in wastes managed on-site or transferred off-site.

The purpose of this Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendation is the highlight for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency management significant recommendation that remained unimplemented past the due date agreed upon by the EPA and the Office of Inspector General.

This document, the "Data Entry and Troubleshooting Guide" for the Shipper Tool, is the second of two guides available to help your company participate fully in the SmartWay Transport Partnership as a Shipper Partner. The Shipper Tool "Quick Start Guide" is a basic walk-through of the process of identifying, gathering, preparing, and submitting your data by using the SmartWay Shipper Partner Tool, and includes several worksheets referenced in this guide. (From this point on, this guide will refer to the SmartWay Shipper Partner Tool as the "Shipper Tool" or simply, the "Tool," for brevity.) The Quick Start Guide may be all you need to successfully complete the Shipper Tool. However, the Data Entry and Troubleshooting Guide is intended for situations in which you have already read the Quick Start Guide and prepared your data for entry, but need more information on how to complete your data submission than is provided in the Quick Start Guide.

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

Section 5(a) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 3), requires each inspector general to issue semiannual reports to Congress and include "an identification of each significant recommendation described in previous semiannual reports on which corrective action has not been completed." The Office of Inspector General prepares the Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations to satisfy this requirement. The Compendium highlights for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board management those significant recommendations that are unimplemented 1 year or more past the date agreed upon by the EPA or the CSB and the OIG. It also provides a listing of all of the other significant recommendations with corrective actions that are less than 1 year past the agreed-to completion date or have future completion dates. This Compendium is being issued in conjunction with the OIG Semiannual Report to Congress for the reporting period October 1, 2012, through March 31, 2013. The Compendium helps agency management stay informed about the EPA's or the CSB's outstanding commitments, and its progress in taking agreed-upon corrective actions on OIG recommendations to improve programs and operations.

There is a deep spiritual connection between Native American people and the earth. Tribal communities are strongly committed to the restoration and protection of the natural environment, including surface and ground water resources. These rivers, lakes, streams, reservoirs, wetlands, estuaries, and coastal waters sustain fish and shellfish, provide recreational opportunities, supply drinking water, and allow ceremonial uses for many tribal communities. However, many water resources are threatened or impaired by polluted runoff, also known as nonpoint source (NPS) pollution. The goal of this handbook is to provide tribes with guidance and other information that will help them to protect and restore water resources. Congress amended the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1987 to establish the section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program in recognition of the need for greater federal leadership to help focus state, tribal, and local nonpoint source efforts. Under section 319, states, territories, and Indian tribes receive grant money that supports a wide variety of activities including technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring to assess the success of implementing management practices that address pollution from nonpoint sources. As of the time of publication of this document, 159 tribes have approved nonpoint source programs. Tribal water quality programs continue to increase in number and to mature in their capacity to understand and improve the condition of reservation lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, and coastal waters. In support of the continued growth and sophistication of tribal participation in the CWA section 319 program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is pleased to release this "Handbook for Developing and Managing Tribal Nonpoint Source Pollution Programs Under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act." EPA is committed to restoring and protecting our waters through a watershed approach, and it is encouraging to see a number of tribes electing to pursue funding to develop watershed-based plans. Cooperative, on-the-ground, watershed-based efforts among tribal and nontribal water resource managers and staff are helping to improve the prospects for solving water quality problems that know no boundaries, and affect the health and quality of life of all Americans. This handbook is meant to be a practical and accessible guide for tribes to answer key questions such as: How do I develop a nonpoint source assessment report and management program that meet 319 program eligibility requirements and set the stage for effective program implementation? What sorts of activities are eligible for funding under CWA section 319? How do I develop and successfully implement a watershed project that will help restore the quality of our water for drinking, fishing, and other uses? The handbook explains the role of both EPA and the tribes in working together to help solve water quality problems caused by nonpoint source pollution. All aspects of the grants-funding process are broken down for you in simple steps, showing you how tribes can use section 319 program funds to implement programs and projects to reduce pollution and restore water quality. At the same time, it takes you the next level by providing a great deal of useful technical information regarding nonpoint source pollution, how you can develop and assess available data to develop a plan of action, and what management practices and activities are needed to solve the problem.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) action officials did not complete planned corrective actions under its Libby Action Plan in a timely manner. This occurred because the scope of the work was larger than originally thought; there was no established charter; and there were contracting delays, competing priorities, unanticipated work, and poor communication with stakeholders. Consequently, the Agency has twice revised its estimates for completing actions in response to our December 2006 report. The toxicity assessment is one of two components (an exposure assessment being the other) that makes up the health risk assessment for determining cleanup levels in Libby. In December 2011, EPA informed us that the health risk assessment would be substantially delayed. As a result, the Agency's final determinations that the completed and ongoing cleanup actions are sufficient to address the health risks from site contamination have been delayed from 2 to 6 years, depending on the studies being performed. This is a significant concern, considering that the EPA Administrator declared a public-health emergency at the Libby site in 2009 and the Agency has spent over $400 million on cleanup. Communications about delays in completing Libby Action Plan items, and the reasons for those delays, were not always timely or clearly communicated to stakeholders; and EPA officials failed to update the Agency's follow-up system or notify the Office of Inspector General (OIG) about known delays until planned corrective actions under the Libby Action Plan could not be met.

We recommend that the Regional Administrator for Region 9 direct the contracting officer for EPS90804 to require CORs to document oversight according to regulations and policies, which he agreed to do. We also recommend that the Regional Administrator recover funds for the prohibited clause, as well as determine if the clause is in other contracts and recover funds for those contracts. Finally, we recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management enforce the requirement for CORs to ensure contract staff meet the qualifications, and review EPA's practices for paying contractors who perform similar activities. For the latter recommendations, the EPA officials provided alternative corrective action without completion dates or they disagreed. EPA must provide a corrective action plan in its final response.

How are zoning codes and building designs related to standards established by the Clean Water Act? How do transportation choices or the mix of uses in a district affect the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff? How are development patterns associated with protecting the nation's water resources, including lakes, rivers, streams, and aquifers? As studies have shown, growth and development can have profound effects on our water resources. Storm sewer overflows and polluted runoff from non-point sources are a major reason that some water bodies do not meet Clean Water Act (CWA) standards. One factor related to persistent water pollution problems is our development patterns, particularly patterns of highly dispersed development that have been common since the end of World War II. The more woodland, meadowland, and wetland areas disappear under impermeable cover, and the more miles and vehicles we drive and park on impermeable roads and highway surfaces, the more difficult protecting the quality and quantity of our water supplies becomes. In response to these current trends, local governments are developing smarter approaches to growth. They are looking for, and using, policies and tools that enhance existing neighborhoods, improve schools, protect drinking water, and provide solid housing and transportation choices. These communities are seeking smart growth-a development approach characterized by 10 smart growth principles. These principles support economic development and jobs; create strong neighborhoods with a range of housing, commercial, and transportation options; and achieve healthy communities and a clean environment. "Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth" is intended for audiences already familiar with smart growth, who now seek specific ideas on how techniques for smarter growth can be used to protect their water resources. Smart growth principles provide a foundation-a basic springboard-for the 75 policies described in this report. The majority of these policies (46) are oriented to the watershed, or regional level; the other 29 are targeted at the level of specific development sites.

The mitigation of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) is a significant environmental and financial challenge, particularly for older urban communities where these overflows are most prevalent. Communities are increasingly examining more environmentally sustainable "green" alternatives for addressing these problems. These green solutions are often endorsed because of the additional environmental, social, and economic benefits they produce. A growing body of reports and case studies - briefly reviewed here - describes and attempts to quantify these benefits as economic impacts. Most estimates of economic impacts have focused on a comparison of the costs for construction and operation of green alternatives to traditional infrastructure approaches. Some of these have attempted to estimate the economic value of communitywide environmental and aesthetic gains, and other economic benefits are occasionally identified. This report develops a broad framework, or taxonomy, for identifying and organizing the socio- economic impacts of sewer infrastructure projects. It focuses on a green project in Cincinnati, Ohio that has adopted broader economic goals. The report then uses this example to illustrate how the taxonomy can be used by community officials engaged in storm water management to obtain a fuller understanding of the economic benefits of green alternatives for CSO mitigation.

EPA continues to rely on high risk cost-reimbursement contracts and time-and- materials task orders in the Superfund remedial program. The President, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Congress, and U.S. Government Accountability Office have called for a reduction in high risk contracts. Resistance to change, regional program office pressure, lack of leadership, and lack of trained qualified staff have contributed to the reliance on high risk contracts. Reducing the reliance on these contracts can result in numerous benefits, including cost savings, increased competition, and achievement of socio-economic goals. Additionally, the EPA Acquisition System (EAS) contains inaccurate contract and task order types. Specifically, 5 of 17 contracts and 22 of 60 task orders and work assignments reviewed had an incorrect contract or award type listed in EAS. The inaccurate data in EAS is due to the lack of a specific EAS data quality plan and a decentralized quality assessment process. As a result, EPA is misreporting contract and spending information to the public.

This report evaluates the potential impacts of large-scale mining development on salmon and other fish populations, wildlife, and Alaska Native cultures in the Nushagak River and Kvichak River watersheds of Bristol Bay, Alaska. It is not an assessment of a specific mine proposal for development, nor does it outline decisions made or to be made by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The assessment was conducted as an ecological risk assessment and starts with a review and characterization of the fisheries, wildlife, and Alaska Native cultures of the Bristol Bay watershed, particularly the Nushagak and Kvichak River watersheds. We developed realistic mine scenarios that include an open pit mine producing 0.25, 2.0, and 6.5 billion tons of ore and a 138-km transportation corridor. Based on these mine scenarios, we conclude that mining would, at minimum, cause the loss of spawning and rearing habitat for multiple salmonids (Pacific salmon, rainbow trout, and Dolly Varden). The mine footprint in each of the three scenarios would likely result in the direct loss of 38, 90, and 145 km of streams and 5.0, 12.4 and 19.4 km2 of wetlands, respectively. Water withdrawals for mine operations would significantly diminish habitat quality in an additional 15, 26 and 54 km of streams. Leakage of tailings and waste rock leachates during routine operations would result in instream copper levels sufficient to cause direct effects on salmonids in 29 and 57 km of streams beyond the mine footprint in the 2.0- and 6.5-billion-ton scenarios unless additional mitigation measures were taken. These leakages would not be likely to cause direct effects in streams under the 0.25-billion-ton scenario. Under a reasonable upper bound failure scenario for the wastewater treatment plant, copper concentrations would be sufficient to cause direct effects on salmonid fish in 45, 100, and 100 km of streams, respectively, under each mine scenario. The transportation corridor would cross 53 streams and rivers known or likely to support migrating and/or resident salmonids. At those road crossings, culvert failures could inhibit fish migration and degrade habitat, truck accidents could spill industrial chemicals, and runoff could reduce water quality. Failure of a tailings dam has a very low probability of occurrence, but a spill of 20% of the tailings from a single tailings storage facility would destroy more than 30 stream km, and more streams and rivers would have greatly degraded habitat for decades. A spill of product concentrate slurry along the transportation corridor would result in toxicity to fish in streams between the road and Iliamna Lake. Reductions in the populations of salmon would be expected from these habitat losses and toxic effects, but cannot be quantified. These losses would adversely affect the Alaska Native cultures and the wildlife of the region. The Nushagak River and Kvichak River watersheds contain multiple sites under consideration for large-scale mining. Potential risks of mining development on salmon and other fish populations are likely to increase as a result of the cumulative impacts of multiple mines.

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

For decades, communities have been reusing valuable reclaimed water to recharge groundwater aquifers, irrigate landscapes and agricultural fields, provide critical stream flows, and provide industries and facilities with an alternative to potable water for a range of uses. While water reuse is not new, population increases and land use changes, combined with changes in the intensity and dynamics of local climatic weather patterns, have exacerbated water supply challenges in many areas of the world. Furthermore, treated wastewater is increasingly being seen as a resource rather than simply 'waste.' In this context, water reclamation and reuse have taken on increased importance in the water supply of communities in the United States and around the world in order to achieve efficient resource use, ensure protection of environmental and human health, and improve water management. Strict effluent discharge limits have spurred effective and reliable improvements in treatment technologies. Along with a growing interest in more sustainable water supplies, these improvements have led an increasing number of communities to use reclaimed water as an alternative source to conventional water supplies for a range of applications. In some areas of the United States, water reuse and dual water systems for distribution of reclaimed water for nonpotable uses have become fully integrated into local water supplies. Alternative and efficient water supply options, including reclaimed water, are necessary components of holistic and sustainable water management. As a collaborative effort between EPA and USAID, this document's primary purpose is to facilitate further development of water reuse by serving as an authoritative reference on water reuse practices. In the United States, water reuse regulation is primarily under the jurisdiction of states, tribal nations, and territories. This document includes an updated overview of regulations or guidelines addressing water reuse that are promulgated by these authorities. Regulations vary from state to state, and some states have yet to develop water reuse guidelines or regulations. This document meets a critical need: it informs and supplements state regulations and guidelines by providing technical information and outlining key implementation considerations. It also presents frameworks should states, tribes, or other authorities decide to develop new regulations or guidelines. This document updates and builds on the "2004 Guidelines for Water Reuse" by incorporating information on water reuse that has been developed since the 2004 document was issued. This document includes updated discussion of regional variations of water reuse in the United States, advances in wastewater treatment technologies relevant to reuse, best practices for involving communities in planning projects, international water reuse practices, and factors that will allow expansion of safe and sustainable water reuse throughout the world. The 2012 guidelines also provide more than 100 new case studies from around the world that highlight how reuse applications can and do work in the real world.

The overall objective of this review was to determine whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's tribal solid waste management activities are helping tribes develop the management and enforcement capacity they need to eliminate open dumps.

Contrary to its plans, EPA upgraded some less critical facilities prior to its most important facilities (including EPA headquarters). EPA stated it was more efficient to upgrade facilities based on geographic location rather than importance, but provided no quantitative data to support that position. In addition, EPA indicated it did not want to make mistakes upgrading headquarters buildings so it upgraded others first. As a result, some lower valued facilities required a higher level of authentication for access than EPA headquarters facilities. The processes used to gain access are inconsistent and not yet inter-operable (can be used by all federal employees including those outside EPA) or intra-operable (can be used by any EPA employee). This occurred because EPA had not developed national physical access procedures to foster consistency. As a result, EPA is not realizing potential benefits associated with a standardized process. EPA did not document assurance of cost reasonableness for some of the physical access control system contracts. EPA had spent over $12.8 million upgrading physical access control systems and could not assure that $3.8 million of that amount (30 percent) was spent in the most efficient and effective manner. EPA planned to award an additional $10.6 million to upgrade its systems.

Millions of Pacific salmon return from feeding in the open ocean each year and swarm through Bristol Bay en route to their natal spawning streams. Nine major river systems comprise the spawning grounds for Bristol Bay salmon (Figure 1), and schools navigate toward the mouths of their respective rivers as they pass through the Bay. Each summer, thousands of commercial fishermen use drift and set gill nets to capture millions of returning fish, making Bristol Bay the largest sockeye salmon fishery in the world. Salmon that escape the fishery distribute throughout the Bay's watersheds and spawn in hundreds of discreet populations. Sport anglers target those salmon, especially sockeye, Chinook and coho, as they migrate through the river systems toward their spawning grounds. Also prized are abundant populations of rainbow trout and other sport fish, including Dolly Varden and Arctic grayling, which attain trophy size by gorging on energy-rich salmon eggs, flesh from salmon carcasses, and invertebrates dislodged by spawning salmon. The abundance of large game fish, along with the wilderness setting, makes the Bristol Bay region a world-class destination for sport anglers. Alongside recreationists, aboriginal people, guided by an age-old culture, harvest their share of migrating salmon and other fish species, which provide a primary source of sustenance. In this report we reviewed the biology, ecology, and management of the fishes of the Bristol Bay watersheds, emphasizing those species of the greatest cultural and economic importance - sockeye salmon, Chinook salmon, and rainbow trout. Rather than to imply that other fishes are not important, this focus reflected the disproportionate amount of research on these species (especially sockeye salmon) and was necessary to keep the amount of material manageable. In contrast, there is relatively little information available for the region's freshwater species, despite the importance of some in subsistence and sport fisheries. Our objectives were to describe the commercial and sport fishery resources of the region and to discuss the importance of Bristol Bay salmon populations in the context of the greater North Pacific Ocean. The literature reviewed consisted primarily of agency reports and peer-reviewed scientific papers, although unpublished data and personal communications were used where no pertinent published literature existed and popular sources were consulted to characterize the more subjective attributes of the sport fisheries. Our geographic focus was the Kvichak River watershed (including the Alagnak River) and the Nushagak River watershed (including the Wood River). Since the Kvichak and Nushagak sockeye salmon populations are components of the Bristol Bay-wide stock complex, however, we typically discuss their abundance trends at both the Bristol Bay scale and at the scale of the individual river systems. The economics of Bristol Bay's fisheries and the role of fish in the region's aboriginal cultures are each covered in separate sections of the Bristol Bay Watershed Analysis.

This is our report on the audit of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Fiscal Year 2010 and 2009 Financial Statements for the Pesticide Registration Fund, conducted by the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG). This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determination on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.

Saving energy through energy efficiency improve- ments can cost less than generating, transmitting, and distributing energy from power plants, and provides multiple economic and environmental benefits. Energy savings can reduce operating costs for local govern- ments, freeing up resources for additional investments in energy efficiency and other priorities. Energy efficiency can also help reduce air pollution and GHG emissions, improve energy security and independence, and create jobs. Local governments can promote energy efficiency in their jurisdictions by improving the efficiency of municipal facilities and operations and encouraging energy efficiency improvements in their residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. The energy efficiency guides in this series describe the process of developing and implementing strategies, using real-world examples, for improving energy efficiency in local government operations (see the guides on local government operations, energy efficiency in K-12 schools, energy-efficient product procure- ment, and combined heat and power) as well as in the community.

This is our report on the audit of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Fiscal Year 2010 and 2009 Financial Statements for the Pesticides Reregistration and Expedited Processing Fund, conducted by the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG). This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determination on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.

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

The objective of this report is to characterize the baseline levels of economic activity and related ecosystem services values for the Bristol Bay wild salmon ecosystem. The overarching purpose of this report is to provide baseline economic information to the Environmental Protection Agency in order to inform review of mining proposals in the Nushugak and Kvichak drainages. Both regional economic significance and social net economic accounting frameworks are described in this report. This study reviews and summarizes existing economic research on the key sectors in this area and reports findings based on original survey data on expenditures and net benefits. This report combines efforts on the part of Bioeconomics, Inc. and the University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research. John Duffield and Chris Neher compiled the report and authored the executive summary, Sections 1, 2, and 5. Gunnar Knapp wrote Section 3 (commercial fisheries), and Tobias Schwörer, Ginny Fey and Scott Goldsmith wrote Section 4. The major components of the total value of the Bristol Bay area watersheds include subsistence use, commercial fishing, sport fishing and other recreation, and the preservation values (or indirect values) held by users and the U.S. resident population. The overall objectives of this study is to estimate the share of the total regional economy (expenditures, income, and jobs) that is dependent on these essentially pristine wild salmon ecosystems and to provide a preliminary but relatively comprehensive estimate of the total economic value (from an applied welfare economics perspective) that relies on a healthy ecosystem.

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

This is our report on the subject site visit conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The report summarizes the results of our site visit to the Wastewater Treatment Plant, Village of Itasca, Illinois. The report contains findings that describe the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures will make final determination on matters in this report.

This is a final report by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We conducted the assignment based on a requirement from the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The committees required the OIG to report on EPA's implementation of OIG recommendations, as well as current efforts, to strengthen Superfund contracting controls to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. We do not make any recommendations in this report, and you are not required to respond to this report.

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

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed a year 2007 air quality modeling platform in support of the Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards. The air quality modeling platform consists of all of the emissions inventories, ancillary files needed for emissions modeling, and the meteorological, initial condition, and boundary condition files needed to run the air quality model. This platform uses all Criteria Air Pollutants (CAPs) and a select set of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). This document focuses on the emissions modeling components of the 2007 platform, including the emission inventories and the ancillary data and the approaches used to transform emission inventories for use in air quality modeling. The Tier 3 modeling platform was developed by implementing specific modifications to the "CAP-BAFM 2007-Based Platform, Version 5", also known as the "2007v5" platform. The 2007v5 platform was used to support the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) for the 2012 Final National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The Technical Support Document (TSD) "Preparation of Emissions Inventories for the Version 5.0, 2007 Emissions Modeling Platform" contains many additional details on the aspects of the Tier 3 and 2007v5 platforms that are shared. The TSD is available from the Emissions Modeling Clearinghouse website, http: //www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/, under the section entitled "Particulate Matter (PM) NAAQS (2007v5) Platform". The appendices available for the 2007v5 TSD that do not reference the specific PM NAAQS modeling cases are also relevant to the "Tier 3" platform. Many emissions inventory components of the Tier 3 air quality modeling platform are based on the 2008 National Emissions Inventory version 2, hereafter referred to as the "2008 NEI", with updated inventory data for some emission sectors. In particular, a version of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) designed to represent the impacts of the Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards (MOVESTier3FRM) was used to generate emission factors for onroad mobile sources. The emissions modeling tool used to create the air quality model-ready emissions from the emission inventories was the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system (http: //www.smoke- model.org/index.cfm) version 3.5 beta. Emissions were created for 36 km and 12 km national grids. The gridded meteorological model used for Tier 3 is the Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF, http: //wrf-model.org) version 3.3, Advanced Research WRF (ARW) core (Skamarock, et al., 2008). The WRF Model is a mesoscale numerical weather prediction system developed for both operational forecasting and atmospheric research applications. WRF was run for 2007 over a domain covering the continental United States at a 36 km and 12 km resolution with 35 vertical layers2. This meteorological run was different than the one used for the 2007v5 platfo

We performed this site visit as part of our responsibility under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). The purpose of our site visit was to determine whether amounts claimed by the Botanic Garden are eligible and allowable in accordance with the Recovery Act and the terms of the funding agreement. The Botanic Garden of Western Pennsylvania received $1,368,894 in Recovery Act funds with 100 percent federal loan forgiveness from the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program.