'•- •- FDZS Headquarters Library
. . r Ma .' code 3404T
,u
Washington, DC 20460
202-566-0556
Super fund:
Building on the Past,
Looking to the Future
The 120-Day Study
Action Plan
February 2005
-------
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms
Executive Summary i
Chapter 1 Program Leadership 1
1.1 Program Direction 1
1.2 Program Policy and Guidance 3
1.3 Performance Measurement/Accountability 6
1.4 Homeland Security/Nationally Significant Incidents 9
Chapter 2 Financial and Resource Management 11
2.1 Budget Formulation and Planning 11
2.2 Budget Execution 13
2.3 Regional Resource Distribution/Management 14
2.4 Special Accounts Management 18
2.5 Remedy and Response Cost Management 20
Chapter 3 Contracts/Grants Management 27
3.1 Contracts and Grants/IAGs 27
3.2 Training 33
Chapter 4 Leveraging All Available Cleanup Resources 36
4.1 PRP-Lead Cleanups 36
4.2 State-Lead Cleanups 39
4.3 Other Cleanup Authorities 40
Chapter 5 Communication 43
Index of Recommendations 46
Listing of Recommendation/Page/Office
-------
List of Acronyms
AA
ARA
ARAR
ASTSWMO
BCRLF
BOD
BPA
BPEB
CERCLA
CERCLIS
CLP
CO
COE
COR
DD
DOJ
EFAB
EPA
EPM
ERRS
ESAT
FAR
FASTAC
FTE
FY
GAD
GCRC
CMC
GMO
GPRA
HHS
IAG
ICIS
ICS
IGCE
IGMS
IMT
IPAC
LTRA
NACEPT
Assistant Administrator
Assistant Regional Administrators
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials
Brovvnfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund
Superfund Board of Directors
Blanket Purchase Agreement
Budget, Planning and Evaluation Branch
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Information System
Contract Laboratory Program
Contract Officer
Army Corps of Engineers
Contracting Officer Refresher
Division Director
U.S. Department of Justice
Environmental Financial Advisory Board
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Program's and Management
Emergency and Rapid Response Services
Environmental Sen ices Assistance Team
Federal Acquisition Regulations
Field and Analytical Services Teaming Advisory Committee
Full-time Equivalent
Fiscal Year
Grants Administrative Division
Grants Customers Relations Council
Grants Management Council
Grant Management Officer
Government Performance and Results Act
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Interagency Grants
Integrated Compliance Information System
Incident Command System
Independent Government Cost Estimate
Integrated Grants Management System
Incident Management Team
Interagency Payment and Collection (system)
Long-term Response Action
National Advisors' Council for Environmental Policy and
Technology
-------
NCP
NPL
NPM
NRRB
OAM
OARM
OBCR
OC
OCFO
OCPSATF
OECA
OEM
OFM
O&M
OMB
OPEI
ORD
OSC
OSRE
OSRTI
OSW
OSWER
PART
PBSC
PCC
PITB
PM
PO
PPL
PPMD
PRP
QIC
RA
RAC
RCO
RCRA
RI/FS
ROD
RPM
RSE
SAM
SAS
SBO
SCAP
SPIM
National Contingency Plan
National Priorities List
National Program Manager
National Remedy Review Board
(U.S. EPA) Office of Acquisition Management
(US. EPA) Office of Administration and Resources Management
(U.S. EPA) Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment
(U.S. EPA) Office of Compliance
(U.S. EPA) Office of the Chief Financial Officer
One Cleanup Program Site Assessment Task Force
(U.S. EPA) Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(U.S. EPA) Office of Emergency Management
(U.S. EPA) Office of Financial Management
Operations and Maintenance
Office of Management and Budget
(U.S. EPA) Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
(U.S. EPA) Office of Research and Development
On-scene Coordinator
(U.S. EPA) Office of Site Remediation and Enforcement
(U.S. EPA) Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation
(U.S. EPA) Office of Solid Waste
(U.S. EPA) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Performance Assessment Rating Tool
Performance Based Service Contracting
Post Construction Completion
Policy, Information and Training Branch
Performance Measure
Project Officer
PeoplePlus
Project Planning and Management Division
Potentially Responsible Party
Quality and Information Council
Remedial Action
Remedial Action Contract
Regional Contracting Officer
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study-
Record of Decision
Remedial Project Manager
Remediation Systems Evaluation
Site Assessment Manager
Superfund Alternative Site
Small Business Ombudsman
Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishment Plan
Superfund Program Implementation Manual
-------
SRO
SRRPOD
SSC
SSL
START
STSIB
TIFSD
TSDF
USAGE
USCG
WAM
Senior Resource Official
Superfund RCRA Regional Procurement Operations Division
Superfund State Contract
Soil Screening Levels
Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team
State, Tribe, and Site Identification Branch
Technology Information Field Services Division
Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
U.S. Coast Guard
Work Assignment Manager
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In November 2003, Acting Deputy Administrator Stephen L Johnson requested that a
small work group be established to conduct a relatively quick internal review
(approximately 120 days) of the Superfund Program. The main objective of this review
was to identify opportunities for Program efficiencies lhat would enable the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin and ultimately complete more long-
term cleanups, also known as remedial actions, with current resources. The Study was
intended to complement the work done by the Superfund Subcommittee of the Agency's
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT).
EPA currently has a backlog of sites that are ready for long-term cleanup, but lack
adequate funding to begin the remedial actions, (RAs). To a large extent, the shortfall is
the direct result of the evolution and maturation of the Program, with the universe of
Superfund sites expanding in both number and type. Larger, more complex sites
requiring multiple remedies have increased demands on the Program; funding needs have
increased further as a greater proportion of the sites have progressed through the remedial
investigation and feasibility study phases; and the cleanup phase is typically more costly.
A significant challenge before the Agency and Congress, therefore, is how best to
navigate this period when there are high funding needs for more long-term cleanups.
About The 120-Day Study
The Superfund 120-Day Study was a short-term, overall Program review conducted by a
team of EPA Headquarters and Regional staff who have knowledge and experience in the
Program, but who are not all currently working in the Program. Information from
Agency data systems helped to frame areas for analysis. This was followed by additional
data requests and an extensive number of interviews with Superfund Program managers
in Headquarters and the Regions, as well as with selected outside experts. To supplement
the information gathered in the interviews, the Study team prepared and sent out tailored
questionnaires to gather Program-specific information.
The Study compiled findings from these data-gathering efforts, and made
recommendations designed to improve resource utilization to quickly direct more funding
into the remedial action pipeline; other recommendations are intended to help the
Program function better over the long term, which could reduce future out-year funding
needs.
About the Action Plan
The directive to undertake the 120-Day Study included a mandate to develop an Action
Plan outlining how EPA would carry out the Study's 108 recommendations. Each
recommendation has a lead EPA office responsible for responding to that
-------
recommendation; those offices developed a work plan that describes the action(s) they
would take to implement that recommendation, or that provides a rationale for not
proceeding with the recommendation.
This Action Plan compiles all of the Study's recommendations and office responses into
one document. The Plan also provides background for why those recommendations were
made. To make the large number of recommendations more manageable, EPA grouped
them into five major categories: (1) Program Leadership; (2) Financial and Resource
Management; (3) Contracts/Grants Management; (4) Leveraging All Available Cleanup
Resources; and (5) Communication. Although the recommendations could have been
organized in several different ways, EPA feels that these categories distinguish the major
areas of EPA's Superfund operations that these recommendations apply to. These five
categories are then divided into subcategories under which the applicable or relevant
recommendations are grouped.
Key Areas that Meet the Study's Objective
While all of the Study's recommendations are designed to improve the management and
effectiveness of the Superfund Program, several areas are key to meeting the Study's
primary objective of channeling more funding into the RA pipeline. The following
presents these key areas and associated recommendations by chapter. (The
recommendations are also identified as 'key' in the individual chapters.) EPA will
implement these key areas in coordination with the appropriate Lead Region.
Chapter 1, Program Leadership outlines senior leadership initiatives that will help
direct more resources into RAs, and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the
Superfund Program. Key areas highlighted in this chapter include:
• Section 1.1, Program Direction—establishment of a Superfund Board of
Directors, which will improve Program coordination, integration, and
accountability (Recommendation 1); and
• Section 1.1, Program Direction—setting a hierarchy of Program goals and
objectives to ensure Superfund resources are directed such that the Program
achieves its most important goals (Recommendations 2 and 9).
Chapter 2, Financial and Resource Management looks at ways to improve financial
and resource management processes that will help effectively forecast cleanup resource
needs and ultimately make more money available for remedial actions. Key areas
addressed include:
• Section 2.1, Budget Formulation and Planning—Options to increase available
resources dedicated to remedial action (Recommendation 103).
-------
• Section 2.2, Budget Execution—analyzing Superfund charging and increasing
site-specific charging, which will strengthen cost recovery, reduce overhead, and
reveal misatlocations or adjustments that may be needed (Recommendations 66,
67, and 68);
• Section 2.3, Regional Resource Distribution/Management—ensuring the
maximum number of Program personnel are working on site cleanups by
addressing full-time equivalent (FTE) employee allocation at Headquarters and
the Regions to reflect workload changes, which will set the groundwork for
reallocation in the fiscal year (FY) 2007 budget process, and increasing work-
sharing among the Regions (Recommendations 19 and 20);
• Section 2.4, Special Accounts Management—effectively managing and increasing
the use of special accounts, which will help with the funding flow for remedial
actions and can reduce the need for future cost recover*7 (Recommendations 15,
61, 62, 95. 96. and 97); and
• Section 2.5. Remedy and Response Cost Management—controlling site cleanup
costs to enable funding of more cleanups, including enhancing the National
Remedy Review Board's (NRRB) role (Recommendations 37 and 38); optimizing
long-term response actions (LTRAs) (Recommendation 40); conducting
construction oversight (Recommendation 44); and conducting benchmarking
studies of Regional performance (Recommendations 18, 21, and 101).
Chapter 3, Contracts/Grants Management examines ways to more effectively manage
cleanup funding provided through contracts, grants, and interagency grants (lAGs). Key
areas addressed include:
• Section 3.1, Contracts & Grants/IAGs—increasing efforts to deobligate funds
from contracts, grants, and lAGs to funnel more money into RAs, including
establishing policies for the duration of these funding vehicles (Recommendations
72, 73, 75, 76, and 77); and
• Section 3.1, Contracts & Grants/I AGs—improving the monitoring of these
funding mechanisms such that obligated dollars are used for their intended
cleanups and not "banked"' for future use (Recommendations 83, 84, 85, and 87).
Chapter 4, Leveraging All Available Cleanup Resources addresses opportunities for
leveraging cleanup resources from potentially responsible parties (PRPs), the States, and
other cleanup authorities, to maximize the use of limited Superfund Program funding.
Key areas highlighted include:
• Section 4.1, PRP-lead Cleanups—maximizing PRP involvement and funding in
cleanup efforts through effective negotiation and enforcement strategies for
remedial investigation/feasibility studies (RI/FSs) (Recommendation 24); efficient
in
-------
oversight (Recommendation 58); effective, early PRP searches (Recommendation
53); and increased removal enforcement (Recommendation 54); and
Section 4.3, Other Cleanup Authorities—preventing some sites from entering the
Superfund pipeline through the use of sufficient financial assurances at Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites so that Trust Fund dollars are not
needed for cleanups at these sites (Recommendations 10, 11, 12, and 36).
EPA Office Leads
As described, EPA has developed work plans describing planned actions in response to
each of the Study's 108 recommendations, along with the lead EPA Office responsible
for implementing the action. Of these actions, 39 describe work that was ongoing prior
to the Study and that addresses the recommendation/option; 64 describe new work
undertaken to address a recommendation/option; and 5 that provide a rationale for no
planned action to implement a recommendation/option. For senior EPA management
purposes only, a current anticipated completion date for each action has been identified.
Generally, the scheduled completion dates are approximately:
• 50 actions are anticipated to be complete by the end of FY 2005;
• Less than 10 actions are left to be completed by the end of FY 2006; and
• Less than 10 actions are left to be completed during or after FY 2007.
Of the EPA lead offices (the information below reflects single- and joint-lead efforts):
• OSWER/Other is responsible for responding to 13 recommendations;
• OSWER/OSRTI is responsible for responding to 47 recommendations;
• OECA is responsible for responding to 16 recommendations;
• ORD is responsible for responding to 3 recommendations;
• OCFO is responsible for responding to 12 recommendations;
• OARM is responsible for responding to 15 recommendations; and
• Lead Region is responsible for responding to 7 recommendations.
The Superfund working group will track these actions and report completion of each
planned action.
Moving Forward
The Study's authors felt that together, the Report's recommendations can build on past
successes and create a better, more efficient way to implement the changing Superfund
Program. The recommendations are intended to improve upon a Program that is working
well, not one that is broken and requires fixing. These recommendations focus on what
EPA can do with existing authorities and resources to effectively implement the
Superfund Program, toward the goal of increasing the pace of site cleanup.
IV
-------
Chapter 1
PROGRAM LEADERSHIP
Introduction
This chapter includes Study recommendations that require action by the Superfund Program's
senior leadership across Headquarter's offices and the Regions. Some of these recommendations
have already been implemented, such as the creation of a Superfund Board of Directors and
development of the Superfund Board of Director's Charter outlining the hierarchy of Program
goals to help direct resources. The recommendations in this chapter represent the strategic
decision-making and actions that are needed to help address the resource issues currently faced
by the Superfund Program, and to make the Superfund Program more efficient.
The recommendations under Program Leadership fall into four subcategories: (1) Program
Direction; (2) Program Policy and Guidance; (3) Performance Measurement/Accountability, and
(4) Homeland Security/Nationally Significant Incidents.
1.1 PROGRAM DIRECTION
Background;
The recommendations in this section address senior leadership initiatives, such as setting clear
goals and directing research efforts to more closely meet Program needs and to help focus
activities in the Superfund Program. The success of the Program has been and continues to be
dependent upon the partnership and collaboration of many of the Agency offices and all of the
Regions. The recommendations below are intended to help strengthen this partnership and
positively impact all offices that have Superfund responsibilities and resources.
The Study identified a need for greater overall Program coordination and integration of the
efforts among the various offices (including the Regions) with Superfund responsibilities. With
resources spread broadly across multiple EPA Headquarters offices and the Regions, efforts end
up less focused and less mutually supportive than they could be because different parts of the
organization see themselves as beholden to their own program areas, rather than as responsible
for achieving overarching programmatic goals and mandates.
To address cross-office issues more effectively, the Study Team recommended the creation of an
overarching internal Superfund Board of Directors to provide enhanced Program leadership,
coordination, and accountability. In addition, with the growing complexity of the Program
coupled with the tightening of resources, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) needs to more clearly articulate the hierarchy of cleanup goals. The Study Team
determined that senior leadership needs to more finely hone the Program's goals and more
clearly articulate the relative priority among those goals.
1
-------
Cost recovery is another critical Agency activity. Without this work, no funds spent by the
Program for removal or remedial actions would be returned to the Trust Fund to defray the costs
of future work. Senior leadership should affirm its commitment to cost recovery to emphasize its
importance to the Superfund Program.
Finally, while OSWER and the Office of Research and Development (ORD) are undertaking
efforts to improve the effectiveness of the Superfund research program (including addressing
many of the observations and recommendations in the Study), and OSWER and the lead Region
representatives felt there is an effective planning process in place at ORD, there are problems
with incorporating Regional needs and a disconnect between the planning process and
communicating results to Superfund practitioners. Although technical support requests are
addressed in a timely manner, there are significant concerns about the utility of ORD's longer-
term research program in supporting cleanup operations. Discussions indicated that longer-term
Superfund research activities and priorities are not as clearly identified or as closely linked with
the needs of Regional management as they could or should be, and there is a real need for better
communication among ORD, OSWER, and Regional management.
Recommendations and Actions;
Kej>- Recommendation 1: Create Superfund Board of Directors. The Deputy Administrator
should create a Superfund Board of Directors to improve Program coordination, integration, and
accountability.
Action: EPA established a Superfund Board of Directors in May 2004; the final
Superfund Board of Director's Charter was distributed in June 2004. (BOD - Completed)
Key - Recommendation 2: Develop Hierarchy of Program Goals. Senior Program managers
should evaluate the Program's current goals and objectives and clearly communicate the
hierarchy among these goals to ensure that Superfund resources are properly directed to achieve
the Agency's most important goals. Recommendation 9: Adopt Shared Goals for Program
Activities. OSWER and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) should
consider adopting goals that cut across different Program activities (e.g., cleanup completions
through use of any tool or combination of tools) to improve teamwork and gain full recognition
for all work that produces similar outcomes.
Action: A document entitled, "Superfund Cleanup in the 21st Century-," dated December
8. 2004, which establishes these goals, has been developed and approved by the
Superfund Board of Directors as of December 2004. (Complete)
Recommendation 59: Affirm Commitment to Cost Recovery. Senior management within
EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) should affirm their commitment to cost recovery.
Action: The Office of Site Remediation and Enforcement (OSRE) and DOJ will issue a
joint memo reaffirming the importance of effective cost recovery in encouraging PRP-
-------
lead responses, and in returning money to the Superfund Trust Fund where PRPs are
recalcitrant or it is impracticable to get them to conduct response actions. (OSRE)
Recommendation 64: Senior Managers Meet about Superfund Research Program. The
Assistant Administrators and/or Deputy Assistant Administrators for ORD and OSWER should
meet with the Deputy Administrator no later than June 10, 2004. to discuss improvements both
organizations intend to implement to improve the effectiveness of the Superfund research
program. Recommendation 63: Determine if Senior Managers' Actions are Effective.
ORD, OSWER, and the Regions should work together to survey Superfund managers and RPMs
by June 2005 to discover if the actions taken above [see study pages 77-81 for "actions taken
above"] have addressed the Regional concerns regarding input into the Agency's research
agenda and the value and utility of long-term research.
Action: These two recommendations are being addressed jointly. The overall goal of
these actions is to ensure that research undertaken by ORD addresses the Program's
highest priorities and that all levels of the Superfund Program Office better understand
the applicability of ORD Superfund research. A number of actions are underway to
address these recommendations. They include: establishing joint OSRTI/Regional
subgroups to identify highest-priority research needs; surveying Regional managers and
Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) to determine if coordination/communication efforts
have been effective; and communicating ORD's approach to Superfund research needs to
the Regions. In addition, the meeting identified as part of this recommendation took
place prior to June 10, 2004. (OSRTIand ORD}
1.2 PROGRAM POLICY AND GUIDANCE
Background:
The recommendations in this section address policy and guidance that must be revisited, and
possibly revised or reissued, and highlights Programmatic areas that would benefit from new
policy or guidance. While some recommendations address broad Programmatic policy—such as
developing guidance for the One Cleanup Program—others apply to specific aspects of the
Superfund Program, such as the Superfund Alternative Site (SAS) option. All of the
recommendations are designed to ensure EPA is issuing the most timely and relevant direction
possible.
Similar to the recommendations in the ''Program Direction" section, the Study suggested that
OSWER step up its leadership efforts to bring the One Cleanup Program to fruition, noting that
more aggressive targets need to be established and communicated to realize the Program's goals.
The Study also noted that policy and procedure revisions or clarifications could help free up
monies for remedial action work or other priorities. For instance, "immediate, one-time
opportunities" were identified to gain access to funding from lAGs, grants and contracts;
Superfund State Contracts (SSCs); and special accounts that then could be re-distributed, helping
with the current shortfall being experienced for funding long-term cleanups. As stated in the
3
-------
Study, the key to success in reviewing funds for possible deobligations are leadership by one
office, partnerships across all offices and Regions, and a clear definition of expectations for
managing and tracking these funds. A lack of leadership, partnerships, and expectations may
lead to increasing amounts of "unused" funding.
Further, the Study recommends that EPA update its national policy related to SSCs to correct
slow collections from States, allowing the Agency to use more appropriated money sooner for
remedial actions: the most recent guidance for SSCs, "Classic Two-Party Superfund Slate
Contract (SSC) Model Clauses,'" was finalized in August 1990. This document primarily
consists of model clauses for SSCs, and also includes guidance on such areas as cost sharing.
Based on the varied interpretations among the Regions on SSCs and the age of the present
guidance, OSWER should evaluate whether the document needs updating.
Other monetary benefits can be realized through the SAS approach. This approach reduces the
need for EPA funding and saves time and energy otherwise required for site listing, while still
promoting the cleanup of high-risk sites. However, the lack of uniform criteria and policy for
SASs, and the lack of transparent site assessment and pre-scoring information, hinder the use and
effectiveness of this approach. A national policy is needed to provide consistency across the
Regions and to help promote use of the SAS approach.
Finally, the Study examined cost issues associated with use of the Removal Program, noting that
current policy limits to $6 million the amount of funding spent on a site under the Removal
Program. This restriction may limit the scope of what EPA can accomplish quickly and
efficiently at a site. There is also a reporting and "credit" gap between the Removal and
Remedial Programs; for instance, when a removal at a site on the National Priorities List (NPL)
addresses longer-term remediation goals, it is reported as a removal, and the dollars spent are not
counted toward the totals spent for remedial actions. EPA needs to consider how the
significance of this removal work can be tracked and accounted for better.
Recommendations and Actions:
Recommendation 6: Develop One Cleanup Program Policies/Guidance. OSWER should
promote the One Cleanup Program more aggressively and set more ambitious targets for policy
and guidance development in order to continue to improve the coordination, speed, and
effectiveness of cleanups.
Action: Work is ongoing that meets the goal of this recommendation, (OSWER)
Recommendation 22: Update Deobligation Policies/Guidance. OSWER and OECA should
review guidance and policies [related to deobligations with lAGs/grants/contracts, SSCs, and
special accounts] to ensure that they are addressing the current and future needs, and follow up
with the Regions on using the guidance and policies, For example, the guidance on Superfund
State Contracts is 14 years old and may need to be revisited to improve the timeliness of receipt,
obligation, and expenditure of funds.
-------
Action: No action will be taken against this recommendation. OSRE has reviewed all of
its policies related to financial management and has an established deobligation policy
and extramural resource distribution policy in place that have been accepted by the
Regions. OSRE will be evaluating the need for additional Guidance related to special
accounts management under recommendation 61. fOSRTI and OSRE)
Recommendation 25: Revise SAS Policy. OSWER should revise the SAS policy to ensure
that criteria for being a Superfund Alternative Site are uniform and that the Regions provide the
PRPs and other interested parties with transparent site assessment and pre-scoring information.
Action: This action is complete. The revised SAS guidance, which was finalized in June
2004. clarifies the criteria that SAS sites must meet, and encourages Regions to discuss
site designations with PRPs prior to the start of negotiations. (OSRTI)
Recommendation 32: Clarify Exemption Process. Since some sites have high risks but do not
require an extensive study, OSWER should clarify the process for obtaining an exemption to the
current dollar limit for cleanups under removals, or recirculate the current guidance. Option 1:
To capture the benefits of Remov al Program activities, OSWER should consider developing new
ways of tracking and reporting removal actions. This would include work that (1) speeds
cleanups at NPL sites and (2) completes cleanup of a site that typically would be listed on the
NPL. Option 2: OSWER should explore adopting a consistent national approach that
encourages Regions to ask States for a 10 percent cost share for non-time-critical removals to
ensure buy-in from States on priority cleanups and to conserve federal resources for use at other
high-priority sites in the Region.
Action: OSRTI and the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) will clarify- the
process for obtaining an exemption to the current funding limit for cleanups under
removals. (OSRTI and Ol^M)
Recommendation 89: Update State Cost Share and Related Policies/Guidance. OSWER
should evaluate and update, if necessary, national policy on State cost share, payment policy and
refund policy. If this guidance does not need to be updated, the 1990 guidance should be
recirculated.
Action: The current process used by EPA to revise Subpart O provided an opportunity to
review the functioning of the cost share policy, payment policy, and refund policy. In
addition, funding constraints have prompted the Regions and Headquarters to re-examine
current practices to apply excess funds to other sites or deobligate such funds for use in
other States and Regions, and avoid "parking" funds with the States for use in future
cleanups. (OSRTI)
Recommendation/Option 104: Establish National Standards and Action Levels. Option:
Headquarters and the Regions should identify the five or ten contaminants most commonly
encountered in soil and sediment at sites across the country in order to conserve resources and
-------
utilize the experience and risk information developed since the inception of the Superfund
Program.
Action: OSRTI agrees with the larger goal of promoting consistency from site-to-site
and Region-to-Region with respect to both cleanup levels and action levels, and has
developed several tools and policies to promote such consistency to the extent that it is
advisable. However, one set of cleanup levels and one set of action levels applicable to
all Superfund sites cannot be developed for several reasons. CERCLA cleanups must
meet applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), or demonstrate that a
CERCLA waiver of an ARAR is appropriate for that particular site remedy. Some
ARARs flow from State regulations, which would be ARARs in that State, but not other
States. Furthermore, some Federal ARARs are ARARs only in some circumstances
while not in others. Therefore, cleanup levels which are based upon ARARs would not
be cleanup levels for those sites where the requirement is not an ARAR. (OSRTI)
1.3 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT/ACCOUNTABILITY
Background:
EPA uses both internal and external performance measures pursuant to the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) to document and evaluate the Superfund Program's
progress and accomplishments, and to foster accountability. The Study reviewed these
performance measures, and recommended specific areas for additional review and improvement,
as well as areas where additional measures could be used to enhance the Program's performance.
Some of the new performance measures the Study recommended be developed are tied to higher-
level leadership initiatives also suggested by the Study. For instance, following the
recommendations that EPA clearly articulate a hierarchy of goals for the Superfund Program,
and more aggressively promote the One Cleanup Program, the Agency should develop
performance measures that are consistent with the newly prioritized goals and that encourage
cleanup approaches to complement one another, respectively.
Some of the recommendations in this section address Regional performance. The Study
suggested the need for Regionally-specific efficiency measures and enforcement measures to
provide an accurate picture of successes and areas that need improvement in each Region, as
opposed to the national targets that are the current focus of performance measures. As to the
efficiency measures, the Program received funding from the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer/Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation (OCFO/OPEI) Measures Development
competition to identify potential efficiency measures, including long-term, annual, and Program
management efficiency measures. A national efficiency measure for site specific charging has
been adopted. After researching this issue on the Regional level, it was concluded that there
should not be a definitive Regional percentage or goal for Superfund site charging. Please refer
to Section 2.2.
-------
Supporting the Study's objective of finding ways to get more money in the RA pipeline to help
fund long-term cleanup efforts, the Study recommends new performance measures related to
collecting funds under SSCs. These measures would support efforts to correct slow collections
from States, and help correct the variations in how Regions manage SSCs. Developing new
performance measures related to special accounts and cost recovery would also support the
efficient flow of funding through the Program, making more funding available more quickly to
address Program priorities.
Finally, the Study addresses the Program offices' "Superfund Performance Measures/' those
measures "relevant, for the most part, to achieving the goals of the Superfund Program." The
Study looks at ways to improve upon those measures. For instance, the Study notes that as the
objectives of ORD's Superfund research program are to reduce the cost of cleaning up Superfund
sites; improve the efficiency of characterizing and remediating sites; and reduce the scientific
uncertainties for improved decision making at Superfund sites, ORD could build upon these
objectives and possibly develop results-oriented or even outcome-oriented measures. Specific
examples given include setting a target of $X in cleanup cost savings per year as a result of
ORD's technical support, or applying a measure showing the reduced time and costs required to
characterize or remediate sites as a result of implementing models or methodologies developed
by ORD. OSWER could develop similar outcome-oriented measures for its technology
innovation activities.
Recommendations and Actions:
Recommendation 3: Develop Performance Measures (PMs) Related to Hierarchy of Goals.
OSWER and the lead Region should spearhead an effort to develop performance measures that
are consistent with the newly articulated hierarchy of [Program] goals [related to
Recommendation 2, wherein senior leadership would hone the Superfund Program's goals, more
clearly articulate the relative priority among these goals, and allocate resources accordingly].
For example, if the Agency decides to count cleanups, no matter what the source, the
performance measure should include NPL construction completions, Superfund Alternative Site
completions, removal actions that complete all of the work at an NPL site, and voluntary
cleanups.
Action: A work group is being assembled that will consider the hierarchy of the goals
identified through Recommendation 2, and the range of performance measures across the
Superfund Program to track progress toward these goals. (OSWER)
Recommendation 7: Establish One Cleanup Program PMs. OSWER and OECA should
build upon their work to improve and strengthen performance measurement by establishing
measures that encourage the various cleanup approaches to complement each other.
Action: No additional action will be taken against this recommendation as OECA/OSRE
performance measures already include non-NPL/SAS sites. (OSRTI)
-------
Recommendation 8: National Program Managers (NPMs) adopt PMs. All NPMs with
Superfund resources should adopt and track a manageable number of meaningful performance
measures and ensure data systems are in place to facilitate timely and accurate reporting.
Action: OSWER and the Budget, Planning, and Evaluation Branch (BPEB) of OSRTI
will: (1) assemble a group of NPM representatives to evaluate the recommendation's
feasibility and scope and choose issues for resolution; (2) prepare a white paper that
outlines the steps needed to adopt (if necessary) and track performance measures and
ensure the quality of data systems; (3) obtain senior management approval for any new
measures or data coordination; and (4) prepare guidance outlining procedures for
coordinating and tracking performance measures and ensuring data accuracy. (OSWER
and OSRTI)
Recommendation 57: Evaluate Enforcement PMs; Adopt Site-Specific PMs. To improve
individual regional performance, OECA and the lead Region should evaluate current
enforcement measures and develop additional regional site-specific measures that provide a more
accurate picture of the Program's success and provide an incentive to improve performance.
Action: OS RE discussed this issue with the Regions during the Cost Recovery
Conference in FY 2004. It has been determined that working in conjunction with a work
group conducting the management review under Recommendation 54, performance
measures that address the "Enforcement First" policy at removal sites will be developed.
In addition, a work group will be established to review the existing cost recovery' GPRA
performance measure and the existing return on investment program measure; write a
summary of recommendations for the new cost recovery performance measures and
return on investment program measures: and develop all necessary data element codes
and definitions of accomplishment data for the new performance measure for CERCLIS
tracking. (OECA)
Recommendation 91: Establish SSC PMs. OSWER and the Regions should work together to
establish performance measures for SSCs. which could address the timeliness of collecting funds
and returning excess funds to States.
Action: Providing State cost share is a statutory requirement. The SSC is the vehicle for
implementing this action. EPA will not be establishing performance measures for SSCs.
but instead will address the main issue raised in the report, which is States maintaining
their commitment to pay for cost share under these tight budget situations. Long-term,
this will be addressed under EPA's Superfund Post Construction Completion (PCC)
Strategy forNPL sites. The PCC Strategy is a cohesive management framework of
initiatives that is expected to provide greater assurance that Superfund remedies remain
protective over the long term, to help States develop the capacity to assure Superfund
State Cost Share, operations and maintenance (O&M), and methods to creatively finance
both. The Agency expects to undertake the projects outlined in this strategy over the next
five years. (OSRTI)
-------
Recommendation 100: Revise Superfund PMs. ORD should continue their internal review
and revise, where appropriate, their Superfund performance measures to become more Program
results-oriented. Similarly. OSWER should examine the feasibility of developing outcome-
oriented performance measures for its technology innovation activities.
Action: ORD will undertake a number of activities over the next year to ensure that its
research reflects OSWER's highest-priority need, and that its performance becomes more
results-oriented. These activities include: merging existing plans; conducting a progress
review for OSWER; preparing for the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB)
Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART); and responding to recommendations.
(ORD)
Recommendation 102: Adopt New Superfund PMs. EPA's management and support offices
should meet with their Superfund response and enforcement clients to review current measures
and possibly establish new performance measures specific to the Superfund Program, such as on
special accounts and cost recovery in order to increase the Superfund Program's integration and
efficiency.
Action: The Regions perform an annual reconciliation of special accounts data and
report on the use of special accounts by States. Headquarters collects data through
CERCLIS and quarterly reporting. There are currently five performance measures.
OECA will determine if additional performance measures governing the use of special
accounts are necessary. (OECA}
1.4 HOMELAND SECURITY/NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT INCIDENTS
Background;
Much of the same workforce that responds to emergencies and oil spills and conducts time-
critical and non-time-critical removals also supports important homeland security
responsibilities. Some of the interviewees stated that On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) are being
pressed into action for Homeland Security preparedness and response activities, taking time
away from classic emergency response and removal activities. The affected Regions also noted
that when multiple events of national significance occur, the Removal Program in the affected
Region virtually shuts down. In addition, there is an impact on the Removal Program nationwide
as supporting Regions send OSCs to assist in staffing the events.
During this same time, five additional staff positions were given to each Region to compensate
for the increased homeland security workload. While large national incidents have virtually
depleted some Regions of their staff, much of the actual costs of the incidents have been
reimbursed. (The costs of responding to the World Trade Center attacks, the Capitol anthrax
problem, and the space shuttle Columbia disaster were all reimbursed). In recognition of this
depletion of staff at the time of an event, the Regions have begun to develop a response corps
that draws on the expertise in other programs (e.g., RPMs, RCRA corrective action staff, and
-------
drinking water staff). Although contract money and additional staff have been provided to the
Superfund Program for homeland security, the Regions have stated that they have not been
funded adequately for the training, equipment, and travel needed for the response capability
expected of the Agency as specified in the Federal Response Plan. EPA has to prepare for its
expanding role in preparedness for counlerterrorism response and homeland security through
activities such as development of Continuity of Operation Plans and continuity of government
functions.
Recommendations and Actions:
Recommendation 33: Address Homeland Security FTE Funding. The Agency needs to find
a permanent fix for the high-priority funding needed for the 50 homeland security FTE that the
Regions were required to hire.
Action: This recommendation will be considered in the FY 2006 budget process.
(OSWER/OEM and OCFO)
Recommendation 34: Determine Additional Nationally Significant Incident Funding/Staff
Needs. As part of the next budget process, the Agency should evaluate whether, above and
beyond the initial FTE, the Agency needs more dollars and FTE to address preparation for
nationally significant incidents.
Action: This recommendation will be considered in the FY 2006 budget process.
(OSWKWOEM and OCFO)
Recommendation 35: Cross-Train Managers for Nationally Significant Incidents. Building
upon the development of the Regional Response Teams, OSWER and the Regions should
support more cross training among OSCs. RPMs. and Site Assessment Managers (SAMs) to
support removal efforts while OSCs are addressing nationally significant incidents.
Action: Several initiatives are underway to help address workload involved in managing
incidents of national significance. Advanced Incident Command System (ICS) training
and Incident Management Team (IMT) training will be provided to all Regions by
December 2004. Initial training has been provided to the Response Support Corps for all
Regions during FY 2004. In addition, the Program has ongoing work addressing issues
of being prepared for multiple large-scale incidents. (OliM)
10
-------
Chapter 2
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Introduction
The recommendations in this chapter address the estimating, budget planning, resource
distribution, and execution of Superfund resources in order to effectively forecast Superfund
cleanup resource needs. The Study suggested areas where more effective cost estimating,
planning, distribution, and utilization of Superfund resources would make more resources
directly available for site cleanup.
The recommendations under Effective Financial/Resource Management fall into five
subcategories: (1) Budget Formulation and Planning; (2) Budget Execution; (3) Regional
Resource Distribution/Management; (4) Special Accounts Management; and (5) Remedy and
Response Cost Management.
2.1 BUDGET FORMULATION AND PLANNING
Background;
As part of its internal budget allocation process. EPA set up distinctions and definitions for
Superfund dollars, which are used today by Congress and OMB. These definitions have become
self-imposed limitations, resulting in unnecessary internal transaction costs when money needs to
be moved around or funds "transformed" for different uses.
Recommendations and Actions:
Recommendation 14: Simplify the Budget. OSWER and the Regions, in coordination with
OCFO, should identify ways to simplify the internal budget structure so that funds can be used as
efficiently as possible.
Action: No action will be taken to implement this recommendation for FYs 2005 or
2006. The Agency does not believe that the current budget structure constrains the
efficient use of Superfund resources. OSRTI, OSRE. and OCFO will discuss the value of
developing options for budget simplification for possible implementation in the FY 2007
budget process. (OSRTI and OCFO)
Recommendation 28: Plan Early for Mega-sites. OSWER and the Regions should establish a
process for national review of the scope of potential mega-sites at the time of listing to ensure
that sites are properly characterized as early as possible and out-year funding needs are
accurately forecast as part of the development of the President's budget.
11
-------
Action: Because this is an ongoing activity, no additional action will be taken against
this recommendation. The OSRTI national NPL Tiering Panel currently identifies
potential mega-sites for use in the Assistant Administrator's (AA) OSWER-proposed
NPL briefings. When a site is presented to the NPL Tiering Panel, the Region is
specifically asked whether the site has the potential to be a mega-site. (OSRTI)
Recommendation 52: Transfer PRP oversight to OECA. For budget planning and execution
purposes the study recommends that OECA return to a common-sense definition that includes
oversight of PRP actions as an enforcement activity which will improve FTE utilization.
Action: OSRE plans to take no action on recommendation 52 as it was based on the
erroneous assumption that the current lapse of FTE in the Enforcement Program is due to
that fact that removal and RI/FS oversight responsibilities were transferred from OECA
to OSWER in the mid-1990s without the commensurate transfer of resources/FTE.
However, in a memo dated December 14, 1994, 105.6 FTE and $22,971,000 were
transferred from OECA to OSWER lo cover this transferred function. Thus, transfer of
this function back to OECA without the commensurate redirection of resources would not
resolve the issue identified in the report. (OECA)
Ke% - Recommendation/Option 103: Reduce Costs to Meet Numerical Targets. Option 1:
Pro-rata cut - The Agency should execute an across-the-board, pro-rata cut based on an
estimated need for remedial action funding, and should make exceptions only on an extremely
limited basis. Option 2: Targeted Cut - The Agency should mandate specified numerical
reductions, but target the reductions by amount and organization. Option 3: Hybrid Approach -
The Agency should set numerical targets in a tiered structure to achieve a hybrid of Option 1 and
2. Option 4: No Initial Cuts - The Agency should make no cuts initially until it has implemented
some of the Programmatic and management recommendations.
Action: The Agency has decided to implement Option 4 in the FY 2006 budget process.
(OSWER. OECA. andOCFO)
Recommendation/Option 106: Implement One Allocation for all Response Activities to the
Regions. To maximize resources for multi-year plans and provide incentives for cost
efficiencies during implementation, OSWER should consider funding the Regions one allocation
for all response activities
Action: No action will be taken against this recommendation. The Program will
continue with the current process in order to ensure efficient allocation of Program
resources. (OSRTI)
Recommendation/Option 107: Transfer Management and Support to the Environmental
Programs and Management (EPM) Appropriations. Option: EPA could begin work on
developing a long-term plan for transferring Superfund management and support costs to the
EPM appropriation.
12
-------
Action: No action will be taken against this recommendation. After investigating the
possibility of implementing this plan, OCFO determined that the option is not feasible.
(OCFO)
Recommendation/Option 108: Return Deobligated Dollars to the Regions. OSWER,
working with the Regions, should revise the deobligation policy to increase the ratio of
deobligated dollars returned to the Regions (e.g., to 50/50) with the proviso that a high
percentage of the funds be directed to remedial action or removals at NPL sites.
Action: No action will be taken against this recommendation. The Program will
continue with the current policy of returning 25 percent of deobligated dollars for
Regional funding needs. (OSRTI)
2.2 BUDGET EXECUTION
Background:
The Regions perform many activities that are charged site-specifically. Consistent and accurate
site-specific charging strengthens the Program's cost recovery by ensuring that PRPs pay their
appropriate share of site cleanup costs. It also helps EPA demonstrate to Congress and the
public that the Agency is using its Superfund funding to conduct site-specific work, as opposed
to costs that cannot be allocated to specific Superfund sites, such as research. Within EPA,
increasing site-specific charging will reduce overhead by properly accounting for hours and will
reveal resource misallocations or adjustments that may be needed.
Recommendations and Actions:
Key - Recommendation 21: Deobligate FY 2004 Funds. EPA Regions and Headquarters
should establish a schedule for FY 2004 deobligations and initiate actions immediately so the
funds will be available during this fiscal year.
Action: The work suggested by this recommendation is being implemented. The
Program continuously evaluates all Superfund resources that might be available for
deobligation in State contracts, special accounts, interagency agreements, and expired
contracts. Deobligations are made and allocated to new start RA projects. $67 million
has been targeted for deobligation in 2005. (OSRTI)
Key - Recommendation 66: Analyze Superfund Charging. OCFO should analyze the
Superfund charging across the Agency to ensure the use of approved methodologies and gain a
better understanding of the variations.
Actions: All Program Managers who use Superfund Layoff methodologies will be asked
to resubmit their methodology to OFM for review. A phased approach could be taken to
13
-------
ease the workload burden of this undertaking, with a goal of completing such a task over
the next year. (OCFO/OFM)
Key - Recommendation 67: Set a Site-Specific Charging Goal. OECA should set a site-
specific charging goal (e.g.. XX percent) tailored for each Region. To ensure progress toward
that goal. OECA should ask the Regions to submit three-year implementation plans and establish
a system to track the performance of those plans.
Action: OECA, OSWER, and OCFO have concluded that there should not be a definitive
Region-specific percentage or goal for Superfund site charging because of numerous
varying factors, i.e., holidays, training, non site-specific projects, etc. The National effort
concluded that we should not set a site-specific charging for each Region, but instead
ensure full compliance with site-specific charging when working on a matter related to a
specific Superfund site.
A national efficiency measure for site-specific charging has been adopted. After
researching this issue on the Regional level, it w as concluded there should not be a
definitive Regional percentage or goal for Superfund site charging because of number of
varying factors such as holidays, training, non-site-specific projects, etc. (OECA)
Key - Recommendation 68: Support Site-Specific Charging. Key Program Offices (OCFO,
OECA, and OSWER) should review the new payroll system to determine if there are
opportunities to make site-specific charging easier and more user-friendly.
Action: The new PeoplePlus (PPL) payroll system has gone live. Prior to this occurring.
a work group was established to identify problem areas with the system. The group was
able to get a number of issues addressed, but they are still working on getting other issues
resolved. Ultimately, PPL will make site-specific charging easier by showing account
codes/descriptions on the screen; displaying a user-defined description of account codes,
if a description exists; making dates more visible on the screen; and reducing keystrokes.
(OCFO)
2.3 REGIONAL RESOURCE DISTRIBUTION/MANAGEMENT
/. Sharing Regional FTEs and Resources across Regions
Background:
Nationally, the Superfund Program has the skills and resources that have resulted in cleaning up
almost 900 NPL sites and conducting more than 7,000 removal actions. However, since the FTE
distribution by Region has remained relatively unchanged since the early 1990s, some Regions
have been able to complete more of their Superfund workload than other Regions. For example,
the Emergency Response Program has been more focused nationally since September 11, 2001,
with emergency response assets in each Region strategically aligned to help respond to larger-
14
-------
scale emergencies in other Regions. Post-construction work has also grown significantly as
more and more sites reach construction completion.
Certain Regions clearly have developed strong Programmatic capabilities in certain key areas
(e.g., PRP searches and contracting) relative to other Regions. In some instances, one Region
has a strong capability, but over time forecasts a decreasing need for that capability, while
another Region has that same need but has fewer FTE to do the work.
In addition, with the number of sites moving from RI/FS and design to construction, and in light
of funding constraints, some managers believe more activities should be accomplished by RPMs
and other staff in the Regions, rather than by contractors. In some Regions, the Superfund
Program appears to have grown used to relying heavily upon contractors or other federal
agencies. One issue that was raised in talking to the Regions is that when similar work is done
under RCRA or in the EPA Water Program, more of the work is performed in-house. Increased
direct oversight of response activities by RPMs also can strengthen the RPMs' technical and
managerial skills.
Recommendations and Actions:
Recommendations 16,17, and 47: Share Work Across Regions. All NPMs with Superfund
resources should evaluate and pursue opportunities for greater resource or work sharing among
Regions (Rec. 16). The lead Region should facilitate a process that takes advantage of
capabilities already developed and demonstrated in areas of Programmatic specialization by
encouraging Regions with needs in these areas to obtain support from the Regions with the
capability and capacity to take on more work (Rec. 17). The Regions should evaluate options for
completing all work at each site, making the fullest appropriate use of in-house capabilities, to
maximize the use of contract dollars and resources and to support staff professional development
(Rec. 47).
Action: These recommendations are considered to be a priority. The Regions are
interested in sharing expertise with each other, however, it is not clear if the Regions
have the available or excess capacity to share their expertise or specialization (e.g., detail
assignment of a staff person to work in another Region or to provide training to another
Region). These recommendations were discussed at the July and November 2004
Division Directors' meetings. By the third quarter, FY 2005, the Regions will select one
or two pilots to test the viability of sharing work across the Regions, and by the fourth
quarter the Regions will implement best practices, as appropriate. The Regions suggested
that Recommendation 47 be considered a sub-set of Recommendation 17, where Regions
with certain expertise and available capacity be tapped to help out other Regions that are
in need of assistance. (Lead Region)
Recommendation 31: Adopt Best Practice Approach. OSWER should encourage more
Regions to adopt the best practice (or "one list") approach to help ensure that the collective
resources of EPA and the States are being utilized to achieve the greatest benefits.
15
-------
Action: No specific actions are planned for this recommendation. The One Cleanup
Program Site Assessment Task Force held one conference call. STSIB and others will
continue to highlight related regional activities, such as Region 3's Unified Phase
Assessment and Region 4's 'Front Door" approach, at the applicable meetings. (OSRTI)
Recommendation 50: Contract Laboratoiy Program (CLP) and Environmental Services
Assistance Team (ESAT) Resources. OSWER and the Regions need to have a national
dialogue to pursue flexibility between resources allocated between CLP and ESAT contracts to
encourage greater cost effectiveness.
Action: Thus far, national dialogue has included three Field and Analytical Services
Teaming Advisory Committee (FASTAC) conference calls and a face-to-face meeting in
Summer 2004. In addition, on November 17, 2004, Superfund Division Directors (DDs)
were briefed on a range of related issues, including options for addressing potential FY
2005 funding shortfalls to CLP and ESAT. The Regional Lab Directors discussed these
same issues in December. These discussions also considered the challenges for the
Program in better managing spending via the Remedial Action Contract (RAC), the
Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START), and other Tier 4
contracts. A small group comprising senior managers is being formed to follow up on the
funding issues raised at the DDs' meeting. This group will include and/or inform
members of the FASTAC Directive implementation work group. (OSRTI)
Recommendation 51: Forecast Long-Term Analytical Needs. The Superfund Division
Directors and the Regional laboratories should forecast the long-term analytical needs for the
Program, and should investigate whether the Centers of Applied Science approach would be
appropriate for the Program. Wherever possible, they should encourage the sharing of expertise
and equipment purchases among Regions.
Action: No additional action will be taken against this recommendation. In July,
August, and September 2004, FASTAC discussed this concept during three conference
calls and in a face-to-face meeting. At the August meeting, FASTAC generated ideas
that were designed to contribute to a Regional Lab Directors" discussion on this topic in
October. The Lab Directors did meet in October to discuss the concept. As a result, they
plan to respond with recommendations that should increase the effectiveness and
efficiency of the labs. However, it should be noted that while "sharing'" across the
Regions has occurred in the past, and is expected to occur in the future, in general, both
FASTAC and the Lab Directors believe that this is not likely to be practical on a large
scale. (OSRTI)
Recommendation 60: Improve Tracking and Cost Recovery. To improve the tracking and
recovery- of removal costs. Regions that have not invested in field administrative specialists
should develop this expertise, or find other ways to accomplish the same goal.
Action: This recommendation is being implemented in Regions, as appropriate. No
additional action will be taken on this recommendation. (LeadRegion)
16
-------
//. Evaluating FTE Allocation
Background;
Overall FTE allocation among the Regions must be revisited more fundamentally. In the early
1990s, the Agency chose to no longer redistribute staff positions across the Regions on an annual
basis, effectively "freezing" the number of positions each Region receives. Therefore, baseline
FTE allocation has not been adjusted even though workloads have changed. A strong
perception—at the very least—remains that some Regions continue to reap a windfall from this
"frozen" FTE allocation. The Agency has begun to develop workforce strategies that will assist
every organization with evaluating its current workforce's skills and abilities and with planning
for the Superfund Program's short- and long-term needs.
By design, the Regions conduct the bulk of the Superfund Program's work. When Superfund
was in its infancy, it was appropriate for Regional implementation to be supported and guided by
a strong, centralized programmatic policy and oversight apparatus Although Headquarters
offices have reduced staffing levels in recent years, the question arises as to whether the current
level of Headquarters staffing and skill mix is appropriate, now that the Program has matured.
Recommendations and Actions;
Key - Recommendations 19 and 20: Prepare for FY 2007 Staff* Redistribution and Direct
Headquarters Resources to Cleanup. The Agency should execute other smaller-scale
adjustments as appropriate, and begin setting the stage now for redistributing staff positions in
FY 2007, after the consolidations, specializations, and results of benchmarking have been
reviewed and incorporated (Rec. 19). The Agency should evaluate Headquarters Superfund FTE
and make every effort to redirect resources to activities that more directly contribute to site
cleanups (Rec. 20).
Action: The Agency will be undertaking a workforce analysis to guide future allocation
of FTE resources. (OCFO)
III. Pursuing the Superfund Alternative Sites Approach
Background:
Under the SAS approach, EPA oversees PRP response actions at sites that are eligible for NPL
listing but are not listed. The benefits of this approach are prompt cleanup of high-risk sites,
reduced need for EPA funding, and savings in time and energy otherwise required for site listing.
Nevertheless, EPA still expends resources for oversight and, in many cases, for some of the site
characterization. Such use of resources may take assets from NPL cleanups in the Region or
elsewhere in the country. Moreover, because the Alternative Sites have not been subjected to
any national priority ranking process, EPA has not demonstrated clearly the appropriateness of
addressing Alternative Sites relative to funding work at existing NPL sites.
17
-------
Currently, Regions vary in their use of SASs. Some promote the approach strongly, while others
view it cautiously or find it too confining to be worth pursuing. PRP groups support some sort of
alternative to the NPL, but because the current SAS approach closely mirrors the National
Contingency Plan (NCP) process with little perceived benefit to them, they do not support it
enthusiastically. Among the criticisms heard during interviews were a lack of transparency on
site assessment and information on pre-scoring, and inconsistency among Regions, leading some
interviewees to characterize the approach as being subject to abuse. From their perspective, at
least an NPL site goes through rigorous quality control and due process before listing. Many
believe that clearer expectations and criteria should be established nationally for Superfund
Alternative Sites.
Recommendation 26: Prioritize Superfund Alternative Sites. The Regions should establish
and implement a process by which SASs are prioritized along with their NPL sites to ensure that
response funds are being spent on the sites with the highest risk.
Action: OSRTI recommends that no additional action be taken against this
recommendation in favor of existing Regional decision processes. Many Regions have
created Regional Decision Teams (or similar mechanisms) to look at all sites and
determine the best disposition for each (e.g., federal. State, other cleanup program).
(OSRTI)
2.4 SPECIAL ACCOUNTS MANAGEMENT
Background;
As important as it is to strengthen and maintain cost recovery programs across the country, it
should be an even higher priority to take advantage of opportunities to reduce the need for future
cost recover)- actions and to focus cost recovers- efforts where they are most needed.
Establishing and effectively using special accounts is one such opportunity. The Regions have
done an excellent job of negotiating with PRPs to include special account provisions in consent
decrees. A few Regions have established special accounts for nearly every settlement they
reached in the last year. Settlements establishing special accounts have collected $1.1 billion to
pay for future response actions and have generated an additional $177 million in interest.
However, when it comes to using the money in special accounts, there appears to be a fairly
significant variability in the Regions' understanding of appropriate uses and the potential
benefits. For example, one Region was surprised to learn that special account funds could be
used to pay site-related Agency payroll expenses.
18
-------
Recommendations and Actions;
- Recommendation 15: Allocate Special Account/State Cost Share Funding. OSWER
and OECA should include special account and State cost share as they allocate funds internally
and communicate funding availability.
Action: OSRTI is currently looking at special accounts, SSC balances, and every other
possible source of funding when negotiates with the Regions and when resources are
allocated to the Regions. This is an ongoing activity and part of the yearly work planning
and allocation process. The FY 2005 Work Planning memo to the Regions will
emphasize the use of special accounts for site cleanup. OSWER and OECA will send a
memo to the Regions explaining the incorporation into the annual allocation process.
(OSRTI)
Key - Recommendation 61: Update Special Accounts Guidance. OECA and the Regions
should discuss the current special account guidance to determine if additional clarification is
necessary to maximize the use of special account dollars.
Action: Following a Regional call with special accounts contacts in June 2004. and
discussions at the Cost Recovers' Conference in August 2004, OSRE will meet with
OCFO to determine the need for additional special accounts guidance. A Special
Account Management memo will be drafted and finalized to address any outstanding
issues. (OECA)
Key - Recommendations 62 & 96: Report on Special Accounts. Regions should track, and
periodically report to Headquarters, how much special account money they are using annually
and how they are using it (Rec. 62). OECA and OCFO should design reports that clearly
describe the use and status of special accounts, and provide them to managers in the Regions and
Headquarters on a regular basis (Rec. 96).
Action: A Special Account Tracking System already exists that provides information on
the use of special accounts, including site-specific amounts deposited, disbursed,
obligated, and still available; these reports are updated quarterly. This system has been
recently updated to provide additional reporting capability (e.g., it now can provide the
cleanup status for each site with a special account). OSRE/OCFO/OSRTI will a develop
a site-specific template where Regions can identify the activities that the special account
has been used to fund in the past, as well as plans for using the special account in the
future. (OECA)
Key - Recommendation 95: Develop Special Account Fact Sheets. OCFO should develop
fact sheets on setting up special accounts, utilizing special account dollars, and closing out the
accounts.
19
-------
Action: OSRE and OCFO will draft, review, and comment on fact sheets. OSRE will
have the lead on fact sheets concerning policy/guidance, while OCFO will have the lead
on financial issues. (OECA/OCFO)
Key - Recommendation 97: Use Old Special Account Funds. OECA should identify the
oldest special accounts and then meet with the Regions to discuss uses of those dollars and
progress towards using them.
Action: As part of Recommendations 62 and 96, OSRE will develop a site-specific
template to identify the activities that the special account has already been used to fund.
as well as plans for future use of the special account. Once the template is designed,
priority will be provided to performing the analysis on the oldest special accounts.
(OECA)
2.5 REMEDY AND RESPONSE COST MANAGEMENT
/. Integrating Site Assessment Programs
Background:
With the creation and rapid growth of EPA and State Brownfields Programs, issues have been
raised about whether the Superfund Site Assessment Program warrants changes. Is there still a
need for the number of NPL listing-oriented assessments that are being conducted, given the Site
Assessment Program under the Brownfields Program? Could the two Site Assessment Programs
work together in a more complementary way to enhance program effectiveness and reduce costs?
If so, how?
Another area where better integration would be beneficial is prior to NPL listing. When RI/FS
work and "enforcement first" activities can proceed prior to NPL listing, the Agency can make
progress at sites much more quickly. For example, data gathering that is planned and conducted
with a view not simply to listing the site but also to selecting a remedy represents a more
efficient use of resources. To the extent the Program gathers more of the necessary data the first
time, it can speed up work on the site and address site risks or other community concerns. The
art lies in discerning likely NPL sites early enough in the pre-remedial stage to judge where to
invest the additional resources sooner than would be typical. In an effort to do this, some
Regions use a team approach for certain sites so that SAMs and RPMs develop the data they
need concurrently. In other Regions, the States do all of the site assessments and have integrated
voluntary and traditional site assessment programs.
20
-------
Recommendations and Actions:
Recommendation 29: Review Brownfields/Superfund Site Assessment Criteria. OSWER
should examine its site assessment criteria to ensure that the Regions are integrating the
Brownfields site assessment objectives into the Superfund site assessment process in order to
capitalize on potential Programmatic efficiencies and resource savings. The Regions should
continue to coordinate grant funding for site assessment work under the Brownfields Program
and State programs.
Action: Because this work is ongoing, no additional action will be taken against this
recommendation. Superfund site assessment and Brownfields site assessment are two
completely different programs, budgets, and statutes. The Superfund and Brownfield
Offices meet regularly to coordinate their respective activities. (OSRTI and the Office of
Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment [OBCR])
Recommendation 30: Integrate Site Assessment and Remedial Activities. The Regions
should continue to make a standard practice of integrating site assessment work more fully with
early-stage remedial work to expedite remedial activities and save resources. At the Regional
level, give greater support to the use of SAM/RPM teams in order to move targeted pre-NPL
sites more quickly and appropriately into the remedial pipeline.
Action: Integrated site assessments and expanded site assessments are now routine when
appropriate. No additional action will betaken against this recommendation. (Lead
Region)
II. Examining the Role of the National Remedy Review Board and the Cost of Site Work
Background:
The selection of high-dollar remedies led to the formation of the National Remedy Review Board
(NRRB). While the NRRB has reduced the cost of newly selected remedies, interviewees
believe greater savings could be achieved if the NRRB reviewed a broader universe of sites and
site remedies. In addition, after remedies are selected (with or without NRRB review), selected
remedies are not revisited to monitor the success and cost of their implementation. Sites that are
reviewed by the NRRB are not analyzed with an eye as to whether the remedy is being
implemented in the most cost-effective manner. Both OSWER and the Study Team examined
the role of the NRRB and both groups reached similar conclusions.
A mid-process review of costs can optimi/e LTRAs and thus reduce costs. The initial Pump-
and-Treat "Optimization Reviews" have been well received by both EPA and the States, and
there appears to be value in expanding the expectation for these project reviews. Lessons learned
in one Region or at one site need to be shared across the nation so that the same benefits can be
realized across the Program as quickly as possible.
21
-------
The NRRB serves in an advisory nature to the Regions, per the charter, and submits
recommendations for consideration. These recommendations are often incorporated into the
remedy, but are at the discretion of the Regions. Comments were received that suggested there
should be consultation with OSWER when a Region deviates from the Board's
recommendations,
Recommendations and Actions;
Key - Recommendations 37 & 38: Enhance NRRB's Role. The NRRB's work has resulted in
reduced costs for selected remedies. OSWER should re-evaluate the criteria for identifying sites
for scrutiny by the NRRB, with an eye toward expanding the number of sites undergoing review.
One approach for expanding the number of sites may be to lower the estimated remedy cost
threshold, while another may be to look at factors beyond a cost threshold, perhaps to include
technology types, site uniqueness factors, or issues of national significance (Rec. 37). In
addition, the Charter of the Board regarding accountability for implementing its
recommendations made to the Regions should be revisited in light of the maturation of the
Program and the Board's changing role (Rec. 38).
Action: OSRTI will analy/.e the number of Records of Decision (RODs) signed each
year since the NRRB's inception to identify trends, and determine whether the NRRB has
met its initial target of reviewing 10 percent of the decisions each year. A memo has
been drafted that lowers the threshold of the NRRB's involvement from $30 million to
$25 million. (OSRTI)
Recommendation 39: Require Value Engineering. To ensure cost-efficient engineering of
remedies, OSWER should require value engineering (review of design detail for cost efficiency)
as a requirement for all remedies above a certain dollar level. As an example, particular attention
should be paid to the energy and staffing costs of various designs for groundwater pump-and-
treat facilities.
Action: OSRTI will conduct at least two value engineering pilots. OSRTI will also
develop and issue a fact sheet explaining the value engineering process and benefits and a
training module for EPA Regions that pertains to the value engineering process. (OSRTI)
Key - Recommendation 40: Conduct Long-Term Response Reviews. OSWER should
consider cost reviews of every site with an LTRA to reduce remedy costs. Cost saving
approaches should be shared across the Regions.
Action: In August 2004. OSRTI established its commitment to routine optimization in a
new policy entitled, "Action Plan for Ground Water Remedy Optimi/ation" (OSWER
9283.1-25, August 25, 2004) OSWER will consider all LTRA groundwater restoration
projects when identifying priority sites to receive an optimi/ation evaluation.
Optimi/ation is intended to encourage systematic review and modification to existing
groundwater pump-and-treat systems in order to promote continuous improvement and
enhance overall remedy and cost effectiveness. An Action Plan which outlines a process
22
-------
for prioritizing the LTRA projects to receive Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs)
will result in site-specific recommendations for system improvement and cost savings. A
database will be developed as part of an interagency effort through the Federal
Remediation Technologies Roundtable. The RSE reports will be collected and
distributed as part of a broader effort to manage information on optimization of
performance and long-term site management. (OSRTI)
III, Reviewing Specific Records of Decisions
Background:
One of the most significant decisions that the Agency makes in cleaning up a site is the remedy
selection. Some sites with remedies selected many years ago, prior to creation of the NRRB and
implementation of other Superfund remedy reforms, have not had their remedies constructed.
New technology and experience may warrant a different, more efficient cleanup approach. At
PRP-lead sites, remedy modifications have been common because the PRPs have great
incentives to consider and evaluate potential cost efficiencies that achieve cleanup goals. Many
EPA project and program managers have not perceived the same incentives to re-evaluate
selected remedies at Fund-lead sites. Now. as budgets have become tighter, looking closely at
selected remedies and considering appropriate updates is a potentially critical activity.
Recommendations and Actions:
Recommendation 41: Review RODs. OSWER should set up a review team of Headquarters
and Regional staff to make sure that selected remedies at sites incorporate technology and the
most cost-efficient cleanup approach based on experience, since the remedies1 selection.
Action: Two sites have been selected as pilots: Summitville Mine, Region 8, and
Vineland, Region 2. OSRTI senior managers are focusing on the remedies proposed for
these sites, primarily because of cost and complexity of the issues surrounding these sites.
They are reviewing past and proposed activities, with lessons learned that may be applied
to similar analyses at other sites. (OSRTI)
Recommendation 42: Identify and Share Successful Remedies. OSWER and the Regions
should identify a limited number of common site types and successful designs, and make them
available to the Regions for remedies at similar sites. Recommendation/Option 105: Use
Presumptive Remedies and Generic Designs. Option /. To determine how the Agency has
historically developed presumptive remedies. OSWER or the Regions should conduct a lessons
learned analysis of how previously identified presumptive remedies were developed and
disseminated and determine if those lessons learned can help today. Option 2: OSWER should
expand presumptive remedy guidance to include more detailed technical designs to speed
cleanup and reduce study and design costs.
Action: OSRTI will investigate the potential for making available successful remedies
for standard site types. This will be discussed with representatives from the Corps of
23
-------
Engineers and engineering/design firms to determine what can be done and to assess the
utility of different options. There will be consideration of whether different design
components are potentially useful or whether they are too site-specific. Also, the
investigation will consider how this information could be accessed. Findings will be
documented along with recommendations. (OSRTI)
IV. Choosing a Funding Mechanism and Providing Oversight
Background;
To clean up a site, the Agency has four options: (1) use a current EPA contract, such as a
remedial action contract; (2) award a new site-specific contract; (3) enter into an IAG with
another federal agency; or (4) award an assistance agreement to a State. When selecting a
mechanism, EPA should take into account the needs of each particular site, the available capacity
for the work, the capability of the provider, and the overall cost of the various approaches.
Recent data suggest that Regions are using all of these options. In FY 2003, the Agency
obligated approximately 56 percent of its remedial action funding to IAGs. 36 percent to
contracts, and 8 percent in grants to States.
In many Regions, it appears that RPMs decide whether an IAG, contract, or grant will be used to
clean up a site. Because of the importance of this decision to the total cost of a site and the effect
on many other areas, including Regional contract capacity and state relations, many interviewees
suggested that senior Regional managers should be more consistently involved in this selection
decision. In addition, by visiting the site regularly, the RPM can determine first-hand how the
work is being conducted, and will be better prepared to deal with any cost or work issues raised
by contractors or personnel from other federal agencies.
Recommendations and Actions;
Recommendation 43: Ensure Senior Managers Help Select Cleanup Mechanism. Regional
senior management should be involved in selecting the cleanup mechanism (e.g., other federal
agency, remedial action contractor, or state) to ensure that funds are being managed as
effectively as possible.
Action: This recommendation is already being implemented and therefore no additional
action is planned at this time. (Lead Region)
Key - Recommendation 44; Conduct On-Site Oversight. Regional management should
encourage RPMs to conduct appropriate on-site oversight during construction to monitor the
activities performed by contractors, other federal or state agencies.
Action: The Regions will be asked to submit a summary of their current practices to the
lead Region, who will collect results and distribute them to all Regions and Headquarters
for Regional implementation of best practices, as appropriate. (Lead Region)
24
-------
Recommendation 49: Implement FASTAC Approach. The Regions should fully and
consistently implement the approach proposed by the FASTAC for cost-effective analytic
support for both the remedial and removal programs.
Action: OSRTI will initiate anew series of teleconferences with Regional managers to
consider ways to encourage/oversee FASTAC strategy implementation by: convening
face-to-face meeting(s) to explore implementation issues; developing options; discussing
next steps, and issuing a revised OSWER FASTAC Directive. (OSRTI)
Recommendation 65: Develop Cost-Benefit Analysis for RODs. OSWER should examine
the feasibility of using a more quantitative cost-benefit methodology for selecting technology
innovation projects, since resources are so limited in order to further improve Program
effectiveness.
Action: The procedures for selecting remedies are given in the NCP. By regulation,
remedies are chosen using a cost-effectiveness determination based on consideration of
the nine criteria. No further action will be taken against this recommendation as the work
is ongoing. (OSRTI)
Recommendation 69: Build Cost Analysis Expertise. The Regions should continue to build
cost analysis expertise
Action: On June 1, 2004, a memo was issued by OSRTI addressing this
recommendation. The purpose of the memo was to provide information about the
resources available to assist work assignment managers (WAMs) in the preparation of
independent government cost estimates (IGCEs) for Superfund site projects. (OSRTI-
Complete)
V. Benchmarking
Key- Recommendations 18 & 101: Remedial Pipeline Benchmarking. The Agency should
conduct benchmarking studies of Regional performance in both management and programmatic
areas to ensure that all aspects of the program are focusing on improving performance. Once an
activity is benchmarked, relevant offices should develop measures to ensure that
underperforming Regions improve their performance to benchmarked levels Those measures
could then be used as standards for performance.
Action: OSRTI will evaluate available information, work outputs, and work outcomes to
determine/identify appropriate Regional performance benchmarks that can be quantified.
These benchmarks will include performance indicators for both management and
programmatic activities. Benchmarks should be applicable across all Regions. This
project is comprised of four phases:
25
-------
Phase I - Document frequently used outputs and outcomes, categori/e whether the output
or outcome is of programmatic or management nature, and resolve issues related to
benchmarking.
Phase II - Using the data collected in Phase I. develop potential quantitative and
qualitative benchmarks based upon the criteria for site-specific pipeline cleanup activities
such as Rl/FSs, RDs, RAs (durations data), financial management activities (e.g., percent
of funds expended within three years), PRP searches, and other applicable activities.
Phase III - Analyze data to determine how each Region measures against the benchmarks,
identify Regional leaders in each area evaluated, and develop a plan to transfer best
practices to Regions and foster opportunities for innovations in getting work done more
efficiently.
Phase IV - Evaluate whether integration of benchmarking and best practices improved
program performance. (OSRTI)
26
-------
Chapter 3
CONTRACTS/GRANTS MANAGEMENT
Introduction
One of the quickest and perhaps most effective ways to inject more funding into the remedial
action pipeline is through deobligations and the effective management of contracts, grants, and
lAGs. Timely billing and closeout, and the quick re-programming of deobligated funds, can help
meet both near- and long-term needs to address funding shortfalls for long-term cleanups.
The recommendations in this chapter suggest ways to more efficiently use Superfund dollars
through effective contract, grant, and IAG management processes. These recommendations fall
into two subcategories: (1) Contracts & Grants/lAGs; and (2) Training (in these management
processes).
3.1 CONTRACTS & GRANTS/IAGs
Background:
The recommendations in this section address issues with the management—especially billing
and closeout—of contracts, grants, and lAGs.
Over the last several years, OSWER has led an Agency-wide effort to deobligate excess funds on
contracts or funds on expired contracts. This effort has deobligated a significant amount of
money—$219 million in FY 2002 and $109 million in FY 2003. OSWER recently began to
focus on lAGs, especially those with the Corps of Engineers (the federal agency EPA partners
with most). The Agency's approach to deobligations should focus both on near-term, one-time
opportunities, and on longer-term procedural changes that would achieve a consistently higher
rate of utilization of obligated funds, so that fewer and smaller deobligations are needed.
The Study noted that the policy memoranda and guidance regarding the Brownfields Program
are another potential area of change. Deobligation policy documents for Brownfields grants
were written prior to the enactment of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields
Revitalization Act of 2002 (Brownfields Act). These documents directed the Regions to review
and take action on older grants where funds had not been expended. In December 2003, upon
reviewing all the funds obligated for Brownfields activity since 1993, the Study team found that
a substantial number of grants with obligated funds still had no expenditures. While the Regions
have begun the process of reviewing these grants, resulting in deobligations and better utilization
of the grant funds, the Regions should carefully review all remaining grants to ensure the work
will occur.
27
-------
The timely and efficient billing and closeout of grants. lAGs, and contracts is critical to effective
overall Program management. When looking at this area, the Study team found that the
efficiency of the billing and closeout process differs for each funding mechanism. Because
contractors have a built-in business incentive to provide EPA with clear and prompt invoices,
this process tends to work the smoothest. Contracts management also benefits from a fully
automated billing and payment system, which is not now available for grants and I AGs.
However, in recent years, grants management has improved due to a series of measures initiated
by the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM) and implemented by
senior resource officials. These measures have included developing a national plan for managing
grants, updating policies, and improving training. However, there is still one major hindrance to
grant closeouts in the Superfund Program: several Regions are having difficulty getting some of
their States to submit final financial status reports. This may be due to a variety of factors,
including budget cuts in the States and lack of incentives.
The inability to quickly close out contracts and [AGs is an important issue in the Program.
Closeouts for lAGs are delayed primarily because of other federal agencies" inability to provide
a final bill or technical report. Contracts are slow to be closed out because of late subcontractor
billings or disputes, various contractors' claims and protests, adjustments to overhead rates, final
audits, etc. Consequently, the Regions do not deobligate funding on contracts or are unable to do
so for lAGs, sometimes for many years beyond construction completion. Regions are reluctant
to deobligate any funds prior to closeout of contracts or lAGs because they are concerned that
any trailing costs or adjustments to overhead rates would come out of their current year funding.
These concerns discourage any attempt to deobligate funds prior to closeout, which needlessly
lies up funds that could be used on current remedial or removal actions at NPL sites.
The Study Team received the most input in the IAG area. It appears that improvements are
needed by both EPA and EPA's partner agencies. The Study found that EPA needs to manage
lAGs with other federal agencies better, particularly billing and oversight. There is a perception
in the Agency that some Regions are using I AGs as a default vehicle instead of deliberately
choosing an IAG because of the unique capabilities of the other federal agency or specific cost
issues. Further, the overhead rates charged by the U.S. Corps of Engineers and by other federal
agencies appear to vary widely, and there is confusion among some Regions regarding
procedures for invoicing from the Corps. Frustration with the IAG billing process for all federal
agencies is widespread, both in terms of lump-sum invoices submitted and long delays in
resolving outstanding billing issues.
Regional managers and staff also expressed a need for the proper tools and reports to be able to
manage lAGs better. The Agency has some systems already in place, and others that may only
need to be expanded to address this and other issues regarding better IAG management. One
system is the Integrated Grants Management System (IGMS). Another possibility is ORBIT, a
new system currently being launched by OCFO. Some Regions felt strongly that IGMS would
assist them in monitoring and closing out I AGs.
28
-------
While many of the issues raised were focused on lAGs with the Corps, because the Corps has the
overwhelming number of lAGs with the Superfund program, the Study's recommendations apply
to all lAGs.
One specific grant issue that was raised is the number of newer grants going to States that still
have large sums of money remaining on existing grants for the same type of work. Some
Regions have begun to address this problem by not issuing new grants for the same activities
until the money on older grants is expended and the grants are closed out.
Recommendations and Actions:
Recommendations 70 and 71: Revise Brownfields Deobligation Policies and Evaluate
Grants Status. OSWER should review and potentially revise the Brownfields deobligation
policy documents in light of statutory changes and the progress made in reviewing older grants
(Rec. 70). In addition, OSWER and the Regions should evaluate the unexpended dollars on
older Brownfields grants to determine if those funds can be used for the original award purpose
(Rec. 71).
Action: OBCR prepared, signed, and distributed a policy memo recommending that
EPA Regional Brownfields and Grant staff review the performance of recipients of 1999
and 2000 Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund (BCRLF) pilot grants. It included
a list of the BCRLF recipients awarded grants in 1997,1999. and 2000, to ensure
the recipients' performance is assessed and transition or deobligation is encouraged. In
addition, OBCR will work with Regions to review outstanding assessment grants to
determine whether they should be deobligated and funds redirected for other Brownfields
purposes, where appropriate, or returned to Regions or Headquarters to supplement
Superfund. OBCR will review and revise the Brownfields deobligation policy' to more
explicitly address statutory changes and programmatic experiences and goals, as allowed.
(OBCR)
Key - Recommendation 72: Establish $5 Million Pool. For Programmatic contracts and lAGs.
OSWER should immediately establish a pool of $5 million to cover indirect cost rate
adjustments and late bills for Headquarters and Regional response contracts and additional bills
for lAGs. This pool will give the Regions and Headquarters more incentive to deobligate funds
after a contract or 1AG expires. Once the pool is formally established, OARM and the Regions
could begin deobligating funds from older expired contracts. In addition, formal establishment
of this pool may assist in convincing other federal agencies to agree to close out or reduce the
dollars available on expired lAGs.
Action: The Agency already maintains a fiduciary reserve to cover upward adjustments
and overruns (antecedent liabilities) from prior years in each appropriation. The amount
of the reserve will be increased to $10 million. This reserve is available to offices that
use Superfund money, with the exception of ORD. Guidance will be developed and then
issued. (OARM/Ojfice of Acquisition Management fOAMJ)
29
-------
Key - Recommendation 73: Resolve Federal Agency Billing Issues. OCFO and OARM
should work together to develop standard operating procedures for resolving billing issues with
other federal agencies.
Action: EPA cannot control other agencies' methods or frequency of billing, nor can it
alter the Interagency Payment and Collection (IPAC) billing system that is used for all
federal billing transactions. EPA can only request that the Agency Project Officers (POs)
communicate with the other federal agencies to determine the status of the project and the
projected use of funds to determine if some money could be deobligated while waiting
for the final invoice. EPA is addressing this through the Grants Administrative Division
(GAD) project officer training courses. The Cincinnati Finance Center has been
participating in a GAD work group that is trying to identify' and put in place more
accurate means of closing out interagency agreements. The work group is developing
recommendations to speed up the closeout process and deobligate unneeded funds from
open agreements. (OCFO)
Key - Recommendation 75: Review IAG Closeout Policies. OARM and OCFO, in
consultation with the Grants Management Council (GMC). should review the current IAG
closeout policy to determine if any revisions to the guidance are needed.
Action: Current IAG closeout policies were reviewed and a work group was established;
recommendations were presented to all Regional Grants Management Officers (GMOs)
in May 2004, and to the Grants Customer Relations Council (GCRC) for comments in
July 2004. The Policy, Information and Training Branch (PITB) will revise current
closeout policies and guidance, and present these to the GMC at its first meeting in FY
2005. (OARM)
Key - Recommendation 76: Resolve Grant Closeout Issues. Common grant closeout issues
should be discussed at the GMC, and the Agency should establish consistent approaches to these
problems.
Action: GAD will discuss with all Regional GMOs and the GCRC some common
problems experienced in closing out grants. GAD will present its recommendations to
the GMC at its first meeting in FY 2005. In addition, the recommendations will be
presented to the GMOs in 2005. (OARM)
Key - Recommendation 77: Resolve Federal Agency 1AG Closeout Issues. Headquarters and
the Regions should identify which other federal agencies they are having difficulty with
managing and closing out lAGs. They should communicate the issues and problems to OARM
and OCFO. who will contact their counterparts at the other federal agencies to resolve them.
Action: GAD will coordinate with the Regional offices to identify which federal
agencies are causing closeout problems for EPA. GAD and OFCO visited the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to discuss that Department's
processing, invoicing, and closing of lAGs. Because of the complex way HHS is
30
-------
structured, GAD is currently looking into selecting another federal agency to discuss
closeout procedures. (OARM)
Recommendation 78: Establish Closeout PMs. For JAGs, grants, and contracts, OARM
should establish appropriate closeout performance measures and send quarterly reports to Senior
Resource Officials (SRO) with outstanding closeouts, including the amount of outstanding
dollars.
Action: For lAGs and grants, closeout performance measures have been established and
regular reports are being obtained. No further action will be required. For contracts,
Superfund's RCRA Regional Procurement Operation Division (SRRPOD) plans to more
strictly enforce existing Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) procedures and
guidelines, and to employ quick closeout whenever possible. (OARM)
Recommendation 81: Consolidating Contract Functions. OARM and the Assistant Regional
Administrators (ARAs) should conduct an analysis to determine if cost efficiencies and
programmatic benefits can be obtained by consolidating contract functions.
Action: The ARAs. OARM, and OSWER may develop an approach to systematically
conduct analysis of the efficiencies and benefits of consolidating contract functions.
Considerations should be given to the factors considered in the consolidation of Region
10 and Regions 7 functions; some of the factors considered in this consolidation included
examining the workload per employee in the Contract unit and comparing this to the cost
of staffing the unit (e.g., employees; office space; special continuing training and
education for contacting staff; special automation programs; etc.). It was determined that
that savings could potentially be achieved if contract services were instead provided by
another organization with better economies of scale and infrastructure. (OARM)
Key - Recommendation 83: Monitor Contract Funding. OSWER should work closely with
the Regions to monitor contracts to ensure that the Regions have not funded their contracts into
the future to an extent where they cannot appropriately use the funds during the contract period.
Action: OARM and OSWER will monitor a number of established reports in the
existing Monthly Executive Summary Report. They will also utilize ad hoc reports on
what work is being done to track trends in spending as well as work that has crossed over
from one Region to another. In a case where a contract has been funded to an extent
where the funds cannot appropriately be utilized during the contract period, OARM and
OSWER will jointly issue a letter to each Region's SRO and Regional Contracting
Officer (RCO) requesting correction. (OARM/OAM)
Key - Recommendation 84: Establish Policies for the Duration of Grants and lAGs. In the
near term, the OSWER Senior Resource Official should establish policies for the duration of
grants and lAGs. For the long term, OARM should work with the Agency to establish Agency
policies for the durations of all types of grants and lAGs. (For the older grant and lAGs that
have had their periods of performance extended on multiple occasions, the Senior Resource
31
-------
t
t
Official should monitor those agreements carefully and work with OARM to close them out as
soon as possible). For new grants and lAGs, these assistance agreements should be closely
monitored to ensure that they do not exceed the new durations, whose length may vary
depending on type of activity.
Action: GAD has policies and regulations for the duration of research and training
grants. A work group that includes Headquarters and Regional representatives will be
established to develop policies for the duration of Special Purpose grants.
Recommendations will be presented to GMOs and GCRC for comments. Policies for the
duration oflAGs will be reviewed and revised accordingly, and PITB will revise current
closeout policies for lAGs. (OARM)
Key - Recommendation 85: Establish Grant-Monitoring Criteria. OARM and the Regions
should analyze the different types of grants to determine their current funding levels and draw-
down histories and establish criteria that will be used to evaluate grants that need increased
monitoring.
Action: No additional action will be taken against this recommendation as this is an
ongoing effort. GAD currently has a Post Award Monitoring Plan used throughout the
Regions and Program offices that addresses the recommendation issues. (OARM'GAD)
Key - Recommendation 87: Improve Grant Monitoring. OARM should continue to build
upon the improvements already undertaken to better monitor grants in the areas of billing,
deliverables, and milestones, and should ensure that the proper monitoring tools are available to
managers and staff. As part of training for new project officers and recertifi cation training,
OARM should continue to ensure that all staff members are fully trained on using available
tools, such as the Financial Data Warehouse and OARM databases.
Action: GAD's Long Term Training Plan proposes to train the Agency's workforce on
the core competencies required for effective grants management, including using the
proper monitoring tools available. GADs Long Term Training Plan is final and was
issued in September 2004. (OARM'GAD)
Recommendation 88: Provide IGMS Module Updates. OARM should provide status updates
to project officers and managers on the future deployment of the IAG module of IGMS.
Action: Deployment of lAGs into the Integrated Grants Management System remains in
GAD's 2005 budget. Higher priorities continue to take precedent over it. Updates will
be provided at the monthly GMO conference calls and at the GCRC meetings.
(OARM/GAD)
Recommendation 92: Analyze Federal Agency Indirect Cost Rates. OSWER and OARM
should analyze how much EPA is paying other federal agencies in indirect, Project Planning and
Management Division (PPMD). and other costs.
32
-------
Action: No additional action is required as work is ongoing that meets the goal of this
recommendation. Through discussions with the Army Corps of Engineer's (COE) PO in
OSWER, EPA determined that significant analysis has been, and continues to be done, on
this IAG with respect to direct and indirect costs. The PO has a schedule which details
the indirect rates, the manner in which the COE Program Manager charges his/her time
(direct versus indirect), and the role of PPMD in each of the Districts. Starting in FY
2005. these costs will be recovered through a separate indirect rate enabling EPA to
include these amounts in their cost recover*' cases. (OCFO)
Recommendation 93: Negotiate National IAG Overhead Rate. EPA Headquarters should
negotiate a national overhead rate for all lAGs depending on the results of the (above) analysis.
In addition to eliminating the tremendous variability in overhead rates charged to the Regions,
this single, national rate should be negotiated with the intent of minimizing costs to EPA.
Action: No further action is required for this recommendation. Based on further
analysis of the 120-Day Study recommendations, the focus of this recommendation
appears to be on EPA Funds-out lAGs (i.e.. the lAGs EPA has with other Agencies
where we are paying them to do work for us) with the COE. Additional research on this
recommendation indicates that the COE has substantiated rates that it applies to its lAGs
with other Federal entities. EPA POs may request and review7 the supporting
documentation, and may request negotiations with the COE. however, there is no
requirement for the COE to enter into negotiations with EPA. (OCFO)
3.2 TRAINING
Backflround;
A key to the effective management of contracts, grants, and lAGs is the proper training of staff
managing these funding mechanisms. While OARM has undertaken measures to improve
training in grants management, the Study noted that some of the issues involving lAGs may
result from a lack of training, specifically on lAGs. Issues that may need to be included are
emphasizing deliverables and milestones as part of an IAG and defining appropriate criteria for
when to extend the project period for an IAG.
The Agency continues to explore ways to obtain cost savings and efficiencies through different
contract types. OARM has been exploring alternative contract types for several years, and now
conducts performance-based contract training on a case-by-case basis when an office prepares a
new contract procurement. Because many of the alternative types of contracts are ne%v to
contracting officers and project officers, increased training and oversight will be necessary. It is
also important for senior management to gain an understanding of alternative types of contracts
to ensure that they are considered when contracting decisions are made.
An issue that was discussed during the Regional interviews is the importance of the experience
of the RPM overseeing the RAC work assignment. Ensuring that RPMs can successfully
33
-------
^^ manage the complexities of the RAC requires appropriate training and oversight of RPMs.
OSCs receive more rigorous contract training than RPMs because the nature of their work
requires them to make on-the-spot decisions that can affect a contract. It may be useful for
OSWER to evaluate whether portions of OSC contract training should be incorporated into RPM
contract training. Another option is to conduct peer reviews of work assignments and IGCEs
developed by less-experienced RPMs as needed. Even with appropriate training and oversight,
an RPM needs to spend time in the field monitoring the contractor at the site. Without a field
presence, the cost of the work being conducted at a site can easily increase.
Recommendations and Actions;
Recommendation 74: Circulate Direct Cite Payment Process. If it has not already done so,
OSWER should circulate the Direct Cite payment process document to the Regions and ensure
that staff members are properly educated on the process. It may be prudent for OSWER and the
Regions to review the process to determine if changes need to be made.
Action: The Direct Cite Payment Process is documented in an existing fact sheet that is
currently available on the Superfund Web site. It is also available on the joint EPA/U.S.
Corps of Engineers Web site. Joint EPA/Corps training procedures for issuing and
managing interagency agreements now includes greater emphasis on, and discussion of,
the Direct Cite Payment Process. (OSRTI)
Recommendations 79 and 80: Encourage Use of Alternative Contracts and Conduct
Training. OARM, OSWER, and the Regions should work together to encourage the use of
alternative contract types. OARM and Regional contracting officers should offer regular training
for contract personnel, RPMs, OSCs, and project officers in alternative contract mechanisms.
Action: OARM will continue partnering with OSWER and the Regions in exploring the
use of alternative contract types, particularly response action contracts, where EPA stands
to derive the greatest amount of savings, and in providing training in performance-based
service contracting (PBSC).
Training in PBSC has been provided at the last two annual Project Officer-Contracting
Officer (PO/CO) training conferences. Training in PBSC has been provided at the last
OSC Readiness Training as well as at the last four OSC warrant training classes. OAM
SRRPOD has provided on-site acquisition training in almost all the Regions at least once
in the past 18 months to help the warranted OSCs meet their 40 hours of mandatory
continuing acquisition training. These on-site acquisition training sessions have included
sessions on PBSC. A national work group has developed PBSC tasking templates for
common reoccurring tasks under ERRS and START and have been posted to the Internet
for all POs and OSCs to utili/e.
Nationally consistent Blank Purchase Agreements (BPAs) have been issued for a
significant amount of emergency response and counterterrorism equipment. This has
resulted in a consistent interchangeable inventory throughout the Removal Program. This
34
-------
has increased efficiency and simplified training and familiarization with equipment
usage. (OARM)
Recommendation 82: Provide Increased Contract Management Training. OSWER, with
support from OARM, should provide increased contract management training. Increased
training or peer reviews could focus on development of work assignments and IGCEs, reviewing
invoices, and overseeing contractors.
Action: Throughout the year, OAM conducts multiple sessions of several types of
contract training nationwide. The schedule of sessions is published in the Intranet at
http://intranet.eoa.go.v/oaniinti'aA Relative to remedial actions, the Superfund Program
may enhance the capabilities of RPMs by promoting and encouraging their attendance at
OAM's optional three-day Contracting Officer Refresher (COR) Training Course, which
focuses on the entire process of tasking a contractor from the initial procurement package
to closeout. Further augmentation of this training course by adding related RAC-specific
issues will enhance course usefulness to RPMs.
OAM intends to continue with conducting formal training in routine contract
management and special interest topics, Program outreach, and information exchanges
with Program offices throughout the year. OAM also plans to continue with the conduct
of the acquisition conferences, historically held every two years. (OARM/OAM)
Recommendation 86: Improve IAG Training Course. OARM should continue its
commitment to create an improved overall training course for project officers and IAG
specialists focusing solely on lAGs. Topics that may need to be included are emphasizing
deliverables and milestones as part of an IAG, outlining criteria for when to extend the project
period, managing billing issues, and emphasizing proactive monitoring of lAGs.
Action: Activities include: separating the 1AG Project Officers Training from the
already-established three-day Grants Project Officer Training course; deploying online
the IAG Refresher Project Officer course; and maintaining and updating the online course
to include any new or additional materials. (OARM)
t
35
-------
t
Chapter 4
LEVERAGING ALL AVAILABLE
CLEANUP RESOURCES
Introduction
The recommendations in this chapter address the use of Superfund enforcement and other
available cleanup resources to maximize the amount of cleanups and ensure that limited Trust
Fund resources are available for orphan sites or those with recalcitrant PRPs. The Study
suggests areas where more effective enforcement, particularly in earlier stages of the Superfund
cleanup process, as well as State and other authorities would make more resources available for
cleanup at orphan sites.
The recommendations under Leveraging All Available Cleanup Resources fall into three
subcalegories: (1) PRP-iead Cleanups; (2) State-lead Cleanups; and (3) Other Cleanup
Authorities.
4.1 PRP-LEAD CLEANUPS
Background:
The long-term success and financial viability of the Superfund Program depends in a large part
on a robust enforcement program. Every dollar spent on Superfund's civil enforcement program
returns approximately $8 to the Program.
In recent years, the Regions have placed more focus on enforcement, particularly following the
inception of the "enforcement first" initiative. Over the life of the Program, responsible parties
have funded more than $ 18.1 billion in response actions at NPL sites. The Program has also
secured commitments for an additional $3.9 billion in cost recovery settlements. Site-specific
special accounts have generated $ 177 million in interest from the $ 1.1 billion collected.
While these results are impressive, improvements in management and performance measurement
would increase the enforcement program's effectiveness, particularly for RI/FSs and removals.
Over the past three years, PRPs have conducted 70 to 80 percent of the remedial actions while
performing less than half of the RI/FSs and only 20 percent of removals (this increases to 41
percent when including those removals without orders). Performance has been highly variable,
however: some Regions have a very high historical performance with more than 60 percent of
their RI/FSs conducted by PRPs, while others had more than 60 percent of removals conducted
by PRPs. Obtaining similar success, if possible, in other Regions through the sharing of "best
practices" could free up additional funds that could be made available for remedial actions at
sites with no liable/viable PRPs—so-called "orphan sites."
t
-------
t
Recommendations and Actions:
Recommendations 4 and 23: Maintain Sufficient Site Listing. OSWER and the Regions
should work together to maintain a sufficient rate of listing on the NPL to provide clear incentive
for PRPs to perform work under the Superfund Program as well as other Programs or authorities
(Rec. 4), OSWER should maintain a sufficient rate of listing on the NPL to function as an
incentive for PRPs to perform work under the Superfund Program as well as other Programs and
authorities (Rec. 23).
Action: OSRTI sent a memo to the Regions dated December 1, 2004, announcing that
OSWER will return to a regular schedule for proposing and finalizing sites on the NPL.
This will be done twice a year (April and September). (Complete)
Recommendations 5: Start Fund-Lead Actions. OSWER should allocate resources to start
Fund-lead actions at every step in the Superfund pipeline, thereby motivating PRPs to commit to
taking on work and freeing up appropriated dollars over the long term.
Action: No additional action is required pursuant to this recommendation as this is a
current activity. (OSRTI)
Key - Recommendation 24: Maximizing PRP Involvement. While continuing to stress early
PRP search activity and maximizing PRP involvement, OSWER should continue to target funds
to begin RI/FS work where PRP recalcitrance is evident
Action: On July 1, 2004, OSRTI and OSRE distributed draft guidance for comment on
"Early Enforcement at Superfund Sites: Negotiation and Enforcement Strategies for
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies (RI/FS).'" This guidance will go final in the
second quarter of FY 2005. (OSRTI)
Key - Recommendation 53: Conduct Effective Early PRP Searches. Conduct responsible
party search benchmarking to identify strong Regional programs to increase the percentage of
PRP response actions at all phases of the Superfund pipeline and take further pressure off
appropriated funds.
Action: OSRE will conduct a Program evaluation of Regional PRP search efforts to
determine the relationship between enforcement success and PRP search expenditures
and practices. Additional follow-up actions will be identified based on the outcome of
this evaluation. As a component of the Program evaluation. OSRE will evaluate
Regional trends. PRP search "best practices/' and barriers to identifying PRPs early and
getting them to perform RI/FSs. (OSRE)
t
37
I
-------
t
Key - Recommendation 54: Increase Removal Enforcement. OEC A and OSWER should
work with the lead Regions to develop goals similar to those in the Remedial Program for
enforcement first in the Removal Program to increase the percentage of PRP-conducted removal
actions.
Action: OSRE proposes to conduct a Program evaluation of Regional removal
enforcement efforts to determine the relationship between enforcement success and
removal enforcement practices. Additional follow-up actions will be identified based on
the outcome of this evaluation. (OECA)
Recommendation 55: Establish Contact for Enforcement First for the Removal Program.
OSWER should identify a management liaison who can work with OECA to facilitate and
support enforcement first for the Removal Program.
Action: The Director of the Program Operations and Coordination Division is the key
point of contact in the OEM on issues related to Removal Program enforcement. A point
of contact has been identified. This action is complete. (OEM)
Recommendation 56: Enhance Insurance-Related Cost Recovery Expertise. OECA, in
consultation with DOJ, should explore ways to access or gain greater expertise in the area of
insurance-related cost recovery, and sponsor several pilot programs across the country to
increase potential sources of funding for orphan sites
Action: Several actions will be taken to address this recommendation. They include:
developing and implementing a pilot contract to assist Regions on enforcement cases
involving insurance issues; developing a memo to the Regions explaining the process for
accessing contractor support for evaluating insurance issues; providing support to the
Regions in preparing case materials; and developing a lessons learned report. (OECA)
Key - Recommendation 58: Ensure Efficient PRP Oversight. Develop procedures that
encourage continued collaboration with PRPs in site cleanups in order to decrease the need for
EPA's expenditure of oversight resources.
Action: In the fourth quarter of FY 2004. comments were received from the Regions on
a draft memo which recommended that Superfund managers employ the guidelines
provided in the RCRA "Results-Based Approaches and Tailored Oversight Guidance/'
when considering how and when to apply appropriate levels of oversight at Superfund
sites. OSRE is currently evaluating the input and expects to issue guidance in 2005.
OSRE also has drafted guidance on Prepayment of Oversight from Special Accounts.
(OECA)
38
-------
4.2
STATE-LEAD CLEANUPS
Background:
The States have played a vital role in Superfund since the Program's inception, and that role has
changed and fluctuated over time. They have played a major part in setting cleanup standards
for Superfund sites, and have taken the lead on community relations at many sites. States have
influenced the listing and non-listing of NPL sites, and have put forth additional State funds,
beyond their 10 percent share, to clean up sites.
States want varying degrees of independence in implementing the Superfund Program. Many
States now have their own Superfund or hazardous waste programs, and EPA established a grant
program to help build State Superfund capacity. However, even with this funding, States vary
tremendously in their capacity to clean up and manage waste sites. Some are national leaders
while others, often due to budget decisions and programmatic choices, have little or no response
capability. Likewise, EPA has seen varying degrees of success when States are in the lead role
for NPL remedial activities.
EPA should re-examine its NPL State-lead sites to determine if these are the most cost-effective
mechanism for site remediation. Most likely, it will vary tremendously State by State. The use
of State-lead in NPL site remediation should be based solely on good business decisions, such as
cost effectiveness, timeliness, previous performance, etc. This review of State-lead NPL
responses should in no way impact the ongoing role the States and EPA enjoy in voluntary
cleanups, the Brownfields Program, and non-NPL sites, as well as the traditional role states play
in all NPL sites (e.g., ARARs, community relations).
Recommendations and Actions;
Recommendation 45: Review EPA Policies on State-lead Cleanups and the Adequacy of
these Actions. OSWER, OECA. and the Regions should re-examine existing policies relating to
State-lead clean up. In the process an evaluation should be conducted to determine if the policy
includes areas such as capability, past experience, cost and timeliness. EPA should consider if
the State role should be determined using similar criteria as that used for choosing a remediation
contractor or other federal agencies. In addition, the Regions should re-examine existing State
lead sites to determine if the remediation is being conducted in a timely and cost efficient
manner.
Action: Regions currently conduct annual reviews of individual State programs using the
Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishment Plan (SCAP)/Superfund Program
Implementation Manual (SPIM) process. Many conduct quarterly meetings on site
cleanups. Some Regions have work-sharing procedures that direct incoming sites into
federal- or State-lead, or into Superfund or other federal or State programs. Currently,
Regional decisions consider state capability, past experience, cost, and timeliness.
(OSRTI)
t
39
-------
t
t
Recommendation 46: Re-examine State-lead Sites. OSWER, OECA and the Regions should
re-examine State lead sites to determine if the remediation is being conducted in a timely and
cost efficient manner.
Action: No additional action will be taken against this recommendation as this is
ongoing. Annually EPA Regions meet with the States to review State- and federal-lead
sites, and evaluate progress, expenditures, and budgets for the coming year. The Regions
already review RODs prior to finali/.ing, and State-lead sites are still subject to the
Remedy Review Board. The Program believes that this constitutes an evaluation to
determine if remediation is conducted in a timely and cost effective manner. (OSRTI)
Recommendation 48: Determine State Core Funding Needs. OSWER should evaluate the
need, the overall funding levels, and the priorities for State cleanup programs given the Section
308 program and the original goal of the Core program to build State capacity. Working with
ATSWMO and collaborating with individual States, the Agency should communicate the goal
and results of the evaluation.
Action: No additional action will be taken against this recommendation as the work is
ongoing. EPA provides to the Regions and the States a breakout of all Cooperative
Agreement Funds sent to the States along with a summary of what has and has not been
spent. These unliquidated balances are shared with ASTSWMO and others to ensure that
Superfund Cooperative Agreement monies allocated to States are spent appropriately and
that unfunded actions are deobligated. The Brownfields Program also tracks closely 128
grant funds to States. This is a regular, ongoing task that will continue in the future.
(OSRTI)
4.3 OTHER CLEANUP AUTHORITIES
Background:
The prevention of a continually expanding Superfund site universe will depend largely upon a
strong RCRA program. Some sites on the NPL are a direct result of insufficient financial
assurances to fund the cleanup necessary when the facility at that location ceased operation.
Similarly, removal actions occur at RCRA generation sites, for which financial assurances are
not required. The Agency eventually lists some of these sites on the NPL.
A number of inten iewees think that certain decisions made in the RCRA program may result in
the need for additional future cleanups under Superfund. For example, there is a fairly broadly
held belief that EPA could substantially reduce future Superfund workload if it revamped
regulations and policies that enable the start-up and continuation of operations that handle
hazardous wastes, but whose financial and/or technical wherewithal to prevent or respond to
releases is questionable.
40
-------
During the more than 20 years of the Superfund Program's existence, more than 7,000 removal
actions have been conducted. There now should be sufficient data to perform an historical
analysis of these actions to determine if any patterns are apparent. For example, are particular
types of industry or businesses are more likely to require a removal action (or have sites listed on
the NPL)? If certain categories repeatedly require removal actions, the Agency should evaluate
what, if any, changes should be made to the applicable regulations, policies, or guidance.
Recommendations and Actions;
Key - Recommendation 10: Evaluate NPL Listing Trends for RCRA Treatment, Storage
and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs). OSWER should evaluate the history of NPL listings and
removal actions to determine what percent were RCRA TSDFs or hazardous waste generators
and to what extent these facilities present a continuing burden to the Superfund program.
Action: The Office of Solid Waste (OSW): OSRE, and OSRTI will work together to
analyze sites addressed by Superfund. The analysis will specifically evaluate RCRA
TSDF facilities before and after financial assurance regulations were implemented,
RCRA generators, and other sites addressed by Superfund. This analysis will help assess
whether RCRA's financial assurance provisions have been effective, and whether a
similar analysis should be conducted for other categories of RCRA (and other) sites.
(OSRTI)
Key - Recommendation 11: Determine Adequacy of RCRA Financial Assurance. If the
evaluation confirms a high correlation with RCRA-regulated facilities. OSWER and OECA
should examine different approaches to financial assurance under the RCRA program to reduce
the likelihood of RCRA-regulated facilities becoming part of the future Superfund universe.
Action: Work on this action will be impacted by two other efforts: the study undertaken
pursuant to Recommendation 10, and the work of the Environmental Financial Advisory
Board (EFAB), which has been charged with reviewing related financial assurance
issues. Action on Recommendation 11 will await the preliminary analysis for
Recommendation 10, and will include coordination with the EFAB schedule (not yet
developed). Pursuant to Recommendation 11, OSWER will conduct an analysis and
produce a report with recommendations, if any, for enhancing the financial assurance
requirements under RCRA to prevent future burdens on the Superfund Program. EPA
would consider EFAB's work as part of its ongoing analysis and recommendations, as
well as OECA's work in assessing whether financial assurance will be a national
enforcement priority in FY 2006/2007. In addition, OECA is currently evaluating
whether to include Financial Assurance as a national program priority' for FY 06. The
Priority is likely to focus on compliance with CERCLA and RCRA financial assurance
requirements. '(OSW/OSRTI)
t
41
I
-------
Key - Recommendation 12: Evaluate Financial Assurance for non-RCRA Facilities. For
facilities not covered under RCRA, OSWER should study whether promulgating new regulations
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act's
(CERCLA) broad financial assurance authorities could reduce the future needs of the Superfund
program.
Action: OSWER (OSRT1 and OSW) will review theNPL listings and removal actions at
non-RCRA facilities to determine if risks and costs associated with facilities impacting the
Superfund program make promulgation of financial assurance requirements under CERCLA
108(b) advisable.
• First, OSWER will evaluate those types of facilities that have a significant impact on the
Superfund program in an effort to identify those classes of facilities for which financial
assurance would be most appropriate given the statutory criteria.
• Second. OSWER will assess the information for cleanup actions for the classes of
facilities being identified as being the most significant in terms of assessment, removal,
and remedial actions. This information will form the basis for recommendations for next
steps in terms of promulgating regulations under CERCLA 108(b). EPA would consider
EFAB's work on financial assurance as part of its ongoing analysis and
recommendations, as well as OECA's work in assessing whether financial assurance will
be a national enforcement priority in FY 2006/2007. In addition. OECA is currently
evaluating whether to include Financial Assurance as a national program priority for FY
06. The Priority is likely to focus on compliance with CERCLA and RCRA financial
assurance requirements. A decision will probably be made at a meeting of the OECA
Planning Council in January 2005. (OSRTI and OECA)
Key - Recommendation 36: Evaluate Removal and NPL Listing Trends by Industry Sector.
OSWER should conduct an evaluation of historical removal actions to determine whether
patterns exist in certain industries (Standard Industrial Classification codes). If the evaluation
reveals that certain industries repeatedly end up on the NPL, the effort could go on to identify
available or needed mechanisms by all authorities to address recurring issues.
Action: OEM will conduct data analysis of CERCLIS removal action data, including
whether data quality will support a thorough analysis; break out removal action
CERCLIS data by industry groups; and identify clear trends related to specific industries.
(OEM)
42
-------
Chapter 5
COMMUNICATION
Introduction
The recommendations in this chapter address EPA's communications processes. The Study
suggests areas where more effective internal communication can improve Program efficiency
and data collection important to Program reporting, and where enhancements to EPA's external
communication can more accurately portray the Superfund Program's accomplishments and
boost the Program's profile.
Background:
To successfully manage a complex environmental program with multiple sources of funding,
managers and staff need easy access to information. Superfund managers need programmatic
and management (finance, grants, contracts, etc.) reports. RPMs and OSCs need site-specific
information, contract and IAG information, etc. All parts of the Program have a need for easy
access to information that is presented in a way that is useful to them. Various tools are
currently being used, enhanced, or developed within the Agency that can facilitate access to
Program information. These tools should be shared across the Program to avoid duplicative
efforts.
Congress and others outside the Agency have expressed concern that the Agency is not spending
enough money on cleaning up Superfund sites. In its FY 2004 report, the Senate Appropriations
Committee noted that the Agency was spending only 16 percent of the annual appropriation on
site construction and LTRAs. and directed the Agency to spend no less than the 22 percent of the
annual appropriation. When the Conference Committee completed its work on the Agency's
2004 budget, it did not direct the Agency to target a specific percentage of funding to site
construction.
A concern within EPA is that expenditures for long-term cleanups and LTRAs do not represent
all of the funding being spent on cleanups. The percentage referenced by the Senate
Appropriations Committee understates the true amount invested in cleanup because it only
represents the money going to contractors and other federal agencies. More importantly, it does
not include other key activities that are speeding up all long-term cleanups at Superfund sites.
EPA needs to more accurately report the amount of funding it invests each year related to long-
term cleanups, which means the Agency needs to revise how it collects (internally) and reports
(externally) cleanup data.
Over 70 percent of Superfund cleanups are currently performed by PRPs as a result of the
Agency's vigorous enforcement program. The costs of the enforcement program typically are
not included as part of the cost of cleanups.
43
-------
In the end, the more accurate portrayal of cleanup costs will help the Agency better showcase its
cleanup accomplishments, and to respond to Congressional inquiries regarding appropriations vs.
spending.
EPA also needs to ensure it is collecting and reporting information on cleanup activity at SASs,
which, like the cleanup cost reporting, will more accurately portray the totality of EPA's cleanup
efforts and accomplishments.
Finally, it is important that EPA improve its coordination with lAGs with other federal agencies,
especially the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Regular communication among EPA and other federal
agencies will help ensure optimum performance and results in shared programmatic activities.
Recommendations and Actions;
Recommendation 13: Effectively Communicate Cleanup Costs. The Agency should collect
data at the end of the budget year on the amount of funds spent on direct cleanup or on those
activities that are necessary to get to the cleanup phase and communicate the cost of cleanups
more effectively.
Action: No additional action will be taken as this is an ongoing effort and the
information is reported out on a regular basis. (OSRTI)
Recommendation 27: Effectively Communicate All Cleanup Accomplishments. OSWER
and the lead Region should work together to ensure all site cleanup work (including work
completed under the SAS program) is tracked and reported internally and externally to ensure
accomplishments of the national Program are appropriately communicated to the public and
Congress.
Action: This activity is already part of EPA's procedures. This is part of GPRA
reporting; the SPIM includes SASs in all appropriate reporting categories. OSRTI will
verify' the functioning of CERCLIS for FY 2004 accomplishments. No additional action
will be taken against this recommendation. (OSRTI)
Recommendation 90: Prepare Monthly SSC Reports. OSWER and OCFO, if needed, should
work together to establish monthly reports that staff and managers can use to better track SSC
collections, obligations, and expenditures.
Action: This recommendation has already been accomplished. OSRTI works with
OCFO to ensure that the Regions receive ongoing regular reports on SSC balances to
help them manage these accounts. (OSRTI)
Recommendation 94: Establish Regular Cross-Agency Meetings. The Regions should
continue or should reestablish regular meetings between Regional senior managers and their
44
-------
counterparts [in the U.S. Corps of Engineers, although applicable to lAGs with all federal
agencies) to discuss project milestones, deliverables status, and opportunities to minimize cost
growth.
Action: This is a low priority because it is already being done to varying degrees in the
Regions. This is currently being coordinated in the Regions. (Lead Region)
Recommendation 98: Provide Information About New Agency Systems. OARM and OCFO
should work with Senior Resource Officials to communicate the development and deployment
status of new Agency-wide systems (financial management, grants and IAG management).
Action: There is an on-going effort to address this recommendation. A new Agency-
wide Contract Management System is critical to the optimization of Superfund dollars
through the facilitation of end-to-end financial management. OAM has three alternatives
being assessed. OAM is continuing the effort to obtain funding and approval for an
acquisition system. A draft Capital Planning and Investment Control proposal will be
submitted in'2005. (OAKM/OAM)
Recommendation 99: Provide Information About Current Agency Systems. OSWER and
the Regions should evaluate which systems and tools currently exist or are under construction
and should circulate this information in order to avoid duplication of data systems and tools.
Action: OSRE will continue to act as a liaison for the Superfund enforcement data that
exists in CERCLIS (OSWER) and ICIS (OECA). OSRE routinely works with the Office
of Compliance on system development and enhancement to avoid duplication and
inconsistencies between the two data systems, where practicable. (OECA)
45
-------
Index of Recommendations
The following is a list of: the recommendation numbers (and whether the recommendation is
'key' in meeting the Study's primary objective): the Headline for the Recommendation, as it
appears in the Action Plan; the Page where the Recommendation is located in the Action Plan;
the Page where the Recommendation is located in the 120-Day Study; and the Lead Office(s).
Recommendation
Number
1 (Kcv)
2 (Key)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 (Key)
10 (Key)
1 1 (Key)
12 (Key)
13
14
15 (Key)
16
17
18 (Key)
19 (Key)
20 (Key)
21 (Key)
22
23
24 (Key)
25
Headline
Create Superfund Board of Directors
Develop Hierarchy of Program Goals
Develop PMs Related to Hierarchv of Goals
Maintain Sufficient Site Listing
Start Fund-Lead Actions
DcvclopjOne Cleanup Program Policies
Establish One Cleanup Program PMs
National Program Managers adopt PMs
Adopt Shared Goals for Program Activities
Evaluate NPL Listing Trends for RCRA TSDFs
Determine Adequacy of RCRA Financial
Assurance
Evaluate Financial Assurance fornon-RCRA
Facilities
Effectively Communicate Cleanup Costs
Simplify the Budget
Allocate Special Account/State Cost Share
Funding
Share Work Across the Regions
Share Work Across the Regions
Remedial Pipeline Benchmarking
Prepare for FY07 Staff Redistribution and
Direct HQs Resources to Cleanup
Prepare for FY07 Staff Redistribution and
Direct HQs Resources to Cleanup
Dcobligatc FY 2004 Funds
Update Deobligation Policies/Guidance
Maintain Sufficient Site Listing
Maximizing PRP Involvement
Revise SAS Policv
Action
Plan Page
2
2
7
37
37
4
7
8
2
41
41
42
44
11
19
15
15
25
17
17
13
4
37
37
5
Study
Page
35
37
37
38
38
39
39
39
40
40
40
40
41
42
42
45
45
46
46
46
47
47
50
50
52
Lead
Office(s)
BOD
OSRTI
OSWER
OSRTI
OSRTI
OSWER
OSRTI
OSWER.
OSRTI
OSRTI.
OECA,
OSRE
OSRTI
OSW/
OSRTI
OSRTI.
OECA
OSRTI
OSRTI.
OSRE,
OCFO
OSRTI
Lead
Region
Lead
Region
OSRTI
OCFO
OCFO
OSRTI
OSRTI.
OSRE
OSRTI
OSRTI
OSRTI
46
-------
Recommendation
Number
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36 (Key)
37 (Key)
38 (Key)
39
40 (Key)
41
42
43
44 (Key)
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53 (Key)
54 (Key)
55
Headline
Prioriti/e Superfund Alternative Sites
Effectively Communicate all Cleanup
Accomplishments
Plan Early for Mega-Sites
Review Brow nficlds/Superfund Site Assessment
Criteria
Integrate Site Assessment and Remedial
Activities
Adopt Best Practice Approach
Clarify Exemption Process
Address Homeland Security FTE Funding
Determine Additional Nationally Significant
Incident Funding/Staff Needs
Cross-Train Managers for Nationally
Significant Incidents
Evaluate Removal and NPL Listing Trends by-
Industry Sector
Enhance NRRB's Role
Enhance NRRB's Role
Require Value Engineering
Conduct Long-Term Response Reviews
Review RODs
Identify and Share Successful Remedies
Ensure Senior Managers Help Select Cleanup
Mechanism
Conduct On-Site Oversight
Review EPA Policies on State-lead Cleanups
and the Adequacy of these Actions
Re-examine State-lead Sites
Share Work Across the Regions
Determine State Core Funding Needs
Implement FAST AC Approach
CLP and ESAT Resources
Forecast Long-Term Analytical Needs
Transfer PRP Oversight to OECA
Conduct Effective Earlv PRP Searches
Increase Removal Enforcement
Establish Contact for Enforcement First for the
Removal Program
Action
Plan Page
18
44
11
21
21
15
5
10
ib
10
42
22
22
22
22
23
23
24
24
39
40
15
40
25
ir>
16
12
37
38
38
Study
Page
52
52
53
54
54
54
55
56
56
56
56
57
58
58
58
58
60
61
62
62
62
62
63
67
67
68
70
72
72
73
Lead
Office(s)
OSRTI
OSRT!
OSRTI
OSRTI,
OBCR
Lead
Region
OSRTI
OSRTI,
OEM
OSWER/
OEM,
OCFO
OSWER/
OEM,
OCFO
OSWER/
OEM,
OCFO
OEM
OSRTI
OSRTI
OSRTI
OSRTI
OSRTI
OSRTI
Lead
Region
Lead
Region
OSRTI
OSRTI
Lead
Region
OSRTI
OSRTI
OSRTI
OSRTI
OECA
OSRE
OECA
OEM
47
-------
Recommendation
Number
56
57
58 (Key)
59
60
61 (Key)
62 (Key)
63
64
65
66 (Key)
67 (Key)
68 (Key)
69
70
71
72 (Key)
73 (Kcv)
74
75 (Kev)
76 (Key)
77 (Kcv)
78
79
80
81
82
83 (Key)
84 (Key)
85 (Key)
86
Headline
Enhance Insurance-Related Cost Recovery
Expertise
Evaluate Enforcement PMs; Adopt Site Specific
PMs
Ensure Efficient PRP Oversight
Affirm Commitment to Cost Recovery
Improve Tracking and Cost Recover*'
Update Special Accounts Guidance
Report on Special Accounts
Determine if Senior Managers' Actions are
Effective
Senior Managers Meet about Superfund
Research Program
Develop Cost-Benefit Analysis for RODs
Analyze Superfund Charging
Set a Site-Specific Charging Goal
Support Site-Specific Charging
Build Cost Analysis Expertise
Review Brownfields Deobligation Policies and
Evaluate Grants Status
Review Brownfields Deobligation Policies and
Evaluate Grants Status
Establish $5 Million Pool
Resolve Federal Agencv Billing Issues
Circulate Direct Cite Pavment Process
Review IAG Closeout Policies
Resolve Grant Closeout Issues
Resolve Federal Agencv IAG Closeout Issues
Establish Closeout PMs
Encourage Use of Alternative Contracts and
Conduct Training
Encourage Use of Alternative Contracts and
Conduct Training
Consolidating Contract Functions
Provide Increased Contract Management
Training
Monitor Contract Funding
Establish Policies for the Duration of Grants and
lAGs
Establish Grant-Monitoring Criteria
Improve IAG Training Course
Action
Plan Page
38
8
38
2
16
19
19
3
3
25
13
14
14
25
29
29
29
30
34
30
30
30
31
34
34
31
35
31
31
32
35
Study
Page
73
74
75
76
76
76
76
81
81
81
85
89
89
89
90
90
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
94
94
94
94
94
95
95
96
Lead
Office(s)
OECA
OECA
OECA
OSRE
Lead
Region
OECA
OECA
OSRT1,
ORD
OSRTI,
ORD
OSRTI
OCFO/
OFM
OECA
OCFO
OSRTI
OBCR
OBCR
OARM/
OAM
OCFO
OSRTI
OARM
OARM
OARM
OARM
OARM
OARM
OARM
OARM/
OAM
OARM/
OAM
OARM
OARM/
GAD
OARM
48
-------
Recommendation
Number
87 (Key)
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95 (Key)
96 (Key)
97 (Key)
98
99
100
101 (Key)
102
103(op)(Key)
104(op)
105(op)
106(op)
107(op)
108(op)
Headline
Improve Grant Monitoring
Provide IGMS Module Updates
Update State Cost Share and Related Policies
Prepare Monthly SSC Reports
Establish SSC PMs
Analyze Federal Agency Indirect Cost Rates
Negotiate National IAG Overhead Rate
Establish Regular Cross-Agency Meetings
Develop Special Account Fact Sheets
Report on Special Accounts
Use Old Special Account Funds
Provide Information About New Agency
Svstems
Provide Information About Current Agency
Svstems
Revise Superfund PMs
Remedial Pipeline Benchmarking
Adopt New Superfund PMs
Reduce Costs to Meet Numerical Targets
Establish National Standards and Action Levels
Use Presumptive Remedies and Generic
Designs
Implement One Allocation for all Response
Activities to the Regions
Transfer Management and Support to the EPM
Appropriations
Return Deobhgated Dollars to the Regions
Action
Plan Page
32
32
5
44
8
32
33
44
19
19
20
45
45
9
25
9
12
5
23
12
12
13
Study
Page
96
96
96
96
96
99
99
99
100
100
100
101
101
109
109
109
43
59
59
63
86
90
Lead
Office(s)
OARM/
GAD
OARM/
GAD
OSRTI
OSRTI
OSRTI
OARM
OARM
Lead
Region
OECA/
OCFO
OECA
OECA
OARM
OSRTI/
OSRE
ORD
OSRTI
OECA
OSWER,
OECA,
OCFO
OSRTI
OSRTI
OSRTI
OCFO
OSRTI
49
------- |