U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
Email Updates 
Font Size 
Print 
Download Reader 
HHS 2011 Strategic Sustainability Performance PlanBack to Sustainability Plan summary page 2011 Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan (PDF – 738 KB) Section 1: Agency Policy and Strategy
Section 2: Performance Review & Annual Update
Section 3: Agency Self Evaluation Appendix 1: Agency Response to Climate Change Guiding Questions
Section 1: Agency Policy and StrategyI: Agency Policy StatementU.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Sustainability and Climate Change Adaptation Policy Statement
When President Obama signed Executive Order 13514 on October 5, 2009, he committed the federal government to take a leadership role in promoting sustainability and responding to climate change. Actions called for in the order, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions and conserving water and other resources, will help build a clean energy economy and contribute to mitigating climate change. The order also requires each federal agency to evaluate risks and vulnerabilities associated with both short-and long-term effects of climate change on its ability to carry out its mission. A number of scientific panels, including the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and International Panel on Climate Change, have published data indicating that climate change is already negatively affecting human health in the United States, and is likely to continue impacting human health in the future. Hazards linked to climate change include increases in the frequency and severity of heat waves, droughts, wildfires, heavy rainfall, and flooding; changes in rates and ranges of infectious and allergic diseases; and threats to communities from rising sea levels and coastal erosion. Although climate change may reduce certain health risks, most likely it will worsen many existing health threats, as well as introduce new ones. Individuals and communities with underlying vulnerabilities that contribute to poor health, such as poverty, being very young or old, having pre-existing health (including behavioral health) conditions, and living in vulnerable geographic areas will be the most at risk of harm. HHS’s responsibility is to protect the health of all Americans and provide essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves. As such, our Department has dual critical roles to play in reducing our own environmental impact while facilitating understanding of and adapting to climate change. Through these actions, we will set the example of responsible stewardship and improve individual and community resilience, supporting a healthier future for the American people. At HHS, we understand the importance of sustainable, climate-resilient communities. We know that we must take a lead role in ensuring that our own facilities and operations set an example for sustainability. We commit to continued compliance with all environmental, energy, and public health statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders. We will also set the standard for federal agencies in sustainable development, provide climate-resilient health and human services, and support scientific research focused on environmental and public health, including research on the effects of climate change on human health and well-being. Our Department will adopt the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force guiding principles to integrate climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies into our sustainability and health programs, policies, and operations. In the coming year, HHS will identify how climate change may impact our Department’s ability to carry out its mission, programs, policies, and operations, as well as to determine how we should prepare for and respond to a changing climate. Our plan will focus on ensuring sustainability by integrating climate change and environmental impact considerations into internal management functions and policies; by collecting, analyzing, and utilizing state of the science data; and by enhancing issue awareness and specialty training for our employees. As part of this plan, we will identify and prioritize actions to respond to climate change, and will establish mechanisms for evaluating our ongoing capacity to effectively adapt to current and future changes in the climate. We will leverage HHS regional and preparedness programs and existing healthy community and climate change initiatives to complement and build upon our Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan and enhance collaboration with other federal agencies, State, Local, and Tribal governments. HHS will continue instilling sustainable practices throughout our programs and operations as we respond to the new challenge of adapting to climate change as we continue to fulfill our mission. Through our past accomplishments and future commitments, the Department of Health and Human Services will lead the way toward a healthy future for all Americans. Kathleen Sebelius II. Sustainability and the Agency MissionSustainability is integral to the HHS mission, which is to protect the health of all Americans and provide essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves. Sustainability has been defined as “the enduring prosperity of all living things.” By this measure, sustainability is directly linked to the health of humans, the health of the environment, and the health of economic systems that support and promote our well-being. This triple health bottom line – human health, environmental health and economic health – is integral to HHS’s mission and the sustainability mandates of Executive Order (EO) 13514. The Department’s mission activities are carried out by a large number of employees in numerous facilities across the U.S. and abroad. The unique character of HHS is reflected in the types of buildings we occupy. Office buildings comprise less than 36% of total gross square footage, with the balance housed in laboratories and hospitals (34% and 8%, respectively), family housing (7%), warehouses (4%), and other (11%). Statistics summarizing the size and scope of these operations are presented below in Table 1 and reflect FY2010 numbers. Table 1: US Department of Health and Human Services at a Glance
While much of the sustainability efforts in this plan will focus on these operations, HHS must assume a leadership role in concurrently promoting both sustainability and health throughout the Federal government. Just as the Department of Energy (DOE) leads initiatives relating to energy reduction, HHS will lead initiatives relating to health and well-being. In 2010, HHS began to evaluate relationships between the sustainability mandates of EO 13514 and its mission priorities of improving the national performance of leading health indicators and healthcare outcomes. Based in this evaluation it formulated goals intended to meet the mandates and maximize synergistic relationships with mission programs. In early 2011, HHS conducted a more in depth review of sustainability-mission relationships by comparing the specific sustainability goals of its 2010 sustainability plan and the new health and human service objectives set for the Department in the Secretary’s Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2010 – 2015 http://www.hhs.gov/secretary/about/priorities/priorities.html. The review revealed positive synergistic relationships between virtually all of the sustainability goals and mission objectives and numerous opportunities for integration and leveraging resources and efforts for achievement of common objectives. The results of this review are provided in this crosswalk document (http://www.hhs.gov/strategic_plan/strategic_plan_crosswalk.pdf). This is meant as a “living” document, to be used as key component of guidance for integrating sustainability mission objectives and applying them to support the primary mission activities of HHS. Mission-Related Challenges and Actions Taken to Address Them The review of relationships between general sustainability goals and mission priorities revealed no mission related conflicts or challenges. However, potential conflicts and challenges have become apparent as specific aspects of goal implementation strategies are developed. In most cases these are identified by subject matter experts in the various goal centric working groups of the HHS Sustainability Task Force. These experts then recommend courses of action to address them, which may include changes in policies, funding priorities, research and development and solicitations for innovation projects. Examples of these conflicts and how they are being addressed are described below. Inappropriate Application of Value Engineering Techniques to Sustainable Building Goals
The new policy also specifically prohibits the deletion of sustainability features and performance standards that are required to meet goals set by this Plan. The new VE Section 3-8 is available at this link. Energy Conservation Challenges of Specialized Facilities. A significant percentage of HHS mission activities are performed in laboratories and hospitals, which require significantly higher amounts of energy than do more conventional building types, such as offices. Typically, high-energy consuming systems include high air turnover requirements to meet existing health and safety standards, and specialized laboratory and health care equipment process loads. In response to this challenge, studies are planned to evaluate current health and safety standards and determine if modifications, such as reducing air change requirements for greater energy efficiency, can be made without adversely impacting health, safety and product protection needs. HHS is actively collaborating with several organizations, including the Energy Star Program, Laboratories for the 21st Century (Labs21), universities and other stakeholders to develop more energy efficient equipment, laboratory designs, processes, and operation and maintenance procedures for laboratories and hospitals. Lack of Metrics for Measuring and Incorporating Health Impact Costs and Benefits in Return on Investment Calculations. Sustainable building goals, particularly improvements in Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ), have been shown to significantly reduce health care costs and absenteeism, and to improve the productivity of building occupants. Limited research suggests that the return on IEQ investments greatly exceed that from all other improvements combined. However, application of these findings is hampered by limited research and a lack of methods and metrics for comparing the health and productivity performance of buildings and building features. As part of our effort to address this challenge, HHS has initiated the Health in Buildings Roundtable (HiBR), an interdisciplinary group of subject matter experts from Federal agencies, academia, professional societies, the U.S. Green Building Council and the private sector to determine research needs; promote basic, applied and translational research on health in the built environment; and serve as a clearinghouse for health information.
III. Greenhouse Gas Reduction GoalsThe current HHS emissions reduction strategy includes projects and programs anticipated to meet the 2020 targets. These fall into two general categories - infrastructure (i.e., mostly energy efficiency) and behavior (i.e., encourage individuals to conserve energy). The current projects and programs have been evaluated for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions reduction potential as well as fiscal feasibility. HHS will focus on energy efficiency projects discussed in detail in Section II of the Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan (SSPP). Behavioral strategies include a variety of programs aimed at changing the way the HHS employees travel, use electricity at work, manage assets, and dispose of waste. Transportation initiatives focus on programs and alternatives that reduce fuel usage by the fleet, commuters, and the business air and ground traveler. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) investment funds were used to complete a total of nine major construction projects with the intent of improving energy efficiency and incorporating some sustainable features. Of the nine construction projects, six plan to meet or exceed the Guiding Principles and achieve third party verification. In addition, ARRA funds were used for a total of 318 repair, maintenance and improvement projects, 71 of which were specifically identified as energy conservation or sustainability projects. HHS anticipates that these projects will reduce GHG emissions. Because the majority of these projects are scheduled for completion at the end of FY2012, the full impact of the investments will not be realized until FY2013 and beyond. A detailed discussion of goals and milestones will be included in Section II of this plan.
IV. Plan ImplementationContinuous communication will be critical to successful implementation of Executive Order 13514. Identifying short-term, intermediate and long-term milestones and metrics, and putting in place the management and oversight tools to track and steer efforts will be vital. The biggest challenge in plan implementation will be to balance other agency priorities. A - B. Internal Coordination and Communication/Coordination and Dissemination of the Plan to the Field Responsible Office: Assistant Secretary for Administration HHS elected to merge these discussion items together, as part of our implementation strategy involves better integration and communication with ALL of our HHS employees, including those in the field. In the past, the Department’s approach to sustainability has been decentralized, with Operating Divisions (OPDIV) and Staff Divisions (STAFFDIV) individually determining how to achieve their goals. In March 2010, HHS established a task force and various working groups which are engaged regularly to drive the initiative. Given the link between sustainability and the Department’s achievement of its health mission, it is critically important for HHS to be a trailblazer and leader within the government community. In recognizing that oversight and leadership are critical for establishing, implementing and evaluating an integrated Departmental strategy, HHS still looks to create a centralized sustainability office team that will:
C. Leadership and Accountability Responsible Office: Assistant Secretary for Administration (ASA) Key Internal Partners: All HHS divisions This HHS Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan establishes the link between health and sustainability and demonstrates the commitment of HHS leadership to embrace sustainability as a continuous area of focus integral to the Department’s mission. As discussed in Section IV, A and B, HHS intends to provide oversight through a centralized sustainability office. In the interim, the initiative is being lead by the ASA/Office for Facilities Management and Policy with heavy reliance on the operating divisions. Each operating division has designated a sustainability champion, or Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO). The operating division CSOs not only lead their own division’s sustainability efforts, but work with key staff division policy owners on an interagency task force that meets regularly under the direction of the Senior Sustainability Officer. This team leads the Department in the following critical sustainability activities:
D. Agency Policy and Planning Integration Responsible Office: Assistant Secretary for Administration Key Internal Partners: All HHS divisions The following Critical Planning Coordination Table identifies existing HHS reports, plans, and policy documents in which sustainability requirements may be integrated. Table 2: Critical Planning Coordination
1 Agencies should remove plans/reports that they currently are not required to complete and add any additional relevant plans/reports not currently included in the table. E. Agency Budget Integration Key Internal Partners: All HHS divisions HHS has incorporated sustainability efforts into its annual budget submission via a section specifically addressing sustainability programs, efforts and/or initiatives. The integration between this Sustainability Plan, the HHS Strategic Plan, and the Department’s performance budget submission will crystallize as we continue to educate and empower employees on the sustainability initiative. F. Methods for Evaluation of Progress Key Internal Partners: All HHS divisions Each of the goal areas in this Plan is accompanied by specific milestones and metrics that will be used to evaluate progress moving forward. The planned centralized sustainability office will coordinate with HHS Operating Divisions to collect information and to evaluate progress on an ongoing basis. In the interim, each Operating Division will be responsible for individually meeting the goals established in this plan and reporting progress to the ASA/Office for Facilities Management and Policy for compilation. Continued engagement and guidance from each of the designated goal leads will be critical.
V. Evaluating Return on InvestmentHHS recognizes the importance of considering sustainable factors in its decision making process and the potential health and environmental consequences of failing to do so. At the Department level, HHS looks to highlight best practices, promote applicable research and data, and provide guidance and oversight for HHS capital investments. a. Economic Lifecycle Cost / Return on Investment As HHS identifies potential investments in programs, projects or initiatives, it must evaluate the expected return that those investments. In many cases, higher initial costs may lead to ongoing savings over the lifecycle of the investment, while lower initial costs may result in annual maintenance or replacement costs. For example, investments in prevention can prevent illness and reduce lifetime expenditures on disease care. While this reality is generally understood, however, it is not always implemented due to a combination of factors that make current life cycle cost analysis impossible to separate from other budget implementation and cost savings structures. There is a lack of transparency that results from a need to be economical in the amount of time spent on analysis, however, that economy causes us to lose sight of other issues not included in traditional cost benefit analysis structures. Clearly, analysis methods need to include initial costs, yearly costs and benefits to the entire system, contingent costs for emergencies and other periodic traumas to the system, removal and disposal costs and lifecycle replacement timeframes. Furthermore, analysis methods need to measure the cost of the current state – the “do nothing” scenario – so that projects and initiatives can be compared, not only against alternative projects but also against the current state. Projects, initiatives and efforts should identify an expected lifecycle cost or return during the planning process so that teams and decision makers can understand up front the expectations for the effort. Periodic evaluation data should be collected and trended against goals to identify underperforming programs and projects and provide oversight for improving their performance. b. Social Costs & Benefits The full complement of social issues to be included in Return on Investment (ROI) analysis should include: fair labor practices, fair trade, education access, human development, human rights, life satisfaction, health equity, cultural and ethnic integrity, ecosystem conservation, good governance, social capital, quality of life, prevention of health disparities, promotion of small businesses, worker health and safety, prevention of loss of habitat, and appropriate land use planning. Focus and expertise connecting expected social benefits and costs is needed to develop the tools and measures to appropriately and widely evaluate programs, efforts and initiatives. We will look for assistance from other executive agencies such as Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Department of Labor (DOL), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Office of the Federal Environmental Executive (OFEE) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on these measures. We also are partnering with the HHS Environmental Justice Task Force, which is targeting research and outreach especially aimed to support low income and minority populations. c. Environmental Costs and Benefits HHS embraces the guidance contained in Office of Management & Budget (OMB) circular A-4 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf) and Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html , on how to conduct cost-benefit analyses when there are environmental impacts. HHS has environmental compliance and stewardship programs at the major landholding OPDIVS (National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Indian Health Service (IHS), and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)) with professional staff to address the high risk aspects and impacts affiliated with biomedical research and the health and medical missions of the Department. Inclusion of environmentally-focused subject matter experts in major project planning facilitates the consideration of environmental costs and benefits in the project decision-making process. All HHS OPDIVS are required to have an Environmental Management System (EMS) in place. The purpose of an EMS is to integrate environmental policies and accountability into day-to-day decision making and long-term planning processes across all agency missions, activities, and functions to reduce the agency’s impact on the environment. While HHS cross-functional teams represent subject matter experts in sustainable buildings, energy, electronics stewardship, procurement and transportation and serve to ensure coordination across the programs, specific ROI analyses are not routine products of these collaborative efforts. Current EMS documentation ranks agency projects and initiatives on a relative scale but does not attempt to equate environmental impacts with their expected monetary costs to society. Focus and expertise connecting expected environmentally-related benefits and costs is needed to appropriately and widely evaluate programs, efforts and initiatives. Assistance from EPA, Office of the Federal Environmental Executive (OFEE) and OMB on these measures is requested. d. Mission-Specific Costs & Benefits As part of HHS’ health mission, we have data and information about the costs and benefits of various interventions and their effects on health (e.g., health disparities, environmental health, chronic disease, obesity, physical activity, nutrition, cardiovascular health, cancer, vector borne diseases, infectious diseases, clinical treatments, hospital acquired infections, pharmaceuticals, food labeling, preventive health, tribal health, mental health and many other specific services and conditions). We have access to data and scientific evidence that is vital to the development of cost models and criteria for health impact evaluation of federal operations. While we have many of the necessary resources to develop these tools, we need health economists to review the literature, develop models and share these analyses with other agencies and organizations to enhance the current economic models for ROI and fiscal lifecycle analysis. e. Operations & Maintenance (O&M) and Deferred Investments HHS maintains the vision, goals and policy that all landholding agencies incorporate sustainable life cycle management principles of E.O. 13514 as a critical element in all maintenance, repair and improvement activities. Facility assessments are conducted on a three to five year cycle to produce a “Condition Index” for each asset as well as to determine non-recurring maintenance costs and maintenance backlog. Limited Operations & Maintenance (O & M) resources require sound investment strategies, prioritized to sustain, maintain and make available reliable assets to accomplish mission critical and mission dependent functions in healthy, safe and code compliant facilities with a strong emphasis and desired return on investment for:
Deferred O & M investment considerations having lower priority for funding of maintenance or repair of facility components can be detrimental to both the condition of the facility as well as goals of E.O 13514 resulting in additional; operation or repair costs, energy and water usage, increased green house gas production as well as reduced reliability. Landholding agencies incorporate Reliability Centered Maintenance techniques as a cost effective maintenance strategy and perform life cycle cost analysis on all O & M investments. Maintenance backlogs are maintained to assure maintenance activities deferred beyond the optimal execution time are tracked for accomplishment as funding resources are made available. f. Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability HHS is aware of the dynamic relationship between global climate change and human health and well-being, and is taking a leadership role in efforts to respond and adapt to climate change. In fall 2009, HHS conducted an inventory of its activities related to climate change. HHS supports activities in the following areas: research and surveillance; community resiliency; and direct mitigation efforts. Future inventory updates can include assessment of risk and vulnerability to HHS programs and priorities. HHS also has begun to prepare the public health community for the impact of climate change, guided by our expertise in environmental health, infectious disease, and other fields. For example, CDC is facilitating the efforts of federal, state, and local public health agencies to prepare for the impact of climate change on public health. HHS leads or participates in a number of interdepartmental activities focused on climate change. HHS is co-leading a subcommittee on climate change and health within the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and participates in the Adaptation Task Force led by the Executive Office of the President. g. Other, as defined by agency HHS is committed to implementing programs, efforts and initiatives that demonstrate ROI in every aspect of cost and benefit analysis. For many years, we have focused on specific social, environmental and health benefits, balanced against available financial resources. Prioritization is necessary and difficult, as many important causes competing for the same funds. Some specific sustainability ROI considerations include:
As the Federal steward for health and human services, HHS must lead in researching and documenting these links and their cost implications. We must develop our own capital plans in a way that recognizes these links and incorporates them into our own operational systems and environments. We will continue to explore methods to demonstrate the link between health and productivity and cost.
VI. TransparencyHHS is committed to transparency of our sustainability efforts. We are working aggressively to enhance communication with the general public, other Federal, State and local communities, as well as among HHS staff. Our communication efforts include transparency of goals, progress, accomplishments and challenges. We are looking to educate and establish trust while encouraging innovation, research and development towards healthy, sustainable operations at all levels. For examples of recent publications and outreach efforts, please visit:
The Go Green Get Healthy internal website and promotional materials target HHS employees and feature educational information, events, and activities to enhance sustainability and wellness programs, and “Green Champion” employees.
Section 2: Performance Review & Annual UpdateI. Summary of AccomplishmentsIntroduction At HHS, we promote responsible environmental policy year-round since the health of the American people is directly linked to a healthy environment. We take pride in our year to year accomplishments regarding sustainability and are happy to support our current Administration’s commitment to open government and transparency. A major accomplishment of the Department is the creation of a Sustainability Task Force and Workgroups. Accomplishments from each goal area supported by their respective workgroups are briefly described below. Scope 1 & 2 Greenhouse Gas Reduction In FY 2010, HHS reduced energy consumption by 4.4 percent as compared to FY 2009 with an overall decrease of 21 percent when compared to the FY 2003 baseline year. These results far exceed the FY 2010 SSPP goal of a 5.9 percent reduction from the baseline year. This is in large part due to renewable energy projects installed with ARRA funding and significant energy efficiency projects implemented with both ARRA and alternative financing funding. New alternative financing projects and sustainable, LEED rated building designs also were awarded. An emphasis on management also was enhanced in FY 2010 as an energy management workgroup was formed to focus and coordinate efforts throughout the Department. The workgroup established new goals for the FY 2011 Sustainability Plan, updated the HHS Metering Policy, established new training requirements and identified strategies to meet GHG reduction goals. An in-house transportation planner coordinates, supports, and promotes a number of successful transportation initiatives at the CDC, which include a Platinum Level Partnership with the Georgia Clean Air Campaign. CDC has signed partnership certificates for each of its owned and leased facilities in Atlanta. In 2010, CDC and the Clean Air Campaign conducted training to educate personnel on transportation choices, including walking, bicycling, mass transit, vanpooling, carpooling, teleworking and alternative work schedules. Scope 3 Greenhouse Gas Reduction In early 2011, HHS conducted a survey to collect data on its federal employee commuter habits and began to offer a transit subsidy for bike riders. The HHS Go Green Commuter Survey data will be used in the FY2011 GHG inventory to determine the emissions associated with the federal employee commute. The data will be analyzed for significant trends (e.g., relationships between commuter habits and choices) that will be used to inform behavioral strategies to reduce GHG emissions. HHS also will use the survey to set baseline emissions and reduction targets for each OPDIV. Because there were concerns about the Volpe survey design, validity, and reliability, that survey was used as a foundation for the HHS survey. With regards to the bike rider subsidy, HHS federal employees who bike to work are now eligible to receive a $20 monthly subsidy through the Bicycle Subsidy Program. Within days of the program announcement, more than 200 inquires were made regarding the subsidy. Although this is a part of an existing transit benefit, agencies should run this by employee unions to avoid delays in program administration. HHS Fleet Green House Gas (GHG) Reduction The HHS GHG (MT CO2e) emission reduction initiatives have resulted in an improved prediction estimate from an earlier value of 3% to a current estimate of 11% compared to a 2008 baseline. The targets will be obtained because of HHS shift from low efficiency gasoline vehicles to model year 2010 high efficiency vehicles such as the Ford Fusion. The Department also improved the capabilities of its internal “petroleum” product reporting and monitoring via our Motor Vehicle Management Information System (MVMIS). Each affected HHS unit can now determine the effectiveness of its mission use of alternative fueled (flex fuel) configured vehicles and make better decisions about “right sizing” the fleet at local levels nationwide. The net effect is a sustained 25-30% reduction in petroleum products over time based on a 2005 baseline. High-Performance Sustainable Design / Green Buildings Laboratories
Facility Condition Assessments
Health in Buildings Research Initiatives
Water Use Efficiency and Management In FY 2010, HHS reduced water consumption by 2.4 percent as compared to FY 2009, and is currently at the FY 2007 baseline consumption. Several water efficiency projects were completed in FY 2010 such as cooling tower upgrades, well water use, highly efficient plumbing fixtures and xeriscape landscaping. A boiler makeup water reduction project was started in FY 2010 and will be completed in FY 2011 that will yield greater decreases in FY 2011 and 2012. In addition, a water management workgroup was formed that established new water reduction goals, coordinated and attended a water training course, identified additional training needs and developed a water leak detection policy. Pollution Prevention and Waste Elimination In 2010, HHS completed its first Pollution Prevention (P2) Waste Assessment of all operating divisions with a focus on HHS owned and/or operated facilities. The assessment also attempted to capture non-landholding and lease facilities. Even though data from these facilities is not reportable, it enables outreach and raises awareness. Overall the initial assessment forms the basis for improvements in data collection and a follow up assessment will be conducted in the second half of 2011. Although the data collection was imperfect, the information yielded recycling rates ranging from 7% to 46 % and an overall recycling of 17%. HHS developed the comprehensive 2011 HHS Policy “Restricting Procurement, Use, Storage and Disposal of Mercury and its Compounds on HHS Facilities.” In accordance with the SSPP, the policy supports the task of reducing and minimizing the acquisition, use and disposal of hazardous chemicals and materials. The mercury policy builds on past successes, is historic in its scope and breadth, and supports the Department’s mission to protect the health of Americans by preventing environmental releases of mercury from HHS facilities. HHS believes its mercury policy can be readily adopted by other Federal agencies. This will provide an example of federal leadership in pollution prevention and will result in significant reductions in potential human exposure to this toxic material. P2WE Challenges include:
HHS is developing a Sustainable Acquisition Policy Memorandum (APM) to implement: (1) the mandatory collection of green purchasing data in the Departmental Contracts Information System (DCIS); (2) the addition of sustainable evaluation criteria into applicable solicitations; and, (3) the incorporation of sustainable acquisition provisions and contract clauses into applicable contracts. The APM will facilitate the measurement of the 95% sustainable acquisition threshold and enhance the effectiveness of green procurement practices at HHS. Electronic Stewardship and Data Centers HHS has developed the Electronic Stewardship Policy and the Policy for Data Center Management. The establishment of these policies will:
One project worth noting is the migration of FDA datacenter from Rockville, MD to Ashburn, VA. The process of transforming FDA’s information systems through the migration to new, modernized data centers was a high-priority initiative, developed as part of the Information Computing Technologies for the 21st Century (ICT21) program. All FDA Production, Development and Test environments were migrated to new datacenters, which in turn closed down the antiquated Parklawn facility. The ability to standardize the infrastructure allowed the FDA to achieve 90.2% virtualization. This consolidation effort resulted in a reduction of 110 database servers to 18. Having achieved a high percentage of virtualization reduces the physical footprint in our datacenters thus reducing power and cooling utilization. One state-of-the-art facility in Ashburn, VA, and another at the FDA White Oak Campus provide the high performance and data storage required in today’s technology environment while anticipating a cloud computing platform. The modern, redundant architecture of these data centers protects FDA systems from internal and external security threats. The robust electrical and cooling support systems ensure continuous operations under adverse conditions. In addition, HHS has:
At HHS encourage innovation so as to bring new ideas to our workplace that will help us carry out our mission activities and meet our sustainability goals. To encourage innovation in sustainable practices and technologies we use an array of incentivisation tools including HHSinnovates, a new employee award program created as part of the HHS Open Government initiative. Twice a year, HHS employees are invited to submit innovations via an intranet site. The top innovations are posted for secure, on-line voting and commenting by the entire HHS community. One of the recent award winners for a sustainability innovation was the CDC Laboratory Recycling Pilot Program. The pilot program created a procedure for sterilizing plastic containers used in laboratories so they no longer pose a potential biosafety hazard and can be safely recycled. Over 16 months this innovative venture led to a total of 13,772 pounds of solid plastic waste being recycled instead of contributing to landfill waste. Conclusion While these summaries are only a snapshot of the steps we are taking at HHS to make the world a greener place to live, they illustrate how we improving our practices. At HHS we are committed to doing whatever is necessary to protect the health of all Americans, and we recognize that ensuring a clean and healthy environment is a fundamental part of that effort.
II. Goal Performance ReviewGOAL 1: Scope 1 & 2 Greenhouse Gas Reductiona. Goal Description 1. Buildings: HHS will reduce its total scope 1 (stationary sources) & 2 GHG emissions by 15.5% by 2020 through a combination of energy reduction efforts and the use of renewable energy. This reduction equates to a 32.5% reduction in energy intensity per square foot. The reductions numbers represent an anticipated gross square footage increase of approximately one million square feet at CDC and NIH between FY 2010 and FY 2020. The overall 32.5% reduction goal is based on the results of in depth analysis of project space usage and management, current energy consumption trends, renewable energy use, and anticipated efficiency projects particularly those NIH and IHS projects planned to be completed with ARRA funding in FY 2012 with savings realized in FY 2013 and beyond. Each OPDIV has developed a plan to meet the energy reductions requirements of Executive Order (EO) 13514 of 30% energy use reduction as compared to a FY 2003 baseline. The plan centers on a one percent decrease from FY 10 to FY 11, two percent between FY 2012 and 2013, and three percent thereafter through FY 2015. Energy reductions from FY 2015 through FY 2020 are estimated at 0.5% per year as major projects will have been implemented. While the OPDIVS will strive to meet this goal by FY 2015, it may take additional time to complete all projects planned. HHS is reducing per capita energy consumption through space management policies but has not developed a means of directly measuring the energy intensity reduction. 2. Fleet: HHS is projecting an 11% reduction in scope 1 (mobile sources) GHG emissions (using FY08 as the baseline) by 2020. This number will be adjusted based on actual experience during the performance cycle 2010 through 2020. HHS will continue to make progress towards this goal by:
Table 3: HHS Fleet CO2e Reduction Table
b. Agency Lead Overall Lead: Assistant Secretary for Administration (ASA) Sub Goal Leads:
c. Implementation Methods 1. Buildings: HHS will continue to reduce scope 1 (stationary sources) & 2 emissions by continuing with the well-established programs described below:
Most of the actual energy saving programs and projects are implemented in the field. The current energy management function located in the central office provides technical support and Department-wide reporting only. Specific projects to be completed at the OPDIVS include:
The sustainable buildings program and electronic stewardship significantly impacts the overall energy use in the Department. Implementation of these programs will help reduce the energy intensity in the facilities. 2. Fleet Emissions: Continue the acquisition strategy of obtaining alternative fueled vehicles while simultaneously decreasing gasoline powered (carbon based units in the fleet): A recent Memorandum from the Executive office of the President, dated April 18, 2011, directed (See Paragraph 4(1) thru 4(6)(e)(2)) which requires HHS to be in compliance with guidelines relative to (i) the commencement of acquisition of alternative fueled vehicles by 2015, (ii) optimized fleet sizes, (iii) determining optimal fleet inventory, (iv) compliance with respect to EO 13514 via the use of alternative fuels, and (v) be in compliance with existing legislation, and current pertinent regulations. “Right-size” the HHS fleet. Continue the current program initiative designed to formalize and implement an HHS nationwide Vehicle Allocation Method (VAM). This will be accomplished by continuing an existing partnership with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) for an automated VAM system model. See Memorandum from the Executive office of the President, dated April 18, 2011, directed (See Paragraph 4(6) (a through (e) respectively. Improve Fleet Management training, promotions, and awards. Require that all first level Fleet Management staff attend federally sanctioned training offered by GSA annually, focused on the following Executive Orders: EO 13423, EO 13514 and 13513. This training is offered via FEDFLEET professional seminars annually. Training for line Fleet managers shall be mandatory. Lobby for universal road symbols to identify “alternative fuel”, e.g., use bio-based fuel with plant symbol. d. Positions In order to further reduce energy consumption, HHS will need to hire additional energy professionals at the Operating Division (OPDIV) level. The best use of an energy manager’s time is out in the field identifying projects and analyzing utility data. Energy managers should not be saddled with the project management duties for the projects they develop but rather maintain a consulting role in connection with the project - not be the lead. Further, energy management should be the primary function of the position instead of a collateral duty. At the OPDIV level, 4 additional FTE’s are required if the energy management function is the primary duty and the project management functions are handled by others in order to free up the time of our existing energy managers. If energy program oversight is required, the Department will need 1 to 2 additional energy personnel depending on the level of oversight required. Each OPDIV and STAFFDIV will need to increase staff in order to appropriately calculate goals and strategies associated with fleet fuel use with regards to meeting the HHS COE reduction strategies. This effort could require .5 FTE per location or an increase of 2 total FTE’s. e. Planning Table
__________________________ 1 In fleet vehicles. f. Agency Status: In FY 2010, HHS developed a stronger foundation and plan for achieving EO energy reductions and GHG savings under the structure of the HHS Energy Program. The core of the HHS Energy Program and structure is the Energy Management Workgroup. This team has established priorities and actions plans under the direction of the HHS Energy Officer. Focusing on the completion of comprehensive audits, installation of energy meters, automation of data gathering and reporting, training and outreach the workgroup has determined key actions to be completed in order to achieve significant savings. The workgroup began many of these actions in FY 2010 through the completion on-line training webinars, offering of major outreach events and monthly toolkits, identification of automated reporting tools and development of policy documents. Additional, alternative financing contracts and specifics projects were completed to advance energy savings. Guidance documents on the completion of audits and commissioning was identified or established as well. It is critical that audits be completed in order to identify the most cost effective efficiency projects. In FY 2011, the OPDIVS will implement the action plans established by the workgroup. OPDIV metering plans will be updated and the installation of meters will continue. Training on the performance of comprehensive auditing is planned for August 2011 and two more additional dates in FY 2012, in order to train HHS energy personnel to perform in-house audits. Once the audits have been completed specific projects can be planned for implementation. The automated data gathering and reporting tools that have been identified will be populated with facility information and specific details. FY 2011 will be the year that the tools set-up and refined, so that in FY 2012 more time can be focused on the implementation of projects. In FY 2011 and 2012, training will be a key component of efficiency efforts. Webinar offerings will be highlighted and strongly promoted, and in-house training will be provided on topics such as auditing, automated data reporting tools, renewable energy applications, and new technologies. These course agendas will be developed by the workgroup and coordinated by HHS headquarters and the workgroup. Outreach has become a focus in FY 2011 and will continue to gain importance in future years. Educating all employees on the goals and initiatives will maximize savings and efficiency. Outreach will work to change employee habits on the use of electronics and the building systems, and foster new ideas from the entire HHS workforce. When calculating the GHG emissions reduction, HHS used a GHG per energy use intensity value (GHG emissions/MMBtu) based upon FY 2010 data. It was assumed that the energy savings (by energy type) to be realized would be in the approximate same ratio as the current energy use. This ratio was applied to the estimated energy savings to determine the resulting GHG emissions. HHS will implement a consolidated Enhanced Motor Vehicle Management Information System (EMVMIS) beginning in FY12. This resource will allow for Department data to be consolidated for all leased, owned, and rented fleet assets and consolidate all of the associated Green House Gas Emission statistics. The project should be complete in FY2013 and implemented in FY2014. g. Return on Investment: HHS OPDIVS modify metering plans as the life-cycle cost figures change for specific buildings. In some cases, buildings have been removed from the metering lists and in other cases new buildings have been added. These will be reflected in the update to the metering plans due in June. Additionally, some OPDIVS, such as CDC, have deemed it cost effective to implement all energy meters in a building at one time. Therefore, some electrical meters may not be installed by FY 2012 in order to minimize first cost by installing them with natural gas and water meters in FY 2013. HHS has some buildings with expiring lease agreements, major renovations planned, or scheduled to be demolished in the near future, thereby making the implementation of otherwise life-cycle cost effective projects ineffective. The HHS energy and water workgroups have established a ten-year simple payback as the indicator whether a project is cost effective or not. Efficiency projects will not be implemented for buildings for which such circumstances will change in less than 10 years. Renewable energy purchases will not exceed the required 7.5% unless the cost to purchase is equal or less to the cost of standard electricity. Renewable energy on-site application projects will not exceed the 7.5% target unless the project is cost effective with a simple payback of 10 years or less. h. Highlights: Successes:
Challenges:
GOAL 2: Scope 3 Greenhouse Gas Reduction & Develop and Maintain Agency Comprehensive Greenhouse Gas Inventorya. Goal description In the FY10 SSPP, HHS set a scope 3 reduction target of 3.3% by FY20. The following were FY20 reduction targets for the subcategories:
b. Agency lead for goal. Assistant Secretary for Administration (ASA). c. Implementation methods The Department has established Environmental Management Systems (EMS) to identify, plan and track environment related improvements throughout all operations. Based on the EMS, Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHG) Teams were created to complete HHS’ inventories. The GHG Inventory team is led by the HHS GHG Inventory Manager (herein referred to as HHS GHG Manager) and each landholding OPDIV has a representative on this team. The process is described under the Development of the Agency’s FY 2010 Greenhouse Gas Inventory section. Reducing scope 3 GHGs is the responsibility of every single employee who travels, commutes, or disposes of waste in any operational units across the Department with special responsibility for the systems for transportation, energy and waste management by human resources, transportation, facilities and health and safety professionals. Each of these disparate groups will implement programs, educational efforts, policy improvements and organizational structures and systems to improve the environment and culture that effects transportation, energy and waste disposal choices. The EMS supports sustainability goals through focused planning, improvement and tracking activities which may include the formation and coordination of green teams, training, outreach, and awareness initiatives. The following will describe each planned activity and provide specific milestones for FY 2011 and 2012 towards achieving the scope 3 subcategory reduction targets as well as improving data accuracy, calculation, and implementation of the GHG inventory. Federal employee travel (business travel and commuting): Federal employee commuting constitutes 80% of the emissions for this category. While 1% reductions in business air and ground travel will reduce emissions, HHS must reduce the number of daily commuters as well as increase the use of public transportation to achieve a 1% mtCO2e reduction for the entire subcategory. This reduction target is based on increasing participation in the public transportation subsidy program by 2%; encouraging steady increases in teleworking and alternative/compressed schedule options for eligible employees; and reducing business travel by substituting in-person meetings with teleconferencing or virtual meetings when practical. In April of 2011, HHS conducted survey to collect data on HHS federal employee commuter habits. This data will be used in the FY2011 GHG inventory to determine the emissions associated with the federal employee commute. The data will also be analyzed for significant trends (e.g., relationships between commuter habits and choices) that will be used to inform behavioral strategies. HHS will also use the survey to set baseline emissions and reduction targets for each OPDIV. Having this information will empower each OPDIV to motivate managers to promote the program with their own staff. A recently released transportation policy broadens the scope of allowable modes of transportation costs under the current transit subsidy program. As mentioned previously, HHS federal employees who bike to work are now eligible to receive a $20 monthly subsidy through the Bicycle Subsidy Program. Many of HHS OPDIVS have bike rider clubs and events as well as secure location for bike storage, lockers and showers. HHS anticipates a modest expansion of these programs in FY2011 and 2012 throughout the Department. The current information technology (IT) infrastructure necessary to meet the conference, collaboration, and telework needs of the entire Department is improving. For example, NIH has increased its use of web conferencing by 30%, which likely contributed to the 2.3% reduction in the mtCO2e emissions from ground travel. The FDA currently has set a personal computer refresh process goal for all employees to have laptops and docking stations to be eligible to work at an alternative site. The FDA’s IT infrastructure for remote access has been enhanced significantly to enable use by 10,000+ employees at one time. In addition, FDA has a pilot project planned for hotelling and office sharing with an emphasis on teleworking and space reduction. The HHS Program Support Center (PSC) has partnered with the Office of Personnel Management to provide free training to employees and managers to increase telework awareness and knowledge. This pilot will be an important step to inject knowledge into the organization on an important government wide initiative that could reduce cost, improve employee morale, reduce fuel consumption and decrease carbon emissions. These programs coupled with leveraging the CDCeducation and outreach campaigns and other community resources to promote telework, use of public transportation and active commuting will likely result in significant increases in program use. For FY2011 and 2012, HHS plans to use the best practices and lessons learned from the aforementioned programs. Contracted waste disposal: Contracted waste disposal comprises 7% of the scope 3 emissions. A 15% reduction target for this category is based upon increasing recycling rates and decreasing waste generation through sustainable practices such as reducing paper consumption by double side printing, promoting printing only when necessary and increased emphasis on the use of paperless office procedures, electronic documents for conferences, and electronic records technology. HHS continues to consolidate and improve the data collection, tracking, and trending systems for all waste management systems. HHS created a draft report that itemizes all types of waste and operational units are evaluating the systems in place and needed to consistently account for and report these metrics. In FY11 and FY12, HHS plans to conduct pilot contracted waste disposal characterization study in a location where the waste is sent to a landfill as opposed to an incinerator. To further reduce waste and meet our target, HHS will also leverage programs and strategies described in Goal 5 Pollution Prevention and Waste Reduction; and Goal 7 Electronic Stewardship and Data Centers sections. T&D losses from purchased electricity: Transmission and Distribution (T&D) losses from purchased electricity constitute 13% of the scope 3 emissions. The reduction of electrical T&D losses will closely mirror the reduction of scope 2 emissions from purchased electricity. HHS numbers may vary from year to year because the factors of influence constantly change. These factors include facility growth, equipment power use, the weather, patient load, fluctuations in the number of HHS employees, mission changes and emergency response operations. HHS has implemented the following infrastructure strategies to emissions in this category:
To further reduce T&D losses, HHS leverages programs and strategies described in Goal 1 Scope 1 & 2 GHG Reduction; Goal 3 High-Performance Sustainable Design / Green Buildings & Regional and Local Planning; and Goal 7 Electronic Stewardship and Data Centers sections. Planned agency activity or policy implementation to improve data accuracy and overall data collection and analysis methods related to Scope 3 GHG emissions. In mid-April 2011, HHS surveyed its federal workforce to collect data on HHS federal employee commuter habits. More than 16,500 federal employees (20% response rate) located in the US and its territories responded to the survey. The Goal 2 Work Group will use this data to: calculate emissions and set targets for each OPDIV; calculate the emissions for the Department using the survey data; adjust the FY08 baseline, FY10 inventory, and if necessary the FY20 target; and analyze data for significant relationships that may inform intervention strategies. The Goal 2 Work Group also will leverage other policy and data calls (e.g., the HHS Telework Policy and the Goal 5 Waste survey) to avoid duplication of efforts and streamline processes. Based on this SSPP, HHS established “Green Teams” one of which is GHG Inventory team using the aforementioned EMS. The GHG Inventory team was led by the HHS GHG Manager and each landholding OPDIV had a representative on this team. The HHS GHG Manager served as the organizational coordinator on HHS GHG inventory mandates/data collection as well as established procedures and awareness programs to ensure organizational personnel and operations complied with the applicable inventory guidelines. Using the guidance and adhering to the requirements put forth by the HHS GHG Manager, the OPDIV GHG Managers coordinated data collection as well as documented (i.e., information needed, responsible office, points of contact, etc.) the collection process. Methods used by the agency to calculate its scope 3 GHG emissions. HHS identified the required data by utilizing the data collection templates. Because this was the first inventory, data collected by the OPDIV GHG Managers was inputted into the FEMP Workbooks as well as the compiled by the HHS GHG Manager. The HHS GHG manager and reviewed the data for completeness and errors. Once this review was complete, the HHS GHG Inventory Manager compiled the workbooks into one Department workbook and submitted it for review by the appropriate subject matter experts at the Department level. Development of the agency’s FY 2010 Greenhouse Gas inventory. HHS used a quality assurance validation approach to verify that the inventories are reliable. Each OPDIVS GHG Managers reviewed and verified the data before submitting it to the HHS GHG Manager. Once the inventories were compiled by the HHS GHG Manager, Department-level subject matter experts reviewed the inventory and corrected any errors. Because some of the second party reviewers were not independent of those responsible for reporting the GHG emissions, HHS submitted an inventory management plan. The biggest challenge in completing the inventory was finding and gathering the data using limited resources while balancing other Department priorities (e.g., implementing Affordable Care Act). Most OPDIVS require more resources (mostly in time and talent) to complete and maintain the inventory. In addition evolving inventory reporting requirements delayed data gathering from the tribal facilities. HHS views this as an opportunity to strengthen relationships with our tribal partners and remains optimistic that the number of tribally run facilities reporting data for the inventory will increase in the out years.4 HHS will continue to use the Goal 2 Work Group and the EMS structure to integrate GHG data collection, inventory management, and reduction strategies into overall planning practices. Through the Goal 2 Work Group, HHS has established future requirements for the GHG inventory and has standardized processes/timelines in order to maintain and manage the inventory. In the future, HHS plans to use a data management system to compile and maintain its inventory. The system is in the prototype/pilot phase. Lessons learned from the FY10 inventory are being incorporated into the requirements process. This system should enable HHS to shift from quality assurance to second-party verification for FY12 inventory because the Energy Managers at the Department would be able to remain independent of those responsible for reporting the GHG emissions. Other, as defined by Agency: HHS is not reporting additional scope 3 emissions at this time. d. Positions - The majority of the participants in the Goal 2 Work Group are on collateral duty. This Goal is particularly challenging to staff given the unique mission of HHS, diversity of the scope, the complexity of methodologies, and the breadth of implementation strategies. This category requires that the employees have a general, interdisciplinary background in administration and science, a position that is not easily classifiable using the current occupational position standards5. e. Planning Table
f. Agency status - Using the inventory as a reference, HHS reduced emissions in business ground travel despite a significant growth in employee population. This reduction could be attributed to an increase in the use of web-based collaboration tools and teleconferencing. HHS will continue to offer programs and initiatives that will reduce scope 3 emissions and promote healthy lifestyles. These programs range from offering transit subsidies to flexible schedules/places. The flexible schedule/places, primarily telework, program participation has remained steady. The Goal 2 Work group plans to share the results of the commuter survey with the HHS Office of Human Resources and build a partnership to implement future behavioral strategies aimed at increasing use of flexible schedules/places, particularly telework. The increased use of telework is a key strategy in reducing scope 3 emissions. Lastly, many offices within HHS have recycling and energy efficiency programs that conserve resources and reduce the overall consumption of materials. For example PSC and NIH recycle nearly 48% and 30% of waste, respectively. g. Return on Investment – HHS has not canceled or delayed any Goal 2 initiatives. Recently the PSC, a shared services organization, awarded a blanket purchase agreement that will begin to modernize the way it does business. As a technical solution, the One Stop Service (OSS) project will encompass modern IT practices and platforms (both hardware and software). The OSS will also provide an integration server and workflow server to allow for custom workflows to be developed against any data provider used by PSC – past, present or future. This electronic platform will provide PSC customer the option for electronic documentation. By FY20, the PSC anticipates that more than 25,000,000 pages will be saved from being printed and mailed, which is equal to approximately 3200 trees and will help save the PSC, HHS, and its federal customers $2 million. h. Highlights – As previously described HHS recently conducted a commuter survey. The survey results indicate a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 0.7%.8 This data will provide a more accurate depiction of federal employee commuting habits. The challenge for HHS will be setting appropriate reduction targets for each OPDIV. These targets will have to balance mission requirements while encouraging a change in business/management culture during a time of mission expansion. To highlight one such challenge, the larger OPDIVS (CDC, FDA, IHS, and NIH) comprise approximately two-thirds of federal employee population. Because the majority of the assigned employees perform hands-on patient care and laboratory work, it is highly likely that a considerable number of employees may not be eligible for regular recurring telework. This creates a situation where the other smaller OPDIVS will have to set more ambitious reduction targets than they may have initially desired. Some of these OPDIVS have experienced or are experiencing significant increases in personnel leaving little room for target fluctuations. ________________________________ 4 Public Law 93-638 and Executive Order 13175 require an agency consult with the tribes regarding policies that have tribal implications. .
GOAL 3: High-Performance Sustainable Design / Green Buildings & Regional and Local Planninga. Goal Description -High-Performance Sustainable Design / Green Buildings The largest environmental impacts from HHS mission activities are associated with siting, construction and operation of building assets. To help mitigate those impacts, HHS has incorporated the high-performance sustainable design requirements of the “Guiding Principles for High Performance and Sustainable Buildings” (GP) in the HHS Facilities Program Manual. HHS Policy for Sustainable and High Performance Buildings was issued in September 2006 and incorporated into the HHS “Sustainable Buildings Implementation Plan.” The SBIP was updated in April 2011 (as the “Sustainable Buildings Plan” (SBP)), to incorporate Executive Order 13514 requirements. Attainment of the goals and targets in the SBP will significantly reduce energy, water and materials use, GHG emissions and waste generation, consistent with the goals of this plan. Additionally, HHS is developing science-based indoor environmental quality (IEQ) criteria that will supplement the current GP and LEED® requirements. Each sub-goal below includes a description of current SBP targets and/or focus, along with gaps the Department intends to address in the next year. (a) Beginning in FY20, all new Federal buildings that enter the planning process are to be designed to achieve zero-net energy by FY 2030. HHS will comply with this requirement in new buildings and build-to-suit leases. The definition of zero-net energy buildings has been added to the HHS SBP, as have interim targets (based on EISA) for increasing energy efficiency and reducing fossil-fuel generated energy use. See the April 2011 HHS SBP for more information. (b) Comply with the “Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings” in all new construction, major renovation or repair and alteration of Federal buildings. HHS will comply with this requirement in new buildings, major modernizations and build-to-suit leases. Under the scope of this policy, HHS defines major renovation projects as improvement projects9. which have a total project cost equal to or greater than $10 million and/or impacting 40% or more of the overall floor area. Construction and improvement projects with a total project value equal to or greater than $10 million and improvement projects impacting 40% or more of the overall floor area (60% for housing) require third party certification that meets the requirements of a multi-attribute green building standard or rating system developed by an ANSI-accredited organization. Requests for waivers, based on life-cycle costs, operational feasibility or technical application, must be approved by the HHS Senior Real Property Officer. All existing owned buildings and direct leases will be assessed and compliance with the GP. See the April 2011 HHS SBP for more information. (c) Assess and demonstrate that at least 15% of agency’s existing government-owned buildings, agency direct-leased buildings, delegated authority leased buildings, and FRPP-reported leased buildings meet Guiding Principles by FY 2015 [5,000 GSF threshold for existing buildings and building leases]. The highest HHS priority at this time is the incorporation of the GP into existing owned buildings. Due to limited availability of funds and the relatively small quantity of office space occupied by HHS, we anticipate that this goal will not be met on the basis of total number of buildings. The current milestone for 2015 is to achieve compliance within 27.8% of total square footage. Mission-related or regulatory limitations also make achieving substantial compliance with the GP problematic for certain types of HHS facilities, including historic properties and laboratories. Waivers for specific GP elements may be necessary for mission-related reasons such as avoiding daylighting in radiology suites. NIH will achieve compliance in two thirds of their existing buildings, once they are certified under LEED® for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance (EBOM), as permitted for projects registered prior to October 1, 2008. See the April 2011 HHS SBP for more information. (d) Demonstrate annual progress toward 15% conformance with Guiding Principles for entire building inventory by 2015, and 100%, thereafter. HHS will continue to make annual progress toward 15% conformance with GP for our entire building inventory by 2015, and 100%, thereafter. Agency policy and planning for new facilities and leases, and lease renewals incorporates GP requirements to the greatest extent practicable, subject to the waiver process described in the April 2011 “HHS Sustainable Building Plan.” Milestones for compliance of the baseline inventory (based on FRPP), is reported below. See the April 2011 HHS SBP for more information. (e) Incorporate sustainable practices into agency policy and planning for new Federal facilities and leases, and into lease renewal strategies. HHS has updated its “Real Property Asset Management Plan” and is continuing to update the “HHS Facilities Program Manual” to incorporate sustainable practices. Commissioning, Value Engineering, Metering and Leak Detection were identified as the highest priority and have been updated. Additional sections are under review. HHS will continue to work with GSA to incorporate GP into lease actions. See the April 2011 HHS SBP for more information. (f) Demonstrate use of cost-effective, innovative building and sustainable landscape strategies to minimize energy, water and materials consumption. Requirements for cost-effective, innovative building and sustainable landscape strategies to minimize energy, water and material consumption through sustainable design practices and requirements are being implemented. As part of the 2010 HHS SBP update, the Sustainable Building Checklists were updated to reflect the requirements of E.O. 13514, including capturing innovative building strategies where applicable. See the April 2011 HHS SBP for more information. (g) Operate and maintain, and conduct all minor repairs and alterations for existing building systems to reduce energy, water and materials consumption in a manner that achieves a net reduction in agency deferred maintenance costs. HHS will operate and maintain, and perform all minor repairs and alterations for existing buildings and systems in a manner that reduces energy, water and materials consumption and achieves a net reduction in agency deferred maintenance costs through the sustainable management and maintenance of existing buildings systems. The Operations and Maintenance Section of the HHS Facilities Manual is being updated to incorporate this policy. See the April 2011 HHS SBP for more information. (h) Optimize performance of the agency’s real property portfolio –dispose and consolidate excess and underutilized property, co-locate field offices, consolidate across metropolitan and regional locations. HHS will optimize real property portfolio performance, dispose and consolidate excess and underutilized property, co-locate field offices, and consolidate across metropolitan and regional locations, as funds become available. HHS space acquisition actions will be aligned with all agency goals under Executive Orders 13514 and 13327, “Federal Real Property Asset Management.” All new leases, new construction and major space alteration projects shall investigate and provide opportunities for increased location efficiency and reduction in emissions associated with employee commuting, through cooperation with local officials. A reference was added to the 2010 update of the HHS SBP to emphasize consideration of opportunities to reduce environmental impacts. A policy for optimization of office space has been issued, setting the utilization rate target of 170 useable square feet per person, on average, for all office and office support space. See the April 2011 HHS SBP for more information. (i) Reduce need for new building and field office space by utilizing technologies to increase telework opportunities and expand delivery of services (over the internet or electronically). HHS is leading by example with supportive telework and flexible workplace policies by utilizing technologies to increase telework opportunities and expand electronic delivery of services. See telework discussion under Regional and Local Planning, below, and in SSPP Goal 2 Section GHG reduction plans. (j) Ensure use of best practices and technology in rehabilitation of historic Federal properties. Historic HHS properties will be conserved, rehabilitated, and reused, using current best practices and technology. In addition to existing policy within the HHS Facilities Program Manual, language was incorporated into the April 2011 HHS SBP. HHS will incorporate the recently published ACHP guidance on “Sustainability and Historic Federal Buildings” into the HHS Facilities Program Manual update of the Historic Preservation policy. (k) Align agency space actions (new leases, new construction, and consolidation) with agency Scope 1&2 and Scope 3 GHG reduction targets. Where possible, and in cooperation with regional and local official, HHS will work towards increased location efficiency and reduction in GHGs associated with all of our operations. To promote consolidation, HHS has established an updated utilization rate policy for office and office support space at 170 useable square feet per person on average. The CDC Buildings and Facilities Office has an in-house transportation planner, instrumental in coordinating, supporting and promoting a number of successful transportation initiatives at the CDC. CDC is a Platinum Level Partner with the Clean Air Campaign, to educate personnel on transportation choices including walking, bicycling, riding mass transit, vanpooling, carpooling, teleworking, and compressed schedule days off. Goal description - Regional and Local Planning (a) Incorporate consultation with local and metropolitan planning organizations regarding the impact, or potential impact, of Federal actions on local transportation infrastructure and local development plans into existing policy and guidance. (b) Align agency policies to increase effectiveness of local planning efforts regarding transportation, energy resources and the environment. HHS is working to ensure that planning for new federal facilities or new leases increases the effectiveness of local planning efforts regarding transportation, energy resources and the environment, including consideration of sites that are pedestrian friendly, near existing employment centers and accessible to public transit. The HHS Sustainable Buildings Plan requires all projects and lease actions to consider the Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency and the General Services Administration’s “Recommendations on the Sustainable Siting of Federal Facilities,” issued April 5, 2010. (c) Increase effectiveness of regional measures that enhance integrity of local ecosystems and watersheds. HHS is developing strategies for significant agency participation in local and regional energy, transportation, watershed, and ecosystem planning. These are included under item (d), below. (d) Update agency policy and guidance to ensure that all Environmental Impact Statements (EIS’s) and Environmental Assessments (EA’s) required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for proposed new or expanded Federal facilities, and as appropriate, identify and analyze impacts associated with energy (including alternative energy sources) and climate change. HHS has begun to identify and analyze impacts, including those on health and climate change, from energy usage and alternative energy sources in all Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Assessments for proposals for new or expanded Federal facilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). While guidance on this topic is still in draft (“Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions”), except for categorical exclusions, all new, proposed HHS facility expansions are covered under an EIS or EA. Energy efficiency is addressed in the HHS Sustainable Building Plan and climate change adaptability is being addressed in this SSPP and elsewhere in the Department. All HHS NEPA coordinators are engaged as new guidance comes out from the CEQ. HHS has requested funding to review and update NEPA policy in FY12 and 13. (e) Integrate methods and practices necessary to achieve the goals of this plan into agency master planning documents (i.e., high-performance, sustainable building goals, pollution prevention and waste reduction goals, water use reduction goals, sustainable acquisition goals, electronic stewardship and data center consolidation, etc.). HHS is reviewing Section 3-1,”Facilities Master Planning,” of the HHS Facilities Program Manual to incorporate these requirements to ensure Department –wide integration of these methods and practices. This will be done in coordination with OPDIV master planning efforts that have already implemented strategies to meet many of these goals. (f) Update agency policy and guidance to ensure coordination and (where appropriate) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal and local management authorities regarding impacts to local ecosystems, watersheds and environmental management associated with proposed new or expanded Federal facilities. HHS sustainability checklists for large facility construction and renovation projects also include requirements for project alignment with regional efforts and goals established by OPDIV Environmental Management System for impact reductions. HHS is updating agency policy to ensure Department –wide integration of these methods and practices. (g) Discuss agency participation in critical local and regional efforts and initiatives (i.e., Executive Order on Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration, Executive Order on Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes, etc.). In the coming year, HHS will identify and participate in critical local and regional efforts and initiatives to support ongoing efforts. b. Agency lead for goal (a) For High-Performance Sustainable Design / Green Buildings - Assistant Secretary for Administration (ASA)/Office for Facilities Management and Policy (OFMP). (b) For Regional and Local Planning - ASA/OFMP and the ASA/ Office of Intergovernmental Affairs (IGA). c. Implementation methods (a) For High-Performance Sustainable Design / Green Buildings
(b) For Regional and Local Planning
d. Positions Currently, HHS does not have resources available to adequately staff the High-Performance Sustainable Design / Green Buildings and Regional and Local Planning Program. At HHS Headquarters (OFMP), sustainable buildings responsibilities are assigned to the Chief Architect for Sustainable Facilities, who has other, additional responsibilities related to oversight of OPDIV and STAFFDIV operations. All OPDIVs and STAFFDIVs have a designated representative on the Sustainable Buildings Workgroup. CDC’s Sustainable Buildings Coordinator is also the CDC Portfolio Manager, two separate sets of responsibilities. CDC’s Energy Manager also serves as a Fire Protection Engineer. These functions are handled similarly, elsewhere, where this is typically a collateral function and less than 50% of staff time is dedicated to implementation. IHS addresses these responsibilities as collateral functions, equivalent to approximately 1.5 to 2 FTEs. Due to staffing shortages and uncertainty regarding future hiring, it is not possible to create a position solely to manage and implement the Sustainable Buildings Program. IHS’ mission is to raise the physical, mental, social, and spiritual health of American Indians and Alaska Natives to the highest level. While sustainable buildings practices are essential and consistent with the IHS mission, the primary IHS staff focus remains health care and related public health services. As workload increases with ever changing technology and expanding regulatory, data collection and reporting requirements, a full time Sustainable Buildings Coordinator, at a minimum, is required in each of the landholding Operating Divisions. Similarly, within OFMP at least one person should be dedicated full time for the oversight, policy and leadership in the Sustainable Buildings Program. In non-landholding Operating Division the role of a Sustainable Buildings Coordinator could most likely be met through a partial FTE. e. Planning Table
Because 2020 is beyond the current 5-year budget planning cycle, we have no data to support goals for incorporating GPs by that year. All non-IHS, FRPP-reported leases were awarded prior to GP issuance and will therefore not be in compliance. IHS leases with Tribes reported to FRPP are subject to rights of self-governance and compliance is not mandatory. (a) For High-Performance Sustainable Design / Green Buildings - An agency-specific report generated from MAX Collect that includes Resource/Investment Information for goal areas covered in the Sustainability Plan will be attached at Appendix 1. Agency reports will include approved appropriations levels for FY10-11 and FY 2012 request levels from the President’s Budget. HHS currently projects 27.8% of gross square feet (GSF) will meet the GP in 2015. The compliance target, calculated on the projected 2015 baseline inventory of 605 assets totaling 31,458,790 GSF, is based on square footage of buildings rather than the number of individual buildings. The projected compliant square footage represents 6% of HHS buildings (37 total). HHS does not expect to achieve the 15% goal for individual buildings by 2015, primarily due to constraints in anticipated construction funding that limit our ability to carry out the major modernizations required to bring our inventory of existing buildings into compliance. Additionally, HHS’ facility modernization costs are substantially impacted by the nature of work being carried out in them, especially high containment laboratories, hospitals and clinics. (b) For Regional and Local Planning – We are identifying opportunities to develop healthy building and site criteria to our facilities and campuses that connect to communities and support local and regional planning efforts. Program under consideration include the CDC National Center for Environmental Health’s “Health and Healthy Places” program, LEED-Neighborhood Development (ND) program, and the U.S. Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “Partnership for Sustainable Communities” program. f. Agency status
g. Return on Investment HHS prioritizes facility and planning initiatives and efforts, based on the lifecycle return on investment (ROI), in accordance with OMB Circulars A-4, Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs, applicable tribal consultations, and Executive Order (EO) 13514; which requires consideration of economic, environmental, social, and mission-related costs and benefits, to the greatest extent possible. See the Pollution Prevention and Waste Section of this SSPP for an example of how health impacts of materials can be considered in ROI, and how our understanding of these impacts, backed by rigorous, science-based research, can enable us to take action now to reduce those negative impacts. There are, however, major challenges associated with achieving this goal:
h. Highlights HHS High-Performance Sustainable Design /Green Buildings accomplishments and challenges are detailed in the April 2011 “Sustainable Buildings Plan.” Overall, HHS is making operations more efficient and prioritizing facilities investments that will result in long term conservation of energy, water and other resources. We are consolidating our operations in modern, more efficient buildings, and where possible, removing inefficient assets from our inventory. The Department is also striving to improve the health of those who work in, visit, and occupy our facilities by connecting design and operational decisions to positive health outcomes. One example is the Healthy Community Design Initiative within the CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health, which is dedicated to understanding and improving the relationship between community design and public health. Currently work is being done to identify partners for a cooperative agreement that will increase the knowledge and capacity for Health Impact Assessments (HIA). HIA helps decision-makers avoid adverse health consequences and costs, and improve health. HIA may also reduce environmental injustices by characterizing opportunities to improve the relationship between affected vulnerable groups and the policy or project. Finally, checklists developed for use in the HHS “Sustainable Buildings Plan” have been adopted for use by other federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture. They include:
________________________________ 9 Improvement projects include renovations and alterations as defined in the HHS Facilities Program Manual, Volume I, Section 2-1 that do not add new program space.
GOAL 4: Water Use Efficiency and Managementa. Goal Description HHS has revised the potable water reduction targets to a water use intensity reduction of 21% by FY 2020 as compared to the FY 2007 baseline year which is still less than the EO 13514 goal of 26%. Water use trends of each OPDIV were analyzed and new goals were established. In FY 2012 and 2013, significant water reductions are expected due to the implementation of a project at the NIH Bethesda Campus in Bethesda, MD. From FY 2013 to FY 2020, each OPDIV is estimated to reduce water use intensity by 2% per year through additional water efficiency projects and the implementation of leak detection programs starting in FY 2014. However, changes in scientific mission and laboratory testing could impact the Department’s ability to meet the forecasted future water intensity goals. No industrial, landscaping and agricultural water use was reported in FY 2010 by the OPDIV. Therefore, HHS has not developed non-potable water use policies or guidance. The planning table in section “e” does not reference ILA usage or savings, because it is not reported. In the future, additional meters may be installed. If new meters are installed, the usage will be reported in the future and plans will be made to reduce usage by 2% per year per the statutory requirements. Water reuse strategies are being identified in the EISA Section 432 water audits that are being conducted on all of the HHS facilities. Where economically feasible, these strategies will be incorporated into projects or operations and maintenance procedures. HHS will continue with water efficiency training to assist water personnel with the identifying and implementation of water use technologies. One class was held for the OPDIV water managers in December 2010 in which water reuse applications were covered. Additional training for environmental engineers and landscaping engineers needs to be conducted to improve water intensity usage in ILA consumption. The current HHS Sustainable Building Plan (SBP) requires compliance with EISA 2007 and is proactive in addressing stormwater management as a compliance requirement under the Guiding Principles. HHS has incorporated appropriate reduction strategies for non-potable water use into the HHS SBP where it addresses landscaping and irrigation strategies, as well the employment of design and construction strategies that reduce stormwater runoff and polluted site water runoff. b. Agency Lead Assistant Secretary for Administration (ASA)/Office for Facilities Management and Policy (OFMP) c. Implementation Methods Potable Water At the HHS headquarters several actions have taken place to improve water efficiency:
Specific OPDIV actions in the field that have taken place or are planned are:
The NIH Bethesda Campus is planning to implement a water efficiency project that would save an estimated 105 million gallons at the central plant in 2011/2012 time frame. This project will install a reverse osmosis system for the boilers. The technology will allow for significant purification of water, thus allowing for less expulsion of waste water. The project will also replace a boiler blowdown water tempering system with a heat exchanger, thus allowing the removal of a domestic water supply system that blends and tempers waste water for release into the sanitary sewer. The estimated project implementation cost is $1,692,641 and the annual savings are estimated at $712,000. In FY 2010, FDA re-commissioned an abandoned well at the Muirkirk Road facility in Beltsville, MD. The well provides roughly 16,425 MMGal of water each year, which is roughly a 30% reduction in city water consumption. The project is estimated to save $100,000 per year by eliminating line leakage. The IHS Tucson Area, San Xavier Health Center, installed a xeriscape project to replace the use of potable water on grass with native plants, drip irrigation techniques and decorative rock. The project cost $100,000 and saved 1.3 million gallons of water in FY 2010, which was a 52% decrease in consumption. The total savings of the reduced water use and reduce landscaping labor, fuel and machinery maintenance costs was $12,210, for a simple payback estimated at just over 8 years. In FY 2010, PSC held the Department’s first World Water Day on March 22 to raise employee awareness on water efficiency. Industrial/Agricultural Water Use There are no significant agricultural uses of water at HHS facilities and as a standard practice, most major facilities do not irrigate mature landscaping. In virtually all HHS facilities these uses occur within buildings or are supplied by building water systems and separate metering is not available. HHS faces several obstacles in meeting these requirements and demonstrating compliance on an agency-wide basis. To establish baseline usage and track progress in meeting quantitative reduction targets water used for industrial and landscaping purposes must be metered and monitored separately from other uses. Improving rates of water recycling and reuse may require development of new distribution and treatment systems in existing facilities, which may not be feasible or cost effective. In some cases, limitations of current treatment technology, cross connection concerns and regulatory restrictions may prevent installation of recycling and reuse systems. Where the life-cycle cost effectiveness or water availability concerns justify expenditures for such systems, UESCs or other similar mechanisms will be considered for funding sub-metering, system installation and operation. Specific OPDIV actions to reduce landscape water use include:
Stormwater Reduction The EPA technical guidance on implementing EISA Section 438 was incorporated into the April 2011 HHS Sustainable Buildings Plan. The Sustainable Buildings Checklists and the Existing Building Assessment Tool were updated to reflect the technical Guidance. Construction projects are also required to comply with requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water management. This compliance includes the application of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Low Impact Development (LID) strategies for both sediment and erosion control during construction and post construction stormwater management. The CDC and NIH among others represent progressive application of BMPs and LID strategies and include monitoring of adjacent streams when applicable. Other features include green roofs, retention ponds, bio-filters, underground storage, cisterns, rain garden, reforestation, open grid paving (pervious), vegetated buffers, impervious area conversion to green space, open channel swales, overland sheet flow methods (e.g. curbless streets) and tree box filters, storm interceptors and a variety of other pre-manufactured stormwater management devices. d. Positions Within HHS, water conservation is also the responsibility of a team consisting of the energy managers and the environmental engineers, building occupants and operations staff. See the scope 1 & 2 goals write up for the discussion of additional positions. e. Planning Table HHS does not report ILA water consumption.
f. Agency Status In FY10, HHS developed a stronger foundation and plan for achieving EO water reductions and SSPP savings under the structure of the HHS Water Program. The core of the HHS Water Program and structure is the Water Management Workgroup. This team has established priorities and actions plans under the direction of the HHS Energy Officer. Focusing on the completion of comprehensive audits, installation of energy and water meters, automation of data gathering and reporting, training and outreach the workgroup has determined key actions to be completed in order to achieve significant savings. The workgroup began many of these actions in FY 2010 through the completion on-line training webinars and classroom hours focusing on water reduction and reuse strategies and water auditing procedures. The completion of water audits has been identified as a priority not only to meet EISA auditing requirements, but to identify cost effective water efficiency projects. Additional training on the performance of comprehensive auditing is planned for August 2011 and two more additional dates in FY 2012, in order to train HHS energy personnel to perform in-house audits. Once the audits have been completed specific projects can be planned for implementation. Implementation of projects will fall primarily under alternative financing projects, as has been seen in FY 2010 and previous years. OPDIV water metering plans will be updated and the installation of meters will continue in FY 2011 and 2012. In addition, the first submission of the leak detection milestones per the new HHS policy will be submitted by the OPDIVS in FY 2011. These milestones will outline the procedure that the OPDIVS will take to implement leak detection programs in their facilities. Leak detection programs are required to be implemented by FY 2014 and should provide significant water reductions throughout the Department. The automated data gathering and reporting tools that have been identified will be populated with facility information and specific details. FY 2011, will be the year that the tools set-up and refined, so that in FY 2012 more time can be focused on the implementation of projects. Outreach has become a focus in FY 2011 and will continue to gain importance in future years. Educating all employees on the goals and initiatives will maximize savings and efficiency. Outreach will work to change employee habits on the use of water, and foster new ideas from the entire HHS workforce. No industrial, landscaping and agricultural water use was reported in FY 2010 by the OPDIVS. Therefore, HHS has not developed non-potable water use policies or guidance. The planning table in section “e” does not reference ILA usage or savings, because it is not reported. In late FY 2010, two sites reported the installation of irrigation meters and will be reporting ILA. However, the consumption will be minimal. g. Return on Investment HHS OPDIVS modify metering plans as the life-cycle cost figures change for specific buildings. In some cases, buildings have been removed from the metering lists and in other cases new buildings have been added. These will be reflected in the update to the metering plans due in June. Additionally, some OPDIVS, such as CDC, have deemed it cost effective to implement all energy meters in a building at one time. Therefore, some electrical meters may not be installed by FY 2012 in order to minimize first cost by installing them with natural gas and water meters in FY 2013. HHS also has some buildings that are in lease agreements about to expire, planned for major renovation, or to be demolished in the near future, thereby making the implementation of otherwise life-cycle cost effective projects, ineffective. The HHS energy and water workgroups have established a ten-year simple payback as the indicator whether a project is cost effective or not. Those buildings in situations as described above where circumstances will be significantly changed in ten years or less will not have efficiency projects implemented on site. h. Highlights: Successes:
Challenges:
GOAL 5: Pollution Prevention and Waste Reductiona. Goal description In support of Pollution Prevention and Waste Reduction (P2WR), HHS will focus on the following top 3 activities over the upcoming 12 months:
b. Agency lead for goal
c. Implementation methods HHS has a variety of policies and programs in place to assist with addressing pollution prevention and waste elimination goals, these include:
The following table provides a cross walk of these policies as they relate to Goal 5:
These existing policies, plans and procedures are updated as needed and form a strong basis for addressing these and other sustainability goals. Additional goal implementation will be pursued through updates and guidance documents to reflect the latest Executive Orders and data call requirements. Environmental Management Systems: The Office of the Secretary began implementing a Higher Tier EMS in 2009. The EMS has been integrated into the SSPP through the various workgroups leads that meet regularly. The HHS higher tier EMS incorporates office focused EMS (for headquarters, regional offices and non-landholding ODIVs) and EMS’s with organizational and facility components at the landholding OPDIVS – CDC, FDA, IHS and NIH. Of note this period is the IHS Environmental Management System which was revised to better serve the IHS mission while also maintaining the critical elements of ISO 14001:2004. The revised EMS plan supports the new draft IHS Environmental Compliance, Stewardship, and Sustainability policy and the HHS SSPP. Ongoing aspects of the IHS Hierarchical EMS plan include:
The Department continues leveraging existing EMS at the OPDIVS and promotion of Green Teams. Sustainable Building Implementation Plan (SBIP): The HHS SBIP addresses construction debris and requires all new construction and major renovation projects to set targets for reducing the amount of C&D materials and debris generated by a minimum of 50%. HHS Affirmative Procurement Policy: This policy supports reduced use of toxics, increased use of biobased products and other pollution prevention and waste minimization concepts. (NEW) HHS Electronic Stewardship Policy: This new policy will be implemented in 2011 and will include duplex printing requirements to help reduce energy and paper costs and waste. (NEW) HHS “Policy Restricting Procurement, Use, Storage and Disposal of Mercury and its Compounds on HHS Facilities”: Based on the success of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Mercury Reduction Policy, the HHS Environmental Managers developed a Department wide policy that will be effective in 2011. Solid waste recycling is implemented to various degrees at across HHS Operating Divisions. Additionally, there is increased effort for the diversion of compostable and organic materials from the waste stream, which will be expanded at HHS facilities as technologies and opportunities develop. Composting of yard debris is a standard practices and several HHS cafeterias, are working with vendors to replace Styrofoam and other petroleum based cafeteria service items with paper and biodegradable service items that are conducive to composting. The Implementation of integrated pest management and landscape management practices to reduce or eliminate the use of toxic and hazardous chemicals and materials is an accepted standard of practice at HHS facilities. HHS continuously strives to increase use of acceptable alternative chemicals and processes as well as decreasing agency use of certain chemicals to assist in achieving FY 2020 GHG reduction targets. In 2010 a preliminary list of potential GHG chemicals used in biomedical research was developed for further study in out years as resources permit. In 2011-12 HHS will focus on alternatives to paraformaldehyde for addressing decontamination requirements. Reporting in accordance with Sections 301-313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 is applicable at some of our landholding OPDIVS and compliance is a standard practice at these facilities. Chapter 30, Environmental Policy, of the HHS General Administration Manual fully addresses EPCRA and other statutory compliance requirements. d. Positions Sustainability initiatives intended to meet the goals set forth in Executive Order 13423 and 13514 as well as enhanced HHS stewardship of the environment pose significant challenges and implementation is hampered by limited funding, personnel shortages, personnel turnover and competing priorities. The expanded responsibilities associated with these initiatives, including the tracking of relevant metrics, exceed the capabilities of a workforce established primarily to maintain compliance. Waste management is not normally a function within the non-landholding OPDIVS which are tenants under GSA or other lease arrangements. Waste management activities including data collection and recycling promotion, is a collateral duty and training for these positions is needed. CDC Example: CDC waste management is decentralized and currently covered part-time by several different staff at some 17 campuses with over 300 buildings involving numerous heterogeneous contracts. More than 12 different waste streams with different collection systems and contractor agreements are characterized. Outreach and staff for educational efforts is extremely limited. CDC estimates at least four additional FTEs and three part-time environmental professionals and technicians are required to significantly boost improvement rates and accomplishments. Indian Health Service (IHS) Example: The IHS owns and maintains nearly 2,500 buildings in 240 installations, plus over 2,300 quarters (housing) units at 70 locations. In addition, the IHS operates in 200 direct-lease sites and 70 GSA-leased sites. IHS operations are located in 35 states, mostly in rural and isolated areas. IHS currently supports the development and implementation of various sustainability and stewardship plans solely with staff who have been assigned these tasks as collateral duties. There is no full-time individual in IHS for any of these plans. These collateral duty staff do not receive additional resources to develop or implement plans. IHS estimates that over 50 collateral duty staff are currently involved in supporting sustainability initiatives and to fully develop and implement plans related to both stewardship and sustainability across IHS, they will require a minimum of one FTE in each of the 12 Administrative Areas and 3 FTEs in headquarters. FDA example: FDA has approximately 35 FTEs responsible for the implementation of a decentralized, comprehensive environment, safety and health (ESH) program. Many of these FTE are the sole ESH resource at their location. FDA staff involved with environmental management systems, energy/water management, sustainable buildings, sustainable acquisition, electronics stewardship, and fleet/transportation management do so on a collateral duty basis. FDA estimates at least two additional FTEs are needed to pursue EMS implementation on an FDA-wide and then location-specific basis since EMS serves as the umbrella for sustainable activities. An FTE to serve as an FDA Sustainability Officer would provide one individual to oversee the implementation of sustainable activities in FDA. Another FTE that could solely focus on sustainable buildings as well as energy/water management would be beneficial to improving sustainable practices and achieving noticeable results. At headquarters, additional FTE’s at both the senior and junior level with broad environmental and planning experience are required at the Office of the Secretary (OS). The OS bears significant responsibility for implementation of the SSPP, including developing and updating policies; researching and developing guidance; developing sensible reporting metrics and data gathering processes; staffing and organizing meetings, and consolidating implementation data for executive level reporting. Currently, there is only a singled dedicated FTE with responsibility for the Department’s environmental management program. In addition to increased tracking, reporting and implementation of NEPA, pollution prevention and waste minimization goals, the HHS environmental manager has broad responsibilities across the entire SSPP and its goals. e. Planning Table
f. Agency status Solid Waste (Non-C&D) HHS OPDIVS conducted a Pollution Prevention and Waste Reduction Assessment (P2&WR) in 2010 to get a better picture of waste generation and recycling rates, as well as minimization practices and applicable policies and programs. The workgroup is updating and expanding assessment measures for implementation in CY 2011 and will incorporate new metrics such as waste to energy, multi-tenant and residential recycling, on-site/off-site composting operations. Assessment information was received from 115 owned, operated or leased facilities. Quantitative data was provided by 46% of these facilities which were owned and/or operated.
HHS waste management activity dedicates considerable resources to safe and responsible management of regulated and hazardous waste. Management of these wastes is costly and the inherent higher risk associated with these materials requires priority allocation of limited resources over non-hazardous wastes. Figure 1 shows the various quantities of regulated waste includes the following quantities:
These categories are generated at 18 facilities that are categorized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as large quantity generators, 26 facilities are categorized as small-quantity generators and 33 facilities categorized as conditionally exempt small quantity generators. Non-Hazardous Solid Waste:
Solid waste data provided here is still preliminary in nature and will be refined as data collection systems are improved. C&D Material & Debris: The HHS Sustainability Buildings Program requires diversion and tracking of C&D waste. Although data from all the OPDIVS is limited, the NIH, CDC and PSC have demonstrated progress. The NIH campus setting in Bethesda lends itself to a high degree of centralized management control over both solid waste and C&D waste. The NIH, Bethesda C&D recycling rate is 90% (5,611 tons). The NIH pioneered C&D demolition with the development of the Sustainable High Efficiency Deconstruction (SHED) methodology that combines decommissioning and deconstruction processes and maximizes reutilization of materials and minimizes waste generation. The NIH SHED method led to the American National Standard for Laboratory Decommissioning released in 2008. The PSC manages renovation projects in the 1.2 million sq. ft., Parklawn building in Montgomery County. Twenty tons of carpet from these projects was recycled in CY 2010 however waste data is not available from the renovation contractor to calculate the recycling rate. A new contract for renovation work will include a C&D recycling requirement. Following CDC update: At CDC, the newly constructed building 24 is on track for the LEED Gold credit and is committed to recycle a minimum of 75% by weight of the total project’s waste stream. Prior to breaking ground, the CDC invited garden groups in and they were able to reuse 50-60 % of the plants. Additionally, during a recent building demolition of an old auditorium, copper, heavy metals, bricks, air conditioning units, and furniture were recycled or reused. Although not written in their contracts, approximately half or more of the furniture vendors recycle their cardboard and packaging materials. During the this year’s demolition of buildings 1Main and 1East at the CDC main campus, a program will be put in place to identify those materials which can be recycled and every effort will be made to recycle as much of the buildings, furniture and fixtures as possible given schedule and cost constraints. The FDA is not heavily involved in construction at this time and opportunities at IHS facilities are extremely limited as projects are relatively small and dispersed. The CDC construction contracts have incorporated diversion tracking requirements but data is not yet available. Waste to Energy: Over 13,000 tons (28%) of solid waste was diverted from landfill to waste to energy. This is the standard practices for HHS facilities in the Greater Washington DC Metropolitan Area. Composting: The 2010 HHS survey identified 24 facilities with on-site composting but no estimates for quantity or volume. NIH Bethesda is seeking a commercial composting facility and conducted a site visit to a recently opened facility in Carroll County, MD. If viable and funds permit, the NIH Bethesda facilities plans to divert cafeteria waste for composting in late 2011. The NIH Research Triangle Park (RTP) in NC initiated composting of all cafeteria food waste and the OS at the Hubert H. Humphrey Building (HHH) completed a review of sites and environmental requirements for compost sites and developed an RFP for collection and composting of cafeteria waste. New recycling and compost collection bins are on order and promotional plans are under development. Compost plans are anticipated to be finalized in late 2011 which will culminate a multi-year cafeteria greening effort that incorporates healthy menu choices and reusable and compostable containers. g. Return on Investment At HHS, Pollution Prevention and Waste Reduction (P2WR) practices are integrated in our policies, core values and standards of practice. Calculating Return on Investment (ROI) for P2WR can be extremely complex. Not all lifecycle impact costs and benefits can be identified, nor can all health impacts be accurately measured and priced. Often we must base our action on common sense and our current scientific understanding of the negative health impacts from pollution and benefits from prevention. Notwithstanding the scarcity of HHS specific facility data, the ROI benefits of P2WR are supported by research that connects P2 efforts to a reduction in health impacts and risk. Additionally, costs of waste management and mitigation operations, fines/penalties and other various management aspects can be taken into consideration. One P2WR-ROI example, which also has global impacts, is the importance of reducing mercury emissions. The World Health Organization (WHO) has found that virtually no one is free from some level of mercury contamination and that this contamination has a disparate health impact on children. According to a National Institutes of Health (NIEHS) analysis using data from the CDC, between 136,588 and 637,233 children each year have cord blood mercury levels associated with lower IQs. This lost intelligence causes diminished economic productivity over a child’s lifetime. This lost productivity is the major economic cost of methylmercury toxicity, which approximates $8.7 billion annually. The WHO also estimates that for every kilogram of mercury taken out of the environment, there are up to $12,500 worth of social, environmental and human health benefits.10 Although the exact costs are not always quantifiable, the prevention of mercury and other toxic releases will eventually provide a significant ROI. Based upon the long term historical efforts at NIH to understand the health impacts of mercury, HHS has developed a Department-wide policy for reduction and elimination of this material in HHS operations. NIH’s efforts included development of a Facility Decommissioning Protocol, focused on mercury contamination, and simple waste minimization techniques that significantly reduced waste generation and disposal costs. Some additional P2WP-ROI benefits include the following concepts:
h. Highlights from the OPDIVS CDC Diversion of non-hazardous waste:
FDA Diversion of non-hazardous waste:
Reduce Toxics/Green Procurement
IHS Policy Development:
NIH Diversion of non-hazardous waste and C&D
Reduce use of common pollutants
Reduce paper use
Increase recycled content product use
Reduce hazardous chemicals and materials
OS Waste Diversion and Composting
__________________________ 10 Mercury Exposure A Silent U.S. health Crisis?”, livebetter 2009: No 5
GOAL 6: Sustainable Acquisitiona. Goal description Ensure 95% of new contract actions, including task and delivery orders under new contracts and existing contracts, require the supply or use of products and services that are energy efficient (Energy Star or FEMP-designated), water efficient, biobased, environmentally preferable (excluding EPEAT-registered products), non-ozone depleting, contain recycled content, or are non-toxic or less toxic alternatives. Update agency affirmative procurement plans (also known as green purchasing plans or environmentally preferable purchasing plans), policies and programs to ensure that all mandated federally designated products and services are included in all relevant acquisitions. b. Agency lead for goal The HHS lead for Sustainable Acquisition goals is the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (ASFR), Office of Grants and Acquisition Policy and Accountability (OGAPA). c. Implementation methods Policies and Procedures – In FY 2011, HHS is developing a Sustainable Acquisition Policy Memorandum (APM) to implement the following:
HHS’ Affirmative Procurement (“green purchasing”) Plan (APP) details the guidelines and procedures for green purchasing and encompasses the acquisition and use of designated recycled content, energy efficient, environmentally preferred, Energy Star, Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT)-registered, bio-based, water efficient, and non-ozone depleting products and services and alternate fuel vehicles and fuels. In FY 2011, HHS will update its Affirmative Procurement Plan (APP) to incorporate Executive Order (EO) 13514, "Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance," which requires federal agencies to advance sustainable acquisition to ensure that 95% of all applicable new contract actions for products and services, with the exception of acquisition of weapon systems, are energy efficient, water efficient, biobased, environmentally preferable, non-ozone depleting, contain recycled content, or are non-toxic or less toxic alternatives, where such products and services meet agency performance requirements. Training and Outreach – HHS OPDIVS will continue to provide training and outreach to the acquisition workforce to keep them abreast of new green procurement requirements and re-enforce existing regulations. The HHS Purchase Card Guide and online training course provides purchase card holders and approving officials with guidance and resources for the effective use of purchase cards for green purchasing. The HHS Strategic Sourcing website provides best practices and tips for utilizing Departmental contracts for Information Technology, Laboratory Supplies, Office Equipment, Office Furniture and Office Supplies to meet green procurement goals. d. Positions At the headquarters level, there is 1 FTE assigned to manage the Green Procurement function. Each OPDIV has assigned a Green Procurement Manager (GPM) to work with the Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) to implement green purchasing activities. The green purchasing duties are collateral duties at the headquarters and field levels. e. Planning Table
f. Agency Status Implementation of the HHS Sustainable Acquisition policy will facilitate the systematic collection of green purchasing data and lessen the OPDIV/STAFFDIV administrative burden as it relates to measurement of the 95% sustainability metric and meeting the sustainable acquisition threshold for HHS Agency Sustainability Plans and Federal Environmental Scorecards, e.g., the OMB Sustainability Scorecard. Assessment and Monitoring - HHS has incorporated an environmental component into its Procurement Management Reviews (PMRs) that assess the strengths, weaknesses and best practices of the acquisition function. PMRs will now address compliance with the 95% green purchasing requirement and the effectiveness of each OPDIV sustainable procurement program. In FY 2011, HHS will conduct 3 PMRs at the following OPDIVS: CMS, IHS, and CDC. In FY 2012, HHS will also conduct PMRs at 3 additional OPDIVS. HHS has also added a sustainable acquisition performance metric to the HHS Acquisition Dashboard, which measures OPDIV performance across a spectrum of acquisition related areas. The performance indicator “95% percent of all applicable sustainable acquisitions” will be measured on a quarterly basis beginning 3rd quarter FY 2011. g. Return on Investment HHS has no significant sustainable acquisition projects or initiatives included in the submission of last year’s SSPP that have been deliberately cancelled or suspended due to a lower than expected ROI or expanded due to higher than expected (ROI). h. Highlights Sustainable Acquisition - As part of its long term objective of strengthening the FDA base of operations, the Office of Information Management (OIM) set a goal of increasing the percentage of high efficiency servers from 25% to 50% in FY2010. As of April, 2011, 98% of FDA servers are high-efficiency-energy star compliant. The FDA Office of Acquisition and Grants Services’ (OAGS) IT Division supported OIM’s objectives with a series of strategic contracts and orders for servers, related equipment and software totaling $9.3 million. Many of these purchases allowed OIM to replace older, less efficient machines with equipment that met or exceeded current Energy Star standards. OAGS ensured that all of these acquisitions contained appropriate green purchasing clauses and made “compliance with all green standards” an element in the overall source selection decision by using a low-price-technically-acceptable evaluation scheme. Policy and Procedures - The CDC Procurement and Grants Office (PGO) published their Green Procurement Policy in July 2010. This policy was developed to respond to laws and regulations requiring a comprehensive CDC-wide plan to acquire recycled content, energy efficient, and bio-based products whenever they are cost effective and meet technical requirements. Training and Outreach - OGAPA held a symposium in April 2011 focused on educating and enriching stakeholder and customer knowledge in the acquisition, grants and small business areas. The symposium included green presentations on understanding sustainable acquisitions and biopreferred purchasing given by federal subject matter experts. Discuss how contracts identified in the table above were selected for review. Each OPDIVS Head of Contract Activity (HCA), in concert with their respective Green Procurement Managers, determined the number of applicable contract actions by selecting actions for which green products could be supplied or used. Once the applicable contract actions were selected, a minimum of 5% of those contracts were manually reviewed to determine whether they included requirements for green products and/or services for which green products could be used.
7. GOAL: Electronic Stewardship and Data Centersa. Goal Description Ensure acquisition of EPEAT registered, ENERGY STAR qualified, and FEMP designated electronic office products when procuring electronics in eligible product categories. HHS has surpassed its goal of ensuring that 95% of agency electronic products are EPEAT-registered. As a department, HHS currently ensures 97% of its computers are Energy Star qualified. HHS is 3% shy of its goal of ensuring 100% of agency computers and monitors are Energy Star qualified. As a department, HHS currently ensures 97% of its computers are Energy Star qualified. HHS is establishing an Electronic Stewardship Policy to extend the useful life of agency electronic equipment. HHS is currently documenting the compliance with FEMP-designated products; however, with the majority of acquisitions being EPEAT-registered or ENERGY STAR qualified, the majority of acquisitions will also be FEMP-designated. Establish and implement policy and guidance to ensure use of power management, duplex printing, and other energy efficient or environmentally preferred options and features on all eligible agency electronic products. HHS is establishing an Electronic Stewardship Policy to track and enable power management, duplex printing, and other energy-efficient or environmentally preferable features on all eligible agency electronic products. The elements of the Electronic Stewardship Plan and the Electronic Stewardship Implementation Plan (May 2007) are being incorporated into the Electronic Stewardship Policy. As such, the Electronic Stewardship Policy should be the document that is referenced, and not the Electronic Stewardship Plan and the Electronic Stewardship Implementation Plan. Currently, HHS has enabled power management on 72% of eligible PCs. In order to meet the deadline of 06/30/2011 in completing this metric, HHS is implementing numerous solutions across the OPDIVS that have not met this metric. All OPDIVS across HHS have committed to meeting the June 30 deadline for implementing power management on 100% of eligible devices. Update agency policy to reflect environmentally sound practices for disposition of all agency excess or surplus electronic products. HHS is 1% shy of having 90% of its electronic devices / products disposed of using environmentally sound practices. Each member OPDIV is working to find vendors capable of utilizing sound practices to dispose of electronic devices/products. HHS is establishing the Electronic Stewardship policy to reflect environmentally sound practices of all agency excess or surplus electronic products. This policy and its Appendices cover all sound practices for disposition of all agency excess of surplus electronic products. Discuss how the agency will increase the quantity of electronic assets disposed through sound disposition practices. Include in the discussion how your agency is using or plans to use programs such as disposal through GSA Xcess, recycling through Unicor, donation through GSA’s Computer for Learning (CFL) or other non-profit organizations, and/or recycling through a private recycler certified under the Responsible Recyclers (R2) guidance or equivalent certification. HHS is 1% shy of having 90% of its electronic devices / products disposed of using environmentally sound practices. Each member OPDIV is working to find vendors capable of utilizing sound practices to dispose of electronic devices/products. The majority of HHS already disposes of electronic assets using sound disposition practices. For the most part, HHS already disposes of electronic assets using either Unicor donation or through recycling through a private recycler certified under the Responsible Recyclers (R2) guidance or equivalent certification. The remaining electronic assets are difficult to dispose due to remote locations and inaccessibility to the proper disposing resources. Currently, if an OPDIV cannot dispose of electronic assets themselves, they will dispose through ITIO. For the remote locations, HHS is determining how to dispose of these electronic assets appropriately and cost-effectively. Discuss how the agency will require IT planning/Life Cycle Manager to replace and or waive equipment that does not meet “Green” compliance requirements. If it is determined that a certain class of or usage of equipment is deemed ineligible due to security, or other sensitive or mission critical reasons, a written justification shall be submitted to the OPDIV CIO, HHS OCIO or their designated delegates with an explanation as to why the equipment should be considered ineligible and, if applicable, what actions will be taken to correct the issues and when they will be completed. Settings that interfere with the intended purpose and use of an individual electronic device may be disabled on a case-by-case basis as required to ensure proper functionality by support organizations, staff delegated with that authority by the OPDIVS, or HHS OCIO. Update agency policy to ensure implementation of best management practices for energy efficient management of servers and Federal data centers, including how the agency will meet data center reduction goals included in the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative. HHS has developed a data center management policy with the focus to enable achievement of the HHS consolidation goals in OMB’s Data Center Consolidation Initiative (DCCI) and to satisfy environmental and energy directives and requirements associated with HHS data centers. The policy sets standards and thresholds for sever and rack utilization, server virtualization, data center temperature, green procurement, etc. The policy was ratified on March 22, 2011. We are working with HHS data center managers to ensure all data centers comply with the policy. b. Agency lead for goal Assistant Secretary for Administration (ASA)/Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) c. Implementation methods The HHS Electronic Stewardship and Data Center Working Group (ESWG) has identified three priorities to focus on this Fiscal Year:
Policy The Electronic Stewardship (ES) Policy will establish the practices that will a) enhance and expand existing HHS sustainable practices in order to comply with Executive Order (E.O.) 13423 and 13514, b) reduce energy consumption, c) reduce toxics disposal related to electronics, and d) save money through reduced energy consumption and increased electronics life expectancy. The HHS-OCIO Policy for Data Center Management was finalized on March 22, 2011 and will be referenced in the HHS-OCIO ES Policy. The HHS-OCIO ES Policy incorporates the Electronic Stewardship Plan (May 2007) the SSPP, and the Affirmative Procurement Plan (APP), and establishes OPDIV participation in the Federal Electronic Challenge to aid in compliance tracking. Data (Metrics) HHS ESWG will develop a means to monitor progress towards the Electronic Stewardship and Data Centers (ES&DC) goals and will initially report to the CIO Council, CTO Council, and the Sustainability Task Force on an interim basis to ensure HHS is on target to meeting established ES&DC goals. The ESWG will provide representatives to participate in the FEC which will aid in this effort. The progress reports will provide the HHS ESWG members an opportunity to review deficiencies and take corrective actions to bring the department’s ES efforts back on course. 100% PM Enabled on Eligible Equipment HHS will ensure Power Management is enabled on 100% of Eligible Laptops, Desktops, and Monitors by sharing best practices so that failing OPDIVS may consider other alternatives and take corrective actions to reach 100% compliance. HHS continues to monitor progress to ensure compliance. d. Positions HHS is using existing personnel to support the development and implementation of the electronic stewardship and date center effort. The work performed is being completed by individuals who are primarily responsible for other funded initiatives. This raises major concerns for the Electronic Stewardship workgroup because studies have shown there is only so much a person can absorb and perform within a given amount of time. The ability to successfully implement the Electronic Stewardship and Data Centers goal requires leveraging of existing resources. It is critical that workloads be analyzed, proper consideration be given to priorities, and proper resources levels be provided to supplement priorities if the agency hopes to make Electronic Stewardship a success at HHS. e. Planning table
* The percentages specified in this column are from our May 20th reporting process. f. Agency Status Finalize Data Center Consolidation Plan (Section 2, III) The HHS Data Center Consolidation plan was delivered to OMB in August of 2010. OMB approved the plan in December of 2010. Implement a succinct Electronic Stewardship and Data Center Management Policy; and monitor progress throughout the agency HHS developed two policies, one for Electronic Stewardship and another for the management of Data Centers. The purpose of the ES policy is to provide the framework for the implementation of sound environmental practices in the acquisition, operations and maintenance, and end-of-life management of HHS-purchased electronic products. The purpose of the Policy for Data Center Management (March 22, 2010) is to establish a course of action and define responsibilities for operating data centers efficiently throughout HHS. The primary focus is to enable achievement of the consolidation goals in OMB’s Data Center Consolidation Initiative (DCCI) and to satisfy environmental and energy directives and requirements associated with HHS data centers as provided in Executive Orders 13423 and 13514. The establishment of these practices: a) will enhance and expand existing HHS sustainable practices in order to comply with Executive Order (E.O.) 13423 and 13514, b) may reduce energy consumption, c) may reduce toxics disposal related to electronics, and d) may save money through reduced energy consumption and increased electronics life expectancy. In all aspects of its acquisitions and operations HHS aspires to be a good steward of the earth’s resources and a wise manager of the taxpayers’ dollar. These policies incorporate the Electronic Stewardship Plan (May 2007) and Electronic Stewardship Implementation Plan. The Electronic Stewardship policy will be finalized in FY 2011 and the Policy for Data Center Management was finalized in March 2011. In addition to the above, the intent of the policies is to:
Implement Data Center Consolidation Plan (Section 2, III) The OMB data center definition has changed significantly since our plan was delivered to OMB in August of 2010. The current OMB data center definition requires a data center to be at least 500 Sq Ft in area. HHS has 45 data centers that meet the new definition. Our plan is to close 10 of them by the end of 2013. Two have been closed already this year. One of which was closed through a cross servicing opportunity with the Department of Interior. This cross servicing opportunity enabled the operations of an HHS data center in Albuquerque, NM to move to a Department of Interior data center in the same city. Two additional HHS data centers are scheduled to be closed this year and the remaining six will be closed in 2012 and 2013. Develop an Agency-wide Plan to Reduce the Cost and Improve the Efficiency of the Data Centers within HHS (Section IX, c) HHS has 131 data centers that do not meet the 500+ Sq Ft threshold set by OMB. We are tracking those internally and plan to close 46 of them by the end of 2013. g. Return on Investment The establishment of the Electronic Stewardship Policy and the Policy for Data Center Management will
For Instance, one project worth noting is the migration of Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA), Office of Information Management (OIM), datacenter from Rockville, MD to Ashburn, VA. The process of transforming FDA’s information systems through the migration to new, modernized data centers was a high-priority initiative, developed as part of the Information Computing Technologies for the 21st Century (ICT21) program. All FDA Production, Development and Test environments were migrated to new datacenters, which in turn closed down the antiquated Parklawn facility. The ability to standardize the infrastructure allowed the FDA to achieve 90.2% virtualization utilizing VMware for the windows environment and LDOMs for the UNIX environment. This consolidation effort resulted in a reduction of 110 database servers to 18. Having achieved a high percentage of virtualization reduces the physical footprint in our datacenters thus reducing power and cooling utilization. One state-of-the-art facility in Ashburn, VA, and another at the FDA White Oak Campus provide the high performance and data storage required in today’s technology environment, while anticipating a cloud computing platform. The modern, redundant architecture of these data centers protects our systems from internal and external security threats; and, the robust electrical and cooling support systems ensure continuous operations under adverse conditions.
Ashburn Data Center – fully operational as of 10/15/2009
White Oak Data Center – fully operational as of 02/01/2010
Lessons learned and the results of the project have been shared with the HHS Sustainability Task Force, the HHS Electronics Stewardship/Data Consolidation Workgroup and other HHS information technology councils and workgroups. Various portions of this project can be replicated. h. Highlights Department-Level Accomplishments (All OPDIVS)
______________________________ 11 Device types are the electronic products listed under the Energy Star program that the Agency purchases or leases. This count should include the percentage of products that met energy star standards at the time of purchasing during the reporting period (FY10). Please note it includes products with stand-by power. For the purposes of this metric, Energy Star products are not electronics such as lighting and appliances that are covered by the Sustainable Acquisition Goal. You can go to http://www.energystar.gov/ under "Computers and Electronics" section for the list of targeted products. The goals/targets within Goal 7 are more narrowly scoped to include servers, computers, monitors, peripherals, and other office equipment.
GOAL 8: Agency Innovation and Government-Wide SupportMost of the relatively short term goals of current directives and this plan focus on just attaining sustainability (reduced use of resources and no net degradation of the environment) from HHS facilities and mission activities. Over the longer term attainment of such goals may not ensure the availability of sufficient resources and prevent the public health impacts of scarcity, pollution and climate change. Global trends of rapid population growth and increasing per capita consumption will concomitantly increase environmental impacts and accelerate resource depletion. To adapt, a fundamental shift from sustainability goals toward more aggressive goals of environmental enhancement will be required: – Energy neutral buildings → Energy positive buildings HHS recognizes that progress on meeting its current sustainability goals and these longer range objectives of environmental enhancement will require aggressive pursuit of innovations – strategies that have not been previously implemented by others across the Government. These will range from adaptations and new applications of existing innovations from other fields to development of new technologies requiring large investments and extensive research and development efforts. Examples of sustainability innovations have been presented throughout this plan and this emphasis on innovation aligns with broader HHS and national priorities. The importance of innovation in achieving our national goals was mentioned eleven times in President Obama’s 2011 State of the Union Address and the drive toward sustainable growth is a primary component of his Strategy for American Innovation. Sustainability and fostering innovations to create shared solutions are specific objectives of the HHS Strategic Plan and Priorities for 2010 -2015. The Congress is also encouraging green innovations its reauthorization of the COMPETES Act15 HHS Sustainability Innovations Working Group. In early 2011 HHS established a new working group to focus on promoting sustainability innovations. The general objectives of the new group include:. This law changed the approaches of government agencies to reap the benefits of open innovation strategies by making it dramatically easier for agencies to use prizes and challenges to spur innovation, solve tough problems, and advance their core missions. The law also provided specific funding for development of green technologies.
The working group identified three key processes that will need to be refined and optimized to achieve the above objectives. These are described below: Priority Setting: Criteria were needed to select projects from the many potential innovations for initial support and tracking by the working group. Criteria for selection and prioritization will include projects that:
Incentivisation: Provisions of the COMPETES Act and other regulatory changes now allow and encourage government agencies to promote innovations by use of prizes and other incentives. Recognizing these new opportunities, the working group assigned high priority to development and promotion of incentives for sustainability innovations by employees that are “outside of the box” and beyond the scope of their existing duties. Incentives were also needed to encourage others outside the Department to develop innovations needed to meet HHS current and future sustainability goals.
Sustainability Innovations Data Base: The business case for an innovation project must demonstrate a return on HHS (taxpayer) investments and this requires the determination of the costs and potential benefits attributable to the project. Most business organizations use templates to collect cost benefit information and the types of information usually collected by businesses can be adapted to meet the needs of government sustainability innovation projects. No templates for tracking sustainability innovations and collecting data for establishing business case documentation were found after a literature review. To meet these needs development of a tracking form and a data base to track innovations and their status was prepared and is currently undergoing preliminary testing and evaluation at NIH. 2010 Accomplishments: Innovations achieved in 2010 are reported in the applicable goal related sections of this plan. 2011 Goals: The Working Group has set the following goals for 2011:
______________________________ 15 Full Name: America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science (America COMPETES) Reauthorization Act of 2010.
Section 3: Agency Self Evaluation
Other Key Questions for 2011: 1. Did your agency meet by the 12/30/10 due date and/or is it now able to demonstrate comprehensive implementation of the EO 13423 Electronic Stewardship goals? Acquire at least 95% EPEAT-registered electronics 2. Is your agency tracking and monitoring all of its contract awards for inclusion of requirements for mandatory federally-designated green products in 95% of relevant acquisitions? 3. Has your agency completed energy evaluations on at least 75% of its facilities? 4. Will your agency meet the deadline of October 1, 2012 (EPACT’05 Sec 103) for metering of energy use? 5. If your agency reports in the FRPP, will it be able to report by December 2011 that at least 7% of its inventory meets the High Performance Sustainable Guiding Principles?
Appendix 1: Agency Response to Climate Change Guiding QuestionsGuiding Questions for Understanding How Climate Change Will Impact Agency Mission and Operations 1) How is climate change likely to affect the ability of your agency to achieve its mission and strategic goals? The mission of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is to enhance the health and well-being of Americans by providing for effective health and human services and by fostering sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying medicine, public health, and social services. HHS accomplishes its mission through several hundred programs and initiatives that cover a wide spectrum of activities, serving the American public at every stage of life. Climate change is likely to adversely affect the ability of HHS to achieve its mission by altering and in many cases increasing disease and injury risks and other threats to human well-being, as well as by posing increasing threats from extreme temperatures, storms, and flooding to the physical infrastructure that HHS supports to provide health care and other services to individuals and communities. Secretary Sebelius has established five overarching goals for the Department: Goal 1: Transform Health Care Because climate change poses multiple threats to the health, safety, and well-being of the American people, Goal 3 and its sub-objectives will be most affected. These impacts are discussed in more detail below and additional goal area impacts will be reviewed over the next few months. Climate change and societal responses to the diverse challenges of climate change will interact with all of the goals within the HHS strategic plan, including improving the adequacy of the nation’s health and human services infrastructure and workforce, advancement of scientific knowledge and innovation, and improving the energy and resource efficiency of HHS programs. This answer will focus on interactions between climate change and the specific objectives of Goal 3, as well as the fourth objective of Goal 1, which is “Ensure access to quality, culturally competent care for vulnerable populations”. Goal 3 has six objectives. The affect of climate change on each of them is summarized below the objective. Objective A: Promote the safety, well-being, resilience, and healthy development of children and youth Because children are both physiologically and behaviorally more vulnerable to heat waves, extreme weather events, asthma, and many infectious diseases, they are a population at special risk from climate change, which is likely to exacerbate those health threats. Ensuring the health and well-being of children and youth will require additional resources and attention to climate-exacerbated threats. Objective B: Promote economic and social well-being for individuals, families, and communities Climate change is anticipated to have adverse impacts on human livelihoods in some areas, resulting from changes in ecosystems and natural resources that people depend on for work and recreation. These include impaired fisheries and coastal ecosystems, loss of water resources, and changes in forests and agriculture. Assuring economic and social well-being for individuals, families and communities will require assuring specific resilience to climate impacts on a local and regional basis. Objective C: Improve the accessibility and quality of supportive services for people with disabilities and older adults Extreme heat waves and weather events are particularly challenging for people with disabilities and the elderly, who may have underlying diseases that increase health risks as well as impaired mobility which prevents them from escaping weather threats effectively. Supportive services for people with disabilities and older adults will have to be adjusted to address the added challenges of climate change. Objective D: Promote prevention and wellness While climate change will pose challenges to communities and health care services and may impair efforts to promote prevention and wellness, the significant changes in energy production, transportation, land use, and agriculture that are likely to result from policies and programs to reduce the impacts and severity of climate change afford critical opportunities to assist efforts at prevention and wellness.* For example, programs to improve pedestrian and bicycling convenience in cities can result in significant increases in physical activity, with an array of potential health benefits, ranging from reduced obesity and diabetes to improvement in mental health and reduced risk of certain cancers. Reduced use of fossil fuels is expected to result in improved air quality, leading to reduced risks from cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and other health problems. Objective E: Reduce the occurrence of infectious diseases Warmer soil, water, and air temperatures as well as more frequent extreme precipitation events are anticipated to increase the risks of waterborne and foodborne infectious diseases. In addition, climate change may alter the distribution of vectorborne and zoonotic diseases, resulting in the potential introduction of infectious diseases into vulnerable populations. Efforts to control infectious diseases and reduce their occurrence will require additional scientific understanding of the complex interactions between climate, climate change, and specific infectious diseases and will have to respond to changes in infectious disease transmission and occurrence related to climate change. Objective F: Protect Americans’ health and safety during emergencies, and foster resilience in response to emergencies As part of this objective, HHS developed the first National Health Security Strategy (NHSS) (http://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/planning/authority/nhss/Pages/default.aspx), a comprehensive framework for how the entire Nation must work together to protect people’s health in the case of an emergency. The strategy lays out current challenges and gaps, and articulates a systems approach for preparedness and response, including identifying responsibilities for all levels of government, communities, families, and individuals. Climate change is anticipated to increase the incidence of severe flooding and is likely to increase the severity of hurricanes and tropical storms. Sea level rise will increase the vulnerability of low-lying coastal communities to these threats. In addition, higher temperatures and more severe droughts in some areas are anticipated to lead to more frequent and extensive wildfires. These emergencies will occur in the absence of climate change, but their potential increases in frequency and severity as a result of climate change will necessitate additional resources and preparedness planning. It will be especially critical for health care facilities and other critical emergency response infrastructure to incorporate future climate change into their planning for continuous operations (COOP). The potential for unprecedented extremes of weather, as has been witnessed in several parts of the world in the past decade, will have to be addressed in order to maintain the ability of our existing health facilities and infrastructure to protect the health and safety of Americans adequately during emergencies. The fourth objective under Goal 1 is: Ensure access to quality, culturally competent care for vulnerable populations. Climate change is anticipated to have its greatest impact on people whose health status is already at risk and who have the fewest resources to address or adapt to climate change risks. Lower income and minority communities often experience higher rates of asthma, diabetes, and other chronic diseases that place them at higher risk of complications from extreme heat and other extreme weather. In addition, these communities often experience disproportional environmental contamination and may be geographically vulnerable to climate change from being at a low elevation near coastal areas and rivers or being situated within urban “heat islands”. Social and economic factors (e.g., economic status, race, ethnicity, age, gender, and education) can significantly affect people’s exposure and sensitivity to climate change, as well as their ability to recover. For these reasons, climate change and resulting exacerbation of health risks may disproportionately affect vulnerable populations and impair their ability to access sufficient quality, culturally competent care. 2) How can your agency coordinate and collaborate with other agencies to better manage the effects of climate change? Current Collaborations
Potential Future Collaborations
While HHS understands the importance to collaborate more effectively across government, key collaborations will also be developed at the community level as many of the strategies outlined in the strategic goals build upon State, tribal and local collaborations that will help create social and physical environments that promote good health for all, and work to adapt and mitigate the effects of climate change. *Anthony J McMichael, Rosalie E Woodruff, Simon Hales, Climate change and human health: present and future risks, The Lancet, Volume 367, Issue 9513, 11 March 2006-17 March 2006, Pages 859-869.
Appendix 2: Draft Agency Energy & Sustainability Scorecard (July 2011)
Appendix 3: Supplementary Documents
Appendix 4: Acronyms and AbbreviationsACF: Agency for Children and Families BAS: Building Automation System C&D: Construction and Demolition DCCI: Data Center Consolidation EBOM: Existing Buildings Operation and Maintenance FDA: Food and Drug Administration GAM: General Administration Manual H1N1: Influenza A virus IEQ: Indoor Environmental Quality LAN: Local Area Network MOU: Memorandum of Understanding NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act O&M: Operations and Maintenance PM: Preventative Maintenance RCM: Reliability Centered Maintenance SAMHSA: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration T&D: Transmission and Distribution
VAM: Vehicle Allocation Method WRI: World Resources Institute |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
June 3, 2011
Hazardous/Regulated Waste:
Recycling programs were reported at approximately 90% of the facilities and 21% of the facilities reported active compost programs. Non C&D Recycling rates (not including composting) varied from 4% to 47% with the overall average of approximately 17%. Total solid waste to landfill (used for Scope 3 calculations) was approximately 26,244 MT and Figure 2 shows the non C&D solid waste disposal by destination.
