United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Superfund
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9200.3-14-1
PB94-963220
October 1993
Superfund Program
Implementation Manual
Fiscal Year 1994
Volume I:
Program Goals and
Planning Requirements
Progam Goals and Priorities
Program Planning and Reporting Requirements
Superfund Financial Management and FTE Distribution
-------
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.
-------
USE AND STRUCTURE OF THE MANUAL
The information in this Manual is targeted to Information Management
Coordinators (IMCs), Remedial Project Managers (RPMs), and On-Scene
Coordinators (OSCs). Its primary purpose is to provide guidance to this audience on
management of the Superfund program.
The FY 94 Superfund Implementation Manual consists of two volumes.
Volume I contains information on:
Program goals and priorities;
Program planning and reporting requirements;
Financial management and FTE distribution; and
Manager's Schedule of Significant Events.
Volume II includes the following Appendices:
Appendix A presents program priorities, targets/measures, definitions,
planning and reporting requirements, and financial information for
the Site Screening and Assessment and the Regional Decision Team;
Appendix B provides program priorities, targets/measures, definitions,
planning and reporting requirements, and financial information for
the Early and Long Term Actions;
Appendix C presents program priorities, targets/measures, definitions,
planning and reporting requirements, and financial information for
Enforcement; and
Appendix D contains program priorities, targets/measures, definitions,
planning and reporting requirements, and financial information for
Federal Facilities.
Appendix E contains on overview of Superfund information systems
including CERCLIS, WasteLAN, CleanLAN, CERCLIS/WasteLAN
tools, and RELAI.
Two other documents have been developed to support the program
management needs of Branch Chiefs (Superfund Program Management Manual)
and Division Directors (Superfund Program Management Highlights). These
documents present pertinent information from this Manual.
-------
Volume I
Table of Contents
CHAPTER I - PROGRAM GOALS AND PRIORITIES 1-1
OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM GOALS 1-1
FISCAL YEAR 94 THEMES 1-1
A FRAMEWORK FOR SETTING PRIORITIES 1-1
INTEGRATED PRIORITY SETTING MATRIX 1-3
EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND ACCELERATE CLEANUP 1-7
ENFORCEMENT. 1-7
Federal Facilities 1-8
ENFORCEMENT FAIRNESS 1-8
BASE CLOSURES 1-9
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETIONS 1-9
Federal Facilities 1-9
EFFECTIVE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT MO
Federal Facilities 1-10
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND MEANINGFUL
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Ml
Public Involvement/Communicating Success Ml
Federal Facilities Ml
ENHANCEMENT OF STATE ROLE 1-12
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES 1-12
Federal Facilities 1-12
SUPERFUND ACCELERATED CLEANUP MODEL (SACM) 1-12
Site Screening and Assessment (SSA) 1-16
Regional Decision Team (RDT) 1-18
Early and Long-Term Actions '. M9
Enforcement 1-20
Integrated Timeline for Site Management 1-21
SCAPI STRATEGIC TARGETED ACTIVITIES FOR RESULTS
SYSTEM (STARS) TARGETS AND MEASURES 1-29
CHAPTER II - PROGRAM PLANNING AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS IM
INTRODUCTION IM
INTEGRATED PLANNING IM
INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE
ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN (SCAP) II-3
RELATIONSHIP OF SCAP TO OTHER MANAGEMENT TOOLS II-5
The Management Tools II-5
The Superfund Information Systems II-6
OVERVIEW OF THE SCAP PROCESS II-7
SCAP CHANGE CONTROL REQUIREMENTS II-8
-------
HQIREGIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES II-8
Maintaining SCAP in CERCLIS II-8
Program Assessment 11-10
PROCEDURES FOR ANNUAL TARGET SETTING 11-12
PLANNING FOR NEGOTIATIONS 11-14
Planning Process 11-14
CERCLIS Reports for SCAP Planning/Target Setting 11-16
REGIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORTING 11-18
CERCLIS Reports for Accomplishment Reporting 11-20
HQ EVALUATION OF REGIONAL PERFORMANCE 11-21
Quarterly Reporting 11-22
Mid-Year Assessment 11-22
End-of-Year Assessment 11-24
Regional Reviews 11-24
Management Reporting 11-25.
Superfund Management Reports 11-25
Annual Reporting Requirements 11-26
SCAPISTARS ADJUSTMENTS AND AMENDMENTS 11-26
Maintaining the Targets and Accomplishments File II-31
CHAPTER III - SUPERFUND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND FTE
DISTRIBUTION II1-1
OUTYEAR BUDGET DEVELOPMENT III-l
FY 95 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT III-2
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FY 94 NATIONAL BUDGET III-3
FY 94 REGIONAL BUDGET III-4
Response Budget III-4
Enforcement Budget III-5
Federal Facilities Budget III-5
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCAP AND THE ANNUAL
REGIONAL BUDGET. III-6
ADVICE OF ALLOWANCE PROCEDURES AND FINANCIAL
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS III-8
Regional Allowances III-8
The AOA Process III-9
AOA Flexibility 111-12
RA Allowance 111-13
Non-Site Specific Funding Flexibility 111-13
AOA Change Request Procedures 111-15
CONGRESSIONAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 111-16
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCAP AND THE AOA 111-19
SUPERFUND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ffl-21
Financial Management Tools and Systems 111-21
"ZZ" Accounting Information Ill-24
Regional Financial Management Responsibilities 111-25
HQ Financial Management Responsibilities 111-26
Financial Management and Funding Processes 111-27
11
-------
Financial Management Funding Mechanisms 111-33
Contracts 111-33
Interagencij Agreements (lAGs) 111-33
Cooperative Agreements (CAs) 111-39
Superfund State Contracts (SSCs) 111-39
Cost Recovery/Cost Documentation 111-41
HANDLING FINANCIAL DATA IN THE
CERCLIS/WASTELAN ENVIRONMENT 111-41
Entering Response and Federal Facility Data into
WasteLAN 111-41
Entering Enforcement Extramural Budget Data into
WasteLAN 111-44
Correcting Financial Data 111-45
OVERVIEW OF THE FTE DISTRIBUTION PROCESS 111-45
ACRONYMS I
ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS 1
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response 1
Office of Program Management 2
Emergency Response Division 3
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division 4
Hazardous Site Control Division 5
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement 7
CERCLA Enforcement Division 8
Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement 9
Superfund Revitalization Office 10
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 11
EPA REGIONAL MAP
INDEX
111
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
LIST OF EXHIBITS
CHAPTER I
1-1 FY 94 Superfund Challenges 1-2
1-2 Integrated Priority Setting Matrix . 1-4
1-3 Simplified Comparison of Superfund "Pipelines" 1-14
1-4 The Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model I jc
1-5 SACM Implementation Within NCP Framework I u
1-6 Integrated Timeline , ,,,,... .12
1-7 FY 94 SCAP/STARS Targets and Measures 1-31
1-8 FY 93 - FY 94 SCAP/STARS Targets and Measures
Crosswalk , 1-33
CHAPTER II
II-l Flexibility Scale For Budget/Planning , ... II-2
H-2 HQ/Regional Integrated Planning Responsibilities II-4
H-3 HQ/Regional SCAP and CERCLIS Responsibilities II-9
II-4 Evaluation Responsibilities 11-11
II-5 Procedures For Annual Target Setting 11-13
H-6 Regional Planning for Negotiations 11-15
n-7 Examples Of Activity/Event Planning Status and Priority
Funding Status 11-16
H-8 SCAP Planning/Target Setting CERCLIS Reports 11-17
H-9 Program Evaluation CERCLIS Reports 11-21
11-10 The Regional Evaluation Process 11-23
11-11 CFO Performance Measures 11-27
11-12 Amendments and Adjustments 11-29
11-13 SCAP Amendment Process 11-30
CHAPTER III
III-l The Advice of Allowance Process III-ll
III-2 Change Request Required 111-17
III-3 AOA Change Request Procedures 111-18
III-4 Site VS. Non-Site Specific Planned Obligations 111-20
III-5 Budget Source Codes 111-21
m-6 Who Pays For What ffl-22
iv
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
III-7 Financial Management Tools and Systems 111-24
III-8 Regional Financial Management Responsibilities 111-25
III-9 Description of Regional Program Office Financial
Management Staff Ill-26
111-10 Responsibilities of Regional Program Office Financial
Staff \ll-27
III-ll Responsibilities of HQ Program Offices 111-28
111-12 Financial Responsibilities of HQ Management Offices 111-29
111-13 Financial Management and Funding Processes 111-30
111-14 Handling Financial Data in the CERCLIS Environment 111-32
111-15 EPA Forms Commonly Used for Superfund
Procurements 111-34
111-16 Financial Management of Site-Specific Contracts 111-35
111-17 Financial Management of Non-Site Specific Contracts 111-36
111-18 IAG Financial Management 111-37
111-19 Cooperative Agreement Financial Management 111-40
111-20 SSC Financial Management 111-42
111-21 Cost Recovery Referral Development Process 111-43
111-22 Corrections to Financial Information 111-45
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
This Page Intentionally
Left Blank
VI
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS
JULY QUARTER 4 (FISCAL YEAR (FY) 93)
6 The Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Re-
sponse (AA SWER) or the Director, Program Operations Division (POD) in the
Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement (OFFE) and the Office of the Comptrol-
ler (OC) approves the fourth quarter Advice of Allowance (AOA)
8 Headquarters (HQ) pulls 3rd quarter FY 93 accomplishments data from the Com-
prehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System (CERCLIS) and provides for:
1) Comparison of Regionally reported accomplishments in the Office of Pollution
Prevention (OPP) Strategic Targeted Activities for Results System (STARS);
and
2) Special enforcement reports
8 HQ submits FY 95 Superfund budget request to the Administrator
8 HQ pulls data from CERCLIS to review and analyze:
1) Regional Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP)/STARS
and pipeline workload and budget request;
2) Past Regional accomplishments and planned durations/dollars; and
3) Regional request for 10 percent budget reserve
19-23 Regional conference calls on HQ analyses
19-23 HQ/Regions reconcile accomplishments data contained in the OPP STARS system
(third quarter accomplishments)
23 OPP STARS system closes (third quarter accomplishments)
AUG.
6 HQ pulls accomplishments data from CERCLIS
9-20 HQ/Regions conduct negotiations on final FY 94 SCAP/STARS targets and
budget
20 Administrator passback of FY 95 budget request
31 HQ sends memorandum to Regions on final budgets, targets and measures
31 HQ submits National Priorities List (NPL) proposed rules to the Office of Man-
agement and Budget (OMB)
SEPT.
8 Regions revise CERCLIS to reflect final budgets, targets and measures
Draft vii October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (continued)
SEPT. (continued)
8 HQ pulls data from CERCLIS for first quarter (FY 94) AOA
8 HQ pulls accomplishments data from CERCLIS
8 HQ revises FY 95 budget request and submits it to OMB
20 HQ makes final FY 94 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) distribution
24 HQ submits FY 94 first quarter AOA request to the AA SWER or Director, POD/
OFFE and places it in CERHELP
30* Regions input AOA to the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS)
OCT. QUARTER 1 (FY 94)
1 HQ distributes final FY 94 Superfund Program Implementation Manual
5* The AA SWER or Director, POD/OFFE and OC approves the first quarter AOA
7 HQ pulls 4th quarter FY 93 accomplishments data from CERCLIS and provides
for:
1) Special program reports; and
2) End-of-year assessment for FY 93.
15 HQ pulls 4th quarter FY 93 accomplishments data from CERCLIS for comparison
of Regionally reported end-of-year accomplishments in OPP FY 93 STARS
NOV.
1 Enforcement extramural budget carryover calculated
5 HQ/Regioas set FY 94 final targets, including open season changes in CERHELP
5 HQ pulls accomplishments data from CERCLIS
18-24 HQ/Regions reconcile accomplishment data contained in OPP STARS system
(fourth quarter FY 93)
19 HQ distributes final FY 94 Superfund Program Management Manual for Branch/
Section/Unit Chiefs
19 OMB passback of FY 95 budget request
* Dependent on approval of final appropriation
October 1993 viii Draft
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (continued)
NOV. (continued)
24 OPP STARS system closes (fourth quarter FY 93)
DEC.
7 HQ pulls CERCLIS data for:
1) Second quarter AOA; and
2) FY 95 Congressional Budget
17 HQ appeal of the OMB FY 95 budget passback
23 HQ submits second quarter AOA request submitted to AA SWER or Director,
POD/OFFE and places it in CERHELP
30 Regions input AOA to IFMS
JAN. QUARTER 2 (FY 94)
5 The AA SWER or Director, POD/OFFE and OC approves the second quarter
AOA
7 HQ pulls accomplishments data from CERCLIS and provides for special reports
7 Regions submit list of non-Federal Facility proposed and final NPL sites that did
not receive a removal investigation during calendar year 1993
14 HQ submits FY 95 budget request to the President
25-27 HQ/Regional Superfund Program Management meeting
28 Regions submit Fund mega-site Management Plans for FY 95 to the Hazardous
Site Control Division (HSCD)
7 HQ pulls national Environmental Indicators (El) data from CERCLIS
18 HQ prepares El questions and answers to send to the Regions
25 HQ submits NPL proposed rule to OMB
MARCH
7 HQ pulls data from CERCLIS for enforcement extramural budget and third-
quarter AOA
Draft ix October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (continued)
MARCH (continued)
18 HQ distributes draft FY 95 Superfund Program Implementation Manual for Re-
gional review
25 HQ submits third quarter AOA request to the AA SWER or Director, POD/OFFE
and places it in CERHELP
31 Regions input AOA to IFMS
31 Regional response to HQ El questions and answers
APRIL QUARTERS (FY 94)
5 The AA SWER or Director, POD/OFFE and OC approves the third quarter AOA
5 Regional comments on FY 95 Superfund Program Implementation Manual due
7 HQ pulls accomplishments data from CERCLIS and provides for:
1) Comparison of Regionally reported second quarter accomplishments in OPP
STARS;
2) Special program reports; and
3) Mid-year performance evaluation
m,
11-15 CERCLIS Change Management Council Meeting
15 Regions submit current FY STARS amendment requests to HQ
18-22 HQ/Regions reconcile accomplishments data contained in OPP STARS system
(second quarter accomplishments)
22 OPP STARS system closes (second quarter accomplishments)
29 HQ distributes FY 93 El analysis to HQ/Regional managers
29 HQ prepares preliminary Regional operating plan based on past three years obli-
gating/tasking averages
MAY
6 HQ analysis of Regional pipeline
6 HQ allocates 90 percent of FY 95 budget to Regions
13 Regional NPL site fact sheets updated in NPL-Production Assistance Database
(PAD)
October 1993 x Draft
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (continued)
MAY (continued)
1 6-31 Regions generate their plan for FY 95 by updating schedules and financial infor-
mation in WasteLAN and uploading to CERCLIS
20 HQ distributes final FY 95 Superfund Program Implementation Manual
31 HQ submits NPL final rule to OMB
JUNE
1-30 Regions generate their plans for FY 95 by updating schedules and financial infor-
mation in WasteLAN and uploading to CERCLIS
7 HQ pulls CERCLIS data for fourth quarter AOA
7 HQ pulls planning information from CERCLIS to support FY 96 budget request
8 HQ distributes draft FY 95 Superfund Program Management Manual
17 HQ presents FY 96 Superfund goals and priorities to the Administrator
24 HQ submits fourth quarter AOA request to the AA SWER or Director, POD/
OFFE and places it in CERHELP
24 Regional comments on FY 95 Superfund Program Management Manual due
30 Regions submit enforcement mega-site management plans to the Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement (OWPE)
30 Regions input AOA to IFMS
JULY QUARTER 4 (FY 94)
6 The AA SWER or Director, POD/OFFE and OC approves the fourth quarter
AOA
8 HQ submits FY 96 Superfund budget request to the Administrator
8 HQ pulls accomplishments data from CERCLIS and provides for:
1) Comparison of Regionally reported accomplishments in OPP STARS; and
2) Special program reports
8 HQ distributes final FY 95 Superfund Program Management Manual
Draft xi October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS 'continued)
JULY (continued)
15 HQ pulls data from CERCLIS to review and analyze:
1) Regional SCAP/STARS and pipeline workload and budge ,.; \:
2) Past Regional accomplishments and planned durations/do;; i.;, ,r, i
3) Regional requests for 10 percent reserve
18-22 Regional conference calls on HQ analyses
18-22 HQ/Regions reconcile accomplishments data contained in CL P _ :, ,v<^e:,i
(third quarter accomplishments)
22 OPP STARS system closes (third quarter accomplishments)
AUG.
8-19 HQ/Regions conduct negotiations on final FY 95 SC AP/ST ARS targets and
budget
19 Administrator passback of FY 96 budget
31 HQ sends memorandum to Regions on final budgets, targets and measures
31 HQ submits NPL proposed rule to OMB
SEPT.
8 Regions revise CERCLIS to reflect final budgets, targets and measures
8 HQ pulls data from CERCLIS for first quarter FY 95 AOA
8 HQ pulls accomplishments data from CERCLIS
9 HQ revises FY 96 budget request and submits it to OMB
19 HQ performs final FY 95 FTE distribution
23 HQ submits FY 95 first quarter AOA request to the AA SWER or Director, POD/
OFFE and places it in CERHELP
30* Regions input AOA to IFMS
OCT. QUARTER 1 (FY 95)
5* The A A SWER or Director, POD/OFFE and OC approves the first quarter AOA
7 HQ pulls accomplishment data from CERCLIS and provides for:
1) Special program reports; and
2) FY 94 end-of-year assessment.
* Dependent on approval of final appropriation
October 1993 xii Draft
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (continued)
OCT. (continued)
17 HQ pulls 4th quarter FY 94 accomplishments data from CERCLIS for comparison
of Regionally reported end-of-year accomplishments in FY 94 STARS
NOV.
1 Enforcement extramural budget carryover calculated
7 HQ/Regions set FY 95 final targets, including open season changes in CERHELP
14-18 HQ/Regions reconcile accomplishments data contained in OPP STARS system
(fourth quarter FY 94)
18 OPP STARS system closes (fourth quarter FY 94)
18 OMB passback of FY 96 budget request
30 HQ submits NPL final rule to OMB
DEC.
7 HQ pulls CERCLIS data for:
1) Second quarter AOA; and
2) FY 96 Congressional budget
16 HQ appeal of the OMB FY 96 budget passback
23 HQ submits second quarter AOA request to AA SWER or Director, POD/OFFE
and places it in CERHELP
30 Regions input AOA to IFMS
* Dependent on approval of final appropriation
Draft xiii October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
CHAPTER I
PROGRAM GOALS AND PRIORITIES
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
CHAPTER I - PROGRAM GOALS AND PRIORITIES
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. Protecting human health and the
environment, maximizing participation of the Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs), and ensuring enforcement fairness are three of the Superfund program's
highest priorities.
FISCAL YEAR 94 THEMES
Fiscal Year (FY) 94 is a critical year for the Superfund program as the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA), is scheduled for reauthorization in October 1994. Superfund is now
more than 12 years old. After 12 years, significant progress has been made in
reducing risks posed to human and natural ecosystems from releases of
hazardous substances into the environment. Accomplishments in FY 94 will
expand and refine Superfund's measures of success, refocus the debate on
Superfund progress, and explore options for making administrative changes that
will improve Superfund in the future.
Increasing programmatic demands, the pending reauthorization, and the new
Administration's need to be informed of EPA's present directions have made it
important that the programmatic priorities and challenges be defined and clearly
communicated. Exhibit 1-1 summarizes the nine challenges that Regional and
Headquarters (HQ) Superfund managers must work together to address in FY 94.
In addition, a HQ/Regional task force identified improvements to the Superfund
program that will be implemented by the Agency before September 30,1994.
(Superfund Administrative Improvements, June 23, 1993.) These challenges and
administrative improvements will be discussed in more detail later in this
chapter.
A FRAMEWORK FOR SETTING PRIORITIES
Over the past few years, Regional personnel have been told that
completions/deletions, "enforcement first," and worst sites/worst problems first
are each the highest program priority. While it is frequently possible to address
all priorities, it is not always possible to optimize them. This section will address
the reconciliation of the competing priorities of the Superfund program.
DRAFT 1-1 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT 1-1
FY 94 SUPERFUND CHALLENGES
Emergency Response and Accelerate
Cleanup
Enforcement
Enforcement Fairness
Military Base Closure
Construction Completions
Effective Contract Management
Environmental Justice
Enhancement of State Role
Innovative Technologies
The highest priority of the Superfund program is the management of
imminent risk to human health and the environment. Worst site/worst
problems first is a guiding Superfund principle. Efforts to streamline and
accelerate the entire Superfund process also support this important goal. Once it
is determined that the site poses no imminent risk, the Agency moves on to
other priorities, using enforcement tools to ensure maximum PRP involvement.
Given current resource constraints, maximizing PRP involvement in the
cleanup process will be necessary to meet the mandates of SARA and the goals of
the Agency.
When PRPs are recalcitrant, the Region must determine what mix of Fund
and enforcement tools should be used to move the site expeditiously to cleanup.
Both a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) and Fund-financed action should
be considered. If UAOs are issued and the PRPs do not comply, a Fund-financed
cleanup should be considered, as appropriate, to ensure that the site moves
forward quickly. Appropriate cost recovery efforts should be pursued when PRPs
do not comply and Fund-financed activities are initiated.
One of the tools used by the Agency to reconcile the competing Superfund
priorities is the Integrated Priority Setting Matrix. The Matrix was initially
developed in 1989 by the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE), the
October 1993
1-2
DRAFT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), and the Regions. It is
evaluated on a yearly basis to ensure that the latest program priorities are
accurately reflected. The Matrix is used by OERR and the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance (OECA), formerly OWPE, to allocate resources in
Superfund to the highest priority activities.
The Integrated Priority Setting Matrix is currently under review as part of the
workload model and resource allocation process.
INTEGRATED PRIORITY SETTING MATRIX
The Integrated Priority Setting Matrix shown in Exhibit 1-2 has been
reorganized to reflect the key challenges in FY 94 and the Superfund
Administrative Improvements. Any additional revisions will be incorporated
into future versions of the Manual.
The new Matrix is designed to:
Identify the most significant program priorities that support the challenges;
List the major activities or tools that receive resources, grouped according to
their contribution to a program priority; and
Arrange the program priorities and major tools in order of importance,
where possible.
The Matrix provides a framework for establishing, testing, and adjusting
resource levels and will be used by HQ and the Regions in making trade-off
decisions during:
FY 95 budget formulation;
FY 94 operating plan development, target setting and negotiation; and
FY 94 mid-year adjustment.
The overall organization of the Matrix is governed by the following concepts:
All of the activities listed in the Matrix contribute in a significant manner to
Superfund program success. Therefore, priority setting must be presented in
terms of maintenance of an essential minimum baseline of activity across the
board; and
A baseline of activities must be supported to ensure that a constant flow of
projects is maintained and that the entire program maintains its operating
integrity.
DRAFT 1-3 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT 1-2
INTEGRATED PRIORITY SETTING f
PROGRAM
CHALLENGES
Emergency
Response and
Accelerate
Cleanup
Enforcement
PROGRAM
PRIORITIES
Mitigate Risks from
Immediate Threats
Timely Remediation
of Sites
Maximize PRP
Participation
Take Enforcement
Actions for PRP
Response
TO Of
Classic Emergencies
Early Actions (Fund,
Regional Decisions
,ral Facility)
Remedial Design (R "v
Complete Ongoing ($200K)
October 1993
1-4
DRAFT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT 1-2 (continued)
INTEGRATED PRIORITY SETTING MATRIX
PROGRAM
CHALLENGES
PROGRAM
PRIORITIES
TOOLS
Enforcement
Fairness
(continued)
Equitable Treatment of
PRPs (continued)
Section 122 Administrative
Settlements
Improve the Effectiveness of Cost
Recovery
Managing Voluntary Cleanups
Section 104(e) Referrals
Base Closures
Expedited Remediation and
Property Transfer of Military
Bases
Assist Department of Defense (DoD)
with Assessing Sites
Ensure that Remedies Selected
Meet Superfund Criteria
Act Quickly on Clean Parcel
Determinations (120(h))
Construction
Completions
Maintain the Pace of
Contruction Completions
Complete Ongoing Remedial
Actions (RAs) (Fund, PRP, and
Federal Facility)
Conduct Early Actions to Cleanup
National Priorities List (NPL)
Sites
Prepare and Approve RA
Reports and Preliminary and
Final Site Close-Out Reports
Initiate Long-Term RA
Construction
Complete Ongoing Remedial
Designs (RDs)
Delete Sites from the NPL
Perform Five Year Reviews
Contract
Management
Effective Contract
Management
Implement Recommendations of
Contracts Task Forces
Implement Long-Term Contracting
Strategy (LTCS)
Follow Contract Management
Principles
DRAFT
1-5
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT 1-2 (continued)
INTEGRATED PRIORITY SETTING MATRIX
PROGRAM
CHALLENGES
PROGRAM
PRIORITIES
TOOLS
Environmental
Justice and
Meaningful
Community
Involvement
Assure Every Citizen
Receives Comparable
Protection and
Community Participation
in Site Decision Making
Implement an Environmental justice
Strategy for Superfund Sites
Site-Specific Advisory Boards
(Federal Facility)
Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs)
Administrative Records (Early and
Long-Term Actions)
Public Outreach
Communicate Progress in
the Superfund Program
Develop New Public Participation
Strategy
Public Forums
Superfund at Work
Congressional Briefings
Superfund Removal Alerts
Superfund Brochures and Fact Sheets
Superfund Progress Reports
Community Relations Activities
Technical Review Committee
(Federal Facility)
Enhancement of
State Role
Support Development of
State Capability and
Expand State Participation
Deferral of Cleanup Responsibilities
at Non-NPL Sites to States
EPA/State Relationships
Technical Assistance
Core Program Cooperative
Agreement (CPCA)
Innovative
Technologies
Encourage and Foster the
Use of Innovative
Treatment Technologies
Treatability Studies
Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Program
Federal Facility Development of
Innovative Technologies/
Private-Public Partnership
Other
Core Activities that
Support the Superfund
Program
Contract Laboratory Program
Removal Support
Remedial Project Support
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) Data Base Management
Records Management
Program Management
Training
October 1993
1-6
DRAFT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND ACCELERATE CLEANUP
The technical complexity of hazardous waste site cleanup coupled with
complex Superfund site study and cleanup requirements have left the Superfund
program vulnerable to criticism on the slow pace of achieving cleanup. The
Administrative Improvements identified new and continued initiatives that
Regional managers should implement to accelerate cleanup. The initiatives that
are being implemented include:
Presumptive remedies Promoting the use of presumptive remedies for
cleanup of municipal landfills and volatile organic chemicals in soil.
Expanding the use of presumptive remedies to other sites including wood
treaters, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), ground water pump and treat
systems, grain storage, and coal gasification;
Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL) contamination Developing
and implementing a methodology for quickly assessing the presence of
DNAPLs, characterizing site contamination problems, and developing a
remedial strategy for addressing DNAPL contamination;
Soil trigger levels Developing national soil trigger levels for a variety of
chemicals. These trigger levels will be an important screening tool to identify
contaminant levels below which there is not concern and above which
further site-specific evaluation would be warranted. The trigger level could
also be used as a cleanup level for certain exposure pathways; and
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) SACM was introduced in
FY 92, piloted with field demonstrations in FY 93, and is being implemented
in FY 94. The purpose of SACM is to streamline and accelerate the cleanup
process, resulting in prompt risk reduction and restoration of the
environment over the long term. A detailed discussion of SACM is
presented later in this chapter.
ENFORCEMENT
EPA receives approximately one billion dollars in settlements each year.
Regions should continue to maximize PRP participation in early and long-term
actions. Actions historically taken later in the Superfund cleanup process that
will be accelerated will require early PRP identification and involvement to
maintain current levels of PRP participation. Creative and effective use of all
relevant enforcement tools is essential to meeting the construction completion
and accelerate cleanup challenges. Settlements with PRPs to perform response
actions are preferable where they can be achieved, but Regions should be
prepared to utilize UAOs and judicial actions to compel PRPs to undertake
response actions.
DRAFT 1-7 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
Equally important is effective monitoring of PRP compliance with existing
CDs, UAOs, and AOCs, and taking appropriate enforcement action where there is
failure or refusal to comply.
Federal Facilities
To ensure Federal government accountability, continued oversight of existing
Interagency Agreements (lAGs) or Federal Facility Compliance Agreements
(FFCAs) is paramount.
ENFORCEMENT FAIRNESS
One of the most pressing matters facing the Superfund program is to ensure
that parties who have responsibility for cleanup are treated equitably. Speedy
and fair resolution of their liability is vital. The following initiatives address this
issue:
De mimmis Settlements designed to expedite the resolution of the liability
of small waste contributors and complete settlements earlier in the
Superfund process. Resolving the liability early in the process in order to
reduce third party transaction costs is preferable. To accomplish this, the
Agency is developing guidance on streamlining the level of information
necessary to make the de_ minimis findings under section 122(g) of CERCLA,
and provide greater flexibility and judgment in entering into de minimis
settlements. In addition, EPA will aggressively move to settle with de
micromis parties (parties that have sent extremely small amounts of waste).
Evaluate the mixed funding policy during FY 94, the Agency will evaluate
mixed funding options, explore alternatives for streamlining the mixed
funding decision making process and the documentation required for
reauthorization, and pilot several mixed funding settlements.
Greater use of allocation tools offer Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
to facilitate PRP allocation deliberations. Where possible and appropriate,
prepare or adopt Non-Binding Preliminary Allocations of Responsibility
(NBARs) to help promote settlements. Regions should share information on
allocation and liability issues with identified PRPs early in the Superfund
process.
Greater fairness for Superfund site owners providing site owners an
opportunity to submit information or meet with EPA before the Agency
effects a lien on their property. During FY 94, HQ will issue supplemental
prospective purchaser guidance and a model agreement.
Non-settlors includes vigorous pursuit of non-settlors, UAO enforcement,
and cost recovery of cases with response costs greater than $200,000 and viable
October 1993 1-8 DRAFT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
PRPs and selected cases under $200,000, including seeking penalties and treble
damages.
Voluntary cleanup a strategy is under development to encourage States to
manage projects that may not be on the Region's agenda for immediate
attention, but where the PRPs indicate a strong desire to proceed with
remediation. This will aid in facilitating the timely redevelopment of
contaminated resources (e.g., real estate).
BASE CLOSURES
Under the Base Realignment and Closure Acts of 1988 and 1990, 113 military
installations are scheduled for closure or realignment. Of this total, 21 sites are
on the National Priorities List (NPL), and there are a number of non-NPL sites
requiring some degree of decontamination. The Agency must continue to assist
the Department of Defense (DoD) in assessing these properties, accelerating
actions wherever possible, listing sites on the NPL where appropriate, and
ensuring that remedies selected at NPL sites meet Superfund criteria. HQ and
Regional managers must work with DoD, State/local governments, and private
interests to expedite cleanup and support responsible transfers of Federal
property to non-Federal parties for reuse and economic development.
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETIONS
EPA is committed to increasing the number of NPL construction
completions. The goal that the Administrator established is 650 construction
completions by the end of the year 2000. There are a sufficient number of sites
with final RODs signed to meet this goal. Sites in the RD/RA stages will be
efficiently managed to ensure work continues in a timely manner through to
construction completion. Regions and States must continue to work together to
identify opportunities for expediting construction completions and response
actions. Maximum PRP involvement will be imperative to meeting these goals.
Federal Facilities
The primary mission of the Superfund Federal Facilities program is to ensure
that the hazardous waste sites owned or operated by the Federal government are
addressed and cleaned up as quickly as possible. Regional efforts should be
focused on getting to completion of construction activities at Federal Facilities
whether they are accomplished under remedial or removal authority. Meeting
these goals will help build the program's credibility, which is vital to the
Superfund's long-term success.
DRAFT 1-9 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EFFECTIVE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
Good contract management is a Superfund priority, as well as an Agency-
wide priority. The Agency will continue to implement the recommendations of
the task force on Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy (ARCS) contracts,
and build a future with reliable cost-effective contracts across the program
through implementation of the Superfund Long-Term Contracting Strategy
(LTCS).
In recent years, HQ has been working with the Regions on implementing the
LTCS. The LTCS provides the mechanisms for greater contractor flexibility and
improved oversight and cost management by giving Regions full responsibility
for contract management. National workgroups have been established to
analyze issues related to enforcement support, Response Action Contracts
(RACs), Superfund Technical Assistance and Response Teams (STARTs) (the
combination Technical Assistance Team (TAT)/Field Investigation Team (FIT)
contracts), Regional Environmental Services Assistance Team (RESAT),
Emergency and Rapid Response Services (ERRS), and Delivery of Analytical
Services (DAS).
The DAS task force was formed to address the perceived contract
management vulnerabilities in the existing analytical services program. The
objectives of the task force are to assess the long-term needs for Superfund
analytical services and provide a framework to continuously improve the
delivery of analytical services to Superfund over the next several years. During
FY 94, Regional Customer Service Units will be developed to provide technical
assistance to the users of analytical services in the Region.
Responsible, trained, and reliable personnel should oversee the procurement
and administration of all Superfund contracts. Senior management
involvement is essential and all staff must work together and communicate
with their contracting support offices. Principles of good contract management
must permeate the day-to-day activities of the program.
Federal Facilities
At Federal Facility sites, particular attention must be paid to potential or
actual conflicts of interest involving EPA contractors who also may be working
for another Federal agency. OECA is developing a strategy for improving the
government's procurement process, addressing inter-agency Conflicts of Interest,
and the issue of contractor indemnification.
October 1993 MO DRAFT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT
Superfund will strive to assure that every citizen receives comparable
protection under CERCLA, regardless of ethnicity or economic status.
Accordingly, all communities must be guaranteed early and increasingly
effective ways to participate in site decision-making, not only to accelerate
cleanups, but also to restore land for economic development. EPA will
undertake a variety of activities to better assess potential areas of inequity at
Superfund sites and identify appropriate solutions. As part of the
Administrative Improvements, site specific strategies for addressing equity issues
at each site and a new Superfund environmental justice strategy will be
developed.
Public Involvement/Communicating Success
Superfund personnel must make a commitment to convey progress and
accomplishments at every opportunity. The public's perception of the program
will not improve unless they are meaningfully involved in site decisions and
informed of EPA's progress. The focus should be to recognize and, where
appropriate, consider their concerns and communicate early, often, and always.
EPA will prepare and implement a new Superfund public participation plan in
FY 93 and FY 94.
In addition, HQ and Regional staff must work together to develop new
methods for describing Superfund success. The goal is to make information
about Superfund readily available and easily understandable to the general
public and all concerned audiences.
Federal Facilities
OFFE is working with the Office of Environmental Equity to establish
information exchange and create opportunities for joint policy-making with
other Federal agencies. Beginning in FY 93, EPA launched a multi-media
enforcement initiative at Federal Facilities. The criteria used by the Regions in
identifying facilities to be inspected include environmental and health risk from
the facility, compliance history, consistency with EPA's geographic initiatives,
pollution prevention potential, and environmental equity factors.
The Regions must continue to support citizen input at Federal Facility NPL
sites. This may be accomplished by participating in Technical Review
Committees (TRCs) and other community relations efforts such as
implementing Site Specific Advisory Boards (SSABs).
DRAFT Ml October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
ENHANCEMENT OF STATE ROLE
EPA and the States have long agreed that the universe of hazardous substance
sites potentially requiring cleanup was larger than either level of government
could address alone. As a result of the administrative improvements initiative,
EPA will encourage more environmental cleanup sooner by deferring cleanup of
certain low and medium priority sites not yet listed on the NPL to the States.
State deferral will encourage States to start addressing the potentially large
number of sites now in the NPL listing queue, thus accelerating cleanup,
minimizing the risk of duplicative State/Federal efforts, and offering PRPs a
measure of confidence that only one agency will address the site. The Agency
will begin several State deferral pilots in FY 94 under the Superfund
Administrative Improvements initiative.
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) and OECA are
seeking to further the use of innovative treatment technologies to permanently
clean up contaminated sites. Innovative technologies should be routinely
considered in all Feasibility Study (FS) projects and Engineering
Evaluations/Cost Analyses (EE/CAs), and these technologies should not be
eliminated as a feasible remedy solely because of uncertainties in their
performance or cost. These technologies may be found to be cost effective,
despite the fact that their costs are greater than conventional options after
consideration of potential benefits, including increased protection, superior
performance, and/or greater community acceptance. In addition, future sites
will benefit by information gained from the field experience.
Federal Facilities
Federal Facility sites provide an excellent testing ground for assessing
innovative technologies. Federal Facilities offer a number of benefits: sole
responsible party, acknowledged liability, controlled sites, funding, and
willingness. The Agency expects to see more public-private partnerships
established at Federal Facility sites.
SUPERFUND ACCELERATED CLEANUP MODEL (SACM)
OSWER, through its continued investigation of ways to make the Superfund
program more efficient, developed a model for streamlining the Superfund
program. The purpose of SACM is to accelerate and increase the efficiency of
hazardous waste cleanups. This acceleration and efficiency will be accomplished
through more emphasis on the site assessment process and better integration of
all Superfund program components, consistent with the existing statutory and
regulatory structure.
October 1993 1-12 DRAFT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
Prior to the implementation of SACM, a number of NPL sites started the
remedial process under the traditional Superfund pipeline. These sites will
proceed under that pipeline to completion. Regions should continue, however,
to explore possibilities for expediting cleanup at these sites, reflecting the
principles of timeliness and efficiency that are the underpinnings of SACM
implementation.
The two models of the Superfund process will operate simultaneously in FY
94. Exhibit 1-3 provides a simplified comparison of SACM and the traditional
Superfund process.
Information on both SACM and the more traditional Integrated Timeline for
Site Management are included in the following sections.
Through SACM implementation, the Superfund program will be better able
to demonstrate success in risk reduction, thus providing results the public will
value:
Prompt reduction of risk at all sites/incidents at which the Superfund takes
action; and
Restoration of the environment over the long term.
Exhibit 1-4 shows the flow of activities under SACM. The SACM approach is
a continuum of several functions and activities that includes:
Implementing an integrated site screening process to assess site-specific
conditions and the need for action to expedite the cleanup process;
Establishing multi-disciplinary Regional Decision Teams (RDTs) to provide
cross-program coordination of response planning activities. The RDT may
also develop remediation levels and technology standards;
Ensuring maximum PRP participation by early PRP identification/
involvement;
Achieving prompt risk reduction through early actions taken under removal
or remedial authority;
Using appropriate long-term cleanup actions to restore the
environment/media. Long-term actions will take place at sites that will
require years to cleanup, but pose no immediate threat;
Initiating enforcement activities in a timely manner so that the response lead
can be passed to PRPs as early as possible without delaying site work; and
DRAFT 1-13 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
Involving the public early, often, and always throughout the cleanup process.
Applicable community relations requirements described in the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) must be met for
actions taken under either removal or remedial authority.
EXHIBIT 1-3
SIMPLIFIED COMrARISON OF SUPERFUND "PIPELINES"
^ , / , Superfund Accelerated
Current Superfund Process a^p Modd (SACM)
Enforcement
Activities/
State
Participation/
Community
Relations
Site Discovery
I
Preliminary Assessment (PA) I
Site Inspection (SD* I
Expanded Site Inspection (ESI)I
i
Hazard Ranking System(HRS)
National Priorities List (NPU*
1
Remedial Investigation (RI)/
Feasibility Study (FS)*
Selection of Remedy/
Record of Decision (ROD)
I
Remedial Design (RD)
Remedial Action (RA)
I
Operation and
Maintenance (O&M)
NPL Deletion
Site
Screening &
Assessment
(PA, SI, ESI, RI)
* Assessments combined
Enforcement
Activities/
State
Participation/
Community
Relations
Early ««
Action
Long-
Term
Hazard
Ranking
Early
Action
Complete I
Long-
Term
Action
Long-
Term
Cleanup
Complete
* Indicates assessment phase of pipeline
Deletion
October 1993
1-14
DRAFT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
hJ
W
D
O
<
w
i-j
U
D
w
H
t <
^ «
H w
C _j
CO tu
B U
v u
^ <
D
w
CH
W
DRAFT
1-15
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
In FY 94, the Agency will analyze critical portions of the SACM pipeline to
show progress in Superfund cleanups. These measures will address the need for
continuous improvements relative to meeting the program's goal of accelerating
cleanup and reducing risk. The following indicators will be tracked:
Duration from Site Discovery to Site Construction Completion;
Duration from Cleanup Decision to Remedial Design (RD) Completion;
Duration from Cleanup Decision to Each Cleanup Action Completion;
Percent of Sites with Early Actions;
Duration from Regional Decision or Record of Decision (ROD) to PRP
Cleanup Negotiation Completion; and
Percentage of PRP-Lead Cleanup Actions to All Cleanup Actions.
Each of the elements of SACM are summarized in the following sections.
Exhibit 1-5 presents SACM implementation initiatives within the NCP
framework. For more detailed information on implementing SACM, see the
Superfund Program Implementation Manual, Volume II, Appendices A-C.
Site Screening and Assessment (SSA)
The site screening and assessment (SSA) process integrates previously
separate removal and remedial site assessment functions into a single,
continuous evaluation with discrete components (including Preliminary
Assessment (PA), Site Inspection (SI), Expanded Site Inspection (ESI), Remedial
Investigation (RI), and Removal Assessment (RS)). The goal is a continuous
assessment process that efficiently collects the data needed to determine what
response actions are appropriate.
The integrated assessment process involves the following principles:
Activities operate concurrently; one activity need not be completed before
other activities can start;
Sampling and data collection are coordinated to ensure that information
collected in one phase of assessment supports other assessment, enforcement,
and response activities;
October 1993 1-16 DRAFT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
O
£
01
2
U
^2
.
U
<
C/5
m
oo
Z
0
NG TERM ACTI
S
ACTIONS
>«
1
m
Remedial
medial
at
^
"u
s
1
u
V
E
P
e
o
Time Critical
1
Emergem
QJ$
w
"3
c
i
NCPTer
Remedial
"i
5
u
u
£
"O
i
"u
8.
x
Removal
(Remedial n<
Removal
3
o
a;
f3
C
ej
i
M *,
SLXi
l|
s
« -^ ,A>
4j U Ofl
If II? I
* ? x y 5 c u
"c o c ^ ^ c 'S
fli ix; > j 5 ^ « u
*!£'"
O y Q^ u
,., , . ^ "^ c "s
Ifil
i §
"i 'n
* y c
c *- o
f ir s
1 * S
§ 1 = -
o U *- § s
^ 'S.<*- | £ 2
3 oZ E § £
5 ^
1
O
0
3
S
55
a x i|
«. S 0. = 1 3 -g
« S a o .5 « £
8 C = "5 1 u §
" 1 ^ u 3 > Q
IIIPP
W5
"o
ll
M U
E
u a
ts
.2
1
o
1
r
i
o
e
i
i
c
i
5
i
;r on Consent
il Orrtpi
S e
i
i
i
':
'i
T
<
\
5 1
: 1
I "
i
>
1 '
Si
3
#
c
S
Enforcei
m
icipation
I
o
c
onsultation a
i
U
o
.1
>tification and Optional Part
Z
^
State Ro
nn
igy(ARCS)
1
al Contracting Strate
Engineers (USAGE;
1-
1 1
^ c1
*n P
E<
_g [/)
1
U
as .
H
If
Cleanup Service (ERCS)
ssessment and Response
al Assistance Team (TAT)
esponse (
chmcal A
)/Technic
emergency R
uperfund Tei
am (START
UJ C/l ^J
_«
u
3
#
u
e
Contraci
1
'«
Required (or get w
1
C"
1
y
icticable (or get
1
e
Required to Extent P
ot Required
Z
£
tt
<
6
£
S
o>
e
1
Pi
1
3
?
as
3
o
1
o
.s
1
SS
0
e
Cost Shs
M
a
.§
'3
?
as
,r
ime Allows
H
c
^o
3
«
'c
Commul
Ml
S
.2 <
S U
1 S
u "^
Engineering
Cost Analysi:
1
<
o
<-
e
I
|
Public C
nn
o
e
5
u"
"o
Optional -
Apply EPA P
i Action Memo Only
mented ii
Risk Docu
c
i
3?
J3
jt
V,
Baseline
H
T3
OS
u
3
Required -
Apply EPA P
But Not Required
_o
<
P
<
S
s
r2
(5
1
S
Preferen
g
O t/3
os 5T5
S g; U
0 -2 ~
Q. M MBS S
EC c ^ ffl
^ c c x i;
3 §?!,§
OT J 2- £ S
as 5; S S 8
= 5|«,S
S 2 a "e 51
O _] U 3 £
« sl^l
mil
ill1
o !z| <
^ g £
1 « 1
CX o
o
U
1
J>
O
C
U "^3
M O
w) O
O C OJ
§o a
s ° 1
"" c M '
Actic
Emergency Waiver
Consistency WJuver
Admimsti
S°
ll
BJ-a
<
B
1
U
1
_.
DRAFT
1-17
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
All sites, including the existing SI backlog, are reviewed to ensure that
assessment continues at sites posing the greatest threat; and
Assessment work may continue concurrent with the early actions that are
identified at any point in the assessment process.
By combining site assessment activities into an integrated assessment
function, redundant actions are eliminated, thus expediting the Superfund
cleanup process. As specific problems are identified during the site assessment
process, specific cleanup actions can be conducted as appropriate. As soon as a
decision to take an early or long-term action is made, PRP identification/
involvement should begin.
SACM promotes performing risk assessments and RI activities early in the
assessment process at sites where data strongly indicate that the site has a strong
potential for listing on the NPL and conditions warrant the need for long-term
response action(s). At these sites, scoping and planning of the RI should begin as
soon as this determination is made, and the RI performed concurrent with other
assessment activities and identified early actions.
Regional Decision Team (RDT)
The RDT is a new approach that is intended to coordinate, communicate, and
integrate program authority, expertise, resources, and tools to solve problems at
Superfund sites.
The RDT may be involved with the following:
Notifying Community Involvement Managers of the need to plan for
community involvement;
Providing policy implementation and strategic direction to designated site
managers;
Recommending and developing a comprehensive response plan for site
cleanup;
Directing the acquisition of additional data prior to deciding on a course of
action for a site;
Notifying the site enforcement team to initiate PRP identification/
involvement;
October 1993 1-18 DRAFT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
Providing input on the timing and selection of the appropriate enforcement
strategy in coordination with HQ and the Department of Justice (DOJ); and
Considering community concerns when making decisions on a site response
strategy.
The roles, responsibilities, and organizational structure of the RDT will vary
from Region to Region. Each Region should employ the RDT in a way that best
meets its specific management needs.
Early and Long-Term Actions
Under SACM, all cleanup actions are classified as either early or long-term
actions and are conducted under removal or remedial authority as described in
the NCP and CERCLA, as amended.
Early actions are responses that eliminate or reduce threats to human health
or the environment from the release, or threat of release, of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants. Generally, these actions take less than
five years to complete and do not always achieve complete site cleanup without
an associated long-term action(s). Early actions are taken under removal or
remedial authority and must meet the statutory and regulatory requirements of
whichever authority is used. Depending on the urgency of the situation, early
actions generally should not be started before enforcement options are
investigated.
The following are the types of early actions under SACM:
Emergency removals;
Time-critical early actions under removal authority;
Non-time critical (NTC) early actions under removal authority; or
Early actions under remedial authority.
In emergency and time-critical situations, response actions must be initiated
within six months of discovery of the problem, and are generally performed
under removal authority. In NTC situations, where a planning period of at least
six months exists, either removal or remedial authority could be used to reduce
risk. As a result of SACM, the number of NTC removal actions and early actions
under remedial authority will likely increase because of the greater emphasis on
early risk reduction.
DRAFT 1-19 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
Long-term response actions are taken when there are:
Conditions requiring extensive site characterization;
Cleanup costs that are greater than $5 million or that do not qualify for a $2
million removal exemption and cannot be undertaken by the PRP; or
Where it will take more than approximately five years to complete the
cleanup.
The majority of the current NPL sites have a long-term response component.
Most groundwater and large-scale soil remediation actions, and many surface
water remediation actions are expected to take more than five years to complete
or involve complexities that preclude an early action response. In addition,
remedies that require extensive Operation and Maintenance (O&M) activities
may fall into the long-term response category.
Enforcement
EPA's "enforcement first" policy continues under SACM. PRPs are initiating
cleanup work at approximately 70 percent of the NPL sites, and EPA remains
committed to maximizing PRP involvement and leveraging limited Trust Fund
resources. Coordination of site activities, including decisions and
recommendations made by the RDT, should anticipate the activities required for
enforcement and ensure that they are carried out in a timely manner.
Enforcement considerations should be a component of the Regional decision
process. Major enforcement functions affected by SACM include:
The timing and methodology of PRP searches As a rule, PRP search
activities should be initiated as soon as the Region decides that a response
action is likely to be required at the site. Early notification of PRPs is
imperative even if the Fund is conducting the integrated site assessment;
The timing, duration, and subject matter of negotiations with PRPs EPA
expects much of the early site assessment activities to be Fund-lead.
However, there are logical points where negotiations with PRPs should be
considered;
The availability and adequacy of Administrative Records (ARs) High
quality ARs are necessary to ensure the defensibility of response decisions and
to support cost recovery efforts;
Cost recovery and cost documentation SACM may increase the number of
cost recovery actions subject to the removal Statute of Limitations (SOL).
Thus, effective and timely cost documentation will be necessary to ensure
these SOLs can be met;
October 1993 1-20 DRAFT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
Consistency and speed in enforcement decisions If an early action presents
particularly difficult issues or may cause controversy, the Regions are strongly
encouraged to consult with the appropriate Regional coordinator at HQ; and
The role of States Each Region should work with each of its States to
develop a general strategy for enforcement activities and the manner in
which the State will be involved.
The Agency does not anticipate that the principles of SACM will significantly
change EPA's enforcement process.
Integrated Timeline for Site Management
The Integrated Timeline (Exhibit 1-6) is a multi-step site management process
that identifies critical decision points and spans 46 quarters. It provides an
overview of the major remedial and enforcement activities required in the
Super fund long-term cleanup process. The timeline has been updated to
incorporate the trend analyses performed over the last three years.
To embody the concept of good timeline management, trends analyses will
continue to be undertaken in FY 94 for sites that are currently going through the
traditional Superfund pipeline. For internal management purposes, the average
duration will be trackedby Regionfor sites where RD starts or RA starts are
planned in FY 94 as follows:
ROD to RD start; and
ROD to RA start.
Each of these averages will be reported relative to prior years (FY 92 and
FY 93) and prior quarters' performance. In addition, Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) start to completion time frames and cleanup
negotiation time frames also will be tracked.
The Federal Facilities program also will be tracking duration trends. The
Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement (OFFE) will report the following
durations and timespans under the Superfund Comprehensive
Accomplishments Plan (SCAP):
NPL listing to RI/FS start;
RI/FS start to RA complete;
ROD to RA start;
DRAFT 1-21 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
O
w
H
2
81-
8
2
2
PHASES OF
ACTIVITY
If
2 i
1|
^!l
I If J<
^ £ §"0. 'g
o o o o if
ii ii ii ii u
I
o
3(Ua):3[rCr:=
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
-VW
OJ h-J
3»J
C W
O UH
^
f W
DC w
»
*
8
o fi
iS ;£
£; «
rt ra c
all i
e £ » =>
*B£ !
SS^ =
00000:13:0220.0.0.0:0:100530:
II II II II II II II II II II II M II II II II II II
'
IE
I
I
*i \
si
§BI
a: we
&
II
o
oc
'.Ji
DRAFT
1-23
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
RD start to RD complete; and
RA start to RA complete.
The durations in the Integrated Timeline should be used unless more
accurate estimates are available. When better planning data and schedules are
developed, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS) must be revised to reflect these
schedules.
The phases of the Integrated Timeline are summarized below:
Baseline Responsible Party (RP) Search and PRP 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:
- Distributing Section 104(e) information requests to owners/operators and
generators / transporters;
Distributing general notice to owners/operators and generators/
transporters;
- Deciding to pursue Section 104(e) enforcement activities;
- Preparing waste-in information and volumetric allocation for the special
notice/negotiations, making a decision whether to pursue early de
minimis settlements; and
- Reviewing the status of the PRP search no less than 120 days before
obligation of funds for RI/FS to evaluate the viability of the PRPs and to
preserve their due process rights.
The RP search time frame may extend through RD/RA special notice to the
point of final cost recovery if a supplemental search is deemed warranted.
RI/FS Negotiation and Settlement Process This process continues for a
maximum of 3 quarters. Important milestones include:
- Resolving site lead with the State;
- Preparing for RI/FS negotiations;
- Scoping activities in order to direct the work in the RI/FS Statement of
Work (SOW);
October 1993 1-24 DRAFT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
- Issuing special notice and conducting formal RI/FS negotiations lasting a
maximum of 90 days (without extension by the 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 negotiation process, issuing either an Administrative
Order on Consent (AOC) or proceeding with a Fund-financed RI/FS. In
very limited circumstances, a UAO may be issued.
RI/FS This is the third step in the site management process, and begins
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. The
average duration of the RI/FS is 15.5 quarters. At most sites, important
milestones include:
Drafting a RI report;
- Ongoing PRP search, as required, and issuing a supplemental general
notice to the PRPs, if appropriate;
- Completing a draft FS report;
- Completing a final draft of the RI/FS report and the proposed plan;
Preparing the ROD;
- ROD signature;
- Opening and updating the AR file and conducting Community Relations
(CR) activities; and
- Monitoring compliance and follow-up enforcement of RI/FS orders.
Pre-referral and RD/RA Negotiation Process The pre-referral process
begins approximately 60 days prior to submitting a draft Consent Decree (CD)
to the PRPs. RD/RA negotiations should have a maximum duration of two
quarters, which formally begin with the issuance of Special Notice Letters
(SNLs). SNL preparation should be performed concurrent 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 settlement.
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 to a UAO. If
the site has no viable or liable PRPs, a Fund-financed RD should be scheduled
DRAFT 1-25 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
to begin no later than the quarter after the ROD is signed. Important
milestones include:
- Sending pre-referral litigation report and CD to DOJ, and OECA;
- Issuing special notice with draft CD or waiver of special notice within one
quarter of ROD signature;
- Commencing formal negotiations with the issuance of special notice and
achieving an agreement in principle within a maximum of 120 days
(without extension by the Regional Administrator) if a GFO is received;
- Terminating RD/RA negotiations if the GFO is not received within 60
days after issuance of special notice or if no agreement in principle is
reached within 120 days (without extension by the Regional
Administrator). As warranted, the Region will issue the UAO and decide
whether to fund the RD or litigate;
- Referring the CD, issuing a UAO, referring a Section 106 or 106/107 case, or
obligating funds for a Fund-lead RD to mark the conclusion of RD/RA
negotiations; and
Formal conclusion of negotiations within 180 days of issuance of SNLs.
Settlement/Referral Process The settlement/referral process includes two
quarters of CD preparation (concurrent with ROD), one quarter for the CD
referral process, and one quarter for CD lodging and entry. The CD referral,
lodging, and entry process should have a planned duration of two quarters.
RD Implementation This step of the site management process includes
Fund-lead RDs, RP-lead RDs, and compliance monitoring. Credit is given for
the RD start on the date that the EPA approves the PRP's design contractor or
with the funding of a Fund-lead RD. RP-lead RDs may be initiated without
waiting for entry of the CD. The average RD duration is 8 quarters.
Important milestones include:
- Conducting treatability studies, if appropriate;
- Completing the preliminary design specifications that reflect the technical
requirements of the design and initial construction drawings (30 percent
complete). Also, if treatability studies were performed, the initial results
should be included;
- Completing the intermediate construction plans and specifications and
estimating the cost of construction (60 percent complete);
October 1993 1-26 DRAFT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
- Providing the following when the design is 90 percent complete: pre-final
construction drawings, design specifications, construction cost estimate,
final results of the treatability studies, draft O&M plan, draft Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) that identifies quality control and quality
assurance responsibilities during construction, and draft Site Safety Plan
(SSP); and
- Final design plans and specifications, final construction cost estimate, final
draft O&M Plan, final QAPP, and final SSP.
RA Implementation This step in the site management process includes
RA implementation and compliance monitoring. The RA will begin after
the completion of the RD. The RA at a Federal Facility must begin within 15
months of ROD signature. The average RA duration is 12 quarters.
Important milestones include:
- Ensuring the Superfund State Contract (SSC) is in place prior to obligating
initial or supplemental RA funds;
- Acquiring site access or property if needed;
- Procuring the construction contractor by awarding the RA contract;
Starting on-site construction;
- Completing construction and conducting a pre-final inspection and final
inspection. When construction is complete at all Operable Units (OUs), a
Preliminary Site Close-Out Report is prepared;
- Determining if the remedy is Operational and Functional (O&F). The
determination of O&F is usually made within one year of completion of
construction activities, unless extended;
- Approving the RA Report;
- Initiating O&M or Long-Term Response Action (LTRA);
- Preparing a Final Superfund Site Close-Out Report when construction is
complete at all OUs and the remedy has achieved the action levels
contained in the ROD or design documents; and
Deletion of sites from the NPL after receiving State concurrence and public
comment.
Community Relations CR activities begin after the decision on lead
responsibilities is made, intensify during the RI/FS, continue throughout the
DRAFT 1-27 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
RD/RA process, and terminate with the completion of site cleanup activities
and the deletion of the site from the NPL. Major components of the CR
program include:
- Preparing the CR plan, conducting a public comment period, and revising
the CR plan;
- Promoting the Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) program;
- Opening and routinely updating the AR file after the RI/FS work plan is
approved;
- Preparing fact sheets, conducting public meetings or availability sessions
and other innovative community involvement activities, as needed;
- Holding a public meeting during the public comment period following the
distribution of the proposed plan;
- Maintaining a site information repository; and
- Revising the CR plan after RD/RA negotiations.
Cost Recovery Cost recovery activities also continue throughout the entire
remedial process. Important milestones include:
- Opening of the cost and work performed documentation file concurrent
with initiation of the PRP search;
- Obtaining documentation of early action costs and work performed prior
to RI/FS negotiations;
X
- Updating documentation on all unaddressed past costs and work
performed as the RI/FS activities are completed and cleanup negotiations
are initiated;
- 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;
- Referring actions within one year after completion of conventional
removal actions and at the same time as the RA construction start, but in
no event later than two quarters before the SOL date; and
- Deciding not to pursue cost recovery where no viable PRP exists or costs
are unrecoverable due to litigation risks.
October 1993 1-28 DRAFT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
SCAPISTRATEGIC TARGETED ACTIVITIES FOR RESULTS SYSTEM (STARS)
TARGETS AND MEASURES
SCAP and STARS targets are the tools by which program goals are
translated into quantifiable program achievements. Regions should
concentrate their resources on achieving targets negotiated and set by HQ
and the Regions.
STARS is used by the Administrator to set and monitor the progress
each program is making toward meeting its environmental goals. SCAP is
used by OFFE, AA for OSWER, AA for OECA, and senior Superfund
managers to monitor the progress each Region is making towards its
Superfund goals. National and Regional STARS goals are established and
tracked through SCAP. STARS targets are a subset of those contained in
SCAP.
New targets and measures for FY 94 have been developed to align the
program more closely with SACM. Targets and measures developed for FY 94
are broader in scope than in FY 93. A concerted effort was made to combine
targets and measures that in the past were tracked separately to provide
maximum flexibility to the Regions in program implementation, and provide
incentives for conducting actions at problem sites prior to NPL proposal. By
incorporating and tracking cleanup actions on a broader level, the FY 94 targets
and measures provide more program-wide measures of progress being made
towards site cleanup, not just those activities at NPL sites. In addition, the trend
established a few years ago not to develop lead-specific and to combine event
specific targets has been maintained. However, these subgroups will continue to
be tracked for internal management purposes, in order to assess, among other
things, the level of PRP participation.
Every attempt has been made to equate SACM activities and definitions to
pre-SACM activities and definitions. Many of the targets/measures and
definitions embody the FY 93 targets/measures. For example, FY 93 RA
Completions are characterized in FY 94 as Early and Long-Term Action
Completions (ACT-6); therefore, pre-SACM sites completing a RA in FY 94
would receive credit for an Early and Long-Term Action Completions (ACT-6).
Semi-annual targets are established in SCAP/STARS. Accomplishments will
be pulled from CERCLIS on a quarterly basis on the date specified in the Manager's
Schedule of Significant Events at the beginning of the Manual. Any exceptions to
the SCAP/STARS accomplishment definitions provided in Appendices A-C will
be handled on a case-by-case basis. Exception requests must be provided in writing
to the appropriate HQ office and formally approved.
DRAFT 1-29 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
Exhibit 1-7 presents the targets/measures and indicates if they are SCAP or
STARS. Exhibit 1-8 provides a comparison of the FY 93 and FY 94 SCAP/STARS
targets/measures.
October 1993 1-30 DRAFT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT 1-7
FY 94 SCAP/STARS TARGETS AND MEASURES
Target/Measure
STARS
SCAP
Site Screening and Assessment
SSA-l Site Characterization Starts
SSA-2 Site Screening and Assessment Decisions
Regional Decision
RDT-1 Decision Document Developed
Early and Long-Term Actions
ACT-1 Duration from Site Discovery to Site Completion
ACT-2 Duration from Cleanup Decision to RD Completion
ACT-3 Duration from Cleanup Decision to Each Cleanup
Action Completion
ACT-4 Percent of Sites with Early Actions
ACT-5 Sites Addressed Through Early or Long- Term
Action Starts
ACT-6 Early and Long- Term Action Completions
ACT-7 NPL Site Construction Completions Through Early
or Long-Term Actions
ACT-8 Non-NPL and NPL Caliber Construction
Completions Through Early or Long-Term Actions
ACT-9 Five-Year Review Starts
Enforcement
ENF-l Duration From Regional Decision or ROD to PRP
Cleanup Negotiation Completion
ENF-2 Cleanup Negotiation Completion
ENF-3 Settlements for Cleanup Actions
(including dollar value)
ENF-4 De minimis Settlements and
number of PRPs
ENF-5 Percentage of PRP Lead Cleanup Actions to All
Cleanup Actions
ENF-6 Past Costs Addressed $200,000
(number of actions and dollar value)
MEASURE
TARGET
MEASURE
MEASURE
TARGET
TARGET
MEASURE
TARGET
MEASURE
TARGET
MEASURE
MEASURE
TARGET
MEASURE
MEASURE
MEASURE
MEASURE
MEASURE
MEASURE
TARGET
MEASURE
MEASURE
MEASURE
TARGET
MEASURE
TARGET
MEASURE
TARGET
DRAFT
1-31
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT 1-7 (continued)
FY 94 SCAP/STARS TARGETS AND MEASURES
Target/Measure
STARS
SCAP
Environmental Indicators
EI-1 Progress Through Environmental Indicators
Federal Facilities
FF-1 Base Closure Decisions
FF-2 FFA/IAG
FF-3 FFA/IAG Completions
FF-4 Federal Facility Dispute Resolutions
FF-5 RI/FS Starts (First and Subsequent)
FF-6 Timespan from NPL Listing to RI/FS Start
FF-7 RI/FS Completions (RODs) (First and Subsequent)
FF-8 RI/FS Duration
FF-9 RD Starts (First and Subsequent)
FF-10 RD Completions (First and Subsequent)
FF-11 RD Duration
FF-12 RA Starts (First and Subsequent)
FF-13 Timespan from ROD Signature to RA Start
FF-14 RA Completions (First and Subsequent)
FF-15 Final RA Completion
FF-16»RA Duration
FF-17 Timespan from RI/FS Start to RA Complete
FF-18 Removal/ERA/RCRA Corrective Action Starts and
Completions
FF-19 Federal Facility NPL Deletion
MEASURE
MEASURE
MEASURE
MEASURE
TARGET
MEASURE
TARGET
MEASURE
MEASURE
MEASURE
MEASURE
MEASURE
MEASURE
TARGET
MEASURE
TARGET
MEASURE
MEASURE
MEASURE
MEASURE
MEASURE
MEASURE
TARGET
TARGET
MEASURE
MEASURE
MEASURE
MEASURE
October 1993
1-32
DRAFT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT 1-8
FY 93 - FY 94 SCAP/STARS TARGETS/MEASURES CROSSWALK
FY94
Tareet/Measure
SSA/RDT
SSA-1 Site
Characterization Starts
(SCAP measure)
SSA-2 Site Screening
and Assessment
Decisions (SCAP/STARS
measure)
RDT-1 Decision
Document Developed
(SCAP/STARS target)
Early/Long Term Action
ACT-1 Duration from
Site Discovery to Site
Completion (SCAP
measure)
ACT-2 Duration from
Cleanup Decision to RD
Completion (SCAP
measure)
ACT-3 Duration from
Cleanup Decision to
Each Cleanup Action
Completion (SCAP
measure)
ACT-4 Percent of Sites
with Early Actions
(SCAP measure)
Equivalent FY 93
Target/Measure
None
None
Decision Document
Development -
Remedies Selected and
Action Memoranda
Signed (SCAP/STARS
target)
First Remedy Selected
at NPL Sites - ROD
(SCAP target)
Subsequent Remedy
Selected at NPL Sites -
ROD (SCAP target)
None
None j
None
None
Comments
New
New
Deleted special
reporting requirements
for PRP-lead removals.
This measure will
include NPL, non-NPL,
and NPL caliber sites.
A Technical
Information Type will
be required for sites
where presumptive
remedies are selected.
New
New
New
New
DRAFT
1-33
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT 1-8 (continued)
FY 93 - FY 94 SCAP/STARS TARGETS/MEASURES CROSSWALK
FY 94 Target/Measure
Equivalent FY 93
Target/Measure
Comments
Early/Long Term Action
(cont.)
ACT-5 Sites Addressed
Through Early or
Long-Term Action
(SCAP/STARS measure)
NPL Removal Start
(SCAP target)
Non-NPL Removal
Start (SCAP target)
RA On-Site
Construction (SCAP
measure)
NPL Sites Addressed
Through Removal
Action or RI/FS
(SCAP/STARS target)
This measure includes
NPL, non-NPL, and
NPL caliber sites. It
also counts sites, not
actions; therefore,
Regions will only
receive credit for the
first early or long-term
action taken at a site.
ACT-6 Early and
Long-Term Action
Completions
(SCAP/STARS measure)
Removal Completion
(SCAP measure)
RA Completion (SCAP
target)
This measure includes
NPL, non-NPL, and NPL
caliber sites
ACT-7 NPL Site
Construction
Completions Through
Early or Long-Term
Actions (SCAP/STARS
target)
Final RA NPL Site
Construction
Completion (SCAP
measure)
NPL Site Construction
Completions (STARS/
SCAP measure)
NPL Site Completions
Through Removal
(SCAP target)
This measure includes
NPL sites, and will be
used to track the 650
construction completion
goal. In order for early
actions under removal
authority to count, a
Final Close Out Report
or ROD with a
construction completion
certification must be
prepared.
ACT-8 Non-NPL and
NPL Caliber
Completions Through
Early or Long-Term
Action (SCAP measure)
None
This measure includes
non-NPL and NPL
caliber sites.
ACT-9 Five-Year
Reviews Started (SCAP
measure)
Five-Year Reviews (SCAP
Measure)
No Change
October 1993
1-34
DRAFT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT 1-8 (continued)
FY 93 - FY 94 SCAP/STARS TARGETS/MEASURES CROSSWALK
FY 94 Target/Measure
Equivalent FY 93
Target/Measure
Comments
Enforcement
ENF-1 Duration from
Regional Decision or
ROD to PRP Clean Up
Negotiation Completion
(SCAP measure)
Duration from
ROD to RD/RA
Negotiation
Completion (SCAP
measure)
This measure will include
NPL, and NPL caliber sites
and will report both early
and long-term actions.
This measure uses the
Regional decision as the
starting point for
calculating durations of
early removal action
decisions rather than the
Action Memo.
ENF-2 Cleanup
Negotiation Completions
(SCAP/STARS target)
RD/RA Negotiation
Completions (SCAP
target)
This measure will report
negotiation completions
for NPL and NPL caliber
sites. Includes
negotiations for both
early and long-term
actions
ENF-3 Settlements
for Cleanup Actions
(including dollar
value)
(SCAP/STARS
measure)
UAOs for RD/RA
(SCAP measure)
RD/RA Settlements
and Injunctive
Referrals
(SCAP/STARS target)
Mixed Funding
Settlements (SCAP
measure)
AO Issued for Removal
and RI/FS (SCAP
measure)
Reports all settlements
for response actions
(including ESI/RI/FS)
separately by NPL, NPL
caliber, and non-NPL
sites.
DRAFT
1-35
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT 1-8 (continued)
FY 93 - FY 94 SCAP/STARS TARGETS/MEASURES CROSSWALK
FY 94 Target/Measure
Enforcement (cont.)
ENF-4 De minimis
Settlements and Number
of PRPs (SCAP/STARS
target)
ENF-5 Percentage of
PRP Lead Cleanup
Actions to All Cleanup
Actions (SCAP/STARS
measure)
ENF-6 Past Costs
Addressed >$200,000
(number of actions and
dollar value)
(SCAP/STARS targret)
Environmental Indicators
EI-1 Progress
Through
Environmental
Indicators
Equivalent FY 93
Target/Measure
De minimis Settlements
and Number of PRPs
prior to ROD
(SCAP/STARS
measure)
De minimis Settlements
and Number of PRPs
(SCAP/STARS measure)
None
Cost Recovery
Actions / Decisions
>$200K
(SCAP/STARS
target)
Progress Through
Environmental
Indicators
Comments
This measure will
report both the total
number of de minimis
settlements and early de
minimis settlements.
New. Reported
separately for NPL,
NPL caliber, and
non-NPL sites.
This measure will
report past costs
addressed for NPL,
NPL caliber, and
non-NPL sites.
No change
October 1993
1-36
DRAFT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT 1-8 (continued)
FY 93 - FY 94 SCAP/STARS TARGETS/MEASURES CROSSWALK
FY94
Target/Measure
Equivalent FY 93
Target/Measure
Comments
Federal Facilities
FF-1 Base Closure
Decisions
(SCAP/STARS
measure)
None
New
FF-2 FFA/IAG Start
(SCAP measure)
IAG Start
(STARS /SCAP target)
This activity is changed
from a SCAP/STARS
target to a SCAP
measure.
FF-3 FFA/IAG
Completions (SCAP
measure)
LAG Completions at NPL
or Proposed NPL Sites
(SCAP/STARS target)
This activity is changed
from a SCAP/STARS
target to a SCAP
measure. This
definition has been
revised.
FF-4 Dispute
Resolution
(SCAP/STARS measure)
None
New
FF-5 RI/FS Starts -
First and Subsequent
(SCAP target)
First RI/FS Start (SCAP
target)
Subsequent RI/FS Start
(SCAP target)
No change
FF-6 Timespan from
NPL Listing to RI/FS
Start (SCAP measure)
Federal Facility Listing to
RI/FS Start Duration
(SCAP measure)
No change
FF-7 RI/FS
Completions (RODs)
First and Subsequent
(SCAP/STARS target
Federal Facility
Remedy Selection at
NPL Sites- First and
Subsequent
(SCAP/STARS target
First Federal Facility
RODs (SCAP target)
Subsequent Federal
Facility RODs (SCAP
target)
No change
DRAFT
1-37
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT 1-8 (continued)
FY 93 - FY 94 SCAP/STARS TARGETS/MEASURES CROSSWALK
FY 94 Target/Measure
Equivalent FY 93
Target/Measure
Comments
Federal Facilities (cont.)
FF-8 RI/FS Duration
(SCAP measure)
RI/FS Duration
(SCAP measure)
No change
FF-9 RD Starts First
and Subsequent
(SCAP measure)
First RD Start (SCAP
target)
Subsequent RD Start
(SCAP target)
This activity has been
changed from a SCAP
target to a SCAP
measure. The RD start
date for work
beginning prior to the
ROD has changed.
FF-10 RD
Completions First and
Subsequent (SCAP
measure)
First RD Completions
(SCAP target)
Subsequent RD
Completions (SCAP
target)
This activity is
changed from a
SCAP target to a
SCAP measure.
FF-11 RD Duration
(SCAP measure)
Federal Facility RD Start
to RD Complete
Duration (SCAP
measure)
No change
FF-12 RA Starts First
and Subsequent
(SCAP/ STARS
measure)
RA Start (SCAP/STARS
target)
First RA Start (SCAP
target)
Subsequent RA Start
(SCAP target)
This activity is
changed from a
SCAP/STARS target
to a SCAP/STARS
measure.
FF-13 Timespan
from ROD signature
to RA Start (SCAP
measure)
ROD to RA Start
Duration (SCAP
measure)
No change
October 1993
1-38
DRAFT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT 1-8 (continued)
FY 93 - FY 94 SCAP/STARS TARGETS/MEASURES CROSSWALK
FY94
Target/Measure
Equivalent FY 93
Target/Measure
Comments
Federal Facilities (cont.)
FF-14 RA
Completions First and
Subsequent
(SCAP/STARS target)
First RA Completion
(SCAP measure)
This activity is
changed from a SCAP
measure to a
SCAP/STARS target.
FF-15 Final RA
Completion (SCAP
target)
First RA Completion
(SCAP measure)
This activity is chnged
from a SCAP measure
to a SCAP target.
FF-16 RA Duration
(SCAP measure)
Federal Facility RA Start
to RA Complete
Duration (SCAP
measure)
No change
FF-17 Timespan
from RI/FS Start to
RA Completion
(SCAP measure)
Federal Facility RI/FS
Start to RI/FS Complete
Duration (SCAP
measure)
No change
FF-18 Removal/
ERA/RCRA Corrective
Action Starts and
Completions
(SCAP/STARS
measure)
Federal Facility
Removal/ERAs
(SCAP/STARS measure)
Addition of RCRA
Corrective Action starts
and completions.
FF-19 Federal Facility
NPL Deletion (SCAP
measure)
Federal Facility NPL
Deletion (SCAP measure)
No change
DRAFT
1-39
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
CHAPTER II
PROGRAM PLANNING
AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
CHAPTER II - PROGRAM PLANNING AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the response, enforcement, and Federal Facilities
planning and reporting requirements. During the development of this Manual
the Administrator was evaluating options for the integration and reorganization
of OWPE and OE. At the time of printing, a decision has been made to form the
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). Though a majority of
the planning and reporting requirements are not expected to be affected by the
reorganization, the HQ contacts and the specific requirements for transferring
information and documents from the Regions to HQ will probably be revised. In
this manual, OECA is used as the Regional contact point for all Superfund
enforcement issues. When the roles and responsibilities have been defined and
new procedures developed, an addendum to the Manual may be issued.
INTEGRATED PLANNING
Planning in the Superfund program is accomplished through the budget,
SCAP, and the performance evaluation process. Successful planning requires the
reflection and accurate costing of program priorities in the budget and workload
model, and translation of the priorities and resource requirements into specific
output commitments in SCAP and STARS. Candid evaluation of performance
against these commitments is essential to assess the viability of program
priorities, resource requirements, and overall effectiveness.
Integrated planning is the responsibility of HQ, Regional program offices,
Regional finance offices, the States, the Office of Regional Counsel (ORC), and
DOJ. Information on planned activities should also be coordinated with the
Natural Resources Trustees and the Agency for Toxic Substances Control and
Disease Registry (ATSDR). To provide adequate resources for priority actions at
Superfund sites, HQ allocates resources within and between response actions and
enforcement activities. 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 provided. This requires Regions to reconcile FY 95 targets
and their Superfund pipeline with the financial operating plan proposed by HQ.
Flexibility is greatest in the budget planning years. Realistic outyear planning
data (milestones and funding needs) allows HQ to prepare requests for resources
based on Regional needs. Exhibit II-l summarizes levels of flexibility as the
II-l October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT IM
FLEXIBILITY SCALE FOR BUDGETING/PLANNING
Minimum
Maximum
Operating Year Budget
(FY94)
Planning Year Budget
(FY95)
Outyear Budget
(FY96)
1. Operating Plan Establishes
Funding Ceiling (93/4)
Development of Operating
Plan Begins 6 Months Prior to
FY; 90 percent of Operating
Plan based on Prior Year's
Obligations (Begins 94/2)
Formulation Begins 12 - 18
Months Prior to FY;
Largely Dependent on
Regional Planning Data in
CERCLIS
(Begins 94/3)
2. Semi-Annual Targets are Set -
- STARS targets can be
changed only through formal
Regional Administrator
request
- Sites can be substituted to
meet commitments
2. SCAP/STARS Targets
finalized in August
2. No Targets Set but
Schedules
and Estimated costs for RA
and Early Action Under
Remedial Authority Help
to Drive Budget Request
3. Pricing Factors are Set -
Cannot Change Pricing on
Events / Activities
3. Pricing Factors can be
changed through
Regional/HQ 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 Adjustments based
on Proven Need
4. Budget is Constrained
Based on Resource Cap
Imposed by AA and
Administrator Unless
Exception can be Justified
5. Regions have Flexibility
within General Budget and
AOA Structure to Shift
Funds to Meet Priority
Activities
5. Regions Request Funds to
Meet Regional Pipeline
Goals and National
Program Priorities
5. Maximum Flexibility to
Design Budget to Optimize
Cross-Program Priorities
6. Mid-Year SCAP
Evaluation Used to Realign
Current Year Resources
6. Final SCAP Targets Set
Final Resource Levels
(94/4)
7. Flexibility on Dollars much
Greater than FTEs through
Reg. Reprogramming
7. Flexibility on Dollars and
FTE may be Constrained
by President's Budget
operating year is entered. Major phases in the decision making continuum
include:
Formulation of the outyear budget occurs 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 the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (AA SWER) or the Assistant Administrator
October 1993
II-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
for the Office of Enforcement (AA OECA). 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 proposed response and
enforcement operating plans are developed based on the average amount of
money obligated/tasked by the Region over the past three years. The Federal
Facility operating plan is based on the number of sites on the NPL. OSWER
and OECA negotiate the final operating plan based on Regional response to
the initial operating plan, the Regional pipeline, past Regional
accomplishments and planned durations/dollars, Regional requests for the
budget reserve, and associated SCAP/STARS output commitments. OSWER
and OECA provide resources to support the program through the Advice of
Allowance (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 evaluation. Regions have flexibility within the general budget
and AOA structure to shift funds as needed to meet priority activities. (See
Chapter III for additional information on shifting funds.) Once the operating
plan is established at the start of the year, additional resources generally can be
shifted to a Region only at the expense of resources from other Regions.
However, HQ may shift funds among the Regions depending on the level of
use and need.
Use of the mid-year evaluation to realign resources in the current FY.
Current year resource adjustments focus on changes needed due to cost and
project schedule modifications. Changes may result in shifts within program
areas and among Regions, and revised annual funding levels. Estimates
developed in April/May 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.
Exhibit 11-2 describes the information flow and HQ and Regional
responsibilities associated with integrated planning.
INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE
ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN (SCAP)
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. An annual process has been established through which HQ and
II-3 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT H-2
HQ/REGIONAL INTEGRATED PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES
Regional Responsibilities
HQ Responsibilities
Manage projects to integrate
Enforcement and Fund milestones
and to ensure schedules and
timelines are met
Negotiate and assess the status of
response and enforcement
mega-sites
Involve the State, ORC and finance
offices in the planning process
Provide accurate, complete and
timely project planning data in
WasteLAN and assure that data are
accurately uploaded to CERCLIS
Follow established planning
procedures and requirements so
that HQ has a common basis with
which to evaluate Regional
proposals (See Chapter III and
Volume II Appendices)
Assess Federal agencies cleanup
needs identified as part of the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)
A-106 process
Identify multi-media planning and
cleanup opportunities
Recognize that missed
commitments severely impact
resource availability
Identify potential unused funds and
return them to HQ within
reasonable timeframe for
redistribution
Establish a combined Fund and
Enforcement hierarchy of program
priorities in consultation with the
Regions to be used in negotiations
and adjustments of targets (See
Integrated Priority Setting Matrix,
Chapter I)
Review integrated operating plans
and site commitments proposed by
the Regions prior to negotiations
Coordinate OSWER, OECA, OFFE,
DOJ, Financial Management
Division (FMD), and the Office of
Administration and Resources
Management (OARM) activities
throughout the planning process
Work with Regional managers to
formulate preliminary resource
requests and determine how
resources should be adjusted to
meet program priorities
Negotiate and assess the status of
response and enforcement
mega-sites
Communicate with the Regions on
changes/additions to SCAP
schedules
Provide funding and FTE levels
consistent with each Region's active
pipeline phases, shifting Regional
resources if needed to support
priority activities
Develop policy and guidance in
response to Congressional or
Agency initiatives
October 1993
II-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
Regions formally negotiate plans for the future. CERCLIS serves as the conduit
for the SCAP process by providing 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 information.
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, including the EPA and Superfund strategic plans, the
Superfund budget, Agency Operating Plan, STARS, and the Superfund workload
models. SCAP/STARS targets/measures are designed to reflect the strategic
plans and the Agency's goals and priorities for the upcoming year. In some cases,
new SCAP categories are developed, or the projections for SCAP activities are
adjusted to match the Agency's goals.
The Management Tools
Most of the Superfund program's budget is based on SCAP. The operating
year's budget is developed 18 months prior to its beginning. For example, SCAP
data existing in the third quarter of FY 94 will be used to formulate the FY 96
budget. The site schedules reflected in 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 distribution
through the workload model. Because dollars for Fund-financed RAs, early
actions under remedial authority, and RDs dominate the overall Superfund
budget, it is critical that SCAP identify RD, RA, and early action under remedial
authority candidates and projected funding needs. Cost estimates for RAs and
early actions under remedial authority should be derived using the draft FS or
ROD 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 performing Superfund work. Enforcement operating plans
are adjusted in the first quarter of the FY based on Regional contract carryover.
STARS is used by EPA to set and monitor the Agency's environmental
objectives for a FY. National and Regional STARS goals for Superfund are
established and tracked through SCAP and the STARS data base. STARS targets
are a subset of those contained in SCAP. STARS targets and measures are
reported quarterly by the Regions to the Office of Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation (OPPE). OPPE tracks Regional progress toward STARS goals on a
quarterly basis as part of the overall Agency performance evaluation process. HQ
will not recognize a STARS accomplishment unless it is correctly recorded in
CERCLIS and the STARS data base.
II-5 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
The Superfund workload models distribute FTEs for each program and
Region. There are three Superfund program models: the Hazardous Site and
Spill Response model, which distributes resources for the site assessment and
response programs; the Technical Enforcement model, which distributes
enforcement FTEs and extramural dollars; and the Federal Facilities Superfund
Workload model, which distributes resources for response and enforcement
activities at Federal Facilities. SCAP plans form the basis of the workload
models. In FY 94, each Region's FTEs are frozen at the FY 90 levels. While the
freeze ensures that the total Regional Superfund resources are not affected,
shifting of resources within the Region among the different program areas to
support Agency/Regional program priorities may occur. This includes shifts
between the response and enforcement programs. All shifts will be based on the
FY 94 national budget (see Chapter III) and the Integrated Priority Setting Matrix
(see Chapter I). Shifts between program elements in excess of $500,000 require
both HQ and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. The workload
models are expected to be unfrozen in FY 95 and new models are currently under
development.
OFFE will coordinate with OERR and OECA throughout the SCAP process.
OFFE will rely on CERCLIS data in planning, budgeting, tracking, and evaluating
progress at Superfund Federal Facility sites. CERCLIS data are used, in part, to
feed the Federal Facilities workload model. In addition to CERCLIS, OFFE and
the Regions will utilize information gathered in conjunction with the A-106
Pollution Abatement Planning Process to evaluate the adequacy of other Federal
agency budgeting for Superfund sites. These data will enable OFFE and the
Regions to evaluate actual outlays and accomplishments at Superfund sites as
they relate to 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 will enable improved planning and
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 support.
The Superfund Information Systems
Effective management of the Superfund program requires the availability of
accurate information on Superfund sites throughout the country. CERCLIS was
developed in the mid-1980s as an integrated system to hold national site
assessment, remedial, removal, enforcement, and financial information. To
facilitate Regional use of the information in the centralized CERCLIS data base, a
local area network (LAN) version of CERCLIS, called WasteLAN, was
implemented. In this Manual, the term CERCLIS is used when discussing
official program data and HQ information management tools as well as to
encompass both the CERCLIS (site specific) and CERHELP (non-site specific) data
October 1993 II-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
bases. WasteLAN is used when discussing rules for the Regions to follow when
entering and updating site and non-site specific information. For additional
information on the many Superfund information systems and tools available,
see Volume II, Appendix E.
OVERVIEW OF THE SCAP PROCESS
The SCAP process generates data that fulfill the following functions:
Tracking of accomplishments against tar gets/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.
The SCAP cycle was revised in FY 93. Instead of a semi-annual, formal
update and negotiations process, the SCAP planning cycle begins in late
April/early May and ends with formal negotiations in late August. Therefore, it
is essential that SCAP data remain current and up-to-date throughout the year
and that accomplishments be reported as soon as they occur. Site schedules and
financial planning information should be reviewed and updated on an ongoing
basis (at a minimum on a monthly basis).
Following is a summary of the revised SCAP cycle:
Late April/early May - HQ prepares the response and enforcement Regional
operating plan based on the past three years of Regional obligations and
tasking averages. The enforcement program will also consider unliquidated
balances in relation to current invoicing rates. The proposed operating plan
will be coupled with an analysis of where each Region is in the Superfund
pipeline. HQ will distribute 90 percent of the budget, holding a 10 percent
reserve to negotiate in August. At this time, HQ will also pull data from
CERCLIS to determine the number of active sites and the phase each site is in
for the initial run of the workload model.
Mid-May/late June - Regions should do their site planning using CERCLIS as
in years past. The Regions should focus on their individual pipeline, the
overall goals and priorities of the program, and how they can achieve their
portion of the national effort given proposed resources.
July - The Regional Federal Facility operating plan is developed based on the
Region's percentage of NPL sites. HQ generates each Region's proposed
workload and budget, reviews past Regional accomplishments and planned
durations/dollars, and reviews Regional requests for the 10 percent reserve.
II-7 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
A preliminary round of Regional conference calls are conducted to share the
HQ analysis with the Regions.
August - Final negotiations on Regional budgets and targets occur between
HQ and the Regions.
November - Enforcement extramural budget carryover amounts are
calculated and the FY 94 Regional enforcement budget allocation is finalized.
Regions revise their final negotiated targets based on commitments that were
not met the previous year.
Regions are required to manage their funds and operate within the annual
budgets established. Non-RA funds within the Region's budget must be
reprogrammed to meet unexpected needs.
SCAP CHANGE CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
Stability in the SCAP process through the year is essential to the success of
SCAP planning and accomplishment reporting/evaluation procedures. The
following procedures are used to control changes to items in SCAP:
Changes (including additions or deletions) to SCAP targets, measures,
definitions, methodologies, planning processes, accomplishment reporting,
financial management or any other process described in this Manual must be
presented by the Office Director for the program office proposing the change,
and receive the comments/concurrence of OECA, OERR, and OFFE;
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
documented in writing. Copies of all final decisions should be provided to all
program offices and Regions. If the proposed change will be implemented, an
addendum to the Superfund Program Implementation Manual may be
issued.
HQIREGIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Maintaining SCAP in CERCLIS
Exhibit II-3 describes the HQ/Regional responsibilities for maintaining SCAP
data in CERCLIS/WasteLAN.
October 1993 II-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT II-3
HQ/REGIONAL SCAP AND CERCLIS RESPONSIBILITIES
Regional Responsibilities
HQ Responsibilities
Maintaining CERCLIS/WasteLAN and
selected portions of the CERHELP data
base
Planning and scheduling all events and
enforcement activities from site assessment
and PRP search through NPL deletion
Keeping SCAP planning data current in
WasteLAN, including updating site
schedules established at the ESI/RI stage
and cost estimates for long-term action and
early action under remedial authority when
better planning data become available
Updating site back-up in the CERHELP
Targets and Accomplishments data file to
reflect adjustments to SCAP throughout the
year
Reporting accomplishments in WasteLAN
as they occur
Reconciling WasteLAN financial data with
Integrated Financial Management System
(IFMS) and Technical Enforcement Support
Work Assignment Tracking System
(TESWATS) data
Uploading WasteLAN data to CERCLIS on
a regular basis
Entering and maintaining quarterly
planning, budget, and accomplishment
reporting in CERHELP for non-site specific
activities
Preparing SCAP amendments and change
requests
Tracking and maintaining the enforcement
extramural budget and the Federal
Facilities budget
Entering negotiated final SCAP/STARS
targets and measures and site back-up in
the CERHELP Targets and
Accomplishments data file
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 Budget Control
(BQ/AOA system
Determining the AOA based on SCAP
planned activities in CERCLIS
Entering and maintaining AOA data in
the CERHELP BC/AOA system
Responding to Regional requests for
changes in plans through the
amendment/change request process
II-9
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
The Information Management Coordinator (IMC) is a senior position which
serves as Regional lead for all Superfund program and CERCLIS/WasteLAN
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 in WasteLAN are completely and
accurately reflected in CERCLIS;
Ensure nationally established CERCLIS core data requirements are met;
Reconcile Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) and Technical
Enforcement Support Work Assignment Tracking System (TESWATS) data
with CERCLIS/WasteLAN financial data;
Ensure WasteLAN data are complete, accurate, and up-to-date;
Provide liaison to HQ on SCAP/STARS and program evaluation issues;
Coordinate Regional evaluations by HQ; and
Ensure that the quality of CERCLIS data is such that accomplishments and
planning data can be accurately retrieved from the system.
Program Assessment
HQ and the Regions have different roles and responsibilities in Superfund
program evaluation and management, as shown in Exhibit II-4.
The Superfund evaluation process provides managers with an opportunity to
meet program objectives by:
Examining program accomplishments;
Analyzing and discussing issues that affect the successful operation of the
Superfund program; and
Initiating changes in program operations or reallocating/redirecting
resources.
The strategy for assessing the performance of the Superfund program is
comprised of the following:
Establishing semi-annual and annual targets and planning measures;
October 1993 11-10
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT II-4
EVALUATION RESPONSIBILITIES
Regional Responsibilities
HQ 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
Negotiate performance standards
that provide individual
accountability for targets
Assess Federal agency needs
identified during the OMB A-106
process
Participate in the Regional reviews
Provide guidance to the Regions for
the quarterly reporting, the mid-year
assessment, the year-end assessment,
and Regional reviews
Implement and report on follow-up
action items from the Superfund
quarterly and/or mid-year
assessment and Regional reviews
Review performance data reported by
the Regions and assist Regions
having difficulties in meeting targets
Conduct Regional reviews
Continually assess program
performance and analyze timeliness
and quality of work
Recommend resource reallocation
based on Regional needs and
performance
Assure that all staff are informed of
the results of performance reporting
Compare Federal agency budget
authorities, obligations and outlays to
monitor cleanup activities
Quarterly reporting of response and enforcement SCAP/STARS
accomplishments based on CERCLIS data;
Semi-annual reporting of response internal measures and Federal Facility
SCAP/STARS accomplishments based on CERCLIS data;
Quarterly evaluation of enforcement accomplishments against internal
measures;
11-11
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
9 Semi-annual performance evaluation; and
Regional reviews.
This strategy enables management to recognize high performance,
concentrate Superfund resources in those Regions that demonstrate success, and
provide training and technical assistance to those Regions that are experiencing
difficulties.
In addition to the program management and assessment tools traditionally
used by OSWER, OFFE 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 OFFE,
Regions, OMB, other Federal agencies, and Congress with improved information
to evaluate accomplishments at Federal Facilities.
PROCEDURES FOR ANNUAL TARGET SETTING
The process for developing SCAP and STARS targets/measures for a FY
begins with the SCAP developed during the third quarter of the previous FY. All
targets/measures are established in August only after negotiations between
OERR, OECA, OFFE, and the Regions. In the Regions, a joint review of
commitments should be undertaken by the program office and ORC. The dates
for pulling CERCLIS data that will be used in developing the proposed Regional
operating plan, generating the Regional workload and budget, and negotiations
can be found in the Manager's Schedule of Significant Events presented at the
beginning of this Manual.
The Region's focus in preparing for negotiations should be on its individual
pipeline (i.e., more site assessments or more construction completion oriented),
the overall goals and priorities of the program, and how it can achieve its
portion of the national effort given proposed resources. HQ compares Regional
plans with program goals and resource allocations. In addition, HQ reviews past
Regional accomplishments and planned durations/dollars to ensure that the
Region is planning the appropriate amount of work given the dollars it is
requesting. This provides HQ with a benchmark going into negotiations on
what the Region should be able to accomplish based on its unique pipeline
status.
The procedures for target setting for the upcoming FY are contained in Exhibit
II-5.
October 1993 11-12
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT II-5
PROCEDURES FOR ANNUAL TARGET SETTING
Month
Regional Responsibilities
HQ Responsibilities
April/May
Consult with States and ORC
on FY 95 activities
Prepare program and
enforcement Regional operating
plan based on past three years
average Regional
obligations / tasking
Analyze Regional pipelines
Allocate 90 percent of FY 95
budget to Regions (proposed
operating plan)
May/June
Update site schedules and
funding needs based on
proposed operating plan,
Regional pipeline, and national
goals and priorities
Submit enforcement mega-site
plans
June
Participate in HQ conference
calls on analysis of Regional
plan
July
Review Regional SCAP/STARS
and pipeline workload and budget
1 Review past Regional
accomplishments and planned
durations/ dollars
Review Regional requests for 10
percent budget reserve
1 Prepare Federal Facility Regional
operating plan based on the
number of NPL sites
1 Conduct Regional conference calls
on the results of the analyses
August
Negotiate final targets/
measures and budget
Enter schedule or target
changes that result from the
negotiations into WasteLAN
Negotiate final targets/ measures
and budget
Enter final commitments and site
specific back-up into CERHELP
September
Send targets/measures, site
backup, and Regional budgets to
AAs for approval
Submit final STARS targets to
OPPE
November
Revise negotiated targets
during STARS open season
based on commitments missed
in the prior year
Calculate Technical Enforcement
Support carryover funds
Revise Regional Enforcement
operating plans
11-13
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
PLANNING FOR NEGOTIATIONS
Regions are required to keep the SCAP data in WasteLAN and CERCLIS up-
to-date and accurate. Changes in planning information (schedules and funds)
should be entered into WasteLAN within five days after the Remedial Project
Manager (RPM)/On-Scene Coordinator (OSC)/Site Assessment Manager (SAM)
are aware of the need for the change. If changes affect a SCAP or STARS target or
measure or the approved funding level for a site, the Activity/Event Planning
Status (C1725 and C2110) and Funding Priority Status (C2625 and C3225) fields in
WasteLAN must also be updated.
Planning Process
Exhibit II-6 outlines the steps a Regions must go through to prepare for
negotiations. Exhibit 11-7 provides an example of the use of the Funding Priority
Status field (C1725 and C2110) to show funding requirements.
As a final check to ensure that SCAP data are up-to-date, Regions should
generate CERCLIS SCAP and Audit reports routinely, especially those Regions
that have delegated responsibility for entering information into the WasteLAN
data base to RPMs, OSCs, and SAMs. At an absolute minimum, reports should
be generated prior to HQ development of the proposed operating plan and in late
June for internal review of the planning data in CERCLIS. These planning data
should reflect any adjustments or approved amendments made to the annual
plan. Alternatives to using the CERCLIS SCAP reports are to use the SCAP
Management and Reporting System (SMRS) to ensure that SCAP data in
WasteLAN are up-to-date (see Volume II, Appendix E).
On the fifth working day of July, HQ pulls SCAP reports from CERCLIS. The
data in these reports serve as the basis for HQ/Regional 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.
October 1993 11-14
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT II-6
REGIONAL PLANNING FOR NEGOTIATIONS
Month
May/June
July/August
Activity
Identify response/ enforcement, and Federal Facility projects
as "Primary" (P) or "Alternate" (A) in the Activity/Event
Planning Status field (C1725/C2110). (See Exhibit II-7.)
- Primary projects have the greatest likelihood of
meeting schedules and are used to determine
SCAP/STARS commitment.
- Alternates are projects that can be substituted for
primary targets that slip or are deferred.
Identify events/activities requiring funding by placing
"Approved" (APR) in the Funding Priority Status Field
(C2625/C3225). The total of all approved funding must
not exceed the proposed operating plan.
- Only "Primary" targets/measures should have an
"Approved" funding status.
- Projects the Regions would like to conduct with
the 10 percent budget reserve should have a
Funding Priority Status of "Alternate" (ALT).
- Projects may also be identified with a Funding
Priority Status of "CON" (planned contingency
funds), indicating projects that have a medium or
high potential for the PRP to assume lead
responsibility. The funds for the event/activity
that has the greatest likelihood of proceeding
would be coded as "APR"; the funds for the
event/activity that has the least likelihood of
proceeding would be coded as "CON". (See
Exhibit II-7.)
11-15
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT II-7
EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITY/EVENT PLANNING STATUS
AND PRIORITY FUNDING STATUS
ORIGINAL PLAN
Site Activity/Event
Name OU Event Ld Planning Status
(C104) (CHOI) (C2101) (C2117) (C2110)
Funding Budget Finan
Qual Status Source Amount
(C2103) (C3225) (C3229) (C3230)
750,000
500,000
25,000
750,000
75,000
ALTERED PLAN
Site Activity/Event
Name OU Event Ld Planning Status
(C104) (CHOI) (C2101) (C2117) (C2110)
Actual
Start
(C2140)
Funding
Qual Status
(C2103) (C3225)
Budget Finan
Source Amount
(C3229) (C3230)
91/4
91/2 2/16/91
91/2 3/20/91
CERCLIS Reports for SCAP Planning/Target Setting
Exhibit II-8 presents the CERCLIS reports used by HQ and the Regions in the
development and negotiation of Regional targets/measures. Following is a
description of these reports:
The Site Summary Report (SCAP-2) is used by EPA to report planned and
actual events at NPL and non-NPL sites. It incorporates event information
from SCAP-2, Non-NPL Site Summary Report and SCAP-27, Event/Activity
Summary Report for NPL Sites, which have been archived.
The SCAP Financial Report (SCAP-4), Financial Summary for Enforcement
(SCAP-4E), and Financial Summary for Federal Facilities (SCAP-4F) aggregate
dollars by program area and provide both site specific backup from CERCLIS
and non-site specific backup from CERHELP. These reports should be used to
compare the funding requests contained in CERCLIS and CERHELP to the
Regional budgets. Regions are prompted for "APR," "ALT," "CON" and
"TOTAL." The SCAP-4F Report is currently under development.
The Remedial Pipeline Report (SCAP-7) is used to assist the Regions with
planning sites from the ROD through the RA start.
October 1993
11-16
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT II-8
SCAP PLANNING/TARGET SETTING CERCLIS REPORTS
SCAP-2: NPL Site Summary Report
SCAP-4: SCAP Financial Report
SCAP-4E: Financial Summary for Enforcement
SCAP-4F: Financial Summary for Federal Facilities
SCAP-7: Remedial Pipeline Report
SCAP-16: Negotiation/Accomplishment Report
SCAP-16F: Federal Facility Negotiation/Accomplishment
Report
SCAP-20: Target Financial Report
SCAP-21: Budget Control Report
SCAP-21E: Financial Report for Enforcement
ENFR-9: NPL Site Summary Using Links
ENFR-17: SOL Management Report
ENFR-25: Administrative/Unilateral Orders Issued
ENFR-47: Case Budget Requests for Activity/Event
Supporting Primary Targets
ENFR-49: Case Budget Modeling Audit Report
AUDT-26: Underlying Data and Error Types Report
AUDT-31: Enforcement Data Audit Report
AUDT-40: Enforcement Financial Audit Report
The Negotiations/Accomplishment Report (SCAP-16) combines the old
SCAP-16, Target/Negotiation Report with SCAP-14, SCAP/STARS Targets
and Accomplishments Summary Report. The new SCAP-16, currently under
development, will be 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. The new Federal Facility Negotiations/Accomplishment Report
(SCAP-16F), also under development, will contain the same information for
Federal Facilities.
The Target Financial Report (SCAP-20) combines the financial information in
the SCAP Financial Report (SCAP-4) with the target information in the
Negotiations/Accomplishment Report (SCAP-16).
The Budget Control Report (SCAP-21) and Financial Report for Enforcement
(SCAP-21E) are similar to the SCAP Financial Report and the Financial
Summary for Enforcement (SCAP-4 and SCAP-4E). They provide quarterly
and annual Regional budget ceilings and show the difference between the
ceilings and the total annual Regional budget.
11-17
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
The NPL Site Summary Using Links (ENFR-9) links planned and actual
removal and response events and enforcement activities to portray a
comprehensive and integrated site picture.
The SOL Management Report (ENFR-17), which is currently under
development, identifies planned and actual completion dates and obligations
for response activities.
The Administrative/Unilateral Orders Issued (ENFR-25) contains a list of
Administrative Orders (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
extramural budget data quality problems.
The Underlying Data and Error Types Report (AUDT-26) is an edit report
used to check data quality.
The Enforcement Data Audit Report (AUDT-31) is used to monitor
enforcement data quality. The report lists enforcement activities with and
without data quality issues and response actions.
A comprehensive Enforcement Financial Audit Report (AUDT-40) lists those
records with data quality problems and identifies the specific errors.
REGIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORTING
y
Accomplishments data are entered into WasteLAN by the IMC, RPM, OSC,
SAM or other designated program staff (i.e., PRP search, cost recovery) 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 WasteLAN by the IMC or designee. Data on accomplishments
should be entered into WasteLAN within five working days of the event or
activity occurring. Only accomplishments correctly reported in CERCLIS will be
recognized by HQ. If a Region feels that it has correctly recorded an
accomplishment that is not showing in the Negotiations/Accomplishment
Report (SCAP-16), SCAP/STARS Measures Report (SCAP-13), or Federal
Facilities Negotiations/ Accomplishment Report (SCAP-16F), please contact the
appropriate HQ office.
Prior to the fifth day of each month, Regions should generate CERCLIS SCAP
reports for internal review or review WasteLAN data using SMRS or the
October 1993 11-18
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
Superfund Management and Reporting Technology System (SMARTech).
Regions can use the reverse function in SMARTech to compare WasteLAN data
to the select logic used for reporting accomplishments on the SCAP/STARS
Negotiations/Accomplishment Report (SCAP-16), Regions should perform data
quality checks and make adjustments to WasteLAN if the data base does not
reflect actual accomplishments. If a Region is having a problem with WasteLAN
data and/or the WasteLAN to CERCLIS upload process, accomplishment data
may be entered directly into CERCLIS. In any event, Regions need to be sure the
information reflected in CERCLIS is up-to-date and accurate.
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 (e.g.,
construction completions, early action completions, site characterization starts,
negotiations, RODs, on-site construction starts/ response settlements and
referrals, cost recovery actions/decisions). These numbers will be the official
numbers used in any reports of progress given to the Administrator, the AA
SWER, the AA for OECA, Congress, and the news media.
On the fifth working day of each quarter, HQ pulls SCAP reports from
CERCLIS. It is important to note that in addition to reporting accomplishments
through WasteLAN to CERCLIS, Regions must enter STARS accomplishments
for the second, third, and fourth quarters directly into the OPPE STARS system.
(OPPE will not track STARS first quarter accomplishments.) HQ will compare
the STARS data entered by the Regions into the OPPE STARS system with SCAP
reports. If HQ identifies a discrepancy in the accomplishments reported by a
Region, they will note it in the STARS system and contact the Region.
Discrepancies between HQ and the Regions on STARS accomplishments must be
resolved, generally by the 18th working day of a quarter.
Preliminary end of the year accomplishments will be pulled on the fifth
working day of September; it is the starting point for preparing for the end of the
year assessment in November. Since many senior managers and Congress
request final accomplishments immediately following the end of the year,
CERCLIS accomplishment reports will be pulled on the fifth and the tenth
working days of October and reported to OPPE in mid-November (See Manager's
Schedule of Significant Events at the beginning of this Manual for specific dates).
This allows the Regions ample opportunity to review end-of-year financial data,
ensure that all accomplishments are accurately reflected in CERCLIS, and
determine which commitments were not met.
11-19 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
CERCLIS Reports for Accomplishment Reporting
Exhibit II-9 presents the CERCLIS reports HQ uses to evaluate Regional
accomplishments. All are used for reporting and crediting accomplishments for
SCAP/STARS targets and internal reporting measures. Following is a
description of these reports:
The SCAP/STARS Measures Report (SCAP-13), Negotiations/
Accomplishment Report (SCAP-16), and Federal Facilities Negotiations/
Accomplishment Report (SCAP-16F) are used by the site assessment,
response, enforcement, and Federal Facility programs to provide planned and
actual information on events and activities. SCAP-16 and SCAP-16F are
currently under development.
Financial information and the status of obligations are provided by the SCAP
Financial Report (SCAP-4), Financial Summary for Enforcement (SCAP-4E),
Financial Summary for Federal Facilities (SCAP-4F), Budget Control Report
(SCAP-21), and the Financial Report for Enforcement (SCAP-21E). SCAP-4F is
currently under development.
Trend Measures Reports Package - OERR, OECA, and OFFE are using SCAP to
evaluate the trends in the average duration for many activities in the
remedial pipeline. These trend measures include RI/FS durations (SCAP-31),
ROD to RD/RA negotiation starts (SCAP-28), ROD to RD/RA negotiations
completions (SCAP-29), RD/RA negotiation durations (SCAP-30), ROD to RD
start (SCAP-32), and ROD to RA start (SCAP-33). Other trend reports are being
developed to reflect the FY 94 SCAP/STARS measures.
Settlements Master Report (ENFR-3) - This report lists all settlements to date.
Data are divided by settlement category and summarized by FY, Region, and
remedy.
Litigation Master Report (ENFR-6) - This report lists all litigation cases to
date. Data are divided by litigation type and summarized by FY and Region.
Administrative/Unilateral Orders Issued (ENFR-25) - This report lists AOs
and UAOs that have been issued.
Cost Recovery Category Report (ENFR-46) - This report lists all completed
removals, RA starts, and certain 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.
October 1993 11-20
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT II-9
PROGRAM EVALUATION CERCLIS REPORTS
SCAP-4: SCAP Financial Report
SCAP-4E: Financial Summary for Enforcement
SCAP-4F: Financial Summary for Federal Facilities
SCAP-13: SCAP/STARS Measures Report
SCAP-16: Negotiations/Accomplishments Report
SCAP-16F Federal Facilities Negotiations/Accomplishments
Report
SCAP-21: Budget Control Report
SCAP-21E: Financial Report for Enforcement
SCAP-28-33: Trend Measures Report Package
ENFR-3: Settlements Master Report
ENFR-6: Litigation Master Report
ENFR-25: Administrative/Unilateral Orders Issued
ENFR-46: Cost Recovery Category Report
Under Section 116(e) of SARA, EPA was required to initiate continuous and
substantial remedial action at 200 new NPL facilities during the period of
October 18,1989 through October 17,1991. EPA acknowledged that the
mandate goal could not be achieved. HQ is tracking the progress being made
toward meeting the SARA mandate. Information on RA start
accomplishments will be pulled from the RA on-site construction data field
(C2101 = RA and C3101 = RO) in CERCLIS, per OSWER Directive 9355, O-24A,
dated December 22,1992. This data is captured in the
Negotiations/Accomplishment Report (SCAP-16).
HQ EVALUATION OF REGIONAL PERFORMANCE
Accomplishment data for SCAP and STARS are pulled from CERCLIS at the
close of business on the fifth working day of the quarter. HQ management bases
its evaluation of Regional program performance on these data. The data are
pulled on a selected number of key indicators of progress in the Superfund
program (e.g., construction completions, early action completions, site
characterization starts, response settlements and referrals, RODs, on-site
construction starts, and cost recovery activities). These numbers are the official
numbers used in any reports of progress given to the Administrator, Deputy
Administrator (DA), AAs, Congress, and the media. Detailed HQ management
evaluation occurs at two points during the FY: after the second quarter (mid-year
assessment) and after the fourth quarter (end-of-year assessment). (See Exhibit II-
10.) In addition, HQ will be conducting Regional reviews in FY 94.
11-21
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
Quarterly Reporting
The purpose of quarterly reporting is to track Regional progress toward
accomplishing SCAP and STARS targets. HQ divisions are tasked quarterly in
OECA and semi-annually in OERR and OFFE, usually through a memorandum,
to provide a narrative of activities taking place in the Regions. The primary
purpose of this memo is to provide an opportunity for top Agency managers to
share their candid assessment of the program goals and initiatives where the
Regions are experiencing success as well as problems, and the actions HQ can
take to improve Regional performance. These narratives, in conjunction with
the quarterly or semi-annual performance numbers, are placed in a
memorandum to the DA, giving a more balanced and thorough view of
program status and issues. The memoranda contain the most significant
issues/activities and performance highlights from the previous quarters, and
may include information on early actions in the news, emergency response
activities, a Total Quality Management (TQM) project taking place in a Region,
and the like. It gives OERR, OECA, and OFFE the opportunity to convey
important issues, instead of merely presenting SCAP/STARS numbers.
In addition to reporting accomplishments through CERCLIS, Regions must
enter STARS accomplishments into the OPPE STARS system.
Mid-Year Assessment
The purpose of the mid-year assessment is to:
Track Regional progress toward accomplishing SCAP and STARS targets;
Evaluate Regional accomplishments against internal planning and reporting
measures;
/
Identify and assess problems impacting performance;
Work with Regions experiencing difficulty in meeting their targets;
Provide both HQ and the Regions with an opportunity to assess performance;
Consider the impact of Regional program performance on the Superfund
pipeline; and
Identify trends in program performance and adjust program management
strategies accordingly.
October 1993 11-22
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT 11-10
THE REGIONAL EVALUATION PROCESS
1st Quarter
Pull CERCLIS
Reports on SCAP
Accomplishments
2nd Quarter
Mid-Year
Assessment
Pull CERCLIS
Reports on
SCAP/STARS
Accomplishments
and Internal
Measures
Develop Senior
Management
Reports Package
Evaluate
Program
Status
Distribute
Deputy
Administrator
(DA) Memo
3rd Quarter
* Pull CERCLIS
Reports on
SCAP/STARS
Accomplishments
* Report on
Progress of
Regions Having
Difficulties
Meeting Targets
4th Quarter
End-of-Year
Assessment
* Pull CERCLIS
Reports on
SCAP/STARS
Accomplishments
and Internal
Measures
Develop Senior
Management
Reports Package
Evaluate Program
Status
* Evaluate Annual
Performance and
Produce National
Progress Report
* Provide Input into
Next FY Resource
Allocation Process
Brief Senior
Management
* Distribute DA
Memo
* Brief Senior
Management
On the fifth working day of April, second quarter SCAP data are pulled from
CERCLIS. Prior to the mid-year STARS briefing (the second week in May),
OERR, OFFE, and OECA Directors have briefed the AA SWER on the steps being
taken to ensure the accomplishment of annual targets. To ensure that these
actions are implemented, HQ will track follow-up items and reallocate resources.
The results of the mid-year assessment can also affect resource allocations for the
next FY. The measure of a Region's ability to meet their targets will be considered
in August when final FY 95 SCAP/STARS commitments and Regional budgets
are established.
11-23
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
End-of-Year Assessment
Before the end of the fourth quarter, there is a preliminary pull for end-of-
year accomplishments (the first week of September). This pull is used to project
end-of-year accomplishments. It is important to stress that this is only a
projection and that the actual pulls, on the fifth and tenth working days of
October, are likely to be somewhat different than the projected numbers. Since
many Superfund managers and Congress request final accomplishments
immediately, Regions should make every attempt to update CERCLIS at the
earliest possible date and, in no event, any later than the fifth working day after
the end of the year.
In November, HQ conducts the official 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
(e.g., slipped targets and their impact on commitments for the next year). 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 final
SCAP/STARS target and measures. In this way, the results of the end-of-year
assessment have a double impact.
Regional Reviews
Before the beginning of the FY, the program offices and Regions identify key
program areas and issues in the strategic plans or individual program
management guidance. Those issues that HQ program managers believe to be
important to the general success of the program's mission are selected for
discussion during the Regional reviews. Recent audits of Regional
accomplishment reporting have identified the need for improvements,
specifically in the area of:
Documentation of accomplishments;
Consistent understanding/application of definitions; and
CERCLIS/WasteLAN data quality.
On-site visits to all ten Regions will be conducted by senior program
managers. Region specific agendas will be developed. The on-site visits will
include discussions on the program areas and issues identified. The product of
the review would be negotiated plans for continued improvement.
October 1993 11-24
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
Management Reporting
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 close of business on the fifth working day of
the following 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. It is strongly recommended that planning and
accomplishment data be entered into WasteLAN as events, activities, and
slippage occur.
The following sections provide a brief description of the reports available to
support Superfund program management.
Superfund Management Reports
The implementation of an integrated CERCLIS data base and the
improvement of CERCLIS data quality led to the development of a series of
senior management reports. These management tools are designed to
supplement conventional quarterly SCAP/STARS accomplishment reporting
by providing a more comprehensive examination of program activity. The
format and content of the reports package has evolved over time to address a
variety of project needs. Using data that is downloaded from CERCLIS, the
INSITE II system provides EPA senior managers with summary graphic
reports and backup site detail information.
The FY 94 packages provide graphical representations of the status of
SCAP/STARS targets and accomplishments, as well as analytic summaries of
key aspects of the program including: status and duration of events; trend
analysis of PRP involvement; the current status of ESI/RI/FS and RA
projects; cost recovery candidates; and the current status of negotiations,
settlements, and litigation. Analysis of the status of ESI/RI/FS and RA
projects is used to support the review of the worst sites first initiative.
The reports, produced semi-annually, illustrate the progress being made by
the Agency in both the movement of projects through the Superfund
pipeline and in the trend toward increased involvement by PRPs. The semi-
annual packages produced by OERR are divided into three distinct sections:
Report I: Targets and Accomplishments - This section graphically displays
specific SCAP/STARS program targets and accomplishments by Region,
the percent of annual targets achieved in the major site assessment and
response program areas, and annual target and accomplishment totals by
SCAP/STARS activity for each Region.
11-25 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
Report II: Trends Analysis - These graphs present the duration analyses of
pipeline events, including RI/FS Start to RA Start, ROD to RD Start, and
new SACM duration trends. Users can request that the duration reports be
run for a given FY or Region.
Report III: Superfund Historical Performance ~ These reports provide
graphical presentations of progress made at NPL and non-NPL sites.
Various information, including site, enforcement, budget, and project
data, are used to present an overall picture of the Superfund program
activities.
Additional management reports produced by OECA include:
SOL Management Report (ENFR-17) (under development) - This report
lists all planned and actual completion dates for removals, site
assessments, and remedial activities by FY quarter. Planned and actual
obligations for each activity are linked with cost recovery actions.
Negotiation Master Report (ENFR-59) - This report lists all negotiations
to-date. Data are divided by negotiation category and summarized by FY,
Region, milestones, completed negotiations, and ongoing negotiations.
Enforcement Data Audit Report (ENFR-8) - This is a comprehensive
report used to monitor enforcement data quality. The report consists of
two pages per site; the first page lists all enforcement data and the second
page lists all response data by site. Enforcement actions without a quality
flag are printed on this report. Summary pages are currently being
developed.
Annual Reporting Requirements
The Chief Financial Officer's (CFO) Act of 1990 requires all agencies with a
trust fund program to submit, in addition to an annual financial statement, a
report on program performance measures. Agencies have been directed to
establish long-term goals and develop measures that are understandable to
the general public. HQ relies heavily on SCAP/STARS data to develop and
report on these measures. The FY 93 measures are presented in Exhibit 11-11.
Similar types of data will be reported in FY 94.
SCAP/STARS ADJUSTMENTS AND AMENDMENTS
After targets have been finalized and funding levels developed, the SCAP
process provides the flexibility to modify plans during the year. Modifications to
planned targets are termed either adjustments or amendments. Regional
requests for amendments must be provided in writing to the appropriate HQ
office. Amendments require HQ concurrence and approval. Adjustments do
October 1993 11-26
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT 11-11
CFO PERFORMANCE MEASURES
The ratio of NPL sites where cleanup started to the number of sites on
the NPL
The number of non-NPL sites where EPA has begun cleanup action
The ratio of the number of NPL sites where a decision was made (ROD)
on how to cleanup at least a significant portion of the site to the total
number of NPL sites
The ratio of the number of NPL sites where a significant portion of the
site (OU) has been cleaned up to the total number of NPL sites
The ratio of the number of NPL sites where cleanup has been completed
to the number of NPL sites
The ratio of the number of enforcement actions EPA has taken at NPL
sites to the total number of NPL sites
The number of major enforcement actions (>$200K)
The ratio of the amount of money EPA has collected from PRPs to the
total amount achieved in settlements and judicial actions
The ratio of the amount of money PRPs have agreed to spend on
cleanup to the total amount spent on site cleanup by the Superfund
not require HQ approval, but may require HQ notification. Any exceptions to the
SCAP/STARS accomplishment definitions contained in Volume II, Appendices
A-D are considered an amendment. These exceptions will be reviewed on a case-
by-case basis.
Regions should note that changes made in WasteLAN or CERCLIS to site
schedules and other planning data will not automatically result in changes to
SCAP/STARS targets. Amendments and adjustments should be reflected in
CERCLIS by updating the WasteLAN site specific data base and the CERHELP
Targets and Accomplishments data file on an ongoing basis.
Amendments or adjustments that modify the Region's AOA require a change
request. In these situations, the change request becomes the SCAP amendment.
Chapter III outlines the change request procedures. Exhibit 11-12 lists the major
11-27 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
types of Superfund amendments and adjustments. Exhibit 11-13 describes the
procedures that must be followed when processing amendments.
SCAP/STARS 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.
The Office of Program Management (OPM) coordinates change
requests/SCAP amendments for the program offices in OERR. OPM, the
CERCLA Enforcement Division (CED) of OECA, and the Program Operations
Division (POD) of OFFE provide input on SCAP/STARS amendment approval
decisions.
Although Regions have the flexibility to alter plans, they are still accountable
for meeting the targets negotiated at the beginning of the FY. 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.,
Congressional action, natural disasters);
Major contingencies arise to alter established Regional commitments (i.e.,
State legislative action);
Measure or definition in system is creating an unanticipated negative impact;
Major shifts in project approach associated with SACM and the need to
conduct early response actions; or
Need to address newly identified site which represents a significant human
health or ecological risk.
October 1993 11-28
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
CO
H
Z
H
CD
Procedures
in
V
3-2
> OH
endment
S
Increase Annual Budget
.S-a Cf
^^P c O
42 Tl re ix.
0 3 f> ^
ise WasteLAN/CERCLIS;
'rogram Development and
: (PDBS), OERR, or Contra.
ing Branch (CPB), OWPE,
OFFE
> U« d C
o
*
"5
01
in
?
Decrease Annual Budget
C2
Si
OH
u 2
O I~H
rH £
hi ^
j^ X
S
Ic
X
41
0)
c/)
«]
*
endment
6
a;
60
73
c?ca
Increase Total (OECA and OEF
DA After Issuance Within Annual
\^
CO
1
w
|S
X
H
h t
l-l
Oj
OH
B5
a
J!
«
^
iustment
5
85
Decrease Total (OECA and OEI
AOA After Issuance
SQ
i
Revise WasteLAN/CERCi
o
2
ustment
5
3
6
QJ
^ "^
5 2
"c ffi
^/Decrease RA or Early Actions ui
Authority Funding Before AOA I;
UJ
(8
2^
u
JS
CO
1 1
IS
x
h-H
( 4
I H
OH
ra
U
$
C/3
en
^
iustment
^
"3
3
01
oi 3
iv! in
rease RA or Early Actions under ]
Authority Funding After AOA Is
ij
k-l
H-;
M
OH
(S
r;
u2
i-i i i
o <-"
ro 's
i i -Q
Revise WasteLAN/CERCi
0
*
iustment
T5
flj
Shift Funds Within Allowanci
After AOA Issued
CO
t i
t-H
Xj
X
w
HH
H-l
3
o,
nj
U
1
in
Ol
iustment
T!
in
o>
Shift Funds Between Allowanc
After AOA Issued
See Exhibit 11-13
o
2
endment
6
_i_t
Change Annual SCAP Targe
1
o
Z
endment
S
"5
a
ange STARS Quarterly or Annual
d
££>
. i
Revise WasteLAN/CERCl
o
iustment
-o
Target Site Substitutions
See Exhibit II-3
o
2
endment
S
Definition Exceptions
I
ffi
X
W
O
z
n-29
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT 11-13
SCAP AMENDMENT PROCESS
Quarterly or Annual
STARS Targets
Annual SCAP
Target or
Definition
Exceptions
Increase
Annual Budget
Increase Total AOA^
or Increase Funding of
RAs/Early Actions
Under Remedial
Authority After AOA
v Issued J
* * * *
Memorandum from
Waste Management
Division Director to
Deputy Assistant
Administrator
OSWER, or Director,
POD/ OFFE
explaining reason for
change
E-mail from Regional
Branch Chief to HQ
Director, PDBS/
OERR or Chief,
CPB/OWPE, or
Director, POD/ OFFE
explaining reason for
change
E-mail from Regional
Branch Chief to
Director, PDBS/OERR,
or Chief, CPB/OWPE
or Director,
POD/OFFE. Copy
sent to the Regional
finance office and HQ
PDBS, CPB, or POD
staff
E-mail from IMC to
HQ PDBS or CPB or
POD staff. Copy
sent to AA SWER or
Director, POD and
Regional finance
office
t * * 1
WasteLAN and
CERCLISare
updated
WasteLAN and
CERCLIS are
updated
WasteLAN and
CERCLIS are
updated
WasteLAN and
CERCLIS are
updated
* i * i
DA OSWER or
Director,
POD/OFFE
approves/
disapproves
amendment
request
Director, PDBS/OERR
or Chief CPB/OWPE
or Director,
POD/OFFE
approves/
disapproves
amendment request
AA SWER or Director,
POD/OFFE reviews
request and, if
approved, sends
E-mail to Regional
program and finance
offices and HQ Office
of the Comptroller
(OC)
AA SWER or Director,
POD/OFFE approves
SCAP
amendment/ change
request and sends
E-mail to Regional
program and finance
offices and HQ OC
i
t
i
Region is
notified of
outcome
Region is
notified of
outcome
Regional
finance office
updates IFMS
Regional
finance office
updates IFMS
i
i
HQOC
approves
revised AOA
in IFMS
HQOC
approves
revised AOA
in IFMS
October 1993
11-30
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
OSWER and OECA require that all STARS amendments be submitted to HQ
by April 15 in order to meet the April 30 deadline for changing targets imposed
by OPPE. STARS amendments must be approved by the Deputy Assistant
Administrator OSWER or OECA or the POD Director in OFFE. The OPM and
program offices in OERR and OECA provide input on STARS amendment
approval decisions.
All amendments should be recorded in WasteLAN as an "approved" action
after the Region issues the change request or memorandum to OSWER or OECA.
Regions should not initiate any obligation against change requests until the HQ
Office of the Comptroller (OC) and the AAs, or the POD Director in OFFE,
approve the revised AOA in IFMS. The site back-up in the CERHELP Targets
and Accomplishments and Budget Control/Advice of Allowance (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
WasteLAN will have to be revised.
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. Volume II, Appendices A-D, contain tables that 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 Reference Manual.
Regions will be allowed to add to or delete sites from the Targets and
Accomplishments file only in the case of site substitutions. However, the site
specific WasteLAN 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 long-term action starts, for example, eight approved sites must be
named in the Targets and Accomplishments 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
WasteLAN that can be used to replace the TBD sites as soon as possible. TBDs
are not allowed for site assessment activities.
11-31 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
Regions must ensure that a site and its associated events/activities that are
planned site specifically be recorded in CERCLIS before they are recorded in
the CERHELP Targets and Accomplishments file.
It is essential that the list of sites that support the targets be kept up-to-date
and current by the Region. Regional SCAP adjustments must be reflected in
CERHELP. This includes site substitutions and changes in schedules that do
not affect STARS or SCAP targets.
October 1993 11-32
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
CHAPTER III
SUPERFUND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
AND FTE DISTRIBUTION
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
CHAPTER III - SUPERFUND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND
FTE DISTRIBUTION
This chapter discusses the impact of the SCAP process on the development of
the outyear budget, the Regional operating budget and AOA, outlines Superfund
financial management responsibilities and provides an overview of the FTE
distribution process. General information on the FY 94 Response budget,
Enforcement budget, and Federal Facility budget as well as a general discussion of
each workload model is provided in this chapter. Appendices A-D in Volume II
provide detailed information on the budget and AOA considerations specific to
each of the response program areas, enforcement, and Federal Facilities. It is
anticipated that new Superfund workload models will be used to distribute
resources beginning in FY 95.
Like the program planning and reporting requirements, the enforcement-
specific financial management procedures may be affected by the OWPE
reorganization. If necessary, an addendum to the Manual may be issued to
reflect any changes that are a result of the reorganization.
OUTYEAR BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
The preliminary outyear budget request is developed in May, 18 months
before the operating year begins. This means that SCAP data existing in the third
quarter of FY 94 is used to formulate the FY 96 budget request. The schedules for
all response, enforcement, and Federal Facilities activities, and the planned
obligations for RAs and early actions under remedial authority reflected in
CERCLIS serve as the foundation for determining the dollar levels to be
requested in the budget and the total level of FTEs to be made available for
distribution through the workload model process. Following are the procedures
for developing the outyear budget:
In June, the OSWER and OECA strategic plans are updated and the FY 96
goals and priorities are presented to the Administrator. The Administrator
may change the priorities based on overall Agency goals;
Once a decision is made by the Administrator on the final Superfund goals,
the site data in CERCLIS are re-evaluated to ensure that the dollar levels
accurately reflect these goals;
Budget requests that reflect the OSWER and OECA strategic plans and the data
in CERCLIS are prepared and sent to the Administrator in July;
The Administrator makes any changes to the budget requests and passes them
back to the program offices;
III-l October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
The budget requests are revised and submitted to the OMB in September;
OMB makes any changes to the budget requests and passes them back to EPA
in November;
If the program offices do not agree with the budgets that are passed back from
OMB, EPA initiates an appeals process in December; and
In mid-January, EPA prepares and submits the President's budget request.
FY 95 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
The process for developing the FY 95 budget is essentially the same as the
process being followed for the development of the outyear budget. The base
budget process that is being used to develop the FY 95 budget consists of the
following three phases and builds on the budget that was developed for FY 94,
the Agency's strategic plans, and investments for the future.
Program Characterization The first phase consisted of a thorough program
characterization by the HQ program offices with the participation of the lead
Region. This characterization grouped related activities within each program
area. It identified the statutory basis for the activities, the associated resources,
the type and number of outputs, the environmental results derived from
these activities, and the major strategic choices facing each program.
The Program offices also summarized the FY 94 resource distribution by
function (e.g., regulation development, enforcement, research, etc.) and
major statutes. This phase was completed in mid-May.
Review Phase During the second phase HQ program offices met with the
Administrator to discuss the program, strategies, and goals. There also were
small group meetings of Off ice/Division Directors and the Planning and
Budgeting Workgroup to review FY 94 budget information and make
recommendations on issues that should be considered in developing the
FY 95 budget. This phase was completed at the end of May.
Budget Formulation The third phase is the actual development of the
budget. This phase is a multi-step process that began in June with an
AA/Regional Administrator forum to discuss FY 94 budgeting, recommend
Agency priorities for FY 95, and set longer-term Agency direction.
The Administrator then provided guidance on investment priorities for FY
95 and overall policy guidance for budget formulation. Using this guidance,
the program offices developed and submitted the budget to OC at the end of
June.
October 1993 III-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
The program offices and lead Regions made presentations to the
Administrator/Deputy Administrator on the program priorities in mid-July.
The Administrator made the budget passback at the end of July, and the
program offices began development of the budget for submission to OMB.
Based on the Administrator's priorities and results of the budget formulation
process, a strategy for presenting the Agency's budget to OMB will be
developed. The focus will be to describe the Agency's long-term goals and
how the FY 95 request will, or will not, support them. The budget will be
submitted to OMB in October.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FY 94 NATIONAL BUDGET
In FY 94 there are insufficient resources for all ongoing activities plus the new
activities the Regions planned to begin. As a result, resource decisions were
made that address the implementation of SACM, are consistent with the
Integrated Priority Setting Matrix, and are based on the following program
priorities:
Move sites to construction completion and NFL deletion;
Handle classic emergencies;
Use enforcement tools to equitably maximize PRP participation;
Make funding decisions, where resources are constrained, based on the worst
problems first strategy;
Identify viable cases for pursuit of cost recovery (both administrative and
judicial) in order to maximize cost recovery to the Trust Fund;
Support ongoing projects to completion;
Initiate new work to keep the pipeline full; and
Maintain essential program management elements within the limited
budgets.
As shown by these criteria, reducing imminent threats to human health and
the environment and optimizing site completions (and deletions where feasible)
are the highest program priorities while using enforcement tools to ensure
maximum but equitable PRP involvement. However, those activities that
contribute to other program goals, and more generally contribute to the long-
term effectiveness of the program, need to be supported to the maximum extent
possible. Examples of such activities are those that meet equity goals (de
111-3 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
minimis and municipal settlements, PRP compliance oversight, and pursuing
non-settlors) and worst sites first initiatives. Worst sites first is a guiding
principle within the context of optimizing the number of site completions.
However, given limited Trust Fund resources, maximum PRP involvement will
be necessary to ensure that site completion goals are met.
Applying these criteria and long-term goals, the response, enforcement, and
Federal Facilities programs made specific budget decisions. These budgets and
program decisions are discussed in this chapter and Appendices A and B
(Response), Appendix C (Enforcement), and Appendix D (Federal Facilities).
FY 94 REGIONAL BUDGET
A Region will not receive funds above its annual Regional budget unless a
SCAP amendment/change request has been approved by HQ. Each quarter, the
approved planned and actual obligations and actual commitments must be less
than or equal to the annual Regional budget or the AOA will not be approved.
In the case of enforcement, the Regional budget refers to new current year
operating plan dollars plus prior year enforcement support contract carryover.
Response Budget
The FY 94 response budget (President's Budget) contains $983.5 million for
direct cleanup activities, including site screening and assessment, early actions,
long-term actions, PRP oversight, and laboratory support. Approximately $47.9
million is available to support other response actions, program support,
information management, and contract management. In light of this and
consistent with the Integrated Priority Setting Matrix (see Chapter I), resources
will be provided for:
Ongoing RA projects to construction completion;
Early actions under removal authority at historical rates and within the
budget constraints;
All long-term action and early action under remedial authority starts;
Oversight of all RP-lead RD, RA, NTC removal, and early action under
remedial authority projects;
Ongoing RI/FS projects started as part of the "full funding strategy";
All RD starts; and
Five-year reviews.
October 1993 III-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
To the greatest extent possible the following activities will be supported:
New first and subsequent ESIs/RIs/FSs;
Listing of new sites on the NPL; and
Support activities, such as the laboratory support.
The first priority for response funding are activities at sites that will be used to
meet the national construction completion goals and classic emergencies.
Enforcement Budget
The enforcement extramural budget for FY 94 is approximately $56.7 million,
$47.8 million of this in extramural resources for Regional use. The budget
provides support for PRP searches, PRP time critical and emergency removal
actions, PRP ESI/RI/FS projects, response negotiations, referrals, administrative
and judicial cost recovery actions, and project support activities. As with the
response budget, decisions on which activities will be funded are based on the
Integrated Priority Setting Matrix (see Chapter I). Within the matrix, the
following activities are priorities:
Maintaining ongoing PRP oversight of removals and RI/FSs and compliance
enforcement of all response actions;
Negotiating PRP response actions;
Negotiating settlements with collateral PRPs, including de_ minimis and
municipal solid waste contributors;
Maintaining ongoing litigation for response and cost recovery; and
Referring removal and remedial cost recovery cases greater than $200K with
SOLs that will expire during the budget year.
Within this context, it is important to consider that the enforcement program
has changed significantly to take into account a greater PRP participation, dealing
with recalcitrant PRPs, and addressing collateral PRPs, with an emphasis on de_
minimis parties and municipalities. Therefore, activities that reinforce these
criteria need to be supported to the maximum extent possible within available
resources.
Federal Facilities Budget
The Federal Facilities extramural budget for FY 94 is approximately $13.46
million. This budget provides support for oversight of response work at all NPL
III-5 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
Federal Facilities, the negotiation and implementation of Federal IAGs, and
activities necessary to facilitate the closure of the military bases designated by
Congress that are on the NPL. As with the response and enforcement budgets,
decisions on which activities will be funded are based on the Integrated Priority
Setting Matrix (see Chapter I). Within the matrix, the following activities are
priorities:
Targeting activities at bases to be closed;
Maintaining ongoing oversight activities; and
Expediting response where possible.
No funds are available for projects at non-NPL sites. Oversight activities at
non-NPL sites are the responsibility of the State.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCAP AND THE ANNUAL REGIONAL BUDGET
The SCAP process is the planning mechanism used by the Superfund
program to identify site screening and assessment, early action, long-term action,
enforcement, and Federal Facility funding needs for the 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 negotiated annual
operating budgets, adjustments within this budget can be made during the FY.
The actual allocation of funds is accomplished through the Agency's Phase III
Operating Plan. This plan is submitted to OMB prior to the start of the FY for
apportionment of funds. After the 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. 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 removal, remedial, enforcement, and Federal Facility programs.
The criteria discussed below were used to develop the FY 94 budgets. These
criteria will also be used to prepare the initial FY 95 budgets.
The criteria used to develop the FY 94 Regional response budget is different
from the allocation process used in previous years. In the past, the initial
Regional response budgets were based on site schedules in CERCLIS and
project/activity specific criteria. The FY 94 Regional response budgets were
allocated as follows:
90 percent of a Region's budget was based on its FY 90, FY 91, and FY 92 actual
response obligations; and
October 1993 III-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
The remaining 10 percent was allocated to the Region based on the final
negotiated targets.
For enforcement, FY 94 initial operating plans were based on the relative
percentage of the FY 93 budget and will be adjusted in first quarter FY 94 based on
FY 93 utilization rate, including FY 93 Technical Enforcement Support (TES)
contract carryover. Regional targets should be developed consistent with initial
operating plans.
The FY 94 Regional Federal Facility budget was allocated based on a Region's
percentage of NPL sites, with an initial reserve of $500,000 per Region to fund
emergencies.
Regions are required to plan their obligations within the program-specific
allocations. Final budgets will be developed upon completion of the fourth
quarter negotiations between HQ and the Regions. For enforcement, the
operating funds will be adjusted in first quarter of FY 94 based on end-of-year
FY 93 utilization rates, including consideration of TES carryover. Planned
obligations for Regional activities must fall within the total identified budget
levels, and should be shown by entering "approved" (APR) in the Funding
Priority Status data field (C2625, C3225, or P1419). 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, the activities the Region would
like to conduct with the budget reserve, the activities that 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 are within the proposed total Regional
budget levels.
In the past, the AOA obligation rate through the first two quarters of the FY
has been low. As a result, HQ has implemented the following measures to
improve performance:
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. For example, 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.
Regions must obligate and task 60 - 65 percent of the enforcement Regional
extramural funds received in their first and second quarter AOA and task 60-
65 percent of TES obligations including FY 93 carryover in order to receive
their third quarter enforcement AOA. If a Region does not receive its third
quarter enforcement AOA due to such an obligation shortfall, it is required to
m-7 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
produce a site specific spending plan in WasteLAN for both the third and
fourth quarters by mid-May.
Regions must obligate 60 - 65 percent of their current year Federal Facility
AOA in the first and second quarter in order to receive their third quarter
AOA. The Region's annual budget may be reduced by the third quarter
amount if 60 - 65 percent of the first and second quarter AOAs have not been
obligated by the start of the fourth quarter.
For those Regions that continue to have a low rate of commitment/
obligation/tasking, OSWER and OECA will renegotiate the Region's operating
plan for the remainder of the year during June. This may result in a reduction in
the Region's annual budget.
For further information on the Regional response, enforcement, and Federal
Facility annual budget requirements, see Appendices A through D in Volume II.
ADVICE OF ALLOWANCE PROCEDURES AND FINANCIAL REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
The planned obligations identified through the SCAP process are the basis for
the AOA approved by the OC and AA SWER or Director, POD, OFFE. No money
will be issued to the Regions through the AOA process unless the appropriate
project-specific obligation and open commitment data are reflected in CERCLIS.
Regional Allowances
For FY 94, OERR proposed a restructuring of the AOAs. This proposal
combines the RD, RI/FS, and site characterization allowances into one
allowance. Based on this restructuring, the OC would issue the following
allowances to the Regions in FY 94:
Site Characterization (non-site specific "site" allowance), which includes
funds for:
- PAs, Sis, ESI/RI, FS, RD, treatability studies, EE/CAs, design assistance,
community relations, support agency assistance, technical assistance,
and ground water monitoring; and
- Oversight of RDs, RAs, early actions under remedial authority, NTC
removals, five year reviews, O&M, and LTRA;
RA (site-specific "site" allowance), which includes funds for RAs, early
actions under remedial authority, LTRA, and five year reviews;
October 1993 HI-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
Removal (non-site specific "site" allowance), which includes funds for
emergencies, time critical, and NIC early actions under removal authority;
Other Response (non-site specific "regular" allowance), contains funds for
response program and project support including ARCS program
management, Technical Assistance Grants (TAG), Core Program Cooperative
Agreement (CPCA), and pollution liability insurance;
Enforcement (non-site specific "regular" allowance); and
Federal Facilities (non-site specific "regular" allowance).
The "site" allowance is an event-specific allowance. It 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 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 III Operating Plan which identifies projected
obligations for each quarter of the FY. The Phase III Operating Plan for FY 94 is
based on the final SCAP plans developed in the fourth quarter of FY 93. In the
case of enforcement, operating plans are adjusted after the start of the FY based
on prior year contract utilization. Funds available for obligation, however, are
limited to projected needs for the upcoming quarter. Where Regional TES
carryover exists, only the funds necessary to cover the non-TES needs will be
issued in the AOA until the Region has tasked 65 percent of its TES carryover.
Approximately four weeks before the end of each quarter, HQ will generate
AOA reports (SCAP-4, SCAP-4E, and SCAP-4F) that reflect the approved planned
obligations in CERCLIS. If the planned and actual obligations and commitments
in CERCLIS exceed the Regional budget, the Region will be contacted. CERCLIS
must be revised to match the Regional budget before HQ will proceed with the
AOA process in the Region. After discussions with the Regions to clarify
questions or issues and after ensuring that the Regional budget was not exceeded,
HQ will enter the AOAs into the CERHELP BC/AOA system two weeks before
the end of the quarter. Regions must pull these reports from CERHELP and
enter these amounts into IFMS.
The AAs, the Director, POD, OFFE, and the OC review the funding levels
entered into IFMS 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 AAs or Director,
POD, OFFE approve the AOA in IFMS and the funds are available for obligation.
If the AOA entered into IFMS by the Regions does not agree with the AOA in
IH-9 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
CERHELP, 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 III-l illustrates the AOA process. Regional IMCs should
work closely with their Regional finance office on the entry of the correct AOA
into IFMS.
The HQ OC Budget Division monitors obligations against the AOA weekly. If
a Region exceeds any of the allowances or a site-specific RA or early action under
remedial authority 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
IFMS as necessary, the HQ Budget Division will initiate reprogramming from
the Region's regular allowance. Repeated violations of 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 procedures. During the last quarter of the year, the HQ
OC Budget Division will work with the Regions, OSWER, and OECA as
necessary to ensure that all allowances and obligations are aligned prior to year-
end closing.
If a Region receives funds in their AOA which were not obligated during the
quarter received, the relevant planned obligation data in WasteLAN 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, site characterization,
enforcement or Federal Facility by the amount that was not committed or
obligated; or
Request that Regions follow the OC's change request procedures to return
early action under remedial authority or RA funds to HQ.
October 1993 111-10
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT IIM
THE ADVICE OF ALLOWANCE PROCESS
WEEK
9
WEEK
11
WEEK
13
.WEEK
1
Regional
Responsibilities
RQ Responsibilities
Regions enter i
financial
information on
commitments,
planned and actual
obligations and
tasking into
WasteLAN. Data
in WasteLAN
regularly uploaded
to CERCLIS
Pull AOA data -<
Enter AOA-
data from
CERHELP
Regions obligate -*
funds to projects
planned in SCAP as
reflected in
WasteLAN
-Review planned/
actual obligation
data, commitments,
and tasking and
compare them to
annual Regional
program budgets
If data within
budgets, OERR,
OFFE, and OECA
enter AOA to
CERHELP. AOA
provided to OC
and AA SWER or
Director, POD
OC and AA SWER
or Director, POD
compare AOA data
to information
supplied by OECA
OFFE, and OERR
If all agree, OC
and AA SWER or
Director, POD
approve AOA
m-ii
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
The Financial Reports (SCAP-4, SCAP-4E, and SCAP-4F) and the Budget
Control Reports (SCAP-21 and SCAP-21E) will be used to evaluate the status of
the 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 preauthorization is received and funds are required
during the current FY, Regions must identify the source of the requested funds
from within their annual budget.
The enforcement, Federal Facility and response programs have developed
rules for utilization of extramural budget funds. See Appendix A and B for the
response requirements, the HQ/Regional Adjustment section in Appendix C for
additional information on enforcement requirements and financial planning for
the AOA, and Appendix D for the Federal Facilities financial management.
Based on a decision to continue to manually enter financial data into
WasteLAN, it is especially important that Regions reconcile IFMS and
WasteLAN data on a quarterly basis at a minimum. Regions will not receive
their FY 94 second quarter AOA until the FY 93 financial data in CERCLIS, IFMS,
and TESWATS agree.
AOA Flexibility
Some flexibility exists within the AOA structure to shift funds both within
and between allowances. Regions can shift funds between projects within the
other response, site characterization, removal, enforcement, or Federal Facility
allowances without HQ approval. With HQ approval, funds can also be shifted
between the site characterization, and enforcement allowances, out of (but not
into) the other response budget, and into (but not out of) the RA allowance.
However, funds cannot be shifted into or out of the Federal Facility allowance.
Shifting funds between projects within the other response, site
characterization, removal, enforcement, or Federal Facility allowance is a SCAP
adjustment. It does not require HQ approval or a change request, but WasteLAN
must be revised to reflect the shift. Allowable shifts between allowances are also
SCAP adjustments; 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.
October 1993 111-12
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
RA Allowance
RAs and early actions under remedial authority will be funded on a first
ready/first funded basis. The Regions' ability to redirect RA and early action
under remedial authority funds is limited. Approval from the AA for
Administration and Resources Management (ARM) and AA SWER is
required. Given the constraints in RA funding, HQ approval is highly
unlikely. Funding for ongoing projects, mixed funding settlements, LIRA,
and five year reviews, however, may be reprogrammed by the Regions. RA
or early action under remedial authority 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 and early actions taken under remedial authority.
In some cases, HQ may recommend that the Region retain the funds to
support unanticipated cost escalations for RAs or early actions under
remedial authority.
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. Though the practice is not
encouraged, if the PRPs take over the RA or early action under remedial
authority 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. In the situation where the PRPs take over after the
obligation of funds for RA or early action under remedial authority, the
program office will need to work with the Regional Financial Management
Office (FMO) to revise the Account Number (AN) since the Agency is acting
in an oversight role instead of performing the response action.
Non-Site Specific Funding Flexibility
Regions may redirect funds within the other response, removal, site
characterization, 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. Funds also cannot be
shifted into or out of the Federal Facility allowance.
Funds saved within the site characterization account 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
site characterization projects. In addition, Regions may retain and redirect
non-RA response funds made available as a result of the following actions:
PRP takeovers or settlements (to cover those costs through the remainder
of the FY);
IH-13 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
ESI/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:
Ongoing RA projects;
Classic emergencies;
Early actions to make NPL sites safe; and
Funds necessary to oversee PRP activities.
Regions may redirect RD funds to RD oversight when a CD is referred to HQ
or DOJ for lodging, or when PRPs indicate they will comply with a UAO.
A change request must be approved by HQ before funds can be reprogrammed
to activities outside the allowance.
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 substantial Fund involvement should be transferred to the
appropriate response AOA category. 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.
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 made available:
As a result of PRP takeovers;
By RD bids coming in under projected amounts; or
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
WasteLAN. The funds in the contingency account will be reviewed by HQ at
mid-year and throughout the third and fourth quarters.
October 1993 IH-14
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
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.
AOA Change Request Procedures
Regions are required to operate within their quarterly AOA and their annual
Regional budget. Each Region will receive a RA and early action under remedial
authority budget based on the schedules in CERCLIS for implementing these
actions. 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, site characterization,
removal, Federal Facility or enforcement allowances. HQ approval is not
required;
Shift existing funds between certain allowances (site characterization and
enforcement allowances). HQ approval of a change request is required.
Funds cannot be shifted into the other response allowance, out of the RA or
removal allowance, or into or out of the Federal Facility 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 SCAP. Chapter II identifies SCAP amendments and adjustments, and
describes when a change request is needed. Exhibit III-2 discusses flexible funding
and other situations where an AOA change request is required. Exhibit III-3
m-15 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
describes the procedures to be followed in each of these situations. 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 information 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
Facility); and
Allowance that is being increased and/or allowance that is being decreased.
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
WasteLAN should be revised at the time the change request is transmitted.
Regions should not initiate any obligations against the change until the OC, AAs
or Director, POD, OFFE 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 in the following four categories:
RI/FS;
RD;
RA; and
Removal actions.
October 1993 IH-16
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT III-2
CHANGE REQUEST REQUIRED
Change Request Situation
Procedures in Exhibit III-3 to
Be Followed:
Allocation transfer LAGs
Transfer fund to the Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory
(EMSL) or other entity within EPA
Shifting funds where allowable
between allowances after issuance
Increase total quarterly allowance
after issuance (within annual budget)
Decrease total quarterly allowance
after issuance
Increase RA or early action under
remedial authority funding after
allowance is issued
Decrease RA or early action under
remedial authority funding after
allowance is issued
Decrease RA or early action under
remedial authority funding as a
result of PRP takeover
New RA or early action under
remedial authority funding after
allowance is issued
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
Increase total allowance after
issuance within annual budget
IH-17
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT III-3
AOA CHANGE PROCESS PROCEDURES
Decrease Allowance
After Issuance
IMC sends E-mail
change request to the
Regional finance office,
with copies to OERR
PDBS staff, OWPE CPB
staff, or OFFE POD staff
Revise
WasteLAN/CERCLIS
1
Change request is
electronically transmitted
to HQ through IFMS
AOA in IFMS is revised to
reflect the change x
AOA CHANGES
Increase Total Allowance After
Issuance Within Annual
Budget
j Shifting Funds Between |
Allowances After
I Issuance J
r IMC sends E-mail >
change request to OERR
PDBS staff, OWPECPB
staff, or OFFE POD staff
with copies to AA SWER
or POD Director and
^Regional finance office^
I
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
Revise
WasteLAN/CERCLIS
Revise
WasteLAN/CERCLIS
r AA SWER or POD ^
Director sends E-mail
approval memorandum to
Regional program and
finance office and HQ OC
I
The change request is electronically transmitted to HQ through IFMS
AOA in IFMS is revised to reflect the change
OSWER or OFFE and the OC review the request
Revised AOA is approved in IFMS by the HQ OC and AA SWER or POD Directory
October 1993
111-18
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
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 for
these categories. Immediate Congressional notification is required if the
cumulative changes in a single category exceed any of the funding levels by $2
million or more, except in the RA category where the 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.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCAP AND THE AOA
Within the SCAP process, obligations are planned either site, project or 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
WasteLAN and CERCLIS data bases have been designed to accommodate site and
non-site specific planning. Exhibit III-4 lists the events and enforcement
activities for which obligations are planned on a site, project, or OU specific basis
vs. non-site basis.
WasteLAN and CERCLIS track only extramural funding needs. Therefore,
Regions should be certain all their extramural funding needs are reflected in
WasteLAN and CERCLIS such that there is a crosswalk between the WasteLAN
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 (C2629, C3229, or P1416) identifies which program pays for the planned
events/activities. Exhibit III-5 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 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 III-6 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 the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) should be given a budget source of "M"
or "D" after the IAG is signed and funds are transferred to HQ using the change
request procedures. Funds for aerial surveys and topographical mapping that are
being conducted by EMSL 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 WasteLAN should be changed to a
HQ budget source code.
IH-19 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT III-4
SITE VS. NON-SITE SPECIFIC PLANNED OBLIGATIONS
Site Specific
Non-Site Specific"
Admin. Cost Recovery
Administrative Record**
CR**
Cost Recovery Referral Preparation
Design Assistance**
Early Actions
Endangerment Assessment
ESI/RI
Federal Facility Oversight
Five Year Reviews
Forward Planning**
FS
Litigation Support
LIRA
Negotiations:
-Cleanup
-Cost Recovery
-IAG
Non-Binding Allocation of
Responsibility (NEAR)**
Other**
Oversight of PRP:
-ESI/RI/FS
-Early Actions
-Long-Term Actions
-O&M; LIRA.
PRP Search**
RA
RD
Referrals
-104(e)
-106
-106/107**
-107**
-Bankruptcy Claims
Support Agency Assistance**
Technical Assistance**
TAGs**
Treatability Study
ARCS Contractor Management
Aerial Surveys**
Contract or Program Management
CPCA
Emergency Response Cleanup
Services (ERCS) or Emergency
and Rapid Response Services
(ERRS) Management
Geophysical Support/
Topographical Mapping**
Information Management
Multi-site Cooperative Agreement
PA/SI
Preliminary Natural Resource
Surveys (PNRS)
Records Management
Senior Environmental Employee
Program
State Enforcement Management
Assistance
Technical Enforcement Support
(TES) Contractor Management
Training
* For these activities, Regions must
enter the number of sites
involved and the contract
vehicle.
** These activities may be planned
site specifically or non-site
specifically
October 1993
ffl-20
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT III-5
BUDGET SOURCE CODES
E = Enforcement M = HQ Removal
V = Removal D = HQ Remedial
R = Remedial L = Federal Facility
Since FY 92, the lead for project support activities has not been coded based on
national rules, but left to the Regions' discretion. As a result, the budget source
code is even more important. For example, an EPA funded community relations
(CR) activity at an RP-lead ESI/RI 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 ESI/RI projects
should be included in the ESI/RI oversight request.
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.
SUPERFUND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
The purpose of the following section is to assist Regional program offices in
carrying out their financial management responsibilities.
Financial Management Tools and Systems
Exhibit III-7 discusses the financial management tools and systems used by
HQ and the Regions.
IH-21 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT III-6
WHO PAYS FOR WHAT
Event/Activity Codes
WasteLAN
non-site
specific
Budget
Source
Event/Activity
WasteLAN
site-specific
ARCS Management
Administrative Cost Recovery
CPCA
Early Actions:
Early Action under Remedial Authority
Early Action under Remedial Authority
Oversight
Removal Contingency
Emergency Removal
Time Critical Removal
Time Critical Removal Oversight
NIC Removal
NIC Removal Oversight
ERCS Management
Zone
Regional
ESI/RI
ESI/RI Oversight
S,F
RP,MR,PS
FF
Five Year Review
S,F,EP,MR
RP,MR,PS
FF
FE
FE
FE
FE
FE
FE
FS
FS Oversight
Litigation Referrals and Ongoing Support
Section 106
Section 107
Section 106/107
Section 104(e)
Bankruptcy Claims
LIRA
LTRA Oversight
F,S,EP,MR,
RP,PS,MR,
FF
Negotiations (including development of
site workplans):
Cleanup
Cost Recovery
IAG
LAG (formerly owned Federal
Facilities)
O&M Oversight
PA/SI
October 1993
m-22
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT III-6 (continued)
WHO PAYS FOR WHAT
Event/Activity Codes
Budget
Source
WasteLAN
non-site
specific
WasteLAN
site-specific
Event/Activity
Project Support-
Aerial Surveys
Administrative Record
Contract Program Management
CR
Design Assistance
Endangerment Assessment
Evacuation
Federal Facility Docket
Forward Planning
Geophysical Support
Information Management
Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement
NEAR
Other (Specify)
Preliminary Natural Resource
Surveys
Prepare Cost Documentation Package
Records Management
Senior Environmental Employee
Program
State Enforcement Management
Assistance
CR,RC
DA
ED
EV
HG
IM
MS
NB
OH
Support Agency Assistance
Technical Assistance
TAGs
Temporary Relocation
TES Program Management
Topographical Mapping
Training
Treatability Studies
Removal Investigations
RI
RI Oversight
F,S,EP
RP,MR,PS
FF
RI/FS
RI/FS Oversight
F,S,EP
RP,MR,PS
FF
RD
RD Oversight
F,S,MR
RP,PS,MR
FF
RA
RA Oversight
F,S,MR
RP,PS,MR
FF
Lead left to the Regions' discretion
ffl-23
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT III-7
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT TOOLS AND SYSTEMS
Tool/System
Description
Integrated Financial
Management
System (IFMS)
The Agency's official automated accounting, funds control and
monitoring system. Encompasses all of the Agency's financial
systems for planning, budget formulation and execution,
program and administrative accounting, and audit. Maintained
by the Administrative Systems Division of the Office of
Information Resources Management.
Management and
Accounting
Reporting System
(MARS)
IFMS application that identifies the status of commitments,
obligations, and payments for a site. MARS can select any data
element maintained in IFMS, arrange those elements in any
desired format, and print a report. Regional program office staff
can request MARS reports from the Regional SFO.
Account Number
(AN)
A 10-digit number that identifies costs associated with a specific
site and activity. EPA documents and records its direct and
indirect costs for each cleanup action and tracks costs through
IFMS.
Document Control
Number (DCN)
A six digit number assigned by the Regional SFO to Procurement
Requests (PRs) and Commitment Notices (CNs). This same
number is carried over from the PR or CN to the obligating
document. Identifies the spending action in IFMS, just as a check
number identifies a check.
Automated
Document Control
Register (ADCR)
Allowance holder's mechanism for maintaining a running
balance of all funds available to the allowance holder.
Maintained in the SFO. Funds Certifying Officer (FCO) checks
the ADCR balance when certifying availability of funds, then
assigns a DCN and records it in the ADCR.
Site/Spill
Identification
Number (S/S IDs)
Two-digit number to identify costs associated with a specific site.
Established by the Regional office or PDBS. Before assigning a
S/S ID, an EPA Identification Number (EPA ID) must exist. Also
need to ensure that the site is not listed under another name. One
S/S ID for each EPA ID. Sites should receive identifiers if it
appears more than $5,000 will be spent on a response action.
"ZZ" Accounting Information
When committing or obligating funds at sites where a S/S ID has not yet been
assigned, the Region may use "ZZ" in the S/S ID positions where the AN is
placed. The "ZZ" should only be used if a site does not have a S/S ID. Once a
S/S ID has been established for the site, Regions must revise all the financial
accounting information (in IFMS, WasteLAN, and on the obligating
document) with the correct S/S ID. The "ZZ" AN should not be used for
future obligations at this site and should no longer be found in IFMS.
Information on changing IFMS data can be found later in this chapter.
October 1993
111-24
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
Regional Financial Management Responsibilities
Due to the complexities 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 in Exhibits III-8 through 111-10.
For the purposes of this document, the Regional Management Division is the
organization in which financial management, budgetary, accounting, planning
and assistance agreements, and administration functions are carried out. The
Regional Servicing Finance Office (SFO) and the Contracting Officers (CO) for the
ARCS, Emergency Response Cleanup Services (ERCS), and Emergency and Rapid
Response Services (ERRS) contracts are considered to be a part of this division.
EXHIBIT III-8
REGIONAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
Regional
Administrator
Approves cleanup
actions under removal
authority
Approves consistency
exemptions at NPL sites
where the removal costs
more than $2 million
Awards CAs
1 Awards lAGs
1 Enters into Superfund
State Contacts (SSCs)
1 Initiates response
planning activities
1 Awards TAGs
All of these authorities
may be redelegated with
the exception of removal
actions deemed
"nationally significant,"
consistency exemptions.
Regional Program
Office
Provides technical
support to the CO
Reviews vouchers
and/or financial reports
Manages CAs and lAGs
Prepares CNs and PRs
Develops SSCs
Negotiates CAs
Issues S/S IDs or
requests that they be
issued
Manages the Region's
allowances
Approves Request for
Proposals (RFPs) or
Request for Bids and
contracts developed by
the States
Participates in pre-award
financial management
system reviews
Enters financial data on
contracts, lAGs, and CAs
into WasteLAN
Works with Regional
Management Division to
reconcile IFMS and
WasteLAN data
Regional Management
Division
Assigns AN, DCN, and CA
identification numbers
Enters quarterly AOA into
IFMS, controls Regional
allowance, maintains ADCR,
and reconciles transactions
Issues S/S IDs
Sets up Regional account
numbers in IFMS
Processes PRs, lAGs, and CAs
Enters commitments,
obligations, and drawdowns
into IFMS
Reviews invoices, monthly
financial reports, and payment
requests
Obligates Regional contracts
and modifications
Assists Regional program
office in the pre-application
phases of the CA development
Maintains Superfund
document files on Regional
costs and work performed and
supports the preparation of
documentation for cost
recovery
Maintains accounts receivable
for cost recovery, cash outs,
and SSC cost share, oversight
billings, and maintains billing
and collection system
Provides Regional program
office with financial data
ffl-25
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT III-9
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT STAFF
osc
Employee of
EPA or U.S.
Coast Guard
(USCG)
Reacts to
hazardous
substance spills
and releases, or
threats of
release
Initiates and
manages
cleanup actions
under removal
authority
Aware of, in
control of, and
responsible for
site charges
Ensures costs
are reasonable
and necessary
Ordering
Officer
Typically an
OSC
Must have a
written
"Delegation of
Procurement
Authority"
signed by a
Senior
Procurement
Manager
RPM
Employee of
EPA
Initiates and
manages early
actions under
remedial
authority and
long-term
actions
Manages
enforcement
costs and
activities
Aware of, in
control of, and
responsible for
site charges
Ensures costs are
reasonable and
necessary
Regional
Project Officer
(RPO)/
Deputy Project
Officer (DPO)
Employees of
EPA
Manage
remedial,
enforcement,
removal, and
general site
support
contracts
Administrative
Support Unit
(ASU)
Established in
each Regional
program office
Staffed with EPA
staff or the
non-government
functions may be
performed by a
contractor
Provides
administrative
support to the
OSC/RPM
Provides liaison
between
OSC/RPM and
other groups
involved in n
administrative M
matters 1
Provides support
to Regional Ji
program |
management H
HQ Financial Management Responsibilities
Selected offices in HQ have Superfund financial management
responsibilities. Those offices that the Regional program office may come in
contact with are highlighted in Exhibits III-ll and 111-12.
October 1993
111-26
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT 111-10
RESPONSIBILITIES OF REGIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE
FINANCIAL STAFF
osc
Prepares site
budgets and
contract action
requests
Completes
Action
Memoranda
Prepares delivery
orders and PRs
Establishes and
maintains official
site file
Reviews and
approves cleanup
contractors'
charges on a
daily basis
Tracks site costs
against the
established site
ceiling
Approves
contractor
invoices
Ordering
Officer
Obligates a
maximum of
$250,000 for
removal actions
Develops
statements of
work and cost
ceilings for
removal actions
RPM
Reviews
contractor
invoices and
financial reports
Establishes and
maintains
official site files
Initates Work
Assignments
(WAs), CAs,
IAGs, and
contracts
Approves
site-specific
LAG invoices
RPO/DPO
Evaluates and
designates
contractor
award fees
Monitors
contractors'
activities
Reviews
monthly
contractor
reports and
site-specific
attachments
Initates WAs,
CAs, IAGs, and
contracts
Approves
site-specific LAG
invoices
Identifies
Regional and
site-specific
contract
requirements
Reviews
invoices
Provides general
contract
management
support
ASU
Assists
OSC/RPM in
administrative
duties
Assists in
developing
removal site
budgets and
Action
Memoranda
Assists in daily
cost monitoring
via daily
contractor
reports
Maintains the
Removal Cost
Management
System (RCMS)
Sets up and
maintains active
site files
Completes PRs
and CNs
Reviews IFMS
reports
Financial Management and Funding Processes
Regional financial authority consists of three distinct, but interrelated, parts:
approvals, commitments, and obligations. The payment and deobligation
processes result in drawdowns from obligated funds. Due to limited resources to
fund FY 94 activities, it is essential that Regions deobligate unneeded prior-years
funds so they can be used to close the funding gap. The funding processes are
outlined in Exhibit 111-13. Exhibit 111-14 indicates the process by which the
Regions commit and obligate funds.
ffl-27
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT III-ll
RESPONSIBILITIES OF HQ PROGRAM OFFICES
Program Development
and Budget Staff
(PDBS)/OERR
Contracts and Planning
Branch (CPB)/OWPE
Program Operations
Division (POD)/OFFE
Provides financial
management,
accounting support
and guidance to OERR
and Regional program
offices
Maintains OERR
ADCR and controls
HQ allowances
Commits funds for HQ
OERR contracts and
lAGs
Assigns accounting
data to monthly
site-specific invoices
Processes and
monitors HQ OERR
lAGs
Maintains central S/S
ID system and assigns
S/S IDs to USGS-lead
early actions
Negotiates Regional
budgets '
Approves Regional
allowances and
processes change
requests
Provides liaison with
Regional program
office regarding OERR
financial issues
Provides OERR
financial policies to
Regions
Provides financial
management,
accounting support
and guidance to
OWPE and Regional
program offices
Initiates procurement
of TES contracts
Processes and
monitors WAs in
Technical Enforcement
Support Work
Assignment Tracking
System (TESWATS)
Processes and
monitors OWPE lAGs
Processes invoices for
TES contracts
Negotiates Regional
budgets
Coordinates issuance
of Regional allowances
and process change
requests
Provides liaison with
Regional program
offices on OWPE
financial issues
Provides OWPE
financial policies to
Regional program
offices
Provides financial
management,
accounting support
and guidance to OFFE
and Regional program
offices
Initiates procurement
of Federal Facility
contracts
Negotiates Regional
budgets
Coordinates issuance
of Regional allowances
and processes change
request
Provides liaison with
Regional program
offices on OFFE
financial issues
Provides OFFE
financial policies to
Regional program
offices
October 1993
IH-28
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
g-fi 2 a I fl
Sazseesso:
3 .S 3
BJ 55 BS re
m-29
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT IH-13
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND FUNDING PROCESSES
Activity
Discussion
Approvals
An approval by the AA SWER, AA OE, Regional Administrator or official
designee is authorization to undertake a CERCLA-funded response action.
Early Actions Under Removal Authority.
- Regional Administrator approves actions costing up to $2 million, grants
exemptions to twelve month and $2 million statutory limits based on
consistency with the long-term action, and may re-delegate to the OSC the
authority to approve actions costing up to $50,000 in emergency situations.
- Except in emergency situations, before taking action, an Action
Memorandum must be approved. The Action Memorandum documents
the release meets the criteria of CERCLA and the NCP, and includes an
estimated total project ceiling. The OSC uses the estimate of duration and
cost in order to determine the proper approval authority.
- In extreme emergencies, the OSC may initiate activities without preparing
the necessary documentation in advance. The OSC must document the
decision within 24 hours of initiating the response.
Early Actions Under Remedial Authority, RD, RA, Site Screening and
Assessment, Enforcement, and Federal Facilities:
- Planning is accomplished through SCAP. Funds cannot be committed or
obligated unless the project is in SCAP.
- Obligation planned and executed on an OU or site basis. Outlays
(payments) should be attributed to the appropriate OU.
- ROD is required for all early actions under remedial authority and
long-term actions. ROD is signed by the Regional Administrator/Deputy
Regional Administrator, the AA SWER or AA OE. ROD documents the
alternative decision-making process, demonstrates that the requirements of
CERCLA and the NCP have been met, and provides the basis for future
cost recovery actions.
Commitments
Commitments are a reservation of funds but not a legal promise to pay a
supplier. Once the Regional FCO certifies the availability of funds, a
spending action becomes a commitment. Funds that are committed but
not obligated are called open commitments.
Two types of commitment documents: PR and CN. PRs commit funds
for contracts; CNs commit funds for CAs and reimbursable lAGs.
October 1993
111-30
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT 111-13 (continued)
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND FUNDING PROCESSES
Activity
Discussion
Obligations
Obligations legally bind the government to pay a supplier for
goods or services. Obligated funds can no longer be used for
another purpose.
A contractor, another Federal agency, or State cannot start work
until funds have been obligated. Funds can only be used for the
purpose for which they were obligated, unless they are
deobligated.
Obligating documents must be processed in accordance with
guidance issued by OAM, GAD, and FMD. Some contracts are
awarded by OAM and entered into IFMS by the SFO/RTP,
others are handled by the Regions. Obligations for CAs are
entered into IFMS by the Regions; lAGs are entered by FMC-Ci.
Payments
(Outlays)
Invoices from contractors/suppliers are submitted to proper
SFO for payment. Before payment, there must be an obligating
document and a receiving report to verify that the work was
completed or the goods received were satisfactory. Unpaid
obligations remain in IFMS until paid or until the allowance
holder or obligating official notifies the SFO that no further
payments will be made.
Deobligations
Handled similarly to obligations. Same commitment and
obligation documents and procedures are used, except that the
dollar amount is a reduction. Availability of funds after
deobligating depends on when the funds were obligated.
Current year funds are available as soon as the deobligation is
effective. Prior year funds revert back to HQ for redistribution.
In order to reuse prior year funds, allowance holders must
request a recertification of funds to their allowance.
Regions should regularly review the status of all contracts,
LAGs, and CAs. If all activities have been completed, remaining
funds should be deobligated immediately to make them
available for other activities.
m-3i
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT 111-14
HANDLING FINANCIAL DATA IN THE CERCLIS ENVIRONMENT
Funding Document prepared
by Program Office in appropriate area
(Site Assessment, Remedial, Removal,
Federal Facilities, Enforcement)
I
f Approval of Funding Document J
FMO reviews the Funding
Document, assigns a unique
AN/DCN pair and enters
information into IFMS
I
Funds are now committed
Regional IMC or designee
enters the commitment
data into
WasteLAN/CERCLIS
Contracts signed
by CO
CAs signed by
Regional Administrator
I AGs signed by
Participating Parties
Funds are now obligated
( Regions enter obligation data into WasteLAN/CERCLIS. Regions |
I or HQ enter obligation data into IFMS J
October 1993
IH-32
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
Financial Management Funding Mechanisms
EPA uses a variety of funding mechanisms to carry out CERCLA-funded
response actions. These include the following:
Contracts
The Agency's LTCS identifies the long-term contracting needs of the
Superfund program and provides a portfolio of Superfund contracts to meet
those needs over the next ten years. During FY 94, implementation of the
strategy will continue.
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 111-15 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 Superfund sites
and OUs to support the cost recovery process. Cost recovery negotiations with
PRPs or court actions require careful documentation of Federal costs incurred
at each site/spill. Exhibits 111-16 and 111-17 describe key financial management
processes for each of the primary categories of Superfund contracts, both site
and non-site specific.
Interagency Agreements (lAGs)
An LAG 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 to provide ongoing support or services.
The Regional program office initiates and manages site-specific lAGs. U.S.
Coast Guard (USCG)-lead removal lAGs and the DOJ IAG are negotiated,
approved, awarded, and managed at HQ. The LAG specifies the services
required and identifies the method of payment. Exhibit ILI-18 discusses IAG
financial management.
111-33 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT IH-15
EPA FORMS COMMONLY USED FOR SUPERFUND PROCUREMENTS
EPA Form
Number
Form Name
Purpose
Comments
1900-8
Procurement
Request / Purchase
Order
The Agency's basic form for
requesting the procurement
of any goods or services.
Used to commit funds before
obligating funds on any of
these documents. Must be
certified by FCO.
This form is the basis for entering a
commitment in IFMS. The FMO
enters an obligation only upon
receiving a contract document or
purchase order.
1900-48
Order for Services -
Emergency
Response to
Hazardous
Substance Release
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.
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.
1900-49
Notice to Proceed
with Emergency
Response to
Hazardous
Substance 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.
A preliminary contractual
instrument that must be made final
by a designated CO. FMO will
process notice as an obligation.
1900-56
Letter contract for
State, Indian Tribal
Governments, or
Local Government
Response to /
Emergency
Hazardous
Substances Release
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.
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 or contract as an obligation.
1900-59
Delivery Order for
ERCSand ERRS
Used by OSCs to order
services (up to $250,000) from
the ERCS or ERRS contractor
to respond to a release. All
modifications and obligations
over $250,000 will be
processed by the CO.
Has time and material provisions,
but uses fixed rates negotiated in
ERCS or ERRS contract. Order must
be made final by a designated CO.
FMO will process orders as an
obligation.
October 1993
IH-34
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
C/5
S
2
O
U
u
E
HH
U
w
X W
WS
w
O
U
ffl-35
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT IIM7
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OF NON-SITE SPECIFIC CONTRACTS
Contract Type
Discussion
Payment
General Site Support
Not obligated on a site-
specific basis
Capable of providing
broad technical and
planning support on an
"as needed" basis
Includes Technical
Assistance Team (TAT)
and the replacement
contract START, Contract
Laboratory Program
(CLP), and Environmental
Services Assistance Team
(ESAT)
Contractors submit
site-specific attachment
that includes invoiced
costs for:
- Each site with an S/S ID
- All other sites
- Program management
- Base and award fee
- Non-site activities (e.g.,
training)
- Non-Superfund costs
Contractors submit
original invoice to RTF
and copies to HQ PO
PO reviews invoice
RPOs and DPOs may
conduct concurrent
reviews
Enforcement
Combination of general
site support and
site-specific contracts;
however, not obligated on
a site-specific basis
Regions issue WAs against
the contract on a
site-specific basis
Site-specific WAs are not
entered into IFMS
Information can be found
in Appendix C
General Program
Support contracts
Provides support to HQ
and Regional program
offices
Not for site-specific work
Not obligated
site-specifically
Administered totally by
HQ
October 1993
ffl-36
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
H
z
w
O
HH I'
HM rj
W Z
Z
o
111
K.-SI
S C, 53 S en r-
£ SiStS frO
m-37
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
October 1993
m-38
-------
osw
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
ta
O
ts
w
2
E
U
en
C/3
T3 *-i
<1J ** O
l3^ ^.Ir
'£ -^ e
^> IM Q
- -2-cSl
QJ .M »H ^* "ti
-a y 2-73 2 to
c 2 £ c * «
; EPA or political subdivision begins Fund-financed early action u
ority, RA, or NTC removal where the State is sharing the cost
2rforming the action, SSC must be signed before construction cont
will pay its cost share of 10% of an early action under remedial aui
'al for privately operated sites or 50% of the ESI/RI/FS, RD, RA, a
licly operated sites. At the time of the early action under remedial
'tate is required to pay 50% of all prior Superfund response activiti
ram assurances and payment schedule
il?*ltSf
QJ J^ ''~l j£ d WH^ ^
S|§ gu^^l.
flllllll
in
"c
V
§
'3
or1
01
Regional program office
-Q
a
Oj
a
_o
"3
1
"H
Ol
S
DH
13
Ol
Q
(fl
equired to provide cash payments to EPA
rwards copy of SSC to Regional Management Division for account
cessing
'wards SSC modifications to Regional Management Division
S 3 So
to ^o
rin
SS'S^
£££&
QJ
_S5 -Q
c|
o'S
u u
U V
< 1*
(VJ JO
o t!
2 '"S %
? 00
e must be received and recorded in IFMS before EPA pays for the
ts should be scheduled two weeks ahead of expected outlay date
be spread out over the life of the early action under remedial autr
t scheduled to ensure deposit in Treasury and recording in IFMS n
rC £ j-^ C £
-C JJ 2 Ji S
^ 6 6 S g
£ >^-% X >L
o ia C « rt
8 0, PH C/3 W
^ g to
goo i J §-
^Illl 1
iiiiit
o *-
"- fn
** C
W C
v fs^
« PH
(j
^j
jponsible for notifying Regional Management Division to close ou
agement Division reconciles financial data
a; C
S-, 10
^1
^.2
PH d*
S OH
* *
,,_,
3
O
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
To ensure that Fund monies are effectively used, procurement activities
should be initiated with RD funds only when the Region is confident the SSC
will be signed before bids are opened.
Exhibit 111-20 explains the SSC financial management requirements. For
additional information on financial management responsibilities related to
SSCs, refer to the Resources Management Directives Systems 2550D,
Chapter 9.
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 reimbursement for these costs
through negotiation or judicial action is one of the primary 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. Exhibit IH-21 is provided as a brief guide to the cost recovery
case development process, which is typically completed within an eight week
timeframe.
HANDLING FINANCIAL DATA IN THE CERCLIS/WASTELAN
ENVIRONMENT
The implementation of IFMS has affected the handling of financial data in
WasteLAN. Currently, there is no automated link for downloading IFMS data to
CERCLIS/WasteLAN.
Entering Response and Federal Facility Data into WasteLAN
Once the funding document has been processed by the Region, the planned
financial data (C3202 = P) must be deleted and the commitment (C3202 = C) or
obligation (C3202 = A) data entered. The funding amount in WasteLAN and on
the funding document must agree. If a Region wants to retain planned financial
data, it must enter the planned obligation into WasteLAN with a Regional
Financial Type (C3202) 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
111-41 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
H
z
w
S
w
U
!7 ~
f-> _n
u
w
o
o
u
October 1993
IH-40
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
Cooperative Agreements (CAs)
A CA transfers property, funds, and/or services from EPA to States, political
subdivisions, or Indian Tribal governments to undertake the lead for a site-
specific response, to defray the costs associated with participation in Federal-
lead responses, or to build State or Indian Tribal capability to implement
CERCLA responses. CAs provide funding assistance to the State, political
subdivision, or Indian Tribal government, document responsibilities, and
obtain 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 outlined in Exhibit 111-19.
For additional information on the financial management of CAs, refer to the
Resources Management Directives Systems 2550D, Chapter 9.
Superfund State Contracts (SSCs)
When EPA or a political subdivision has the lead for an early action under
remedial authority or RA, a SSC is used to describe the State's role. A 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 documents responsibilities for implementation
of response activities at a site. When a political subdivision has the lead, the
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 Procurement Request (PR) with a contractor or an
IAG with another agency. Funds for response actions conducted by a political
subdivision are provided through a CA (see previous section).
The SSC must be signed prior to the obligation of funds for a RA or early
action under remedial authority. EPA may obligate RD funds to initiate the
RA or early action under remedial authority procurement process, up to the
point of soliciting for construction bids. In cases of extreme urgency, a
solicitation (for bids on RA or early actions under remedial authority work)
may be issued before a SSC is signed. The solicitation must notify prospective
bidders that the availability of funds for the contract is contingent on EPA and
the State concluding a SSC. If the SSC is not signed before the bid opening
one of the following decisions must be made:
The solicitation may be canceled; or
The bid opening date may be postponed (giving bidders an opportunity to
withdraw, modify, or submit new bids).
IH-39 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
RD Implementation 1-26
RI/FS 1-25
RI/FS Negotiation Settlement
Process 1-24
Settlement/Referral Process 1-26
Long-term Action 1-19, see also Volume II,
Appendix B
Manager's Schedule of Significant Events
vii-xiii
Performance Evaluation (HQ Evaluation
of Regional Performance) 11-21-26
End-of-year assessment 11-24
Management reporting 11-25-26
Mid-year assessment 11-22-23
Quarterly reporting 11-22
Regional reviews 11-24
Priority Setting
Framework 1-1
Matrix 1-3-6
Program Goals 1-1-29
Public Involvement/Communicating
Success 1-11
Federal Facilities 1-11
Regional Allowances HI-8-9
Regional Decision Team 1-15-16, see also
Volume II, Appendix A
Reporting Requirements
Chief Financial Officers Act 11-26
Congressional 111-16, 111-19
Roles and Responsibilities, HQ/Regional
HQ financial management
responsibilities 111-26, 111-28-29
Maintaining SCAP in CERCLIS II-
8-10
Program assessment 11-10-12
Regional financial management
responsibilities 111-25-26, 111-27
SCAP/Strategic Targeted Activities for
Results System (STARS) Targets and
Measures 1-29-39, see also Volume II,
Appendices A-D
SCAP and the Annual Regional Budget
III-6-8
SCAP/STARS Adjustments and
Amendments 11-26-32
ADA change request procedures ni-
15-16, 111-17-18
Maintaining the targets and
accomplishments file 11-31-32
Site Screening and Assessment (SSA)
1-16, see also Volume II, Appendix A
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
(SACM) 1-12
Early and Long-Term Actions I-
19
Enforcement 1-20
Regional Decision Team (RDT) I-
18
Site Screening and Assessment
(SSA) 1-16
Superfund Comprehensive
Accomplishments Plan (SCAP)
CERCLIS reports for SCAP
planning/target setting 11-16-18
Change control requirements II-8
Introduction II-3, II-5
Maintaining SCAP in CERCLIS II-
8-10
Management tools II-5-6
Negotiations 11-14-15
Process II-7-8
Relationship to other management
tools II-5-7
SCAP and the Annual Regional
Budget III-6-8
SCAP and the ADA 111-19-21
Superfund information systems II-
6-7
Superfund Information Systems II-6-7, see
also Volume II, Appendix E
Superfund Management Reports II-
25-26
Themes, Fiscal Year 94 1-1
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
Accomplishment Reporting, Regional II-
18
CERCLIS reports 11-20-21
Acronyms I-V
Administrative Improvements 1-1-2, I-
4-6, 1-8-9, 1-26-28
Advice of Allowance (AOA)
Change request procedures 111-15
Flexibility 111-12
Procedures and financial reporting
requirements III-8
Regional allowances III-8
Process III-9
SCAP and the AOA 111-19
Annual Target Setting Procedures H-12
Base Closures 1-8
Budget
Flexibility II-1-3
FY 94 national budget III-3-4
FY 94 Regional budget III-4-6
Enforcement III-5
Federal Facilities III-5
Response III-4
FY 95 budget II-3, III-2-3
Outyear budget II-l, III-1-2
Congressional Reporting Requirements
HI-16, IH-19
Construction Completions 1-9
Federal Facilities 1-9
Contract Management 1-10
Federal Facilities 1-10
Early Action 1-19, see also Volume II,
Appendix B
Enforcement 1-20, see also Volume II,
Appendix C
Fairness 1-8
De minimis settlements 1-8
Federal Facilities 1-8
Non-settlors 1-27
SACM 1-20
Voluntary cleanup 1-9
Integrated Priority Setting 1-4
Federal Facilities, see also Volume II,
Appendix D
Construction completions 1-9
Contract management I-10
Enforcement 1-10
Enforcement fairness 1-8
Innovative technologies 1-12
Public involvement/communicating
success 1-11
Financial Data
CERCLIS/WasteLAN environment
111-41
Correcting financial data 111-45
Entering enforcement extramural
budget data into
WasteLAN 111-44-45
Entering response and Federal
Facility data into
WasteLAN 111-41, 111-44
Financial Management 111-21-41
Funding processes 111-27,111-30-31
Funding mechanisms 111-33-41
Contracts 111-33
Cooperative Agreements (CAs)
111-39
Cost recovery/cost documentation
111-41
Interagency Agreements (LAGs)
111-33
Superfund State Contracts (SSCs)
111-39, 111-41
HQ responsibilities 111-26, 28-29
Regional responsibilities 111-25-26,
111-27
Tools and systems 111-21
"ZZ" accounting information 111-24
FTE Distribution Process II-5-6,111-45-46
Innovative Technologies 1-12
Federal Facilities 1-12
Integrated Planning H-l-3
Initial operating plan II-3
Mid-year evaluation II-3
Outyear Budget II-2
Integrated Priority Setting Matrix 1-3-6
Integrated Timeline for Site Management
1-21
Baseline Responsible Party (RP)
Search and PRP Negotiation 1-24
Community Relations 1-25
Cost Recovery 1-25-26
Pre-Referral and RD/RA
Negotiation Process 1-25
RA Implementation 1-27
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
INDEX
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-011
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
REGIONAL MAP
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
w
u
^j
r
[3
03
CD
W
U
z
MT AND COMPLIA:
w
w
O
§
w
O
w
^
tH
sj
LNT ADMINISTRATOR
)RCEMENT AND COM
ASSURANCE
H 6
l|
§
U
g
O
w
y
[jx^
o
Office
of Site
Remediation
Enforcement
-^B
o
O,
C/D
^
0)
u
. !~!
a r\
CC ^>
*H
(JO
o
-
C/3 QJ r^
fi £ 6 !
QJ 2 ?j ^
^ ft "i D
w
H^HUH
Isl
a,|i
^^^^H
I
^ o
_. to '55
« C '>
o 2 >-.
»-« 3 o
cC *-^
11
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
w
HH
O
2
O
HH
H
N
Q
w
OH
t>
cn
J
»H
O
4->
u
O)
VH
f^H
P
P^
T3
(H
^3
M (
5-1
O>
DH
^
r A\
CD
13
c
o
I 1
-M
CC
Z
I '
5H
o
^^J
U
O>
5-H
^H
Q
o>
u
cd
^ti
o
OH
S
O
SH
O
4->
I
QJ
U
!-i
I
w
T3
C
OS
CX
S
O
5-H
o
c
o
U
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
l-:-L $'s$&.
O
^^
^^
CD
Q>TH
CD
«wd
£
O
H.;-
-
;
;:
*"
P *;* V , -'-,
W>
.3 «
§2
2 -E r-
1 s 1
O K^ * ^?
(-H ?> ^C/i
f~A;;j';!':^^::.l
^§
T3 «»H
rj c/i
^"3 *^H
tc >
*-» y?
p p
^ ni
e^ ^D
q y
CD £
U OS
?H M-j
0 7v
M-H HH
.sg
u
lVlL;iS>:;JSr
en
c
0
I 1
4-»
«0
M
O tO
Vj -JH
_j >
IS
So
o
5-1
OH
'A
Sv
V
V !
v"*
I''-
i.
*^
1
K
'',!
^
,^
1
?'
tvrf
ii
»«
£
fe
;'i!
'0
'.I
cs
j\'
i
5
s
;;,-
-
'
I
>.% «3
E^ g>
-
-o
§
||
l
S.
PH S
g£
II
§H^
4>
Qj 'J3
^^S
&H-5S
« &P
rH QJ
-^
6
1
I
1
-
T3
r- C
6 «S
oi en
ri
3"
01
ni ii
r§
sa
1
§
RJ
52-5
*rH ,-t
0)
S
Cin
^O
"0;
g
'c3
-6
I
u
tU
w
§
«3
&
2
&H
W
T3
S
ns
|
u
=8-
«3 g
1
i
i
o
S
c
£- s
8
fS
c
I
i
i
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
§
fH
C/3
g
0)
W
U
October 1993
8
-------
tc
U
u
I-H
"o
(H
2
8
o
OJ
0)
D
"E ^
QJ ^j
g»FM
"O
^ o»
"S3 r^i
cr> w
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
"
bo c
o ju
01
§
rI
4->
«J
g
1-1
O
il
bo
Jrt u
g*
0
g
U 9j .co
||l
W
S
I
u ^
SH O
£ '«
C >
U
u
S
OS
e«
bO
«
cC -5
3 >
£ 2
C/5 pQ
eC ^
J-i _y
C '§
o c
U ,5
PH
b
0»
D 6
^ cS
CO
O
U
O)
I
x!
cj
c
U
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
The Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE), CERCLA Enforcement
Division (CED), Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement (OFFE), and Superfund
Revitalization Office (SRO) are currently undergoing a reorganization. Also
included is a proposed organization chart of the new Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA). The following organization charts illustrate
how these offices currently exist. Headquarters will keep the Regions informed
of any further organizational changes as reorganization continues.
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
JHl
^^H
-^
4->
(0
4-
o
^
i
CO
3
O,
cn
^^H
rdous Site Control!
rt
N
PS
1
^^
vision Director 1
b
1 2
T3 C £
C»^H ^
**rt ^
^ fl ^*
_gj O P°
5s
^H
1
g
K
t*
13 --
: o
'O '43
V
H-
J
3 en
a
RS
^->
cn
_
^
c
Design and
onstruction
igement Branch
03
s
Remedial Action a
NHB^i^l^^^^
CO
"S
cu
01 C
3 °
c
i
"S
4-
T~
_
-| |g
c
Contracts Sectio]
tt
"u
Remedial Constru
HS
1
i
ei
o
"-C
Management Sec
§1
11
0) QJ
^^
3 ^s
rS* £
PH tfl
^^^IHMMH
8
g
nj
T2
U -43
(U
0»
&
0
'43
§
£
3
'S
£
s
OJ
1
1
^
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
c/i
_
"
JS
d
4->
.2
(A
'(S
'2
O,
JBBB
f
^'E
Sc
o t
o i
N '
(Q i
^X^ (^
Director 1 i
w
d
o
42
OS
bO^
3d c
en «
'o
H
42
IE
w 2
*i3 ^^
rS.
£
_
d
o
'43
2
50
Si
en
.a
Analytical
erations Branch
*
Analytical Services 1
Guidance Team |
1
g>
tH
P-l
Analytical Methods
Implementation
Section
Regional Operations 1
Section 1
r^"""^1
4->
g
If
1 s
«5 M
<5 pa
QJ
£->
cn
i
.^
§
CO
co
d
o
43
6
1
1 1 1
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
W
Cfi
Z
O
OH
CD
W
Q
w
g
W
^mm
en
(3
en
en
en
<
1
(X
1
^^u^
c
.0
i-H
s
cu
C
O
OH
Emergency Res
lution Response &
itement Branch
o£
PH -,
(0 oa
*-» *^
CD (0
$1
§'C
|U
(U
pi
QJ
3
o ^
en"^
ell
jma^^m
G
O
g
? -
en °43
^»(
en
^L
<
1
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
en
'5?
fc
CD
M)g§
o e ^
£ I-
MM M) «
O g^
fll « 5J
ce
a
m
ffic
Ma
Off
Im
c ^
_i -M (Q
r* d +*
8 o3 CD
8 O t3
PH 13 3
> pa
Q
r**^
c
o
si
.r§
5 -43
C to
^3 ="
Pi 13
w
§
Resource
agement Se
tO
s
1
^ -*S
O ^ "M
CL, ^S M
^ 9J
C8 CD
omer Service 1
Section 1
4-*
CO
U
1
£ JS
c CD
11
pBMBMBp
4*> MH
7: 5s
S 5
gCD
0) co
ri
01 >.
S CD
C
O
43
S£ u
fir*
t3 03 ^g
^ C d
TJ O §
NH tO
>g
|
c C
8 o
5i '43
s,«
CD"^
4- C
6S
g to
I-S
W3-T3
(0 )H
C 0
fO O
s ^
1
43
S
CD
CO
^
.SP
J2
o
U
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
J
J
4-*
C
ctf
4-"
»-i
eft
13
I-H
fX
B
o
4-1
u
O)
i (
D
S
M-
H
O
(U
o
D
Outreach and Specie
^
M-4
M-l
C/5
t
|
Emergency 1
esponse Division I
«
Response Operations 1
Branch |
JMB
yoi.^1
^
S2 o
cH 'S
« >
§a
T3 rt
>H O
n3 C
N *i
« C
hpi o
hL, rj
r 1
(J
Response Standards 1
and Criteria Branch 1
"1 r1"
si
C
O CQ
,_J
T3
-.
6
£H '-M
«3 (ti
D C
*j ;rJ
R3 T3
4-i M
en o
O
U
_ 1
.J^BHBVB
ardous Site
tion Division
a J
w
>f fice of Program I
Management 1
U
4^
CH
Site Assessme
JBHl
(
V.
O
T
m
n
D
15
'O
OJ
s
a
P<
Branch
S
0
«->
Environmental 1
Response Branch |
wmm pMiH
X
ns
PQ
U
c
«!(
«3
i
"T
E|
3
M
c «
(C
§b-
n
o
a y
o 2
° w
§
u
alytical Opera
Branch
4
c
<
m
Policy and Contracts
Assessment Staff
1
_
O)
tft
f
01
So
03
^
o
oxics Integrati
Branch
H
Contracts Staff
Program Managemen
and Services Staff
1
-
4->
Oil Pollution Response 1
and Abatement Branch 1
Program Developmen
and Budget Staff
n
r>t/-»K
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
ORGANIZATION CHARTS
October 1993
-------
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
RPM
RPO
RRT
RTF
SACA
SACM
SAM
SARA
SCAP
SEA
SERC
SETS
SFO
SI
SIBAC
SIF
SIP
SITE
SMARTech
SMOA
SMP
SMRS
SMSA
SNAP
SNL
SOL
SOW
SPCC
SRIS
SSA
SSAB
SSC
S/S ID
SSP
STARS
START
TAG
TAT
TBD
TES
TESWATS
TSCA
TQM
TRC
UAO
USAGE
USCG
USFWS
USGS
WA
WAM
ZPO
Remedial Project Manager
Regional Project Officer
Regional Response Team
Research Triangle Park
Site Assessment Cooperative Agreement
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
Site Assessment Manager
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan
Site Evaluation Accomplished
State Emergency Response Commissions
Superfund Enforcement Tracking System
Servicing Finance Office
Site Inspection
Simplified Interagency Billing and Collection
Site Information Form
Site Inspection Prioritization
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Superfund Management and Reporting Technology
State Memorandum of Agreement
Site Management Plan
SCAP Management Reporting System
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
Superfund National Assessment Program
Special Notice Letter
Statute of Limitations
Statement of Work
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure
Superfund Report Information System
Site Screening and Assessment
Site Specific Advisory Board
Superfund State Contracts
Site/Spill Identification Number
Site Safety Plan
Strategic Targeted Activities for Results System
Superfund Technical Assistance and Response Team
Technical Assistance Grants
Technical Assistance Team
To Be Determined
Technical Enforcement Support
Technical Enforcement Support Work Assignment Tracking System
Toxic Substances Control Act
Total Quality Management
Technical Review Committees
Unilateral Administrative Order
United States Army Corps of Engineers
United States Coast Guard
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
United States Geological Survey
Work Assignment
Work Assignment Manager
Zone Project Officer
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
O&M
OMB
OPA
OPAC
OPM
OPPE
ORC
ORD
OSC
OSW
OSWER
OU
OUST
OWPE
PA
PAH
PC
PCB
PDBS
PES
PMSO
PNRS
PO
POD
POLREP
PQOP
PR
PRP
PRSC
QA-
QAPP
QAT
RA
RAC
RADS
RCMS
RCRA
RCRC
RD
RDT
RELAI
REMT
RESAT
RFP
RI
RIDS
RI/FS
ROD
RODEIS
RP
RP2M
Operation and Maintenance
Office of Management and Budget
Oil Pollution Act
On-line Payment and Collections
Office of Program Management (OERR)
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
Office of Regional Counsel
Office of Research and Development
On-Scene Coordinator
Office of Solid Waste
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Operable Unit
Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OSWER)
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OSWER)
Preliminary Assessment
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
Personal Computer
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Program Development and Budget Staff (OERR)
Planning and Evaluation Section (OERR)
Program Management Support Office (OWPE)
Preliminary Natural Resource Surveys
Project Officer
Program Operations Division (OFFE)
Pollution Report
Pre-Qualified Officers Procurement
Procurement Request
Potentially Responsible Party
Post Removal Site Controls
Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Quality Action Team
Remedial Action
Response Action Contracts
Risk Assessment Data System
Removal Cost Management System
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Regional Cost Recovery Coordinator
Remedial Design
Regional Decision Team
Responsive Electronic Link and Access Interface
Regional Emergency Preparedness Team
Regional Environmental Services Assistance Team
Request for Proposal
Remedial Investigation
ROD Information Data System
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
Record of Decision
ROD and Enforcement Information System
Responsible Party
Remedial Pipeline Project Management
IV
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
FSS
FTE
FUDS
FY
FY/Q
GAD
GAO
GFO
GIGS
GNL
HAZDAT
HQ-
HRS
HSCD
HWC
IAG
IFMS
IMC
IOTV
IRM
ISIF
LAN
LEPC
LOG
LOE
LTCS
LTRA
MARS
MBO
MM/DD/YY-
MOU
MSCA
NAPL-
NEAR
NCP
NOAA
NPL
NPL-PAD
NRC
NRT
NSEP
NIC
CAM
OC
OE
OECA
OERR
O&F
OFFE
OIG
First and Subsequent Start
Full-time Equivalent
Formerly Used Defense Sites
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year/Quarter
Grants Administration Division
Government Accounting Office
Good Faith Offer
Grants Information Control System
General Notice Letter
Hazardous Data System
Headquarters
Hazard Ranking System
Hazardous Site Control Division (OERR)
Hazardous Waste Collection
Interagency Agreement
Integrated Financial Management System
Information Management Coordinator
Interoffice Transfer Voucher
Initial Remedial Measure
Integrated Site Information Form
Local Area Network
Local Emergency Planning Committee
Letter of Credit
Level of Effort
Long Term Contracting Strategy
Long Term Response Action
Management and Accounting Reporting System
Management by Objectives
Month/Day/Year
Memorandum of Understanding
Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement
Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
Non-Binding Allocation of Responsibility
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan or
National Contingency Plan
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Priorities List
National Priorities List - Production Assistance Database
National Response Center
National Response Team
National Security Emergency Preparedness
Non-Time Critical
Office of Acquisition Management
Office of the Comptroller
Office of Enforcement
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OSWER)
Operational and Functional
Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement (OE)
Cffice of the Inspector General
III
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
CRCR
CRP
CWA
3DB
DA
DAS
DCN
DNAPL
DOD
DOE
DOT
DOJ
DPO
EBS
EE/CA-
Fj
EMSL
ENRD
EPA
EPA-ACH
EPA ID
EPI
EPCRA
ERA
ERCS
ERD
ERNS
ERRS
ESAT
pep
.L^OV--
BSD
ESF
ESI
ESI/RI
ESS
FCO
FE
FEMA
FFA
FFCA
FFIS
FFS
FINDS
FMC-Ci
FMD
FMFIA
FMO
FOIA
FR
FS
FSC
Cost Recovery Category Report
Community Relations Plan
Clean Water Act
Decision Document Database
Deputy Administrator
Delivery of Analytical Services
Document Control Number
Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Deputy Project Officer
Environmental Baseline Survey
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
Environmental Indicators
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Environment and Natural Resources Division (DOJ)
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Automated Clearing House
EPA Identification Number
Environmental Priorities Initiative
Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986
Early Remedial Action
Emergency Response Cleanup Services
Emergency Response Division (OERR)
Emergency Response Notification System
Emergency and Rapid Response Services
Environmental Services Assistance Team
Enforcement Support Contract
Explanation of Significant Differences
Emergency Support Function
Enhanced Site Inspection
Expanded Site Inspection/Remedial Investigation
Enforcement Support Services
Funds Certifying Officer
Federal Enforcement
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Facility Agreement
Federal Facility Compliance Agreement
Federal Facilities Information System
Focused Feasibility Study
Facility Index System
Financial Management Center - Cincinnati
Financial Management Division
Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act
Financial Management Office *
Freedom of Information Act
Federal Register
Feasibility Study
First and Subsequent Completion
II
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
AA
AAOE
AASWER
AAU
ADCR
ADR
ALT
AN
AO
AOA
AOC
AOG
APR
AR
ARAR
ARCS
ARIP
ARM
ASU
ATSDR
ATSDRHAZDAT
BC/AOA
BLM
BTAG
BUREC
CA
CADD
CAS No.
CD
CED
CEPP
CEPPO
CERCLA
CERCLIS
CERFA
CERHELP
CFO
CLP
CN
CO
CORA
CPB
CPCA
CR
Assistant Administrator
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement
Assistant Administrator for the Office of 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
Agency Operating Guidance
Approved
Administrative Record
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy
Accidental Release Information Program
Administration and Resources Management
Administrative Support Unit
Agency for Toxic Substances and Diseases Registry
-Agency for Toxic Substances and Diseases Registry Hazardous Data
System
Budget Control/Advice of Allowance
Bureau of Land Management
Biological Technical Assistance Group
Bureau of Reclamation
Cooperative Agreement
Corrective Action Decision Document
Chemical Abstract Number
Consent Decree
CERCLA Enforcement Division (OWPE)
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Program
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office (OSWER)
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act
CERCLIS non-site specific data base
Chief Financial Officer
Contract Laboratory Program
Commitment Notice
Contracting Officer
Cost of Remedial Action
Contracts and Planning Branch (OWPE)
Core Program Cooperative Agreement
Community Relations
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
ACRONYMS
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
Facilities activities. The workload models are currently designed to reflect
priorities and policies contained in both the budget and planning processes. For
the most part, the existing workload models are a straight forward application of
FTE pricing factors from the national budget to Region-specific SCAP/STARS
targets and ongoing activities. No FTEs are given to projects that are incorrectly
coded and scheduled in CERCLIS.
In FY 94, each Region's Superfund FTEs are 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 as described earlier in this chapter. This includes shifts between the
response and enforcement programs. All shifts will be based on the national
budget and the Integrated Priority Setting Matrix (see Chapter I).
During August negotiations of SCAP/STARS targets, Regions may propose
changes to the targets to match the Regional Superfund resource level. These
proposals also must be made in accordance with the Integrated Priority Setting
Matrix. HQ will ensure that the cumulative Regional targets meet national
budget commitments.
The three workload models are under review and will be revised based on
SACM, changing program priorities, and the desire to simplify the workload
allocation process. It is anticipated that the FY 95 resources will be distributed
based on the revised Superfund workload model. The revisions being discussed
for the response and enforcement models include distribution of resources based
on the number of "active sites," not STARS/SCAP targets and measures; FTEs
specifically allocated for fiscal and contract management; and pricing factors for
specific activities within the following categories:
Site assessment;
^/
Removal;
Remedial; and
Enforcement.
October 1993 111-46
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
For detailed instructions on entering enforcement financial data into
WasteLAN, see Appendix C. For instructions on entering Federal Facilities
enforcement financial data into WasteLAN, see Appendix D.
Correcting Financial Data
The IMC can request, on a regular basis, a report from the Regional financial
office that contains all Superfund financial transactions in IFMS. The
information in this report can be compared with the funding documents and the
information in WasteLAN. If there is a discrepancy between the financial data in
WasteLAN and IFMS, the funding document should be used to verify the
information in both systems. There are three kinds of corrections which may be
needed on financial information in IFMS, as shown in Exhibit 111-22.
Upon determining that the data on the funding document are correct and are
correctly entered into WasteLAN, 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 Region's IFMS administrator is the only person
authorized to correct data entry errors or change financial information in the
IFMS data base. The OC has issued standard procedures for correcting IFMS data.
The IMC or designee should work with the Regional FMO on a regular basis to
make sure that all IFMS errors are corrected.
Errors in AN/Document Control Number (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 IAG
or CA).
EXHIBIT 111-22
CORRECTIONS TO FINANCIAL INFORMATION
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
OVERVIEW OF THE FTE DISTRIBUTION PROCESS
Regional FTE allocations are made through the Hazardous Spill and Site
Response Model for site assessments, early actions, long-term actions, and
program and project support, the Technical Enforcement Model for enforcement
activities, and the Federal Facilities Superfund Workload Model for Federal
ffl-45 October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
its annual budget, which will result either in withholding AOA approval, or a
reduction in next quarter's AOA.
Until an automated link between CERCLIS and IFMS is established, Regions
are required to enter financial information into WasteLAN. This includes
commitment/decommitment or obligation/deobligation date (C3220), amount
(C3230), financial type (C3202), contractor vehicle (C3229), and contractor name
(C3241). In addition, the obligating document must be placed in the official site
file. Regions are not required to enter outlay or credit information into
WasteLAN.
It is important for the Regions to note that they are ultimately responsible for
the accuracy of the WasteLAN and 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 94
second quarter response or Federal Facility AOA until the FY 93 CERCLIS and
IFMS data agree.
For detailed instructions on entering Federal Facility response financial data
into WasteLAN, see Appendix D.
Entering Enforcement Extramural Budget Data into WasteLAN
The Region will be responsible for entering obligations/tasking (Work
Assignments (WA)) issued into WasteLAN. Responsibility for verifying the
information in IFMS and WasteLAN for obligations or deobligations, and
information in IFMS on outlays incurred resides with the Regions.
To ensure that all appropriate financial data are reflected in WasteLAN, the
following information should appear on obligation documents: EPA
identification number (EPA-ID), S/S ID, WasteLAN 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. Regions 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.
October 1993 111-44
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-14-1
EXHIBIT 111-21
COST RECOVERY REFERRAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Activity
Description
Initiation of Cost
Recovery Process
Regional program office prepares and submits cost recovery
checklist through Regional Cost Recovery coordinator (RCRC) to
Regional SFO. Checklist identifies date through which costs are to
be documented and date documentation is required.
Documentation process for HQ and Regional costs begins.
RCRC obtains cost documentation package from SFO and
prepares "merged" cost summary.
RCRC requests site-specific reports generated by MARS to
provide cost basis for negotiations with PRPs.
Cost
Documentation
and Reconciliation
Involves collecting and reviewing documentation to ensure
accounting and cost information are recorded correctly, costs are
properly charged, ANs refer to the appropriate site, and costs on
documents are accurately reflected in IFMS.
Regional SFO documents Regional Superfund costs and prepares
cost summary, computes indirect costs, provides expert and
factual financial witness testimony, interprets financial documents
and MARS reports, and provides CA cost documentation.
ORC reviews final cost summary and documentation in
preparation for litigation and takes appropriate action pursuant to
the Privacy Act and Confidential Business Information
requirements.
Work Performed
Documentation
and Reconciliation
Involves collecting and reviewing documentation to ensure that
costs are being pursued for appropriate site activities.
RCRC assembles copies of any task creating document (WA,
Purchase Order, Delivery Order, etc.) as well as amendments or
modifications, progress reports and close-out reports for the tasks
included in the cost recovery referral.
RCRC works with the SFO to ensure correspondence between the
cost and work performed documentation.
ORC reviews final work performed documentation package and
takes appropriate action pursuant to the Privacy Act and
Confidential Business Information requirements.
Site File
Maintenance
Diligent maintenance is crucial to cost recovery and is a Regional
responsibility.
Financial files maintained by the FMO until 2 years after all cost
recovery litigation is complete.
Work performed files maintained by contracts officials or RCRC in
accordance with Agency disposal guidance.
Disposal of files is permitted after 20 years.
Cost recovery documentation should be maintained by the RCRC
until required by the litigation team.
IH-43
Octobei 1993
------- |