&EPA
Environmental Protection
0«.Ct 0«
Solid wa«t«
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
9200.3-05
TITLE: Flexibility in FY-*88 Superfund Regional
Extramural Operating Plan
APPROVAL DATE: 6/7/88
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
D FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
] A- Pending OMB approval
] B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
] C- For review &/or comment
] D- In development or circulating
REFERENCE (other documents): headquarters
[
I
[
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE L
-------
Wtsnmgton. OC 20460
QSWER Directive Initiation Request
. utrectiv* Numotr
9200.3-05
1. Originator Information
Name of Contact Person
Sheckells
3. Title ~
, Mai) Coo«
OS240
(Office
I 0PM
Tetepnore Coae
FLEXIBILITY IN THE FY-88 Superfund Regional Extramural Operating Plan
4. Summary of Directive (mciuae onef statement of purpose)
Discusses current planning & fund control processes, clarifies funding flexibility
presently available to Regions for FY-88 Extramural operating plan and establishes
additional funding flexibility principles for remainder of FY_88.
5.K«yworas Superfund,CERCLA,SARA
. uoes i ms uireetjve Supersede rrevious uirectivt
-------
, -^«—t- 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I AXlTZ ? WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
V^^^^^jf
JUN 7
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9200.3-05
OFF'CE OF
SOLID WASTE AND £ME"GENCV
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Flexibility in the FY 1988 Superfund
Regional Extearoural Operating Plan
~
FROM: J. TfTnstori Porter
Assistant Administrator
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
Purpose
The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss our current
planning and fund control processes, to clarify the funding
flexibility presently available to the Regions in carrying out
the FY 1988 Superfund extramural operating plan, and to establish
additional funding flexibility principles for the remainder of
FY 1988. At the San Antonio Waste Management Division Directors
meeting, there was significant discussion concerning the ability
of the Regions to move funds to address Regional priorities.
This memorandum outlines the substantial flexibility already
available to the Regions under current guidelines and outlines
new policies related to funding flexibility in the current Fiscal
Year. In addition, I have convened a Headquarters/Regional
workgroup to explore fur'ther options for FY 1989.
Background
At the San Antonio meeting, the Regions raised the following
issues:
- us tag removal authorities and contracts to implement
projects on the remedial SCAP;
allowing for fund shifts from remedial to removal
activities leading to site deletion from the NPL, for
conducting cleanup of operable units or early actions
at NPL sites, or for addressing a greater number of
high priority removals;
-------
-2-
uslng remedial design and construction funds freed
up theough settlements or other means for Regional
p r i o r i tf i e s ;
allowing shifting of site classification from enforce-
ment to fund lead if negotiations fail.
As we examine the manner in which funds management
affects our ability to meet important Regional and national
priorities, the following management approaches are important:
o The relationship between budgeting, planning, and
implementation is vital. We must all appreciate
that the SCAP negotiations occuring during the
Summer preceding the fiscal year result not only
in SPMS commitments but dollar commitments as well.
While priorities may change, the ground rule remains
that a Region must live within its negotiated annual
budget.
o The FY 1989 budget is based on the assumption that
$100 million in carryover funds will be available
from FY 1988.
In January 1987, the four-account Advice of Allowance was
created for transmitting Superfund response funds to the
Regions (see Comptroller Policy Announcement No. 87-07). A
basis for this approach was to reconcile spending plans with
original budget formulation. It is this structure that we are
operating under in FY 1988 and that we and the Comptroller will
reexamine as we enter FY 1989. Although the structure establishes
rigorous procedures for funds control, it offers more flexibility
in shifting funds than may sometimes be apparent.
Advice of Allowance Structure
The present Superfund Response Advice of Allowance structure
includes tfc* following accounts:
o Th* site allowance for removal actions - This
allowance provides funding for removal actions
and is not issued site specifically.
o The site allowance for remedial designs (RD) - This
allowance Is issued site specifically.
-------
-3-
o The site allowance for remedial actions (RA) -
This allowance is also issued site specifically.
o The regular Superfund allowance or "other remedial"
account - This allowance contains all the remaining
Superfund Response dollars for the Regions including
activities such as RI/FS projects, site inspections,
preliminary assessments, community relations,
management assistance, expedited response actions,
technical assistance grants, and special regional
studies. This allowance is not issued site
speci fically.
The regular Superfund allowance also includes resources
for the technical enforcement program, as well as all of the
non-OSWER Superfund accounts. Currently, the only technical
enforcement extramural funding included in Regional allowances
are funds not designated for the Technical Enforcement Support
(TES) contract. Although we anticipate that further decentral-
ization of technical enforcement activities (including TES) and
funding will occur in the future, the current level of funding
included in Regional allowances is small. None of these funds
can be used for other than technical enforcement activities
without the Region requesting a program element transfer from
the Comptroller via the change request process.
Present Flexibility
The operating year SCAP 1s updated on a quarterly basis.
As a result of Regional proposals, negotiations are conducted
at mid-quarter to determine the advice of allowance for the
succeeding quarter. Regional adjustments may be made for both
site specific and non-site specific allowances at that time.
Current flexibility is also afforded as follows:
o Within the regular Superfund allowance, Regions
•ay at their option redirect funds to meet their
priorities. Further, for RI/FS projects assumed by
RPs, the Region may redirect these funds. However,
each Region is limited to their SPMS target for
Initiating new Fund-financed RI/FS projects.
Also, routine substitutions of sites can Include
the substitution of an enforcement lead site
where negotiations failed for a Fund lead site
where negotiations look promising.
-------
-4-
o For the RD and RA site specific allowance, Head-
quarters routinely processes site substitutions
and changes to RD/RA amounts as necessary. However,
each Region may redirect RD/RA site work only as
long as these changes do not exceed the RD/RA total.
his is done through the routine change request
process.
o With OSWER clearance and upon Comptroller approval
of a change request, a Region may shift monies
between the removal allowance and the regular
Superfund allowance. Likewise, funds may be
shifted between the RD allowance and RA allowance.
o With OSWER clearance, -ind upon Comptroller approval,
and in cases where a -.-gion's case budget has been
depleted, regular Superfund response allowance funds
may be redirected through the appropriate change
request to enforcement activities. Transactions of
one million dollars or more require Congressional
approval.
New Flexibility
Several initiatives have been implemented, mostly centering
around removal program priorities. In my March 31, 1988, memorandum
on removal priorities, it was made clear that removal resources
should be directed to classic emergency and time-critical actions.
That memorandum goes on to state that funds could be provided for
non-time-critical removals at NPL sites, actions to remediate
completely NPL sites (where the result is deletion), or to conduct
previously selected remedial actions at NPL sites when the site is
already planned for In the remedial SCAP. The latter is essentially
the Region IV approach where once a Record of Decision has been
prepared, the remedial activity may proceed using removal contract
capacity. However, the sites will continue to be funded from
the site sptclflc RO or RA accounts (see OERR Director memorandum
to Region IV Haste Management Division Director dated March 18,
1988).
With this memorandum, I am establishing additional principles
of flexibility for the remainder of FY 1988. Regions will be
permitted to redirect to other Regional Superfund priorities most
funds resulting from RP assumption of RD projects and real savings
from design costs being lower than estimated costs. These re-
directions relate to real savings, not funds realized through time
slippages. Further, a RP assumption Is not determined until there
-------
-5-
is a signed consent decree. Generally, we agree that .
those funds should remain with the Region in which they
originate. However, before a Region makes any commitment
using these funds, it should propose the change through ar,
appropriate amendment to the SCAP and a routine change requ
to Headquarters. Further the use of these funds should not
create an outyear obligation which Headquarters would have to
fund.
Headquarters will generally approve redirection of funds
processed through existing site change request procedures, for
activities which are consistent with the following priorities:
o Classic emergencies
o RP oversight, if the case budget does not contain funds
o RD/RA projects
o Removals (time and non-time critical) at NPL sites
A similar situation may occur for RP assumption of RA
projects or where RA bid costs are substantially lower than
estimated costs. We will consider redirecting funds to the
Regions consistent with the RO criteria on a case-by-case
basis. In all cases, consideration of the amount of funds to be
redirected will depend in part on a review of competing national
priorities including other RD/RA national needs or emergency
needs in other Regions.
Conclusion
It is clear that the issue of funding flexibility Is complex.
As the funding flexibility workgroup proceeds, I wanted to
reiterate some of the presently available approaches. The
workgroup is looking at additional flexibility to be Implemented
in FY 1989, including administrative as well as programmatic
changes. Any further questions on the workgroup activities
should be directed to Tom Sheckells at FTS 382-2466.
cc: Jack HcGraw
Henry Longest
Jonathan Cannon
Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I-X
Environment Services Division Directors, Regions I-X
Assistant Regional Administrators for Planning and
Management, Regions I-X
------- |