vvEPA
Special Account
Implementation Notebook!
A Reference Tool
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement March 1997
Special Accounts Assistance Team
-------
v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency March 1997
Special Account Implementation Notebook
A Reference Tool
NOTEBOOK TABLE *>F CONTENTS
Tab 1: [Placeholder for memo announcing the notebook.]
Tab 2: Memo "Update and Implementation of the Superfund Reform on Special Accounts*'
(February 7, 1997) - advises Regions onifesignation of past and future costs in settle-
ments; updates them on implementation of the EPA-OMB agreement concerning inter-
est earned on funds in Special Accounts; provides a revised short sheet on creating and
using Special Accounts; and discusses ciir¥ent efforts to develop a policy to disburse
Special Account funds to parties conducting the response action.
Tab 3: [Placeholder for financial guidance: Chapter 15, "Financial Management of Cashout
Special Accounts," part of EPA's Resources Management Directives System (RMDS),
2550D, Financial Management of the Superfund Program.]
Tab 4: Excerpt from report "Superfund Administrative Reforms Annual Report Fiscal
Year 1996" (December 19%) - presents the status of Rounds 2 and 3 of the Superfund
Reforms. Round 3 Reforms include Site Specific Special Accounts, described on pages
vii, A-3, and 19-20.
Tab 5: Memo "Requesting Reimbursable Authority for Superfund Special Accounts (Prin-
cipal and Interest)" (October 28, 1996) - provides Regions with guidance on how to
request principal and interest earned on Special Accounts for use in accordance with
their respective settlement agreements. Provides the amount of interest earned oh ex-
isting Special Accounts through August 1996.
Tab 6: Excerpt from Congress' Conference Report (104-812) for the FY 1997 VA-HUD
and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill (September 20, 1996)(as excerpted
in the memo from Kathryn S. Schmoil, EPA Comptroller, to Administrator Carol Browner
and Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen, September 23, 1996) - this report applauds
EPA's effort to ensure that interest earned by Special Accounts on settlement funds can
be credited to these accounts, so this interest can be made available for specific site
cleanup. The Report also urged EPA to implement this Reform as soon as possible.
This is the only Superfund Reform mentioned in the Report. (Page 72, paragraph 5)
—OVER-
-------
Tab 7: Excerpt of press release "New EPA Policies Will Accelerate Cleanup of
Superfund Sites, Protect Small Waste Contributors from Costly Litigation" (June
4, 1996) - describes four actions taken by Administrator Carol Browner to deliver on
the Clinton Administration's commitment to make cleanup of toxic waste sites faster,
fairer, and more efficient. Actions described include encouraging faster settlements
among polluters by setting up interest-bearing accounts whose earnings can help con-
tribute to meeting total cleanup costs.
Tab 8: Memo "Transmittal of Special Account Short Sheet" (March 27, 1996) - explains
how to create and use Special Accounts for settlement funds to be applied to future
response actions at the site for which the funds were received. See Tab 1 for the revised
short sheet of 1997.
Tab 9: List of Special Account Contacts (March 1997) - Headquarters and the Regions.
Tab 10: Reserved (for future documents on Special Accounts)
-------
Introductory Memorandum
Update and Implementation of the
Superfund Reform on Special Accounts
Chapter IS - Financial Management of
Cashout Special Accounts
Superfund Administrative'Reforms
Annual Report Fiscal Year 1996
Requesting Reimbursable Authority for
Superfund Special Accounts (Principal
and Interest)
Conference Report (104-812) for the
FY 1997 VA-HUD and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Bill
New EPA Policies Will Accelerate
Cleanup Superfund Sites, Protect
Small Waste Contributors from Costly
Litigation
Transmittal of Special Account Short Sheet
List of Special Account Contacts
Reserved (for future documents on
Special Accounts)
-------
-------
v°/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency March 1997
Special Account Implementation Notebook
A Reference Tool
Tabl
Introductory Memorandum
-------
Placeholder for
Introductory Memorandum
-------
-------
-------
xv EPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency March 1997
Special Account Implementation Notebook
A Reference Tool
Tab 2
Memo
"Update and Implementation of the Superfund
Reform on Special Accounts"
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FEB 7 1997
OFFICE OF
ENFORCEMENTAND
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Update and Implementation of the Superfund -Reform on Special Accounts
f th
/
-
Sandra L. Connors, Directed 7
Regional Support Division (2272A)
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
6,
Elizabeth Craig, Director
Budget Division (3302)
Office of the Comptroller
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Jack L. Shipley, Director W.J-1 0^
Financial Management Division (3303F)
Office of the Comptroller
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
TO:
Superfund Policy Managers, Regions I - X
Office of Regional Counsel Superfund Branch Chiefs, Regions I - X
Financial Management Officers, Regions I - X and
Cincinnati Financial Management Center
This memorandum provides an update on the status of the Superfund Reform
concerning Special Accounts. In October 1995, the Agency announced its intention to
encourage greater use of Special Accounts as a means to ensure that settlement funds
received would be used for future response actions at a particular site. In this reform,
we also sought to ensure that the interest earned on Special Accounts would be
credited to these accounts, and be available for future response actions. In
implementing this reform, the Agency has made great progress towards meeting these
two goals.
Recycled/Re cyclabl*
Primed will) Soy/CanoU Ink on papw Via
contains • Kaa 50% rKyotod hMr
-------
In fiscal year 1996 (FY 96), Regions significantly increased their use of Special
Accounts over previous years by establishing 23 Special Accounts, for approximately
$78 million dollars. The total number of Special Accounts is now 59, totaling $226
million in principal. This means that almost 40% of all Special Accounts were
established in FY 96 alone! We greatly appreciate the efforts of everyone who has
made the success of this reform possible.
As for the second aspect of the reform, in June 1996, EPA reached agreement
with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Treasury that
the interest earned by site-specific Special Accounts can be credited to these accounts
and used to fund future response actions at the sites in question. This agreement
applies to all existing and new Special Accounts. Current calculations indicate that the
$226 million of principal has earned $35 million dollars of interest. This additional $35
million is now available for site-specific cleanup at those sites which have Special
Accounts.
I. Designation of Past and Future Costs in Settlements
As explained in the attachments, only the portion of settlement funds that
represents payment towards future costs can be placed in a Special Account. It is
critical to clearly state in the settlement document what portion of the overall proceeds
are in recognition of future costs and to be placed in a Special Account.
A. New Settlements
When the Regions are contemplating, negotiating, and finalizing settlements with
a cashout component, they should consider how much is to be allocated to past
response costs (Le., cost recovery) and how much to future costs (Le., future response
actions). Ideally, before negotiating with Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) for
any agreement which may contain past and future cost components, the Regional
negotiating team (counsel and program officials) should have a common understanding
of how much of the settlement to allocate to past costs and how much to future costs.
To determine the amounts to designate for past costs and future costs, Regions should
balance competing needs: 1) to reimburse the Agency for past costs and 2) to provide
funds for future response actions.
We want to again emphasize that Regions should separately identify the
amounts for past response costs and future costs within the settlement document.
These amounts may be stated in dollar amounts or percentages. Past costs will always
be deposited in the Superfund Trust Fund as a cost recovery. Only those payments
designated for future response costs should be considered for earmarking for a Special
Account. Designation of how payments are to be treated is essential because, if
payments are not identified in this way, then the Regional Finance Office may apply
payments in a manner inconsistent with what the settlers originally intended.
-------
For that part of the settlement payment to be designated for future response
costs, Regions should consider whether Special Accounts are appropriate. Please
keep in mind the definite advantages of using Special Accounts for these settlement
funds: accounts can be established quickly; funds earn interest; funds maintain their
site-specific character; and funds can be used by EPA without an annual Congressional
appropriation, as a permanent and continuing appropriation already exists for these
accounts. If a Special Account has already been established for a site, or identified in
an existing cashout settlement, then the Region should consider suggesting to new
cashout PRPs that their settlement funds be deposited in that site's Special Account.
Attachment 1 sets forth model settlement language, to be used in all new
settlements, to designate which portion of a payment is for past costs and which portion
is for future costs. Sample language is included for mixed past/future payments, for
100% past payments, and for 100% future payments.
B. Existing Settlements
For existing settlements where the Regions have designated past and future
costs in the settlement document, the Region should consider whether to establish a
Special Account for the future cost component. Where such situations exist, the
Regional Program Office should submit a memorandum to the Regional Finance Office
asking them to set up a Special Account for that site, according to the existing
procedures for establishing a Special Account.
In discussions with the Regions, we have also found instances where the
Federal government did not designate past and future costs in a settlement document,
but the supporting documents (prepared to aid the Federal manager responsible for
approval of the settlement) identified a portion of the settlement proceeds for future
response actions at the site. This is particularly true of settlements such as de minimis
and other cashout settlements, as well as Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA)
settlements in which the settling parties agree to perform the response action and to
fund ongoing EPA oversight of the work through advance payments. In this situation,
the Regional Program Office, together with the Regional Finance Office, should submit
a memorandum to the Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) identifying the
sums (by site) from these settlements which should be applied to future site response
costs, consistent with Section 122(b)(3) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). OSRE will examine this
information and, in consultation with the Office of the Comptroller (OC) and the
Department of Justice (DOJ) (if DOJ had an approval role for the settlement), will
decide if establishing a Special Account at this time is appropriate. OSRE will then
notify the Regional Program Office of the disposition of the request. If the request is
deemed acceptable, the Regional Program Office should then follow the existing
procedures for establishing a Special Account.
-------
4
II. Implementation of EPA-OMB Agreement
To implement the June 1996 agreement, EPA developed a methodology to
calculate Special Account interest for all existing and new Special Accounts. In
October 1996, OMB approved the methodology. Accordingly, OC has updated all
existing Special Accounts with the calculated interest. OC also developed a
comprehensive database to record Special Account transactions and interest earned
for each site.
On October 28,1996, OC sent a memorandum to the Regions outlining the
agreement with OMB, providing the principal and interest balances in existing Special
Accounts, and explaining how to access these balances, through requests for
reimbursable authority. OC will continue to provide periodic reports to the Regions on
current available balances for each Special Account established.
III. Financial Guidance
The Financial Management Division (FMD) in OC is currently developing
financial guidance for administering Special Accounts as part of its ongoing revision to
the Resources Management Directives System (RMDS), 2550D, Financial
Management of the Superfund Program. This guidance will be added to the RMDS
2550D as a new chapter entitled Chapter 15, "Financial Management of Cashout
Special Accounts." Chapter 15 will provide guidance and policy pertaining to the
financial administration of cashout settlement funds and Special Accounts. Once a
draft of this chapter has been completed, the draft will serve as Interim policy until it is
approved and cleared for publication under the Agency's Directives Clearance Process.
FMD is planning to transmit this interim policy document to the Regions in early 1997.
If you have any questions concerning the development of Chapter 15, please contact
Vince Velez, FMD, at 202-260-6465 (fax at 202-260-7089).
IV. Special Accounts Short Sheet
Due to these and other related developments, we have revised the Special
Accounts Short Sheet, first issued on March 27,1996 (Attachment 2). This Short Sheet
contains: 1) the most frequently asked questions and answers; 2) the steps to establish
and use Special Accounts; 3) the steps to request reimbursable authority for existing
Special Accounts; 4) a list of contacts for various aspects of Special Accounts; and 5) a
list of Financial Management Officers.
V. Disbursement from a Special Account to a PRP
CERCLA Section 122(b)(3) authorizes EPA to retain settlement amounts and
use such amounts for purposes of carrying out the agreement. This authority enables
EPA to provide Special Account settlement funds to a PRP who is performing a
-------
response action, as long as providing such funds to the performing PRP facilitates and
expedites site cleanup. We are currently developing policy concerning the
disbursement of Special Account funds to PRPs conducting the response action. For
questions on this effort, please contact Lynn Holloway at 202-564-4241 (fax at 202-564-
0086 or 202-501-0269).
Until a disbursement policy is issued, if a Region contemplates offering to a PRP
some, or all of the proceeds from a Special Account, it should first consult with OSRE
before making the offer to the PRP. The purpose of this consultation is to allow
Headquarters to ensure national consistency in the disbursement of Special Account
funds to PRPs; to ensure that appropriate settlement language is used to embody the
disbursement agreement; to assist the Regions in accessing the proceeds in a quick
and efficient manner; and to identify nationally how many Special Accounts in a fiscal
year have funds which are disbursed to PRPs as well as how much money was
disbursed to PRPs. For this consultation, Regions should contact Lynn Holloway at the
above telephone number.
If you have any questions on this Reform, please contact Filomena Chau at 202-
564-4224 (fax at 202-501 -0269 or 202-564-0086).
Attachments
cc: Barry Breen, Director, OSRE
Kathryn S. Schmoll, Comptroller
-------
Attachment 1
Settlement Payments:
Model Settlement Language and Payment Address
Model Settlement Language:
Sample language for a mixed past/future cost payment:
"Of the total amount to be paid pursuant to this Agreement, ['$ ' or' %']
shall be deposited in the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund as
reimbursement for response costs incurred and paid at or in connection with the
Site as of [insert date] by the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund, and
['$ ' or' %' or 'the remainder1] shall be deposited in the [Insert Site Name]
Special Account within the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund to be retained
and used to conduct or finance the response action at or in connection with the
Site. Any balance remaining in the [Insert Site Name] Special Account shall be
transferred by EPA to the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund."
Sample language where the entire payment is to be applied towards past
costs:
'The total amount to be paid pursuant to this Agreement shall be deposited in
the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund as reimbursement for response costs
incurred and paid at or in connection with the Site by the EPA Hazardous
Substance Superfund."
Sample language where the entire payment is to be applied towards future
costs:
'The total amount to be paid pursuant to this Agreement shall be deposited in
the [Insert Site Name] Special Account within the EPA Hazardous Substance
Superfund to be retained and used to conduct or finance the response action at
or in connection with the Site. Any balance remaining in the [Insert Site Name]
Special Account shall be transferred by EPA to the EPA Hazardous Substance
Superfund."
Payment Address for All 3 Options:
All payments made in accordance with administrative settlements and de
minimis settlements (both Administrative Orders on Consent (AOCs) and
Consent Decrees (CDs)) should be directed to the Regional Superfund lockbox.
All payments made in accordance with non-de. minimis CDs should be made to
the Financial Litigation Unit of the appropriate U.S. Attorney's Office.
-------
Attachment 2
February 1997
SPECIAL ACCOUNTS SHORT SHEET
I. GENERAL BACKGROUND QUESTIONS
1. What are Special Accounts?
They are site-specific, interest bearing sub-accounts within the Superfund Trust
Fund. Special Accounts are maintained by EPA, and are to be used for future
costs of response actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA).
NOTE: Past response cost reimbursements are to be deposited to the
Superfund Trust Fund, and must be appropriated by Congress before they can
be expended by EPA.
2. What authority does EPA have to establish a Special Account?
CERCLA Section 122(b)(3) "Retention of Funds" authorizes EPA to retain
settlement amounts, paid by a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP), and use
such amounts for purposes of carrying out the agreement, that is, to carry out
future response actions.
3. When should Special Accounts be established?
Regions should always consider whether establishing a Special Account is
appropriate for that part of the settlement payment to be designated for future
response costs. This applies to any type of CERCLA settlement, including but
not limited to, de minimis settlements, non-de minimis cashout settlements,
ability-to-pay settlements, and bankruptcies.
Establishment of Special Accounts is particularly useful for early de minimis
settlements, where EPA anticipates subsequent settlements with major parties.
For instance, funds received from a de. minimis settlement may be kept
temporarily in a Special Account, and if appropriate, monies from the Special
Account may be disbursed for work performed at the site by major PRPs under a
subsequent settlement agreement with EPA.
Establishment of Special Accounts can also be useful in settlements in which the
settling parties agree to perform the response action and to fund EPA oversight.
We are working with OGC and other affected agencies to develop guidance on
the use of Special Accounts in such settlements.
4. Does EPA have access to the interest earned on Special Accounts?
Yes. In June 1996, EPA reached agreement with the Office of Management
-------
and Budget (OMB) and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) that the
interest earned by site-specific Special Accounts can be credited to these
accounts and used to fund future response actions at the sites in question.
EPA has worked with OMB and Treasury to implement this agreement. EPA
developed a methodology to calculate Special Account interest to all existing and
new Special Accounts. In October 1996, OMB approved the methodology. EPA
also developed a comprehensive data base to record Special Account
transactions and interest earned for each site.
The Office of the Comptroller (OC) updated all existing Special Accounts with the
calculated interest. In October 1996, OC sent guidance to the Regions outlining
the agreement with OMB, providing the principal and interest balances in existing
Special Accounts, and explaining how to access these balances, through
requests for reimbursable authority. OC will continue to provide periodic reports
to the Regions on current available balances for each Special Account.
The Financial Management Division (FMD) within OC is currently developing
financial guidance for administering Special Accounts as part of its ongoing
revision to the Resources Management Directives System (RMDS), 2550D,
Financial Management of the Superfund Program. This guidance will be added
to the RMDS 2550D, as a new chapter entitled Chapter 15, "Financial
Management of Cashout Special Accounts." Contact Vince Velez (202-260-
6465).
5. Are Special Accounts the only option for holding PRP funds for future site
work?
No. Before interest was credited to Special Accounts, various options were often
used. Where a settlement with one group of PRPs assures performance of
response actions, the settlement may direct the PRPs to place the settlement
proceeds in a privately managed trust account, escrow account, or in the registry
of the appropriate Federal District Court. These accounts all earn interest.
Although these options continue to be available, since interest is now credited to
Special Accounts, it is more likely that the need for these other options may
diminish.
6. How many Special Accounts have been established by EPA?
As of September 30,1996, approximately 59 Special Accounts have been
established.
7. How much money is currently in Special Accounts?
As of September 30,1996, about $261 million are in EPA's site-specific Special
Accounts. This represents $226 million of principal and $35 million of interest.
-------
8. Are there advantages to having a Special Account?
Yes. Special Accounts can be established quickly; funds earn interest; funds
maintain their site-specific character; and funds can be used by EPA without an
annual Congressional appropriation, as a permanent and continuing
appropriation already exists for these accounts.
NOTE: Although an annual appropriation is not required, Special Accounts must
be supported by reimbursable authority issued by the Headquarters Office of the
Chief Financial Officer's (OCFO) Budget Division as apportioned by OMB. For
procedures, see Step 4 in the next section.
9. Are Special Accounts established automatically by EPA's financial office
when future response costs are received under a settlement?
No. EPA supports use of Special Accounts to finance future response work;
however, this is not an automatic process. To learn about the steps to follow
when establishing a Special Account, please refer to the next section, "How to
Create and Use a Special Account."
10. Who can use Special Accounts and for which sites can we use these
accounts?
Special Accounts can be used for response actions in which EPA has the lead
(Fund-lead), PRPs have the lead (PRP-lead), or States have the lead (State-
lead).
11. Can Special Account funds be used to finance work at a site for which the
account was not established?
No. Funds in a Special Account may only be used for the site(s) covered by the
settlement agreement. Note that some settlements may cover multiple locations
(&£., bankruptcy settlements or settlements covering stations along natural gas
pipelines). The issue of whether to establish multiple Special Accounts for such
settlements depends on whether the Agency tracks and bills its costs separately
for each location. Thus, e^ bankruptcy settlements covering multiple sites will
generally require multiple accounts, while pipeline settlements will typically
require only a single account.
12. After site work is completed, can any remaining funds in the Special
Account be used at other sites?
To be used at other sites, the remaining funds must first be returned to the
Superfund Trust Fund and appropriated by Congress. For response work at a
site to be funded by the Superfund Trust Fund, a site must successfully compete
against other sites also being considered for the limited dollars appropriated
during a fiscal year.
-------
13. After site work is completed, can any remaining funds in the Special
Account be returned to the PRPs who provided the original Special
Account proceeds?
a. There is no statutory prohibition against agreeing (in the Consent Decree
(CD), Administrative Order on Consent (AOC), or Administrative
Agreement) that a balance in a Special Account be returned to the
contributing PRP(s).
b. However, Special Account funds often come from cashout settlements
(with de minimis or non-de minimis parties) in which the settling parties
are not conducting the response action. The Agency's first consideration
is the need for the Special Account funds for future response work at the
site. This includes future work to be conducted by EPA, by PRPs, or
others. Under these circumstances, any remaining funds are usually
placed in the Superfund Trust Fund, because parties who enter into
cashout settlements accept certain cost assumptions and assume the risk
that these estimates sometimes underestimate and other times
overestimate expected costs. Furthermore, in cashout settlements, the
PRPs receive certain covenants advantageous to them, while the United
States assumes certain risks and responsibilities to see that the response
action is conducted.
c. For the special case of settlements in which parties agree to perform the
response action and to fund ongoing EPA oversight of the work through
advance payments into a Special Account, the settlement may be
negotiated to permit return of excess funds to these performing PRPs
after completion of the work. Generally, refund of any unused amount of
advance payments should be provided to the parties at the time they
complete their obligations under the settlement.
14. Have Special Account funds been disbursed to PRPs who are the lead in
performing future response actions?
To date, most Special Account disbursement has occurred at Fund-lead
response sites. Thus, there have been only a few instances where Special
Account funds have been released to a PRP to perform future response actions.
In these instances, EPA and the PRPs performing the response action have
entered into a CD or AOC, which contained the PRPs' commitment to perform
the work and a provision for releasing funds from the Special Account to a
private account established by the PRP. The settlements have spelled out how
to use the funds, how to accomplish the cleanup work, and the terms and
conditions for release of the funds.
OSRE is developing guidance on the disbursement of Special Account funds to
PRPs conducting the response action. Contact Lynn Holloway (202-564-4241).
-------
II. HOW TO CREATE AND USE A SPECIAL ACCOUNT
STEP 1: Decide to establish a Special Account for a site.
Before negotiating with PRPs for any agreement which may contain a
future cost component, the appropriate officials in the Regional Superfund
Program and Counsel offices should, in consultation with the Regional
Financial Management Officer (FMO), determine if a Special Account
should be established for the site. See attached list of FMOs.
STEP 2: Direct settlement payments into a Special Account.
All new settlement agreements (e^, Consent Decree (CD),
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC), or Administrative Agreement)
must separately identify the amounts for past response costs (Le., cost
recovery) and future costs (Le., cashouts for future response actions)
within the settlement document. Only those payments designated for
future response costs should be earmarked for a Special Account. Past
costs should be deposited in the Superfund Trust Fund as a cost
recovery.
Below is specific model settlement language, for designating which
portion of a payment is for past costs and which portion is for future costs.
Sample language is included for mixed past/future payments, for 100%
past payments, and for 100% future payments.
Sample language for a mixed past/future cost payment:
"Of the total amount to be paid pursuant to this Agreement, ['$ ' or
1 %'] shall be deposited in the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund
as reimbursement for response costs incurred and paid at or in
connection with the Site as of [insert date] by the EPA Hazardous
Substance Superfund, and ['$ ' or' '% or 'the remainder1] shall be
deposited in the [Insert Site Name] Special Account within the EPA
Hazardous Substance Superfund to be retained and used to conduct or
finance the response action at or in connection with the Site. Any balance
remaining in the [Insert Site Name] Special Account shall be transferred
by EPA to the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund."
Sample language where the entire payment is to be applied towards
past costs:
"The total amount to be paid pursuant to this Agreement shall be
deposited in the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund as reimbursement
for response costs incurred and paid at or in connection with the Site by
the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund."
-------
Sample language where the entire payment is to be applied towards
future costs:
'The total amount to be paid pursuant to this Agreement shall be
deposited in the [Insert Site Name] Special Account within the EPA
Hazardous Substance Superfund to be retained and used to conduct or
finance the response action at or in connection with the Site. Any balance
remaining in the [Insert Site Name] Special Account shall be transferred
by EPA to the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund."
For questions on model settlement language, contact: Janice Linett,
(703) 978-3057.
STEP 3: Have PRPs remit payments.
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, PRPs should remit payment by
check, or through electronic funds transfer (EFT). The check, or EFT,
should be directed to the location noted in the settlement. In general, all
payments made in accordance with administrative settlements and de
minimis settlements (both AOCs and CDs) should be directed to the
Regional Superfund lockbox. All payments made in accordance with non-
dfi minimis CDs should be made to the Financial Litigation Unit of the
appropriate U.S. Attorney's Office.
The PRP must include on the check, or in a letter accompanying the
check, the name and address of the PRP, the site name, the site/spill
identification number, and either the EPA docket number for the action
(for administrative settlements) or the Department of Justice case number
(for CDs).
Once the Regional Finance Office receives the payments, it will forward
the portion of the payment for future work to the Cincinnati Financial
Management Center (CFMC) by Inter-Office Transfer Voucher (IOTV).
STEP 4: Obtain authority to create a reimbursable account.1
First, the Regional Program Office initiates a reprogramming request and
submits this to the Regional Budget Office (RBO). Second, the RBO
submits a request for issuance of reimbursable authority through a
reprogramming request to the Headquarters Office of the Chief Financial
Officer (OCFO), Budget Division and attaches a copy of the following
documents:
1 When EPA receives funds from an outside source (and not through direct
Congressional appropriations), these funds are termed "reimbursable."
-------
1) Reprogramming request form
2) Inter-Office Transfer Voucher (IOTV) sent to the
Cincinnati Financial Management Center (CFMC)
3) Settlement check or EFT
4) Deposit ticket
5) CD, AOC, or Administrative Agreement
Third, the Headquarters OCFO Budget Division obtains reimbursable
authority from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and
approves/completes the Region's reprogramming request, usually within
one to two weeks.
Finally, the Headquarters OCFO Budget Division advises the Region and
CFMC that reimbursable authority has been issued.
CONTACT: Richard Blackman, Budget Formulation and Control Branch,
(202) 260-6629, Headquarters OCFO Budget Division.
STEP 5: Establish the Special Account and obtain a reimbursable account number.
CFMC establishes the Special Account upon receipt of the IOTV and a
copy of the following documents:
1) CD, AOC, or Administrative Agreement
2) Settlement check or EFT
3) Deposit ticket
Once the Headquarters OCFO, Budget Division advises CFMC that the
required reimbursable authority has been issued, CFMC establishes a
reimbursable account (Le., Special Account) in the Integrated Financial
Management System (IFMS) and assigns a unique reimbursable account
number.
CONTACT: Connie Ely, (513) 366-2075, Cincinnati Financial
Management Center (CFMC).
STEP 6: Using the Special Account.
The Region may now obligate money from the Special Account, always
citing the reimbursable account number on all funding documents.
Periodically, CFMC will review each Special Account by analyzing the
funds expended against the reimbursable account number. CFMC will
then adjust the Special Account based on their findings.
CONTACT: Regional FMOs and Connie Ely, (513) 366-2075, CFMC.
-------
REQUESTING REIMBURSABLE AUTHORITY FOR EXISTING SPFCIAI
ACCOUNTS
Since unobligated reimbursable authority expires at the end of each fiscal year,
the Regions must request reimbursable authority at the beginning of each year
to reactivate existing Special Accounts for use during the new year. CFMC will
provide the Regions with reports twice a year indicating the status of balances
available for each account. Using this report, the Regions will be able to
determine the amount of reimbursable authority that can be requested for a
particular account. The Regional Budget Office will submit all requests to the
Headquarters OCFO, Budget Division, using a reprogramming request form as
discussed in Step 4. Since this request is for an existing account, no additional
supporting documentation is required.
If the amount of reimbursable authority issued at the beginning of the year is
depleted before year-end and work continues at the site, the Region may
request additional reimbursable authority, provided that funds are still available in
the Special Account. The Regional Budget Office will make requests for
additional reimbursable authority in the same manner discussed above.
IV. CONTACTS
FOR GENERAL QUESTIONS:
Filomena Chau (202) 564-4224
Regional Support Division/OSRE/OECA
FOR QUESTIONS ON SPECIFIC ASPECTS:
Vince Velez [Financial Specialist] (202) 260-6465
Financial Management Division/Office of the Comptroller/OCFO
Janice Linett [Model Settlement/Senior Counsel] (703) 978-3057
Regional Support Division/OSRE/OECA
Chad Littleton [Cashout Specialist] (202) 564-6064
Policy and Program Evaluation Division/OSRE/OECA
Tracy Gipson [Ability to Pay Analysis] (202) 564-4236
Regional Support Division/OSRE/OECA
John Wheeler [Bankruptcy] (202) 564-4284
Regional Support Division/OSRE/OECA
-------
V.
EPA FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OFFICERS
Mr. Mike Manlogon, FMO
U.S. EPA - Region I (PFS)
J.F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3344, fax (617) 565-3346
Mr. Ronald Gherardi, FMO
U.S. EPA-Region II (PMFIN)
26 Federal Plaza, Room 934
New York, NY 10007
(212) 637-3456, fax (212) 637-3509
Mr. Noel Schleifman, FMO
U.S. EPA - Region III (3PM30)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 566-5183, fax (215) 566-5233
Ms. Carol Williams, FMO
U.S. EPA - Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 562-8242, fax (404) 562-8210
Ms. Freddie Howard, FMO
U.S. EPA-Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd. (MF-10J)
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-5947, fax (312) 886-7514
Mr. John Eagles, FMO
U.S. EPA - Region VI (6RF)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 665-6535, fax (214) 665-7284
Mr. Gerald Lee, FMO
U.S. EPA-Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7324, fax (913) 551-7579
Mr. Frank MacFadden, FMO
U.S. EPA - Region VIII (8PM-GFM)
999 Eighteenth Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 82202
(303) 312-6177, fax (303) 312-6684
Ms. Joyce Byres, Acting FMO
U.S. EPA - Region IX (P42)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-1701, fax (415) 744-1678
Ms. Kathleen Kelley, FMO
U.S. EPA - Region X (MD149)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-2961, fax (206) 553-4957
James Wood, FMO
Cincinnati Financial Management Center
U.S. .EPA (002)
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 366-2080, fax (513) 366-2063
Mr. Douglas Barrett, FMO
Research Triangle Park FMC
U.S. EPA(ADM-102)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-3042, fax (919) 541-3055
Mr. Alan Lewis, FMO
Las Vegas FMC
U.S. EPA
P.O. Box98515
Las Vegas, NV 89193-8515
(702) 798-2485, fax (702) 798-2423
Ms. Debra Bennett, FMO
Washington FMC
U.S. EPA (3303)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-5100, fax (202) 260-0293
-------
-------
-------
v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency March 1997
Special Account Implementation Notebook
A Reference Tool
Tab 3
"Financial Management of Cashout
Special Accounts"
-------
Placeholder for
"Financial Management of Cashout
Special Accounts"
-------
-------
Notes
-------
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency March 1997
Special Account Implementation Notebook
A Reference Tool
Tab 4
Excerpt from report
"Superfund Administrative Reforms
Annual Report Fiscal Year 1996"
-------
SUPERFUND
ADMINISTRATIVE
REFORMS
ANNUAL REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 1996
?/EPA
-------
ANNOTATED TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUPERFUND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS ANNUAL REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 1996
IAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS v
UMMARY OF STATUS AND NEXT STEPS, ROUND 3 A-l
UMMARY OF STATUS AND NEXT STEPS, ROUND 2 B-l
UPERFUND REFORMS ROUND THREE
I. CLEANUPS 1
1. ESTABLISH COST-EFFECTIVENESS THRESHOLDS AND NEW RULES-OF-THUMB 1
la Establish National Remedy Review Board 1
EPA created the National Remedy Review Board, composed of senior Agency experts, to review
proposed high cost remedies at specific sites to ensure that costs are not disproportionate to cleanup
benefits.
lb. Establish New Remedy Selection Management Flags ("Rules-of-Thumb ") 2
The goal of the rules-of-thumb initiative is to develop remedy selection rules that will promote cost-
effectiveness and flag potentially "controversial" cleanup decisions for senior management review.
2. UPDATE REMEDY DECISIONS AT SELECT SITES 3
EPA encourages the Regions to revisit remedy decisions at certain sites where significant new scientific
information, technological advancements, or other considerations will achieve the current level of
protectiveness of human health and the environment in a more cost-effective manner.
3. CLARIFY THE ROLE OF COST AND MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY THROUGHOUT THE REMEDY
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 5
3a. Clarify' the Role of Cost in the Remedy Selection Process 5
This reform clarifies the role of cost in developing cleanup options and selecting remedies, and
promotes the use of policies and guidances in order to assure cost-effectiveness.
3b. Directive on National Consistency in Remedy Selection 6
This directive emphasizes the critical importance of maintaining appropriate national consistency
in the Superfund remedy selection process and requests that program managers make full use of
existing tools and consultation opportunities to promote such consistency.
4. CLARIFY INFORMATION REGARDING REMEDY SELECTION DECISIONS 7
This initiative requires EPA to develop summary sheets that clearly demonstrate the basis for remedy selection
at each site. The summary sheet will present the relationship between site risks and response actions, including
costs and benefits of cleanup alternatives.
5. INSTITUTE NEW ROLE FOR STAKEHOLDERS IN RISK ASSESSMENTS 8
Sa. Community Participation in Designing Risk Assessments 8
EPA solicits early stakeholder input to identify and make consistent use of current information
about the site and site contaminants.
5b. PRP Performance of Risk Assessments 9
This initiative reaffirms EPA's commitment to allow potentially responsible parties (PRPs) at a site
to perform risk assessments under the proper circumstances.
6. ENSURE REASONABLE AND CONSISTENT RISK ASSESSMENTS 9
6a. Establish National Criteria on Superfund Risk Assessments 9
EPA will issue national criteria to the Regions for review, approval, and reporting of Superfund risk
assessments.
6b. Standardize Risk Assessments 10
This initiative standardizes those components of the risk assessment process that vary slightly
from site to site.
December 1996 Pagei
-------
6c. Utilize Expert Work Group on Lead 11
This initiative utilizes an expert workgroup to standardize risk assessment approaches for
lead-contaminated Superfund sites.
7. ESTABLISH LEAD REGULATOR FOR FEDERAL FACILITIES 12
EPA is developing guidance to establish a lead regulator at each site undergoing cleanup activities under
competing Federal and State authorities to eliminate overlap and duplication of efforts.
8. CONSIDER RESPONSE ACTIONS PRIOR TO NPL LISTING 14
This initiative ensures that response actions that have been taken up to the time of listing are considered
before listing sites on the National Priorities List (NPL).
9. DELETE CLEAN PARCELS FROM THE NPL 15
EPA will delete portions of sites from the NPL that have been cleaned up and are available for productive use.
10. CONDUCT NATIONAL RISK-BASED PRIORITY SETTING 16
lOa. Promote Risk-Based Priority Setting at Federal Facility Sites 16
EPA will address the role of risk and other factors in setting priorities at Federal facility sites.
10b. Promote Risk-Based Priority for NPL Sites 16
EPA has established a National Risk-Based Priority Panel to evaluate the priority order of NPL sites.
II. ENFORCEMENT 17
11. ORPHAN SHARE COMPENSATION 17
This initiative seeks to compensate parties for a limited portion of the costs attributable to insolvent parties
(orphan share) at sites where parties agree to perform the cleanup, subject to the adequacy of funding for the
cleanup program.
12. SITE SPECIFIC SPECIAL ACCOUNTS 19
EPA will direct settlement funds designated for future site costs to be placed in site-specific accounts and
ensure that interest is credited to those accounts.
13. EQUITABLE ISSUANCE OF UNILATERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (UAOs) 20
EPA is committed to ensuring that UAOs are issued to all appropriate parties where there is a sufficient
basis to include them.
14. REVISED DE MICROMIS GUIDANCE 21
This reform is intended to improve EPA's ability to resolve very small volume waste contributors'
(i.e., de micromis) liability concerns quickly and fairly.
15. ADOPTING PRIVATE PARTY ALLOCATIONS 23
In order to reduce transaction costs, EPA has committed to adopt private party allocations (including those
that identify an orphan share) as the basis for settlement, where such allocations are approved by EPA.
16. REDUCED OVERSIGHT FOR CAPABLE AND COOPERATIVE PRPs 24
EPA will strive to acknowledge PRPs that consistently perform high quality work by significantly reducing
or tiering oversight, thereby reducing transaction costs.
[II. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 25
17. PILOT REMEDY SELECTION BY SELECTED STATES AND TRIBES 25
This initiative implements a process whereby qualified States and Tribes would select remedies at certain
Superfund sites, consistent with applicable law and regulations governing cleanups.
18. PILOT COMMUNITY-BASED REMEDY SELECTION PROCESS 26
EPA will explore the use of more "consensus based" approaches that involve community stakeholders in the
Superfund remedy selection process.
19. ESTABLISH SUPERFUND OMBUDSMAN IN EVERY REGION 27
This initiative established an Ombudsman in each Region to serve as a point of contact for the public and
help resolve stakeholder concerns.
20. IMPROVE COMMUNICATION WITH SUPERFUND STAKEHOLDERS 28
This initiative utilizes electronic tools (such as the Internet, multimedia computers, and other electronic
means), to both increase communication among all Superfund stakeholders and improve access to
Superfund information.
Page ii December 1996
-------
MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Fundamentally Different: How EPA Has Changed
Implementation of the Superfund Program
INTRODUCTION
For several years, EPA has been reforming the Superfund program to make it work faster,
fairer, and more efficiently. While EPA has been working with Congress to make
legislative changes, it also has fundamentally changed the program by implementing a
series of far-reaching reforms.
These changes have improved the functioning of a program that addresses thousands of
abandoned sites throughout the country. Chemical and radioactive wastes at such sites
threaten nearly 70 million Americans - including more than 10 million children - who
live within four miles of a Superfund site.
The highlights of EPA's comprehensive effort to restructure Superfund are summarized
below. A more detailed description of the status of EPA's reform effort is provided in the
attached Annual Report.
THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM TODAY
The collection of initiatives known as "Superfund reforms" has produced basic,
permanent changes in the Superfund program, ranging from national programmatic
changes to changes impacting individual sites at every stage of the cleanup and
enforcement processes. Reforming Superfund has been a continuous process - EPA
piloted changes, learned from them, and, where they were successful, made them part of
the program. EPA developed these reforms after consideration of the differing
perspectives of the various stakeholders in the Superfund process. By listening and
responding to these perspectives, changes have been made to the Superfund process that
speed it up, reduce costs, and make it fairer. These changes affect the entire process -
stretching from the very beginning (when a site is first assessed), to the very end (when
construction is completed and any enforcement is concluded).
As a result of Superfund reform, EPA's internal decision-making processes make more
sense. The Agency has taken a number of steps to ensure that Federal Superfund
resources and protections are focused in the right places. The Agency is prioritizing
December 1996 Page v
-------
cleanups so that the sites posing the worst environmental and health problems are
addressed first. EPA is deleting cleaned up portions of sites from the National Priorities
List (NPL) instead of waiting for the whole site to be cleaned up so that these sites will
not suffer from any limitations imposed by identification as a Superfund site. EPA
deleted over 27,000 sites from its inventory of all potential hazardous waste sites in
instances where no further response activity is planned for the site. EPA also will
encourage comparable State voluntary programs to handle sites that do not rise to the
level of Federal attention.
When a site does merit a Federal response, the process for selecting the response is faster
and less costly. When determining the risk posed by the site, EPA incorporates the most
recent information and reasonable assumptions in its risk-based and remedial decisions.
Assumptions regarding current and future land use are developed in conjunction with the
affected community. After determining the risk posed by the site, EPA must consider
various remedies to address the risk. In conjunction with States and communities, EPA is
coordinating the selection of better, more cost-effective remedies. Where EPA has
accumulated a body of experience in addressing a particular type of site, it has identified
standardized remedies known as "presumptive remedies" to eliminate the need for costly
studies and processes that are likely to yield the same choices.
In selecting the right remedy for a particular site, EPA clarified the role that cost plays in
affecting that decision. To ensure that costs are given an appropriate role in remedy
selection, EPA established a panel of national experts to review high cost remedies.
Where a remedy selected in the past may merit reconsideration based on new
technological developments, EPA is revising these remedies to ensure that the most cost-
effective remedies are considered. The Agency's track record on future cost reductions at
every step of the way is remarkable - money is being saved by reviewing remedy
selection, updating remedy decisions, applying presumptive remedies, and implementing
remedies selected with community participation. Just from the initial implementation of
these most recent reforms alone, over $400 million in reduced future cleanup costs will
be achieved.
The enforcement process has also been transformed into a fairer process that results in
reduced transaction costs. EPA continues to emphasize "Enforcement First" - using its
enforcement authority to assure that viable private parties that created hazardous wastes
are held responsible for cleaning them up, so that the Superfund is reserved for truly
"orphaned" sites. More than 70% of long-term cleanup actions are now financed by
responsible parties. EPA's implementation of this approach, however, has included
efforts to enhance equitable treatment for all parties. EPA does not pursue parties whose
contribution of waste to the site is extremely small, since the transaction costs these
parties would incur in defending themselves would easily exceed whatever minimal
contribution they may be expected to make. Parties with slightly larger contributions
Pagevi December 1996
-------
(known as de minimis parties) are routinely offered cashout settlements early in the
process to limit their transaction costs and give them the assurance of being protected
from any further involvement at the site. Over 14,000 of these parties have taken
advantage of these settlement opportunities to date.
The remaining parties, who bear a larger burden of responsibility at these sites, have also
benefited from the enforcement reforms. Where there are parties that are no longer in
business or without assets, EPA provides compensation for a portion of those parties'
share at sites where the remaining parties agree to perform the work. This past year, EPA
offered to compromise over $57 million at various sites to increase fairness for those
parties agreeing to perform cleanups. To reduce the transaction costs that are often
incurred where parties cannot agree on what share each party should bear, EPA is testing
an allocation process where a neutral party determines each party's share of responsibility
and EPA offers settlements to parties based on that allocation. Although these test cases
have not been concluded, the Agency has already learned valuable lessons that are
already impacting its enforcement process. In addition, EPA has established and utilized
interest-bearing "special accounts" to ensure that settlement funds are dedicated for use in
achieving cleanup at a specific site. Lastly, where potentially responsible parties (PRPS
have demonstrated their capability and cooperativeness in performing site cleanup, EPA
will significantly reduce oversight, and thereby reduce the costs of cleanups, for
cooperative responsible parties.
Superfund reforms also have focused the Agency's attention on promoting redevelopment
of abandoned and contaminated properties across the country. The Agency has
aggressively pursued policies to promote sensible redevelopment of "Brownfields" -
those abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial areas across the country
where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental
contamination. EPA is providing grant money to 76 communities to develop strategies to
revitalize local brownfield sites. EPA is stimulating the purchase of property for
redevelopment by expanding the opportunity for more agreements promising not to sue
those purchasers for any contamination present at the time of purchase. For many parties
who may own property that is part of a Superfund site (but they have very little, if any,
link to the contamination) EPA stated its intention not to pursue these types of parties.
For example, EPA issued policies describing the circumstances under which it will not
take enforcement actions for cleanup work or costs against various parties, such as
residential homeowners. EPA has had great success restoring contaminated residential
properties, working with homeowners to remove contaminants frequently found in
residential areas. Additionally, in a recent study of how sites were being re-used, EPA
found that of the first 191 construction completion sites, 80 were already in economic
reuse in 1995 and 44 additional sites are in some non-economic reuse (e.g., floodplains,
wetlands, green space, permanent waste management). These are just a few of the
highlights of EPA's extensive Brownfields initiative.
December 1996 Page vii
-------
SUPERFUND REFORMS ANNUAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 1996
SUMMARY OF STATUS AND NEXT STEPS, ROUND 3
Administrative Reform
Status
Next Steps
la. Establish National Remedy
Keview Board
All Regions and eight other Agency offices have designated representatives to the National
Remedy Review Board (NRRD). The RRD has reviewed 12 proposed decisions at 11 sites.
Of the 12, five have progressed 10 "final ROD," and one to "proposed plan." As a result of
these six reviews, the Agency expects to realize future cost reductions of approximately $8
million. Overall, the Board's preliminary analysis indicates potential reductions in the
range of $15 million to $30 million in total estimated site cleanup costs.
As of October 10, 1996, the RRJI estimates there may be as many as 10-20
decisions reviewed in FY97.
Ib. Establish New Remedy
Selection Management Flags
("Rules-of-Thumb")
EPA developed two fact sheets that were sent out for review by EPA Regional Offices,
other Federal agencies, and Stale environmental agencies in August 1996. The first fact
sheet describes remedy selection rules-of-thumb, or key principles and expectations,
corresponding to three policy areas in the Superfund remedy selection process. The second
fact sheet describes a set of proposed management review triggers to promote nationally
consistent remedy selection decision-making.
EPA will revise both fact sheets based on comments received. The rulcs-of-
thumb fact sheet will be issued as guidance to EPA Regional offices as soon as
comments have been incorporated (expected timeframe - second quarter
FY97). The revised draft of the proposed management review triggers will be
presented at a national Superfund program managers' meeting as the basis for a
discussion on updating and consolidating managemenl consultation
requirements for Superfund remedy selection decisions. The management
consultation process will be revised in FY97.
2. Update Remedy Decisions «l
Select Sites
EPA issued this Reform guidance on September 27, 1996; however, many Regions
anticipated its issuance, and completed a number of remedy updates earlier in FY96.
During FY96, remedy updates of all types that achieved savings resulted in a tola! savings
of over $280 million. Of this $280 million, over $250 million resulted from updates of the
kind identified in the Reform guidance.
Headquarters will continue to work with the Regions on implementation of this
reform.
3a. Clarify the Role of Cost in the
Remedy Selection Process
EPA issued a fact sheet, "The Role of Cost in the Superfund Remedy Selection Process,"
on September 10, 1996. Through the distribution of this fact sheet, EPA hopes to ensure
that all stakeholders involved in the Superfund process fully understand the important role
of cost in remedy selection under existing law and policy and recent initiatives aimed at
enhancing the cost-effectiveness of remedial actions.
Implementation of this reform is complete.
3b. Directive on National
Consistency in Remedy
Selection
The Agency issued a Directive entitled "National Consistency in Superfund Remedy
Selection" (from Elliott P. Laws to Regional Division Directors) on September 25, 1996.
This directive emphasizes the critical importance of maintaining appropriate national
consistency in the Superfund remedy selection process and requests that program managers
make full use of existing tools and consultation opportunities to promote such consistency.
El'A begins initiation of efforts to review and consolidate management
consultation requirements/activities in fall 1996.
4. Clarify Information
Regarding Remedy Selection
Decisions
EPA developed a draft summary sheet that was sent out for review by EPA Regional
offices, other involved Federal agencies, and Stale environmental agencies in August 1996.
The summary sheet provides a tool fur clearly presenting, in a standardized format, the
context, basis, and rationale for site-specific Supcrfiind remedy selection decisions.
Once comments are incorporated, EPA will issue the summary sheet as an
interim product and explore its use as a suggested formal for stiinniari/.ing
critical site information in support of Agency managemenl briefings. I cdcral
Facilities will also be invited to pilot its use in their programs as well.
Exhibit A
Page A-1
-------
Administrative Reform
Status
Next Steps
10a. Promote Risk-Based Priority
Setting at Federal Facility
Sites
Headquarters has obtained internal comments (including Regional input) on guidance
drafted for the Regions which will address the role of risk and other factors (e.g., cost,
community concerns, environmental justice, cultural considerations) in setting priorities at
Federal facility sites. Regions have begun to implement the concept of risk-based priority
setting at Federal facility sites.
EPA will issue final guidance in the second quarter of FY97.
lOb. Promote Risk-Based Priority
for NPL Silts
Projects are evaluated based on five criteria: I) risks to humans; 2) ecological risks; 3)
stability of contaminants; 4) contaminant characteristics; and 5) economic, social, and
program management considerations. During FY96,42 projects totaling over $276 million
were funded in accordance with National Risk-Based Priority Panel (Panel)
recommendations. By early FY97, the Panel had ranked projects approaching SI billion in
cleanup costs. The Panel met in October 1996.
The Panel will reconvene in early spring 1997.
II. Orphan Share Compensation
Interim final guidance was issued on June 3, 1996. A Headquarters assistance team has
been established to assist with the implementation of this reform. The team is working
closely with DOJ and the Regional staff to implement this reform. The Agency offered over
S57 million in FY96 to potential settling parties in recognition of the orphan share at 24
Superfund sites across the United Slates.
In FY97, EPA will continue to bear a portion of the orphan share by
compromising costs at sites where parties agree to perform cleanups. These
agreements follow the Agency guidance issued in June 1996 and arc limited by
existing appropriations. In addition, EPA will be considering possible
changes to the guidance, including applicability to early de minimis settlors,
within the bounds of these parameters.
12. Site Specific Special Accounts
In implementing this Reform, the Regions established 23 Special Accounts in FY96,
containing a total of $78 million. As of September 30, 1996, EPA has set up a cumulative
total of 59 Special Accounts. The total balance of funds available in Special Accounts is
$261 million, representing $226 million in principal. Thirty-five million dollars in interest
(interest is through August 31, 1996) is also now credited to these accounts and is available
for future response actions at each site.
EPA will be providing general program and financial guidance to the Regions
in the near future. The Agency will continue to monitor the success of this
reform.
13. Equitable Issuance of
Unilateral Administrative
Orders (UAOs)
EPA issued a memorandum to the Regions in August 1996 that establishes procedures for
Regional Staff to document their reasons for proposing that certain PRPs be excluded from
UAOs. The guidance also reaffirms EPA policy to issue such UAOs to the largest number
of PRPs appropriate.
During FY97, the Agency will establish a process for ensuring that the Regions
prepare the necessary documentation.
14. Revised De Micromis
Guidance
On June 3, 1996, EPA has issued new guidance and models designed to streamline and
simplify the process to protect contributors of extremely small amounts of waste (de
micromis contributors) by creating routine settlement practices where practicable.
EPA will continue to identify those sites where implementation of this reform
is appropriate.
IS. Adopting Private Party
Allocations
EPA established a national workgroup to determine the parameters and identify
opportunities for implementation of this reform. The Agency has adopted private party
allocations at several sites, including the Doepke llolliday Site in Kansas where the PRPs
will perform the cleanup of the site and reimburse 100% of EPA response costs.
The workgroup determined that current Superfund policies are adequate for
providing direction to implement the reform and, as a result, no new guidance
is planned at this time.
16. Reduced Oversight for
Capable and Cooperative
PRPs
On July 31, 1996. an EPA Regional/Headquarters workgroup issued a six-page directive to
implement this new reform. EPA Regions have identified approximately 100 sites where
reductions in oversight of ongoing work for cooperative and capable PRPs have occurred
or will occur, significantly reducing costs at some of Ihcse sites.
Regions will notify cooperative parties that they have already received reduced
oversight or will receive reduced oversight. Regions will be encouraged to
provide PRPs with an up-front estimate of contractor costs for oversight.
Exhibit A
Page A-3
-------
considering possible changes to the guidance, including applicability to early de minimis
settlors, within the bounds of these parameters.
Contacts: Susan Boushell, OSRE, (202) 564-5107
Deniz Ergener, OSRE, (202) 564-4233
12. SITE SPECIFIC SPECIAL ACCOUNTS
Description: In October 1995, EPA announced its intention to encourage greater use of
Special Accounts for settlement funds to be used for future response actions at Superfund
sites and to ensure that interest earned by Special Accounts can be credited to these
accounts and be available for future response actions at the sites in question.
Status: In March 1996, EPA issued a memorandum to its Regional Offices, encouraging
them to use Special Accounts for settlement funds and advising them on the creation and
use of these accounts. In June 1996, EPA reached agreement with the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of the Treasury that interest earned
by Special Accounts can be credited to these accounts and used by the Agency to carry
out the settlement agreements. This means that EPA can retain and apply interest as well
as settlement funds to clean up specific sites. In October 1996, OMB approved EPA's
methodology for calculating Special Account interest. In late October 1996, EPA sent a
memorandum to the Regions outlining the agreement with OMB, providing principal and
interest balances in Special Accounts and providing directions on how to request these
funds.
In FY96, the Regions established 23 Special Accounts, for a total of $78 million.
Overall, as of September 30, 1996, EPA has set up a total of 59 Special Accounts. The
total balance of funds available in Special Accounts is $261 million, representing $226
million in principal and $35 million in interest (interest through August 31,1996).
The following examples illustrate the success of this reform in making site-specific
Special Accounts available for response actions at Superfund sites:
»• At the Love Canal Superfund Site in New York (Region 2), $5 million in Special
Account funds will be used for the remaining future work at the site; i.e.,
revitalization of the site and completion of a health register.
> At Oronogo-Duenweg Superfund Site in Missouri (Region 7), EPA entered into a
$1 million settlement with an inactive PRP with limited resources. The use of a
Special Account at this site allowed the Agency to settle with the PRP before its
December 1996 Page 19
-------
assets dwindled further and preserve the funds for future response actions at the
site.
> At the Sharon Steel and Midvale Slag Superfund Sites in Utah (Region 8), most
of the $65 million in Special Account funds from a large settlement for these two
contiguous sites has been applied to cleanup at the sites. In addition, the $11
million in interest recently credited to the account will be applied to future
cleanup activities at the sites.
> At the North Hollywood Operable Unit of the San Fernando Valley-North
Hollywood Superfund Site in California (Region 9), five PRPs contributed $1.8
million to a Special Account which EPA plans to use to pay the operating costs
of the ground water treatment system at the site.
> At the Non-Populated Areas Operable Unit of the Bunker Hill Superfund Site in
Idaho (Region 10), one PRP went bankrupt and EPA was able to recover $8.75
million. Use of Special Account funds allowed the Region to expedite Fund-lead
cleanup.
Next Steps: EPA will be providing general program and financial guidance to the
Regions in the near future. The Agency will continue to monitor the success of this
reform.
Contact: Filomena Chau, OSRE, (202) 564-4224
13. EQUITABLE ISSUANCE OF UNILATERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (UAOs)
Description: Concerns have been expressed that EPA has issued unilateral
administrative orders (UAOs) under section 106 authority to only a subset of the parties
which have been identified for a particular site. In order to assure fair treatment of
responsible parties, EPA is committed to ensuring that UAOs are issued to all appropriate
parties following consideration of the adequacy of evidence of the party's liability, their
financial viability, and their contribution to the site. Accordingly, EPA will identify (for
internal management review purposes only), parties excluded from any order proposed to
be issued and the basis for their exclusion. Regional staff will ensure that the Regional
decision-maker receives sufficient information regarding who will and who will not
receive the orders in the package sent to him or her for approval. Specifically, Regional
staff will identify the total number of parties EPA has discovered at a site. Where
Regional staff recommend that an order not include certain parties, they will include an
explanation of the basis for such exclusion in the package.
Page 20 December 1996
-------
-------
»EPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency March 1997
Special Account Implementation Notebook
A Reference Tool
TabS
Memo
"Requesting Reimbursable Authority for
Superfund Special Accounts
(Principal and Interest)
-------
^,40 ST.,.
jrir1*.
*•
" WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
, m^ \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
QCT281996
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Requesting Reimbursable Authority for Superfund Special
Accounts (Principal and Interest)
i
FROM: . Kathryn S. Schmoll^-*^ - -' ' . . x * s
Comptroller (3301J^
TO: Assistant Regional Administrators
Regional Superfund Policy Managers
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Regions with
guidance on how to request both the principal and the interest
earned on Special Accounts for use in accordance with their
respective settlement agreements. Attached to this memorandum is
a report that provides the- amount of interest earned on existing
Special Accounts through August 1996.
BACKGROUND
During the past several years, EPA has worked closely with the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to determine that the Agency
has the authority to establish interest-bearing Special Accounts.
While it has always been clear that the Agency had the required
statutory authority to establish and maintain Special Accounts, it
was not clear if the interest earned by Special Accounts could be
credited to these accounts or only to the Superfund Trust Fund. In
June 1996, EPA, OMB, and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury)
agreed that the interest earned by Special Accounts, in addition to
principal, can be credited to these accounts and used by the Agency
to carry out the settlement agreements. ' OMB provided the Agency
with a written confirmation of this agreement on October 3, 1996.
OMB's confirmation also approved the Agency's interest calculation
methodology submitted for their review in September 1996.
INTEREST AVAILABILITY
The Agency has established more than 50 Special Accounts to
date, has collected more than $250 million in settlements, and has
earned over $35 million in interest through August 31, 1996. The
attached report prepared by the Cincinnati Financial Management
Center (CFMC) provides the status of current available balances by
region and site, and includes total receipts/collections,
disbursements, interest earned, and obligations. CFMC will provide
this report to the Regions twice a year. When reviewing this
Recyclad/Ttocyclabl*
Phm«d with Soy/CanoU Ink on paper that
contains at toast 50% recycled fiber
-------
report, please remember that the calculation of interest will be
affected by the following factors:
o Interest begins to accrue on the date cached funds are
received by CFMC. (Regions transmit cached funds to CFMC via
an Inter-Office Transfer Voucher (IOTV).)
o Interest is accrued/calculated based on an average daily
balance using a monthly interest rate derived from Treasury's
Hazardous Substances Superfund Trust Fund (Trust Fund) Income
Statement and Balance Sheet.
o The amount of interest accrued to a Special Account will
fluctuate due to periodic changes resulting from collections
and disbursements.
o Balances, including interest, remaining in Special Accounts
after response actions have been completed revert to the Trust
Fund. (Once these funds are placed in the Trust Fund, they
must be appropriated before they can be used by the Agency.)
OBTAINING REIMBURSABLE AUTHORITY
As agreed to with OMB, the Agency will issue interest and
principal to Regional allowance holders in the form of reimbursable
authority. (Reimbursable authority represents non-appropriated
funding apportioned to the Agency by OMB.) Accordingly, each
Region must request reimbursable authority from the Budget Division
before it can begin processing any obligations or disbursements
associated with Special Accounts. Since unobligated reimbursable
authority expires at the end of each fiscal year, you should
request only the amount of reimbursable authority needed to cover
current year obligations. Therefore, reimbursable authority must
be requested by each Region at the beginning of each new year in
order to reactivate existing Special Accounts for that year.
Provided below are guidelines for verifying and requesting
reimbursable authority:
1. Verify Availability. Carefully review the data provided
in the CFMC reports to determine the amount of funds currently
available for each Special Account.
2. Estimate Resource Needs. At the beginning of each new
fiscal year, the Regional Program Office should estimate the
amount of reimbursable authority required to support ongoing
work during the year at sites for which Special Accounts have
been established.
3. Request Reimbursable Authority. Regions will prepare and
transmit their reprogramming requests for reimbursable
authority to the Budget Division. When preparing
reprogramming requests, please insert the total amount
requested in the TO line and provide the name of the
site(s)and corresponding amount(s) required in the
-------
justification statement using the language provided below.
(The request does not need to specify whether amount being
requested is for interest or principal, or both.)
Generic Justification Language
This reprogramming requests the issuance of Superfund
Special Account funds for the following site(s):
Site name: Amount:
Site name: Amount:
Contact person:
Phone number:
\
If the amount of reimbursable authority requested by the
Regions is depleted before year-end and work continues at the
site, additional reimbursable authority may be requested
provided that funds are still available, i.e., principal
and/or interest. To obtain additional reimbursable authority
the Regions should prepare another reprogramming request.
4. Using Reimbursable Authority. The Regions' use of
reimbursable authority is limited to the site(s) provided in
the reprogramming request. Further, these resources must be
used in accordance with the settlement agreement, i.e.,
principal and interest shall only be used at the site(s)
identified in the settlement agreement.
5. Unused Special Account Funds. Balances remaining in
Special Accounts where all work has been completed and are
ready for closeout cannot be transferred to another Special
Account(s) to offset costs at that site(s). (Requesting
reimbursable authority for this purpose is unallowable.) As
discussed earlier, all remaining balances revert to the Trust
Fund.
Additional information pertaining to Special Accounts will be
distributed shortly by the Office of Site Remediation Enforcement,
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
If you have any questions concerning reimbursable authority,
please contact Jessie Price, Budget Division, at (202) 260-C603.
If you have any questions regarding the reports or Special
Accounts, please contact Connie Ely, CFMC, at (513) 366-2075.
Attachment
cc: Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Regional Comptrollers
Director, Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
-------
Special Account
Report for Region 01
As of September 30, 1996
Page: 1
Site ID Project
05
06
08
20
22
30
43
45
Site Name
OTTATI I GOSS
KEEFE
SOLVENTS RECOVERY
AEROVOX
SILRESIH
L&RR
NEW BEDFORD
SAVAGE
Receipts
1,219.529.01
1,778,823.88
566,867.02
5,815,497.24
28,757,016.82
60,000.00
58,130,761.61
204.188.49
(1) Interest
171,335.63
28.916.31
31,914.02
1,183,215.40
3,716.594.23
12,796.02
11,456.583.97
9,222.86
Disbursements
0.00
.0.00
0.00
0.00
8.497,088.30
0.00
2,583,484.63
0.00
Current Balance
1,390,864.64
1.807,740.19
. 598,781.04
6.998,712.64
23,976.522.75
72,796.02
67,003,860.95
213,411.35
Unliquidated
Obligations
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.002.911.70
0.00
1,778.766.37
0.00
Avai I able
Balance
1.390.864.64
1.807.740.19
598,781.04
6,998,712.64
21.973,611.05
72,796.02
65,225,094.58
213,411.35
Total
96.532,684.07 16,610,578.44
11,080,572.93 102,062,689.58
3,781.678.07 98,281,011.51
**** NOTE: (1) Interest was calculated through AUG. 96 ****
-------
Special Account
Report for Region 02
As of Setember 30, 1996
Page: 1
te ID
01
05
OS
34
37
Project
HAOO
RA07
Site Name
LI PAR I LANDFILL
LOVE CANAL
LOVE CANAL
KENTUCKY AVE UELLF1ELO
MARATHON BATTERY
Receipts
17,321.222.48
3.000,000.00
2,000.000.00
595,120.00
3,625,000.00
(1) Interest
1,394,995.83
33,976.96
22,651.30
12,790.95
68,080.17
Disbursements
107,016.33
0.00
0.00
595.120.00
3,625.000.00
Current Balance
18.609,201.98
3.033,976.96
2.022,651.30
12.790.95
68,080.17
Unliquidated
Obligations
9,088,714.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Available
Balance
9,520,487.31
3,033,976.96
2,022,651.30
12,790.95
68,080.17
>tal
26.541,342.48
1,532,495.21
4.327.136.33 23.746.701.36
9.088.714.67 14,657,986.69
**•* NOTE: (1) Interest was calculated through AUG. 96 ****
-------
Special Account
Report for Region 03
As of Setenfcer 30. 1996
Page: 1
Site ID Project Site Name
Receipts
(1) Interest
Disbursements Current Balance
Unliquidated
Obligations
Total
5,397.440.11
302,282.53
0.00
5,699.722.64
0.00
Available
Balance
09
45
J4
N2
Z8
TYBOUTS CORNER
DELAWARE SAND & GRAVEL
HEBEIKA AUTO
EASTERN DIVERSIFIED
UN. DICK LAGOON, PA
668,693.41
20,000.00
1.000.00
3.930,469.96
577.276.74
170,076.49
0.00
195.80
126,007.21
6.003.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,038,769.90
20,000.00
1.195.80
4,056.477.17
583,279.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,038.769.90
20.000.00
1,195.80
4,056,477.17
583.279.77
5.699.722.64
**•* NOTE: (1) Interest was calculated through AUG. 96 *•**
-------
Special Account
Report for Region 04
As of Setember 30. 1996
•ite ID Protect Site Name
Receipts
(1) Interest
Disbursements Current Balance
Unliquidated
Obligations
Page: 1
Available
Balance
A7
TP
rotal
CITY INDUSTRIES
AQUA TECH ENVIRONMENTAL
2.977,950.00
541.349.89
3,519.299.89
392.797.61
1,440.39
394,238.00
1,641,455.73
0.00
1,641.455.73
1.729,291.88
542.790.28
2.272,082.16
248,294.76
0.00
248,294.76
1,480,997.12
542,790.28
2,023.787.40
•*** NOTE: (1) ^Aterest uas calculated through AUG. 96 ****
-------
Special Account
Report for Region 05
As of Setember 30, 1996
Page: 1
Site ID Project Site Name
34
CX
J7
Ut
ZX
BOFORS NOBEL
KING RIVER LIMITED
AMERICAN CHEMICAL SERVICE
THERMO-CHEM
LEAD BATTERY RECYCLER, OH
Receipts
7,649,654.49
63,921.75
25,423,254.22
2.118,478.79
222,128.07
(1) Interest Disbursements
204,230.11
6,654.28
503.489.25
134,845.31
1.714.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Unliquidated
Current Balance Obligations
7,853,884.60
70,576.03
25.926.743.47
2,253,324.10
223,843.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Available
Balance
7,853,884.60
70,576.03
25,926,743.47
2,253.324.10
223.843.05
Total
35.477,437.32
850.933.93
0.00 36,328,371.25
0.00 36,328,371.25
NOTE: (1) Interest was calculated through AUG. 96 •***
-------
Special Account
Report for Region 06
As of Setenfcer 30, 1996
5,706,137.49
374,642.65
1,168.540.88
4.912,239.80
928,166.83
Page: 1
te 10
04
1J
5Y
BB
05
E7
G9
KB
22
Protect Site Name
VERTAC
ALCOA/LAVACA BAY
GULF COAST VACUUM
CHINO MINES
UOLVERINE/AMERAC PAB OIL
MOSLEY ROAD
CLEVELAND MILL
SOUTH 8TH ST.
ODESSA DRUM
Receipts
800,000.00
240,000.00
2.011,000.10
31,720.00
634,984.00
717,781.19
14,300.00
150.000.00
1.106,352.20
(1) Interest
14.322.65
10.744.24
210,118.82
355.41
23,746.62
87,384.74
58.19
1,675.67
26,236.31
Disbursements
81,082.22
76,910.30
108,996.77
4.709.48
3,650.08
21.594.09
36.42
456.34
871.105.18
Current Balance
733,240.43
173.833.94
2.112,122.69
27.365.93
655,080.54
783,571.84
14.321.77
151.219.33
261.483.33
Unliquidated
Obligations
8,026.80
2,447.31
484,123.62
66.50
213.22
432,805.89
40.02
322.67
120.80
Available
Balance
725,213.63
171.386.63
1.627,999.07
27.299.43
654,867.32
350,765.95
14.281.75
150,896.66
261.362.53
3,984,072.97
*••* NOTE: (1)
.erest was calculated through AUG. 96 ••**
-------
Special Account
Report for Region 07
As of Setenfcer 30. 1996
Page: 1
Site ID Project
CM
P8
QL
R8
Site Name
RALSTON
MISSISSIPPI RIVER POOL
TRIGGS TRAILER
THOMPSON CHEMICAL
Receipts
70,000.00
80,000.00
6,000.00
40.000.00
(1) Interest
638.00
0.00
766.91
372.48
Disbursements
2,238.13
0.00
0.00
122.75
Current Balance
68,399.87
80,000.00
6,766.91
40.249.73
Unliquidated
Obligations
119.48
0.00
0.00
437.00
Available
Balance
68,280.39
80,000.00
6.766.91
39.812.73
Total
196.000.00
1.777.39
2,360.88
195,416.51
556.48
194.860.03
NOTE: (1) Interest was calculated through AUG, 96
-------
Special Account
Report for Region 08
As of Setenfcer 30. 1996
Page: 1
ite ID
08
13
29
38
40
71
87
99
F3
Protect Site Name
LOURY LANDFILL
CLEAR CREEK
CALIFORNIA GULCH
PORTLAND CEMENT
SHARON STEEL
NIDVALE SLAG
CHEMICAL SALES
CLARK FORK RIVER
PETRO CHEM
Receipts
5.186.758.83
623.000.00
603.000.00
10,882.335.58
56.018.129.58
5,000.000.00
1,699.762.96
1,605.807.00
8,391.582.72
(1) Interest
0.00
10,470.54
31,027.35
590,049.88
11,016,348.22
1.112,453.27
78,418.87
53.688.06
536,349.47
Disbursements
382.985.98
0.00
0.00
1,110,984.46
36,136.319.48
1.205.099.07
0.00
1.073.071.00
0.00
Current Balance
4.803.772.85
633.470.54
634.027.35
10.361.401.00
30.898,158.32
4,907,354.20
1,778,181.83
586,424.06
9,042,095.39
Unliquidated
Obligations
551.295.36
622.999.00
431.000.00
2,296.744.00
18,904,690.87
3.213,195.38
0.00
91,539.00
0.00
Available
Balance
4.252.477.49
10.471.54
203.027.35
8.064,657.00
11,993.467.45
1,694,158.82
1.778,181.83
494.885.06
9.042.095.39
90.010.376.67 13,428,805.66
39.908.459.99 63,644,885.54 26,111.463.61 37,533.421.93
**•* NOTE: (1) Interest was calculated through AUG. 96
-------
Special Account
Report for Region 09
As of Setenfcer 30, 1996
Page: 1
Site ID Project Site Name
3H
4U
4X
58
89
8V
AF
B8
NI
CASNALIA
STRINGFELLOU
SO. EL MONTE O.U.
OPERATING INDUSTRIES
LORENTZ BARREL I DRUM
PUENTE VALLEY
GENERAL STEEL & U1RE <
HASSAYAHPA
NORTH HOLLYWOOD UNIT
Receipts
2,212.008.77
2.330,833.28
500.000.00
330,000.00
1,350,000.51
28,750.00
2,063,262.13
280.000.00
1,595,864.00
(1) Interest
73.820.11
233.530.74
17.673.04
8,070.28
27,816.19
640.86
151,810.95
18.330.39
0.00
Disbursements Current Balance
1,684,378.13
1.109,909.28
0.00
46,334.13
31.642.57
0.00
493,156.71
20,738.58
0.00
217,450.75
1,456,954.78
517,673.04
291,736.15
1.346,174.13
29,390.86
1,721.916.37
277,591.81
1,595.864.00
Unliquidated
Obligations
12,170.11
545.620.49
0.00
4,056.93
402,180.21
0.00
621,147.16
0.00
0.00
Available
Balance
205.280.64
911,334.29
517,673.04
287,679.22
943,993.92
29,390.86
1,100,769.21
277,591.81
1,595,864.00
Total
10,690.718.69
531.692.56
3,386.159.40
7.454.751.89
1,585,174.90
5,869.576.99
**** NOTE: (1) Interest was calculated through AUG. 96 •***
-------
Special Account
Report for Region 10
As of Setember 30, 1996
ite ID Project Site Name
Receipts
CD Interest
Disbursements Current Balance
Unliquidated
Obligations
Page: 1
AvaiIable
Balance
20
B3
E8
Y4
otal
BUNKER HILL
TULALIP LANDFILL
ART 1C SURPLUS
Bunker Hill
13.561,548.24
2,360,784.00
500,000.00
30,000.00
16.452,332.24
988.738.82
0.00
120,633.21
135.93
1.109.507.96
2.362,645.07
0.00
117,611.04
2,000.00
12,187.641.99
2,360.784.00
503,022.17
28,135.93
2,482,256.11 15.079,584.09
9.537.308.11
0.00
5.381.62
28,000.00
9,570.689.73
2.650,333.88
2.360,784.00
497.640.55
135.93
5,508.894.36
*"* NOTE: (1) Interest was calculated through AUG. 96 ***•
-------
-------
-------
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency March 1997
Special Account Implementation Notebook
A Reference Tool
Tab 6
Excerptfrom
Congress' Conference Report (104-812) for the
FY1997 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies
Appropriation Bill
-------
Filomena Chau
202-564-4224
Superfund Administrative Reform
on Site-Specific Special Accounts
for Steve Herman, Assistant Administrator, OECA
November 5, 1996
o Congress' Conference Report (104-812) for the FY 1997 VA-HUD and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill applauds EPA's effort to ensure that
interest earned by Special Accounts on settlement funds can be credited to
these accounts, so this interest can be made available for specific site cleanup.
The Report also urged EPA to implement this Reform as soon as possible.
(page 72, paragraph 5)
o This is the only Superfund Reform mentioned in this Report.
o Congress urges us to implement this Reform as soon as possible. We have
been and will continue to implement this Reform:
The Reform's goals are to encourage greater use of Special Accounts for
settlement funds intended for future cleanups at Superfund sites and to
ensure that interest earned on these accounts can be credited to them
and made available for cleanup at those sites.
Since announcement of the Reform, EPA has established 23 Special
Accounts, totalling $78 million.
As of September 30,1996, we have established 59 Special Accounts.
Total balance of funds available in Special Accounts for site cleanup is
$26! million ($226 million in principal and $35 million in interest, interest
is through August 31, 1996).
The interest available is due to our agreement with OMB and Treasury
that interest earned by Special Accounts can be credited to these
accounts.
o Next steps are:
To examine the data to determine the amount collected in all Special
Accounts, the amount disbursed, and the parties (PRP vs. Fund-lead)
receiving disbursements.
To provide general program and financial guidance.
o We will be reporting to Congress on the implementation of this Reform.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
? WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
23 SEP 1996
SUBJECT: Conference Report (104-812) for the
FY 1997 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Bill
FROM: Kathryn S. Schmol
Comptroller (3301'
TO: Carol M. Browner
Administrator (1101)
Fred Hansen
Deputy Administrator (1102)
The House Appropriations Committee filed the Conference
Report on the FY 1997 VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Bill on September 20, 1996. Attached are copies
of EPA's portion of the Conference Report.
If you have any questions, please let me know. The House is
scheduled to take up the Conference Report on Tuesday, September
24, and we expect the Senate to take it up shortly thereafter.
We will keep you informed of all Appropriations action as it
occurs.
Attachments
cc: Peter D. Robertson
Chief of Staff (1101)
Margaret Schneider
Special Counsel to the Deputy Administrator (1103)
Sallyanne Harper, Acting
Chief Financial Administrator (3101)
Assistant Administrators
Associate Administrators
General Counsel
Inspector General
Regional Administrators
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable OK Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Poslconsumer)
-------
104TM CONGRESS I
2dSe*3ion \ HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES
MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OP VETERANS AF.
FAIRS AND HOUSING AND URUAN DEVELOPMENT. AND FOR SUNDRY
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES. HOARDS. COMMISSIONS. CORPORATIONS.
AND OFFICES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTUM HER :iO, |«Mr7. AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES
20. 1996. Ordered to be printed
Mr. LEWIS of California, from the committee of conference,
submitted the following
CONFERENCE REPORT
(To accompany II.R. 36661
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. 104-812)
The Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (U.K.
3666) "making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Af-
fairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry inde-
pendent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for
the fiscal year ending September 30. 1997, and for other purposes,"
having met, after full and free conference, have ay reed lo rec-
ommend and do recommend lo their respective Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its amendments numbered II, 60.
107, and 112.
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ments of the Senate numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19. 21,
22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 44. 45, 46.
48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55. 56, 61. 62. 63. 64. 65, 66. 69, 71. 73.
74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 85. 86, 87. 88, 90, 92. 93, 94, 96. 97. 98.
99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 106, 108. 109, 110. 114. 115. 116. and agree
to the same.
Amendment numbered 4:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend
ment of the Senate numbered 4, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment, insert
$700,000,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 6:
27-244
-------
—.
.—.
22
pursuant to section 5GL No funds made available under this head-
ing shall be used to lobby the executive or legislative branches of the
Federal Government in connection with a specific contract^ grant or
loan.
And the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 67:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 57, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted by said amendment,
insert: $542,000,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 68:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 68, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted by said amendment,
insert: $1,710,000,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 69:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 69, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment, insert:
$87,220,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 67:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 67, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows: 4.
In lieu of the sum . proposed by said amendment, insert:
$2,875,207,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 68:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 68, and agree to .the same with an
amendment, as follows: ' •
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment, insert:
$1,900,000,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 70:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 70, and agree to the same with) an
amendment, as follows: '
Restore the matter stricken by said amendment, amended to
read as follows: $136,000,000 for making grants for the construction
of wastewater and water treatment facilities and the development of
groundwater in accordance with the terms and conditions specified
for such grants in the. conference, report and joint explanatory state-
ment of the committee of conference accompanying this Act (II.R.
.'J6'6'GV; ; und the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 72:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 72, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment, insert:
$1,900,000,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 80:
23
That the House recede from its disagreement to the ametu
ment of the Senate numbered 80, and agree to the same with a
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, inscr
: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of this pan
graph, amounts appropriated herein shall be available for ooligi
tion on October 1, 1996: Provided further, That the Director of th
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) shall submit t
the appropriate committees of Congress within 120 days of enac.
ment of this Act a comprehensive report on FEMA's plans to redui
disaster relief exftcnditurcs and improve management controls o
the Disaster Relief Fund; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 81:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the a ment
ment of the Senate numbered 81, and agree to the same with a
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment, inser
$167,500,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 83:
That the House recede from its hiili
originally appropriated: Provided, further, That the Allniinitilmlor n/
the National Aeronautics nnil Space Administration shall notify the
Congress promptly of all transfers made pursuant to this authority.
And the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numnereH 91-
-------
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE (
CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at I
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on I
amendments of the Senate to the bill (II.R. 3666) making app
priations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing a
Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boar
commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year endi
September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, submit the follow)
joint statement to the House and the Senate in explanation of I
effect of the action agreed upon by the managers and recomtneiu
in the accompanying report.
The language and allocations set forth in House Report l(
628 and Senate Report 104-.'J18 should be complied with unl-
specifically addressed to the contrary in the conference report a
statement of the managers. Report language included by the Hoi
which is not changed by the report of the Senate or the conferen
and Senate report language which is not changed by the conferei
is approved by the committee of conference. The statement of t
managers, while repealing spine report language for einphu;
does not intend to negate the language referred to above unless <
pressly provided herein. In cases in which the House or Sem
nave directed the submission of a report, such report is to be si
mitted to both House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION
Amendment No. 1: Appropriates $18,671,259,000 for compen
tion and pensions as proposed by the Senate, instead
$18,497(854,000 as proposed by the House.
Amendment No. 2: Appropriates $1,377,000,000 for readju
ment benefits as proposed by the Senate, instead of $1,227,000,0
as proposed by the House.
Amendment No. 3: Limits the principal amount of direct loa
in the vocational rehabilitation loans program account to not to <
ceed $2,822,000 as proposed by the Senate, instead of not to exec
$1,964,000 as proposed by the House.
VKTKIl'ANS IIKAI.TII ADMINISTRATION
Amendment No. 4: Delays the nvuilubilily of $700,000,000
the medical care appropriation in the equipment and land a
structures object classifications until August 1, 1997, instead of <
laying the availability of $570,000,000 as proposed by the I Ion
and $596,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The conference agreement includes medical care funding
$210,000 to expand services at the existing community-based on
-------
64
Amendment No. 50: Limits funds for grants under the Na-
tional Service Trust, including the AmeriCorps program, to not
more than $215,000,000 as proposed by the Senate, instead of
$201,000,000 us proposed by the House.
Amendment No. 51: Inserts language proposed by the Senate
limiting funds for national direct programs to not more than
$40.000,000.
Amendment No. 52: Limits funds for the Points of Light Foun-
dation to not more than $5,500,000 us proposed by the Senate, in-
stead of $5,000,000 as proposed by the House.
Amendment No. 53: Limits funds for the Civilian Community
Corps to not more than $18,000,000 as proposed by the Senate, in-
stead of $17,500,000 as proposed by the House.
Amendment No. 54: Limits funds for the school-based and com-
munity-based service-learning programs to not more than
$43,000.000 as proposed by the Senate, instead of $41,600,000 as
proposed by the House.
COURT OF VETERANS APPEAIi;ram.
+$250,000 for research and development needs in onsite and
alternative water and wastewater systems through the National
Decentralized Water Resources Capacity Development Project.
-$17,600,000 from the Environmental Technology Initiative,
leaving $10,000,000 for technology verification activities.
-$10,000,000 from the increase proposed for the climate
change action plan.
-$2,200,000 from the EMAP program.
-$7,000,000 from academic graduate fellowships.
-$20,398,000 as a general reduction. In determining the level
of general reduction under this account, the conferees note that di-
rected reductions were not taken for enforcement and for hiring ad-
ditional employees. Rather, the conferees agree that this general
reduction be taken on an equitable basis from all intramural (sala-
ries and expenses) and extramural (contracts and grants) activities
at the Agency, including management and support, research, en-
forcement, regulatory activities and technical assistance.
The conferees encourage EPA to work with institutions of high-
er learning to establish and operate small public water system
technology assistance centers, the need for which was recognized in
the recently enacted Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments.
The conferees support the continuation of the Superfund Inno-
vative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program, which has been
moved to the science and technology account, at the budget request
level. The program is expected to focus on the validation and ver-
ification of the performance of innovative technologies developed by
the private sector that will serve to reduce remediation times and
costs.
Within 90 days of enactment of this Act, the conferees direct
EPA to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) to conduct a comprehensive two-year study of the
human health effects of synthetic and naturally occurring sub-
stances that may have an effect in humans that is similar to an
effect produced by the hormone estrogen, and such other hormone
relatea effects as EPA may designate. The conferees expect this
study will examine the occurrence, toxicological data, mechanisms
of action, and relative risk of synthetic and naturally occurring hor-
mone related toxicants in the causation of human health problems.
Because of the recent enactment of provisions mandating the devel-
opment of screening programs for these substances, the study
should also address issues central to the development of a cost-ef-
fective screening program, including how to select and prioritize
chemicals for testing, which test or tests to include in a screening
program, and the most appropriate way to use the resulting infor-
-------
66
mation in developing risk estimates. If the EPA has already en-
tered into an agreement or agreements with the NAS with regard
to hormone related toxicants, the EPA is expected to merge all
such studies into one report. The conferees expect such study to be
completed within two years and usk the NAS to transmit the sub-
sequent report to the Committees on Appropriations as well as to
the EFA. Prior to release of the study and before' proposing any
regulations or testing programs that address estrogen or hormone
related characteristics, the Agency is directed to thoroughly consult
with the NAS and to consider the findings and recommendations
of this study. The conferees expect that any written comments sub-
mitted by the NAS on a proposed regulation, as well as any EPA
response to such comments, will be published as part of any final
EPA rulemaking on this matter.
Finally, the conferees agree that of the $36,000,000 transferred
to science and technology from hazardous substance superfund,
$2,600,000 is for the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research
Center.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT
Amendment No. 68: Appropriates $1,710,000,000 for environ-
mental programs and management instead of $1,704,600,000 as
.proposed by the House and $1,713,000,000 as proposed by the Sen-
ate.
The conferees are in agreement with the following changes to
the budget request:
+$2.500,000 for environmental justice Activities.
+$4,550,000 for rural water technical assistance activities in
addition to the levels provided in the budget request, including
$2,100,000 for activities of the National Rural Water Association;
$900,000 for RCAPs; $160,000 for the GYVPC; $350,000 for the
Small Flows Clearinghouse; $1,000,000 for the National Environ-
mental Training Center; and $50,000 to establish a regional waste
water training center at Vermont Technical College.
+$1,000,000 to continue the onsite wastewater treatment dem-
onstration program through the Small Plows Clearinghouse.
+$2,600,000 for the Southwest Center for Environmental Re-
search and Policy.
+$700,000 to enable the Long Island Sound Office to continue
the implementation of the Sound's long-term conservation and
management plan. •
+$250,000 for a study of EPA's Mobile Source Emissions Factor
Model to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences.
+$500,000 for ongoing programs of the Canaan Valley Insti-
tute.
+$900,000 for continuing work on the water quality manage-
ment plan for Skaneateles, Owasco, and Otisco Lake watersheds.
+$300,000 for continuing work on the Cortland County, New
York aquifer protection plan.
+$1,500,000 for the National Institute for Environmental Re-
newal for development of an integrated environmental monitoring
and data management system.
67
+$3,000,000 .for a sludge-to-oil-reactor (STORS) and nitrogen
removal system demonstration project in the San Bernardino Val-
ley Municipal Water District.
+$1,250,000 for the South Shore Tahoc Transportation dem-
onstration.
+$3,500,000 for the Lake Hollingsworth lake dredging tech-
nology demonstration, Lakeland, Florida.
+$5,000,000 for the West Palm Beach. Florida potable water
reuse demonstration project.
+$290,000 for an analysis of the perennial yield of good quality
groundwater in the Wadsworth Sub-basin for the town of Fernley,
Nevada.
+$2,000,000 for continuing work on the New York/New Jersey
Dredge Decontamination pilot study authorized by section 405 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1992.
+$900,000 for continuation of the Sacramento River Toxic Pol-
lutant Control program, to be cost shared.
+$500,000 for the small water system cooperative initiative at
Montana State University.
+$320,000 for the regional environmental finance centers.
+$300,000 for recycling and reuse technology development at
the Iowa Waste Reduction Center.
+$1,000,000 for the non-profit For the Sake of the Salmon to
fund watershed coordinators for salmon protection in the Pacific
Northwest..
+$2,000,000 to continue the leaking above ground storage tank
demonstration in the State of Alaska.
+$250,000 for the final year of EPA's demonstration program
on the Potomac River's north branch of an acid mine drainage re-
mediation project.
+$300,000 to continue the evaluation of ground water quality
in Missouri.
+$1,000,000 for a Missouri watershed initiative cooperative
demonstration project with the Food and Agricultural Policy Re-
search Institute to link economic and environmental data with am-
bient water quality.
+$750,000 for the Lake Champlain management plan.
+$2,000,000 to demonstrate the latest technology in utilizing
reclaimed water from a wastewater treatment facility in Silverton,
Oregon.
+$500,000 to continue the model coordinated tribal water qual-
ity program in Washington State.
+$400,000 to continue the Maui algal bloom project.
+$400,000 to continue support of the Ala Wai Canal water im-
provement demonstration project.
+$700,000 for the solar aquatic waste water treatment dem-
onstration project in Vermont.
+$850,000 for the Nebraska municipal governments mandates
initiative.
+$525,000 for an early childhood initiative in environmental
education.
+$1,000,000 for a Federal contribution to the New York City
watershed protection program.
-------
68
+$250,000 for the Nature Conservancy of Alaska for protection
of the Kenai River watershed.
+$1,500,000 for wastewater training grants under section
I0
-------
70
The conferees are aware that the EPA is under court order to
make a decision on whether to change the current National Ambi-
ent Air Quality Standard for Particulutcs. The court has ordered
the KI'A to issue a proposed decision by November 29, 1996. and
a final decision by June 28, 1997. The conferees note that ut
present, there appears to be insufficient data available for the
Agency to decide what changes, if any, should be made to the cur-
rent standard. In particular, some scientists have concluded that
current data do not iulequalely demonstrate causality or provide
sufficient information to establish a specific new control strategy.
Moreover, the EPA's Clean. Air Scientific Advisory Committee is
meeting soon to begin to design its recommended particulate re-
search program for the Agency. The conferees further note that, at
EPA's request, $18,800,000 has been included in the conference
agreement for research on particulate matter. Given that monitor-
ing and research into causality have only just begun, the conferees
believe it may be premature for the Agency to promulgate new par-
ticulate standards at this time. The conferees encourage EPA to
consider a "no. change" option as part of its proposed decision due
by November 29, 1996, and for its final decision due in June, 1997.
The conferees expect to continue to support the EPA's research and
monitoring programs to develop the necessary data as quickly as
possible.
The conferees are concerned regarding .the practical utility of
requiring the s'ubmittal of more information from the regulated
community associated with EPA's planned expansion of the Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI). The conferees understand that the paper-
work burden on businesses and state and local government associ-
ated with EPA requirements has increased over the past year, de-
spite an initiative to reduce paperwork. Further, EPA has neither
an integrated program to manage information nor an inventory of
current reporting requirements on.the regulated community. Dc-
spHe new information-gathering initiatives, EPA has proposed no
improvement in the collection, analysis, and communication of in-
formation to the public on its own priorities, performance, or the
effectiveness of such initiatives in improving the public's "right-to-
know." Moreover, EPA has not sufficiently considered options to
maximize the use of information already reported by facilities and
available to citizens locally under the federal Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) in its efforts to ex-
pand TRI to include more data on chemical uses.
The conferees thus direct a study by the General Accounting
Office to:
(1) fdentify options for improving the right-to-know program to
more effectively address community concerns regarding risks asso-
ciated with chemicals and to communicate risks to the public;
(2) Evaluate EPA information management practices, their
utility in implementing the Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA), and their overall effectiveness in reducing paperwork
requirements.
(3) Recommend ways to increase accountability among federal
agencies in complying with existing TRI reporting requirements.
71
(4) Address the effectiveness of current mechanisms required
under EPCRA at the local level in providing existing information
on chemicals to the public; and
(6) Assess whether existing and new information requirements
are designed to support the Agency's planning, budgeting, and ac-
countability system that will implement GPRA.
IUJII.DINGS AND I-'AOIMTIKS
Amendment No. 59. Appropriates $87.220.000 for buildings
and facilities instead of $107,220,000 as proposed l>y the llou.se and
$27,220,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Amendment No. 60: Inserts language proposed by the House
and stricken by the Senate which authorizes construction of a con-
solidated research facility at Research Triangle Park, North Carp
Una. Such authorization provides for construction of this new facil-
ity through incrementally funded multi-year contracts at a total
maximum cost of $232,000,000, permits obligation of funds pro
vided in this Act, and prohibits EPA from obligating monies in ex
cess of those amounts made available in Appropriations Acts.
The conferees note that of the $87,220,000, $27.220.000 is
available for necessary repair and maintenance costs at all EPA fa
cilities, as well as renovation and construction costs for EPA's new
headquarters facilities. The remaining $60.000,000, added to the
$50.000,000 appropriated in fiscal year 1996, provides nearly one-
half of the total construction costs of this important and necessary
new research facility.
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND
Amendment No. 61: Appropriates $1.394.2<1,r>,000 for hazardou:
substance superfund as proposed by the Senate instead o
$2,201,200,000 as proposed by the House, and inserts languay
proposed by the Senate which provides that $100,000,000 of the ap
propriatcd amount shall not become available until September 1
1997.
Included in the appropriated level are the following amount.-
$906,238,000 for response action/cleanup activities, includin
$36,764,000, the budget request, for brownfields activities.
$171,194,000, the budget request, for enforcement activities.
$124,874,000 for management and support, includin
$11,000,000 to be transferred to the Office of Inspector General.
$64,000,000 for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Diseas
Registry (ATSDR). Within this amount, the conferees direct that u
to $4,000,000 be used for minority health professions, no less tha
the fiscal year 1996 level be made available for continuation of th
health effects study on the consumption of Great Lakes fish, an
$900,000 be made available for continuation of the cancer clust*
study in the Toms River area of New Jersey. The conferees not
in this regard that some $300,000 has previously been expended b
ATSDR for this study, thus the $900,000 made available in this a-
tion will bring to $1,200,000 the amount so far available for th
important activity.
$63 627,000 for the National Institute for1 Environment*
Health Sciences (NIEHS), including $32,527,000 for research activ
ties and $21,000,000 for worker training.
-------
72
$u~,uOO.OOO, the fiscal year 1996 level, Tor transfer to the De-
partment of Justice.
$9,412,000, the budget request, for reimbursable activities of
other Federal agencies, including the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA,
FEMA, OS1IA and the Department of the Interior.
$35,000,000 to be transferred to the science and technology ac-
count for necessary mid appropriate: ru.seardi activities. Of this
amount, the conferees note that $2,500,000 is available lor the Gulf
Coast Hazardous Substance Research Center and direct that other
such research centers be funded at an appropriate level at least
equal to the funding level provided in fiscal year 1996.
. The conferees expect the Agency to quickly act on the direction
contained in the House report regarding an ATSDR study in
Ca Id well County, North Carolina. The conferees also direct that all
fiscal year 1996 carryover funds be applied to response action/
cleanup activities.
r—-- The conferees note that on June 4, 1996, EPA announced an
administrative reform to allow interest to accrue on site-specific
special accounts in which Superfund settlement funds dedicated to
specific site cleanups are held. Under this new policy, accrued in-
terest would directly benefit the Superfund site and the community
where the site is located, and prevent the funds which parties pay
in settlement from losing value over time. The conferees applaud
the Agency's decision to move forward with this administrative re-
form which can control remedy costs, promote cost-effectiveness,
decrease litigation, increase' fairness in the enforcement process,
and reduce transaction costs in the Superfund program. The con-
ferees urge the EPA, as well as the Department of Justice, Office'
of Management and Budget, and the Department of the Treasury,
to move forward to implement this administrative improvement as
soon as possible.
• Finally, the conferees are concerned about the lack of progress
ut Pcpc Field Superfund Site, Uoonlon, New Jersey. HI*A is di-
rected to finalize the remedial design immediately and to proceed
with the construction remedy.
Amendment No. 62: Provides $1,144,245,000 of the appro-
priated amount from the superfund trust fund as proposed by the
Senate instead of $1.951,200,000 as proposed by the House.
Amendment No. 63: Provides $64,000,000 of the appropriated
amount for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease "Registry
(ATSDR) as proposed by the Senate instead of $59,000,000 for
ATSDU as proposed -by the House.
Amendment. No. 64: Deletes language proposed by thu House
and stricken by the Senate which provided that $861,000,000 of the
appropriated level be available for obligation only upon enactment
of future appropriations legislation that specifically makes these
funds available for obligation.
Amendment No. 65: Deletes language proposed by the House
and stricken by the Senate which provided that $1,200,000 of the
appropriated amount be made available for the ATSDR to conduct
a cancer cluster study in the Toms River area of the State of New
Jersey. The conferees have provided an additional $900,000 for this
study included in the appropriated amount for the ATSDR.
Amendment No. 66: Appropriates $60,000,000 for the leaking
underground storage tank trust fund as proposed by the Senate in-
stead of $66,500,000 as proposed by the House.
STATIi AND TKIIIAL ASSISTANCE (JltANTS
Amendment No. 67: Appropriates $2.875.207,000 for state and
tribal assistance grants in.sl.uad of $2,7<»H,207.000 as proposed l»y
the House and $2,815,207,000 as proposed by the Senate.
From within the appropriated level, thu conferees agree to I he-
following amounts:
$625,000,000 for clean water State revolving fund capitaliza-
tion grants.
$1,275,000,000 for drinking water State revolving fund capital-
ization grants.
$100,000,000 for architectural, engineering, planning, design,
construction and related activities in connection with the construc-
tion of high priority water and wastewater facilities in the area of
the United States-Mexico border.
$50,000,000 for cost-shared grants to the State of Texas to im-
prove wastewater treatment for colonias.
$15,000,000 for cost-shared grants to the State of Alaska to ad
dress water supply and wastewater infrastructure needs of rural
and Alaska Native Villages.
$136,000,000 for special needs wastewater treatment and
grouhdwater protection infrastructure grants.
$674,207,000 for state and tribal program/categorical grants.
Of this amount, the conferees note that $28,000,000 is for multi-
media tribal general assistance grants or performance partnership
grants, at a Tribe's request. The conferees recognize that this level.
which is the budget request, exceeds the authorized ceiling of
$15,000,000 included in the Indian Environmental General Assist-
ance Programs Act. The conferees also agree that, within the
amount provided for wetlands implementation grants, EPA may
maku funds available to .status to assist them with the routine ex-
penses of conducting section 404 regulatory programs that have
been assumed by the States.
Amendment No. 68: Provides $1,900.000,000 of the appro
priated amount for capitalization grants for State revolving funds
to support water infrastructure financing instead of $1,800,000.000
as proposed by the House and $1,976,000,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
Amendment No. 69: Inserts language proposed by the Senate
which permits a specific cost-shared grant to lliu Slute of Alusku
to be used for water supply infrastructure needs of rural and Alas-
ka Native Villages.
Amendment No. 70: Provides $136,000,000 of the appropriated
amount for making specific wastewater, water and groundwater
protection infrastructure grants instead of '$129,000,000 as pro-
posed by the House and no funding as proposed by the Senate, and
inserts language proposed by the House and stricken by the Senate
which makes such funds available in accordance with the terms
and conditions set forth in the Conference Report and statement of
managers accompanying this Act.
-------
74
The conferees direct that such grants be used for the following
projects in the following amounts:
$2,550,000 for continued wastewater needs in Bristol County,
Mass.;
$-10.000,000 for continued waslcwalcr needs in lloston, Muss.;
$8,500,000 for continued • wastewater needs in New Orleans,
La.;
$11,000,000 for continued water development needs of the Mo-
javc Wilier Agency, Calif.;
$8,.r>00,000 for continued development of the l)es Plaines River
system TAItl* activity in Chicago, III.;
$U».000,00() for continuation of the Rouge River National Wet
Weather Project;
$13,600,000 for continuing clean water improvements at Onon-
daga Lake;
$5,400,000 for wastewater improvements in the East Cooper
Area of Berkeley County, S.C.;
$2,000,000 for sewer infrastructure improvements in Kodiak,
Ak.;
$8,000,000 for water quality improvements to Tanner Creek in
Portland, Ore.;
$2,850,000 for water treatment facility replacement and im-
provements for the Agua Sana Water Users Association, N.M.;
$5,000,000 for wastewater treatment improvements in
Middlebury, Vt.;
$1,750,000 for wastewater treatment improvements in O'Neil,
Neb.:
$5.000,000 for the Taney County, Mo. Common Sewer District
for its wastewater improvements project; *•
$2,000.000 for the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District wet
weather |>ollulion abatement program;
$1,700,000 for nine wastewater improvement projects in Essex .
County, Mass., including $1,000,000 for the South ICssex Sewage
District;
$1,000,000 for water delivery system improvements in the Vir-
gin Valley Water District, Nev.; and
$1,150,000 for waste water improvement needs in Franklin,
Huntington, and Clearfield Counties, Pennsylvania.
The conferees are in agreement that the Agency should work
with the grant recipients on appropriate cost-share agreements-and
to that end the conferees direct the Agency to develop a standard
cost-share consistent with fiscal year 1995.
Amendment No. 71: Inserts language as proposed by the Sen-
ate which permits the Administrator of EPA to make grants to
States, from funds available for obligation in the Slate under title
'II of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, for ad-
ministering the completion and closeout of a State's construction
grants program. The conferees agree that this provision is needed
in many States due to the appropriation of over $1,800,000,000
since 1991 for wastewater grant projects and in view of the expira-
tion of the section 205(g) reserve for such management activities.
Amendment No. 72: Provides $1,900,000,000 of the appro-
priated amount for capitalization grants for State revolving funds
to support water infrastructure financing instead of $1,800,000,000
75
as proposed by the House and $1,976,000,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
Amendment No. 73: Provides $1.275,000,000 for drinking
water State revolving funds as proposed by the Senate instead of
$450,000,000 as proposed by the House. Public Law 104-1U4 stipu-
lated that drinking after SRF funds totaling $725.000.000—
$225,000,000 of which was appropriated in fiscal year 1995 and
$500,000,000 of which was appropriated in fiscal year 1996—would
revert to the clean water SRF on August I. !!)!)(> unless aulhori/.a-
tiou for the drinking water SRF was enacted prior to that dale.
This authorization was unfortunately nol complelcd until shortly
after that dale, bul loo laic lo prevent the movemenl of funds to
the clean water SRF. Noting that the clean water SRF thus re-
ceived an infusion of $725,000,000 just prior to the beginning of fis-
cal year 1997, the conferees have agreed tq reduce the 1997 clean
waler SRF appropriation by this amount and use the funds to in-
crease the drinking water SRF over the $550.000,000 they have
otherwise agreed upon as the appropriate fiscal year 1997 level.
The conferees note further, however, that because the author-
ization for the drinking water State revolving fund did not actually
occur until just prior to the Senate completing action on the 1997
appropriation legislation, neither Appropriations Commitlee was
able to review fully and make accommodation for all new provi-
sions of this legislation. While the conferees expect that the funds
provided for clean water State revolving fund capitalization grants
will be distributed by the Agency in a manner similar to such dis-
tribution in prior years, the funds provided for drinking water
State revolving fund capitalization grants should be distributed to
all eligible governmental agencies and should be used solely for
such capitalization grants and grants for public waler system ex-
penditures.
Amendment No. 74: Deletes language proposed by the House
and stricken by the Senate which .stipulated that if legislation au-
thorizing a drinking waler Stale revolving fund i.s nol enacted prior
to June 1, 1997, the funds appropriated for a drinking water State
revolving fund shall immediately become available for making cap-
italization grants under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended. This provision became moot when such
legislation was enacted on August 6, 1996.
Amendment No. 75: Inserts language proposed by the Senate
which provides that the funds made available in Rubric Law 103-
327 for a grant to the City of Bangor, Maine shall be available to
that city as a grant for meeting combined sewer overflow require-
ments.
Amendment No. 76: Inserts language proposed by the Senate
which provides that States which have not received funds allotted
from the $725,000,000 (that, pursuant to law, became available on
August 1, 1996) during fiscal year 1996, may still be eligible for re-
allotment of 1996 funds as long as they receive their allotment of
the August 1, 1996 funds during fiscal year 1997.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION ,
Amendment No. 77: Deletes language proposed by the House
and stricken by the Senate which would have permitted the trans-
-------
76
fer of funds made available to any Environmental Protection Agen-
cy account to be transferred to the Science and Technology account
for necessary research activities, subject to applicable rcprogram-
ming requirements.
The conferees note that this provision was intended to give the
Agency flexibility in providing for new research found necessary
and appropriate for a particular EPA program which was not
known or specifically provided for when the budget was developed
and lint appropriations prot:c.s.H completed. Hecau.su of the lime
lapse between the beginning and end of each Fiscal year's overall
process, specific research which was not planned for or given a. low
priority at the beginning of the budget process may become nec-
essary or of much greater importance near the end of the fiscal
year. This provision would have permitted limited transfers among
EPA accounts to accommodate the changing research needs of the
Agency in this circumstance.
In lieu of adopting this provision at this time, the conferees di-
rect that the Agency review their potential need for such a provi-
sion and advise the Committees on Appropriations on the results
of this review prior to Congressional hearings on the fiscal year
1998 budget request.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND OFFICE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Amendment No. 78: Appropriates $2,436,000 for the Council on
Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality as pro-
posed by the Senate instead of $2,250,000 as proposed by the
House. :
FUDEKAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Amendment No. 79: Appropriates $1,320,000,000 for disaster
relief as proposed by the Senate instead of $1,120,000,000 as pro-
posed by the House.
Amendment No. 80: t)eletes language proposed by the Senate
and inserts in lieu thereof language which requires the Director of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency to submit a com-
prehensive report regarding disaster relief expenditures and man-
agement controls within 120 days of enactment of this Act. Lan-
guage is also inserted which makes all disaster relief funds appro-
priated in this Act available for immediate obligation.
The conferees have provided $1,320,000.000 in disaster relief
funds for fiscal year 1997, and have included language making all
such funds immediately available for obligation. When the 1997 ap-
propriation is added to the $3,700,000,000 appropriated in prior
years and still available for obligation, FEMA will have in excess
of $5,000,000.000 to respond to both past and anticipated 1996 dis-
aster situations, including the recent Hurricane Fran. The con-
ferees have been assured that this level of available disaster relief
funds makes a disaster supplemental appropriation unnecessary at
this time.
The conferees have agreed to a statutory provision requiring
FEMA to submit a comprehensive report within 120 days of enact-
77
ment of this Act on its plans to reduce disaster relief expenditures
and improve management controls on the disaster relief fund. The
Senate amendment prohibiting the expenditure of disaster relief
funds for the repair of yacht harbors or golf courses, tree or shrub
replacement except in public parks, and recreational facilities, has
been deleted without prejudice, in order to give the Agency an op-
portunity to address the issue of controlling disaster relief expendi-
tures in a comprehensive manner. The conferees arc troubled by
the findings of a recent Inspector (Jcnerul report, upon which the
Senate amendment was based, which found substantial sums have
been awarded from the disaster relief fund to restore golf courses,
equestrian trails, and the like. While the Stafford Act may not dis-
allow such expenditures, the conferees believe such disbursements
may not be appropriate and can no longer be accommodated. There
are many other examples of opportunities for reducing disaster re-
lief expenditures and improving management controls on the fund,
some of which can be implemented administratively, and some of
which require statutory changes.
The conferees note that the FEMA Director testified before the
Senate committee earlier this year that he would submit by Octo-
ber 1, 1996, a proposal for controlling disaster relief expenditures.
Because it appears likely that this commitment will not be met, the
conferees have included a statutory provision requiring such a sub-
mission within 120 days of enactment of this Act.
Last year, FEMA established a disaster resources board to
oversee the process of developing and reviewing disaster relief
funding requests for activities not associated with a spe.cific disas-
ter. The conferees are concerned that the board has a significant
amount of autonomy in deciding whether or not to charge a par-
ticular non-disaster specific activity to the fund, and wish to be
kept apprised of all activities of the board through reports detailing
any decisions made to charge additional non-disaster specific activi-
ties to the fund. The first such report should be submitted along
with the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
The conferees are aware of efforts in the State of California to
develop a disaster response system to integrate local, regional,
state, and federal emergency management organizations through
the sharing of interrelated data applications which will aid and ac-
celerate efficient planning, coordination, and response to disasters.
FEMA is directed to work with the State in the development of this
system and determine the type of assistance, both technical and fi-
nancial, which would be of greatest help to the State in this effort.
Finally, the conferees note that urban search and rescue
(USAR) is a critical element of effective response to earthquakes
and other disasters, and are very supportive of this program. How-
ever, the conferees are concerned that not all of the FEMA USAJt
teams are considered fully operational at this time, and note that
the geographical distribution of the teams appears to be inad-
equate, particularly in the Midwest. In addition, the conferees are
aware of concerns that current funding for each of the teams may
be insufficient. The conferees therefore direct FEMA fo report with-
in 60 days of enactment of this Act on, (1) the appropriate number
and geographical distribution of USAR teams, (2) the process for
discontinuing support to teams which are not fully operational, <>•
-------
H'2
struction to maintain the schedule of the space station program. To
ensure that there is no adverse effect on any NASA program, the
conferees provide general transfer authority of up to $177,000,000
lo he used ul the discretion of the Administrator and subject to the
case-by-case approval by the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees. The conferees note that this authority is required be-
cause the current split between development/construction funding
and science funding is not properly phased.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
Amendment No. 90: Appropriates $2,432,000,000 for Research
and Related Activities, as proposed by the Senate instead of
$2,431,110,000 as proposed by the House.
The conferees agree that the reduction from the budget re-
quest, $40,000,000, is to be allocated by the National Science Foun-
dation in accordance with its internal procedures for resource allo-
cation, subject to approval by the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
Of the increase provided for Research and Related Activities
above the fiscal year 1996 level, the conferees direct the National
Science Foundation to make available up to $1,400,000 to pay any
tariff duties assessed on the Gemini project, consistent with Senate
language under the Major Research Equipment account. In provid-
ing these funds, the conferees direct the Foundation to place them
in reserve prior to all directorate allocations made in conjunction
with their fiscal year 1997 operating plan.
The conferees note that government policy in the area of duties
und/or tariffs on scientific instruments is under review with regard
lo this program and encourage the U.S. Customs Service to act in
a responsible manner by recognizing that any assessed duties on
this program will be paid by an arm of the U.S. government, in this
case the National Science Foundation, and will do nothing to in-
crease the net financial position of the United States Government.
The conferees are in receipt of a report by the National Science
Foundation, requested by the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, which addresses the possible addition of a new
Navy-owned, university-operated Class 1 Oceanographic Research
Vessel to the academic fleet. The report concludes that there Is no
current need to replace any of the four large general purpose.
oceanographic ships currently in. the academic fleet because all of
these ships have 10 to 30 years of service life remaining. While the
conferees on the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for fis-
cal year 1997 have agreed to-provide funding for construction of a
new large vessel, such a vessel is not needed at this time and the
cost of operating the ship will most likely exacerbate an already
constrained budget. Therefore, the conferees direct the Office of
Naval Research to work with the University-National Oceano-
graphic Laboratory System through its normal review process to
ensure that the vessel will fit the needs of the oceanographic com-
munity and takes into consideration the overall balance between
research funding and ship operations funding.
OJ
MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT
The conferees do not agree with the Senate direction to uso
$1,400,000 of funding in the Major Research Equipment account to'
pay U.S. Customs duties assessed on the Gemini Telescope project
The conferees have addressed this issue elsewhere in the report.
KIM (CATION AND HUMAN IlKHOIIItCKS
Amendment No. 91: Appropriates $
-------
bifida, and to offset the cost of such benefits by requiring that ther
be an element of fault as a precondition for entitlement to com-
pensation for a disability or death resulting from health care or
certain other services furnished by VA, amended to delay the effec-
tive dale until October I, I9!)7, unless legislation is enacted to pro-
vide lor an earlier effective dale. This delay will provide the com-
mittees of jurisdiction an opportunity to address this matter.
Amendment. No. 96: Deletes language proposed by the House
and stricken by the Senate prohibiting the payment of salaries of
personnel who approve acquisition of supcrcomputing equipment
when the Department of Commerce has determined that the equip-
ment is being offered at other than fair value.
The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), which
is operated largely with support from the National Science Founda-
tion, has been conducting a competition for the acquisition of a new
supercomputer. NCAR, in its bid process, selected a computer of-
fered by a Japanese company. On August 20, 1996, the Department
of Commerce announced that it was initiating an investigation to
determine whether Japanese vector supercomputers were being
dumped in the United States. Included in this investigation was a
bid submitted in the NCAR procurement. On that same date, the
National Science Foundation requested that the NCAR procure-
ment be held in abeyance.
On September 11, 1996, the U.S. International Trade Commis-
sion determined in a preliminary investigation that there is a rea-
sonable indication that a U.S. industry is threatened with material
injury by reason of imports of vector supercomputers that are alleg-
edly sold at less than fair value. As a result of this determination,
the Department of Commerce will continue to conduct its anti-
dumping investigation on imports of sucn equipment, with a pre-
liminary determination expected by January 6, 1997, and a final
determination by March 1997.
Amendment No. 97: Deletes language proposed by the House
and stricken by the Senate prohibiting NASA from providing funds
lor I lie National Center for Science Literacy, (education and Tech- '
.nology at the American Museum of Natural History.
Amendment Nos. 98-100: Deletes language proposed by the
House and stricken by the Senate prohibiting the use of funds
made available by this Act for any institution of higher education
which excludes Reserve Officer Training Corps or military recruit-
ing from its campus or any entity that Tails to comply witn report-
ing requirements of law concerning the employment of certain vet-
erans.
Amendment No. 101: Deletes language proposed by the House
and stricken by the Senate increasing VA s medical care appropria-
tion by $40,000,000 and general operating expenses appropriation
by $17,000,000, offset by an across-the-board reduction of 0.4 per-
cent. The conferees note that scorekeeping credit was not given for
the offset.
Amendment No. 102: Deletes language proposed by the House
and stricken by the Senate increasing VA s medical care appropria-
tion by $20,000,000 and medical and prosthetic research appropria-
tion by $20,000,000, offset by eliminating all funds for the Corpora-
tion for National and Community Service; and inserts language in-
creasing the medical care appropriation carried in title 1 by
$5,000.000. This amount, together with the funds carried in title I
under the medical care heading, will provide $17,013,447,000 for
medical care, an increase of $5,000,000 above the Administration's
budget reuuest.
Amendment No. 103: Deletes hutguage proposed by Hie House
and stricken by the Senate prohibiting the (Environmental Protec-
tion Agency from using its funds to allow the importation of I'CIl
waste to be incinerated in the United Stales.
Amendment No. 104: Deletes language proposed by the House
and stricken by the Senate prohibiting the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency from using hazardous substance superfund funding to
implemenl any relroactive liability discount reimbursement.
Amendment No. 105: Deletes language proposed by the House
and stricken by the Senate simplifying downpaymcnt methods on
FHA-insured loans, and inserts language proposed bv the Senate
regarding the calculation of a downpayment on an FHA mortgage
originaled in Alaska or Hawaii and delegating single family mort-
gage insuring aulhority to direct endorsement mortgagees, amend-
ed to limit the applicability of the downpayment provisions to fiscal
year 1997.
Amendment No. 106: Deletes language proposed by the House
and stricken by the Senate prohibiting the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration from continued participation in a joint
Russia-France-United States cooperative life sciences experiment
program known as Bion 11 and Bion 12.
Amendment No. 107: Deletes language proposed by Senate re-
garding compliance by the Environmental Protection Agency with
international obligations under the World Trade Organization. The
House bill contained no similar provision.
The conferees have deleted, wilhoul prejudice, language ex-
pressing Ihe sense of the Senate thai EPA should provide a full
and open administrative process in the formulation of any final
rule regarding the importalion of reformulated and conventional
gasoline. The conferees note thai, in response to a dispute settle
ment finding against the United Stales by Ihc World Trade Organi-
zation, the United States informed the WTO on June 19, 1996 that
the U.S. intends to meet its international obligations with respect
to the EPA requirements on imported reformulated and conven-
tional gasoline. The conferees recognize that EPA has initialed an
open process to examine any and all options for compliance with
international obligations of the United States in which a key cri
terion will be fully protecting public health and the environment.
and fully support such an open process and the involvement of in
terested environmental and industrial organizations.
However, the conferees expect that this process will not result
in the reinstatement of the rule title "Regulations of Fuels and
Fuel Additives: Individual Foreign Refinery Baseline Requirements
for Reformulated Gasoline" proposed on May 3, 1994 (59 Fed. Reg
84), or one similar to it. Further, the conferees direct the Adminis
trator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in evaluating an>
option for compliance with international obligations, to: (1) tak<
fully into account the protection of public health aiyi the environ
ment and the international obligations of Ihe Uniled States as u
-------
86
of the World Trade Organization; (2) ensure that the com-
pliance review process does not result in the degradation of gaso-
line quality required by the Clean Air Act with respect to conven-
tional and reformulated gasoline; (3) not recognize individual for-
eign refiner baselines unless the Administrator determines that the
issues of auditing, inspection of foreign facilities, and enforcement
have been adequately addressed; and (4) provide a full and open
administrative process in the formulution of any final rule.
Amendment No. 108: Inserts language proposed by the Senate
permitting llsc;il yeur l!)!)7 and prior year funds provided under
suction i)2U(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, to be used for implementation (rather than just develop-
ment) of conservation and management plans made pursuant to
this section.
Amendment No. 109: Inserts language proposed by the Senate
requiring a plan for the allocation oiVA health care resources so
veterans have similar access to such care regardless of where they
live.
The conferees recognize that precipitous changes in allocations
amongst VA's facilities could be very difficult for individual facili-
ties to manage. While the conferees support VA's efforts to amend
its resource allocation methodology based on a capitation model—
which is intended to bring about a more equitable distribution of
resources—they expect the Department to ensure that fiscal year
1997 serve as a "bridge" in moving to the new system so as to pro-
vide an adjustment period for facilities to adapt to the new model.
The conferees further expect'that no veteran currently receiving
care by the VA will be denied VA health care services as a result
of the new allocation methodology. The VA is to prepare a report
by January 31, 1997, on its progress in adjusting to and impacts
of the new methodology, and be prepared to discuss this matter
during the fiscal year 1998 budget hearings.
Amendment No. 110: Inserts language proposed by the Senate
requiring a General Accounting Office audit on staffing and con-
tracting of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.
Amendment No. Ill: Amends language proposed hy the Senate
prohibiting the consolidation of NASA aircraft based east of the
Mississippi River to the Dryden Flight Research Center.
Amendment No. 112: Deletes language proposed by the Senate
revising the name of the Japan-United States Friendship Commis-
sion.
Amendment No. 113: Inserts new language on separation in-
centive payments for NASA personnel which had been included in
the Senate bill as an administrative provision and modifies the lan-
guage to restrict its applicability. Modifies language proposed by
the Senate authorizing the conveyance of certain real property
under the jurisdiction of NASA to the City of Downey, California,
amended to assign certain responsibilities to the Administrator of
the General Services Administration.
The conferees intend that the concurrence of the Administrator
of the General Services Administration in the conveyance by NASA
of Parcels III through VI of the NASA Industrial Plant, Downey,
California to the City of Downey shall be based upon completion of
a disposal screening for possible utilization of the subject parcels
tii
by other Federal agencies initiated by GSA on September 10, 1996.
Furthermore, it is the intent of the conferees that nothing in this
amendment shall prevent the City of Downey from entering into-
ground leases for periods in excess of 20 years in order to secure
construction financing without triggering the reconveyance provi-
sion.
TITLE V—SUIMM.KMKNTAI.S
Amendment No. 114: Inserts new heading as proposed hy the
Senate.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS API-AIRS
VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION
Amendment No. 115: Inserts language appropriating a supple-
mental amount of $100,000,000 for compensation and pensions as
proposed by the Senate.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URUAN DEVELOPMENT
GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
Amendment No. 116: Inserts language providing additional
1996 commitment authority of $20,000,000,000 in the guarantees of
mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account as pro-
posed by the Senate.
TITLE VI—NEWBORNS' AND MOTHERS' HEALTH
PROTECTION ACT OF 1996
Amendment No. 117: The conference agreement includes the
Senate amendment with modifications, including the deletion of off-
sets. It incorporates the requirements of the provision and the au-
thority to enforce the requirements into the new part 7 of subtitle
B of ERISA and the new title XXVII of the Public Health Service
Act us established by P.I.. 104-191. It does not include the excep-
tion to the requirement for the 48-hour or 96-hour minimum slay
in the case that the plan provides for post-delivery follow-up care.
It adds a prohibition that -a health plan cannot restrict benefits for
any portion of the required minimum 48-hour or 96-hour stay in
a manner which is less favorable than the benefits providing for
any preceding portion of such stay. In addition, the conference
agreement provides that nothing in this provision is intended to be
construed as preventing a group health plan or issuer from impos-
ing coinsurance, deductibles, or other cost-sharing in relation to
benefits for hospital lengths of stay in connection with childbirth
for a mother or newborn child under the plan (or under health in-
surance coverage offered in connection with a group health plan),
except that such coinsurance or other cost-sharing for any portion
of a period within a hospital length of stay required under sub-
section (a) m&y not be greater than such coinsurance or cost-shar-
ing for any preceding portion of such stay.. It is the intent of the
conferees that cost-sharing not be used in a manner that cjr-
cumvents the objectives of this title. It provides for a1 modification
to the notice requirements by conforming them to the summary of
-------
-------
Note;
-------
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency March 1997
Special Account Implementation Notebook
A Reference Tool
Tab?
Excerpt of press release
"New EPA Policies Will Accelerate Cleanup of
Superfund Sites, Protect Small Waste Con-
tributors from Costly Litigation"
-------
United States Communications, Education.
Environmental Protection And Public Affairs
Agency (1703)
<8rEPA Environmental News
Tuesday, June 4,1996
NEW EPA POLICIES WILL ACCELERATE CLEAN UP OF SUPERFUND SITES,
PROTECT SMALL WASTE CONTRIBUTORS FROM COSTLY LITIGATION
Gwen Brown 202-260-1384 or Lauren Mical 202-260-4358
EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner today issued four major Superfund policies that
deliver on the Clinton Administration's commitment to make cleanup of toxic waste sites faster,
fairer, and more efficient.
"These steps demonstrate the Clinton Administration's commitment to cleaning up toxic
waste sites and protecting the health of the one in four Americans who live near them," Browner
said. "With these reforms, we are following through on our efforts to fundamentally improve the
Superfund program by limiting the costly role of lawyers and increasing community participation.
"This Administration has taken every possible measure within our power to transform
Superfund into a common-sense program that achieves cost-effective results. However, we still
need reforms that require reauthorization of the law by Congress. The Clinton Administration.
remains committed to working with Congress in a good-faith, bi-partisan approach to achieve
those reforms," Browner added.
The four actions taken by Browner are: /
1) Appointment of an ombudsman in all 10 EPA regions to make sure the program is
significantly more responsive to the needs and goals of real communities.
2) Offering $50 million in past and other costs this year to speed up cleanups by assuring .
.that financially insolvent polluters are no longer potential obstacles to settlement agreements.
«'-...••'- ''.•••' ' i . • ' .• .' • '
3) Encouraging faster settlements among polluters by setting up interest-bearing accounts
whose earnings can help contribute to meeting total cleanups costs. .
4) Increasing the number of small businesses and municipalities no longer liable for
cleanup costs. .
R-79 -more-
-------
-2-
The establishment of an ombudsman position in each EPA region will help resolve
Superfimd issues that fall through the cracks in the current system. Through these ombudsmen,
who will work closely with the EPA headquarters ombudsman, the public will have access to an
EPA employee who will be able to cut through red tape to investigate complaints and arrange
meetings with appropriate staff to try to resolve problems. The ombudsmen will have the
authority to cut across bureaucratic lines to get answers and resolve problems quickly. (Attached
is a list of the ombudsmen in each region with phone numbers and addresses.)
Under a new "orphan share compensation" policy, EPA will help fond a portion of the
Superfund cleanup costs attributable to parties that are now financially insolvent. This "orphan
share" is currently paid by the financially solvent responsible parties at a Superrund site. Under
the Superfund law's strict, joint and several liability provisions, a private party could be held
liable for the foil cost of the cleanup at a site including those costs associated with contamination
caused by insolvent parties. Under this new policy, as much as 100 percent of the "orphan share"
will be covered by EPA at Superfund sites where financially capable responsible parties agree to
perform the cleanup. By covering the orphan share, EPA will speed up cleanups by making it
more attractive for viable responsible parties to enter into cleanup agreements. EPA will offer
over $50 million of past costs and future oversight costs to compensate for a portion of the
orphan share.
EPA also has reached agreement with the Office of Management and Budget and the
Treasury Department on establishing "special interest bearing accounts" for deposit of settlement
funds. EPA now will have the ability to retain in special interest bearing accounts settlement funds
to clean up specific Superrund sites. This change will be a further incentive for potentially
responsible parties to settle with EPA since interest earned on settlement funds will now be
applied for the cleanup of a specific site. Increased use of these special accounts also will increase
private party settlements allowing Trust Fund monies to be used for cleanups at sites where
responsible parties are financially insolvent or where no responsible parties can be found. EPA
has issued memoranda to its 10 regional offices encouraging the use of special accounts.
Another policy announced today increases the number of very small volume waste
contributors eligible for "de micromis" settlements. The new policy expands EPA's 1993 de
micromis policy by doubling the threshold amount of waste a party contributed to a Superfund
site without being held liable for cleanup costs. The new threshold levels are 0.2 percent for
municipal solid waste at a site or .002 percent or the equivalent of two drums of materials
containing hazardous substances. The new policy relieves these small contributors of having to
pay fox a portion of cleanup at a site and protects these small volume contributors from "third-
party" suits from larger waste contributors.
"For these small parties, many of which are municipalities and small businesses, the cost
of legal and other representation services would likely exceed theif "proportional share of costs to
clean up the site," Browner said. "Fairness and common sense dictate that these very small
contributors should not be subject to the often complex and lengthy settlement process."
Copies of these policies can be obtained through the RCRA/Superfond hotline by calling
800-424-9346 or locally at 703-412-9810. The information can also be accessed through the
Internet athttp://www.epa.gov/superfund/reform
R-79 ###
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Superfund Reforms: Progress June 4,1996
FACT SHEET:
PROGRESS ON SUPERFUND REFORMS
Last October, the Agency announced 20 common sense reforms to the Superfund toxic
waste cleanup program. The reforms culminated the Administration's multi-year effort to
fundamentally redirect Superfund to make it faster, fairer and more efficient.
The reforms ranged from changes aimed at controlling remedy costs and promoting cost-
effectiveness to those intending to increase fairness in the enforcement process.
Today, EPA is reporting significant progress on several of those reforms.
Last October, EPA announced that it would seek to compensate parties for a portion of the
costs attributable to insolvent parties at sites where parties agree to perform the cleanup.
Under CERCLA's joint and several liability system, at sites where there are insolvent or
defunct parties who cannot contribute to the cost of cleanup, viable PRPs are required to
absorb the shares that may be attributable to such non-viable PRPs. Today, the Agency is
announcing a guidance setting in place the implementation process for this fiscal year, so
that EPA will share in covering the cost of this orphan share.
EPA also announced that it would continue to not seek costs from small volume
contributors andexpand the universe of such small parties by doubling the level previously
identified for small party protection. Today, the Agency is announcing a guidance revision
that puts this increase protection in place. As a result, of this reform, many small volume
contributors will avoid the Superfund enforcement process. If they are threatened with
third party lawsuits, EPA will protect them by settling with them for $0.
Also included in last October's package was a reform directed at ensuring that settlement
funds received at a particular site are dedicated to future work at that site. Today, the
Agency, working with the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of
Treasury, is announcing that these funds, placed in a site-specific special account, can
now bear interest. The benefit to site cleanups is considerable since presently close to
$240 million is held in special accounts.
i •
\
Finally, the Agency is also following through on a commitment made in October to
establish a direct point of contact for the public on Superfund concerns in each of the 10
Regions. These Regional Ombudsmen, who have now been appointed in each Region,
will facilitate resolution of concerns that have not been resolved between regional
personnel and stakeholders. The Ombudsmen will have access to top regional
management in order to resolve stakeholders concerns. -
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Superfund Reforms: Progress June 4,1996
FACT SHEET:
SPECIAL ACCOUNTS
ACCRUING INTEREST ON SETTLEMENT FUNDS
Site-specific special accounts set up to hold settlement funds at Superfund sites for use in
the future are now interest-bearing. EPA will be able to retain and apply interest from such
accounts to clean up the site at which such settlements occur.
Previously, interest earned on settlement funds was not credited to special accounts,
which are accounts set up to received such funds at individual sites.
EPA has reached agreement with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the
Department of the Treasury that the interest can accrue directly to these accounts. EPA is
working with these agencies to implement this agreement.
Special accounts are site-specific sub-accounts within the Superfund Trust Fund. The
Superfund statute provides EPA with authority to retain and use funds received in
settlement at the site for future work. Such settlements most commonly include those with
small volume contributors (de minimis parties) or with parties who are unable to pay their
full share.
Parties at sites interested in settling with the United States will benefit from the agreement
reached on interest, because that part of their settlement designated for future site work
will retain interest. Parties have been concerned that interest has not accrued directly to
the site and that the funds they pay for a settlement will lose value over time.
The impact of this agreement on cleanups may be considerable - there is now over $200
million in special accounts.
If you have questions, please call Filomena Chau, at 202/564-4224.
-------
-------
Notes
-------
v°/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency March 1997
Special Account Implementation Notebook
A Reference Tool
Tab8
Memo
"Transmittal of Special Account Short Sheet"
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR 2 7 1996
OFFICE OF
ENFORCEMENTAND
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Transmittal of Special Account/Short Sheet
y L/ /7 ,
FROM: Sandra L Connors, Directo^pw_^\ - (JWW
Regional Support Division (2272A)
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
TO: Superfund Program Branch Chiefs, Regions I - X
Office of Regional Counsel Superfund Branch Chiefs, Regions I - X
Financial Management Officers, Regions I - X and
Cincinnati Financial Management Center
Attached is an informational short sheet on the topic of special accounts. This
final document incorporates your comments to the draft short sheet of October 23,
1995. Increased use of Special Accounts was endorsed in the Superfund Reforms,
announced on October 2,1995. This short sheet was developed to familiarize
Regional management and staff with Special Accounts and how. to create and use
them. This document is intended to be revised regularly as new information becomes
available. The short sheet is divided into two general areas: 1) answers to the most
frequently asked questions; and 2) steps on how to create and use a Special Account.
If you have any questions, please contact Filomena Chau of my staff. She can
be reached at 202-564-4224 (fax at 202-564-0086 or 202-501-0269).
Attachment
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed Mdt Soy/C*nola Ink on papw mat
contain* • toatt 75* recyctod lib«r
-------
SPECIAL ACCOUNTS Qs & As
GENERAL BACKGROUND QUESTIONS
1. What are Special Accounts?
They are site-specific, non-interest bearing sub-accounts within the Superfund
Trust Fund. Special Accounts are maintained by EPA, and are to be used for
future costs of response actions under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA).
NOTE: Past response cost reimbursements are to be deposited to the
Superfund Trust Fund, and must be appropriated by Congress before they can
be expended by EPA.
2. What authority does EPA have to establish a Special Account?
CERCLA Section 122(b)(3) "Retention of Funds" provides EPA with the statutory
authority to retain monies paid by a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) for the
purpose of carrying out future response actions.
3. Do Special Accounts accrue interest?
No. EPA has reopened discussions with the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the U.S. Department of Treasury (Treasury) and hopes that this
accounting practice will be modified so that interest can accrue directly to the
Special Accounts. EPA still supports the May 6,1993 opinion by the Office of
General Counsel (OGC)(written by Carol A. Cowgill) which concluded that
interest may and should accrue on Special Account balances. EPA knows of no
new legal development that would affect the opinion. The Superfund
Reauthorization Act (SRA) included a provision that would have required Special
Accounts to accrue interest; however, the SRA was not passed.
4. Are Special Accounts the only option for holding PRP funds for future site
work?
No. For example, where a settlement with one group of PRPs assures
performance of response actions, the settlement may direct the PRPs to place
the settlement proceeds in a trust account or escrow account managed by the
performing PRPs or in the registry of the appropriate Federal District Court.
These accounts all earn interest.
5. How many Special Accounts have been established by EPA?
As of January 31,1996, approximately 36 Special Accounts have been
-------
established. These accounts were set up from cashout settlements entered into
with PRPs (e.g.. d$ minimis. ability to pay, etc.).
6. How much money is currently in Special Accounts?
As of January 31,1996, approximately $204 million has been collected by EPA
for site-specific Special Accounts.
7. Are there advantages to having a Special Account?
Yes. Special Accounts can be established quickly, funds are controlled entirely
by EPA, they maintain a site-specific character, and can be used by EPA without
any Congressional appropriation.
NOTE: Although an appropriation is not required, Special Accounts must be
supported by reimbursable authority issued by the Headquarters Office of
Planning, Budgeting, and Accountability's (OP6A) Budget Division as
apportioned by OMB. See Step 4 in the next section for procedures.
8. Are there disadvantages to having a Special Account?
Yes. As noted in the answer to question 3, Special Accounts do not accrue
interest. This disadvantage would be eliminated if CERCLA were amended to
make accrual mandatory, or upon successful discussions with OMB and
Treasury.
9. Are Special Accounts set up automatically by EPA's financial office when
future response costs are received under a settlement?
No. EPA supports use of Special Accounts to finance future response work;
however, this is not an automatic process. To learn about the steps to follow
when establishing a Special Account, please refer to the next section, "How to
Create and Use a Special Account."
10. When should Special Accounts be used?
Special Accounts should be used for proceeds which EPA receives for projected
future costs through any type of CERCLA settlement, including but not limited to,
da minimis settlements, non-da minimis cashout settlements, ability-to-pay
settlements, and bankruptcies.
Special Accounts are particularly useful for early dfi minimis settlements, where
EPA anticipates subsequent settlements with major parties. For instance, funds
received from a dg minimis settlement may be kept temporarily in a Special
Account, and if appropriate, distributed to the major PRPs when they enter into a
Consent Decree (CD) with EPA to conduct a remedy at the site.
-------
Special Accounts can also be useful in settlements in which the settling parties
agree to perform the response action and to fund EPA oversight. We are
working with OGC and other affected agencies to develop guidance on the use
of Special Accounts in such settlements.
11. Who can use Special Accounts and for which sites can we use these
accounts?
Special Accounts can be used for response actions in which EPA has the lead
(Fund-lead), PRPs have the lead (PRP-lead), States have the lead (State-lead),
or where the response action is jointly funded by two or more types of parties.
12. Can Special Account funds be used to finance work at a site for which the
account was not established?
No. Funds in a Special Account may only be used for the site(s) covered by the
settlement agreement. Note that some settlements may cover multiple locations
(e.g.. bankruptcy settlements or settlements covering stations along natural gas
pipelines). The issue of whether to establish multiple Special Accounts for such
settlements depends on whether the Agency tracks and bills its costs separately
for each location. Thus, e.g.. bankruptcy settlements covering multiple sites will
generally require multiple accounts, while pipeline settlements will typically
require only a single account.
13. After site work is completed, can any remaining funds be used at other
sites?
No. The remaining funds cannot be used at other sites.
For cashout settlements (with dfi minimis or non-da minimis parties) in which the
settling parties are not conducting the response action, if a balance remains in a
Special Account after site work has been completed (and after EPA has made
any payments it intends to make to work PRPs who have entered into
settlements with EPA), this amount will be transferred to the Superfund Trust
Fund and will be available to other sites through the regular appropriations
process.
For settlements in which parties conducting the work are also funding EPA's
future oversight via a Special Account, see the answer to question 14.
14. If a balance remains in a Special Account after site work has been
completed, can the remaining funds be returned to the PRPs?
There is no statutory prohibition against agreeing (in the Consent Decree (CD),
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC), or Administrative Agreement) that a
balance in a Special Account be returned to the contributing PRP(s).
-------
4
For cashout settlements (with dg minimis or non-dg minimis parties) in which the
settling parties are not conducting the response action, it is Agency policy to
transfer all Special Account balances to the Superfund Trust Fund after
completion of site work (and after EPA has made any payments it intends to
make to work PRPs who have entered into settlements with EPA). All parties
enter into cashout settlements with certain cost assumptions and assume the
risk that these estimates are sometimes underestimates and other times
overestimates. Return of monies to these settling PRPs would unduly disturb
the finality of these settlements and would remove from managers of the Trust
Fund their flexibility in efficiently using Fund monies.
For settlements in which settling parties agree to perform the response action
and to fund ongoing EPA oversight of the work through advance payments into a
Special Account, the settlement may be negotiated to permit return of excess
funds to the contributing PRPs. EPA is developing guidance on the use of
Special Accounts for this purpose.
15. Have Special Account funds been disbursed to PRPs who are the lead in
performing future response actions?
To date, most Special Accounts have been established for Fund-lead response
actions. Thus, there have been only a few instances where Special Account
funds have been released to a PRP to perform future response actions. In these
instances, EPA and the PRPs performing the response action entered into a CO
or AOC, which contained a provision for releasing funds from the Special
Account to a private account established by the PRP. The settlement spelled
out how to use the funds, how to accomplish the cleanup work, and the terms
and conditions for release of the funds.
OGC is developing a opinion on the legal basis for disbursement of Special
Account funds to PRPs who are conducting the response action.
HOW TO CREATE AND USE A SPECIAL ACCOUNT
STEP 1: Decide to establish a Special Account for a site.
The Regional Superfund Program Branch Chief, or an equivalent
Regional official, the Regional Counsel Branch Chief, and the Regional
Financial Management Officer (FMO) should jointly determine if a Special
Account should be established for a site. See attached list of FMOs.
STEP 2: Direct settlement payments into a Special Account.
All new settlement agreements (e.g.. Consent Decree (CD),
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC), or Administrative Agreement)
must identify which payments are for reimbursement of past response
-------
costs, and which are for future response actions. Only those payments
designated for future response costs should be earmarked for a Special
Account. Past costs should be deposited in the Super-fund Trust Fund as
a cost recovery.
The following model payment language should be used in new
settlements to create a Special Account and to identify the "past" and
"future" cost payments.1
"Of the total amount to be paid pursuant to this [Consent Decree/Consent
Order/Agreement], [$ or %] shall be deposited in the EPA
Hazardous Substance Superfund as reimbursement for response costs
incurred at or in connection with the Site as of [insert date] by the EPA
Hazardous Substance Superfund, and [$ or % or "the
remainder"] shall be deposited in the [insert Site name] Special Account
within the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund to be retained and used
to conduct or finance the response action at or in connection with the
Site. Any balance remaining in the [insert Site name] Special Account
shall be transferred by EPA to the EPA Hazardous Substance
Superfund."
CONTACT FOR MODEL SETTLEMENT LANGUAGE QUESTIONS:
Janice Linett, (202) 564-5131.
If the Region is contemplating creating a Special Account for an older
settlement agreement in which language of this kind was not used, then
the Region should contact Filomena Chau to discuss the specific facts of
the case, (202) 564-4224.
STEP 3: Have PRPs remit payments.
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, PRPs should remit payment by
check, or through electronic funds transfer (EFT). The check, or EFT,
should be directed to the location noted in the settlement. In general, all
payments made in accordance with administrative settlements and da
minimis settlements (both AOCs and CDs) should be directed to the
Regional Superfund lockbox. All payments made in accordance with non-
dja minimis CDs should be made to the Financial Litigation Unit of the
appropriate U.S. Attorney's office.
1 This language is taken from the payment provisions found in the "Revised
Model CERCLA Section 122(g)(4) De Minimis Contributor Consent Decree and
Administrative Order on Consent," issued on September 29,1995 and published at 60
FR 62849 (December 7, 1995).
-------
The PRP must include a letter, or other document, clearly identifying the
name of the site to which the funds apply and the site/spill ID number.
Once the payments have been received in the Regional Finance Office,
the portion of the payment for future work should be forwarded to the
Cincinnati Financial Management Center (CFMC) by Inter-Office Transfer
Voucher (IOTV).
STEP 4: Obtain authority to create a reimbursable account.2
First, the Regional Budget Office submits a request for issuance of
reimbursable authority through a reprogramming request to the
Headquarters Office of Planning, Budgeting, and Accountability's (OPBA)
Budget Division and attaches a copy of the following documents:
1) Inter-Office Transfer Voucher (IOTV) sent to the
Cincinnati Financial Management Center (CFMC)
2) Settlement check or EFT
3) Deposit ticket
4) Reprogramming request form
5) CD, AOC, or Administrative Agreement
Second, the Headquarters OPBA Budget Division obtains reimbursable
authority from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and
approves/completes the Region's reprogramming request, usually within
one to two weeks.
Finally, the Headquarters OPBA Budget Division advises the Region and
CFMC that reimbursable authority has been issued.
CONTACT: Jean Price, Budget Formulation and Control Branch, (202)
260-5672, Headquarters OPBA Budget Division.
STEP 5: Establish the Special Account and obtain a reimbursable account number.
CFMC establishes the Special Account upon receipt of the IOTV and a
copy of the following documents:
1) CD, AOC, or Administrative Agreement
2) Settlement check or EFT
3) Deposit ticket
2 When EPA receives funds from an outside source (and not through direct
Congressional appropriations), these funds are termed "reimbursable."
-------
Once the Headquarters OPBA Budget Division advises CFMC that the
reimbursable authority has been issued, a reimbursable account is
established in the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS).
CONTACT: Connie Ely, (513) 366-2075, Cincinnati Financial
Management Center.
STEP 6: Use the Special Account.
The Region may now obligate money from the Special Account, always
citing the reimbursable account number on all funding documents.
Periodically, CFMC will review each Special Account by analyzing the
funds expended against the reimbursable account number. CFMC will
then adjust the Special Account based on their findings.
CONTACT: Regional FMOs and Connie Ely, (513) 366-2075, Cincinnati
Financial Management Center.
FOR GENERAL QUESTIONS ON SPECIAL ACCOUNTS CONTACT:
Filomena Chau [Regional Support] (202) 564-4224
Regional Support Division/Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE)
OECA
FOR QUESTIONS ON SPECIFIC ASPECTS CONTACT:
Vince Velez [Financial Specialist] (202) 260-6465
Financial Management Division/Office of the Comptroller
OPBA
Janice Linen [Model Settlement/Senior Counsel] (202) 564-5131
Regional Support Division/OSRE
OECA
Chad Littleton [Cashout Specialist] (202) 564-6064
Policy and Program Evaluation Division/OSRE
OECA
Tracy Gipson [Ability to Pay Analysis] (202) 564-4236
Regional Support Division/OSRE
OECA
John Wheeler [Bankruptcy] (202) 564-4284
Regional Support Division/OSRE
OECA
-------
8
EPA FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OFFICERS
Mr. Mike Manlogon, FMO
U.S. EPA-Region I (PFS)
J.F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3344, fax (617) 565-3346
Mr. Ronald Gherardi, FMO
U.S. EPA - Region II (PMFIN)
26 Federal Plaza, Room 934
New York, NY 10007
(212) 637-3456, fax (212) 637-3509
Mr. Noel Schleifman, FMO
U.S. EPA - Region III (3PM30)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-6162, fax (215) 597-6185
Ms. Carol Williams, FMO
U.S. EPA-Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3278, extension 6724;
fax (404) 347-5206
Ms. Betty Lofton, FMO
U.S. EPA-Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd. (MF-10J)
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 353-2040, fax (312) 886-7514
Mr. Ted Brandt, FMO
U.S. EPA-Region VI (6RF)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214)665-6515, fax (214)665-7284
Mr. Gerald Lee, FMO
U.S. EPA-Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913)551-7325, fax (913)551-7863
Mr. Frank MacFadden, FMO
U.S. EPA - Region VIII (8PM-GFM)
999 Eighteenth Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 82202
(303)312-6171, fax (303)312-6684
Mr. Dale Calvert, FMO
U.S. EPA-Region IX (P42)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA94105
(415)744-1725, fax (415)744-1678
Mr. Joseph Neuroth, FMO
U.S. EPA - Region X (MD149)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206)553-2961, fax (206)553^957
James Wood, FMO
Cincinnati Financial Management Center
U.S. EPA (002)
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 366-2080, fax (513) 366-2063
Mr. Douglas Barrett, FMO
Research Triangle Park FMC
U.S. EPA(ADM-102)
Research Triangle Park
Durham, NC 27711
(919) 541-3042, fax (919) 541-3055
Mr. Alan Lewis, FMO
Las Vegas FMC
U.S. EPA
P.O. Box98515
Las Vegas, NV 89193-8515
(702)798-2485, fax (702)798-2423
Ms. Debra Bennett, FMO
Washington FMC
U.S. EPA (3303)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-5100, fax (202)260-0293
-------
-------
Notes
-------
v°/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency March 1997
Special Account Implementation Notebook
A Reference Tool
Tab 9
List of Special Accounts Contacts
-------
Regional Contacts for
Special Accounts Reform
Region I
Joan Maddalozzo
617-573-9642, fax 617-573-9662
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I (HBS)
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
One Congress Street
Boston, MA 02203
Region TJ
Leslie Peterson
212-637-4298, fax 212-637-4439
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II (ERRD-PSB)
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
Region III
Kathy Hodgkiss
215-566-3151, fax 215-566-3001
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IE (3HW10)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Region iy
Greg Armstrong
404-562-8872, fax 404-562-8842
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV, Waste Management Division
61 Forsythe Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
Region V
Douglas Ballotti
312-886-4752, fax 312-886-4071
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V (S-6J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
-------
Region VI
Doretha A. Christian
214-665-6734, fax 214-665-6660
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI (6SF-AC)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
Region VII
Cheryle Micinski
913-551-7274, fax 913-551-7925
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Region VHI
Kelcey Land
303-312-6393, fax 303-312-6409 ;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIE (ENS-T)
999 18th Street, suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Region IX
Kim Muratore
415-744-2373, fax 415-744-1917
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX (SFD-7-B)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Region X
Dean Ingemansen
206-553-1744, fax 206-553-0163
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X(ORC-158)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
-------
-------
------- |