&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Washington DC 20460
EPA'540/P-91'004a
Directive 9200 3-01F
June 1991
Superfund Program
Management Manual
Fiscal Year 1992
FINAL
Volume I
Executive Summary
Program Goals and Expectations
National Information Needs
SCAP Procedures
SCAP/STARS Targets and Measures
Program Planning and Reporting Requirements
Financial Management
Program Assessment
Workload Models
-------
DISCLAIMER
The policies and procedures established in this document are intended solely
for the guidance of employees of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
They are not intended and cannot be relied upon to create any rights,
substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party in litigation with the
United States. EPA reserves the right to act at variance with these policies
and procedures and to change them at any time without public notice.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
FY 92 SUPERFUND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT MANUAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
OVERVIEW ES-1
OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM GOALS ES-1
INTEGRATED FUND/ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT ES-2
Integrated Program Priorities ES-2
Integrated PlanningAuneline Management ES-2
Integrated Timeline for Site Management ES-6
Outyear Planning ES-6
INTEGRATED PROGRAM GOALS ES-6
Fund/Enforcement Goals ES-6
Cost Recovery ES-8
Federal Facilities ES-8
Management Initiatives ES-8
WORST SITES/WORST PROBLEMS FIRST ES-9
Site Assessment Program Goals ES-9
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Priority
Setting Process ES-9
Planning for Mega-Sites ES-10
Remedial Action (RA) Environmental Priority Setting ES-10
QUICK RESPONSE AT NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
(NPL) SITES ES-11
COMPLETIONS/DELETIONS ES-11
NATIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS ES-12
NPL Book and Environmental Indicators ES-12
RA Information ES-13
SUPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN ES-13
Focus of the SCAP Process Through the Year ES-14
Accomplishment Reporting ES-15
SCAP Financial Planning and Regional Advice of Allowance (AOA) ES-15
THE BUDGET PROCESS ES-16
FY 92 Response Budget ES-16
FY 92 Enforcement Budget ES-17
WORKLOAD MODELS ES-17
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATIONS ES-18
USES OF THE MANUAL ES-20
STRUCTURE OF THE MANUAL ES-20
CHAPTER I - PROGRAM GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS 1-1
OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM GOALS 1-1
INTEGRATED PROGRAM MANAGEMENT: BALANCING
ENFORCEMENT FIRST AND TIMELY REMEDIATION 1-2
Integrated Program Priorities 1-2
Integrated Timeline for Site Management 1-5
Supporting Program Goals 1-10
Enforcement Goals 1-10
Remedial Goals 1-12
Timely Management of Site Remediation 1-13
Management Initiatives 1-13
WORST SITES, WORST PROBLEMS FIRST 1-14
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
Site Assessment Program Goals 1-15
RI/FS Priority Setting Process 1-16
Requirements for Priority Setting Process 1-16
Management Process 1-17
RA Environmental Priority Setting Process 1-17
Application ofRA Priority Setting Criteria 1-18
Developing and Managing the Funding Queue 1-21
Documentation 1-21
The Decision Making Process 1-21
CERCLIS Implementation 1-22
REDUCE ACUTE THREATS 1-22
Removal Program Goals 1-23
Quick Response at NPL Sites Using Removal and Remedial
Authorities 1-24
Financial Considerations 1-24
Authorities and Contracting Strategies .1-25
COMPLETIONS/DELETIONS AND FIVE YEAR REMEDY
REVIEWS 1-25
OTHER PROGRAMMATIC THEMES 1-27
Federal Facilities Program Goals 1-27
Enforcement Four-Year Strategic Plan 1-27
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Program 1-28
Natural Disaster and National Security Emergency
Preparedness (NSEP) Programs 1-28
CHAPTER II - NATIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS II-l
MANAGEMENT REPORTS II-l
Superfund Management Reports II-l
Monthly Reports II-2
Quarterly Reports II-2
Enforcement Reports II-4
ADMINISTRATIVE USES OF CERCLIS II-5
NPL BOOK II-6
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS II-6
Reporting Systems and Frequency II-7
Indicator Development II-7
Chemical Emergency and Preparedness and Prevention Office
Environmental Indicators II-8
REMEDIAL ACTION INFORMATION II-8
Planning and Accomplishment Data II-8
RA Cost Estimate II-9
CORA Model Estimate II-9
ROD Estimate II-9
RD Estimate 11-11
RA Contract Award 11-11
Total RA Cost 11-11
Technical Information 11-11
ROD Technical Information 11-11
RD Technical Information 11-15
RA Technical Information II-15
CERCLIS DATA QUALITY 11-15
Enforcement Data Quality Effort 11-15
11
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER III -SUPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE
ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN PROCEDURES ffl-1
INTRODUCTION ffl-1
RELATIONSHIP OF SCAP TO OTHER MANAGEMENT TOOLS ffl-1
SCAP AND CERCLIS/WASTELAN RELATIONSHIP ffl-2
SCAP ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ffl-3
OVERVIEW OF THE SCAP PROCESS ffl-5
SCAP CHANGE CONTROL PROCEDURES ffl-6
PROCEDURES FOR ANNUAL TARGET SETTING ffl-6
SCAP PLANNING ffl-10
Semi-Annual Planning Process ffl-10
CERCLIS Reports for SCAP Planning/Target Setting ffl-10
SCAP ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORTING ffl-12
CERCLIS Reports for Accomplishment Reporting ffl-13
SCAP/STARS ADJUSTMENTS AND AMENDMENTS ffl-13
MAINTAINING THE TARGETS AND
ACCOMPLISHMENTS FILE ffl-17
CHAPTER IV - TARGETS AND MEASURES IV-1
ROLE OF SCAP IV-1
SCAP/STARS TARGETS AND MEASURES IV-1
CHAPTER V - PROGRAM PLANNING AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES V-l
INTEGRATED PLANNING V-l
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES V-3
SITE ASSESSMENT PLANNING AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS V-4
Preliminary Assessments/Site Inspections V-4
Expanded Site (ES) Inspection V-4
REMOVAL PLANNING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS V-5
REMEDIAL RESPONSE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS V-6
PRP Search Outcome/Site Classification V-6
Project/Event Lead Codes V-6
Takeovers V-6
Probability of PRP Funded Response Actions V-9
First and Subsequent Starts and Completions V-9
Operable Units in Remedial and Enforcement Programs V-13
Sequence Numbers V-15
Operable Unit Zero (C1101 = '00') V-15
Removal Events V-15
Remedial Events V-15
Project Phasing V-16
Links V-16
TBD Sites V-17
Standard Timeframes V-22
Records of Decision V-25
Non-Significant Changes V-25
Significant Changes to a Component of a Remedy V-25
Fundamental Changes to the ROD V-26
Planning for Response Mega-Sites V-26
Treatability Study Planning V-27
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program V-27
Project Support Activities V-27
iii
-------
OSWER Directive 92003-01F
Technical Assistance Grants V-29
Assignment of Remedial Response and Oversight Work V-29
In-house RI/FS V-30
ARCS Coding V-31
ENFORCEMENT PLANNING REQUIREMENTS V-32
Mixed Funding Settlements and Cash outs V-32
Planning for Enforcement Mega-Sites/Projects V-33
PRP Removal V-34
Pre-RI/FS Enforcement Activity (PRP Search/Negotiations) V-35
RI/FS Settlement and Oversight V-36
Pre-RD/RA Enforcement Activity RD/RA Negotiations
and Oversight V-36
Section 106 Injunctive Referrals and Administrative Activity V-38
Cost Recovery V-38
State Enforcement V-40
FEDERAL FACILITIES V-40
CHAPTER VI - FINANCIAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT VI-1
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FY 92 NATIONAL BUDGET VI-1
Response Budget VI-1
Enforcement Budget VI-2
SCAP'S RELATIONSHIP TO ANNUAL REGIONAL BUDGET VI-2
Site Assessment Annual Regional Budget VI-3
Remedial Annual Regional Budget VI-3
Fund Financed RI/FS Funding Strategy VI-5
Removal Annual Regional Budget (Fund-Financed) VI-5
Enforcement Case Budget Annual Regional Budget VI-5
ADVICE OF ALLOWANCE PROCEDURES AND
FINANCIAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS VI-5
Regional Allowances VI-6
The AOA Process VI-6
AOA Flexibility VI-8
RA Allowance VI-8
Non-site Specific Funding Flexibility VI-9
AOA Change Request Procedures VI-10
Congressional Reporting Requirements VI-13
SCAP'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE AOA VI-15
Remedial Financial Planning for AOA VI-18
Removal Financial Planning for AOA VI-19
Enforcement Financial Planning for AOA VI-20
OWPE CASE BUDGET PROCESS VI-20
Preliminary Case Budget Allocation and Distribution VI-20
Litigation Support VI-21
Regional Planning Against Preliminary Budget VI-21
Enforcement Mega-Sites VI-22
Final Case Budget Distribution VT-25
Budget Execution VI-26
TES Contract Obligations VI-26
Program Management Obligations VI-26
Generic Obligations to Cover TES Tasking VI-26
Buy-in Obligations VI-27
Obligations for Other Financial Vehicles VI-27
TES WA Tasking Against Generic Obligations VI-27
TES WA Tasking for Buy-ins VI-28
AOA Utilization VI-28
iv
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Budget Utilization VI-28
Disbursements VI-30
HQ/Regional Adjustment VI-30
Responsibilities VI-30
Enforcement Financial Reports.: VI-31
Contract Management VI-31
Contract Management Delegation VI-31
Long Term Contracting Strategy VI-31
Interagency Agreements VI-34
Department of Justice VI-34
8(a)Contracts , VI-34
MANAGEMENT OF CASH OUTS VI-35
SUPERFUND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT VI-38
Federal Facilities VI-38
Regional Financial Management Responsibilities VI-38
Regional Administrator VI-38
Regional Program Office VT-39
Regional Management Division VI-41
HQ Financial Management Responsibilities VI-42
Financial Managemet Division (FMD)IOC VI-42
PDBSIOERR VI-42
Contracts and Planning Branch (CPB)fOWPE VI-43
PCMD/Office of Administration VI-43
Grants Administration Division (GAD)lOffice of
Administration VI-43
Budget Division/OC VI-43
FMC-Ci VI-44
Research Triangle Park (RTP)lOffice of Administration VI-44
Financial Management Tools and Systems VI-44
IFMS VI-44
AN VI-44
DCN VI-45
ADCR VI-45
5/5 IDs VI-45
Financial Management and Funding Processes VI-45
Approvals VI-45
Commitments VI-48
Obligations VI-48
Payments VI-48
Deobligations VI-48
Financial Management Funding Mechanisms VI-49
Contracts VI-49
lAGs VI-53
CAs VI-55
SSCs VI-57
Cost Recovery/Cost Documentation VI-59
HANDLING FINANCIAL DATA IN THE CERCLIS
ENVIRONMENT VI-60
Entering Remedial/Removal Data into CERCLIS VI-60
Entering Enforcement Case Budget Data into CERCLIS VI-60
IFMS to CERCLIS Financial Data Transfer VI-61
Correcting Financial Data VI-61
CHAPTER VII - PROGRAM ASSESSMENT VH-1
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES VII-1
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION VII-1
Quarterly Reviews VII-3
Mid-Year Assessment VII-4
End-of-Year Assessment VII-4
FY 92 OSWER AND OE REGIONAL REVIEWS: VII-4
Process VH-5
Selection of Program Issues VII-5
Evaluations VII-5
On-Site Visit VH-6
Products and Follow-up VII-6
EVALUATION AND AUDIT FOLLOW-UP VH-6
CHAPTER VIII - WORKLOAD MODELS Vffl-1
OVERVIEW OF FTE DISTRIBUTION PROCESS VHI-1
HAZARDOUS SPILL AND SITE RESPONSE MODEL VIH-1
General Model Description VIII-1
Mainframe Application Concepts VDI-2
Workload File Creation Process Vffl-2
Data Quality Checks Process Vffl-2
Target Overwrite Process Vffl-5
Data Review Process Vffl-6
Pricing Factors Loading Process VHI-6
Pure FTEs Calculation Process Vffl-6
Calibrated FTEs Calculation Process Vffl-7
PC Application Concepts Vffl-7
Data Loading Process Vffl-7
Data Maintenance Process Vffl-7
TECHNICAL ENFORCEMENT MODEL Vffl-8
Program Resource Assumptions Vffl-8
Critical Outputs Vffl-8
Ongoing Support Vffl-9
Support Activities Vffl-10
FEDERAL FACILITIES SUPERFUND WORKLOAD MODEL Vffl-10
ACRONYMS I
ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS V
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement V
CERCLA Enforcement Division VI
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response VH
Office of Program Management Vffl
Emergency Response Division IX
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division X
Hazardous Site Control Division XI
U.S. EPA REGIONS MAP XII
VI
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-1 Priority Setting Matrix ES-3
ES-2 Integrated Planning Responsibilities ES-5
ES-3 Integrated Timeline ES-7
ES-4 Environmental Indicators ES-12
ES-5 SCAP Planning Year ES-14
ES-6 Accomplishment Reporting Phase-Regional Responsibilities ES-15
ES-7 Superfund Assessment And Evaluation Strategy ES-18
ES-8 Evaluation Responsibilities ES-19
CHAPTER I
1-1 Superfund Management Review Strategy 1-1
1-2 Priority Setting Matrix 1-3
1-3 Integrated Timeline 1-6
1-4 Priority Setting Categories 1-19
1-5 CERCLIS Implementation of RA Priority Setting 1-23
CHAPTER H
II-l RA Cost Estimating Coding 11-10
II-2 Coding Guidance - Remedial Technology Types 11-12
II-3 Remedial Action Technology Type Codes 11-13
CHAPTER HI
m-1 SCAP Planning Year ffl-5
m-2 Examples of Activity/Event Planning Status and Priority Funding
Status m-8
m-3 SCAP Planning/Target Setting CERCLIS Reports ffl-11
m-4 Program Evaluation CERCLIS Reports IH-13
ffi-5 Amendments and Adjustments IE-14
m-6 SCAP Amendment Process IE-IS
CHAPTER IV
IV-1 SCAP/STARS Targets IV-4
IV-2 SCAP/STARS Measures IV-6
IV-3 CEPP SCAP/STARS Measures IV-8
CHAPTER V
V-l Flexibility Scale for Budgeting/Planning V-2
vii
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
V-2 Project/Event Lead Codes in CERCLIS in FY 92 V-7
V-3 Event Takeover at Workplan Stage V-8
V-4 Event Takeover V-8
V-5 PRP Probabilities V-9
V-6 First and Subsequent Starts and Completions V-10
V-7 Operable Unit and First and Subsequent Start and Completion Coding V-ll
V-8 Coding Anomalies V-12
V-9 Impossible FSS and FSC Code Combinations V-12
V-10 Criteria for OUs V-13
V-ll Examples of OUs V-13
V-12 Ground Rules for Coding Operable Units V-14
V-13 Remedial and Enforcement Links - Sites with Settlements V-18
V-14 Remedial and Enforcement Links - Sites without Settlements V-19
V-15 Remedial and Enforcement Links at Federal Facilities V-19
V-16 Remedial and Enforcement Links - Sites with and without
Settlement V-20
V-17 Pseudo State Codes V-21
V-18 Standard Timeframes V-22
V-19 Example Site Schedule (Fund-Financed) V-23
V-20 Example Site Schedule (RP-Lead) V-24
V-21 Site Program Coding V-28
V-22 ARCS Contractor Codes V-32
CHAPTER VI
VI-1 Criteria for Proposed Regional Response Budget Development VI-4
VI-2 The Advice of Allowance Process VI-7
VI-3 Change Request Required VI-11
VI-4 AOA Change Process VI-12
VI-5 Site vs. Non-site Specific Planned Obligations VI-14
VI-6 Budget Source Codes VI-15
VI-7 Who Pays for What VI-16
VI-8 FY 92 Case Budget Funded Activities Required to Achieve Program
Outputs VI-23
VI-9 Case Budget AOA Limits VI-24
VI-10 Case Budget Reponsibilities VI-32
VI-11 Regional/HQ Case Budget Responsibilities VI-33
VI-12 Handling Financial Data in the CERCLIS Environment VI-46
viii
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
VI-13 EPA Forms Commonly Used for Superfund Procurements VI-50
VI-14 Corrections to Financial Information in LFMS VI-61
CHAPTER VII
VII-1 Evaluation Responsibilities W-2
VH-2 The Quarterly Review Process VH-3
CHAPTER Vm
Vffl-1 Workload Model Operations Remedial Pipeline Information Vffl-3
Vffl-2 Workload Model Operations Remedial Pipeline Processing Vffl-4
IX
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS
QUARTER 4 (FY 91)
Fourth quarter Advice of Allowance (AOA) approved by the Assistant
Administrator Solid Waste and Emergency Response (AA SWER) and Office of
the Comptroller (OC)
Accomplishments data pulled from the Comprehensive Response Compensation
and Liability Information System (CERCLIS)* and provided for:
1) Entry into Office of Pollution Prevention (OPP) Strategic Targeted Activities
for Results System (STARS);
2) Special program reports; and
3) AA report.
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of Remedial Design (RD) and Remedial
Action (RA) projects
Data pulled from CERCLIS to support negotiation of:
1) Final Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP)/STARS
FY 92 targets;
2) First quarter FY 92 removals; and
3) Final FY 92 operating plan.
OPP STARS data verified (third quarter accomplishments)
OPP STARS system closes (third quarter accomplishments)
FY 92 RA priority setting panel meeting
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for Special program reports.
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA projects
Negotiations on final FY 92 SCAP/STARS targets and budget
Memorandum to Regions on final FY 92 budgets, targets and measures
*CERCLIS includes data in CERCLIS and CERHELP
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (continued)
SEPTEMBER
CERCLIS revised to reflect final FY 92 budgets, targets and measures
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA projects
Data pulled from CERCLIS for first quarter AOA
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS and provided for Special program 9
reports.
Final FY 92 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) distribution
FY 92 first quarter AOA request submitted to the AA SWER
and placed in CERHELP
Regional conference call on final RA appropriation
Regions input AOA to Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS)
**
Dependent on approval of final appropriations
XI
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS
QUARTER 1 (FY 92)
First quarter AOA approved by the AA SWER
andOC
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA schedules
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for:
1) AA report;
2) Special program reports; and
3) End-of-year assessment for FY 91.
4) Entry into OPP system for FY 91 STARS end-of-year accomplishments.
FY 92 final targets, including open season changes, set in CERHELP
Data pull from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA schedules
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for special program reports.
OPP STARS verified (fourth quarter FY 91)
OPP STARS system closes (fourth quarter FY 91)
OCTOBER
3**
Complete evaluation of ongoing RI/FS projects
and RI/FS start candidates
Draft FY 93 Operating Guidance and STARS measures sent to
Regions for review
Pull of CERCLIS data for:
1) Second quarter AOA; and
2) FY 93 Congressional Budget.
Data pull from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA schedules
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for special program reports.
Second quarter AOA request submitted to AA SWER
and placed in CERHELP
Regions input AOA to IFMS
**Dependent on approval of final appropriations
XII
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (continued)
QUARTER 2 (FY92)
Second quarter AOA approved by the AA SWER and OC
Pull data from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA schedules
HQ pulls SCAP data from CERCLIS and baseline FY 93 targets and
measures are developed using SCAP Methodologies
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for:
1) Entry into OPP STARS system for first quarter review;
2) Special program reports; and
3) AA report.
Preliminary run of workload model based on methodologies
OPP STARS data verified
OPP STARS system closes
Call memorandum containing schedules for semi-annual negotiations
and baseline targets and measures sent to Regions
Regional comments on FY 93 Operating Plan due
Program Management meeting (SCAP/Workload Model)
Mega-site Management Plans for FY 93 submitted to the Hazardous
Site Control Division
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for Special program reports.
Data pulled from CERCLIS to support negotiation of:
1) FY 92 RA schedules.
2) Preliminary SCAP/STARS FY 93 targets;
3) Preliminary FY 93 annual Regional budget; and
4) Budget projections for FY 94 projects.
Begin HQ/Regional negotiation of:
1) FY 92 third and fourth quarter targets and budget;
2) FY 93 SCAP/STARS targets and annual Regional budget; and
3) FY 94 outyear budget.
31
FEBRUARY
20
xm
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (continued)
MARCH
Final FY 93 Operating Guidance issued 2
Complete preliminary HQ/Regional negotiations of FY 93 targets 2
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS 6
and provided for Special program reports.
Draft FY 93 Superfund Program Management Manual distributed for review 9
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA schedules 20
Data pulled from CERCLIS for mid-year assessment 20
Pull CERCLIS data for third quarter AOA 20
CERCLIS revised to reflect negotiated FY 93 preliminary targets and measures 20
Run workload model for preliminary FY 93 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) distribution 23
Third quarter AOA request submitted to the AA SWER 27
and placed in CERHELP
Memorandum to Regions on preliminary targets and FTEs 31
Regions input AOA to IFMS 31
QUARTER 3 APRIL
Issue Addendum for FY 93 Operating Plan 1
Third quarter AOA approved by the AA SWER and OC 3
Regional comments on FY 93 Superfund Program Management Manual due 6
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of RD and R A schedules 7
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS and provide for: 7
1) Entry into OPP system for second quarter review;
2) AA report; and
3) Special program reports.
Current FY STARS revisions to HQ 15
OPP STARS data verified (second quarter accomplishments) 13-17
OPP STARS system closes (second quarter accomplishments) 17
Program Management meeting (Budget/Pricing Factor) 22-23
Regions submit data sheets on RD projects that will lead to a FY 93 RA start 23
XIV
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (continued)
MAY
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for Special program reports.
Pull SCAP planning data for outyear budget (FY 94)
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA schedules
Final FY 93 Superfund Program Management Manual
Pull of CERCLIS data for fourth quarter AOA
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA schedules
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for Special program reports.
Complete negotiations on FY 92 fourth quarter AOAs for RD/RA, removal,
and enforcement
Call memorandum and FY 93 proposed Regional budget sent to the Regions
for semi-annual negotiations
Fourth quarter AOA request submitted to the AA SWER
and placed in CERHELP
RA fact sheets for FY 93 RAs submitted to HQ
Regions submit enforcement mega-site management plans to
the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE)
Regions input AOA to BFMS
QUARTER 4
Fourth quarter AOA approved by the AA SWER and OC
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for:
1) Entry into OPP STARS;
2) Special progam reports; and
3) AA report.
xv
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-OIF
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (continued)
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA projects
Data pulled from CERCLIS to support negotiation of:
1) Final SCAP/STARS FY 93 targets;
2) First quarter FY 93 removals; and
3) Final FY 93 operating plan.
OPP STARS data verified (third quarter accomplishments)
OPP STARS system closes (third quarter accomplishments)
FY 93 RA priority setting panel meeting
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for Special program reports.
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA projects
Conduct negotiations on final FY 93 SCAP/STARS targets and budget
Memorandum to Regions on final budgets, targets and measures
CERCLIS revised to reflect final budgets, targets and measures
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA projects
Data pulled from CERCLIS for first quarter AOA
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for Special program reports.
Final FY 93 FTE distribution
FY 93 first quarter AOA request submitted to the AA SWER
and placed in CERHELP
Regional conference call on final RA appropriation
Regions input AOA to IFMS
21
AUGUST
** Dependent on approval of final appropriations
xvi
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (continued)
QUARTER 1 (FY 93)
First quarter AOA approved by the AA SWER and OC
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA schedules
Accomplishment data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for:
1) Special program reports;
2) AA report;
3) Entry into OPP system for FY 92 STARS end-of-year; and
4) FY 92 end-of-year assessment.
Accomplishment data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for Special program reports.
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA schedules
FY 93 final targets, including open season changes, set in CERHELP
OPP STARS verified (fourth quarter FY 92)
OPP STARS system closes (fourth quarter FY 92)
Complete evaluation of FY 94 RI/FS start candidates
Draft FY 94 Operating Guidance and STARS measures sent to Regions for review
Pull of CERCLIS data for:
1) Second quarter AOA; and
2) FY 94 Congressional budget.
Data pull from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA schedules
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for Special program reports.
Second quarter AOA request submitted to AA SWER and placed in CERHELP
Regions input AOA to IFMS
NOVEMBER
6
**Dependent on approval of final appropriations
xvn
-------
SUPERFUND STATE PROGRAM MANAGER'S SCHEDULE
JULY 1991 - DECEMBER 1992
^ir~ !^
SCAP Planning Data
Accomplishment Reporting
JUL
8
8
AUG
7
7
SEP
9
9
OCT
7
7
NOV
7
7
DEC
6
6
JAN
8
8
FEB
7
7
MAR
20
6
APR
7
7
MAY
8
8
JUN
5
5
JUL
8
8
AUG
7
7
SEP
8
8
OCT
7
7
NOV
6
6
DEC
^~~~i
7
7
FY 91 SCAP/STARS
Targets & Measures
FY 92 SCAP/STARS
Targets & Measures
FY 92 Budget
Advice of Allowance
RA Priority Setting
Mld-Year/End-of-Year
Assessment
FY 93 SCAP/STARS
Targets & Measures
FY 93 Budget
FY 94 Budget
Agency Operating Plan
FY 93 Super-fund Program
Management Manual
*/A
ฉ
P
*
P-ซ
$
*
*/A
>ฉ
A
*
P-ป
*
*/P
*
*/A
*
ฉ
*/P
*
*
A
*P/A
P/A
*
*
/$\
P
P
P-*
*
P/A
ฉ
*
*/A
-ฉ
P/A
A
*
*
*
*
P
ฉ
P/A
P I
*
XiiK.
*
*
*/A
P/A
KD
p
p-ป
p-ป
P/A
*
"ฉ
-(Jฃ)
P/A
P 1
$
*
*/A
Iฎ
A
*
P
P
*
X
I;
INDICATES ACCOMPLISHMENT DATA ARE PULLED FROM CERCLIS
INDICATES PLANNING DATA ARE PULLED FROM CERCLIS
INDICATES PLANNING DATA PULLED ONE MONTH ARE USED BY
EPA ON THE DAY IN THE CIRCLE
ปซ* INDICATES THAT DURING THE MONTH THE STATE MAY CONTACT THE REGION
TO PROVIDE INPUT ON THE SPECIFIC PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TOOL
A
INDICATES KEY DATES FOR HQ
INDICATES KEY DATES FOR THE REGION
INDICATES DATE DEPENDENT ON APPROVAL OF FINAL APPROPRIATIONS
-------
EPA PROGRAM MANAGER'S SCHEDULE
JULY 1991 - DECEMBER 1992
~^S - *^
SCAP Planning Data
Accomplishment Reporting
JUL
8
8
AUG
7
7
SEP
9
9
OCT
7
7
NOV
7
7
DEC
6
6
JAN
8
8
FEB
7
7
MAR
20
6
APR
7
7
MAY
8
8
JUN
5
5
JUL
8
8
AUG
7
7
SEP
8
8
OCT
7
7
NOV
6
6
DEC
7
7
FY 92 Budget
FY 93 Budget
FY 94 Budget
Workload Model
FY 91 SCAP/STARS
Targets & Measures
FY 92 SCAP/STARS
Targets & Measures
FY 93 SCAP/STARS
Targets & Measures
Monthly Management Reports
Advice of Allowance
RA Priority Setting
RA Project Status
Mld-Year/End-of-Year
Assessment
A
P/A
ฉ
P
$$\
P/A
P/A
P/A
P
ฉ
P/A
PA
/T^S
P/A
A
P/A
3(7)
P/A
A
P/A
P/A
P
P/A
^r
P/A
P
ฉ
A
p
ฉ
P/A
ฉ
P/A
P/A
P
P
P/A
^S*
P/A
P/A
P
(23)
x^
!2A^
P/A
A1
P/A
P/A
A
^
P/A
-ฉ
P/A
P/A
P
P/A
P/A
^
ฉ
ฉ
P/A
^
A
P/A
P/A
P-*
A
P-ป
P/A
KD
p
P/A
P/A
A
-A
P/A
P/A
P/A
A
p
ฉ
A
P/A
2&K1
$
P/A
A
P/A
2ฉ
P/A
A
A
P/A
P/A
P
P/A
P/\
/31\
P/A
"P" INDICATES PLANNING
"A" INDICATES ACCOMPLISHMENTS
INDICATES KEY HQ DATES
INDICATES KEY DATES FOR THE REGIONS
"$" INDICATES DATE DEPENDENT ON
APPROVAL OF FINAL APPROPRIATIONS
o
3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
The Fiscal Year (FY) 1992 Superfund Program Management Manual illustrates the
relationships among the major Superfund management tools. This includes identifying program
goals and priorities, translating priorities into targets and measures that are planned and tracked
through the Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP), allocating resources
through targets and measures, and evaluating SCAP to determine whether program goals are
being met.
Regions are responsible for developing solutions to site management problems as they
occur and should strive for a balanced approach to site work, encouraging both Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs) and States to assume responsibility for response actions. Regions
should coordinate with the States, the Office of Regional Counsel (ORC), U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE), the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other Federal agencies (e.g., Depart-
ment of Interior (DOI), the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)) during
the SCAP planning process.
The remaining sections of this chapter highlight the key program goals and themes
addressed in this Manual.
OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM GOALS
The focus of the Superfund program is to maximize the protection of human health and
the environment through fast and effective cleanup of priority hazardous waste sites and releases.
The twin goals of maximizing participation of responsible parties and timely remediation of sites
are two of the program's highest priorities. To meet these goals and to continue to fulfill the
requirements of the long term strategy set forth in the Superfund Management Review and the
four-year strategic plan of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER),
several themes are highlighted in FY 92. These themes include:
Ensuring that worst problems at the worst sites are addressed first by applying risk
based priorities;
Reducing risks by performing quick response actions at priority sites;
Moving sites through the remedial pipeline to completion and deletion;
Continuing to use environmental indicators as a means for communicating pro-
gram progress;
Maximizing the participation and increasing the number of PRPs involved in site
remediation.
Implementing management initiatives; and
Maximizing cost recovery to the Trust Fund.
ES-1
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
INTEGRATED FUND/ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
The integration of enforcement and response activities has led to the development of a
number of processes and procedures to support the achievement of program priorities. These
initiatives include the development and application of the integrated Priority Setting Matrix and
the Integrated Timeline for site management.
Integrated Program Priorities
First developed in 1989, the integrated Priority Setting Matrix provides a framework for
allocating resources in Superfund to the highest priority activities. It is designed to identify and
place in rough priority order the Superfund program goals and the activities that support achieve-
ment of those objectives. The Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE), the Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), and the Regions collaborated on revisions to the
Matrix to better integrate budgeting resource allocation and Superfund Strategic Planning.
The integrated Priority Setting Matrix is designed to 1) identify relative program priori-
ties; 2) list major program activities for which resources are provided; and 3) provide a frame-
work to distribute the funding levels needed to support the activities.
The overall goals identified in the matrix (Exhibit ES-1) are to:
Reduce near term risks to public health, emphasizing cleanup of the worst prob-
lems at worst sites first;
Move sites quickly into cleanup using PRP resources as a first resort; and
Maintain a baseline of activities that feed the remedial pipeline.
This matrix will be used by Headquarters (HQ) and the Regions in making trade-off
decisions during:
FY 93 budget formulation;
FY 92 operating plan development, initial and final target setting; and
Mid-year adjustment.
It should be noted that Federal Facilities are a separate program priority and are not
included in the Matrix because they do not compete for funds from other Superfund program
areas. The Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement (OFFE) will be working with Regional
offices to develop a separate priority setting matrix for Federal Facilities.
Integrated Planning/Timeline Management
Integrated response/enforcement planning is the responsibility of HQ, Regional program
offices, the States, ORC and DOJ. In order to provide adequate resources for priority actions at
Superfund sites, HQ allocates resources within and between the response and enforcement
budgets. Regions are responsible for providing data on the level of resources needed to accom-
plish these priority actions and negotiating commitments consistent with realistic site planning.
Targets are negotiated from resource levels allocated.
ES-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit ES-1
PRIORITY SETTING MATRIX
PROGRAM PRIORITY
I. Reduce Near Term Threats
A. Mitigate Risks from
Immediate Threat
B. Worst Problems First
ACTIVITIES
Classic Emergencies (Removal and
Remedial, Fund and Enforcement)
NPL Removals (Fund & Enforcement)
Administrative Orders (AOs) for National
Priorities List (NPL) Removals
II. Move Sites to Cleanup
A. Support Ongoing Work at
High Priority Sites to
Completion of Current
Phase (Operable Unit
(OU)) ป
Site Assessment (Preliminary Assessment
(PA)/Site Inspection (SI), Environmental
Priorities Initiative (EPI))
Listing Sites
Remedial Action (RA) Start (Fund) - Priority 1 Sites
B. Take Enforcement
Actions to Ensure a
Strong Enforcement
Presence and to
Maximize Likelihood of
PRP Takeover
Support Ongoing Remedial Design (RD)
Ongoing RA (Fund and PRP) that lead to
completion/ deletion
Ongoing RA (Fund and PRP)
Ongoing RD/RA Negotiations
Ongoing Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) (PRP)
Ongoing RI/FS (Fund)
Ongoing RI/FS (Enforcement mega-sites)
Ongoing 107 Statute of Limitations (SOL) Litigation
Ongoing 106 Litigation for Remedy
Ongoing 104 Access
Ongoing Compliance Enforcement
Ongoing 106/107 Litigation
RD/RA Negotiations (New)
PRP RD/RA Starts
106 Settlement Referrals
106 Unilateral Administrative Orders (UAOs) for RD/RA
107 SOL Referrals
106 Litigation for Remedy
106/107 Litigation
Mixed Funding RD and RA
104(e) Referrals
RESOURCE!
LEVEL*
B
A' = ALL and 'B' = BASELINE
BOLDING INDICATES CHANGES FOR FY 92
"A" and "B" are designed to indicate degree of importance, not an absolute rule
with regard to funding. As used in this column "B" indicates a level of activities consistent with prior year activity.
"A" means all those activities available to be done.
Provided that timely special notice, special notice waiver or general notice with timelines has been issued and
extensions have been requested/approved consistent with Agency policy.
Consistent with cost recovery strategy.
(Note: All activities identified in the matrix are to be funded at least at a minimum baseline level.)
***
ES-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit ES-1 (continued^
PRIORITY SETTING MATRIX
PROGRAM PRIORITY
ACTIVITIES
RESOURCE
LEVEL*
II. Move Sites to Cleanup (continued)
C. Take Action to Reduce Risk at
Worst Problems First Where
Enforcement Action is not
Appropriate
RD Start (Fund)
RA Start (Fund) Priority 2 and 3 Sites
D. Maximize Cost Recovery
Non-SOL Referrals
E.
Initiate RI/FS and Other
Activities at Worst Problems
First to Keep Pipeline Balanced
PRP RI/FS
Fund RI/FS
State Enforcement RI/FS
F. Other, Removal, Enforcement
and State Support Activities to
Support Long Term Goals
Non-NPL Time Critical Removals
AOs for Non-NPL Time Crit. Removal
Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs)
Non-NPL PRP Search
Core Program Cooperative Agreements (CPCA)
107 Administrative Settlements
B***
III. New Initiatives
IV. Essential Program Management
Elements
A. Critical Path Support Activities
PRP Searches
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)
Removal Support
Remedial Project Support
Community Relations
B. Core Program Support
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information
System (CERCLIS) Data Base Management
Contract Management
Records Management
Administrative Records
Program Management
State Program Support
Fund at
Level to
Support
Program
Integrity
Fund at
Level to
Support
Program
Integrity
'A' = ALL and 'B' = BASELINE BOLDING INDICATES CHANGES FOR FY 92
* "A" and "B" are designed to indicate degree of importance, not an absolute rule with regard to funding. As used in this
column "B" indicates a level of activities consistent with prior year activity. "A" means all those activities available to
be done.
*** Consistent with cost recovery strategy.
(Note: All activities identified in the matrix are to be funded at least at a minimum baseline level.)
ES-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
After SCAP/Strategic Targeted Activities for Results System (STARS) targets have been
finalized and funding levels developed, the SCAP process provides the flexibility to modify
plans during the year. Modifications are termed either adjustments or amendments. Amend-
ments require HQ concurrence and approval. Adjustments do not require HQ approval; how-
ever, they may require HQ notification.
Exhibit ES-2 illustrates the HQ and Regional responsibilities in the integrated planning
process.
Exhibit ES-2
INTEGRATED PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES
REGIONS
Involve the State in the planning process Establishment of program priorities
Manage projects to integrate enforcement
and response milestones and to ensure
that schedules and timelines are met
Provide accurate, complete
and timely project planning data in the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) and
SCAP
Follow established planning
procedures and requirements
Recognize that missed
commitments in the operating year
severely affect resource availability
in future years
Involve ORC in planning process
Negotiate and assess the status of
mega-site funding
Assess outlays versus budget
authorizations for Federal agencies
cleanups part of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) A-106
process
Identify multi-media planning and
cleanup opportunities
Review of operating plans and site
commitments
Work with Regional managers to adjust
resources to meet program priorities
Negotiate and assess the status of
mega-site funding
Timely communication with the Regions
on changes/additions to SCAP schedules
Reprogram Regional resources to
support priority activities
Provide funding and Full Time
Equivalents (FTE) for negotiated targets
Involve Regions in preliminary
resource requests
Develop policy and guidance in response
to Congressional or Agency initiatives
Coordinate the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) and
Office of Enforcement (OE) activities
throughout the process
ES-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Integrated Timeline for Site Management
A major theme of the Superfund Management Review is the importance of an aggressive,
well planned and tightly coordinated system for moving sites to completed remediation. Success
in these efforts depends in large part on identifying critical decision points and goals and the
amount of time it should take to get from one step to the next As a result, the Agency has
developed a timeline that provides an overview of the major remedial and enforcement activities
required in the Superfund site cleanup process. The Integrated Timeline (Exhibit ES-3) is a
multi-step site management process that spans a maximum of 24 quarters. In FY 92, HQ and the
Regions will continue the initiatives to track the reasons for slippage.
To embody the concept of good timeline management, STARS/SCAP trends analyses
will be undertaken in FY 92 to measure continuous improvements in the average duration of
RI/FS projects and the average duration between Record of Decision (ROD) and Remedial
Design (RD)/Remedial Action (RA) negotiations completion, ROD and RD start, and ROD and
RA start. Also in FY 92, a HQ/Regional workgroup will be formed to review the goals, mile-
stone events, and timeframes of the Integrated Timeline and consider potential revisions based
on program experience.
Outyear Planning
When a site is proposed as a candidate for a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) start, Regions must project and record in the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) a realistic
schedule for core remedial and enforcement activities: RI/FS negotiations, RI/FS, ROD,
RD/RA negotiations, RD, RA and cost recovery. Where better data on a project or site
are not available, Regions can project schedules by using their experience or the Inte-
grated Timeline for site management described in detail in Chapter I of the Manual. As
better information on project schedules and RA costs becomes available, Regions
must update their SCAP data in CERCLIS. At any given juncture during a FY, this
information may be pulled from CERCLIS to support development of the Superfund
budget. While every attempt will be made to contact the Region when this occurs, there
may be instances when this cannot be done. Keeping the data current in CERCLIS is a
continuous process that is particularly important for outyear budget planning, the
workload model, Regional evaluation, and SCAP/STARS target setting.
INTEGRATED PROGRAM GOALS
Fund/Enforcement Goals
Maximizing the participation of PRPs in the Superfund program and remediating sites in
a timely manner requires the Region to keep in mind the following:
A comprehensive PRP search is the foundation of the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) enforcement process and serves to promote PRP participation in
response activities. Once PRPs have been identified, negotiations need to be
initiated, properly managed and completed within the special notice moratoriums;
Regions should effectively use the settlement authorities and enforcement tools
under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) (e.g.,
mixed funding, Non-Binding Allocation of Responsibility (NEAR), and dฃ mini-
mis') to compel PRP response and maximize PRP participation; and
ES-6
-------
Exhibit ES-3
INTEGRATED TIMELINE
w
ij
fPHAgE|ซ? 6tAP$EO.TlMEปIOUARTฃR8::* J-. ? . ป" a''-.-. ;";:' '.* ,.::;' : ? ' .-
F ACnVnV Z 4 9 * 1* ..-.::. \% ;: .....&:.f4.:-.::.-. .?::.:. 1** v;;; ;;-;; j(h-"v -f J(J:: * JR: ""- -Ar: ff. . s ?
RP Search and
Notification
RVFS
Negotiation
Process
RKFS
Settlement
Process
RVFS
Implementation
Process
RLVRA
Negotiation
Process
RORA
Settlement/
Referral
Process
RD
Implementation
RA
Implementation
Community
Relations
Cost
Recovery
ป4
front
BMJ
J4
5uEซT
IN
tvป | nr>
OB
ERALNC
<
IWป
net
MM9
/ฐT*
ฃ.>
V
RNP
VjtarC
UMnWh
^^N
RPS
PIOUU
M
JN
AOP
<^
1
HI
iucn
RPS
.NOTICE
JED
f*
\
Y
MM
CRP
9
RPS
JCorUA
ISSUED
RWS
SUPPL
OENER
B
RPS
I
KTt
ENTAI
M.NOTIO
WED
RPi
Dnl
mปH,
MFS
RP*
Ptopoj
HMIDI
\
WFS
PiMh
^___ 1
\
Rpi
d
KIRW*
WffS
0000
-tm,
RP*
ROO
FAITH O
RDNP
I
RPI
ROD
IR
RONP
(MO
h
y"**
M
ICMNXI
CULNa
[L
RON |
Nj
ICUED'
PCI
^ wPMICnU
K
eซw\
DซrtrnlN
*OBO J(
un*o^
ni UAO
>^
ME
ICE Ml
/CO
COB
^
B>
MNEO
CUE
^
I UAOC or ROF )
1 1
CRPS
v
BPBO*
1 AOP
|W
ICDP
[
TB
5RT
;RP^
GNP
Ki
RA
m\
HUN
5DRP
^l/FS
RN
IRNP
rrar
4PWi
RCS
M
^
^
^
-ซ
-<
^
LEGEND
MO/AOC Prspsraian
ป LodginaCnMring
'XiPnptnton
X)FMMrd
lonttfawtManilonng
ปP Preparaton
ปPRซvwon
General Notot Preparaton
.Pubic Comment Period
.RAIniplariMnMion
ซRD Funded
.F
.F
.1
.F
EVRANซgoliaton
ป N*goซaton Prep.
ซ/FSAOivrปป
U/FS Nagotaton
.FU/FS N*g. Preparation
.ROD Preparaton
^PRwiMdwIDengn
.Fksponsibl* Party Surah
ISNP 1 >ap*cul Notn Preparaton
1 U I .UAO Rwponw Period
RJAOB .UAO Entorosment
II
1
r\
V
Ml
C
nmcta
vปl,M
tutor
Cortซ
\
1 1 1
IA*CM
ntocw
f
>
^
tor Fund.
nmdRA^^
>
K
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Continue moving sites through the remedial pipeline, completing ongoing projects
to their next phase before starting new work.
Maximizing participation of PRPs and timely remediation of sites demands careful
attention from both HQ and Regional managers. Of particular concern is the period from pro-
posed plan to the start of RD and RA. In FY 92, HQ is continuing several management systems
designed to spot and escalate concerns. These systems include written status reports, regularly
scheduled forums for problem discussion and timeline management studies.
Cost Recovery
The EPA's policy is first to seek response actions by PRPs to meet environmental priority
goals. EPA ensures this occurs by using its enforcement authorities vigorously. Where
this is not possible, EPA conducts responses using the Superfund and then takes action to
recover response costs from PRPs.
The goals for the Superfund cost recovery program are to:
Maximize returns to the Fund, to enable more cleanups; it is EPA's intention to
recover 100 percent of all costs targeted for recovery in every case pursued includ-
ing direct costs, indirect costs, and interest; and,
Create incentives for PRPs to conduct response themselves, in part through vigor-
ous enforcement against recalcitrants, use of NEAR, dฃ minimis settlements, and
other CERCLA tools which promote PRP involvement.
These goals are consistent with the current Cost Recovery Strategy which places a higher
emphasis on taking action against non-settlers.
Federal Facilities
Federal Facilities represent a significant threat to the environment and are receiving
increased Agency attention. In response to the unique needs of mega-sites and complex compli-
ance issues at Federal Facilities, OFFE in the Office of Enforcement (OE) has established the
following initiatives, which are consistent with and complement Superfund program goals:
Emphasis on improved Federal agency response programs and oversight through
increased use of expedited response actions and streamlining;
Institute a risk-based, "worst-first" enforcement approach; and
Target facilities as prime opportunities for training, technology research and
development, and technology transfer initiatives.
Management Initiatives
There are a number of management initiatives that are being implemented in FY 92
including:
Implementation of a well managed program by continuing the strategy of fully
funding RI/FS projects, with a goal of $750,000 per Operable Unit (OU) and
$1,100,000 per site. These goals do not apply to mega-sites;
ES-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Using the expertise of other Federal agencies, especially the construction manage-
ment experience of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE);
Working toward making CERCLIS/WasteLAN more of a management tool for
HQ and the Region. Expand the data base so it can be used to collect environmen-
tal information;
Implementation of the Long Term Contracting Strategy (LTCS); and
Development of CERCLIS data quality audit reports.
WORST SITES/WORST PROBLEMS FIRST
The Superfund Management Review established an Agency policy of addressing the
worst problems first by scheduling incremental steps to clean up sites and expending scarce
resources first on problems posing the most serious risk. The OSWER and OE Strategic Plans
also made this policy a key objective for cleanup.
OFFE has also initiated a national effort to develop cleanup priorities based on the best
judgment of EPA, States, Indian Tribes, citizen groups, and other Federal agencies to target
limited government resources. Representatives from these groups will be participating in a
national dialogue throughout FY 91 to develop a methodology and national priority system for
Federal Facilities.
Site Assessment Program Goals
Site assessment demands are expanding and Regions are encountering more requirements
in screening sites and making worst sites first decisions. The site assessment program is using a
variety of mechanisms to ensure that worst sites enter the cleanup process first. These include:
Establishing site assessment decisions/priority recommendations at each step of
the evaluation process;
Continuing the implementation of the Environmental Priorities Initiative (EPI);
Implementing discovery projects;
Increasing emphasis on Preliminary Assessments (PA) at Federal Facilities;
Expanding emphasis on removal program coordination; and
Implementing the revised Hazard Ranking System (MRS).
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RITES') Priority Setting Process
With a substantial number of RI/FS projects ongoing, the Agency will continue to limit
the number of first and subsequent RI/FS starts in FY 92. As a result, a systematic process for
establishing the relative priority of first and subsequent Fund and enforcement RI/FS starts was
implemented. The specific objective of the RI/FS priority setting policy is to focus the limited
number of RI/FS starts on the worst problems first.
ES-9
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
By November 30,1991, the Regions are required to submit a list of candidate RI/FS
projects, a description of the priority setting process (if it changed from the FY 91 submission),
and a three-tiered listing of all RI/FS start candidates that notes first and subsequent starts and
explains the project ranking.
Planning for Mega-Sites
In the response program, mega-sites are defined as sites where the total RI/FS costs are in
excess of or expected to exceed $3 million. There are over 20 sites nationally that cur-
rently come under the definition of mega-sites. In light of increased stress on the Super-
fund budget, mega-site management plans that characterize site problems, describe
management options, and project total resource requirements must be submitted to HQ on
an annual basis. These plans will be scrutinized with respect to enforcement activities,
fiscal obligations and outlays, and technical approach. The relative priority of the RI/FS
and the degree of risk reduction tht may be achieved will also be criteria for review of
mega-site management plans. Funds for mega-sites will be allocated on a site by site
basis.
Remedial Action (RA~) Environmental Priority Setting
The number of sites reaching the construction end of the pipeline has increased dramati-
cally following the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). To
ensure that limited RA funds would be directed to the worst problems first, an RA priority
setting process was implemented.
Since the development and implementation of the RA priority setting process, two sig-
nificant issues have emerged. First, a number of disincentives appear to have been created with
the development of a line that separates sites that will be funded from sites that will not be
funded. Second, PRPs are taking over an increasing number of post RD projects, and present
projections for the FY 92 budget indicate a substantial increase in RA funding. As a result,
adjustments to the RA priority setting process are being considered.
A two step approach to RA priority setting will occur. By April 1992, Regions are
required to submit data sheets for each RD project that is expected to result in a FY 93 RA start,
respectively. The data sheets should address PRP involvement, status of RD, and potential for
phased funding of large dollar (greater than $50 million) projects. HQ will evaluate the projects,
decide whether available projects are likely to exceed the RA budget, and make a decision on
ranking. If it appears that the number of available projects will substantially exceed projected
dollars, the RA ranking panel, which is composed of senior HQ and Regional managers, will
proceed with project ranking. However, once the rankings are established, projects will be
funded on a first ready, first funded basis through the third quarter, or until such time that it
appears the available budget will not support the ready projects.
The RA priority setting process identifies three categories into which each RA project is
assigned by the Region. The affected State shall be consulted prior to assigning an RA project to
a category. (Regions are encouraged to involve affected States in completing project fact
sheets.) Only projects where documentation has been submitted will be considered for ranking.
The significance of these three categories is that RA projects are compared and ranked only with
other projects in the same category; all projects of a given priority category are funded prior to
funding projects in the next lower priority category. There is a subset of RA projects that is not
evaluated under the priority setting process. These projects are automatically placed in the
funding queue and guaranteed funds.
ES-10
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Each year a funding queue is developed. If it appears the RA budget will not support all
ready projects, RAs will be funded in order of relative priority. After providing the dollars to
support the projects that are guaranteed funding, all Priority 1 projects will be funded. Then,
based on the available FY 92 RA budget, a "funding line" will be identified in either the Priority
2 or 3 category. Approved RA projects that stay on schedule through the first three quarters of
the FY are assured funding. At mid-year and throughout the third and fourth quarters, all
projects and the RA budget status will be reviewed and the funding procedures may be revised.
Therefore, it is vitally important that up-to-date information on the readiness of projects and the
funding needs be maintained in CERCLIS.
QUICK RESPONSE AT NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST (NPL) SITES
During site planning phases, the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) or On-Scene Coordi-
nator (OSC) should determine if the site is safe. A further determination should be made on the
need for additional surface clean-up that will reduce risk, can be addressed through remedial/
removal authorities and can be accomplished quickly. OSCs are responsible for assessing half of
their NPL sites each calendar year to ensure that no immediate threats have arisen. At the begin-
ning of each calendar year, Regions are to submit documentation that states that 50 percent of the
Region's proposed and final, non-Federal Facility NPL sites have been assessed. In FY 92,
OSCs are asked to use these assessments to systematically identify opportunities for quick
response. RPMs should also look for such opportunities during the scoping of the RI/FS.
To provide incentives for quick response, $50 million will be set aside (until the third
quarter) in the RA budget for quick response projects. These projects do not require ranking.
In general this set aside should be used for quick response projects of less than $2 mil-
lion. Projects up to $5 million may be approved if there is a significant reduction in risk, activi-
ties will lead to completion or deletion, or under other specified circumstances.
COMPLETIONS/DELETIONS
The achievement of site completions/deletions from the NPL has an increased emphasis
in FY 92. Prompt movement of eligible sites into and through the completion/deletion process
helps the Agency to accurately communicate to the public the progress it makes in cleaning up
sites. Conversely, the public remains largely unaware of clean up accomplishments where EPA
neglects to use the NPL process to show such accomplishments. Regions should ensure that
interim and final closeout reports and appropriate proposed and final Federal Register notices are
developed and submitted as soon as sites have reached appropriate stages in the cleanup process,
but not later than the quarter following RA completion.
Key components of the completion/deletion initiative include:
NPL Site Completions Through Final RA is a new STARS target in FY 92;
Funds are provided for quick response actions that will lead to completion/dele-
tion; and
The program management component of the RA ranking criteria allows comple-
tions/deletions to be a reason for increasing the score of a project.
ES-11
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
NATIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS
The uses of the data in CERCLIS continue to evolve and, in FY 92, the Agency will
continue to take major steps to expand CERCLIS so it can be used as a comprehensive environ-
mental data base. CERCLIS will continue to be used by OWPE, OERR and OE to support
SCAP/STARS planning, tracking, and reporting national information needs on Superfund plan-
ning and progress, and other informational and administrative data needs. However, it will also
provide data on RAs and environmental indicators. [Note: Throughout this Manual, the term
CERCLIS is used to refer to the entire information system, including CERCLIS, CERHELP, and
WasteLAN.]
NPL Book and Environmental Indicators
One of the recommendations in the Superfund Management Review was to better com-
municate the ongoing efforts of the Superfund program and the progress that is being made in
site cleanup activities. Toward this goal, the Agency has developed the NPL Book and imple-
mented the Superfund Environmental Indicators program.
The NPL book, which is published by State, is a concise, readable compendium of site
descriptions and the status of cleanup for all proposed, final and deleted NPL sites. Maintenance
of the NPL Book data base will be the responsibility of the Region, and HQ will publish annual
update editions.
To date, the environmental indicators project has focused on the development and report-
ing of indicators that would accurately report environmentally based cleanup progress. Begin-
ning in FY 92, Regions will be responsible for updating and reporting the environmental indica-
tors (presented in Exhibit ES-4) in CERCLIS for RA projects and both non-NPL and NPL
removals. STARS will also track environmental indicators through the STARS reporting mea-
sureProgress Through Environmental Indicators.
Exhibit ES-4
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
Indicator A Making Sites Safe: Acute threats addressed
Indicators Making Sites Clean: Achievement of human health and
ecological goals for a medium
Indicator C Bring Technology to Bear: Amount of waste handled and
technology employed
ES-12
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
RA Information
As the Agency measures the progress made toward meeting the requirements of SARA,
information on RA activities is required. The RA information that will be recorded in CERCLIS
by the Regions includes:
Planned and actual start and completion dates for RD, RA and RA related events;
RA cost estimates when the ROD is signed, the RD is 90 percent complete, and
the RA contract is awarded; and
Technical information on the selected remedy.
Regions will not receive funds for a Fund-financed RA in their AOA unless the remedy
technology type is in CERCLIS. Similarly, Regions will not receive credit for a PRP or Fund
RA start unless the remedy technology type is in CERCLIS.
SUPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN
The SCAP is the central mechanism for planning, budgeting, tracking and evaluating
progress toward Superfund site cleanup. The SCAP planning process is a dynamic, ongoing
effort that has a significant impact on Superfund resource allocations. In the SCAP, every
project or activity at a site is planned to its conclusion with accomplishments reported as they
occur. Because of its program-wide importance, SCAP is interrelated with other Agency plan-
ning and management systems, including:
Agency Operating Guidance identifies Superfund goals and used to design
SCAP/STARS targets and measures;
Superfund budget is based on information in SCAP;
Agency Operating Plan establishes the funds available to the Region to perform
Superfund work identified in SCAP;
STARS is used by EPA to set and monitor the environmental objectives identi-
fied in the Agency's Operating Guidance. National and Regional STARS goals
for Superfund are established and tracked through SCAP. STARS targets are a
subset of those contained in SCAP;
Superfund workload models SCAP plans form the basis for resources distrib-
uted through the models; and
CERCLIS is the data base used by HQ and the Regions for Superfund site,
program and project management. SCAP information is a subset of site data
collected through CERCLIS.
Priority activities (see Exhibit ES-1) and programmatic guidance are used to guide the
development of the SCAP. Planning reflects current goals under the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by SARA,
the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
ES-13
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Focus of the SCAP Process Through the Year
Current FY planning information must be updated regularly (as soon as conditions
change) by the Regions through CERCLIS. Routine changes in planning information, i.e., those
that do not require a target or budget change, can be made by the Region without HQ involve-
ment. In recognition of this, HQ and the Regions will conduct formal SCAP negotiations twice a
year. During these formal negotiation time periods, current year issues and problems will be
discussed, as well as schedules and budgets for future FYs. It is essential that States and the
ORC be consulted prior to negotiations to ensure a coordinated effort. The focus of Regional
responsibilities during the formal SCAP update/negotiation periods is outlined in Exhibit ES-5.
Exhibit ES-5
SCAP PLANNING YEAR
SECOND QUARTER (.TANUARY/FEBRUARY/MARCH 1992)
Regional program office consults with States and ORC on plans and schedules
for the upcoming year
Revise FY 92 annual budget ceilings to reflect first and second quarter
performance and revised plans for the remainder of the year
Update and negotiate planning information in CERCLIS for the third and fourth
quarter FY 92
Negotiate third and fourth quarter enforcement Advice of Allowances (AOA)
Review slippage in FY 92 targets for development of action strategies
Assess the status of RAs
Negotiate preliminary FY 93 SCAP/STARS targets and measures
Negotiate preliminary annual Regional budgets for FY 93
Provide complete site schedules including planned RA obligations to
allow HQ to project the outyear budget (FY 94)
FOURTH QUARTER (JULY/AUGUST 1992)
Establish final SCAP/STARS commitments for FY 93
Establish FY 93 annual Regional budget
The mid-year SCAP update is used to realign resources in the current FY and establish
preliminary resource and target levels for the upcoming FY. If, as currently planned, the
workload models are no longer frozen in FY 93, preliminary targets established at mid-year will
be the basis for FTE distribution. Changes in current year costs and project schedules may result
in shifts within program areas and revised annual funding levels.
The fourth quarter SCAP update during July and August is also an important planning
event. This update will yield final STARS targets and will set each Region's annual budget for
the upcoming year.
ES-14
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3 OIF
Accomplishment Reporting
It is strongly recommended that planning and accomplishment data for events and activi-
ties be entered into CERCLIS on a real time basis. At a minimum, accomplishments should be
recorded within 5 days.
Data on accomplishments will be pulled from CERCLIS by HQ on the fifth working day
of each month. Monthly data will be used in reports to the Assistant Administrator for the Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (AA SWER), the Assistant Administrator for OE,
senior Superfund managers, Congress, the public, etc., on the progress of the Superfund pro-
gram. Formal accomplishment reporting for STARS and SCAP purposes will be pulled on the
fifth working day of each quarter. This information will be used to evaluate Regional progress
toward meeting SCAP and STARS targets and submitted to the Office of Pollution Prevention
(OPP) for reporting STARS accomplishments. Though end of year data will be pulled on the
fifth working day of October, Regions will have until the third week of October to reconcile end-
of-year accomplishments prior to their entry in the STARS system.
The major Regional responsibilities during the accomplishment reporting phase are
shown in Exhibit ES-6.
Exhibit ES-6
ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORTING PHASE
REGIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Reconcile financial data in CERCLIS with Integrated
Financial Management System (IFMS) data
Ensure accomplishment information in CERCLIS is current
Review SCAP and STARS data in CERCLIS
Review STARS data in OPP system
SCAP Financial Planning and the Regional Advice of Allowance (AOA1
The SCAP financial planning process is the mechanism which drives the quarterly AOA
approved by the AA SWER and the Office of the Comptroller (OC). The process for issuing the
AOA begins four weeks prior to the start of each quarter when planned site and non-site specific
obligation data are pulled from CERCLIS and reviewed by HQ. Two weeks prior to the end of
the quarter HQ puts the approved AOAs for the upcoming quarter into the CERHELP Budget
Control/AOA system. Regions must put the AOA amounts found in this system into the Inte-
grated Financial Management System (IFMS) before the end of the current quarter. The AA
SWER and the OC will review the amounts in IFMS and approve or disapprove the AOA at the
beginning of each quarter.
The OC will issue the following allowances to the Regions in FY 92:
RA (site specific);
ES-15
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
RD (non-site specific);
RI/FS;
ซ Other Response;
Removal;
Enforcement; and
Federal Facility.
The other response allowance contains funds for site assessments, treatability studies,
removal and remedial project support, response program support and oversight of PRP RDs
and/or RAs.
Regions are required to operate within their quarterly AOA and annual budget. Regions
are also responsible for managing the funds issued in their AOA, and for operating within budget
ceilings, floors and other restrictions. Consistent with the flexible funding criteria, Regions can:
Shift funds between projects within the other response, RI/FS, RD, removal,
enforcement or Federal Facility allowances. HQ approval is not required;
Shift existing funds between allowances. However, funds cannot be shifted into
or out of the Federal Facility allowance. HQ approval of a change request is
required to shift funds between allowances; and
Move future planned obligations to the current quarter after the AOA is issued.
HQ approval of a change request/SCAP amendment is required.
Any changes to the AOA after it is issued requires a change request. In some situations,
a change in the SCAP will require processing a change request. HQ will not approve change
requests/SCAP amendments unless CERCLIS is revised to reflect the change.
THE BUDGET PROCESS
The budget planning process begins a year and a half prior to the start of the fiscal year.
In February 1992, Regions will begin planning for major remedial dollar expenditures, as well as
expenditures for key enforcement actions in FY 94. To project the FY 94 budget, Regions must
review core activity schedules for projects expected to begin or that would require additional
funding in FY 94. Since Fund-financed RAs play a major role in the Superfund budget, it is
crucial that these projects are identified in CERCLIS and reasonable cost estimates derived from
the draft Feasibility Study (FS), the ROD or Cost of Remedial Action (CORA) Model estimates
are also recorded.
FY 92 Response Budget
Regional requests for funds must be within the final negotiated budget levels. The
Regional response AOA will not be issued unless the total of the approved planned obliga-
tions, open commitments and actual obligations are within the annual budget. In the past,
the obligation rate for the first two quarters of the FY is low. As a result, Regions will not
ES-16
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
receive their third quarter AOA for a specific response category unless the commitment/obliga-
tion rate is 50 percent or greater in that category.
The Regions decided to continue to manually enter financial data into CERCLIS. How-
ever, financial information in CERCLIS and IFMS must agree. Regions will not receive their
FY 92 second quarter AOA until the IFMS and CERCLIS data for FY 91 agree.
FY 92 Enforcement Budget
The current projected enforcement budget for FY 92 is $64 million. The enforcement
budget provides support for PRP removals, PRP RI/FS starts and oversight, Consent Decree
(CD) and injunction referrals, negotiations for PRP responses, and judicial and administrative
cost recovery actions. Consequently, Regional managers must consider the effects across the
program when making a decision to focus on one part of the program as opposed to another. The
order of priority is on maintaining ongoing project oversight and compliance enforcement,
maintaining ongoing litigation for response and cost recovery, referring Statute of Limitation
(SOL) cost recovery cases and negotiating PRP RD/RA response actions.
Funds for Federal Facility activities are obtained from OFFE. Funding needs should
continue to be requested through CERCLIS. OWPE will work with OFFE on budget issues
requiring case support.
In FY 91, a workgroup reviewed current extramural allocation procedures. Regions
should expect some changes to these procedures in FY 92. Guidance will be issued outlining the
new procedures.
An enforcement mega-site requires more than twice the average level of extramural
resources for an activity to occur. Regions should first determine whether mega-sites can be
funded within the Regional Case Budget allocation. If mega-sites cannot be funded within the
Regional budget, a formal request for mega-site funding should be submitted to HQ . If there are
sufficient funds to support all Regional requests, HQ will allocate mega-site dollars to the Re-
gions. However, if the national budget cannot support mega-site needs, a HQ/Regional
workgroup will review the mega-site funding requests and allocate dollars to the Region. Mega-
site requests for FY 92 should be received by June 30,1991.
Approved planned and actual obligations should equal the Region's annual AOA. The
quarterly AOA will not be issued unless approved, planned obligations are within the remaining
budget ceiling. A Region's annual budget may be revised depending on Regional performance,
their budget execution and other Regional needs. Regions should be using the Alternative
Remedial Contracting Strategy (ARCS) contractors for oversight of PRP-lead RI/FS projects to
avoid transition problems with the expected close out of the Technical Enforcement Support
(TES) contracts in FY 93/FY 94.
WORKLOAD MODELS
Regional Full Time Equivalents (FTE) allocations are made through the Hazardous Spill
and Site Response model, the Technical Enforcement model, and the Federal Facilities Super-
fund Workload Model. Resources for the site assessment, remedial, and removal programs are
contained in the Response model. Enforcement resources are in the Technical Enforcement
model and resources for oversight of Federal Facilities are distributed by the Federal Facilities
Superfund Workload Model.
ES-17
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
The workload models are designed to reflect priorities and policies contained in the
budget request. For the most part, the workload models are a straightforward application of FTE
pricing factors from the national budget to Region-specific S CAP/STARS targets and ongoing
activities in the remedial pipeline. No FTEs are given to projects that are incorrectly coded
in CERCLIS.
In FY 92, each Region's Superfund FTE will be frozen at the FY 90 level. This is the
second year of a two year freeze of Regional resources. While the freeze ensures that total
Regional Superfund resources will not be affected, shifting of resources among the different
program areas may occur. All shifts will be based on the FY 92 national budget and the Priority
Setting Matrix.
During SCAP/STARS target negotiations, Regions may increase/decrease targets to
match the total Regional Superfund FTE level. The increase/decrease should be in accordance
with the integrated Priority Setting Matrix.
Since FY 93 workload models will be unfrozen, FY 92 mid-year negotiations will be
particularly important. More guidance will follow, pending Agency decisions.
While other Superfund FTE remain frozen, OE has requested and experienced a signifi-
cant increase in resources to address Federal Facility cleanup and enforcement. OE will use the
Federal Facilities Superfund Workload Model to distribute these resources.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION
The Superfund program management and assessment strategy has three components as
shown in Exhibit ES-7.
Exhibit ES-7
SUPERFUND ASSESSMENT
AND EVALUATION STRATEGY
Monthly and quarterly performance evaluation with CERCLIS data
OSWER Regional reviews
Internal evaluation and audit follow-up
Together, these components give program managers regular opportunities to recognize
high performance, focus resources in Regions that demonstrate success, and provide training and
technical assistance to those Regions that are experiencing difficulties. Regional performance is
a factor when establishing targets and issuing AOAs.
In addition to the program management and assessment tools traditionally used by
OSWER, OE will also be utilizing the A-106 Pollution Abatement Planning Process to ensure
sufficient Federal agency funding of response programs beginning in FY 91. Modifications to
the A-106 process have been made to provide OE, Regions, OMB, other Federal agencies, and
Congress with improved information to evaluate accomplishments at Federal Facilities.
ES-18
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Regional and HQ responsibilities for implementing and conducting the program evalua-
tion strategy process arc shown in Exhibit ES-8.
Exhibit ES-8
EVALUATION RESPONSIBILITIES
REGIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES
Meet quarterly SCAP and STARS
targets and solve performance problems
when they arise
Provide quarterly SCAP and STARS
data to HQ through CERCLIS
Maintain CERCLIS data quality at high
levels for Superfund program and
project management
Participate in OSWER reviews
Participate in workgroups to evaluate
specific program area issues
Negotiate performance standards that
provide individual accountability for
quarterly targets
Develop action strategy to recoup
slipping targets
Assess Federal agency needs identified
during the OMB A-106 process
HEADQUARTERS
RESPONSIBILITIES
Provide guidance to the Regions for the
quarterly review, the mid-year assessment,
the year-end assessment, and the OSWER
and OE review
Identify priority issues and participate in
OSWER and OE approach to Regional
reviews
Implement and report on follow-up action
items from the OSWER and OE review and
Superfund mid-year assessment
Review monthly performance data reported
by the Regions and negotiate plans with
Regions for meeting targets
Continually assess program performance and
analyze timeliness and quality of work
Recommend resource re-allocation based on
performance
Assure that all staff are informed of the
results of performance reporting and
OSWER and OE reviews
Identify and undertake high priority special
studies that result from the Federal Managers
Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA)
documentation
Track audits, audit response activities and
internal reviews
Compare Federal agency budget authorities,
obligations and outlays to monitor cleanup
activities
ES-19
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
USES OF THE MANUAL
The FY 92 Superfund Program Management Manual includes information and guidelines
for Regional staff on Superfund program goals and priorities, the development of planning data,
the application of planning data to the workload model process, Superfund financial manage-
ment, the tracking of accomplishments and the evaluation of Regional progress toward meeting
program goals. The FY 92 SCAP planning and evaluation process is supported by the informa-
tion contained in this Manual. Users of the Manual must also refer to the CERCLIS and
WasteLAN User Reference Notebooks for specific guidance on SCAP data coding, entry, main-
tenance and generation of SCAP reports.
STRUCTURE OF THE MANUAL
The FY 92 Superfund Program Management Manual consists of two volumes. The
remainder of Volume I contains information on:
Program goals and expectations;
National information needs;
SCAP procedures;
SCAP/STARS targets and measures;
Program planning and reporting requirements and procedures;
Financial planning and management;
Regional evaluations; and
Workload models.
Volume II includes the following Appendices:
Appendix A presents the methodologies used to derive, the FY 93 preliminary
targets and measures;
Appendix B discusses the applicability of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
to SCAP;
Appendix C contains the planning requirements and definitions for the Chemical
Emergency Preparedness Program (CEPP);
Appendix D is divided into two sections - Section 1 provides technical definitions
for the SCAP/STARS targets and measures, and Section 2 provides definitions for
other planning activities. A brief description of the planning processes associated
with each definition is included;
Appendix E provides the CERCLIS coding instructions and activity pricing
factors for enforcement extramural funds or Case Budget;
Appendix F provides information on the NPL Book;
ES-20
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Appendix G discusses the Environmental Indicators program;
Appendix H contains information on the RA priority setting criteria; and
Appendix I provides the Federal Facility coding guidance.
In summary, the FY 92 Manual encompasses many new or revised program management
policies, processes and procedures. In order to acquire a more in-depth understanding, the
Manual itself should be read.
ES-21
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
SUPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN (SCAP)
PLANNING AND REPORTING AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Planning
Determine site assessment activities, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) starts, and Remedial Action (RA) starts based on a worst
problems first evaluation.
Preliminary and final SCAP/Strategic Targeted Activities for Results
System (STARS) targets are established based on Headquarters
(HQ)/Regional negotiations conducted in March and August,
respectively.
Preliminary and final Regional budgets are established based on
HQ/Regional negotiations conducted in March and August. Final
"approved" funding requests must be within the annual Regional
budget proposed by HQ or negotiations will not be conducted.
Accomplishment Reporting
Accomplishments will not be recognized unless they are correctly
recorded in the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) by the
specified pull date.
Regions will not receive credit for a RA start or funds for a RA in their
Advice of Allowance (AOA) unless a description of the remedial
technology type for the RA is in CERCLIS.
Financial Management
The AOA will not be issued unless the total of the planned obligations,
open commitments and actual obligations for the Fiscal Year (FY) do
not exceed the annual Regional budget.
Regions will not receive their FY 92 second quarter AOA until the
FY 91 financial information in CERCLIS and in the Integrated
Financial Management System (IFMS) agree.
Regions will not receive their third quarter AOA for a specific response
category unless the commitment/obligation rate is 50 percent or greater
in that AOA category.
Workload Model
No Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions are given to projects that are
incorrectly coded in CERCLIS.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER I
PROGRAM GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER I - PROGRAM GOALS
AND EXPECTATIONS
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Following are the actions Regional managers must take to comply with the
requirements described in this Chapter. In order to acquire a more in-depth
understanding of these requirements, the Chapter itself should be read.
Integrated Program Management
Standard durations for response and enforcement activities should only
be used if more accurate timeframes are not available. When better
planning data and schedules are developed, the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information
System (CERCLIS) must be revised.
New Strategic Targeted Activities for Results System (STARS)
measures in Fiscal Year (FY) 92 emphasize trends in improvement of
time durations of key response and enforcement activities in the
remedial pipeline.
Regions are urged to use Site Management Plans (SMP) to ensure that
proper funding, enforcement activities and management responsibilities
are laid out for a site.
Regions are required to develop and submit Mega-site Management
Plans for Fund-financed RI/FS projects if their costs exceed or are
expected to exceed $3 million.
Worst Sites. Worst Problems First
Environmental priority setting is required to take place at three stages
in the Superfund programsite assessment, Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RVFS), and Remedial Action (RA)to ensure that
the risks are reduced at the worst problems, worst sites first.
- Establish and enter into CERCLIS site assessment decisions/
priority recommendations at each step of the evaluation process.
- All RI/FS start candidates for FY 92 should be examined for
environmental priority and a three tiered priority list submitted to
Headquarters (HQ) by November 27,1991.
- Data sheets for FY 93 RA starts are to be submitted by April 23,
1992.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER I - PROGRAM GOALS
AND EXPECTATIONS (continued)
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Worst Sites. Worst Problems First (continued)
- RA projects are examined as a universe, to first determine if priority
setting is necessary (i.e., can all projects be funded with available
assets).
- If anticipated project needs exceed RA dollars available, the RA
priority setting panel will rank all projects. RA fact sheets are due
to HQ in June.
- Prior to funding, a project must be ranked and the Remedial Design
(RD) must be 90 percent complete.
- All RA projects are ranked in accordance with specific criteria. A
new management criterion was added to the RA ranking - will the
RA lead to site completion or deletion.
- All RA projects ready to begin in the first two quarters of the FY
will be funded on a first ready, first funded basis. This funding
strategy could be extended through the third and fourth quarter.
- Up to date information on the readiness of projects and funding
needs must be maintained in CERCLIS.
- HQ will only consider RA projects for funding if the Region is
willing to commit to an RD completion. Only RA projects where
documentation has been submitted will be considered for ranking.
Reduce Acute Threats
In FY 92, incentives have been established for performing quick
response actions at National Priorities List (NPL) sites.
- The scope of removal assessments is expanded to include an
evaluation of whether there are opportunities for quick response.
- Regions must review half of their NPL sites each calendar year to
ensure no immediate threats have arisen.
- At the beginning of each calendar year, starting January 2, 1991,
Regions need to submit to the Emergency Response Division
documentation that 50 percent of the Region's proposed or final,
non-Federal Facility NPL sites have been assessed.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER I - PROGRAM GOALS
AND EXPECTATIONS (continued)
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
- A $50 million set aside from the RA budget can be used for quick
response projects that need not be ranked to be funded. Projects
under $2 million and projects up to $5 million that contribute to
substantial risk reduction, constitute a significant interim action, or
lead to site completion/deletion may be funded.
Completions/Deletions
In FY 92, site completion/deletion is a major priority.
- Prepare interim and final Close Out Reports as soon as possible
after completion of the final RA construction project.
- Completion/deletion are targeted in STARS in FY 92. However,
no sites currently on the completion list will be counted as an
accomplishment in FY 92.
- Shift sites into the Construction Complete category following
approval of interim or final Close Out Reports.
- Conduct five year reviews for appropriate sites of the RA.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER I - PROGRAM GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS
OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM GOALS
The focus of the Superfund program is to maximize the protection of human health and
the environment through fast, effective cleanup of priority hazardous waste sites and releases.
Maximizing appropriate participation of Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP) and timely
remediation of sites are two of the Superfund program's highest priorities. Exhibit I-l summa-
rizes the long term strategy for Superfund as presented in the Superfund Management Review.
Exhibit I-l
SUPERFUND MANAGEMENT REVIEW STRATEGY
Emphasize enforcement to induce private-party cleanup
Control acute threats immediately
Move sites to completion and deletion
Seek new technologies for more effective cleanup
Worst sites, worst problems first on the road to cleanup
Carefully monitor and maintain sites over the long term
Improve efficiency of program operations
Encourage full participation by communities
goals:
Several themes are highlighted in Fiscal Year (FY) 92 in order to achieve these program
Continue to implement an integrated fund/enforcement program driven by the
twin objectives of maximizing appropriate participation of PRPs and timely
remediation of sites;
Utilize risk based priorities to ensure that the worst problems at the worst sites are
addressed first;
Perform quick response actions for risk reduction at priority sites;
Continue to use environmental indicators (El) to communicate progress (see
Chapter n for additional information);
Move sites through the remedial pipeline to completion and deletion;
Implement management initiatives to promote a well-managed Superfund pro-
gram;
I-l
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Maximize cost recovery to the Trust Fund; and
Maximize the participation and increase the number of PRPs participating in site
remediation.
These goals are included in the four-year strategic plan of the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER), which provides the framework to accomplish OSWER's
programmatic goals. OSWER's strategic plan was developed in response to instructions given in
late March, 1989 by the Administrator to the Agency's four program offices (Air and Radiation,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Water, and Solid Waste and Emergency Response) to develop
four year strategic plans to "...guide the Agency toward more direct implementation of its origi-
nal and principal purpose: to reduce risk to human health and the environment." The strategic
plans are designed to cover the period FY 92 to FY 95 and are updated annually.
INTEGRATED PROGRAM MANAGEMENT: BALANCING ENFORCEMENT FIRST
AND TIMELY REMEDIATION
Maximizing participation of PRPs while ensuring timely remediation has led to the
development of a number of initiatives to support the achievement of these program priorities.
Two of these initiatives, the integrated Priority Setting Matrix and the Integrated Timeline, are
described in this section. In addition, supporting enforcement and remedial program goals and
expectations and management initiatives are discussed.
Integrated Program Priorities
First developed in 1989, the integrated Priority Setting Matrix (Exhibit 1-2) provides a
framework to allocate resources in Superfund to the highest priority activities. In FY 91, the
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE) and the Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (OERR) worked with the Regions to revise the Matrix to reflect the Superfund pro-
gram goals for FY 92.
The integrated Priority Setting Matrix is designed to provide the following:
Identification of the most significant categories of program priorities, arranged in
order of importance where possible;
Listing of all the program activities that receive resources, grouped according to
their contribution to a program priority; and
Estimation of the funding level needed to support that activity.
The Matrix provides a framework for establishing, testing and adjusting resource levels.
This Matrix will be used by Headquarters (HQ) and the Regions in making trade off decisions
during:
FY 93 budget formulation;
FY 92 operating plan development and initial target setting and negotiation; and
Mid-year adjustment.
1-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit 1-2
PRIORITY SETTING MATRIX
PROGRAM PRIORITY
ACTIVITIES
RESOURCE)
LEVEL*
I. Reduce Near Term Threats
A. Mitigate Risks from
Immediate Threat
Classic Emergencies (Removal and
Remedial, Fund and Enforcement)
NPL Removals (Fund & Enforcement)
Administrative Orders (AOs) for National
Priorities List (NPL) Removals
B. Worst Problems First
Site Assessment (Preliminary Assessment
(PA)/Site Inspection (SI), Environmental
Priorities Initiative (EPI))
Listing Sites
Remedial Action (RA) Start (Fund) - Priority 1 Sites
B
.II. Move Sites to Cleanup
A. Support Ongoing Work at
High Priority Sites to
Completion of Current
Phase (Operable Unit
(OU))
Support Ongoing Remedial Design (RD)
Ongoing RA (Fund and PRP) that lead to
completion/ deletion
Ongoing RA (Fund and PRP)
Ongoing RD/RA Negotiations
Ongoing Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) (PRP)
Ongoing RI/FS (Fund)
Ongoing RI/FS (Enforcement mega-sites)
Ongoing 107 Statute of Limitations (SOL) Litigation
Ongoing 106 Litigation for Remedy
Ongoing 104 Access
Ongoing Compliance Enforcement
Ongoing 106/107 Litigation
B. Take Enforcement
Actions to Ensure a
Strong Enforcement
Presence and to
Maximize Likelihood of
PRP Takeover
RD/RA Negotiations (New)
PRP RD/RA Starts
106 Settlement Referrals
106 Unilateral Administrative Orders (UAOs) for RD/RA
107 SOL Referrals
106 Litigation for Remedy
106/107 Litigation
Mixed Funding RD and RA
104(e) Referrals
'A' = ALL and 'B' = BASELINE BOLDING INDICATES CHANGES FOR FY 92
* "A" and "B" are designed to indicate degree of importance, not an absolute rule
with regard to funding. As used in this column "B" indicates a level of activities consistent with prior year activity.
"A" means all those activities available to be done.
** Provided that timely special notice, special notice waiver or general notice with timelines has been issued and
extensions have been requested/approved consistent with Agency policy.
*** Consistent with cost recovery strategy.
(Note: All activities identified in the matrix are to be funded at least at a minimum baseline level.)
1-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit 1-2 (continued)
PRIORITY SETTING MATRIX
PROGRAM PRIORITY
ACTIVITIES
RESOURCE
LEVEL*
II. Move Sites to Cleanup (continued)
C. Take Action to Reduce Risk at
Worst Problems First Where
Enforcement Action is not
Appropriate
D. Maximize Cost Recovery
E.
F.
Initiate RI/FS and Other
Activities at Worst Problems
First to Keep Pipeline Balanced
Other, Removal, Enforcement
and State Support Activities to
Support Long Term Goals
III. New Initiatives
IV. Essential Program Management
Elements
A. Critical Path Support Activities
B. Core Program Support
RD Start (Fund)
RA Start (Fund) - Priority 2 and 3 Sites
Non-SOL Referrals
B***
PRP RI/FS
Fund RI/FS
State Enforcement RI/FS
Non-NPL Time Critical Removals
AOs for Non-NPL Time Crit. Removal
Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs)
Non-NPL PRP Search
Core Program Cooperative Agreements (CPCA)
107 Administrative Settlements
PRP Searches
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)
Removal Support
Remedial Project Support
Community Relations
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information
System (CERCLIS) Data Base Management
Contract Management
Records Management
Administrative Records
Program Management
State Program Support
Fund at
Level to
Support
Program
Integrity
Fund at
Level to
Support
Program
Integrity
'A' = ALL and 'B' = BASELINE HOLDING INDICATES CHANGES FOR FY 92
* "A" and "B" are designed to indicate degree of importance, not an absolute rule with regard to funding. As used in this
column "B" indicates a level of activities consistent with prior year activity. "A" means all those activities available to
be done.
*** Consistent with cost recovery strategy.
(Note: All activities identified in the matrix are to be funded at least at a minimum baseline level.)
1-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
The overall organization of the Matrix is governed by the following concepts:
Reduce near term risks to public health, emphasizing cleanup of the worst prob-
lems at the worst sites first. Maintain ongoing projects by moving sites quickly
into construction while ensuring that PRPs are always the first option for financing
cleanup actions. This priority places an emphasis on maximizing the number of
sites in the construction pipeline and moving ongoing projects to their next phase
of action before starting new work;
All of the activities listed in the Matrix contribute in a significant manner to
Superfund program success. Therefore, priority setting must be couched in terms
of maintenance of an essential minimum baseline of activity across the board;
A baseline of activities must be supported to ensure that a constant flow of
projects is maintained across the remedial and removal pipelines, and that the
entire program maintains its operating integrity; and
Fully fund essential support activities.
Use of the Matrix is constrained by the following assumptions:
Although baseline levels may be adjusted, there is a minimum level of activity that
will be supported, even if all of the high priority activities that fall under funding
level "A" are not funded.
Proposed shifts in funding among activities during the course of an operating
budget year will be carefully scrutinized to assure their possibility of implementa-
tion;
The ordering of the Matrix may change from year to year in response to Congres-
sional or Agency initiatives; and
Shortfalls in priority activities that may lead to a requested reprogramming are
evaluated at a national level.
It should be noted that Federal Facilities are a separate program priority and are not
included in the Matrix because they do not compete for funds from other Superfund program
areas. The Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement (OFFE) will be working with Regional
offices to develop a separate priority setting matrix for Federal Facilities.
Integrated Timeline for Site Management
A major theme of the Superfund Management Review is the importance of an aggressive,
well planned and tightly coordinated system for moving sites to completed remediation. Success
in these efforts depends in large part on identifying critical decision points and goals for the
amount of time it should take to get from one step to the next. As a result, the Agency has
developed a timeline that provides an overview of the major remedial and enforcement activities
required in the Superfund site cleanup process. The Agency is also developing guidance to assist
the Regions in the preparation of Site Management Plans (SMP). The Integrated Timeline
(Exhibit 1-3) is a multi-step site management process that, in the ideal situation, spans a maxi-
mum of 24 quarters. These timeframes are goals that should only be used if more accurate
estimates are not available. When better planning data and schedules are developed, the
1-5
-------
o\
Exhibit 1-3
INTEGRATED TIMELINE
o
re
PHASES Of ELAPSED TIME IN QUARTERS
ACTIVITY 3 * = 6 ft 10 12 14 16 1$ 40
RP Search and
Notification
RI/FS
Negotiation
Process
RI/FS
Settlement
Process
RI/FS
Implementation
Process
RD/RA
Negotiation
Process
RD/RA
Settlement/
Referral
Process
RD
Implementation
RA
Implementation
Community
Relations
Cost
Recovery
MFORE
B8U
RPS
OBI
B_
"N
RPS
CMP
A
ERALNO
ISSUED
<
RPS
SNP
DCE
RNP
.Open
* ฐฐ<
19'. 1W{t)
-V/1
RPS
SNP
RNP
UaforQ
aimenlatl
K
RPS
^
* \
8PCCW
BB
RN
AOP
1
ปt
on
LUS1W
RPS
. NOTICE
JED
j *
ซ\
IfS >
Y
RVra
CRP
Q
RP8
DCcrUA
ISSUED
N/FS
BUPPl
OENER
B
Fa<
RPS
>
Ri/FS
.EMENTAI
ALNOTK
WED
F.
UheeVPU
RPS
Oral
raflM
RUFS
E
feneet/Pi
illcMeeli
RPS
Propo
FtID
\
R/FS
"~
UlcMaal
fl.
HPS
id Plan
nd
ttRVPB
RI/FS
oooc
"-*ซ'
\
RPS
ROD
SNP
FATTHO
RDNP
I
RPS
ROD
SNP
PER
RDNP
UAO
CI
Up-
DOCUIIM
on Pai
/ RO
/-SP
ปT
V"
M
ISK3NAT
ฃULNO
IS/
RON | |
N
SUED'
nUBon
CotK
"(WซTซ'
*0ซ3^
irUAO
N/l
IRE
ICE 1881
>
y-CO
COR
>
D
HONED
CDE
K
1 UAOE or RDF )
1 1
CRPR
y
22 24
JฃS_
BE
^DP^
6DR
CM
-I
mt
-t
LEGEND
JAO/AOC Preparation
2D Lodging/Entering
50 Preparation
-CDRtfeml
-(
CRPl-<
CRPRl-(
GNP
~PCl
HA
"RBF
"HoTT
BJ5RP
RI/FS
jr
BfiP"
TOP"
VRO
RPS
SNP
_yj
RPRDtCM
L...
^ompiance Monhonng
JRP Preparation
;RP Reviaion
-General Notce Preparation
-Pubic Comment Period
-RA Implementation
-RD Funded
-RD/RA Negotiation
-RO Negotatran Prep.
-RI/FS Activnlea
-RI/FS Negotiation
-RI/FS Neg. Preparation
-ROD Preparation
-RP Remedial Deaign
-Reaponaible Party Seared
-Special Notice Preparation
-UAO Reaponae Period
-UAO Enforcement
1
Rt
RrttCta
vartlght
inter .
Fฐ"* \
\ III
K
RA+CM >
y
FhClali
Hi
nfor Fui
lencedR
*v
>
1 "
ctive 9200.3-01F
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) must be revised to reflect these schedules.
The Integrated Timeline will continue to be utilized to establish performance expecta-
tions. Performance improvements will be tracked against the Timeline. To embody the concept
of good timeline management in FY 92, Strategic Targeted Activities for Results System
(STARS) trends analyses will be undertaken. Continuous improvements in the average duration
between 1) Record of Decision (ROD) and Remedial Design (RD)/Remedial Action (RA)
negotiations completions, 2) ROD and RD start, and 3) ROD and RA start will be measuredby
Regionfor sites where RD/RA negotiation completions, RD starts or RA starts are planned in
FY 92. Each of these averages will be reported relative to prior years (FY 90 and FY 91) and
prior quarters performance. In addition, Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan
(SCAP) measures will track improvements in Remedial Investigation /Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
start to completion timeframes. (See Chapter IV and Volume II, Appendix D for more informa-
tion on changes to SCAP/STARS targets and measures in FY 92, their definitions and planning
requirements.) In FY 92, a HQ/Regional workgroup will be formed to review the goals and
timing of the major response and enforcement activities in the Integrated Timeline and consider
revisions based on program experience.
Regions are strongly urged to use a SMP to ensure that proper funding, enforcement
activities and management responsibilities are laid out for a site. A site management plan should
be put together for a site shortly after proposal for the National Priorities List (NPL). The plan
should lay out important enforcement activities that are essential at the site (proper PRP
searches, issuance of RI/FS special notice, issuance of RD/RA special notice, RD/RA negotia-
tions, development and finalization of Consent Decree (CD), issuance of Unilateral Administra-
tive Order (UAO)). These enforcement activities should be integrated with Fund-financed or
PRP response events at the site or Operable Unit (OU). The plan can be used to ensure that
funding is requested for the activities and that the proper people in all affected offices have been
brought into the process at the appropriate points.
The phases of the Integrated Timeline are summarized below.
Responsible Party (RP) Search and Notification This first step in the site
management process generally takes from 6 to 13 quarters. This step begins with
the initiation of any component of the PRP search activities specified in the PRP
Search Manual and includes the following activities:
Distribution of Section 104(e) information requests to owners/operators
and generators/transporters;
Distribution of general notice to owners/operators and generators/trans-
porters;
Decision to pursue Section 104(e) enforcement activities; and
Preparation of waste-in information and volumetric allocation for the
RI/FS.
The RP search timeframe may be extended up to the point of RD special notice if a
supplemental search is deemed warranted.
1-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
RI/FS Negotiation and Settlement Process This process will continue for a
maximum of 3 quarters. Important milestones include:
Resolution of site lead with the State;
RI/FS negotiation preparation commencing after distribution of the gen-
eral notice;
Scoping activities in order to direct the work in the Statement of Work
(SOW);
Formal RI/FS negotiations commencing with issuance of the special
notice and lasting a maximum of 90 days (without extension by Regional
Administrator). RI/FS negotiations will terminate 60 days after special
notice is issued if a Good Faith Offer (GFO) is not received; and
At the end of the settlement process, issue either an Administrative Order
on Consent (AOC) or proceed with a Fund-financed RI/FS. In very
limited circumstances, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will
issue a UAO.
RI/FS Implementation Process This is the third step in the site management
process, and will begin after issuance of the AOC/UAO, or funding of the RI/FS.
The RI/FS begins approximately one quarter following the issuance of special
notice. Important milestones include:
Within a maximum of 4 quarters, the draft Remedial Investigation (RI)
report will be completed;
Within 4 to 5 quarters, a supplemental general notice to the PRPs will be
issued, if appropriate;
The draft Feasibility Study (FS) report will be completed by the end of the
fifth quarter,
The final draft of the RI/FS report and the proposed plan will be com-
pleted by the end of the sixth quarter;
Following completion of the RI/FS report, the lead agency begins prepara-
tion of the ROD, which should take no more than 2 quarters;
ROD signature occurs 8 quarters from the start of the RI/FS implementa-
tion process and 13 quarters from the start of the RP search and notifica-
tion process; and
Opening and updating the Administrative Record (AR) file and conduct-
ing Community Relations (CR) activities.
Pre-referral and RD/RA Negotiation Process The pre-referral process begins
approximately 60 days prior to submitting a draft CD to the PRPs. RD/RA nego-
tiations have a maximum duration of two quarters which formally begin with the
issuance of Special Notice Letters (SNLs). SNL preparation is performed concur-
1-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
rent with ROD preparation. Early decisions must be made as to whether a GFO
has been made, terminating negotiations that do not appear to be leading to settle-
ment. Use appropriate settlement tools (e.g., mixed funding and de_ minimis'). and
the judicial and administrative authorities under Section 106 (such as UAOs for
RD/RA) to bring about settlement or compel a PRP response. If the site has no
viable or liable PRPs, a Fund-financed RD should be scheduled to begin the
quarter after the ROD is signed. Important milestones include:
Pre-referral litigation report and CD sent to Department of Justice (DOT),
OE and OWPE;
Issuance of special notice with draft CD or waiver of special notice con-
current with ROD signature;
Formal negotiations which commence with the issuance of special notice
and extend a maximum of 120 days if a GFO is received;
Termination of RD/RA negotiations if GFO is not received within 60 days
after issuance of special notice. The Region will issue the UAO and
decide whether to fund the RD or litigate; and
Referral of CD, issuance of UAO, referral of Section 106 or 106/107 case,
or funds obligated for a Fund-lead RD mark the conclusion of RD/RA
negotiations.
Settlement/Referral Process The settlement/referral process includes a maxi-
mum of 2 quarters of CD preparation (concurrent with ROD), 1 quarter for the CD
referral process and 1 quarter for CD lodging and entry. The CD referral, lodging,
and entry process should take no longer than 2 quarters.
RD Implementation This step of the site management process includes funded
RDs, RP-lead RDs and compliance monitoring. Credit is given for the RD on the
date the RD contract is awarded by the PRPs, or with the funding of a Fund-lead
RD.
RA Implementation This step in the site management process includes RA
implementation and compliance monitoring. The RA will begin after the comple-
tion of the RD.
Community Relations CR activities begin after the decision on lead responsi-
bilities is made, continue throughout the Rl/FS, RD/RA process, and terminate
with the completion of site cleanup activities. Major components of the CR
program include:
CR plan preparation, a public comment period, and CR plan revision;
Opening and periodic updating of the AR file after the RI/FS work plan is
approved;
During the RI/FS process, prepare fact sheets and conduct public meet-
ings;
1-9
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Conduct the public meeting during the public comment period after
distribution of the proposed plan; and
Revise the CR plan after the conclusion of RD/RA negotiations.
Cost Recovery - Cost recovery activities also continue throughout the entire
remedial process. Important milestones include:
Opening of the cost documentation file concurrent with initiation of the
RP search;
Obtaining documentation of removal costs prior to RVFS negotiations;
Updating documentation on past costs as the RI/FS activities are com-
pleted;
Issuing written demands in connection with the completion of each major
phase of response activity and with initiation of new phases;
Issuing written demands for oversight costs annually; and
Referring actions within one year after completion of conventional re-
moval actions and shortly after the execution of a contract for RA, but in
no event later then two quarters before the Statute of Limitations (SOL)
date.
Supporting Program Goals
Enforcement Goals
The goals of the Enforcement program are to maximize efficient use of PRP resources, to
maximize cost recovery to the Trust Fund, and to send a clear message to the PRP com-
munity that recalcitrance is costly. To reach these goals, the following priorities have
been identified for FY 92:
Aggressively seek settlement for PRP response In order to promote
PRP participation in the response program, and to assure cost recovery,
PRP searches should be comprehensive and completed early in the site
clean-up process. SNLs should be issued in a timely manner after comple-
tion of the ROD. Regions are encouraged to use SMPs to lay out negotia-
tion responsibilities among the parties involved and timeframes for
deliverables. Well planned negotiations need to be initiated and com-
pleted within the special notice moratoriums or schedules presented in
general notice letters. Regional Administrator or Assistant Administrator
(AA) extensions should be used only where settlement appears likely. The
settlement incentives/disincentives concepts are to be applied at multi-
party sites. Effective use of the settlement authorities under the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) (e.g., mixed
funding, Non-Binding Allocation of Responsibility (NEAR), and dฃ
minimis) should be applied where appropriate.
PRP search/compliance enforcement A high-caliber PRP search is the
foundation of EPA's enforcement process. It must focus on obtaining the
I-10
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
necessary evidence of the liability and financial viability of all PRPs for
Section 106 and 107 litigation. Regions should continue to focus on
thorough PRP searches with the assistance of civil investigators. Also,
Regions are encouraged to use administrative authorities in cases of non-
compliance with information requests issued under Section 104(e) and, if
necessary, use treble damage litigation to enforce compliance. PRP search
activities should continue even if Regions are unable to start the RI/FS as
planned. If the start of the RI/FS is delayed, the actions that follow the RI/
FS start should also be delayed.
RD/RA Negotiation process Regions should be prepared to better
manage the RD/RA negotiation process within the time frames established
under Section 122.
Section 106 orders and litigation Regions should be prepared to issue a
UAO promptly after the negotiation moratorium deadlines if there are
viable PRPs and a settlement has not been reached. UAOs with delayed
effective dates should also be considered in order to encourage the suc-
cessful conclusion of negotiations. If PRPs fail to comply, consideration
should be given to referring a Section 106 judicial action to enforce
compliance, especially if the site is not approved for RA funding in FY 92.
If a Fund-financed response is initiated, all steps should be taken to seek
treble damages against recalcitrant PRPs during cost recovery.
PRP oversight and compliance enforcement Following settlement or
professed intent by a PRP to comply with a UAO, the Region must ensure
PRP compliance with the terms of the settlement or UAO. EPA must
ensure that PRP responses are timely, thorough, and do not compromise
environmental goals. Regions should assess penalties in situations where
PRPs clearly have not submitted major deliverables of acceptable quality
by the dates specified in the Administrative Order (AO), CD or UAO.
Particular attention should be given to PRP RI/FS projects. Regions
should be cautious of taking over a PRP project because of inadequate
performance.
Cost recovery Cost recovery actions serve to recover revenues to the
Fund and encourage voluntary PRP cleanup action by eliminating incen-
tives for PRPs to allow the government to conduct the response action.
The President has set a goal of recovering $300 million in FY 93 in his
Management By Objectives (MBO) system. Issuing demand letters in a
timely manner and addressing SOL sites are two ways to reach the
President's goal. Regions must also pursue viable non-settlers where a
partial settlement was reached. Such actions will reinforce the notion that
recalcitrance is costly.
Removal enforcement Regions should work to maintain or increase the
percentage of removals conducted by PRPs, particularly time-critical and
non-time-critical removals. In this effort, Regions should commence PRP
searches early to assess whether there are viable and liable PRPs. Where
this is the case and an AOC can not be negotiated, Regions should issue
UAOs and, in cases of non-compliance, pursue cost recovery. Regions are
required to support their removal enforcement decisions in action memos
1-11
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
and other appropriate documents. A sound Administrative Record will be
the Agency's key to defending itself against Section 106(b) claims from
PRPs seeking reimbursement for their removal costs. As the Superfund
program uses more UAOs to compel response there are likely to be more
claims.
State participation States continue to play an important role in the
Superfund enforcement process. Regions are encouraged to enter into
Cooperative Agreements (CAs), Superfund Memoranda of Agreement
(SMOA), or other management assistance agreements when the State
expects to play a significant role. State roles in the RD/RA negotiation
process should be clearly defined prior to the negotiations. Use of SMPs
will ensure that all parties are aware of their roles, the timeframe for
negotiations, and the strategy that will be employed.
In addition to the authorities provided by CERCLA, the Agency may in some instances
use authorities provided by other environmental laws. For example, under the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Agency can order owners and operators operating and
closing hazardous waste facilities to investigate any potential leaks and to clean up if necessary.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and its regulations can be used by the Agency to
impose conditions on the handling of particularly hazardous substances, such as asbestos and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). In addition, in some cases where releases affect surface
waters, the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) can be used to impose fines and require
cleanup. These other statutes also provide the basis for many of the Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARAR) on which cleanup levels are based in site RODs.
Remedial Goals
The remedial program will retain the priority of moving projects/sites toward completion
resulting in the following programmatic objectives:
Implement the project completion strategy Continue moving sites
through the remedial pipeline in a timely and cost effective manner. The
number of PRP-lead RDs and RAs must be maximized. For those sites
where PRPs are not viable or available, HQ and the Regions may use the
environmental priority setting scheme (discussed later in this Chapter) to
determine which projects to fund and whether it is necessary to place some
projects on temporary hold. Decisions on fund balancing and the use of
alternative technologies in order to control outyear construction costs have
to be made.
Alternative technologies Greater emphasis will be placed on the evalu-
ation and selection of alternative technologies and the employment of the
technologies on-site. Treatability studies will be an important part of the
RI/FS, ensuring that adequate data exist to effectively evaluate each
technology prior to remedy selection. Regions should provide technical
oversight of all treatability study activities.
Building public confidence Through the implementation of the El
program and the NPL Book, the Agency has taken a big step in improving
the communication of the ongoing efforts of the Superfund program and
the progress being made in site cleanup. Better communication of this
1-12
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
type of information to Congress and the public will help build confidence
in the Agency and the Superfund program.
Timely Management of Site Remediation
Maximizing participation of PRPs and timely remediation of sites demands careful
attention from both HQ and Regional management. Of particular concern is the period
from ROD signature to start of RD and RA especially with regard to timely issuance of
special notice and swift resolution of settlement negotiations. In FY 92, HQ is continuing
several management systems designed to spot and, if appropriate, escalate concerns.
These systems include written status reports and regularly scheduled forums for problem
discussion and resolution and the timeline management study.
The problem solving forums include a round of Regional conference calls during mid-
year negotiations (see Chapter III), in late March/early April and in August. The purpose
of these calls is to discuss, at senior management levels, major problems and opportuni-
ties affecting the annual enforcement targets with special emphasis on timeline manage-
ment. OWPE will continue monthly conference calls to Regions to discuss progress of
RD/RA negotiations.
The objective of the timeline management study is to identify the underlying causes of
project slips so that process and planning improvements can be made at the Regional
level. A questionnaire is used to provide insight into the causes of project delays and aid
the Regions in improving process and planning. The questionnaire is to be completed for
each project that has slipped from the planned quarter or can be anticipated to slip from a
planned quarter in the future. HQ will attempt to incorporate elements that identify
causes of project slippage in CERLCLIS.
Management Initiatives
Implement the revised Hazard Ranking System (HRSX Use the HRS to
rank sites for proposal to the NPL. An update to the NPL is scheduled for
publication in the Federal Register (FR) semi-annually.
Implementation of a well managed program by continuing the strategy of
fully funding all RI/FS projects. The program has set the goal of reducing
RI/FS costs to a national average of $750,000 per OU and $1,100,000 per
site (exclusive of treatability studies). Every effort should be made to
ensure that the trend of RI/FS costs is toward the overall national goal.
Both the OU and site goals are important. The OU goal primarily affects
year-to-year funding limitations. The site goal is needed for long term
cost management and to eliminate the incentive a Region may have to
break sites into OUs to increase its annual budget. Note, however, that
Regions are strongly encouraged to focus RI/FS projects on principal
threats, even if this does require additional OU(s) to complete site
remediation. A Region's RI/FS budget is developed based on the full
funding strategy. "Mega-sites" are excluded from the OU and site level
cost reduction goals described above.
Implement a mega-site management strategy that insures cost-effective
environmental management of these significant sites. Mega-sites are
defined as sites where RI/FS work at the site reaches or exceeds $3 mil-
lion. Regions are required to develop and submit to the Hazardous Site
1-13
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Control Division (HSCD) a Mega-site Management Plan that characterizes
site problems and management options. Mega-site funding requests will
be reviewed and resources allocated on a site by site basis. (See Chapter
V for requirements on the Mega-site Management Plan.)
Make effective use of other agency expertise It is important that EPA
make full use of construction management expertise available from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and the Bureau of Reclamation
(BUREC), and that EPA staff avoid duplicative oversight of projects
assigned to these agencies. The USAGE has a mission assignment from
EPA to provide technical assistance, review RI/FS projects, oversee PRP
RDs and RAs, and conduct RDs and RAs depending on their estimated
cost.
Information management Continue the efforts toward making CER-
CLIS/WasteLAN more of a management tool for the Regions. This
includes integrating the information needs external to OSWER (e.g., ORC,
The Office of Enforcement (OE) and DOJ) into the CERCLIS information
management environment, implementing and integrating project and
program management tools (e.g., SMARTech), and reporting technical
data using CERCLIS (e.g., El and RA information). In FY 92, HQ will
work with the Regions to define the extent and use of CERCLIS for these
and other initiatives.
Implementation of the Long Term Contracting Strategy (LTCS) Transi-
tion from FIT to Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy (ARCS) for
conduct of site assessment work. $11 million was placed into the ARCS
contract for the Regions to issue site assessment work assignments.
Reorientation of the Emergency Response Cleanup Services Contractor
(ERCS) to be accessible to both the remedial and removal programs.
Oversight of PRP-lead RI/FS projects should be contracted to ARCs to
avoid transition problems with the close-out of the Technical Enforcement
Support (TES) contracts. Other new initiatives are also expected as a
result of this strategy.
Development of new audit reports for CERCLIS that focus on essential
program management information.
WORST SITES. WORST PROBLEMS FIRST
The Superfund Management Review established an Agency policy of addressing the
worst problems first: "Superfund will schedule incremental steps to clean up sites over time,
expending scarce resources first on problems posing the most serious risks to public health."
The OSWER and OE Strategic Plans made this a key objective for cleanup: "Through FY 95,
(EPA will) increasingly address worst sites first in Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) response and remediation work."
OE has also initiated a national effort to develop cleanup priorities based on the judgment
of EPA, States, Indian Tribes, citizen groups, and other Federal agencies to target limited gov-
ernment resources. Representatives from these groups will be participating in a national dia-
1-14
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
logue throughout FY 91 to develop a methodology and national priority system for Federal
Facilities.
To meet OSWER's requirements, the identification of the worst sites, worst problems is
made at three points: site assessment, RI/FS and RA.
Site Assessment Program Goals
Site assessment demands are expanding and Regions are encountering more requirements
in screening sites and making worst sites first decisions. To ensure that the worst sites enter the
cleanup process first the site assessment program has established the following goals:
Enter all site assessment decisions/priority recommendations at each step of the
evaluation process and all appropriate identifiers (RCRA, Federal Facility, Indian
lands, etc.) into CERCLIS as rapidly as possible to facilitate overall program
planning and to expedite response to Congressional and public inquiries.
Continue to implement the Environmental Priorities Initiative (EPD. Preliminary
Assessment (PA-Plus) (up to 200 hours per PA) should be conducted.
Implementation of discovery projects. Concerns have been raised that there is a
universe of potentially hazardous sites that are not being addressed. Three major
categories of sites were identifiedmunicipal landfills, large quantity hazardous
waste generators, and RCRA Subtitle D industrial landfills. Discovery pilot
projects in Regions III and X are scheduled to be complete at the end of FY 91.
This program is expected to be expanded in FY 92.
Renewed and expanded emphasis on the removal program coordination. State,
ARCS, and EPA staff conducting PAs, site reconnaissance and Site Inspections
(Sis) should consider the need for removal activities at all sites evaluated. Re-
moval personnel must be notified in all instances where evidence of potential fire,
explosion, or direct exposure hazards exist or where removal activities may sub-
stantially improve a hazardous situation. Also, new policies on consideration of
removals in HRS scoring increases the need for removal and site assessment
coordination.
Achieve SI completion goal. During FY 91, resources were placed in the Region
to eliminate the backlog of Sis to the greatest extent possible. This effort is
expected to result in achievement of the SI completion goal imposed by SARA.
Increase the involvement of the State in site assessment and increase EPA over-
sight of Multi-Site Cooperative Agreements (MSCA).
Continue EPA's policy of conducting PAs within one year of CERCLIS listing in
order to prevent the build-up of a PA backlog.
Perform PAs at Federal Facilities to achieve SARA goals.
Over 6,000 sites have completed Sis and need to be evaluated for inclusion on the NPL.
The overreaching site assessment goal is to set priorities for screening and listing on the NPL the
highest priority sites first. Each Region will need to work with HQ to determine its most bal-
anced priorities/workload and division of labor with its States.
1-15
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
RI/FS Priority Setting Process
With ongoing RI/FS projects demanding a substantial number of Full-Time Equivalents
(FTEs) positions to maintain and support, the program has had to severely constrain RI/FS starts
in FY 92 for both first and subsequent starts, and Fund-financed and RP lead projects. As a
result, support for new and ongoing RI/FS projects must be carefully evaluated, within available
resources, in a fashion that assures the greatest impact on human health and the environment.
These factors led in FY 91 to a Regionally-implemented systematic process for establishing the
relative priority of RI/FS projects. The specific objective of the RI/FS priority setting policy is
to focus the limited number of first and subsequent RI/FS starts on the worst site problems in
each Region.
This policy does not include Federal Facility sites and State Enforcement lead sites where
no Superfund dollars are being spent.
Regions submitted their FY 91 RI/FS priority setting results at the end of January 1991.
In general, the FY 92 priority setting process is expected to be similar to the FY 91 process. A
decision will be made in FY 91 on whether a national ranking system for RI/FS projects will be
developed. The issue here is whether a more consistent national process, that will be imple-
mented in each Region, is necessary. An addendum to the Manual will be issued if the RI/FS
priority setting is revised.
Requirements for Priority Setting Process
Decisions on the process for establishing RI/FS priorities are to be made by each Region.
Following are minimum requirements for designing a RI/FS priority system:
Use the HRS as a starting point;
The environmental criteria used in assessing RAs should be used in evalu-
ating RI/FS start candidates to the degree data and professional judgment
is available:
Risk of contaminants;
Stability of site/contaminants;
Human population exposed; and
Threats to significant environments;
Include States in the RI/FS priority setting.
Program management factors may elevate the priority of some RI/FS candidates. Re-
gions should explain these management factors where they apply. These may include:
Enforcement considerations - sites with willing and viable PRPs that are
expected to produce quality products;
In-house RI/FS projects;
Final OU where completion or deletion can be quickly accompli shed; and
1-16
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Multiple interdependent OUs.
Management Process
By November 27,1991, the Regions are required to submit a list of the RI/FS projects
with the following information:
Description of the process used by the Region in assessing RI/FS start
candidates, if it changed from the FY 91 submission;
A three-tiered listing of all RI/FS start candidates noting first and subse-
quent and an explanation of the project ranking. The list should also
identify the highest, next highest and relative lowest priority group of start
candidates.
RA Environmental Priority Setting Process
The number of sites reaching the construction end of the pipeline has increased dramati-
cally in the post SARA timeframe. To ensure that the limited funds would be directed to the
worst problems first, an RA priority setting process has been implemented.
Since the development and implementation of the RA environmental priority setting, a
number of issues have emerged. First, the creation of a funding line may have served as a
disincentive for moving projects initially below the funding line to RD completion. In addition,
fears that subsequent RA projects would not rank above the funding line appear to have created a
disincentive for initiating quick response actions. Second, present projections for the FY 92
budget indicate a substantial increase in RA funding and the creation of an RA funding floor.
This means that funds cannot be shifted out of the national RA budget for other activities. Third,
PRPs are taking over an increasing number of post RD projects. As a result, adjustments to the
RA priority setting process are being considered.
A two step approach to RA priority setting is proposed. By April 23,1991, Regions shall
submit limited data sheets on each RD project that will lead to a FY 92 RA start. Data sheets for
ongoing RDs that will lead to a RA start in FY 93 should be submitted by April 23, 1992. Each
data sheet should address:
PRP involvement;
Status of RD; and
Potential for phased funding of large dollar (greater than $50 million) projects.
No projects will be considered unless the Region is willing to commit to a target for
an RD completion for that project.
HQ will evaluate the information and decide whether available projects are likely to
exceed the RA budget. At that time a decision will be made on whether ranking is necessary or
appropriate. If anticipated project needs substantially exceed dollars available, all projects will
be ranked. If it appears the RA budget will exceed project funding needs, ranking may be per-
formed. In either case, once the rankings are established all projects that are ready to begin in
the first two quarters will be funded on a first ready, first funded basis. This funding process
1-17
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
could be extended through the third and fourth quarters if at the mid-year evaluation it appears
that all ready projects can be funded within the available RA budget.
It is important to remember that all NPL sites that require action after the RI/FS are, by
definition, priority sites. The issue is their relative priority. The RA priority setting process
attempts to determine the relative priority of RA projects based on environmental concerns.
Analysis of this ranking process indicates that it is a consistent, discriminating and predictable
system.
The RA environmental priority setting process identifies three priority categories into
which each RA project is assigned. The significance of these categories is that RA projects are
compared and ranked only with other projects in the same category. The priority setting catego-
ries contained in Exhibit 1-4 were developed based on the following principles:
Protection of human health from immediate threats is the highest priority;
Threats to human health or to a significant environment under current conditions
follow in relative priority; and
Potential threats based upon future site conditions are of a lower priority.
Within priority categories 2 and 3 projects will be ranked using the following criteria:
Risk of contaminant - concentration, toxicity, and volume;
Stability - mobility of contaminant, site structure, and effectiveness of any institu-
tional or physical controls;
Human population exposed;
Threat to endangered species or environmentally sensitive area; and
Program management considerations. (In the past, program management consid-
erations have emphasized engineering issues. In FY 92, special emphasis should
be given to completions/deletions, discussed later in this Chapter.)
These ranking criteria and priority categories attempt to address the relative stability,
nature and concentration of contaminants at the site; the proximity of the hazardous materials to
population areas; and the threat to environmentally sensitive areas and/or endangered species.
An additional criterion was designed to address programmatic factors.
Application ofRA Priority Setting Criteria
Environmental factors are the primary consideration in determining which ranked RA
projects are funded. All current year RA starts will be considered for ranking. There is a
subset of RA projects that are not evaluated under the priority setting process, but are
automatically placed in the funding queue and guaranteed funds. These are:
Oversight of PRP RA projects;
Small dollar quick response (removal or remedial) projects (generally $2.0
million or less), as long as they do not cumulatively exceed the small
1-18
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit 1-4
PRIORITY SETTING CATEGORIES
PRIORITY 1
PRIORITY 2
PRIORITY 3
IMMEDIATE AND/OR IMMINENT THREAT
Immediate and/or imminent threat to human health as determined by EPA
or by a Public Health Advisory from the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL EXPOSURES UNDER CURRENT
CONDITIONS*
Exposure pathway is contaminated above an accepted human health
standard or risk range and under current conditions pathway is complete
to human intake.
Exposure pathway is contaminated above an environmental standard and
under current conditions pathway is complete to a significant
environment.
Exposure pathway is contaminated above an accepted human health
standard or risk range and not complete to human intake but under current
conditions pathway could become complete.
Exposure pathway is contaminated above an environmental standard and
not complete to a significant environment but under current conditions
pathway could become complete.
POTENTIAL EXPOSURE UNDER FUTURE CONDITIONS**
Exposure pathway may become contaminated above an accepted human
health standard or risk range, and under future conditions pathway will be
complete to human intake.
Exposure pathway may become contaminated above an environmental
standard and under future conditions pathway will be complete to a
significant environment.
**
Current condition is defined as what is actually occurring or in place, or occurs periodically on
a regular basis at the time the project is being ranked. Current conditions can apply to land
use (land which is currently zoned for a specific use but not presently being utilized for that
use is not a current condition); or to existing resource use (i.e., ground water for drinking
water); or to use of a body of water; or the migratory pattern of wildlife; or to other
circumstances that are actually occurring.
Future condition is defined as any land use or other condition which is not actually occurring
at the time the project is ranked, but is reasonably expected in the future.
1-19
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
dollar project set aside ($50 million range, dependent on available budget.
See discussion on quick response actions later in this Chapter.);
Ongoing RAs that have been phased or incrementally funded;
Mixed funding (preauthorization) response actions;
Cash outs resulting from settlement agreements (depending on the cost of
the RA and the funds received from the PRPs); and
Long Term Response Action (LTRA) and other ongoing RA projects that
require small amounts of additional funding to complete.
Ranking takes place only after project documentation has been submitted and certain
enforcement milestones have been addressed. The enforcement milestones include:
PRP search;
Special notice letters;
RD/RA negotiations; and
Settlement achieved or a decision made to litigate, issue a UAO or fund
theRA.
HQ will maintain an enforcement reserve of RA funds specifically for projects that had a
high probability for PRP lead (75 percent or better), where negotiations failed and the
project will now be funded. These sites are placed in the funding queue and will be
funded out of the enforcement reserve.
Each year a funding queue is developed. It consists of RA projects that are ready for
funding. In order for projects to be placed in the funding queue, the following activities
must be conducted by the Region:
Project must be ranked or meet the criteria discussed previously for
projects that are not evaluated under the priority setting process;
Large scale projects greater than $50 million have been evaluated to
determine whether aspects of the project can be funded in phases or
segmented consistent with a well engineered approach to the site without
increasing cost or risk to health or the environment;
RD must be 90 percent complete. RDs must be sent to HSCD for concur-
rence prior to Regional approval;
A commitment from the State that cost share funds will be available
through a signed Superfund State Contract (SSC) for Federal-lead projects
(C3101="SS");and
Site access for RA has been secured (C3101 = "RE").
1-20
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
A special report (RA Queue Report) is under development that will pull the 90 percent
RD, SSC and site access completion dates from CERCLIS. The Advice of Allowance
(AOA) for a site will not be issued until these activities are completed.
Developing and Managing the Funding Queue
Once a funding queue is established, RAs will be funded on a first ready, first funded
basis until it appears that the RA projects ready to proceed during the FY will exceed the
national budget. At that point, RAs will be funded in order of relative priority until funds
are exhausted. All Priority 1 projects will be funded first. Based on the available RA
budget, a "funding line" will be identified in either the Priority 2 or 3 category. Funding
for Priority 2 projects will precede funding of Priority 3 projects. Once an RA project
has been approved for funding or gone through the ranking process and is ranked above
the funding line, funding is assured for those projects that stay on schedule through the
first three quarters of the FY.
At mid-year, the status of all funded and planned RAs, planned RA obligations for the
remainder of the FY, and the available RA budget will be reviewed. Based on the results
of this review, the funding procedures may be revised. Therefore, it is vitally important
that up-to-date information on the readiness of projects and the funding needs be main-
tained in CERCLIS.
Documentation
The initial assignment of an RA project to one of the three priority categories is per-
formed by the Region. All RA projects within a Region that are scheduled to begin in a
given year are examined. The affected State shall be consulted when the Region prepares
the RA priority setting documentation. The Region should complete their evaluation of
RA projects by preparing the RA Fact Sheet and submitting it to HQ. (A copy of the RA
Fact Sheet can be found in Appendix H.) Only projects where documentation has
been submitted will be considered for ranking.
If ranking will be performed, fact sheets for FY 92 RA projects are due to HQ in June
1991 in order for the ranking to be completed by negotiations in August 1991. Fact
sheets for FY 93 RA projects are due to HQ in June 1992.
If the status of a project changes during the FY, for example, an anticipated settlement
falls through, an RD is completed ahead of schedule, or a potential threat becomes an
actual threat, new or revised RA Fact Sheets should be sent to HQ.
It is not necessary for a Region to submit a new RA Fact Sheet if the schedule of a ranked
RA project slips to the next FY, unless the facts associated with the project have changed.
If the project has not changed, it will be placed in the funding queue based on the score it
previously received. If circumstances have changed, it will be ranked again.
The Decision Making Process
The ranking of RA projects will be conducted by a panel composed of senior HQ and
Regional managers. The following procedures are planned:
The RA priority setting panel will convene at least once a year. If neces-
sary, a mid-year (April) panel meeting will review the status of projects
that were ranked previously, and re-rank projects that were below the
1-21
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
funding line. The July panel meeting will rank sites scheduled to begin in
the first three quarters of the upcoming FY and the fourth quarter of the
present FY. The RA panel will also conduct quarterly conference calls to
rank new projects or revise the ranking for projects where conditions have
changed.
During the RA panel meeting, each Region will make a brief presentation
of its projects.
Panel members evaluate the merits of each project based on the priority
setting criteria discussed earlier. A composite ranking score is computed
for each project, resulting in a listing of RA projects in rank order by
environmental priority.
During the FY, HQ will pull RD, RA, and the subevent data from CER-
CLIS monthly to determine the latest schedule and funding needs. HQ
will conduct conference calls with each Region at least once a quarter,
more often if necessary, to discuss the status of the planned RA projects.
Regions will also be contacted regularly during the fourth quarter.
CERCLIS Implementation
Given the vital importance of accurate and timely information, it is essential that CER-
CLIS information be kept up-to-date. Regions should regularly generate and review the
Target/Negotiation Report (S CAP-16) to ensure that all queued projects are accurately
coded.
During the FY, Regions must maintain:
RD and RA planned start and completion dates;
Completion dates for the SSC (C3101 = "SS"), acquisition of site access
(C3101 = "RE"), and RD 90 percent complete;
RA funding needs;
Activity/Event Planning Status (C2110) associated with the RA; and
Funding Priority Status (C3225) associated with the RA planned obliga-
tions.
Failure to maintain this information in CERCLIS could cause delays in funding.
Exhibit 1-5 contains the CERCLIS coding instructions for all RAs. If a project has been
queued and the planned start date has passed without funds, the planned start date should
be moved to the next quarter.
REDUCE ACUTE THREATS
During site planning phases, such as removal assessments or scoping for the RI/FS, the
Remedial Project Manager (RPM) or the On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) should determine if the
site is safe, A further determination should be made on the need for additional surface cleanup
that will reduce risk, can be addressed through remedial/removal authorities, and can be done
1-22
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit 1-5
CERCLIS IMPLEMENTATION OF RA PRIORITY SETTING
Activity/Event Planning
Status (C2110)
Funding Priority Status
(C3225)
RA Project Criteria
Projects that have not been ranked
A (Alternate)
ALT (Alternate)
Projects in the queue without being
ranked; funds available
APR (Approved)
ALT
APR
ALT
Projects to be ranked
Ranked projects above funding line
Ranked projects below funding line
Q (Queued)
quickly. In the past the Agency has encouraged the use of removal authorities to perform quick
response actions (i.e., Initial Remedial Measures (IRM), Expedited Response Actions (ERA),
and "removals"). In FY 91 and FY 92, a variety of contracting mechanisms are being imple-
mented that will provide the incentives to perform these actions under the remedial program.
Removal Program Goals
In FY 92, as in the past, the key goal of the removal program is to ensure that resources
are available for time critical removals and not diverted to less critical removal actions. Regions
should prioritize time critical removals in the following order:
Classic emergencies;
Removals at NPL sites; and
Time critical removals at non-NPL sites posing major environmental and public
health threats that can not be addressed by other authorities.
Ensuring that NPL sites do not pose an immediate threat remains a high priority. Regions
have the responsibility of reviewing half their NPL sites each calendar year to ensure no immedi-
ate threats have arisen. At the beginning of each calendar year, starting January 2,1992, each
Region needs to submit documentation on the completed evaluations of at least 50 percent of all
non-Federal Facility proposed and final NPL sites. The documentation that must be submitted
includes documentation memoranda signed by a Regional Division Director and sent to the
Regional Administrator with a copy to the Director of the Emergency Respone Division (ERD)
and a copy of the WasteLAN report RMVL-12, Summary of NPL Site Evaluations Conducted in
Calendar Year. This CERCLIS report is to be used to document sites where a biennial NPL site
evaluation was conducted in the last calendar year. Planned or on-going removal actions where
1-23
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
an immediate threat was identified as a result of the biennial NPL site evaluation are to be en-
tered on this report.
Non-time critical removals at non-NPL sites should be undertaken only as resources
allow and to expedite cleanup in conformance with the worst problems first policy. Non-time
critical removals at NPL sites should be planned and budgeted site specifically. For all non-time
critical removals, Regions should involve States and PRPs to the maximum extent practicable.
In classic emergencies, PRPs should be notified orally and given up to 24 hours to respond,
depending on the situation. Oral notification should be followed up in writing. For time critical
removals, enforcement activities (PRP searches, negotiations and issuance of an order) should be
initiated as soon as the site is identified, and scheduled for completion based on the timing of the
removal start.
Quick Response at NPL Sites Using Remedial Authorities
Quick response actions are designed to eliminate surface waste/chemicals, barrels, tanks,
pits, ponds, and lagoons. They also serve to develop information for use in RI/FS scoping.
When evaluating the potential for a quick response, the following criteria should be considered:
The cleanup actions should be well defined, of low to moderate technical com-
plexity, use a proven technology, have existing field information readily available,
and have a low to moderate cost to complete. Examples are surface cleanup, soil
excavation, interim ground water plume controls, tank or structure demolition, and
impoundment closure.
A project should not be broken up and expedited just to "turn dirt." The decision
to expedite should be based on an attempt to reduce risks and compress the critical
path for pipeline remedial activities.
Before an action is taken, certain enforcement issues need to be addressed - Are
willing and viable PRPs that are able to produce quality products involved? Are
these PRPs interested in conducting quick response actions?
These criteria will assist the Region in a decision to conduct a quick response action at
the site.
Financial Considerations
To provide incentives for quick response actions at remedial sites, the following manage-
ment procedures are proposed:
$50 million dollars will be set aside in the RA budget to be used for quick re-
sponse projects. Ranking is not required for these actions. An evaluation will be
made in the third quarter. Projects must be identified by that time in order to
guarantee funding. At that point, unplanned and unobligated funds remaining in
the quick response set aside will be placed back in the RA budget and used to fund
priority RAs.
Quick response projects should be less than $2 million, but projects up to $5 mil-
lion may be approved by HQ. These projects must demonstrate one or more of the
following:
1-24
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Substantial contribution to risk reduction;
Significant interim action; or
Activities lead to completion or deletion.
Authorities and Contracting Strategies
Under the remedial program, the ARCS contractor performing Rl/FS activities may be
tasked by the RPM to conduct quick response actions. Typically, the ARCS contractor
will be able to subcontract for work of this nature. EPA has also developed a
Prequalified Offerors Procurement Strategy, which provides a list of prequalified contrac-
tors that have the capability to perform specified technologies. Detailed plans and speci-
fications are not needed for this option, and the process requires 60 to 90 days from
Request for Proposal (RFP) to contract award.
With an OU ROD and detailed plans and specifications, the USAGE has two contract
options available to speed up a response action start. These are:
Preplaced remedial action contracts that can be activated by delivery
orders, eliminating the solicitation and audit requirements of site specific
contracts; and
Rapid response program contracts that are used for demolition actions,
closures, point source contamination controls, and site stabilization.
With either of these contract mechanisms, response actions can be initiated within 30 to
60 days of design completion.
When the remedial program is performing the work, Regions are encouraged to conduct a
focused FS that will lead to a "thin" ROD. HSCD is currently developing guidance on
interim action RODs.
COMPLETIONS/DELETIONS AND FIVE YEAR REMEDY REVIEWS
Although the Superfund program has begun the process of articulating incremental
progress through environmental indicators, the achievement of site completions and deletions
from the NPL has a renewed emphasis for the Agency in FY 92. Key components of the
completion and deletion process are discussed below.
The Preamble to the NCP describes a new category of the NPLthe "Construction
Completion" category. The category consists of:
Sites awaiting deletion;
Sites awaiting deletion where CERCLA Section 121(c) requires review of the
remedy no less than five years after RA initiation; and
Sites undergoing LTRA.
EPA shifts sites into the Construction Completion category only after approval of interim
or final Close Out Reports. Approval of an Interim Close Out Report indicates that construction
1-25
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
of the remedy is complete, and that it is operating properly, but that the remedy must operate for
a period of time before achieving cleanup levels specified in the ROD. Approval of the final
Close Out Report indicates that the remedy has achieved protectiveness levels specified in the
ROD and that all RAs are complete.
LTRA sites may be placed in the five year review or awaiting deletion category upon
attainment of the final remediation goals. A site requiring only Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) at the time of construction completion may be categorized as a temporary measure until
the process of reviewing the site for possible deletion from the NPL has been completed.
Section 300.425(e) of the NCP states that "Releases may be deleted from or re-catego-
rized on the NPL where no further response is appropriate." It further states that in making a
determination to delete a release from the NPL, EPA shall consider, in consultation with the
State, whether any of the following criteria has been met:
PRPs or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions re-
quired;
All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented
and no further response actions by the PRPs are appropriate; or
The RI has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or
the environment and therefore taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
SARA requires EPA review those remedial actions that result "...in any hazardous sub-
stances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site..." no less often than every five years
after implementation. The NCP states that RAs that result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remaining at the site "...above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure..." shall be reviewed no less than every five years after initiation of the selected RA. In
the Superfund Management Review, the Administrator has determined that EPA will not delete
from the NPL sites that require SARA reviews until at least one review has been completed.
EPA is currently taking comments on this policy and it may change in FY 92. However, taken
together, the Superfund program is required to evaluate deletion candidate sites very carefully in
order to ensure the appropriateness of deletion before publishing the deletion notice.
Five year reviews for appropriate sites are to be conducted after the RA. Thus reviews
may be conducted during phases of the RA, during LTRA, during O&M, and where appropriate,
additional reviews may be conducted after a site has been deleted from the NPL. Beginning in
FY 90, each ROD attempts to identify when a five year review is necessary based on the nature
of the remedy. Regions should identify sites where a five year review is required and develop
workplans. Resources for five year reviews are contained within the O&M budget.
Completions are important initially, however, deletions will become more important if
there are changes in the five year review and deletion process. Close Out Reports and Federal
Register notices for sites eligible for recategorization as completions or for deletion from the
NPL, should be prepared and submitted promptly to ensure that progress is accurately conveyed
to those outside the Agency. Interim and final Close Out Reports should be completed no later
than the quarter following RA completion. Completions/deletions are targeted in STARS in
FY 92. However, no sites currently on the completion list will be counted as an accomplishment
in FY 92.
1-26
-------
OSWER Directive 92Q0.3-01F
OTHER PROGRAMMATIC THEMES
Federal Facilities Program Goals
The Federal Facilities program is committed to developing innovative compliance moni-
toring and enforcement approaches that will transition Federal Facilities into environmental
leaders. The program's approach to successfully turning Federal Facilities into models for
environmental compliance is based on using resources efficiently through streamlining activities,
leveraging resources, and pursuing expedited response actions and strategic multimedia enforce-
ment initiatives. This will be accomplished by improving coordination with program offices,
States, and other Federal agencies; pursuing innovative technology research and development;
and emphasizing communication through training and technology transfer initiatives.
By the beginning of FY 92, each of the 116 Federal Facilities on the NPL are expected to
have completed Interagency Agreements (lAGs). To address these sites and the growing uni-
verse of Federal Facility Superfund sites, the four major goals of the Federal Facilities Superfund
program in FY 92 are:
Continued integration of environmental restoration activities under CERCLA and
RCRA using lAGs as a means of reducing the most significant long-term threats
posed by Federal Facilities;
Promotion of increased efficiencies in Federal Government response programs
through an emphasis on expedited response actions and streamlining activities;
Assess Federal Agency needs, and outlays versus budget authorizations as part of
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) A106 process;
Support for innovative technology development and pollution prevention prin-
ciples; and
Strategic planning activities with Regions and other HQ offices to leverage the
Agency's resources.
In addition, a multimedia enforcement program is being developed for Federal Facilities
which will be consistent with Superfund and individual media program goals and will assist with
efficient resource use. The initiative, outlined in the "Enforcement Four-Year Strategic Plan"
(issued by OE, October 17,1990), reinforces the program and enforcement goals identified in the
OSWER Strategic Plan.
Etforcement Four-Year Strategic Plan
The "Enforcement Four-Year Strategic Plan" is a collaborative effort of OE and the
media compliance programs. The plan provides a foundation for media-specific and
cross-media enforcement in the future, and identifies seven broad goals for enhancing
enforcement efforts:
Strengthen the Agency's enforcement voice;
Target enforcement for maximum environmental results;
Screen cases for appropriate and efficient enforcement response, after
considering all relevant statutory authorities;
1-27
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Improve EPA relationship with other units of government;
Use enforcement authorities creatively to leverage resources and maxi-
mize impact;
Expand public outreach and communication efforts to encourage compli-
ance and enhance deterrent value of enforcement; and
Improve resource utilization and training.
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Program
The main goal of the Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Program
(CEPP) is to prevent and prepare for chemical accidents. The program's authorities are
CERCLA and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA),
also know as Title HI of SARA. CEPP's FY 92 STARS measures focus on key activities to meet
the above goal; specifically, technical assistance and training activities, simulations, after inci-
dent evaluations, chemical safety audits, and the Accidental Release Information Program
(ARIP) measure aimed at gathering and analyzing information on accidental releases and preven-
tion methods. SARA Title in enforcement measures are also included. The SCAP measures for
CEPP complement and supplement the STARS measures and include outreach activities, report-
ing on the status of Title in implementation nationwide, participation in Regional Response
Team (RRT) activities, and natural disaster and national security emergency preparedness activi-
ties. Because the deadline for completion of initial Local Emergency Planning Committee
(LEPC) emergency response plans occurred in FY 89, review, exercise, revision, and improve-
ment of plans will be emphasized in FY 92. LEPCs must update their plans annually. Revised
plans must be reviewed by the State Emergency Response Commissions (SERC). RRTs may
also review plans upon the request of the LEPCs.
The Agency shares responsibility with the United States Coast Guard (USCG) for imple-
menting major provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). EPA will review area contin-
gency plans, issue regulations for facility response plans for non-transportation related facilities,
implement recommendations of a report to Congress on liners or other means of secondary
containment, and inspect removal equipment at facilities. The Agency will approve certain
facility response plans and conduct area drills. In addition, Regional offices will assist SERCs,
Tribes and LEPCs in coordinating and linking facility response plans with community response
plans developed pursuant to EPCRA.
With the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, CEPP will also be involved
in developing guidance and regulations required under the Clean Air Act Accidental Release
provisions. These provisions build upon CEPP's existing initiatives to reduce the number and
severity of chemical accidents.
CEPP STARS information does not need to be entered into CERCLIS. The reporting
mechanism is outside the CERCLIS system.
Natural Disaster and National Security Emergency Preparedness (NSEP) Programs
The Plan for Federal Response to a Catastrophic Earthquake was mandated by the Earth-
quake Hazards Reduction Act. In FY 91, the Plan was officially broadened to cover
Federal response to all catastrophic, natural and technological disasters, including earth-
quake, hurricane, flood, and terrorism. It was renamed the Federal Response Plan for PL-
1-28
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
93-288 (the Stafford Act). The Plan, which is being developed by 25 Federal depart-
ments and agencies and is coordinated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), is an effort to improve Federal, State, and local preparedness and response to
these kind of disasters. EPA's responsibility in plan development is to act as the primary
agency for Emergency Support Function (ESF) #10 "Hazardous Materials," and as a
support agency to other ESFs. All EPA Regions must develop a Regional annex to the
Plan in order to coordinate with other Federal departments and agencies utilizing ESF
#10 for catastrophic disasters, such as hurricanes, floods, and terrorism. Regions that
have one or more of the 13 identified high-risk, high population areas for a catastrophic
earthquake within its boundaries must also develop a risk-area specific, hazardous materi-
als annex to the multi-agency Regional response plan. This annex operationally identi-
fies how the Agency and its support agencies would respond to multiple hazardous
material incidents, including radiological incidents, during a catastrophic earthquake. In
Regions containing more than one catastrophic risk area, risk-area specific sub-plans are
necessitated.
The purpose of the NSEP Program is to ensure the performance of essential functions of
the Agency in the event of a national security emergency. EPA's responsibilities are
outlined in Executive Order 12656 and related directives. Each Region is required to
establish and maintain a designated team of personnel, members of the Regional Emer-
gency Management Team (REMT), for such events; participate in EPA, FEMA or other
agency sponsored planning sessions, workshops, training and exercises; and assist in
preparing program support materials.
1-29
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
CHAPTER II
NATIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER H - NATIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Following are the actions Regional managers must take to comply with
the requirements described in this Chapter. In order to acquire a more
in-depth understanding of these requirements, the Chapter itself should
be read.
CERCLIS data should be updated within five days of the
occurrence or schedule/funding change or at least monthly.
On the fifth working day of each month, HQ pulls planning and
accomplishment data from CERCLIS to support a variety of
official reporting requirements including Superfund
Monthly/Quarterly Management Reports, Superfund Progress
Report, and Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan
(SCAP)/Strategic Targeted Activities for Results System
(STARS) quarterly reporting.
No accomplishments are reported that are not accurately recorded
in CERCLIS by the pull date.
Environmental Indicator (El) data are required to be reported for
completed removals and RAs and for ongoing RAs.
Regions must keep the National Priorities List (NPL) Book site
fact sheets up to date. HQ will publish updates to the NPL book
annually
Estimates of RA costs must be entered into CERCLIS at various
points along the remedial pipeline.
Regions will not receive credit for an RA start unless the
remedial technology type is in CERCLIS.
Regions will not receive funds for an RA in their Advice of
Allowance (AOA) unless the remedial technology type is in
CERCLIS.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER n - NATIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS
In the past, CERCLIS was primarily used to support STARS and SCAP planning and
accomplishment reporting requirements. Prior to FT 89, Regions were only required to assure
that data were up-to-date before the quarterly planning and accomplishment data pulls. In FY
89, CERCLIS data became the basis for major periodic reports that served national information
needs (other than SCAP/STARS) on Superfund planning and progress. These reports provided
historic, current, and future information on Superfund sites at the national, Regional and State
levels. The data for these reports were pulled from CERCLIS on a monthly basis. As a result,
CERCLIS data had to be updated at least monthly as of the fifth working day. In addition,
CERCLIS provided valuable information for other administrative requirements such as respond-
ing to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, ad hoc requests from Congress, and as a
link to other data bases.
The use of the data in CERCLIS continues to evolve and, in FY 91, the Agency took
major steps to expand CERCLIS so it can also be used as an environmental data base. CERCLIS
will continue to support SCAP/STARS, the major national information needs, and administrative
requirements. In addition, it will provide data on RAs and Els. This Chapter will provide addi-
tional information on the data that will be obtained through CERCLIS (other than SCAP/
STARS, which are fully discussed in other parts of this Manual) and associated Regional CER-
CLIS data entry and data quality requirements. It will also discuss other major national informa-
tion initiatives that will be handled outside the CERCLIS environment.
MANAGEMENT REPORTS
Periodically, reports are pulled from CERCLIS that provide national information on
Superfund planning and progress. These reports must be consistent with the SCAP/STARS data.
It is essential that end-of-month CERCLIS data be up-to-date as of the fifth working day of
each month. (Specific dates are listed in the Manager's Schedule of Significant Events found at
the beginning of this Manual.) This is the day that data will be pulled from CERCLIS to satisfy
monthly reporting requirements. It is strongly recommended that planning and accomplishment
data be entered on a real time basis as events, activities, and slippage occur.
The following sections provide a brief description of the reports used for Superfund
program management.
Superfund Management Reports
The improvement of CERCLIS data quality and the establishment of a solid data base led
to the development of a series of senior management reports. The management reports are
designed to supplement conventional quarterly SCAP/STARS accomplishment reporting by
providing a more frequent and detailed examination of program activity. The format and content
of the report has evolved over time to address project needs. Basic data and graphics are updated
monthly, and more detailed analysis is provided quarterly. The reports are completed approxi-
mately 30 days following the end-of-the-month/quarter. A quality assurance team is being
formed to evaluate reports and recommend changes.
The format and contents of the Superfund senior management reports are summarized
below.
II-1
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Monthly Reports
The monthly reports contain project status information and Regional comparisons in a
graphic format. The monthly management reports and formats change from time to time.
Following is the current format:
Section 1 Summary of SCAP/STARS accomplishments and targets for
the site assessment, remedial, and enforcement programs;
Section 2 Summaries of Regional commitments and obligations; and
Section 3 Summaries of program implementation progress.
Quarterly Reports
The Superfund Quarterly Management Reports depict the progress being made by the
Agency in moving projects through the remedial pipeline and in increasing PRP involve-
ment. The quarterly management reports contain the information that is available in the
monthly reports supplemented with detailed graphic displays, as well as a section on the
duration of events and trend analysis of PRP involvement.
Section I - Targets and Accomplishments
Site Assessment and Remedial Program Performance - displays the
percent of targets achieved in the major program areas;
Proactive Report - shows the planned events and activities for the
current quarter and the number of sites slipping to upcoming
quarters or the next FY;
Graphs on SCAP/STARS Accomplishments - these bar charts
graphically present program accomplishments and targets for each
Region; and
SCAP/STARS Targets and Accomplishments - displays quarterly
and annual targets and accumulated accomplishment totals by
SCAP/STARS activity for each Region.
Section II - Regional Commitments and Obligations - these graphs display
the percentage of allocated funds committed or obligated by Regions for
the removal and remedial programs.
Section III - A National Perspective of the Superfund Program
Inventory Assessment - pie chart showing status of sites in CER-
CLIS inventory;
Current NPL Site Activity - bar graph focusing on the number of
sites that have had construction activity;
Work Begun at NPL Sites - pie chart showing the status of NPL
sites;
II-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Pipeline Progress of Superfund Sites - graph indicating the number
of RP and Fund lead sites that have progressed through the pipe-
line of remedial work;
Increasing Activity at Superfund Sites - bar chart showing the
difference in the number of sites that have had removal and reme-
dial work pre-SARA vs. post SARA;
Removal Activity at Superfund Sites - pie chart showing the
distribution of NPL as opposed to non-NPL sites that have had a
removal (Fund, RP, or other leads);
Superfund Numbers Matrix - event based report displaying project
start and completion accomplishment totals since program incep-
tion, pre-SARA and post-SARA;
Site Inventory and Progress Toward SARA Targets - report listing
the number of sites in CERCLIS and the number of sites reaching
SARA site assessment program targets;
Superfund Site Completions and Deletions from the NPL - ther-
mometer graph showing the portion of completed sites that have
been deleted or are at various stages of completion;
Completion and Deletion Status of NPL Priority Sites - report
listing the sites that have been deleted from the NPL, sites noticed
for deletion, sites with completed close out reports awaiting publi-
cation of deletion notice, LTRA, and sites with completed final
action but Close Out Report not final;
Value of PRP Response Settlements - bar graph showing how the
proportion of RD/RA settlements has increased with respect to
other response settlements over the past three years;
Cost Recovery Referrals to HQ/DOJ (>$200,000) - bar graph
showing how the number and dollar value of cost recovery refer-
rals to HQ/DOJ have changed over the past three years;
Settlements for Cost Recovery - bar graph showing how the num-
ber and dollar values of cost recovery have changed over the past
three years;
Responsible Party Involvement - series of pie charts showing how
PRP involvement has increased over the past three years;
Cumulative Cost Recovery Collections - bar graph showing cumu-
lative cost recovery from FY 87 to FY 90;
FY 91 Superfund Appropriation - pie chart showing the distribu-
tion of the entire FY 91 Superfund appropriation;
Superfund FY 91 Response Funding - pie chart showing the
distribution of the FY 91 response budget;
II-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
FY 92 Superfund Budget - pie chart showing the distribution of the
entire FY 92 Superfund appropriation;
FY 92 Superfund Response Budget - pie chart showing the distri-
bution of the FY 92 response budget;
EPA Superfund Obligation History and Funding Requirements by
Fiscal Year - table showing how Superfund obligations and fund-
ing have increased;
FTE Summary - table showing how FTE needs have increased
since FY 89;
Pipeline Progress of Projects at Superfund Sites - graph indicating
the number of Fund and PRP projects at each stage of the pipeline
of remedial work;
Remedial Program Project Accomplishments (post SARA) - bar
chart indicating the change in the number of projects (by year) at
each stage of the pipeline;
Ongoing NPL Work - table showing the change in the lead respon-
sibility in pipeline projects over past years;
Superfund Removal Actions - pie chart showing the distribution of
NPL and non-NPL removal projects (Fund, RP, or other leads);
and
Removal Action Starts and Completions by FY - bar chart showing
how NPL and non-NPL removal starts and completions have
changed over the past three years.
Section IV - Analysis of Program Implementation
Cost and Duration of Events - these charts show the duration of
selected events and between events by Region, and by lead, and a
table shows the cost and duration of these events;
Trend Analysis - PRP Involvement in Superfund - these charts
depict current PRP involvement in various events and for the NPL
universe, and show increasing PRP involvement by year; and
Additional Analysis - by design, Section IV will evolve over time.
As new analytical displays are developed to assess selected aspects
of program implementation, they will be incorporated into Section
IV.
Enforcement Reports
The following CERCLIS reports along with the Superfund Monthly Reports are used by
Enforcement management in order to monitor accomplishments vs. targets, planned
activities, or any activities that might require immediate action:
II-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Cost Recovery Category Report (ENFR-46) - This report lists every
removal completed, every RA started, and some pre-RA activities that are
candidates for cost recovery. Sites/projects are divided into one of four
universes and seven categories of cost recovery response.
SOL Management Report (ENFR-4) - This report lists every planned and
actual completion date for removal, RI/FS, and remedial activities for all
quarters. Planned and actual obligations for each activity are linked with
cost recovery actions.
Settlements Master Report (ENFR-3) - This report lists all settlements
program-to-date. Data are divided by settlement category and summarized
by FY, Region and remedies.
Litigation Master Report (ENFR-6) - This report lists all litigation cases
program-to-date. Data are divided by litigation type and summarized by
FY and Region.
Negotiation Master Report (ENFR-59) - This report lists all negotiations
program-to-date. Data are divided by negotiation category and summa-
rized by FY, Region, milestones, completed negotiations, and ongoing
negotiations.
Administrative/Unilateral Orders Issued (ENFR-25) - This report lists
AOs and UAOs that have been issued.
Enforcement Data Audit Report (ENFR-??) - This report is a comprehen-
sive report for monitoring enforcement data quality. Each site consists of
two pages, page one lists all enforcement data and the second page lists all
response data. Enforcement actions without quality flags are printed on
this report. Summary pages have not yet been developed.
ADMINISTRATIVE USES OF CERCLIS
In addition to the previously mentioned reporting requirements, CERCLIS provides
valuable information to a broad range of users. For example, FOIA provides public access to
CERCLIS data that have not been designated as confidential. These data are provided to private
citizens, public and private interest groups, and industry (see Appendix B for FOIA information).
Site name, description, location, NPL status, and current site activity are of particular interest to
some of these groups, while not always being critical to internal management reporting require-
ments.
Ad hoc requests from Congress can also be answered, in many cases, by data contained
in the CERCLIS data base. The more up-to-date and complete Superfund site data are, the better
outside requests can be satisfied by queries of the CERCLIS data base, and less time will have to
be spent by the Regions in searching through files.
There are also data elements in CERCLIS that are used as a link to other data bases. The
Zip Code is used by the Geograph data base to provide system generated data to CERCLIS on
site latitude, longitude, hydrogeologic unit, standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA),
county name, county code, and congressional district. The EPA Identification Number (EPA ID)
II-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
is supplied by the Facility Index System (FINDS) and is used in data bases throughout EPA and
other Federal agencies, which relate to Superfund sites. The Superfund account number is used
in CERCLIS and the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) and links CERCLIS and
IFMS financial data. While some of these elements are not critical to SCAP, STARS, or the
Superfund Progress Report (SPR), they are nonetheless of great importance to the efficient
running of the CERCLIS data base and other related programs.
NPLBOOK
Although deletion of a site from the NPL is not the only measure of Superfund progress,
it is the measure that has received the greatest focus, often resulting in Congressional and public
criticism of the program's perceived lack of progress. The NPL deletion process takes several
years and often represents multiple investigations, evaluations, removals and RAs. One of the
recommendations in the Superfund Management Review was to better communicate the ongoing
efforts of the Superfund program and the progress that is being made in site cleanup activities.
Toward this goal, the Agency developed the NPL Book. This book is a concise, readable
compendium of site descriptions and the status of cleanup for all proposed, final, and deleted
NPL sites. It describes the site history and location, major contaminants and human health
threats, NPL listing information, response actions ongoing and completed, environmental
progress, and plans for the future.
The NPL Book is published by State. Each book has a short State summary and the
individual site summaries. Appendix F contains a sample site fact sheet, which was published in
the first edition. A companion book contains a national summary of the Superfund program. It
also includes: definitions; key to symbols; list of NPL sites by State; summary status of NPL
sites; summary of how NPL sites have been addressed, and environmental progress statements.
The initial development of the NPL book required a large contractor supported data
collection effort by the Office of Program Management (OPM). This effort was designed to
gather all information required for the site summaries from site discovery to the present. Prepa-
ration of subsequent editions of these books will require review and updating by Regional staff.
HQ plans to continue publishing these books annually.
Regional personnel will be asked to review and update present site summaries in the
March-April timeframe, and return them to HQ for editing, formatting, and publishing. Summa-
ries for sites newly proposed to the NPL will be drafted by HQ from available information and
sent to the Region for review and correction. As in the initial effort, all information should be as
current as the Region's review.
During FY 91, each Region received a copy of site summaries in a WordPerfect format
for their own use. Regions will receive an updated version in FY 92 as the new editions are
published.
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
An emerging means the Agency is using to communicate progress and accomplishments
in the Superfund program is El. The first phase of the El program involved the development of
eight specific indicators that would accurately report environmentally based cleanup progress.
HQ collected information on completed RAs, ongoing RAs, NPL removals and non-NPL remov-
als in excess of $200,000. An initial summary report was published in FY 91. In FY 92, Re-
II-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3XHF
gions will be responsible for updating and reporting El data. The purpose of the effort is to
provide Superfund management, Congress, and the public, direct evidence of environmental
progress that results from Superfund cleanup actions. The data will be reported for all RAs and
both NPL and non-NPL removals according to the following three indicators:
Indicator A - Acute Threats Addressed - measures how often threats to human
health have been eliminated at both NPL and non-NPL sites by preventing
exposure to contaminated materials through the provision of site security, popula-
tion relocation, alternate water supply, or the treatment, removal, or containment
of hazardous wastes;
Indicator B - Achievement of Human Health and Ecological Goals for a Medium -
measures progress toward the achievement of health and ecological goals at NPL
sites in terms of their constituent media - land, surface water, and ground water -
and in terms of three degrees of goal achievement - full, partial, and cleanup
underway;
Indicator C - Amount of Waste Handled and Technology Employed - measures
the weight or volume of contaminated material treated (on-site or off-site), re-
moved (to off-site landfills or approved storage), or contained on-site at both NPL
and non-NPL sites.
Complete descriptions of the indicators are provided in Appendix G.
Reporting Systems and Frequency
At the FY 92 Superfund Program Management Meeting, Regions requested that El data
be reported directly through CERCLIS. HQ will attempt to incorporate El data elements into the
CERCLIS system in FY 91. If CERCLIS is used, Regions will be responsible for entering
historic El data into CERCLIS and maintaining El data quality. Whether the reporting system is
electronic or hardcopy, however, the data will be in a format that resembles the hardcopy
worksheets in Appendix G. These worksheets were used for data collection in FY 91.
The fundamental Superfund reporting system for El is the quarterly STARS measure,
Progress Through Environmental Indicators. However, quarterly reporting may prove to be
more frequent than is feasible for environmental progress data. OSWER is, therefore, consider-
ing two options for El reporting in FY 92: 1) quarterly reporting for all events completed at
Superfund sites, with annual updates for ongoing events; or 2) semi-annual reporting for both
ongoing and completed events at all Superfund sites. The Regions are encouraged to contribute
their ideas about these or other options.
Indicator Development
HQ will continue to evaluate the ability of the indicators to measure environmental
progress. Studies will continue to try to identify specific measures of progress in the areas of
populations protected, ecological change, and contaminant concentration reductions. This work
will build on pilot studies that were conducted in the Regions in FY 91.
The goal is to rely upon existing national ecological data bases as much as possible to
develop indicators, and to take advantage of geographic information system capabilities where
possible. This will allow the program to build a solid foundation of environmental information
from which ecological indicators can be developed with a minimum of additional work for the
Region.
II-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
As the Superfund program begins to rely more upon environmental indicators of
progress, geographic data gains more significance. For that reason, it is important that latitude
and longitude data be as accurate as possible. In late 1990, most of the coordinates of NPL sites
were checked for accuracy, corrected, and placed in CERCLIS. In the future, Regions will be
asked to follow guidance in establishing latitude/longitude coordinates for sites.
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO) Environmental Indicators
The ideal El for the CEPPO is the reduction in the number and/or severity of accidental
releases of hazardous substances that have a negative impact on human health and the environ-
ment. CEPPO will continue to collect information through the ARIP and will evaluate this
information, as well as information from other data systems, as a starting point in the develop-
ment of an indicator that reflects the number and/or severity of accidental releases. The Emer-
gency Response Notification System (ERNS) may be used at the National and Regional level to
identify approximately 90 percent of the facilities targeted by ARIP for more detailed data
collection. ERNS data can also be used to provide information on releases of hazardous materi-
als and oil caused by natural disasters.
A subcommittee, established to evaluate measures of success for prevention practices and
programs, will also support this effort.
REMEDIAL ACTION INFORMATION
As the Agency measures the progress made in meeting the requirements of SARA,
additional and more accurate information is required for RA activities. This information will be
used to:
Support and justify the response RA budget;
Facilitate priority setting for Fund-financed RAs;
Provide RA cost tracking information; and
Provide the capability of characterizing RA projects and their associated costs.
The RA information that will be recorded in CERCLIS by the Regions includes:
Planned and actual start and completion dates for RD, RA, and RA related events;
RA cost estimates at different times during the remedial pipeline; and
Technical information on the selected remedy.
Each of these will be discussed in greater detail in the following sections.
Planning and Accomplishment Data
Planned start and completion dates for RD, RA, and award of RA contract are entered
into CERCLIS when a site is beginning the RI/FS. These dates represent the best estimate on
when the activities are scheduled to begin. The schedules are updated regularly until the start or
completion is actually accomplished. The scheduled start for RA on-site construction is placed
II-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
in CERCLIS when the RA contract is awarded. The schedules for these activities will be closely
tracked and used for many different purposes, including:
Projects planned to start or complete during a given FY become Regional SCAP/
STARS targets or measures;
RA priority setting and tracking the status of the queue;
Indicating progress in site cleanup and movement of sites to the advanced phases
of the remedial pipeline; and
Analyzing standard durations and timeframes.
Beginning in FY 91, planned schedules will be entered into CERCLIS in the month/day/
year (MM/DD/YY) format. The Fiscal Year/Quarter (FY/Q) data will be system generated.
This process currently exists in WasteLAN. These dates will be tracked closely and true planned
dates should be entered, not the last day of the quarter. This information must be updated until
the start or completion is actually accomplished.
RA Cost Estimate
There are five types of RA cost estimating/projections that need to be reported to HQ:
Cost of Remedial Action (CORA) Model cost estimate for Fund-financed and PRP
RI/FS projects;
RA cost estimate contained in a Fund and FE-lead ROD;
Fund-financed RD 90 percent complete RA cost estimate;
Fund-financed RA contract award RA cost estimate; and
Total planned Fund-financed RA cost estimate.
The SCAP-25, RA Cost Estimate Information Report contains the information in CER-
CLIS on RA cost estimates/projections. Exhibit II-1 provides examples for coding RA cost
estimates.
CORA Model Estimate
Prior to a ROD being signed, Regions can estimate the RA cost using the Cost of Reme-
dial Action (CORA) model. This RA estimate is entered into CERCLIS against the RI/
FS or FS event with a Financial Type (C3202) of "E" (RA Cost Estimate).
ROD Estimate
When the ROD is signed, the capital cost of the remedy must be entered into CERCLIS
against the ROD event with a Financial Type (C3202) of "E" (RA Cost Estimate).
If the ROD is amended, an alternative technology is chosen over the original. The new
ROD capital cost should be entered against the new ROD event with a Financial Type
(C3202) of "E". When a significant change is made that alters the scope, performance, or
cost of a component of the remedy, it is documented in an Explanation of Significant
II-9
-------
Exhibit n-1
RA COST ESTIMATING CODING
PLAN
START
FV/Q
C2132
ACTUAL
START
PLAN
COMP
FY/Q
C2133
FINAN
AMOUNT
ACTUAL
COMP
FUND
STATUS
BUDGET
SOURCE
INSTRUCTIONS
CORA MODEL ESTIMATE = $10,000,000
SEND CORA DISK TO PDBS
ROD ESTIMATE = $12,000,000 (CAPITAL
COST) ENTERED WHEN ROD IS SIGNED
RD 90% ESTIMATE = $13,500,000
ENTERED WHEN RD IS 90% COMPLETE
TOTAL PLANNED RA COST
ORIGINALLY ENTERED 88/2, UPDATED
AS BETTER INFORMATION BECAME
AVAILABLE
RA CONTRACT AWARD = $13.225,000
ENTERED WHEN CONTRACT IS
AWARDED
RA CONTRACT AWARD = $14,000,000
ENTERED WHEN CONTRACT IS
MODIFIED
6
n
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Differences (ESD). A second entry with the new cost estimate is reported with the
original ROD using a Financial Type (C3202) of "E." The date of the ESD is placed in
the Financial Date (C3220), and "ESD" is entered in the Financial Note Field (C3242).
In both situations, the original RA cost estimate remains in CERCLIS. See Chapter V for
additional information on changes to RODs.
RD Estimate
When the RD reaches the 90 percent completion point, the Region enters the total RA
cost estimate in CERCLIS based on the information gathered during the design. This
estimate is entered against the RD event with a Financial Type (C3202) of "E" (RA Cost
Estimate).
RA Contract Award
When the RA contract is awarded to the construction contractor, Regions enter the
construction contract award amount into CERCLIS against the RA event with a Financial
Type of "E" (RA Cost Estimate). The date of the contract award should be entered into
the Financial Date (C3220). If the contract is later increased, a second entry must be
made for the new total contract amount. The Financial Date field (C3220) is used to
enter the date of the modification.
Total RA Cost
Regions estimate and report the total RA cost by entering planned obligations, actual
obligations, and open commitments into CERCLIS. This includes planned obligations
for the current year and upcoming FY as well as any incremental funding needs during
the duration of the project. This total RA cost estimate constitutes the total Regional
funding request for an RA. The RA cost estimate for RAs scheduled to begin in FY 93
must be in CERCLIS prior to mid-year negotiations. Regions should update the RA
cost estimate on a continuous basis as better information becomes available.
Technical Information
Regions will not receive funds for a RA in their AOA unless the remedial technology
type for the RA is in CERCLIS. Similarly, Regions will not receive credit for a RA start
unless the remedial technology type for the RA is in CERCLIS. Exhibit II-2 contains coding
guidance for the remedial technology types. Exhibit II-3 contains the CERCLIS remedial tech-
nology type codes. SCAP-24, RA Technology and Pipeline Tracking Report, displays the events
and the remedial technology types.
ROD Technical Information
When a ROD is signed, an ESD becomes a component of the ROD issued, or a ROD is
amended, the Region must enter the remedy technology type for the RA into CERCLIS
against the ROD events. This is done by entering Remedial Technology in the RA Tech
Type data field (C3401 = "RT") and the specific technology type(s) in the Technical
Information Qualifier fields (C3402-C3411). The first ten treatment types are coded with
a "1" in the Technical Information Type Suffix (C3415). When more than ten technol-
ogy types are chosen, the Region should adjoin the types to the ROD event by entering
the appropriate sequence number (C3415) in CERCLIS. If the remedy selected is "no
action," the Regions should code the remedial technology against the ROD with the
11-11
-------
Exhibit n-2
CODING GUIDANCE - REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY TYPES
PLAN
START
FY/Q
C2132
PLAN
COMP
FY/Q
C2133
o
"0
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit n-3
REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGY TYPE CODES
Code
Definition
Technology
OT
ON
RO
Incineration/Thermal Destruction
Solidification/Stabilization
Vacuum Extraction
Volatilization/Soil Aeration
Soil Washing/Flushing
Biodegradation/Land Application
Other Treatment Technologies
On-site Containment
Off-site Containment
On-site
Off-site
Fixation
Neutralization
Soil Vapor Extraction
Aeration
Flaring
Metals Precipitation
Ion Exchange
In-Situ Biodegradation
Biodentrification
Activated Sludge
Decontamination
Dewatering
Off-site RCRA Treatment and Recycling
In-Situ Flaming
Dechlorinization (APEG/KPEG)
Soil Cover
Asphalt Cap
RCRA Cap
Levees
Slurry Wall
On-site RCRA Landfill (Above/Below Grade)
Deep Well Injection
Excavation
Sediment Excavation and Dredging
Pumping Contained Wastes
Debris Removal
Groundwater Extraction/Injection (Hydraulic Containment) |
Active Landfill Gas Collection
Soil Excavation
Sediment Excavation and Dredging
Pumping Contained Wastes
Debris Removal
Groundwater Extraction/Injection (Hydraulic Containment) |
Active Landfill Gas Collection
Off-site RCRA Landfill
Off-site Solid Waste Landfill
11-13
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit n-3 Tcontinued)
REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGY TYPE CODES
Technology
Other Source Control Remedies
On-site/Off-site Residual
Pump and Treatment
Air Stripping
Carbon Absorption
Electrochemical Reduction
Extraction
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Oil/Water Separator
Precipitation
Wellhead Treatment
Activated Carbon Units - Residential
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
Coagulation
Flocculation
Activated Sludge
Alternate Water Supply
Other
Municipal Distribution System
Monitoring
Plume Management
Natural Atenuation
Subsurface Water Diversion/Collection
Slope Stabilization
Demolition
Relocation
Institutional Controls
Leachate Collection/Treatment
No Action
Temporary Storage
On-site
Off-site
11-14
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
"NA" (no action) technical qualifier. The "NA" event (no action ROD) should not be
used. Additional information on ESDs and ROD amendments can be found in
Chapter V.
RD Technical Information
When a RD is started, the Region must enter the technology type for the RA into CER-
CLIS. Like the ROD, this is done by entering Remedial Technology in the RA Tech
Type data field (C3401="RT") against the RD and the specific technology type(s) in the
Technical Information Qualifier (C3402-C3411).
If the ROD is amended after the RD has started, the Region must determine if a new RD
is necessary. If a new RD is required, the original RD event should be discontinued and a
new RD event entered. The First and Subsequent Completion (FSC) code (C2116) for
the original RD should be "E" (Event Anomaly). The completion date for the old RD
and the start date for the new RD should be the same. The First and Subsequent Start
(FSS) code for the new RD should be "E" (Event Anomaly). If necessary, the new
remedial technology type should be reported by entering Remedial Technology in the RA
Tech Type data field (C3401="RT") and the specific technology type(s) in the Technical
Information Qualifier (C3402-C3411) with the new RD. If the ROD is amended and a
new RD is not necessary, the Technical Information Qualifier field should be updated.
If the design is split into multiple OUs from the ROD, the appropriate remedial technol-
ogy and technical information qualifiers should be attached to the appropriate RD.
RA Technical Information
When requesting RA funds or recording a RA start, the Region must enter Remedial
Technology (C3401="RT") into the RA Tech Type data field and the remedial technol-
ogy types (C3402-C3411) for the RA against the RA event.
If the RA is split into multiple OUs from the ROD or RD, the appropriate remedial
technology and technical information qualifiers should be attached to the appropriate RA.
CERCLIS DATA QUALITY
HQ will work with the Regions to improve data quality in CERCLIS. Inconsistencies
continue to be a problem particularly for historical data and long-term projects. Wherever
possible, HQ will implement ways to improve the quality of data necessary for project adminis-
tration by establishing reasonable standards and developing appropriate data quality reports. The
Audit-26, Underlying Data and Error Types Report has been operational since the start of FY 90
and has proven to be a useful tool in enhanced CERCLIS data quality. The CERCLIS reports
librarian has compiled the select logic for key CERCLIS/SCAP reports in The Standard Select
Logic document.
Enforcement Data Quality Effort
OWPE has developed a comprehensive report and documentation to assist the Regions
with improving enforcement activity data quality. The enforcement data quality effort should
begin during the fourth quarter of FY 91.
11-15
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
Data quality progress will be monitored on a quarterly basis. In order to support the
Regions effort to "clean-up" enforcement data, OWPE has developed comprehensive coding
sheets for each activity, an enforcement audit report, and a guide on how to use the report and
code anomaly actions.
11-16
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
CHAPTER III
SDPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE
ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN PROCEDURES
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER ffl - SUPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE
ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN PROCEDURES
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Following are the actions Regional managers must take to comply with the
requirements described in this Chapter. In order to acquire a more
in-depth understanding of these requirements, the Chapter itself should be
read.
Most of the Superfund Budget is based on the SCAP.
HQ will not recognize a SCAP/STARS accomplishment unless it is
correctly recorded in CERCLIS by the specified pull date.
Regions have complete responsibility for maintaining CERCLIS,
WasteLAN, and selected portions of the CERHELP data base.
The preliminary and final SCAP/STARS targets are established in
March and August, respectively.
During negotiations, Regions may propose changes in targets to
match the total Regional Superfund resource level.
Response and enforcement funding needs identified in January form
the basis for the annual Regional budgets.
RA cost estimates for outyear budget should be derived using the
draft FS, the ROD or Cost of Remedial Action (CORA) model.
Final "approved" funding requests must be within the annual
Regional budget proposed by HQ.
On the fifth working day of February and July, HQ pulls SCAP data
from CERCLIS for negotiations.
Preliminary and final target negotiations will be based, in part, on the
definition of a steady state program, as well as the availability of
pipeline projects.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
CHAPTER III - SUPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE
ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN PROCEDURES (continued)
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
On the fifth working day of each month, HQ pulls planning and
accomplishment data from CERCLIS to support a variety of official
reporting requirements.
SCAP/STARS amendments require HQ concurrence and approval.
Changes to STARS should not be made simply because a target
cannot be met.
STARS amendments should be submitted by the Regional
Administrator to the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (AA SWER) by April 15.
Amendments will not be approved unless they are in CERCLIS.
Planning and accomplishment data should be updated within five days of
the occurrence or schedule/funding change or at least monthly.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
CHAPTER III - SUPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE
ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN PROCEDURES
INTRODUCTION
The SCAP process is used by the Superfund program to plan, budget, track, and evaluate
progress toward Superfund site cleanup. The SCAP planning process is a dynamic, ongoing
effort that has a significant impact on Superfund resource allocation and program evaluation.
Planned obligations and STARS targets and measures are generated through SCAP and influence
the Superfund budget and evaluation process. SCAP planning is a day-to-day responsibility of
the Regions. A semi-annual process has been established through which HQ and Regions for-
mally negotiate plans for the future. CERCLIS serves as the conduit for the SCAP process.
CERCLIS provides both HQ and Regions with direct access to the same data. Reports can be
produced allowing for daily, interactive updates of planning and site cleanup progress informa-
tion.
RELATIONSHIP OF SCAP TO OTHER MANAGEMENT TOOLS
The SCAP process is crucial to Superfund program planning, tracking, and evaluation.
As the Superfund program's central planning mechanism, it is interrelated with all Agency and
Superfund program specific planning and management systems, such as the Agency Operating
Guidance, the Superfund budget, Agency Operating Plan, STARS, and the Superfund workload
models. The Agency Operating Guidance defines Superfund goals for the upcoming year.
SCAP targets/measures are designed to reflect the Agency Operating Guidance. In some cases,
new SCAP categories are developed, or the projections for SCAP activities are adjusted to match
the Agency's goals.
Most of the Superfund program's budget is based on the SCAP. The operating year's
budget is developed 18 months prior to its beginning. For example, the SCAP existing in the
third quarter of FY 92 will be used to formulate the FY 94 budget. The site schedules reflected
in the SCAP serve as the foundation for determining outyear budget priorities, such as the dollar
levels to be requested in the budget and the total level of FTEs to be made available for distribu-
tion through the workload modeL Because dollars for Fund-financed RAs and RDs dominate
Superfund's overall budget, it is critical that the SCAP identify RD and RA candidates and
projected funding needs. RA cost estimates should be derived using the draft FS, ROD or
CORA model estimates.
The Superfund budget provides the basis for the Agency Operating Plan. The Operating
Plan, which is finalized prior to the FY, establishes the funds available to the Regions for per-
forming Superfund work.
STARS, formerly the Strategic Planning and Management System (SPMS), is used by
EPA to set and monitor the environmental objectives identified in the Agency's Operating
Guidance for a FY. National and Regional STARS goals for Superfund are established and
tracked through SCAP. STARS targets are a subset of those contained in SCAP. STARS targets
and measures are reported quarterly by HQ and the Regions to the Office of Pollution Prevention
(OPP). OPP tracks Regional progress toward STARS goals on a quarterly basis as part of the
overall Agency performance evaluation process. With the exception of CEPP and the Environ-
mental Indicators measures, HQ will not recognize a STARS accomplishment unless it is cor-
rectly recorded in CERCLIS.
m-i
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
The Superfund workload models distribute FTEs for each program and Region. There
are two Superfund program models, the Hazardous Site and Spill Response model, which distrib-
utes resources for the site assessment, remedial and removal programs, and the Technical En-
forcement model which distributes enforcement FTEs. SCAP plans form the basis of the work-
load models. In FY 92, each Region's FTEs will be frozen at the FY 90 levels provided that the
national budget does not increase or decrease by ten percent. While the freeze ensures that total
Regional Superfund resources will not be affected, shifting of resources within the Region
among the different program areas may occur. This includes shifts between the response and
enforcement programs. All shifts will be based on the FY 92 national budget and the integrated
Priority Setting Matrix.
The Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement (OFFE) will coordinate with OERR and
OWPE throughout the SCAP process. OFFE will rely on CERCLIS data in planning, budgeting,
tracking, and evaluating progress at Superfund sites. In addition to CERCLIS, OFFE and the
Regions will also utilize information gathered in conjunction with the A-106 Pollution Abate-
ment Planning Process to evaluate the adequacy of Federal agency budgeting for Superfund sites.
These data will enable OFFE and the Regions to evaluate actual outlays and accomplishments at
Superfund sites against budget authorities and obligations. Changes to the A-106 data base, also
known as the Federal Facilities Information System (FFIS), and to the information collection
procedures are being implemented in FY 91 and will enable improved planning, coordination
with Federal agencies, and post-funding evaluation of accomplishments. A-106 data will
complement information provided in CERCLIS and will provide OFFE and the Regions with
additional insight into Federal agency planning and cleanup.
SCAP AND CERCLIS/WASTELAN RELATIONSHIP
CERCLIS is the data base used by HQ and Regional personnel for Superfund site, pro-
gram and project management. CERCLIS contains the official inventory of CERCLA sites and
supports current site planning and tracking functions. In CERCLIS, financial data are integrated
with data from the site assessment, remedial, removal and enforcement programs. Site assess-
ment, remedial and removal activities are called "events" in CERCLIS. Enforcement actions are
labeled "activities." SCAP information is a subset of the site data collected through CERCLIS.
Data entry responsibilities and report retrieval abilities exist at the Regional level so that Re-
gional managers and users play a central role in maintaining and using the data base. OWPE,
OERR and OE rely on CERCLIS as the sole repository of information on plans and accomplish-
ments and use the data base to generate national reports and perform analysis.
CERCLIS consists of two data bases: a site specific data base, CERCLIS, and a non-site
specific data base, CERHELP. The site specific data base contains site, OU, event, enforcement
activity, technical and financial information. HQ is developing a system to download financial
data from the agency-wide Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) into CERCLIS.
The data to be transferred include such information as commitments, decommitments, obliga-
tions, deobligations, outlays, credits, transaction date, obligating document number and funding
vehicle.
CERHELP contains information such as S CAP/STARS targets and accomplishments,
AOA, budget, and information on non-site/incident activities. The CERHELP data base consists
of the following separate files:
The Targets and Accomplishments System is the data file used for setting and
tracking SCAP/STARS targets. Preliminary and final Regional SCAP/STARS
III-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
commitments are entered into the system by the HQ SCAP Coordinator. Target
data are updated by the Region to reflect SCAP adjustments and by HQ to reflect
approved amendments. Regional reporting of non-site/incident accomplishments
is also performed through this system. Data from this system are used in all
official SCAP targets and accomplishment reports and are the baseline for Re-
gional evaluation.
The Budget Control/Advice of Allowance (BC/AOA) file is used by HQ for
SCAP budget development and control and for tracking and reporting the AOA
process.
Planning and tracking of non-site/incident activities and financial data are accom-
plished through the Non-Site/Incident Activity system. Regions are responsible
for entering and maintaining SCAP non-site specific information.
Using CERHELP, Regions will be able to track planning data and reconcile the site
specific planning in CERCLIS with the AOA and SCAP/STARS targets. It serves as an impor-
tant management tool for Regions and HQ.
WasteLAN is CERCLIS on a personal computer (PC)-based system located in the Re-
gion. It provides an alternative to direct data entry into the mainframe data base. WasteLAN
maintains the Regional data base on a local area network (LAN) and the Region regularly up-
loads the data to the mainframe.
WasteLAN is designed to meet three objectives:
Support Regional program management Regional program management needs
are supported by the use of an integrated data base that provides information for
program evaluation and management reporting of STARS/SCAP plans and ac-
complishments;
Provide key information to the mainframe Information is entered into Waste-
LAN. The system has the capability to electronically transfer a copy of the data to
the mainframe database; and
Support site project management Site project management needs are supported
by the detailed site and contract level data for site planning and project manage-
ment purposes.
In this Manual, CERCLIS will be used as a generic term that will encompass CERCLIS,
CERHELP, and WasteLAN.
Additional information, including Regional responsibilities for CERCLIS, CERHELP,
and WasteLAN can be found in the CERCLIS Users Reference Manual or the WasteLAN Users
Reference Manual.
SCAP ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
HQ responsibilities for maintaining the SCAP in CERCLIS include:
Entering negotiated preliminary and final SCAP/STARS targets and measures and
site back-up in the CERHELP Targets and Accomplishments data file;
III-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
Updating the numbers and site back-up in the Targets and Accomplishments data
file to reflect approved amendments to the SCAP throughout the year;
Entering preliminary and final budget data in the CERHELP BC/AOA system;
Determining the AOA based on SCAP planned activities in CERCLIS;
Entering and maintaining AOA data in the CERHELP BC/AOA system; and
Responding to Regional requests for changes in plans through the amendment/
change request process.
Regions have complete responsibility for maintaining CERCLIS/WasteLAN, SCAP and
selected portions of the CERHELP data base. At a minimum this requires:
For sites which are beginning the RI/FS in the current or next FY, planning and
scheduling all pipeline remedial events and enforcement activities through the
NPL deletion process. These data are to be entered into CERCLIS in the month/
day/year (MM/DD/YY) format;
Keeping SCAP planning data current, including updating site schedules estab-
lished at the RI/FS stage and RA cost estimates when better planning data become
available;
Updating the site back-up in the Targets and Accomplishments data file to reflect
adjustments to the SCAP throughout the year;
Reporting accomplishments as they occur;
Reconciling CERCLIS financial data with IFMS;
Entering and maintaining quarterly planning, budget and accomplishments report-
ing in CERHELP for non-site specific activities;
Preparing SCAP amendments and change requests; and
Tracking and recording Technical Enforcement Support (TES) work assignments
(tasking).
The Regional Information Management Coordinator (IMC) is a senior position which
serves as Regional lead for all Superfund program and systems management activities. The
following lead responsibilities for Regional program planning and management rest with the
IMC:
Coordinate SCAP/STARS planning, development and reporting;
Ensure Regional accomplishments are accurately reflected in CERCLIS;
Reconcile IFMS data with CERCLIS financial data;
Provide liaison to HQ on SCAP/STARS and program evaluation issues;
ra-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
Coordinate Regional evaluations by HQ; and
Ensure that the quality of CERCLIS data are such that accomplishments and
planning data can be accurately retrieved from the system.
OVERVIEW OF THE SCAP PROCESS
The SCAP process generates data that fulfill the following functions:
Tracking of accomplishments against targets/measures;
Updating planning (schedules and funds) for the current FY;
Developing planning data for the upcoming FY; and
Providing data for outyear budget planning purposes.
It is essential that SCAP data remain current and up-to-date and that accomplishments be
reported as soon as they occur. Planning information should be reviewed and updated as neces-
sary.
The SCAP formal negotiation cycle is a semi-annual process. The focus of the two
formal negotiations is slightly different. Exhibit III-1 indicates the significant differences be-
tween the February and August negotiating sessions.
Exhibit III-l
SCAP PLANNING YEAR
SECOND QUARTER (.TANUARY/FEBRUARY/MARCH 1992)
Regional program office consults with States and Office of Regional Counsel
(ORC) on plans and schedules for the upcoming year
Revise FY 92 annual budget ceilings to reflect first and second quarter
performance and revised plans for the remainder of the year
Update and negotiate planning information in CERCLIS for the third and fourth
quarter FY 92
Negotiate third and fourth quarter enforcement AOAs
Review slippage in FY 92 targets for development of action strategies
Assess the status of RAs
Negotiate preliminary FY 93 SCAP/STARS targets and measures
Negotiate preliminary annual Regional budgets for FY 93
Provide complete site schedules including planned RA obligations to
allow HQ to project the outyear budget (FY 94)
FOURTH QUARTER (JULY/AUGUST 1992)
Establish final SCAP/STARS commitments for FY 93
Establish FY 93 annual Regional budget
m-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
The fourth quarter SCAP planning cycle is important because of its direct impact on the
upcoming FY's budget. Regions are required to manage their funds and operate within the
annual budgets established during the fourth quarter update. Non-RA funds within the Region's
budget must be reprogrammed to meet unexpected contingencies.
During the second quarter negotiations, and throughout the third and fourth quarters, the
RAs that are scheduled for funding will be carefully assessed to identify schedule slippage. If it
appears that planned RAs with approved funding will not be ready to proceed in FY 92, other
priority RAs will be furided instead. Funding will be provided for approved RAs that remain on
schedule through the first three quarters of the FY. Once an RA project is ranked and placed
above the funding line, Regions have the flexibility to modify the budget to accommodate the
RA project funding needs.
SCAP CHANGE CONTROL PROCEDURES
Stability in the SCAP process through the year is essential to the success of SCAP plan-
ning and accomplishment reporting/evaluation procedures. The following procedures are used to
control changes to items in the SCAP:
Changes (including additions or deletions) to SCAP targets, measures, definitions,
methodologies, planning processes, accomplishment reporting, financial manage-
ment or any other processes described in this Manual must be presented by the
Office Director for the program office proposing the change and have the concur-
rence of both OWPE and OERR;
All proposed changes must be sent to the Regions and all other program offices
for review and comment prior to implementation; and
The decision on whether to proceed with the proposed change must be docu-
mented in writing. If the proposed change will be implemented, an addendum to
the Superfund Program Management Manual will be issued.
PROCEDURES FOR ANNUAL TARGET SETTING
The process for the development of SCAP and STARS targets/measures for a FY begins
with the SCAP developed during the second quarter of the previous FY. Preliminary targets/
measures for the upcoming FY are set by early March. All targets/measures are negotiated and
numbers are established only after discussions between OERR, OWPE, and the Regions. In the
Regions, a joint review of commitments should be undertaken by the program office and ORC.
Final SCAP and STARS targets are negotiated in the fourth quarter (August) between HQ and
the Region. The dates for pulling CERCLIS information that will be used for negotiations can
be found in the Manager's Schedule of Significant Events presented at the beginning of this
Manual.
The negotiation of preliminary and final SCAP/STARS targets and measures has become
complicated as a result of the freeze in Regional FTEs. During negotiations, Regions may
propose changes in targets to match the total Regional Superfund resource level. The changes in
targets must be made in accordance with the integrated Priority Setting Matrix and the overall
budget. HQ will work to ensure that the cumulative Regional targets meet national budget
III-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
commitments. Preliminary and final target negotiations will also be based, in part, on the defini-
tion of a steady state program as well as the availability of pipeline projects.
The procedures for target setting for the upcoming FY are as follows:
At the beginning of the second quarter (January) HQ sends to the Regions initial
targets and planning estimates based on the SCAP/STARS Methodologies and the
budget for the upcoming FY. SCAP/STARS Methodologies for FY 93 are pre-
sented in Appendix A.
Regions will respond to proposed SCAP/STARS targets/measures through CER-
CLIS within the timeframes established for the second quarter SCAP negotiations.
To adequately plan for the year, a Region must make decisions on the status of
projects. States and ORC should be consulted prior to making these decisions.
Remedial and enforcement projects (except RAs) should be identified as either
"Primary" (P) or "Alternate" (A) in the Activity/Event Planning Status field
(C2110 and C1725) in CERCLIS. Primary projects represent those that have the
greatest likelihood of meeting the schedules in CERCLIS. Alternates represent
sites that can be substituted for primary targets. The negotiated number of pri-
mary projects will be used to determine preliminary SCAP/STARS commitments.
A sufficient number of alternate projects should be maintained to replace primary
projects which experience slippage or are deferred because of revised project
priorities. A Region should identify alternate projects to ensure that it can main-
tain a steady pipeline of remedial activity. (See Exhibit III-2 for an example of the
use of the Activity/Event Planning Status field.)
At this time, the schedules for queued RA projects should be reevaluated. Projects
experiencing slippage that lead to a planned start date in the upcoming FY are
placed in the new funding queue. The placement of the RAs in the queue is based
on their existing score, unless site conditions have changed and the project will be
re-ranked. The correct Activity/Event Planning Status field codes for different RA
projects are presented in Chapter I Exhibit 1-5.
Fourth quarter FY 92 RA projects that will not be funded because of budget
constraints should be coded with an Activity/Event Planning Status flag of "Q"
(queued). During fourth quarter negotiations, the planned start date for these
projects should be changed to FY 93.
The Regional response to non-site/incident targets or planning estimates should be
reported in the Targets and Accomplishments file in CERHELP. The Regional
target or planning estimate must be entered into CERHELP with the appropriate
activity code and a "Proposed" (P) in the Version data field in CERHELP. Ap-
pendix D identifies the targets and measures which are planned on a site specific
vs. non-site/incident basis.
Regions must also identify FY 93 remedial and enforcement funding needs at NPL
sites in CERCLIS. States should be consulted to ensure that State-lead activities
and State funding needs are accurately reflected in SCAP. At this time, the Re-
gion only needs to provide the planned quarter of obligation, the budget source,
amount, and contract vehicle for response funding needs. RA funding needs
should also be identified as "Approved" (APR) or "Alternate" (ALT). Chapter I
Exhibit 1-5 presents the rules for identifying "ALT" and "APR" RA projects.
III-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
Exhibit m-2
EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITY/EVENT PLANNING STATUS
AND PRIORITY FUNDING STATUS ซ
ORIGINAL PLAN
Site
Name OU Event
(C104) (CHOI) (C2101)
X
Y
01
01
01
C01
C01
C01
Activity/Event
Ld Planning Status
(C2117) (C2110)
F P
F P
Plan
Start
(C2132)
91/2
91/4
91/2
Actual
Start Oual
(C2140) (C2103)
Funding
Status
(C3225)
Budget Finan
Source Amount I
(C3229) (C3230) [
APR
APR
CON
ALT
CON
750,000
500,000
25,000
750,000
75,000
ALTERED PLAN
Site
Name
(C104)
X
Y
Z
^T33S8S55HS
fill
(CHOI)
01
01
01
S333BI5HS5535H
Event
(C2101)
C01
C01
C01
B55SHSB535!
M
(C2117)
F
F
RP
Activity/Event
Planning Status
(C2110)
A
P
P
Plan
Start
(C2132)
91/4
91/2
91/2
Actual
Start Oual
(C2140) (C2103)
L
2/16/91
3/20/91
^SsSSSSeSeSSf^sssssssssssssssssss
Funding
Status
(C3225)
ALT
APR
APR
Budget
Source
(C3229)
R
R
E
5SJBRSHH55H?
Finan
Amount
(C3230)
750,000
500,000
75,000
Appendix E contains the CERCLIS coding instructions for requesting Case
Budget funds.
HQ/Regional negotiations and FTEs reconciliation occur during the second quar-
ter. A negotiation schedule is sent to the Regions. Action strategies developed
for current year performance problems are a factor in the negotiation of targets and
measures.
Preliminary targets/measures are set after completion of the negotiations in early
March. Regional RA start targets will be established after the RA priority setting
panel meeting in July.
Based on the fourth quarter SCAP reflected in CERCLIS, a second round of
negotiations and FTEs reconciliation is held to finalize the targets and planning
estimates and the Regional budget. At this time, only minor changes to targets
and measures developed during the second quarter should occur. These negotia-
IH-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
lions are conducted in August and final targets, measures, and associated budgets
are in place by early September.
In preparation for the fourth quarter SCAP negotiations, final proposed Regional
budget ceilings for the removal, remedial, and enforcement programs will be sent
to the Regions. RA funds are not included in the budget ceiling. However, the
Funding Priority Status field for all RA projects should be reviewed and updated if
necessary. Those remedial events or enforcement activities which have the
greatest likelihood of requiring funding during the FY that are within the Region's
budget allocation should be identified by placing "Approved" (APR) in the Fund-
ing Priority Status field (C3225 and C2909) in CERCLIS. The total of all ap-
proved funding must not exceed the budget ceilings or HQ will not initiate nego-
tiations.
For all events (Rl/FS, RD, RA) scheduled to begin during the FY, the "APR"
funding status can only be placed on funds for projects which are coded with "P"
Activity/Event Planning Status. For example, only Rl/FS starts that are primary
SCAP/STARS targets will be used by HQ to establish the Rl/FS budget. Projects
with a Funding Priority Status (C3225 and C2909) of "Alternate" (ALT) are
moving toward the point of obligation. As with primary and alternate SCAP/
STARS targets and measures, projects with alternate funds may be substituted for
approved projects which experience slippage or are deferred due to changing
priorities. Activities/projects identified as alternate will also form the basis for
any requests for supplemental funding.
Projects may also be identified with a Funding Priority Status (C3225 and C2909)
of "CON" (Planned Contingency Funds). This code allows Regions to indicate
funding needs for projects that have a medium or high potential for the PRP
assuming lead responsibility. (See Chapter V for additional information on
coding PRP probabilities.) The financial amounts associated with the event/
activity that has the greatest likelihood of requiring funding would be coded as
"APR." The financial amounts associated with the event/activity that has the least
likelihood of requiring funding would be coded as "CON." (See Exhibit III-2 for
an example of the use of the Funding Priority Status field.)
The Activity/Event Planning Status should also be updated prior to fourth quarter
negotiations.
Any site scheduling or target changes that result from the negotiation of prelimi-
nary or final targets/measures must be entered into CERCLIS by the Regions. At
this point, Regions should also reflect the RA priority setting funding decisions in
CERCLIS.
Written concurrence of final negotiated targets and budget levels will be obtained
at the close of negotiating sessions between HQ and each Region.
HQ will enter preliminary and final commitments including the site specific back-
up where appropriate into the Targets and Accomplishments file in the CERHELP
data base.
ra-9
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Targets and measures, site back-up, and the Regional budget are sent to the AA
for approval in early September. They are then submitted to the OPP as final
STARS targets.
SCAP PLANNING
Regions are required to keep the SCAP data in CERCLIS up-to-date and accurate.
Changes in planning information (schedules and funds) should be entered into CERCLIS within
five days. If changes affect a SCAP or STARS target or measure or the approved funding level
for a site, the Activity/Event Planning Status and Funding Priority Status fields in CERCLIS
must also be updated.
Semi-Annual Planning Process
As a final check to ensure that SCAP data are up-to-date, Regions should generate SCAP
and Audit reports periodically, especially those Regions which have delegated responsibility for
the data base to RPMs and OSCs. At a minimum, reports should be generated prior to the major
updates in January and June for internal review of the planning data in CERCLIS. These plan-
ning data should reflect any adjustments or approved amendments made to the annual plan.
Regions should note that changes made in CERCLIS to site schedules and other planning data
will not automatically result in changes to SCAP/STARS targets. Although Regions have the
flexibility to alter plans, they are still accountable for meeting the targets negotiated at the begin-
ning of the FY. (See the section on SCAP/STARS Adjustments and Amendments).
On the fifth working day of February and July, HQ pulls the proposed Regional SCAP
update which serves as the basis for HQ/Regional mid-year and final negotiations. HQ will
perform all negotiations based on the information in CERCLIS on these pull dates. To ensure
consistency in the negotiation phase, the CERCLIS data bases are frozen prior to pulling the
reports used for negotiations. As a result, all parties (HQ and the Regions) will have identical
data for use during the negotiation process.
CERCLIS data quality problems that affect the SCAP update shall be resolved prior to
negotiations. These problems are to be resolved on a Region-specific basis through telephone
calls between HQ and the IMC or program manager.
CERCLIS Reports for SCAP Planning/Target Setting
Exhibit III-3 presents the CERCLIS reports used by HQ and the Regions in the develop-
ment and negotiation of Regional targets/measures. Following is a discussion of these reports:
The Non-NPL Site Summary Report (SCAP-1) displays major planned, ongoing
and completed activities for sites that are not on the current NPL. Information on
PRP searches, non-NPL removals, non-NPL removal AOs, etc. are found on this
report. A site must have planned or ongoing work to show on this report.
The NPL Site Summary Report (SCAP-2) contains planned and actual data for
major events and enforcement activities at sites that are on the NPL, including
deleted and removal sites.
The Financial Report (SCAP-4) and Financial Summary for Enforcement (SCAP-
4E) aggregate dollars by program area and provide both site specific backup from
CERCLIS and non-site specific backup from CERHELP. These reports should be
III-10
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit m-3
SCAP PLANNING/TARGET SETTING CERCLIS REPORTS
SCAP-1:
SCAP-2:
SCAP-4:
SCAP-4E:
SCAP-13:
SCAP-14:
SCAP-16:
SCAP-21:
SCAP-21E:
SCAP-27:
ENFR-4:
ENFR-8:
ENFR-25:
ENFR-46:
ENFR-49:
AUDIT-26:
AUDIT-40:
Non-NPL Site Summary Report
NPL Site Summary Report
SCAP Financial Report
Financial Summary for Enforcement
SCAPISTARS Measures Report
SCAP 1STARS Targets and Accomplishments
Summary Report
Target/Negotiation Report
Budget Control Report
Financial Report for Enforcement
EventlActivity Summary Report for NPL Sites
SOL Management Report
Enforcement Data Audit Report
Administrative/Unilateral Orders Issued
Cost Recovery Category Report (CRCR)
Case Budget Modeling Audit Report
Underlying Data and Error Types Report
Enforcement Financial Audit Report
used to compare the funding requests contained in CERCLIS and CERHELP
against the Regional budgets. Regions are prompted for "APR," "ALT," "CON"
and "TOTAL."
The SCAP/STARS Targets and Accomplishments Summary Report (SCAP-14)
displays current year aggregate quarterly target and accomplishment totals and site
back-up by SCAP activity.
The Target/Negotiation Report (SCAP-16) is similar to the SCAP/STARS Tar-
gets and Accomplishments Summary Report (SCAP-14) and is used for target
negotiations for the upcoming FY. The activity/event planning flags and other
coding requirements needed to identify a given event/activity as a planned start or
completion is included in the report. A similar report, SCAP/STARS Measures
Report (SCAP-13) is used for negotiation of SCAP measures and for budget and
FTEs allocation.
The Budget Control Report (SCAP-21) and Financial Report for Enforcement
(SCAP-2IE) are similar to the Financial Report and the Financial Summary for
Enforcement (SCAP-4 and SCAP 4E). They provide quarterly and annual Re-
gional budget ceilings and show the difference between the ceilings and the total
annual Regional budget.
The Event/Activity Summary Report for NPL Sites (SCAP-27) provides planned
obligations, first and subsequent start and completion codes, and budget source for
events and activities at sites on the NPL. It is similar to the SCAP-2 except for the
addition of these codes and the deletion of the SCAP note field.
Ill-11
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
The SQL Management Report (ENFR-4) identifies planned and actual completion
dates and obligations for response activities.
The Administrative/Unilateral Orders Issued (ENFR-25) contains a list of AOs
and UAOs that have been issued.
The Cost Recovery Category Report (CRCR) (ENFR-46) is used to negotiate cost
recovery targets and track cost recovery actions at sites. It divides sites into a
number of categories based on SOL considerations and planned or actual cost
recovery enforcement activity.
The Case Budget Modeling Audit Report (ENFR-49) is used to identify Case
Budget data quality problems.
The Enforcement Data Audit Report (ENFR-8) is used to monitor enforcement
data quality. The report lists enforcement activities with and without data quality
issues and response actions.
The Underlying Data and Error Types Report (AUDIT-26) is an edit report used
to check data quality.
A comprehensive Enforcement Financial Audit Report (AUDIT 40) lists those
records with data quality problems and identifies the specific errors.
SCAP ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORTING
Accomplishments data are entered into WasteLAN by the IMC, RPM, and OSC or are
recorded on Site Information Forms (SIF), Integrated SIFs (ISIFs), CERHELP Non-Site Incident
Activity Maintenance Forms, or other Regional data entry forms, and entered into CERCLIS by
the IMC or designee. Data on accomplishments should be entered into CERCLIS within five
working days of the event or activity. Only accomplishments correctly reported in CERCLIS
will be recognized by HQ. If a Region feels that it has correctly recorded an accomplish-
ment that is not showing in the SCAP/STARS Targets and Accomplishments Summary
Report (SCAP-14), please contact the appropriate HQ office.
Prior to the fifth day of each month, Regions should generate SCAP reports for internal
review. Regions should perform data quality checks and make adjustments to CERCLIS if the
data bases do not reflect actual accomplishments.
On the fifth working day of each month, HQ will pull data from CERCLIS on a selected
number of key indicators of progress in the Superfund program (i.e., removals, RI/FS starts,
RODs, RDs, RA starts, RD/RA CDs, cost recovery referrals). These numbers will be the official
numbers used in any reports of progress given to the Administrator, the Assistant Administrator
for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (AA SWER), the AA for OE, Congress
and the news media.
On the fifth working day of each quarter, HQ pulls SCAP reports from CERCLIS. These
reports are reviewed by HQ to evaluate Regional progress toward SCAP targets and are submit-
ted to OPP for reporting STARS accomplishments. It is important to note that in addition to
reporting accomplishments in CERCLIS, Regions must verify the accuracy of the STARS data
entered by HQ into the OPP STARS system. If a Region identifies a discrepancy in the accom-
III-12
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
plishments reported by HQ, they should note it in the STARS system and contact the relevant
HQ program office. Discrepancies must be resolved, generally by the 15th working day of a
quarter.
End of the year accomplishments will be pulled on the fifth working day of October.
However, Regions have until the third week of October to reconcile discrepancies. Final end of
year accomplishments will be reported to OPP in November. This allows the Regions ample
opportunity to review end-of-year financial data and record accomplishments in CERCLIS.
CERCLIS Reports for Accomplishment Reporting
Exhibit ni-4 presents CERCLIS reports HQ uses to evaluate Regional accomplishments.
All are used for reporting and crediting SCAP/STARS targets and accomplishments. Following
is a discussion of these reports:
The SCAP/STARS Measures Report (SCAP-13), SCAP/STARS Targets and
Accomplishments Summary Report (SCAP-14) and Event/Activity Summary
Report for NPL Sites (SCAP-27) reports are used by the site assessment, removal,
remedial and enforcement programs to provide planned and actual information for
events and activities.
Financial information and the status of obligations are provided by the Financial
Report (SCAP- 4), Financial Summary for Enforcement (SCAP-4E), Budget
Control Report (SCAP-21) and the Financial Report for Enforcement (SCAP-
21E).
Exhibit III-4
PROGRAM EVALUATION CERCLIS REPORTS
SCAP-4: SCAP Financial Report
SCAP 4E: Financial Summary for Enforcement
SCAP-13: SCAP I STARS Measures Report
SCAP-14: SCAP I STARS Targets and Accomplishments
Summary Report
SCAP-21: Budget Control Report
SCAP -21E: Financial Report for Enforcement
SCAP-27: EventlActivity Summary Report for NPL Sites
SCAP/STARS ADJUSTMENTS AND AMENDMENTS
After targets have been finalized and funding levels developed, the SCAP process pro-
vides the flexibility to modify plans during the year. Modifications to planned targets are termed
either adjustments or amendments. Amendments require HQ concurrence and approval.
Adjustments do not require HQ approval, but may require HQ notification. Amendments and
adjustments should be reflected in CERCLIS by updating the site specific data base and the
CERHELP Targets and Accomplishments data file on an ongoing basis. Exhibit III-5 lists the
major Superfund amendments and adjustments. Exhibit III-6 describes the procedures that must
be followed when processing amendments.
IH-13
-------
Exhibit m-5
AMENDMENTS AND ADJUSTMENTS
SITUATION
INCREASE ANNUAL BUDGET
DECREASE ANNUAL BUDGET
INCREASE TOTAL (OWPE AND OERR) AOA
AFTER ISSUANCE WITHIN ANNUAL BUDGET
DECREASE TOTAL (OWPE AND OERR) AOA
AFTER ISSUANCE
INCREASE/DECREASE RA FUNDING BEFORE
AOA ISSUED
DECREASE RA FUNDING AFTER AOA ISSUED
INCREASE RA FUNDING AFTER AOA ISSUED
SHIFT FUNDS WITHIN ALLOWANCE AFTER
AOA ISSUED
SHIFT FUNDS BETWEEN ALLOWANCES AFTER
AOA ISSUED
CHANGE ANNUAL SCAP TARGET
CHANGE STARS QUARTERLY OR ANNUAL
TARGETS
TARGET SITE SUBSTITUTIONS
E^^^^^^g^^^^^^^^Mm^^^^^
AMENDMENT
OR
ADJUSTMENT
AMENDMENT
ADJUSTMENT
AMENDMENT
ADJUSTMENT
ADJUSTMENT
ADJUSTMENT
AMENDMENT
ADJUSTMENT
ADJUSTMENT
AMENDMENT
AMENDMENT
ADJUSTMENT
CHANGE
REQUEST
REQUIRED
YES, IF
APPROVED
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
PROCEDURES 11
SEE EXHIBIT JJI-6 OR CHAPTER VI, 1
EXHIBIT VI-4 " 1
REVISE CERCLIS; NOTIFY HQ PROGRAM |
DEVELOPMENT AND BUDGET STAFF 1
(PDBS), OERR OR CONTRACTS AND |
PLANNING BRANCH (CPB), OWPE 1
SEE EXHIBIT UI-6 OR CHAPTER VI. |
EXHIBIT VI-4 I
SEE CHAPTER VI, EXHIBIT VI-4 1
REVISE CERCLIS 1
SEE CHAPTER VI, EXHIBIT VI-4 |
SEE EXHIBIT BI-6, CHAPTER VI OR |
EXHIBIT VI-4 1
REVISE CERCLIS 1
SEE CHAPTER VI, EXHIBIT VI-4 |
SEE EXHIBIT El-6
SEE EXHIBIT JH-6
REVISE CERCLIS
_,, !
mms^miMymm^mm^^^^^^M^mM^mm
o
V)
8
p.
(0
I
fl
-------
Exhibit IH-6
SCAP AMENDMENT PROCESS
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
f Quarterly or "N
Annual STARS
V Targets J
^
Annual SCAP
Target
)( Increase j
I Annual Budget J
^
T
/^Increase Total
AOA or Increase
RA Funding After|
V AOA Issued
f
Memorandum from
Regional
Administrator to
AASWER
explaining reason
for the change.
E-mail from
Regional Branch
Chief to HQ
Director, PDBS,
OERR or Chief,
CPB, OWPE
explaining reason
for change.
i
E-mail from
Regional Branch
Chief to Director,
PDBS, OERR, or
Chief, CPB, OWPE.
Copy sent to the
Regional
finance
office and HQ
PDBS or CPB staff.
1 i
E-mail from IMC
to HQ PDBS or
CPB staff. Copy
sent to AASWER
and Regional
finance nffira*.
' i
F
c
CERCLIS
updated.
CERCLIS
updated.
CERCLIS is
updated.
AA SWER reviews
request and, if
approved, sends
E-mail to Regional
program and finance
offices and HQ
Office of the
Comptroller (OC).
AASWER
approves SCAP
amendment/change
request and sends
E-mail to Regional
program and
finance offices and
HQOC.
I
Regional finance | (
office updates IFMSJ U)
I
Regional finance
office updates IFMSV
HQ OC approves
revised AOA in
IFMS.
:HQ OC approves
revised AOA in
IFMS.
Ill-15
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
SCAP amendments should contain the following information:
Site name and Site/Spill Identification number (S/S ID);
Event/activity affected;
Justification/purpose;
Funding amount (if the amendment requests an increase in the annual budget or is
a change request);
Allowance that is being increased and/or allowance that is being decreased, if the
amendment is a change request; and
Program element (TGB-enforcement, TFA-response, or TYP-Federal Facility), if
the amendment is also a change request.
Amendments or adjustments that modify the Region's AOA require a change request. In
these situations, the change request becomes the SCAP amendment. Chapter VI outlines the
change request procedures.
The Office of Program Management (OPM) coordinates requests from the program
offices in OERR. OPM and the CERCLA Enforcement Division (CED) of OWPE provide input
on SCAP amendment approval decisions.
Changes to STARS commitments should not be made simply because targets will not be
met. However, in some cases, amendments to targets may be necessary and may be changed
under the following conditions:
Major, unforeseen contingencies arise that alter established priorities (i.e., Con-
gressional action, natural disasters);
Major contingencies arise to alter established Regional commitments (i.e., State
legislative action); or
Measure or definition in system is creating an unanticipated negative impact.
OSWER requires that all STARS amendments be submitted to HQ by April 15 in order
to meet the April 30 deadline for changing targets imposed by OPP. STARS amendments must
be approved by AA SWER. The OPM and program offices in OERR and CED in OWPE pro-
vide input on STARS amendment approval decisions.
All amendments should be recorded in the CERCLIS site specific data base as an "ap-
proved" action after the Region issues the change request or memorandum to OSWER. Regions
should not initiate any obligation against change requests until the HQ Office of the Comptroller
(OC) and A A SWER approve the revised AOA in IFMS. The site back-up in the CERHELP
Targets and Accomplishments and BC/AOA data files will be revised by HQ if the amendment
is approved. If the amendment is not approved, HQ will notify the Region and the "approved"
record in CERCLIS will have to be revised.
Ill-16
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
MAINTAINING THE TARGETS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS FILE
HQ is responsible for entering the preliminary and final negotiated SCAP/STARS targets
and site back-up in the Targets and Accomplishments file in CERHELP. During the FY, HQ
will also be responsible for changing the targets and site back-up if amendments are approved.
Regions are responsible for updating the Targets and Accomplishments file to reflect SCAP/
STARS adjustments. Appendix D contains tables which show which targets and measures
require site specific backup in CERHELP.
Following are guidelines for Regional maintenance of the Targets and Accomplishments
file. Additional detailed instructions on CERHELP can be found in the CERCLIS Users Refer-
ence Manual.
Regions will be allowed to add to or delete sites from the Targets and Accom-
plishments file only in the case of site substitutions. However, the site specific
CERCLIS records should be updated at the time a SCAP or STARS amendment is
requested.
The number of approved sites named in the Targets and Accomplishments file
must be at least equal to the numerical target. If a Region has a target of eight
RDs, for example, eight approved sites must be named in the Targets and Accom-
plishments site back-up.
If 'To Be Determined" (TBD) sites are used instead of real sites in the Targets and
Accomplishments file, there must be enough candidate sites in CERCLIS that can
be used to replace the TBD sites as soon as possible.
A site and its associated events/activities that are planned site specifically must be
in CERCLIS before they can be in the CERHELP Targets and Accomplishments
file. FTEs are distributed using site data in CERHELP. Regions may lose FTEs if
appropriate site backup is not in CERHELP.
It is essential that the list of sites that support the targets be kept up-to-date and
current. Regional SCAP adjustments must be reflected in CERHELP. This
includes site substitutions and changes in schedules that do not affect STARS or
SCAP targets.
Following are the procedures for making changes to the CERHELP target site data:
Each time a change to site data in CERCLIS results in a SCAP adjustment, run the
CERHELP Target Maintenance Report (Report #6 on the CERCLIS Site Reports
Menu).
Locate the Target Activity Code page on the report (report is sequenced alphabeti-
cally by Target Activity Code).
Scan target site data to locate site no longer being targeted and delete the EPA
Identification Number (EPA ID), OU and Event or Enforcement Activity Code.
Record corresponding codes for the replacement site.
1-17
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
Access Non-Site/Incident Screen #27 CERHELP Target/Accomplishment Data
Maintenance Screen:
Enter Action Code C=Change and Record Type S=Site;
To access record to be changed, enter required field data (Region, FY,
activity type, lead, quarter and sequence number codes) directly from
report;
Enter replacement site data (EPA ID, OU and Event or Enforcement
Activity Codes); and
Run Target Maintenance Report to verify changes. File report for use in
making subsequent changes.
The HQ SCAP Coordinator and interested program offices will run National
Target Maintenance Reports as needed to review changes.
Ill-18
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER TV
TARGETS AND MEASURES
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER IV - TARGETS AND MEASURES
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Following are the actions HQ has taken in STARS targeting and reporting.
In order to acquire a more in-depth understanding of the SCAP/STARS
targeting and reporting requirements, the Chapter itself should be read.
The new FY 92 STARS measures provide information on progress and
support environmentally significant program priorities.
FY 92 new STARS targets and measures:
- NPL Sites Completed Through Final RA (target);
- Preliminary Assessment (PA) Completions Under
Environmental Priorities Initiative (EPI) (measure);
- RI/FS Projects Nominated for the Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program (measure);
- Section 104(e) Referrals/Orders (measure);
- Trend in Record of Decision (ROD) Signature to RD Start
Duration (measure);
- Trend in ROD Signature to RA Start Duration (measure); and
- Trend in ROD Signature to RD/RA Negotiation Completion
Duration (measure).
FY 91 STARS measures eliminated in FY 92:
- RD/RA Negotiations Completed (target);
- Percent NPL Sites Addressed (measure); and
- Percent Screening Site Inspections (SSI) Candidates
Requiring Further Action (measure).
Regions will receive credit for accomplishments for all remedial and
many enforcement targets and measures only at NPL sites.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER IV - TARHF.TS AND MEASURES
ROLE OF SCAP
SCAP and STARS targets are the key device by which program goals are translated into
quantifiable program achievements. They identify performance expectations for the Regions and
should not be seen as only a method for allocating resources. Specific targets are negotiated by
HQ and the Regions. The Regions are expected to concentrate their resources on achieving these
targets.
STARS is used by the Administrator to set and monitor the progress each program is
making toward meeting its environmental goals. STARS targets and measures are reported
quarterly by HQ and the Regions to the OPP through the OPP STARS computer system. SCAP
is used by the AA SWER and senior Superfund managers to monitor the progress each Region is
making toward achieving its Superfund goals. SCAP targets and measures are reported monthly
by the Regions through CERCLIS. As discussed in Chapter I, the CEPP does not use CERCLIS
for reporting SCAP accomplishments. The reports used by the CEPP in recording quarterly
accomplishments can be found in Volume II, Appendix C.
National and Regional STARS goals are established and tracked through SCAP. STARS
targets are a subset of those contained in SCAP.
SCAP/STARS TARGETS AND MEASURES
A SCAP or STARS target (either quarterly or annual) is a pre-determined numerical goal
that is established prior to the FY to ensure the designated activities will take place. STARS
targets and measures track the priorities set forth in the Operating Guidance. All STARS targets
are SCAP targets. An example of a SCAP and STARS targeted activity is Remedies Selected at
NPL Sites. Annual budgets are allocated based on STARS and SCAP targets. In addition,
Regions are evaluated on a quarterly basis according to their completion of activities with estab-
lished targets.
A SCAP or STARS measure, on the other hand, is used to track an activity that is impor-
tant in monitoring overall program progress. The three types of measures are SCAP planning
estimates, STARS reporting, and SCAP reporting measures. Planning estimates result in nu-
merical goals being established prior to the FY, which are used in setting annual budgets. Re-
gions report progress against the planning estimates. SCAP/STARS reporting measures have no
associated quantitative goals; only actual accomplishments are tracked (e.g., media addressed).
FY92:
Following are the changes to the SCAP/STARS targets and measures from FY 91 to
NPL Sites Completed Through Final RA is a new STARS/SCAP target. It was a
SCAP target only in FY 91;
RD/RA Injunctive Referrals and RD/RA Settlements are a combined STARS
target. These enforcement activities were targeted separately in FY 91; however,
Regions reported and were evaluated against the combined target;
Section 107 and 106/107 Injunctive Referrals and Settlements are a combined
STARS target. Like RD/RA referrals and settlements, Section 107 and 106/107
IV-1
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
referrals and settlements had separate targets in FY 91, but Regions were evalu-
ated on their success in meeting the combined target;
PA Completions Under EPI is a new STARS measure and replaces the SCAP
measure for PA completions;
RI/FS Projects Nominated for the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program is a new STARS measure. It was a SCAP measure in FY 91;
Section 104(e) Referrals/Orders is a new STARS measure;
UAOs Issued for RD/RA is a STARS measure instead of a STARS target;
Trend in ROD Signature to RD Start Duration, Trend in ROD Signature to RA
Start Duration, and Trend in ROD Signature to RD/RA Negotiation Completion
Duration are new STARS measures. The purpose of these measures is to evaluate
Regional improvement in managing the timeframe between ROD and RA start.
While the ultimate goal is the timeframe in the Integrated Timeline (see Chapter
I), progress will be evaluated based on prior year and prior quarter performance
during the FY;
AOs Issued for Removals and RI/FS replaced AOs Issued for RI/FS, RD, Cost
Recovery, and Removal as a STARS measure;
Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) for Cost Recovery is a new SCAP
measure;
Trend in RI/FS Duration is a new SCAP measure;
Emergency Response Activity is a new SCAP measure;
The FY 91 STARS measure, Cost Recovery Amounts Referred and Settled, is
now called Dollars Achieved Toward the Cost Recovery MBO Goal;
The FY 91 STARS measure, Type of Media Addressed, is now called Progress
Through Environmental Indicators;
RD/RA Negotiation Completions is not a STARS target. It is a SCAP target only;
Percent NPL Sites Addressed is no longer a STARS measure;
Percent Screening Site Inspection (SSI) Candidates Requiring Further Action is no
longer a STARS measure;
LSI Starts is no longer a SCAP measure;
NPL Sites Where All Remedial/Removal Activity Completed is no longer a SCAP
measure; and
Section 106/107 Referrals With or Without Settlement is no longer a SCAP
measure separate from the STARS target.
IV-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3 OIF
Exhibits IV-1 and IV-2 contain the SCAP/STARS Targets and Measures. Definitions
and planning requirements for the Site Assessment, Remedial, Removal, Enforcement, and Oil
Spill activities are in Volume n, Appendix D. SCAP/STARS Targets and Measures for the
CEPP are found in Exhibit IV-3. CEPP definitions and requirements can be found in
Appendix C.
NPL sites are the top priority for all remedial and many enforcement targets and mea-
sures. Regions will receive credit for accomplishments at non-NPL sites only for non-NPL
Removal Starts, and non-NPL PRP searches. The following targets and measures will credit
accomplishments at both NPL and non-NPL sites:
Progress Through Environmental Indicators;
Removal Completions;
Emergency Response Activity;
Section 107 Referrals/Settlements (<$200,000);
Administrative Cost Recovery Settlements;
Section 107 Referrals/Settlements (>$200,000);
107 Case Resolution;
Cost Recovery Decision Document;
Administrative Record Compilation;
Dollars Achieved Toward Cost Recovery MBO Goal;
AOs Issued for Removal; and
All site assessment, oil spill, and CEPP targets and measures.
All other targets and measures accomplishments are credited at NPL sites only.
IV-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit IV-1
SCAP/STARS TARGETS
ACTIVITIES
STARS
TARGET
SCAP
TARGET
QUARTERLY
TARGET
ANNUAL
TARGET
Site Assessment
SI Completions (S/F-1)
Remedial
RI/FS
- First Rl/FS Starts
- Subsequent RI/FS Starts
- RI/FS To Public
Remedies Selected At NPL Sites (ROD)
(S/C-10)
- First Remedy Selected (ROD)
- Subsequent Remedy Selected (ROD)
RD Starts
- First RD Start
- Subsequent RD Starts
RD Completion (S/C-3)
- First RD Completions
- Subsequent RD Completions
RA Start
- First RA Start (Fund)
- Subsequent RA Start (Fund)
- First RA Start (PRP)
- Subsequent RA Start (PRP)
RA Contract Award (S/C-4)
- First RA Contract Award
- Subsequent RA Contract Award
RA Completions (S/C-5)
- First RA Completion
- Subsequent RA Completion
NPL Sites Completed by Final RA (S/C-6)
Removal
NPL Removal Start
Non-NPL Removal Start
NPL Site Completion thru Removal
X*
X**
X**
X**
X**
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
* The STARS target combines first and subsequent, if appropriate, as a single target.
Includes RODs with the following leads: Federal (F) and Federal Enforcement (FE)
** The STARS target combines first and subsequent, if appropriate, as a single target.
Includes projects with the following leads: Federal (F), State (S), PRP actions under
State order/decree (PS), In-house RDs (EP), Responsible Party under Federal
order/decree (RP), and Mixed funding (MR).
IV-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit IV-1 (continued)
SCAP/STARS TARGETS
ACTIVITIES
STARS
TARGET
SCAP QUARTERLY
TARGET
TARGET
ANNUAL
TARGET
Remedial/Removal
NPL Sites Addressed Through Removal
Action or RI/FS Start (S/C-7)
Enforcement
RD/RA Negotiation Starts
RD/RA Negotiation Completions
Section 107 Referrals/Settlements (<$200,000)
Administrative Cost Recovery Settlements
RD/RA Settlements and Injunctive Referrals
(S/E-laandlb)
- Settlements
- Injunctive Referrals
Section 107 or 106/107 Referral /Settlements
(>$200,000) (S/E-4)
Federal Facilities
Remedies Selected at NPL Sites (ROD)
Signed IAG at Federal Facilities
X***
*** Includes projects with the following leads: Federal (F), State (S), PRP actions under State
order/decree (PS), In-house (EP), Responsible Party under Federal order/decree (RP), and Mixed
funding (MR),
IV-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit IV-2
SCAP/STARS MEASURES
ACTIVITIES
STARS
REPORTING
SCAP
PLAN/REPORT
QTRLY
ANNUAL
Progress Through Environmental
Indicators
Site Assessment
PA Completions under EPI (S/F-2)
EPA-PA/SI Completions
State-PA/SI Completions
Remedial
Trend in RI/FS Duration
Treatability Studies
RI/FS Nominated for the SITE
Program (S/C-8)
RA On-Site Construction
NPL Deletion Initiated
Trend in ROD to RD Start Duration
(S/C-9a)
Trend in ROD to RA Start Duration
(S/C-9b)
Removal
Removal Investigations
Completed at NPL Sites
Removal Completions
Emergency Response Activity
Oil Spill Activities
Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure (SPCC)
Inspections/Reviews
Oil Pollution Act (OPA) Funded Oil
Spills Cleaned Up by EPA
On-Scene Monitoring of Oil Spill
Responses
X
IV-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit TV-2 (continued^
SCAP/STARS MEASURES
ACTIVITIES
Enforcement
NPL PRP Search Start
Non-NPL PRP Search Start
NPL PRP Search Completions
Non-NPL PRP Search Completions
Issuance of General Notice Letters (GNL)
Issuance of Special Notice Letters (SNL)
AOs Issued for Removals and RVFS (S/E-2b)
RI/FS Negotiations Start
RI/FS Negotiations Complete
UAOs Issued for RD/RA (S/E-lc)
Trend in ROD to RD/RA Negotiation
Complete Duration (S/E-3)
Section 106, 106/107, 107 Case Resolution
Dollars Achieved Toward Cost Recovery MBO
(S/E-5)
104(e) Letters Issued
104(e) Referrals/Orders (S/E-2a)
Demand Letters Issued
Cost Recovery Decision Document
Administrative Record Compilation
Completed (Removal and Remedial)
State CD for RD/RA Issued
State Order for RI/FS Issued
Deminimis Settlements Achieved
Mixed Funding Settlements Achieved
Use of ADR for Cost Recovery (S/E-6a)
STARS
REPORTING
X
X
X
X
X
SCAP
PLAN/REPORT
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QTRLY
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ANNUAL
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IV-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit IV-3
CEPP SCAP/STARS MEASURES
ACTIVITIES
STARS/
SCAP
TARGET
STARS
REPORTING
SCAP
REPORTING
QTRLY
ANNUAL
CEPP
Reduction in number and/or
severity of accidental releases
Technical assistance and
training activities conducted,
sponsored, developed,
assisted in developing,
participated in or presented
by EPA (CEP-1)
State, Tribal or local exercises
or after incident evaluations
EPA conducted, sponsored,
assisted in developing or
participated in (CEP-2)
ARE? questionaires sent to and
returned by facilities having
releases (CEP-3)
Chemical safety audits
conducted (CEP-4)
Status of Title III
implementation in each State
Outreach activities EPA
conducted, sponsored,
assisted in developing or
participated in
Participation in RRT activities
EPA facility compliance
investigations of possible
violations of CERCLA
Section 103 and EPCRA
Sections 302, 303, 304, 311,
and 312
Administrative Complaints
referred to ORC
* SCAP target only
IV-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit IV-3 (continued)
CEPP SCAP/STARS MEASURES
ACTIVITIES
STARS/
SCAP
TARGET
STARS
REPORTING
SCAP
REPORTING
QTRLY
ANNUAL
CEPP (continued)
AOs issued for violations of
EPCRA Section 302 and
303
CATASTROPHIC
DISASTER
PREPAREDNESS
Development, completion
and/or maintenance of
the Hazardous Materials
Supplement (ESF #10) to
the multi-agency "Federal
Response Plan"
Planning support provided to
other Regions
Planning activity
developments in other ESFs
for which EPA provides
support
Participation and
dissemination of
information to other
Regions and HQ on
catastrophic disaster
preparedness activities
NATIONAL SECURITY
EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS (NSEP)
Full participation in EPA,
FEMA or other agency
planning sessions,
workshops, training, or
exercises; and assisting in
the development of support
materials for the NSEP
* SCAP target only
X*
X*
X
X*
IV-9
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER V
PROGRAM PLANNING AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER V - PROGRAM PLANNING AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Following are the actions Regional managers must take to comply with
the requirements described in this Chapter. In order to acquire a more
in-depth understanding of these requirements, the Chapter itself should
be read.
ti
Site-Assessment
- In order to receive credit for PA and Site Inspection (SI)
completions, the completion date and a decision on further
activities must be entered into CERCLIS.
Response and Enforcement
- CERCLIS must identify the lead for all response events and
enforcement activities.
- Enter planning data on removal actions into CERCLIS as
soon as a site is identified or the quarter before a removal
will begin.
If a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) takes over an RI/FS
after Fund dollars have been obligated, the Region should
retain the funds needed for oversight during the current FY
and deobligate the remainder.
If a PRP takes over an RD/RA after Fund dollars have been
obligated, the Region should retain the funds needed for
oversight of the entire project, and deobligate the remainder.
- The probability of PRPs assuming responsibility for
response activities must be entered into CERCLIS.
- Prepare site management plans shortly after a site is
proposed for the NPL.
- For outyear budget purposes, provide schedules for all core
remedial events and enforcement activities when identifying
sites for RI/FS starts.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
CHAPTER V - PROGRAM PLANNING AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES (continued)
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Response and Enforcement (continued')
- Develop site maps that show the relationship of events and
activities at the sites and indicate whether the event/activity
is completed, planned or ongoing. If an event or activity
does not occur as planned, then those events/activities must
be modified and the Link record deleted and updated as
appropriate.
Standard durations should only be used if more accurate
timeframes for response events and enforcement activities
are not available. When better planning data and schedules
are developed, CERCLIS must be revised.
- Send copies of RODs and ROD amendments to the
Hazardous Site Control Division (HSCD) and the
CERCLA Enforcement Division (CED).
- A response mega-site management plan must be submitted
to HSCD by January 31,1992 for all sites where the total
site RI/FS work exceeds or is expected to exceed $3
million.
Request funds for treatability studies separate from the
RI/FS. Record actual start and completion dates for
treatability studies in CERCLIS.
- The nomination and acceptance of a project to the SITE
program are to be entered into CERCLIS.
- Negotiate reimbursement of Technical Assistance Grants
(TAG) at Federal Facilities during Interagency Agreement
(IAG) negotiations.
- Assess the capacity and the capabilities of the various
entities available to perform response and oversight work
prior to assignment of Superfund work.
- An in-house RI/FS should be planned in each Region
where sites/projects are available.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER V - PROGRAM PLANNING AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES (continued)
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Response and Enforcement (continued)
- Mixed funding settlements must be planned. Funds are part
of the Region's response budget.
- Enforcement mega-sites management plans must be submitted
to CED by June 30.
- Send notice letters to PRPs, conduct negotiations and issue
AOs at every removal, time permitting.
- Issue notice letters for RI/FS at least 120 days prior to the
planned RI/FS start.
- Funds expended for oversight of PRP activities must be
tracked and billed to the PRPs. Collection of oversight funds
should be tracked and recorded in CERCLIS.
- Special notice letter for RD/RA should be issued about the
time of ROD signature.
Regions should consult with CED when the Region plans to
fund an RD and not issue a UAO and there are liable and
viable PRPs.
- Regions should jointly plan PRP negotiations with ORC.
- Send copies of CDs and 10 point referral documents to the
Compliance Branch in CED and OE-Superfund.
State Enforcement
Report State orders or CDs for RI/FS and/or RD/RA in
CERCLIS.
Federal Facilities
- Schedules for ongoing or planned Federal Facility IAG
negotiations should be forwarded to HQ two weeks prior to
each quarter.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER V - PROGRAM PLANNING AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES
INTEGRATED PLANNING
Planning in the Superfund program is accomplished through the budget, operating guid-
ance, SCAP and performance evaluation process. Successful planning requires the reflection of
program priorities in the budget and operating guidance, accurate costing of these priorities in
the budget, workload model and SCAP, and translation of the priorities and resource require-
ments into specific output commitments in SCAP and STARS. Candid evaluation of perfor-
mance against these commitments is essential to the assessment of the viability of program
priorities, resource requirements and overall effectiveness.
Integrated planning is the responsibility of HQ, Regional program offices, the States,
ORC and DOJ. In order to provide adequate resources for priority actions at Superfund sites,
HQ allocates resources within and between response and enforcement. Regions are responsible
for providing data on the level of resources needed to accomplish those priority activities and
negotiate commitments consistent with realistic site planning. Regions should not accept targets
that require completion of activities that cannot be funded or staffed within the resources pro-
vided.
Flexibility to adjust resources in response to changing program conditions decreases as
the operating year approaches, especially since the total number of FTEs remain constant from
FY 90 to FY 92. The budget is most flexible while being developed, 12 to 18 months prior to the
FY, and becomes less flexible once the operating year starts. Exhibit V-1 summarizes levels of
flexibility as the operating year is entered. Major phases in the decision making continuum
include:
Formulation of the outyear budget 12 to 18 months prior to the FY. Development
of the budget includes identification of major program issues, analysis of program
costs, and alignment of resources among competing priorities. These activities
receive resource allocations that are established by the Administrator and AA
SWER. These allocations balance the needs of the Superfund program with the
needs of other Agency programs.
_ Development of the initial operating plan occurs six months prior to the FY and is
finalized before the start of the FY. The operating plan and associated SCAP/
STARS output commitments are the vehicle by which OSWER translates national
budget commitments into Region specific targets. OSWER provides resources to
support targets through the AOA and workload process. Regions are expected to
work within the annual Regional budgets established at the start of the year until
the mid-year SCAP update. Regions have substantial flexibility within the gen-
eral budget and AOA structure to shift funds as needed to meet priority activities.
Once the initial operating plan is established at the start of the year, generally
additional resources can be shifted to a Region only at the expense of resources
for other Regions. However, HQ may shift funds among the Regions depending
on the level of use and need.
The mid-year SCAP update is used to realign resources in the current FY and
establish preliminary resource and target levels for the upcoming FY. Current
year resource adjustments focus on changes needed due to cost and project sched-
V-l
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit V-l
FLEXIBILITY SCALE FOR BUDGETING/PLANNING
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
OPERATING YEAR.BUDGET
(FY92)
OPERATING YEAR BUDGET
(FY 93)
OPERATING YEAR BUDGET
(FY94)
1. Operating Plan Establishes
Funding Ceiling (91/4)
1. Development of Operating
Plan Begins 6 Months Prior
to FY (Begins 92/2)
1. Formulation Begins 12-18
Months Prior to FY;
Largely Dependent on Reg.
Planning Data in CERCLIS
(Begins 92/2)
2. Quarter Specific Targets are
Set-
2. Initial SCAP/STARS Targets
Set in March; Finalized in
August
2. No Targets Set but Sche-
dules and Estimated RA
Cost Help to Drive Budget
Request
- STARS targets can be
changed only through
formal Regional Admin-
istrator request
- Sites can be substituted
to meet commitments
3. Pricing Factors are Set -
Cannot Change Pricing on
Events/Activities
3. Pricing Factors can be
changed through Regional/
HO Consensus
3. Pricing Factors are Subject
to Review
4. Additional Funds can
only be Obtained through
Special Requests
4. The Budget is Set but There
is More Leeway to Make Ad
justments Based on Proven
Need
4. Budget is Constrained
Based on Resource Cap
Imposed by AA and Admin-
istrator Unless Exception
can be Justified
5. Regions have Flexibility
within General Budget and
AOA Structure to
Shift Funds to Meet Priority
Activities
5. Maximum Flexibility to Desi
Budget to Optimize
Cross-Program Priorities
6. Mid-Year SCAP Update Used
to Realign Resources
6. Mid-Year SCAP Update Sets
Preliminary Resource Levels
7. Flexibility on Dollars much
Greater than FTEs through
Reg. Reprogramming
7. Flexibility on Dollars and FTE
may be Constrained by
President's Budget and Freeze
V-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
ule modifications. Changes may result in shifts within program areas and
among Regions and revised annual funding levels. Estimates developed for the
upcoming FY represent the first formal opportunity for changing resources among
program areas at a national level. The revised resource estimates also serve as a
"baseline" for examining program needs in the budget year.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
This section describes the information flow and HQ/Regional responsibilities associated
with integrated planning.
HQ responsibilities in the integrated planning process include:
Establishing a combined Fund and Enforcement hierarchy of program priorities in
consultation with the Regions to be used in negotiations and adjustments of
targets;
Reviewing integrated operating plans and site commitments proposed by the
Regions prior to negotiations;
Coordinating OSWER, OE and OFFE activities throughout the planning process;
Working with Regional managers to determine how resources should be adjusted
to meet program priorities;
Negotiating and assessing the status of response and enforcement mega-sites;
Communicating in a timely manner with the Regions on changes/additions to
SCAP schedules;
Shifting Regional resources if needed to support priority activities;
Providing the funding and FTE at levels consistent with established pricing factors
for negotiated targets and measures;
Increasing participation of Regional managers in the formulation of preliminary
resource requests; and
Developing policy and guidance in response to Congressional or Agency initia-
tives.
Effective operation of integrated priority setting depends heavily on Regional willingness
to do the following:
Managing projects to integrate enforcement and Fund milestones and to ensure
schedules and timeliness are met;
Negotiating and assessing the status of response and enforcement mega-sites;
Involving the State and ORC in the planning process;
V-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Providing accurate, complete and timely project planning data in CERCLIS and
SCAP;
Following established planning procedures and requirements so that HQ has a
common basis to evaluate Regional proposals;
Assessing outlays versus budget authorizations for Federal agencies cleanup as
part of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) A-106 process;
Identifying multimedia planning and cleanup opportunities; and
Recognizing that missed commitments severely impact resource availability (For
example, FTE and dollars budgeted for negotiations and/or RD in a FY cannot be
used if the ROD slips past the FY. The FTE cannot be replaced and the funds do
not automatically roll over into the next FY.)
SITE ASSESSMENT PLANNING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Preliminary Assessments/Site Inspections
Regions can only be given credit for PA and SI completions if the completion date and a
decision on further activities at the site are entered into the appropriate CERCLIS site record.
There are four decisions that must be made at the completion of the PA:
Higher priority for an SI;
Lower priority for an SI;
No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP); and
Deferred to RCRA or the National Response Center (NRC).
There are four decisions that must be made at the completion of the SI:
Higher priority for scoring;
Lower priority for scoring;
NFRAP; and
Deferred to RCRA or the NRC.
Expanded Site Inspection (ESP
Expanded Site Inspections (ESI) are reserved for sites that are viable NPL candidates.
Under the revised HRS, an ESI may be many types of activities. For example, a site that has a
soil exposure problem may have an ESI that consists solely of community relations activities and
neighborhood soil sampling; another may involve fish tissue sampling; another ground water and
air monitoring. The level of effort and cost for this activity is highly variable.
V-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
The decisions that must be made after an ESI are:
Recommended for HRS scoring; and
NFRAP.
REMOVAL PLANNING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The nature of removal activities is to respond to emergency, time critical and non-time
critical situations at NPL and non-NPL sites. Each Region should recognize that it probably
does not have sufficient funds to address all actual or threatened releases that meet the removal
criteria in the NCP. Responsible management means having to make some tough decisions such
as deferring funding time critical actions in order to maintain a sufficient contingency for classic
emergencies. Additionally, Regions have to depend more upon State and local authorities to
address the real, but smaller threats that Regions now occasionally handle.
The increased use of enforcement authorities becomes essential as the funds for removal
actions remain the same and responses get more expensive. PRP searches should be initiated as
soon as a candidate site has been identified. Oral notice, followed by written notice, should be
given to PRPs in emergency situations. For time critical situations, written notice should be
given to identified PRPs, negotiations should be conducted and AOs issued to the extent possible
where there are viable parties and the work can be properly scoped and implemented. PRP
searches may continue after the removal has started to further identify PRPs for takeover of
actions or cost recovery. Non-time critical removals with viable PRPs are prime candidates for
PRP actions.
Since so much of the removal work cannot be anticipated, Regions are only required to
develop site specific plans one quarter in advance. Each quarter, a plan for the upcoming quarter
is prepared. A Region begins this planning period by identifying sites in CERCLIS which are
candidates for removal work in the upcoming quarter, designating the expected lead, identifying
the funding each action will require and the category of each removal. Valid removal categories
(C2118)are:
TC -Time Critical;
NT - Non-Time Critical; and
EM - Emergency.
Oversight dollars for PRP removals will be provided through the Case Budget. In order
for funds to be available for classic emergencies or for sites that cannot be identified during the
planning process, a removal contingency amount is placed in the non-site/incident activity
section of the CERHELP data base by the Region.
The process for determining quarterly AOA for the removal program is described in
Chapter VI.
V-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
REMEDIAL RESPONSE PLANNING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
PRP Search Outcome/Site Classification
Beginning in FY 90, Regions were no longer required to enter or maintain the site classi-
fication. However, upon completion of the first phase of a NPL or non-NPL PRP search, Re-
gions are required to record the outcome in CERCLIS (C1719 - Negotiation-Litigation Out-
come). This data is to be entered based on PRP information reviewed to date and the Region's
best judgment. The PRP search outcome should be updated as additional information becomes
available. Valid outcome codes are:
NV - Search complete, no viable PRPs, orphan site;
VC - Viable PRP; cannot do work; and
VP - Search complete, viable PRPs.
See the Enforcement Planning Requirements section titled Pre-RI/FS Enforcement
Activity of this Chapter for additional information.
Project/Event Lead Codes
Project/event lead codes identify the entity performing the work at the site. Exhibit V-2
shows the valid project/event lead codes.
A lead code must be placed in CERCLIS (C2117) for all response events and enforce-
ment activities. Beginning in FY 92, Regions will have the ability to code the lead for
project support activities based on Regional preference. The national rule for coding
project support leads has been eliminated. This is a change from previous years. Regions are
not required to change historical data in CERCLIS. All enforcement actions (i.e., orders, de-
crees, PRP searches, etc.) performed by EPA and all RODs resulting from RP and PS-lead RI/FS
projects should have a lead of "FE" (Federal Enforcement). All enforcement actions conducted
by the State should have a lead of "SE" (State Enforcement). RODs at SN and SR-lead RI/FS
projects should have a lead of "SE". RODs at Federal Facilities have a lead code of "FF" (Fed-
eral Facility). CERCLIS should not contain planned obligations for projects with "SR" or "SN"
leads. No funds will be provided for activities with these leads.
The Agency acknowledges that States can and have assumed the lead role in reaching an
agreement with the PRPs for response activities at NPL sites without negotiating a cooperative
agreement or other formal agreement with EPA (SR lead). However, the NCP has determined
that in the absence of a formal agreement the State will not be officially recognized as the "lead
agency" for the project and EPA will not concur on the remedy selected.
Takeovers
A takeover means a change in entity performing an event after the event has started and
credit given. Typically, this occurs where a settlement with the PRP has been reached after the
event has been started. It may also occur where the Fund assumes a RP-lead project because of
non-compliance.
For each remedial or removal event takeover, a new CERCLIS record must be created
and FSS and FSC codes (C2115 and C2116) revised. A takeover does not create a new OU. The
original CERCLIS event must be updated to show the completion date as the date of the take-
over. The start date for the new CERCLIS event is also the date of the takeover.
V-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
Exhibit V-2
PROJECT/EVENT LEAD CODES IN CERCLIS IN FY 92
..ead Definition
F Fund financed response actions performed by EPA (applies to
response events)
RP PRP financed response actions performed by the PRP under a
Federal order/CD (applies to response events)
S Fund financed response actions performed by a State Money
provided through a CA (applies to response events)
PS PRP financed response actions performed by PRP under a State
order/CD with PRP oversight paid for or conducted by EPA
through an EPA CA with the State or, if oversight is not funded
by EPA, a SMOA or other formal document between EPA and
the State exists which allows EPA review of PRP deliverables
(applies to response events)
SN State financed (no Fund dollars) response actions performed by
the State (applies to response events)
SR PRP response under a State order/CD and no. EPA oversight
support or money provided through a CA and nQ other formal
agreement exists between EPA and the State
CG Work performed by the Coast Guard Limited to removals
(applies to response events)
MR Preauthorization Mixed Funding work performed by PRP under
a Federal decree with an agreement that the Fund will provide
reimbursement to the PRP (applies to response events)
SE Enforcement activities performed by a State Money provided
through a CA or if not funded by EPA, a comparable
enforcement document exists. (Also applies to ROD events at
SN and SR-lead response events)
FE Enforcement activities performed by EPA or work done by
enforcement program (also applies to ROD events at
RP and PS-lead response events). Historically (Pre-FY 89)
applied to RI/FS and RD response events
EP Response activities performed by EPA using in-house resources
FF Work performed by the Federal Facility with oversight
provided by EPA and/or the State at sites designated as Federal
Facilities on the NPL; also applies to RODs at Federal Facilities
V-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit V-3
EVENT TAKEOVER AT WORKPLAN STAGE
TAKEOVER ACTUAL PLAN ACTUAL
OU EVENT LEAD FLAG START COMP. COMP. FSS FSC COMMENTS
01 CO1 F T 7/29/88 11/30/88 11/30/88 E E SITE WIDE
01 CO2 RP CO1 11730/88 12/15/90 A A SITE WIDE
Exhibit V-4
EVENT TAKEOVER
OU EVENT
01 CO1
01 CO2
LEAD
F
RP
TAKEOVER
FLAG
T
CO1
ACTUAL
START
11/15/87
4/30/89
PLAN
COMP.
4/30/90
2/20/90
ACTUAL
COMP.
4/30/89
FSS FSC
A E
E A
COMMENTS
SITE WIDE
SITE WIDE
The CERCLIS Event Takeover Flag (C2114) is manually maintained. A "T" is used in
this field to flag the original event which has the change in lead. The new event has an event
code followed by a sequence number to indicate the original event that was taken over.
When the takeover of a response event occurs and work has not proceeded past the
workplan stage, credit will be given to the program taking over the lead for both a start and
completion. For example, assume a settlement is reached for a PRP to conduct a RI/FS for
which funds have been obligated but no work has been approved. The PRPs, in picking up the
project at this stage, will get a RI/FS start. Had the work plan been approved, the Fund would
have received credit for the RI/FS start. In order to assure credit is given to the proper program,
the FSS and FSC codes should be placed with the event which was taken over. (See Exhibit V-3
for an example of the takeover coding.) However, if a takeover occurs after the workplan stage
then the new lead will only receive credit for a completion; the previous lead retains credit for
the start. Exhibit V-4 shows the proper placement of the FSS and FSC codes under these cir-
cumstances.
When there is a takeover of a removal action, credit is given to the program with the
original start and the completion is credited to the program that completes the work.
If a PRP takes over an RI/FS after response dollars have been obligated, the Region
should retain the funds needed for PRP oversight for the remainder of the FY and deobligate the
rest. Additional funds for oversight in future years should be obtained from the enforcement
Case Budget. If the PRPs take over the RD or RA after response funds have been obligated, the
Region can retain the funds needed to provide oversight of the entire PRP RD or RA activities.
The remainder should be deobligated. RD funds that are deobligated may be replaced in the
Region's AOA and used in accordance with the flexible funding priorities outlined in Chapter
VI. Deobligated RA funds must be returned to HQ for funding of other priority RA projects.
When the Fund originally obligated dollars for response activities and a takeover occurs,
Regions will have to request a change in account number through their Regional Financial
Management Office (FMO). The activity code within the account number changes if the Agency
is acting in an oversight role as opposed to performing the response action.
V-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit V-5
PRP PROBABILITIES
TAKE PLAN ACTUAL PLAN ACTUAL
OU EVENT LD OVER START START COMP COMP QUAL
(CHOI) (C2101) (C2117) (C2114) (C2130) (C2140) (C2131) (C2141) (C2103)
9/30/90
9/30/90
5/3/91
7/1/92
01
01
01
01
C01
R01
RD1
RA1
F
F
F
F
3/30/88
Funds to support PRP negotiations, including the development of workplans, should be
funded by the enforcement Case Budget.
PRP projects that are deficient may be addressed by the response program. If the project
requires substantial Fund involvement to correct, it should be coded as a Fund take over in
CERCLIS.
Probability of PRP Funded Response Actions
During the development of budget planning information, Regions should pay particular
attention to the probability of a PRP assuming responsibility for RD or RA or the potential for a
mixed funding response. Historically, twenty to twenty five percent of each Region's Fund-lead
RI/FS projects result in RP-lead RDs and RAs. Regions should examine the scheduled RD and/
or RA starts in FY 92 through FY 94, ascertain PRP viability and the strength of the enforcement
case, the relative environmental priority of the project, and the likelihood of a PRP assuming the
lead. The likelihood of the PRPs assuming lead responsibility should be recorded in CERCLIS
in the Event Qualifier data element (C2103) with the event(s) that are scheduled to begin. (See
Exhibit V-5 for an example of coding PRP probabilities.) As better information is received on
the probability of the PRPs assuming responsibility, the qualifier in CERCLIS should be up-
dated.
Valid probabilities are:
H - High, estimated 75 percent or better chance of PRP takeover;
M - Medium, estimated 25 percent - 74 percent chance of PRP takeover; and
L - Low, estimated 24 percent or less chance of PRP takeover.
First and Subsequent Starts and Completions
FSS and FSC codes (C2115 and C2116, respectively) are used to identify and character-
ize the sequencing of event starts and completions at a site. They are not used for enforcement
activities. ROD events do not receive FSS codes. If an event does not have actual dates, the FSS
and FSC codes are determined by the planned dates. One of the codes shown in Exhibit V-6
V-9
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit V-6
FIRST AND SUBSEQUENT STARTS AND COMPLETIONS
A
B
C
D
E
First and only event at a site
First of two or more events
Subsequent, but not final event
Final of two or more events
Anomaly
must be assigned to each remedial event as it is entered into CERCLIS. Exhibit V-7 illustrates
the use of FSS/FSC codes. Mass FSS/FSC data generation routines are under development to
ease data entry and maintenance burdens. These routines rely on having no blank values in the
FSS/FSC fields.
The FSS/FSC codes are based on event start and completion dates, not the system gener-
ated sequence number. Thus the first start of an event, for example an RD, at a site is coded "A."
If a second RD is started, the "A" code for the first RD start must be changed to a "B" and the
second RD is assigned a "D" code. If a third RD is started, the first RD remains a "B," the
second RD must be changed from a "D" to "C" and the third RD is assigned a "D" code. Event
completions use the same methodology. If there is one occurrence of each event, all FSS/FSC
codes are "A."
Anomalies are those projects that do not fit the normal definitions of pipeline events and
activities. Anomalies can be those projects that 1) do not receive SCAP/STARS credit but still
need to be tracked or 2) occur out of the ordinary pipeline progression. An example of an abnor-
mal pipeline progression is a removal that is conducted after the RD and in place of the RA.
(See Exhibit V-7.)
Another example of an anomaly would occur when EPA has decided not to complete an
ongoing event. The FSS/FSC code of 'E' is used in this situation to identify anomaly events that
do not meet the criteria for start or completion accomplishment reporting. Those dates associ-
ated with the 'E' value will not receive SCAP/STARS credit. Suppose EPA discovers informa-
tion that leads to a decision not to implement a RD already underway. Instead, a new RD is
necessary. The anomaly coding allows the Region to receive and retain credit for the first RD
that is started and, at the same time, inform HQ and Regional managers that a significant occur-
rence has taken place at the site. Since the first RD was interrupted and, therefore, was not
completed according to the definition, it does not meet SCAP criteria for credit as an RD
completion (FSC code = 'E'). The second RD will not be counted as a subsequent start because it
is addressing the same remedy (ROD), but it can receive credit for an RD completion. (See
Exhibit V-8.)
Another example of anomaly occurrences happens when different entities conduct RI/FS
work simultaneously that lead to a single ROD. Since it is inconsistent to give credit for more
RI/FS starts than completions (the Agency would have to explain why RI/FS work is not leading
to ROD), only one RI/FS can be credited for starting. These projects are coded under the same
V-10
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit V-7
OPERABLE UNIT AND
FIRST AND SUBSEQUENT START AND COMPLETION CODING
OPERABLE UNIT 'OO* AND REMOVAL EVENTS
OU EVENT
LEAD PLAN
START
FY/O
PLAN
COMP
FY/O
FSS FSC COMMENT
82/3
84/1
84/4
86/2
92/4
92/4
86/2
88/3
88/3
88/4
90/2
91/1
88/2
91/1
DS1
PA1
SI1
RV1
TGI
ND1
FN01
CO1
RO1
AN01
RD1
RA1
RV1
CR1
83/3
84/2
85/2
86/3
92/1
86/1
86/3
B ENTIRE SITE
88/3
89/1
90/2
87/4
86/2
D RMVL PART OF REMEDY
CR ACTIVITIES FOR 1 OU
REMEDIAL EVENTS. ANOMALIES AND PROJECT PHASING
OU EVENT LEAD
PLAN
START
FY/O
PLAN
COMP
FY/O
FSC COMMENT
87/3
88/3
88/3
88/3
89/1
90/2
90/3
91/1
94/1
88/4
89/3
89/3
89/4
90/4
94/2
90/3
90/3
90/3
91/1
91/3
91/3
93/1
LINK W/OU 02 RI
2 RI/FS W/l ROD
2 RI/FS W/l ROD
ROD FROM CO1 & CO2
FN01
CO1
CO2
R01
AN01
RD1
RD2
RA1
RA2
RI1
FS1
RO1
AN02
RD1
RA1
FS1
RO1
AN03
RD1
RV1
RD1
RA1
88/3
89/1
89/2
90/3
90/3
87/4
88/4
PHASEI
PHASE II
PHASEI
PHASER
RI WITH 2 FS PROJECTS
89/3
89/4
90/4
89/1
2ND FS FROM OU 02 RI
90/3
90/3
91/1
90/1
91/3
RV INSTEAD OF RA
2ND RD FROM OU 02 ROD
2ND RA FROM OU 02 ROD
V-ll
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit V-8
CODING ANAMOLIES
DECISION NOT TO COMPLETE AN ON-GOING EVENT
OU EVENT LEAD PLAN
START
FY/0
86/3
89/2
89/4
90/3
01
01
01
01
01
CO1
RO1
RD1
RD2
RA1
F
F
F
F
F
90/2
91/1
FSS
COMMENT
RD WILL NOT BE FINISHED
NO CREDIT FOR COMPLETION
NO CREDIT FOR START
SIMULTANEOUS RI/FS WORK
OU EVENT LEAD PLAN PLAN
START COMP
FY/0 FY/0
FN01
01 CO1
01 CO1
FSS FSC COMMENT
84/4 85/2
85/2 88/3
87/3 88/3
NO CREDIT FOR COMPLETION
NO CREDIT FOR START
OR COMPLETION
NO CREDIT FOR START
OU with multiple sequence numbers and the anomaly code ('E') in the appropriate FSS/FSC
fields (C2115 and C2116). (See Exhibit V-7 and Exhibit V-8.)
Since the FSS and FSC codes are manually maintained, it is necessary to update these
codes each time an event is added. Exhibit V-9 indicates combinations of FSS/FSC codes that
are inconsistent with the coding procedures.
Exhibit V-9
IMPOSSIBLE FSS AND FSC CODE COMBINATIONS
More than one A, B, or D
An A and B
An A and D
An A and C
C without a D and B
B and C without a D
C and D without a B
V-12
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Operable Units in Remedial and Enforcement Programs
The NCP defines an OU as "discrete actions that comprise incremental steps toward the
final remedy." An OU is the division of a project into meaningful remedial work elements
(events) that can be implemented on different schedules, resulting in acceleration of the RD and
RA. OUs allow certain elements of a project to be started ahead of others to lessen the hazards
present at the site and to complete some work elements ahead of more complex and hazardous
work elements. Large, complicated projects are separated into smaller, more manageable reme-
dial work elements. Each element can move at its own rate to completion, thereby preparing the
site for any further required remediation. Exhibit V-10 presents the criteria for establishing OUs.
Exhibit V-ll shows examples of OUs.
Exhibit V-10
CRITERIA FOR OUs
Availability of existing information
Type of waste
Type of media involved
Technology requirements
Funding availability
Management considerations
Exhibit V-ll
EXAMPLES OF OUs
EXAMPLES OF OPERABLE UNITS
RVFS
- Source Control
- Groundwater Cleanup
Permanent Relocation
RDandRA
- Pump and Treat System
- Pilot Testing
- Incineration
- Cap
- Waterline Installation
- Soil Removal
The OU concept is one of the driving mechanisms for Superfund's budgeting, planning
and accomplishment reporting processes. Since the inception of CERCLIS, a standard method-
ology has been used by OSWER to code, track and evaluate site progress. OUs were distin-
guished by using a combination of data fields that made the event unique. This caused confusion
V-13
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
and multiple interpretations of OUs. As a result, it has become apparent that the methodology
needs to be revised to accommodate new initiatives and tracking requirements.
The new methodology, which is being implemented in FY 91, uses OU numbers
(Cl 101 - Operable Unit Indicator), FSS/FSC codes (C2115 and C2116) and Links. The ability
to enhance the old methodology is attributed to the development of Links. Links provide the
technical ability to link response events or enforcement activities with another event or activity.
This capability allows coding of discrete parts of response actions at sites in CERCLIS using
unique OU numbers.
Two important new capabilities of the methodology are:
Coding, tracking and consolidating investigation activities at multiple OUs into
one ROD; and
Tracking single RODs with multiple RDs and RAs.
Following are the rules for coding OUs. These rules are summarized in Exhibit V-12.
Exhibit V-12
GROUND RULES FOR CODING OPERABLE UNITS
Removals for the entire site are OU '00'
OUs are triggered by the ROD
Each RI/FS project is coded with the same OU number
as the ROD it is associated with; subsequent RODs must
address an aspect of the remedy not developed in the
initial ROD
Removals performed as part of a remedy (ROD) are
coded with the OU number for the remedy (ROD)
When a second like event is started, the event is coded at
the next available OU number
Each OU at the RD stage must result in a separate plan
and specifications
Each OU at the RA stage must be based on a separate bid
package
PRP, State or EPA takeovers do not result in separate
OUs
Phased projects do not result in separate OUs
V-14
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Sequence Numbers
If a site has multiple like-events (e.g., RDs) within a single OU, CERCLIS automatically
generates a sequence number for each event. The sequence number is dependent on the
order the event is entered into the system.
Operable Unit Zero (CHOI = 'Off)
Currently, OU number '00' is used to identify removals, site assessment activity, and in
some cases, site wide activities. Links will change this slightly. All site assessment
activity will continue to be coded as OU '00'. Activities that reflect a site wide condition
or occurrence and events that cover the entire site will also be coded as OU '00'. For
example, NPL deletions and Technical Assistance Grants (TAG) are not specific to an
OU, therefore these should be coded as OU number '00' (Cl 101 = '00'). Activities such
as community relations, aerial surveys and topographical mapping will sometimes ad-
dress a single event or span multiple events or even an entire site. In cases where the
event addresses a single RI/FS or removal, the events should be coded at that OU. Where
the event spans multiple events, they should be coded at the OU they are most closely
related to and linked to the additional OUs they address. (See Exhibit V-7.)
Removal Events
Currently, removal events are coded as OU '00'. This was based on the assumption that
removals addressed entire sites. As the Superfund program has grown, removals have
been used in the partial cleanup of sites and in conjunction with remedial events to
complete the clean up efforts. Using Links, removals that are performed as part of a
remedy will be coded with the OU number of that remedy. Removals that are strictly site
wide and not related to a specific remedy will continue to be coded with the OU '00'.
(See Exhibit V-7.)
Remedial Events
In order for a RI/FS project to receive credit for a start, it must result in a ROD. This
definition requires that the RI/FS and the ROD share the same OU. There are cases
where multiple RI/FS activities have occurred that lead to a single ROD. For SCAP
purposes, multiple RI/FS starts are not credited when the result is a single ROD. In these
cases, the Regions code each RI/FS with the same OU number. This results in different
system-generated sequence numbers for each RI/FS. Credit for only one start and one
completion is given in this case. (See Exhibit V-7 and Exhibit V-8.)
At some sites, the RI may span multiple OUs, the entire site, or even multiple sites. From
these RIs, focused FS projects occur and multiple RODs may be signed. In these in-
stances, Regions can receive credit for multiple RI/FS starts. In the example in Exhibit
V-7, credit is given when the RI starts at the first OU and when the FS starts at the second
OU. Credit for an RI/FS completion is given for the completion of the FS at the first OU
and the completion of the FS at the second OU. This is consistent with the rule that for
each ROD Regions can only receive credit for one RI/FS start.
Multiple RDs and RAs may be generated from the same ROD. These events are coded
with different OU numbers because they are discrete parts of the site cleanup. Links
relates them to the ROD designating the remedy they are addressing. (See Exhibit V-7.)
V-15
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
Project Phasing
At the RD and RA stages, a project may be phased or time sequenced to accelerate the
cleanup effort. Phasing is complementary to OUs. Whereas OUs break large, complex
projects into smaller, more manageable work elements, phasing is a method to accelerate
the implementation of the OUs. Phasing manipulates the internal steps required to
complete each OU, thereby optimizing the overall schedule.
Event sequence numbers allow the Regions to code and track this phasing. Phases of
each response event are shown in CERCLIS by the use of sequence numbers and the
value of 'E' (anomaly) in the FSS/FSC codes (C2115 and C2116). Funding required for
each of the phases is tracked against the phase. However, the duration of the project is
calculated from the date the first phase started to the date the last phase is completed.
(See Exhibit V-7.)
Links
At the April 1989 CERCLIS Management Council meeting, the change request requiring
the linkage of enforcement activities to other activities, enforcement activities to response events,
and events to other events was approved. The resulting system enhancement is the Links Mod-
ule. This module enables the integration of removal, site assessment, remedial and enforcement
data in WasteLAN and CERCLIS.
A graphic representation of the flow of events and activities at a site, called a site map,
can be generated using Links. The site map shows the relationship of events and activities at the
site and indicates whether the event/activity is completed, planned or ongoing. The first step in
drawing a site map is to obtain a CERCLIS report that contains site specific event and activity
information with start and completion dates (i.e., SCAP-1, SCAP-2, SITE-3, and SITE-5). From
the report, the sequence and relationship of events and activities can be determined by examining
the dates for different events and activities. If the completion date of one event or activity is the
same or close to the start date of another event or activity, there may be a relationship between
the two. HQ has designed special forms to help draw site maps. Assistance in the development
of site maps can also be obtained from HQ.
Once the sequence and relationship of events and activities has been determined, they are
linked using the Links rules. Following are general Links rules that cover routine activities and
events at all phases of response activity:
Links apply to NPL and non-NPL sites.
Link trees begin with only one activity or event, generally the discovery date for
the site. Link trees cannot begin with a project support activity.
When incorporating settlements, links must be established between the settlement
and its outcome (i.e., a CD for RD and RA must be linked to both the RD and the
RA).
Litigation activities are linked to the resulting settlement, NOT to events or
activities covered by the litigation. However, failed negotiations are linked to the
resulting events because the Fund-lead event is the outcome of failed negotiations
and the continuum of response activities is maintained.
V-16
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Section 104(e) letters and Section 104 litigation is typically associated with and
linked from the PRP search, RI/FS negotiations or RD/RA negotiations. Section
106/107 litigation is associated with and linked from the RD/RA negotiations and
to a CD or judgment. Section 107 litigation is also associated with and linked
from the RD/RA negotiations and to a CD or judgment.
Administrative/voluntary cost recovery can occur at any time and is linked chro-
nologically.
Pipeline events/activities are coded programmatically rather than chronologically.
Remedial Action Master Plans (RAMPs) are coded as major pipeline events and
linked from the PRP search to the RI/FS.
Project support activities/events are linked from the supported event/activity. For
example, the AR compilation is linked from the removal or RI/FS. The AR is not
linked to any other event.
Removal events/activities that are site wide or start the chain of events at a site are
linked as a pipeline event/activity. However, if a removal is performed in support
of remedial work at a specific OU, then the removal events/activities are coded as
a project support event/activity.
Removal assessments should be linked off the most recent site assessment event.
Subsequent removal assessments should be linked from the first assessment. If a
removal assessment results in a removal, it should be linked from the assessment.
De minimis and mixed funding cash out settlements are linked from the preceding
negotiations and do not link to any other event/activity.
Remedial sites fall into five categories: sites without enforcement activity, sites
where negotiations result in settlement, sites where negotiations fail or lead to
litigation, sites where negotiations result in settlement for one OU and litigation
for another; and Federal Facility sites. Exhibit V-13 is a site map for sites where
negotiations result in successful settlement. Exhibit V-14 is a site map for sites
where RI/FS and RD/RA negotiations fail to lead to settlements. Sites without
enforcement activities are linked as shown in Exhibits V-13 and V-14 without the
links to or from the enforcement activities. A graphic representation of Federal
Facility sites is shown in Exhibit V-15. Exhibit V-16 shows a site with and
without settlement.
Events and activities and the appropriate links are entered as the site is planned. If an
activity or event does not occur as planned, then those activities/events must be modified and the
related link record deleted and updated as appropriate. For additional information on the Links
module and OUs, please refer to the Links Coding Guidance.
TBD Sites
Under certain circumstances, Regions may not be able to identify all the sites necessary
to meet SCAP targets. This may occur for the following activities:
Removals;
V-17
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit V-13
REMEDIAL AND ENFORCEMENT LINKS
SITES WITH SETTLEMENTS
V-18
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit V-14
REMEDIAL AND ENFORCEMENT LINKS
SITES WITHOUT SETTLEMENTS
NPL-SRCHOl
01-RAMP1
E
01-RI/FS1
01-ROD1
01-RD1
ฃ
01-RA1
RIFS-NEG01
I
RDRA-NEG01
ฑ
UNL-ORDR01
S107-LTT01
CCX)lorJG01
Exhibit V-15
REMEDIAL AND ENFORCEMENT LINKS AT FEDERAL FACILITIES
NPL-SRCHOl
1
IAG-
IA
T
NEGOl
T
GOl
1
^ 1
01-RI/FS1
t
01-ROD1
t
01-RD1
t
01-RA1
r
02-RI/FS1
t
02-ROD1 |
t
02-RD1 |
t i
02-RA1 | 1
___^^
V-19
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit V-16
REMEDIAL AND ENFORCEMENT LINKS -
SITES WITH AND WITHOUT SETTLEMENT
V-20
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
First RI/FS starts;
Administrative cost recovery settlements; and
Small case cost recovery referrals.
In such cases, Regions may enter planning data into TBD site records. CERCLIS pro-
vides the capability, through the use of a pseudo-EPA ID, to set up temporary site records as
TBDs until the actual site is identified. Following are procedures for handling SCAP TBD sites
and associated planning data in CERCLIS.
The key data field for all CERCLIS site and related records is the EPA ED. This number
is twelve characters in length with the first two characters identifying the State in which the site
is located. The remaining digits uniquely identify a site within the State. The method of han-
dling TBD sites in CERCLIS must be consistent with guidance for assigning EPA IDs to valid
Superfund sites.
The procedure for assigning pseudo numbers is as follows. Each SCAP TBD site to be
entered into CERCLIS will be assigned a unique 12-character EPA ID which is constructed from
Regionally assigned State codes and numbers. The pseudo State codes shown in Exhibit V-17
for each Region would be used in the first two positions of the pseudo ID.
Exhibit V-17
PSEUDO STATE CODES
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Pseudo State Code
ZA
ZB
ZC
ZD
ZE
ZF
ZG
ZH
ZJ
ZK
The third position of the code will always be "T" which further identifies the site as being
a "TBD" site. The remaining nine digits will be selected from the 1000 numbers purchased from
Dun & Bradstreet by HQ and allocated to each Region.
An example of the use of the code is as follows. Region I has three TBD sites for RI/FS
starts to be entered into CERCLIS. EPA IDs to be used for the three sites are as follows:
TBD site #1 - ZAT982565053
TBD site #2 - ZAT982565061
TBD site #3 - ZAT982565079
V-21
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
At the time a real site is determined for TBD site #1, the site and associated data for EPA
ID ZAT982565053 are deleted from the CERCLIS data base. Subsequently, the appropriate
planning data are added to the real site in the CERCLIS data base. The pseudo number,
ZAT982565053, is then recycled for future use.
Regions may not use TBDs in planning subsequent RI/FS starts. When multiple OUs at a
site are involved, Regions should schedule the subsequent starts and associated core activities
when planning the first RI/FS start at the site to the maximum extent possible. Subsequent starts
should be scheduled even if they are not planned to begin in FY 92. Even though TBDs are
being used for target setting purposes, Regions must have real sites in CERCLIS which can be
substituted at a later date for the pseudo sites.
Standard Timeframes
When identifying sites for RI/FS starts, Regions must provide schedules for the remedial
and enforcement activities contained in the Integrated Timeline for site management (see Chap-
ter I). The Agency is currently developing additional guidance on the preparation of SMP. The
timeframes should only be used if more accurate estimates are not available. When better
planning data and schedules are developed, CERCLIS must be revised to reflect these
schedules. Beginning in FY 91, planned start and completion dates should be entered into
CERCLIS in the FY/Q and MM/DD/YY format. Exhibit V-18 provides a summary of the
timeframes for the steps in the Integrated Timeline plus other critical activities. Exhibits V-19
and V-20 take the timeframes and show how to schedule events and activities in CERCLIS.
Exhibit V-18
STANDARD TIMEFRAMES
ACTIVITY
DURATIONS
(In Quarters)
Removal PRP Searches
Removal Negotiations
Removals
NPL PRP Searches*
(Phase I)
(Follow-up)
RI/FS Negotiations*
Federal Facility Negotiations
Fund RI/FS or FF/PRP RI/FS Oversight*
(FS to Public)
(ROD)
RD/RA Negotiations (post ROD)*
Case Development (ends in referral)
Sec. 106 or 106/107 RD/RA Referrals without
Settlement or Cost Recovery Referrals
(ongoing cases referred to DOJ until conclusion)
CD Referral, Lodging & Entry
Fund RD or FF/PRP RD Oversight*
Fund RA or FF/PRP RA Oversight*
RA Contract Award
'Core Activities/Events
V-22
-------
Exhibit V-19
EXAMPLE SITE SCHEDULE (FUND-FINANCED)
EVENT/
SUBEVENT/
ACTIVITY
CODE
NS
FN
CO
CF
RO
AN
UA
RD
RA
AC
RO
OM
SV
EVENT/
SUBEVENT/
ACTIVITY
DESCRIPTION
PRP SEARCH
RI/FS NEGOTIATIONS
RI/FS
RI/FS TO PUBLIC
ROD
RD/RA NEGOTIATIONS
UAO
RD
RA
RA CONTRACT AWARD
RA ON-SITE
CONSTRUCTION
O&M
SECTION 107 COST
RECOVERY REFERRAL
PLANNED
START
89/1
89/4
90/2
92/2
93/1
94/1
95/3
94/3
PLANNED
COMPLE-
TION
89/4
90/2
92/2
91/4
92/2
93/1
93/1
94/1
95/3
94/3
25/3
98/1
COMMENTS
Phase I started at LSI stage - Duration 3 QTRS
Started after completion of PRP search - Duration 3 QTRS (max)
Started after completion of negotiations - Duration 8 QTRS (total)
Occurs 6 QTRS after the start of the RI/FS
Occurs 2 QTRS after RI/FS to public. Must match RI/FS completion date
RD/RA negotiations begin about the time the ROD is signed - Duration 2
QTRS
Issued if there are viable/liable PRPs prior to funding the RD
Started after completion of negotiations - Duration 4 QTRS
Duration 6 QTRS
Awarded 2 QTRS after RA start
Placed in CERCLIS when the RA contract is awarded
Initiated after the remedy has achieved the RA objectives and remediation
goals in the ROD and is determined to be operational and functional
Initiated after RA CONTRACT AWARD - Duration 14 QTRS
o
in
90
O
I
n
I
-------
Exhibit V-2Q
EXAMPLE SITE SCHEDULE (RP-LEAD)
EVENT/
SUBEVENT/
ACTIVITY
CODE
EVENT/
SUBEVENT/
ACTIVITY
DESCRIPTION
PLANNED
COMPLE-
TION
PLANNED
START
COMMENTS
PRP SEARCH
Phase I started at ESI stage - Duration 3 QTRS
PRP SEARCH
Phase II follow-up - Duration 10 QTRS
RI/FS NEGOTIATIONS
Started after completion of PRP search - Duration 3 QTRS (max)
Started after completion of negotiations - Duration 8 QTRS (total)
RI/FS TO PUBLIC
Occurs 6 QTRS after the start of the RI/FS
Occurs 2 QTRS after RI/FS to public. Must match RI/FS completion
RD/RA NEGOTIATIONS
Begins about the time the ROD is signed - Duration 2 QTRS
CONSENT DECREE
Started after negotiations are complete. CD referral, lodging and entry
Duration 2 QTRS
Begins 2 QTRS after the CD is referred - Duration 4 QTRS
Duration 6 QTRS
RA CONTRACT AWARD
Awarded 2 QTRS after RA start
LONG TERM RESPONSE
ACTION
Response actions for the purpose of restoring ground or surface water
Begins after LTRA - Duration is the time specified in the ROD
o
00
3
m
ป
D
p.
$
o
n
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Identifying core activities and providing planned obligation estimates are important due
to the impacts these projects, especially RAs, have on outyear budgets for the program areas.
The cost of RA projects makes it imperative that scheduled start dates and planned obligations
are known well in advance of the beginning of the FY. In essence, dollars associated with RA
project starts are locked in during budget formulation eighteen months prior to the beginning of
the FY. At any given juncture during a FY, this information may be pulled from CERCLIS to
support development of the Superfund budget. While every attempt will be made to contact the
Region when this occurs, there may be instances when this cannot be done. As a result, as better
information becomes available on project costs, dollar estimates, and project schedules, the core
activity plans should be updated and kept current in CERCLIS.
Records of Decisions
The ROD is the document prepared after completion of the public comment period on the
RI/FS. It identifies the Agency's selected remedy for a site or OU. After a ROD is signed, new
information may be generated that could affect the remedy selected. Three types of changes
could occur:
A non-significant or minor change;
A significant change to a component of the remedy; or
A fundamental change to the overall remedy.
Each of these categories is discussed in the following sections.
Non-Significant Changes
Non-significant changes fall within the normal scope of changes occurring during the
RD/RA. These changes typically result from value engineering conducted during the RD
and RA. This may cause minor changes in the type/cost of materials, equipment, facili-
ties, services, and supplies. When such changes do not significantly affect the scope,
performance, or cost of the remedy, they are considered minor or non-significant.
Minor changes should be documented in the post-ROD files. The documentation should
not be part of the AR file for the ROD.
Significant Changes to a Component of a Remedy
Significant changes to a component of a remedy generally are incremental changes to the
hazardous waste approach selected for the site (i.e., a change in timing, cost, or imple-
mentation). These changes do not fundamentally alter the overall approach intended by a
remedy. When significant changes are made to a component of a remedy, an ESD should
be prepared.
The ESD is made available to the public and placed in the AR. A formal public comment
period, public meeting and responsiveness summary are not required. While the ESD is
being prepared and made available to the public, response activities should continue. An
ESD is not a new ROD and should not be coded as such in CERCLIS. It should be
entered as a subevent to the ROD.
V-25
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Fundamental Changes to the ROD
When the hazardous waste management approach selected in the ROD is reconsidered, it
is a fundamental change. For example, the innovative technology originally selected in
the ROD did not perform satisfactorily during the RD pilot scale testing and a decision is
made to switch to another remedy. This would represent a fundamental change. If, as a
result of PRP negotiations, the remedy in the ROD is changed from incineration to
bioremediation,, this also represents a fundamental change. When such fundamental
changes or amendments are made to a remedy, the ROD process (revised proposed plan,
public comment period, public meeting, responsiveness summary, and amended ROD)
should be repeated. The amended ROD must be placed in the AR. A fundamental
change to the ROD should be recorded as a new ROD in CERCLIS. Regions will receive
SCAP/STARS credit for amended RODs.
A HQ/Regional workgroup is being developed to determine how ROD changes should be
recorded in CERCLIS. Additional guidance will be prepared and addenda to the Manual may be
issued. Further information on ROD changes can be found in "Interim Final Guidance on Pre-
paring Superfund Decision Documents," OSWER Directive 9355.3-02. Copies of all RODs and
amended RODs should be sent to HSCD and CED.
Planning for Response Mega-Sites
FY 92 Regional requests in CERCLIS for RI/FS starts should be limited to an average of
$750,000 per project, and all ongoing Fund-financed and PRP RI/FS should be fully funded.
The $750,000 limit and full funding requirement do not pertain to response mega-sites (sites with
total RI/FS projects in excess of or expected to exceed $3 million). There are over 20 sites
nationally that currently come under the mega-site definition. In light of increased stress on the
Superfund budget, a national initiative is being undertaken to scrutinize the management plans
for these sites. The mega-site management plan should characterize site problems and manage-
ment options. Mega-site management plans require joint development by response and enforce-
ment personnel including ORC. The purpose of the plan is to document the Region's approach
for managing the site, to identify coordination options, and to project total resource requirements
for the site. Mega-site management plans are to be completed annually and submitted to HSCD
by January 31, 1992, so funding issues can be resolved prior to the development of the operating
plan for FY 93. All mega-site plans will be reviewed with respect to the following three criteria:
Enforcement strategy and approachHas a comprehensive PRP search been
conducted? If PRPs were found, was general and/or special notice with a model
AOC issued? Were negotiations conducted? Were actions taken (e.g., NBARs,
dฃ minimis settlements) to maximize PRP participation?
Financial obligationsIs the schedule for obligations and outlays of funds clearly
defined? Does the timing of these optimize the use of funds in the context of the
overall site strategy?
Technical approachIs the technical approach employed at the site consistent
with technical guidance and policy? Does the technical approach optimize use of
Fund money in the context of the overall site strategy? Decisions on funding
multi-source ground water sites will be based on technical guidance.
V-26
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
The relative priority of the RI/FS, based on the Region's RI/FS priority setting evalua-
tion, and the degree of risk reduction that may be achieved will also be factors during the review
of the plans and in the funding decisions.
HQ will provide feedback to the Regions on their mega-site plans. Technical assistance
on mega-site plans can be obtained from HSCD Remedial Operations and Guidance Branch.
Treatability Study Planning
The performance of treatability studies during the RI/FS is a priority for the remedial and
enforcement programs. Separate identification of this work allows the program to determine and
explain the impact of treatability studies on RI/FS and RD costs and schedules. Since funds for
treatability studies are not included in the $750,000 per OU and $1.1 million per site RI/FS cost,
or the $250,000 for enforcement oversight costs, it is necessary to establish treatability studies as
a separate event code ("TS") in CERCLIS. Funds should be planned site specifically and
planned and actual start and completion dates are required.
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program
The purpose of the SITE program is to assess new technologies for the treatment of
hazardous waste in order to develop permanent technologies. The SITE demonstration program
sponsors pilot and full scale treatability studies at Superfund sites. The participating developers
mobilize and operate their equipment during the test period. The EPA Office of Research and
Development (ORD) develops the test plan, provides for site preparation, funds sampling and
analysis, and prepares the documentation.
Technologies enter the program through an annual solicitation. Proposals are reviewed
for their technical merit and applicability to Superfund problems. Approximately 37 developers
are currently in the program and approximately 10 new developers are added each year. Once
new technologies are accepted, it is necessary to find demonstration sites. A memorandum is
sent to the Regional Division Directors requesting the nomination of potential locations for
testing the technologies. All projects should be considered regardless of the entity performing
response activities at the site. Special consideration is given to selecting sites where the data will
provide useful information for the ROD or RD.
As a result of a recent Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audit of the SITE program, a
reporting measure was added to STARS RI/FS Projects Nominated for the SITE Program.
When a site is nominated by the Region for a SITE technology, the Region should enter an EP-
lead (in-house) treatability study (TS) with an "A" (alternative) Activity/Event Planning Status
(C2110) into CERCLIS. The date of the memorandum nominating the site for the program
should be recorded in the plan start data field (C2130). When the site is accepted by HQ and
matched with a technology, the actual start date should be entered and the Activity/Event Plan-
ning Status (C2110) should be changed to a "P" (primary). (See Exhibit V-21 for an example of
the coding of sites.) The definition of the start and completion of this measure can be found in
Appendix D. IMCs should work with the SITE coordinators in the Regions to determine when
information needs to be added to CERCLIS.
Project Support Activities
Regions are not required to plan or report the start or completion of project support
activities (CR, technical assistance, support agency management assistance, etc.). Because of
workload model impacts, this does not apply to treatability studies, O&M or LTRA. During the
V-27
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit V-21
SITE PROGRAM CODING
$ite IVominated
EVENT
PLANNING PLAN
OU EVENT LD STATUS START
(CHOI) (C2101) (C2117) (C2110) (C2130)
01 TS EP A 7/25/90
Site Matched with Technology
EVENT
PLANNING PLAN
OU EVENT LD STATUS START
(CHOI) (C2101) (C2117) (C2110) (C2130)
01 TS EP P 7/25/90
^^^S*iSSS8S^88!88SSSSS&S!S8!888S8!8^SSSlฎ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^f^?J
ACTUAL PLAN ACTUAL
START COMPLETE COMPLETE
(C2140) (C2131) (C2141)
ACTUAL PLAN ACTUAL
START COMPLETE COMPLETE
(C2140) (C2131) (C2141)
10/13/90 5/20/91
development of the budget, funding needs can be planned site specifically or non-site specifically
by event type in CERHELP. During the operating year, activities needing funds in the upcoming
quarter must either be planned site specifically in CERCLIS prior to generation of the CERCLIS
AOA report or a quarterly breakout (by activity) of the annual funding need must be provided in
CERHELP.
If the Regional project support budget is established non-site specifically then, regardless
of whether the quarterly planning is site or non-site specific, the total annual project support
budget must be reduced by the quarterly funding needs prior to HQ placement of the AOA in
CERHELP. If a Region plans project support activities non-site specifically, the planned fund-
ing amount in CERHELP must be reduced as the site specific funding documents are processed
(See Chapter VI on handling financial data in CERCLIS). Failure to make these adjustments
could cause the Region to exceed its annual budget and result in approval of their AOA being
withheld.
Regions should also plan the conduct of aerial surveys and topographical mapping by the
Environmental Management System Laboratories (EMSL) in CERCLIS. Prior to the August FY
92 target and budget negotiations, EMSL will contact each Region to determine Regional needs
for aerial surveys and topographical mapping. Based on Regional response, HQ and EMSL will
generate a list of sites and funding needs. This information will be forwarded to the Regions in
the June call memorandum. Regions should review the sites and funding requirements in the
call memorandum and verify their accuracy by recording site specific topographic mapping
(C2101="TO") and/or aerial surveys (C2101="AS"), the FY/Q planned obligation and funding
amount in CERCLIS. A funding status (C3225) of "APR" (approved) and a HQ budget source
code (C3229="D" or "M") should be used for the funds needed at the sites identified in the
V-28
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
memorandum. HQ will set aside a budget for EMSL, off the top of the national budget, based on
the funding needs identified for these sites. If a Region has a need for EMSL's services at sites
that were not on the list, it should identify the need in CERCLIS. However, these sites/needs
must be funded from the Region's annual budget.
Funds from the Regional allowance can be obligated through a Procurement Request
(PR) transferred to EMSL or through the change request procedures. The change request would
keep the funds under TFAY9A and show the Allowance Holder as 60. The purpose should be
shown as Aerial Surveillance. Regions must be sure to change the budget source in CERCLIS to
a HQ account after the change request is processed. (See Chapter VI for additional information
on budget source codes and change request procedures.) If a change request is used or the
services were funded from the HQ account, Regions should follow up with a letter to EMSL
detailing the site names and/or specific instructions.
A Region may also request technical assistance from another entity within EPA (i.e.,
ORD). To the maximum extent practicable, the necessary funding should be planned in CER-
CLIS prior to the FY. Funds may be transferred to the other entity through a PR or an AOA
change request. The AOA change request is the preferred method. In either situation, an SOW
should be prepared before the paperwork is processed. The SOW should clearly identify the
tasks that will be performed, any deliverables that are required, the timeframes for performance,
and the funds that will be transferred.
The lead code for project support activities should be the entity that is funding the work.
For example, the lead for Fund-financed CR at a RP-lead RI/FS should be F.
Technical Assistance Grants
The Region should budget TAG funds at Fund or PRP-lead sites based on their knowl-
edge of which communities may request such grants. Since many communities may decline to
apply for various reasons, the Region should not assume that every NPL site will require a TAG.
Funds for TAGs at Fund-financed or RP-lead sites are in the response budget. TAGs at Federal
Facilities are funded by the Federal Facility budget. Regions should negotiate reimbursement of
TAG costs at the Federal Facility during IAG discussions. The Regions are to administer the
TAGs at Federal Facilities.
Assignment of Remedial Response and Oversight Work
Nationally there are four primary entities available for assignment of Fund-financed
remedial activities. They are the State, ARCS contractors, USAGE, and BUREC. Each of these
entities has the capacity to do a certain amount of Superfund work. It is essential that the assign-
ment of work be balanced with the capabilities of the various entities.
If EPA and the State decide that EPA will take the lead for remedial activities, the fol-
lowing must be considered when making a decision on who will perform the work:
ARCS contractors should receive a significant number of new remedial projects
inFY92;
ARCS should be tasked to provide oversight of PRP projects if the project will
continue beyond FY 93;
USAGE should conduct the RD and RA for all projects with an estimated RA cost
of over $15 million;
V-29
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
USAGE should conduct the RA projects with an estimated RA cost between $5
and $15 million, USAGE or ARCS contractors can perform the RD. If an ARCS
contractor is selected to do the RD, the USAGE should provide technical assis-
tance review of the RD to assure its quality;
RAs with a construction value of less than $5 million may be performed by
USAGE or the ARCS contractors;
USAGE may be tasked to review RI/FS projects or provide oversight of PRP
RI/FS projects;
USAGE may be tasked to review PRP RDs and provide oversight of PRP RAs.
Assignments to USAGE for oversight of PRP RD or RA projects should be
accompanied by a start up period of training and Regional orientation; and
USAGE should always receive PRP oversight assignments where USAGE per-
formed the RD and the PRP took over the RA.
As a reminder, when RD and RA assignments are planned for different entities, a smooth
transition is necessary. This can be easily achieved by giving a technical assistance assignment
to the entity that will be performing the RA during the RD. The purpose of the assignment
would be to review the plans and specifications for biddability, constructability, operability, and
claims prevention. The entity that performed the RD should also be retained during the RA jn a
technical assistance role for design clarification, change order review, etc.
In-house RI/FS
The Superfund Management Review recommended all Regions initiate in-house RI/FS
projects. The objectives of the in-house RI/FS are to:
Increase the RPM's awareness of available in-house resources;
Enhance the RPM's project management skills;
Reduce RI/FS costs by reducing contractor involvement; and
Improve the training of junior RPMs.
Two approaches are being used for the in-house RI/FS process:
A seasoned RPM manages the project and performs many of the tasks that, for
other RI/FS projects, are routinely performed by contractors; or
For each RI/FS, an RPM team is established to perform most of the required
tasks. The team consists of a seasoned RPM (group leader and mentor) and junior
RPMs. Matching new and experienced RPMs provides the new RPMs with the
needed experience at the same time that it ensures reasonable cost control and
quality of the project.
The general theme for either approach is the same, use non-contractor resources to
accomplish most, if not all, of the standard RI/FS tasks. (Non-contractor resources include EPA
Regional staff and personnel from other EPA offices or other Federal agencies.) Initial project
V-30
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
planning should assume that the RPM team will be directly involved in every task. As planning
progresses, the Region is responsible for determining the mix of contractor and non-contractor
resources most appropriate for a particular task. However, if the team approach is used, the
group leader/mentor should ensure that each team member is exposed to as many RI/FS tasks as
possible.
All Regions were requested to undertake an in-house RI/FS in FY 91 and the program is
expected to continue in FY 92. Each in-house RI/FS will receive 150 percent of the normal FTE
and as much as $400,000, primarily for contractor drilling support or tasks that cannot be per-
formed in-house. The decision to perform an in-house RI/FS is the Region's and is dependent on
the sites or projects in the Region where the RI/FS has not started. Selecting an appropriate site
for an in-house RI/FS will increase the probability of successfully completing a project and
meeting the objectives of the in-house RI/FS initiative. As a general rule, smaller, less complex
sites should be chosen. At the same time, sites should be complex enough that a wide assortment
of RI/FS tasks/skills will be required. A second important consideration is the proximity of the
site to the Regional office. Lastly, selecting sites for which the Region has previous experience
may allow for a more streamlined and focused study.
ARCS Coding
The ARCS was developed in response to the need for additional competition and the
desire for more contractors in the remedial contracting program. The strategy builds on the
concept of rewarding good performance on the part of the contractors by assigning more work to
good performers.
Each Region or group of Regions has a set of contractors to which remedial planning,
design, and construction management work may be assigned. Each contract has a small base
quantity of work and many options for additional work. With ARCS, Regions will have com-
plete responsibility for contract management.
It is essential to the integrity of the ARCS concept that the work be distributed evenly to
all contractors during start up. This will ensure a sound basis for evaluation and decisions
regarding future assignment of work. It is also important for Regions to establish systems for
monitoring, analyzing and projecting program management costs which will become part of the
SCAP negotiations.
In order to convey ARCS contract information to HQ, the five character Financial Ve-
hicle data element in CERCLIS (C3239) will be used to identify the type of contract, the Region,
and the name of the ARCS contractor. If an entity other than the ARCS contractor will perform
the work, the first three positions of the five character Financial Vehicle element are used to
identify the type of contract and the last two characters should be blank. For example, if the
activity is assigned to the USAGE, the Financial Vehicle entered should be "COE" ("BUR" for
Bureau of Reclamation projects). If the activity is assigned to ARCS, the first three characters of
the Financial Vehicle data element should be "ARC." The fourth and fifth characters identify the
particular ARCS contractor. Exhibit V-22 contains the codes to be placed in characters four and
five based on the existing ARCS contractors. If new contractors are awarded contracts, the
Region should contact HQ and a new code will be reserved for that contractor. During event/
activity planning stages, work that will be assigned to the ARCS contractors should be identified
by placing "ARC" in the Financial Vehicle. The name of the ARCS contractor should be placed
in CERCLIS when inputting the actual obligation data. The Region should place the funds
needed for ARCS program management in the CERHELP data base by contractor.
V-31
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit V-22
ARCS CONTRACTOR CODES
CONTRACTOR
Arthur D. Little
Bechtel
Black & Veatch
CDM
CH2MHill
Donohue & Associates
EBASCO
Ecology & Environment
Fluor Daniel
ICF
Jacobs Engineering
Malcolm-Pirnie
Metcalf & Eddy
Morrison & Knudson
NUS Corporation
PRC Environmental
Sverdrup
TAMS Consultants
Tetra-Tech
TRC Environmental
URS Corp
Roy F. Weston
WW Engineering
If Regions are planning to use ARCS contractors and pay for them through the Case
Budget, the same codes should be used.
ENFORCEMENT PLANNING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Mixed Funding Settlements and Cash outs
The term "mixed funding" is used genetically to refer to three types of settlements:
Preauthorization (MR lead);
Mixed work (two or more OUs or phases, RP and F or S lead); and
Cash outs (F, S, MR, or RP lead).
Preauthorization occurs where PRPs reach a settlement with EPA whereby they agree to
perform a share of the response actions, and the Agency agrees to reimburse some part of their
V-32
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
expenses. These are coded in CERCLIS (C2117) as 'MR' lead events. Mixed work occurs
where PRPs and EPA agree to jointly work on a project or where work may be divided between
the parties. No reimbursement to the PRPs occurs. Mixed work should be shown as separate
OUs or phases in CERCLIS. OUs or phases where the PRPs are performing the work should
have 'RP' lead (C2117) events. The lead for events at the OUs or phases where Fund-financed
activities are being performed should be 'F' or 'S'. Funds for mixed funding settlements and
preauthorization must be planned and are part of the Region's response budget.
A cash out is money received by EPA, a State, or another PRP under the terms of a
settlement agreement that is intended to pay, in whole or in part, the future costs for a response
action that is to be implemented at a specific Superfund site. EPA strongly prefers that PRPs
agree to perform the response action. The two primary circumstances when cash outs may be
acceptable are dฃ minimis settlements and settlements with PRPs (i.e., owners/operators) that
lack resources to perform the response. In other very limited circumstances, cash outs with
major parties may be acceptable. (See "Evaluating Mixed Funding Settlements Under
CERCLA," OSWER Directive 9834.9, March 14,1988.)
The terms and conditions of the cash out settlement should be documented in an AO or
CD. The AO or CD must address the disposition of the monies. The two major considerations
are 1) whether all or part of the funds are for future expenses or past costs, and 2) whether it is
expected that other PRPs or EPA will perform the work. It may also include future cost provi-
sions for any portion of the cost for the expected remediation efforts at the site and premium
payments.
The response work at these sites may be performed by EPA, the State or other PRPs
using cash out funds. In situations where EPA or the State will be performing the work, re-
sponse events in CERCLIS (C2117) should be coded 'F' or 'S'. In a mixed funding situation,
where the Fund and PRPs contribute to the cleanup but the PRPs conduct the work, an 'MR' lead
(C2117) should be assigned. If the PRPs, both dฃ minimig and non-dฃ minimis. assume funding
and oversight responsibility for the site, response events should have a lead (C2117) of 'RP'.
Chapter VI contains information on the financial aspects of a cash out settlement.
Planning for Enforcement Mega-Sites/Projects
An enforcement mega-site is a Superfund site that contains unusual characteristics that
separate it from a typical site or project. These sites have projects that require more than twice
the average level of extramural resources to be managed. The characteristics of the sites or
projects include, but are not limited to:
Large geographic area defining a site (e.g., Clark Fork);
Sites that are part of an area wide problem (e.g., San Gabriel);
Sites that have an unusual level of community involvement requiring an above
average level of attention (e.g., Love Canal);
Sites with a large number of PRPs that refuse to form a coalition, thereby making
the negotiation and settlement process difficult (e.g., Maxey Flats);
Sites receiving national attention (e.g., Times Beach/Ellisville); and
Complex litigation issues (e.g., Hardage).
V-33
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Regions should be aware that the response definition for mega-sites is sites where the
total Rl/FS costs exceed or are expected to exceed $3 million. Instructions for planning response
mega-sites are found earlier in this Chapter in the section titled Planning for Response Mega-
Sites.
Resources are set aside in the Case Budget to address enforcement mega-sites. Regions
are required to submit mega-site management plans to HQ by June 30, 1991. The methodology
for the distribution of resources for enforcement mega-sites is defined in the Case Budget section
of Chapter VI.
PRP Removal
For non-NPL sites, PRP searches should be initiated as soon as a removal candidate has
been identified. Before most time critical and non-time critical removals are initiated, the
baseline phase of the search should be completed and the follow up phase started. This allows
for timely negotiations for AOs (unilateral or on consent) to begin before the start of the re-
moval. PRP searches also support possible cost recovery actions. Regions are required to
report:
ซ. PRP search start and completion dates, and outcome;
AO completion date, compliance status, removal remedy, value of removal;
Removal start and completion dates, and lead; and
Other technical data required by the removal program.
Notice letters to owners, operators and other identified PRPs should be sent and negotia-
tions conducted before the removal is initiated, time permitting. Oral notice, followed by written
notice, should be given in emergency situations. For certain non-time critical removals that are
major response actions, the special notice procedures of Section 122(e) should be employed.
Where special notice is not employed, written notice under Section 122(a) must be given.
Regions should issue AOs (unilateral or consent) at every removal action where viable
PRPs have been identified. Unless time is a factor, an AOC is sent to the PRPs before a UAO is
issued. Factors which may justify Fund financing without an order include technical difficulty in
defining the steps to be taken; unique technical complexity; inappropriateness of allowing a
particular PRP to do the work; and insofar as resources are constrained, very low cost of remedy.
In some cases, a UAO can be converted to an AOC, but this should be done without delaying
PRP response. Oversight costs should be taken into account in negotiations, particularly for
large removals.
Action memoranda should be issued at all sites prior to initiation of the removal regard-
less of who is performing the response. It is particularly critical where PRPs are performing
removals, to provide for sufficient documentation and guard against subsequent 106(b) petitions
for reimbursement, especially if a UAO is issued.
Once RP-lead removals have begun, EPA will have an active oversight role, including
on-scene presence. Contractor assistance is available if needed. Where PRPs are not complying
with the order, they should be notified in writing what the deficiencies are and when they oc-
curred. Regions should be prepared to enforce the terms of the order via stipulated penalties,
V-34
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
statutory penalties, or other sanctions when the PRPs have violated some terms of the order but
are in compliance with other terms. When UAOs are issued and the PRPs are out of compliance
and not performing the response action, treble damages should be sought during cost recovery
where possible. Due to the time-critical nature of the removal program, Regions should be
prepared to quickly move forward with a Fund-financed response if the PRPs do not comply
with the order.
Regions should use judicial action to seek preliminary relief only in exceptional circum-
stances. Regions should track the PRP's compliance status in CERCLIS. Regions must also
develop ARs to accompany their actions at removal sites. The date the AR is compiled and
available at the local repository must be recorded in CERCLIS. In addition, a ' V must be
recorded in the Event Qualifier field (C2103) to indicate that the AR is for a removal activity.
Pre-RI/FS Enforcement Activity (PRP Search/Negotiations')
For sites likely to be added to the NPL, PRP searches should start concurrent with the
ESI or, at the latest, the initiation of the listing process. The PRP search should be managed
including follow up, civil investigator assistance, and ORC review to assure that: (1) PRPs,
particularly generators, are identified early, (2) general notice is issued well before RI/FS special
notice to enable PRPs to organize, (3) information related to PRPs is obtained months before the
RI/FS special notice, and (4) special notice is issued at least 120 days before the planned RI/FS
obligation date. Information requests should be followed up to assure they are as comprehensive
as possible. If there is non-compliance with the information request, Regions should issue a
104(e) referral to compel response. To the extent available, information required for special
notice should be presented to PRPs before the actual special notice is issued. Regions are re-
quired to record dates associated with general notices, SNLs, and information request letters in
CERCLIS. Copies of notice letters should be sent to the Program Management Support Office
(PMSO) in OWPE so information can be recorded in the Superfund Enforcement Tracking
System (SETS).
PRP searches should be completed prior to negotiations when possible and should be
planned in advance to avoid delaying a scheduled RI/FS start date. Upon completion of the first
phase of the PRP search Regions are required to record the outcome in CERCLIS. A decision on
the outcome should be made based on existing information and the Region's best judgment. This
outcome code should be updated as better information becomes available. Valid outcome codes
(C1719) are:
NV - Search complete, no viable PRPs, orphan site;
VC - Viable PRPs cannot do the work; and
VP - Search complete, viable PRPs.
Regions should be prepared to move quickly through the negotiation process. This can
be accomplished through:
Developing a SMP and negotiation strategy in conjunction with the State and
ORC. Guidance on SMPs is currently under development;
Using a model order,
Scoping the RI/FS;
V-35
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Providing a draft of the model order and statement of work for the RI/FS with the
special notice; and
Establishing interim milestones to judge whether real progress is being made.
Milestones should be shared with the negotiating parties.
The Regions have the option of starting discussions with PRPs before, as well as during
the initial 60-day moratorium period. In addition, costs for ongoing or completed response
actions, such as removals should be documented in advance and included for cost recovery in
RI/FS negotiations.
The PRPs who receive special notice have 60 days to submit a proposal to undertake or
finance the RI/FS. During this 60 day period, EPA may not initiate the RI/FS. Additional
studies or investigations authorized under Section 104 may be initiated and nothing precludes
EPA's authority to undertake response or enforcement activities regarding a significant threat to
public health or the environment. The Regions may initiate a scope of work or a negotiations
support document which should be funded by Case Budget. These activities are to be funded
under RI/FS negotiations. The scope of work or negotiations support document should be
provided to the PRPs when notice is given so they can prepare an adequate proposal.
RI/FS Settlement and Oversight
Settlements with PRPs for RI/FS are typically accomplished through an AOC or in rare
circumstances by CD or UAO. AOCs are preferred. In any case, the settlement document
should include either a workplan prepared by EPA using Case Budget funds or a detailed SOW
with a workplan to be developed according to EPA guidance manuals. A well-defined schedule
that lists deliverables and milestones should also be included. If a Region settles through a CD, a
copy of the CD should be sent to the Chief of Compliance Branch, CED in OWPE.
EPA is required to use third party assistance in oversight of RP-lead RI/FS through the
TES contract, ARCS, other Federal agencies (e.g., USAGE) or States. Regions should constrain
the use of TES beginning in FY 92 because of the implementation of LTCS and TES contract
close-out. Oversight resources are obtained through the Case Budget. At the time of settlement
a detailed oversight plan should be developed identifying intramural and extramural resource
needs. Oversight should include active field oversight as well as desktop review of engineering
reports and other deliverables. Oversight must be tracked and billed to PRPs. Collection of
oversight funds should be tracked. In addition, Regions must ensure compliance with the
cleanup standards in Section 121. RPMs must keep up with the progress of RP-lead RI/FS as if
it were an EPA contractor performing the work. Where delays or inadequacies are noted, prompt
action, including assessment of penalties, should be taken. Regions must maintain the PRP
compliance status code (C1725) in CERCLIS.
Pre-RD/RA Enforcement Activity RD/RA Negotiations and Oversight
Prior to completion of the draft FS, Regions should undertake considerable planning,
including: (1) developing an enforcement strategy that includes activities, responsibilities and
dates; (2) reviewing PRP search information for completeness; (3) considering settlement op-
tions, mixed funding and de_ minimis and discussions with PRPs before the special notice; (4)
documenting past costs (e.g., RI/FS) to include in RD/RA negotiations; (5) preparing SNL and
accompanying draft CD. To assist the Regions, a model CD was developed and should be used
as needed.
V-36
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
SNLs for RD/RA should be planned and issued about the time of ROD signature. PRPs
have 60 days in which to submit a GFO after receiving notices. If a GFO is submitted in that
timeframe, another 60-day period follows for negotiations. If a GFO is not submitted, negotia-
tions should be terminated. Ideally, RD/RA negotiations should not last longer than two quarters
post ROD signature. The moratoriums established in the SNL should be honored. Negotiations
should be completed and settlement reached within the timeframes or a UAO should be issued to
viable and liable PRPs. PRPs have 30 days to provide notice of intent to comply. Negotiations
are completed when the CD or referral without settlement is sent to HQ or DOT, a UAO is
issued, a trial is started or the RD is funded. During the moratorium, EPA may not initiate RA.
However, additional studies authorized under Section 104 and 122 may be initiated during the
negotiation period. Initiation of RD during the moratorium period will only occur in exceptional
circumstances and must have advance concurrence from HQ.
In order to proceed through negotiations expeditiously, a coordinated team effort involv-
ing the program, ORC, DOJ, the State, and HQ is required. This begins with the drafting of a
SMP/Case Management Plan and development of a negotiation strategy and pre-referral pack-
age. The negotiation team should identify potential settlement issues up-front and be prepared to
address them. Every attempt should be made to complete negotiations within 120 days. How-
ever, in accordance with the streamlined settlement guidance, Regional Administrators may
extend the negotiation period for up to 30 days. Further extensions require the approval of the
OWPE Office Director.
If it appears negotiations will be extending beyond the 120 day negotiation moratorium,
RPMs should notify and coordinate with the OWPE Compliance Branch Regional Coordinators.
At least one week prior to the end of the Regional Administrator's extension, the Region should
send their additional 30 day negotiation extension request to the AA SWER. A copy of this
request should be faxed or mailed directly to their Regional Coordinator. The extension request
should contain the following:
Brief background summary;
Status of negotiations;
Likelihood of settlement;
Information on whether the Region has begun drafting a UAO;
A specific date when the UAO will be issued; and
An indication of the extent to which both ORC and DOJ concur in the proposed
approach to resolving negotiations.
Regions are urged to use UAOs when negotiations are protracted. In addition, where the
negotiations do not produce agreement and there are viable and clearly liable PRPs, UAOs
should be considered to obtain treble damages or as a step prior to referral. Regions are required
to consult with HQ prior to making a decision not to issue a UAO to liable and viable PRPs and
fund the RD.
When negotiating settlements for RD/RA, Regions should consider using the model CD
and including a provision in the CD allowing PRPs to begin the RD prior to lodging or entry.
AOCs for RA are not permitted. Regions should send a copy of the CD and the 10 point referral
document to the Chief of Compliance Branch, CED in OWPE and to OE.
V-37
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Oversight of PRP lead RD/RA is performed primarily through ARCS and USAGE,
although some TES oversight capacity exists if the project will be ending before FY 93. Regions
should seek payment of oversight costs in all settlements, as well as past costs of RI/FS and other
removal response costs. Where a partial settlement occurs, Regions should aggressively pursue
non-settlers. This may include the use of Section 104(e) information enforcement, as well as 106
litigation and 107 cost recovery. The status of the PRP's compliance with the UAO or CD must
be updated monthly in CERCLIS.
Section 106 Injunctive Referrals and Administrative Activity
Section 106 injunctive referrals for RD/RA without settlement are a major enforcement
tool for Superfund. At the end of negotiations, if the decision is made to proceed with a Fund-
financed RD, monies will be available. However, funds for RAs may be constrained. If RA
funds are not available, Regions should reconsider issuing a UAO or pursuing Section 106
litigation if there are viable PRPs at the site. (The decisions on which sites will be funded will be
based on the environmental priority setting factors. See Chapter I.)
The administrative authority under Section 106 should be used at all sites that meet the
criteria outlined in OWPE guidance ("Guidance on CERCLA 106(a) Unilateral Administrative
Orders for Remedial Design and Remedial Actions," OSWER Directive 9833.0-1 (a), March 7,
1990), to bring PRP negotiations to a close or compel PRP response at the site. A UAO should
be issued if a GFO is not submitted within the negotiation timeframes identified or a settlement
is not reached at the end of the moratorium and the PRPs are liable and viable.
In most cases, Regions should plan that RP-lead RI/FS projects without settlement,
funding, or compliance with a UAO for RD/RA will be candidates for referral as Section 106/
107 judicial actions. Section 106/107 actions are expected to become easier, given review of
remedial decisions on the AR, and the general success in motions for summary judgments on
liability.
CERCLIS should be updated monthly with actual dates of referrals or orders issued,
response remedy sought/obtained, compliance status, milestones, dollars sought (in case of a
Section 106/107 referral), value of RP work to be performed, and dollars recovered.
Cost Recovery
Cost recovery actions are one of the highest Enforcement program priorities in FY 92.
Consistent with the priorities matrix, Section 107 SOL referrals are the highest priority, followed
by non-SOL referrals. Sites ripe for cost recovery include non-SOL sites with completed re-
moval, completed RI/FS, and each RA where on-site construction has started. Regions should
have a completed PRP search and information about the liability and viability of the PRPs; totals
for funds obligated/expended; removal, RI/FS and RD completion dates; RA and RA on-site
construction start dates; and SOL dates. The following is a list of cost recovery programmatic
strategies:
Where there are viable PRPs, costs should be documented and a demand letter
sent prior to or concurrent with cost recovery actions. The date the demand letter
is issued should be recorded in CERCLIS;
Where there is a partial settlement, an action against viable non-settlers should be
pursued promptly (before the response begins) and treble damages should be
pursued if a UAO was issued;
V-38
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Treble damages should be sought in the referral where UAOs are violated;
Each Region should issue demand letters and pursue administrative settlement for
response activities less than $200,000, if resources are available. The use of ADR
is encouraged. EPA will refer some cases where the PRPs did not respond to the
demand letter; and
Cost recovery decision documents should be initiated for all cases when a deci-
sion not to pursue some or all costs has been made. Prior to making this decision,
particularly for large RAs, the PRP search is to be reviewed by a civil investigator
and supplemented as necessary (PRP search follow-up phase). As soon as a
preliminary decision is reached, the date of the cost recovery decision document
and the funds that will not be recovered should be entered into CERCLIS. If the
decision is preliminary, a planned date should be entered into CERCLIS for the
final decision document.
The following is a list of possible SOL issues and methods for recording data in CER-
CLIS:
Referrals for all removals greater than $200,000 must be planned in order to be
filed in court within one year of completion of the removal, if resources are
available. In no event should the referral be later than three years from the date of
completion of the removal, unless there was a Section 104(c)(l)(C) waiver or
there clearly will be physical initiation of on-site construction of the RA within
three years. It generally takes three to six months from referral to filing, but may
take longer for complex sites;
Referrals for RI/FS and RD should be planned to be filed within two years from
completion of the RI/FS or RD unless there is physical on-site construction of the
RA within three years;
If an RA on-site construction is started within 3 years of a removal completion,
RI/FS completion or RD completion, the SOL date for that component is 6 years
from the on-site construction date;
Referrals for remedial activities should be planned within a year of the RA start, if
resources are available. If a RI/FS referral was conducted separately or there are
no unreimbursed past costs, a referral should be initiated when RA funds have
been expended unless special circumstances exist (i.e., non-settlers); and
For cost recovery referrals and administrative settlements, CERCLIS data require-
ments are the following:
- Plan/actual start and completions;
- Value of referral/settlement;
- Remedy; and
- Activity level indicator flag for settlement.
V-39
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Negotiation of lAGs or other Federal agency compliance agreements should include a
provision for recovery of past Fund expenditures, including EPA oversight costs.
As part of cost recovery management and preparation for civil referrals, Regions should
plan supplementing PRP searches, assembly of ARs, cost documentation, and demand letters. In
addition, planning for RI/FS and RD/RA negotiations should include cost documentation of past
removal and RI/FS costs. Finally, oversight cost recovery and accounts receivable must be
managed.
State Enforcement
Regions are required to report progress on State Enforcement lead sites as they would any
other site. This universe includes work financed by the PRP under a State order or other compa-
rable State enforcement document with PRP oversight paid for or conducted by EPA (PS-lead),
and work financed by the PRP under a State order or other comparable State enforcement docu-
ment and no EPA oversight support or money is provided (SR). While this information is some-
times difficult to obtain, Regions should make reasonable efforts to get and report these data in
CERCLIS. HQ will be tracking State orders and other comparable State enforcement documents
through the SCAP reporting measures - State CDs for RD/RA issued and State orders for RI/FS
issued.
By definition, SR-lead activities/events should have no planned obligations. Funds for
State oversight are awarded through CAs. Funds for oversight of PS-lead RI/FS projects are
provided by the Case Budget. Funds for RD/RA oversight are provided by the response budget.
FEDERAL FACILITIES
Federal Facilities may be tracked in CERCLIS as one site/incident or as multiple sites in
the case of complex facilities. In most cases when a Federal Facility is included on the NPL, the
entire facility is addressed. Within CERCLIS, an OU at a Federal Facility will generally address
a grouping of waste release areas that have similar characteristics or that are in close proximity.
EPA has issued detailed guidance for coding events and enforcement activities at Federal Facili-
ties, which is contained in Appendix I.
In FY 92, the focus of the Federal Facility program will be to implement completed lAGs
at all NPL facilities, to establish priorities for quick response actions at facilities posing the
greatest risk to human health, and to stress efficiency through streamlining and multi-media
enforcement and program integration. OFFE will be taking initiatives to streamline program
activities, to focus enforcement actions, and to coordinate and communicate closely with other
Federal agencies and multiple media programs to implement an effective multi-media enforce-
ment approach. For example, reduced oversight at facilities that have demonstrated consistently
high performance in field activities, self-auditing, compliance, and response will be examined as
a means to maximize the benefits from available Government resources.
EPA's policy is to enter into Section 120 lAGs with all Federal Facilities proposed to or
on the NPL. The scope of these lAGs includes the RI/FS phase as well as the RD/RA phase.
Where appropriate, and in conjunction with the RCRA program offices, these lAGs can be used
to satisfy RCRA corrective action requirements. The concept is to use CERCLA to satisfy
RCRA so that only one set of requirements is applied to avoid redundant and duplicative efforts.
In some cases, however, a combined RCRA/CERCLA permit/IAG approach may be taken when
the situation warrants such an approach, e.g., at Department of Energy (DOE) weapons complex
V-40
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
facilities, or when the State or EPA RCRA program has compelling interests at units on a facil-
ity. Pre-planning, coordination among appropriate offices, and definitive "scoping" of a Federal
Facility are necessary factors for successful IAG execution and site remediation.
Regions should follow the Federal Facility negotiation policy for addressing Federal
Facilities. In essence, the policy is as follows:
Establish 90 day IAG negotiation periods. Schedules for all ongoing or planned
negotiations are to be forwarded to HQ two weeks prior to each quarter,
Address the RCRA/CERCLA issues prior to the negotiation period in conjunction
with the State and RCRA program offices;
Issue a Federal Facility notice letter to the facility establishing the negotiation
time frame;
Conduct three-party negotiations. The 90 day period may be extended 30 days if
settlement is close; and
If issues still remain after the 90/120 day period, the IAG is to be elevated to HQ
for dispute resolution. Along with the elevation, the Region should recommend
either a Section 106 AO or two-party agreement in the event that the HQ resolu-
tion fails. If a settlement is not reached, either the Section 106 AO will be re-
ferred to DOJ or the Region will enter into a two-party agreement, depending on
which is appropriate.
In situations where a Federal agency is a PRP at a private site, the agency is to be treated
the same as a private party. Cash outs with premiums with the Federal agency may expedite RI/
FS and RD/RA negotiations. Similarly, at formerly-owned sites with multiple PRPs, the Federal
agency is to be treated the same as a private party. At formerly-owned sites where the Federal
agency is taking sole responsibility for the RI/FS and RD/RA, the Regions may use a Section
120 IAG approach.
V-41
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER VI
FINANCIAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER VI- FINANCIAL PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Following are the actions Regional managers must take to comply with
the requirements described in this Chapter. In order to acquire a more
in-depth understanding of these requirements, the Chapter itself should
be read.
Regions are required to plan their obligations within the program
specific budget allocations given to the Regions prior to the July
update.
Funding needs within the budget allocation should have a funding
priority status of "Approved." Funding needs above the budget
allocation should have a funding priority status of "Alternate."
HQ will not initiate negotiations with a Region until the "Approved"
funds requested are within the budget allocations.
Regions are required to operate within their final negotiated annual
operating budget and quarterly AOA.
RA projects ready to begin in the first two quarters will be funded
on a first ready, first funded basis. These decisions will be
re-evaluated at mid-year and throughout the third and fourth
quarters.
RI/FS costs should be reduced to a national average of $750,000 per
operable unit and $1.1 million per site with the exception of
mega-sites. RI/FS budgets will be developed based on these
averages.
No monies will be issued to the Region through the AOA process
unless the appropriate project specific obligation and commitment
data are reflected in CERCLIS.
Regions must pull an AOA/Budget Control report from CERHELP
and enter the AOA amounts for the upcoming quarter found in that
report into the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS)
before the end of each quarter.
Planned and actual obligations and open commitments in CERCLIS
cannot exceed the annual Regional budgets or the AOA will not be
approved.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER VI- FINANCIAL PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT (continued)
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
HQ approval is not required to shift funds between projects within the
other response, RI/FS, RD, removal, enforcement or Federal Facility
AOA.
CERCLIS must be revised to reflect change requests/SCAP
amendments. HQ will not approve a SCAP amendment request or a
change request until CERCLIS reflects the proposed revisions.
Regions will not receive funds for an RA in their AOA unless the RA
remedy technology type has been entered into CERCLIS.
A Region will not receive funds above its annual Regional budget
unless CERCLIS is revised and a SCAP amendment/change request has
been approved by HQ.
A Regional contingency account can "hold" remedial response funds
(except RAs) made available as a result of PRP takeovers, RD bids
coming in under projected amounts or when actual obligations were less
than planned obligations.
The contingency account must be reduced when the Region identifies
uses for these funds.
In the event of a funding shortfall, the Regional contingency account
will be tapped as a first source of additional monies.
If a Region receives funds in their AOA which were not obligated
during the quarter, the relevant planned obligation data in
CERCLIS must be revised or the amount placed in the contingency
account. Failure to make this change in CERCLIS may cause a
reduction in the next quarter AOA.
Regions will receive their percentage of the annual removal budget if
they have updated quarterly plans for those amounts in CERCLIS by the
AOA pull date.
Regions will not receive their third quarter AOA for a specific response
category unless the commitment/obligation rate is 50% or greater in that
AOA category during the first and second quarter.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER VI- FINANCIAL PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT (continued)
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Enforcement mega-site and litigation contingency funding needs must
be coded in CERCLIS and formally requested from HQ.
The enforcement AOA is issued based on the planned obligation in
CERCLIS.
Technical Enforcement Support (TES) work assignments are entered
into CERCLIS.
Site specific spending plans for the third and fourth quarters are
required if the Region's unobligated enforcement allowance is greater
than 30% at the beginning of the third quarter.
Review the financial status of all contracts, lAGs and cooperative
agreements regularly. If the required activities have been completed
and there are funds outstanding, the outstanding funds should be
deobligated immediately. Copies of deobligation documentation
should be sent to the HQ Program Development and Budget Staff.
When a funding document has been processed by the Region, the
planned finanical data in CERCLIS must be deleted, and the
commitment or obligation entered. Failure to make this change may
cause a reduction or withholding of the AOA for subsequent quarters.
Regions will not receive their FY 92 second quarter AOA until the
FY 91 financial data in CERCLIS and IFMS agree.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER VI - FINANCIAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
This chapter discusses the impact of the SCAP process on the Regional operating budget
and AOA and outlines Superfund financial management responsibilities.
In FY 89, the Agency began implementation of the new IFMS. BFMS is still in the
developmental stages. As a result, many of the financial management systems decisions have
not been made and the information in this Chapter may need to be revised. Addenda to the
Manual may be issued later in the FY.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FY 92 NATIONAL BUDGET
In FY 92 there are insufficient resources for all ongoing activities plus the new activities
the Regions planned to begin. As a result, resource decisions were made based on the following
program priorities and consistent with the integrated Priority Setting Matrix:
Handle classic emergencies first;
Make funding decisions, where resources are constrained, based on the worst
problems first strategy;
Support ongoing work to completion;
Use enforcement tools to encourage PRP action;
Fund response actions if enforcement cannot be used;
Maximize cost recovery;
Move sites to cleanup;
Initiate new work to keep the pipeline full;
Support long term goals via site assessment, removal, enforcement and State
programs; and
Maintain essential program management elements within the limited budgets.
Using these criteria, the response and enforcement programs made specific budget deci-
sions. The budgets for these programs and the decisions that were made are discussed in the
following sections.
Response Budget
The OMB pass back of the FY 92 response budget contains $896 million for direct
cleanup activities, including RI/FS, RD, RA, removals, treatability studies, and laboratory sup-
port for response actions. An additional $34 million is available to support other response
actions, policy support, information management, laboratory analysis for site assessment activi-
ties, the Technical Assistance Team (TAT), FIT and Mitre. In light of this, resources will be
provided for:
VI-1
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Removals at historical rates and within the budget constraints;
Oversight of all RP-lead RD and RA projects;
Ongoing RI/FS projects started as part of the "full funding strategy";
All RD starts;
The most threatening sites within the constraints of the RA budget; and
PA and SI activities and RCRA EPI commitments.
To the greatest extent possible the following activities will be supported:
New first and subsequent RI/FS projects;
Listing of new sites on the NPL; and
Support activities, such as the laboratory support resources.
Regions will not receive remedial funds for new or on-going projects at non-NPL sites.
Enforcement Budget
The enforcement budget for FY 92 is approximately $64 million. The budget provides
support for PRP removals, PRP RI/FS starts, response negotiations, referrals, administrative and
judicial cost recovery actions and project support activities. As with the response budget, deci-
sions on which activities will be funded are based on the integrated Priority Setting Matrix.
Within the matrix, the following activities are priorities:
Maintaining ongoing PRP oversight and compliance enforcement;
Maintaining ongoing litigation for response and cost recovery;
Referring SOL removal and remedial cost recovery cases; and
Negotiating PRP RD/RA response.
SCAP'S RELATIONSHIP TO ANNUAL REGIONAL BUDGET
The SCAP process is the planning mechanism used by the Superfund program to identify
site assessment, remedial, removal, enforcement and Federal Facility funding needs for the FY.
The planned obligations included in the second quarter SCAP update (February) form the basis
for the Regional budgets for the next FY. The final annual Regional operating plan, and the
associated budget, are a result of the August HQ and Regional negotiations on the proposed
outputs and program budgets. Though Regions are required to operate within their final negoti-
ated annual operating budget (except for RAs, which are funded in accordance with the RA
funding strategy), adjustments within this budget can be made during the FY.
The actual allocation of funds is done through the Agency's Phase in Operating Plan.
This plan is submitted to OMB prior to the start of the FY for apportionment of funds. After
VI-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
OMB review and concurrence, the Operating Plan is submitted to the Congress for approval of
significant reprogramming of funds. At this time, Congress may also modify the Operating Plan
based on Gramm-Rudman requirements, shifts in emphasis among different environmental
programs, etc. Changes made by Congress may affect the Regional budget negotiated in August.
Prior to the beginning of the FY, each Region will be given a proposed budget allocation
for the site assessment, remedial, removal, enforcement and Federal Facility programs. The
budget allocations are developed using the program/activity specific criteria discussed later in
this section. Regions are required to plan their obligations within the program specific alloca-
tions; they are not required to plan obligations within the activity specific criteria. Final budgets
will be developed upon completion of the fourth quarter negotiations between HQ and the
Regions. Planned obligations for Regional activities (except RA) must fall within the total
identified budget levels, and should be shown by entering "approved" ('APR') in the Funding
Priority Status data field (C3225). Funding needs above the HQ proposed total budget level must
be designated as "alternate" ('ALT'). This will allow HQ to see the Regional funding priorities,
what activities will not be performed as a result of lack of funds, and provide the information
needed for any supplemental funding requests. HQ will not initiate negotiations with a Region
until the "approved" funds requested (except RA) are within the proposed total Regional budget
levels. Planned obligations for RAs should be shown in CERCLIS using the criteria in Chapter
I, Exhibit 1-5. Fourth quarter FY 91 RA projects that will not be funded because of budget
constraints should also be coded with an Event Planning flag of "Q" (queued) and a Funding
Priority Status of "ALT" (Alternate). During fourth quarter negotiations, the planned start date
for these projects should be changed to FY 92.
Following is an explanation of the criteria used to develop the Regional budgets.
Site Assessment Annual Regional Budget
The proposed Regional site assessment budgets were established based on the number of
EPA and State-lead PA/SI completions, PA completions under EPI, ESI,, SI prioritization, NPL
package development, Federal Facility PAs and Federal Facility NPL package development
targeted in the March negotiations. PAs are priced at 120 Level of Effort (LOE) hours and
$6,840, Sis at 400 LOE hours and $22,800 and ESIs at 1000 hours and $57,000 each. Manage-
ment assistance or other forms of State assistance should be funded as project support or Core
Program Cooperative Agreement (CPCA) funds.
Remedial Annual Regional Budget
Funding for RAs will be distributed to the Regions based on a combination of a first
ready/first funded basis and the RA environmental priority setting approach presented in Chapter
I. Once a project is ranked, it will be funded in order of relative priority until funds are ex-
hausted. Based on the final national RA budget, a "funding line" will be established. Once an
RA project has been placed in the funding queue and is above the "funding line," the funds
necessary will be provided. Since the Regional RA budget is not developed prior to the FY,
Regions have the flexibility to modify their RA funding request during the year based on updated
information. The RA funding strategy will be reevaluated at mid-year and throughout the third
and fourth quarters.
The criteria used to develop the other major portions of the Regional remedial budgets
are shown in Exhibit VI-1 on the following page.
VI-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit VM
CRITERIA FOR PROPOSED REGIONAL RESPONSE BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITY CRITERIA
RI/FS
RD
RA
PROJECT SUPPORT
TREATABILITY STUDIES
TAG
CPCA
PRPRD/RA
OVERSIGHT
ARCS
MANAGEMENT
Negotiate mega-sites.
$750,000 per new start.
Other ongoing RI/FS based on number of
projects and funds obligated in previous
FYs.
$700,000 for each Fund-financed RD start
targeted in the March negotiations.
Based on dollars and schedules in CERCLIS
and in accordance with the RA
environmental funding strategy.
Based on each Region's share of remedial
targets negotiated in March.
Funds were allocated in proportion to each
Region's Fund-financed RI/FS starts.
Based on the number of NPL sites with
remedial work ongoing in FY 92.
Based on actual and planned CPCA
obligations in FY 91.
Based on the Region's PRP RD and RA
projects priced at $37,500 per quarter.
Based on the number of ARCS contracts in
each Region multiplied by pricing factors
for new or ongoing contracts. Funds are
allocated to Regions that have ARCS project
officers.
VI-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Fund-Financed RIIFS Funding Strategy
Successful implementation of the Fund-financed RI/FS full funding strategy requires
meeting the RI/FS cost reduction goals initiated in FY 89. This requires that RI/FS costs
be reduced to a national average of $750,000 per OU and $1.1 million per site. Both the
OU and site goals are important. The OU goal primarily affects year-to-year funding
limits. The site goal is needed for long term cost management and to eliminate the
incentive a Region may have to break sites into OUs to increase its annual budget. A
Region's RI/FS budget is developed based on the full funding strategy.
Treatability studies are not included in the cost goals. These activities are funded as a
separate event.
Removal Annual Regional Budget (Fund-Financed')
The removal annual Regiortal budget consists of removal actions and removal support
dollars. The FY 92 removal action Regional budget allocations will be based on 90 percent of
the FY 91 initial Regional budget allocation. The balance of the FY 92 removal budget will be
held in reserve at HQ.
FY 92 removal support dollars will be the sum of the program management costs in each
Region's ERCS contracts.
Enforcement Case Budget - Annual Regional Budget
The Case Budget refers to the extramural financial resources necessary to pay for the
enforcement support provided by contractors, other Federal agencies, and the States. The major-
ity of the Case Budget is used to pay for contractor support. Following are the Case Budget
funded categories:
PRP removal program;
PRP searches and RI/FS negotiations;
PRP RI/FS oversight;
Litigation support;
State enforcement; and
Program implementation.
Additional information on the allocation of the Case Budget can be found later in this
Chapter in the OWPE Case Budget section.
ADVICE OF ALLOWANCE PROCEDURES AND FINANCIAL REPORTING REQUIRE-
MENTS
The planned obligations identified through the SCAP process are the basis for the AOA
approved by the OC and AA SWER. No monies will be issued to the Regions through the
AOA process unless the appropriate project specific obligation and open commitment data
are reflected in CERCLIS.
VI-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Regional Allowances
In FY 92, the OC will issue seven allowances to the Regions. They arc:
RA (site specific "site" allowance);
RD (non-site specific "site" allowance);
RI/FS (non-site specific "site" allowance);
Removal (non-site specific "site" allowance);
Other response (non-site specific "regular" allowance);
Enforcement (non-site specific "regular" allowance); and
Federal Facility (non-site specific "regular" allowance).
The "site" allowance is an event specific allowance. It includes funding for removal
actions, RI/FS, RD, and RA projects and is issued on a site or non-site specific basis. The
"regular" allowance includes site and non-site specific events or activities and is issued non-site
specifically. The other response allowance contains funds for site assessments, removal and
remedial project support, response program support, five year reviews, treatability studies,
pollution liability insurance payments, ARCS program management funds and oversight of RP-
lead RDs and/or RAs. The following sections explain how these allowances are developed and
the flexibility available in the AOA structure.
The AOA Process
The AOA is based on the Phase HI Operating Plan which identifies projected obligations
for each quarter of the FY. The Phase III Operating Plan for FY 92 is based on the final SCAP
plans developed in the fourth quarter of FY 91. Funds available for obligation, however, are
limited to projected needs for the upcoming quarter. The AOA process was revised with the
implementation of IFMS. Regions enter the quarterly AOA into IFMS. The AA SWER and the
OC review the funding levels entered by the Region and compare them to the AOA amounts
generated by the HQ program offices. If the two agree, within three working days after the start
of the quarter, the HQ OC Budget Division and the AA SWER approve the AOA in IFMS and
the funds are available for obligation.
Approximately four weeks before the end of each quarter, HQ will generate an AOA
report (SCAP-4 and SCAP-4E) that reflect the approved planned obligations in CERCLIS. After
discussions with the Regions to clarify questions or issues, HQ will enter the AOAs into the
CERHELP BC/AOA system two weeks before the end of the quarter. Regions must pull the
reports from CERHELP and enter these amounts into IFMS. If the planned and actual obliga-
tions and commitments in CERCLIS exceed the Regional budget, the Region will be contacted,
the AOA will not be entered into CERHELP and the AOA in IFMS will not be approved until
CERCLIS is revised. If the AOA entered by the Regions does not agree with the AOA in CER-
HELP, IFMS will not be approved and the Automated Document Control Register (ADCR) will
not work. Only projects planned in CERCLIS can be funded by the AOA. Exhibit VI-2 illus-
trates the AOA process. Regional IMCs should work closely with their Regional finance office
on the entry of the correct AOA into IFMS.
VI-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit VI-2
THE ADVICE OF ALLOWANCE PROCESS
WEEK
WEEK
" 11
WEEK
" 13
WEEK
" 1
REGIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES
HQ RESPONSIBILITIES
Regions obligate
funds to projects
planned in SCAP
as reflected in
CERCLIS
Pull AOA data
Enter AOA
data from
CERHELP
imitlMMMIIIIIII
Regions obligate
funds to projects
planned in SCAP as
reflected in
CERCLIS
Review planned/
actual obligation data
and commitments
and tasking and
compare them to
annual Regional
program budget
If data within
budget, OERR and
OWPE enter AOA
to CERHELP.
AOA provided to
OC and AA
SWER
lUMMMIIMItltlllMIMIMIIIHIIM
OC and AA SWER
compare AOA data
to information
supplied by OWPE
and OERR
If all data agree, OC
and AA SWER
approve AOA
VI-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
The HQ OC Budget Division monitors obligations against the AOA weekly. If a Region
exceeds any of the allowances or a site specific RA allocation, the HQ OC Budget Division will
notify the Region and request resolution of the overcommitment/overobligation. The Region
then has until the end of the current month to rectify the overcommitment/overobligation or shut
down procedures will be initiated. If the Region does not submit a change request, decommit or
deobligate funds, or effect corrections in EFMS as necessary, the HQ Budget Division will
initiate reprogramming from the Region's regular allowance. Repeated violations for site or
allowance allocations may result in partial or total withdrawal of the Region's site allowance.
As is standard Agency policy, if a Region exceeds either the regular or site allowance, the
HQ OC Budget Division will withdraw obligation authority in accordance with existing proce-
dures. During the last quarter of the year, the HQ OC Budget Division will work with the Re-
gions, OSWER and OE as necessary to ensure that all allowances and obligations are aligned
prior to year-end closing.
In the past, the AOA obligation rate through the first two quarters of the FY has been
low. As a result, Regions will not receive their third quarter AOA for a specific response
category unless the commitment/obligation rate is 50 percent or greater in that AOA cat-
egory. If the commitment/obligation rate for one response allowance (i.e., RDs) is 35 percent
while the rate for another (i.e., removals) is 65 percent, the third quarter removal AOA would be
issued but the RD AOA would not be issued. For those Regions that continue to have a low rate
of commitment/obligation, OSWER will renegotiate the Regions' operating plan for the remain-
der of the year during June.
The Enforcement program has also developed rules for utilization of Case Budget funds.
See the HQ/Regional Adjustment sub-section of the OWPE Case Budget section later in this
Chapter.
Based on a decision to continue to manually enter financial data into CERCLIS (See
IFMS to CERCLIS Data transfer in this Chapter) it is especially important that Regions
reconcile IFMS and CERCLIS data at a minimum on a quarterly basis. Regions will not
receive their FY 92 second quarter AOA until the FY 91 financial data in CERCLIS and
IFMS agree.
AOA Flexibility
Flexibility exists within the AOA structure to shift funds both within and between allow-
ances. However, funds cannot be shifted into or out of the Federal Facility allowance. Shifting
funds between projects within the other response, RI/FS, RD, removal, enforcement, or Federal
Facility allowance is a SCAP adjustment. It does not require HQ approval or a change request.
CERCLIS must be revised to reflect the shift. Shifts between allowances is also a SCAP adjust-
ment, however, HQ approval of a change request is required. The change must be reflected in
CERCLIS prior to HQ approval. Based on Regional priorities, funds may also be reprogrammed
between response and enforcement. These shifts require a change request and Congressional
notification if the funds proposed for reprogramming exceed $500,000. Federal Facility funds
cannot be reprogrammed.
RA Allowance
The potential shortage of RA funds, the implementation of the RA priority setting crite-
ria, and the dollar value for RAs will reduce the Regions' ability to redirect RA funds.
Approval from the AA for Administration and Resources Management (ARM) and AA
SWER is required for the redirection of RA funds to other program areas. Given the
VI-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
constraints in RA funding, HQ approval is highly unlikely. Funding for ongoing projects,
mixed funding settlements, LTRA, and O&M, however, may be reprogrammed by the
Regions. RA funds made available as a result of bids coming in below expected amounts
will be returned to HQ for funding of other priority RA projects. In some cases, HQ may
recommend that the Region retain the funds to support unanticipated RA cost escalations.
In situations where the PRPs settle after the AOA is issued, Regions may retain the funds
needed for oversight. The remaining funds in the AOA must be sent back to HQ through
a change request. If the PRPs take over the RA after funds are obligated, Regions should
retain the funds needed for oversight and deobligate the rest. The RA funds that are
deobligated will be returned to HQ.
Non-site Specific Funding Flexibility
Regions may redirect funds within the other response, removal, RI/FS, RD, enforcement,
and Federal Facility allowances to meet site or activity priorities. It is important to note
that, generally, funds cannot be shifted out of the removal allowance because Congress
specifically added resources to this area. Regions may shift funds more easily into the
removal allowance from other non-site specific allowances. In most cases, the Region
may not exceed the Fund ceiling by shifting resources into the RI/FS allowance. The
ceiling may be increased in some instances to augment PRP contribution(s) or to fulfill
citizen requests for further technical work.
Funds saved within the RI/FS and RD accounts as a result of a settlement or where actual
costs are lower than estimated will generally stay within the Region. These funds may be
used within the allowance for other RI/FS or RD projects, respectively. In addition,
Regions may retain and redirect non-RA response funds made available as a result of the
following actions:
PRP takeovers or settlements;
RI/FS or RD bids that are less than planned amounts; and
Actual obligations less than planned obligations.
HQ approval will generally be given for the redirection of unused funds to the following
priorities:
Classic emergencies;
Removal actions to make NPL sites safe;
Ongoing RA projects; and
Funds necessary to oversee PRP activities.
Regions may redirect RD funds when a CD is referred to HQ or DOT for lodging or when
PRPs indicate they will comply with a UAO.
A change request must be approved by HQ before funds can be redirected to activities
outside the allowance.
Special non-site contingency accounts have been created in the CERHELP data base to
provide each Region with a means to "hold" and track the amount of funds made avail-
VI-9
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
able through the actions described above. As Regions identify uses for these funds, the
contingency account should be reduced. If the funds will be used for an activity sup-
ported by a different allowance, a change request must be approved prior to obligation.
Response funds may be used to address deficient PRP projects. Regions are allowed to
redirect funds to accommodate this need. Funds for PRP projects that will require sub-
stantial Fund involvement should be transferred to the appropriate response AOA cat-
egory. For projects requiring limited Fund involvement, funds should be transferred to
the enforcement AOA. Again, a change request will be necessary for transfers between
AOA categories.
AOA Change Request Procedures
Regions are required to operate within their quarterly AOA and their annual Regional
budget. Each Region will receive an RA budget based on the schedule for the RA and/or the
priority ranking of the scheduled RAs. Once an RA ranks above the funding line or is approved
for funding, the funds needed to conduct the RA will be provided. Regions are responsible for
managing the funds issued in the AOA and for operating within budget ceilings, floors and other
restrictions. Consistent with the flexible funding initiatives discussed earlier in this chapter,
Regions may:
Shift funds between projects within the other response, RI/FS, RD, removal,
Federal Facility or enforcement allowances. HQ approval is not required
Shift existing funds between allowances. HQ approval of a change request is
required. Note, funds cannot be shifted into the Federal Facility allowance. Funds
cannot be shifted out of the Federal Facility allowance to a response or enforce-
ment allowance; and
Move future planned obligations to the current quarter (increase total allowance
after issuance within the annual budget). HQ approval of a change request/SCAP
amendment is required.
In some situations, a change request is required as a result of Regional changes to the
SCAP. Chapter III identifies SCAP amendments and adjustments and when a change request is
needed. Exhibit VI-3 discusses the flexible funding and other situations where an AOA change
request is required. Exhibit VI-4 describes the procedures to be followed in each of these situa-
tions. HQ will not approve a change request unless CERCLIS is revised to reflect the change.
Under IFMS, change requests are electronically transferred to HQ. The following infor-
mation should be provided for a change request:
Purpose/justification;
Amount;
Site name and S/S ID if allowance is issued site specifically;
Program element(s) (TGB - enforcement, TFA - response or TYP - Federal Facil-
ity); and
Allowance that is being increased and/or allowance that is being decreased.
VI-10
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit VI-3
CHANGE REQUEST REQUIRED
CHANGE REQUEST SITUATION
PROCEDURES IN EXHIBIT VI-4 TO
BE FOLLOWED:
ALLOCATION TRANSFER lAGs
TRANSFER FUNDS TO EMSL OR
OTHER ENTITY WITHIN EPA
SHIFTING FUNDS BETWEEN
ALLOWANCES AFTER ISSUANCE
INCREASE TOTAL QUARTERLY
ALLOWANCE AFTER ISSUANCE
(WITHIN ANNUAL BUDGET)
DECREASE TOTAL QUARTERLY
ALLOWANCE AFTER ISSUANCE
INCREASE RA FUNDING AFTER
ALLOWANCE IS ISSUED
DECREASE RA FUNDING AFTER
ALLOWANCE IS ISSUED
DECREASE RA FUNDING AS A
RESULT OF PRP TAKEOVER
DECREASE ALLOWANCE AFTER
ISSUANCE
DECREASE ALLOWANCE AFTER
ISSUANCE
SHIFTING FUNDS BETWEEN
ALLOWANCES AFTER ISSUANCE
INCREASE TOTAL ALLOWANCE
AFTER ISSUANCE WITHIN ANNUAL
BUDGET
DECREASE ALLOWANCE AFTER
ISSUANCE
INCREASE TOTAL ALLOWANCE
AFTER ISSUANCE WITHIN ANNUAL
BUDGET
DECREASE ALLOWANCE AFTER
ISSUANCE
DECREASE ALLOWANCE AFTER
ISSUANCE
VI-11
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit VT-4
AOA CHANGE PROCESS
AOA CHANGES
Decrease Allowance
After Issuance
Increase Total Allowance
After Issuance Within Annual
Budget
Shifting Funds Between
Allowances After Issuance
IMC sends E-mail
change request to the
Regional finance office,
with copies to OERR
PDBS staff or OWPE
CPB staff
IMC sends E-mail change
request to OERR PDBS
staff, or OWPE CPB staff
with copies to AA SWER
and Regional Finance office
IMC sends E-mail change
request to the Regional
Finance office, with copies
to OERR PDBS staff and/or
OWPE CPB staff and AA
SWER
C
Revise
CERCLIS
C
Revise CERCLIS
) C
Revise CERCLIS
Change request is electronically
transmitted to HQ through IFMS
AOA in IFMS is revised to
reflect the change
AA SWER sends E-mail
approval memorandum to
Regional program and
finance offices and
HQOC
L
i.
The change request is electronically transmitted to HQ through DFMS
AOA in IFMS is revised to reflect the change
OSWER and the OC review the request
Revised AOA is approved in IFMS by the HQ OC and AA SWER
VI-12
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
If the change request is a reprogramming of funds between allowances, the net change
should equal zero. The change request must be transmitted by authorized personnel in the
Region's financial office. The site specific record in CERCLIS should be revised at the time the
change request is transmitted. Regions should not initiate any obligations against the change
until the OC and AA SWER approves the revised AOA.
Since the AOA is updated daily, change requests transmitted to HQ can be processed and
a revised allowance approved immediately.
Congressional Reporting Requirements
In 1989, Congress imposed reporting requirements on the response program element.
The agreement originally stated that the Agency would budget and report financial information
in the following eight categories:
Pre-Remedial;
RI/FS;
RD;
RA;
Removal actions;
Response support;
Remedial support; and
Removal support.
After further discussion, Congress determined that the response program must report on
four of these categories:
RI/FS;
RD;
RA;and
Removal actions.
Within 30 days following the end of the quarter, the Agency will report the status of the
current operating plan compared to the original operating plan. Immediate Congressional notifi-
cation is required if the cumulative changes in a single category exceed any of the funding levels
by $2 million or more. The RA threshold is $10 million. Since the reporting requirements are
after the fact they will have no impact on the flexible funding policy. The OC will monitor the
Congressional reporting requirement through the AOA. The Financial Summary Report (SCAP-
4) will be used to manage the monitoring and reporting requirements.
VI-13
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit VI-5
SITE VS. NON-SITE SPECIFIC PLANNED OBLIGATIONS
Site Specific
Admin. Cost Recovery
Administrative Record**
CR**
Cost Document Preparation
Design Assistance**
Endangerment Assessment
Federal Facility Oversight
Forward Planning
Litigation Support
LTRA
Management Assistance**
Negotiations:
Removal**
IAG
RD/RA**
RI/FS**
Cost Recovery
Non-Binding Allocation of
Responsibility (NEAR)**
O&M**
Other**
Oversight of PRP:
RI/FS**
RD
RA
O&M; LTRA
Removals**
PRP Search
NPL**
Non-NPL**
RA
RD
RI/FS
Referrals
104(e)
106
106/107**
107**
Bankruptcy Claims
Removals
Technical Assistance**
TAGs**
Treatability Study
Non-Site Specific*
ARCS Contractor Management
Aerial Surveys**
Contract or Program Management
CPCA
ERCS Management
Geophysical Support/
Topographical Mapping**
Information Management
Multi-site CA
PA/SI
Preliminary Natural Resource
Surveys (PNRS)
Records Management
Senior Environmental Employee
Program
State Enforcement Management
Assistance
TES 5+ Contractor Management
Training
**
For these activities,
Regions must enter the
number of sites involved
and the contract vehicle.
These activites may be
planned site specifically or
non-site specifically.
VI-14
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
SCAP'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE AOA
Within the SCAP process, obligations are planned either site, project and OU specifically
or non-site specifically. That is, some planned obligations are associated with specific site
activities while other planned obligations are estimates of total funding required for an activity
within a Region. The CERCLIS data bases have been designed to accommodate site and non-
site specific planning. Exhibit VI-5 lists the events and enforcement activities for which obliga-
tions are planned on a site, OU and project vs. non-site basis.
CERCLIS tracks only extramural funding needs. Therefore, Regions should be certain
all their extramural funding needs are reflected in CERCLIS such that there is a crosswalk
between the CERCLIS planned financial data and the Regional AOA.
In addition to the site and non-site specific planning, obligations are also planned and
budgets developed on a program specific basis. The Budget Source field (C3229 and C2918) in
CERCLIS identifies which program pays for the planned events/activities. Exhibit VI-6 presents
the budget source codes associated with each program. It is important that Regions accurately
identify the budget source since each program develops an annual budget and each program has
a separate AOA process. It is also important that the Regions maintain this budget source code
to eliminate potential impacts on the Regional AOA.
Exhibit VI-6
BUDGET SOURCE CODES
E
V
R
= Enforcement
= Removal
= Remedial
M =
D =
L =
HQ Removal
HQ Remedial
Federal Facility
Exhibit VI-7 identifies the major events/activities and the appropriate budget source
codes, depending on the project/event lead, for planned obligations. Funds for temporary or
permanent relocations conducted by FEMA should be given a budget source of "M" or "D" after
the IAG is signed and funds are transferred to HQ through the change request procedures. Funds
for aerial surveys or topographical mapping at sites on the HQ/EMSL list should be given a
budget source of "M" or "D." Funds for aerial surveys and topographical mapping at sites not on
the HQ/EMSL list and other intra-agency assistance are allocated in the Regional budget. Once
the change request transferring the funds to the other entity is processed, the budget source code
in CERCLIS should be changed to an HQ budget source code.
As stated in Chapter V, beginning in FY 92 the lead for project support activities will not
be coded based on national rules but left to the Regions' discretion. As a result of this change,
the budget source code becomes even more important. For example, EPA funded CR at an RP-
lead RI/FS should have a budget source code of "E" (Enforcement). Funds for some project
support activities (i.e., aerial surveys, topographical mapping, geophysical support, etc.) at RP-
lead RI/FS projects should be included in the RI/FS oversight request.
VI-15
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit VI-7
WHO PAYS FOR WHAT
EVENT/ACTIVITY
ARCS Management
Administrative Cost Recovery
CPCA
ERA*
ERA Oversight*
ERCS Management
Zone
Regional
ESI
Litigation Referrals and Ongoing Support
Section 106
Section 107
Section 106/107
Section 104(e)
Bankruptcy Claims
LTRA
LTRA Oversight
Negotiations (including development of site
workplans)
Removal
RI/FS
RD/RA
Cost Recovery
IAG
IAG (formerly owned Federal Facilities)
NBAR
PA/SI
PRP Searches
NPL
Non-NPL
Prepare Cost Documentation Package
Remedial/Enforcement Project Support:**
Aerial Surveys
Administrative Record
Contract Program Management
TES 5+ Program Management
CR
Design Assistance
Endangerment Assessment
Federal Facility Docket
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BSE&MSRESHSlisSSfliSiBSKHSKfijHllDeifi!^
EVENT/ACTIVITY CODES
CERCLIS
AV
ER
ER
ES
SX
sv
CL
SF
CB
LR
LR
RN
FN
AN
NE
IN
IN
NB
NS
RP
PC
AS
AR
CR
DA
ED
'3^^^^'^^^S
CERHELP
AC, PM*
SC
ER
EZ
RE
SX
SV
CL
RN
FN
AN
NB
PA
PS
RP
AS
AR
PM
TM
CR
DA
FD
CERCLIS
LEAD
FE
F
RP
FF
S,F
FE
FE
FE
FE
FE
F,S,EP,MR
RP,PS,MR
FE
FE.SE
FE.SE
FE
FE
FE
FE
FE
FE
FE
ALL***
FF
ALL
FF
Rffi&SSSSSS&SSS^
2g3222g3gSg2BSSBB33S2ฃi
BUDGET h
SOURCE 1
1
E 1
R,V i
ESS
R l!
E m
L i
v m
v m.
R m
t
E m
E m
E m
E m
E m
R M
R m
m
1
m
E m
E m
E m
E m
L M
E m
m
E 1
R i
i
1
E 1
E i
i
iซ3
E m
Ev3
1
R, D, V, M 1
R.E.V I
L
R, E, L
E,L jj
R.E.V |
R i
R,E 1
L 1
* - Designates Historical Ongoing Only
** - Guidance on assigning leads for project support activities is found in Chapter V.
*** - ALL = F, S, EP, FE*, SE, RP, PS
VI-16
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
Exhibit VI-7 (continued)
WHO PAYS FOR WHAT
EVENT/ACTIVITY
Remedial/Enforcement Project Support
(continued):
Forward Planning/Mgmnt. Asst
Geophysical Support
Information Management
Management Assistance
Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement
O&M
Other (Specify)
PNRS
Records Management
Senior Environmental Employee Program
State Enforcement Management Assistance
Technical Assistance
TAGs
Treatability Studies
Topographical Mapping
Training
Removal Actions:
Removal
Removal Contingency
NPL
Non-NPL
Oversight of PRP Removal
Removal Support:
Administrative Record
Aerial Survey
Evacuation
Investigations
Removal Community Relations
Temporary Relocation
RI/FS
RI/FS Oversight
RD
RD Oversight
RA
RA Oversight
VPMPHWMMMWMMMMMHMOTHPIMMMMMMHMMWMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMHi
EVENT/ACTIVITY CODES
CERCLIS
FP
GS
MA
OM
OH
TA
TO
TS
TO
RV,UR*,IR*,PR*
RV,UR*,IR*.PR*
AR
EV
RC
TR
RI.FS.CO
RI.FS.CO
RD
RD
RA
RA
NMMMMMMHMMMMMMMH
CERHELP
HG
IM
MA
MS
OM
OH
PN
RM
SE
EM
TA
CT
TO
TR
RC
NP
NA
RC
AR
AU
RS
RI
RD
RD
RA
RA
MMMMMMMMMM
CERCLIS
LEAD
ALL
ALL
FF
ALL
FF
FF
ALL
ALL
F
FF
RP.MR
ALL
F
F
F
FF
F
F.S.EP
RP.MR.PS
FF
F.S.MR
RP. PS. MR
FF
F.S.MR
RP, PS, MR
FF
MMMMMMMPMHMHMMM
BUDGET
SOURCE
R
R
E.L.R
R,E
L
R,E
R
E.L
E,L
R.E.L
E
E
L
R.E
L
R
R.E
R, D, V. M
E
V
L
V
V
V
E
V
V
V
V
V.E
L
V
R
E
L
R
R
L
R
R
L
IMMHMMMMMMMMM
* - Designates Historical Ongoing Only
** - Guidance on assigning leads for project support activities is found in Chapter V.
VI-17
*** - ALL = F, S, EP, FE*. SE*. RP, K
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
The obligation authorities for mixed funding rests in the Regions. Funds needed for these
agreements are to be planned in advance and become part of the Region's budget.
Remedial Financial Planning for AOA
The AOA for the remedial program is issued by the OC on a site and non-site specific
basis and is broken down into the following categories:
RI/FS;
RD;
RA (site specific); and
Other response.
Site specific planned obligations are entered directly into CERCLIS in the appropriate
event record for the site. The planned obligation date, amount, contract vehicle, budget source
and priority funding status are to be entered. Those remedial events at NPL sites that have the
greatest likelihood of requiring funding during the FY that are within the Region's budget alloca-
tion should be identified by placing "APR" (approved) in the Funding Priority Status field
(C3225 and C2909) in CERCLIS. The RI/FS, RD and other response AOAs are the total of the
approved site specific or non-site specific planned obligations at NPL sites in CERCLIS with a
budget source code of "R." CERCLIS financial reports (SCAP-4 and SCAP-21) provide a total
for the site specific and non-site specific planned obligations for the purpose of developing and
issuing the AOA.
The AOA for RAs is pulled directly from the approved site specific planned obligation in
CERCLIS and is issued by site name, S/S ID and dollar amount. Regions must be sure the
planned obligation date, contractor vehicle, budget source, priority funding status and remedy
technology type (Technology Information Qualifier (C3402)) are entered into CERCLIS. Re-
gions will not receive RA funds in their AOA unless the remedy technology type has been
entered into CERCLIS. In addition, in order to be approved for funding, the RA project must be
approved on a first ready/first funded basis or placed in the funding queue, either automatically
or through the RA priority setting process, and rank above the RA "funding line." (See Chapter I
for additional information.)
A Region will not receive funds above its annual Regional budget unless a SCAP amend-
ment/change request has been approved by HQ. Each quarter the actual and approved
planned obligations and actual commitments must be less than or equal to the annual
Regional budget or the AOA will not be approved.
In FY 90, HQ established a non-site specific remedial contingency account in CERHELP.
The remedial contingency account cannot be used for developing Regional budgets. It can only
be used during the operating year for "holding" remedial response funds (except RAs) made
available: 1) as a result of PRP takeovers; 2) by RD bids coming in under projected amounts; or
3) in situations where the actual obligations were less than planned obligations.
As the Region identifies uses for these funds, the contingency account must be reduced
and the site specific planned/actual obligations entered into CERCLIS. The funds in the contin-
gency account will be reviewed by HQ at mid-year and throughout the third and fourth quarters.
VI-18
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
If a Region has a funding request during the year that was unplanned, the following approach
should be followed in identifying funding sources:
As a first step, Regions should determine if funds are available in the contingency
accounts that can be redirected within or between allowances to perform the
action;
If no contingency funds are available, funds planned for obligation in future
quarters (within the Region's annual budget) that will not be used as originally
planned should be tapped;
After mid-year, funds made available within the annual Regional budget as a
result of the mid-year or third/fourth quarter adjustment process should be used;
and
If necessary, Regions may request an increase in their annual budget through the
redirection of funds made available as a result of mid-year or third/fourth quarter
adjustments in other Regions.
If a Region receives funds in their AOA which were not obligated during the quarter
received, the relevant planned obligation data in CERCLIS must be changed or the amount
placed in the contingency account. At the end of each quarter HQ will review the AOA funds
remaining, commitments and obligations made, the contingency account, and planned obligation
data. If AOA funds were not committed or obligated and the planned obligation data were not
changed, HQ will take the following actions:
Reduce the next quarter's AOA for other response, RI/FS or RD funds by the
amount that was not committed or obligated; or
Request that Regions follow the OC's change request procedures to return RA
funds to HQ.
The Financial Report (SCAP-4) and the Budget Control Report (SCAP-21) will be used
to evaluate the status of the RI/FS, other response, RD, RA and removal allowances.
To the maximum extent possible, Regions should plan for mixed funding requirements
prior to the development of the annual Regional budget. However, if a request for preauthoriza-
tion is received and funds are required during the current FY, Regions must identify the source
of the requested funds from within -their annual budget.
Removal Financial Planning for AOA
Each Region's removal annual budget will be established in August. The Regional AOA
will be distributed as follows: 30 percent of the annual budget in the first quarter, 20 percent in
the second quarter and 30 percent in the third quarter, as long as updated quarterly plans for
those amounts are in CERCLIS by the specified pull dates. These plans may be adjusted, as
needed, anytime after the pull date. HQ and the Regions will negotiate the fourth quarter alloca-
tion in order to ensure that all removal funds are being used to the best advantage. If at any time
a Region needs additional funding, CERCLIS should be updated to show the proposed spending
plan with a funding priority status of "Alternate." A change request/SCAP amendment should
be sent to the Response Operation Branch. When the change has been approved, the funding
priority status code in CERCLIS should be revised.
VI-19
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
Enforcement Financial Planning for AOA
In FY 92, the Case Budget AOA allocation will be displayed by OWPE distribution
model categories. For additional information see Final Case Budget Distribution in the OWPE
Case Budget Process section which follows.
OWPE CASE BUDGET PROCESS
This section provides an overview of the Case Budget process, including a discussion of
SCAP targeted and non-targeted activities needing Case Budget funding, financial planning and
tracking requirements and responsibilities, budget allocation and AOA distribution, contract
mechanisms, activities and their pricing factors, and CERCLIS Case Budget reports. In addition,
a brief summary of Regional/HQ responsibilities during the Case Budget process is included.
There are five basic components to the Case Budget process. These are 1) preliminary
Case Budget allocation and distribution; 2) Regional planning against the preliminary budget;
3) HQ/Regional negotiations; 4) final Case Budget distribution; and 5) budget execution. Each
of these five steps is fully detailed in the following sections.
Preliminary Case Budget Allocation and Distribution
A Region's Case Budget allocation contains the Region's share of available extramural
resources used to support enforcement activities. This includes the following:
PRP removal program;
PRP searches and RI/FS negotiations;
PRP RI/FS oversight;
Litigation support;
State enforcement; and
Program implementation.
To allow Regions to make one request for litigation, the three budget categories of RD/
RA referral and negotiations, cost recovery, and ongoing litigation support have been collapsed
into the general category of litigation support. One request, therefore, may be made for both the
quarter in which the litigation is referred and for the subsequent ongoing quarters.
The Case Budget is formulated as follows:
Initial allocation is based on the technical enforcement model;
Three percent (3%) of the total budget ($64 million) will be held back for mega-
sites. Requests for mega-site funding are made in July with distribution occurring
in the first quarter of the operating year,
$1 million from the litigation support category will be held at HQ for litigation
contingency funding. (Regional holdback will be based proportionally on each
Regions share of nationally available funds.) To request litigation contingency
VI-20
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
funding, Regions should code requests into CERCLIS with an "ALT" funding
status and notify HQ of the funding requirement. Funds will be distributed on an
as needed basis periodically throughout the FY;
Preliminary budgets are sent to the Regions in June/July. Regions plan their
obligations for the upcoming FY against this budget. Prior to August SCAP
negotiations, the Regional plans are pulled from CERCLIS. During negotiations,
each Region's plan is generally reviewed to determine if the Region can utilize its
budget or needs additional funding; and
Each Region's request is reviev/ed and a final budget/AOA for the Region is
developed in early September. For example, if a Region receives a preliminary
budget of $10 million in June and their site and non-site specific planned obliga-
tions in August total $8 million, $2 million will be reallocated to Regions with a
demonstrated need above their preliminary budget.
Litigation Support
To request litigation support contingency funding, the Region should send a letter to the
Division Director of CED addressing the following points:
What the funds will be used for,
Why the litigation support can not be funded out of the current budget;
If it is an NEAR or dฃ minimis settlement;
Any extraordinary circumstances surrounding the case;
Viability of PRPs;
Type of settlement; and
National precedence issues.
In FY 91, a workgroup is reviewing current extramural allocation procedures. Regions
should expect some changes to these procedures in FY 92. Guidance will be issued outlining the
new procedures.
Regional Planning Against Preliminary Budget
The goal of the FY 92 Case Budget process is to increase effectiveness, allow greater
flexibility and provide financial accountability through CERCLIS. Regions should plan their
budget site specifically or use a combination of site specific and non-site specific planning where
actual sites are undetermined prior to the start of the fiscal quarter. Non-site specific plans
should be replaced with site-specific plans when sites are identified.
Regions should indicate their FY 92 Case Budget plans in CERCLIS by the August pull
date. (Details on how to code Case Budget plans in CERCLIS are presented in Appendix E.) It
is important that Regions plan their Case Budget needs and requests against specific sites and
projects where possible. This will enable both the Regions and HQ to identify Regional priori-
ties and budget needs that exceed the proposed allocation. Such detail is crucial to any attempt
by HQ to seek supplemental funding. Without site specific or project justification, HQ will not
VI-21
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
consider requests in excess of the proposed allocation. In addition, throughout the FY, Regions
should ensure that CERCLIS plans are updated to accurately reflect funding requirements against
the available budget.
Because the Case Budget is FY specific, all funding requests should be limited to only
the amount needed during FY 92 except in rare circumstances, which should be discussed with
HQ, or when requesting funds for RI/FS oversight. In the case of annually priced activities, it is
expected that the funding provided in one FY will support the activity through completion and
that additional funds will not be requested in subsequent FYs.
Exhibit VI-8 displays all the activities and events eligible for funding in FY 92 within
specific budget categories. Case Budget dollars planned against other activities will not be
accommodated. It is important to note that any activity or event not listed in Exhibit VI-9 will
not be included on the standard reports (SCAP-4E, SCAP-21E, and ENFR-47). The Case Budget
no longer pays for many supporting activities (e.g., O&M, design assistance, geophysical sup-
port, etc.). These activities are funded through the Response budget. Regions should refer to
Exhibit VI-7 for a complete listing of which budget supports specific activities and events.
Since the Case Budget is to be managed at the overall or bottom line level, Regions must
consider both their actual allocation and funding priorities when planning their budgets. In
addition, average pricing factors and budget categories should be considered when determining
site and Regional funding requirements. For example, if a Region's total request is within the
allocated budget, requests for PRP RI/FS oversight do not have to match the proposed allocation
for the PRP RI/FS oversight budget category. Therefore, Regions are not required to request
dollars within budget category pricing.
It is recognized that Regions may have to shift funds among budget categories in order to
fund priority activities or events. The Funding Status field (C3225 and C2909) should be used to
indicate both requests within and above Regional allocations. This status should be reviewed
and monitored on a regular basis to ensure the availability of funds and identification of supple-
mental needs.
To determine the proper funding status code (C3225 and C2909), the activity/event must
be identified as a primary or alternate target/project (Activity/Event Planning Status - C2110). If
it is an alternate target/project, the entire funding request should be coded as "ALT." To deter-
mine the funding status for primary targets/projects, the total of all the requests must be consid-
ered. If the total request does not exceed the available budget the funding status codes may be
"APR." If, however, the budget is exceeded, the planned obligation should be coded as "ALT"
(alternate). The approved plans must not exceed Regional allocations. AOAs will not be distrib-
uted to Regions with approved planned dollars totalling more than the available budget.
Potential funding requirements, such as potential PRP takeovers, should be coded with
"CON" as the funding status (C3225 and C2909).
Enforcement Mega-Sites
To distribute the resources for mega-sites, Regions should employ the following method-
ology:
1) Determine the Case Budget financial needs at typical projects and code
them as "Approved" (APR) in the financial status field (C3225 and
VI-22
-------
Exhibit VT-S
FY 92 CASE BUDGET FUNDED ACTIVITIES REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE PROGRAM OUTPUTS
to
UJ
OWPE DISTRIBUTION
MODEL
CATEGORIES
REMOVAL
PROGRAM
PRP SEARCHES AND
RI/FS NEGOTIATIONS
PRPRI/FS
OVERSIGHT
LITIGATION
SUPPORT
STATE
ENFORCEMENT
PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION
ASSOCIATED CASE BUDGET
FUNDED ACTIVmES
(Targe. = )
-Non-NPL PRP Search
- Removal Negotiation Sara
- RP Ovenight (PRP removals nun)*
NPL PRP Search (Phase I)
NPL PRP Search (Phซe II)
- RI/FS Negotiation Starts
- PRP RI/FS Oversight"
-Treatibilility Study Ovenight
-Endangennent Assessment Ovenight
- Cost Recovery Negotiation
- Piepaie Cost Documentation Pkg.
- Administrative Cost Recovery
- RD/RA Negotiation Starts*
-NBAR
- IAG Negotiations (formerly owned
Federal Facilities)
Referral Development*
Section 106, 105/107
Section 107 Removal
Section 107 Remedial
Section 104 (e)
. Claims in Bankruptcy
- Ongoing Support
Section 106, 106/107
Section 107
-PS RI/FS Oversight*
- TES 5+ Program Management
- Contract Program Management
- Administrative Record
- Records Management
-CRs
- State Enforcement
Management Assistance
- Information Management
- ERA Ovenight (ongoing)
Management Assistance
-PNRS
- Technical Assistance
Multi-iito CA
- Training
-Other
- Senior Environmental Employee
Program
CERCLIS
CODES
RP
RN
RV
NS
NS
FN
RLFS, CO
TS
ED
NE
PC
AV
AN
NB
IN
SX.CL
SV
SV
SF
CB
SX.CL
SV
RLFS, CO
AR
CR.RC
ER
MA
TA
OH
SB
CERHELP
CODES
RP
RN
RC.NA.NP
PS
PS
FN
RI
AN
NB
SX.CL
SV
SV
SXCL
SV
RI
TM
PM
AR
RM
CR
EM
IM
MA
PN
TA
MS
TR
OH
VALID LEADS
FOR
SITE-SPECIFIC
PLANS
FE
FE
RP.MR
FE
FE
FE.SE
RP.MR
RP.MR
RPJVlR
FE
FE
FE
FE.SE
FE
FE
FE
FE
FE
FE
FE
FE
FE
PS
F
F
F
F
F
SK AVG.
PRICING FACTOR
ANNUAI
15.0
50.0
25.0
50.0
250.0
20.0
20.0
7.0
24.0
15.0
14.0
21.0
10.0
10.0
150.0
QRTRLY
6.0
20.0
10.0
AVG.
DURATION
IN
QUARTERS
1
1
4
12
10
2
2
1
3
3
2
3
1
10
TOTAL
AVG. COST
15.0
50.0
25.0
72.0
50.0
250.0
20.0
20.0
7.0
24.0
15.0
14.0
21.0
10.0
150.0
I
ฉ
'Ti
-------
FISCAL
QUARTER
Exhibit VI-9
CASE BUDGET AOA LIMITS
LIMITS
90
I
I
NO
6
H-*
Ti
1st QUARTER
Total approved planned obligations must equal negotiated budget (no
carryover funds).
First quarter planned obligations must not exceed 35% of annual budget.
2nd QUARTER
Total used funds and approved planned obligations must equal negotiated
budget plus carryover funds.
Sum quarter 1 used and quarter 2 planned obligations must not exceed
50% of annual budget plus carryover funds.
3rd QUARTER
Total used funds and approved planned obligations must equal negotiated
budget plus carryover funds.
Sum quarter 1 and 2 used and quarter 3 planned obligations must not
exceed 75% of annual budget plus carryover funds.
4th QUARTER
Total used funds and approved planned obligations must equal negotiated
budget plus carryover funds.
Sum quarter 1, 2, and 3 used and quarter 4 planned obligations must not
exceed 100% of annual budget plus carryover funds.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
C2909). This will be a combination of estimates and standard pricing
factors;
2) Determine the Case Budget non-site specific needs;
3) Determine financial needs for mega-sites/projects;
4) Total the dollars in steps 1-3. If this amount is greater than the Region's
Case Budget, adjust the dollar values between "APR" and "ALT" status to
meet the Region's allocation. "ALT' dollars should be applied to the
mega-site activities. The Region should then submit a formal request for
mega-site funding to OWPE CPB.
5) If the total amount of steps 1-3 is less than or equal to the Region's Case
Budget allocation, all dollars should be "Approved." There is no need for
the Region to submit a formal request for mega-site funding.
If there are sufficient funds for all mega-site requests, HQ will allocate mega-site dollars
to the Regions. However, if the budget cannot support mega-site needs, a HQ/Regional
workgroup will review the mega-site funding requests and allocate dollars to the Regions
during the third and fourth quarter FY 91. Regions are required to submit enforcement
mega-site management jplans to CED by June 30, 1991.
Final Case Budget Distribution
Approximately fifteen days prior to the beginning of the quarter, HQ will indicate the
approved quarterly budget levels in CERHELP. AOAs will be displayed as approved amounts
by quarter. HQ will not send out a memorandum containing the approved amounts. A Region's
"APR" planned obligations must not exceed their approved budget for the upcoming quarter. In
order to receive its allowance, a Region must have updated quarterly planned obligations for
those amounts in CERCLIS by the specified pull date.
CERHELP lists the AOA by quarter and also according to OWPE distribution model
categories. Prior year TES obligated and untasked funds (i.e., carryover funds) are also shown.
These amounts appear on the SCAP-4E and SCAP-21E reports.
Quarterly AOAs will be issued based on Regional quarterly plans recorded in CERCLIS
and identified on the SCAP-4E report. Regions should plan on obligating approximately 35
percent of their Case Budget in the first quarter, 15 percent in the second, and 25 percent
in the third and fourth quarters. This distribution is based on historical budget utilization.
Regions may receive a higher percentage of funds in a quarter only after discussions with HQ.
It is also recognized that Regions will have TES obligated untasked funds (carryover)
from one FY to the next. This amount will be determined and agreed upon with the Regions by
November 1. These amounts will be placed in CERHELP by contract vehicle in early Novem-
ber. They will be displayed on the SCAP-4E report under the Contract Use and Regional Allow-
ance sections.
Since these funds represent tasking authority, the use and planned use of funds will
exceed the annual Regional budget. To ensure that the budget is balanced and that AOA funds
requested do not exceed quarterly allocation percentages, the limits displayed in Exhibit VI-9
should be adhered to.
VI-25
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
The purpose of the allocation strategy is to allow more accurate planning of resources and
ensure the availability of resources when they are needed. As budget utilization (TES tasking
and non-TES commitments and obligations) will be measured against quarterly plans, Regions
should request Case Budget funds the quarter in which they will be utilized.
Budget Execution
Ensuring the availability of funds when they are needed is crucial to the success of the
Enforcement program. While it is understood that the volatility of the program may inhibit the
planning process, Regions should do their best to use Case Budget funds in the quarters in which
they are planned.
To offer a credible argument for supplemental funds, it is imperative that the Regions
show adequate utilization of available resources. Close monitoring and management of the Case
Budget is, therefore, essential. Outlined below are the major steps of the budget execution
processes that must be followed to manage Case Budget resources.
TES Contract Obligations
Once quarterly AOAs are received by the Region at the beginning of the fiscal quarter,
the contract obligations may be initiated. Obligations are made to contracts when the Contract-
ing Officer (CO) signs the contract or modification of the contract to include the new funds.
Regional Project Officers (RPOs) make sure that the PRs are committed by their FMOs in the
Automated Document Control Register (ADCR) before sending them to the CO.
RPOs will submit three types of obligations for the TES 5 + contracts:
Program management obligations;
Generic obligations to cover TES tasking; and
Buy-in obligations.
Detailed instructions for coding all types of obligations are included in Appendix E.
Program Management Obligations
A program management obligation is the amount of the Regional management Work
Assignment (WA). RPOs will send PRs to the COs to obligate funds to cover the Re-
gional management WAs. The IMCs, or their designees, will enter the PR commitment
amounts in CERHELP as "Contract Program Management" using the coding reference
guide and data entry instructions included in Appendix E. If required by Regional proce-
dures, the RPOs will provide copies of the PRs and CERCLIS coding forms to the IMCs.
Generic Obligations to Cover TES Tasking
The generic PR or obligation provides funds to the contract to cover the value of Enforce-
ment program WAs. This type of obligation, however, is not activity or site specific.
The obligated dollars are used to fund anticipated WAs not initiated or approved under
previous obligations. Obligations must precede approved WAs and, therefore, any actual
work in the Region. These PRs create non-site specific obligations that will be
charged to the site specific WAs when the contractors' invoices are processed by
EPA. RPOs must ensure that enough money is obligated to cover the total value of
VI-26
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
the WAs outstanding at any given time in each FY. Again, if Regional procedures
require, RPOs should provide copies of PRs with coding forms to the IMCs for the
commitments/obligations to be recorded in CERHELP as 'OH' for other.
Buy-in Obligations
The third type of obligation is for TES WAs that are submitted with their own funding
PRs. These WAs are generally referred to as buy-ins. The most common form of a buy-
in is when "TFA" (remedial or removal funds) or "TYP" (Federal Facility) funds are used
to support the TES contractor's performance of non-enforcement work at the site. To
properly account for these funds RPOs must record the PR Account Number (AN) in the
Technical Enforcement Support Work Assignment Tracking System (TESWATS) in the
"funding account" field. Additionally, Superfund site specific buy-ins will have to be
properly coded in CERCLIS using the EPA ID, OU number, event or enforcement activ-
ity type, funding AN, and Document Control Number (DCN). RPOs should provide
copies of PRs, properly coded WA forms, or CERCLIS coding forms to the IMCs for the
information to be entered in the appropriate site records.
Obligations for Other Financial Vehicles
Regions may utilize other financial vehicles (ARCS, lAGs or CAs) to perform enforce-
ment related work. To access the ARCS contracts, the Region must write a PR committing funds
to the contract. The commitment initiates the process of obligating funds. The PR is written for
a specific activity or event to be performed at the site and upon approval of the CO, the contrac-
tor may begin the proposed work. Case Budget funds ("TGB") obligated to one of the non-TES
contracts represents an enforcement buy-in to a non-TES contract vehicle.
If the State or another Federal agency will be performing the work, a CA or IAG, respec-
tively, is required. Like the PR, the IAG or CA is written for a specific activity or event to be
performed at the site. A CA requires the preparation of a Commitment Notice (CN) and the CA
funding document. Funds are obligated and available for use by the State when the CA is signed
by the Regional Administrator or his/her designee. An IAG requires the preparation of a CN and
the IAG funding document which is signed by the decision official (Regional Administrator or
his/her designee) in the Regional office. The funds are committed when the IAG is signed by the
Regional decision official and obligated when signed by the other agency.
TES WA Tasking Against Generic Obligations
Once the TES generic commitment/obligation is initiated, the process of approving WAs,
also referred to as tasking, may begin. WAs are initiated in the Region and sent to the CO in the
Procurement and Contracts Management Division (PCMD). When the CO approves and signs
the WA, the value of the assignment represents the amount tasked against the generic obligation.
Tasking amounts are not obligations but they do show how the AOA is going to be used to
support site activities or events.
TES WA amounts need to go into CERCLIS to show the actual costs of tasking the
contractors when planned activities have started. RPOs need to make sure that every TES 5+
WA and amendment has an accurate CERCLIS event or enforcement activity. The event
or activity codes will relate to the appropriate site targets being supported, including the relevant
sequence numbers. If a TES WA is for multiple events, activities, or OUs, the funding split must
be shown in the comment field.
VI-27
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
It is critical that RPOs put accurate CERCLIS codes for EPA ID number (C101), OU
number (Cl 101), either Enforcement Activity Type (C1701), Event Type (C2101), or Non-Site
Incident (C402) and Account Number (C3204) in TESWATS. RPOs can obtain this CERCLIS
information from the RPMs, Enforcement Program Managers, or IMCs since they routinely use
it to prepare site specific plans. IMCs should provide RPOs with CERCLIS reports showing
planned funding, by site, for the current year (SCAP-4E or SCAP-21E, for example) so that
RPOs will know what WAs have an approved funding plan when RPMs request contract work.
CERCLIS planning reports also show the CERCLIS data that RPOs need to enter into
TESWATS. The TESWATS transaction report will be available for RPOs to use to review
tasking data prior to entry into CERCLIS.
IMCs should ensure that data from TES WAs are entered correctly into CERCLIS. A
"Q" financial type (amount requested) may be entered into CERCLIS/WasteLAN for TES WAs
that have been signed by the RPO and are awaiting signature by the CO. "Q" financial records
should only be entered for positive WA amounts. There is no financial type for negative WAs
awaiting CO signature.
Once the COs approve a WA or an amendment to an existing WA, the amount can be
entered with the financial type (C2602 or C3202) of "H," (TES WA Amount (tasking)). The
"H" financial record must match the "Q" record with the same contract vehicle, WA number,
and amendment number. This will allow only the "H" record to appear on SCAP-4E once the
CO has signed the WA. Reductions in WA amounts (detasking) can be entered with the code
"W." RPOs should provide copies of properly coded WA forms or CERCLIS SIFs to the IMCs
for the amounts to be recorded in the appropriate site records.
TES WA Tasking for Buv-Ins
TES buy-ins (generally using "TFA" or "TYP" funds) require a separate commitment/
obligation as well as a WA. Two financial records must, therefore, be created in CERCLIS. The
first financial record indicates the commitment/obligation of funds into the contract. Instructions
for entering this record are listed above. The second type of financial record that is required is
the tasked amount. The procedures for entering these data are identical to other tasking data with
the exception that the budget source code should indicate "R" for Remedial, "V" for Removal, or
"L" for Federal Facilities.
AOA Utilization
The initial measure of AOA utilization is the commitment/obligation of funds into the
TES and non-TES financial vehicles. The total of the TES and non-TES commitments/obliga-
tions represents the amount of the AOA which has been put into the financial vehicles to fund
work to be performed at the site. The total of commitments and obligations, therefore, should
not exceed the AOA issued to date. Regions should review planned contract usage and apportion
funds to the contracts accordingly.
Budget Utilization
To examine overall budget utilization a more detailed analysis of TES contract usage is
required. The value of WAs approved by the CO further indicates TES contract usage. It is
important, therefore, that once commitments/obligations are made to the TES 5+ contracts, that
WA tasking occurs as planned. For the non-TES financial vehicles, commitments/obligations
will be used as the measure of utilization as no corresponding tasking exists for these vehicles.
VI-28
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
The sum total of tasked amounts in the TES contracts and commitments/obligations in the non-
TES financial vehicles indicates the level of budget utilization.
CERCLIS is used to track and measure AOA and budget utilization through the SCAP-
4E and SCAP-21E reports. Regions are responsible, therefore, for entering the following data
into CERCLIS:
"APR," "ALT," and "CON" plans (C3225 and C2909);
Non-TES ("TGB") commitments/decommitments and obligations/deobligations;
TES generic obligations/deobligations;
Program management commitments/decommitments and obligations/
deobligations; and
TES tasked and de-tasked amounts.
Distinct codes exist for obligations and WA amounts to separately portray progress made
on obligating funds and tasking assignments to the TES 5+ contracts. The separation of obliga-
tions and tasking amounts accurately reflect budget and AOA utilization and prevent double
counting WA amounts as obligations. The SCAP-4E and SCAP-21E reports indicate TES
contract generic obligations, TES tasked amounts, non-TES commitments/obligations, and
"APR" planned amounts. Actual TES WA tasking amounts (rather than commitments and
obligations) will be compared to TES planned amounts to show the balance of funds available
for remaining TES plans. Case Budget management through CERCLIS enables both the Re-
gions and HQ to readily determine the status of the following:
Contract obligations;
TES tasked amounts against generic obligations;
Plans vs. tasked amounts;
Total level of AOA and budget utilization; and
Carryover funds from previous fiscal quarters (obligated, untasked funds)
Regions, as the allowance holders, are responsible for fully managing Case Budget data
in CERCLIS. The strategy to accomplish this requires close monitoring of planning, obligation,
and tasking data. "Approved" (APR) planned obligations in present or future quarters will
indicate requests not yet used (tasked in TES or committed/obligated in non-TES). For past
quarters, only TES tasking or non-TES commitments/obligations will be shown on SCAP-4E
and SCAP-21E. Regions, therefore, must closely monitor planning data and actual usage. If
planned obligations are not "used" by the end of the quarter, they should be moved to a
subsequent quarter for the same or different site. If funds are "used" the planning record
ox the "APR" flag may be deleted. Either of these options will prevent current quarter tasked
or committed funds from showing on standard reports. Regions should, however, be consistent
in either deleting the planned record or the "APR" flag.
VI-29
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Disbursements
Although TES tasked amounts and non-TES commitments/obligations will be used to
measure budget utilization, disbursements will also be reviewed as a further measure of budget
utilization. It is important that contractor invoices are received and processed in a timely man-
ner. The current disbursement tracking procedures for the TES and non-TES financial vehicles
are different in EFMS. Non-TES disbursements are directly linked to the site and work being
performed and may be compared with the planned amounts or requests. TES disbursements are
linked to the contract but are not directly linked to the specific WA for which the contractor is
being paid. When a TES disbursement is made, the generic contract obligation is reduced and a
site specific obligation (not WA specific) and outlay occurs.
HP/Regional Adjustment
Throughout the FY, Regions must show adequate utilization of their Case Budget. Prior
to requesting additional funds, Regions should ask the following questions:
Have all the funds from the generic WA been tasked?
Have all the funds in the current AOA been obligated?
Can funds be deobligated and recertified to the Region's AOA? Can funds be
detasked and retasked within the WA?
Can funds planned for obligation in future quarters that will not be used as origi-
nally planned be moved to current quarters?
Can activities be partially funded?
HQ must know that the Region is fully using its AOA before it can entertain additional
Case Budget requests. Consequently, it is imperative that CERCLIS consistently reflect obliga-
tions and work assignment tasked amounts. Additional requests for HQ held contingency fund-
ing will be reviewed on the basis of need, other Regions' needs, and the amount of dollars
available.
The Case Budget will be reviewed during the mid-year SCAP negotiations. There will
also be a round of negotiations in June for the fourth quarter AOA. A Region may carry unused
funds in its AOA to subsequent quarters, however, Regions that have not been using their allow-
ance risk the loss of their entire third and fourth quarter AOA. If a Region has an excessive
unused allowance (greater than thirty percent) at the beginning of the third quarter, it will be
required to produce a site specific spending plan in CERCLIS for both the third and fourth
quarters by mid-May in order to retain its entire fourth quarter AOA.
Responsibilities
To manage the Case Budget it is essential that Regional IMCs and TES RPOs
responsibilities are well coordinated. RPOs must incorporate CERCLIS information in
TESWATS and report enforcement obligations and work assignments to the IMCs. IMCs, in
turn, must provide Case Budget planning reports to RPOs and ensure accurate data entry into
CERCLIS. CERCLIS will be the only place where AOA funding, obligations, and WA tasking
amounts will be shown together. A more detailed description of the interrelated roles and re-
VI-30
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
sponsibilities is described in Appendix E. Exhibit VI-10 summarizes RPO and IMC responsibili-
ties, while Exhibit VI-11 describes general Regional and HQ responsibilities.
Enforcement Financial Reports
Enforcement activities requiring Case Budget funds must be coded accurately. To en-
hance financial planning data quality, several Enforcement financial reports have been developed
for both Regional and HQ use. On the main CERCLIS menu, under "SCAP" for the Enforce-
ment menu, are two Enforcement financial planning and management reports. The user is
prompted for a Region, sort criteria, and FY when selecting one of these reports. Following is a
description of these reports:
SCAP-4E indicates all current or future plans, TES commitments/obligations, TES
tasking, and non-TES commitments/obligations. This report is the standard report
to be used in balancing the Enforcement Budget.
SCAP-21E shows budget utilization and remaining planned obligations vs. the
Regions' annual budget. This report supplements the SCAP-4E.
A comprehensive Enforcement financial audit report, AUDIT 40, is also available on the
CERCLIS menu. This report lists those records with data quality problems and identifies the
specific error. AUDIT 40 should be used in conjunction with SCAP-4E and SCAP-21E reports
to ensure accurate budget balancing.
Contract Management
Contract Management Delegation
In FY 92 eight TES contracts are available for Regions to support their Enforcement
programs. These contracts are referred to collectively as TES 5+. Both the Regions and
HQ have management responsibilities for these contracts. RPOs provide programmatic
oversight and technical direction for contractor performance from a Regional perspective.
HQ Zone Project Officers (ZPOs) provide guidance and technical assistance to the RPO
for contract management.
Long Term Contracting Strategy
To support Superfund enforcement efforts, the LTCS creates small, regionally based
contracts designed to provide specialized services such as PRP searches and litigation and
negotiation support. Under the LTCS, these contracts are known as Enforcement Support
Contracts.
OWPE has prepared a draft National Implementation Plan for phasing in these Enforce-
ment Support Contracts and for monitoring the award and administration of these con-
tracts. A joint HQ and Regional Quality Action Team (QAT) is being established. The
QAT will be responsible for reviewing the Implementation Plan, providing input during
the development of the final detailed plan, and monitoring progress in plan implementa-
tion.
Another recommendation of the LTCS is the shifting of enforcement oversight support,
currently provided under TES 5+, to the ARCS contracts no later than December 1993.
VI-31
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit VI-1Q
CASE BUDGET RESPONSIBILITIES
- JANUARY
- FEBRUARY
MARCH/
APRIL
AUGUST
-SEPTEMBER
i
REGIONAL I HQ
RESPONSIBILITIES 1 RESPONSIBILITIES
i
PLAN SCAP ACTIVITIES,
IDENTIFY TARGETED AND _
NON-TARGETED FUNDING ~^~
NEEDS.
MID- YEAR SCAP NEGOTIATKM
CONFERENCE WITH HQ
TO DISCUSS REQUESTS '
(ONGOING)
INDICATE CASE BUDGET
NEEDS WITHIN
ALLOCATION (APR) AND
ABOVE ALLOCATION (ALT)
AUGUST SCAP NEGOTIATIONS
REVISE REQUESTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SCAP
NEGOTIATIONS
DIRECT ENTRY OF
NON-TES OBLIGATIONS
(CAs, lAGs, PRs)
DIRECT ENTRY OF
TES OBLIGATIONS
DIRECT ENTRY OF
TES TASKING
ADJUSTMENT OF CASE
BUDGET PLANS BASED
ON BUDGET EXECUTION
(AT LEAST QUARTERLY)
IS
^-
c
E
R
C
I
S
MID-YEAR
NEGOTIATED
ACTIVITIES
^to> CONFERE
TODIS
(
SCAP NEGOTIATIONS
REVIEW REGIONAL
REQUESTS, APPLY
PRICING FACTORS,
TO BASELINE
TARGETS TO
CALCULATE
PRELIMINARY
ALLOCATIONS TO
REGIONS, POSSIBLE
ADJUSTMENTS TO
DOLLARS AND/OR
CONTRACT
MECHANISM
NCE WITH REGIONS
CUSS REQUESTS
ONGOING)
NOTIFICATION TO REGIONS OF
ซ* PRELIMINARY CASE BUDGET
ALLOCATION
DETERMINATION ON
SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST
AUGUST SCAP NEGOTIATIONS
N<
BUD
3TIFICATION TO
ONS OF FINAL CASE
GET ALLOCATION
. .*ป PFVIKW FFOIONAI ,
"~ OBLIGATIONS, TASKING
AND REVISED PLANS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH
GUIDANCE AND
CHANGING PROGRAM
PRIORITIES
f mrpoKT'j \
VI-32
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit VI-11
REGIONAL/HQ CASE BUDGET RESPONSIBILITIES
REGIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
HQ RESPONSIBILITIES
Negotiate activity targets with HQ at
the mid-year SCAP negotiations in
February.
Submit Case Budget requests
(through CERCLIS) in response to
Regional allocations calculated by
HQ by mid-March. Identify
approved, alternate, and mega-site
funding needs.
Negotiate revisions to targeted
activities, Case Budget dollars, and
mega-site funding at August SCAP
negotiations.
Calculate Regional allocations for
activities planned by the Regions
following the mid-year SCAP
negotiations in February. Allocations
are made for:
targeted enforcement activities
(based on pricing factors); and
non-targeted enforcement
activities (based on a
combination of pricing
factors and priorities identified
by the Regions during
negotiations).
Review Regional Case Budget
requests submitted through CERCLIS
in response to allocations (March
through June). Assess mega-site
issues and initial need for
supplemental funding request.
Confer with Region as necessary.
Proceed, if necessary, with
supplemental funding request.
Determine final allocations at August
SCAP negotiations.
Receive Case Budget AOAs.
Manage Case Budget within the
approved bottom-line allocation.
Enter contract obligations and work
assignment tasking amounts into
CERCLIS as they occur.
Negotiate mid-year adjustments.
Distribute AOA to the Regions.
AOAs consist of dollars for non-TES
financial vehicles and TES 5+
contractors.
Negotiate mid-year adjustments.
Review Regional budget execution
against allocations. Generate
CERCLIS reports in response to Case
Budget management needs.
VI-33
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Regions should begin transferring assignments or giving new work to the ARCS con-
tracts, especially those assignments that will exceed the TES 5+ period of performance.
Interagency Agreements
Regions have responsibility for developing Regional lAGs in FY 92 with the following
agencies: Department of the Interior (DOI), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration (NOAA), USAGE, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and U.S.Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). HQ will maintain the national IAG with the DOJ in FY 92. OSWER
Directive 9295.0-01 "Regional Interagency Agreements Handbook" provides detailed
procedures for initiating and obtaining the assistance needed from these Federal agencies.
Technical assistance from another Federal agency must be planned site specifically in
CERCLIS. The contract vehicle (C2608/C3239) must be coded "IAG."
Department of Justice
EPA HQ maintains the national IAG with the DOJ/Environment and Natural Resources
Division (ENRD) to provide legal representation and associated support services on
behalf of EPA for all matters arising from or related to CERCLA and SARA. Support
services are defined as expert witness and automated litigation support. DOJ/ENRD
maintains a base level budget for legal representation services. The DOJ LAG allows the
Regions and DOJ to establish a case strategy/management plan. This management plan
encourages forward planning between the DOJ attorney, ORC and a Regional program
person. Case management plans will be prepared by DOJ/ENRD for each case by the
date of filing of the complaint and updated quarterly. This forward planning process
allows DOJ and the Regions to efficiently utilize the IAG resources and to accommodate
case needs or unforeseen changing priorities that may arise.
DOJ will provide expert witness support for referred cases. The Regions may also obtain
expert witnesses through the TES 5+ contracts. The Regions will coordinate the planning
for expert witnesses with the ORC and DOJ/ENRD. The Region should plan for the
experts under the appropriate enforcement activity (i.e., Section 106, Section 107). The
funding vehicle would be IAG, "EW" (expert witness) must be posted in the financial
notes field.
8(a) Contracts
Regions are encouraged to use 8(a) minority contractors whenever alternatives to TES or
non-TES financial support is needed. Under the TES 5+ contracts each prime contractor
submitted plans to the PCMD for utilizing 8(a) minority contractors for a certain percent-
age of the TES 5+ work. Historically, 8(a) contractors have been used primarily for PRP
searches. They can, however, be used for oversight support, records management, sam-
pling and other activities and be procured through TES 5+. Use of 8(a) contractors is not
limited to any particular type of activity.
Funding for 8(a) requests will be included in the Regional AOA. Requests for 8(a)
contract dollars should be made through the usual SCAP process; i.e., they should be
entered into CERCLIS site specifically using 8(a) contract spending, though requests
should fall within the appropriate activity pricing factors.
VI-34
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
MANAGEMENT OF CASH OUTS
A cash out is money received by EPA, a State or another PRP from PRPs under the terms
of a settlement agreement that is intended to pay in whole or in part for the future costs of a
response action to be implemented at a specific Superfund site. Draft guidance on managing
cash outs was issued April 4,1990, by OWPE and OERR (OSWER Directive 9832.16). This
section contains the cash out funding management policies and procedures that are outlined in
the draft guidance. If the procedures are revised, changes may be made in this Manual.
In order to maintain accountability for cash out funds deposited for credit to the Super-
fund program, the Agency will establish and maintain "special accounts" for each cash out
within a dedicated program element. It is critical that the case management team carefully
evaluate the circumstances at the site before deciding that a "special account" is the best manage-
ment procedure for handling a cash out. Other management procedures include:
When short term fund accessibility is not necessary, the dollars should be depos-
ited for credit to the Trust Fund for later appropriation to the Agency. These funds
are interest bearing. However, neither the principal or the interest is available for
site work without a Congressional appropriation.
At State-lead sites, the dollars can be deposited to a State managed escrow account
or trust fund, where safeguards exist that ensure that the money will be used for
the specific site response.
When a global settlement is expected, the dollars may be temporarily deposited to
a court managed escrow account for future distribution to major settlers. Court
managed accounts should not be utilized for long term funds management.
When global settlements are reached and non-dฃ minimis parties receive cash out
dollars directly from dฃ minimis parties, the dollars can be deposited to a PRP
established and managed trust fund or escrow account that is approved by EPA.
When EPA will be responsible for implementing the response action or will be transfer-
ring funds to other settlers and short term fund accessibility is essential, the dollars should be
deposited in the Treasury for credit to the Superfund program's appropriation and be managed as
a "special account." These funds do not accrue interest but are available to the Agency without
Congressional appropriation. OMB apportionment is required. The OC will issue an AOA to
the Region for the use of the funds..
Cash out deposits to the Treasury will be credited to the Superfund program and line item
managed by the OC as site specific "special accounts" in program element RUBY9H. These
accounts provide EPA with immediate access to monies received from cash outs and serve to
assure the settler(s) that the funds will be used for the purposes established in the settlement
document. Once a reimbursable allowance is issued for these funds, the allowance holder may
use the funds for site response in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
During each budget submission, EPA will request an appropriation equivalent to the
interest that would have accrued had the unexpended funds been invested in the Trust Fund.
Appropriated interest will be allocated to the "special account" to be used to implement the
response action. In addition, OSWER will request reimbursable FTE to manage the implementa-
tion of the response action being funded by the "special account" for the site. When entering
VI-35
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
into settlement agreements that include cash outs, it is important to take into consideration the
fact that Congress may choose not to appropriate the interest.
Cash out monies can be used according to any implementation plan EPA may have for
the site. These funds can be used to support EPA's intramural and extramural costs associated
with the site. Unless otherwise specified in the settlement document, unused funds (including
premium payments) will be transferred from the "special account" to the Trust Fund and treated
as cost recovery to be used at other sites after being appropriated by Congress.
Following are the procedures the program and resources management staff must follow in
processing cash out monies:
The settlement agreement must contain directions to the PRP on the remittance of
funds to EPA. It also must be made clear to the PRPs that the settlement agree-
ment is not valid until the cash out monies have been received. The Agency is not
required to seek remittance by issuing a demand (invoice) for payment. The
agreement must instruct the PRP to send the funds to the appropriate "lockbox"
bank for the Regional office. The PRP must make the check payable to the "EPA
Hazardous Substance Superfund." The PRP must also transmit a letter or other
document along with the check that clearly identifies the site to which the funds
apply.
A copy of the settlement agreement must be sent to the Region's Servicing Fi-
nance Office (SFO) with a memorandum to the FMO that clearly summarizes the
terms and conditions of the settlement. The memorandum must be forwarded to
the finance office within 10 working days of the date of the settlement. Manda-
tory information to be included in the transmittal memo are:
Names and addresses of settling PRPs;
Site name;
S/S ID;
If the settlement includes recovery of past costs, the exact amount of the
past cost component including interest (where appropriate);
Amount of the future cost component;
Amount of any premium payment;
Information concerning the OU and response activities;
If the settlement is dฃ minimis and whether payment to major settlers is
anticipated; and
The RPM and attorney assigned to the site, including telephone numbers
and addresses.
The SFO will establish a suspense file on the cash out. When the check arrives,
the finance staff will match the check with the agreement and promptly notify the
program staffer attorneys that payment has been received.
VI-36
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Upon receipt of the PRP's check, the Regional FMO will record the funds in
IFMS. Any portion intended to reimburse the Agency for past costs (cost recov-
ery) will be deposited to the Trust Fund. The balance will be credited to a Re-
gional suspense account to be transferred promptly to the EPA Financial Manage-
ment Center in Cincinnati (FMC-Ci). The Regional office will also send FMC-Ci
a copy of the settlement agreement. FMC-Ci is EPA's SFO for "reimbursable"
agreements, of which cash outs are one type. FMC-Ci will account for the cash
out portion of the funds as an "advance" to the Agency's Superfund appropriation
and will manage the funds on a site specific basis. These funds cannot be used
for work at the site until an AO A for use of the funds is issued.
The Regional OC is responsible for sending a copy of the settlement agreement,
deposit ticket and check to the HQ OC Budget Division with a request for a
"reimbursable allowance." The reimbursable allowance would typically be enough
for the estimated current year use of these funds. The remainder would remain
controlled in IFMS in a site specific advance account for later work at the site.
FMC-Ci has primary responsibility to account for these funds within IFMS,
including liquidation of the funds as they are used.
The Regional OC is responsible for notifying the Regional program office that the
AOA has been issued for use at the site. The Regional OC will request the FMC-
Ci set up a site specific reimbursable account in IFMS against which the program
can charge contractual services, salaries or whatever other costs are appropriate
under the agreement.
If work at the site is being supplemented with Fund monies, the program office
will be responsible for determining the funding source(s) for any particular seg-
ment of the work. The program office must also be sure that invoices or other
payment documents clearly indicate what account is to be charged. The financial
activity codes for response work being charged to "special accounts" are the same
as those used by all Superfund programs. As EPA makes payments against the
cash out balances, the IFMS reimbursable accounts will be reduced accordingly.
The OC and OSWER Resource Management staff will monitor the "special
account" balances and balances of cash outs deposited for investment in the Trust
Fund. The items that will be monitored include:
Amount of initial deposit;
Principal balance;
Interest deposited to the account based on amounts appropriated by Con-
gress; and
Amount disbursed.
After notification from the program office that a project has been closed out, and
after all payments have been made, the FMC-Ci office will credit any remaining
cash out balances to the Trust Fund as a cost recovery.
VI-37
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
SUPERFUND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
The purpose of the following section is to assist Regional program offices in carrying out
their financial management responsibilities.
Federal Facilities
The OMB A-106 Pollution Abatement Planning Process represents EPA's evaluation of
each Federal agency's environmental plan for the next budget year. The focus of this process
has been on an annual report to OMB. In order to prepare the report, EPA's review considered:
All Federal Facilities;
All environmental statutory requirements;
Compliance status of facilities;
Compliance dates;
Specific projects to be conducted;
Project adequacy;
Environmental priority assessment; and
Estimated cost.
T he estimated project cost was used by the other Federal agency to prepare a budget
request
In the past the A-106 process has had limited effectiveness for a number of reasons.
However, it does have the potential for establishing a reactive role for EPA in evaluating agen-
cies' expenditures on environmental programs during and after budget execution.
In FY 92, OFFE will be modifying the A-106 process to implement new requirements
established by OMB. These changes will result in a coordinated effort by EPA HQ, Regions,
and other Federal agencies to track information on funding authority, appropriations, obligations,
and actual outlays for environmental projects at Federal Facilities. In the future, updated budget
information may be obtained annually to enable EPA to compare and evaluate need and actual
expenditure by the Federal agency. This information will be used to facilitate both planning and
enforcement actions. OFFE will issue program guidance on these requirements later in the year
and will coordinate with Regions and other agencies throughout its development.
Regional Financial Management Responsibilities
Due to the complexity of the Superfund program, numerous organizational units within
the Regional EPA offices have responsibility for Superfund financial management. These
organizations and their responsibilities are detailed below.
Regional Administrator
Regional Administrators have the authority to:
VI-38
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Approve removal actions up to $2 million per site;
Award CAs;
Award lAGs;
Enter into SSCs;
Initiate remedial planning activities;
Grant States credit against their cost share; and
Award TAGs.
All of these authorities may be re-delegated with the exception of 1) removal actions
deemed to be "nationally significant" and 2) TAGs.
Regional Program Office
Regional program office financial responsibilities include:
Providing technical support to the CO in contracts management;
Reviewing vouchers and/or financial reports;
Managing CA and lAGs;
Preparing CN and PRs;
Developing SSCs;
Negotiating CAs with States, political subdivisions and Indian Tribal govern-
ments;
Either issuing S/S ID or requesting that they be issued by the Regional Manage-
ment Division;
Managing the Region's allowances;
Approving RFPs or Requests for Bids and contracts developed by the States; and
Participating in pre-award financial management system reviews.
Within the Regional program offices, the following staff have specific Superfund finan-
cial management responsibilities:
OSC The Regional OSC is an employee of EPA or of the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG). This employee reacts to hazardous substances spills and releases, or
threats of release, by initiating and managing the removal process. The OSC's
financial management responsibilities include preparing site budgets and contract
action requests; completing Action Memoranda; preparing delivery orders and
PRs for contracts; establishing and maintaining official removal site files; review-
VI-39
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
ing and approving the removal cleanup contractors' charges on a daily basis;
tracking site costs against the established site ceiling; and approving removal
contractors' invoices. The OSC must be aware of, in control of, and responsible
for all removal site charges and for ensuring that costs are reasonable and neces-
sary.
Ordering Officer All Ordering Officers must have a written "Delegation of
Procurement Authority" signed by a Senior Procurement Manager prior to per-
forming their duties. The Ordering Officer, who typically is an OSC, may initially
obligate up to a maximum of $250,000 for removals at a specific site by issuing a
Delivery Order under an existing contract. This person also develops the state-
ment of work and cost ceiling for removals.
RPM The RPM, in coordination with State program personnel, is responsible
for managing remedial and enforcement costs and activities on a site specific
basis, for reviewing remedial contractor invoices and financial reports, and for
establishing and maintaining the official site files. Like the OSC, the RPM must
be aware of, in control of, and responsible for remedial site charges and for ensur-
ing that costs are reasonable and necessary.
RPO/Deputv Project Officer fDPO') The RPO is responsible for overall reme-
dial and enforcement contract management functions, including identification of
Regional and site specific contract requirements, reviewing invoices, and financial
monitoring of the contract. The DPO is responsible for overall removal and
general site support contract management functions. The RPO/DPO evaluate and
designate contractor award fees; monitor contractors' activities; and review
monthly contractor reports and site specific attachments.
The RPM or the RPO may initiate WAs, CAs, lAGs and contracts, and approve
site specific IAG invoices.
Administrative Support Unit (ASID ASUs may be established in each Regional
program office. The purpose of these ASUs is to assist the OSC/RPM in perform-
ing their administrative duties, thus allowing the OSC/RPM to concentrate their
efforts on technical site management activities. These units are designed to
perform at least four important functions:
Provide administrative support to the OSC/RPM on site;
Provide the OSC/RPM with administrative support in the Regional pro-
gram offices;
Provide liaison between the OSC/RPM and other groups involved in
administrative matters; and
Provide support to the Regional remedial and removal program manage-
ment.
Specific examples of the kind of administrative and financial management support
the ASUs may provide to the OSC/RPM are as follows:
VI-40
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Assist in developing removal site budgets and preparing Action Memo-
randa;
Assist in daily cost monitoring via daily contractor reports;
Maintain the Removal Cost Management System (RCMS);
Set up and maintain active remedial and removal site files;
Complete PRs and CNs; and
Request and review reports generated by IFMS and the Management
Reporting System for purposes of monitoring site costs.
The ASUs may be staffed with EPA staff or the non-government functions may
be contracted out. Additional information on the model of an ASU is found in the
Report of the Workgroup on Management Support for Superfund's Qn-Scene
Coordinators, dated March 1987.
Regional Management Division
For the purposes of this document, the Regional Management Division is the organiza-
tion in which financial management, budgetary, accounting, planning, and assistance
agreements administration functions are carried out. The Regional SFO and the COs for
ARCS and ERCS are considered to be a part of this division. In most Regions, the
Regional Management Division:
Assigns AN and DCN to all Regional commitment and obligating documents;
Controls the Regional allowance, maintains the ADCR, and reconciles transac-
tions;
Generally issues S/S IDs for non-USCG-lead sites;
Sets up Regional account numbers in IFMS (new obligational authority only);
Processes all PRs for national contracts and enters commitments into the EFMS;
Processes CNs for lAGs and enters commitments into IFMS;
Processes CAs, assigns CA identification numbers, enters CA commitments,
obligations and drawdowns into IFMS;
Assists the Regional program office in the negotiation or pre-application phases of
the CA development;
Review EPA-Automated Clearing House (EPA-ACH) Payment System payment
requests;
Receives and reviews financial reports required by the CAs;
VI-41
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Maintains Superfund original and site specific document files on all Regional
costs and supports the Regional program offices in preparing cost summaries and
documentation for cost recovery purposes;
Maintains accounts receivable for cost recovery, cash outs, and SSC cost share,
and maintains billing and collection system;
Provides Regional program office with financial data;
Obligates contracts and modifications for the ARCS and Regional ERCS con-
tracts; and
Reviews invoices and monthly financial reports for the ARCS and Regional ERCS
contracts.
HO Financial Management Responsibilities
Selected Superfund financial management responsibilities which the Regional program
office may come in contact are highlighted below.
Financial Management Division (FMD)IOC
This Office, which monitors the financial aspects of the Superfund program through four
of its branches, performs many Superfund-related functions, including the following:
Collects HQ's Superfund cost documentation for cost recovery;
Oversees annual site specific reporting processes;
Issues financial policies and procedures;
Provides general accounting support;
Records transfer allocations;
Notifies Trust Fund to invest cost recoveries, fines and penalties; and
Establishes Superfund account numbers in IFMS.
PDBSIOERR
PDBS provides financial management and accounting support and guidance to OERR
and the Regional program offices. As one of HQ's Superfund allowance holders,
PDBS's responsibilities include the following:
Maintains the OERR ADCR and controls the HQ allowances;
Commits funds for HQ OERR contracts and lAGs;
Assigns accounting data to monthly site specific invoices; and
Processes and monitors HQ OERR lAGs.
VI-42
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
PDBS's responsibilities in relation to the Regional program office are as follows:
Maintains the central S/S ID system and assigns S/S IDs to USCG-lead
removal sites;
Approves Regional allowances and processes change requests;
Provides liaison with Regional program offices regarding OERR financial
issues; and
Provides financial policies to Regional program offices.
Contracts and Planning Branch (CPB)IOWPE
Like PBDS, the CPB provides financial management and accounting support and guid-
ance to OWPE and the Regional program offices. Responsibilities include:
Initiate the procurement of the TES contracts;
Process and monitor WAs in TESWATS;
Process and monitor OWPE lAGs;
Process invoices for TES contracts;
Coordinate issuance of Regional allowances and initiate change requests;
Provide liaison with Regional program offices on OWPE financial issues;
and
Provide OWPE financial policies to Regional program offices.
PCMDlOffice of Administration
PCMD conducts the Superfund contracting program. This involves negotiating, award-
ing, monitoring, modifying, and terminating contracts and providing technical guidance
on contract administration. PCMD also provides cost and price analysis for Superfund
contracts.
Grants Administration Division (GAD)IOffice of Administration
GAD issues policy, regulations and guidance for the processing, award and administra-
tive management of financial assistance agreements and lAGs; issues identification
numbers for all lAGs; and processes and awards HQ lAGs.
Budget DivisionlOC
This division allocates the Superfund allowances among the HQ and Regional offices;
approves Regional allowances; monitors obligations against regular and site allowances
on a weekly basis; processes transfer allocations; processes change requests, and repro-
grams allowances, as necessary.
VI-43
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
FMC-Ci
The SFO in Cincinnati is responsible for providing accounting support for all Superfund
lAGs. The SFO processes disbursement requests from other agencies, processes the
billing for reimbursable activities and enters IAG obligations and disbursements into
IFMS.
Research Triangle Park (RTPVOffice of Administration
This SFO is responsible for providing accounting support for all Superfund contracts.
The SFO enters contract award data and obligations into IFMS, processes contractor
invoices, and enters payments into IFMS via the Contract Payment System.
Financial Management Tools and Systems
IFMS
The IFMS is the Agency's official automated accounting, funds control and monitoring
system. It encompasses all of the Agency's financial systems for planning, budget
formulation and execution, program and administrative accounting, and audit. IFMS is
maintained by the Administrative Systems Division of the Office of Information Re-
sources Management. The Financial Systems Branch of the FMD, OC, provides IFMS
user support. EFMS is fairly new to EPA and not all the changes which will result from
the implementation of IFMS are currently known. Addenda to this Manual may be
issued during the year as more information is received.
Management and Accounting Reporting System (MARS> Through IFMS ' s
MARS, formerly Superfund Package for Unique Reports (SPUR), an IFMS user
will be able to run specialized reports from IFMS, snowing only the information
selected. REPORTER will be able to select any data elements maintained in
IFMS, arrange those elements in any desired format, and print a report. The
Regional program office staff will be able to request REPORTER reports from the
Regional SFO. These reports are especially useful for determining the status of
commitments, obligations and payments for a given site.
Regional IFMS responsibility Though each Region is organized somewhat
differently, in most Regions the SFO enters commitments into IFMS for contracts
and lAGs. For CAs, the SFO enters not only commitments, but obligations and
drawdowns as well. At the request of the Regional program office, the SFO sets
up Regional account numbers in IFMS. Since the Agency does not officially
recognize commitments or obligations until they appear in IFMS, it is imperative
that the Regional program office forward all commitment and obligating docu-
ments to the SFO as expeditiously as possible for entry into IFMS. The Regional
finance office is also responsible for entering the quarterly AOA into IFMS.
To manage the Superfund program effectively, and to recover cleanup costs, EPA must
carefully document and record its direct and indirect costs for each cleanup action and
track the costs through IFMS. The IFMS will use 10 digits to identify costs associated
with a specific site and activity.
VI-44
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
DCN
The DCN is a six digit number assigned by the Regional SFO to PRs and CNs as a
control number. This same number is carried over from the PR or CN to the obligating
document.
ADCR
The ADCR is the allowance holder's mechanism for maintaining a running balance of all
funds available to the allowance holder. The ADCR is generally maintained in the SFO.
Checking the ADCR's balance is part of the Funds Certifying Officer's (FCO) certifica-
tion of funds availability. Once the FCO certifies that funds are available and that the
appropriate funds are being used, the FCO assigns a DCN to the action and records it in
the ADCR. This number uniquely identifies the spending action in the Agency's IFMS,
just as a check number identifies a check.
SIS IDs
S/S IDs are used to identify costs associated with a specific site. S/S IDs are established
by the Regional offices, with the exception of USCG responses which are provided
through the OERR PDBS. Each Regional office has one or more persons responsible for
assigning S/S IDs and communicating updated S/S ID information to HQ. This is usually
done by calling or sending an updated copy of the Regional S/S ID list to the S/S ID
contact in HQ.
Before assigning an S/S ID, an EPA ID must exist in the CERCLIS data base. The EPA
ID is a 12-character unique identifier which is used to identify a hazardous waste site or
release in the CERCLIS inventory. This ID is based on FINDS. An EPA ID must be
established prior to assignment of an S/S ID. Each site should have a single EPA ID. In
addition, there can only be one S/S ID for each EPA ID.
Before establishing a new S/S ID, a thorough check should be made to ensure that the
site/release is not already listed under another name. Removal actions should receive
. identifiers as soon as it appears that more than approximately $5,000 will be spent on
removal work at the site. Remedial sites should receive identifiers when the HRS score
for the site indicates it will be proposed for the NPL and an AN is needed for the obliga-
tion of funds. Dioxin sites do not have to be on the NPL in order to establish an ID.
Enforcement sites receive identifiers when costs for an enforcement activity are expected
to exceed 24 workhours per pay period, and when a cost recovery action is likely.
Instructions for the assignment of three-digit S/S IDs will be forthcoming.
Financial Management and Funding Processes
Regional financial authority consists of three distinct, but interrelated, parts: approval,
commitment and obligation. Exhibit VI-12 indicates the process by which the Regions commit
and obligate funds. These funding processes are outlined below.
Approvals
Authority to approve site assessment, removal, remedial, enforcement and Federal Facil-
ity oversight activities is contained in the Superfund delegations package. An approval
VI-45
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit VT-12
HANDLING FINANCIAL DATA IN THE CERCLIS ENVIRONMENT
Contracts signed
by CO
Funding Document prepared
by Program Office in appropriate area
(Site Assessment, Remedial, Removal,
Federal Facilities, Enforcement)
( Approval of Funding Document J
FMO reviews the Funding
Document, assigns a unique
AN/DCN pair and enters
information into IFMS.
Funds are now committed
Regional IMC or designee
enters the commitment
data into CERCLIS
CAs signed by
Regional Administrator
lAGs signed by
Participating Parties
Funds are now obligated
Regions enter obligation data into CERCLIS. Regions
or HQ enter obligation data into IFMS
VI-46
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
by the AA SWER or Regional Administrator or official designee, as appropriate, is an
authorization to undertake a CERCLA-funded response action. Examples of these
approvals include removal action memoranda and SCAP submissions. A site/activity
must be approved before any commitments can be made.
The following paragraphs highlight the Region's financial management authority and
responsibility in the Removal program:
Approval Authority In accordance with Delegation 14-1-A, the Re-
gional Administrator has the authority to approve removal actions costing
up to $2,000,000 at NPL sites or non-NPL sites and may grant exemptions
to the twelve-month statutory limit. In addition, Regional Administrators
may re-delegate to the OSCs the authority to approve actions costing up to
$50,000 in emergency situations where an expeditious response is re-
quired.
Action Memorandum Except in emergency situations, before a removal
action can begin, an action memorandum must be approved. The action
memorandum must document that the release meets the criteria of
CERCLA, as amended, and the NCP. In addition to the technical data, the
action memorandum must include, to the extent practicable, an estimated
total project ceiling. The OSC uses the estimate of the duration and cost
of the removal actions in order to determine the proper approval authority.
The OSCs or other Ordering Officers are responsible for obtaining all
necessary Regional office approvals and signatures.
Generally, the action memorandum is prepared prior to initiating response activi-
ties. In extreme emergencies, however, the OSC may initiate activities under his/
her $50,000 authority without preparing the necessary documentation in advance.
In these circumstances OSCs must document their decision within 24 hours of
initiating response.
The following paragraphs highlight the Region's financial management authority and
responsibility in the remedial and enforcement programs:
Financial Approval Mechanism Planning of remedial, enforcement and
Federal Facility program activities is accomplished by means of the
SCAP. Funds-cannot be committed or obligated for a remedial or enforce-
ment activity unless it is included in the SCAP.
Obligations made at events which are planned on an OU basis must be
planned and executed on an OU basis. Outlays resulting from the obliga-
tions should also be attributed to the appropriate OU.
ROD A ROD is required for all RD and RA activities. The ROD,
signed by either the Regional Administrator/Deputy Regional Administra-
tor or the A A SWER, documents the Agency's remedial alternative deci-
sion-making process and demonstrates that the requirements of CERCLA,
as amended, and the NCP have been met. The ROD also provides the
basis for future cost recovery actions that may be taken.
VI-47
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Commitments
Once the Regional FCO certifies the availability of funds, a spending action becomes a
commitment, which is a reservation of funds but not a legal promise to pay a supplier.
Commitments which have not yet been processed are called open commitments until they
become obligations.
There are two types of commitment documents: the PR and the CN. The PR is used to
commit funds for contracts; the CN is used to commit funds for CAs and reimbursable
lAGs.
Obligations
Unlike a commitment, an obligation legally binds the government to pay a supplier for
delivery of goods or services. Thus, once funds are obligated, the Region may no longer
release the funds for another purpose.
A contractor, another Federal agency or State cannot start work until funds have been
obligated. In addition funds may only be used for the purpose for which they were
obligated under the contract, IAG or CA, and may not be transferred to another activity
and/or site within the contract, IAG or CA without first being de-obligated.
Obligating documents must be processed in accordance with guidance issued by the
PCMD, GAD, and FMD. The majority of the contracts are currently awarded by PCMD
and entered into IFMS by the SFO/RTP. Certain contracting functions, particularly those
related to Regional contracts, have been decentralized to the Regions. Obligations for
CAs are entered into IFMS by the Regions; for lAGs, by the FMC-Ci.
Recently some Regions have grouped several smaller sites into a new, larger pseudo site.
The purpose of these pseudo sites is to establish a mechanism for funding area-wide
studies of environmental issues. This practice has caused problems for cost recovery
because costs cannot be assigned directly to a given site. Additionally, by creating a new
site, it is difficult to reference the older sites. These problems may be alleviated by
following a simple procedure. Funds for area-wide studies can be awarded in one PR,
IAG or CA. However, they must be obligated to each of the sites involved by using
separate ANs and DCNs. Obligations must be identified for each OU; particularly when
PRPs exist.
Payments
Each contractor/supplier submits an invoice to the proper SFO for payment. Before the
SFO may pay the contractor/supplier, it must have an obligating document and a receiv-
ing report (sent by the originating office) to verify that the work was completed or the
goods were received satisfactorily. Unpaid obligations are not removed from IFMS at the
end of the FY. Rather, they remain in the system until paid or until the allowance holder
or obligating official notifies the SFO that no further payments will be made against the
obligation.
Deobligations
The deobligation of funds is handled similarly to the obligation of funds. The same
commitment and obligation documents and procedures are used, except that the dollar
amount indicated is a reduction rather than an addition. Copies of deobligations should
be sent to PBDS. The availability of funds after deobligation depends on when the funds
VI-48
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
initially had been obligated. Current FY funds are available for reuse within the AOA as
soon as the deobligation is effective. (See the Flexible Funding discussion earlier in this
Chapter on the use of deobligated funds.) Prior FY funds that are deobligated revert back
to HQ for redistribution. In order to reuse the prior year funds, allowance holders must
request a recertification of the funds to their allowance from the OC in coordination with
OSWER.
Regions should review the financial status of all contracts, lAGs and CAs regularly. If
all activities requested have been completed, and there are funds outstanding, the Region
should follow the procedures outlined above to deobligate these funds immediately to
make them available for other activities.
PBDS has established a HQ/Regional task force to assist the Regions in the deobligation
of funds from contracts, lAGs and CAs where work has been completed, bids have come
in lower than expected or PRPs have taken over the lead for site activities. In addition,
the Superfund Unliquidated Obligations Task Force encourages and tracks any intramural
deobligations that can be processed. The Task Force has established a reward system for
Regions that are active in processing deobligations. A Region may receive an increase in
their annual budget of 10 percent of the funds they deobligate, up to $250,000. In order
to receive credit, deobligation documentation must be sent to PDBS.
Financial Management Funding Mechanisms
EPA uses a variety of funding mechanisms to carry out CERCLA-funded response
actions. Included in these are the following:
Contracts
The Agency has developed a long term contracting strategy for the Superfund program.
This strategy identifies the long-term contracting needs of the program and designs a
portfolio of Superfund contracts to meet those needs over the next ten years. During
FY 92, implementation of the strategy will continue with the phase-in of new contracts.
Superfund contracts are awarded through standard procurement procedures (see the OC's
Resources Management Directives Systems 2550C Chapter 2 and the EPA Contracts
Management Manual, or refer directly to the directives prepared for each contract).
Exhibit VI-13 contains information on the procurement forms used for most Superfund
contracts. The unique aspect of Superfund contract processing and financial tracking
stems primarily from the need to associate contractor costs incurred with specific Super-
fund sites and OUs in order to assist in the cost recovery process. Cost recovery negotia-
tions with PRPs or court actions require careful documentation of Federal costs incurred
at each site/spill. The following paragraphs describe key financial management processes
for each of the primary categories of Superfund contracts.
Site Specific Removal Contracts. Site specific removal contracts are obligated
and tracked on a site specific basis in the Agency's IFMS. Removal cleanup
contracts may be awarded on a zone, Region or site specific basis.
Commitment of Funds The PR is used to commit funds for contracts.
OSCs or other Ordering Officers prepare the PR for the site portion of the
contract and obtain all necessary Regional office approvals and signatures.
They send the document to the SFO for certification of funds and addition
of accounting information (AN, appropriation number and DCN). The
VI-49
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit VM3
EPA FORMS COMMONLY USED FOR SUPERFUND PROCUREMENTS
EPAFORM
NUMBER
1900-8
1900-48
1900-49
1900-56
1900-59
FORM NAME
Procurement Request/
Purchase Older
Order for Services -
Emergency Response
to Hazardous Substance
Release
Notice to Proceed with
Emergency Response to
Hazardous Substance
Release
Letter contract for State,
Indian Tribal
Governments,
or Local Government
Response
to Emergency Hazardous
Substances Release
Delivery Order for
Emergency
Response Cleanup
Services
PURPOSE
The Agency's basic form for requesting
a procurement of any goods or services
to commit funds before obligating funds
on any of these documents. Must be
certified by PCX).
Used by OSCs to obligate funds and
contract for services (up to $2,500) from
commercial firms or a State or local
government (if site not owned by state or
subdivision at time wastes were disposed
of) to respond to a release.
Used by OSC to authorize a contractor to
begin work on an emergency response
(up to $10,000 per incident). Negotiation
of definitive contract and any modifications
performed by CO.
Used by OSC to procure services from a
State, local or Indian Tribal government to
begin work on an emergency response
(up to $10,000 per incident) if site was
not owned by State or subdivision at time
of hazardous waste disposal. Negotiation
of definitive contract and any modifications
performed by CO.
Used by OSCs to order services (up to
$250,000) from the ERCS contractor to
respond to a release. All modifications
and obligations over $250,000 will be
processed by the CO.
COMMENTS
This form is the basis for entering a
commitment in IFMS. TheFMO
enters an obligation only upon
receiving a contract document or
purchase order.
Results in a firm, fixed-price
contract No price adjustment may
be made for work stated in contract
Contractor may submit only one
invoice. FMO will process contract
as an obligation.
A preliminary contractual instrument
that must be made final by a
designated CO. FMO wfll process
notice as an obligation.
Results in a cost reimbursement type
agreement with a State, local or
Indian Tribal government It is a
preliminary contractual instrument
that must be made final by a
CO. The appropriate FMO will
process a letter contract as an
obligation.
Has time and material provisions,
but uses fixed rates negotiated in
ERCS contract Order must be made
final by a designated CO. FMO will
process orders as an obligation.
VI-50
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
SFO must also check that the action has been approved. The Regional
SFO enters the commitment into the ADCR and IFMS.
Obligation of Funds Site specific removal cleanup contracts are obli-
gated by the Regional Ordering Officer (generally the OSC), the Regional
ERCS CO or at HQ. Obligational authority is determined by the type and
amount of the contract. Although a PR is generally prepared in advance of
the obligating document for removals, these documents may be processed
simultaneously or out of sequence, due to the urgent nature of removals.
OSCs have the contractual authority to obligate up to $250,000 via a
Delivery Order under an existing contract; however, Regions have limited
this authority to $50,000. For contract amounts over this authority, the
OSC forwards the obligating document to the Regional Administrator for
approval and to PCMD or the Regional ERCS CO for obligation and
processing. The SFO/RTP enters the obligation into IFMS for all con-
tracts.
Invoice Processing The OSC or DPO reviews the site portion of con-
tractor invoices and signs a statement indicating that the services for
which the contractor is invoicing have been provided. The OSC forwards
the certified copy of the invoice within five days to the SFO/RTP for
processing and payment.
If the OSC disallows any charges, copies of the invoice should be sent to
the CO, along with an explanation for disallowing the costs. When a
disputed charge cannot be settled with the contractor, the OSC prepares a
memo/letter with a copy of the voucher and sends them to the CO. The
OSC sends the original voucher with a copy of the letter to RTF. Addi-
tional guidance for processing site specific contractor invoices are in-
cluded in the "Removal Cost Management Manual," "Superfund Removal
Procedures" manual and the "ERCS Users Manual."
Site Specific Remedial Contracts Site specific remedial contracts refer to those
which are obligated site specifically. Remedial contractors provide site specific
support for RI/FS, RD and RA projects at individual NPL sites, as well as general
management support to EPA HQ and Regions. Both large, national contracts as
well as smaller, Region specific contracts, e.g. ARCS contracts are in place. Site
specific remedial contracts are obligated and tracked on a site specific basis in the
Agency's IFMS.
Commitment of Funds To commit funds, the Regional program office
prepares the PR for site specific activities, obtains all necessary Regional
program office approvals and signatures, and forwards the approved
document to the Regional SFO for certification of funds availability and
the addition of accounting information (AN and DCN). The Regional SFO
enters the commitment into IFMS. For Region specific contracts, e.g.,
ARCS contracts, the basic contract is prepared in HQ and contract modifi-
cations are processed in the Regions.
Obligation of Funds Site specific remedial contracts are obligated by
PCMD in HQ or the ARCS CO in the Regions. These obligations repre-
sent contract modifications which must be processed in accordance with
VI-51
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
guidance issued by PCMD. PCMD or the ARCS CO distributes the
processed obligating document, and the SFO/RTP enters the obligation
into IFMS.
Invoice Processing Site specific remedial contractors will provide
copies of their monthly invoice or voucher for payment to the CO and the
Regions for review. RPMs have five days to review the invoice. If the
invoice accurately reflects contractor activities, the RPM will inform the
Project Officer (PO) that the voucher is consistent with the sen/ice pro-
vided. If the RPM identifies a problem, it should be reported to the appro-
priate PO for resolution. The PO will resolve any problems, certify that
the voucher is consistent with the services provided, and forward the
invoice to the SFO/RTP for processing and payment.
General Site Support Contracts This category includes contracts which are not
obligated on a site specific basis. These contracts create a pool of contract labor
capable of providing broad technical and planning support to any removal, site
assessment, remedial or enforcement site on an "as needed" basis. Examples of
this type of contract include, but are not limited to: the FIT, TAT, Contract Lab
Program (CLP), and the Environmental Services Assistance Team (ESAT). Be-
cause these types of contracts are administered by HQ, they will not be discussed
in detail in this document.
General site support contractors must submit with each invoice a site specific
attachment, which details the costs incurred at each site with an EPA S/S ID. The
site specific attachment must include the invoiced costs for each of the following
categories:
Each site with an EPA S/S ID;
All other sites, i.e., those without an EPA S/S ID, on one line item per
Region;
Program management;
Base and award fees;
Non-site activities, identified separately, such as training of State person-
nel or coordination of Regional activities; and
Non-Superfund costs, as applicable, on one line item per appropriation.
The contractors submit original invoices to RTF and advance copies to the HQ
PO simultaneously. The PO reviews the invoice and the site specific attachment
for reasonableness of the site specific charges. In some cases, the RPOs and
DPOs will conduct a concurrent review of the invoice.
Enforcement Contracts The TES contracts are a combination of the general site
support contracts and the site specific removal/remedial contracts. The TES
contracts are not obligated on a site specific basis, however, the Regions issue
WAs against the contract labor pool on a site specific basis. Site specific WAs are
not entered into IFMS.
VI-52
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Additional information on enforcement contracts can be found in the Case Budget
section earlier in this Chapter or Appendix E.
General Program Support Contracts This group of contracts provides general
program management support to HQ and Regional program offices. These con-
tracts are not for site specific work and are not obligated site specifically. They
are administered totally by HQ and will not be discussed in this document.
lAGs
An IAG is a written agreement between Federal agencies under which goods and services
are provided. The Superfund program uses Disbursement lAGs and Allocation Transfer
lAGs to request Federal agencies assistance with site cleanups and associated activities
and provide ongoing support or services. The IAG specifies the services required and
identifies the method of payment.
Disbursement lAGs Disbursement lAGs are agreements in which another
Federal agency provides goods or services to EPA. This category of IAG is
similar in concept to obtaining goods or services from a contractor. Superfund
program staff prepare lAGs to pay other agencies for work performed at a specific
Superfund removal, remedial or enforcement site and for non-site specific activi-
ties. EPA pays the other agency either by advance payment or by payment follow-
ing work performance (repayment). The Regional program office initiates and
manages site specific lAGs. The Administrative Assistance Unit (AAU) in the
Regional Management Division typically approves and awards site specific lAGs.
The exceptions are USCG-lead removal lAGs and the DOT IAG, which are negoti-
ated, approved, awarded, and managed at HQ.
Commitment of Funds The Regional program office determines
whether assistance from another Federal agency is needed. The Regional
SFO determines the availability of funds, upon request from the Regional
program office. The Regional program office then prepares the IAG
funding package, consisting of a CN, a transmittal memorandum, EPA
Form 1610-1, which is the IAG itself, and a Decision Memorandum,
which verifies legal authority for the IAG. The Decision Official in the
Regional program office reviews and approves the IAG. The staff of the
AAU then conducts an administrative review of the funding package. The
SFO adds accounting data and enters the commitment in the ADCR as
well as into IFMS. The Regional program office establishes and maintains
the official site file(s). The AAU establishes and maintains the official
financial file.
Obligation of Funds Following pre-validation of the commitment, the
AAU obtains an IAG number from HQ GAD by E-mail. The Action
Official (the Regional Administrator or his/her designee) signs the IAG.
The AAU then sends the signed IAG to the other agency for signature. An
obligation is created when the IAG has been signed by both agencies. The
AAU distributes the executed IAG to the Regional program office, GAD,
and FMC-Ci, where the obligation is recorded in IFMS.
Payments If the performing agency does not have OMB-approved
reimbursable authority, FMC-Ci pays that agency for EPA prior to execu-
VI-53
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
tion of the agreement activities. For those agencies that do not require
advances, the Regional program office certifies that charges are accurate
following execution of the activities. There are three ways in which EPA
accomplishes exchange of funds for lAGs: the Simplified Interagency
Billings and Collection system (SIBAC), the On-line Payment and Collec-
tions system (OPAC), and check payments. When the OPAC or SIBAC
system is used, funds exchange occurs prior to Regional program office
certification; however, the Regional program office may request adjust-
ments when necessary. For payment by check, the performing agency
submits vouchers to the FMC-Ci, who forwards them to the Regional
program office. The Regional program office reviews and certifies the
voucher and then returns both the voucher and the certification form to
FMC-Ci for processing and payment. USAGE has implemented a self-
certification procedure which eliminates the need for Regional program
office review and certification.
Closeout The Regional program office is responsible for managing pre-
closeout activity. If all work has been completed, the Regional program
office accepts the final report from the other agency and initiates closeout
procedures. The AAU queries the Regional program office when the
project period has expired or when there has been no project activity for
two quarters. If the AAU requests a project status determination, the
Regional program office determines whether the IAG should remain open/
extended or be closed, and notifies the AAU.
When no further activity will occur under the IAG (e.g. project com-
pleted, funds availability period expired, funds expended, unsatisfactory/
incomplete work product) and final invoices have been certified, the
Regional program office prepares a written closeout request and sends it to
the AAU. The AAU then determines from FMC-Ci that the IAG is finan-
cially closed out and sends a closeout letter to the other agency and noti-
fies the Regional program office and GAD. Both the Regional program
office and the AAU then remove the appropriate files from active status
and retain them a minimum of six years. Disposal of the files is subject to
Regional program office approval.
When applicable, within thirty days of completion of work under the
agreement, the Regional program office prepares, or obtains from the
other agency, a final inventory and disposition recommendations for non-
expendable property. The Regional program office forwards a copy of
this report to the appropriate property management office in the Regional
Management Division.
Allocation Transfer lAGs Allocation transfer lAGs transfer obligational author-
ity from EPA to the designated agency at the appropriation level. The funds are
transferred to the other agency from an EPA allowance via EPA's Transfer Allo-
cation account. This IAG mechanism is similar to the OC providing allowances to
EPA program offices to carry out specific functions; however, transfers occur at
the appropriation level. Obligations and payments are made by the other agency
and are reported monthly to EPA.
VI-54
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Initiating the IAG The Regional program office initiates the LAG.
After developing a preliminary cost estimate with the other agency, the
Regional program office prepares the funding package which includes
EPA Form 1610-1, a transmittal memorandum, and the Decision Memo-
randum. The Decision Official in the Regional program office reviews
and approves the funding package and submits it to the AAU. The AAU
obtains an LAG number from GAD by E-mail and conducts an administra-
tive review. The GAD enters IAG data from the E-mail request into the
Grants Information Control Systems (GICS). The Action Official (the
Regional Administrator or his/her designee) conducts a final review and
signs the IAG package. The AAU submits the IAG to the other agency for
signature. The AAU distributes the executed LAG to the Regional pro-
gram office, to the GAD, and to the OC. Upon initiation of the IAG, the
Regional program office submits a change request to the Budget Formula-
tion and Control Branch in the OC, so that the funds can be set aside in a
HQ transfer account. The appropriate program's allowance is then re-
duced to reflect the transfer to the receiving agency.
Transfer of Funds The executed IAG serves to transfer obligational
authority to the other agency. Once the IAG is signed, and upon receipt of
a change request from the Regional program office, the OC Budget Divi-
sion withdraws funds from the Region's allowance and transfers the funds
to the EPA Transfer Allocation account for future transfer to the desig-
nated agency. The Financial Reports and Analysis Branch executes the
transfer from EPA to the performing agency.
Financial Monitoring The performing agency is required to submit:
1) monthly reports via SF133, "Budget Execution," on obligations and
expenditures during the period to EPA's FMD and 2) periodic status
reports to the Regional program office and the HQ Superfund Budget
Branch. The IAG also requires the other agency to maintain records and
documentation by site and submit them to EPA upon request. The Re-
gional program office reviews progress reports and acts on them as neces-
sary.
Closeout The Regional program office closeout procedures for an
allocation transfer IAG are the same as those for disbursement LAGs.
Since there are no billing transactions, outstanding invoices or payments
are not a concern; however, to determine that the IAG may be financially
closed out by the OC, the AAU asks the EPA OIG to request the other
agency's OIG to determine the financial status of the LAG. Both the
Regional program office and the AAU then remove the appropriate files
for that IAG from active status and retain them a minimum of six years.
Disposal of the files is subject to Regional program office approval.
For further information on Regional LAGs, see OSWER Directive 9295.0-01
"Regional Interagency Agreements Handbook."
CAs
A CA is the instrument EPA uses to provide assistance to States, political subdivisions or
Indian Tribal governments in conducting site assessment, remedial, removal, enforcement
and program and project support activities. CAs provide funding assistance to the State,
VI-55
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
political subdivision, or Indian Tribal government, documents responsibilities and obtains
State assurances. CAs must be approved by the Regional Administrator or designee. The
steps for developing and managing the financial aspects of a CA in the Region are out-
lined below.
Commitments The Regional program office prepares the CN and obtains all
necessary program approvals and signatures to commit funds for the CA. The
Regional Management Division certifies the availability of funds, assigns the
accounting data, sets aside the required funds on the ADCR and enters the com-
mitment into the IFMS. The Regional AAU assigns the CA identification number.
Obligations The signature of the Regional Administrator, or his/her designee,
obligates CAs. The Regional Management Division is responsible for processing
obligations in accordance with the guidance issued by PCMD, GAD and FMD,
and for entering the obligations into the ADCR and IFMS.
Payments Effective January 1, 1991, EPA began converting the Letter of Credit
(LOG) process of paying CAs to the EPA-ACH Payment System. The EPA-ACH
Payment System utilizes the Department of Treasury electronic payment mecha-
nism called "Vendor Express."
Using the EPA-ACH Payment System, the recipient presents an EPA-ACH
Payment Request (provided by EPA), via fax machine, courier mail, or U.S. Mail
to the recipient's respective EPA SFO location. The SFO reviews each request to
determine if:
Funds drawn are being used within a valid budget period;
The EPA-ACH account number is correct;
Summary detail is entered correctly, project numbers are valid, and suffi-
cient project funds are available for the projects cited;
All required expenditure or program reports have been received; and
The balance on hand is not excessive.
Under the EPA-ACH Payment System, all or part of the request may be approved
for payment. If a request is modified or rejected, the EPA-SFO will immediately
notify the recipient and work with the recipient to resolve the problem.
When the request is approved for payment, EPA electronically transfers funds
through Treasury and the Federal Reserve for credit to the recipient's account at
its designated financial institution.
The Regional Management Division reviews drawdowns on a monthly basis and
determines whether the account structure established in the CA is being followed
and that the drawdowns are only large enough to cover immediate (usually one
month) cash needs. The account from which drawdowns were made, identified in
the IFMS Outlay Report or State quarterly report, must match the activities being
undertaken.
VI-56
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Financial Monitoring On a regular basis, the RPM should review the IFMS
Outlay Report and the quarterly progress report prepared by the State, political
subdivision or Indian Tribal government. The review should determine that
drawdowns at the site correspond to technical progress.
Deobligations Deobligations of funds are handled similarly to obligations of
funds. The same commitment and obligation documents and procedures are used,
except that the dollar amount indicated is a reduction rather than an addition. The
availability of funds following deobligation depends on when the funds were
obligated initially. Current FY funds are available for reuse within the allowance
as soon as the deobligation is effective. (See the Flexible Funding section earlier
in this Chapter on the use of deobligated funds.) Prior FY funds that are
deobligated revert to HQ for redistribution.
In order to reuse prior FY funds:
The allowance holders must submit a request to recertify the funds to then-
allowances;
OERR will evaluate the request based on the approved SCAP and will
recommend distribution of funds;
The OC must approve the request; and
The request must be approved and a reapportionment obtained from the
OMB.
Regions should regularly review the financial status of all CAs. If all activities to
be conducted under the agreement have been completed and there are funds
outstanding, the Region should follow the procedures above to deobligate these
funds or transfer them to another site or response phase. The transfer of funds
under a CA is discussed below.
Transfer of Funds Under a multi-site CA funds can be transferred from one site
to another site. This transaction is called a 'transwitch' and requires a formal CA
amendment. The CA amendment must show the transfer of funds from one site to
another by changing the accounting information on the funds being transferred to
reflect the new site. CA funds can also be transferred from one remedial response
phase to another remedial response phase at the same site. Again, a formal CA
amendment is required in order to change the accounting information to reflect the
actual response activity being performed.
For additional information on the financial management of CAs, refer to the Resources
Management Directives Systems 2550D. Chapter 9, and the State Participation in the
Superfund Program guidance, Chapters 7 and 10.
SSCs
When EPA or a political subdivision has the lead for an RA, the instrument used to
describe the State's role is a SSC. An SSC is a legally binding agreement that provides
the mechanism for obtaining required State cost share and other assurances, outlines the
statement of work for the response action and also documents responsibilities for reme-
dial implementation at a site. When a political subdivision has the lead for an RA, the
VI-57
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
SSC is signed by EPA, the State and the political subdivision. The SSC does not obligate
funds; funds for Federal-lead projects must be obligated through an EPA PR with a
contractor or an IAG with another agency. Funds for political subdivision response
actions are provided through a CA.
SSC Requirements An SSC is required to be in place before EPA or the politi-
cal subdivision can begin an RA funded by the Superfund. An SSC must contain
several State assurances. One is that the State will pay its cost share for response
actions. The State cost share is ten percent for privately operated sites. For
publicly operated sites, the State cost share is 50 percent and is required for prior
removal, RI/FS and RD activities as well as the RA. In addition to cost share
assurances, SSCs must contain State program assurances and must also include a
tentative payment schedule.
SSC Development The SSC is developed by the Regional program office. The
RPM/RPO must insure that, in addition to program assurances, the financial cost
share requirements and payment schedule are included in the SSC.
Accounts Receivable LikeaCA, an SSC requires State cost share. To cover its
share of remedial costs under an SSC, the State may be required to provide cash
payments to EPA. Following execution of the SSC, the RPM/RPO must immedi-
ately forward a copy of the executed SSC to the Regional Management Division
for necessary accounts receivable processing. The RPM/RPO is also responsible
for forwarding immediately to the Regional Management Division any SSC
modifications that may affect the payment schedule.
Payment Schedule The State cost share must be received and recorded in IFMS
before EPA will pay for the work to which the State is contributing funds. There-
fore, State payments should be scheduled approximately two weeks ahead of the
anticipated outlay date to allow for administrative processing. If a RA occurs in
several phases the payments may be spread out accordingly. In this situation, the
SSC will schedule the respective State payments to ensure deposit in the Treasury
and recording in IFMS no later than EPA's disbursement of funds for each phase.
Billing Thirty days prior to the date on the SSC payment schedule, the Re-
gional Management Division will send to the State a notice of the amount required
and the due date. The SSC, and any invoice to the State requesting payment, must
include the requirement that payments be sent to the Regional Superfund lockbox
address. The Regional Management Division will reference the SSC, including
the EPA site name and identifier, on the invoice. The Division will also require
the State to include a copy of the invoice with any remittance sent to the Regional
Superfund lockbox address.
Receipt of Payment If EPA does not receive the requested funds by the date on
the payment schedule, the Regional Management Division will notify the RPM/
RPO immediately. The RPM/RPO is responsible for follow-up with the State and
will keep the Regional Management Division advised. If the State provides its
cost share dollars prior to EPA's obligation of funds for each phase, no interest
will accrue on the invoiced amount. In this case, the Region deposits its cost share
in the Trust Fund and receives in return a reimbursable allowance.
Closeout The RPM/RPO is responsible for notifying the Regional Management
Division when it is time to close out the specific SSC. The Regional Management
VI-58
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Division will reconcile the financial data on the Federal-lead action.
For additional information on financial management responsibilities related to SSCs,
refer to the Resources Management Directives Systems 2550D. Chapter 9 and State
Participation in the Superfund Program guidance, Chapter 7.
Cost Recovery/Cost Documentation
CERCLA, as amended, imposes liability on responsible parties for the cost of responding
to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances from hazardous waste sites or
spills. When these PRPs fail to clean up sites on their own, EPA may perform the
cleanup and later attempt to recover the cleanup costs from the parties. Obtaining reim-
bursement for these costs through negotiation or judicial action is one of the chief goals
of the Superfund program.
Cost recovery documentation is performed by a case development team comprised of
representatives from the ORC, the Regional program office and the Regional SFO. The
involvement and distribution of responsibilities of each of these offices during the cost
recovery process does vary within each Region and may be defined by a Regional Inter-
Office Memorandum of Understanding. The following sequence of activities is provided
as a guide. The cost recovery case development process, which is typically completed
within an eight week timeframe, is briefly described as follows:
Initiation of Cost Recovery Process The Regional program office prepares and
submits the cost recovery checklist through the Regional Cost Recovery Coordina-
tor (RCRC) to the Regional SFO to begin the documentation process for Head-
quarters and Regional Superfund site specific costs. Among other things, the
checklist prescribes the date through which costs are to be documented and the
date documentation is required by the case development team.
The RCRC obtains the cost documentation package from the SFO and prepares a
"merged" cost summary (if this is not done by the Regional SFO). The RCRC
also requests site specific reports generated by REPORTER (or SPUR), from the
SFO which provide the cost basis for negotiations with RPs.
Cost Documentation and Reconciliation Cost documentation and reconciliation
involve collecting and reviewing required documentation to ensure that accounting
and cost information are recorded correctly, that costs are properly chargeable,
that ANs refer to the appropriate site, and that costs on the documents are reflected
accurately in IFMS. The Regional SFO documents Regional Superfund site
specific costs and prepares the Regional office cost summary; computes indirect
costs; provides expert and factual financial witness testimony; provides assistance
to legal and program staff interpreting financial documents and REPORTER (or
SPUR) reports, and provides CA cost documentation.
The ORC reviews the final cost summary and documentation package in prepara-
tion for litigation and takes appropriate actions pursuant to the Privacy Act and
regulations concerning Confidential Business Information to ensure that protected
information is not released.
Site File Maintenance Diligent maintenance of the site files is crucial to cost
recovery and is the responsibility of the Regions. Site specific financial files
VI-59
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
should be maintained by the FMO until such time as cost recovery action is
initiated or a minimum of six years. Disposal of files is subject to Regional
program office approval. The cost recovery financial documentation case file
should be maintained by the RCRC until this cost documentation is required by
the litigation team.
HANDLING FINANCIAL DATA IN THE CERCLIS ENVIRONMENT
The implementation of IFMS has affected the handling of financial data in CERCLIS.
An automated link between CERCLIS and IFMS and procedures for reconciling data quality has
not been developed. The Manual will be updated when procedures have been completed.
Entering Remedial/Removal Data into CERCLIS
Once the funding document has been processed by the Region, the planned financial data
(C3203 = P) must be deleted and the commitment (C3202 = C) or obligation (C3202 = A) data
entered. The funding amount in CERCLIS and on the funding document must agree. If a Re-
gion wants to retain planned financial data, it must enter the planned obligation into CERCLIS
with a Regional Financial Type of "X," "Y," or "Z." In any event, the Financial Type code of
"P" (planned) cannot remain in the system once the funds are committed or obligated. Failure to
replace the "P" (planned) could cause the Region to exceed its annual budget which will result in
1) withholding AOA approval or 2) a reduction in next quarter's AOA.
Until the automated link between CERCLIS and IFMS is established, Regions are re-
quired to enter financial information into CERCLIS. This includes commitment/decommitment
or obligation/deobligation date, amount, financial type, contractor vehicle, and contractor name.
In addition, the obligating document must be placed in the Official Site file. Regions are not
required to enter outlay or credit information into CERCLIS.
Entering Enforcement Case Budget Data into CERCLIS
The Region will be responsible for entering obligations/tasking (WAs issued) into CER-
CLIS. Responsibility for verifying the information in IFMS and CERCLIS for obligations or
deobligations and outlays incurred resides with the Regions.
To ensure that all appropriate financial data are reflected in CERCLIS, the following
information should appear on obligation documents: EPA ID number, S/S ID, CERCLIS event
or enforcement activity codes and OU number, WA number, amendment number and amount.
ANs must be established for each transaction before commitment and obligation. A CA
is considered obligated when it is signed by the Regional Administrator. An IAG is considered
obligated when it is signed by the other agency. Contracts are considered obligated when the CO
signs the obligating document or, in the case of a TES WA, when the CO signs the WA. Re-
gions are also responsible for reviewing and recommending payment of the invoice/voucher
(outlays) for these mechanisms. Once invoices are paid, these dollars are entered into IFMS. If
the obligation was generic and the invoice is site specific, IFMS shows the funds deobligated
from the generic account and obligated and disbursed from the site specific account.
VI-60
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
IFMS to CERCLIS Financial Data Transfer
The automated transfer of financial data into CERCLIS was suspended in February 1989
as a result of the implementation of IFMS. In March 1990, OERR formed a workgroup to
complete the necessary tasks to once again begin the automated transfer of financial data. Based
on Regional discussions, a decision was made to continue manually entering financial data into
CERCLIS.
It is imp'ortant for the Regions to note that they are ultimately responsible for the accu-
racy of the CERCLIS data bases. Regions will have to ensure that the planned, commitment and
obligation data entered as part of the SCAP process are accurate and current and agree with the
information in IFMS, the Agency's official source of financial data. Regions will not receive
their FY 92 second quarter AOA until the CERCLIS and IFMS data for FY 91 agree.
Correcting Financial Data
The Region's IFMS administrator is the only person authorized to make changes in the
IFMS data base. The IMC or designee should work with the Regional FMO on a regular basis to
make sure that all IFMS errors are corrected. The IMC can request, on a regular basis, a report
from the Regional financial office which contains all Superfund financial transactions in IFMS.
The information in this report can be compared with the funding documents and CERCLIS.
Upon determining that the data on the source document were correct and were correctly entered
into CERCLIS, the IMC should give the Regional FMO a copy of the funding document, and
any other relevant documentation, showing that the IFMS data are in error.
The OC has issued standard procedures for correcting IFMS data. There are three kinds
of corrections which may be needed on financial information in IFMS as shown in Exhibit
VI-14.
Correcting IFMS data entry errors or changing financial information in IFMS are per-
formed by the FMO. Errors in AN/DCN, or other information on the original funding document
can only be corrected by the same process used to initially create the financial record (by a
contract/PR or by amendment of the LAG or CA).
Exhibit VI-14
CORRECTIONS TO FINANCIAL INFORMATION IN IFMS
Data entry errors in IFMS
Changing ANs or DCNs that were initially
entered into IFMS
Correcting errors in the source funding
document or making other amendments to
existing commitments or obligations
VI-61
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER VII - PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Following are the actions Regional managers must take to comply with
the requirements described in this Chapter. In order to acquire a more
in-depth understanding of these requirements, the Chapter itself should
be read.
Report Superfund accomplishments as soon as they occur or,
at a minimum, on a monthly basis through CERCLIS. HQ
management bases its evaluation of Regional performance on
these data.
Regions are responsible for CERCLIS data entry and data
quality control.
Regions and HQ will work together at mid-year to develop
strategies for improving performance.
Regions participate in the OSWER Regional review.
Regions should inform the Planning and Evaluation Section
(PES) of OERR of audits, internal studies or Federal
Manager's Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) weaknesses that
might have implications for internal controls.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER VTT - PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
This chapter describes the established procedures for assessing the overall performance
of the Superfund program. Specifically, this chapter:
Outlines the objectives of Superfund's internal evaluation efforts, the process by
which these objectives are met, and the tools that EPA uses in the evaluation
process; and
Provides Superfund management and staff with a quick-reference guide to their
roles and responsibilities in the evaluation process.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
HQ and the Regions have different roles and responsibilities in Superfund program
evaluation and management, as shown in Exhibit VII-1.
The Superfund evaluation process provides managers with an opportunity to meet pro-
gram objectives by:
Examining program accomplishments;
Analysing and discussing issues that affect the successful operation of the Super-
fund program; and
Initiating changes in program operations or reallocating resources.
The strategy for assessing the performance of the Superfund program is comprised of the
following parts:
Monthly and quarterly SCAP/STARS performance evaluation with CERCLIS
data;
OSWER and OE Regional reviews; and
Internal evaluation and audit follow-up.
This strategy enables management to recognize high performance, concentrate Superfund
resources in those Regions that demonstrate success, and provide training and technical assis-
tance to those Regions that are experiencing difficulties.
In addition to the program management and assessment tools traditionally used by
OSWER, OE will also be utilizing the A-106 Pollution Abatement Planning Process to ensure
sufficient Federal agency funding of response programs. Modifications to the A-106 process
have been made to provide OE, Regions, OMB, other Federal Agencies, and Congress with
improved information to evaluate accomplishments at Federal Facilities.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
The Regions report their Superfund activities on a monthly basis through CERCLIS.
CERCLIS monthly progress reports indicate program accomplishments for SCAP and STARS
VII-1
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Exhibit Vn-1
EVALUATION RESPONSIBILITIES
REGIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES
Meet quarterly SCAP and STARS targets and
solve performance problems when they arise
Provide quarterly SCAP and STARS data to HQ
through CERCLIS
Maintain CERCLIS data quality at high levels
for Superfund program and project management
Participate in OSWER Regional reviews
Participate in workgroups to evaluate specific
program area issues
Negotiate performance standards that provide
individual accountability for quarterly targets
Develop plans for meeting targets
Assess Federal agency needs identified during
the OMB A-106 process
Hii
RESPONSIBILITIES
Provide guidance to the Regions for the
quarterly review, the mid-year assessment,
the year-end assessment, and the OSWER and
OE Regional review
Identify priority issues and participate in
OSWER and OE Regional reviews
Implement and report on follow-up action
items from the OSWER and OE Regional
review and Superfund mid-year assessment
Review monthly performance data reported
by the Regions and negotiate plans with
Regions for meeting targets
Continually assess program performance and
analyze timeliness and quality of work
Recommend resource reallocation based on
Regional needs and performanfe
Assure that all staff are informed of the
results of performance reporting and
OSWER and OE Regional reviews
Identify and undertake special studies that
result from the Federal Manager's Financial
Integrity Act (FMFIA)
Track audits, audit response activities, and
internal reviews
Compare Federal agency budget authorities,
obligations and outlays to monitor cleanup
activities
measures on a Region-by-Region basis. Management bases its evaluations of Regional program
performance on these data. Each quarter, accomplishment data are used to support formal
SCAP/STARS performance reporting. Detailed management evaluations occur at two points of
the FY: during the second and third quarters (mid-year assessment) and after the fourth quarter
(end-of-year assessment). (See Exhibit VII-2.)
The Regions are responsible for data entry and data quality control. Accomplishment
data for SCAP and STARS reports are pulled from CERCLIS at the close of business on the fifth
working day of the month. If a Region has not entered its accomplishments into CERCLIS by
that time, its performance will not be captured in the data pull, nor will its accomplishments be
reported in STARS reports.
VII-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
Exhibit Vn-2
THE QUARTERLY REVIEW PROCESS
1ST QUARTER
REVIEW
* Evaluate Program
Status
4th QUARTER
END-OF-YEAR
ASSESSMENT
2nd QUARTER
MID-YEAR
ASSESSMENT
3RD QUARTER
REVIEW
Evaluate Program
Status
* Evaluate Program
Status
* Evaluate Program
Status
* Evaluate Annual
Performance and
Produce National
Progress Report
* Brief Senior
Management
Develop Plans
to Meet Targets
Report on
Progress of Plans
to Meet Targets
* Bnef Senior
Management
Provide Input into
Next FY Resource
Allocation Process
Bnef Senior
Management
Senior
Management
Visits to Selected
Regions
Report on
Progress of Plans
to Meet Targets
* Bnef Senior
Management
Quarterly Reviews
The purpose of the quarterly review is to:
Track Regional progress toward accomplishing quarterly and end-of-year SCAP
and STARS targets;
Identify and assess problems impacting performance soon after they arise; and
Work with Regions to develop plans for meeting their targets.
The quarterly review process provides HQ with a way to monitor Regional progress
toward accomplishing program targets. On a national scale, the review process allows HQ
managers to identify trends in program performance and adjust program management strategies
accordingly.
Between 15 and 30 business days following the end of the quarter, after the Regions have
finalized their CERCLIS entries, evaluation staff brief individually the HQ and Regional Divi-
sion Directors, the OERR and OWPE Office Directors, the AA SWER, and the Deputy Adminis-
trator. Quarterly memoranda are sent to Regional Administrators and Deputy Regional Adminis-
trators by the AA SWER. The memoranda contain the most significant issues/activities and
performance highlights from the previous quarter.
VII-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Mid-Year Assessment
The focus of second quarter evaluation activities is the mid-year assessment. The pur-
pose of the mid-year assessment is to provide both HQ and the Regions with an opportunity to
assess performance and take appropriate action to enhance progress toward meeting annual
commitments. During the mid-year assessment, management also considers the impact of
Regional program performance on the Superfund pipeline. The mid-year assessment begins near
the end of the second quarter, when HQ and the Regions examine progress made during the first
five months of the year. By early March, the Regions should be able to assess the progress that
they have made toward meeting second-quarter SCAP and STARS targets. By that time, they
should also be able to know whether they are likely to achieve their end-of-year targets.
Preliminary performance data for the mid-year assessment are pulled from CERGLIS on
the fifth working day of March and compared to data on missed targets. Based on these compari-
sons, HQ develops a list of Regions that seem to be having trouble meeting their targets. Prelimi-
nary plans are made for HQ senior managers to visit these Regions in April.
On the fifth working day of April, second quarter SCAP data are pulled from CERCLIS.
If the CERCLIS data indicates that a Region has resolved its performance problems and is
projected to meet annual targets, it is dropped from the final list of Regions to visit. The OERR
and OWPE Directors are then briefed on the mid-year assessment strategy. The Regions are
notified of their status by mid-April. OERR and OWPE visit those Regions having performance
problems.
By the mid-year STARS briefing (the second week in May), OERR and OWPE Directors
brief the AA on the steps taken to ensure the accomplishment of annual targets. The mid-year
assessments result in a series of agreements between HQ and the Regions on actions that the
Regions will take either to achieve or to exceed end-of-year accomplishment targets. To ensure
that these actions are implemented, HQ will: distribute action agreements to appropriate manag-
ers; track follow-up items; reallocate resources; and provide the Regions with technical assis-
tance. The results of the mid-year assessment can also affect resource allocations for the next
FY. This measure of a Region's ability to meet their targets will be considered in August, when
final FY 93 SCAP/STARS commitments and Regional budgets are established.
End-of-Ycar Assessment
After the end of the fourth quarter, in October, HQ conducts an end-of-year assessment.
This assessment is an integrated analysis of program performance activities for the year. The
purpose of the end-of-year assessment is to emphasize pipeline issues. The end-of-year review
also notes progress toward implementing strategies identified in the mid-year assessment and
identifies Regions that might require additional assistance as the new FY begins.
HQ considers the end-of-year assessment in developing the preliminary targets in mid-
December, as well as in the mid-year SCAP negotiations that are held in February/March for the
FY 92 third and fourth quarters. In this way, the results of the end-of-year assessment have a
double impact.
FY 92 OSWER AND OE REGIONAL REVIEWS
In developing the OSWER and OE Regional review process for FY 92, the following was
assessed: the timing of the review cycle; the types of evaluation, oversight and technical assis-
VII-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
tance incorporated; the focus of the issues; and the results of the reviews. A key objective of this
cycle of OSWER and OE reviews is to narrow the focus to key programmatic areas identified in
annual guidance. An ancillary goal is to shorten the review cycle. While each OSWER program
office and OFFE will be responsible for their own review preparation, a similar process will be
used to evaluate the issue areas. There will be a concerted effort to tie into evaluations already
underway in each program area. The product of the review will be negotiated plans for contin-
ued improvements.
Process
This approach to the OSWER and OE Regional review process has four primary phases
and the following key features:
Phase 1 - Selection of Program Igsjugs Program offices will select several
specific program areas or issues for review at the beginning of the FY. Each
program office will focus on a few systemic or significant issues from among
those identified in the year's Operating Guidance and program guidance.
Phase 2 - National Issue Evaluations In-depth evaluations of the specific
program issue areas by HQ and Regional workgroups will be performed during
the first two quarters. These issues will be analyzed using a process that will
emphasize solutions developed by the actual HQ and Regional participants.
Phase 3 - On-Site Senior Management Visit On-site visits of all ten Regions
will be conducted by senior program managers during the third and fourth quarters
to provide a more uniform timeframe for comparisons and program-wide assess-
ments of the programs.
Phase 4 - Products and Follow-up The product of the review would be the
negotiated plans for continued improvement developed in the on-site meetings.
Each of these phases are explained in the following sections.
Selection of Program Issues
Before the beginning of the FY, all program offices (i.e., OERR, Office of Solid Waste
(OSW), OWPE, Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST), AA SWER Immediate Office
and OE) identify key program areas and issues in the Agency's Operating Guidance or in indi-
vidual program management guidance. From this universe, the program areas and issues se-
lected by the program offices for Regional reviews will be those key issues that HQ program
managers believe to be important to the general success of the program's mission, and to be most
amenable to the inter-program nature of the OSWER and OE review. The AA SWER and AA of
OE will then notify the Regions of the specific program areas and issues that HQ will be examin-
ing. Regions will comment on these topics and propose others for consideration.
Evaluations
During the first and second quarters of the FY, program offices will organize workgroups
around the specific program areas and national issues selected by the program offices. Each
program office will develop a workplan outlining the approach to be used in conducting the in-
depth evaluation for each Region. The approach to the in-depth evaluation will depend on the
program area and issues involved. Information collection may include a review of information
VII-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
already available; a series of phone calls to the Regions to obtain more information; targeted
visits to some or all the Regions, if needed; or any combination of these approaches. The benefit
of this flexible approach is to allow the most appropriate evaluation techniques and program
personnel to address the diverse range of issues and program areas.
On-Site Visit
After the in-depth evaluation of national issues, program office staff will customize
Region-specific agendas reflecting performance on the national issues as well as adding any
Region-specific issues. Program office managers will be briefed on the findings. Senior program
managers will then conduct an on-site visit to all ten Regions during the third and fourth quarters
of the FY. Each on-site visit will be tailored to the particular Region, with emphasis on the
program areas and issues identified and examined in the previous phases. However, the on-site
visit could also include discussions of other program areas or issues that the senior management
would like to explore. Because only senior program managers attend the on-site visit and most
of the information gathering has already occurred, senior management participants can focus on
negotiating plans for continued improvement.
Products and Follow-up
The results of the on-site visit will be reviewed and useful Regional experiences will be
shared among the Regions. Negotiated workplans will be confirmed in writing. Any outstand-
ing issues will be documented and addressed after the review.
EVALUATION AND AUDIT FOLLOW-UP
The Superfund program has been the subject of intensive review and oversight by EPA's
OIG, Congress, including the General Accounting Office (GAO), and private interest groups. In
addition, HQ and Regional offices conduct a number of internal reviews to satisfy external
requirements and for program management and policy purposes. To date, there has generally
been a lack of coordination between HQ and the Regions on the conduct or the results of these
reviews.
In 1988, Congress amended the Inspector General Act, creating new semi-annual audit
reporting and follow-up requirements. In addition, if the OIG identifies a weakness, the funds
that could be saved by resolving that weakness must also be identified. OMB has indicated that
it may use the potential savings associated with an unresolved weakness to reduce program
budgets. Furthermore, OMB guidance for preparation and submission of budget estimates
requires that agencies ensure their budgets reflect a commitment to resolve weaknesses identified
by the OIG. Weaknesses and corrective actions must also be reported in the Federal Manager's
Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) annual assurance letter.
These requirements, along with an increased attention to internal controls and audit
follow-up, have resulted in the development of a system to track audits, audit response activities
and internal reviews. The tracking system, called the Superfund Report Information System
(SRIS), will be operated by the Planning and Evaluation Section (PES) of PDBS in OERR.
OERR is utilizing the EPA Library System and the Hazardous Waste Collection (HWC) to make
copies of these reports available to the Regions and other offices. As such, Regions and HQ
divisions should inform PES of any audit with which they are involved, any internal study they
conduct, or any FMFIA declared weaknesses that might have implications for internal controls.
VII-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER Vin
WORKLOAD MODELS
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER VIH - WORKLOAD MODELS
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Following are the actions Regional managers must take to comply with
the requirements described in this Chapter. In order to acquire a more
in-depth understanding of these requirements, the Chapter itself should
be read.
No Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) are given to projects that
are incorrectly coded and scheduled in CERCLIS.
As a result of the freeze in Regional FTEs, Regions may
propose changes to targets during negotiations to match the
total Regional Superfund resource level.
Data quality checks used to identify response projects that
will not receive FTEs include:
- Missing First and Subsequent Start
(FSC) and Completion (FSC) codes;
- Missing planned start and completion
dates;
- Missing project leads;
- Targets missed in previous years; and
- Projects identified as "Alternate"
targets.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
CHAPTER Vm - WORKLOAD MODELS
OVERVIEW OF FTE DISTRIBUTION PROCESS
Regional FTE allocations are made through the Hazardous Spill and Site Response
Model, the Technical Enforcement Model and the Federal Facilities Superfund Workload Model.
Resources for the site assessment, remedial and removal programs are contained in the Spill and
Site Response Model. Enforcement resources are in the Technical Enforcement Model and
resources for oversight of Federal Facilities activities are distributed by the Federal Facilities
Workload Model.
The workload models are designed to reflect priorities and policies contained in both the
budget and planning processes. For the most part, the workload models are a straight forward
application of FTE pricing factors from the national budget to Region-specific SCAP/STARS
targets and projections of ongoing activities in the remedial pipeline. No FTEs are given to
projects that are incorrectly coded and scheduled in CERCLIS.
Regional FTE allocations usually occur in two stages. An initial allocation is made in
April based on preliminary negotiated SCAP/STARS targets and schedules in CERCLIS. A
final distribution is made in September. This distribution reflects the final SCAP and STARS
targets negotiated in August as reflected in CERCLIS and any adjustments to the budget as a
result of Congressional action.
In FY 92, each Region's Superfund FTEs will be frozen at the FY 90 levels. While the
freeze ensures that total Regional Superfund resources will not be affected, shifting of resources
within the Region among the different program areas may occur. This includes shifts between
the response and enforcement programs. All shifts will be based on the national budget and the
integrated Priority Setting Matrix.
During negotiations of preliminary and final SCAP/STARS targets, Regions may propose
changes to the targets to match the total Regional Superfund resource level. These proposals
must be made in accordance with the integrated Priority Setting Matrix. HQ will ensure that the
cumulative Regional targets meet national budget commitments.
FY 93 workload models will be unfrozen, and FY 92 mid-year negotiations will be
particularly important At this time^ the process for distributing resources (preliminary allocation
in April, final in August) will be the same as FY 90. Additional guidance will be issued, pending
Agency decisions.
While other Superfund FTEs remain frozen, OE has requested and received a significant
increase in resources to address Federal Facility cleanup and enforcement. OE will use the
Federal Facilities Superfund Workload Model to distribute these resources.
HAZARDOUS SPILL AND SITE RESPONSE MODEL
General Model Description
The Hazardous Spill and Site Response Resource Distribution Model (referred to as the
OERR Resource Distribution Model or Workload Model) system provides information necessary
vm-i
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
to determine the total Regional response FTE allocation contained in the Congressional Budget
among the 10 EPA Regions. The workload model reflects priorities and policies contained in
both the budget request and SCAP and STARS planning processes.
^^ Specifically, the workload model is both a mainframe and PC system application utilizing
FTE pricing factors from the national budget (FTEs per unit of output) and Regional SCAP/
STARS targets and projections as entered into the pricing factors. If Regional targets are not
available, FTE allocations are based on algorithms which include related activities and/or a
percentage share of a given universe.
The workload model consists of six components: site assessment, remedial pipeline,
remedial support, analytical services, management support, and contract management. For
remedial pipeline events, FTE are allocated site and project specifically on a per quarter basis,
using current site planning data as reflected in CERCLIS and any SCAP/STARS targets negoti-
ated for the site. The direct use of CERCLIS SCAP/STARS targets and planning data provides
solid accountability for management support, and analytical services. FTE allocations are based
on non-site specific aggregated counts of activities per Region. The model then calibrates the
FTE levels calculated for most of the program areas (site assessment, remedial pipeline, remedial
support, and removal) to the FTE levels identified in the budget request. These calibrations
ensure mat budget priorities are reflected in FTE distribution.
In past years, Regional FTE workload model allocations occurred in two stages. An
initial allocation was made in March utilizing the preliminary SCAP/STARS targets; this alloca-
tion distributed 95% of the total Regional response FTE contained in the Congressional budget
request. The 95% level represents a baseline for each Region to allow for staff planning prior to
the start of the FY. A final distribution was made in September which reflected final SCAP/
STARS negotiated targets plus Congressional action to date on the budget request. In FY 92,
100% of the FTEs will be distributed in September. The FTEs contained in the Congressional
budget request will be distributed according to the FY 90 distribution level for each Region.
Targets will be reconciled to this level.
This chapter describes in more detail the operations involved in each of the workload
model phases. There are a number of operating steps in each application of the model. Some
operating steps are required and must be executed in order for the model to function properly;
others are optional and the user must determine if these operating steps should be executed.
Additionally, users may experiment with a variety of operating combinations in order to identify
the impact of various "what if' scenarios. Exhibits Vffl-1 and Vffl-2, on the following pages,
are flowcharts for the remedial pipeline information.
Mainframe Application Concepts
Workload File Creation Process
Data are extracted from the CERCLIS data base on a date negotiated by HQ and the
Regions to ensure that site data are accurately reflected on the mainframe computer. A
project specific workload file is created which includes Rl/FS, RD and RA events. The
project-specific workload file contains every NPL site remedial pipeline project identified
in CERCLIS.
Data Quality Checks Process
Several data quality checks are performed against the project-specific workload file to
identify projects which have data errors. This step ensures that Regions will only receive
vra-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
s
tt
vm-3
-------
F.yhihif Vni-2
WORKLOAD MODEL OPERATIONS REMEDIAL PIPELINE PROCESSING
WORKLOAD
INFORMATION
EVENTS
& '
LEADS
QA/QC FLAGS
MODIFIED DATES;
CHANGEFLAGS
CREATE PLAN DATES
FROM ACTUALS
USE FINAN VEHICLE
FROM LAST
OBLIGATION
1. FTE ALLOCATION
PRIOR YEAR START
OUTYEAR COMP
2. FTE ALLOCATION
PRIOR YEAR START
CURRENT YEAR COMP
WEIGHT FTE
ALLOCATIONS
BASED ON #
OF OVERLAP QTRS
3. FTE ALLOCATION
CURRENT YEAR START
OUTYEAR COMP
CALIBRATE
FTF. AI.LOCATIONS
4. FTE ALLOCATION
CURRENT YEAR START
CURRENT YEAR COMP
FIX DATA QUALITY
PROBLEMS
FTE ALLOCATION
USING LEAD SPECIFIC
PRICING FACTORS
ONLY TO PROJECTS WITHOUT
DATA QUALITY FLAGS
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
resources for projects which are properly planned and coded in CERCLIS. If a problem
exists, each of the fields for which a data quality check is performed have a flag field
equal to "Y" assigned. After all tests are performed, the field "BADFLAG" is updated to
"YES" if any of the individual problem flags are equal to "Y." Any project which has a
"BADFLAG" equal to "YES" will not receive FTEs. The user has the option to include
or exclude running the edit checks process. The individual data fields for which data
quality checks are performed include:
FSS/FSC Codes This check identifies projects which are missing both
FSS (C2115) and FSC (C2116) codes in CERCLIS. It is permissible for a
project to have one or the other (as in the case of a takeover), but a Region
will not receive FTEs for a project which has neither.
Planned FY/O Starts and Completions This check identifies projects
missing planned start or completion dates. Before this check is executed,
a routine is run to create planned dates from actual dates. Any project not
having both a planned start and completion date will not receive FTEs.
Project Planned Obligations This check identifies projects planned to
start and not having planned obligations with approved funding. Only
projects with certain leads (C2117 equal to "F," "S," "EP," "FE," "SE")
are subject to this test.
Activity/Event Planning Status Codes This check identifies projects
planned to start but are marked as alternates by the Activity/Event plan-
ning flag (C2110 equal to "A"). Projects containing a blank or "P" are
eligible to receive FTEs.
Project Leads This check identifies projects missing a lead (C2117 is
blank). Regions will not receive FTEs for any project which does not
have a lead because FTEs are calculated using lead-specific pricing fac-
tors.
Target Overwrite Process
This process compares the planning data in CERCLIS and SCAP/STARS targeting data
reflected in CERHELP. The user has the option to include or exclude running the target
overwrite process of the workload model. If the user chooses to include the target over-
write process, the following steps are executed:
Identifying Targeted Projects The first step identifies specific projects
which are eligible to receive FTEs:
Does the project have an actual start date?
Is the project a type which is not a SCAP/STARS target?
Is the project a target in the CERHELP file?
Projects answering no to all of the above questions, are not targeted and
are marked by a "Y" in the "NOTARG" flag field.
VIII-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Identifying Model Calculation dates The second step determines the
FY/Q dates used in the calculation of FTEs. The specific "Model Dates"
used in calculations are U2132 and U2133 as opposed to the CERCLIS
planned dates (C2132 and C2133).
The start date (U2132) used in calculations is the later of the planned
(CERCLIS) or targeted (CERHELP) start dates.
The completion date (U2133) used is always the targeted (CERHELP)
completion date. This ensures that resources are not provided for any
project which has missed its targeted completion date.
Identifying Missed Projects The third step identifies projects not
receiving FTEs for the following reasons:
Targeted date in CERHELP is historical;
Project does not have an actual start date; or
Planned project has not slipped in CERCLIS.
Note: For projects identified as not receiving FTE in this process, the system
updates the field BADFLAG to equal "YES."
Data Review Process
After edit checks are performed, an edit report may be produced identifying those
projects that are not currently receiving FTEs because of data quality problems men-
tioned above. This report should be used to correct data problems before the final execu-
tion of the workload model.
Pricing Factors Loading Process
After the data in the workload and pricing factors data files are reviewed, pricing factors
are assigned to each project record. Each project record is matched on lead (C2117) and
event type (C2101) to the appropriate record in the pricing factors file; and the start,
ongoing, and completion pricing factors are loaded.
Pure FTEs Calculation Process
The model calculates FTEs for each project not having data quality problems. There are
four parts to the pure FTEs calculation:
Prior Year Start - Out Year Completion The FTEs for each project are
calculated by multiplying the number of ongoing quarters (four in this
case) times the ongoing pricing factor.
Prior Year Start - Model Year Completion The FTEs for each project
are calculated by multiplying the number of ongoing quarters times the
ongoing pricing factor plus the completion pricing factor if the FSC code
(C2116) is not equal to blank; if the FSC code is equal to blank, one
additional ongoing quarter is added.
Vffl-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 F
Model Year Start - Out Year Completion The FTEs for each project are
calculated by multiplying the number of ongoing quarters times the ongo-
ing pricing factor plus the start pricing factor if FSS code (C2115) is not
equal to blank; if the FSS code is equal to blank, one additional ongoing
quarter is added.
Model Year Start - Model Year Completion The FTEs for each project
are calculated by multiplying the number of ongoing quarters times the
ongoing pricing factor; plus the start and completion pricing factors if the
FSS/FSC codes (C2115/C2116) are not equal to blank. If the FSS code is
equal to blank one additional ongoing quarter is added. If the FSC code is
equal to blank one additional ongoing quarter is added.
Calibrated FTEs Calculation Process
If concurrent projects exist at a site, the model then calibrates the pure FTEs assigned for
each project. There are four parts to the calibrated FTEs calculation:
Identify Ongoing Quarters for a Project Set flags for each of the four
quarters identifying if the project is ongoing during that quarter based on
the model dates.
Identify Concurrent Quarters Modify flags are set for each of the four
quarters to identify the existence of overlapping quarters by comparing
each project to the other projects at the site.
Summarize Quarter Information Accumulates the number of ongoing
and overlapping quarters for each project.
Calculate the Calibrated FTEs The FTEs for overlapping quarters are
reduced by 40% for the second project at a site and by 60% for the third or
greater project at a site. The first project at a site receives full FTEs.
PC Application Concepts
Data Loading Process
After the mainframe processes are completed (including the creation of the nine Lotus
files and the download of those files to the PC), the data loading process is performed.
This automated process loads the nine Lotus files that were downloaded from the main-
frame into the spreadsheet, performs the necessary formatting, and places the data into
the appropriate cell locations. Specifically, the spreadsheet model retrieves the files from
the Remedial Pipeline Workload Model directory using the "Load Macro" function. (The
"Load Macro" function may vary from Region to Region.)
Note: This process will not function if the macro that retrieves the files references the
wrong directory.
Data Maintenance Process
Users may change the spreadsheet constant values to experiment with "what-if' sce-
narios. However, before changing data, it is recommended that each spreadsheet be
VIII-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
saved under a different file name to enable comparing the results of the different sce-
narios. Whenever spreadsheet data are changed, it is necessary to re-execute the model to
calculate the latest results.
TECHNICAL ENFORCEMENT MODEL
The FY 92 enforcement resource distribution methodology is intended to accomplish the
following significant goals:
Focus the distribution of resources on a limited number of major activities, prima-
rily those that are STARS or SCAP targets;
Fold the distribution of resources for functions closely associated with achieving
the major target activities into the distribution of resources associated with the
targets themselves. (For example, the removal start target will determine the share
of resources for all activities attempting to achieve the PRP response, such as non-
NPL search activities, negotiations and all enforcement actions);
Use preliminary targets as a means of recognizing past Regional performance and
the achievement of Regional program plans;
Make preliminary (FTEs and extramural) resource estimates (based on preliminary
targets) available for Regional planning prior to negotiation of target commit-
ments;
Provide support for ongoing (non-targeted) enforcement activities based on stan-
dard pricing factors; and
Continue to provide resources for support activities not tied to output commit-
ments at a baseline level for all Regions.
Program Resource Assumptions
The Technical Enforcement model distributes resources using three methods that are
described as follows:
Critical Outputs
Removals The budget provides resources for PRP searches at non-NPL
sites; issuance of AOs (unilateral or on consent) for removals; and over-
sight of PRP removals. The resources for orders and removal oversight
cover both NPL and non-NPL sites. The resources are distributed based
on targeted PRP removal starts. Resources for PRP searches at NPL sites
are included under the PRP RI/FS starts.
PRP RI/FS Starts This category combines resources for NPL PRP
searches, and RI/FS negotiations. Although in some cases the PRP search
resources will support RI/FS targets for the current year, most will prob-
ably support future RI/FS starts. It is therefore important that the Regions
carefully plan not only support for current year targets, but that it assess
VIH-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
the impact of its searches on future years. The resources are distributed
based on the targeted RI/FS starts.
RD/RA Referrals This category combines resources for RD/RA nego-
tiations, UAOs, de minimus settlements and RD/RA referrals. The as-
sumptions in the FY 92 budget are that RD/RA negotiations will be
attempted at all sites with viable PRPs, beginning the quarter of ROD
signature, and that those negotiations will produce PRP responses, settle-
ment or referral at 60% of the sites. Issuance of UAOs is a presumed
outcome of at least 40% of the Fund RD starts.
These resources support ongoing and new RD/RA negotiations. In many
cases the new negotiations will not result in a referral prior to the follow-
ing FY.
Cost Recovery Referrals This category provides resources for Section
107 case development and referral. Priority is to be placed on SOL,
remedial cases, and large dollar removals.
Onsoins Support
PRP RI/FS Oversight This category distributes resources only for PRP
RI/FS oversight. Resources are based on projected ongoing RI/FS in
CERCLIS in the fall of 1991 plus projected oversight support for new
starts. To the extent this projection has changed, each Region should
carefully review its program profile to determine if those commitments
can be met without causing significant disruption to the progress of the
program.
Ongoing Case Support Section 106.106/107 and 107 This category
combines resources designated for Section 106 and Section 107 case
support. Resources are distributed based on the number of quarters pro-
jected for ongoing Section 106/107 actions plus the number of ongoing
quarters projected for new cases following referral, as reflected in CER-
CLIS. Small cases such as access, liens and bankruptcy are not provided
separate technical support resources. It is assumed that most of these
cases will generally require only ORC support post-referral.
PRP/State (PS") Lead Sites The resources provided assume an average
cost of 75 percent of federal-lead/PRP site response. The emphasis in this
category is on ongoing activities. Resources are provided for each quarter
a RI/FS is ongoing as projected in CERCLIS.
Enforcement Compliance Monitoring The resources provided assume
approximately one half the sites with PRP response for design or
remediation (at a cost of approximately one quarter of an FTE and
$20,000) will require significant compliance enforcement for such activi-
ties as stipulated penalties, oversight cost recovery activities, dispute
resolution and review of compliance schedules. Additionally, these
resources are provided to allow for referrals at those sites where PRPs
have not responded to Section 104(e) information requests.
Vin-9
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
Ongoing PRP Search These resources are for search activity which
continues following the RI/FS starts. They support all PRP search activity
ongoing at Fund and Enforcement sites. These are not expected to con-
tinue beyond 12 quarters.
Support Activities
V
Program Implementation The resources provided are primarily core
management and non-site specific program implementation activities. The
distribution methodology indicates the specific method used for each item.
It should be noted that non-site specific resources are provided here for
State coordination and enforcement agreements, reportable quantities, and
civil investigators.
FEDERAL FACILITIES SUPERFUND WORKLOAD MODEL
OFFE utilizes a Superfund-related workload model to estimate staffing requirements and
extramural dollar resource needs for enforcement activities at Federal Facilities. Previously, this
model had been part of the Technical Enforcement Model, but moved to OFFE with the creation
of that office.
Similar to the Technical Enforcement Model, the methods of OFFE's model are intended
to accomplish certain goals:
Use selected major activities from the SCAP targets as the basis for the distribu-
tion of resources;
Pricing major activities so that actions related to the accomplishment of those
activities are funded and thereby incorporated as part of the target;
Provide adequate resource support by recognizing the complexity of Federal
Facilities through pricing;
Make preliminary resource estimates available for Regional planning prior to
negotiation of target commitments.
The OFFE Superfund Workload Model utilizes target information for three major events
(Removals, RI/FS Starts, and RD/RA Starts) in calculating resource needs. The pricing is
entended to include costs related to these events. The model then employs an OU pricing meth-
odology that separately prices the first three OUs at a facility. The pricing factors are lowered
with each successive OU. Any OUs beyond the first three use the third OU pricing structure.
In order to fund an activity for its complete duration, the model takes into account the
number of quarters for which an activity is ongoing in the pipeline. As such, the model multi-
plies the pricing factors by the number of ongoing quarters by OU level. To arrive at the number
of ongoing quarters for a Region, the model first counts the number of ongoing quarters for the
activities at the start of the FY, factoring in projected new starts and subtracting out activities
completing over the FY.
This model is in the process of revision for application to Federal Facilities.
vm-io
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
ACRONYMS
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
AA
AASWER
AAU
ADCR
ADR
ALT
AN
AO
AOA
AOC
APR
AR
ARAR
ARCS
ARIP
ARM
ASU
ATSDR
BC/AOA
BLM
BUREC
CA
CD
CED
CEPP
CEPPO
CERCLA
CERCLIS
CERHELP
CLP
CN
CPB
CPCA
CO
CORA
CR
CRCR
CWA
DCN
DOE
DOI
DOJ
DPO
CPB
CPB
ACRONYMS
Assistant Administrator
Assistant Administrator Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Administrative Assistance Unit
Automated Document Control Register
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Alternate
Account Number
Administrative Order
Advice of Allowance
Administrative Order on Consent
Approved
Administrative Record
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Alternative Remedial Contracts Strategy
Accidental Release Information Program
Administration and Resources Management
Administrative Support Unit
Agency for Toxic Substances and Diseases Registry
Budget Control/Advice of Allowance
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Reclamation
Cooperative Agreement
Consent Decree
CERCLA Enforcement Division
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Program
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
CERCLIS non-site specific data base
Contract Laboratory Program
Commitment Notice
Contracts and Planning Branch
Core Program Cooperative Agreement
Contracting Officer
Cost of Remedial Action
Community Relations
Cost Recovery Category Report
Clean Water Act
Document Control Number
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Deputy Project Officer
Contracts and Planning Branch
Contracts and Planning Branch
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
El
EMSL
ENRD
EPA
EPA-ACH
EPA ID
EPI
EPCRA
ERA
ERGS
ST-
ERNS
ESAT
BSD
ESF
ESI
FCO
FE
FEMA
FFIS
FINDS
FMC-Ci
FMD
FMFIA
FMO
FMS
FOIA
FR
FS
FSC
FSS
FTE
FY
FY/Q
GAD
GAO
GFO
GIGS
GNL
HQ-
HRS
HSCD
HWC
IAG
IFMS
IMC
IRM
ISIF
LAN
LEPC
LOG
Environmental Indicators
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Environment and Natural Resources Division
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Automated Clearing House
EPA Identification Number
Environmental Priorities Initiative
Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986
Expedited Response Action
Emergency Response Cleanup Services
Emergency Response Division
Emergency Response Notification System
Environmental Services Assistance Team
Explanation of Significant Differences
Emergency Support Function
Expanded Site Inspection
Funds Certifying Officer
Federal Enforcement
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Facilities Information System
Facility Index System
Financial Management Center - Cincinnati
Financial Management Division
Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act
Financial Management Office
Financial Management System
Freedom of Information Act
Federal Register
Feasibility Study
First and Subsequent Completion
First and Subsequent Start
Full-time Equivalent
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year/Quarter
Grants Administration Division
Government Accounting Office
Good Faith Offer
Grants Information Control System
General Notice Letter
Headquarters
Hazard Ranking System
Hazardous Site Control Division
Hazardous Waste Collection
Interagency Agreement
Integrated Financial Management System
Information Management Coordinator
Initial Remedial Measure
Integrated Site Information Form
Local Area Network
Local Emergency Planning Committee
Letter of Credit
II
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
LOE
LTCS
LTRA
MARS
MBO
MM/DD/YY
MSCA
NFRAP
NEAR
NCP
NOAA
NRC
NSEP
NPL
OC
OFFE
O&M
OE
OERR
OIG
OMB
OPA
OPAC
OPM
OPP
ORD
ORC
OSC
OSW
OSWER
OU
OUST
OWPE
PA
PC
PCS
PCMD
PDBS
PES
PMSO
PNRS
PO
POLREP
PR
PRP
QAT
RA
RAMP
RCMS
RCRA
Level of Effort
Long Term Contracting Strategy
Long Term Response Action
Management and Accounting Reporting System
Management by Objectives
Month/Day/Year
Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement
No Further Remedial Action Planned
Non-Binding Allocation of Responsibility
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan or
National Contingency Plan
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Response Center
National Security Emergency Preparedness
National Priorities List
Office of the Comptroller
Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement
Operations and Maintenance
Office of Enforcement
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of the Inspector General
Office of Management and Budget
Oil Pollution Act
On-line Payment and Collections
Office of Program Management
Office of Pollution Prevention
Office of Research and Development
Office of Regional Counsel
On-Scene Coordinator
Office of Solid Waste
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Operable Unit
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Preliminary Assessment
Personal Computer
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Procurement and Contracts Management Division
Program Development and Budget Staff
Planning and Evaluation Staff (OERR)
Program Management Support Office
Preliminary Natural Resource Surveys
Project Officer
Pollution Report
Procurement Request
Potentially Responsible Party
Quality Action Team
Remedial Action
Remedial Action Master Plan
Removal Cost Management System
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
in
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01F
RCRC
RD
REMT
RFP
RI
RI/FS
ROD
RP
RPM
RPO
RRT
RTF
SARA
SCAP
SERC
SETS
SFO
SI
SIBAC
SIF
SITE
SMP
SMOA
SMSA
SNL
SOL
SOW
SPCC
SPMS
SPR
SPUR
SRIS
SSC
SSI
S/SID
STARS
TAG
TAT
TBD
TESWATS
TES
TSCA
UAO
USAGE
USCG
USFWS
USGS
WA
WAM
ZPO
Regional Cost Recovery Coordinator
Remedial Design
Regional Emergency Preparedness Team
Request for Proposal
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
Record of Decision
Responsible Party
Remedial Project Manager
Regional Project Officer
Regional Response Team
Research Triangle Park
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan
State Emergency Response Commissions
Superfund Enforcement Tracking System
Servicing Finance Office
Site Inspection
Simplified Interagency Billing and Collection
Site Information Form
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Site Management Plans
State Memorandum of Agreement
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
Special Notice Letter
Statute of Limitations
Statement of Work
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure
Strategic Planning and Management System
Superfund Progress Report
Software Package for Unique Reports
Superfund Report Information System
Superfund State Contracts
Screening Site Inspection
Site/Spill Identification Number
Strategic Targeted Activities for Results System
Technical Assistance Grants
Technical Assistance Team
To Be Determined
Technical Enforcement Support Work Assignment Tracking System
Technical Enforcement Support
Toxic Substances Control Act
Unilateral Administrative Order
United States Army Corps of Engineers
United States Coast Guard
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
United States Geologial Survey
Work Assignment
Work Assignment Manager
Zone Project Officer
IV
-------
OFFICE OF WASTE PROGRAMS ENFORCEMENT
DIRECTOR
RCRA
ENFORCEMENT
DIVISION
PROGRAM MGMT.
AND
SUPPORT OFFICE
CERCLA
ENFORCEMENT
DIVISION
COST
RECOVERY
BRANCH
BUDGET&
ANALYTICAL
SUPPORT
SECTION
COMPLIANCE &
IMPLEMENTATION
BRANCH
GUIDANCE &
EVALUATION
BRANCH
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
SECTION
CONTRACTS
AND
PLANNING
BRANCH
GUIDANCE
AND
EVALUATION
BRANCH
TECHNICAL
IMPLEMENATION
SECTION
REGIONAL
COORDINATION
SECTION
ENFORCEMENT
SUPPORT
SECTION
ENFORCEMENT
SUPPORT
SECTION
REGIONAL
PLANNING
SECTION
CONTRACTS
MANAGEMENT
SECTION
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
SECTION
COMPLIANCE
BRANCH
POLICY
SECTION
SUPPORT
SECTION
REGIONAL
COORDINATORS
SECTION
REGIONAL
COORDINATORS
SECTION
REGIONAL
COORDINATORS
SECTION
-------
CERCLA ENFORCEMENT DIVISION
DIVISION DIRECTOR
GUIDANCE AND EVALUATION
BRANCH
ENFORCEMENT
SUPPORT
SECTION
ENFORCEMENT
SUPPORT
SECTION
ENFORCEMENT ACTION
SECTION
COMPLIANCE BRANCH
CONTRACTS AND PLANNING
BRANCH
o
in
ya
O
Lo
o
REGIONAL
PLANNING
SECTION
CONTRACTS
MANAGEMENT
SECTION
COST RECOVERY BRANCH
REGIONAL
COORDINATORS
SECTION
REGIONS 1,2,9
REGIONAL
COORDINATORS
SECTION
REGIONS 3,4,8,
REGIONAL
COORDINATORS
SECTION
REGIONS 5,6,7
-------
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE
OFFICE OF THE
DIRECTOR
ACTING EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
J_
OFFICE OF PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT
CONTRACT OPERATIONS |
REVIEW AND
ASSESSMENT STAFF
JL
POLICY & ANALYSIS
STAFF
MANAGEMENT &
SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT STAFF
PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT AND
BUDGET STAFF
HAZARDOUS SITE
EVALUATION
DIVISION
ANALYTICAL OPERATIONS
BRANCH
SITE ASSESSMENT
BRANCH
TOXICS INTEGRATION
BRANCH
JL
HAZARDOUS SITE
CONTROL
DIVISION
SPECIAL
PROJECTS AND
SUPPORT STAFF
REMEDIAL OPERATIONS AND
GUIDANCE BRANCH
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION!
MANAGEMENT BRANCH I
STATE AND LOCAL
COORDINATION BRANCH
EMERGENCY RESPONSE |
DIVISION
RESPONSE OPERATIONS
BRANCH
RESPONSE STANDARDS AND
CRITERIA BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE
BRANCH
a.
s
s
l>>
o
"Tl
-------
OFFICE OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
ป-H
K
POLICY AND
ANALYSIS STAFF
RCRA polilcy oversight
ARAR compliance policy and
assistance
NCP
Delegations
Annual Report to Congress on
Superfund
Cross-cutting policy issues
Docket, Directives management
Strategic planning
COMPLIANCE WITH
OTHER LAWS
SECTION
REGULATORY &
SPECIAL PROJECTS
SECTION
OFFICE OF
PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT AND
SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT STAFF
CERCLJS management, support and
evaluation
Technical ADP systems development
and support
ADP administration
Administrative services
Records management
Personnel
Training
Directives system
Correspondence
Docket management
HQ contract management
ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT
SECTION
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS
COORDINATION
SECTION
CONTRACT OPERATIONS
REVIEW AND
ASSESSMENT STAFF
' Regional contract assessment and assistance
QA/QC
' Procurement Strategies and PEB
I
6
n
PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT
AND BUDGET STAFF
Budget formulation/operating plan
development and implementation
Resource allocation
Regional workload model
Cost Control/estimation models
Program forecasting
Accountability measures and tracking
Program evaluation
SCAP planning and negotiations
Regional review
Work assignment manager training
Financial policy, accounting and tracking
PLANNING AND
EVALUATION
SECTION
RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
SECTION
-------
EMERGENCY RESPONSE DIVISION
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
DIVISION
RESPONSE OPERATIONS
BRANCH
X
TAT Zone I. n
ERCSZoneI,4and4B
Budget/Ragumal Allowance
SCAP/SPMS/CERCLIS Management
Oversight
Operanou
ERNS
SERA Summary
EASTERN SECTION
(REGIONS I - IV)
WESTERN SECTION
(REGIONS V - X)
RESPONSE STANDARDS
AND CRITERIA
BRANCH
Suit Lead Removal Guidance
Drinking Water Acoon Level*
Land Disposal Resmcnom
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Aulysu
(BR/CA)
Removal ProoedurM Guidance
CERCLA Hazaidoui Subitanoe Dangnano;
Reportable Quannty AdjusnnenU
Radionudidei/PoKnaal Cmtcino|enf
Oil RegultooM and Guidance
Connnuoui Rdeuu
ftderally-Pemuoed Releaiei
RESPONSE POLICY
GUIDANCE &
SUPPORT SECTION
RESPONSE
REGULATION
SECTION
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESPONSE BRANCH
On-Sile Cleanup Aiainana
Coordmanon of Emergency RgapnnaB
ERT Tiainmt Projnm
Radiation Recponae Capability
pซMtf gf Ccntanuna&on Studiea
Groundwaler Studiei
Soil Gai Studiei
BloaiaeunwntStadKi
Innovative Technology Demontmum
Tieambility Tellmg
Sito-Speafic Cleanup Standard!
AlKnuDve Tedmology Peaubdity Standarda
SITE Profram Coordmaoon
Support Contract Management
Administrative Support
Automated Data Support
Analytical Support
QA/QCActivmel
Safety and Health Acnvmei
'PnpaiednMi Program Support
Air Monitoring Acnvitiet
Coordmanon with OS HA
OPERATIONAL
SUPPORT SECTION
SITE
INVESTIGATION
SECTION
CONTRACTS AND
DATA MANAGEMENT |
SECTION
ALTERNATIVE
TECHNOLOGY
SECTION
SAFETY AND AIR
SURVEILLANCE
SECTION
-------
o
00
HAZARDOUS SITE EVALUATION DIVISION
X
SITE
ASSESSMENT
BRANCH
Provide guidance to implement revised HRS.
Develop and refine NPL eligibility policies.
Develop and finalize NPL updates.
Provide QA on NPL proposals.
Improve quality of Regional NPL submissions.
Phase-in new NPL support contract.
Conduct site assessment background and field
studies,
Manage PA/SI LSI SCAP process.
Develop PA/SI LSI guidance and training.
Manage FIT contract to meet Region's needs and
ensure proper contract oversight.
HAZARDOUS SITE
EVALUATION
DIVISION
ANALYTICAL
OPERATIONS
BRANCH
Ensure consistency of analytical methods.
Develop organic and inorganic technical
protocols and new CLP services.
Manage ESAT.
Manage Sample Management Ofice.
Streamline analysis and data review.
Establish national Q/A methods and
procedures.
Maintain analytical data base for sites.
I
lo
o
n
TOXICS
INTEGRATION
BRANCH
Manage risk assessment QA/QC program.
Provide Regions with immediate expert
health/environmental science responses to
RI/FS issues.
Update Superfund risk data bases and ensure
consistency/utility of other data bases.
Provide TA to Regions on the revised public
health and ecological evaluation manuals.
Coordinate with ATSDR and lead EPA/ATSDR
dispute resolution process/follow-up on
Regional problems.
Evaluate results of Section 111 three-city lead
pilot program for soil clean-up/blood-lead-level
correlation.
-------
HAZARDOUS SITE CONTROL DIVISION
HAZARDOUS SITE CONTROL
DIVISION
REMEDIAL OPERATIONS
AND GUIDANCE
BRANCH
Provide Regional Coordinator support for RI/FS,
RODs and post-ROD environmental review
Support development of soil and debris land
disposal restriction regulations
Review and finalize NCP and RI/FS, selection
of remedy, and ROD guidance
Direct and evaluate improvements process
Develop technical guidance
implementation of trealability studies
Provide information transfer support
for ROD data and treatability studies
Conduct quarterly and other programmatic
reviews for RI/FS, ROD and post-ROD
activity implementation
DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT BRANCH
SPECIAL PROJECTS
AND SUPPORT
STAFF
Conduct special projects on remedial policy and technical
issues
Remedial Program Strategy for SCAP/SPMS/budget target
setting
Manage Divsion budgets
Prepare management reports and analyses of program
performance
Implement FMFIA requirements
Provide administrative support for Division
Provide regional coordination support for RD/RA
projects and completion/delegations for EPA,
State and PRP projects
Manage MOUs with USAGE and USBR
Provide RD/RA management support, guidance,
training and RD/RA Update
Manage REM contracts
Support management of ARC's contracts
Revise and implement RD/RA guidance
Manage value engineering program
Conduct quarterly and other programmatic
reviews for RD/RA and completion/delegation
Review 90 percent RAs and RA funding
STATE AND LOCAL
COORDINATION
BRANCH
Develop regulations, policy and guidance for
State program development and participation
Develop policy and guidance for participation
of Indians in remedial program
Conduct response agreement training
Provide SSC management control
Conduct Regional MAP reviews
Manage and support response claims program
Manage and support community relations
and technical advisor grant programs
Manage ASTSWMO grant
Conduct program evaluations of State
performance
I
s
o
5
-------
n
1
i
o
U.S. EPA REGIONS
Boston
HW
f PUERTO RICO
lฃ
VIRGIN ISLANDS
I
I
NO
3
U)
6
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAPTER I PROGRAM GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS
CHAPTER II NATIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS
CHAPTER III
SUPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE
ACCOMPLISHEMENTS PLAN PROCEDURES
CHAPTER IV SCAP/STARS TARGETS AND MEASURES
CHAPTER V
PROGRAM PLANNING AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES
CHAPTER VI FINANCIAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
CHAPTER VII PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
CHAPTER VIM WORKLOAD MODELS
EPA/540/P-91/004a
Directive 9200.3-01
------- |