United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
SUPERFUND:
Building on the Past,
Looking to the Future
April 22. 2004
-------
Contents
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES 4
STUDY TEAM MEMBERS 5
GLOSSARY 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY „ 9
Congressional Action in FY2004 9
Study Findings and Recommendations 10
Moving Forward 14
INTRODUCTION 17
Study Background 17
Information on Past Studies 18
Study Methodology 19
What This Study Is Not 19
Study Findings 20
Outline of the Report 21
CHAPTER 1: SUPERFUND PROGRAM ACTIVITIES AND RESOURCES 23
Response Activities 23
Enforcement Activities 26
Research Activities 27
Management and Support Activities 28
Program Resources 31
CHAPTER 2: IMPROVING SUPERFUND PROGRAM INTEGRATION AND
COMMUNICATION 35
Improving Overarching Leadership 35
Articulating the Goals and Measuring Progress of Today's Superfund Program 36
Using Fund-Lead Workas an Enforcement Lever 38
Supporting EPA's One Cleanup Goal 38
Measuring Performance 39
Preventing Future Sites 40
Communicating Program Funding Within and Outside of EPA 40
Allocating Superfund Dollars Effectively 41
Improving Understanding of Funding Availability 42
Reducing Costs to Meet Numerical Targets 43
Sharing Regional FTEs and Resources across Regions 44
Evaluating Headquarters FTEs 46
Moving Funding via Immediate, One-time Opportunities 46
CHAPTER 3: CAPITALIZING ON LESSONS LEARNED FOR CLEANUP ACTIONS 49
Using the NPL as an Incentive for Voluntary Cleanup Work 49
Using Fund-Lead Workas an Enforcement Lever 50
Pursuing the Superfund Alternative Sites Approach 50
Defining the Scope of Mega Sites Specifically and Early 52
Integrating Site Assessment Programs 53
Expediting Cleanups Using Removal Program Authorities 54
Balancing Competing Priorities with Homeland Security 55
Preventing Potential Future Superfund Sites 56
Examining the Role of the National Remedy Review Board and the Cost of Site Work 57
-------
Reviewing Specific Records of Decisions 58
Establishing National Standards and Action Levels 59
Using Presumptive Remedies and Generic Designs 59
Choosing a Funding Mechanism and Providing Oversight 60
Increasing In-House Work 62
Adopting a Multi-year Funding Plan and Funding Allocation 62
Evaluating the Need for Core Cooperative Agreements (Grants) 63
Superfund Analytical Support 64
CHAPTER 4: ENHANCING ENFORCEMENT 69
Addressing Underutilized Enforcement FTE and Contract Support 70
Increasing PRP Involvement in Removal Actions 77
Exploring Other Sources for Funding Response Activities 75
Improving Measures for Enforcement Success 73
Realizing Cost Savings through Collaboration with Responsible Parties 74
Continuing Emphasis on the Cost Recovery Program 75
Using Special Accounts Effectively 76
CHAPTER 5: EXAMINING THE ROLE OF SUPERFUND RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY. 77
Research Program Observations 78
Technology Innovation Observations 80
CHAPTER 6: EVALUATING SUPERFUND'S SHARE OF MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT
COSTS 83
Charging Superfund for Administrative Functions 84
Long-term Approach to Management and Support ' 86
CHAPTER 7: OPTIMIZING THE USE OF SUPERFUND DOLLARS 87
Improving and Increasing Site-specific Charging 87
Improving Cost Analysis 89
Revising Deobligation Policies 90
Billing and Closeouts of Grants, lAGs, and Contracts 91
Gaining Efficiencies Through Alternative Contract Mechanisms 92
Increasing Efficiencies for Grants andlAGs 94
Collection of a Match for Superfund State Contracts 96
Doing Business with Other Federal Agencies 97
Taking Full Advantage of Special Accounts 99
Enhancing Management Tools 100
CHAPTER 8: REVIEWING EXISTING PERFORMANCE MEASURES 103
GPRA Superfund Performance Measures ]Q3
Superfund Internal Performance Measures 705
Observations Regarding Program Performance Measures 106
Recommendations for Superfund Performance Measures 108
CHAPTER 9: AGENDA FOR MOVING FORWARD... HO
Improving Overarching Leadership and Program Accountability 110
Continuing to Increase Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Involvement Ill
Developing a Better, More Effective Cleanup Program Ill
Better Utilization of Dollars and FTE 772
Measuring Performance 775
Preventing Potential Future Superfund Sites 775
APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS TABLE 114
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF OPTIONS TABLE 128
-------
APPENDIX C: PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS 133
Remedial Pipeline Accomplishments J33
Federal Facility Accomplishments 139
Additional Enforcement Accomplishments 140
Superfund Removal Program 141
Additional Measures of Success 142
APPENDIX D: SUPERFUND RESOURCE TABLES BY NATIONAL PROGRAM MANAGER
(NPM) 144
APPENDIX E: SUPERFUND RESOURCE TABLES BY HEADQUARTERS OFFICES 159
APPENDIX F: SUPERFUND RESOURCE TABLES BY REGION 174
APPENDIX G: EXAMPLES OF TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION PROJECTS 186
APPENDLX H: SUPERFUND GPRA MEASURES 189
APPENDIX I: OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE INTERNAL
PERFORMANCE MEASURES 192
APPENDIX J: MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT INTERNAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES.... 194
-------
List of Tables and Figures
List of Tables
TABLE 1: SUPERFUND PROGRAM RESOURCES (FTE AND TOTAL DOLLARS)* 33
TABLE 2: PERCENTAGE OF NPL SITES THAT ARE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE IN A REGION vs. NUMBER OF
SUPERFUND ALTERNATIVE SITES 51
TABLE 3: SUPERFUND ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS * (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS) 69
TABLE 4: PERCENTAGE OF PRP-LEAD REMOVAL ACTIONS BY REGION 72
TABLE 5: PERCENTAGE OF PRP-LEAD REMEDIAL ACTIONS BY REGION 74
TABLE 6: REGIONAL SUPERFUND LAYOFF RATES 85
TABLE 7: NUMBER OF SUPERFUND lAGs ACTIVE & EXPIRED AS OF 3/10/04 WITH A CURRENT BALANCE... 97
TABLE 8: DOLLARS OBLIGATED ON SUPERFUND lAGs ACTIVE AND EXPIRED AS OF 3/10/04 WITH A
CURRENT BALANCE 98
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: SUPERFUND DOLLARS FOR FY1999 & 2003 FROM APPROPRIATIONS, SPECIAL ACCOUNTS, AND
SUPERFUND STATE CONTRACTS 43
FIGURE 2: COST OF REMAINING FUND-LEAD NPL SITES vs. COST OF COMPLETED SITES 52
FIGURE 3: BREAKOUT OF ANNUAL AVERAGE DOLLARS FOR ANALYTICAL SUPERFUND SUPPORT* ($ IN
MILLIONS) 64
FIGURE 4: SUPERFUND LABORATORY ANALYSES 65
FIGURE 5: FY 03 SUPERFUND ESAT/FTE BUDGET EXPENDITURES COMPARISON BY REGION WITH NUMBER
OF ANALYSES ($ IN MILLIONS) 66
FIGURE 6: CONSTRUCTION COMPLETES 134
FIGURE 7: ROD AND ROD AMENDMENTS 135
FIGURE 8:RD/RA NEGOTIATIONS WITH PRPs COMPLETED 136
FIGURE 9: REMEDIAL DESIGNS STARTED 137
FIGURE 10: REMEDIAL ACTIONS COMPLETED 138
FIGURE 11: S-YEAR REVIEWS 139
FIGURE 12: COST RECOVERY FINAL DECISIONS (PAST COSTS >S200K) 140
FIGURE 13: REMOVALS COMPLETED 141
-------
Study Team Members
Study Leader:
Elizabeth Craig, Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation.
(She worked on Superfund program issues for six years and was the
Agency's Budget Director from 1993 - 1997)
Study Team:
David Evans, Director, Oil Program Staff, Office of Emergency Prevention,
Preparedness and Response, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Jim O'Leary, Office of Solid Waste, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Rebecca White, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation
Joel Wolf, Lead, Heavy Metals, and Inorganics Branch, Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
Peter Schaul, Chief, Superfund Remedial Branch, Region 3
Rebecca Weber, Associate Director for Air, Multi-Media Planning and Permitting
Division, Region 6
Dan Opalski, Director, Oregon Operations Office, Region 10
Jack McGraw, former Region 8 Deputy Regional Administrator, now serving as a
consultant
-------
Acronyms
ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
ASTSWMO Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980
CLP Contract Laboratory Program
DOJ U.S. Department of Justice
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPM Environmental Programs and Management
FTE full-time equivalent
FY fiscal year
LAG Interagency Agreement
IGMA Integrated Grants Management System
LTRA long-term response action
NPL National Priorities List
OARM (U.S. EPA) Office of Administration and Resources Management
OCFO (U.S. EPA) Office of the Chief Financial Officer
OECA (U.S. EPA) Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OIG (U.S. EPA) Office of Inspector General
OSC on-scene coordinator
OSWER (U.S. EPA) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PRP potentially responsible party
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility study
ROD record of decision
RPM remedial project manager
SACM Superfund accelerated cleanup model
-------
Glossary
Construction Complete: a site at which the physical construction of all cleanup actions is
complete, all immediate threats have been addressed, and all long-term threats are under
control.
Environmental Programs and Management: appropriation that supports all regulation
development and implementation, administrative support and non-research activities for
the non Trust Fund programs (Superfund, LUST, and Oil programs)
Five-Year Reviews: reviews done every five years to ensure remedies remain protective
of human health and the environment
Long-Term Response Action: long-term cleanup work at sites, e.g., operation of ground
water restoration systems for up to 10 years following completion of construction; states
assume responsibility for system operations after 10 year period
National Remedy Review Board: A national board consisting of EPA personnel that
evaluates all remedies which cost more than $20 million or where the proposed remedy
would cost more than twice the next ARAR compliant remedy. The board evaluates the
remedy to see if there is a less expensive, equally protective remedy and makes non-
binding recommendations.
Non-Time Critical Removal: a removal action that, based on a site evaluation, the lead
agency determines does not need to be initiated within the next six months.
Orphan Sites: sites where there are no identified responsible parties or none with the
financial capability to pay for a remedy.
Pipeline: is the process of cleaning up a Superfund site and covers all of the activities
from listing through remedy design. This includes the remedial investigation and
feasibility study, selection of remedy, and its design.
Potentially Responsible Parties: an individual, business, or other organization that is
potentially liable for cleaning up a site.
Record of Decision: the public document in where EPA identifies the cleanup alternative
to be used at a site.
Remedial Action: the actual construction or implementation of a remedy at an NPL site
or portion thereof.
Remedial Investigation/feasibility study: site studies that involve gathering data to
determine the type and extent of contamination at a site (or portion thereof), establishing
cleanup criteria, and analyzing the feasibility and costs of alternative cleanup methods.
-------
The study can be conducted by EPA, contractors, state agencies, or potentially
responsible parties.
Science and Technology: appropriation that supports all science and research activities
carried out by the Office of Research and Development and program office laboratories
Superfund Alternative Site: a site which resembles an NPL site in the scope and
magnitude of its contamination, and is cleaned up by PRPs using processes which are
equivalent to those required under the National Contingency Plan, but never listed on the
NPL.
Time-Critical Removal Action: a removal action that, based on a site evaluation, the lead
agency determines must be initiated within six months.
-------
Executive Summary
In November 2003, Acting Deputy Administrator Stephen L. Johnson requested that a
small work group be established to conduct a relatively quick internal review
(approximately 120 days) of the Superfund program. The main objective of this review
was to identify opportunities for program efficiencies that would enable the Agency to
begin and ultimately complete more long term cleanups, also known as remedial actions,
with current resources. This internal study is intended to complement the work being
done by the Superfund subcommittee of the Agency's National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT).
The Agency currently has a backlog of sites that are ready for long term cleanup, but
lacks adequate funding to begin the remedial action. To a large extent the shortfall is the
direct result of the evolution and maturation of the program, with the universe of
Superfund sites expanding in both number and type. Sits now entering the long term
cleanup phase tend to be larger, require multiple remedies and are more complex than
those originally placed on the National Priorities List (NPL).
This new and expanded universe has put increased demands on the program overall.
Funding needs have increased further as a greater proportion of the sites have progressed
through the study phase and into the typically more costly cleanup phase. A significant
challenge before the Agency and Congress, therefore, is how best to navigate this period
when there are high funding needs for long term cleanup. The extraordinary demands of
the especially large sites make this challenge all the more difficult.
Congressional Action in FY 2004
Over the last several years, EPA's senior managers have expressed concern about the
Agency's inability to fund all of the Superfund long term cleanups that otherwise are
ready to proceed. While EPA continues to address immediate public health threats
through its short-term, emergency cleanup program, the Agency lacks adequate funds to
address the growing number of sites that are ready for long term cleanups each year.
The House and Senate Appropriations Committees, and stakeholders outside of EPA,
have also been concerned about this problem. Congress most recently expressed its
concern during the Agency's FY 2004 appropriation in the following ways:
• The House Appropriations Committee in its FY 2004 report directed the EPA
Inspector General to evaluate Superfund expenditures in EPA headquarters and
-------
the Regions and to recommend options for increasing resources directed to
cleanup while minimizing administrative costs.
• In its FY 2004 report, the Senate Appropriations Committee noted that the
Agency was spending only 16 percent of the annual appropriation on site
construction and long-term response actions, and directed the Agency to direct no
less than 22 percent of the annual appropriation to site construction.
When the Conference Committee completed work on the Agency's FY 2004 budget, it
did not direct the Agency to increase its percentage of funding for site construction.
Rather, the Conference Committee made clear its expectation that the Agency direct the
maximum amount possible to long term cleanup activities. The percentages in question
represent how the Agency chose to distribute a portion of the Regions' funding. Those
decisions on funding allocation were not intended to represent all funding dedicated to
long term cleanup, though it is clear the Agency did not adequately communicate that
fact.
This percentage understates the true amount the Agency spends on cleanups, reflecting
only the extramural portion (what the Agency spends on cleanup contractors and other
federal agencies), and does not include the cost of EPA staff necessary to manage the
projects. The percentage also does not include short term, emergency cleanup actions
taken at sites which contribute to the ultimate long term construction or the technical
assistance required during the long term construction; and the EPA staff that support all
of these activities.
In addition, at this point in the program, over 70 percent of Superfund cleanups are
performed by potentially responsible parties (PRPs) as a result of EPA's enforcement
program. The value of this work over the life of the program is more than $18 billion as
of September 30,2003. Also not included is the cost of enforcement and oversight of
potentially responsible parties (PRP) who are conducting cleanup
The use of a simple percentage measure like this also fails to consider the costs of all of
the necessary steps that must occur before a site reaches the cleanup phase, both for sites
funded by EPA and by PRPs. Those steps include investigation of the site, identification
and testing to determine the extent of the problem, development of an acceptable cleanup
plan, and coordination with the local community.
Study Findings and Recommendations
The Superfund 120-Day Study is a short term, overall program review conducted by a
team of EPA headquarters and regional staff who have knowledge and experience in the
program, but are not all currently working in the program. Analyses of information from
Agency data systems helped to frame areas for analysis. This was followed by additional
data requests and an extensive number of interviews with Superfund program managers
in headquarters and the Regions, as well as with selected outside experts. To supplement
10
-------
the information gathered in the interviews, the study team prepared and sent out tailored
questionnaires to gather program-specific information.
What became apparent to the study team as it spoke to a wide spectrum of Superfund
practitioners across the country is that this is a complex, viable cleanup program with an
effective enforcement component. Over time, the program has improved how it measures
its progress, how it describes its work and achieves environmental results; however, there
is still room for further improvement.
The Superfund program has two primary foci: the long term cleanup of contaminated
sites, and the emergency response program. The emergency response program was
originally designed to provide for rapid cleanup of sites to eliminate immediate threats to
human health and the environment. Over the years, that response capability has evolved
and expanded so that today, Superfund's emergency response mission involves not only
waste sites, but train derailments, biological contamination of Senate office buildings,
debris cleanup from the Colombia Shuttle disaster, and hazard assessment and cleanup at
the World Trade Center after 9/11. EPA has to prepare for its ever expanding role in
preparedness for counter terrorism response and Homeland Security such as continuity
for operations plans and continuity of Government functions. Like a fire department,
Superfund has to expend significant resources in staff, training and infrastructure simply
to be prepared to respond when needed. The program has evolved as well as it addresses
an ever changing list of Superfund sites which require long term cleanups, ranging from
drum disposal sites and landfills, to abandoned smelters, sediments in rivers and harbors,
and hard rock mining sites.
In addition, the program is complex administratively. Due to the need to track all of the
Agency's costs at a site in order to recover those costs from potentially responsible
parties, the Superfund program has a level of administrative complexity that does not
exist anywhere else within EPA. This investment in the development of cost recovery
cases has resulted in settlements with potentially responsible parties of $3.9 billion as of
September 30, 2003. The Agency has also worked closely with PRPs over the years to
ensure that funds they submit pursuant to cash-out agreements are only used at specific
sites or even specific portions of those sites. While these administrative requirements are
burdensome, they give the Agency and PRPs confidence that the Agency is using the
funds appropriately.
The recommendations on improving resource utilization can make the Superfund
program even stronger and, if implemented aggressively, will measurably increase the
resources available for remedial action construction, perhaps by tens of millions of
dollars annually. Program policy recommendations also hold the potential to reduce
future out-year funding needs by a similar order of magnitude.
However, it is unrealistic to conclude that the recommendations of this report, however
aggressively they are implemented, will fully address the projected funding shortfall of
this changing program.
11
-------
The most important recommendations on Superfund policies, with regard to the
program's resource needs, are those that work to minimize the Agency's response
funding needs. Key among these is:
• collaborating effectively with other federal and state cleanup programs under an
integrated cleanup approach,
• using the NPL and Fund-financed actions as effective tools to leverage cleanups
by others,
• maintaining a consistently strong enforcement program, and
• applying cost-conscious decision making in all facets of the program.
The study's findings fall into six key areas. They include:
• Provide Leadership and Vision
To address cross-office issues more effectively, the study team recommends the
creation of an overarching internal Superfund Board of Directors to provide
enhanced program leadership, program coordination and accountability. In
addition, with the growing complexity of the program coupled with tightening of
resources, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) needs
to more clearly articulate the hierarchy of cleanup goals. Headquarters offices
and the Regions also need to reinforce these clear goals with several new or more
focused performance measures.
• Build on Past Successes
After more than 20 years of operational experience and numerous program
evaluations that have resulted in many improvements along the way, the Agency
has many successes and lessons learned upon which it can build. The program is
strongest when it integrates a variety of cleanup approaches and authorities into
the overall response program. Much of the cleanup progress across the nation
results from PRPs conducting over 70 percent of site work. To continue or
enhance those results requires that the program continues to list sites on the NPL
where appropriate, provide adequate funding for EPA to do the work where
responsible parties are recalcitrant, and continue aggressive enforcement and cost
recovery programs.
• Continue to Develop a Better, More Effective Cleanup Program
There are opportunities for further cost and time savings through such
programmatic changes as reviewing and updating specific records of decision and
broadening the scope of the National Remedy Review Board to drive down
remedy costs. Other recommendations include improving the cost-effectiveness
of the analytical support program, improving cost analysis capabilities, and
possibly developing national standards for a limited number of high-priority
12
-------
contaminants. OSWER has already been working with the Regions on a series of
cost management initiatives.
• Improve the Use and Management of Agency Resources
The measures the study team identified to reduce demands on appropriated funds
include improving the use of special accounts; speeding up the closeout of
interagency agreements, grants, and contracts; and improving the timeliness of
Superfund State Contract billing, obligations, reimbursements, and deobligations.
Other suggestions include reviewing interagency agreements for possible cost
efficiencies, such as negotiating consistent nationwide overhead rates with other
federal agencies.
• Improve Communications and Program Accountability
The study team recommends that the Agency review how it is tracking
Superfund's milestones and program accomplishments to ensure it is providing a
comprehensive picture of today's Superfund program, especially to Congress.
There is also value in conducting focused benchmarking studies to improve
performance in individual Regions; this will foster innovation, competition, and
use of agency-wide baseline standards.
• Make Purposeful Resource Shifts to Better Link Organizational Structure
with Program Needs
Over the last 24 years, the Superfund program has grown both in scope and
complexity. In the early years of the program, the focus of cleanup operations
was on "traditional" uncontrolled hazardous waste sites; i.e., Love Canal or
Valley of the Drums. Now the program is responsible not only for cleaning up
these types of sites, but also for addressing more complex sites as well as
responding effectively to complex 9/11 type of emergencies.
At issue is whether the program has maintained pace with changing program
needs. With the evolution and maturation of the program, opportunities exist to
use resources more effectively and efficiently, if not innovatively. Examples
include but are not limited to, sharing work across Regions, relying upon focused
areas of expertise (e.g. Centers for Applied Science among the Regional labs),
and consolidating some support functions.
Together, the recommendations of this report can build on past successes and create a
better, more efficient way to implement the changing Superfund program. They are
intended to improve upon a program that is working well, not one that is broken and
requires fixing. These recommendations represent the best current thinking on what EPA
can do with existing authorities and resources to efficiently implement the Superfund
program, toward the goal of increasing the pace of site cleanup.
13
-------
Moving Forward
Consistent with the numerous previous studies and analyses of the Superfund program,
information collected during the study affirmed that Superfund is an inherently
complicated and complex program, dealing with cleanup requirements that have been
changing almost since it began 24 years ago. At the same time, Superfund has achieved a
high level of success as it has carried out its mission.
Despite the Superfund program's complexity, and its unique administrative structure, it
has made and continues to make significant strides in addressing abandoned and
uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances across the country. With long term
cleanups complete at nearly 900 NPL sites and more than 7,000 emergency cleanups
conducted since its inception, the program is providing widespread benefits in terms of
both human health and environmental risk reduction and providing opportunities for
future beneficial land use.
Part of the program's success is due to its willingness to assess its strengths and
weaknesses on an ongoing basis and to make modifications to improve cleanup
approaches and administrative processes. Even now, as stated earlier, OSWER and the
Regions are beginning to implement a series of cost- and time-saving recommendations,
a number of which were affirmed through the study team's independent analysis.
Likewise, the Office of Administration and Resources Management has been working
with Agency senior managers to improve the management of grants and interagency
agreements.
Nonetheless, the study team found opportunities for greater efficiency in the use of
Superfund's current resources. There are several tangible, near-term opportunities for
stretching existing resources further, and there are other promising means to move toward
more efficiently using the existing level of resources in the longer term. If the
recommendations of this study are aggressively implemented, this already strong and
effective program will be even better.
While many of the implementation details will take time to work out, the Acting Deputy
Administrator has confirmed his expectation that the Agency will move forward with two
key aspects of implementation of the report's recommendations. First, the Acting Deputy
Administrator will set up an internal Superfund Board of Directors. OSWER and the
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Assistant Administrators will co-chair
the board, whose members will include representatives from headquarters offices that
have Superfund responsibilities and from the Regions.
The role of the Board of Directors will be to enhance overall leadership and coordination
of all elements of the Agency involved with the Superfund program. Second, the new
Board will be responsible for preparing, coordinating and executing an action plan(s) that
addresses the recommendations contained in the following report. There are numerous
recommendations in the report; however, the Study Team identified the top
recommendations that would strengthen the leadership of the program and be most likely
14
-------
to result in additional funding for long term cleanups. These recommendations also
provide a blueprint for action for the new internal Board of Directors, and are identified
in the last chapter of the study - Agenda for Moving Ahead.
15
-------
(left blank)
16
-------
Introduction
Study Background
Over the last several years, EPA's senior management has been concerned about the
Agency's inability to fund all of the Superfund long term cleanups that are otherwise
ready to proceed. While Superfund has become a mature program, it continues to have
very high resource demands, as sites added to the National Priorities List (NPL) more
than a decade ago have reached the most costly phase of the program: long term cleanup
or remedial actions.
hi 1999, at the direction of Congress, EPA contracted with Resources for the Future
(RFF) to conduct a study and prepare a report that predicted, at current funding levels,
Superfund would soon face response funding shortfalls of $100-$300 million annually
for the next several years, with a cumulative funding shortfall in excess of $1 billion.
The report predicted the annual shortfall might last until only 2007 or could extend well
beyond 2009.' Subsequent to the RFF report, members of Congress requested that the
Inspector General provide a report on the program's funding shortfall. For FY 2003, the
EPA Inspector General reported a site-specific funding shortfall of almost $175 million.
hi July 2001, the EPA Deputy Administrator directed the development of an action plan
to address the recommendations in the RFF report. The primary recommendations from
the report were the following: (1) review and clarify the purpose of the NPL; (2) assess
the level of program management, policy, and administrative support resources needed to
implement the Superfund program; (3) improve the management of and financial systems
for tracking Superfund progress and costs; and (4) give higher priority to post-
construction activities.
Specifically, the plan called for the creation of a Superfund Subcommittee under the
auspices of the Agency's National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and
Technology (NACEPT). The overall intent of the Subcommittee's work was to assist in
identifying the future direction of the Superfund program in the context of other federal
and state waste and cleanup programs that have developed since Superfund was enacted.
The NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee has been focusing in particular on: (1) the role
of the NPL in hazardous site response; (2) the unique needs of mega sites, which RFF
defined as sites costing $50 million or more; and (3) measures of success for Superfund.
1 Katherine N. Probst and David M. Konisky, Superfund's Future: What Will It Cost?
(Resources for the Future, 2001), p. 159.
17
-------
In November 2003, to complement NACEPT's work, Acting Deputy Administrator
Stephen L. Johnson commissioned this internal Superfund study. As envisioned, the
study would be a brief (approximately 120-day) Agency self-assessment of Superfund
resource use and management issues. The main objective of this review was to identify
opportunities for program efficiencies that would enable the Agency to complete more
long term cleanups with current resources. The Acting Deputy Administrator directed
that the study be conducted by a team of individuals with Superfund knowledge and
experience but not all currently in the program, thereby providing both expertise for the
study and a degree of independence and objectivity.
When the House and Senate acted on the Agency's FY 2004 appropriation, the House
directed the EPA Inspector General to evaluate Superfund expenditures in EPA
headquarters and the regions and to recommend options for increasing resources directed
to cleanup while minimizing administrative costs. The Senate Appropriations
Committee, in its FY 2004 report, noted that the Agency was spending only 16 percent of
the annual appropriation on site construction and long-term response actions, and directed
the Agency to direct no less than 22 percent of the annual appropriation to site
construction. This report also directed the Inspector General to conduct a comprehensive
audit of FY 2002 and 2003 Superfund expenditures.
When the Conference Committee completed its work on the Agency's FY 2004 budget, it
did not direct the Agency to target a specific percentage of funding to site construction.
However, the final language did direct the Inspector General to conduct an evaluation of
the Superfund program. The Office of Inspector General's final report is due to both
Appropriations Committees in December 2004.
Information on Past Studies
The 120-day study has benefited from a number of previous reviews of the Superfund
program. In the last decade alone, over a dozen studies have been conducted by EPA
staff, other government agencies, and outside organizations. This 120 day study was
preceded by a 90 day study in 1989 and a 30 day study in 1991. In 1994, EPA conducted
a "base review," which outlined an investment and disinvestment strategy for redirecting
resources into priority areas. More recently, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) commissioned an evaluation of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineer's (Corps) support of the Superfund program. This 2003 study presented eight
recommendations for improving how EPA and the Corps work together on Superfund
cleanups.
A majority of the outside reviews of the program have been initiated by Congress. Members of Congress
have frequently asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to examine specific aspects of the Superfund
program. For example, GAO has reviewed, through separate studies, EPA's progress toward recovering
unspent Superfund contract monies, efforts to monitor Superfund expenditures, success in implementing
prior administrative reforms, and use of performance measures. EPA's Office of the Inspector General has
also devoted significant time to reviewing the Superfund program. Most recently, as noted above, the
Office of the Inspector General looked at the sufficiency of funding for long term cleanup at nonfederal
sites.
18
-------
The above-mentioned RFF study, Superfund's Future: What Will It Cost?, is one of the
larger and better-known evaluations of the Superfund program. Funded by EPA at the
direction of Congress, the RFF study examined the future costs of various aspects of the
Superfund program, including the costs of cleaning up sites, particularly megasites,
implementing long-term response actions, and administering the program.
Study Methodology
The Study Team collected information from the major data systems, analyzed this data
and identified needed follow-up, and interviewed Superfund program managers in
headquarters and the Regions. Interviews with selected outside experts who have or had
high-level involvement in the Superfund program added to the study's knowledge base.
The over 50 individual interviews conducted by the study team included current and
former EPA employees, private industry managers and legal counsel who represent the
PRP community, current and former state environmental directors, Superfund
researchers, Department of Justice attorneys, and managers and examiners from the
Office of Management and Budget. Within the Agency, the team has spoken with
numerous people at every level of the offices involved with Superfund, including
OSWER, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer, the Office of Administration and Resources Management, and the
Office of Research and Development.
Individuals from the study team visited eight of the ten regions to interview Superfund
Division Directors and their program staffs, policy and management divisions, laboratory
managers, enforcement and cost recovery staffs, and Regional Counsels. For those
Regions the Study Team did not visit, the team interviewed Deputy Regional
Administrators during their trips to Washington, D.C., and held phone interviews with the
Division Directors along with any staff they wished to have present. To supplement the
information gathered in the interviews, the study team prepared and sent out tailored
questionnaires to gather program-specific information.
While the study's primary focus was on resource and financial management, in the course
of interviewing such a broad array of Superfund experts within and outside EPA, a wide
range of ideas and recommendations emerged. The study's conclusions, while
maintaining an eye toward resource issues, reflect the broadened scope of the interviews,
in particular suggesting opportunities for enhancing program effectiveness.
What This Study Is Not
Although the study team spoke to a large number of people and gathered a great deal of
data in a very short time, this study is not a comprehensive audit, nor is it a formal
program evaluation. It is also not the independent contract review currently being
contemplated by NACEPT as a recommendation in its report. Many of the findings,
recommendations, and options presented in this study are suggested by the data, the
interviews, and the study team's analysis of this information. Given the short duration of
19
-------
the study, in some cases the Study Team has recommended additional analysis by
Headquarters and the Regions prior to implementing certain recommendations.
The study team fully expects that some of the themes and issues identified in this report
will be analyzed in the evaluation being conducted by the Office of the Inspector
General. While the study team heard a number of far-reaching suggestions, the report's
recommendations mainly stay within the existing authorities and organization.
Study Findings
The Study Team found that this is a complex, viable cleanup program with an effective
strong enforcement component. It also found that the program has improved how it
measures its progress and how it communicates it accomplishments and environmental
results. However, as with all environmental programs, there is still room for further
improvement.
Despite the program's complexity, it has made and continues to make significant
progress in cleaning up Superfund sites. Without Superfund, abandoned and
uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances would continue unabated across the
country. With construction completed at nearly 900 NPL sites and more than 7,000
emergency cleanups since its inception, the program is providing widespread benefits by
reducing risks to human health and the environment and is providing opportunities for
future beneficial land use of once derelict properties.
The success of the Superfund program is due in no small part to the Agency's continuing
efforts to assess the program's strengths and weaknesses and to make appropriate
modifications to improve cleanup approaches and administrative processes. The program
has evolved almost continuously since its inception, adopting ideas proposed by Agency
staff and external reviewers alike. In the beginning, the emphasis was simply on starting
long term cleanups at as many sites as possible. Even then, the Agency recognized that it
could not start all of them at once, and the "worst sites first" initiative was born. Soon
after this, a renewed emphasis on "enforcement first" arose. Subsequently, in response to
criticisms that the Agency was not removing enough sites from the NPL, the emphasis
again shifted to stress completing construction at entire sites, i.e., finishing the long term
cleanup, rather than simply focusing on the worst parts of the worst sites. Today, the
Agency continues to stress enforcement first, as its rate of PRP participation
demonstrates, while also addressing the worst sites first. The work of the priority panel
for remedial funding and the extensive use of the removal program at NPL sites
demonstrate this.
Readers familiar with prior evaluations of the Superfund program may recognize a
number of the findings and recommendations in this report that have been considered
previously or may be seen as variations on a theme. In addition, some of the best
practices cited are approaches that have been tried, but perhaps not applied as broadly or
with as much energy as appears warranted, although some are new. This study has
20
-------
sought to examine a wide array of options suggested either by the data examined or by
the people interviewed, and to present them as clearly as possible.
OSWER and the Regions have begun to implement a series of cost- and time-saving
recommendations, a number of which were affirmed through the study team's
independent analysis. Likewise, the Office of Administration and Resources
Management has been working with Agency's senior managers to improve the
management of all Agency grants and interagency agreements. The willingness of
current senior-level Superfund program managers to engage with the Study Team, both at
headquarters and in the Regions, clearly demonstrates a high level of interest in building
on past successes and continuing to improve this already successful program.
The study team did find opportunities for greater efficiency in the use of Superfund's
current resources. There are several tangible, near-term opportunities for stretching
existing resources further, and there are other promising means to move toward more
efficiently using the existing level of resources in the longer term. The study team also
has identified a number of important program policy options and recommendations that
could serve to reduce the future need for Superfund resources. The Study Team has
identified recommendations as being either near team (significant progress or completion
can be made within one year of the report) or long term. In some instances the Study
Team identified options for Headquarters and the Regions to consider as they implement
the program. Appendices A and B contain summary tables of all the Study Team's
recommendations and options by Office and Region.
The recommendations of this report can make a significant impact on the Superfund
program's current resource dilemma. If implemented aggressively, they will measurably
increase the resources available for remedial action construction, perhaps by tens of
millions of dollars annually. Together, the recommendations of this report can build on
past successes and create a better, more efficient way to implement the Superfund
program in the future. They are intended to improve upon a program that is working
well, not one that is broken and needs fixing. These recommendations represent the best
current thinking on what EPA can do with existing authorities and resources to efficiently
implement the Superfund program, toward the goal of increasing the pace of site
remediation. They have the potential to significantly reduce the current funding gap.
Nevertheless, it is unrealistic to conclude that these recommendations, regardless of how
aggressively they are implemented, will fully address the projected funding shortfall.
Outline of the Report
The report is broken into eight chapters and appendices that each contains a discussion
and recommendations. The chapters are organized in the following order:
• Chapter 1 discusses the various program activities and resources by Agency office
that receives Superfund dollars.
• Chapter 2 looks at those issues that cut across the entire program.
21
-------
Chapter 3 addresses the Superfund response program—the removal and remedial
programs.
Chapter 4 discusses the enforcement program.
Chapter 5 looks at the role of research and technology as support for Superfund
work.
Chapter 6 discusses some overall issues associated with management and support
of the Superfund program.
Chapter 7 looks at ways to optimize the resources used by the Superfund program,
considering special accounts, different types of contract mechanisms, and how the
Agency works with other federal agencies to cleanup sites.
Chapter 8 discusses the need for better performance measures for the program.
Chapter 9 identifies the recommendations that will strengthen the program's
accountability and will ultimately result in additional funds for long term
cleanups.
The appendices provide charts on Superfund resources and other supplemental
information.
22
-------
chapter i: Superfund Program Activities and
Resources
The goal of the Superfund program is to clean up uncontrolled hazardous waste sites that
pose unacceptable risks to human health and environment in a manner that restores these
sites to uses appropriate for nearby communities. The program was authorized under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980. The
key program functions involved in achieving this goal are response, enforcement,
research, and management and support. Below is a discussion of each of these functions
(organized by EPA organization) followed by a discussion of resources devoted to each
of these functions for FY 1999 and FY 2003.
Response Activities
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
As the national program manager (NPM), OSWER is responsible for developing,
implementing, monitoring, and evaluating the national policies and regulations for
cleaning up uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. In conjunction with the EPA Regions,
states, tribes, and other federal agencies, OSWER develops the policies, procedures and
methodologies for: (1) assessing sites to determine whether they meet the criteria for
federal Superfund response actions; (2) preventing, minimizing, or mitigating significant
threats at Superfund sites through removal actions; (3) generating accurate risk
assessment and cost performance data critical to providing the technical foundation for
decisions made in environmental cleanup programs; (4) identifying and marketing cost-
effective site assessment, monitoring, and cleanup technologies; and (5) identifying
Superfund cleanup research needs. OSWER is also responsible for managing the
contract laboratory program (CLP), which provides the Regions with sampling and
analytical capability for all phases of the program, and for collecting and managing key
program information through the Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation
and Liability Information System to monitor and evaluate program progress.
OSWER is the designated program lead responsible for ensuring that EPA as a whole is
prepared to respond to nationally significant events such as those which occurred on 9/11,
or the chemical and biological contamination on Capitol Hill. OSWER coordinates the
Agency's response to national emergencies; serves as the Agency's focal point for
coordinating internal activities; represents EPA with interagency organizations,
committees, and workgroups to coordinate federal activities; and ensures that EPA's
23
-------
programs and activities are consistent with the Department of Homeland Security's
national strategy.
The Regions with their state partners are responsible for cleaning up uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites, through either removal or remedial actions. Removal actions are
taken at sites when there is an immediate threat to human health and the environment, or
when removal actions would be the most cost-effective approach to address a particular
site. Remedial actions, conversely, occur at sites where removal actions have already
occurred, or where a longer term risk to human health and the environment exists.
Remedial cleanup activities take much longer and occur at sites that have been placed on
the Agency's National Priorities List (NPL). Cleanup can be performed either by the
Agency using Superfund resources (EPA personnel, contractors, states or other federal
agencies) or by potentially responsible parties (PRPs). In the latter case, EPA oversees
the cleanup of the site and is reimbursed for all of its work.
The Regions, in conjunction with their state partners, are responsible for identifying
potential uncontrolled hazardous waste sites; conducting a preliminary investigation to
determine the risks posed by sites and whether the sites score high enough to be
potentially placed on the NPL; and, in conjunction with EPA headquarters and the
appropriate state, determining if the sites will be placed on the NPL for subsequent
remedial action. In addition, the Regions identify parties potentially responsible for
creating the uncontrolled sites and seek to have them perform all cleanup work necessary
at the site.
Once a site is on the NPL, either EPA or a PRP is responsible for conducting a detailed
remedial investigation (RI) and subsequent feasibility study (FS) to determine the nature
and extent of the contamination, and to identify possible cleanup options that would
address the risks posed by the site. Following this, a decision is made and documented in
a record of decision (ROD). The ROD summarizes the results of the investigation and
describes how the site will be cleaned up. The process of remedy selection includes
robust community involvement, so that those most affected by the site can have a
significant role in choosing the solution.
After a remedy is selected, a design is completed, and actual construction to clean up the
site finally occurs. The time it takes from final listing on the NPL to construction
completion is about eight years, although this can vary considerably based on the site's
complexity.
This cleanup effort is under the direction of a remedial project manager (RPM), with
assistance from other individuals with specialties in risk assessment, hydrogeology,
sampling and analysis, and enforcement. Construction of the selected remedy is
conducted by qualified private-sector firms under contract with the Agency, or through
interagency agreements with other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. In a few instances the work has been done by the state where the site is
located, in which case EPA awards a grant to the state to fund the project.
24
-------
EPA Regional Laboratories
The EPA regional laboratories also play an important role in supporting the Superfund
program by conducting special sampling and analyses at removal or remedial sites, as
well as developing the analytical methodologies to be used to take special samples or
analyze special samples taken at sites. The laboratories also often manage the samples
for the CLP and perform the quality assurance and quality control tasks necessary for this
program.
Federal Facilities Response Program
Several federal facilities across the nation are contaminated with hazardous waste,
military munitions, radioactive waste, fuels, and a variety of other toxic contaminants.
These facilities include many different types of sites, such as formerly used defense sites;
active, closing, and closed installations; abandoned mines; nuclear weapons production
facilities; fuel distribution areas; and landfills. In many cases, federal facilities face
unique challenges with types of contamination (e.g., radiation, military munitions); the
size of the facility (e.g., the Department of Energy's Hanford facility spans more than
500 square miles—the size of Rhode Island); and the complexities of environmental
issues related to reuse (e.g., base closure).
OSWER works with the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Energy
(DOE), other federal agencies, states, tribes, and the public to find protective, creative,
and cost-effective cleanup solutions, while encouraging restoration and property reuse.
The Federal Facilities program provides technical and regulatory oversight at federal sites
to ensure protection of human health, effective program implementation, and meaningful
public involvement. The Agency encourages citizen involvement by working with DOD
to establish Restoration Advisory Boards and with DOE to establish Site-Specific
Advisory Boards.
Office of Air and Radiation
OAR provides enhanced expertise, field support, and site-specific analyses to the
Regions, particularly with respect to issues associated with radiation at sites across the
country. Another important area is OAR's support for the Agency's emergency response
and counterterrorism activities, acting as the lead office for the Radiological Emergency
Response Team (a special team under the National Contingency Plan), providing
technical support for emergency response at radiologically contaminated removal sites,
and sponsoring training exercises and events, such as the annual On-Scene Coordinator
(OSC) Readiness Conference.
Other Federal Agencies
Several federal agencies provide support to the Superfund response program.
25
-------
U.S. Coast Guard—Through its Captain of the Port network, the USCG provides OSCs
in coastal areas and in that capacity leads the federal response to oil spills and releases of
hazardous materials. The USCG Strike Teams, which operate out of three locations
nationally, support both EPA OSCs in inland emergencies and USCG OSCs in coastal
responses. The Strike Teams are composed of highly trained personnel available 24/7
who, in addition to emergency response, can support EPA with training, health, and
safety advice and on-scene monitoring at Superfund removal actions. At oil spills they
can also assist with investigating spill reports, identifying PRPs, and documenting actions
for cost recovery.
Department of the Interior—Several bureaus within DOI assist the Agency in carrying
out its Superftind program. The Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service assist EPA on technical issues associated with the impacts of Superfund sites on
natural resources. The Bureau of Reclamation serves a role similar to that of the Corps of
Engineers in managing construction, and the U.S. Geological Survey often provides
technical assistance on groundwater issues. As a natural resource trustee, DOI also has
an independent role in calculating the value of natural resource damages and seeking to
recoup those claims. The Department also coordinates with Regional Response Teams
(RRTs), particularly on major oil spills.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—NOAA, which is also a natural
resource trustee, addresses coastal resource issues, particularly sediment chemistry and
toxicity in coastal ecosystems. NOAA also provides support to RRTs and states in the
areas of contingency planning, preparedness evaluation, and training.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (now part of the Department of Homeland
Security)—FEMA manages and coordinates training programs for state and local
governments and participates on the National Response Teams (NRTs) and RRTs.
FEMA also works closely with OSCs during floods and other natural disasters, and
supports the National Contingency Plan (NCP) and national response system through
preparedness exercises.
Department of Labor—DOL's Occupational Safety and Health Administration assists the
NRTs and RRTs, and supports enforcement efforts on issues associated with worker
health and safety for both removal and remedial actions.
Enforcement Activities
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OECA is responsible for developing, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating the
national policies and procedures for maximizing the number of Superfund cleanups
conducted by PRPs. The objective of OECA's efforts is to ensure that in getting
responsible parties to clean up sites the enforcement program is fair. Almost the entire
enforcement program is implemented by the EPA Regions under OECA's guidance and
policy.
26
-------
The Superfund program's focus on "enforcement first"—finding and entering into
consent order agreements with PRPs to fund both studies and cleanups at sites where they
contributed to the contamination—has proven critical to accomplishing the program's
overall mission: cleaning up contaminated sites, hi recent years, EPA has successfully
encouraged or compelled PRPs to fund or undertake cleanup at more than 70 percent of
new cleanup work at nonfederal facility sites. The enforcement program also recoups
from responsible parties monies spent by the Agency on cleanup activities. By leveraging
private resources, the Superfund program is able to direct its limited response budget
toward high-priority orphan sites (sites with no viable PRPs). EPA also enters into
Federal Facility Agreements to encourage and oversee progress at federally owned sites.
Department of Justice
DOJ also plays an important role in supporting the Agency's Superfund enforcement
activities by litigating and settling cleanup agreements and cost recovery cases in support
of OECA and OSWER activities. DOJ also defends EPA against citizen suits, pre-
enforcement review cases, reimbursement claims, and challenges to EPA administrative
civil decisions.
Appendix C provides a summary of major response and enforcement accomplishments.
Research Activities
Office of Research and Development
ORD conducts both site-specific and national research and development activities. More
specifically, ORD supports the Superfund program by providing analytical tools,
techniques, and technologies to assess risks to health and the environment from
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, and by developing technologies for cost-effective
characterization and remediation. Superfund long-term research focuses on five program
areas: (1) reducing uncertainties associated with soil and ground water sampling and
analysis; (2) reducing the tune and cost associated with site characterization and site
remediation activities; (3) evaluating the magnitude of the risks posed by contaminants to
human health and ecosystems, as well as the contributions of multiple exposure
pathways, the bioavailability of adsorbed contaminants and treatment residuals, and the
lexicological properties of contaminant mixtures; (4) developing and demonstrating more
effective and less costly remediation technologies involving complex sites and hard-to-
treat wastes; and (5) generating accurate risk assessment and cost-performance data
critical to providing the technical foundation for decisions made in environmental
cleanup programs.
The ORD laboratories provide direct technical support to regional staff working on
Superfund sites hi a number of ways. At the staffs request, ORD assists hi evaluating
the efficiency and effectiveness of potential cleanup technologies, reviewing cleanup
plans, supporting the Regions in characterizing the nature and extent of multimedia site
27
-------
contamination, and developing quick-turn-around methodologies to assess potential risks
at sites. ORD also conducts national seminars on particular issues of concern, such as
contaminated groundwater and contaminated sediments, and provides technical support
materials to the Regions on particular subjects. In addition, ORD research scientists are
on call 24/7 to respond to questions from regional staff and other key stakeholders.
Management and Support Activities
Several EPA offices in headquarters and the Regions support the Superfund program in
such areas as budget, financial management, contracts management, grants
administration, human resources, legal counsel, information management, and facilities
management.
Office of Administration and Resources Management
OARM is responsible for providing the management and support services necessary for
all other EPA offices to operate efficiently and effectively. Headquarters and regional
offices support the Superfund program by hiring and training Superfund staff and
ensuring they work in a healthy, safe, and secure environment. OARM headquarters
develops and implements the contracts, grants, and interagency policies and procedures
necessary to support the program. The Regions and headquarters award and assist in the
monitoring and closeout of grants and interagency agreements. Headquarters and
regional contracting officers work closely with the Superfund program to plan and
procure contractual support for the removal, remedial, and enforcement programs.
Headquarters also develops and implements the necessary financial systems to monitor
contract, grant, and interagency agreement obligations and expenditures.
Facilities operations include rent paid to the General Services Administration and others;
use of space; preventive maintenance of existing space; security and property
management; printing services; postage and mail services; transportation services;
Agency recycling; and health, safety, and environmental compliance activities, including
medical monitoring, audits, and training.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
OCFO manages Superfund budget formulation, justification, and execution, as well as
financial cost recovery. Headquarters and the Regions provide the Superfund program
with the day-to-day services that other programs receive. However, in addition, the
Regions support the financial requirements that are unique to the Superfund program.
Working with the Cincinnati Financial Management Office, the Regions establish,
monitor, manage, and close out special accounts (funds that the Regions have negotiated
as part of consent decrees from PRPs for site-specific work). The Regions also work with
their program counterparts to collect and obligate funds on remedial actions from the
states as part of the Superfund State Contracts. OCFO also manages oversight billings
for Superfund site cleanups (the cost of overseeing PRPs' cleanup activities) and refers
oversight debts to the Department of Justice when the Agency is not paid.
28
-------
OCFO works to maintain the strongest budget possible for the program, maximize returns
to the Trust Fund, account accurately for Superfund resources, and associate program
costs and results in meaningful ways to communicate Superfund's effectiveness and
efficiencies to the public.
OCFO systems (financial management, payroll, etc.) converge in a data warehouse that
provides Superfund managers with timely, easily accessed reports about program costs to
support their day-to-day decision making.
OCFO senior managers and staff also invest considerable time and effort providing
information about Superfund resource management to oversight organizations, including
the General Accounting Office and the Office of the Inspector General These activities,
as a whole, relieve OSWER and OECA of many time- and labor-intensive administrative
tasks, thus enabling the program to concentrate on programmatic work.
Office of Environmental Information
Established in FY 2000, OEI ensures that accurate, timely, and usable environmental
information is made available to program and regional offices within EPA, as well as
states, tribes, industry, and others responsible for protecting human health and the
environment. OEI headquarters and regional staff support the Superfund program by
providing telecommunications services, such as Local Area Network services, network
and application server administration, Internet and Intranet web access operations and
maintenance, and secure system administration. OEI works with the rest of the Agency
to ensure that system standards are in place.
Office of the General Counsel
OGC supports both headquarters and regional offices by ensuring that national policies
and individual site decisions are consistent with both the intent of the Superfund statute
and associated regulations promulgated in the NCP.
Office of the Inspector General
OIG is responsible for conducting audits and investigations of Superfund administrative
and financial activities to ensure that the program is delivered effectively, efficiently, and
economically and is in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. OIG audits and
investigations assist the Agency in identifying areas of potential risk and necessary
improvements that can significantly contribute to EPA's fulfilling its complex mission.
OIG also investigates alleged fraud, waste, abuse, or other illegal activities by EPA
employees, contractors, and grantees. Investigations may result in referrals for criminal
prosecution and civil actions; indictments and convictions; fines, restitutions, and civil
recoveries; suspensions, debannents, and other administrative actions; identification of
systemic vulnerabilities and improvements in programs and operations; and savings or
29
-------
economic benefits. Fraud awareness briefings are held to increase the awareness of
integrity issues throughout the Agency.
30
-------
Program Resources
Table 1 provides a summary of Agency resources devoted to Superfund activities by
function for FY 1999 and FY 2003; all numbers are from the Agency's enacted operating
plan. As seen, $1.27 billion and 3,458 work years (FTE) were allocated to Superfund
activities in FY 2003. This represents a decrease of $234 million and 281 FTE from FY
1999 resource levels, or decreases of 15.6% in total dollars and 7.5% in FTE,
respectively. Because some of this change was a result of the Brownfields Program
being funded out of other EPA appropriations in FY 2003, the actual decreases to the
Superfund program were $143.9 million (10.2% reduction) and 208.3 FTE (5.7%
reduction).
Within these overall resource levels, the following changes occurred between FY 1999
and FY 2003:
• The response function consists of two offices ~ the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) and the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR).
— OSWER (both headquarters and the Regions) decreased by 11.1 % percent in
total dollars and 3.7% in FTE.
-OAR decreased by 4.3% in total dollars; OAR's FTE increased by 3 or 25%.
—These numbers exclude resources allocated to other federal agencies, the
Brownfields program, Base Restoration and Closure, and Homeland Security.
• The enforcement function consists of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance. OECA (both headquarters and the Regions) decreased by 1.9% in
total dollars and 3.1% in FTE.
—These also excluded resources devoted to homeland security, the Brownfields
program, and funding for the Department of Justice.
• The management and support function consists of six offices - the Office of
Administration and Resources Management (OARM), the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer (OCFO), the Office of Environmental Information (OEI), the
Office of General Counsel (OGC), the Office of the Administrator (OA), and the
Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation (OPEI). The total function increased
by 8.5% in total dollars and decreased by 19.5% in FTE. Since this function is
composed of multiple offices, it is best to look at the changes in the individual
offices - which only can be accomplished by examining the changes between FY
2000 (when the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) was established) and
FY 2003. For more detailed resource charts that include FY 2000 funding, see
Appendices D, E and F.
-OARM's total dollars have increased by $6.6 million from FY 2000 to FY
2003 or 8.5%. However, part of this increase is due to the rent increase of $2.8
million over this same time period. OARM's FTE decreased by 2.5%.
31
-------
--From FY 2000 through FY 2003, OEI's Superfund total dollars have increased
by $4.6 million, or 32.1%, while FTE decreased by 2.4%.
—The Office of the Chief Financial Officer's total funding has increased by $3.2
million, or 12.6%, from FY 2000 through FY 2003, while FTE decreased by
3.5%.
—These reductions do not include funding for the Office of the Administrator
and the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. These offices did not receive
Superfund resources after FY 2000.
— These numbers excluded resources allocated for the Brownfields program.
• The Superfund program's research function decreased by 9.8% percent in total
dollars and 14.5% in FTE. (The Office of Research and Development receive
resources for their Superfund work in the Science and Technology appropriation).
—This excludes resources devoted to homeland security.
• The Office of the Inspector General's total funding increased by 17.6% and its
FTE decreased by 4.9% from FY 1999 to FY 2003. (The Office of the Inspector
General receive their resources in the Inspector General appropriation).
A more detailed summary of Agency resources devoted to the Superfund program can be
found in Appendices D, E and F. Appendix D summarizes Superfund resources by
national program manager (NPM). NPM includes resources managed by both
headquarters and regional organizations. Appendix E summarizes Superfund resources
managed by EPA Headquarters organizations while Appendix F provides a summary of
Superfund resources managed by the EPA Regions. Each of the tables found in these
appendices provide detailed FTE and dollar resources data, including information on
payroll, travel and contracts.
32
-------
Table 1: Superfund Program Resources (FTE and Total Dollars)*
FY 1999 and FY 2003
Function/Organization
RESPONSE
OSWER Hdqtrs
Regions
Sub-Total
Homeland Security
Hdqtrs
Regions
Sub-total
Brownfields
Hdqtrs
Regions
Sub-total
Other Federal Agencies
DOI
FEMA
USCG
NOAA
OSHA
NIEHS
ATSDR
Sub-Total
Base Restoration & Closure
OAR
TOTAL RESPONSE
ENFORCEMENT
OECA Hdqtrs
Regions
Sub-Total
Homeland Security
Hdqrtrs
Regions
Sub-Total
Brownfieids
Hdqtrs
Regions
Sub-Total
DOJ Transfer
Total ENFORCEMENT
MANAGEMENT & SPT
OARM
OARM Hdqtrs
Regions
Sub-total
Brownfields
Regions
Total OARM
OEI
OEI Hdqtrs
Regions
Total OEI
FY 1999 OP Plan
FTE
228.9
1287.3
1516.2
17.4
56.9
74.3
143.0
12.0
1745.5
199.3
959.3
1158.6
5.8
5.8
1164.4
115.6
197.3
312.9
1.3
314.2
$Total
$ 140.00
$ 772.90
$ 912.90
$ 30.30
$ 59.70
$ 90.00
$ 1.00
$ 1.10
$ 4.80
$ 2.40
$ 0.70
$ 60.00
$ 76.00
$ 146.00
$ 2.30
$1.151.20
$ 32.50
$ 112.20
$ 144.70
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 29.00
$ 174.10
$ 57.50
$ 31.20
$ 88.70
$ 0.10
$ 88.80
FTE (% of
Total)
6.1%
34.4%
40.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
1.5%
2.0%
0.3%
46.7%
5.3%
25.7%
31.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
31.1%
3.1%
5.3%
8.4%
8.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
$ (% of
Total)
9.3%
51 .6%
60.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.2%
0.0%
4.0%
5.1%
9.7%
0.2%
76.8%
2.2%
7.5%
9.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
11.6%
3.8%
2.1%
5.9%
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
FY 2003 Op Plan
FTE
219.8
1239.8
1459.6
22.0
33.0
55.0
77.5
15.0
1607.1
197.8
925.3
1123.1
6.0
6.0
1129.1
105.9
124.5
230.4
230.4
4.5
27.7
32.2
$Total
$ 121.20
$ 690.40
$ 811.60
$ 22.20
$ 15.80
$ 38.00
$ 1.00
$ 1.10
$ 5.50
$ 2.40
S 0.70
$ 10.70
$ 2.20
$ 862.50
$ 35.60
$ 106.40
$ 142.00
$ 0.80
$ 0.80
$ 28.00
$ 170.80
$ 62.80
$ 21.80
$ 84.60
$ 84.60
$ 8.80
$ 10.20
$ 19.00
FTE (% of
total)
6.4%
35.8%
42.2%
0.6%
1 .0%
1 .6%
0.4%
46.5%
5.7%
26.8%
32.5%
0.2%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
32.6%
3.1%
3.6%
6.7%
6.7%
0.1%
0.8%
0.9%
$ (% of
Total)
9.6%
54.6%
64.2%
1 .8%
1.2%
3.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.4%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
0.2%
68.2%
2.8%
8.4%
11.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
2.2%
13.5%
5.0%
1.7%
6.7%
6.7%
0.7%
0.8%
1.5%
%FTE
Change
FY99-FY03
-4.0%
-3.7%
-3.7%
25.0%
-7.9%
-0.8%
-3.5%
-3.1%
-3.0%
-8.4%
-36.9%
-26.4%
-26.7%
% $ total
Change
FY99-FY03
-13.4%
-10 7%
-11.1%
0.0%
0.0%
14.6%
0.0%
0.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-92.7%
-4.3%
-25.1%
9.5%
-5.2%
-1.9%
-3.4%
-1.9%
9.2%
-30.1%
-4.6%
-4.7%
33
-------
Function/Organization
OCFO
OCFO Hdqtre
Regions
Sub-total
Brownfields
Regions
Total OCFO
OGC
OGC Hdqtrs
Regions
Sub-total
Brownfields
Regions
Total OGC
OA
OA Hdqtre
Regions
Total OA
OPPE
Brownfields
TOTAL OPPE
TOTAL. M&S
OIG
ORD
Homeland Security
Total ReMarch
Grand Total
Grand Total (w/o BRAC)
FY 1999 OP Plan
FTE
847
158.3
243.0
0.8
2438
8.2
21.1
29.3
1.1
30,4
11.8
11.8
5.9
5.9
606.1
990
124.9
124.9
37399
3596.9
VTotal
$ 14.80
$ 10.50
$ 25.30
$ 0.10
$ 25.40
$ 1.30
$ 1.90
$ 3.20
$ 0.10
$ 3.30
$ 1.00
$ 310
$ 4.10
$ 0.90
$ 0.90
$ 122.50
$ 10.80
$ 39.80
$ 39.80
$1.498.40
$1,49840
FTE (% of
Total)
2.3%
4.2%
6.5%
0.0%
6.5%
0.2%
0.6%
0.8%
0.0%
0.8%
0.2%
0.2%
16.2%
2.6%
3.3%
0.0%
3.3%
100.0%
S (% of
Total)
1.0%
0.7%
1.7%
0.0%
1.7%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
8.2%
0.7%
2.7%
0.0%
2.7%
100.0%
FY 2003 Op Plan
i ; FTE (% of i $ (% of
FTE ! $Total i total) ! Total)
76.9
144.1
221.0
221.0
4.4
4.4
4.4
488.0
94.1
106.8
33.2
1400
3458.3
3380.8
$ 14.10 ! 2.2%
$ 14.40
$ 28.50
$ 28.50
$ 0.80
$ 080
$ 0.80
$ 132.90
$ 1270
$ 35.90
$ 49.70
$ 85.60
$1,264.50
$1.264.50
4.2%
6.4%
6.4%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
14.1%
2.7%
3.1%
1.0%
4.0%
100.0%
1.1%
1.1%
2.3%
2.3%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
10.5%
10%
2.8%
3.9%
6.8%
1000%
%FTE i %$ total
Change i Change
FY99-FY03JFY99-FY03
-9.2%
-9.0%
-9.4%
-100.0%
-85.5%
-19.5%
-4.9%
-14.5%
0.0%
12.1%
-7.5%
-6.0%
-4.7%
37 1%
12.2%
-100.0%
-75.8%
8.5%
17.6%
-9.8%
0.0%
115.1%
-15.6%
-15.6%
Total dollars do not include carryover from previous year
" Numbers may not add due to rounding
RENT was $34.3 million in FY 1999 and $42.7 million in FY 2003
34
-------
chapter 2: Improving Superfund Program
Integration and Communication
The success of the Superfund program has been and is dependent upon the partnership
and collaboration of many of the Agency Offices and all of the Regions. The issues
identified in this section of the study are those issues which could both strengthen this
partnership and affect all offices that have Superfund responsibilities and resources. In
addition, the Study team has identified some global program issues which could impact
multiple offices. Some of these issues may have more detailed recommendations in other
chapters.
Improving Overarching Leadership
Several interviewees suggested a need for greater overall program coordination and
integration of the efforts among the various offices (including the Regions) with
Superfund responsibilities. With resources spread broadly across multiple EPA
headquarters offices and the Regions, efforts end up less focused and less mutually
supportive because different parts of the organization see themselves as beholden to their
own program areas, rather than responsible for achieving overarching programmatic
goals and mandates.
Recommendation 1: The Deputy Administrator should create an internal Superfund
Board of Directors to improve program coordination, integration and accountability. The
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Assistant Administrator
would chair this board which will be made up of EPA Assistant Administrators who
manage Superfund resources and functions. The board would be co-chaired by the Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OEC A) Assistant Administrator. Regional
input would be secured at a minimum through the participation of the lead Region for
Superfund. The board would address cross-cutting issues, set overarching Agency
policies and priorities, and provide analytical support on cross-cutting management
issues. (A rotating staff—detailed for six months at a time—could conduct analyses like
those identified in this report, and the board could then act upon the findings.) (Near
term)
The study team has identified four additional options as alternatives to the above
recommendation:
35
-------
Option 1: Designate a Senior Superfund Program Manager with responsibility and
authority across all Superfund resources. Under this proposal, this individual would
report directly to the Deputy Administrator, and the function would be the person's sole
duty. The Senior Superfund Program Manager would focus on overall Agency-wide
management issues, rather than on response execution (i.e., not oversight/review of
remedy selection).
Option 2: Fulfill the same function as in Option 1 through a multi-office Deputy
Assistant Administrator-level Board of Directors that includes regional representation.
This approach recognizes that because several EPA headquarters offices and Regions
have a stake in decisions and a role in their implementation, having broad input and
shared decision-making responsibility is appropriate. Under this option, leadership of
this boaru would rotate regularly.
Option 3: As a hybrid of Options 1 and 2, establish the Senior Superfund Program
Manager position and designate a Superfund Board of Directors. The Senior Superfund
Program Manager would chair the board and serve on behalf of the Deputy
Administrator.
Option 4: In lieu of a Senior Superfund Program Manager, designate or delegate as
much responsibility and authority for the Superfund program as possible to the OSWER
Assistant Administrator, who would be responsible for setting Agency-wide Superfund
policy spanning response, enforcement, research and development, and resource
management, with all the staff working in these areas taking policy direction from this
single Assistant Administrator.
Articulating the Goals and Measuring Progress of Today's Superfund Program
A clear strength of the Superfund program is its ability to mobilize a range of technical
and programmatic assets to accomplish a variety of tasks. Far from a one-dimensional
cleanup program, Superfund has continued to apply new approaches, like the use of
SuperfUnd Alternative Sites, and adopt new ways of leveraging other authorities and
resources to achieve cleanups.
One reason the Superfund program has evolved in this way is the significant change in
the type and number of sites. Today's Superfund sites are far more varied than sites like
Love Canal and Valley of the Drums, which provided the initial impetus for the
program's formation. Listing such a wide variety of sites has, in turn, created the
expectation among many groups that Superfund will virtually always be a safety net to
provide cleanups when other response mechanisms or programs cannot achieve them.
This strength has created an expectation that Superfund will rise to the task when new or
significant problems arise. Perhaps the most recent example is the application of EPA's
capability to respond to terrorist incidents and the Columbia space shuttle disaster.
The availability of so many options and permutations, however, also can be a weakness if
the goals of the Superfund program are not clearly identified and articulated. Currently,
36
-------
with respect to National Priorities List (NPL) sites alone, the program is seeking to meet
at least four different goals: completing all construction at a site, maintaining work at all
ongoing remedial actions, addressing worst sites first for new starts, and making sites
ready for reuse. Also, some EPA Regions have an additional and significant commitment
to cleaning up Superfund Alternative Sites. All of these goals are competing for the same
limited resources. The study team's sense from discussing the Superfund program with a
wide spectrum of interested parties is that, at present, program leadership needs to more
finely hone the program's goals and more clearly articulate the relative priority among
these goals.
Recently, even the emphasis on directing more resources to remedial actions (the focus of
this report) suggests an opportunity to improve how the Agency tracks and communicates
both internally and externally the accomplishments of the Superfund program. For
example, if a traditional remedial action, a non-time-critical removal, a Superfund
Alternative Site cleanup, and a state voluntary cleanup program remedy motivated by a
threat of potential NPL listing all achieve substantially the same result, why is the
Agency not more accomplished at gathering data on these actions and reporting them
collectively as a success story? EPA has begun to do this by reporting Superfund
Alternative Site completions in the same way as NPL completions, but until the Agency
can report on the full impact of Superfund, its observers, including members of Congress,
will not understand how much the program has actually accomplished.
Discussions during many of the interviews conducted by the study team, and the regional
responses to interview questions, suggest that Superfund performance measures often do
not encourage program coordination, cooperation, and collaboration. This is part of the
reasoning behind the recommendation for the Superfund Board of Directors presented in
the previous section, but it also points to the need for more clearly defined and articulated
goals for the program.
Recommendation 2: Senior program managers should evaluate the program's current
goals and objectives and clearly communicate the hierarchy among these goals to ensure
that Superfund resources are properly directed to achieve the Agency's most important
goals. This action is critical in the area of NPL site cleanups to ensure that the limited
funds available for long term cleanups (remedial actions) are maximized and
appropriately allocated. (Near term)
Recommendation 3: OSWER and the lead Region should spearhead an effort to
develop performance measures that are consistent with the newly articulated hierarchy of
goals. For example, if the Agency decides to count cleanups, no matter what the source,
the performance measure should include NPL construction completions, Superfund
Alternative Site completions, removal actions that complete all of the work at an NPL
site, and voluntary cleanups. (Near term)
37
-------
Clarifying the Role of the NPL
The study team's interviews support the view that a strong federal Superfund program—
which includes listing, studies, and cleanups, as necessary—is Vital to the success of the
Brownfields and state voluntary cleanup programs. A robust federal program provides a
powerful incentive for private parties to do work under state regulatory and voluntary
programs. The continued listing of sites on the NPL is needed to create the "gorilla in the
closet" effect, which increases the effectiveness of these other programs. A strong and
balanced federal program also encourages responsible parties to undertake cleanup,
whether at an NPL or non-NPL site.
In addition, if the Agency artificially constrains NPL listing, it is not accurately depicting
for Congress or the public the true magnitude of the potential Superfund universe.
Although fewer sites today than at the program's inception require NPL listing, many of
the people interviewed by the study team fully expect the need for listing to continue.
The challenge is to create a list of sites that truly need to be addressed, while being
mindful of the potential to create a backlog of NPL sites that lie dormant due to a lack of
funds.
Recommendation 4: OSWER and the Regions should work together to maintain a
sufficient rate of listing on the NPL to provide a clear incentive for potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) to perform work under the Superfund program as well as other
programs or authorities. (Near term)
Using Fund-Lead Work as an Enforcement Lever
Individuals inside and outside EPA have noted the importance of managing the annual
appropriation so that it is clear to PRPs that sufficient funds are always available for
starting cleanup work, if they fail to. Without those funds (and a general awareness of
those funds), PRPs have less of an incentive to negotiate with the Agency to conduct
work at sites, and the recalcitrant behavior of some PRPs is not quickly addressed.
Recommendation 5: OSWER should allocate resources to start Fund-lead actions (work
conducted at Superfund sites by EPA) at every step in the Superfund pipeline, thereby
motivating PRPs to commit to taking on work and freeing up appropriated dollars over
the longer term. (Near term)
Supporting EPA's One Cleanup Goal
The One Cleanup Program is EPA's vision for managing its various cleanup programs so
that at all levels of government can work together to improve the coordination, speed, and
effectiveness of cleanups at contaminated sites. The program envisions similar outcomes
for similar site situations, regardless of whether EPA is cleaning up a Superfund site, a
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action site, or a leaking
underground storage tank. For the same pollutants in a similar situation, the program
should achieve an equivalent result.
38
-------
To achieve this goal, EPA is implementing and promoting management activities that
require coordination and planning among the various EPA, state, tribal, federal, and local
cleanup programs. EPA is also developing information systems that will allow different
programs to easily share and communicate cleanup information to the public. Finally,
EPA is collaborating with its partners to develop better performance measures that
demonstrate the overall effectiveness and benefit of the nation's combined cleanup
efforts.
Recommendation 6: OSWER should promote the One Cleanup Program more
aggressively and set more ambitious targets for policy and guidance development in order
to continue to improve the coordination, speed, and effectiveness of cleanups. (Near
term)
Recommendation 7: OSWER and OECA should build upon their work to improve and
strengthen performance measurement by establishing measures that encourage the
various cleanup approaches to complement each other. For example, OSWER could
adopt a measure that treats a Superfund Alternative Site completion like an NPL
construction completion, and an NPL construction completion like a fully protective
removal action. OSWER should also consider broadening this measure to incorporate
RCRA corrective actions under a "one cleanup" umbrella. (Near term)
Measuring Performance
At one time in the past, tracking and reporting Superfund accomplishments were
overemphasized, and virtually every milestone in the cleanup process was closely
monitored. Regions were able to assert that the administrative burden of this work hardly
justified the trade-off in available time to perform work more directly related to actual
cleanups. Today, although many of these measures remain, EPA is recognizing the need
for more integrated performance measures and monitoring tools. Consequently, the
Superfund program is developing useful and appropriate efficiency measures. This effort
was selected to receive additional support through the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer/Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation (OCFO/OPEI) Measures
Development competition. To date, the program has convened a workgroup to
brainstorm and study a wide variety of potential efficiency measures, including long-term
efficiency, annual efficiency, and program management types of measures. Current
efforts are focused on the feasibility, appropriateness, and usefulness of the identified
potential measures. The program plans to select and implement at least one new measure
for FY 2005.
Recommendation 8: All national program managers (NPMs) with Superfund resources,
with their Lead Regions, should adopt and track a manageable number of meaningful
regionally specific performance measures; ensure data systems are in place to facilitate
timely and accurate reporting; and consider using measures beyond traditional cleanup
milestones, including financial management, resource utilization, and cost recovery
effectiveness. (Near term)
39
-------
Recommendation 9: OSWER and OECA should consider adopting goals that cut across
different program activities (e.g., cleanup completions through use of any tool or
combination of tools) to improve teamwork and gain full recognition for all work that
produces similar outcomes. (Near term)
Preventing Future Sites
The prevention of a continually expanding Superfund site universe will depend largely
upon a strong RCRA program. Some sites are on the NPL that as a direct result of
insufficient financial assurances to fund the cleanup necessary when the facility at that
location ceased operation. Similarly, removal actions occur at RCRA generators, which
are not required to provide financial assurances. The Agency eventually lists some of
these sites on the NPL.
A number of interviewees think that certain decisions made in the RCRA program may
result in the need for additional future cleanups under Superfund. For example, there is a
fairly broadly held belief that EPA could substantially reduce future Superfund workload
if it revamped regulations and policies that enable the start-up and continuation of
operations that handle hazardous wastes, but whose financial and/or technical
wherewithal to prevent or respond to releases is questionable.
Recommendation 10: OSWER should evaluate the history of NPL listings and removal
actions to determine what percent were RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
or hazardous waste generators and to what extent these facilities present a continuing
burden to the Superfund program. (Near term)
Recommendation 11: If the evaluation confirms a high correlation with RCRA-
regulated facilities, OSWER and OECA should examine different approaches to financial
assurance under the RCRA program to reduce the likelihood of RCRA-regulated
facilities becoming part of the future Superfund universe. (Long term)
Recommendation 12: For facilities not covered under RCRA, OSWER should study
whether promulgating new regulations under CERCLA's broad financial assurance
authorities could reduce the future needs of the Superfund program. (Long term)
Communicating Program Funding Within and Outside of EPA
Congress and others outside the Agency have expressed concern that the Agency is not
spending enough money on cleaning up Superfund sites. In its FY 2004 report, the
Senate Appropriations Committee noted that the Agency was spending only 16 percent of
the annual appropriation on site construction and long term response actions and directed
the Agency to spend no less than the 22 percent of the annual appropriation. When the
Conference Committee completed its work on the Agency's 2004 budget, it did not direct
the Agency to target a specific percentage of funding to site construction.
40
-------
A concern within EPA is that expenditures for long term cleanups (remedial actions) and
long term response actions do not represent all of the funding being spent on cleanups.
The percentage referenced by the Senate Appropriations Committee understates the true
amount invested in cleanup because it only represents the money going to contractors and
other federal agencies. But more importantly, it does not include other key activities that
are speeding up all long term cleanups at Superfund sites. (The Agency does not estimate
specific payroll costs each year for these individual activities. Therefore, the Agency
could only capture these costs after the year ends.)
The cost of cleanup should include:
• The cost of short term cleanups (removals) at NPL sites;
• The cost of long term cleanups (remedial actions) and post construction work at
NPL sites;
• The cost of overseeing potentially responsible parties (PRPs) cleanup actions; and
• The EPA payroll costs associated with these actions.
Even the costs described above do not capture the very real costs of all of the necessary
steps that must occur before a site reaches the cleanup phase. These costs include:
• The cost of addressing immediate public health concerns (removal actions) at
non-NPL sites;
• The cost of discovering, listing, and studying sites to chose the right cleanup
approach;
• The cost of gathering analytical data to support the science behind the cleanup;
• The costs that support the identification of, and negotiations and settlements with,
PRPs to conduct feasibility studies and site designs; and
• The cost of technical assistance from the Office of Research and Development for
site characterization and remedy selection.
Over 70 percent of Superfund cleanups are currently performed by PRPs as a result of the
Agency's vigorous enforcement program. The costs of the enforcement program
typically are not included as part of the cost of cleanups.
Recommendation 13: The Agency should collect data at the end of the budget year on
the amount of funds spent on cleanup or on those activities that are necessary to get to the
cleanup phase and communicate the cost of cleanups more effectively. (These amounts
would include the contract and payroll costs associated with the activities defined above).
(Near Term)
Allocating Superfund Dollars Effectively
As part of its internal budget allocation process, EPA set up distinctions and definitions
for Superfund dollars, which are used today by Congress and the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). However, these definitions have become self-imposed limitations,
resulting in unnecessary internal transaction costs when money needs to be moved around
41
-------
or funds "transformed" lor different uses. For example, in FY 2004, for response
activities, the Regions now receive four separate allocations of contract funds in addition
to a separate allocation for payroll.
Recommendation 14: OSWER and the Regions, in coordination with OCFO, should
work together to identify ways to simplify the internal budget structure. If needed, the
Agency can work with OMB and Congress to implement the new structure so that funds
can be used as efficiently as possible. (Long term)
Improving Understanding of Funding Availability
Individuals inside and outside the Agency expressed a range of opinions on how
Superfund funding has been allocated and spent over the years. These perceptions
include a belief that only certain portions of the program have been cut by the President,
Congress, or as part of the development of the Agency's Operating Plan. In addition,
some people feel that EPA offices or Regions have not always spent the funds they have
received. Several people outside the Agency strongly expressed the opinion that the
original allocations made at the Superfund program's inception need to be examined
closely to determine if they still meet the needs of the program as it has evolved.
To complicate the issue further, the program has not always communicated the total
dollars available to conduct its work. For example, the Agency began establishing
special accounts many years ago, and the states are statutorily required to provide 10
percent of the funding for remedial actions. These dollars, however, are not identified as
a part of the Agency's funding to conduct its program.
Recommendation 15: OSWER and OECA should include special account and state cost
share as they allocate funds internally and communicate funding availability. (Near term)
42
-------
Figure 1: Superfund Dollars for FY 1999 & 2003 from Appropriations, Special
Accounts, and Superfund State Contracts
($ in millions)
$1.800 -,
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
$1,000
S800
$600
$400
$200
$0
:$32.o:
| $850 |
$1,498.4"
$1,264.5
O Superfund State Contract
Dollars (estimated 10% of RA
funds that year)
I! Special Account Dollars
Collected*
D Appropriated Funds
FY 1999
FY2003
*Dollars may only be used consistent with the consent decree.
**The FY 1999 operating plan included funding for the Brownfields program ($90 million) and ATSDR
and NIEHS ($130 million). These programs were funded by other appropriations in FY 2003.
Reducing Costs to Meet Numerical Targets
As discussed earlier, the Superfund program in recent years has lacked the funds to start
all long term cleanups that are ready to begin. While this shortfall cannot be overcome
by programmatic and resource changes alone, on numerous occasions, interviewees noted
that the Superfund program lacks an "always look for the most cost-effective approach"
culture. Although this critique is difficult to confirm or refute empirically, it seems likely
that across such a large budget, there is room for improvement if the pressure is there to
find it. Several individuals suggested the need to establish specific numerical budget-
reduction targets as a forcing mechanism to motivate innovation and creativity within the
appropriated budget. The notion is that mandated, tangible reductions that can be set and
tracked are much more likely to result in meaningful or innovative cost-saving efforts
than general encouragement or direction. The program could then direct resources from
the mandated reductions to identified priorities (e.g., remedial action funding or
enforcement contracts). This approach offers several options for achieving reductions:
-------
Option 1: Pro rata cut - The Agency should execute an across-the-board, pro rata cut
based on an estimated need for remedial action funding, and should make exceptions only
on an extremely limited basis. (Near term)
Once the cut is made, each organization can propose how it intends to implement the
reduction. This approach assumes there is enough leeway in all major areas supported by
Superfund dollars to make an across-the-board cut possible without weakening the
program, and also maximizes "sharing of the pain." On the other hand, this approach will
seem inequitable to offices that have adopted cost-conscious practices, and will
effectively reward those that have not. Therefore, this approach may need to be in
addition to—not in lieu of—other measures. To avoid actually slowing down cleanup
progress due to these cuts, the Agency will need to examine where efficiency
improvements can make up for decreased resources.
Option 2: Targeted cut - The Agency should mandate specified numerical reductions,
but target the reductions by amount and organization. (Near term)
This approach offers the ability to recognize program areas and offices that have already
received reductions or are striving for more efficient resource utilization.
Option 3: Hybrid approach - The Agency should set numerical targets in a tiered
structure, to achieve a hybrid between Option 1 and Option 2. (Near term)
Under this option, the Agency would establish both a relatively low-percentage, across-
the-board cut, as in Option 1, and additional percentage cuts tailored to specific functions
or organizations. This hybrid approach would acknowledge the distinction between
leaner, more efficient areas and areas that appear to be capable of sustaining steeper
reductions, while also preserving the notion that everyone is required to participate.
Option 4: No initial cuts - The Agency should make no cuts initially until it has
implemented some of the programmatic and management recommendations. (Long
term)
Sharing Regional FTEs and Resources across Regions
Nationally, the Superfund program has the skills and resources that have resulted in
cleaning up almost 900 NPL sites and over 7000 removal actions. However, since the
FTE distribution has remained relatively unchanged by Region since the early 1990's,
some Regions have been able to complete more of their Superfund workload than other
Regions.
hi addition, programmatic needs have change. For example, the emergency response
program has focused its work more nationally since September 11, 2001, with emergency
response assets in each Region strategically aligned to help respond to larger-scale
emergencies in other Regions. Work at sites after construction has been completed has
also grown significantly as more and more sites are completed.
44
-------
Also, Region 7's acquisition branch also services Region 10. While the savings of this
consolidation have not been quantified, Region 10 believes that the benefits clearly
outweigh the costs. It seems reasonable to assume that further consolidation of contracts
administration or other administrative functions (e.g., human resources, grants
management) would yield additional benefits.
Certain Regions clearly have developed strong programmatic capabilities in certain key
areas (e.g., PRP searches and contracting) relative to other Regions. In some instances,
one Region has a strong capability, but over time forecasts a decreasing need for that
capability, while another Region has that same need but has fewer FTE to do the work.
The interviews suggest that in the longer term, the overall FTE allocation among the
Regions needs to be revisited more fundamentally. In the early 1990's, the Agency chose
to no longer redistribute staff positions across the Regions on an annual basis, effectively
"freezing" the number of positions each Region receives. Therefore, baseline FTE
allocation has not been adjusted even though workloads have changed. A strong
perception - at the very least - remains that some Regions continue to reap a windfall
from this freezing of the FTE allocation.
The Agency has begun to develop workforce strategies that will assist every organization
with evaluating its current workforce's skills and abilities and planning for the Superfund
program's short and long term needs. For example, in the interviews, many managers
talked about the current and future issues that they and their staff are addressing,
including needing a better understanding of insurance and learning how to accelerate cost
recovery as the number of bankruptcies increases. Another emerging area is post-
construction care or assuring proper long term operations and maintenance at completed
sites. Many sites, although the responsibility of the states (for funding operation and
maintenance) or run by PRPs, will continue to require Agency attention. Many sites
where construction is complete have institutional controls in place to restrict access
because waste has been left on site. Monitoring and conducting the statutorily required
reviews of these sites will require expertise and resources, but much of this work, unlike
remedy selection and construction, could reasonably be shared between Regions.
Recommendation 16: All national program managers with Superfund resources should
evaluate and pursue opportunities for greater resource or work sharing among Regions,
especially in support areas. Where appropriate, the Agency should establish
consolidation targets, such as a specific number of contract management "centers" to
support all ten Regions, or specific types of analytical support being conducted by the
regional laboratories. (Long term)
Recommendation 17: The lead Region should facilitate a process that takes advantage
of capabilities already developed and demonstrated in areas of programmatic
specialization by encouraging Regions with needs in these areas to obtain support from
the Regions with the capability and capacity to take on more work. No actual FTE
adjustment is necessarily envisioned to implement this measure. Rather, the Region with
the established competency would be allowed to keep its FTE in return for assuming
45
-------
work to fill its capacity, while the Region with the need would be expected to transfer its
work, rather than receive more resources to acquire or develop its own competency.
Work for consideration could include a full range of activities from PRP searches and
technical assistance to cleaning up an entire site. (Long term)
Recommendation 18: The Agency should conduct benchmarking studies of regional
performance in both management and programmatic areas to ensure that all aspects of the
program are focusing on improving performance. Once an activity is benchmarked,
relevant offices should develop measures to ensure that underperforming Regions
improve their performance to benchmarked levels. Those measures could then be used as
standards for performance. (Long term)
Recommendation 19: The Agency should execute other smaller-scale adjustments as
appropriate, and begin setting the stage now for redistributing staff positions in FY 2007,
after the consolidations, specializations, and results of benchmarking have been reviewed
and incorporated. (Near term)
Evaluating Headquarters FTEs
By design, the Regions conduct the bulk of the Superfund program. When Superfund
was in its infancy, it was appropriate for regional implementation to be supported and
guided by a strong, centralized programmatic policy and oversight apparatus. Although
headquarters offices have reduced staffing levels in recent years, the question arises as to
whether the current level of headquarters staffing and skill mix is appropriate, now that
the program has matured.
Recommendation 20: The Agency should evaluate headquarters Superfund FTE and
make every effort to redirect resources to activities that more directly contribute to site
cleanups. (Near term)
Moving Funding via Immediate, One-time Opportunities
Interviews and data reviews have helped identify a number of one-time opportunities to
gain access to sums of money that could be distributed to remedial action work or other
priorities. Despite a number of years with total deobligations in the $100 million range,
significant amounts of money remain underutilized. Some Regions appear to be holding
this money as a hedge against tough financial times; the impetuses for this study suggest
that the Superfund program is experiencing these tough financial times. Three potential
areas for consideration include:
I A Gs, Grants, and Contracts—Even with the increased focus in recent years on
grants and contracts management, opportunities continue to exist across the
country for closing out lAGs, grants, and expired contracts. Reinforcing
established policies on when to process actions in conjunction with some
enhanced incentives (e.g., setting aside a central pool of money to address indirect
cost rate adjustments or other trailing costs, and simplifying the return of money
46
-------
to the deobligating Region for priority work) could encourage Regions to free up
funds for deobligation.
Superfund State Contracts—A review of site financial data and responses by
interviewees revealed that in a number of cases the Agency has deferred the
resolution of potentially tough issues related to Superfund State Contracts. In
some cases, the Agency has been slow in returning to states overpayments of state
matches, hi other cases, the Agency has been equally slow to collect required
state match payments. It also appears that the remedy selection process, through
the use of interim records of decision, has deferred starting the clock for state
take-over of potentially expensive long-term response actions. As a result, the
program does not appear to have established and reinforced a clear expectation for
the timely definition and completion of the appropriate state share of cleanup
costs.
Special Accounts—hi addition to discussions elsewhere in this report regarding
utilization of funds from special accounts, in some cases special account dollars
remain unobligated or unspent, even after a significant time beyond when work at
a site has been completed. At present, there does not appear to be particular
attention or pressure to identify and take the necessary steps to mobilize these
funds to help complete priority work.
While the majority of the actions required to free up monies in these three areas may be
routine, some of them may require policy and procedure revisions or clarifications. The
keys to success in reviewing obligated funds for possible deobligations are leadership by
one office and partnership across all offices and Regions. Over the last several years,
OSWER has taken a leadership role bringing together OECA, the Office of
Administration and Resources Management, OCFO and the Regions to focus on
deobligating available funds from contracts. This partnership has been successful and is
being expanded to include grants and interagency agreements. Also, while these one-
time savings are important, and freeing up this money will help with the shortfall now
being experienced for funding long term cleanups, this effort alone will not close the
funding gap for these remedial actions. Without a clear definition of expectations for
managing these funds and tracking of their management, significant funds could again
accumulate in these accounts.
Recommendation 21: EPA Regions and Headquarters should establish a schedule for
FY 2004 deobligations and initiate actions immediately so the funds will be available
during this fiscal year. (Near term)
Recommendation 22: OSWER and OECA should review guidance and policies to
ensure that they are addressing current and future needs and follow up with the Regions
on using the guidance and policies. For example, the guidance on Superfund State
Contracts is 14 years old and may need to be revisited to improve the timeliness of
receipt, obligation, and expenditure of funds. (Near term)
47
-------
(left blank)
48
-------
chapters: Capitalizing on Lessons Learned
for Cleanup Actions
As the heart of Superfund, the response program houses the staff and the resources
needed to clean up sites, including both short-term removal actions and longer-term
cleanups, known as remedial actions. Both parts of the response program have evolved
to meet an ever-changing list of Superfund sites, ranging from drum disposal sites to
landfills, abandoned smelters, and hard-rock mining sites. Today, in addition to
conducting removals at National Priorities List (NPL) sites and traditional emergencies,
on-scene coordinators (OSCs) are responding to events like the anthrax contamination on
Capitol Hill or the Columbia Space Shuttle incident. Remedial project managers (RPMs)
must also be prepared to handle new contaminants that have never been encountered on a
site before, along with more common sites such as landfills, abandoned chemical plants
and pesticide manufacturers.
The following discussion covers the different facets of the response program. Many of
the recommendations are designed to build on the past success, experience, and lessons
learned over Superfund's two-decade history. For example, increasing in-house work or
reexamining the records of decisions (RODs) for certain sites are two recommendations
that depend upon a mature response program. The ultimate success of several of these
recommendations is assisted by a series of cost management initiatives that have already
been initiated by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER).
OSWER's initiatives include updating the National Remedy Review Board (NRRB)
policy to expand the scope of the NRRB and encouraging the Regions to do more value
engineering during site design. This study recommends very similar reforms.
Using the NPL as an Incentive for Voluntary Cleanup Work
In light of funding shortages for long term cleanups for existing NPL sites, there has been
discussion in recent years that reducing the number of NPL listings is necessary in order
to focus resources on existing sites. Much attention has also been given to maximizing
the use of other state and federal cleanup authorities. While this is a sensible way to
manage the program, most of the leaders interviewed who are involved with Superfund
program implementation insist that the need to list sites on the NPL continues.
Knowledgeable practitioners across the entire spectrum interviewed by the study team
maintain that the legitimate potential of NPL listing encourages potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) to clean up sites under various state and federal programs. Without this
leverage, state Superfund and voluntary cleanup programs are less effective, and where
PRPs are unwilling to step forward, sites can still be cleaned up by EPA.
49
-------
Recommendation 23: OSWER should maintain a sufficient rate of listing on the NPL to
function as an incentive for PRPs to perform work under the Superfund program as well
as other programs or authorities. NPL listing is needed to relieve pressure on EPA
response funds by ensuring that PRPs fund work that is needed sooner rather than later.
(Long term)
Using Fund-Lead Work as an Enforcement Lever
Modest but meaningful investment in Fund-financed remedial investigation/feasibility
studies (RI/FSs) in certain situations at NPL sites encourages PRPs to do the up-front
studies and conduct subsequent remedial actions. Experience shows that in
circumstances where PRPs are actively resisting doing work at a site, allocating some
funds to enable EPA to conduct RJ/FSs actually increases PRP participation overall.
Greater PRP participation reduces the need for Fund-financed responses by EPA. Such
an approach allows the Agency to deal swiftly and early with recalcitrance, sets the tone
for later activity, and ensures there is no reward to PRPs for waiting for EPA to do the
work.
When given a second chance after initially declining the opportunity to participate in—
and thus help shape—site work, many PRPs reassess the potential benefits of conducting
the remedy. They believe that they can perform the construction faster and more cost
effectively than the government, and that they have greater control over the outcome.
Because the Agency can recover its costs plus treble damages for any work it performs,
knowing that EPA can and will conduct the work encourages activity and funding by
PRPs. This is true not only prior to listing, but also increases the likelihood of PRP
participation throughout the remedial process once a site is listed. PRP involvement
historically tends to increase as projects move through the cleanup program. This may be
due to a greater knowledge of the status of PRPs and/or the increased certainty once the
remedy is selected.
Recommendation 24: While continuing to stress early PRP search activity and
maximizing PRP involvement, OSWER should continue to target funds for Regions to
begin RI/FS work early where PRP recalcitrance is evident. (This is analogous to the
process used for remedial action funding.) (Near term)
Pursuing the Superfund Alternative Sites Approach
Under the Superfund Alternative Sites approach, EPA oversees PRP response actions at
sites that are eligible for NPL listing but not listed. The benefits of this approach are
prompt cleanup of high-risk sites, reduced need for EPA funding, and savings in time and
energy otherwise required for site listing. Nevertheless, EPA still expends resources for
oversight and, in many cases, for some of the site characterization (RI/FS). Such use of
resources may take assets from NPL cleanups in the Region or elsewhere in the country.
Moreover, because the Alternative Sites have not been subjected to any national priority
ranking process, EPA generally has not demonstrated clearly the appropriateness of
50
-------
addressing Alternative Sites relative to funding work at existing NPL sites. Superfund
managers are quick to acknowledge the potential benefits of a properly formulated and
managed Superfund Alternative Sites policy, hut stress the need to ensure effective
resource use hy explicitly balancing the risks across the universe of NPL and non-N'PL,
sites.
Currently, Regions vary in their use of Superfund Alternative Sites. Some promote the
approach strongly, while others view it cautiously or find it too confining to he worth
pursuing. PRP groups support some sort of alternative to the NPL, but because the
current Superfund Alternative Sites approach closely mirrors the National Contingency
Plan process with little perceived benefit to them, they do not support it enthusiastically.
Among the criticisms heard during interviews were a lack of transparency on site
assessment and information on pre-scoring, and inconsistency among Regions, leading
some interviewees to characteri/e the approach as being subject to abuse. From their
perspective, at least an NPL site goes through rigorous quality control and due process
before listing. Many believe that clearer expectations and criteria should be established
nationally for Superfund Alternative Sites.
Table 2: Percentage of NPL sites that are construction complete in a Region vs.
number of Superfund Alternative Sites
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
total
NPL
listings as
of
3/11/04*
112
262
206
210
300
120
81
67^
126
99
1583
CCasof
12/4/03
53
120
__,
128
221
65
43
26
55
60
890
% of sites
completed
47
46
~l8l
61
74
54
53
39
44
61
56
tfofSAS
initiated
as of
11/2003
1
L 8
i
^20j
39
6
16
9
0
9
109
* Listing includes proposed, final and
deleted
Beyond or instead of the formali/ed Superfund Alternative Sites approach, some Regions
engage in work at other sites that are not listed on the NPL. For instance, on occasion a
community may come to a Region with strong concerns about a state's performance at a
site under its state Superfund program. The site may or may not qualify for the NPL, but
the Region may deem it appropriate to invest significant remedial project manager (RPM)
and other technical oversight resources to track the state's work and ensure community
M
-------
concerns are being addressed. Some Regions consider having this kind of discretion
important for the program's overall effectiveness and responsiveness.
Recommendation 25: OSWER should revise the Superfund Alternative Site policy to
ensure that criteria for being a Superfund Alternative Site are uniform and that the
Regions provide the PRPs and other interested parties with transparent site assessment
and pre-scoring information. (Near term)
Recommendation 26: The Regions should establish and implement a process by which
Superfund alternative sites are prioritized along with their NPL sites to ensure that
response funds are being spent on the sites with the highest risk. Working on Superfund
Alternative Sites would depend on the needs of, risks from, and progress on existing NPL
sites. (Near term)
Recommendation 27: OSWER and the lead Region should work together to ensure all
site cleanup work (including work completed under the Alternative Site program) is
tracked and reported internally and externally to ensure the accomplishments of the
national program are appropriately communicated to the public and Congress. (Long
term)
Defining the Scope of Mega Sites Specifically and Early
When the Agency embarks upon listing a particular site on the NPL, the true scope of the
problem often is not clear, particularly for potential mega sites. The risk to the program
is that a relatively small number of very large and/or costly sites can encumber a
significant percentage of the Agency's remedial action budget for many years to come.
Figure 2: Cost of Remaining Fund-Lead NPL Sites vs. Cost of Completed Sites
,9 $120
o
$ -sr
w c
c O
at c
•5 •;;
a,
E I
3 S
1 °"
0>
I
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
$7
$15
^
Non-Mega Sites Mega Sites
H Construction Complete I I Not Construction Complete
IFMS and FY 2003 CERCLIS Obligation Data for End of FY 20O2
Costs Not Adjusted for Inflation
52
-------
Several program managers discussed the need to establish the true scope of such sites
more specifically as early in the process as possible. This could occur during the site
assessment process or soon after NPL listing, especially where the cost to address all
sources of risk may be beyond the program's resources. The longer the scope of such
sites is left undefined (and therefore left broad by default), the greater is the likelihood
that high expectations for a more expansive characterization and cleanup will arise and
become solidified. Early attention is needed to ensure EPA makes well thought-out
decisions about the scope of its intended remediation early enough in the response
process to reduce the prospect of creating unachievable public expectations, and
committing resources to relatively lower-risk problems at the expense of delayed
response to higher-risk sites.
Recommendation 28: OSWER should work with the Regions to establish a process for
national review of the scope of potential megasites at the time of listing to ensure that
sites are properly characterized as early as possible so that out year funding needs can be
more accurately forecast as part of the development of the President's budget. This
process should also institute an approach to monitoring changes in the scope as the
characterization work proceeds. (Long term)
Integrating Site Assessment Programs
With the creation and rapid growth of EPA and state Brownfields programs, issues have
been raised about whether the Superfund site assessment program warrants changes. Is
there still a need for the number of NPL listing-oriented assessments that are being
conducted, given the site assessment program under the Brownfields program? Could the
two site assessment programs work together in a more complementary way to enhance
program effectiveness and reduce costs? If so, how?
Another area where better integration would be beneficial is prior to NPL listing. When
RI/FS work and "enforcement first" activities can proceed prior to NPL listing, the
Agency can make progress at sites much more quickly. For example, data gathering that
is planned and conducted with a view not simply to listing the site but also to selecting a
remedy represents a more efficient use of resources. To the extent the program gathers
more of the necessary data the first time, it can speed up work on the site much more
quickly and address site risks or other community concerns. The art lies in discerning
likely NPL sites early enough in the pre-remedial stage to judge where to invest the
additional resources sooner than would be typical. In an effort to do this, some Regions
use a team approach for certain sites so that site assessment managers (SAM) and RPMs
develop the data they need concurrently. In other Regions, the states do all of the site
assessments and have integrated voluntary and traditional site assessment programs.
Best Practice: In Region 4, EPA and the state of South Carolina meet on a quarterly
basis to assess all of the hazardous waste sites in the State, both NPL and non-NPL and
jointly decide what are the most efficient methods to achieve clean up. Based on skills,
capacity, and funding, the State and EPA decide who and how each site will be managed.
By including good business principles in their joint decisions, sites are cleaned up with
53
-------
timeliness and efficiency. Other Regions use a similar approach with some of their
states.
Recommendation 29: OSWER should examine its site assessment criteria to ensure that
the Regions are integrating the Brownfields site assessment objectives into the Superfund
site assessment process in order to capitalize on potential programmatic efficiencies and
resource savings. The Regions should continue to coordinate grant funding for site
assessment work under the Brownfields program and state programs. (Near term)
Recommendation 30: The Regions should continue to make a standard practice of
integrating site assessment work more fully with early-stage remedial work to expedite
remedial activities and save resources. At the regional level, give greater support to the
use of SAM/RPM teams in order to move targeted pre-NPL sites more quickly and
appropriately into the remedial pipeline. (Near term)
Recommendation 31: OSWER should encourage more Regions to adopt the best
practice (or "one list") approach to help ensure that the collective resources of EPA and
the states are being utilized to achieve the greatest benefits. (Near term)
Expediting Cleanups Using Removal Program Authorities
The Agency has made substantial progress in encouraging the use of removal and
remedial tools to address sites. Nevertheless, while the appropriate and judicious use of
removal authorities can expedite cleanups at NPL sites or prevent sites from reaching the
NPL, the Agency's current management and accountability systems and methodology for
reporting to Congress do not fully recognize these benefits. Current performance
measures do not track the combination of these activities, nor do they allow the Agency
to take credit for the results of good intra-program management and coordination. For
instance, when a removal at an NPL site addresses longer-term remediation goals, it is
reported as a removal, and the dollars spent are not counted toward the totals spent for
remedial actions. The reporting and "credit" gap is particularly notable when the removal
program assists in achieving key outputs, such as completing construction at a site, or
when a removal addresses the entire site and NPL listing is not necessary. In such cases,
the Agency needs to consider how the significance of this work can be tracked and
accounted for better.
To realize more fully the potential benefits of removal actions at NPL sites, the Agency
may need to further reduce the organizational and procedural barriers to a cohesive team
approach between removal and remedial programs. As stated in Chapter 2: Improving
Superfund Program Integration and Communication, the funding categories currently
used create impediments and may limit the Superfund program's ability to respond
quickly and efficiently. For example, at a site where the remedy is obvious, such as a
residential lead soil removal, the actual work may be accomplished more efficiently using
removal authorities. Current policy limits to $6 million the amount of funding spent on a
site under the removal program. This may limit the scope of what the Agency can
accomplish quickly and efficiently.
54
-------
In cases where the cleanup methodology is known based on experience, the additional
time and resources spent to list a site on the NPL may not be warranted. Moreover,
communities may have a preference to have a site addressed without NPL listing. Across
the country there appear to be divergent approaches to this issue. Some Regions prefer to
list a site, while others see greater benefits in cleaning sites up through the removal
program. National leadership is needed to maximize and balance the benefits of the
removal and remedial programs coherently.
One current disadvantage of removals is the lack of state matching funds. Region 6 has
adopted the practice of pursuing a 10 percent state cost share for removals that are not
time critical. This approach ensures coordination of priorities with state counterparts and
reduces the potential for appearing to circumvent the 10 percent cost share requirements
of remedial actions. However, there is no statutory or regulatory requirement for this cost
sharing, even though in such a circumstance it seems both fair and reasonable.
Recommendation 32: Since some sites have high risks but do not require an extensive
study, OSWER should clarify the process for obtaining an exemption to the current dollar
limit for cleanups under removals or re-circulate the current guidance. (Near term)
Option 1: To capture the benefits of removal program activities, OSWER should
consider developing new ways of tracking and reporting removal actions. This would
include work that (1) speeds cleanups at NPL sites and (2) completes cleanup of a site
that typically would be listed on the NPL. (Near term)
Option 2: OSWER should explore adopting a consistent national approach that
encourages Regions to ask states for a 10 percent cost share for non—time-critical
removals to ensure buy-in from states on priority cleanups and to conserve federal
resources for use at other high-priority sites in the Region. (Long term)
Balancing Competing Priorities with Homeland Security
Much of the same workforce that responds to emergencies and oil spills and conducts
time-critical and non-time-critical removals also supports important homeland security
responsibilities. Some of the interviewees stated that On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) are
being pressed into action for homeland security preparedness and response activities,
taking time away from classic emergency response and removal activities. The affected
Regions also noted that when multiple events of national significance occur, the removal
program in the affected Region virtually shuts down. In addition, there is an impact on
the removal program nationwide as supporting Regions send OSCs to assist in staffing
the events.
During this same tune, five additional staff positions were given to each Region to
compensate for the increased homeland security workload. While large national
incidents have virtually depleted some Regions of their staff, much of the actual costs of
the incidents has been reimbursed. (The costs of responding to the World Trade Center,
55
-------
Capitol anthrax problem, and the space shuttle Columbia were all reimbursed). In
recognition of this depletion of staff at the time of an event, the Regions have begun to
develop a response corps that draws on the expertise in other programs (e.g., RPMs,
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action staff, and cirinking
water staff). Although contract money and additional staff have been provided to the
Superfund program for homeland security, the Regions have stated that they have not
been funded adequately for the training, equipment, and travel needed for the response
capability expected of the Agency as specified in the Federal Response Plan. EPA has to
prepare for its expanding role in preparedness for counter terrorism response and
Homeland Security such as development of Continuity of Operation Plans and continuity
of Government functions.
Recommendation 33: The Agency needs to find a permanent fix for the high-priority
funding needed for the 50 homeland security FTEs that the Regions were required to hire.
One approach is over the next two years, the Administrator could reduce the Superfund
FTE in headquarters offices (excluding OSWER) to obtain the necessary funding for the
50 Regional homeland security FTE. (OSWER has already redirected 5 FTEs to support
this effort). (Long term)
Recommendation 34: As part of the next budget process, the Agency should evaluate
whether, above and beyond the initial FTE, the Agency needs more dollars and FTE to
prepare for nationally significant incidents. (Long term)
Recommendation 35: Building upon the development of the Regional Response Teams,
OSWER and the Regions should support more cross training among OSCs, RPMs, and
SAMs to support removal efforts while OSCs are addressing nationally significant
incidents. (Near term)
Preventing Potential Future Superfund Sites
During the more than 20 years of the Superfund program's existence, more than 7,000
removal actions have been conducted. There now should be sufficient data to perform a
historical analysis of these actions to determine if any patterns are apparent. For
example, are particular types of industry or businesses are more likely to require a
removal action (or be listed on the NPL)? If certain categories repeatedly require
removal actions, the Agency should evaluate what, if any, changes should be made to
regulations, policies, or guidance.
Recommendation 36: OSWER should conduct an evaluation of historical removal
actions to determine whether patterns exist in certain industries (Standard Industrial
Classification codes). If the evaluation reveals that certain industries repeatedly end up
on the NPL, the effort could go on to identify available or needed mechanisms by all
authorities to address recurring issues. (Near term)
56
-------
Examining the Role of the National Remedy Review Board and the Cost of Site
Work
The selection of high-dollar remedies lead to the formation of a National Remedy Review
Board (NRRB). While the board has reduced the cost of newly selected remedies,
interviewees believe greater savings could be achieved if the board reviewed a broader
universe of sites and site remedies. In addition, after remedies are selected (with or
without NRRB review), selected remedies are not revisited to monitor the success and
cost of their implementation. Sites that are reviewed by the board are not analyzed with
an eye as to whether the remedy is being implemented in the most cost-effective manner.
Both OSWER and the Study Team are examining the role of the NRRB; both groups
appear to be reaching similar conclusions.
One common practice utilized by the construction industry to achieve greater cost
efficiency is value engineering during the design stage. What value engineering adds to
the process is a third party review of the detailed design to determine if there are any
ways to accomplish the same goal at a lesser overall cost. The Superfund program has at
times used value engineering, but it's application is made much more complex by the
statutory requirement to comply with all applicable and relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs). These ARARs, particularly those which are only relevant and
appropriate, often add cost to the remedy which a value engineering review quickly
highlights as unnecessary. The selected remedy is required by law to meet these
requirements. This makes the use of value engineering at Superfund site, while
potentially helpful, very difficult to achieve in practice.
A mid-process review of costs can optimize long-term response actions and thus reduce
costs. The initial Pump-and-Treat "Optimization Reviews" have been well received by
both EPA and the states, and there appears to be value in expanding the expectation for
these project reviews. Lessons learned in one Region or at one site need to be shared
across the nation so that the same benefits can be realized across the program as quickly
as possible.
The NRRB serves in an advisory nature to the Regions, per the charter, and submits
recommendations for consideration. These recommendations are often incorporated into
the remedy, but are at the discretion of the Regions. Comments were received that
suggested there should be consultation with OSWER when a Region deviates from the
board's recommendations.
Recommendation 37: The work of the NRRB has resulted in reduced costs for selected
remedies. OSWER should re-evaluate the criteria for identifying sites for scrutiny by the
Board, with an eye toward expanding the number of sites undergoing review. One
approach for expanding the number of sites may be to lower the estimated remedy cost
threshold, while another may be to look at factors beyond a cost threshold, perhaps to
include technology types, site uniqueness factors, or issues of national significance.
(Near term)
57
-------
Recommendation 38: Since the recommendations of the NRRB are optional for the
Regions to implement, the charter of the board regarding accountability for implementing
its recommendations made to the Regions should be revisited in light of the maturation of
the program and the board's changing role. (Long term)
Recommendation 39: To ensure cost-efficient engineering of remedies, OSWER should
require value engineering (review of design detail for cost efficiency) as a requirement
for all remedies above a certain dollar level. As an example, particular attention should
be paid to the energy and staffing costs of various designs for groundwater pump-and
treat facilities. (Near term)
Recommendation 40: OSWER should consider cost reviews of every site with a long
tern response action (LTRA) to reduce remedy costs. Cost saving approaches should be
shared across the regions. (Long Term)
Reviewing Specific Records of Decisions
One of the most significant decisions that the Agency makes in cleaning up a site is the
remedy selection. Some sites with remedies selected many years ago, prior to Remedy
Review Board and other Superfund remedy reforms, have not been constructed. New
technology and experience may warrant a different, more efficient cleanup approach. At
PRP-lead sites, remedy modifications have been common because the PRPs have great
incentives to consider and evaluate potential cost efficiencies that achieve cleanup goals.
Many EPA project and program managers have not perceived the same incentives to re-
evaluate selected remedies at Fund-lead sites.
Now, as budgets have become tighter, looking closely at selected remedies and
considering appropriate updates is a potentially critical activity. (Time and resources
would have to be invested to review and, where appropriate, update decisions.) Some
individuals are concerned that states and communities would object to revisiting the ROD
(re-ROD) at a site. While this objection has not surfaced in the vast majority of re-RODs
for PRP-lead sites, potential community opposition and state resistance to re-RODs are
definite disincentives to considering remedy revisions. Some individuals are concerned
that re-RODs generally will result in additional dollar needs for sites. Although higher
costs certainly are a possibility, after a review of approximately 30 RODs, Region 5
reported a small number of those resulted in higher costs. This is another area that
OSWER has been reviewing as part of their cost management initiatives.
Recommendation 41: OSWER should set up a review team of headquarters and
regional staff to make sure that the selected remedies at sites incorporate new technology
and the most cost-efficient cleanup approach based on experience since the remedies'
selection. This team could be similar to the priority panel. (The priority panel consists of
program experts who evaluate the risk at NPL sites with respect to human health and the
environment in order to assist the Agency in establishing funding priorities for all new
cleanup construction projects in the Superfund program.)
58
-------
Possible approaches could include: (1) examining sites that are close to completion to
see if the remedy for the final operable unit needs to be revisited; (2) examining sites
where the ROD designated particular technologies that have improved and have become
more cost-effective since the ROD was signed; and (3) look at sites where the ROD was
signed more than five years ago and has not been implemented. (Near term)
Establishing National Standards and Action Levels
The Regions spend a significant amount of resources developing site-specific risk
assessments and remedies. Some sites, however, may lend themselves to a more
streamlined/standardized methodology for response decisions and cleanup. National
action levels for cleanup may be one option for ensuring greater consistency nationally
and conserving risk assessment resources, although some flexibility should remain for
site-specific situations and innovative approaches.
Option: Headquarters and the Regions should identify the five or ten contaminants most
commonly encountered in soil and sediment at sites across the country in order to
conserve resources and utilize the experience and risk information developed since the
inception of the Superfund program. They could also convene a workgroup to evaluate
the efficacy of various approaches to promote greater consistency in establishing action
levels for these contaminants, including the option of establishing a limited number of
national standards. (Long term)
Using Presumptive Remedies and Generic Designs
The Agency has made strides in identifying and providing guidance on presumptive
remedies that save time and money in the study phases. The presumptive remedies do
not preclude the need for an RI/FS and a ROD, but they do reduce remedy costs. The
process still requires time and money to select obvious remedies, such as caps for
landfills, rather than going directly to design. The Agency could take the next step to
moving more quickly to design and construction by more fully using generic or tested
designs that can be shared among similar sites with relatively little modification. For
such remedies as the removal of volatile organic compounds from groundwater, instead
of the current approach to develop a unique design for each site, the Agency could
develop some standard designs that can be adapted to a particular site, water chemistry,
and suite of chemicals. The current process pays for the same design (or variations of it)
repeatedly, which does not seem to be the most cost-effective approach.
Option 1: To determine how the Agency has historically developed presumptive
remedies, OSWER or the Regions should conduct a lessons learned analysis of how
previously identified presumptive remedies were developed and disseminated and
determine if those lessons learned can help today. (Long term)
Option 2: OSWER should expand presumptive remedy guidance to include more
detailed technical designs to speed cleanup and reduce study and design costs. (Long
term)
59
-------
Recommendation 42: OSWER and the Regions should identify a limited number of
common site types and successful designs, and make them available to the Regions for
remedies at similar sites. They should also set high expectations for contractors whose
reliance on these designs is expected to reduce the time and cost of design work. (Long
term)
Choosing a Funding Mechanism and Providing Oversight
To clean up a site, the Agency has four options: (1) use a current EPA contract, such as a
remedial action contract; (2) award a new site-specific contract; (3) enter into an
interagency agreement (IAG) with another federal agency; or (4) award an assistance
agreement to a state. When selecting a mechanism, EPA should take into account the
needs of each particular site, the available capacity for the work, the capability of the
provider, and the overall cost of the various approaches. Recent data suggest that
Regions are using all these options, hi FY 2003, the Agency obligated approximately 56
percent of its remedial action funding to LAGs, 36 percent to contracts, and 8 percent in
grants to states.
hi many Regions, it appears that RPMs decide whether an IAG, contract, or grant will be
used to clean up a site. Because of the importance of this decision to the total cost of a
site and the effect on many other areas including regional contract capacity and state
relations, many interviewees suggested that senior regional managers should be more
consistently involved in this selection decision. By approaching these decisions from a
broader perspective, managers can fully consider how to best use limited Superfund
resources while at the same time address the needs of a site.
hi addition, several interviewees felt strongly that to keep costs of construction under
control, it is important that RPMs actively monitor construction at their sites. By visiting
the site regularly, the RPM can determine first hand how the work is being conducted,
and will be better prepared to deal with any cost or work issues raised by contractors or
personnel from other federal agencies. Without this regular site presence, the RPM could
be dependent on the contractor or personnel from the other federal agencies for
information on site conditions and issues, and it could appear that either the contractor or
another federal agency, rather than EPA, is responsible for the site work. Field oversight
work cannot be entirely delegated to organizations outside EPA if the Agency is to ensure
maximum project management and cost efficiencies.
EPA is now closely scrutinizing its limited remedial funds; the study team is
recommending that EPA evaluate its existing agreements with other Federal agencies
involved hi remedial work to re-examine the associated costs in order to seek out greater
efficiencies. A recommendation is also being made to look at existing clean up contracts
to explore other types of contracts which could result in greater cost efficient
remediation. These recommendations and corresponding discussions appear in the
Optimizing the Use of Superfund Dollars Chapter.
60
-------
The States have played a vital role in Superfund since the program's inception, and that
role has changed and fluctuated over time. States have also played a major part in setting
clean up standards for Superfund sites. In addition, state staffs have taken the lead on
community relations at many sites. The listing and non-listing of NPL sites has been
greatly influenced by states and they have put forth additional state funds, beyond their
10% share, in cleaning up sites.
States have desired varying degrees of independence in the implementation of the
program. Many states now have their own Superfund or hazardous waste programs.
EPA established a grant program to build state Superfund capacity. However, even with
this funding, states vary tremendously in their capacity to clean up and manage waste
sites. Some are national leaders while other states, often due to budget decisions and
programmatic choices, have little or no response capability. Likewise, EPA has seen
varying degrees of success when states serve as the lead Agency for NPL remedial
activities.
EPA should re-examine its NPL State-lead sites to determine if these are the most cost
effective mechanism for site remediation. This, most likely, will vary tremendously by
individual states. The use of State-lead in NPL site remediation should be based solely
on good business decisions, such as cost effectiveness, past experiences and timeliness,
etc. This review of State-lead NPL responses should in no way impact the ongoing role
the States and EPA enjoy in voluntary cleanups, the Brownfields program, non NPL sites
and the traditional role the State plays in all NPL sites (i.e. ARARS, community relations
etc).
Best Practice: In one Region, a management level team that includes the Superfund
Division Director; the Assistant Regional Administrator for Policy and Management; the
chiefs of the contracts, remedial, and response branches; and the contracts counsel
decides how the cleanup will be conducted (contract, grant, IAG). RPMs submit a
recommendation to the team, which is reviewed based on a number of criteria, including
special site needs and how they should be addressed, how best to monitor the site's
progress, cost, and contract capacity.
Recommendation 43: Regional senior management should be involved in selecting the
cleanup mechanism (e.g. other Federal Agency, Remedial Action Contractor (RAC), or
state) to ensure that funds are being managed as effectively as possible. Ways to do this
include:
Option 1: elevate the funding decision to senior management, possibly by using
the best practice described above, or
Option 2: develop standard operating procedures to ensure that this decision is
consistently based on specific factors, including cost, contract capacity, and site
needs. (Near term)
61
-------
Recommendation 44: Regional management should encourage RPMs to conduct
appropriate on-site oversight during construction to monitor the activities performed by
contractors, other federal or state agencies. (Near term)
Recommendation 45: OSWER, OECA, and the Regions should re-examine existing
policies relating to State-lead clean up. In the process an evaluation should be conducted
to determine if the policy includes areas such as capability, past experience, cost and
timeliness. EPA should consider if the state role should be determined using similar
criteria as that used for choosing a remediation contractor or other Federal agencies.
(Long term)
Recommendation 46: OSWER, OECA, and the Regions should re-examine existing
state lead sites to determine if the remediation is being conducted in a timely and cost
efficient manner. (Near term)
Option: OSWER should conduct a study of sites to determine where State-lead cleanups
at NPL sites was very successful and transfer the lessons learned to other states and
regions.
Increasing In-House Work
With the number of sites moving from RI/FS and design to construction and in light of
funding constraints, some managers believe more activities should be accomplished by
RPMs and other staff hi the Regions, rather than by contractors. In some Regions, the
Superfund program appears to have grown used to relying heavily upon contractors or
other federal agencies. One issue that was raised in talking to the Regions is that when
similar work is done under RCRA or in the EPA Water program, more of the work is
performed in-house. Increased direct oversight of response activities by RPMs also can
strengthen the RPMs' technical and managerial skills.
Recommendation 47: The Regions should evaluate options for completing all work at
each site, making the fullest appropriate use of in-house capabilities, to maximize the use
of contract dollars and resources and support staff professional development. (Near term)
Adopting a Multi-year Funding Plan and Funding Allocation
A number of interviewees cited the inefficiency and cost growth introduced by the
uncertainty regarding available funding for ongoing projects. The inability to proceed
without funding disruption from year to year—or even within the same construction
season—seems to be unaddressed in the national framework for providing funding.
Adopting a multi-year funding plan approach for projects would allow Regions to more
fully describe their needs and allow OSWER to make more informed funding allocations.
At the same time, the funding plans could be used as a tool for tracking site progress and
for keeping the Regions accountable for timely results with allocated dollars. For
example, OSWER would make its best effort to satisfy a funding plan once it has been
agreed upon, but the Regions would have to make a renewed proposal to justify funding
62
-------
beyond the initial timeline. An obvious challenge would be designing a framework that
allows to the extent possible for the elements of the budget process beyond EPA's control
(e.g., timing).
Another alternative to consider is providing each Region with funding for remedial
actions based on multi-year needs for all remedial actions within that Region. This idea,
to provide known, stable funding over the long term, was raised by numerous Regions to
encourage cost efficiencies during implementation.
Option 1: To get the best price for a cleanup action, OSWER should provide Regions
with a budget that funds activities over a period of years, with enough flexibility for
unexpected adjustments. For remedial actions above a certain threshold, OSWER should
establish a national requirement to create multi-year funding plans to guide the
distributions of funds. Regional accountability for project completions should be part of
these plans and schedules. (Long term)
Option 2: To maximize resources for multi-year plans and provide incentives for cost
efficiencies during implementation, OSWER should consider funding the Regions one
allocation for all response activities. (Long term)
Evaluating the Need for Core Cooperative Agreements (Grants)
The Agency has built state Superfund program capacity through funds provided as Core
Cooperative Agreements. The Superfund program is now more than 20 years old, and
the goals for continued Core funding are not entirely clear. Different states and Regions
use the CORE program differently, both in the funding amounts provided and in the
expectations for its use. There is no formula allocating these resources across the
Regions. Although this is a difficult time for state as well as federal government funding,
the question of whether the Agency is getting its money's worth for these expenditures
remains very real. Also, recent Brownfields funding under Section 308 for state response
programs overlaps with the authorized uses of the Core program. There appear to be
large balances of Core cooperative agreement funding in some states agreements. At a
national level, there needs to be a dialogue with the Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) regarding the future of these
agreements.
To leverage more fully the large amount of money invested in developing state capacity,
some Regions work systematically with their states to identify projects that are
appropriate for State-lead work or other significant state involvement. There may be
benefits for all Regions to re-examine how to receive the best return on the Agency's
investment in state partnerships.
Recommendation 48: OSWER should evaluate the need, the overall funding levels, and
the priorities for state cleanup programs given the Section 308 program and the original
goal of the Core program to build state capacity. Working with ATSWMO and
63
-------
collaborating with individual states, the Agency should communicate the goal and results
of the evaluation. (Long term)
Superfund Analytical Support
Several organizations, such as the Contract Lab Program (CLP), EPA's regional
laboratories, the Environmental Services Assistance Team (ESAT), Regional Response
contractors, and other federal agencies, conduct laboratory analyses to support the
Superfund program.
Figure 3: Breakout of Annual Average Dollars for Analytical Superfund Support*
($ in millions)
$9.0
$19.6
$13.8
J^^
$2.9
n CLP H ESAT D Capital Equipment D Regional FTE Laboratories
*Does not include costs for analyses conducted by RAC contractors, other federal agencies or
grantees.
As illustrated in Figure 3, the Superfund program invests approximately $45 million
every year in analytical support. Making the most effective use of these dollars is critical
to the program. As a whole, the analytical program appears to be making good use of its
overall resources, though individual Regions may have opportunities for improving the
efficiency of their operations. In FY 1999, EPA headquarters and the Regions
established a tiering process under the Field and Analytics Services Teaming Advisory
Committee (FASTAC) to provide guidance to the Regions. Under this approach, the
CLP is the preferred option for routine analytical services and, due to economies of scale,
is one of the most cost-efficient and best-quality approaches for conducting analysis. The
EPA regional laboratories and their support contractors, such as ESAT, are the preferred
option for special analytical services that the CLP does not provide. The least cost
effective options for all analytical services are the use of remedial action contracts
(RACs), other federal agencies or grantees to conduct the analysis, since these options
can be expensive and the laboratories receive less direct Agency oversight.
64
-------
Each year, OSWER obligates approximately $9 million to support the CLP. Although
the CLP labs and regional labs count analyses somewhat differently (as noted in Figure
2), these numbers together are the best indicator of the Superfund program's analytical
workload. In FY 2003, the CLP supported 94,962 field analyses run in production
laboratories. Figure 4 shows the number of analyses conducted in FY 2003 by the CLP
and the FY01-03 average for the regional laboratories. (The numbers for the regional
laboratories include samples analyzed by both EPA employees and the ESAT contractors
who work in the regional laboratories.)
Figure 4: Superfund Laboratory Analyses
^DUUU
">nnnn
zuuuu
o
3
ts
— • 1 nnnn -
^ 1UUUU
cnnn -
5UUU
n -
—
n
—
r
P
r
— i
n
—
D FYOl-03
Avg. SF
Analyses
DFY03
CLPSF
Analyses
\
vO* vO*
A*
eT
?.
^
^ <&
Definition of analysis: An analysis is one analytical test run through one instrument. The sample is run through the entire process
and results are reported to the customer. Analyses include field samples (e.g. field blanks, field duplicates field spikes field controls
and external performance evaluation samples). The Regional Laboratories do not include laboratory calibrations, dilutions reruns or
QC (e.g. laboratory blanks, duplicates, spikes or controls). The CLP total sample analyses does include these items.
"Used FYOl-02 SF data due to new lab construction
The EPA regional labs support the Superfund program by analyzing samples, conducting
quality assurance, supporting field activities (field analysis to sample collection),
conducting ecological and risk assessments, coordinating samples, and supporting EPA
criminal investigations. From FYs 2001 through 2003, the regional laboratories
conducted an average of 43,416 Superfund analyses, or 54 percent of the total analyses
conducted by the Regions. The regional labs also conducted 1,734 field analyses in FY
2003, 1,600 of which supported the Superfund program.
The regional labs have approximately 470 full-time-equivalent (FTE) positions (funded
by the Superfund and other programs) that perform laboratory analyses and support
functions related to these analyses. In FY 2003, 42 percent (197 FTE) of the regional lab
FTE was charged to the Superfund program. At the national level, these FTE charges
appear to be in line with the number of Superfund analyses (54 percent) conducted by the
regional labs. Similarly, the Regions receive capital equipment funds from the Office of
65
-------
Regional Operations within the Office of the Administrator and the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (OSWER). OSWER provides the regional labs with 51
percent of the capital equipment budget. Compared with the number of Superfund
analyses, it appears that capital equipment costs are in proportion to funding.
Nationally, the Superfund program's FTE use looks proportionate. However, the number
of FTE dedicated to laboratory analysis and support varies significantly in each Region,
with a high of 31 Superfund lab FTE in Region 2 and a low of 6 in Region 5. The
reasons for this variation differ across the country. One explanation for the difference is
the type of analysis needed in each Region. For example, a Region that had several large
dioxin sites early in the program would be expected to have more robust capabilities in
this area. Some labs, in a conscious effort toward cost efficiency, have emphasized work
on the most expensive type of analysis. Another factor is the level of resources available
when the lab was built and staffed. Regional senior management teams have also made
different choices about how to support lab activities.
Complementing EPA staff at the regional laboratories are ESAT contractors, who provide
a wide variety of services, including laboratory analysis and quality assurance of sample
CLP analyses. In FY 2003, OSWER provided the Regions $13 million to fund ESAT
contractors. Also, three Regions have provided $820 thousand in additional ESAT
support out of their own program funds.
The Regions use ESAT contractors differently. Some use them for sample analysis, and
others use them for quality assurance and sample preparation only. Figure 5 compares
the ESAT and FTE resources by Region to the total number of analyses.
Figure 5: FY 03 Superfund ESAT/FTE Budget Expenditures Comparison by
Region with Number of Analyses ($ in Millions)
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
• SF FTE $19.66
M
D ESAT Supplement
(R6,8,9) $0.82 M
• ESAT $13.00 M
n FY01-03 Avg. SF
Lab Analyses
66
-------
While all of the Regions use the CLP, some have stated that their needs between the CLP
and ESAT vary by year. They believe that greater flexibility in the use of the funds
between the two contracts would enhance the cost- effectiveness of analytical support. If
greater flexibility is not possible on a yearly basis, there may be opportunities to set up a
process to review ESAT and CLP regional needs every two years. Several Regions raised
the issue of the high cost of analysis of PCBs and dioxin. When the current contract with
the CLP expires, headquarters may want to investigate more cost-effective approaches to
meeting this analytical need.
The regional laboratories have collaborated on establishing Centers of Applied Science
that address the Agency's non-Superfund analytical needs. This model could be
replicated in the Superfund program. This strategic use of Agency resources would
ensure that Superfund program needs are addressed and would strengthen the Agency's
overall analytical programs. Conceptually, this would mean that specific laboratories
would specialize in analyzing specific contaminants of concern. This would avoid
duplication of equipment and should reduce overall costs.
The study team interviews revealed that the Regions are not all implementing the tiering
approach consistently. While the study team was unable to capture the exact number of
analyses that the Regions sent to the RAC contractors, it did find that some Regions have
made a conscious decision to send samples only to the CLP and their laboratory. Another
Region reported that in FY 2003 its remedial project managers sent 30 percent of their
samples to the Region's RAC contractors for analysis. While certain situations may
warrant the use of RACs for analytical support, this use should be limited and consistent
with the tiering approach.
Best Management Practices: In some Regions, the Superfund Division Director
regularly meets with the Regional Science and Technology Director to develop a strategy
for the Region's Superfund analytical needs. Other Regions develop memoranda of
agreement between the regional cleanup division and the regional labs, which has been an
effective approach. Some Regions have established a sample/analysis broker to evaluate
and help choose the most appropriate approach for laboratory analysis, including where
the analysis should be conducted—CLP, regional lab, etc.
Recommendation 49: The Regions should fully and consistently implement the
approach proposed by the Field and Analytics Services Teaming Advisory Committee
(FASTAC) for cost effective analytic support for both the remedial and removal
programs. One way to do this is to establish a sample broker or liaison within the
Superfund Division, whose responsibility would be to monitor the use of this approach.
(Near term)
Recommendation 50: OSWER and the Regions need to have a national dialogue to
pursue flexibility between resources allocated between CLP and ESAT contracts to
encourage greater cost-effectiveness. (Near term)
67
-------
Recommendation 51: The Superfund Division Directors and the regional laboratories
should forecast the long-term analytical needs for the program, and should investigate
whether the Centers of Applied Science approach would be appropriate for the program.
Wherever possible, they should encourage the sharing of expertise and equipment
purchases among Regions. (Long term)
68
-------
chapter 4: Enhancing Enforcement
The long-term success and financial viability of the Superfimd program depend in large
part on a robust enforcement program. According to the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA), every dollar spent on Superfund's civil enforcement
program returns approximately eight dollars to the program.
In recent years, the EPA Regions have placed more focus on enforcement, particularly
following the inception of the "enforcement first" initiative. As shown in Table 1, this
emphasis has paid off. Over the life of the program, responsible parties have funded
more than $18.1 billion in remedial actions at National Priorities List (NPL) sites. Also,
the program has secured commitments for an additional $3.9 billion in cost recovery
settlements. Special accounts have generated $177 million in interest from the $1.1
billion collected.
Table 3: Superfund Enforcement Accomplishments* (Dollars in Millions)
Measures of
Success
Value of PRP
response work
(work & cash-
outs)
Value of cost
recovery
settlements
Total value of
PRP
commitments
Funds
collected in
special
accounts
Interest
earned
FY
1998
$806.2
$229.6
$1,035.8
FY
1999
$552.5
$232.8
$785.3
$87.0
FY
2000
$1,335.5
$145.8
$1,481.3
$80.0
FY
2001
$1,329.1
$413.6
$1,742.7
$311.0
FY
2002
$501.3
$126.1
$627.4
$132.0
$23.0
FY
2003
$904.3
$225.8
$1,130.1
$111.0
$21.0
Program to
Date
$18.1 billion
$3.9 billion
$22.0 billion
$1.1 billion
$177.0 million
* Data provided by OECA is as of September 30, 2003.
While these results are impressive, improvements in management and performance
measurement would increase the effectiveness of the enforcement program. These areas
include closer attention to individual regional performance, better measures of cost
69
-------
recovery success, and early efforts to locate responsible parties. Additionally, several
resource issues require immediate attention.
Addressing Underutilized Enforcement FTE and Contract Support
In 1996, at about the time the former Office of Waste Programs Enforcement moved
from the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) to the newly formed
OECA, a crucial enforcement definition was changed. This change redefined the
oversight of responsible party remedial actions from an enforcement activity to a
response activity, hi the Regions, where the oversight work is conducted, this change
eventually would cause a significant shift in workload. However, because the impact of
this redefinition was not immediately apparent, no full-time equivalent (FTE) positions
were transferred to the response program. This is primarily because the level of
potentially responsible party (PRP) involvement was lower in 1996 than it is today,
meaning that fewer demands were placed on the Region's oversight resources.
Today, with nationwide PRP involvement at 70 percent for remedial actions, the
consequences of this change are more obvious. By moving the oversight of PRP
remedial actions to response, the program has consistently underutilized enforcement
FTE and dollars and overutilized response FTE and dollars. Moreover, the response
program has had to use contract dollars from remedial investigation/feasibility studies
and remedial designs to cover oversight payroll needs.
While the change in definition has made operations more difficult for response, it has
inadvertently helped OECA cover a budget shortfall. Between FY 1999 and FY 2003,
OECA's new enforcement contract dollars were cut by over 50 percent. OECA has been
able to make up for a majority of this reduction by using the unused payroll dollars made
available because oversight was moved to response.
Recommendation 52: The Enforcement program should return to a definition that
includes oversight of PRP actions as an enforcement activity which will improve FTE
utilization. This change will not require any movement of FTEs or dollars. It could,
however, free up an annual average of $5 million nationwide in pipeline dollars that were
used to cover the payroll shortages in the response program. Finally, including PRP
oversight as an enforcement activity will increase site-specific charging of the regional
enforcement FTE.
Implementing this change will require that additional contract funding be provided to
OECA to make up for the shortfall now being filled by payroll carryover. These
contracts support the Regions in several critical areas—including responsible party
searches, ability-to-pay analyses, and waste allocations—and are thus critical to
maintaining a high percentage of responsible party work at Superfund sites. With the
historically high return on investment from enforcement, maintaining stable funding in
this area makes sense. (Near term)
70
-------
Continuing to Increase Responsible Party Involvement
The current high level of responsible party involvement in NPL remedial actions is a
notable success that has taken a great deal of pressure off of appropriated funds. This
study found that the Regions with the highest rates of responsible party work at sites
share a strong organizational or cultural commitment to enforcement first, hi some
Regions, a separate and distinct team dedicated to responsible party searches forms the
foundation for this commitment. In contrast, this study found that when a PRP search
group is structured as an ancillary operation within a cost recovery section, enforcement
actions are focused nearly exclusively on supporting litigation to recover money spent by
the Agency. As a result, responsible parties are found too late to obtain their involvement
in response actions.
This study also found that successful teams include a mix of skills, such as trained civil
investigators who can spend time in the field. While some Regions have turned to former
compliance officers, remedial project managers, on-scene coordinators (OSCs), and
attorneys to conduct search work, the unique background of trained civil investigators
brings a key expertise to a successful team, hi addition, the Regions with the greatest
success in this area rarely use contractors to perform this type of work. While contractors
appear to do well on routine tasks, such as title searches or developing databases, they
often do not have the investigative skills or commitment necessary to find responsible
parties. This use of civil investigators in a PRP search team appears to be a regional best
practice. Even in Regions where a strong PRP search group exists, excellent
communication and coordination among the remedial, removal, enforcement, and
financial management programs and the regional attorneys remains key to program
effectiveness.
OECA has taken a first step toward institutionalizing best practices for finding PRPs
through its recently published responsible party search manual. While this is an
important step, it requires follow-up to ensure that organizational structures are changed
to emphasize early and thorough responsible party searches—not just cost recovery—and
that PRP search teams have the appropriate skill mix.
Increasing PRP Involvement in Removal Actions
The success of the Superfund program also depends on strong enforcement within the
removal program. In fact, since many NPL sites begin as a removal action, then move to
remedial action for completion, enforcement needs to be an integral part of both
processes. Over the life of the program, the percentage of PRP leads at removal sites has
been consistently lower than the level achieved at remedial sites. In part, this reflects the
nature of the work, which often requires the Agency to act first and look for PRPs later.
Fortunately, as shown in Table 2, the national trend of data shows improvement.
71
-------
Table 4: Percentage of PRP-Lead Removal Actions by Region
REGION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Average
FY
1999
12
21
41
49
24
4
39
29
0
25
30
FY
2000
6
9
52
57
44
39
23
42
20
47
37
FY
2001
52
4
61
54
51
0
24
24
47
36
41
FY
2002
46
12
44
66
45
71
26
29
40
20
46
FY
2003
45
15
44
70
50
68
19
43
50
40
49
5-Year
Average
45
12
49
59
44
42
26
32
35
35
41
As with performance in the remedial area, several Regions have made strides to increase
responsible party involvement in removal actions, but the rate is not consistent across the
country. Almost 80 percent of the removal actions in the Region with the highest PRP
involvement have no enforcement agreement of any kind. Several Regions use this
approach, but not nearly to this extent.
More consistent application of enforcement first in the removal program will not only
save response dollars, but also free up cost recovery resources, which can be used to
conduct PRP searches. Increasing the level of removal enforcement may require the
Agency to develop incentives, such as providing a temporary funding bridge, to help
Regions shift to a PRP search emphasis without creating a cost recovery backlog.
According to several sources, an increasing number of bankruptcies are occurring after
removal actions, and the Agency needs to position itself to pursue remaining assets
quickly to recoup its expenditures. The study team found that coordinating enforcement
work with site assessment work is critical to ensuring that PRP potential is evaluated for
removal actions. As with remedial PRP searches, early involvement of civil investigators
and other search staff is also key to a successful removal enforcement program.
Recommendation 53: To continue to increase the percentage of PRP cleanups and take
further pressure off appropriated funds, OECA should conduct responsible party search
benchmarking to identify strong regional programs This benchmarking should be
combined with PRP search audits to identify ways to strengthen regional PRP search
programs. (Long term)
Recommendation 54: OECA and OSWER should work with the Lead Regions to
develop goals similar to those in the remedial program for enforcement first in the
removal program to increase the percentage of PRP-conducted removal actions. Regions
with historically lower PRP percentages should be given some time to develop the proper
employee skill mix and procedures before they are held accountable for achieving these
new goals. (Near term)
72
-------
Recommendation 55: OSWER should identify a management liaison who can work
with OECA to facilitate and support enforcement first for the removal program. (Near
term)
Exploring Other Sources for Funding Response Activities
Since the early days of Superfund, some amount of the PRP response actions has been
funded by claims against insurance policies. Many of the early complaints about the high
transaction costs of Superfund had more to do with legal wrangling between PRPs and
insurers who did not want to pay for cleanups, than with costs attributable to the Agency.
At this point in the program, a majority of the disputes about the meaning of insurance
policy language have been resolved. However, the Agency has been reluctant to explore
one area: the search for old insurance policies at what are now considered orphan sites,
those sites with no identified responsible parties. A number of interviewees have raised
this issue and suggested that the enforcement program needs to take a closer look at this
area as a possible source of revenue. Agency expertise in this field, known as insurance
archeology, is extremely limited. Several states have done this work at sites and have
had some success in finding liable insurers. Outside assistance may be required to carry
this out, which means an investment of Agency resources. The benefits, however, could
be substantial.
Recommendation 56: OECA, in consultation with the Department of Justice (DOJ),
should explore ways to access or gain greater expertise in the area of insurance-related
cost recovery (i.e., insurance archaeology), and sponsor several pilot programs across the
country to increase potential sources of funding for orphan sites. (Long term)
Improving Measures for Enforcement Success
Although the enforcement program has achieved notable results, most of the measures of
success employed focus on national targets and cannot identify regional successes or
needs for improvement. In fact, PRP involvement is most often represented by one
national figure. As shown in Table 5, some regions exceed the national target of 70
percent, while others lag behind it. Because information is not presented at a regional
level, the program is unable to share successful approaches in high-performing Regions
or address shortfalls in Regions with lower rates of PRP involvement. Since the
enforcement program can vary significantly from year to year, this information is
portrayed over five years. It should be noted that the percentages for FY 2003 in
particular are slightly higher because a number of potential Fund-lead sites were not
funded that year.
73
-------
Table 5: Percentage of PRP-Lead Remedial Actions by Region
REGION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Average
FY
1999
75
69
79
100
89
67
57
89
75
100
81
FY
2000
67
55
93
64
80
75
50
67
75
50
68
FY
2001
50
54
88
86
100
—
50
40
100
50
67
FY
2002
100
60
100
40
86
50
50
80
100
50
73
FY
2003
50
92
100
100
100
50
100
86
100
89
88
5-Year
Average
71
63
90
75
90
59
61
76
86
72
75
Similarly, as Table 3 demonstrates, while large amounts of money from past costs have
been recovered, the Agency has never compared total recoverable costs to total costs
recovered, either regionally or nationally. In part, this comparison is difficult because the
Fund was established to clean up orphan sites with few or no viable PRPs. Thus, no
matter how robust its enforcement program is, EPA will always have unrecoverable
costs. Nevertheless, at sites with viable PRPs, the Agency should compare dollars
actually recovered to dollars potentially recoverable. Without such a comparison, the
program is relying upon an incomplete measure of success. As responsible parties
continually press the Agency to write off past costs, EPA needs some way of ensuring
that it is not compromising too much on past cost claims. Such a measure could also
begin to reveal what, if any, money is written off because a Region or other entity is
conducting activities inconsistent with the National Contingency Plan—costs that are not
recoverable.
Recommendation 57: To improve individual regional performance, OECA and the lead
Region should evaluate current enforcement measures and develop additional regional
site-specific measures that provide a more accurate picture of the program's success and
provide an incentive to improve performance. (Near term)
Realizing Cost Savings through Collaboration with Responsible Parties
Overseeing remedial action work at a Superfund site can present a significant cost to the
Agency, and ultimately to the PRP who must eventually reimburse EPA for these costs.
Many Regions have been able to reduce the cost of oversight by eliminating costly
deliverables and using team meetings in place of the exchange of documents to move the
cleanup along. By moving to a more collaborative relationship with PRPs, the Agency
has achieved better oversight at a lower cost.
74
-------
There are two key determinants of the cost of oversight: the level of work performed,
and whether the work is done by contractors or by EPA staff. Other Agency programs
without the resources of Superfund (e.g., the hazardous waste programs) rely much more
on Agency in-house staff and the regulated community to provide the appropriate
oversight. Several years ago, OECA initiated a reform designed to re-evaluate the
Agency's oversight of work conducted by responsible parties. Some Regions have been
very receptive to this reform. By placing greater reliance upon the built-in incentive
PRPs have to complete work properly (or else pay to redo), in conjunction with
appropriate levels of oversight, these Regions have been able to reduce the cost of
oversight. However, a number of interviewees, including the Superfund Settlements
Group, told the study team that several Regions continue to have high levels of oversight
and rely heavily upon contractors to do this work.
Where the Agency has negotiated an enforcement agreement with PRPs, it can recover its
costs soon after the money is spent, hi cases where no agreement is reached and the
Agency issues a unilateral order, the money expended for oversight must be recovered
later in the process by filing a cost recovery case, hi both cases, however, the Agency
must first spend its own money. Thus, any appropriate reduction in oversight costs
would be beneficial.
Recommendation 58: OECA and the Regions should develop procedures that
encourage continued collaboration with PRPs in site cleanups in order to decrease the
need for EPA's expenditure of oversight resources. (Near term)
Continuing Emphasis on the Cost Recovery Program
Cost recovery is a critical Agency activity. Without this work, no funds spent by the
program for removal or remedial actions would be returned to the Trust Fund to defray
the costs of future work. Currently, the cost recovery program is driven by the statute of
limitations (SOL). Many of the individual cases come from removal actions at orphan
sites. The Agency has three years from the end of the removal to file its cost recovery
action. For NPL sites, the Agency has slightly more time—six years from the beginning
of remedial action. Even though the program tracks the SOL carefully, dollars have been
lost to data or definitional errors, which cause the SOL to be missed.
One of the critical aspects of cost recovery is cost documentation. Although
documenting costs is a critical activity, it can conflict with the very nature of time-critical
removals. OSCs need to make quick on-the-spot decisions, which can lead to a lack of
complete documentation. These incomplete records hinder future cost recovery actions,
or increase the time and effort needed to prepare a case. To ensure that OSCs do what
they do best—focus on cleaning up a site—some Regions have established field
administrative specialists, who support OSCs by tracking and ensuring the proper
paperwork exists for every transaction at a removal site. The value of having these
specialists was evident in the Capitol Hill anthrax response, where though the Region's
costs were closely examined by many auditors, the response costs were well documented.
75
-------
Recommendation 59: Senior management within EPA and the DOT should affirm their
commitment to cost recovery. A joint memorandum to the Regions will re-enforce this
message to Agency staff and to the responsible parties. (Near term)
Recommendation 60: To improve the tracking and recovery of removal costs, Regions
that have not invested in field administrative specialists should develop this expertise, or
find other ways to accomplish the same goal. (Long term)
Using Special Accounts Effectively
As important as it is to strengthen and maintain cost recovery programs across the
country, it should be an even higher priority to take advantage of opportunities to reduce
the need for future cost recovery actions and to focus cost recovery efforts where they are
needed the most. Establishing and effectively using special accounts is one such
opportunity. The Regions have done an excellent job of negotiating with PRPs to include
special account provisions in consent decrees. In fact, a few Regions have established
special accounts for nearly every settlement they reached in the last year. However,
when it comes to using the money in special accounts, there appears to be fairly
significant variability in the Regions' understanding of appropriate uses and the potential
benefits. For example, one Region was surprised to learn that special account funds
could be used to pay site-related Agency payroll expenses.
Opportunities to improve resource utilization of special account funds are discussed later
in this report in the chapter on Optimizing the Use of Superrund Dollars.
Recommendation 61: OECA and the Regions should discuss the current special account
guidance to determine if additional clarification is necessary to maximize the use of
special account dollars. Particular emphasis should be placed on older special accounts
to free up money for current work. (Near term)
Recommendation 62: Regions should track and periodically report to headquarters how
much special account money they are using annually and how they are using it. (Near
term)
76
-------
chapter 5: Examining the Role of Superfund
Research and Technology
Many large companies have research units that develop new or improved products. From
a business perspective, research organizations are viewed as overhead, in that they
provide no direct revenues to the company. In fact, they are supported by the company's
profits. Nevertheless, a successful research organization can create benefits for the
company far outweighing any costs if it markets its product ideas successfully. Some
would argue that the success or failure of a company is often a function of the success or
failure of its research units.
Government research organizations are somewhat different. Instead of developing new
products to enhance the viability of the company through increased profits, their goal is
to produce products or services that can be successfully used to benefit society at large.
ORD's Superfund research program and OSWER's technology innovation program (TIP)
can both can be viewed through this lens.
The research program's objectives are to reduce the cost of cleaning up Superfund sites,
improve the efficiency of characterizing and remediating sites, and reduce the scientific
uncertainties to improve decision making at Superfund sites. Through a close partnership
with OSWER, research program resources are allocated to address the most significant
scientific uncertainties, highest cost elements, and most complex aspects of cleaning up
Superfund sites.
Conversely, the goal of TIP is to advocate more effective and/or less costly approaches to
assess and cleanup contaminated waste sites, soil, and groundwater. TIP seeks to break
down the barriers to the acceptance and adoption of new approaches for measuring and
cleaning up contaminated soil and groundwater by developing and providing pertinent
information to federal and state project managers, consulting engineers, responsible
parties, and new technology developers.
Therefore, the key difference between the Agency's research and Superfund technology
innovation efforts is that ORD develops, tests, and applies innovative technologies for
contaminated sites, while Superfund's TIP complements ORD's research and
development efforts by perfecting market information, benchmarking technology
approaches, partnering for technology development, and disseminating information.
ORD is organized into three national laboratories, three national centers, and two offices
located in 14 facilities around the country and in Washington, DC. These labs, centers,
77
-------
and offices provide information and technical support to EPA program offices and
Regions; state, municipal, and tribal governments; and other agencies performing
environmental research, assessment, and risk management. ORD scientists also
collaborate with private-sector partners to address important environmental issues.
ORD's Superfund research program consists of four program areas: (1) providing
technical support to the Regions; (2) conducting Superfund innovative technology
evaluations; (3) conducting longer-term research through academic institutions; and (4)
conducting contaminated site research. In FY 1999,125 full-time-equivalent (FTE)
positions and $39.8 million and were devoted to Superfund research. In FY 2003, the
research program received 107 FTE and $35.9 million, a decrease of 14.5 and 9.8
percent, respectively. In addition, 33 FTE and approximately $50 million were allocated
to ORD in FY 2003 to support homeland security research, primarily in the area of
addressing risks to human health and the environment from buildings contaminated with
biological or chemical warfare agents.
In FY 2003, TIP's budget was $6.1 million and 20 FTE. Of this amount, $2.4 million
was devoted to providing training and technical support to the Regions, $1.5 million was
devoted to conducting studies that benchmark innovative technologies, and $1.2 million
was devoted to developing and maintaining partnerships with key technology
stakeholders involved in developing innovative technologies.
Research Program Observations
Whether independent of this study, or possibly as a result of it, ORD and OSWER are
addressing many of the observations and recommendations in this section. The study
team commends ORD and OSWER for taking the initiative to improve the effectiveness
of the Superfund research program.
ORD's effectiveness in providing technical support to the Regions is directly related to
ORD's building program expertise over time through its longer-term research program.
The two go hand in hand. Since researchers who are experienced with hazardous waste
issues are key to providing technical assistance, ORD is concerned that eliminating or
greatly reducing long-term research will result in a diminished capacity to provide
effective technical assistance.
ORD has two primary customers for its products and services: OSWER and the Regions.
OSWER is responsible for establishing Superfund cleanup goals and objectives, and
developing the policies and procedures to achieve those goals and objectives. EPA's ten
regional offices are responsible for implementing the cleanup programs. Both
organizations have a need for ORD's products and services, although the Regions have a
much more immediate need for technical support services because of the operational
nature of the program—i.e., its responsibility for cleaning up uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites.
78
-------
OSWER plays a key role in identifying research program needs in conjunction with the
lead Region, which works with the other Regions in identifying needs. OSWER
representatives and the lead Region representative interviewed felt quite strongly that,
overall, an effective planning process exists with ORD. However, discussions with
regional staff and management clearly suggested problems with incorporating regional
needs and a disconnect between the planning process and communicating results to
Superfund practitioners.
For the most part, the Regions had much praise for ORD's responding effectively to their
technical support requests from remedial project managers (RPMs) or technical
specialists, such as risk assessors or hydrogeologists. These requests focus on resolving
problems at a particular site, and are usually of short duration, although some requests
can be quite extensive and can take longer than a year. In contrast, the Regions voiced
significant concerns about the utility of ORD's longer-term research program in
supporting cleanup operations. In particular, both staff and management expressed
concerns about the large number of projects underway that would not be completed
within two to four years of identifying a problem at the sites—their window of
opportunity before a cleanup decision had to be made.
Based upon this feedback, collectively ORD, OSWER, and the Regions recognized that
improvements are needed in the following areas: (1) establishing a better process to
ensure that practitioners are involved in setting the research agenda; (2) educating RPMs
and regional management on the value and utility of longer-term research; (3) better
clarifying and communicating the link between longer-term research project outputs and
potential technical assistance activities; and (4) providing additional technical assistance
to the Regions.
More specifically, OSWER's number one research priority is for ORD to provide
technical support to the Regions in the cleanup of Superfund sites. Therefore, ORD
should strive to maximize technical support to the Regions without jeopardizing its
longer-term research program.
RPMs focus on the cleanup of the site(s) they are responsible for, particularly in
identifying solutions to cleanup problems within certain key decision time frames—
usually two to four years. While some research projects meet this window of
opportunity, others may not. In those latter cases, ORD, in conjunction with OSWER
headquarters, must communicate the long-term benefits of the research to the overall
Superfund program.
Similarly, longer-term research projects usually include interim outputs that may be able
to assist RPMs in resolving short-term, site-specific problems. ORD, in developing its
research program, should strive to identify interim outputs that may benefit RPMs. As
part of this effort, ORD should work with OSWER headquarters and the lead Region to
identify and implement the most effective tools for communicating these interim outputs
to the Regions.
79
-------
Finally, better communication among ORD, OSWER headquarters, and regional
management is necessary. Discussions indicate that longer-term Superfund research
activities and priorities are not as clearly identified or as closely linked with the needs of
regional management as they could or should be. Based upon the discussions between
the two offices, the following changes have begun to be implemented:
• To establish a better process to ensure that practitioners are involved in setting the
research agenda, ORD has been convening meetings with academic institutions
that conduct Superfund research in each Region and with Superfund practitioners.
(ORD has currently convened meetings in 6 of the 10 Regions). The objective of
these meetings is to initiate a dialogue on the Superfund program's research
needs.
• To ensure that RPMs and regional managers are better educated about the value
and utility of longer-term research, OSWER and ORD are identifying venues,
such as regional Superfund Division Director meetings, that allow ORD to discuss
high-priority research needs, how the needs will be addressed, and key findings
from research from previous years. (Key ORD staff attended the last Superfund
Division Director meeting).
• To ensure that ORD works closer with the Superfund divisions on clarifying and
communicating the link between longer-term research project outputs and
potential technical assistance activities, ORD Superfund technical liaisons should
be placed in the Regions so that they can (1) more effectively understand the
research needs of the Regions, (2) be in a better position to support the lead
Region in identifying regional research needs, and (3) be in a position to more
readily communicate research products to regional management and staff.
Technology Innovation Observations
Discussions with OSWER indicate a well thought out process for undertaking new
technology innovation projects. Every project is demand-oriented—i.e., driven from
problems in the field. Also, although this process does not appear to incorporate a
rigorous quantitative cost-benefit analysis for choosing projects, a sampling of projects
reveals that the benefits in cleanup costs, timeliness of decisions, etc., derived from
undertaking TIP projects considerably outweigh investment costs. See Appendix G for a
description of some of these projects.
Also the greatest challenge to program success is fostering technology innovation in the
field. Because RPMs must communicate their decisions to the public, they desire
certainty. Implementing new technologies, despite much testing and evaluation, can
reduce that certainty. Thus, some RPMs may be reluctant to try new approaches.
Because the ultimate benefits of technology innovation can only occur if implemented in
the field, this reluctance may raise the question of whether investments in this area are
worthwhile. The sample projects in Appendix G demonstrate that tangible benefits are
being realized, but additional benefits may be possible.
80
-------
Performance measures do not appear to exist for technology innovation activities.
Developing and implementing performance measures in this important area would
provide a better understanding of how many sites were cleaned up with new technologies,
and what the potential benefits to the program were in terms of site cleanup savings,
reduction in cleanup time, and potential reductions in risk to human health and the
environment.
Recommendation 63: ORD, OSWER, and the Regions should work together to survey
Superfund managers and RPMs by June 2005 to discover if the actions taken above have
addressed the concerns of the Regions about having input into the Agency's research
agenda and the value and utility of long-term research.
Recommendation 64: The Assistant Administrators and/or Deputy Assistant
Administrators for ORD and OSWER should meet with the Deputy Administrator no
later than June 10, 2004, to discuss improvements both organizations intend to implement
to improve the effectiveness of the Superfund research program. Topics to be discussed
should include the items identified above.
Recommendation 65: OSWER should examine the feasibility of using a more
quantitative cost-benefit methodology for selecting technology innovation projects, since
resources are so limited in order to further improve program effectiveness.
Option: To maximize TIP benefits, OSWER should conduct a study (if not already
conducted) that examines why certain RPMs are willing to utilize a new or innovative
technology, while others are not. Such a study might determine the extent systemic
reasons resulted in a particular decision versus site-specific reasons.
81
-------
(left blank)
82
-------
chapter 6: Evaluating Superfund's Share of
Management and Support Costs
When the Superfund program first was established, EPA decided that the program should
pay its fair share of management and support costs. Initially this support was
concentrated on the work required to build a new program (e.g., hiring staff, setting up
financial system capabilities, setting up site specific charging accounts, and establishing
Superfund site activity codes, etc.). Over the last 24 years, as the program has evolved,
its management and support needs have changed as well.
The successful management of today's Superfund program depends upon a number of
specialized tasks, including collecting site-specific charging information, developing
detailed cost recovery documentation packages for referral to the Department of Justice,
collecting Superfund State Contract funding from the states, billing potentially
responsible parties for oversight costs, and establishing and managing special accounts.
Some of these tasks were not needed in the early years of the program; other tasks were
not anticipated. Special accounts are a particularly good example of a significant, new
Superfund requirement. In FY 1994, the Agency established five special accounts.
Between Fiscal Years 2000 and 2004, the Regions established 258 new special accounts
(an average of 50 new accounts a year). As of the end of September 2003, the regions
were managing 388 special accounts, which have collected approximately $1.3 billion in
collections and interest.
At the same time, Superfund has come to need less support in specific areas. For
example, the Agency's focus on "enforcement first," along with the increased use of
special accounts for the cost of overseeing PRPs, is resulting in the need to develop fewer
cost recovery packages for remedial sites. (The cost recovery workload for the removal
program has stayed relatively constant).
(Every effort has been made to make the following issues clear to all readers of this
study; however, some issues are very specific to the Agency and the Superfund program
and may be difficult for those individuals without a working knowledge of the subject
area).
While it is clear that Superfund's management and support needs have changed over
time, there is some disagreement about whether today's costs of this support accurately
reflect these changes. One way to assess the appropriateness of current management and
support costs is to compare what Superfund pays for management and support to the
costs assumed by other Agency appropriations. In the FY 1999 operating plan, 24% of
83
-------
the combined Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) and Science and
Technology (S&T) appropriations were management and support costs. In the same year,
8.2 % of Superfund's appropriation funded management and support. Management and
support's share grew between FY 1999 and 2003. In the combined EPM and S&T
appropriations, management and support grew to 25.6%. In Superfund, it grew to 10.5%
of the appropriation.
However, the total dollars for management and support grew more sharply in the
combined EPM and S&T appropriations. From FY 1999 to 2003, the management and
support costs grew over $100 million or 15%. The growth in management and support
costs for the Superfund appropriation was much smaller - $10 million on a base of $122
million or 8%. These numbers suggest that, when compared to the other Agency
appropriations, Superfund management and support costs have grown at a slower rate
than the rest of the Agency's management and support costs.
However, there continues to be concern about management and support funding since
these offices have grown while the other offices have taken cuts. Because the Office of
Environmental Innovation (OEI) was established in FY 2000, the following numbers
compare Fiscal Years 2000 to 2003 (elsewhere in this report FY 1999 is used as the base
year).
• OEI's portion of the Superfund operating plan grew by 32.1 percent (from $14.4
million to $19.0 million) for payroll and contract increases.
• The Office of the Chief Financial Officer's (OCFO) Superfund funding grew by
12.6 percent (from $25.3 million to $28.5 million) for payroll increases.
• The Office of the General Counsel's (OGC's) portion of the Superfund operating
plan decreased by 76 percent (from $3.4 million to $839 thousand) due to a
significant reduction in their staffing.
• The Office of Administration and Resources Management's (OARM) portion of
the Superfund operating plan grew by 9 percent (from $78.0 million to $84.7
million). However, since the Superfund share of the rent increased by about $3
million over this same time period, OARM's non rent funding increased by 4.7%.
• The Office of the Administrator did not receive funding from the Superfund
appropriation after FY 1999.
Charging Superfund for Administrative Functions
Early in the program, it became clear that charging Superfund directly for all of the
administrative goods and services (e.g., utilities, facility operations, and computers)
needed to run the program would be difficult. Most of the funds for these goods and
services were provided from OARM, with a smaller amount from the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), in what is collectively known as the
Regional Support Account (RSA).
Today, OEI also contributes to the RSA. When a purchase is made from the RSA that
supports both the Superfund program and EPA's non-Superfund work, the purchase is
84
-------
accounted for in one of two ways: either through a direct charge to each appropriation, or
through a process known as the Superfund Layoff. (OCFO developed methodologies and
guidance for all Superfund charging), hi general, the Regions and Headquarters offices
use direct charging for specific information technology transactions or when an
individual transaction can be specifically linked to a response or enforcement activity.
The Superfund Layoff process is used in areas, such as facilities, to account for purchases
that support both the EPM and the Superfund appropriations. The initial charges for the
goods or services purchased are made to the EPM appropriation, and then at specific
intervals (monthly, bimonthly, quarterly) these charges are cumulatively "laid off' to the
Superfund appropriation, based upon a predetermined methodology. This methodology,
in turn, is usually based upon the Region's or Office's actual FTE utilization at the time
of the layoff. Each time the Superfund layoff is calculated, all past charges are
recalculated to reflect the latest actual FTE percentages, thus ensuring that each
appropriation is charged its fair share.
As part of this study, the team asked each Region and relevant headquarters offices to provide
their layoff rates (for the overall organization and the regional laboratory). As demonstrated in
Table 6, there is a wide variation across the regions. Although it is understood that layoff
methodologies should differ based upon local factors, it is not clear that these unique
circumstances fully account for the range of layoff rates.
Recommendation 66: OCFO should analyze the Superfund charging across the Agency
to ensure the use of approved methodologies and gam a better understanding of the
variations.
Table 6: Regional Superfund Layoff Rates
Organization
EPA Regions
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
Region 10
Overall Layoff
EPM/Superfund
69/29
60/40
66/34
70/30
67/33
80/20
70/30
69/31
73/27
75/25
Regional Lab Layoff
EPM/Superfund
63/37
22/78
30/70
62/38
67/33
80/20
70/30
65/35
70/30
75/25
85
-------
Long-term Approach to Management and Support
Viewing management and support costs from a longer-term perspective facilitates
consideration of whether larger, more systemic changes might provide a permanent way
of allocating those costs in a less burdensome way. One approach is to stop charging to
Superfund all management and support activities that mirror the rest of the Agency's
activities. Such an approach would create clear and easy to track distinctions between
program and support activities, while also reducing the burden of funding many
comparable activities in multiple appropriations. In addition, the Agency would need to
consider ways for collecting costs for activities that are unique to Superfund (e.g., special
accounts, cost recovery) so that these costs can be captured for cost recovery purposes.
Option: EPA could begin work on developing a long term plan for transferring some or
all Superfund management and support costs to the EPM appropriation. A change of this
magnitude would require a lengthy phase-in process. The Agency would need to work
very closely with the Office of Management and Budget and Congress while developing
this plan, to ensure that EPA is not placed in the untenable position of absorbing these
costs if the resulting budget request were not approved.
86
-------
chapter ?: Optimizing the Use of Superfund
Dollars
A principal objective of the study is to identify short- and long-term opportunities for
improving the Superfund program's use of its resources. While the study identified many
areas for improvement, it also noted the program's consistent record of unproved
management approaches. EPA headquarters offices have diligently pursued new policies
and approaches to maximize resource utilization. The Regions also have proved to be a
great source of best practices and ideas that should be shared across the country. The
issues and recommendations identified and highlighted in this section will help the
Superfund program achieve greater efficiencies and cost-effectiveness. However, the gap
between the current construction project funding needs and what can be realistically
obtained through greater efficiencies will remain significant and well beyond the ability
of EPA to address internally.
Every effort has been made to make the following issues clear to all who may read this
chapter. However, some issues are very specific in nature and maybe difficult for those
without a working knowledge of the subject area.
Improving and Increasing Site-specific Charging
The Regions perform many activities that are charged site-specifically. Consistent and
accurate site-specific charging strengthens the program's cost recovery by ensuring that
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) pay their fair share (neither more nor less) of site
cleanup costs. It also helps EPA demonstrate to Congress and to the public that the
Agency is using its Superfund funding to conduct site-specific work, as opposed to costs
that cannot be allocated to specific Superfund sites, like the rent or research. Within
EPA, increasing site-specific charging will reduce overhead by properly accounting for
hours and will reveal resource misallocations or adjustments that may be needed.
Historically, remedial project managers (RPMs) and on-scene coordinators (OSCs) are
most likely to charge time site-specifically, since their day-to-day assignments involve
this type of work. Staff whose work is closely associated with RPMs and OSCs, whether
for technical support (e.g., toxicologists, hydrologists, and ecologists) or legal support
(e.g., attorneys, paralegals), would also be expected to have higher rates of site-specific
charging. Other work, particularly administrative work does not tend to be charged site
specifically.
87
-------
In the early years of the program, before the unique nature of Superfund support work
was fully developed, this approach made sense. Today, however, it appears that some of
the administrative work legitimately can and should be charged site-specifically. At
present, most Regions charge to sites work done on contracts or for cost documentation
and billing, but not work done on site-specific interagency agreements (lAGs), grants,
and special accounts. The Superfund program may also have opportunities for charging
for site-specific assistance provided by the Regional or headquarters staff who work with
members of state governments or Congress.
Based on the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's (OECA's) report for
FY 2003 on the regional use of enforcement and response full-time-equivalent (FTE)
positions, overall site-specific charging varies from a low of just below 23 percent to a
high of 39 percent. The highest site-specific charging occurs in Region 10, and appears
to be attributable to higher site-specific charging in the laboratory and management
divisions, which is an anomaly across the other Regions.
Because of the varying regional organizations and budget structures, however, making a
precise comparison is very difficult. Site-specific charging for response work ranges
from about 30 to 60 percent, while charging for enforcement work ranges from about 10
to 20 percent. The lower rate for enforcement reflects a change in work definitions made
in the mid-1990s. (A recommendation on the change in work definition is discussed in
the Chapter 4: Enhancing Enforcement).
Most EPA offices and support divisions that assist the Superfund program have much
lower site-specific charging rates than the Superfund program divisions. For example,
data from the OECA report reveal that the divisions providing analytical support charge
virtually nothing to site-specific enforcement accounts and 10-20 percent to response
accounts. Site-specific charges from the Offices of Regional Counsel range from 20 to
47 percent.
Headquarters and the Regions are concerned that the Agency's new payroll system will
hinder attempts to improve site-specific charging, since it does not appear to have the
reporting capabilities of the current system. The current system has Superfund accounts
preloaded, which allows the user to select the appropriate account and enter the time
worked. All necessary calculations are performed by the system. The new system does
not have preloaded account numbers. Users who need to allocate time to a specific
account must enter the account themselves. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), with the assistance of OECA, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER), and the Regions, needs to monitor this issue closely as the Agency
transitions to the new system.
As with many of the issues covered in this study, an important first step toward
improvement is better information. Currently, OECA sends a monthly report on site-
specific charging to the budget coordinators in the regional program offices. According
to OECA, these reports are then forwarded to the Superfund Division Directors. Regions
that have improved site-specific charging have developed detailed reports on the charging
-------
of each individual in a division that supports the Superfund program, and management
monitors these reports.
Best Practice: Region 3 sends out a biweekly reminder to RPMs, OSCs and other
Superfund program personnel required to submit timesheets, and provides a monthly
report on who has (or has not) charged site specifically. The same Region also provides a
quarterly report that breaks down for each organization the actual charging by individual,
so that corrective action can be taken where warranted.
Recommendation 67: OECA should set a site-specific charging goal (e.g., XX percent)
tailored for each Region. To ensure progress toward that goal, OECA should ask the
Regions to submit three-year implementation plans and establish a system to track the
performance of those plans. (Near term)
Recommendation 68: Key program offices (OCFO, OECA, and OSWER) should
review the new payroll system to determine if there are opportunities to make site-
specific charging easier and more user-friendly. (Near term)
Improving Cost Analysis
A few Regions have an established process or expertise for good cost analysis for
remedial and removal actions. In recent years, other Regions have begun working to
improve their ability to estimate these costs. These skills are necessary in several arenas:
initially preparing an independent government cost estimate (IGCE), reviewing bids as
part of the remedial action contract (RAC) negotiations, and monitoring and controlling
cost growth at sites with ongoing construction. While rigorous cost analysis can make
the overall Superfund program more efficient and less costly, this work requires specific
experience and knowledge. Many Regions have been building capacity in this area by:
(1) seeking out experience within the Region; (2) enhancing training for RPMs and OSCs
on cost analysis; (3) hiring new employees or Senior Environmental Employees with this
experience; and (4) tasking the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) or contractors to
conduct third-party reviews. OSWER has already come to similar conclusions and has
begun to work with the Regions to address this issue.
Best Practice: Region 5 has a generic task order with the Corps to conduct a third-party
review of each IGCE to ensure that costs are fully reviewed. Each review generally costs
a few thousand dollars.
Recommendation 69: The Regions should continue to build cost analysis expertise
through the approaches identified above. (Long term)
Option: OSWER should help the Regions by preparing and distributing a "cost
cookbook" describing frequent construction tasks and estimates of the hours needed to
complete these tasks. This cookbook could include both good and bad examples and
experiences from the Regions. (Long term)
89
-------
Revising Deobligation Policies
Over the last several years, OSWER has lead an Agency-wide effort to deobligate excess
funds on contracts or funds on expired contracts. This effort has deobligated a significant
amount of money—$219 million in FY 2002 and $109 million in FY 2003. OSWER
recently began to focus on lAGs, especially those with the Corps (the federal agency
EPA partners with most). The Agency's approach to deobligations should focus both on
near-term, one-tune opportunities and on longer-term procedural changes that would
achieve a consistently higher rate of utilization of obligated funds, so that fewer and
smaller deobligations are needed.
The current policy places 75 percent of the resources deobligated by the Regions into a
national deobligations pool that OSWER manages. The Regions retain the flexibility to
use 25 percent of regional deobligations to fund other response activities. Many Regions
believe that changing the headquarters/regional ratio and dedicating a greater amount to
work at National Priorities List (NPL) sites (remedial and removal) could speed up the
completion of construction work.
The policy memoranda and guidance regarding the Brownfields program are another
potential area of change. Deobligation policy documents for Brownfields grants were
written prior to the enactment of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields
Revitalization Act (SBLRBRA) of 2002. These documents directed the Regions to
review and take action on older grants where funds had not been expended, hi December
2003, upon reviewing all the funds obligated for Brownfields activity since 1993, the
study team found that a substantial number of grants with obligated funds still had no
expenditures. While the Regions have begun the process of reviewing these grants,
resulting in deobligations and better utilization of the grant funds, the Regions should
carefully review all remaining grants to ensure the work will occur. Further, OSWER
should review the existing policies and guidance to determine if they should be updated
in light of the SBLRBRA.
Option: OSWER, working with the Regions, should revise the deobligation policy to
increase the ratio of deobligated dollars returned to Regions (e.g., to 50/50), with the
proviso that a high percentage of the funds be directed to remedial action or removals at
NPL sites. (Near term)
Recommendation 70: OSWER should review and potentially revise the Brownfields
deobligation policy documents in light of statutory changes and the progress made in
reviewing older grants. (Near term)
Recommendation 71: OSWER and the Regions should evaluate the unexpended dollars
on older Brownfields grants to determine if those funds can be used for the original
award purpose. (Near Term)
90
-------
Billing and Closeouts of Grants, lAGs, and Contracts
Timely and efficient billing and closeouts of grants, lAGs, and contracts is key to the
program's successful management, as well as to the efficient use of Superfund resources.
When looking at this area, the study team found that the efficiency of the billing and
closeout process differs for each funding mechanism. Because contractors have a built-in
business incentive to provide EPA with clear and prompt invoices, this process tends to
work the smoothest. Contracts management also benefits from a fully automated billing
and payment system, which is not now available for grants and lAGs.
hi recent years, grants management has unproved due to a series of measures initiated by
the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM) and implemented by
Senior Resource Officials. These measures included developing a national plan for
managing grants, updating policies, and improving training. However, there is still one
major hindrance to grant closeouts in the Superfund program. Several Regions are
having difficulty getting some of their states to submit final financial status reports. This
may be due to a variety of factors, including budget cuts in the states and lack of
incentives.
The study team received the most input in the LAG area. It appears that improvements
are needed by both EPA and the EPA partner agencies. Many Regions are concerned that
other federal agencies will routinely submit lump-sum invoices, which make it extremely
difficult for a project officer to review and approve work completed. There also appears
to be confusion among some Regions regarding procedures for invoicing from the Corps.
Since March 1990, EPA and the Corps have had a payment process in place called Direct
Cite. The Corps sends certified invoices for contractor costs and Corps in-house costs
directly to EPA's Cincinnati Financial Management Center, which pays the invoices
upon receipt. Any issues that an RPM has with an invoice are discussed with the Corps
project manager, and any adjustments are made to later invoices. Under this process, the
only invoice requiring prior approval from the RPM before payment is the invoice
marked "final." Based on regional interviews, it appears that not all Regions are aware of
this policy. This payment issue was also raised in the August 2003 internal report for
OSWER, Evaluation of the Performance of the Corps of Engineers in Support of EPA's
Superfund Program. One of the report's recommendations was that the Direct Cite
document should be re-circulated among the Regions.
Another issue raised was the inability to close out LAGs and contracts quickly. Closeouts
for LAGs are delayed primarily because of other federal agencies' inability to provide a
final bill or technical report. Contracts are slow to be closed out because of late
subcontractor billings or disputes, various contractors' claims and protests, adjustments to
overhead rates, final audits, etc. Consequently, the Regions do not deobligate funding on
contracts or are unable to do so for LAGs, sometimes for many years beyond the
completion of construction. Regions are reluctant to deobligate any funds prior to
closeout of contracts or LAGs because they are concerned that any trailing costs or
adjustments to overhead rates would come out of their current year funding. These
91
-------
concerns discourage any attempt to deobligate funds prior to closeout, which needlessly
ties up funds that could be used on current remedial or removal actions at NPL sites.
Recommendation 72: For programmatic contracts and lAGs, OSWER should
immediately establish a pool of $5 million to cover indirect cost rate adjustments and late
bills for Headquarters and Regional response contracts and additional bills for lAGs.
This pool will give the Regions and headquarters more incentive to deobligate funds after
a contract or IAG expires. Once the pool is formally established, OARM and the
Regions could begin deobligating funds from older expired contracts. In addition, formal
establishment of this pool may assist in convincing other federal agencies to agree to
close out or reduce the dollars available on expired lAGs. (Near term)
Recommendation 73: OCFO and OARM should work together to develop standard
operating procedures for resolving billing issues with other federal agencies. (Near term)
Recommendation 74: If it has not already done so, OSWER should circulate the Direct
Cite payment process document to the Regions and ensure that staff members are
properly educated on the process. It may be prudent for OSWER and the Regions to
review the process to determine if changes need to be made. (Near term)
Recommendation 75: OARM and OCFO, in consultation with the Grants Management
Council, should review the current LAG closeout policy to determine if any revisions to
the guidance are needed. (Near term)
Recommendation 76: Common grant closeout issues should be discussed at the Grants
Management Council, and the Agency should establish consistent approaches to these
problems. (Long term)
Recommendation 77: Headquarters and the Regions should identify which other federal
agencies they are having difficulty with managing and closing out LAGs. They should
communicate the issues and problems to OARM and OCFO, who will contact their
counterparts at the other federal agencies to resolve them. (Near term)
Recommendation 78: For LAGs, grants, and contracts, OARM should establish
appropriate closeout performance measures and send quarterly reports to Senior Resource
Officials with outstanding closeouts, including the amount of outstanding dollars. (Near
term)
Gaining Efficiencies Through Alternative Contract Mechanisms
There have been efforts throughout the years to make all Superfund contracts more cost
effective and efficient. For example, over time the number of remedial action contracts
(RACs) has been greatly reduced. Agency policy is to award two RACs to support each
Region. However, there continues to be discussion about whether the existing contracts
are used effectively and are appropriately funded, whether different contract types should
92
-------
be used more frequently (e.g., performance-based and site-specific contracts), and
whether contracting functions should be consolidated among the Regions.
OARM recently conducted an analysis of the current RACs and sent it to the Regions,
asking them to identify their needs and unique issues. The analysis revealed a wide
variation in the amount of funding that Regions had placed in their RACs. Some of the
Regions, at their present expenditure rate, had placed enough funding on their RACs to
be able to utilize them for several years in the future without placing additional funds on
the contracts. This availability of funds ranged from 1.2 years to 4.6 years in the future.
The details on how each Region obligated their funds is not known, however, it would
seem prudent that funding for two years or less would be appropriate given the Agency's
appropriation process and the current demands for Agency funds for site cleanup.
Ultimately, this RAC analysis will result in better utilization of funds hi the RAC
contracts by addressing additional site work and/or deobligating funds.
The Agency continues to explore ways to obtain cost savings and efficiencies through
different contract types. Because of the high dollar value of contracts within the
Superfund program, pursuing alternative contract types could result in significant cost
savings. While pursuing alternative types of contracts (i.e., performance-based, site-
specific, and task order contracts) will require a greater investment in Agency and
Superfund program time and personnel, done properly, these different contract types can
result in significant cost savings to the program. OARM has been exploring alternative
contract types for several years, and now conducts performance-based contract training
on a case-by-case basis when an office prepares a new contract procurement. Because
many of the alternative types of contracts are new to contracting officers and project
officers, increased training and oversight will be necessary. It is also important for senior
management to gain an understanding of these alternative types of contracts to ensure
that they are considered when contracting decisions are made.
In addition to exploring different types of contract vehicles, OARM and the Regions
should consider the value of consolidating the contracting function in fewer locations.
These "centers of excellence" could service contract needs for two or more Regions.
Regions 10 and 7 consolidated their contracting functions several years ago.
An issue that was discussed during the regional interviews is the importance of the
experience of the RPM overseeing the RAC work assignment. Ensuring that RPMs can
successfully manage the complexities of the RACs requires appropriate training and
oversight of RPMs. OSCs receive more rigorous contract training than RPMs because
the nature of their work requires them to make on-the-spot decisions that can affect a
contract. It may be useful for OSWER to evaluate whether portions of OSC contract
training should be incorporated into RPM contract training. Another option is to conduct
peer reviews of work assignments and IGCEs developed by less experienced RPMs as
needed. Even with appropriate training and oversight, an RPM needs to spend time in the
field monitoring the contractor at the site. Without a field presence, the cost of the work
being conducted at a site can easily increase.
93
-------
Greater contract efficiencies may also be obtained by creating or enhancing partnerships
between the contracting officer and the project officer. This will help ensure that all
parties are aware of issues that arise and are handled appropriately and in a timely
manner.
Best Practices: Region 3 has been able to use its existing RACs built-in incentives and
disincentives to have subcontractors conduct performance-based work. This required
defining the work and developing a surveillance plan. The Region followed this
approach in two instances: first, at a site where it decommissioned a dam and treatment
plant, and second at a site involving long-term response action. This best practice entails
substantial upfront work the first tune it is tried for a "new" kind of site. For example, for
a pump-and-treat system, it is necessary to spend about a year gathering the data needed
to define the performance desired before a good surveillance plan can be developed.
Recommendation 79: OARM, OSWER, and the Regions should work together to
encourage the use of alternative contract types. Other types of contracts beyond those
mentioned could be piloted to determine whether they would be appropriate options for
Superfund work. (Near term)
Recommendation 80: OARM and regional contracting officers should offer regular
training for contract personnel, RPMs, OSCs, and project officers in alternative contract
mechanisms. (Long term)
Recommendation 81: OARM and the Assistant Regional Administrators should
conduct an analysis to determine if cost efficiencies and programmatic benefits can be
obtained by consolidating contract functions. (Long term)
Recommendation 82: OSWER, with support from OARM, should provide increased
contract management training. Increased training or peer reviews could focus on
development of work assignments and IGCEs, reviewing invoices, and overseeing
contractors. (Near term)
Recommendation 83: OARM and OSWER should work closely with the Regions to
monitor contracts to ensure that the Regions have not funded their contracts into the
future to an extent where they cannot appropriately use the funds during the contract
period. (Near term)
Increasing Efficiencies for Grants and lAGs
The Superfund program uses lAGs to obtain a variety of services to assist with site work
and other work associated with site cleanup. Examples of services that a Region may
obtain through an LAG are design and construction at sites, real estate assistance (buying
property or obtaining easements), and ecological risk assessments. Because of the
amount of work that the Superfund program has performed through LAGs, the issue of
whether the process could be made more efficient was raised during the study.
94
-------
In addition, the Regions manage a wide variety of Superfund grants. They include
technical assistance grants awarded to communities and citizen groups, core grants to
states and tribes to support their capacity building, multi-site cooperative agreements to
states for site assessments and other work at multiple sites, and site-specific grants to
states to conduct cleanups or support EPA or PRP cleanup.
Another issue raised during interviews was the number of newer grants going to states
that still have large sums of money remaining on existing grants for the same type of
work. Some Regions have begun to address this problem by not issuing new grants for
the same activities until the money on older grants is expended and the grants are closed
out.
Regional managers and staff expressed a need for the proper tools and reports to be able
to manage lAGs better. The Agency has some systems already in place, and others that
may only need to be expanded to address this and other issues regarding better LAG
management. One system is the Integrated Grants Management System (IGMS).
Another possibility is ORBIT, a new system currently being launched by OCFO. Some
Regions felt strongly that IGMS would assist them in monitoring and closing out LAGs.
Some of the issues involving LAGs may result from a lack of training, specifically on
LAGs. Issues that may need to be included are emphasizing deliverables and milestones
as part of an LAG and defining appropriate criteria for when to extend the project period
for an LAG. Numerous LAGs have had their durations extended, some more than once.
The Agency needs to establish a consistent process for how and when changes in
durations to lAGs are addressed as well as for grants. These long periods of performance
can make it difficult to manage and close out a grant or LAG.
OARM has been working with Senior Resource Officials to improve how the Agency is
managing its assistance agreements. While much has been done hi the grants arena,
LAGs are just beginning to receive attention. The following recommendations are
intended to build upon the work that has begun.
Recommendation 84: In the near term, the OSWER Senior Resource Official should
establish policies for the durations of grants and LAGs. For the long term, OARM should
work with the Agency to establish Agency policies for the durations of all types of grants
and LAGs. (For the older grant and LAGs that have had their periods of performance
extended on multiple occasions, the Senior Resource Official should monitor those
agreements carefully and work with OARM to close them out as soon as possible). For
new grants and LAGs, these assistance agreements should be closely monitored to ensure
that they do not exceed the new durations, whose length may vary depending on type of
activity. (Near term/long term—two-part recommendation)
Recommendation 85: OARM and the Regions should analyze the different types of
grants to determine their current funding levels and draw-down histories and establish
criteria that will be used to evaluate grants that need increased monitoring. (Near term)
95
-------
Recommendation 86: OARM should continue its commitment to create an improved
overall training course for project officers and IAG specialists focusing solely on lAGs.
Topics that may need to be included are emphasizing deliverables and milestones as part
of an IAG, outlining criteria for when to extend the project period, managing billing
issues, and emphasizing proactive monitoring of lAGs. (Near term)
Recommendation 87: OARM should continue to build upon the improvements already
undertaken to better monitor grants in the areas of billing, deliverables, and milestones,
and should ensure that the proper monitoring tools are available to managers and staff.
As part of training for new project officers and recertification training, OARM should
continue to ensure that all staff members are fully trained on using available tools, such
as the Financial Data Warehouse and OARM databases. (Long term)
Recommendation 88: OARM should provide status updates to project officers and
managers on the future deployment of the IAG module of IGMS. (Near term)
Collection of a Match for Superfund State Contracts
Based upon a short analysis, there appears to be variation in how the Regions manage
Superfund state contracts (SSCs). Established between the Agency and states, SSCs
specify how states will provide their 10 percent cost share for cleanup at Fund-lead sites.
Some Regions set up payment schedules for the states, while others appear to collect the
funding after the construction has been completed. Waiting until after a cleanup is
completed to collect a state's share ties up appropriated dollars that could be used on
other remedial actions. By correcting slow collections from states, the Agency can use
more appropriated money sooner for remedial actions.
The most recent guidance for SSCs, Classic Two-Party Superfund State Contract (SSC)
Model Clauses, was finalized in August 1990. This document primarily consists of
model clauses for SSCs, and also includes guidance on such areas as cost sharing. Based
on the varied interpretations among the Regions on SSCs and the age of the present
guidance, it may be prudent for OSWER to evaluate whether the document needs
updating.
Recommendation 89: OSWER should evaluate and update, if necessary, national policy
on state cost share, payment policy, and refund policy. If this guidance does not need to
be updated, the 1990 guidance should be recirculated. (Near term)
Recommendation 90: OSWER and OCFO, if needed, should work together to establish
monthly reports that staff and managers can use to better track SSC collections,
obligations, and expenditures. (Near term)
Recommendation 91: OSWER and the Regions should work together to establish
performance measures for SSCs which could address the timeliness of collecting funds
and returning excess funds to states. (Long term)
96
-------
Doing Business with Other Federal Agencies
The Superfund program has come to rely heavily on the Corps and other federal agencies
to manage the cleanup of large Fund-lead sites. During interviews with regional and
headquarters personnel, various issues were raised regarding lAGs with other federal
agencies. Many of the issues raised were focused on lAGs with the Corps because the
Corps has the overwhelming number of lAGs with the Superfund program. However, the
recommendations apply to all IAGS.
Table 7: Number of Superfund lAGs Active & Expired as of 3/10/04 with a Current
Balance
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
Region 10
OSWER
Total
Total
lAGs
92
167
99
49
54
32
18
54
71
30
98
764
Corps
lAGs
65
140
58
33
31
22
7
11
45
20
8
440
Other
Agency
lAGs
27
27
41
16
23
10
11
43
24
5
90
227
%
w/Corps
71
84
59
67
57
69
39
20
63
67
8
58
97
-------
Table 8: Dollars Obligated on Superfund lAGs Active and Expired as of 3/10/04
with a Current Balance
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
Region 10
OSWER
Total
Total
Dollars
Obligated
on lAGs*
$ 615
$ 1,037
$ 350
$ 153
$ 151
$ 179
$ 12
$ 232
$ 185
$ 187
$ 466
$ 3,567
Dollars
Obligated
on COE
lAGs*
$ 583
$ 1,020
$ 328
$ 136
$ 108
$ 156
$ 8
$ 63
$ 124
$ 182
$ 38
$ 2,746
Dollars
Obligated on
Other Agency
lAGs*
$ 32
$ 17
$ 22
$ 17
$ 43
$ 23
$ 4
$ 169
$ 61
$ 5
$ 428
$ 821
% of Dollars
Obligated on
COE lAGs
95
98
94
89
72
87
67
27
67
97
8
77
'Dollars in millions
Some of the issues that were raised included the following:
• The Agency needs to manage lAGs with other federal agencies better, particularly
billing and oversight.
• There is a perception in the Agency that some Regions are using lAGs as a
default vehicle instead of deliberately choosing an LAG because of the unique
capabilities of the other federal agency or specific cost issues.
• The overhead rates charged by the Corps and by other federal agencies appear to
vary widely. Frustration with the LAG billing process is widespread, both in
terms of lump-sum invoices submitted and long delays in resolving outstanding
billing issues.
In LAGs specifically with the Corps, there appears to be a wide variation in costs that the
individual Corps districts include in the LAGs. Some districts require that their Project
Planning and Management Division (PPMD) services be included, while others do not.
The value of including PPMD is not clear to all Regions. Some Regions report that
PPMD's inclusion appears to delay reports generated by the construction, engineering,
and real estate groups, sometimes for several months, thus preventing them from reaching
EPA in a timely fashion.
The issues raised during interviews reinforced the findings and recommendations from
the Evaluation of the Performance of the Corps of Engineers in Support of EPA's
Superfund Program, which concluded that, on the whole, "the Corps is viewed as having
done a good job assisting EPA to manage the Superfund program." However, several
98
-------
regions are concerned about certain aspects of the Corps' performance. The following
recommendations are primarily geared toward strengthening coordination between the
Corps and EPA, improving oversight of field programs, and establishing Corps
performance incentives. They complement the Report recommendations, while
providing a particular focus on cost savings.
The following recommendations refer to lAGs with the Corps, primarily because most of
the lAGs for site cleanup are with the Corps. Nevertheless, these recommendations
should be applied to lAGs with all federal agencies where applicable.
Recommendation 92: OSWER and OARM should analyze how much EPA is paying
other federal agencies in indirect cost rate, PPMD, and other costs. For Corps lAGs,
these costs should be analyzed at the district level—not just at the national level. (Near
term)
Recommendation 93: EPA headquarters should negotiate a national overhead rate for
all LAGs depending on the results of the (above) analysis, hi addition to eliminating the
tremendous variability in overhead rates charged to the Regions, this single, national rate
should be negotiated with the intent of minimizing costs to EPA. (Long term)
Recommendation 94: The Regions should continue or should re-establish regular
meetings between regional senior managers and their counterparts to discuss project
milestones, deliverables status, and opportunities to minimize cost growth. (Near term)
Taking Full Advantage of Special Accounts
On the whole, as discussed in the enforcement findings chapter, the Regions have done
an excellent job establishing special accounts. However, there is significant variability in
the Regions' understanding of the uses and benefits of special accounts. The Agency
currently has approximately 390 special accounts on which it has collected and received
$1.38 billion in interest as of March 12,2004 (67 percent of these accounts have been
created since FY 2000). Approximately $680 million of this total has been obligated.
The $700 million still available must be obligated for specific sites consistent with the
agreements with the PRPs.
The Agency has established these accounts for a multitude of purposes, including:
• use by PRPs to conduct work at a site or an operable unit;
• holding funds when PRPs "cash out" for an entire site or an operable unit prior to
construction at a site (those who "cash out" may be a de minimis PRP, have a
limited ability to pay, or pay their fair share);
• oversight of work at the site (some Regions do not start using those funds until
one year after the establishment of the special account); and
• future work at the site.
In the last two cases, the PRPs may also have provided funds for past costs at the site.
99
-------
The increased establishment of special accounts in recent years has been an important
development in the Superfund program. Special accounts free up appropriated funds so
they can be used for other program or enforcement priorities, and reduce the transaction
costs (obligations and deobligations) associated with cost recovery. However, because
each account must be managed consistent with the requirements of the consent decree,
special accounts have greatly expanded the administrative workload under the Superfund
program. (See Chapter 4: Enhancing Enforcement for a discussion and
recommendations regarding policy issues surrounding special accounts.)
Best Practice: Region 3 holds an annual site-specific planning meeting to discuss the
use of special accounts. The meeting involves the branch chief, the RPM, and
individuals from the enforcement and comptroller's offices. These meetings ensure that
special account dollars are used in a timely and appropriate manner and that any
questions regarding the account can be addressed early in the process.
Recommendation 95: OCFO should develop fact sheets on setting up special accounts,
utilizing special account dollars, and closing out the accounts. (Near term)
Recommendation 96: OECA and OCFO should design reports that clearly describe the
use and status of special accounts, and should provide them to managers in the Regions
and headquarters on a regular basis. (Long term)
Recommendation 97: OECA should identify the oldest special accounts and then meet
with the Regions to discuss uses of those dollars and progress toward using them.
Because many of the older special accounts may not have had the benefit of model
consent decree language and may be more complex in terms of their use and closeout,
these accounts may need specific attention. OECA may want to review model consent
decree language to make sure it maximizes the Agency's flexibility (for use at the
specific site as well as other sites). (Near term)
Enhancing Management Tools
To successfully manage a complex environmental program with multiple sources of
funding, managers and staff need easy access to information. Superfund managers need
programmatic and management (finance, grants, contracts, etc.) reports. RPMs and
OSCs need site-specific information, contract and LAG information, etc. All parts of the
program have a need for easy access to information that is presented in a way that is
useful to them. Various tools are currently being used or being developed within the
Agency that can facilitate access to program information. These tools should be shared
across the program to avoid duplicative efforts.
Across the Agency, programs are developing tools to make the older systems (financial
and programmatic systems) more useful to staff and managers. For example, OCFO has
developed ORBIT, a web-based financial, administrative, and operations reporting tool
that is designed to expand significantly the integration of Agency, financial,
100
-------
administrative, and program performance information. ORBIT will enhance the ability
of EPA managers to make more informed decisions about their programs and operations.
EPA is also working to modernize some of its agency-wide systems. For example,
OARM is continuing its development and deployment of the IGMS, which when
completed, will allow the Agency to award, manage, and close out grants and interagency
agreements electronically.
The Superfund program is reviewing its own systems. Currently, the program is
addressing three areas: (1) re-engineering the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Information System by evaluating the whole system from
how it handles information to what should actually be stored in the system; (2) creating
the Institutional Controls Tracking System, which will document and track parts of the
remedy (e.g., deed controls) and the protectiveness of the remedy; and (3) reviewing the
whole range of OSWER information technology (IT) systems and applications to
determine how they might be modified to most logically and effectively relate to each
other and to Agency-wide IT resources.
Because of cost recovery requirements, the Superfund program probably has more
experience with electronic record keeping than many other Agency programs. The
benefits of electronic record keeping include reducing the growth of on-site paper storage
costs, increasing accuracy, reducing research tune for users, improving Freedom of
Information Act response times, and allowing faster analysis of data.
Some examples of systems developed by the Regions to assist with electronic record
keeping are the Web-Integrated Superfund Document Management System (WISDMS)
and ReportLink. WISDMS was developed by Region 6 and is now being used by other
Regions and the Office of Site Remediation and Technology Innovation. This system
stores scanned electronic documents in a web-based environment. ReportLink was
developed by Region 1 and will be available to all Regions hi the summer of 2004.
ReportLink is a "report library" that allows Superfund program staff to print various
reports.
Recommendation 98: OARM and OCFO should work with Senior Resource Officials
to communicate the development and deployment status of new Agency-wide systems
(financial management, grants and LAG management). (Near term)
Recommendation 99: OSWER and the Regions should evaluate which systems and
tools currently exist or are under construction and should circulate this information in
order to avoid duplication of data systems and tools. OSWER should also establish a
process by which future plans and systems are communicated across the program. (Long
term)
101
-------
(left blank)
102
-------
chapter 8: Reviewing Existing Performance
Measures
This chapter describes the performance measures EPA's Superfund program is currently
using to monitor and evaluate program performance. As described below, and elsewhere
in this report, the study team commends the work all the programs are doing to strengthen
their performance measures. Even so, the team has identified several specific areas for
additional review and encourages the use of benchmarking as a way to identify
opportunities for improvement.
GPRA Superfund Performance Measures
EPA primarily uses two types of performance measures to foster accountability. One
series of measures is in response to the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA).
These measures are highly visible and must be reported annually to Congress in the
President's Budget. "GPRA measures hold federal agencies accountable for using
resources wisely and achieving program results. GPRA requires agencies to develop
plans for what they intend to accomplish, measure how well they are doing, make
appropriate decisions based on the information they have gathered, and communicate
information about their performance to Congress and to the public." 2 The other types of
performance measures are used internally by each program office to measure
performance.
Currently, GPRA Superfund performance measures exist for the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (OSWER), the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA), and the Office of Research and Development (ORD). These
measures are found under the strategic goal Land Preservation and Restoration. (See
Appendix X for complete set of Superfund GPRA measures.)
Over the years, the performance measures the Superfund program uses have shifted focus
from tracking outputs to outcome-oriented, or results-oriented, measures (e.g., Superfund
Environmental Indicators). This is particularly true for OSWER. This evolution
continues with new GPRA measures in FY 2004 that focus on outcome-oriented
measures.3
2 Superfund Program Implementation Manual FY 04/05, Appendix G: Government
Performance Results Act (GPRA), OSWER Directive 9200-3-14-IG-Q, April 7, 2003,
page G-2
3 Ibid, page G-l
103
-------
While its strategic measures are still evolving, OSWER has identified seven measures
under the above strategic goal for FY 2004:
1. performing site assessments and making final assessment decisions,
2. initiating removal response actions,
3. selecting final remedies designed to clean up contamination to risk levels that are
protective of human health and the environment and appropriate for reasonably
anticipated future land use,
4. completing construction of the selected remedies,
5. protecting the public from the health effects of exposure to contamination,
6. controlling the migration of contaminated groundwater, and
7. returning land to productive uses by cleaning up contamination to risk levels
appropriate for reasonably anticipated future land uses.4
Of these strategic targets, (3) and (7) were added in FY 2004 while (5) and (6) were
introduced in FY 2002. Discussions with OSWER staff indicate that their ultimate goal
is to be able to develop measures that are more outcome-oriented, such as "lives saved"
and other future-oriented outcome measures that result from program site assessment and
cleanup activities.
Under this strategic goal, OECA has two GPRA measures with the folio whig targets:
1. Each year through 2008, reach a settlement or take an enforcement action before
the start of a remedial action at 90 percent of Superfund sites having viable, liable
responsible parties other than the federal government.
2. Each year through 2008, address all statute of limitations cases for Superfund
sites with unaddressed total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000.
Finally, ORD has two GPRA targets and associated measures:
1. Provide Science to Preserve and Remediate Land. Through 2008, provide sound
science and constantly integrate smarter technical solutions and protection
strategies that enhance EPA's ability to preserve land quality and remediate
contaminated land for beneficial reuse.
2. Conduct Research to Support Land Activities. Through 2008, conduct sound,
leading-edge scientific research to provide a foundation for preserving land
quality and remediating land. Research will result in documented methods,
models, assessments, and risk management options for program and regional
offices, facilitating their accurate evaluation of effects on human health and the
environment, understanding of exposure pathways, and implementation of
effective risk management options. Conduct research affecting Indian country in
partnership with tribes.
4Ibid, page G-2
104
-------
Specific Superfund GPRA measures and associated targets do not exist for the Agency's
management and support functions.
Superfund Internal Performance Measures
EPA program offices also use numerous internal measures to track performance. For
example, OSWER tracks Superfund program outputs, such as:
• number of sites (i.e., total National Priorities List (NPL) sites, proposed for
listing, final, and deleted);
• NPL pipeline (e.g., constructions completed);
• starts (e.g., remedial investigation/feasibility studies (RI/FSs), remedial designs );
• completions (e.g., records of decisions, NPL removals);
• starts and completions by fiscal year; and
• number of ongoing projects (RI/FSs, remedial designs, and remedial actions).
OECA has a long list of internal measures to track performance, some of which are:
• potentially responsible party (PRP) search starts;
• PRP search completions;
• maximizing PRP involvement/enforcement first;
• using special accounts for site cleanup; and
• ensuring compliance with orders/settlements.
A complete list of measures appears in Appendices H, I and J.
ORD also has several internal performance measures built around completing research
projects in particular areas. These include:
• By 2010, improve the range and scientific foundation for remedy selection
options for contaminated sediments by improving risk and site characterization
and increasing understanding of different remedial options, in order to optimize
protection of human health and the environment and the cost-effectiveness of
remedial decisions.
• By 2010, provide documented performance and cost information for at least 8
alternatives to pump-and-treat remedies and at least 6 tools for characterization
and assessment that the program office can incorporate in guidance.
• By 2010, provide 25 tools and methods that will allow the Agency to accurately
and efficiently assess, remediate, and manage the soil and land in a healthy,
productive, and sustainable state.
• By 2010, provide 40 scientific tools, methods, and models, as well as technical
support to: (1) characterize the nature and extent of multimedia site
contamination; (2) assess, predict, and communicate risks to human health and the
environment; (3) evaluate innovative characterization and remediation options;
105
-------
(4) develop testing protocols and risk management strategies; and (5) identify the
fate and effects of oil spills.
Although not specific to Superfund, all of the management and support offices have
internal performance measures that affect the program's efficiency and effectiveness.
Observations Regarding Program Performance Measures
An OSWER workgroup is currently exploring a variety of options to measure
environmental outcomes as well as the use of efficiency measures. OSWER also is using
analytical tools to initiate discussions with the Regions regarding program performance.
OSWER does not appear to have internal performance measures for some of its
functions, such as technology innovation and information management.
ORD's current performance measures do not appear to be results- or outcome-oriented.
Instead, ORD's measures focus on completing sound research projects. However, the
study team understands that ORE) is in the process of examining their current measures
and modifying where appropriate to become results- or outcome-oriented.
The study team does not know whether the performance measures of EPA's management
and support organizations are consistent with the needs of the organizations' clients. The
study team did not address this issue, but a review may be appropriate.
This project also has recommended several areas where additional measures could be
used to enhance the performance of the Superfund program. As described elsewhere,
they include:
• OSWER and the lead Region should lead an effort to develop performance
measures that are consistent with the established (program) goals. For example, if
the Agency decides to count cleanups, no matter what the source, the performance
measure would include NPL construction completions, Superfund Alternative Site
completions, removals that encompass all work necessary to clean up an NPL site,
and voluntary cleanups.
• OSWER and OECA should build upon their work to improve and strengthen
performance measurement by establishing measures that encourage the various
cleanup approaches to complement each other. For example, OSWER should
consider adopting a measure that treats a Superfund Alternative Site completion
like an NPL construction completion, and an NPL construction completion like a
fully protective removal action. OSWER should consider broadening this
measure to incorporate Resource Conservation and Recovery Act corrective
actions under a "one cleanup" umbrella.
• To complement key program goals, all national program managers with
Superfund resources should adopt and track a manageable number of meaningful
measures; ensure data systems are in place to facilitate timely and accurate
106
-------
reporting; and consider using measures beyond traditional cleanup milestones,
including financial management, resource utilization, cost recovery effectiveness,
and site-specific charging.
• OSWER and OECA should consider adopting goals that cut across different
program activities (e.g., cleanup completions through use of any tool or
combination of tools) to improve teamwork and gain full recognition for the
Agency's work.
• OECA and the lead Region should evaluate current enforcement measures and
develop additional regional site-specific measures that provide a more accurate
picture of program success.
• OECA should establish a performance measure for tracking the establishment of
special accounts in conjunction with PRP settlements.
• OSWER and the Regions need to work together to establish performance
measures for Superfund state contracts.
Program or Functional Efficiencies
Employing and tracking program or functional efficiencies appear to be just getting
started within the Agency. As part of the Office of Management and Budget's
Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART) initiative, program offices must now
develop efficiency and program outcome measures. Other than anecdotal references (plus
common sense), the Superfund program does not currently appear to have a mechanism
for quantitatively measuring whether program efficiencies have occurred, and if so,
where, to what extent, and why.
To comply with OMB's PART initiative, the Superfund program has developed measures
for the removal program in the PART and is working on developing measures for the
remedial program. The PART requires an agency to identify measures addressing
program purpose and design, strategic planning, program management, and program
results and accountability. These areas are tracked and scored on a yearly basis.
Similar efficiency measures could also be used possibly for enforcement, lab support, and
management and support activities. While management and support activities are much
more difficult to measure than other activities, they are not impossible to measure,
particularly in such areas as contracts management and grants management. OARM is
already tracking certain performance measures. Additional measures could include
efficiency measures associated with the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) positions
required for each new contract acquisition, and the potential cost savings to the
government for new versus replaced contracts.
107
-------
Benchmarking Studies
Benchmarking can be defined as the continuous process of measuring producers, services,
and practices against strong competitors or recognized industry leaders. This ongoing
activity, which is intended to improve performance, can be applied to all facets of an
operation. Benchmarking studies could prove very useful in not only measuring
efficiency, but also fostering a sense of competition and innovation.
Benchmarking requires a mechanism for identifying and measuring performance and
differences in performance. It focuses on comparing best practices among organizations
with similar functions or dissimilar organizations with similar functions.
Benchmarking enables organizations to identify who is performing well and, with
subsequent research, why. By understanding why, other organizations performing similar
functions can identify and possibly adopt best practices to foster continuous
improvements throughout their organizations.
Benchmarking does not appear to be a common practice within EPA. However,
discussions indicate an OSWER workgroup is currently exploring options concerning
efficiency measures, including possibly using benchmarking within the program.
While benchmarking is quantitatively oriented, it need not always be. By posing the right
questions, organizations can identify the processes that are fostering improvement or lack
of improvement, and modify their processes to achieve the desired outcomes.
At issue is the importance of measuring the efficiency of operations within EPA and, in
particular, the Superfund program. On the one hand, benchmarking particular functions
or operations to establish baselines of performance and incremental changes can foster a
sense of competition, incentives, innovation, and accountability. On the other hand, these
efforts do not come cheaply, nor are they easy to implement without careful planning. To
a great extent, incorporating bench marking into an organizational culture can be difficult
to implement without strong and continuous leadership.
Recommendations for Superfund Performance Measures
The performance measures used by the EPA program offices appear to be relevant, for
the most part, to achieving the goals of the Superfund program. However, as with every
organization, improvements appear possible. At issue are the costs and benefits of
investing in this area relative to other program activities.
The objectives of ORD's Superfund research program are to reduce the cost of cleaning
up Superfund sites, improve the efficiency of characterizing and remediating sites, and
reduce the scientific uncertainties for improved decision making at Superfund sites.
ORD could build upon these objectives and possibly develop results-oriented or even
outcome-oriented measures.
108
-------
For instance, ORD has highlighted that the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
program has resulted in $2.4 billion over the years in cleanup cost savings through EPA
and PRPs utilizing innovative technologies evaluated by them. ORD could set a target of
$X in cleanup cost savings per year. Similarly, ORD could apply a measure showing the
reduced time required to characterize or remediate sites as a result of implementing
models or methodologies developed by them. Finally, ORD provides the Regions with
site-specific technical support. ORD could set a target of providing technical support to X
sites per year resulting in $X saved in cleanup costs, or X amount of time in
characterizing sites, or X number of sites with reduced risks to human health or the
environment as a result of their technical support.
Recommendation 100: ORD should continue their internal review and revise, where
appropriate, their Superfund performance measures to become more program results-
oriented.
Similarly, OSWER should examine the feasibility of developing outcome-oriented
performance measures for its technology innovation activities.
The study team recognizes OSWER's efforts toward developing efficiency measures for
the Superfund program. Whether through benchmarking, use of efficiency measures, or
other approaches, the objectives are the same: foster a sense of continuous improvement,
understand the factors that influence variations hi performance, foster innovation, share
those observations or best practices, and ultimately foster greater program effectiveness
and efficiency.
Recommendation 101: OSWER and OECA (and possibly other offices as well) should
initiate a benchmarking study associated with an important Superfund operation or
function, such as RI/FSs or PRP searches in order to improve the Superfund program's
efficiency, foster opportunities for innovation, and adopt best management practices.
Recommendation 102: EPA's management and support offices should meet with their
Superfund response and enforcement clients to review current measures and possibly
establish new performance measures specific to the Superfund program, such as on
special accounts and cost recovery in order to increase the Superfund program's
integration and efficiency.
109
-------
chapter 9: Agenda for Moving Forward
As stated earlier in the report, the Deputy Administrator is creating an internal Superfund
Board of Directors to improve program coordination, integration and accountability. The
OSWER Assistant Administrator will chair this board which will be made up of Assistant
Administrators who manage Superfund resources and responsibilities. The board will be
co-chaired by the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance. Regional participation, at a minimum, will include the Lead Regions for
Superfund and Enforcement.
The Board's first task will be to develop an action plan(s) for the implementation of this
study. The study provides a blueprint for action for the Board of Directors. Attached in
Appendices A and B are summaries of the recommendations and options identified in the
study and the offices responsible for implementation.
In addition, the study team has identified some near term and long term actions which can
focus attention on one of the key goals of the study - identifying additional funds which
can be used for long term cleanups. This short list of recommendations does not
represent the highest priority recommendations of the overall study, but a starting point
for the Board of Directors. The activities which can be initiated within this fiscal year
have been marked with an asterisk even though some of them may take longer than one
year to complete.
The individual chapters of the report provide background and context for these
recommendations, and in some cases, additional recommendations on the subject. The
recommendations are grouped by subject area.
Improving Overarching Leadership and Program Accountability
« Far from a one-dimensional cleanup program, Superfund has continued to
evolve over the years and has developed and applied new approaches. Senior
program managers should evaluate the Superfund program's current goals and
objectives and clearly communicate the hierarchy among the goals to ensure
that Superfund resources are properly directed to achieve the Agency's most
important goals. This action is critical in the area of National Priorities List
(NPL) site cleanups to ensure that the limited funds available for long term
cleanups are maximized and appropriately allocated.
Recommendation 2
110
-------
Continuing to Increase Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Involvement
• *Using Fund-Lead Work as an Enforcement Lever - While continuing to
stress early PRP search activity and maximizing PRP involvement, OSWER
should set aside funds for Regions to begin RI/FS work early where PRP
recalcitrance is evident. (Near Term) Recommendation 24
• Using NPL as an Incentive for Voluntary Cleanup Work - OSWER should
maintain a sufficient rate of listing on the NPL to function as an incentive for
PRPs to perform work under the Superfund program as well as other programs
and authorities. Recommendation 23
• *Increasing PRP Involvement in Removal Actions - OECA and OSWER
should work with the Lead Regions to develop goals similar to those in the
remedial program for enforcement first in the removal program to increase the
percentage of PRP conducted removal actions. Recommendation 54
Developing a Better, More Effective Cleanup Program
• Defining the Scope of Mega Sites Specifically and Early - OSWER should work
with the Regions to establish a process for national review of the scope of
potential megasites at the time of listing to ensure that sites are properly
characterized as early as possible so that out-year funding needs can be more
accurately forecast. Recommendation 28
• *Examining the Role of the National Remedy Review Board (NRRB) and the
Cost of Site Work Recommendations 37 & 40
—The work of the NRRB has resulted in reduced costs for selected remedies.
OSWER should re-evaluate the criteria for identifying sites for scrutiny by the
Board, with an eye toward expanding the number of sites undergoing review.
— OSWER should consider cost reviews of every site with a long tern response
action (LTRA) to minimize remedy costs. Cost saving approaches should be
shared across the regions.
• Reviewing Specific Records of Decisions - OSWER should set up a review
team of headquarters and regional staff to make sure that the selected remedies
at sites incorporate new technology and the most cost efficient cleanup approach
based on experience since the remedies' selection. Recommendation 41
• Pursuing Superfund Alternative Sites Approach - The Regions should establish
and implement a process by which Superfund alternative sites are prioritized
along with their NPL sites to ensure that response funds are being spent on the
sites with the highest risk. Recommendation 26
• *Funding Mechanism and Providing Oversight - Regional senior management
should ensure that they are involved in selecting the cleanup mechanism (e.g.
Ill
-------
other federal agency, state or remedial action contractor) to ensure that funds are
being managed as effectively as possible. Recommendation 43
• *Superfund Analytical Support - The Regions should fully and consistently
implement the approach proposed by the Field and Analytics Services Teaming
Advisory Committee (FASTAC) for cost effective analytic support for both the
remedial and removal programs. (This approach generally allows the Regions to
chose the lowest cost laboratory support for particular analytical needs).
Recommendation 49
• *Superrund Research - The Assistant Administrators and/or Deputy Assistant
Administrators for ORD and OSWER should meet with the Deputy
Administrator no later than June 10,2004, to discuss improvements both
organizations intend to implement to improve the effectiveness of the Superfund
research program. Recommendation 64
Better Utilization of Dollars and FTE
• Reducing Costs to Meet Numerical Targets - The study identifies a series of
options for the Administrator and Deputy Administrator to review as they
make decisions about approaches (i.e. targeted or pro rata cuts) to finding
additional funding for long term cleanups. Options 1-4
• *Make Purposeful Resource Shifts to Address Programmatic Needs - The
lead Region should facilitate a process that takes advantage of capabilities
already developed and demonstrated in areas of programmatic specialization
by encouraging regions with needs in these areas to obtain support from the
Regions with the capability and capacity to take on more work. An example
is one Region conducting post construction work at completed sites for
another region. Recommendation 17
• Addressing Underutilized Enforcement FTE and Contract Support - The
Enforcement program should return to a definition that includes oversight of
PRP actions as an enforcement activity which will improve FTE utilization.
Implementing this change will require that additional contract funding will be
provided to OECA to make up for the shortfall now being filled by payroll
carryover. Recommendation 52
• *Using Special Accounts Effectively - OECA and the Regions should discuss
the current special account guidance to determine if additional clarification is
necessary to maximize the use of special account dollars. Recommendation
61
• *In FY 2003, the Agency deobligated over $100 million from expired and
active contracts, lAGs and grants. Recommendations 21, 72, 73 and 78
112
-------
To continue this approach to better utilizing funds:
--EPA Regions and Headquarters should establish a schedule for FY 2004
deobligations and initiate actions immediately so the funds will be available
during this fiscal year.
~ For programmatic contracts and lAGs, OSWER should immediately establish
a pool of $5 million to cover indirect cost rate adjustments and late bills for
Headquarters and Regional response contracts and additional bills for lAGs.
This pool will give the Regions and Headquarters more incentive to deobligate
funds after a contract or IAG expires.
— OCFO and OARM should work together to develop standard operating
procedures for resolving billing issues with other federal agencies.
— For lAGs, grants and contracts, OARM should establish appropriate closeout
performance measures and send quarterly reports to Senior Resource Officials
with outstanding closeouts, including the amount of outstanding dollars.
Measuring Performance
• Measuring Performance - Recommendations 8 & 91
-- All National Program Managers with Superfund resources, with their Lead
Regions, should adopt and track a manageable number of meaningful regionally
specific performance measures to ensure greater accountability; ensure data
systems are in place to facilitate timely and accurate reporting; and consider
using measures beyond traditional cleanup milestones, including financial
management, resource utilization and cost recovery effectiveness.
--OSWER and the Regions should work together to establish performance
measures for Superfund State Contracts, which could address the timeliness of
collecting funds and returning excess funds to states.
Preventing Potential Future Superfund Sites
• Preventing Potential Future Superfund Sites - OSWER should conduct an
evaluation of historical removal actions to determine whether patterns exist in
certain industries (using Standard Industrial Classification codes).
Recommendation 36
113
-------
Appendix A: Summary of Recommendations Table
Recommendation
Improving Integration and Communication
Recommendations
1 . The Deputy Administrator should create a Superfund Board
of Directors to improve program coordination, integration and
accountability.
2. Senior program managers should evaluate the program's
current goals and objectives and clearly communicate the
hierarchy among these goals to ensure that Superfund resources
are properly directed to achieve the Agency's most important
goals
3. OSWER and the lead Region should spearhead an effort to
develop performance measures that are consistent with the
newly articulated hierarchy of goals.
4. OSWER and the Regions should work together to maintain a
sufficient rate of listing on the NPL to provide a clear incentive
for potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to perform work
under the Superfund program as well as other programs or
authorities.
5. OSWER should allocate resources to start Fund-lead actions
at every step in the Superfund pipeline, thereby motivating
PRPs to commit to taking on work and freeing up appropriated
dollars over the longer term.
6. OSWER should promote the One Cleanup Program more
aggressively and set more ambitious targets for policy and
guidance development in order to continue to improve the
coordination, speed, and effectiveness of cleanups.
OSWER
X
X
X
X
X
X
OECA
X
X
X
ORD
X
X
OARM
X
X
OCFO
X
X
OEI
X
•X
OAR
X
X
Regions
X
X
X
X
X
114
-------
Recommendation
7. OSWER and OECA should build upon their work to
improve and strengthen performance measurement by
establishing measures that encourage the various cleanup
approaches to complement each other.
8. All national program managers (NPMs) with Superfund
resources should adopt and track a manageable number of
meaningful performance measures and ensure data systems are
in place to facilitate timely and accurate reporting.
9. OSWER and OECA should consider adopting goals that cut
across different program activities (e.g., cleanup completions
through use of any tool or combination of tools) to improve
teamwork and gain full recognition for all work that produces
similar outcomes.
10. OSWER should evaluate the history of NPL listings and
removal actions to determine what percent were RCRA
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities or hazardous waste
generators and to what extent these facilities present a
continuing burden to the Superfund program.
1 1. If the evaluation confirms a high correlation with RCRA-
regulated facilities, OSWER and OECA should examine
different approaches to financial assurance under the RCRA
program to reduce the likelihood of RCRA-regulated facilities
becoming part of the future Superfund universe.
12. For facilities not covered under RCRA, OSWER should
study whether promulgating new regulations under CERCLA's
broad financial assurance authorities could reduce the future
needs of the Superfund program.
13. The Agency should collect data at the end of the budget
year on the amount of funds spent on direct cleanup or on those
activities that are necessary to get to the cleanup phase and
communicate the cost of cleanups more effectively.
OSWER
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OECA
X
X
X
X
ORD
X
OARM
X
OCFO
X
X
OEI
X
OAR
X
Regions
X
X
X
X
115
-------
Recommendation
14. OSWER and the Regions, in coordination with OCFO,
should work together to identify ways to simplify the internal
budget structure.
15. OSWER and OECA should include special account and
state cost share as they allocate funds internally and
communicate funding availability.
16. All national program managers with Superfund resources
should evaluate and pursue opportunities for greater resource
or work sharing among Regions, especially in support
functional areas.
17. The lead Region should facilitate a process that takes
advantage of capabilities already developed and demonstrated
in areas of programmatic specialization by encouraging
Regions with needs in these areas to obtain support from the
Regions with the capability and capacity to take on more work.
18. The Agency should conduct benchmarking studies of
regional performance in both management and programmatic
areas to ensure that all aspects of the program are focusing on
improving performance.
19. The Agency should execute other smaller-scale adjustments
as appropriate, and begin setting the stage now for
redistributing staff positions for FY 2007, after the
consolidations, specializations, and benchmarking have been
reviewed and incorporated.
20. The Agency should evaluate headquarters Superfund FTEs
and make every effort to redirect resources to activities that
more directly contribute to site cleanups.
21. EPA Regions and headquarters should establish a schedule
for FY 2004 deobligations and initiate actions immediately so
the funds will be available during this fiscal year.
OSWER
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OECA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ORD
X
X
X
X
X
OARM
X
X
X
X
X
X
OCFO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OEI
X
X
X
X
X
X
OAR
X
X
X
X
X
Regions
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
116
-------
Recommendation
22. OSWER and OECA should review guidance and policies to
ensure that they are addressing current and future needs and
follow up with the Regions on using the guidance and policies.
Capitalizing on Lessons Learned for Cleanup Actions
Recommendations
23. OSWER should maintain a sufficient rate of listing on the
NPL to function as an incentive for PRPs to perform work
under the Superfund program as well as other programs or
authorities.
24. While continuing to stress early PRP search activity and
maximizing PRP involvement, OSWER should continue to
target funds to begin RI/FS work where PRP recalcitrance is
evident.
25. OSWER should revise the Superfund Alternative Site
policy to ensure that criteria for being a Superfund Alternative
Site are uniform and that the Regions provide the PRPs and
other interested parties with transparent site assessment and
pre-scoring information.
26. The Regions should establish and implement a process by
which Superfund Alternative Sites are prioritized along with
their NPL sites to ensure that response funds are being spent on
the sites with the highest risk.
27. OSWER and the lead Region should work together to
ensure all site cleanup work (including work completed under
the Alternative Site program) is tracked and reported internally
and externally to ensure accomplishments of the national
program are appropriately communicated to the public and
Congress.
OSWER
X
X
X
X
X
OECA
X
ORD
OARM
OCFO
OEI
OAR
Regions
X
X
X
X
X
117
-------
Recommendation
28. OSWER should work with the Regions to establish a
process for national review of the scope of potential mega sites
at the time of listing in order to ensure that sites are properly
characterized as early as possible so that out year funding can
needs be more accurately forecast as part of die development of
the President's budget.
29. OSWER should examine its site assessment criteria to
ensure that the Regions are integrating the Brownfields site
assessment objectives into the Superfund site assessment
process hi order to capitalize on potential programmatic
efficiencies and resource savings.
30. The Regions should continue to make a standard practice
of integrating site assessment work more fully with early-stage
remedial work in order to expedite remedial activities and save
resources.
31. OSWER should encourage more Regions to adopt the best
practice (or "one list") approach to help ensure that the
collective resources of EPA and the states are being utilized to
achieve the greatest benefits.
32. Since some sites have high risks but do not require an
extensive study, OSWER should clarify the process for
obtaining an exemption to the current dollar limit for cleanups
under removals or recirculate the current guidance.
33. The Agency needs to find a permanent fix for the high-
priority funding needed for the 50 homeland security FTE that
the Regions were required to hire.
34. As part of the next budget process, the Agency should
evaluate whether, above and beyond the initial FTE, the
Agency needs more dollars and FTE to address preparation for
nationally significant incidents.
OSWER
X
X
X
X
X
X
OECA
ORD
OARM
OCFO
X
X
OEI
OAR
Regions
X
X
X
X
X
118
-------
Recommendation
35. Building upon the development of the Regional Response
Teams, OSWER and the Regions should support more cross
training among OSCs, RPMs, and SAMs to support removal
efforts while OSCs are addressing nationally significant
incidents.
36. OSWER should conduct an evaluation of historical removal
actions to determine whether patterns exist in certain industries
(Standard Industrial Classification codes).
37. The work of the NRRB has resulted in reduced costs for
selected remedies. OSWER should re-evaluate the criteria for
identifying sites for scrutiny by the Board, with an eye toward
expanding the number of sites undergoing review.
38. Since the recommendations of the NRRB are optional for
the Regions to implement, the charter of the board regarding
accountability for implementing its recommendations made to
the Regions should be revisited in light of the maturation of the
program and the board's changing role.
39. To ensure cost-efficient engineering of remedies, OSWER
should require value engineering (review of design detail for
cost efficiency) as a requirement for all remedies above a
certain dollar level.
40. OSWER should consider cost reviews of every site with a
long tern response action (LTRA) to reduce remedy costs. Cost
saving approaches should be shared across the regions.
41. OSWER should set up a review team of headquarters and
regional staff to make sure that the selected remedies at sites
incorporate new technology and the most cost-efficient cleanup
approach based on experience since the remedies' selection.
OSWER
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OECA
ORD
OARM
OCFO
OEI
OAR
Regions
X
X
X
X
X
X
119
-------
Recommendation
42. OSWER and the Regions should identify a limited number
of common site types and successful designs, and make them
available to the Regions for remedies at similar sites.
43. Regional senior management should be involved in
selecting the cleanup mechanism (e.g. other Federal Agency,
Remedial Action Contractor (RAC), or state) to ensure that
funds are being managed as effectively as possible.
44. Regional management should encourage RPMs to conduct
appropriate on-site oversight during construction to monitor the
activities performed by contractors, other federal or state
agencies.
45. OSWER, OECA, and the Regions should re-examine
existing policies relating to state lead clean up.
46. OSWER, OECA, and the Regions should re-examine
existing state lead sites to determine if the remediation is being
conducted in a timely and cost efficient manner.
47. The Regions should evaluate options for completing all
work at each site, making the fullest appropriate use of in-
house capabilities to maximize the use of contract dollars and
resources.
48. OSWER should evaluate the need, the overall funding
levels, and the priorities for state cleanup programs given the
Section 308 program and the original goal of the Core program
to build state capacity.
49. The Regions should fully and consistently implement the
approach proposed by the Field and Analytics Services
Teaming Advisory Committee (FASTAC) for cost effective
analytic support for both the remedial and removal programs.
OSWER
X
X
X
X
OECA
X
X
ORD
OARM
OCFO
OEI
OAR
Regions
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
120
-------
Recommendation
50. OSWER and the Regions need to have a national dialogue
to pursue flexibility between resources allocated between CLP
and ESAT contracts to encourage greater cost-effectiveness.
5 1 . The Superfund Division Directors and the regional
laboratories should forecast the long-term analytical needs for
the program, and should investigate whether the Centers of
Applied Science approach would be appropriate for the
program.
Enhancing Enforcement Recommendations
52. The Enforcement Program should return to a common-
sense definition that includes oversight of PRP actions as an
enforcement activity which will improve FTE utilization.
53. To continue to increase the percentage of PRP cleanups and
take further pressure off appropriated funds, OECA should
conduct responsible party search benchmarking to identify
strong regional programs.
54. OECA and OSWER should work with the Lead Regions to
develop goals similar to those in the remedial program for
enforcement first in the removal program to increase the
percentage of PRP-conducted removal actions.
55. OSWER should identify a management liaison who can
work with OECA to facilitate and support enforcement first for
the removal program.
56. OECA, in consultation with the Department of Justice
(DOJ), should explore ways to access or gain greater expertise
in the area of insurance-related cost recovery (i.e., insurance
archaeology), and sponsor several pilot programs across the
country to increase potential sources of funding for orphan
sites.
OSWER
X
X
X
OECA
X
X
X
X
X
ORD
OARM
OCFO
OEI
OAR
Regions
X
X
X
X
X
X
121
-------
Recommendation
57. To improve individual regional performance, OECA and
the lead Region should evaluate current enforcement measures
and develop additional regional site-specific measures that
provide a more accurate picture of the program's success and
provide an incentive to improve performance.
58. OECA and the Regions should develop procedures that
encourage continued collaboration with PRPs in site cleanups
in order to decrease the need for EPA's expenditure of
oversight resources.
59. Senior management within EPA and the DOJ should affirm
their commitment to cost recovery.
60. To improve the tracking and recovery of removal costs,
Regions that have not invested in field administrative
specialists should develop this expertise, or find other ways to
accomplish the same goal.
61. OECA and the Regions should discuss the current special
account guidance to determine if additional clarification is
necessary to maximize the use of special account dollars.
62. Regions should track and periodically report to
headquarters how much special account money they are using
annually and how they are using it.
Examining the Role of Research and Technology
Recommendations
63. ORD, OSWER, and the Regions should work together to
survey Superfund managers and RPMs by June 2005 to
discover if the actions taken above have addressed the concerns
of the Regions about having input into the Agency's research
agenda and the value and utility of long-term research.
OSWER
X
OECA
X
X
X
X
X
ORD
X
OARM
OCFO
OEI
OAR
Regions
X
X
X
X
X
122
-------
Recommendation
64. The Assistant Administrators and/or Deputy Assistant
Administrators for ORD and OSWER should meet with the
Deputy Administrator no later than June 10, 2004, to discuss
improvements both organizations intend to implement to
improve the effectiveness of the Superfund research program.
65. OSWER should examine the feasibility of using a more
quantitative cost-benefit methodology for selecting technology
innovation projects, since resources are so limited in order to
further improve program effectiveness.
Evaluating Superfund's share of Management and Support
Recommendations
66. OCFO should analyze the Superfund charging across the
Agency to ensure the use of approved methodologies and get a
better understanding of the variations.
Optimizing the Use of Superfund Dollars
Recommendations
67. OECA should set a site-specific charging goal (e.g., XX
percent) tailored for each Region.
68. Key program offices (OECA, OSWER, and OCFO) should
review the new payroll system to determine if there are
opportunities to make site-specific charging easier and more
user-friendly.
69. The Regions should continue to build cost analysis
expertise.
70. OSWER should review and potentially revise the
Brownfields deobligation policy documents in light of statutory
changes and the progress made in reviewing older grants.
OSWER
X
X
X
X
X
X
OECA
X
X
X
ORD
X
X
OARM
X
OCFO
X
X
OEI
X
OAR
X
Regions
X
-
X
X
123
-------
Recommendation
71 . OSWER and the Regions should evaluate the unexpended
dollars on older Brownfields grants to determine if those funds
can be used for the original award purpose.
72. For programmatic contracts and lAGs, OSWER should
immediately establish a pool of $5 million to cover indirect
cost rate adjustments and late bills for Headquarters and
Regional response contracts and additional bills for lAGs
73. OCFO and OARM should work together to develop
standard operating procedures for resolving billing issues with
other federal agencies.
74. If it has not already done so, OSWER should circulate the
Direct Cite payment process document to the Regions and
ensure that staff members are properly educated on the process.
75. OARM and OCFO, in consultation with the Grants
Management Council, should review the current IAG closeout
policy to determine if any revisions to the guidance are needed.
76. Common grant closeout issues should be discussed at the
Grants Management Council, and the Agency should establish
consistent approaches to these problems.
77. Headquarters and the Regions should identify which other
federal agencies they are having difficulty with managing and
closing out LAGs.
78. For LAGs, grants, and contracts, OARM should establish
appropriate closeout performance measures and send quarterly
reports to Senior Resource Officials with outstanding
closeouts, including the amount of outstanding dollars.
79. OARM, OSWER, and the Regions should work together to
encourage the use of alternative contract types.
OSWER
X
X
X
X
X
OECA
ORD
OARM
X
X
X
X
X
X
OCFO
X
X
X
OEI
OAR
Regions
X
X
X
X
X
124
-------
Recommendation
80. OARM and regional contracting officers should offer
regular training for contract personnel, RPMs, OSCs, and
project officers in alternative contract mechanisms.
81. OARM and the Assistant Regional Administrators should
conduct an analysis to determine if cost efficiencies and
programmatic benefits can be obtained by consolidating
contract functions.
82. OSWER, with support from OARM, should provide
increased contract management training.
83. OARM and OSWER should work closely with the Regions
to monitor contracts to ensure that the Regions have not funded
their contracts into the future to an extent where they cannot
appropriately use the funds during the contract period.
84. In the near term, the OSWER Senior Resource Official
should establish policies for the durations of grants and lAGs.
For the long term, OARM should work with the Agency to
establish Agency policies for the durations of all types of
grants and LAGs.
85. OARM and the Regions should analyze the different types
of grants to determine their current funding levels and draw-
down histories and establish criteria that will be used to
evaluate grants that need increased monitoring.
86. OARM should continue its commitment to create an
improved overall training course for project officers and LAG
specialists focusing solely on LAGs
87. OARM should continue to build upon the improvements
already undertaken to better monitor grants in the areas of
billing, deliverables, and milestones, and should ensure that the
proper monitoring tools are available to managers and staff.
OSWER
X
X
X
OECA
X
ORD
X
OARM
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OCFO
X
OEI
X
OAR
X
Regions
X
X
X
X
X
125
-------
Recommendation
88. OARM should provide status updates to project officers
and managers on the future deployment of the LAG module of
IGMS.
89. OSWER should evaluate and update, if necessary, national
policy on state cost share, payment policy, and refund policy.
If this guidance does not need to be updated, the 1990 guidance
should be re-circulated.
90. OSWER and OCFO, if needed, should work together to
establish monthly reports that staff and managers can use to
better track SSC collections, obligations, and expenditures.
91. OSWER and the Regions should work together to establish
performance measures for SSCs, which could address the
timeliness of collecting funds and returning excess funds to
states.
92. OSWER and OARM should analyze how much EPA is
paying other federal agencies in indirect, PPMD, and other
costs.
93. EPA headquarters should negotiate a national overhead rate
for all LAGs depending on the results of the (above) analysis
94. The Regions should continue or should reestablish regular
meetings between regional senior managers and their
counterparts to discuss project milestones, deliverables status,
and opportunities to minimize cost growth.
95. OCFO should develop fact sheets on setting up special
accounts, utilizing special account dollars, and closing out the
accounts.
96. OECA and OCFO should design reports that clearly
describe the use and status of special accounts, and should
provide them to managers in the Regions and headquarters on a
regular basis.
OSWER
X
X
X
X
X
OECA
X
ORD
OARM
X
X
X
OCFO
X
X
X
OEI
OAR
Regions
X
X
126
-------
Recommendation
97. OECA should identify the oldest special accounts and then
meet with the Regions to discuss uses of those dollars and
progress toward using them.
98. OARM and OCFO should work with Senior Resource
Officials to communicate the development and deployment
status of new Agency- wide systems (financial management,
grants and IAG management).
99. OSWER and the Regions should evaluate which systems
and tools currently exist or are under construction and should
circulate this information in order to avoid duplication of data
systems and tools
Reviewing Existing Performance Measures
Recommendations
100. ORD should continue their internal review and revise,
where appropriate, their Superfund performance measures to
become more program results-oriented.
101. OSWER and OECA (and possibly other offices as well)
should initiate a benchmarking study associated with an
important Superfund operation or function, such as RI/FSs or
PRP searches in order to improve the Superfund program's
efficiency, foster opportunities for innovation, and adopt best
management practices.
102. EPA's management and support offices should meet with
their Superfund response and enforcement clients to review
current measures and possibly establish new performance
measures specific to the Superfund program, such as on special
accounts and cost recovery in order to increase the Superfund
program's integration and efficiency.
TOTALS
OSWER
X
X
68
OECA
X
X
34
ORD
X
13
OARM
X
X
29
OCFO
X
X
24
OEI
11
OAR
10
Regions
X
X
X
X
70
127
-------
Appendix B: Summary of Options Table
OPTIONS
Improve Program Integration & Communications
Options
Under Recommendation 1
1 . Designate a Senior Superfimd Program Manager with
responsibility and authority across all Superfund resources.
2. Fulfill the same function as in Option 1 through a
multi-office Deputy Assistant Administrator-level Board
of Directors that includes regional representation.
3. As a hybrid of Options 1 and 2, establish the Superfund
Senior Superfund Program Manager position and designate
a Superfund Board of Directors.
4. In lieu of a Senior Superfund Program Manager,
designate or delegate as much responsibility and authority
for the Superfund program as possible to the OSWER
Assistant Administrator, who would be responsible for
setting Agency-wide Superfund policy spanning response,
enforcement, research and development, and resource
management, with all the staff working in these areas
either reporting to or taking policy direction from this
single Assistant Administrator.
Under Section: Reducing Costs to Meet Numerical
Targets
Deputy
Admin.
X
X
X
OSWER
X
OECA
X
ORD
X
OARM
X
OCFO
X
OEI
X
OAR
X
Regions
X
128
-------
OPTIONS
1 . Pro rata cut - The Agency should execute an across-
the-board, pro rata cut based on an estimated need for
remedial action funding, and should make exceptions only
on an extremely limited basis.
2. Targeted cut - The Agency should mandate specified
numerical reductions, but target the reductions by amount
and organization.
3. Hybrid approach - The Agency should set numerical
targets in a tiered structure, to achieve a hybrid between
Option 1 and Option 2.
4. No initial cuts — The Agency should make no cuts
initially until it has implemented some of the
programmatic and management recommendations.
RESPONSE Options
Under Recommendation 32
1. To capture the benefits of removal program activities,
OSWER should consider developing new ways of tracking
and reporting removal actions. This would include work
that (1) speeds cleanups at NPL sites and (2) completes
cleanup of a site that typically would be listed on the NPL.
2. OSWER should explore adopting a consistent national
approach that encourages Regions to ask states for a 10
percent cost share for non-time-critical removals to ensure
buy-in from states on priority cleanups and to conserve
federal resources for use at other high-priority sites in the
Region.
Deputy
Admin.
X
X
X
X
OSWER
X
X
OECA
ORD
OARM
OCFO
X
X
X
X
OEI
OAR
Regions
129
-------
OPTIONS
Under Section: Establishing National Standards and
Action Levels
Headquarters and the Regions should identify the five or
ten contaminants most commonly encountered in soil and
sediment at sites across the country in order to conserve
resources and utilize the experience and risk information
developed since the inception of the Superfund program.
Under Section: Using Presumptive Remedies and
Generic Designs
1 . To determine how the Agency has historically
developed presumptive remedies, OSWER or the Regions
should conduct a lessons learned analysis of how
previously identified presumptive remedies were
developed and disseminated and determine if those lessons
learned can help today.
2. OSWER should expand presumptive remedy guidance
to include more detailed technical designs to speed cleanup
and reduce study and design costs.
Under Recommendation 43
1 . Elevate the funding decision to senior management,
possibly by using the best practice described above, or
2. Develop standard operating procedures to ensure that
this decision is consistently based on certain factors,
including cost, contract capacity, and site needs.
Under Recommendation 46
OSWER should conduct a study of sites to determine
where state lead cleanups at NPL sites was very successful
and transfer the lessons learned to other states and regions.
Deputy
Admin.
OSWER
X
X
X
X
X
X
OECA
ORD
OARM
OCFO
'
OEI
OAR
Regions
X
X
130
-------
OPTIONS
Under Section: Adopting a Multi-year Funding Plan
and Funding Allocation
1 . To get the best price for a cleanup action, OSWER
should provide Regions with a budget that funds activities
over a period of years, with enough flexibility for
unexpected adjustments.
2. To maximize resources for multi-year plans and provide
incentives for cost efficiencies during implementation,
OSWER should consider funding the Regions one
allocation for all response activities.
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY Options
Under Recommendation 65
To maximize TIP benefits, OSWER should conduct a
study (if not already conducted) that examines why certain
RPMs are willing to utilize a new or innovative
technology, while others are not.
MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT Options
Under section: Long-term Approach to Management
and Support
EPA could begin work on developing a long-term plan for
transferring Superfund management and support costs to
the EPM appropriation.
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Options
Deputy
Admin.
OSWER
X
X
X
OECA
ORD
OARM
X
OCFO
X
OEI
OAR
Regions
X
131
-------
OPTIONS
Under Recommendation 69
OSWER should help the Regions by preparing and
distributing a "cost cookbook" describing frequent
construction tasks and estimates of the hours needed to
complete these tasks.
Under Section: Revising Deobligation Policies
OSWER, working with the Regions, should revise the
deobligation policy to increase the ratio of deobligated
dollars returned to Regions (e.g., to 50/50), with the
proviso that a high percentage of the funds be directed to
remedial action or removals at NPL sites.
Deputy
Admin.
OSWER
X
X
OECA
ORD
OARM
OCFO
OEI
OAR
Regions
X
X
132
-------
APPENDIX C: Program Accomplishments
The Superfund program's workload is tracked through a series of site and project
milestones that are referred to as the "Superfund pipeline." This term is most often used
in reference to the Superfund remedial program, encompassing the activities that flow
from analysis and characterization of the site's contamination to the selection, design, and
construction of the site's remedial actions. For purposes of simplicity, most of this
discussion focuses on the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RJ7FS), the Record of
Decision (ROD), remedial design (RD), and remedial action (RA). For all pipeline
activities, the numbers of Fund-financed and potentially responsible party (PRP)-lead
actions, and the total Fund/FRF actions are reported, hi addition, the numbers of
construction completions at NPL sites and five-year reviews are discussed. While
Superfund has more outcome-oriented measures of success that are discussed at the end
of this section, pipeline activity measures provide the best gauge of workload trends.
hi recent years, the traditional Superfund site and project work has been complemented
with additional "Superfund alternative" site actions, which are the substantive equivalent
of National Priorities List (NPL) remedial activities. While the RI/FS work may be
conducted as a Fund-financed action, RD/RA work at Superfund alternative sites is
always conducted by the PRPs.
The Superfund enforcement workload closely tracks with remedial program activities,
and can also be summarized using site and project milestones. The RD/RA negotiation
completion milestone, de minimis settlements, and cost recovery actions for past costs
over $200,000 addressed are presented to provide an overview of the enforcement
program's unique workload.
The Superfund removal program has a streamlined cleanup process, with most actions
completed in less than a year. The removal program workload is reported here using two
measures: NPL removal starts and non-NPL removal starts. Over and above its site
cleanup accomplishments, the removal program serves as EPA's focus for emergency
preparedness and response. In recent years, the program has been the conduit for EPA's
primary contributions to the nation's homeland security initiatives. The program's most
noteworthy activities include responding to the attacks on the World Trade Center,
cleaning up the anthrax contamination of the Hart Senate Office Building, and recovering
debris from the space shuttle Columbia.
Remedial Pipeline Accomplishments
Since the Superfund program's establishment in 1980, 1,518 sites have been placed on
the NPL (274 have since been deleted from the NPL). The majority of final NPL sites
were listed in the early years of the Superfund program, and by 1992, the final list
contained over 1,200 sites. Since that year, NPL listing has averaged approximately 30
sites annually. As would be expected, after an initial surge of listings, the program would
slowly achieve a steady-state at a much lower level of annual listings than at its inception.
133
-------
Of the 1,518 final NPL sites, 177 are federal facility sites where EPA does not fund the
remediation. For this reason, in the balance of this section, data reporting will focus on
the nonfederal facility (privately owned) NPL sites. All data are reported as of the end of
FY 2003 (September 30, 2003).
Since the early 1990s, EPA has focused its reporting of NPL accomplishments on
achievement of "construction completion"~the completion of cleanup at a site. This
measure is a critical indicator of overall program progress, and is the culmination of years
of work moving sites through the Superfund pipeline. Accordingly, this section describes
the accomplishments and trends in the response and enforcement activities that led to
those completions.
Figure 6: Construction Completes
100 -i
QA -
DA
70
Rn
en -
40
Of)
90
10 -
0 -
PI^I
1999
87
2000
47
2001
10 n MPI ^itp°
4Z 4Q 1— 1 iNrL. ouca
2002 2003
Remedial pipeline activities are reported using the total number of activities, the
percentage of NPL sites that number represents, and the average annual workload for the
Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003 timeframe. Any clear trends evident during that
timeframe are also reported. Overall, remedial activity levels are reduced from the peak
levels of the 1990s; early pipeline activities (RI/FS, ROD, and RD starts) show the
greatest reductions, while the ongoing remedial action construction workload remains
very high.
Studies and Records of Decisions
Of 1,395 (private) NPL sites, 1,334 (96 percent) have begun their RI/FS work, and 2,300
RI/FS actions have begun at these NPL sites. (Given the size of some sites or site
complexity, the Agency may conduct multiple studies at a site). In recent years, an
average of 51 RI/FS projects were begun annually, and the rate of RI/FS starts has
declined by approximately 35 percent over the past five years. This reflects the maturing
134
-------
of the program as many sites listed at the beginning of Superfund move through the
pipeline.
At this point in time, the earlier phases of the pipeline are focusing on a reduced number
of new sites. Selection of the remedy, in a ROD, represents the culmination of the RI/FS.
A total of 1,164 sites (83 percent) have had one or more RODs signed, for a total of 1,718
RODs. During Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003, an average of 41 RODs were signed
annually, and an additional 18 ROD amendments were signed annually. For both RI/FS
starts and RODs, current activity levels are a much lower than the levels often years ago,
when approximately 100 RI/FS were initiated and 140 RODs were signed annually. This
reflects that initially the Superfund program had to identify the "backlog" of sites, assess
them, list them and begin to clean them up. This task was successfully completed in the
early years of the program, and now it continues to identify and list new sites as they
arise.
Figure 7: ROD and ROD amendments
D Superfund Alternative
ROD
• NPL ROD Amended
DNPLROD
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
RD/RA Negotiations and Remedial Design
Except for the small minority of sites that have no identifiable PRPs, EPA conducts
RD/RA negotiations after remedy selection and before initiating the RD. This is part of
the Agency's enforcement first initiative. If unsuccessful, the RD project will be funded
by appropriated dollars; if successful, RD/RA activities will be conducted by the
potentially responsible party (PRP). These negotiations, and the PRP search work that
precedes them, have enabled EPA to successfully pursue its goal of having PRPs take the
lead at 70 percent of all RD/RA work. Based on the annual average of 42 RODs in
recent years, EPA has completed an average of 31 RD/RA negotiations a year.
135
-------
Figure 8: RD/RA Negotiations with PRPs Completed
40 -
qc
•5f)
oc
2o -
Of)
1*5
10
c
n -
37
34
26
26
£i
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
The total value of Superfund response settlements since 1995 exceeds $7.5 billion,
reflecting the highly successful implementation of the enforcement-first policy that has
been in place since 1989. Settlements averaged nearly $1 billion annually during FY
2000-2003.
A total of 2,085 RD projects were started at 1,030 NPL sites (74 percent of the NPL)
during 1999-2003, and EPA averaged 56 annual RD starts for the period. The annual
average for RD starts has declined during the past five years, and current RD start levels
are approximately half the levels of a decade ago. As with other pipeline measures, this
decrease reflects the program's attainment of steady state operation in the earlier phases
of the work required to clean up a Superfund site. During the most recent five years,
PRP-lead RD starts have averaged 29 a year, relative to 27 Fund RD starts, or
approximately 53 percent of the total.
136
-------
Figure 9: Remedial Designs Started
nSuperfund Alternative
• PRP
DFund
1999
2000
2001
2002 2003
Remedial Actions
The final major stage of the remedial process is construction of the remedial action. RA
projects have been initiated at 990 sites (71 percent of the private NPL sites), and 1,881
RAs have begun at these sites. RA starts have averaged 72 a year during 1999-2003,
with an average of 18 Fund-led and 54 PRP-led RA projects started each year. Because
many RA projects take several years to complete, reporting RA completions is important
for determining workload trends.
A total of 1,431 RA projects have been completed at 815 NPL sites, which represents 58
percent of private NPL sites with at least one RA project completed. (The RA
completion milestone occurs after construction completion and includes additional
administrative tasks including a detailed report on the work completed at the site.) In
recent years, an average of 85 RA projects have been completed annually, with this
average being divided between 24 Fund-lead and 61 PRP-lead projects. Unlike the
earlier stages of the remedial pipeline, RA starts and completions remain at levels close
to their high-water mark of the mid-1990s, when an average of 90 RA projects were
completed every year.
137
-------
Figure 10: Remedial Actions Completed
D Superfund Alternative
• PRP
D Fund
1999
2000 2001 2002 2003
All of this work leads to completing construction at an NPL site. At the end of FY 2003,
construction was completed at 63 percent of private NPL sites (886 sites). From an
annual high of 85 construction completions, EPA is currently completing construction at
about 40 NPL sites a year. The high rate of completions in the 1990s was possible
because the majority of sites added to the NPL in the first five years of the Superfund
program were close to completion when the new measure was created. The new
emphasis on completions allowed the Agency to finish a large number of sites in a very
short time. Prior to making construction completion a measure of program success, the
emphasis had been on starting work at the worst sites. An unintended consequence of
this strategy was that it often left necessary but lower priority work at nearly completed
sites unfinished. By stressing completing sites, this work was quickly accomplished and
many sites completed. In addition by FY 2000, the lower rate of NPL listing during the
1990s had resulted in a reduced number of sites moving through design and construction
to completion.
With the majority of NPL sites having completed construction, the "post-construction"
workload of five-year reviews (required for all sites where any wastes above the
applicable health-based standard remain contained on site) and long-term response
actions (LTRAs — the first ten-year operational period for Fund-financed Groundwater
Pump and Treatment systems for restoration) is at record levels. Five-year reviews were
completed at some 134 sites annually during Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003, and at the
end of FY 2003, the Regions had initiated 84 LTRA projects. The exact dimensions of
this post-construction workload are still developing, although it is clear that the vast
majority of NPL sites will need continuing care for years to come.
138
-------
Figure 11: 5-year Reviews
200 -,
1RO -
1RD
140 -
120 -
inn -
on -
fin
AC\
on
173
160
A AC
113
118
IHU
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
-
What remains to be completed is a group of sites that on average are more complex and
costly, and are weighted more heavily toward the RA phase of the pipeline than the
program workload of the earlier years of the Superfund program. At the end of FY 2003,
375 RA projects were underway, while only 230 RD projects were awaiting completion.
This represents a much greater share of ongoing work in the most costly RA stage than
has previously been the case.
Federal Facility Accomplishments
Most federal facility sites were added to the NPL in the late 1980s and early 1990s, about
six to eight years later than most private sites, hi addition to being added to the NPL
later, many federal facility sites are larger and more complex than privately owned sites.
The Agency has separate federal facility programs in both the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Activities and the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response to
manage the interaction that culminates in the signing of interagency memoranda of
agreement that establish enforceable response schedules. Without EPA attention, it is
unlikely that these sites would be moving through the remediation process at their current
rate.
The federal facility NPL program grew from 120 sites in 1992 to 177 sites today. During
this timeframe, the number of ongoing federal facility RI/FS projects has grown from 279
to 503. However, the increased workload for the RA phase most clearly demonstrates the
tremendous growth of the federal facility remedial program. Ongoing RA projects
increased from 13 to 230, and completed RA projects increasing from 10 to 584. While
much work remains at these often very large, complex sites, much progress is evident,
with 40 federal facility sites having completed construction.
139
-------
Additional Enforcement Accomplishments
The high ratio of remedial pipeline work conducted by PRPs is the clearest
accomplishment of the Superfund Enforcement program. It is also noteworthy to briefly
highlight some of the work performed to resolve the liability issues of smaller parties (de
minimis settlements) and the enforcement actions that address past costs in excess of
$200,000 through cost recovery actions. Since increasing its emphasis on fairness in
enforcing the Superfund program, EPA has negotiated with companies which contributed
lower amounts or less toxic wastes to sites and has offered de minimis settlements to
resolve their liability. A total of 539 de minimis settlements have been completed since
FY 1987, with an annual average of 22 de minimis settlements from Fiscal Years 1999
through 2003.
Some 226 annual decisions have been reached in the past five years to address past costs
at NPL and non-NPL sites where EPA's costs incurred were in excess of $200,000.
Superfund cost recovery settlements have totaled $3.9 billion over the history of the
Superfund program. During Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003, they averaged more than
$200 million per year.
Figure 12: Cost Recovery Final Decisions (Past Costs > $200K)
300 -
ocri
ofin
1^0 -
100 -
Kf)
n -
245
205
199
216
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
While quite rare only ten years ago, establishing and managing special accounts has
recently been an area of emphasis and growth in recent years. Special accounts result
from consent decrees between the Agency and settling PRPs where funds from a PRP are
placed in an account to be used for Agency past or future costs or PRP use. Since the
Superfund program began, $1.38 billion in cash receipts has been collected through
special accounts, and over $700 million has been collected in the past five years.
Negotiating with PRPs to establish special accounts has become a significant Superfund
140
-------
enforcement workload, and are providing a critical source of response funding for
ongoing and future response actions.
Superfund alternative sites are another accomplishment that links best to the enforcement
program. These sites are important to acknowledge because they have been determined
through Superfund site assessments to be eligible for listing on the NPL, therefore, they
would typically require extensive response action. While sometimes jump-started by
funding the RI/FS with appropriated funds, the remedial design and remedial action for
these sites is always conducted by a PRP. In addition, past costs are commonly
recovered, and/or special accounts are established to finance future EPA activities
including oversight. Work at a total of 109 Superfund alternative sites has been initiated
in recent years, and the program has incorporated activities at these sites into its detailed
progress reporting measures. During FY 2002, 35 removal actions were conducted at
Superfund alternative sites, and another 28 RI/FS projects were begun and 13 RODs were
completed. While most Superfund Alternative sites are still early in the response process,
9 RA projects were started and 5 RA projects were completed at these sites during FYs
2002 and 2003. Some of this work occurred prior to 2002, but it was not tracked in the
Agency's management systems.
Superfund Removal Program
More than 7,000 removal actions have been started at more than 5,000 sites since the
inception of the Superfund program. Removals occur at both NPL and non-NPL sites,
and are generally short-term, limited-cost response actions taken to address more urgent
and clear-cut public health risks than remedial actions at NPL sites. During Fiscal Years
1999 through 2003, an average of 49 removals at NPL sites and over 240 removals at
non-NPL were initiated annually. These actions have made NPL sites safe in the short-
term so that long-term remedial activities may proceed without undue risk to public
health. For the more than 4,000 sites not on the NPL, the removal action has either
stabilized or fully cleaned up the property so that no additional federal action is
necessary.
Figure 13: Removals Completed
D Superfund Altematixe
Sites
• Non-NPL
DNPL
1999 2000 2001
2002 2003
141
-------
Unlike the Superfund remedial program, where typically 70 percent of response actions
are implemented by PRPs, only one-third of removal actions have been conducted by
PRPs historically. A very positive trend toward more PRP-lead removal actions is
evident during the past five years, with the national share growing steadily from 30
percent in FY 1999 to 49 percent in FY 2003. There is a great deal of variation across the
EPA regions, however, with the Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003 average rate of PRP-
lead removals ranging from a low of 12 percent to a high of 59 percent.
Additional Measures of Success
Superfund pipeline, enforcement, and removal activities are important measures of
workload, and reflect the detailed internal tracking of the Superfund program's progress
that is essential to the program's internal management. However, these measures do not
necessarily communicate the successes of the program, or the outcomes of resource
expenditures.
The number of NPL sites where response actions prevent unacceptable human exposure
to site contaminants is one example of such a measure of success. At the end of FY
2003, 82 percent of all NPL sites had controls in place to prevent such exposures. Most
Superfund sites have a combination of surface contamination and contaminated
groundwater, and groundwater typically takes much longer to address. At the end of FY
2003, 65 percent of NPL sites with contaminated groundwater had controls in place to
prevent the spread of this contamination within the affected aquifer. While this
percentage may seem low, the Superfund program addresses immediate threats to public
health or the environment with its removal program. This allows the remedial program
the time necessary to focus on selecting the proper long-term alternative. Part of the time
required to do this is not only the scientific study necessary, but also the robust
community involvement at the heart of the remedy selection process.
142
-------
143
-------
APPENDIX D: Superfimd Resource Tables by National
Program Manager (NPM)
144
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
IG
National Program
(All $ In Thousands;
FY1999 Difference
FY1999Pres. Operating FY199S (OP Plan -
Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
FTE Total
Suporfund FTE
Bromnftelds FTE
Resources Total
Payrol
Trave
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Irownflelds
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownfields Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
99.0 84.7 14.3
99.0 84.7 14.3
0.0
$10,753.1 $10,753.1 $9,279.9 $1,473.2
$0.0 $8.2050 $7,092.8 $1,112.2
$0.0 $496.0 $294.1 $201.9
$0.0 $1,542.9 $1,351.5 $191.4
$0.0 $509.2 $541.5 ($32.3)
$10,753.1
$8,205.0
$496.0
$1,542.9
$509.2
FY2000 Difference
FY2000 Operating FY2000 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
100.0 80.8 19.2
100.0 808 19.2
0.0
$10,753.1 $11,000.0 $10,131.4 $868.6
$7,433.9 $7,264.0 $169.9
$635.3 $548.8 $86.5
$2,061.6 $1,323.8 $737.8
$869.2 $994.8 ($125.6)
$11,000.0 $8,812.0 $2,188.0
$7,433.9 $6,853.8 $580.1
$635.3 $269.6 $365.7
$2.061.6 $1,181.8 $879.8
$869.2 $506.8 $362.4
$1,319.4
$410.2
$279.2
$142.0
$488.0
FY2003 Difference
FY2003Pres. Operating FY2003 (OP Plan -
Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
94.1 89.9 4.2
94.1 89.9 4.2
$12,742.0 $12,659.1 $12,110.4 $548.7
$0.0 $10,208.7 $9,543.3 $665.4
$555.0 $629.7 ($74.7)
$0.0 $1,283.4 $1,077.5 $205.9
$0.0 $612.0 $859.9 ($247.9)
$12,659.1 $7,905.5 $4,753.6
$10,208.7 $7,370.4 $2,838.3
$555.0 $184.5 $370.5
$1,283.4 $127.2 $1,156.2
$612.0 $223.4 $388.6
$4,204.9
$2,172.9
$445.2
$950.3
$636.5
% Change
1999 to 2003 199910
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-4.9% 6.1%
-4.9% 6.1%
17.7% 30.50/,
24.4% 34.5%
11.9% 114.1%
-16.8% -20.3%
20.2% 58.8%
2000 to
2003 2000 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-5.9% 11.3%
-5.9% 113%
15 1% 19.5%
37.3% 31.4%
-12.6% 14.7%
-37.7% -186%
-29.6% -13.6%
-10.3%
75%
-31 6%
-89.2%
-55.9%
•Resources Total for FY 1999. 2000, and 2003 Operating Plan Includes all the resources in the N2 Superfund IG transfer sub-appropriation of the IG appropriation
"All Data was extracted from BAS
'Travel does not Include site travel, which Is included in Otfjer
145
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
OA
National Program
(All $ in Thousands)
FY1999 Difference
FY1999Pres. Operating FY1999 (OP Plan -
Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
FTE Total
Superfund FTE
Brownfields FTE
Resources Total
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownfields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownfields Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
11.8 7.2 4.6
11.8 7.2 4.6
0.0 0.0 0.0
$4,381.7 $4,137.5 $1,265.8 $2,851.7
$1.079.3 $655.8 $423.5
$38.3 $7.4 $30.9
$667.7 $103.5 $564.2
$2,352.2 $519.1 $1,833.1
$4,137.5
$1,079.3
$38.3
$667.7
$2.352.2
FY2000 Difference
FY2000 Operating FY2000 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
15.8 19.7 (3.9)
9.9 14.1 (4.2)
5.9 5.6 0.3
$4,288.5 $2,213.7 $3,248.9 ($1,033.2)
$0.0 $1,293.4 $1,207.5 $85.9
$0.0 $36.1 $16.0 $20.1
$0.0 $629.4 $544.8 $84.6
$0.0 $254.8 $1,478,6 ($1.223.8)
$868.7
$810.4
$25.6
$0.0
$32.7
$221.2
$0.0
$221.2
$1,023.8 $535.3
$483.0 $121.9
$10.5 $4.5
$529.4 $398.3
$0.9 $10.6
$100.0
$100.0
FY2003 Difference
FY2003 Operating FY2003 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
% Change
1999102003 1999to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-100.0% -100.0"/,
-100.0% -100.0%
-100.0"/,
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
"All Data was extracted from BAS
'Travel does not include site travel, which is included in Other
"FY 1999 Operating Plan does not Include carryover
*FY 2000 and 1999 Actuals Include carryover, even though ft Is not broken out on the chart
146
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
OAR
National Program
(All S in Thousands)
FY1999 Difference
FY1999Pres. Operating FY1999 (OP Plan -
Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
FTE Total
Superfund FTE
Brownfields FTE
Resources Total
Payrol
Trave
Contracts I Grants
Other
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Othei
-lomeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Brownfields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Brownfields Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts / Grants
Other
13.0 12.4 0.6
13.0 12.4 0.6
$2,290.7 $2,375.0 $2,204.0 $171.0
$0.0 $1,031.2 $965.2 $66.0
$0.0 $101.8 $98.0 $3.8
$0.0 $1,141.0 $691.0 $450.0
$0.0 $101.0 $449.8 ($348.8)
$2,290.7 $2,375.0
$1,031.2
$101.8
$1,141.0
$101.0
FY2000 Difference
FY2000 Operating FY2000 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
15.4 15.5 (0.1;
15.4 15.5 (0.1)
$2,278.3 $2,280.2 $2,184.4 $95.8
$1,180.4 $1,251.3 ($70.9)
$102.8 $84.9 $17.9
$897.0 $590.8 $306.2
$100.0 $257.4 ($157.4)
$2,280.2
$1,180.4
$102.8
$897.0
$100.0
FY2003 Difference
FY2003 Operating FY2003 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
15.0 15.4 (0.4)
15.0 15.4 (0.4)
$2,234.3 $2,267.1 $2,138.0 $129.1
$0.0 $1,443.8 $1,442.2 $1.6
$101.8 $69.8 $12.0
$0.0 $522.7 $429.8 $92.9
$0.0 $198.8 $176.2 $22.6
$0.0 $2,218.8 $2,092.7 $126.1
$1.443.8 $1,442.2 $1.6
$101.8 $89.8 $120
$474.4 $384.9 $89.5
$198.8 $175.8 $23.0
$48.3 $45.3 $3.0
$0.0
$48.3 $44.9 $3.4
$0.4 ($0.4)
% Change
1999 to 2003 1999 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
15.4% 24.2%
15.4% 24.2%
-4.5% -3.0%
40.0% 49.4%
0.0% -8.4%
-54.2% -37.8%
96.8% -60.8%
-6.6%
40.0%
0.0%
-58.4%
96.8%
2000 to
2003 2000 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
•2.67, -0.6%
-2.6% -0.6%
-0.6% -2 1%
22.3% 15.3%
-1.0% 5.8%
-41.7% -27.3%
988% -31.5%
-2 7%
22.3%
-1 0%
-47 1%
9B.8%
'FY 2000 and 1999 Actuals include carryover, even though it is not broken out on (ha chart
•All Data was extracted from BAS
'Travel does not include site travel, which is included in Other
147
-------
Suporfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2Q-D3
OARM
National Program
(All 3 In Thousands)
FTE Total
Resources Total
Payroll
TVweJ
CHftsr
Pises! Year Appropriation
Psymfl
Tisml
Otter
lanyover
PnyivB
Travsl
Contracts 1 Gioitis
Other
Homeland Security
Corrfiacls / Growls
QVis/
Payiv-1
Trovol
Cunlroctr. / Gran's
Olhci
Irawnflalds Carryover
Ttovzl
Conbaclsl Grants
Otlvi
*FV 20BO end 1039 Actuals
FY1099 Different
FY1&S9 Pres. Operating FY1899 (OP Pten -
Bud Plan Actuate Actuals)
314.2 342.3 (28.1)
3120 3423 (294)
1.3 00 13
$90,007.9 $88,742.0 $50.625.8 ($2,062.9)
SOO $21,128 0 S2.fl.373 2 ($5.249 2)
£00 $1 ,081 5 S752 B $328 7
$0 0 $49,558 5 $47,295 5 11,273 0
$39,649.
521,032
$1.091
14656$.
$93.4
$534
nclucte carryover, even though It la not broken out on Ihg
FY2BOO Difference
FY2000 OpoTBtfng FV23SO (OP Plan -
PTOB. Bud Plan Actual* Actuals)
237.8 248.Q (B.B]
2303 2404 (101)
1 8 02 13
(03,718.8 $81,752.4 $85,593.4 ($3,83 T.Cj
SOO $195669 £20 710 1 (SI, 143 2;
$00 51,7842 $1.0793 STIM 9
SOO $43.3599 849,3028 (SI 0!?.".
$78,035.1
S1.68SB
J43.9G07
$2,351.3
S7BB
S174. 1
$7431
S1.3573
SU18.3 $1,183.7
$1344 5100G
£05 £02
5315 S304
51,051 9 51,0525
$157.7
S1677
chart
FY2M1 Dlfforoncc
FY2D01 Operatlrta FY2M1 (OP Plan -
PTOI. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
23Q.3 230.2 (1.Q)
2351 2335 16
12 47 (3V;
$eg,G93.a $Bs,&i4-2 tsi.ess.e $53,949 4
$20,fr1ti3 S23605 7 SMI fl
81 %335 !1'f^' 1 ($S75Sfi;
85DS!1? S50513S
S52,S20.3
f Zf] 6P5 5 120 PS9 5
$1.t240 SI .3240
J-iflSI-i 1 (43.511 1
£1518
£00
J780 3
$fl243
J1.M3-0 S1.7SS.8
SI092 S-1185
Sd5 574
EW9 S133 6
SI, 1754 $1 2293
FY2D02 DlffarancH
FY2D32 OperoWng FY2I32 (OP Plan -
Pros, Bud Plan ActuaJe Actaaia)
231.6 238.9 (7.3
23," 4 239 a I* ^
12 01 11
I92,4M.6 S£S,031 .8 $6^14.8
Jno S22.160B S22.5QI 5 (S3547
100 !! 2B98 EMI 7 1157 1
1530324 £50 "TOO S3P->< 5
$63,007 J $53,330.7 $B3,'i35.Q (3,835.7
"!^J "^sa (SS=;
S 52 563 1 J4B 935 2 !P SOT 3
S3.0T3.D I2,Ses.3 $473,1
S2M<1 S137 G K'Sg
81 0 831 (521}
!l 4^1 fi S1.3-583 JW3 1
SI, 376 9 SI. t?77 S2T1 2
10.0 SO.B EQ.C
SOO
jon
SOO
$0.0
^2033 Opffratiitg FY2Qa3 (OP Pian -
PPBB. Bud Plan Aetna's Actuals)
230,4 239.8 (B 4
2^4 3-nS (-1^
c ~ r 'v •• i.
"Si4.200 7 521 5.'* 2 $73? ri
St 3199 S7-IC17 «,r/^fl
t!4,65B,2 SW.GSS 3 (10.1)
S24 1W 7 E23 e-'j> 2 S-^1!? 5
$033,4 $3,5744 ISZ7BS.O
55 '"-B Si ZT--4 iS^3r
Qp^Tatlng 2053
Plan Actuals
•20.7% -29.9',
-3.T5. -2,8*-
22 S1- -5 -'.
-S? ! , F '•:
-4,5ft
22- "
.5-* .:'-
ange
200a!n
2303 2MO to
OpEffaihiB 2 CO 3
Plan Actuals
•3.V.1 -2.5^,
-ZL-; -2'^
•2" ", . -K :A
.».-.
I' E '••?
-.'/ £ .
.i
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
OCFO
National Program
(All $ in Thousands)
FY1999 Difference
FY1999Pres. Operating FY1999 (OP Plan -
Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
FTE Total
Superfund FTE
Bmwnfields FTE
Resources Total
Payroll
Trave
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
=iscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Othe:
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Olhei
Homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Othei
Irownflelds
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Brownflelds Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
243.8 230.6 13.2
243.0 230.6 12.4
0.8 0.0 0.8
$29,479.4 $25.419.3 $23,158.7 $2,260.6
$0.0 $15,562.8 $14,840.9 $721.9
JO.O S506.0 $1984 S307.6
$0.0 $3,005.8 $3,315.0 ($309.2)
$0.0 $6,344.7 $4,804.4 $1.540.3
$25,365.4
$15,508.9
$506.0
$3,005.8
$6,344.7
$53.9
$53.9
FY2000 Difference
FY2000 Operating FY2000 (OP Plan -
Pros. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
230.4 221.5 8.9
228.9 221.3 7.5
1.5 0.2 1.3
$28,553.5 $27,405.1 $24,683.2 $2,721.9
$0.0 516,012.2 $16.111.9 ($99.7)
$0.0 $618.5 $200.6 S417.9
$0.0 $5,347.5 $3,762.0 S1.585.5
$0.0 $5,426.9 $4,608.7 $818.2
$25,277.1
$15.891.7
$367.6
$3,683.3
$5,334.5
$1,927.9
$17,2
$250.7
$1,632.0
$28.0
$200.1 $185.9
$103.3 $88.9
$0.2
$32.2 $48.0
$64.4 $49.0
FY2003 Difference
FY2003 Pros. Operating FY2003 (OP Plan -
Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
221.0 214.3 6.7
221.0 214.3 6.7
0.0 0.0 0.0
$28,419.4 $29,143.3 $27,125.3 $2,017.8
$19,321.8 $18,499.8 $822.2
S435.0 S294.5 S140.5
$3,917.2 $4.188.2 ($271.0)
$5,469.3 $4,143.2 $1,326 1
$23,461.1 $26,330.3 $2,130.6
$19,225.4 $18,499.6 $725.8
$435.0 $294.5 $140.5
$3,331.4 $3,463.0 ($131.6)
$5,469.3 -$4,073.2 $1,396.1
$682.2 $795.2 ($209.4)
$96.4
$0.0
$585.8 $725.2 ($139.4)
$70.0 ($70.0;
% Cha
1999 to 2003 1999 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-9.4% -7.1%
-9.1% -7.1%
-100.0%
14.7% 17.1%
24.2% ?.4;n;
-14.0% 48.4%
30.3% 28.3%
-13.8% -13.8':=
12.2%
24.0%
-14.0%
10.8%
-13.8%
nge
2000 to
2003 2000 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-».tf- -33--,
-3.5"- -2,1',.
-100 as -*ra "'•-
S3% S&
207'.; 1
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
OECA
National Program
(All $ In Thousands)
FY1999 Difference
FY1999Pres. Operating FY1999 (OP Plan •
Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
FTE Total
Superfund FTE
Brownfiolds FTE
Resources Total
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
DOJ
:iscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
DOJ Transfer
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts ! Grants
Other
homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Irownfields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
1164.4 1124.8 39.6
1158.6 1115.0 43.6
5.8 9.8 (4.0)
$185,568.4 $174,090.9 $182,538.8 ($8,447.9)
$95,338.5 $89,336.7 $6,001.8
$3,053.1 $1,714.1 S1.339.0
$38.367.5 $53,291.2 ($14,923.7)
$8,331.8 59,196.8 (S865.0)
S29.000.0 $29,000.0 $0.0
$183,635.8 $173,651.9
$94,919.9
$3,041.3
$38,367.4
$8,323.3
$29,663.5 $29,000.0
$1,932.6 $439.0
$418.6
$11.8
$0.1
$8.5
FY2000 Difference
FY2000 Operating FY2000 (OP Plan -
Pres, Bud Plan Actuals' Actuals)
1144.9 1073.5 71.4
1144.9 10727 722
0.0 0.8 (0.8)
$176.750.7 $173,837.3 $172,225.0 $1,612.3
$95,963.4 $91.775.9 $4,187.5
$2,910.5 $1.363.9 $1,546.6
$39,124.5 $42,569.6 ($3,445.1)
$7,175.4 $7.852.1 (S676.7)
$28,663.5 $28,663.5 $28,663.5 $0.0
$0.0 $168,656.6
$95,9634
$2,904.2
$35,424.5
$5.701.0
$28,663.5 $28,663.5 $28,663.5 $0.0
$5,174.4
$3,700.0
$1,474.4
$0.0 $6.3 $55.8 ($49.5)
$45.3
$6.3 $9.7
$0.8
FY2003 Difference
FY2003 Operating FY2003 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
1129.1 1074.3 54.8
1129.1 1074.3 54.8
$171,787.3 $177,431.2 $174,181.1 $3,250.1
5114,916.5 $110,958.7 $3,957.8
52,545.0 $1,923.9 5621.1
$22,468.6 $25,395.8 (52.927 2)
59,534.1 $7,935.7 81,598.4
$28,150.0 $27,967.0 $27,967.0 . $00
$170,074.0 $163,700.3 $6,373.7
$114,916.5 $110,372.8 54,543.7
$2,545.0 51,793.6 $7514
$16,382.1 $16,610.9 ($228.8)
$8,263.4 $6,956.0 51,3074
$28,150.0 $27.967.0 $27.967.0 $0.0
$6,586.5 $10,119.7 ($3,533.2)
$0.0 $363.0
$0.0 $0.0
$6,086.5 $8,783.7 ($2,697.2)
$500.0 $973.0 ($473 0)
$770.7 $361.1 $409.6
$222.9 ($222.9)
$130.3 ($130.3)
$1.2 ($1.2)
$770.7 $6.7 $764.0
7o Change
1999 to 2003 1999 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
•3.0% -4.5%
-2.5'.', -3.7=-.
-100 0% -100.0'..
1.9% -4.6%
20.5% 24.2": D
-16.6% 12.2'.'.
-41 4% -52.3=:
14.4% -13.71-:
-3 6% -3.6H
-2.1%
21.1%
-16.3%
-57.3%
-0.7%
-3.6%
2000 to
2003 2000 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-1.4% o.r,;
-1.4',« 0.1=4
-loo.on
2.1% 1.1V,
19.8S 20 9°:
-12.6:= 41 • '.
-S2.6",; -40 3' ..
32-9% 11".
-2.i->: -2 4
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
OEI*
National Program
(All $ In Thousands)
FY1999 Difference
FY1999Pres. Operating FY1999 (OP Plan -
Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
FTE Total
Superfund FTE
Brownfields FTE
Resources Total
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
3rownfields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
irownfields Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
FY2000 Difference
FY2000 Operating FY2000 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
33.2 42.0 (8.8)
33.0 42 0 (9.0)
0.2 0.0 0.2
$15.406.4 $9,230.1 $6,176.3
$3,125.9 $3,351.0 ($225.1)
$53.2 $47.2 $6.0
$8,217.7 $3,090.8 $5,126.9
$4,009.6 $2,741.1 $1,268.5
$14,410.7
$2,624.4
$45.1
$7,791.9
$3.949.3
$980.5
$486.5
$7.9
$425.8
$60.3
$15.2 $19.8 J$4.6)
$15.0 $19.8 ($4.8)
$0.2 $0.2
FY2003 Difference
FY2003 Operating FY2003 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
32.2 42.4 (10.2)
32.2 42.4 (10.2)
0.0
$18,992.6 $19,668.7 $18,545.2 $1,123.5
$3,227.9 $4,009.4 ($781.5)
$97.7 S51.4 $46.3
$11,046.1 $10,236.6 $809.5
$5,297.0 $4,247.8 $1,049.2
$19,035.3 $17,791.0 $1,244.3
$3,227.9 $4.009.4 ($781.5)
$97.7 $51.4 $46.3
$10.456.0 $9,738.2 $717.8
$5,253.7 $3,992.0 $1,261.7
$633.4 $715.1 ($81.7)
$0.0
$590.1 $459.3 $130.8
$43.3 $255.8 ($212.5)
$39.1 ($39.1)
$0.0
$0.0
$39.1 ($39.1)
$0.0
% Change
1999102003 1999to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
m N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2000 to
2003 2000 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-30';; 10':,
-2 4% 1 0",',
-100 0%
27 7% 100 9":,
3 3% 19 5%
83.6'1; 8.9",
344% 2312%
32.1% 55.0":,
32.1%
23 o';;,
11B.6°j
34 2",
330%
-35.4%
-100 0%
-100 0%
38.6%
-28.2%
'The Office of Environmental Information was established in FY 2000
"All Data was extracted from BAS
'Travel does not include site travel, which is included In Ofner
'FY 2000 actuals include carryover, even though it is not broken out on the charts
151
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
OGC
National Program
(All $ In Thousands)
FY1999 Difference
FY1999 Pres. Operating FY1999 (OP Plan -
Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
FTE Total
Superfund FTE
Brownfields FTE
Resources Total
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
•homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Brownfields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Jrownfields Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
30.4 24.9 5.5
29.3 24.6 4.7
1.1 0.3 0.8
$3,551.5 $3,276.9 $2,964.3 $312.6
$0.0 $2,825.1 $2,401.6 $423.5
$0.0 $44.0 $28.1 S15.9
$0.0 $370.2 $469.8 ($99.6)
$0.0 $37.6 $64.8 ($27.2)
$3,178.3
$2,726.7
$44.0
$370.2
$37.4
$98.6
$98.4
$0.2
FY2000 Difference
FY2000 Operating FY2000 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
30.3 24.8 5.5
29.2 24.5 4.7
1.1 0.3 0.8
$3,518.2 $3,651.2 $3.088.9 $562.3
$3,202.3 $2,567.9 $634.4
$84.7 $24.5 $60 2
$315.5 $455.1 ($139.6)
$48.7 $41.4 $7.3
$3,439.0
$3,040.0
$62.4
$291.3
$45.3
$14.9
($30.6)
$21.3
$24.2
$0.0
$116.5 $29.0
$116.4 $28.3
$0.7
$0.1
$80.8
$76.5
$1.0
$3.3
FY2003 Difference
FY2003 Operating FY2003 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
4.4 4.5 (0.1
4.4 4.5 (0.1)
$844.5 $868.6 $781.4 $87.2
$621.9 $653.8 ($31.9)
$25.7 $2.8 $22.9
$167.7 $80.0 $87.7
$53.3 $44.8 $8.5
$839.0 $778.0 $61.0
$621.9 $653.8 ($31.9)
$5.7 $0.5 $5.2
$167.7 $80.0 $87.7
$43.7 $43.7 $0.0
$29.6 $3.4 $26.2
$20.0 $2.3 $17.7
$9.6 $1.1 $8.5
% Change
1999 to 2003 1999 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-85.5% -81.9%
-85.0% -81.71!'-
-100.0% -100.0%
-73.5% -73.6%
-78.0% -72.8%
-41 6% -90.0%
-54.7% -83.0%
41.8% -30.9%
-73.6%
-77.2%
-87.0%
-54.7%
16.8%
2000 to
2003 2000 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-85.5"= -B1.9"-..
-84 9% -B1 6"..
-100.0% -100.0?.'
-76.2% -74 7%
-80. 6% -74.51;
-69 7% -88.651
-46.8% -82.4%
94% B.2',si
-75.8%
-79 5%
-90.9%
-42 4%
-3.5%
98.7%
-100 0%
-6.1%
-100.0%
*FY 2000 and 1999 Actuals include carryover, even though it is not broken out on the chart
"All Data was extracted from BAS
* Travel does not include site travel, which is included in Other
152
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
OPPE
National Program
(All $ In Thousands)
FY1999 Difference
FY1999Pres. Operating FY1999 (OP Plan -
Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
FTE Total
Superfund FTE
Brownfiolds FTE
Resources Total
Payroll
Travel
Contracts f Grants
Other
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
3rownfields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownflelds Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
5.9 4.6 1.3
0.0 0.0 0.0
5.9 4.6 '1.3
$1,014.8 $932.9 $902.0 $30.9
$0.0 $378.4 $367.0 $11.4
$0.0 $10.5 $11.5 ($1.0)
$0.0 $516.9 $522.7 ($5.8)
$0.0 $27.1 $0.8 $26.3
$19.6 $19.6
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$19.6
$995.2 $913.3
$378.4
$10.5
$516.9
$7.5
FY2000 Difference
FY2000 Operating FY2000 (OP Plan -
Pros. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
$1,008.7
$989.1
FY2003 Difference
FY2003 Operating FY2003 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
% Change
1999 to 2003 1999to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-100.0% -100.0V,
-100.0% -100.0%
-100.0% -ioo.o°/;
-100.0% -100.0%
-1000% -100.0%
-100.0% -100.0%
-100.0% -100.0%
'Resources Total Includes Carryover and Homeland Security
'All Data was extracted from BAS
•Travel does nol Include site travel, which Is Included In Other
•FY1999 Operating Plan does not Include carryover
•FY 2000 and 1999 Actuals Include carryover, even though It Is not broken out on the chart
153
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
ORD
National Program
(All $ In Thousands)
FY1999 Difference
FY1999Pre». Operating FY1999 (OP Plan -
Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
FTE Total
Superfund FTE
Brownfields FTE
Resources Total
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Jrown fields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownflelds Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
124.9 128.4 (3.5)
124.9 128.4 (3.5)
$40,200.8 $39,800.0 $29,604.1 $10,195.9
$0.0 $10,700.7 $10,301 4 $399.3
$0.0 $327.8 $295.6 $32.2
$0.0 $26.744.4 $17,8594 $8,885.0
$0.0 $2,027.1 $1,147.7 $879.4
$39,800.0
$10,700.7
$327.8
$26,744 4
$2.027 1
FY2000 Difference
FY2000 Operating FY2000 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
123.9 131.6 (7.7)
123.9 131 6 (7.7)
$37,271.4 $37,493.8 $40,828.6 ($3,334.8)
$0.0 $10,578.2 $11,111.8 ($533.6)
JO.O $422.4 $421,4 $10
$00 $24,314.1 $26,464.2 ($2,150.1)
$0.0 $2,179.1 $2,8312 ($652.1;
$37,493.8 $27,953.6 $9,540.2
$10,578.2 $10,717.9 ($139.7)
$422.4 $390.8 $31.6
$24,314.1 $15,121.4 $9,192.7
$2,179.1 $1.723.5 $455.6
$12,875.0
$393.9
$30.6
$11,342.8
$1,107.7
FY2003 Difference
FY2003 Operating FY2003 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
140.0 137.2 2.8
140.0 137.2 2.8
$111,168.0 $85,607.9 $49,869.5 $35,738.4
$0.0 $14,109.8 $14,650.8 ($541.0)
$567.8 $638.0 ($70.2
$0.0 $65,270.7 S31.807.1 $33,463.6
$0.0 $5,659.6 $2.773.6 $2,886.0
$36,168.0 $35,932.7 $40,460.0 ($4,527.3)
$11,029.9 $14,146.3 ($3,116.4)
$369.1 $571.3 ($202.2
$18,903.9 $23,330.6 ($4,426.7
$5,629.8 $2,411.8 $3,218.0
$0.0 $9,409.5 ($9,409.5)
$504.5 ($504.5)
$66.7 ($66 7;
$8,476.5 ($8,476.5;
$361.8 ($361.8)
$75,000.0 $49,675.2
$3,079.9
$198.7
$46,366.8
$29.8
% Change
1999 to 2003 1999 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
12.1% 6.97
12.1% 6.9°'
68.5V,
42.2%
116%
78%
142%
-10%
3%
13%
-29%
178%
2000 to
2003 2000 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
13.0% 4.3V.
13 0% 4.3%
128.3% 22.n
33.4% 31.8':.
34% 51%
168% 20%
160% -2%
-4% IS"/,
4% 32%
-13% 46%
-22% 54%
158% 40%
*FY 2000 and 1999 Actuals Include carryover, even though it Is not broken out on the chart
'A!l Data was extracted from BAS
'Travel does not Include site travel, which Is Included In Other
"Resources Total for FY 1999 and 2000 Operating Plan includes all the resources In the C3 Superfund research transfer sub-appropriation of the S&T appropriation
"FY 1999 Actuals Includes $2,647 and that was spent In the Suparfund Appropriation
'FY 2003 includes $390.3 that was spent In the Superfund appropriation
•Homeland Security FTE are included in FY 2003 OP Plan FTE totals
154
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999thruFY2003
OSWER
National Program
(All $ in Thousands)
FY1999
FY1999 Pros. Operating Difference (OP
Bud' Plan FY1999 Actuals Plan - Actuals)
FTE Total
Superfund FTE
Brownfields FTE
Resources Total
Payrol
Trave
Contracts I Grunts
Ollie
USCG Transfe
FEMA Transfe
NOAA Transfe
DOt Transfe
OSHA Transfer
NIEHS Transfer
ATSDR Transfer
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
USCG Transfer
FEMA Transfer
NOAA Transfer
DO/ Transfer
OSHA Transfer
NIEHS Transfer
ATSDR Transfer
Carryover
Payroll
TrBvol
Contracts ! Grants
Other
fomoland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Jrownflelds
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
rownflelds Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
1733.1 1688.3 44.8
1659.2 1612.1 47.1
73 9 76 2 (23
51,725,496.7 $1,148,787.5 $1,221,107.1 ($72,319.6
$00 $120.012.2 $122.9887 ($2.976.5
$00 $4.6896 $4,388.3 $301.3
$00 $749,761.3 $925.8574 ($176.096.1)
$00 $128.3244 $21.8727 $106.4517
$4,601 0 $4,600.0 $4,800.0 $0.0
$1.1000 $1,1000 S1.1000 $00
$2.932.0 $2.4500 S2.450 0 $0.0
$1.0000 $1,0000 $1.0000 $0.0
$6600 S650.0 $650.0 $0.0
$48.5267 $60,000.0 $60,000.0 $0.0
$64.000.0 $76,000.0 $76,0000 $0.0
$1,638,966.6 $1,058,868.5
$114.216.8
$4,332 5
$666,520.4
$127.796.7
$4,8010 $4,8000 $4.8000 $0.0
$1.100.0 $1,100.0 $1,1000 $0.0
$2.9320 $2,450.0 $2.450.0 $0.0
S1. 000.0 $1.000.0 $1.000.0 $0.0
$6600 $6500 $650.0 SO.O
$48.5267 $60,000.0 $60,000.0 $00
$64,000.0 $76.000.0 $76.0000 $00
$36,530.1 $89,919.0
$5,795.3
$3571
$83,240 9
$525.7
Difference
FY2000Pres. FY2000 FY2000 (OP Plan -
Bud Operating Plan Actuals Actuals)
1686.5 1695.7 (9.2)
16107 1619.9 (92)
75.8 75.8 0.0
$1,140,377.1 $1,004,661.1 $1,223,550.3 ($218,889.2)
$0.0 S132.9687 S133.606.7 ($636.0)
$0.0 S5.659.3 $4.4296 $1.229.7
$00 $712,6201 $1.064.804.0 ($352,1639)
$0.0 $13.413.0 $20.710.0 ($7.2970)
$4,800.0 $4,800.0
$1,100.0 $1,100.0
$2.450.0 $2.450 0
$1,000.0 $1.000.0
$650 0 $650 0
$60.000.0 $60,000 0
$70,000.0 $70,000.0
$1,053,055.0 $892,520.7
$123,221.5
$5.241.6
$611,3470
$12,710.6
$4,800.0 $4,800 0
$1,100.0 $1.100.0
$2.450.0 $2,450 0
$1,000.0 $1,000.0
$650.0 $650.0
$60,000.0 $60,000.0
$70,000.0 $70,000 0 $00
$22,400.7
$3.3464
$0.0
$18.673 1
$181.2
$87,322.1 $87,731.7 $91,268.5 ($3,536.8)
$6,360.8 $6,273.6 $67 2
$410.7 $451 5 ($40.8)
$60.4390 $84.1623 ($3.7433)
$521.2 $361 1 $160.1
• $2,008.0
$40.0
$70
$1,961.0
$00
FY2003 Difference
FY2003 Operating FY2003 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
1592.1 1607.1 (15.0)
1592.1 1600.8 (8 7)
0.0 6.3 (6.3)
$840,396.1 $861,429.1 $964,883.3 ($103,454.2)
$151,993.1 $154,004.9 ($2,0116)
$5.601 0 $5.427.8 $173.2
$681,139.6 $761,131.7 (579,9919)
$12,019.2 $33,7059 ($21,666.7)
$5.467 9 $5,455 5 $32.4
$1.097.4 $1,090.9 $65
$2.444.5 $2,4301 $144
$9977 $9918 $59
$6465 $644.7 $36
$822,247.5 $844,682.2 ($22,434.7)
$146.7756 $152,4551 ($3,6795)
$5,340.9 $4.8150 $525.9
$645,775.1 $646,589.2 ($614.1)
$11.679.9 $30.209.9 ($18,530.0)
$5,487.9 $5,455.5
$1.097.4 $1.090.9
$2.444.5 $2.430.1
59977 $991.8
SG4B.5 $6447
$1,139.1 $110,675.5 ($109,536.4)
$1300 $1405 ($10.5)
$1.009.1 $110.056.1 ($109,047.01
$0 0 $478 9 ($478 9;
$38,042.5 $9,525.6 $28,516.9
$3,217.5 $1,549.8 $1.667.7
$130.1 $472.3 (S3422)
$34,355.6 $4.486 4 $29,869.2
$3393 $3.017.1 ($2,6776)
% Changs
1999to2003 1999to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-8.1% -4.8%
-4.0% -0.7%
-100.0% -91.7%
-25.0% -21.0%
26.6% 25.2%
194% 237%
-92% -178%
-906% 54.1%
143% 13.7%
-0 2% -0.8%
-0.2% -0.8%
-0 2% -0.8%
-0.2% -0 8%
-22.3%
30.3%
23 3%
-3.1%
-90.9%
14.3%
-0.2%
-0.2%
-0.2%
-02%
203010
2003
Operating 2000 to 2003
Plan Actuals
-5.6% -5.2%
-1 2% -1 2%
-100.0% -91.7",.
-14.3% -21.1%
14.3% 153%
-1.0% 22.5%
-4.4% -2B 5%
-10.4% 62 8%
11 3 '.4 137%
-0.2% -0 8'-u
-0 2% -0 8%
-0 2% -0 fl%
-0.2% -0.8S
-7.9%
20.7%
1 9'}'.
5.6%
-8.1%
14.3%
-02%
-0.2%
-0.2%
-0 2%
* FY 1999 President's Budget includes $500 Million for Kalamazoo, Michigan cleanup
"Afl Data was extracted from BAS
* Travel does not include site travel, which is included in Other
' Carryover data is not included In the Resources Total for FY 1999 Operating Plan
*FY 2000 and 1999 Actuals include carryover, even though it Is not broken out on the chart
•Transfers to other Federal Agencies were taken oul of the Contracts/ Grants line
155
-------
Superfund Resource Breakout
National Programn
Dollars
(All $ In Thousands!
Resources Total
Total Superfund
Response
OSIVER
OAR
USCG
FEMA
NOAA
DOI
OSHA
NIEHS
ATSDR
Enforcement
QECA
DOJ
Mansgamont & Support
OARM
OCFO
OEI
OGC
OA
OPPE
Executive Steering Committee
napector Gonaral
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Total Superfund
Response
OSWER
OAR
USCG
FEMA
NOAA
DOI
OSHA
NIEHS
ATSDR
Enforcsmonl
OECA
DOJ
OARM
OCFO
OEI
OGC
OA
OPPE
Executive S tearing Committee
tesaarch
FY 1989 Pres. Dlffornnce (Op Plan
Budget FY1999 Op Plan FY1999 Actuals Acuala)
$2,092,745.0 (1,498,316,0 $1,563,949.8 ($65,633.9)
$1,727,787.4 $1,151,162.5 $1,223,311.1 ($72,1486)
$2,290.7 $2.375 0 $2.204 0 $171 0
$4.801 0 $4,800.0 $4.800.0 $0 0
$1,100.0 $1.100.0 $1,100.0 $0.0
$2,932.0 $2,450 0 $2,450 0 $0.0
$1,000.0 $1,000.0 $1,000.0 $0 0
$660 0 S650.0 $650.0 $0.0
$48,526.7 $60,000.0 $60,000 0 $0,0
$64,000.0 $76,000.0 $76,000.0 $0.0
$183,568.4 $174,090.9 $182,538.8 ($8,447.9)
$157,4184 $146,123.9 5154,571. fl ($8.447.9)
S2B. 150.0 $27.9670 $27.967.0 ($8.447. P)
$126,435.3 $122,509 5 $119,136.6 $3,372 9
590.007.9 $88,742 9 $90.825.8 ($2.082 0)
$29,479.4 $25,419 3 $23,158.7 $2,260 8
$00
$3,551.5 $3.276.9 $2,964.3 $312 6
$4,381.7 54,137.5 $1.285.8 52,851.7
$1.014.8 $932.9 $902.0 $30.9
$40,200.8 $39,800.0 S29.604.1 $10,195 9
$10,753.1 $10.753.1 $9,279.9 $1.473.2
$2,003,287.1 $1,406,793.8 $00 $1,061,243.5
$1,641,257.3 51,061,243.5 $0.0 $1,061,243.5
$1,516.428 9 $912,868.5 $912,860.5
$2.290.7 $2,375.0 $2,375.0
$4,801.0 $4,800.0 $4,6000
51.100.0 $1,1000 $1.100.0
$2,4500 $2,4500 $2.450.0
$1,000.0 $1.0000 $1.000,0
$660.0 $650 0 S65D 0
$48.526.7 $60,000.0 $60.000 0
$64.000.0 $76,000.0 $76.000.0
$183,635.8 $173,651,9 $0,0
$154.635.8 $173.651.9
$29,000 0 SO.O $28.663.5
$127,440.1 $121,350.3
590,007. 9 $88.649.5
$29.479 4 $25.365.4
$0.0
$3.551 5 $3,178.3
$4.381.7 $4,137.5
$19.6 $19.6
$40,200.8 $39.800 0 JO.O
$10,733.1 $10,753.1 . $0.0
FY 2000 Proa, Difference (Op
Budget FY2000 Op Plan FY2000 Actuals Plan - Actuals)
$1,500,000.0 $1,359,711.2 $1,376,384.4
$1.140,377.1 SQ64.661 1 $1,083.550.3 ($218,889.2)
$2.2783 S2.2002 $2,104.4 $95.8
$4.800.0 $4,800.0 $0.0
$1.100.0 $1,100.0 $00
$2,4500 $2,450.0 $00
$1,0000 $1,0000 $00
$660.0 $650.0 $0 0
$60.0000 $60,000.0 $0.0
$70,000.0 $70,000 0 $0.0
$176,750.7 $173,837.3 $172,225.0 $1,812.3
$148,087.2 $145,173.8 $143.561.5 $1,612.3
$28,663.5 $28.663.5 $28,663.5 $0.0
$131,087,7 $130,438.8 $125,848.5 $4,590,3
$93,718.8 $81.762.4 $85,5994 ($3,8370)
$0 0 $15,408 4 $0,230.1 $6,176.3
$3,518.2 $3,651.2 $3,086.0 $562.3
$4.288 5 $2.213 7 $3.246.9 ($1,033.2)
$1.0087
$1,481.7
$37,271 4 $37,493.8 $40,826.6 ($3,334.8)
$10,753.1 $11,000.0 $10,131.4 $368.6
$1,055,333.3 $894,800.9
$1,053.055.0 $752,520.7
$2,278.3 $2,280.2
$4.800.0
$1,100 0
$2,450 0
$1,0000
$6500
$60,000.0
370,000.0
$176,7507 $168,656.8 $0.0
$148,087.2 $139.993.1
528,663 5 $28,663 5 $0.0
$130,098.6 $122,030.6
$93.7188 $78,035.1
$23.5535 $25,277.1
SO.O $14,410 7
$3,5182 $3.4390
$4,28B5 $868.7
$19 6 SO.O
$1,481.7
$37,271 .4 $37,493.8 $27,953.6
$10,753.1 $11,000.0 $8,812,0
FY3003 Prea.
Budget* FY2003 Op Plnn FY2003 Acluala Difference
$840.398 1 S85D.753.1 $954,270 3 ($103.517.2)
$2.234 3 $2,267 1 52.138 0 $129 1
$5,4879 $5.455,5 $32.4
$1,0974 $1,090.9 56.5
$2.444 5 $2,430.1 $14 4
$997.7 $991 8 $5.9
5648,5 $644 7 $38
$00
$00
$171,787.3 $177,431.2 $174.181.1 $3,250.1
$143,637.3 S149.4C4.2 $146.214 1 S3.250 1
$28,150.0 527.987 0 $27,967 0 $0,0
$134,558.5 $135,178.2 $134,684.8 5493 4
$86,302 0 385,497 6 $86.232.7 ($2.735 1)
$18.992.6 $19,668 7 518,545.2 £1.123.5
$844 5 SB68.6 $701,4 $87.2
$00 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
$0.0 SOO SO.O SOO
$12,7420 $12,659.1 $12,110.4 S548.7
$0.0 $824.466.3 $848,774.9 ($22,308.6)
$0.0 S81 1.571,5 SB34.069.2 ($22.497 7)
$2,218.8 $2,092.7 $126 1
$5.487.9 35.455.5 $32.4
$1,097.4 SI. 090.9 $6.5
$2,444.5 $2,430.1 S14.4
$997.7 $991 8 $59
$648 5 $644.7 $3.8
$0 0 $0.0 $0.0
$0 0 $0.0 EO.O
5142,107 0 $135.733 3 6373.7
$28,150.0 S27.P67.0 527,967.0 $0.0
$84,658.2 SB4. 658.3 ($0.1)
$28.461.1 $26,330 3 $2.130.8
$19.035.3 $17,791 0 51,244 3
$839.0 $77BO $61.0
$38,168.0 $35,932.7 $40,460.0
(12,859.1 $7,905.5
% Changs
1939(0 183913
2003 Op 2C03
Plan Actuals
-14.9% -14.5°
-25.0% -21.0'/
-25.0% -21 0?
-4.5% -3.0';
14.3% 13 7*
-0.2% -0.8^
-0.2% -0.8%
-0.2% -0.8%
-0 2'-= -0 8%
1.9% -4 6%
1 9% -4.6%
1.9% -1.6%
-3./*i -2.9%
14.7% 17 1%
-73 5% -73.6%
17.7% 30 5%
-22.3%
-11 1%
•6.6%
14.3%
-0.2%
-0.2%
-0.27e
-02%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-2.1%
-18.2'Ti,
-4.5%
122%
-73.6%
-100.0%
-ICOO-'o
-9.7%
17.7%
2330 la 2GC'S In
2003 OP 2C03
Plan Actuals
-6.3% -15.1%
-14.2% -21.1%
•1.6% -11,S%
-0.6% -2.1X
14.3% 13 7%
-0.2% -0 e%
-0.2% -0 8%
-0.2% -0.8%
-02:t -O.BVi
-100,0% -100.0%
-100.0% -100.0%
2.1% 1.1%
3.0% 1.8%
-2.4% -2.4%
4.6% 3 1%
6 3"r, 9 9%
27 7% 100 9%
-76.2% -74.7%
• 1000% -1000%
15.1% 19.5%
-4.7%
-7.9%
7.6%
-27%
14.3%
-0.2%
-02%
-0.2%
-0.2%
-100 0%
-100 0%
0.8%
1.5%
-2 4%
9.0%
fl.5%
12.6%
32.1%
-75.6%
-100 n%
-4.2% 44.7%
-10.3%
156
-------
Carryover
Total Suporfund
RBBponw
OSWER
OAR
Enforcement
OECA
^nnagomont & Support
OARM
OCFO
O£
OGC
OA
Rosaoreh
Homeland Sacurlty
Total Suportund
Response
OSWER
OECA
Management & Support
OEI
tcBoarch
Jrownflelds
'olal Superfund
Response
OS^R
•nforcamont
OECfl
Management & Support
(WWW
OCFO
OEI
OGC
OA
OPPE
Brownflatda Carryover
Total Suparfund
Response
OSWEfl
Management a Support
OARM
OGC
OA
FY 1999 Pros. Dlffcronco (Op Plan
Budget FY1999 Op Plan FY1999 Actuals Acuala)
$99,457.9 $91,517.2
$86,530,1 $89,919.0
$86.530 1 $89.919.0
(1,932.6 $439.0
$1.932.6 S4390
$895.2 $1,159.2
$93.4
$53.9
500
$98.6
$0.0
$995.2 $913 3
FY 2000 Proa. Difference (Op
Budgot FY2000 Op Plan FY2000 Actuals Plan - Actuals)
$33,070 9
$22,400.7
522,400 7
SO.O
$5,174.4
$5.174.4
$5,435.8
S2.351 3
S 1,827.9
$950 5
$1
$2,164.6 83,083.1 ($2,903.5)
JS394 E3.574.4 (S2.735.0j
S6322 £7952 ($113 f.)
S533.4 S715 1 (59« 7;
S2P 6 33.4 S7-K 2
$0.0 S9.409.S (59.433.5)
$0.0 $4,204.9
$89,488.4 $9,925.9 $78,552,6
$39,042.5 $9,525.8 $28,516 9
$38.042.5 $9,525.6 S28,51fi 9
$770.7 $3B1 1 S409.6
S770.7 $301.1 S4"P6
$39.1
$39 1
$75,000.0 $49,675.2
% Chnngo
1809 to 1999 to
2003 Op 2003
Finn Actuals
_«_™
-1
-1
-100.0';=
-1
-100.0%
-1
-100.0%
-100 0%
-100 on
2000 to 2000 to
2003 OP 2003
Plan Actuals
.69.9%
-94.7%
-94 S"?
27.3%
27 lt':i :
#DI *7r'i
-60.2*,s
-P-S 3 ;-. i
-34 Pi ;*
ffi 7'1'- I
-I:P^, f
•ZB.S'-.i*
210.7^1
-1000% -100.0%
-100.0% -100.0%
-100.0% -ion.or;i
-100.0% -100.0%
•ioo.of;e -looo'.'r
-100.0% -1000%
-100.0% -100.0U
-100.0% -100 0'^
-100.0% -100.0^
-100.0% -100.0%
-100.0'.-0 -100.0%
•FY1999 Op Plan ctoes noi Inducted carryover
•FY 2000 and 199S Actuals Include carryover, even though It Is not broken oul on (ha chart
*OEI was established In FY2000. and Includes resources from the S&T. Superfund and IG appropriations
'Differences between Op Plan and Actuals are due to the obligation of carryover and / or prior year monsy that has bean deobDgaled
• Management & Support does not Indude ORD and IG
•FY2000 Actuals Induda $1.616 2 In Unallocated Agency funds that were added to the resources total Superfund tola!
'FV2003 President's Budget Included $19.967 In Unallocated Agency funds.
157
-------
Super-fund Resource Breakout
National Programs
FTE*
Total Superfund and Brownflelds
ORD
IG
Response
OSWER
OAR
Enforcement
Management & Support
OARM
OCFO
OEI
OGC
OA
OPPE
Total Superfund
ORD
IQ
'esponse
OSWER
OAR
inforcement
Management & Support
OARM
OCFO
OEI
OGC
OA
OPPE
otal Brownflelds
ORO
Response
OSWER
OAR
Enforcement
Management & Support
OARM
OCFO
OEI
OGC
OA
OPPE
Difference (Op
FY1999 Op Plan FY1999 Actuals Plan • Actuals)
3740.5 3648.2 92.3
1249 1284 -35
99 84.7 14.3
1746.1 1700.7 45.4
1733.1 1688.3 44.8
13 124 0.6
1164.4 1124.6 39.6
606.1 609.6 -3.5
3142 342.3 -28.1
243 8 230 6 13.2
000
30.4 24 9 55
11.8 7.2 46
5.9 46 13
3651.7 3557.3 94.4
124.9 128.4 -3.5
99 84.7 14 3
1672.2 1624.5 47.7
16592 16121 47.1
13 124 0.6
1158.6 1115 43.6
597 604.7 -7.7
312.9 342.3 -29.4
243 2306 12.4
0
29 3 24 6 4.7
118 7.2 4.6
000
68.8 90.9 -2.1
000
000
73.9 76.2 -2.3
73 9 76.2 -2.3
000
5.8 9.8 -4
9.1 4.9 4.2
1.3 0 1.3
0.8 0 0.8
000
1.1 0.3 0.8
000
59 46 1.3
Difference (Op
FY 2000 Op Plan FY 2000 Actuals Plan - Actuals)
36H.2 3551.7 66.5
123.9 1316 -77
100 808 192
1701.9 1711.2 -9.3
1686.6 16957 -9.2
154 15.5 -01
1144.9 1073.5 71.4
547.5 554.6 -7.1
237.8 246.6 -6.8
230.4 221 5 8.9
33 2 42 -86
30 3 24.8 i 5
15.8 19.7 -3.9
000
3532.2 3468.8 63.4
123.9 131.6 -7.7
100 80.8 19.2
1626.1 1635.4 -9.3
16107 16199 -9.2
15.4 15.5 -0.1
1144.9 1072.7 72.2
537.3 548.3 -11
236.3 246.4 -10.1
228.9 221.3 7.6
33 42 -9
29.2 24 5 47
9.9 14.1 -4.2
000
ae 82.9 3.1
000
000
75.8 75.8 0
75.8 75.8 0
000
0 0.8 -0.8
10.2 6.3 3.9
1.5 0.2 1 3
1.5 0.2 1 3
02 0 0.2
1.1 03 0.8
5.9 5.6 0.3
000
Difference
(Op Plan -
FY2003 Op Plan FY20D3 Actuals Actuals
3458.3 3424.9 33.4
140 1372 28
94.1 89.9 4.2
1607.1 1622.5 -15.4
1592.1 1607.1 -15
15 154 -04
1129.1 1074.3 548
468 501 -13
230.4 239 8 -9.4
221 2143 67
32 2 42.4 -10 2
4.4 4.5 -0.1
3458.3 3418.6 39.7
140 137.2 2.8
94 1 89 9 42
1607.1 1616.2 -9.1
1592.1 1600.8 -8.7
15 154 -04
1129.1 1074.3 54.8
488 501 -13
230.4 239.8 -9 4
221 2143 6.7
32.2 424 -10.2
44 45 -0.1
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
% Change
2003 1899 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-7.5% -6.1"/
12 HI 69?
-49% 6.1°/
-8.0% -4.6%
-8 1% -4.8%
15.4% 242%
-3.0% -4.5%
-19.5% -17.8%
-26 7% -29 9%
-94% -7.1°;
-85.5% -61 9%
•5.3% -3.9%
12.1% 69%
-4.9% 6.1%
-3.9% -0.5%
-4 0% -0 7%
15.4% 24.2%
-2.5% -3.7%
-18.3% -17.1%
-26.4% -29 9%
-9.1% -7.1°;
-850% -81.7%
-100.0% -100.0%
-100.0% -100.0%
-100.0% -100.0%
-100.0% -100.0%
-100.0% -100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0% -100.0%
2000 to 2003 2000 to 2003
Op Plan Actuals
-4.4% -3.6%
13.0% 4 3%
-59% 11.3%
-5.6% -5.2%
-5 6% -5.2%
-2.6% -0 6%
-1.4% 0.1%
-10.9% -9.7%
-3 1 % -2 8%
-41% -33%
-85.5% -81 9%
-2.1% -1.4%
13.0% 4.3%
-5.9% 11.3%
-1.2% -1.2%
-1.2% -1 2%
-2.6% -0.6%
-1.4% 0.1%
-9.2% -8.6%
-2.5% -2 7%
-3.5% -3 2%
-84 9% -81 6%
-100.0% -100.0%
-100.0% -100.0%
-1000% -100.0%
158
-------
APPENDIX E: Superftmd Resource Tables by Headquarters
Offices
159
-------
Suporfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
IQ
Headquarters
(All $ In Thousands)
FY1999 Difference
FY1999Pres. Operating FY1999 (OP Plan -
Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
FTE Total
Superfund FTE
Brownfletds FTE
Resources Total
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownflelds
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownflelds Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
99.0 84.7 14.3
99.0 84.7 14.3
0.0
$10,753.1 $10,753.1 $9,279.9 $1,473.2
$0.0 $8,205.0 $7,092.8 $1,112.2
$0.0 $496.0 $294.1 $201.9
$0.0 $1,542.9 $1,351.5 $191.4
$0.0 $509.2 $541.5 ($32.3)
$10,753.1
$8,205.0
$496.0
$1,542.9
$509.2
FY2000 Difference
FY2000 Operating FY2000 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
100.0 80.8 19.2
100.0 80.8 19.2
0.0
$10,753.1 $11,000.0 $10,131.4 $868.6
$7,433.9 $7,264.0 $169.9
$635.3 $548.8 $86.5
$2,061.6 $1.323.8 $737.8
S869.2 $994.8 ($125.6)
$11,000.0 $8,812.0 .$2,188.0
$7,433.9 $6,853.8 $580.1
$635.3 $269.6 $365.7
$2,061.6 $1,181.8 $879.8
$869.2 $506.8 $362.4
$1,319.4
$410.2
$2792
$142.0
$488.0
FY2003 Difference
FY2003 Operating FY2003 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
94.1 89.9 4.2
94.1 89.9 4.2
$12,742.0 $12,659.1 $12,110.4 $548.7
$0.0 $10,208.7 $9,543.3 $665.4
$555.0 $629.7 ($74.7)
$0.0 $1,283.4 $1,077.5 $205.9
$0.0 $612.0 $859.9 ($247.9)
$7,905.5
$7.370.4
$184.5
$127.2
$223.4
$4,204.9
$2,172.9
$445.2
$950.3
$636.5
% Change
1999 to 2003 1999 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-4.9% 6.1 f
-4.9% 6.1 1
17.7% 30.5V,
24.4% 34.5%
11.9% 114.1%
-16.8% -20.3%
20.2% 58.8%
2000 to
2003 2000 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-59% 11.3%
-5.9% 1 1 .3%
15.1% 195%
37.3% 31.4%
-12.6% 14 7%
-37.7% -18 6%
-29 6% -13 6%
-10 3%
7.5%
-31 6%
-89.2%
-55.9%
'Resources Total for FY 1999. 2000, and 2003 Operating Plan Includes all the resources In the N2 Superfund IG transfer sub-appropriation of the IG appropriation
'All Data was extracted from BAS
'Travel does not Include site travel, which is included in Other
160
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
OA
Headquarters
(All $ in Thousands)
FY1999 Difference
FY1999Pres. Operating FY1999 (OP Plan -
Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
FTE Total
Superfund FTE
Brownflelds FTE
Resources Total
Payrol
Trave
Contracts I Grants
Other
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownflelds
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Brownflelds Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
11.8 5.9 5.9
11.8 5.9 5.9
$1,381.7 $1,028.2 $567.4 $460.8
$982.7 $541.9 $440.8
$25.6 $5 1 $20.5
$0.0
$19.9 $20.4 ($0.5)
$1,028.2
$982.7
$25.6
$19.9
FY2000 Difference
FY2000 Operating FY2000 (OP Plan •
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
15.8 19.7 (3.9)
9.9 14.1 (4.2)
5.9 5.6 0.3
$1,288.5 $2,213.7 $1,726.7 $487.0
51,293.4 $1,207.5 $85.9
$36 1 $16.0 $20.1
S629.4 $398.4 $231.0
$254.8 S104.8 $150.0
$868.7
$810.4
$25.6
$0.0
$32.7
$321.2
$100.0
$221.2
$1,023.8 $535.3
$483.0 $121.9
$10.5 $4.5
$529.4 $398.3
$0.9 $10.6
$0.0
FY2003 Difference
FY2003 Operating FY2003 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
% Change
1999 to 2003 1999 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-100.0% -100.07,
-100.0% -100.0%
-100.0'/
-100.0%
•100.0%
#DIV/OI
-100.0%
*Flscal Year Appropriation does not include Brownfields
'All Data was extracted from BAS
'Travel does not Include site travel, which is Included In Other
*FY 1999 Operating Plan does not Include carryover
*FY 2000 and 1999 Actuals Include carryover, even though It Is not broken out on the chart
161
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
OAR
Headquarters
(All $ in Thousands)
FY1999 Difference
FY1999Pres. Operating FY1999 (OP Plan -
Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
FTE Total
Superfund FTE
Brownfields FTE
Resources Total
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
lomeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Irownfields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
irownfields Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
12.0 12.3 (0.3)
12.0 12.3 (0.3)
$2,290.7 $2,290.7 $2,190.9 $99.8
$0.0 $949.9 $952.9 ($3.0)
$0.0 $99.8 $97.3 $2.5
$0.0 $1.141.0 $691.0 $450.0
$0.0 $100.0 $449.7 ($349.7)
$2,290.7 $2,290.7
$949.9
$99.8
$1,141.0
$100.0
FY2000 Difference
FY2000 Operating FY2000 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
15.4 15.5 (0.1
15.4 15.5 (0.1)
$2,278.3 $2,277.2 $2,184.4 $92.8
$1,180.4 $1,251.3 ($70.9)
S99.8 $84.9 S14.9
$897.0 $590.8 S306.2
$100.0 $257.4 ($157.4)
$2,277.2
$1.180.4
$99.8
$897.0
$100.0
FY2003 Difference
FY2003 Operating FY2003 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
15.0 15.4 (0.4
15.0 15.4 (0.4
$2,234.3 $2,264.3 $2,138.0 $126.3
$0.0 $1,443.8 $1,442.2 $1.6
$99.0 $89.8 $9.2
$0.0 $522.7 $429.8 $92.9
$0,0 $198.8 S176.2 $22.6
$2,231.5 $2,216.0 $2,092.7 $123.3
$1,4438 $1.442.2 $1.6
$99.0 $89.8 $9.2
$474.4 $384.9 $89.5
$198.8 $175.8 $23.0
$48.3 $45.3 $3.0
$0.0
$48.3 $44.9 $3.4
$0.4 ($0.4)
% Change
1999 to 2003 1999 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
25.0% 25.2°/
25.0% 25.20/
-1.2% -2.4°/
52.0% 51.3%
-0.8% -7.7%
-54.2% -37.8%
98.8% -60.8%
-3.3%
52.0%
-0.8%
-58.4%
98.8%
2000 to
2003 2000 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-2.6% -0.6%
-2 6% -0.6%
-0.6% -2.1%
22.3% 15.3%
-0.8% 5.8%
-417% -273%
98.8% -31 5';,
-2.7%
22.3'io
-0 8%
•47 1%
988%
"FY 2000 and 1999 Actuals include carryover, even though It is not broken out on the chart
"All Data was extracted from BAS
'Travel does not include site travel, which is Included in Other
'Fiscal Year Appropriation does not include Brownfields
162
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
OARM
Headquarters
(All $ in Thousands)
FY1999 Difference
FY1999 Pros. Operating FY1999 (OP Plan -
Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
FTE Total
Superfund FTE
Brownfields F'l L
Resources Total
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts / Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Jrown fields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Othar
Brownfields Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
115.6 114.8 0.8
115.6 114.8 0.8
$59,946.1 $57,484.3 $56,617.4 $866.9
$0.0 $10,037.7 $9.951.7 $86.0
$0.0 $206.7 $176.9 $29.8
$0.0 $8,131.5 $6,257.3 $1,874.2
$0.0 $39,108.4 $40,231.5 ($1,123.1)
$57,484.3
$10,037.7
$206.7
$8,131.5
$39,108.4
$0.0
FY2000 Difference
FY2000 Operating FY2000 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
109.2 103.0 6.2
108.7 103.0 5.7
0.5
$63,859.9 $59,034.1 $58,933.6 $100.5
$0.0 $9,026.8 $9,636.3 ($609.5)
$0.0 $210.2 $188.8 $21.4
$0.0 $6,192.8 $4.986.5 $1,206.3
$0.0 $43,604.3 $44,122.0 ($517.7)
$57,421.8
$8,987.9
$196.0
$6,161.3
$42,076.6
$490.0
$14.2
$475.8
$1,122.3 $1,082.9
$38.9
$31.5 $30.4
$1,051.9 $1,052.5
$0.0
FY2003 Difference
FY2003 Operating FY2003 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
105.9 113.8 (7.9)
105.9 113.8 (7.9)
$64,166.1 $62,817.2 $64,776.8 ($1,959.6)
$12,212.3 $11,988.0 $224.3
$262.6 $234.7 $27 9
$48,675.8 $7,022.1 $41,653.7
$1,666.5 $45,532.0 ($43,865.5)
$62,817.2 $61,952.1 $865.1
$12,212.3 $11.988.0 $224.3
$262.6 $234.7 $27.9
$48,675.8 $4,929.4 $43,746.4
$1,666.5 $44,800.0 ($43,133.5)
$0.0 $2,824.7 ($2,824.7)
$00
$2,092.7 ($2,092.7)
$732 0 ($732.0
7o Change
1999 to 2003 1999to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-8.4% -0.9%
-8.4% -0.9%
9.3% 14.4%
21.7% 20.5%
27.0% 32.7%
498.6% 12.2%
-95.7% 13.2%
9.3%
21.7%
27.0%
498.6%
-95.7%
2000 to
2003 2000 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-3.0% 10.5%
-26% 105%
-100 0%
6.4% 9.9%
35.3% 24.4%
24 9% 24 3%
686-0% 40.8%
-96.2% 3 2%
9.4%
35.9%
340%
690 0%
-96.0%
-100.0%
*DIV/OI
-100.0%
roivroi
-100 0%
•FY 2000 and 1999 Actuals include carryover, even though it Is not broken out on the chart
'All Data was extracted from BAS
'Travel does not include site travel, which is included in Other
' Difference between FY2000 and FY 2003 primarily reflects the establishment of the Office of Environmental Information in FY2000
•Rent for 1999 was $34,349.9 thousand. Rent for FY2003 was $42,651.7 thousand. That is an Increase of $8,301.8 thousand and 24.2%.
•Fiscal Year Appropriation does not include Brownfields
163
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
OCFO
Headquarters
(All $ In Thousands)
FY1999 Difference
FY1999 Pros. Operating FY1999 (OP Plan -
Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
FTE Total
Superfund FTE
BmwnRelds FTE
Resources Total
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Irownflelds
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
rownflelds Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
84.7 90.6 (5.91
84.7 90.6 (5.9)
0.0
$16,704.2 $14,803.4 (14,029.1 $774.3
$6,806.5 $6,537.3 $269.2
$76.0 $74.3 $1.7
$2,053.3 $2,8193 ($766.0)
$5,8676 $4,598.2 $1,2694
$14,803.4
$6.806.5
$76.0
$2,053.3
$5,867.6
$0.0
FY2000 Difference
FY2000 Operating FY2000 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
81.3 83.5 (2.2
80.5 83.5 (3.0
08 0.8
{15,805.7 $15,183.2 $14,005.7 $1,177.5
$6,455.5 $6,541.6 ($86.1)
$80.3 $76.5 $3.8
$3,7239 $3.433.1 $290.8
$4,923.5 $3.954.5 $969.0
$13,921.8
$6,399.9
$77.3
$2,585.5
54,859.1
$1,109.2
$3.0
$1,106.2
$152.2 $134.1
$55.6 $37.1
$32.2 $48.0
$64.4 $49.0
FY2003 Difference
FY2003 Operating FY2003 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
76.9 76.3 0.6
76.9 76.3 0.6
$14,221.7 $14,637.2 $13,750.6 $886.6
$7.149.2 $6,8093 $339.9
$74.5 $78.5 ($4.0)
$2,738 0 $3,224.7 ($486.7
$4.675.5 $3,638.1 $1,037.4
$14,051.4 $12,955.4 $1,096.0
$7,149.2 $6,809.3 $339.9
$74.5 $78.5 ($4.0)
$2,152.2 $2,499.5 ($347.3)
$4,675.5 $3,568.1 $1,107.4
$585.8 $795.2 ($209.4)
$0.0
$585.8 $725.2 ($139.4)
$70.0 ($70.0)
% Change
1999 to 2003 1999to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-9.2% -15.80/
-9.2% -15.8°/
-1.1% -2.0%
5.0% 4.2%
-2.0% 5.7%
33 3% 14.4%
-20.3% -20.9%
-5.1%
5.0%
-2.0%
4.8%
-20.3%
2000 to
2003 2000 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-54% -86%
-4 5% -8.6%
•1000% SOIV/Oi
-3.6% -1 8'ii
10.7% 41%
-7 27, 2 6't
-265% -e n:
-5.0% -8 0%
09%
11 7%
-3.6%
-16.8%
-38%
-47.2%
TOIV/0!
-100.0°,'.
-47 0%
#DIVrt)l
'FY 2000 and 1999 Actuals include carryover, even though it is not broken out on the chart
"All Data was extracted from BAS
'Travel does not include site travel, which is Included in Other
'Fiscal Year Appropriation does not include Brownfields
164
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
OECA
Headquarters
(All $ In Thousands)
FY1999 Difference
FY1999 Pres. Operating FY1999 (OP Plan -
Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
FTE Total
Superfund FTE
Brownlields FTE
Resources Total
Payrol
Trave
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
DOJ
rlscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts / Grants
Othei
DOJ Transfer
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Jrown fields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
199.3 218.5 (19.2
199.3 218.5 (19.2)
$62,701.0 $61,488.1 $65,322.3 ($3,834.2)
$17,201.2 $19,134.2 ($1,933.0)
$935.6 $746.2 $189.4
$9.050.4 $12,423.1 ($3,372.7)
$5,300.9 $4,018.8 $1,282.1
$29,000.0 $29,000.0 $0.0
$62,200.9 $61,488.1
$17,201.2
$935.6
$9,050.4
$5.300.9
$29,663.5 $29,000.0
$500.1
FY2000 Difference
FY2000 Operating FY2000 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals* Actuals)
203.3 199.2 4.1
203.3 199.2 4.1
$176,750.7 $74,663.2 $60,695.1 $13,968.1
$18,642.3 $18,630.6 $11.7
$937.1 $618.0 $319.1
$21,740.5 $8,863.2 $12,877.3
$4,079.8 $3,919.8 $760.0
$28,663.5 $28.663.5 $28,663.5 $0.0
$0.0 $70,888.8
$18.642.3
$937.1
$18,040.5
$4,605.4
$28,663.5 $28,663.5 $28,663.5
$3,774.4
$3,700.0
$74.4
FY2003 Difference
FY2003 Operating FY2003 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
203.8 204.4 (0.6)
203.8 204.4 (0.6)
$77,051.6 $71,004.4 $60,009.1 $10,995.3
$22,211.0 $23,158.4 ($947.4)
$926.8 $819.7 $107.1
$13,462.5 $4,455.8 $9,006.7
$6,437.1 $3,608.2 $2,828.9
$28,150.0 $27,967.0 $27,967.0 $0.0
$64,417.9 $59,069.1 $5,348.8
$22,211.0 $22,935.5 ($724.5)
$926.8 $689.4 $237.4
$7,376.0 $4,375.7 $3,000.3
$5,9371 $3,101.5 $2,835.6
$28,150.0 $27,967.0 $27.967.0 $0.0
$6,586.5 $578.9 $6,007.6
$0.0
$6,086.5 $78.9 $6,007.6
$500.0 $500.0 $0.0
$0.0 $361.1 ($361.1)
$222.9 ($222.9)
$130.3 ($130.3
$1.2 ($1.2)
$6.7 ($6.7)
% Change
1999 to 2003 1999 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
2.3% -6.5%
2.3% -6.5%
15.5% -8.1%
29.1% 21.0%
-0.9% 9.8%
48.8% -64.1%
21.4% -10.2%
-3.6% -3.6%
4.8%
29.1%
-0.9%
-18.5%
12.0%
-3.6%
2000 to
2003 2000 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
0.2% 2.6%
0.2% 2.6%
-4.9% -1.1%
19.1% 243%
-1 1% 32.6%
-38.1% -497%
37 6% -7 9%
-2.4% -2.4%
-9.1%
19.1%
-1 1%
-59 1%
28.9%
-2.4%
* Carryover data is not included in the Resources Total for FY 1999 Operating Plan
'All Data was extracted from BAS
'Travel does not include site travel, which is included in Othor
*DOJ Transfer taken out of Contracts / Grants line
*FY 2000 and 1999 Actuals Include carryover, even though ft is not broken out on the chart
'Fiscal Year Appropriation does not Include Brownfields
165
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
OEI*
Headquarters
(All $ In Thousands)
FY1999 Difference
FY1999Pres. Operating FY199B (OP Plan -
Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
FTE Total
Superfund FTE
Brownfields FTE
Resources Total
Paymll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Paymll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Carryover
Paymll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
homeland Security
Paymll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Jrown fields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Brownfields Carryover
Paymll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
FY2000 Difference
FY2000 Operating FY2000 (OP Plan -
Pros. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
4.6 3.8 0.6
4 6 3.8 0.8
$4,438.0 $1,453.3 $2,984.7
$425.2 $374.6 $50.6
S17.4 $4.8 $12.6
$3,969.2 $1,049.8 $2,919.4
$26.2 $24.1 $2.1
$4,126.8
$425.2
$134
$3,662.0
$26.2
$311.2
$4.0
$307.2
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0
$0.0
$0.0
FY2003 Difference
FY2003 Operating FY2003 (OP Plan -
Pros. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
4.5 4.8 (0.3
4.5 4.8 (0.3
$8,987.9 $8,838.2 $7,559.8 $1,278.4
$526.9 $532.0 ($5.1)
$13.3 $7.6 $5.7
$6,712.6 $5,489.4 $1,223.2
$1.585.4 $1,530.8 $54.6
$8,818.6 $7,501.1 $1,317.5
$526.9 $532.0 ($5.1)
$13.3 $7.6 $5.7
$6,696.5 $5,450.3 $1,246.2
$1,581.9 $1.511.2 $70.7
$19.6 $19.6 $0.0
$0.0
$16.1 $16.1
$3.5 $19.6 ($16.1)
$39.1 ($39.1)
$0.0
$0.0
$39.1 ($39.1)
$0.0
% Change
1999102003 1999 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A . N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2000 to
2003 2000 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-2.2% 26.3%
-2.2% 26.3%
99.1% 420.2%
23.9% 42.0%
-23.6% 58.3%
69 1% 422.9%
5951 1% 6251.9%
113.7%
23.9%
-0.7%
82.9%
5937.8%
-93.7%
#DIV/0!
-100 0%
-94.8%
ffDIV/0]
The Office of Environmental Information was established in FY 2000
'All Data was extracted from BAS
'Travel does not include site travel, which is included in Other
*FY 2000 Actuals include carryover, even though it is not broken out on the charts
"Fiscal Year Appropriation does not include Brownfields
166
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
OGC
Headquarters
(Ail $ In Thousands)
FY1999 Difference
FY1999Pres. Operating FY1999 (OP Plan -
Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
FTE Total
Superfund FTE
Brownfields FTE
Resources Total
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Brown fields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Jrownfietds Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts / Grants
Other
8.2 6.9 1.3
8.2 6.9 1.3
$1,324.1 $1,279.7 $1,286.3 ($6.6)
S8784 $757.2 $121.2
$5.7 $9.1 ($3.4)
$369.8 $469.8 ($100.0
$25.8 $50.2 ($24.4
$1,279.7
$878.4
$5.7
$369.8
$25.8
$0.0
FY2000 Difference
FY2000 Operating FY2000 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
8.2 6.6 1.6
8.2 66 1.6
$1,290.8 $1,327.9 $1,281.0 $46.9
$964 5 $777.6 $186 9
$23.2 $9.6 $13.6
$300.2 $454.8 ($154.6)
$40.0 $39.0 $1.0
$1,286.2
$964.5
$5.7
$276.0
$40.0
$41.7
$17.5
$24.2
$0.0 $0.0
$0.0
FY2003 Difference
FY2003 Operating FY2003 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
4.4 4.5 (0.1)
4.4 45 (0.1)
$844.5 $863.6 $781.0 $87.6
$621.9 $653.4 ($31.5)
$25.7 $2.8 $22.9
$167.7 $80.0 $87.7
$53.3 $44.8 $8.5
$839.0 $777.6 $61.4
$621.9 $653.4 ($31.5)
$5.7 $0.5 $5.2
$167.7 $80.0 $87.7
$43.7 $43.7 $0.0
$29.6 $3.4 $26.2
$20.0 $2.3 $17.7
$96 $1.1 $8.5
% Change
1999102003 1999to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-46.3% -34.8%
-46.3% -34.8%
-32.1% -39.3%
-29.2% -137%
350.9% -69.2%
-54.7% -83.0%
106.6% -10.8%
•34.4%
-29.2%
0.0%
-54.7%
69.4%
2000 to
2003 2000 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-46.3% -31 8%
-46 3% -31 8%
-34.6% -39.0%
-35.5% -160%
10 8% -70 8%
-441% -82 4%
33.3% 14 9%
-34 8%
-35.5%
0.0%
-39.2%
9.3%
-29.0%
SDIV/0!
14.3%
-100.0%
*FY 2000 and 1999 Actuals Include carryover, even though it is not broken out on the chart
"All Data was extracted from BAS
'Travel does not include site travel, which is included in Other
'Fiscal Year Appropriation does not include Brownfields
167
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
OPPE
Headquarters
(All $ In Thousands)
FY1999 Difference
FY1999 Pres. Operating FY1999 (OP Plan -
•L Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
FTE Total '
Superfund FTE
Brownfields FTE
Resources Total
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts / Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
lomeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
rownflelds
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
irownflelds Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
5.9 4.6 1.3
0.0 0.0 0.0
5.9 4.6 1.3
$1,014.8 $932.9 $902.0 $30.9
SO.O S378.4 $367.0 S11 4
SO.O S10.5 S11.5 (S1.01
SO.O S516.9 S522.7 (S5.8i
SO.O S27.1 S0.8 S26.3
S19.6 $19.6
SO.O
SOO
SO.O
S19.6
$995.2 $913.3
S378.4
$105
S5169
$7.5
FY2000 Difference
FY2000 Operating FY2000 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
$1,008.7
$989.1
FY2003 Difference
FY2003 Operating FY2003 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
% Change
1999 to 2003 199910
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-100.0% -100.00/
-1000% -100.0%
-100.0% -100.0'/,
-100.0% -100.0%
-100.0% -100 or-
-1000% -100.0%
-1000% -100.0':.-
"Fiscal Year Appropriation does not include Brownfields
"All Data was extracted from BAS
'Travel does not Include site travel, which Is included In Other
*FY1999 Operating Plan does not Include carryover
*FY 2000 and 1999 Actuals Include carryover, even though It Is not broken out on the chart
168
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
ORD
Headquarters
(All $ in Thousands)
FY1999 Difference
FY1999Pres. Operating FY1999 (OP Plan •
Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
FTE Total
Superfund FTE
Browntjelds FTE
Resources Total
Payml
Trave
Con(rac/s / Grants
Othe
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroi
Trave
Contracts 1 Grants
Othe
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Irownflelds
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Jrownflelds Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
124.9 128.4 (3.5
124.9 128.4 (3.5)
$40,200.8 $39,800.0 $29,604.1 $10,195.9
$0.0 $10,700.7 $10,301.4 $399.3
$0.0 $327.8 $295.6 $32.2
$0.0 $26,744.4 $17,859.4 $8,885.0
$0.0 $2,027.1 $1,147.7 $879.4
$39,800.0
$10,700.7
$327.8
$26,744.4
$2,027.1
FY2000 Difference
FY2000 Operating FY2000 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
123.9 131.6 (7.7)
123.9 131 6 (7.7)
$37,271.4 $37,493.8 $40,828.6 ($3,334.8)
$0.0 $10,578.2 $11,111.8 ($5336)
$0.0 S422.4 S421.4 $1.0
$0.0 $24,314.1 $26,464.2 ($2.150.1)
SO.O $2,179.1 $2,831.2 ($652.1)
$37,493.8 $27,953.6 $9,540.2
$10,578.2 $10,717.9 ($139.7)
$422.4 $390.8 $31.6
$24,314.1 $15.121.4 $9,192.7
$2,179.1 $1,723.5 $455.6
$12,875.0
$393.9
$30.6
$11,342.8
$1,107.7
FY2003 Difference
FY2003 Operating FY2003 (OP Plan -
Pres. Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
140.0 137.2 2.8
140.0 137.2 2.8
$111,168.0 $85,607.9 $49,869.5 $35,738.4
$0.0 $14,109.8 $14,650.8 ($541.0)
$567.8 $638.0 ($70.2)
$0.0 $65,270.7 $31.807.1 $33,463.6
$0.0 $5,659.6 $2,773.6 $2,886.0
$36,168.0 $35,932.7 $40,460.0 ($4,527.3)
$11,029.9 $14,146.3 ($3,116.4)
$369.1 $571.3 ($202.2
$18,903.9 $23.330.6 ($4,426.7
$5,629.8 $2,411.8 $3,2180
$0.0 $9,409.5 ($9,409.5)
$504.5 ($504.5)
$66.7 ($66.7
$8,476.5 ($8.476.5)
$361.8 ($361.8
$75,000.0 $49,675.2
$3,079.9
$198.7
$46,366.8
$29.8
% Change
1999 to 2003 1999 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
12.1% 6.9^
12.1% 6.9%
68.5°/<
42.2%
116%
78%
142%
-10%
3%
13%
-29%
178%
2000 to
2003 2000 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
13.0% 4.3%
13.0% 43-;:,
128.3% 22.1%
334'i 31.8%
34% 51°u
168% 20%
160% -2%
-4% «>/,
4% 32%
-13% 46%
-22% 54%
158% 40%
"FY 2000 and 1999 Actuals Include carryover, even though it is not broken out on the chart
'All Data was extracted from BAS
'Travel does not Include site travel, which Is Included In Other
'Resources Total for FY 1999 and 2000 Operating Plan includes all the resources in the C3 Superfund research transfer sub-appropriation of the S&T appropriation
*FY 1999 Actuals Includes $2,647 and that was spent In the Superfund Appropriation
*FY 2003 includes $390,3 that was spent In the Superfund appropriation
169
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
OSWER
Headquarters
(All $ In Thousands)
FTE Total
Superfund FTE
Bromfmlas FTE
Resources Total
Payroll
Travel
Contracts /Grants
Other
USCG Transfer
FEMA Transfer
NOM Transfer
DO/ Transfer
OSHA Transfer
fJIEHS Transfer
ATSDR Transfer
:fBcal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Trent
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
USCG Transfer
FEMA Transfer
NOAA Transfer
DO/ Transfer
OSHA Transfer
NIEHS Transfer
ATSDR Transfer
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownflelds
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Brownflolda Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
FY1999
FY1999 Pres. Operating Difference (OP
Bud Plan FY1999 Actuals Plan - Actuals)
310.3 253.0 57.3
2933 2356 57.7
170 174 (04!
(318,628.5 1316,259.9 $243,3117 $72,948.2
$0.0 $21.3788 $21.560.0 (5181.2!
$00 $1,184.5 $1,0774 $107.1
$0.0 $138,6610 S69.6536 566,9(175
$0.0 $9,0-456 $5,0208 $4,0248
$4.8010 54.800,0 $4,6000 $0.0
$1,100.0 $1,1000 $1,1000 $00
$2.932 0 $2.450.0 S2.450 0 $00
$1,0000 $1,0000 $1.000.0 $00
$6600 $650.0 $6500 $0.0
$48,5267 $60.0000 $60.000.0 $00
$64,0000 $76,0000 $76,0000 $00
$263,904 5 $286,009.7
$19,902 5
$1,0905
$110.286.3
$8,7264
$4.801 0 $4,800.0 $4,600.0 $0 0
$1.100.0 $1,1000 $1,1000 $00
$2,9320 $2.450.0 $2,4500 $00
$1.000.0 $1,000.0 $1,0000 $00
$660.0 $650 0 $650 0 $0.0
$48,5267 $60,0000 $60,0000 $0.0
$64,0000 S76.0000 $76.0000 $00
$54,924.0 $30,250.2 (30,657.1 ($406.9)
$1,4763 $1,4542 $221
$940 $958 ($1.8j
$28.362.7 $28,8036 ($4409)
$317.2 $303.5 $13.7
Difference
FY2000 Preii. FY2000 FY2000 (OP Plan •
Bud Operating Plan Actuals Actuals)
243.6 239 4 4.2
226 6 224.0 2 8
17.0 15.4 1 6
$296,421.0 $253,642.3 $295.125.8 ($1,483.5
SO 0 $22,810.4 $22,092.7 $517 7
$00 $1,191.4 $1,1006 $908
$00 $82,9471 $83,6868 ($738.7)
$00 $6,893.4 $8,2467 ($1,3533
54,8000 $4,600.0
$1,1000 $1,100.0
S2.4500 S2.4500
$1.000.0 $1.0000
S650 0 $650.0
$60,000 0 $60,000.0
$70,000.0 $70,0000
(266.061.9 $199,602.0
120,341 3
$1,090.4
$31.5796
$6,5907
$4.800.0 $4,600.0
$1,1000 $1,1000
$2.4500 $2,450.0
$1,0000 $1,000.0
$650.0 $650.0
$60,000.0 $60.000.0
$70,000.0 $70.000 0 $00
$21,481.1
$647.0
$0.0
$20,834.1
$30,359.1 (32,512.2 (33,340.4 ((82B.2)
$1,5821 $1,405.3 $1766
$94.0 $796 $144
$30,533.4 $31,654.1 ($1.120.7)
$302.7 $201.4 $101.3
$47.0
$400
$70
FY2003 Difference
FY2003 Operating FY2003 (OP Plan -
Pras Bud Plan Actuals Actuals)
248.2 236 B 11'
2482 2388 114
0.0
5840,306,1 $155,2383 $153,693.4 ($4451
$26.4456 $26.4840 ($384
S1.3437 $1,578.9 ($2352
S111.451.2 S105.0096 S6.441 6
S5.321 8 S1 1.997 9 (16.6761)
$5,487,9 $5,455 5 S32.4
$1,0974 $1,0909 $65
$2,4445 $2.4301 S14 4
$997 7 $991 8 $59
$648 5 $644.7 $3 8
$154,123.5 $154.099.2 (145,914.3 JO, 104. 9
$26,445.6 $25.961 7 $483 9
$1,2137 $1.0682 $1455
$110,442.1 598,510.6 $11,931.5
$5,3218 $9,780.8 ($4,4390)
$5,487.9 $5,455.5
$1,0974 $1.0909
$2.«4 5 S2.430 1
$997.7 $991 8
$648 5 $644 7
$1,139.1 $6,160.2 ($5,021.1)
$130.0 $140.5 ($105)
$1,009.1 $5,8827 ($4.873.6)
$1370 ($1370)
(0.0 (3,608.9 ($3,608.9)
$522.3 ($522.3)
$370 2 ($370.2)
$6163 ($616.3]
$2.1001 ($2.1001)
% C
1999102003 199910
Operating 2603
Plan Actuals
-20 07, -6.4"
-ir>,4;. f, 5'
-1(K)OV, -1000
•50.9% -30.0'
23.7% 22 6V
13 4% 46 5<
-196% 50. 8",
-41.2'::, 1390%
143% 137".
-07", -nav,
-r>2'.': -081.:
-0 2<:i, -0 8%
-0 2';., -o e1".
-46.1%
32.9%
11 3%
01%
-39 0%
14.3%
-0.2%
-02%
-02%
-0.2%
lange
2000 to
2C03
Operating 2000 to 2003
Plan Actuals
i.s% -i.r.i
£6 ; 57
-icon. .<'-•<•>
•3B.8',i -33.0T,
17.0',* i? a1,,
128'.* 43V-
34.4% 25 5~.
•22 ".% -15 "5'.
14.3% I'l 7*.
-0.2'.", -OB",
-0.2',', -OH':;
-02-, -rift-.
-02':,. -(iB'ic
-22.0%
300%
11,3';!,
24P.7%
-193%
14.3%
-02;0
-027,
-0.2%
-0.2%
•All Data was extracted from BAS
'Travel does not Include sila Iravel, which is included In Other
' Carryover data is not Included In the Resources Total for FY 1999 Operating Plan
•FY 2000 and 1999 Actuals include carryover, even though rl Is not broken out on the chart
"Transfers to olher Federal Agencies were laken oul of the Contracts! Grants lino
Headquarters FTE for FY 1999 and FY 2003 reflect final dlslrlbulion of reimbursable Baso Realoration & Closure FTE
170
-------
Superfund Resource Broakout
Head Quarters
Dollars
Resources Total
Total Suporfund
Response
OSWER
OAR
USCG
FEMA
NOAA
DO
OSHA
NIEHS
ATSDR
Enforcement
OECA
DO
Management & Support
OARM
OCFO
oe
OGC
OA
OPPE
Executive Steering Committee
Research
Inspector General
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Total Superfund
Response
OSWEK
OAR
USCG
FEMA
NOAA
DO/
OSHA
NIEHS
ATSDR
Enforcement
OKA
DOJ
lanagoment & Support
OARM
OCFO
OEI
OGC
OA
OPPE
executive Steering Committee
Research
Inspector Qeneral
FY 1999 Pros. Difference (Op
Budget FY1999 Op Plan FY1999 Actuals Plan • Actuals)
$515,145.0 $506,120.3 $423,190.4 $82,929.9
$321,119.2 $316,550.6 $245,502.6 (172,1486}
$195,8088 $170,2599 197,3117 $72,946.2
J2.290.7 $2,290.7 $2,1909 $99.8
$4,8010 $4,8000 $4,800.0 $0.0
$1.1000 $1.100.0 $1,100.0 $00
$2,932.0 $2,4500 $2.450.0 $00
$1,0000 $1,0000 $1,000.0 $0.0
S6600 $650.0 $6500 $00
$48,526.7 $60,000.0 $60,000.0 $0.0
$64,0000 $76,000.0 $76.000.0 $0.0
$62,701.0 $61,488.1 $65,322.3 ($3,834.2)
$34.5510 $33.5211 $37,3553 ($3,834.2)
$28.150.0 $27,9670 $27.9670 $0.0
$80,370.9 $75,528.5 $73,402.2 $2,126.3
$59,946.1 $57.464.3 $56,617.4 $866.9
$16.704.2 $14.8034 $14,029.1 $7743
$00 $00 $0.0 $0.0
S1.324.1 $1.2797 $1,2863 ($66)
51,381. 7 $1,0282 $5674 $4608
$1,014.8 $932.9 $902.0 $30.9
$40,200.8 $39,800,0 $29,604.1 $10,195.9
$10,753.1 $10,753.1 $9,279.9 $1,473.2
$458,725.7 $474,956.8 $0.0 $288,300.4
$266,195.2 $288,300.4 $0.0 $288,300.4
$140.884 8 $140,009 7 $140,009.7
$2.290.7 $2,290.7 $2,290.7
$4.601.0 $4,800.0 $4,600.0
$1,100.0 $1.1000 $1,1000
$2,932 0 $2,450.0 $2,450.0
$1,000.0 $1,000.0 $1.000.0
$660.0 $650.0 $650.0
$48,526 7 $60,000.0 $60.000.0
564,000 0 $76,000.0 $76.000 0
$62,200.9 $61,488.1 $0.0
$33,2009 $61,4881
$29.000 0 $00 $28,663.5
$79,375.7 $74,615.2
$59,946.1 $57,484.3
$16,704.2 $14,803.4
$0.0
$1,324.1 $1,279.7
$1.381 7 $1.028.2
$19.6 $19.6
$40,200.8 $39,800.0 $0.0
$10,753.1 $10,753.1 $0.0
Difference
FY 2000 Pros. FY2000 (Op Plan -
Budget FY2000 Op Plan Actuals Actuals)
$608,209.8 $461,273.4 $446,365.6
$296,699,3 $255,919.5 $257,310.2 ($1,390.7)
$296,421.0 -$113,6423 $115,125.8 ($1.483.5)
$2,278.3 $2,277.2 $2,184.4 $92.8
$4.600.0 $4.800 0 $0.0
$1,100.0 $1.100.0 $0.0
$2,4500 $2,450.0 $0.0
$1,000.0 $1.0000 $00
$650.0 $650.0 $0.0
$60.000.0 $60,000.0 $0.0
$70,000.0 $70,000.0 $0 0
$176,750.7 $74,663.2 $60,695.1 $13,968.1
$148,087.2 $45,999.7 $32.031 6 $13.968.1
$28,663.5 $28.6635 $28,6635 $00
$83,253.6 $82,196.9 $77,400.3 $4,796.6
$63,859.9 $59,034 1 $58,933 6 $100.5
$15,805.7 $15.1832 $14.0057 $1,1775
$0.0 $4,438.0 $1,453.3 $2,984.7
$1,2908 $1.3279 $1,2810 $469
$1,288.5 $2.2137 $1,7267 $487.0
$1,008.7
$1,481.7
$37,271.4 $37,493.8 $40,826.6 ($3,334.8)
$10,753.1 $11,000.0 $10,131.4 $868.6
$576,861.6 $398,887.1
$268,340.2 $201,879.2
$266.061.9 $59,602.0
$2,278 3 $2,277 2
$4.800.0
$1,1000
$2,450.0
$1,000.0
$6500
$60,000.0
$70,000.0
$176,750.7 $70,868.8 $0.0
$148,087.2 $70,888.8
$28,663.5 $0 0 $28,663.5
$82,264.5 $77,625.3
$63,859.9 $57.421.8
$15,805.7 $13,921.8
$0.0 $4,126.8
$1,290.8 $1,286.2
$1.288.5 $8687
$19.6 SO 0
$1,481.7
$37,271.4 $37,493.8 $27,953.6
$10,753.1 $11,000.0 $8,812.0
FY2003 Pres.
Budget- FY2003 Op Plan FY2003 Actuals Difference
$1,151,781.6 $413,935.2 $366,678.6 $47,256.6
$842,632.4 $157,502.6 $157,821.4 ($318.8)
$840,398.1 $144,562.3 $145,0704 ($508.1)
$2.234.3 $2.2643 $2.138.0 $126.3
$5.487 9 $5,455.5 $32.4
$1,0974 $1.090.9 $65
$2,4445 $2.430.1 $14.4
$997.7 $991.8 $5.9
$648.5 $644.7 $3.8
$00
$0.0
$77,051.6 $71,004.4 $60,009.1 $10,995.3
$48.901.6 $43,0374 $32,042.1 $10.9953
$28.150.0 $27,967.0 $27,967.0 $0.0
$88,220.2 $87,161.2 $86,868.2 $293.0
$64,166.1 $62,817.2 $64,776.8 ($1.959.6)
$14.221.7 $14,637.2 $13,750.6 $8B6.6
$8.987.9 $8,8382 $7,5598 $1,2784
$844.5 $868 6 $781 0 $87 6
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
$00 $0.0 $0.0 $00
$111,168.0 $85,607.9 $49,869.5 $35,738.4
$12,742.0 $12,659.1 $12,110.4 $548.7
$355,851.1 $338,627.8 $17,223.3
$154,123.5 $156,315.2 $148,007.0 $8,308.2
$154,123.5 $143,423.2 $135,301.3 $8,1219
$2,216.0 $2.092.7 $123.3
$5,487.9 $5,455 5 $32.4
$1,097.4 $1,090.9 $65
$2.444.5 $2,430 1 $14.4
$997 7 $991 8 $59
$648 5 $644.7 $3 8
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0
$0.0 $0 0 $0.0
$0.0 $64,417.9 $59,069.1 $5,348.8
$36,4509 $31,1021 5348.8
$28.150.0 $27.967.0 $27,967.0 $0.0
$86,526.2 $83,186.2 $3,340.0
$62,817.2 $61,952.1 $865.1
$14,051.4 $12,955.4 $1,0960
$8,818.6 $7,501 1 $1,317.5
$839.0 $7776 $61.4
$36,168.0 $35,932.7 $40,460.0
$12,659.1 $7,905.5
°'o Chanqe
199910 199910
2003 Op 2003
Plan Actuals
-18.2% -13.4%
•50.6% -35.7%
-15.1% 49.1%
-1 2% -2.4%
143% 13.7%
-0.2% -0.8%
-0 2% -0.8%
-0.2% -0.8%
-0.2% -0 8%
-100.0% -100.0%
-1000% -1000%
15.5% -8.1%
284% -142%
0.0% 0 0%
15.4% 18.3%
93% 144"i
-1.1% -2.0%
-32 1 % -39 3%
-100.0% -100%
115.1% 68.5%
17.7% 30.5%
-25.1%
-45.8%
2.4%
-3.3%
14.3%
-0 2%
-02%
-0.2%
-0.2%
-100.0%
-100.0%
4.8%
-40.7%
0.159632
9.3%
-5.1%
-34.4%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-9.7%
17.7%
2000 to joooto
2003 OP 2003
Plan Actuols
-10.3% -17.9"=
-38.5% -38.7%
27.2% 26 0%
-0.6% -2 1%
143% 13.7%
-0 2% -0 8%
-0 2% -0.8%
-0.2% -0 8%
-0.2% -0.8%
-100.0% -100.0%
-100.0% -100.0%
-4.9% -1.1%
-6.4% 0 0%
-2 4%
6.0% 12.2%
6.4% 9.9%
-3.6% -1 8%
99.1% 420 2",i
-34.6% -39 0%
-1000% -1000%
128.3% 22.1%
15.1% 19.5%
-10.8%
-22.6%
140.6%
-2.7%
14.3%
-0.2%
-0.2%
-0.2%
-0.2%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-9.1%
-48.6%
11.5%
9.4%
0.9%
1137%
-34.8%
-1000%
-4.2% 44.7%
-10.3%
171
-------
Carryover
Total Superfund
Response
OSWER
OAR
Enforcement
OECA
Management & Support
OARM
OCFO
OE
OGC
OA
Research
Inspector General
Homeland Security
Total Superfund
Response
OSWER
Enforcement
OECA
Management & Support
OEI
Research
flrownffe/rfs
Total Superfund
Response
OSWER
inforcement
OECA
anagement & Support
OARM
OCFO
OEI
OGC
OA
OPPE
Brownfl&lds Carryover
Total Superfund
Response
OSWER
Management & Support
OARM
OGC
OA
FY 1999 Pros. Difference (Op
Budget FY1 999 Op Plan FY1 999 Actuals Plan - Actuals)
$56,419.3 $31,163.5
154,924.0 $30,250.2
$54,924.0 $30.250.2
$500.1 $0.0
S500.1 SO.O
$995.2 $913.3
SO.O
$0.0
SO.O
$0.0
SO.O
$995.2 S913.3
Difference
FY 2000 Pros. FY2000 (Op Plan -
Budget FY2000 Op Plan Actuals Actuals)
$27,528.3
$21,481.1
$21,481 1
SO.O
$3,774.4
$3, 774. 4
$2,273.3
$4900
$1,109.2
$311 2
$41.7
$321.2
$12,875.0
$1,319.4
$31,348.2 $34,810.5 $35,092.7 ($282.2)
$30,359.1 $32,512.2 $33,340.4 ($628.2)
$30,359.1 $32,512.2 $33,340.4 (SS28.2)
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
$989.1 $2,298.3 $1,752.3 $546.0
$1,122.3 $1.082.9 S39.4
$152.2 $134.1 $18.1
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0
SO.O $0.0 $0 0
$1,023.8 $535.3 $488.5
$989.1
$47.0
$47.0
$47.0
$0.0
SO.O
$0.0
$0.0
FY2003 Pres.
Budget* FY2003 Op Plan FY2003 Actuals Difference
$8,408.9 $24,041.7 ($15,632.
$1,187.4 $6,205.5 ($5,018.
S1.1391 58,1602 ($5,021.
S48.3 S45 3 $3.0
$6,586.5 $578.9 $6 007.6
S6.586.5 S578 9 $6,007.6
$635.0 $3,642.9 ($3,007.9
$0 0 $2,824 7 ($2.824 7
$585 8 $795 2 (S209 4
$19.6 S19.6 SO.O
$29,6 S3. 4 S26.2
SO.O $9,409.5 ($9,409.5)
$0.0 $4,204.9
$49,675.2 $4,009.1 $45.666.1
$0.0 $3,608.9 ($3,608.9)
SO 0 S3.60B 9 (S3. 608 9)
$0.0 $361.1 ($361.1)
SO.O $361 1 ($361 1)
$39.1
$39.1
$75,000.0 $49,675.2
% Change .....
199910 1999to
2003 Op 2003
Plan Actual
-1
•1
-100.0%
-1
2000 to 2000 ,„
2003 OP 2003
Plan Actuals
-69.5%
-94.5%
-P4 7V.
74.5%
74.51,
-72.1%
-100.0%
-47 2%
-93.7%
-29.0°,.
-100.0%
•26.9%
218.7%
-100.0% -100.0%
-100.0% -100.0%
-1000% -1000%
-100.0% -100.0%
-100.0% -100.0%
-1000% -1000%
-100.0% -1000%
'FY1999 Op Plan does not Included carryover
'FY 2000 and 1999 Actuals include carryover, even though it is not broken out on the chart
•OEI was established in FY2000, and includes resources from the S&T, Superfund and IG appropriations
•Differences between Op Plan and Actuals are due to the obligation of carryover and / or prior year money that has been
• Management & Support does not include ORD and IG
'FY2003 President's Budget included $19,967 In Unallocated Agency funds.
'Fiscal Yoar Appropriation does not include Brawnfields
172
-------
Superfund Resource Breakout
Headquarters
FTE'
Total Superfund and Brow
ORD
IG
Response
O5WE
OA
Management & Support
OARM
OCF
OE
OG
O
OPP
'otal Suporfund
ORD
IG
Response
OSWER
OAR
Management & Support
OARM
OCFO
OEI
OGC
OA
OPPE
Total Brownflelds
ORD
Response
OSWER
OAR
Enforcement
Management & Support
OARU
OCFO
OEI
OGC
OA
OPPE
Difference (Op
FY1999 Op Plan FY1999 Actuals Plan - Actuals)
971.7 919,7 5
124.9 128.4 -3.
99 64.7 14.
322.3 2653 6
310.3 253 57.
12 12.3 -0.
199,3 218.5 -19.
226.2 222.8 3.4
1156 1146 08
84 7 90.6 -5 9
0 0
6.2 6.9 1.3
118 5.9 5.9
5.9 4.6 1.3
948.8 897.7 51.1
124.9 128.4 -3.5
99 B4 7 14.3
305.3 247.9 57.4
293.3 235.6 57 7
12 12.3 -0.3
199.3 218.5 -19.2
220.3 218.2 2.1
1156 1148 08
84.7 90.6 -5 9
0
8.2 6.9 1.3
11.6 5.9 5.9
000
22.9 22 0.9
000
000
17 17.4 -0.4
17 17.4 -0.4
000
000
5.9 4.6 1.3
000
000
000
000
000
5.9 4 6 13
Difference (Op
FY 2000 Op Plan FY 2000 Actuals Plan - Actuals)
905.3 BB3.1 22.2
123.9 131 8 -7.7
100 80.8 19.2
259 254.9 4.1
243.6 239 4 4.2
154 155 -01
203.3 199.2 4.1
219.1 216.6 2.5
109.2 103 82
81.3 83.5 -2.2
4 6 3.8 0.8
8.2 6.6 1.6
15.8 197 -39
000
881.1 862.1 19
123.9 131.6 -7.7
100 80.8 19.2
242 239.5 2.5
226.6 224 2.6
15.4 15.5 -0.1
203.3 199.2 4.1
211.9 211 0.9
106.7 103 5.7
80.5 83 5 -3
4.6 3.8 0.8
8.2 6.6 1.6
9.9 141 -42
000
24.2 21 3.2
000
000
17 15.4 1.6
17 154 1.6
000
000
7.2 5.6 1.6
0.5 0 0.5
0.8 0 08
000
000
5.9 5.6 0.3
000
Difference
(Op Plan •
FY2003 Op Plan FY2003 Actuals Actuals
332.8 883.1 9.7
140 1372 2.8
94 1 89.9 4.2
263.2 252.2 1 1
2482 23S.6 114
15 154 -0.4
203.8 204.4 -0.6
191.7 199.4 -77
105.9 113.8 -7.9
76.9 76 3 0.6
4.5 4.8 -0 3
4 4 4.5 -0 1
692.B 863.1 9.7
140 137.2 2.6
94.1 B9.9 4.2
263.2 252.2 11
248.2 236.8 11.4
15 154 -0.4
203.8 204.4 -0.6
191.7 199.4 -7.7
105.9 113.8 -79
76.9 76.3 0.6
4.5 4,8 -0 3
4.4 4.5 -0.1
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
% Change j]
1989 to 2003 1999 to
Operating 2003
Man Actuals
-8.1% -4.0%
12.1% 6.9%
-4.9% 6.1%
-18.3% -4.9%
-20 0% -6.4%
2.5 0% 25.2%
2.3% -6.5%
-15.3% -10.5%
-8.4% -091.
-9.2% -156%
-46.3% -34.8%
-5.9% -1.6%
12.1% 6.9%
-4.9% 6.1%
-13.6% 1.7K
-15.4% 0.5%
25.0% 25.2%
2.3% -6.5%
-13.0% -8.6%
-6.4% -0.9%
-9.2% -15.8%
-46.3% -34.8%
-100.0% -100.0%
-100.0% -100.0%
-100.0% -100.0%
SOIV/OI SDIV/OI
-100.0% -100.0%
SDIWOI
SDIWOI
ffDIV/OI rVDIV/OI
000 to 2003 Op 2030 to 2003
Plan Actuals
-1.4% 0.0%
13.0% 4.311
-5.9% 113"'.
1.6% -1.1%
1 9% -1.1?.
-2.6% -0 e-.i,
0.2% 2.6%
-12.5% -7.9%
-3.0% 10 51.,
-5.4% -6.6%
-4fi.3% -31 8%
1.3% 2.4%
13.0% 4.3%
-59% 11.3%
8.8% 5.3%
9.5% 5 7".
-2.6% -0.6%
0.2% 2.6%
-9.5% -5.5%
-2.6% 10.5%
-4.5% -8 6%
-46.3% -31 B%
-100.0% -100.0%
-100.0% -100.0%
-100.0% -100.0%
173
-------
APPENDIX F: Superfund Resource Tables by Region
174
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
FY1999
Operating FY1999
TE Total
Response
Enforcement
Management & Support
Resources Total
Payroll
Tnvfil
Contracts 1 Granfc
Otlmr
Response
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payioli
Trawl
Contracts I Grunts
Othor
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grant-;
Othor
Homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Othftr
Brownfields
Payroll
Tmml
Contracts 1 Grants
Othor
Enforcement
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Carryover
PayroS
Tmvol
Contracts 1 Grants
OtntT
Brownflelds
PiiylUI
Trawl
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Management & Support
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts / Grants
Other
Brownfields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownflelds Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Plan Actuals Difference
236.8 232.9 3.9
1380 136.7 (07)
64.5 60 7 38
34 3 33.5 0.8
$54,341.7 $128,853.9 ($74,512.2)
S17.539.2 S17.607.3 (S6B.1)
$666.9 5466.2 S200.7
S33.988.0 5108.227.3 ($74.239.3)
52.147.6 52,553 1 ($405.5)
$41,530.5 $116,348.1 ($63,520.7)
$40.115.0 $103,635.7 ($63,520.7)
SB.204.6 $9,880.4 (S1, 675.8)
S328.8 S221.0 S107.8
$30.822.1 591.929.9 ($61.107.8)
$759.5 £1,604.4 (S844.9)
51,415.5 $12.7124 ($11496.9)
SB77.9 S576.7 $301.2
S33.6 $41 .3 ($7 7)
5500.1 $12.094.0 (511.593.9)
S3.9 $0.4 $3.5
58,816.3 $8,726.2 $90.1
$8,733.1 $8,649.4 $133.7
$6,692.6 54,817.3 $1,875.3
$181.5 5122.5 S59.0
51,586.4 53.269.6 ($1, 683.2)
$322.6 $440.0 ($1174)
$33.2 $76.8
S31 .2 $72 7
50.9 $2.8
50.1
510 51.3
$3,994.9 $3,779.6 $215.3
$3,974.6 $3,754.9 $219.7
51.712.6 $23358 (5523.2)
5122.1 578 3 $43 8
$1.079.3 5933.8 $145.5
51,060.6 5507.0 $553.6
$20.3 524.7
520.3 524.4
50.3
FY2000
Operating FY2000
Plan Actuals Difference
231.5 223.3 8.2
133.7 132.0 1.7
64.3 58.3 6.0
33.5 33 0 05
$54,833.4 $113,602.1 ($58,768.7)
$18.8956 $18.2170 5678 6
5710.4 S526.8 5183.6
533,624 2 592,929.0 ($59.304.8)
51,603.2 $1.929.3 ($326.1)
$43,376.0 $100,164.0 ($51,775.3)
$40,604.1 $92,379.4 ($51,775.3)
S9.791.4 $10.107.7 (5316.3)
S307.4 S339.3 ($31.9)
$30.197.3 581.311.0 (551.113.7)
S308.0 5621 4 (5313.4)
$139.1
5199.1
$2,572.8 $7,784.6 ($5,211.8)
5924.9 5678.3 $246.6
S31 4 $21.9 $9.5
51,600.0 57.058.1 ($5,458.1)
S16.5 $26.3 ($9.8)
56,991.9 $9.121.5 ($2,129.6)
$6,857.9 $9,105.3 ($2,247.4)
$5,441.6 $5.025.5 1416.1
5170.9 $494 S121.5
$1. 056.0 $3.588.8 ($2.532.8)
$1894 $441.6 ($252.2)
$134.0
$1340
$16.2
515.3
$0.9
54.465.5 54,316.6 $148.9
$3.804.8 $4,252.5 ($447.7]
52,359.1 S2.326.1 $33.0
$156.6 5115.3 $41.3
S7709 $971.1 ($200.2)
$518.2 $840.0 (5321.8)
$480.6 $0.0
435
4371
522.4 $64.1
$21.8 S64.1
$0.6
$157.7
$1577
FY2003
Operating FY2003
Plan Actuals Difference
119.4 122.4 (3.0)
63.2 57.0 6.2
31.8 30.2 1.6
$64,983.0 $94,377.3 ($29,394.3)
522,039.6 $19.925.5 $2,114.1
5631.1 $3292 $301.9
$41,074.9 $70,828.2 (529,753.3)
51.237.4 53.294.4 ($2.057.0)
$52.493.2 $80,680.9 ($28,187.7)
$52,493.2 $64,516.7 ($12,023.5)
512,3114 $11,218.9 S1.092.5
S306.7 5201.9 $104.8
$39,450.7 $51,197.2 (S11.746.5)
$424.4 51,8987 (11,474.3)
$0.0 $15,541.3 ($15,541.3)
$15.541.3 ($15,541.3)
$0.0 $622.9 ($622.9)
$232.1 (5232.1)
$6.2 (56.2)
$290 1 (S290.1)
$94.5 (594.5)
$7,922.6 $11,870.4 ($3,947.8)
$7,922.6 $7,250.2 $672.4
$6,565.9 $5,788.5 $777.4
$169.5 $48.0 $121.5
$911.5 $881.5 $30.0
S275 7 $532.2 ($256.5)
$0.0 $2,310.1 ($2,310.1)
534.0 ($34.0)
$2^76 1 ($2,276.1)
$4,609.7 $4.234.3 $375.4
$4,524.7 $4.037.9 $486.8
$3.162.3 52.652.0 $5103
5154.9 $731 $81.8
5690.5 S611.1 $79.4
$517.0 S701 7 ($184.7)
$42.5 $98.2 ($55.7)
22.2 30.9 ($8.7)
20.3 67.3 (S47.0;
% Change
1999-102003 199910
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
.13.5% -11.8%
-2.0% -6.1%
-7.3% -9.9%
19.6% -26.8%
25.7% 13.2%
-5.4% -29.4%
20.9% -34.6%
-42 4% 29.0%
26.4% -30.7%
30.9% -37.7%
50.1% 13.5%
-6.7% -8.6%
28.0% -14.3%
-44.1% 18.3%
-10.1% 36.0%
-9.8% -16.2%
-1 .9% 20.2%
-6.6% -60.8%
-42.5% -73.0%
-14.5% 21.0%
15.4% 12.0%
13.8% 7.5%
84.6% 18.6%
26.9% -6.6%
-36.0% -34 6%
-51.3% 38.4%
2000 to 2003
Operating 2000 to 2003
Plan Actuals
-107% -7.3%
-1.7% -2 2%
-5.1% -B.5%
18.5% -16.9%
16.6% 9.4%
-11.2% -37.5%
22.2% -23.8%
-22.8% 70.8%
21.0% -19.5%
29.3% -30.2%
25.7% 11.0%
-0.2% -10.5%
30.6% -37.0%
37.8% 205.6%
13.3% 30.1%
15.5% -20.4%
20.7% 15.2%
-0.8% -2.8%
-137% -75.4%
45.6% 20.5%
3.2% -1.0%
18.9% -3.0V*
34.0% 14 0%
-1.1% -36.6%
-10.4% -37.1%
-0.2% -16.5%
•Afl Data was extracted from BAS
'Travel does nol include srle travel, which is induded in Other
•Homeland Security Resources for FY 2003 Operating Plan are not broken out for each region, but a regional total is induded on the Reaional Total Srm«t
For FY 1999 and FY 2003 RESPONSE FTE incruttes ctetrfouton of relmbureaUo Base Re3torat.on S Ctasura FTE
175
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
Region 02
Operating FY1999
esponse
Enforcement
Management & Support
Resources Total
Paymll
Travel
Contracts / Grams
Other
Response
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Paymll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Browntlelds
Payroll
Travel
Contracts! Grants
Other
Enforcement
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownfietds
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Management & Support
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownflelds
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
BrowrTfields Carryover
Payrol
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Othe
Plan Actuals Difference
202 2 200.5 1 7
124.5 127.0 (2.5)
53 7 50.0 3.7
$74,735.0 $178,329.2 (S103 594.2)
S28.419.1 $28.381.3 $37.3
S1, 048.3 S625.6 S422 7
S42.7177 $145.462.8 ($102.745.1)
S2.549.9 $3,859.5 ($1.309.6
$52,456.7 $155,348.5 ($102,891.8)
551,515.8 $148,163.8 ($96,618.0)
514. 141.7 $14.210.7 ($69.0
$429.3 S254.3 $175.0
S35.B09.8 $132.6557 (S96.845.9)
$1.165.0 $1.0431 $121.9
$0.0
$910.9 $7,184.7
$348.2 $363.0
$31.5 $291
$500.0 $6,775.0
$31.2 $17.6
$13,701.6 $14,773.3 ($1,071.71
$13,423.4 $14,505.5 ($1,082.1)
$9.798.5 $9,818.1 (S19.6
S92.2 S58.8 $33.4
$3,248.8 $4.086.4 (S837.6)
$283.9 $542.2 ($258.3
$278.2 $267.8
$266 1 $256.6
$5.8 $2.7
$6.3 $8.5
$8,576.7 $8,207.4 S369.3
$8,529.8 $8,145.2 $384.6
$3.817.9 $3.670.9 $147.0
$489.5 S280.7 $208.8
$3.1591 $1.945.7 $1,213.4
$1.063.3 $2.247.9 ($1,184.6)
$46.9 $62-2
$46.7 $62.0
$0.2 $0.2
FY2000
Operating FY2000
373.7 361.0 12.7
231 1 223.7 74
92.6 86.3 6.3
500 51.0 (1.0)
$86,917.8 $222,493.7 ($135,575.9)
$30,102.3 $29,932.0 $170 3
$1.048.3 $785.8 $262.5
$53.222.6 $189,001.1 (S135.77B.5)
$2,544.6 $2,774.8 ($230.2)
$67,761.9 $202,578.7 ($134,816.8)
$64,888.7 $197,921.8 ($133,033.1)
$17.131.4 $17.535.4 ($404.0]
$459.9 $269.5 $190.4
$46,844.3 S179.263.7 ($132,419.4)
$453 1 $853.2 ($400.1;
$404.7
$4047
52,468. 5 $4,656.9
$788.8 $649.3
$49.4 $54.0
$1,600.0 53,925.3
$30.3 $2B.3
$9,978.7 $10,664.0 ($685.3)
19,634.2 $10,657.4 ($1,023.2)
$7.879.4 $7.754.3 $125.1
$113.2 $58.5 $54.7
$1,4442 $2,604.0 ($1.159.8)
$197.4 $240.6 ($432
$344.5
$3445
$6.6
$60
$06
$9,177.2 $9,121.6 $55.6
$8,882^ $9,061.2 (S178.3)
$3.828 4 $3,926.6 (S9B2)
$425 8 $403.2 $22 6
$3.109.5 $3.208.1 ($98.6)
$1.5192 $1.523.3 ($41)
$224.8
$224.6
$69.7 $60.4
$69.6 $60.4
$0.1
FY2003
Operating FY2003
351.0 343.8 7.2
216.1 214.6 1.5
91 1 85.0 6,1
43.B 44.2 (0.4)
$119,535.1 $185,128.4 ($65,593.3)
$34,694.4 $34.6596 $34.8
$662.3 $672.0 ($9.7)
$81,8403 $146,349.0 ($64,508.7)
$2.338.1 $3,447.8 ($1,109.7)
$99,931.3 $164,844.1 ($64,912.8)
$99,911.6 $149,701.3 ($49,789.7)
$20,909.9 $21292.5 ($382.6)
$458.9 $319.9 $139.0
$77.794.6 $126,1872 ($48,3924)
$748.0 $1,9017 ($1,153.7;
$19.7 $12,922.5 ($12,902.8)
$12.902.8 ($12,902.8)
$19.7 $19.7 $0.0
$0.0 $2,220.3 ($2220.3)
$0.0 $0.0
$21.7 ($21.7)
$2,198.3 ($2,198.3)
$0.3 ($0.3;
$10,946.6 $12,173.7 ($1227.1)
$10,946.8 $10,593.1 $353.5
$9.779.0 $9,285.1 $493.9
$112.2 $77.7 $34.5
$717.0 $830.0 ($113.0)
$338.4 $400.3 ($61.9)
$0.0 $790.3 ($7792)
S4B.1 ($48.1
$731.1 ($731.1)
$11 1
$8,699.7 $9,068.3 ($368.6)
$8,614.7 $8,733.5 ($118.8)
$4.005.5 $4.033.9 ($2B 4
$91.2 $2527 ($161.5
$3,328.5 $3,499.6 ($171 1)
$1.189.5 $947.3 $242.2
$42.5 $167.4 (S124.9)
SO.O
42 5 167 4 ($124.9
Operating 2003
-7.7% -8.9%
6.9% 7.0%
-26.8% -33.1%
-18.4% -11.6%
59.9% 3.8%
22.1% 22.1%
-36.8% 7.4%
91.6% 0.6%
-8.3% -10.7%
90.5% 6.1%
93.8% 1.0%
47.9% 49.8%
6.9% 25.8%
1172% -1.9%
-35.8% 82.3%
-20.1% -17.6%
-18.5% -27.0%
-0.2% -5.4%
21.7% 32.1%
-77 9% -79 7%
19.2% -262%
1.4% 10.5%
1.0% 72%
4.9% 9.9%
-814% -100%
5.4% 79.9%
11.9% -579%
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-61% -4.81*
-6.5% -4.1%
-1.6% -1.5%
-12.4% -13.3%
37.5% -16.8%
15.3% 15.8%
-33.8% -14.5%
53.8% -22.6%
-8.1% 24.3%
47.5% -18.6%
54.0% -24.4%
22.1% 21.4%
-0.2% 18.7%
66.1% -29.6%
65.1% 122.9%
9.7% 142%
13.6% -0.6%
24.1% 19.7%
-0.9% 32.8%
-504% -68.1%
71.4% 66.4%
-5.2% -0.6"/
-3.0% -3.6V,
4.6% 2.7%
-78 6% -37.3%
7.0% 9.1%
-21.7% -37.8%
"FY1B9Q Operating Plan does not include t_^rryover, DUI i- T i aaa Actuals do rncludB carryover.
•AJ1 Data was extracted from BAS
'Travel does not include srta travel, which is included mOtfier
•Homeiand Security Resources for FY 2003 are not broken out for each region, but a regional total is included on the Regional Total Sheet
For FY 1999 and FY 2003. RESPONSE FTE Includes distribution of reimburBabte Base Restoration ft Closure FTE
176
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
Region 03
FY1999
Operating FY1999
Plan Actuals Difference
TE Total
Response
Enforcement
Management & Support
Resources Total
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Response
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Othar
-arryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownfields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
enforcement
Rscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Brownfields
Payroll
Tmvitl
Contracts I Grants
Other
Management & Support
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownflelds
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownfields Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
355.2 338.6 16.6
178.5 175 1 34
134.0 109.3 24.7
42.7 54.2 (11.5)
592,435.8 $151,355.0 ($58,919-2)
$25.409.5 $24.8374 $572.1
$542.2 $526.2 S1S.O
$62.297.6 $121,374.3 ($59.076.7)
S4. 166.5 $4,617 1 ($430.6)
$72,187.1 $131,453.7 ($55,192.7)
571,306.9 $126,499.6 ($55,192.7)
S11.580.5 $11.936.3 ($355.8]
$245.2 $385.2 ($140.0]
$57.340.1 $!11.056.B ($53. 716.7)
$2.141.1 $3.121.3 ($980.2]
50.0
5880.2 54,954.1
$344.1 $455.4
$7.3 $25.8
S500.0 $4,457 6
$28.8 $15.3
$13,820.0 513,346.0 $474.0
513,820.0 513,334.6 $485.4
$10.538.0 $8.3194 $2.218.6
$208.5 S55.0 $153.5
$2.900.1 $4,465.5 ($1.565.4)
$173.4 S494.7 ($321.3)
50.0 $11.4
$10.8
$06
$6,428.7 $6,555.3 (5126.6)
$6,413.7 $6,555.3 (5141.6
$2.931.9 $4.115.5 ($1.183.6
S81.2 $60.2 $21.0
$1.557.4 $1.394.4 $163.0
S1. 843.2 $985.2 S858.0
515.0 80.0
S15.0
FY2000
Operating FY2000
Plan Actuals Difference
347.B 345.2 2.6
176.8 179.5 (2.7)
132.7 123.6 9 1
38.3 42.1 (3.8)
$64117.0 $107,738.4 ($43,621.4)
$27.839 1 S27.595.8 S243.3
$1 ,088.5 $534.8 $553 7
$32.519.1 $75.564.0 ($43,044.9)
$2,670.3 $4,043.8 ($1.373.5)
543,390.9 $85,799.4 ($35,484.7)
$40,989.5 $76,474.2 (535,484.7)
$12.972.1 S13.412.3 ($440.2]
$257.8 $256.6 $1.2
$26.810.7 $61.294.2 (S34.4B3.5)
S948.9 51,51 1.1 ($562.2)
$402.3 $0.0
$402.3
51,999.1 $9,325.2
$367.6 $461.8
$7.2 $30.0
$1 ,600.0 $8,828.0
$24.3 $54
$13,529.4 514,492.7 ($963.3)
513,406.0 $14,492.7 ($1,088.7)
$10,684.9 $10,356.1 $328.8
$212.8 S62.9 $149.9
$2,466.2 $3,817.2 ($1,351.0)
$42.1 $256.5 ($214.4]
5123.4
$123.4
$0.0 50.0
57,196.7 $7,214.2 ($17.5)
$6,832.1 57,214.2 ($382.1)
$3.047.9 $3.365.6 ($317.7
$610.4 $185.3 $425.1
$1.6422 $1.624.6 517.6
$1,531.6 $2.038.7 ($507.1)
5349.4
$349.4
$15.2 50.0
S14.9
$0.3
Operating FY2003
Plan Actuals Difference
168.9 167.2 1.7
130.5 124.6 5.9
34.0 33.4 0.6
$69,299.2 $94,603.2 (525,304.0)
$31.858.5 $31,087.2 $771.3
$1.024.0 $426.2 $597.8
$33.460.2 S58.581.9 ($25,121.7)
$2,956.5 $4,507.9 ($1,551.4)
$47,518.0 $72,779.1 ($25,261.1)
547,518.0 $57,683.3 ($10,165.3)
S15. 757.7 $15,524.4 $233.3
S470.2 $289.8 $180.4
$30,306.4 $39,014.3 (SB.707.9)
$9837 $2.854.8 ($1.871.1)
$0.0 $14,803.0 (514,761.0)
S14.761.0 ($14,761.0)
$42.0
$0.0 5292.8 ($292.8)
$7.8 ($7.8)
$0.6 ($0.6)
$228.5 ($228.5)
$55.9 ($55.9)
514,338.9 516,426.7 ($2,087.8)
$14,338.9 $13,889.3 $649.6
$12.753.9 $12.192.9 $561.0
$113.3 ' $79.5 $33.8
$1.048.8 $1,0421 $6.7
$422.9 5374.8 $48.1
$0.0 $1,368.7 ($1,279.8)
$76 7 ($76.7|
$1.2031 ($1,203.1)
$88.9
57.976.0 $7,269.6 $706.4
$6,903.6 $6,262.6 $646. 0
$3,346.9 $3.285.4 $61.5
$440.5 $56.3 $384.2
$1,571.3 $1,958.9 ($387.6)
$1.549.9 $962.0 $587.9
$533.7 $503.5 $30.2
$533.7 $374.0 5159.7
$129.5 ($129.5)
% Change
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-5.4% -4.5%
-2.6% 14.0%
-20.4% -38.4%
-25.0% -37.5%
25.4% 25.2%
88.9% -19.0%
-46.3% -51.7%
-29.4% -2.4%
-34.2% -44.6%
-33,4% -54.4%
36.1% 301%
91.8% -24.8%
-47.1% -64.9%
-54.1% -8.5%
3.8% 23.1%
3.8% 2.7%
21 .0% 46.6%
-45.7% 44.5%
-63.8% -76.7%
143.9% -24.2%
24.1% 10.9%
7.7% -4.5%
14.2% -20.2%
442,5% -6.5%
0.9% 40.5%
-15.9% -2.4%
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-4.5% -6.9%
-1.7% 0.8%
-11.2% -20.7%
a 1% -12.2%
14.4% 12.7%
-5.9% -20.3%
2.9% -22.5%
10.7% 11.5%
9.5% -15.n
15.9% -24.6%
21.5% 15.7%
82 4% 12.9%
13.0% -36.3%
3.7% 88.9%
S.0% 13.3%
7.0% -5.5%
19.4% 17.7%
-46.8% 26.4%
-57.5% -72.7%
904.5% 46.1%
10.8% 0.8%
1.1% -13.2%
9.8% -24%
-27.8% -69.6%
-4.3% 20.6%
1.2% -52.8%
•FY 1999 Operabrig Plan does nol Include Carryover, but FY 1999 Actuals do include carryover.
•All Data vras extracted from BAS
'Travel does not include sits travel, which is included inOf/rar
•Homeland Security Resources for FY 2003 are not broken out for each region, but a regional total is included on the Regional Total Sheet
ForFY 1999 and FY 2003. RESPONSE FTE includes dtstnt)ut;on o( reimbursable Base Restoration & Closure FTE
177
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
Region 04
esponse
:nforcement
Management & Support
Resources Total
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Response
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
lomeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Othet
Brownflelds
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Enforcement
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Othe:
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownfields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Management & Support
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts i Grants
Other
Brownflelds
Payroll
Trave
Contracts I Grants
Othe
Brownflelds Carryover
Payro
Trave
Contracts 1 Grant
Othe
Operating FY1999
Plan Actuals Difference
174.7 164.9 9.6
135 1 141.5 (6.4)
39.0 47.6 (8.6)
$97,420.8 $119,008.1 ($21,587.3)
$24,488.7 S24, 837.7 (S349.0]
5927.5 5562.6 S364.9
568.759.1 590,323.5 (521,564.4;
53.245.5 53.284.3 ($38.6;
$76,515.6 $98,096.1 ($17,096.5)
$75,5662 $92,662.7 ($17,096.5)
511.259.0 $10.797.6 5461.4
$426.0 $351.7 5743
561.998.1 579.641.7 (517.6436)
51 .883.1 51.871.7 5114
$0.0
$949.4 $5,433.4
S383.9 $439.4
S14.8 S62.7
5505.9 54,871.1
$44.8 $60.2
$15,694.0 $15,7652 ($712)
$15,694.0 $15,6183 $75.7
$9.990.7 510.277.0 (5286.3)
5377.7 5101.5 5276.2
54,9412 54,470.7 5470.5
5384.4 5769.1 (5384.7)
50.0 S146.9
5142.9
S3.7
50.3
$5,2112 $5,1463 $64.4
$5,2112 $5,1463 $64.4
$2.855.1 53.180.8 ($325.7)
5109.0 543.0 $66.0
$1.313.9 $1,340.0 ($26.1)
5933.2 $583.0 $350.2
$0.0 $0.0
Operating FY2000
Plan Actuals Difference
341.4 350.5 (91]
170.7 179.2 (8.5)
132.6 129.0 3.6
38 1 42.3 (42)
$61,267.8 $112,816.0 ($51,5482)
$25,865.3 526.464.5 (5599.2;
$993.5 $542.8 $450 7
532,6545 581,645.4 (548,990.9)
51.754.5 $4,163.3 (52,408.8
$43,874.9 $95,661.0 ($47,086.7)
$41,969.8 $89,056.5 ($47,086.7)
511,9291 $12,798.0 (5868.9
54544 53353 5119.1
528,699.7 $73.531.2 (544,8315)
5886.6 52,392.0 (51,505.4)
$330.9 $0.0
5330.9
51,5742 $6,604.5
5415.0 5479.0
519.0 557.3
51.100.0 56,039.6
5402 $28.6
$12,334.9 $12,0383 $296.6
$12,150.4 $12,0262 $124.2
$10.316.1 $10.113.8 $202.3
5338.1 5852 5252.9
$1,450.4 $12232 $2272
$45.8 S604.0 (5558.2)
$184.5
5184.5
$0.0 $12.1
$11.1
si.o
$5,058.0 55,038.5 $193
$4,532.7 $5,0383 ($5053
$2,646.0 53.062.6 (5416.6
$116.0 5640 552.0
$1,231.1 $851.4 $379.7
$539.6 $1,060.5 ($520.9
$525.3
$228.2
566.0
$173.3
$57.8
$0.0 $0.0
FY2003
Operating FY2003
322.0 3282 (62)
1569 170.4 (13.5)
130.2 118.2 12.0
34.9 39.6 (4.7)
$83,876.3 $108,097.6 J524221.3)
$29.358.0 $29,890.2 ($5322)
5849.9 $622.7 5227 2
$51,762.0 $73.634.0 (521.872.0)
51,906.4 53.9507 (52.044.3;
$65,443.9 $88,863.4 ($23,419.5)
$65,443.9 $86,523.8 ($21,079.9;
514,223.8 515.248.2 (SI. 0244;
5420.3 5495.6 ($75.3;
549.831 7 568,130.7 (518299.0)
59681 $2.6493 (51.6812
$0.0 $2,1252 ($2,1252)
52,1252 ($2.125.2)
$0.0 $214.4 ($214.4)
$182 7 (5182.7
512.1 ($12.1
$1.6 (51 6)
518.0 ($18.0
$13,496.8 $15,384.0 (51,887.2)
$13,496.8 $12,694.0 $802.8
$12226.5 $11.165.0 51.061.5
5107.5 $69.0 538.5
$739.1 5805.4 (566.3)
5423.7 5654.6 (5230 9)
$0.0 $1,345.0 ($1,235.3)
so.o
$1,235.3 (51.235.3)
5109.7
$4,935.6 $5,1952 ($259.6)
$4,935.6 $5,1952 ($259.6)
52.907.7 53.294.3 (5386.6
$3221 546.0 5276.1
51.1912 51.335.8 ($144.6
5514.6 $519.1 (54 5
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0
so.o
so.o
999102003 1999 to
Operating 2003
-7.7% -7.3%
-102% 3.3%
-3.6% -16.5%
-105% -16.8%
-13.9% -9.2%
19.9% 20.3%
-8.4% 10.7%
-24.7% -18.5%
-41.3% 20.3%
-14.5% -9.4%
-13.4% -6.6%
263% 412%
-1 .3% 40.9%
-19.6% -14.5%
-48.6% 41 .5%
-14.0% -2.4%
-14.0% -18.7%
22.4% 8.6%
-71.5% -32.0%
-85.0% -82.0%
102% -14.9%
-5.3% 0.9%
-5.3% 0.9%
1.8% 36%
195.5% 7.0%
-9.3% -0.3%
-44.9% -11.0%
000 to 2003 2000 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-5.7% -6 4%
-8 1% -1.9%
-1.8% -8.4%
-6.4% -6.4%
36 9% -4.2%
13.5% 12.9%
-14.5% 14 7%
58.5% -9.8%
8.7% -51%
492% -7.1%
55.9% -2.8V,
192% 19.1%
-7.5% 47.8%
73 6% -7.3%
92% 10.8%
8.4% 27.8%
11.1% 5.5%
18.5% 104%
-63.2% -19.0%
-19.0% -34.2%
8251% 8.4%
-2.4% 3.1%
85% 3.1%
9.9% 7.6%
1777% -28.1%
-3.2% 56.9%
• -4.6% -51.1%
'FY2000 Actuals include 782 in Agency Unallocated resources
•FY 1999 Operating Plan does not include Carryover, but FY 1999 Actuals do include cairyover.
•All Data was extracted from BAS
•Travel does not include site travel, which is included in Older
•Homeland Secunty Resources for FY 2003 are not broken out for each region, but a regional total is included on the Regional Total Sheet.
For FY 1999 and FY 2003, FtESPONSE FTE includes distribution ol reimbursable Base Restoration & Closure FTE
178
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
Region 05
FY1999
Operating FY1999
Plan Actuals Difference
TE Total
Response
Enforcement
Management & Support
Resources Total
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Response
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts f Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts ! Grants
Other
Homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownfields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Enforcement
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownfields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Management & Support
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts / Grants
Other
Brownfields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Brownfields Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
431.1 436.2 (5.1)
204.1 214.3 (10.2)
175.5 171.3 4.2
51 5 50.6 0.9
$110,933.4 $152,060.1 ($41,126.7)
S30.865.9 S31. 824.4 (S95B.5)
$1.348.7 S927.5 S421.2
S73. 345.6 $114,421.4 ($41.075.8)
$5.373.2 $4.886.8 $486.4
$86,280.5 S127.932J ($33,370.8)
$85,126.8 $118,497.6 ($33,370.8)
$14.122.5 $14.638.3 ($515.8]
$603.4 $542.0 $61.4
$68,268.6 $100.984.1 ($32,695.5)
$2.1 12.3 $2.333.2 (S220.9;
$0.0
81,153.7 $9,434.7 ($8,281.0)
S620.6 $674.4 ($53.8
$18 1 $40.2 ($22.1
$500.0 $8.708.3 ($8.208.3)
$150 $11.8 $3.2
$0.0 $17,568.8 ($17,568.8)
$17,365.0 $500.8
$13.316.9 $12.544.3 $772.6
$567.7 $283 9 $283.8
$3,695.8 $2.893.2 S802.6
$285.4 $1,643.6 ($1,358.2)
$0.0 $203.8
$1893
$5.7
$8.8
$6,787.1 $6,559.0 $228.1
$6,787.1 $6,559.0 $228.1
$2,805 9 $3.778 1 ($972.2)
$159.5 $55.7 $103.8
$861.2 $1.835.8 ($974.6)
$2,960.5 $889.4 $2.071.1
$0.0 $0.0
Operating FY2000
Plan Actuals Difference
422.3 411.2 11.1
202.0 195.7 6.3
172.2 165.2 7.0
48.1 50 3 (22)
$79,490.1 $139,429.5 ($59,939.4)
$32,622.6 $32.641.0 ($184)
$1.348.7 $663.6 $6851
$42,645.1 $101.954.3 ($59.309.2)
$2.873.7 $4,170.6 ($1.296.9;
$56,935.8 $114,403.9 ($51,736.0)
$54,478.0 $106,214.0 ($51,736.0)
$14,447.6 $14.167.5 $280.1
$626.8 $413.7 S213.1
$38,140.4 $90,238.5 ($52.098.1)
$1,263.2 $1,394.3 ($131.1)
$374.3 $0.0
$374.3
$2,083.5 $8,189.9 ($6,106.4)
$437.6 $735.9 (S298.3)
$18.6 $38.3 ($19.7]
$1,600.0 $7,399.9 ($5,799.9)
$27.3 $15.8 $11.5
$0.0 $17,869.7 ($17,869.7)
$17,852.4 ($1,793.0)
$13.504.6 $13,563.9 ($59.3;
$582.0 $147.3 $434.7
$1,923.6 $2,964.4 (51. 040.8)
$49.2 $1,176.8 ($1.127.6;
SO.O
$0.0 $17.3
$93
$7.2
$0.8
$6,494.9 $6,964.4 ($469.5)
$6,193.7 $6,964.4 ($770.7)
$3.858.5 $4,164.4 ($305.9;
$121.3 $57.1 $64.2
$679-ti $1.351.5 ($671.6)
$1.534.0 $1.391.4 $142.6
$301-2
$301.2
$0.0 $0.0
Operating FY2003
Plan Actuals Difference
402.4 398.3 4.1
191.1 189.1 2.0
169.2 164.4 4.8
42 1 44.8 (2.7)
$86,562.5 $115,906.5 ($27,344.0)
$38,691.7 539,398.6 ($706.9)
$1.292.5 $1.159.4 $133.1
$45,859.3 $71,131.0 ($25.271.7)
$2.719.0 S4.217.5 ($1,498.5
$63,215.7 $86,923.6 ($23,707.9)
$63,215.7 $83,693.2 ($20,477.5)
$17,650.0 $17,845.8 ($195.8;
$594.4 $717.8 ($123.4;
$44,221.1 $62,875.4 ($18.654.3)
$750.2 $2,254-2 (51,504.0)
$0.0 $2,589.1 ($2,523.1)
$2,529.1 ($2.529.1)
$60.0
$0.0 $641.3 ($641.3)
$228.3 (S22B.3;
S6.2 ($6.2;
$222.7 (S222.r
$184.1 ($184.1)
$19,012.9 $22,408.2 ($3,395.3)
$19,012.9 $21,721.2 ($2,708.3)
$16,947.1 $16,993.7 (S46.6)
$578.0 $355.6 $212.4
$959.7 $3,928.1 (52,968.4)
$528.1 $433.6 $94.3
$0.0 $343.5 ($343.5)
$99.3 (S99.3;
$244.2 (S244.2)
$6,333 3 $6,91 i 2 ($584.3)
$6,333.9 $6,918.2 ($584.3)
$4.094.6 $4,231.5 (S136.9]
$120.1 $69.8 $50.3
$678.5 $1,331.5 ($653.0)
$1,440.7 $1.285.4 S155.3
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0
$0 0
so.o
% Change
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-6.7% -8.7%
-64% -11 .8%
-3.6% -4.0%
-18.3% -11.5%
•20.2% -23.8%
25.4% 23.8%
-4.2% 25.0%
-37.5% -37.8%
-49.4% -13.7%
-26.7% -32.1%
-25.7% -29.4%
25.0% 21.9%
-1.5% 32.4%
-35-2% -37.7%
-64.5% -3.4%
SDIVfOI 27.5°/l
SDIV/0! 25.1%
27.3% 35.5%
1.8% 28.8%
-74.0% 35.8%
85.0% -73.6%
-6.7% 5.5%
-6.7% 5.5%
45.9% 12.0%
-24 7% 25.3%
-21.2% -27.5%
-51.3% 44.5%
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-5.4% -3.4%
-1.7% -0.5%
-12.5% -10.9%
11.4% -16.9%
18.6% 20.7%
-4.2% 74.7%
7.5% -30.2%
-5.4% 1.1%
11.0% -24.0%
16.0% -21.2%
22.2% 26.0%
-5.2% 73.5%
15.9% -30.3%
-40.6% 51.7%
*D1V70! 25.4V,
MHV/OI 21.7V,
25.5% 25.3%
-0.7% 148.2%
-50.1% 32.5%
973.4% -63.1%
-2.5% -0.7%
2.3% -0.7%
6.1% 1.6%
-1.0% 22 2%
-0.2% -1.5%
-6.1% -7.6%
"FY 1999 Operating Plan does not include Carryover, but FY 1999 Actuals do mdude carryover.
'AH Data was extracted from BAS
'Travel does not include ate travel, which is included mother
•Homeland Security Resources for FY 2003 are not broken out for each region, but a regional total is included on the Regional Total Sheet
For FY 1999 and FY 2003, RESPONSE FTE includes dislnbuton of rernbursable Base Restoration & Closure FTE
179
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
Region 06
Operating FY1999
esponse
Enforcement
Management & Support
esources Total
Payroll
Travel
Contracts / Grants
Other
:esponse
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts / Grants
Other
Carryover
Paymli
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Brownflelds
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Enforcement
Hseal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownfulds
Payroll
Travfil
Contracts I Grants
Other
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
3rownfields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Jrownfields Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Plan Actuals Difference
1181 1198 (1.7)
57 7 52.4 5.3
23.7 29 7 (S.O)
$51,810.2 $100,738.8 ($48,928.6)
$14,086.4 S14.020.6 $65.8
S4767 S491.0 (S14.3)
$34.997 5 S83.4B6.0 (S48.48B.5)
$2.249.6 $2.7412 ($491.6]
$40,681.1 $89,256.7 ($44,673.1)
$39,816.5 $84,489.6 ($44,673.1)
S7.728.5 S7.631.3 $97.2
S224.5 S374.5 (S1500)
$30.7042 S74.428.0 (S43.723.8)
S1. 159.3 $2,055.8 ($896.5'
$0.0
$864.6 $4,767.1 (£3,902.5)
S320.1 $560.8 ($240.7
$16.5 S40.4 ($23.8)
S500.0 S4. 165.9 ($3.665.9)
S27.9
$7,963.2 $8,594.0 (5630. B)
$7,8942 $8,542.6 ($648.4)
S4.285.1 S3.849.9 $435.2
S137.7 $51.7 $86.0
S3.426.4 $4.382.4 (S956.0)
$45.0 $258.6 ($213.6
$69.0 $51.4 $17.6
S65.0 $50.2 $14.8
$4.0 $1.2 S2.B
$3,165.9 $2,888.1 $277.8
$3,153.3 $2,873.4 $279.9
$1.675.1 $1.913.7 ($238.6
$93.9 $23.2 S70.7
$366.9 $509.7 ($142.8
$1,017.4 $426.8 $590.6
$12.6 S14.7 ($2.1
$12.6 $14.7 ($2.1
Operating FY2000
Plan Actuals Difference
196.0 192.6 3.4
116.2 123.5 (7.3)
56 7 46.9 9.8
23.1 22.2 0.9
$43,459.3 $93,009.8 ($49,550.5)
$14. 811.4 S14.472.3 $339.1
$682 9 $504.6 5158.3
$26.500 1 $75,689.9 (S49, 189.8)
S1 ,464.9 $2,343.0 ($858.1]
$33,400.3 $82,375.0 ($45,963.1)
$31,220.5 $77,183.6 ($45,963.1)
$8,173.7 $8.5730 (S399.3;
$457.6 $395.7 $61.9
$21,978.2 $67.015.1 (345,036.9)
S611.0 $1,199.8 ($588.8;
$158.3 $0.0
S903
$68.0
52,021.5 $5,191.4 ($3,169.9)
$348.0 $407.0 ($59.0
$50.1 $37.0 S13.1
$1,600.0 S4.736.3 ($3.136.3)
$23.4 S11.1 $12.3
$6,815.5 $7,332.6 ($517.1)
$6,743.3 $7,331.9 ($588.6)
S4.542.3 $3.853.1 $6892
$54.8 $37.4 S17.4
$2.128.5 $3,2792 ($1.150.7)
$17.7 $1622 ($144.5)
$722
$72.2
$0.0 $0.7
$0.7
SO.O $0.0
$3,243.5 53,221.3 $22.2
$2,751.9 $3,205.5 ($453.6)
$1,643.3 $1.622.9 $20.4
S29.7 $34.3 ($4.6)
$386.3 $659.3 ($273.0)
$692 6 $889.0 ($196.4)
$477.8
$70.7
$407 1
$13.8 $15.8 ($2.0)
$13.8 $15.6 ($1.8)
$02
FY2003
Operating FY2003
1B3.8 182.4 1.4
106.8 109,5 (2.7)
55.8 51.8 4.0
212 21.1 0.1
$59,332.4 $91,161.8 ($31,629.4)
$17,1932 S16.766.0 $427.2
S547 0 $509 3 $37.7
$39.988.5 $71.361 1 ($31,372.6)
$1,603.7 $2,525.4 ($921.7)
$49,6832 $81,525.3 ($31,842.1)
$49,6832 560,503.6 ($10,820.4)
$9,787.2 $9,760.6 $26.6
S459.0 S409.0 $50.0
$38.787.8 $48,537.4 ($9,749.6)
$6492 $1,796.6 ($1.147.4)
$0.0 $20,5793 ($20,579.5)
$20.579.5 ($20.579.5)
SO.O $4422 ($4422)
$0.0
$3.6 ($3.6)
S438.6 ($438.6;
$0.0
$6,464.6 $6,867.8 ($4032)
$6,464.6 $5,9932 $471.4
$5.496.8 $5.074.1 $422. 7
$45.3 $61.3 ($16.0)
S764.6 $661.9 $102.7
$157.9 $195.9 ($38.0)
$0.0 $437.3 ($437.3)
$0.0
$437 3 ($437.3)
$3,393.6 $3,415.0 ($21.4)
$2,975.6 $2,997.0 ($21.4)
$1.909.2 $1.931.3 ($22.1)
$42.7 $35.4 $7.3
$436 1 $706.4 (S270.3)
$587.6 $323.9 $263.7
$209.0 $209.0 $0.0
$0.0
$209.0 $209.0 $0.0
1999 to 2003 1999 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-7.9% -9.7%
-9.6% -8.6%
-33% -11%
-10.5% -29.0%
14.5% -9.5%
221% 19.6%
14.7% 37%
14.3% -14 5%
-28.7% -7.9%
22.1% -8.7%
24.8% -28.4%
26.6% 27.9%
104.5% 92%
26.3% -34.8%
-44.0% -12.6%
-18.8% -20.1%
-18.1% -29.8%
28.3% 31.8%
-67.1% 18.6%
-77.7% -84.9%
250.9% -242%
72% 18.2%
-5.6% 4.3%
14.0% 0.9%
-54 5% 52.6%
18.9% 38.6%
-42.2% -241%
2000 to 2003 2000 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-6.2% -5.3%
-81% -11.3%
-1.6% 104%
-8.2% -5.0%
36.5% -2.0%
1S 1% 15.8%
-17.5% 0.9%
50.9% -5 7%
8.0% 7.8%
48.8% -1.0%
59.1% -21.6%
19.7% 13.9%
0.3% 3.4%
76 5% -27.6%
6.3% 49.7%
-5.1% -8.3%
-4.1% -18.3%
21.0% 31.7%
-17.3% 63.9%
-64.1% -79.8%
792.1% 20.8%
4.6% 6.0%
8.1% -6.S'/!
16.2% 19.0%
43.8% 3.2%
12.9% 7.1%
-15.2% -63.6%
'FY2000 Actuate include 80.9 in Agency Unallocated resources
*FY 1999 Operating Plan does not include Carryover, but FY 1999 Actuals do include carryover
'Al! Data was extracted from BAS
'Travel doss not include site travel, which IB Included inOfrter
'Homeland Secunty Resources for FY 2003 are not broken out for each region, but a regional total is rndudad on the Regional Total Sheet.
For FY 1999 and FY 2003. RESPONSE FTE Includes distribution at reimbursable Basa Restoration & Closure FTE
180
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
FY1999
Operating FY1999
TE Total
Response
inforcement
Management & Support
Resources Total
Payroll
Travel
Contracts / Grants
Otrtsr
Response
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownftelds
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Enforcement
Rscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts / Grants
Other
Browrrnelds
Payroll
Trait;/
Contracts I Grants
Other
Management & Support
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownfields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Jrownfields Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Plan Actuals Difference
177.6 173.8 3.8
83.3 84.0 (0.7)
66.9 65.8 1.1
27.4 24.0 3 4
$38,017.5 $54,492.7 ($16,475.2)
512,352.9 $12.256.9 $96.0
$593.7 $262.2 $331.5
S22, 614.8 $39.593.4 ($16.983.6)
S2.456 1 $2.375.2 $80.9
$28,561.8 $44,926.2 ($14,214.8)
$27,820.1 542,034.9 ($14,214.8)
$5,779.1 $5,856.6 ($77.5)
$296.8 $167.0 $129 8
$20,598.6 S34, 606.0 (S14.007.4)
$1.145.6 $1.405.3 ($259.7;
$0.0
S741.7 $2,B91.3 ($2,149.6)
$287.0 $294.2 ($7.2)
$42.4 $34.6 $7.8
$400.0 $2,492.5 ($2,092.5)
$12.3 $70.0 ($57.7;
$6,414.8 $6,871.2 ($456.4)
$6,414.8 $6,871.2 ($456.4)
$4.883 5 $4,826.5 $57.0
$127.3 $30.3 $97.0
$900.2 $1 ,794.8 ($894.6)
$503.8 $219.6 $284.2
$0.0 $0.0
$3,040.9 52,695.3 $345.6
$3,028.2 $2,682.6 $345.6
$1.390.6 $1.266.9 $123.7
$127.2 $30.3 $96.9
$7160 $705.1 $10.9
$794.4 $680.3 $114.1
$12.7 $12.7 $0.0
$127 $12.7 $0.0
—
FY2000
Operating FY2000
Plan Actuals Difference
175.0 172.9 2.1
82.6 77.4 5.2
65.6 73.6 (8.0)
26.8 21.9 4.9
$30,196.3 $49,254.6 ($19,058.3)
S12.902.5 $12,802.1 $1004
$593 7 $345.2 $248.5
$15,075.9 $34.233.2 ($19.157.3)
$1.624.2 $1.874.1 ($249.9)
$20,400.1 $39,137.3 ($16,088.5)
$19,325.8 $35,414.3 ($16,088.5)
$5,791.7 $5,555.8 $235.9
$375.7 $191.9 $183.8
$12.703.7 $26.588.4 ($15,884.7)
$454.7 $1,078.2 ($623.5)
$113.2 SO.O
$113.2
$961.1 $3,723.0 ($2,761.9)
$303.8 $349.4 ($45.6;
S45.0 $38.2 $6.8
$600.0 $3.321.5 ($2,721.5)
$12.3 $13.9 ($1.6]
$6,497.3 $6,911.2 ($413.9)
$6,497.3 $6,911.2 ($013.9;
$5.131.4 $5,465.4 ($334.0;
$60.0 S56.9 S3.1
$1.059.2 $1,132.6 ($73.4)
$246.7 $256.3 ($9.6;
$0.0
$0.0 $0.0
$3,298.9 $3,031.8 $267.1
$2,811.7 $3,019.1 (S207.4)
$1.663.7 $1,418.8 $244.9
$113.0 $5B.2 $54.8
$512.7 $1.190.7 ($678.0)
$522.3 $351.4 $170.9
$475.3
$200.3
$2750
$11.9 $12.7 ($0.8)
$11.9 $12.7 ($0.8
Operating FY2003
Plan Actuals Difference
1 78.9 75.4 3.5
64.5 62.4 2.1
26.6 24 1 2.5
$34,239.3 $45,233.9 ($10,994.6)
$15,413.6 514,759 1 $654.5
$517.0 $492 8 $24.2
$17.170.6 $27.334.4 ($10.163.8)
$1,138.1 $2,647.6 ($1,509.5;
$24,452.0 $34,848.4 ($10,396.4)
$24,452.0 $30,206.6 ($5,754.6)
$7.396.8 $7,009.3 $387.5
$374.7 $279.7 $95.0
$16,284.8 $21,516.2 ($5,231.4)
$395.7 $1,401.4 ($1,005.7;
$0.0 $4,630/1 ($4,436.2)
$4,436.2 ($4.435.2)
$194.2
$0.0 $11.4 ($11-4)
$11.4 ($11.4;
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$6,659.3 $7,301.6 ($642.3)
$6,659.3 $6,517.0 $142.3
S5.952.2 $5,789.4 $162.8
$59.5 $80.9 ($21.4)
$445.2 $513.4 ($68.2)
$202.4 $133.3 S69.1
$0.0 $392.3 ($278.9;
$35.1 ($35.V
$243.8 ($243.8)
$113.4
$3,128.0 $3,535.5 ($407.5)
$3,128.0 $3,416.9 ($288.9)
$2.064.6 $1,913.9 $150.7
$82.8 $132.2 ($49.4)
$440.6 $578.8 ($138.2
$540.0 $792.0 ($252.0
$0.0 $59.3 ($59.3)
$46.0 ($46.0)
$13.3 ($133
% Change
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-5.3% -10.2%
-3.6% -5.2%
-2.9% 0.4%
-9.9% -17.0%
24 8% 20.4%
-12.9% 87.9%
-24.1% -31.0%
-53.7% 11.5%
-14.4% -22.4%
-12.1% -28.1%
28.0% 19.7%
26.2% 67.5%
-20.9% -37.8%
-65.5% -0.3%
3.8% 6.3%
3.8% -5.2%
21.9% 20.0%
-53.3% 167.0%
-50.5% -71.4%
-59.8% -39.3%
2.9% 31.2%
3.3% 27.4%
48.5% 51.1%
-34.9% 336.3%
-38.5% -17.9%
-32.0% 16.4%
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-4.5% -26%
-1.7% -152%
-0.7% 10.0%
13.4% -8.2%
19.5% 15.3%
-12.9% 42.8%
13.9% -20.2%
-29.9% 41.3%
19.9% -11.0%
26.5% -14.7V,
27.7% 26.2%
-0.3% 45.8%
28.2% -24.7%
-13.0% 30.0%
2.5% 5.6%
2.5% -5.7%
16.0% 5.9%
-0.8% 42.2%
-58.0% -54.7%
-18.0% -48.0%
-5.2% 16.6%
11.2% 13.214
24.1% 34.9%
-26.7% 127.1%
-14.1% -51.4%
3.4% 125.4%
"FY 1999 Operating Plan does not include Carryover, but FY 1999 Actuals do include carryover
"All Data was extracted from BAS
"Travel/ does not include ate travel, which is included mOfher
"Homeland Security Resources for FY 2003 are not broken out for each region, but a regional total is included on the Regional Total Sheet.
For FY 1999 and FY 2003. RESPONSE FTE includes distribution of reimbursable Base Restoration & Closure FTE
181
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
Region 08
Response
Enforcement
Management & Support
Resources Total
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Response
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts / Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Homeland Securfty
PayroB
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
3rowrrfi«lds
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Enforcement
Hscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travei
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
BrowrtfteWs
PayroB
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Management & Support
Racal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownflelds
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownfielda Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Operating FY1999
Plan Actuals Dtfforance
101.0 1023 (l3j
59.0 52.4 6.6
33 1 31 1 2.0
$48,115.3 $90,518.2 ($42,502.9)
S13.9546 S14. 018.5 ($63.9)
S543.7 $503 5 $40.2
S31.8332 S74, 131.2 ($42,298.0)
$1.783.8 $1.965.0 ($1812)
$35,473.6 $77,433.0 ($38,873.2)
$34,607.8 $73,481.0 ($38,873 2}
$6,943.5 $7.238.7 ($295.2J
$273.8 1304.0 ($302)
S26.681.8 $64,533.8 (S37.852.0)
S708.7 $1.404.5 ($695.8J
$0.0
S8B5.B 53,952.0 ($3,0862)
S292.7 S223.5 $69,2
S57 4 $41.0 $16,4
S500.0 $3.687.0 ($3.187.0)
$15.7 $0.5 S15.2
$9,789.1 $10,186.7 ($397.6)
$9,773.5 $10,186.7 ($413.2)
$5,336.4 $4.547.6 $788.8
$164.6 $98.2 $66.4
$3,816.7 $5.301.9 ($1,485.2)
$455.8 S239.0 $216,8
$15.6 $0.0
$15.6
$2,852.6 52,998.5 (S145.9)
$2,834.0 $2,981.4 ($147.4)
$1,3478 $1.991.6 ($643.8;
$47.9 $60.3 ($12.4)
$834.7 $608.5 $226.2
$603.6 $321.0 $282.6
$18.6 $17.1 S1.5
$18.6 $17.1 $1.5
Operating FY2000
189.7 186.8 29
101.5 106.7 (5.2)
6S.2 53.5 11.7
23.0 26.6 (3 6)
552,107.3 $101,952.5 ($49.845.2)
S15. 682.5 515.036.8 $645.7
$6180 $5031 $114.9
$34,598 4 $84.040.6 (S49.442.2)
$12084 $2.3720 ($1.163.6)
$40,851.8 $88,210.6 ($45,668.8;
$39,650.9 $85,319.7 ($45,668.8)
57,546.5 $8.092.8 ($546.3)
$395.8 $323.2 $72.6
$31215.2 $75.138.8 ($43.923.6)
$493.4 $1,764.9 (S1271.5;
$147.5 $0.0
$147.5
$1,053.4 $2,890.9 ($1,837.5)
$391.9 $188.6 $203.3
$48.0 $41 7 $6.3
$600.0 $2,651.8 ($2.051.8)
$13.5 $6.8 $4.7
$8,577.8 $10,973.6 ($2,395.8)
$8,448.6 $10,972.5 ($2,523.9)
$6,024.1 $4.937.4 $1.086.7
$111.8 $78.8 $33.0
$2226.8 $5.725.1 ($3.498.3)
$85.9 $231.2 ($145.3;
$123.2
$129.2
SO.O $1.1
$1.1
$2,677.7 $2,668.8 $8.9
$2,663.6 (2,651.9 $11.7
$1.558.4 $1,800.0 ($241.6)
$62.4 $59 4 $3.0
$5564 $524.9 $31.5
$486.4 $267.6 $218.8
$0.0
$14.1 $16.9 ($2.8)
$14.1 $169 ($2.8)
FY2003
Operating FY2003
181.4 184.6 (32)
95.9 100.4 (4.5)
64.1 62.4 1.7
21.4 21.8 (0.4)
$55,036.0 $102,919.0 ($47,883.0)
$17,702.0 $17.375.2 $326.8
$565.0 $512.9 $52.1
$35,341.0 $82.120.5 ($46.779.5)
S1.428.0 $2,910.4 ($1.482.4)
$44,220.3 $91,418.4 ($47,196.1)
$44,220.3 $72,181.7 ($27,961.4)
$9,261 .0 $9227.2 $33.8
$360.6 $391.3 ($30.7)
$33,901 .9 $60,485.5 ($26,583.6)
$696.8 $2,077.7 (51 ,380.9)
$0.0 $19,073.8 ($19,073.8)
$19.073.8 (519,073.8)
$0.0 $162.9 ($162.9)
$0.0
$0.0
$44.6 ($44 6)
$118.3 ($118.3)
$7,893.1 $9,589.9 ($1,696.8)
$7,893.1 $7,873.7 $19.4
$6,656.6 $6.455.2 $201.4
$106.0 $77 1 $28.9
$906.3 $1.071.8 ($165.5)
$2242 $269.6 ($45.4)
$0.0 $858.1 ($858.1)
$0.0
$858 1 ($858.1)
$3,069.0 $2,800.6 $268.4
$2,7762 $2,737.0 $392
$1,638.0 $1,692.8 ($54.8)
$98 4 S44.5 $53.9
$532.8 $586.5 ($53.7)
$507.0 $413.2 $93.8
$146.4 $31.8 ($31.8)
146 4
$02 ($02)
$31.6 ($31.6)
1999 to 2003 1999 to
Operating 2003
-6.1% -0.6%
-5.0% -1.9%
8.6% 191%
-35.3% -29.9%
14.4% 13.6%
26.9% 23 9%
39% 1.9%
11.0% 10.8%
-19.9% 48.1%
24.7% 18.1%
27.8% -1.8%
33.4% 27.5%
31.7% 28.7%
27.1% -6.3%
-1.7% 47.9%
-19.4% -5.9%
-192% -22.7%
24.7% 41 .9%
-35.6% -21 .5%
-76.3% -79.8%
-50.6% 12.8%
7.6% -6.6%
-2.0% -82%
21.5% -150%
1054% -262%
-36.2% -3.6%
-160% 28.7%
2000 to 2003 2000 to
Operating 2003
-4.4% -1.2%
-5.5% -5.9%
-1.7% 16.G%
-7.0% -18.0%
5.6% 0.9%
12.9% 15.6%
-8.6% 1 9%
2.1% -2.3%
18.2% 227%
82% 3.6%
11.5% -15.4V,
22.7% 14.0%
-8.9% 21.1%
8.6% -19.5%
412% 17.7%
-8.0% -12.6%
-6.6% -28.2%
10.5% 30.7%
-5.2% -2.2%
-59.3% -31 3%
161.0% 16.6%
14.6% 4.9%
42% 32%
5.1% -6.0%
577% -25.1%
-4.2% 11.7%
4.2% 54.4%
'FY 1999 Operating Plan does not Include Carryover, but FY 1999 Actuals do include carryover.
'All Data was extracted from BAS
•Travel does not include site travel, which is Included InOIher
•Homeland Security Ftesources for FY 2003 are nol broKen out for each region, bul a regional lotal Is included on the Regional Total Sheet.
For FY 1999 and FY 2003. RESPONSE FTE Includes dstnbution of reimbursable Base Restoration & Closure FTE
182
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
Region 09
FY1999
Operating FY1999
Plan Actuals Difference
FTE Total
Response
Enforcement
Management & Support
Resources Total
Payro//
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Response
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Carryover
Payro//
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownfields
Payro//
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Enforcement
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payro//
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Brownftelds
Payro//
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Management & Support
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payro//
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownftelds
Payro//
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Browrtflelds Carryover
Payro//
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
279.7 265.1 14.6
142.3 146 6 (4.3)
81.6 71.5 10.1
55.8 47.0 8.8
$54 914.1 592,438.3 ($37,524.2)
519.268.5 518,508.0 $760.5
5372.7 $354.4 518.3
$33,032.3 $71.482.8 (538,450.5)
$2.240.6 $2.093.1 $147.5
$38,493.3 572,813.4 (529,891.1)
$37,471.1 $67,362.2 ($29,891.1)
$9,023.3 $8,705.6 5317.7
$227.3 5209.8 $17 5
527,571.5 557,459.6 (529.888.1)
5649.0 5987.2 ($338.2)
$0.0
$1,022^ $5,451 2
$487.9 5590.3
532.4 $41.1
5498.0 $4,818.9
$3.9 $0.9
$12,258.8 $15,160.0 ($2,901.2)
$12,215.8 $15,061.8 ($2,846.0)
57.818.3 56.222.5 51,595.8
571.7 $69.1 52.6
$4.010.3 58,401.1 ($4.390.8)
5315.5 5369.1 ($53.6)
$43.0 $98.2 ($55.2)
$40.7 $97.0 (556.3;
51 1 S1.2 ($01)
$1 2
$4,162.0 $4,464.9 (S302-9)
$4,147.0 $4,454-5 ($307.5)
51.883.3 52,882.2 ($998.9;
$40.2 533.2 57 0
$952 5 5803.2 5149.3
$1.271.0 5735.9 $535.1
$15.0 510.4 54.6
515.0 510.4 $4.6
FY2000
Operating FY2000
Plan Actuals Difference
271.7 266.0 5.7
147.8 155.5 (7.7)
94.7 80.9 13.8
29.2 29.6 (0.4)
$56,366.7 $126,607.6 ($70,240.9)
$20.766.9 520,142.8 5626.1
$815.0 $378.5 $436.5
533.591.0 $103,676.3 (570,085.3)
51.191.8 S2. 410.0 ($1.218.2)
541,159.0 $106,052.7 ($62,791.2)
538,904.8 $101,696.0 ($62,791.2)
59,043.7 S10.172.6 ($1,1289;
$553.1 5238.1 5315.0
528,916.6 S90.485.0 (561,5684;
$391.4 $800.3 (5408.9]
5569.1 $0.0
S569.1
51,665.1 54,356.7
5433.0 $604.5
$38.0 544.5
$1.200.0 53,704.2
514.1 53.5
$11,473.3 $16,036.3 ($4,563.0)
$11,470.3 $16,034.5 ($4,564 .2)
58,522.9 $7.095.0 $1 ,4275
$179.1 $68.1 5111.0
$2.653.6 58,546.4 (55,892.8)
5114.7 5325.0 ($210.3)
$0.0
$3.0 $1.8 $1.2
$1.8 ($1.8)
$3.0 $3.0
$3,734.4 $4,338.3 ($603.9)
$3,727.8 $4,338.3 ($610.5)
$2.193.6 52.268.9 (575.3)
541.8 $27.6 514.0
$820.8 $940.7 ($119.9)
$6716 51.100.9 ($4294;
$0.0
56.6 $0.0 $6.6
56.6 $6.6
FY2003
Operating FY2003
Plan Actuals Difference
253.8 254.9 (1.1
135.3 143.7 (8.4)
92.8 87.0 5.8
25.7 24.2 1.5
$56,150.5 $73,075.3 (516,924.8)
$23,401.6 $23.234.4 5167.2
$771.3 $605.2 $166 1
530,255.6 545.1754 (514,919.8)
51.722.0 $4.060.3 (52.338.3
$39,530.8 $56,412.7 (516,881.9)
$39,530.8 555,017.2 ($15,486.4)
511,201.6 $11.9167 ($715.1
5550.3 5411.0 5139.3
$27.182.1 540.317.3 ($13.135.2)
5596.8 S2J722 (51.775.4)
$0.0 5685.6 ($685.6;
$685 6 (S6BS.6)
$0.0 $709.9 (5709.9)
5158.0 ($158.0;
$21.6 (521.6;
$144.6 (5144.6;
5385.7 (5385.7;
$12,614.5 $13,652-2 ($1,037.7)
$12,614.5 $11,920.6 $693.9
$9.868.9 58.905.6 $963.3
$180.5 5138.5 $42.0
52.304.2 $2,279.5 $24.7
$260.9 5597.0 ($336.1)
$0.0 $865.8 ($320.4)
$40.0 (540.0;
$780 4 ($780.4)
$45.4
$4,174.0 $3,876.2 $297.8
$3,836.4 $3,876.2 ($39.8)
52.331.1 $2.2141 $117.0
$40.5 $34.1 $6.4
$769.3 $968.0 (5196.7)
5695.5 $660 0 $35.5
$168.8 $0.0 $168.8
$0.0
$168.8 $168.8
% Change
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-9.3% -3.8%
-4.9% -2.0%
13.7% 21.7%
-53.9% -48.5%
2,3% -20.9%
21.5% 25.5%
106.9% 70 8%
-8.4% -36.8%
-23.1% 940%
2.7% -22.5%
5.5% -18.3%
24.1% 36.9%
142.1% 95.9%
-1.4% -29.8%
-8.0% 140.3%
2.9% -9.9%
3.3% -20.9%
26.2% 43 1%
151.7% 100.4%
-42.5% -72.9%
-17.3% 61.7%
0.3% -13.2%
-7.5% -13.0%
23.8% -23.2%
0.7% 2.7%
-19.2% 20.5%
-45.3% -10.3%
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-6.6% -4.2%
-8.5% -7.6%
-2.0% 7.5%
-12.0% -18.2%
-0.4% -42.3%
12.7% 15.3%
-5.4% 59.9%
-9.9% -56.4%
44.5% 68.5%
•4.0% -46.8%
1.6% -45.9%
23.9% 17.1%
-0.5% 72.6%
-6.0% -55.4%
52.5% 196.4%
9.9% -14.M
10.0% -25.TC
15.8% 25.5%
0.8% 103.4%
-13.2% -73.3%
127.5% 83.7%
11.8% -10.7%
2.9% -10.7%
6.3% -2.4%
-3.1% 22.7%
-6.3% 2.9%
3.6% -40.0%
•FY 1999 Operating Plan does not include Carryover, but FY 1999 Actuals do include carryover
'AH Data was extracted from BAS
'Travel does not include site travel, which is included in Other
•Homeland Security Resources for FY 2003 are not broken oul for each region, but a regional total is included on the Regional Total Sheet
For FY 1999 and FY 2003, RESPONSE FTE includes distribution ol reimbursable Base Restoration & Closure FTE
183
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
Region 10
Operating FY1999
Response
Enforcement
Management & Support
esources TotaJ
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Response
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts / Grants
Othei
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Brownfields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Enforcement
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownfields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Management & Support
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Brownfields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Browrrfields Carryover
payroi
Trave
Contracts 1 Grants
Othe
rwn Actuals Difference
81.6 89.2 (7.6)
66.3 54.4 11,9
18.7 185 0.2
$42,678.9 $72,956.9 ($30,278.0)
$12.3551 S11. 876.7 $478.4
$459.7 $283.5 S176.2
$28.356.9 $59.315.6 ($30.958.7)
$1,507.2 $1.481.1 $26.1
$33,638.7 $64,290.2 ($29,142.2)
$32,746.1 $61,888,3 ($29,142 J)
$5.613.0 $6.106.9 ($493.9;
$188.6 $144.5 $44.1
$26,448.8 $54.767.0 ($28.318.2)
$495.7 $869.9 ($374.2;
$0.0
$892.6 $2,401.9
S356.6 $300.8
S9.0 $1.4
$502.0 $2,078.3
$25.0 S21.4
$6,279.2 $6,223.4 $55.8
$6,279.2 $6,223.4 $55.8
$5.058.7 $4.158.7 $900.0
$176.8 $79.6 $97.2
$791.1 $1.802.5 ($1.011.4)
$252.6 $182.6 $70.0
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$2,761 JO $2,443 J $317.7
$2,656.2 $2,406.5 $249.7
S1.222.0 $1,275.2 ($53.2)
SB5.3 $56.3 $29.0
$615.0 $667.8 ($52.8)
$733.9 $407.2 $326.7
$104.8 $36.8 $68.0
$104.8 $351 $69.7
$1 7
FY2000
Operating FY2000
163.8 159.1 4.7_
80.5 83.1 (2.6)
65.0 57.0 8 0
18.3 19.0 (0 7)
$28,687.8 $63,010.2 ($34.322.4;
$13,374.1 S12.765.8 $608.3
$566.0 $361.6 $204.4
$13.581.7 $48.319.0 ($34,737.3)
$1.166.0 $1.563.8 ($397.8;
$19,106.0 $54,313.0 ($31,877.9)
$17,230.1 $49,108.0 ($31,877.9)
$6,053.0 $6,230.6 ($177.6;
$265.7 $193.8 $71.9
$10,601.8 $41,995.1 ($31,3933
$309 6 $688.5 ($378.9'
$181.2 $0.0
$181.2
$1,694.7 $5,205.0
$368.1 $314.5
$10.0 $9.0
$1.300.0 $4.8635
$16.6 $18.0
$6,627.1 $6,090.0 $537.1
$6,500.4 $6,090.0 $410.4
$5.273.8 $4.935.5 $338.3
$144.4 $91.7 $52.7
$975.5 $825.5 $150.0
$106.7 $237.3 ($130.6)
$123.4
$123.4
$3.3 $0.0 $3.3
$0.0
$3.3 $3.3
$2,954.7 $2,532.6 $422.1
$2,389.1 $2,501.1 ($132J>
$1,169.6 $1,2544 ($84.8
$115.3 $66.4 $48.9
$623.4 $634.9 ($11.5
$460.8 $545.4 (S84.6
$382.9
$130.0
$26.3
$77.7
$148.9
$121.9 $31.5 $90.4
$121.9 $308 $91.1
$07
$80.8
$765
$1.0
$3.3
KY2003
Operating FY2003
153.3 152.9 0.4
74.6 77.6 (3.0)
63.9 57 1 6.8
148 18.2 (3.4)
$39,999.2 $60,692.7 ($20,693.5)
$14.766.2 $14.908.7 ($1425)
$520.0 $405.4 S114.6
$23.359.6 $43.136.7 ($19.777.1)
$1.353.4 $2.241.9 ($888.5)
S30.113.9 $50,904.0 ($20,790.1]
$30,113.9 $38,740.5 ($8,626.6)
$7.048.1 $7,449.8 (S401 7)
$265.0 $230.8 $34.2
$22.316.3 $29.8174 ($7.501.1)
$484.5 $1 .242.5 ($758.0)
$0.0 $11,564.9 ($11,538.9)
$11,538.9 ($11.538.9)
$26.0
$0.0 $598.6 ($598.6)
$207.2 ($207.2;
$30.1 ($30.1;
$301.1 ($301. 1;
$60.2 ($60.2;
$7,077.5 $8,038.3 ($960.8)
$7,077.5 $6,378.9 $698.6
$6,458.6 $5,787.8 $670.8
S146.4 $106.6 $39.8
$209.7 $221.5 ($11.8)
$262.8 $263.0 ($0.2)
$0.0 $829.7 ($725.2)
$29.8 ($29.8)
$695.4 ($695.4)
$104.5
$3,184.1 $2,958.1 $228.0
$2,431 .5 $2,204.1 $227 A
$1.259.5 $1,4341 ($174.6)
$108.6 $37.9 $70.7
$636.9 $351.9 $285.0
$426.5 $380.2 $46.3
S376.3 $376.0 $0.3
$1967 $2105 (S13.8
$179.6 $165.5 $14 1
999 to 2003 1999 to
Operating 2003
-8.0% -5.7%
-8.6% -13.0%
-3.6% 5.0%
-20.9% -1.6%
-6.3% -16.8%
19.5% 25.5%
13.1% 43.0%
-17.6% -27.3%
-10.2% 51.4%
-10.5% -20.8%
-8.0% -37.4%
25.6% 22.0%
40.5% 59.7%
-15.6% -45.6%
-2.3% 42.8%
12.7% 29.2%
12.7% 2.5%
27 7% 39.2%
-17.2% 33.9%
-73.5% -87.7%
4.0% 44.0%
15.3% 21.0%
-8.5% -8.4%
3.1% 12.5%
27.3% -32.7%
3.6% -47.3%
-11.9% -6.6%
2000 to 2003 2000 to
Operating 2003
-6 4% -3.9%
-7.3% -6.6%
-1.7% 0.2%
-19.1% -4.2%
39.4% -3.7%
10.4% 16.8%
-6.1% 121%
72.0% -10 7%
161% 43.4%
57.6% -6.3%
74.8% -21.1V,
164% 19.6%
-0.3% 19.1%
110.5% -29.0%
55.5% 80.5%
6.8% 32.0%
8.B% 4.7%
22.5% 17.3%
1.4% 16.2%
-78.5% -73.2%
1463% 10.8%
7.8% 16.7%
2.6% -11.9%
7.7% 14.3%
-5.8% -42.9%
2.2% -44.6%
-7.4% -30.3%
"FY2000 Actuals include 74.6 in Agenc
*FY 1999 Operating FTan does no! include Carryover, but FY 1999 Actuals do include carryover.
*AH Data was extracted from BAS
'Travel does not include site travel, which is included mOtner
•Homeland Security Resources for FY 2003 are not broken out for each region, but a regional total is included on the Regional Total Sheet
For FY 19fl9 and FY 2003. RESPONSE FTE Includes dlstnbution of reimbursable Base Restoration & Closure FTE
184
-------
Superfund Resource and FTE Breakout
FY1999 thru FY2003
Regional Total
FY1999
Operating FY1999
Plan Actuals Difference
FTE Tolal
Response
Enforcement
Management & Support
Resources Total
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Response
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Homeland Security
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownfields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Enforcement
Fiscal Year Appropriation
Payroll
Trave
Contracts 1 Grants
Othe
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownfields
Payrot
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Management & Suppor
Fiscal Year Appropriate
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts 1 Grants
Other
Brownfields
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
Brownfields Carryover
Payroll
Travel
Contracts I Grants
Other
2T68.8 2727.9 40.9
1423.8 1435.4 (11.6)
965.1 90G.3 58.8
379.9 3B6.2 (6.3)
$992,195.4 $1,140,851.2 ($148,655.8)
5198,739.9 $198.168.8 S571.1
$6.980.1 SS.002.7 $1,977.4
$651 ,883.4 $907,823.3 (S255.939.9)
S134.592.0 $29.856.4 S104.7356
$832,611.6 $977,898.2 ($145,772.6)
$772,942.8 $918,715.4 ($145,772.6)
S94, 395.7 $97.002.4 ($2,606.7;
$3,243.7 $2.954.0 $289.7
5556,232 1 S802.062.6 ($245,830.5)
5119,071.3 $16.696.4 S102. 374.9
$0.0
$59,668.8 $59,182.8 $486.0
S4.319.0 $4,478.5 (S159.5)
$263.1 S357.6 ($94.5
$54,878.2 $54.148.6 $729.6
$208.5 $198.1 $10.4
$112,602.6 $117,214.8 ($4,612.0)
$112,163.8 $116,358.5 ($4,194.7)
S77. 718.7 $69,361.3 $6,337.4
$2.105.7 S950.6 $1,155,1
$29,317.0 S40. 868.1 ($11,551.1]
$3.022.4 $5,158.5 ($2,136.1
$439.0 $856.3 ($417.3)
$418.6 5819.5 ($400.9
J11.8 $17.3 ($5.5
$01
$85 $19.5 ($11.0)
$46,981.0 $45,738.2 $1,242.8
$46,735.1 $45,559.6 $1,175.5
$21,642.2 $26,310.7 (S4.66B.5)
$1,355.8 $721.2 $634.6
S11.456.0 $10.744.0 $712.0
$12.281.1 $7,7837 $4.497.4
$245.9 5178.6 $67.3
S245.7 S176.4 $69.3
$0.0 $2.0
$0 0 $0.0
$0 2 $0.2
FY2000
Operating FY2000
Plan Actuals Difference
2712.9 2668.6 44.3
1442.9 1456.3 (13-4)
941.6 874.3 67.3
328.4 338.0 (9.6)
$898,395.5 $1,130,289.8 ($231,894.3)
S212.B64.3 S210.070.1 S2.794.2
S8.445.0 $5.146.8 $3,298.2
$658,793.0 5887,323.8 (S228,530.8|
S18.293.2 527,749.1 (59.455.9)
$751,021.8 $968,695.6 ($217,845.8)
$692,921.7 $910,767.5 ($217,845.8]
$102,880.2 5106.645,7 ($3.765.5;
$4,154.2 52.957.1 51.197.1
$579.767.4 $788,861.0 ($209.093.6]
$6.119.9 $12.3037 ($6,183.8;
$2,880.6 $0.0
$2,699.4
S181.2
$55,219.5 $57,928.1 ($2,708.6]
$4,778.7 54.868.3 ($89.6;
S316.7 $371.9 ($552;
$49.905.6 $52,528.2 (52,622.6
5218.5 5159.7 558.8
$98,885.3 $111,529.9 (512,644.6)
$97,767.8 $111,474.1 ($13,706.3)
$77,321.1 573.100.0 54,221.1
51. 967.1 $736.2 51.230.9
$17,384.0 $33,706.4 (516,322.4
$1.095.6 $3,931.5 (52,835.9
$1,111.2
51. 111.2
$6.3 $55.8 ($49.5)
$45.3 ($45.3;
$6.3 $9.7 ($3 4;
$0.0
$0.8
$48,249.9 $48,448.1 ($198.2)
$44,757.2 $48,246.7 ($3,489.5)
$23,968.5 $25.210.3 (51.241.8
51.792.3 $1,071.0 5721.3
$10.348.5 511.957.2 ($1.608.7]
$8,647.9 $10.008.2 ($1.360.3
$3,217.1
$707.6
$206.5
51.384.2
5918.8
$275.6 $201.4 $74.2
$274.6 $200.5 $74.1
50.9 $0.9
$0.0
$0.1
5234.2
$1.0
$3.3
$0.0
FY2003
Operating FY2003
Plan Actuals Difference
2565.5 2541.8 23.7
1343.9 1370.3 (26.4)
925.3 869.9 55.4
296.3 301.6 (5.3)
$860,624.5 $971,195.7 ($110,571.2)
$245,118.8 5242,004.5 53,114.3
57,380.1 $5.735.1 $1,645.0
5589.723.0 5689,652.2 (599.929.2)
$18.402.6 $33,803.9 (515.401.3)
$706,213.3 $809,199.9 ($102,986.6
$690,365.3 $698,767.9 ($8382.6;
$124.568.9 $126.493.4 ($1,924.5)
54.226.6 $3.746.8 $479.8
$554.892.4 $548,078.6 56.813.8
55.697.4 520,449.1 ($13.751.7)
$19.7 $104,515.3 ($104,485.6]
$104,173.4 (5104.173.4)
$19.7 $341.9 ($322.2)
$15,808.3 $5,916.7 S3, 891 .6
$976.6 $1,027.5 ($48.9)
$33.5 $102.1 (S68.6;
$14.7962 $3.870.1 $10.926.1
$917.0 ($917.0)
$106,426.8 $123,712.3 ($17,286.0)
$106,426.8 $104,631.2 $1,795.6
S92.705.5 5B7.437.3 $5.268.2
51.618.2 $1,104.2 $514.0
$9,006.1 $12,235.2 ($3,229.1)
$3,097.0 53,854.5 (5757.5)
50.0 $9,540.8 ($9,067.8)
5363.0 (5363.0]
50.0
56,704.8 ($8.704.8)
$473.0
$49,503.6 $49,269.0 $234.6
$46.465.2 $46,378.6 $86.6
$26,719.4 $26.683.3 $36.1
51.501.8 $762.0 $719.6
$10,275.7 $11,928.5 ($1.652.8)
$7.968.3 $6,984.8 $983.5
51,519.2 $1,445.2 $74.0
$146.4 $0.0 5146.4
$0 0 50.0 SO.O
$752.6 $661.6 $91.0
$620.2 $783.6 (S163.4;
% Change
1999 to 2003 1999 to
Operating 2003
Plan Actuals
-7.3% -6.B8/<
-5.6% -4.5%
-4.1% -4.0%
-22.0% -21.9%
-13.3% -14.9"/
23.3% 22.1%
5 7% 14.6%
-9.5% -24.0%
-86.3% 13.2%
-15.2% -17.3'/
-10.7% -23.9V
32 0% 30.4%
30.3% 26.8%
-0.2% -31 .7%
-94.4% 22 5%
-5.5% 5.5V,
-5.1% -10.111
19.3% 26.0%
-23.2% 16.2%
-69.3% -70.1%
2.5% -25.3%
5.4% 7.7%
-0.6% 1.8K
23.5% 1.4%
10.8% 84%
-10.3% 11.0%
-35.1% -10.3%
Operating 2000 to 200:
Plan Actuals
-6.9% -5.9%
-1.7% -0.5%
-9.8% -10.8%
-4.2% -14 1%
15.2% 15.2%
-12.6% 11 4%
-10.5% -22.3%
0.6% 21.8%
-6.0% -16.5%
-0.4% -23.3%
21.1% 18.6%
1.7% 26.7%
-4.3% -30.5%
9.4% 66.2%
7.6% 105%
8J* -6.1%
19.9% 19.6%
-17.7% 50.0%
-M2% -63.7%
182.7% -2.0%
2.6% 1.7V,
3.8% -3.9%
11.5% 5.8%
-16.2% -27.0%
-0.7% -0.2%
-7.9% -30.2%
*FY 1999 Operating Plan does not include Carryover, but FY 1999 Actuals do include carryover
'All Data was extracted from BAS
'Travel does not include site travel, winch is included nOt/rer
•Homeland Security Resources for FY 2003 are not broken out for each region, bul a regional total is included on the Regional Total Sheet.
-•-* FY 1999 and FY 2003, RESPONSE FTE Includes distributor! of resnbursobie Base Restoration & Closure FTE
185
-------
Appendix G: Examples of Technology Innovation Projects
Optimizing Pump-and-Treat Systems
A long-standing problem with Superfund cleanups has been the cost of punip-and-treat
systems, which entail a long-term, time-consuming, and expensive process. A study
conducted by the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) found that upward of 95 percent
of groundwater remedies were conventional pump-and-treat systems. A subsequent
benchmark study on 32 ongoing and completed groundwater pump-and-treat systems
found that the average capital cost of these systems is $5 million, and the average
operating cost is $770,000. This study highlighted the costs to the Superfund program for
Fund-lead projects, and the eventual costs to states that take over their management.
To reduce pump-and-treat costs, in 1999, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) initiated efforts to optimize long-term remediation systems by using
optimization software in conjunction with groundwater modeling to determine optimal
pumping strategies for these systems. Working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
TIP conducted remedial systems evaluations (RSEs) at 20-25 Superfund sites to better
understand remedy and plant performance. The RSE process involves an independent
team that evaluates the performance of the remedies and makes recommendations for
improving the protectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the remedies. At Fund-lead sites,
the RSE process has proved beneficial, yielding approximately 270 recommendations,
including approximately 65 cost-effectiveness recommendations and over 70
protectiveness recommendations.
Estimated cost savings from this effort are $5 million per year, or $150 million over the
30-year life span of the remedies—assuming the recommendations are implemented. The
estimated total cost for the optimization effort is approximately $1.2 million since 1999.
This includes costs for initially demonstrating and evaluating the methodology,
conducting all of the RSEs at sites, providing classroom and Internet-based training, and
developing the guidance documents.
Reducing the Costs of Sampling and Analysis
Another problem addressed by TIP has been how to reduce the costs of sampling and
analysis at sites. In the 1990s, TIP began tracking new field-based methods for sampling,
monitoring, and analyzing contamination at sites. These methods offered considerable
advantages over the sole use of conventional sampling and off-site fixed laboratories for
analysis. The field methods are much cheaper per sample, allowing many more samples
for the same budget as fixed-laboratory analysis. They are also real-time methods, and
can allow the field technician to "follow the trail" of contamination. This saves money
by reducing the need to wait for fixed-laboratory results, then remobilize because more
data are needed.
186
-------
However, TIP also found that conventional procedures for assessing sites (e.g.,
procurement for a specific number of samples, predetermined sample locations) did not
allow for optimal use of these improved field methods. Therefore, the TIP developed the
Triad approach as a framework within which to implement the methods. This strategy
couples systematic planning, dynamic work strategies, and real-time decision making.
Cleanups employing Triad can cost substantially less, can be much faster, and can have
much greater certainty that all the contamination is dealt with appropriately.
One example of significant cost savings through the Triad approach is the Wenatchee
Tree Fruit Test Plot, where the Triad was implemented in 1997. The approach was used
with immuno-assay kits paired with traditional fixed-laboratory methods, to delineate the
pesticide-contaminated areas of soil at the site that required incineration (high
concentrations) or off-site disposal (lower concentrations). The larger number of soil
samples that could be analyzed with the kits allowed much better characterization, and
reduced the need to excavate, backfill, transport, and dispose of an estimated 120 tons of
soil shown to be clean. The costs without the use of the Triad were estimated to be $ 1.2
million, compared to the actual cost of $589,000—a savings of about 50 percent.
Funding for this project is roughly estimated at $600,000 for Superfund and $500,000 for
Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) appropriation over the last four years,
most of which is for product development, training, and site-specific technical support.
Total cost savings should be a direct function of the number of sites that employ the Triad
framework.
Reducing the Costs of Superfund's Contract Laboratory Program
The Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) provides the EPA Regions with a readily
available means to contract with numerous commercial environmental testing
laboratories on a fixed price and performance basis for a variety of analytical services
that directly support site cleanups. The program includes inherent quality assessment and
control provisions. In addition to providing a streamlined vehicle for gathering
information about the presence of contaminants at a site, this program provides for better
cost management, control, and recovery over alternative approaches that require the
Regions to purchase sampling and analytical services on a Region-by-Region, or site-by-
site basis (which results in increased sample management, tracking, and overhead costs).
OSWER provides federal oversight of all CLP activities to ensure that clients receive
data of known and documented quality, and can easily produce supporting documentation
when needed for enforcement or other reasons. In FY 2003, the CLP provided over
120,000 sample analyses in support of cleanups at Superfund, Brownfields, and other
contaminated sites. The CLP also provides other analytical services for the Regions (e.g.,
over 70,000 analyses in support of the World Trade Center response).
hi April 1998, OSWER initiated a series of CLP and related innovations geared to
strengthen the CLP infrastructure, improve the quality and breadth of its products, and
187
-------
facilitate regional access to its analytical services. The following examples highlight the
benefits realized from several of these innovations.
Information Technology Innovations—OSWER funded the development of software
(FORMS II Lite, or F2L) that automates the creation and printing of labels and Traffic
Report/Chain of Custody Records, thereby improving field time management and
decreasing documentation and transcription errors. F2L saves approximately 15 minutes
of work per sample. If used on all Superfund samples, it has the potential to save up to
$2 million a year.
Data Assessment Tool (DAT)—Significant resources in the Regions (e.g., EPA, its
contractors, states, other agencies) are used in the process of evaluating data for usability
in site decisions. DAT streamlines the data validation process by providing standard
tools and reports to assist in this process. DAT provides customized, PC-compatible
reports, spreadsheets, and electronic files of such data directly to the data user within 24
to 48 hours of receipt of the data from the laboratories. Since August 1998, DAT has
provided a savings of over $14 million in data review costs alone (not considering
reduced data entry costs).
Web-based Contract Compliance Screening (WebCCS)—This innovation was developed
to improve the quality of the data submitted by participating laboratories to EPA. It
addresses the historical difficulties laboratories experience when they design data
deliverables in accordance with specific analytical contract requirements prior to delivery
to EPA. Web CCS provides the laboratories an easily accessible tool to predetermine
whether their data deliverables are complete and in compliance with contract
requirements (prior to submission to EPA). Based on FY 2001 data, this tool saves an
estimated $977,000 in annual contract compliance review costs.
Web-based Invoicing System (WIS)—OSWER developed WIS to reduce the resources
spent on cumbersome paper invoicing for the over 120,000 analyses provided every year.
WIS enables CLP laboratories to generate, submit, and resubmit invoices via the use of a
secure Internet web site. WIS minimizes the need for resubmission by providing access
to previously submitted analytical results, allowing laboratories to create invoices based
on those results. Since November 2001, all laboratories submit invoices electronically
and are paid electronically. This CLP innovation has resulted in a 96 percent reduction of
disallowed invoices. Based on FY 2001 data, this tool saves an estimated $846,000 in
annual invoice processing costs.
The above automated system innovations are modifications or changes in accessibility
that were made to the Contract Laboratory Program Support System. This system tracks
data from sample scheduling through analysis, contract compliance screening, invoice
processing, laboratory performance, reporting, cost recovery, and data storage. The
annual cost of the system, including security, is approximately $3.35 million. The annual
cost savings described above clearly suggest the benefits outweigh program investments.
188
-------
Appendix H: Superfund GPRA Measures
Objective 3.2: Restore Land. By 2008, control the risks to human health and the
environment by mitigating the impact of accidental or intentional releases and by
cleaning up and restoring contaminated sites or properties to appropriate levels. Within
this goal are the following sub-objectives and strategic targets:
Sub-objective 3.2.1: Prepare for and Respond to Accidental and Intentional Releases.
By 2008, reduce and control the risks posed by accidental and intentional releases of
harmful substances by improving the nation's capability to prepare for and respond more
effectively to these emergencies.
Strategic Targets
• Each year through 2008, improve the Agency's emergency preparedness by
achieving and maintaining the capability to respond to simultaneous large-scale
emergencies and by increasing response readiness by 10 percent from a baseline
established by the end of 2003 using the core emergency response criteria.
• Each year through 2008, respond to 350 hazardous substance releases and 300 oil
spills.
• Each year through 2008, minimize the impacts of potential oil spills by inspecting
or conducting exercises or drills at 6 percent of approximately 6,000 oil storage
facilities required to have Facility Response Plans. (Between FY 1997 and FY
2002, 30 percent of these facilities were inspected.)
Sub-objective 3.2.2: Clean Up and Reuse Contaminated Land. By 2008, control the risks
to human health and the environment at contaminated properties or sites through cleanup,
stabilization, or other action, and make land available for reuse.
Strategic Targets
• By 2008, perform 88,000 health-based and environmentally based site
assessments, make 41,700 final assessment decisions under Superfund, and assess
100 percent (approximately 1,714) of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) baseline facilities. Evaluate the universe of RCRA baseline facilities and,
if necessary, adjusted it in FY 2004.
• By 2008, control all identified unacceptable human exposures from site
contamination to at or below health-based levels for current land and/or
groundwater use conditions at 95 percent (approximately 1,628) of RCRA
baseline facilities and 84 percent (1,259) of the 1,494 Superfund human exposure
sites (as of FY 2002).
18Q
-------
• By 2008, control the migration of contaminated groundwater through engineered
remedies or natural processes at 80 percent (approximately 1,371) of RCRA
baseline facilities and 65 percent (832) of thel, 275 Superfund groundwater
exposure sites (as of FY 2002).
• By 2008, select final remedies (cleanup targets) at 30 percent (approximately 514)
of RCRA baseline facilities and approximately 82 percent (1,223) of the 1,498
Superfund sites (as of FY 2002).
• By 2008, clean up and reduce the backlog of approximately 140,000 leaking
underground storage tank sites by 50 percent, and complete construction of
remedies at 20 percent (approximately 343) of RCRA baseline facilities and
approximately 72 percent (1,086) of the 1,498 Superfund sites (as of FY 2002).
(Construction completion is a benchmark used to show that all significant
construction activity has been completed, even though additional remediation may
be needed for all cleanup goals to be met.)
Sub-objective 3.2.3: Maximize Potentially Responsible Party Participation at Superfund
Sites. Through 2008, conserve Superfund trust fund resources by ensuring that potentially
responsible parties conduct or pay for Superfund cleanups whenever possible.
Strategic Targets
• Each year through 2008, reach a settlement or take an enforcement action before
the start of a remedial action at 90 percent of Superfund sites having viable, liable
responsible parties other than the federal government.
• Each year through 2008, address all statute of limitations cases for Superfund
sites with unaddressed total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000.
Objective 3.3: Enhance Science and Research. Through 2008, provide and apply sound
science for protecting and restoring land by conducting leading-edge research and
developing a better understanding and characterization of environmental outcomes under
Goal 3.
Sub-objective 3.3.1: Provide Science to Preserve and Remediate Land. Through 2008,
provide sound science and constantly integrate smarter technical solutions and protection
strategies that enhance the Agency's ability to preserve land quality and remediate
contaminated land for beneficial reuse.
Sub-objective 3.3.2: Conduct Research to Support Land Activities. Through 2008,
conduct sound, leading-edge scientific research to provide a foundation for preserving
land quality and remediating contaminated land. Research will result in documented
methods, models, assessments, and risk management options for program and regional
190
-------
offices, facilitating their accurate evaluation of effects on human health and the
environment, understanding of exposure pathways, and implementation of effective risk
management options. Conduct research affecting Indian country in partnership with
tribes.
191
-------
Appendix I: Office of Enforcement and Compliance Internal
Performance Measures
The internal program measures include:
• potentially responsible party (PRP) search starts
• PRP search completions
• Section 104(e) referrals and orders issued
• issuance of General Notice Letters
• issuance of Special Notice Letters
• starts of expanded site inspections and remedial investigation/feasibility study
negotiations
• starts of remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA) negotiations
• completion or termination of negotiations for RD/RA
• completion or termination of negotiations for cleanup (RD/RA, removals, and
other)
• percentage of remedial action starts initiated by PRPs at nonfederal facility sites
• total response commitments (including dollar value)
• enforcement settlements/instruments for RD/RA/long-term response (including
dollar values)
• de minimis settlements and number of parties
• cash-out settlements
• Section 106,106/107,107 case resolution
• issuance of Demand Letter
• total cost recovery settlements (including dollar value)
• past costs addressed > $200,000 via settlements, write-offs, or referrals
• recoverable past costs that have been addressed by the program to date via
settlements, write-offs, or referrals
• number and amount of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) penalties assessed
• number and amount of CERCLA supplemental environmental projects
• use of alternative dispute resolution
• number of settlements where EPA settled based on ability-to-pay determinations
• Prospective Purchaser Agreements assessed and finalized
• issuance of Comfort/Status Letters
• orphan share—EPA offer and compensation
• nonexempt de micromis settlements and number of parties
• PRP oversight administration
• estimated amount of money PRPs have committed legally to site cleanup
compared to the total amount of funds expended by the Superfund enforcement
program
• settlements designating deposits to special accounts
• deposits to special accounts
• settlements designating disbursements from special accounts to PRPs
192
-------
disbursements from special accounts for response actions
closure of special accounts
preremedial enforcement actions at Superfund sites
windfall liens filed
windfall liens resolved (assessed and finalized)
193
-------
Appendix J: Management & Support Internal Performance
Measures
Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM)
Office of Administration
By 2004, EPA will achieve a 16 percent energy consumption reduction from 1990 in its
21 laboratories, which is in line to meet the 2005 requirement of a 20 percent reduction
from 1990. This external reported measure includes Green Power purchases.
Office of Grants and Debarments (OGD)
OGD uses numerous internal measures to monitor performance, such as the following:
• By 2005, EPA will improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of assistance
management by (1) increasing grant competition; (2) strengthening grant
oversight; and (3) ensuring timely grant closeout. Specific performance measures
include:
—percentage of new grants to nonprofit recipients subject to the EPA Grants Competition Order
that are competed;
—percentage of active recipients who receive advanced monitoring (on-site and off-site evaluative
reviews);
—percentage of eligible FY 2003 grants closed out; and
—percentage of eligible FY 2004 grants closed out.
Office of Human Resources and Organizational Services (OHROS)
OHROS's performance goals include:
• Strengthen EPA's human capital management to address the challenges included
in the President's Management Agenda. Specific performance measures include:
—percentage of reduction of identified current and future skill gaps in mission-
critical occupations;
—percentage of performance appraisals for Agency employees that link to the
Agency's mission; and
—number of Senior Executive Service (SES) Candidate Development Program
graduates placed in SES positions.
194
-------
OHROS also uses customer service measures to measure performance. Areas and
examples include:
• Personnel Transactions
—recruit individuals within 43 days
• Headquarters Benefit Services
—financial planning retirement within 15 workdays for those retiring within 1-2
years
Office of Administrative Services (OAS)
OAS uses customer service measures of performance. They include:
• Building Maintenance and Repair
—Call back customer within 24 hours of initial service call
—Plumbing/electrical repairs within 2 working days
—Respond to temperature problems within 1 hour
• Printing Services
—Respond within 24 hours via e-mail to customers requesting a status report on
outside printing services
—Achieve 90 percent or greater customer satisfaction regarding printing services
Office of Acquisition Management (QAM)
OAM uses several customer service measures to monitor performance. Examples
include:
• Simplified Acquisition Transactions
—Complete commodity actions of between $25,000 and $100,000 within 26
calendar days of initial request
—Complete service actions of between $25,000 and $100,000 within 45 calendar
days of initial request
Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
OCFO has the following performance measurement objective:
• Strengthen EP A's management services in support of the Agency's mission,
while addressing the challenges included in the President's Management Agenda.
Specific measures include:
—Number of Agency offices using the workforce planning model, which identifies skills and competencies
needed by the Agency for strategic recruitment, retention, and developmental training
—Percentage of total eligible service contracting dollars obligated as performance based in FY 2003
195
-------
Office of Environmental Information (OEI)
Under the goal, Quality Environmental Information, OEI has the following objectives,
sub-objectives, and annual performance goals (APGs):
Objective: Increase Availability of Quality Health and Environmental Information (1)
Sub-objective: Create Information Network for Data Exchange (8)
APG: Improve the quality, comparability, and availability of environmental data
for sound environmental decision making through the Central Data
Exchange.
Objective: Increase Availability of Quality Health and Environmental Information (1)
Sub-objective: Address Public Right-to-Know Needs (9)
APG: The increased use of TRI-ME will result in a total burden reduction of 5
percent for Reporting Year 2003 from Reporting Year 2002 levels.
Objective: Provide Access to Tools for Using Environmental Information (2)
Sub-objective: Develop Tools to Query Data and Provide Access to New Types of Data
APG: EPA increasingly uses environmental indicators to inform the public and
manage for results.
Objective: Improve Agency Information Infrastructure and Security (3)
Sub-objective:Ensure Agency IT Services Meet Industry Standards (4)
APG: Manage Agency-wide information technology assets consistent with the
Agency's multi-year strategic IRM plan (Enterprise Architecture)
reflecting current Agency mission priorities and resources.
Objective: Improve Agency Information Infrastructure and Security (3)
Sub-objective: Secure Agency Data Against Known Likely Risks (5)
APG: The Office of Management and Budget reports that all EPA information
systems meet/exceed established standards for security.
196
------- |