United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(OS-240)
Directive 9200.3-01C
July 1989
Superfund Program
Management Manual
Fiscal Year 1990
Volume 1
Program Priorities and Goals
SCAP Procedures
National Information Needs
SCAP/SPMS Targets and Measures
Program Planning and Reporting Requirements
Financial Management
Program Assessment
Workload Models
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
SUPERFUND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT MANUAL
FY90
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
OVERVIEW ES-1
PROGRAM GOALS ES-1
SUPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN. ES-4
INTEGRATED PLANNING ES-4
ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIZATION ES-4
NATIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS ES-6
SCAP/CERCLIS RELATIONSHIP ES-7
REMEDIAL RESPONSE OUTYEAR PLANNING ES-8
THE BUDGET PROCESS ES-8
FY90 RESPONSE BUDGET ES-9
FY90 ENFORCEMENT BUDGET ES-9
ENFORCEMENT CASE BUDGET ES-10
FY90 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ES-10
SCAP FINANCIAL PLANNING AND THE
REGIONAL ADVICE OF ALLOWANCE ES-10
WORKLOAD MODELS ES-11
FOCUS OF THE SCAP PROCESS THROUGH THE YEAR ES-11
ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORTING ES-12
SCAP/SPMS AMENDMENTS AND ADJUSTMENTS ES-13
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ASSESSMENT ES-14
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FY89 TO FY90 ES-14
USES OF THE MANUAL ES-16
STRUCTURE OF THE MANUAL ES-17
CHAPTER I - PROGRAM GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS 1-1
OVERVIEW 1-1
INTEGRATED PROGRAM PRIORITIES 1-2
REMEDIAL PROGRAM GOALS 1-6
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM GOALS 1-7
Criteria For RA Environmental Prioritization 1-8
Application Of Prioritization To Fund Financed Remedial Actions 1-9
Documentation 1-11
The Decision Making Process I-11
CERCLIS Implementation 1-12
PRE-REMEDIAL PROGRAM GOALS 1-12
REMOVAL PROGRAM GOALS 1-13
FEDERAL FACILITIES PROGRAM GOALS 1-14
CHEMICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
AND PREVENTION PROGRAM , 1-14
Earthquake and National Security Emergency Preparedness Programs .. 1-14
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
CHAPTER II - SUPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE
ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN PROCEDURES H-l
INTRODUCTION H-l
BACKGROUND H-l
SCAP/CERCLIS RELATIONSHIP H'2
SCAP ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES n'3
SCAP CHANGE CONTROL PROCEDURES n'4
OVERVIEW OF THE SCAP PROCESS n'4
PROCEDURES FOR ANNUAL TARGET SETTING n'5
SCAP PLANNING n'8
Semi-Annual Planning Process ^-8
CERCLIS Reports for SCAP PlanningfTarget Setting H-9
SCAP ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORTING H-IO
CERCLIS Reports for Accomplishment Reporting H-ll
SCAP/SPMS ADJUSTMENTS AND AMENDMENTS H-ll
MAINTAINING THE TARGETS AND
ACCOMPLISHMENTS FILE H-14
CHAPTER III - NATIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS DM
INTRODUCTION IH-1
SUPERFUND PROGRESS REPORT (SPR) IH-2
SENIOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STATUS REPORTS ffl-2
Response Reports ffl-4
Enforcement Reports Ett-5
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS ffl-6
CHAPTER IV - TARGETS AND MEASURES IV-1
ROLE OF SCAP IV-1
SCAP/SPMS TARGETS AND MEASURES IV-1
CHAPTER V - PROGRAM PLANNING REPORTING V-l
INTEGRATED PLANNING V-l
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES V-2
PRE-REMEDIAL PLANNING AND
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS V-4
Preliminary Assessments/Screening Site Inspections V-4
Listing Site Inspection V-4
REMOVAL PLANNING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS V-4
REMEDIAL PLANNING REQUIREMENTS V-5
Site Classification V-5
Project/Event Lead Codes V-5
Takeovers V-7
Impact on Funding Status of PRP Takeover V-8
Operable Units in Remedial and Enforcement Programs V-9
First and Subsequent Starts and Completions V-12
To Be Determined (TBD) Sites V-13
Standard Timeframes V-14
Planning for Mega Sites V-15
Treatability Study Planning V-15
Alternate Remedial Contracts Strategy (ARCS) Coding V-16
Remedial Action Information V-17
Project Support Activities V-19
Technical Assistance Grants... V-21
11
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
ENFORCEMENT PLANNING REQUIREMENTS V-22
Mixed Funding Settlements ..V-22
PRP Removal V-22
Pre-RI/FS Enforcement Activity V-23
RI/FS Settlement and Oversight V-24
Pre-RD/RA Enforcement Activity - RD/RA
Negotiations and Oversight V-25
Section 106 Judicial and Administrative Activity V-26
Cost Recovery V-26
State Enforcement V-28
FEDERAL FACILITIES V-28
CHAPTER VI - FINANCIAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT VI-1
SCAP'S RELATIONSHIP TO ANNUAL REGIONAL BUDGET....VI-1
Pre-Remedial Annual Regional Budget VI-1
Remedial Annual Regional Budget VI-2
Fund-Financed RI/FS Funding Strategy VI-2
Removal Annual Regional Budget VI-2
Enforcement Case Budget ~ Annual Regional Budget VI-2
Enforcement Case Budget - Annual Regional Budget VI-4
ADVICE OF ALLOWANCE PROCEDURES AND FINANCIAL VI-5
Regional Allowances VI-5
The AOA Process VI-5
AOA Flexibility VI-6
AOA Change Request Procedures VI-8
FY90 Congressional Reporting Requirements VI-8
SCAP'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE AOA VI-9
Remedial Financial Planning for AOA VI-13
Removal Financial Planning for AOA VI-14
Enforcement Financial Planning for AOA VI-14
OWPE CASE BUDGET PROCESS VI-14
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE BUDGET PROCESS VI-
Preliminary Case Budget Allocation and Distribution VI-15
Regional Planning Against Preliminary Budget VI-18
HQ/Regional Adjustment VI-20
Final Budget Distribution VI-20
Tasking VI-20
ACTIVITY SPECIFIC CODING INSTRUCTIONS VI-23
FY90 Budget Category: PRP Removals
PRP Removals VI-23
Non-NPL PRP Search VI-23
Removal Negotiation Starts VI-23
PRP Removal Oversight VI-23
FY90 Budget Category: Pre RI/FS Starts
Pre RI/FS Starts VI-23
NPLPRP Search VI-23
RIIFS Negotiation Starts VI-23
FY90 Budget Category: PRP RI/FS Oversight
PRP RIIFS Oversight VI-24
PRP RIIFS Oversight VI-24
FY90 Budget Category: RD/RA Compliance Monitoring
RDIRA Compliance Monitoring VI-24
RD/RA Oversight VI-24
111
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
FY90 Budget Category: Litigation Support
Litigation Support VI-24
Administrative Cost Recovery VI-24
RD/RA Negotiation Starts VI-24
Non-Binding Allocation of Responsibility (NBAR) VI-24
Litigation Referrals VI-25
Ongoing Litigation Support VI-25
FY90 Budget Category: State Enforcement
State Enforcement VI-25
FY90 Budget Category: Federal Facilities
Federal Facilities VI-25
IAG Negotiations VI-25
RI/FS and RD/RA Oversight VI-25
FY90 Budget Category: Program Implementation
Program Implementation VI-25
TES 5 Program Management VI-25
Administrative Records VI-26
Records Management VI-26
Community Relations VI-26
Federal Facility Docket VI-27
State Enforcement Management Assistance VI-27
Information Management VI-27
ERA Oversight VI-27
Management Assistance VI-27
Preliminary Natural Resource Surveys VI-27
Technical Assistance VI-28
ENFORCEMENT FINANCIAL REPORTS VI-28
Financial Planning Reports VI-28
Financial Planning Audit Reports VI-28
Contract Management VI-28
Contract Management Delegation VI-28
Interagency Agreements VI-29
Technical Assistance VI-31
Department of Justice VI-31
8(a) Contracts VI-31
SUPERFUND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT VI-32
Regional Financial Management Responsibilities VI-32
Regional Administrator VI-32
Regional Program Office VI-32
HQ Financial Management Responsibilities VI-35
Financial Management Division/Office of the Comptroller VI-35
Financial and Administrative Management S
ection/Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (FAMS/OERR) VI-35
Contracts Management Section/Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement VI-35
Procurement and Contracts Management
Division/Office of Administration (PCMD) VI-36
Grants Administration Division/Office of Administration VI-36
Budget Division/Office of the Comptroller VI-36
Cincinnati Financial Management Center VI-36
Office of Administration/Research Triangle Park VI-36
IV
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Financial Management Tools and Systems VI-37
Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) VI-37
Account Number VI-37
Document Control Number (DCN) VI-38
Document Control Register (DCR) VI-38
Site/Spill Identifiers (SIS IDs) VI-38
Financial Management and Funding Processes VI-39
Approvals VI-40
Commitments VI-41
Obligations VI-41
Payments VI-42
De-obligations VI-42
Financial Management Funding Mechanisms VI-42
Contracts VI-42
Interagency Agreements VI-47
Cooperative Agreements (CA) VI-51
Superfund State Contracts (SSCs) VI-52
Cost Recovery/Cost Documentation VI-54
HANDLING FINANCIAL DATA IN THE
CERCLIS ENVIRONMENT VI-56
Entering Remedial/Removal Data into CERCLIS VI-56
Entering Enforcement Case Budget Data into CERCLIS VI-56
IFMS to CERCLIS Financial Data Transfer VI-57
Correcting Financial Data VI-57
CHAPTER VII - PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ASSESSMENT VH-1
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES VH-
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION VH-2
Quarterly Reviews VH-2
Mid-Year Assessment VII-3
End-of-Year Assessment Vn-4
OSWER REVIEWS OF REGIONAL PERFORMANCE VH-4
Identification of Superfund Priority Issues VII-6
Assessment of Regional Performance VQ-6
Headquarters Strategy Determination VII-6
The OSWER On-Site Review VH-7
Follow-Up VH-7
SPECIAL STUDIES & FMFIA VH-7
COORDINATION OF RESPONSES TO OFFICIAL REPORTS VH-8
CHAPTER VIII - WORKLOAD MODELS Vffl-1
OVERVIEW vm-i
HAZARDOUS SPILL AND SITE RESPONSE MODEL Vffl-1
TECHNICAL ENFORCEMENT MODEL Vffl-2
Program Resource Assumptions Vffl-5
Removals Vffl-6
PRP RIIFS Starts Vffl-6
PRP RI/FS Oversight Vffl-6
RD/RA Referrals VIE-6
Cost Recovery Referrals Vffl-7
Ongoing Case Support - Section 106,106/107 and 107 Vffl-7
PRP'/Sate (PS) Lead Sites Vffl-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-OlC
Remedial RD/RA Enforcement (Compliance) Vm-7
Federal Facilities VHI-7
Program Implementation Vm-8
ACRONYMS I
ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement IV
Office of Program Management V
Emergency Response Division VI
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response VII
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division VIE
Hazardous Site Control Division IX
U.S. EPA REGIONS MAP X
VI
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
LISTOFEXfflBITS
EXHIBIT PAGE NUMBER
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-1 Priority Setting Matrix ES-2
ES-2 Integrated Planning Responsibilities ES-5
ES-3 RA Prioritization Criteria ES-7
ES-4 SCAP/CERCLIS Responsibilities ES-9
ES-5 SCAP Planning Year ES-12
ES-6 Accomplishment Reporting/Regional Responsibilities ES-13
ES-7 Amendment Conditions ES-13
ES-8 Superfund Management and Assessment Strategy ES-14
ES-9 Implementation Responsibilities ES-15
CHAPTER I
I-1 Schedule for Achievement of SARA Goals I-1
1-2 Qualitative Legislative and Regulatory Goals 1-2
1-3 Priority Setting Matrix 1-4
1-4 RA Prioritization Criteria 1-10
CHAPTER H
H-l SCAP Planning Year H-5
II-2 Primary vs. Alternate SPMS Status and "Approved"
vs. "Alternate" Budget Priority n-8
II-3 SCAP Planning/Target Setting CERCLIS Reports H-10
II-4 Program Evaluation CERCLIS Reports H-12
II-5 SCAP Amendment Process n-13
CHAPTER IV
IV-1 SCAP/SPMS Targets IV-3
IV-2 SCAP/SPMS Measures IV-5
IV-3 SCAP/SPMS Targets for CEPP IV-7
IV-4 SCAP/SPMS Measures for CEPP IV-8
vn
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-OlC
CHAPTER V
V-l Flexibility Scale for Budgeting/Planning V-3
V-2 Project/Event Lead Codes in CERCLIS V-6
V-3 Event or Activity Takeover at Workplan Stage V-7
V-4 Event or Activity Takeover V-8
V-5 Operable Unit Groundrules V-10
V-6 Examples of Operable Units V-10
V-7 Operable Units and First and Subsequent Start
and Completion Coding V-ll
V-8 First and Subsequent Start and Completions V-12
V-9 Impossible FSS and FSC Code Combinations V-12
V-10 Psuedo State Codes V-13
V-ll Standard Time Frames V-16
V-12 ARCS Contractor Codes V-18
V-13 Remedial Action Remedy Type Codes V-20
CHAPTER VI
VI-1 Criteria for Proposed Regional Remedial
Budget Development VI-3
VI-2 The Advice of Allowance Process VI-7
VI-3 Site vs. Non-site Specific Planned Obligations VI-9
VI-4 Budget Source Codes VI-10
VI-5 Who Pays for What VI-11
VI-6 FY90 Case Budget Funded Activities Required
To Achieve Program Outputs VI-16
VI-7 Case Budget Responsiblities VI-21
VI-8 Regional/HQ Case Budget Reponsibilities VI-22
VI-9 Enforcement Financial Reports VI-29
VI-10 Enforcement Financial Audit Reports VI-30
VI-11 Handling Financial Data in the CERCLIS Environemt VI-39
VI-12 EPA Forms Commonly Used for Superfund Procurements VI-43
VI-13 Removal and Remedial Financial Data to
be Transferred from DFMS VI-57
VI-14 Corrections to Financial Information in IFMS VI-58
Vlll
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01C
CHAPTER VH
VII-1 Implementation Responsiblities VII-1
VH-2 The Quarterly Review Process VH-3
VH-3 The OSWER Review Process VH-6
CHAPTER Vm
Vm-1 Workload Model Operations Remedial
Pipline Information Vffl-3
VIH-2 Workload Model Operations Remedial
Pipline Processing VIH-4
IX
-------
u
9
en
00
O
(0 3
go.
.2 ra
5 5
FY90 PROGRAM MANAGER'S SCHEDULE
Task
SCAP Planning Data
Accomplishment Reporting
16
10
Workload Model
FY89 SCAP/SPMS
Targets & Measures
FY90 SCAP/SPMS
Targets & Measures
FY91 SCAP/SPMS
Targets & Measures
Superfund Progress Report
Monthly Management Reports
ProActive Memo
Advice of Allowance
RA Project Status Review
Mid-Year Assessment
End-of-Year Assessment
"P" INDICATES PLANNING
INDICATES KEY HQ DATES
A" INDICATES ACCOMPLISHMENTS
X
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS
QUARTER 1
OCTOBER
NOVEMBER
13-17
20
DECEMBER
Regions input Advice of Allowance to Integrated Financial Management System
First quarter Advice of Allowance approved by the AA SWER
and Comptroller
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP
and provided for:
1) AA monthly report;
2) special program reports;
3) end-of-year assessment for FY89;
4) Superfund Progress Report;
5) final FY89 SPMS Accomplishments; and
6) Dingell Report.
Data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP for pro-active
memorandum
FY90 final targets, including open season changes, set in CERHELP
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP
and provided for:
1) Superfund Progress Report;
2) special program reports;
3) AA monthly report; and
4) Dingell Report.
OMSE SPMS verified (fourth quarter FY89)
OMSE SPMS system closes (fourth quarter FY89)
Draft FY91 Operating Guidance and SPMS Measures sent to
regions for review
Pull of CERCLIS/CERHELP data for
second quarter Advice of Allowance.
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP
and provided for:
1) Superfund Progress Report;
2) special program reports;
3) AA monthly report; and
4) Dingell Report.
Second quarter Advice of Allowance request submitted to AA SWER
and placed in CERHELP
XI
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-OlC
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (Cont'd)
QUARTER 2
Second quarter Advice of Allowance approved by the AA SWER and
Comptroller
HQ pulls SCAP data from CERCLIS and baseline; FY91 targets and
measures are developed using SCAP Methodologies
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP
and provided for:
1) entry into OMSE SPMS system for first quarterly review;
2) Superfund Progress Report;
3) special program reports;
4) AA monthly report; and
5) Dingell Report.
Data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP for pro-active memorandum
OMSE SPMS data verified
OMSE SPMS system closes
Call memorandum containing schedules for semi-annual planning and
mid-year assessment and baseline targets and measures sent to regions
Regional comments on FY91 Operating Guidance due
Program Management (SCAP/Workload Model)
JANUARY
5
8
8
8-12
12
12
15
23-24
FEBRUARY
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP
and provided for:
1) Superfund Progress Report;
2) special program reports;
3) AA monthly report; and
4) Dingell Report.
Data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP to support negotiation of:
1) preliminary SCAP/SPMS FY91 targets;
2) preliminary FY91 annual regional budget;
3) preliminary FY91 FTE allocation; and
4) budget projections for FY92 projects.
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of FY90 and FY91 RA project
schedules.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (Cont'd)
Final FY90 Operating Guidance issued
Complete HQ/regional negotiations of:
1) FY90 third and fourth quarter targets and budget;
2) FY91 SCAP/SPMS targets;
3) FY91 annual regional budget; and
4) FY92outyear budget.
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLJS/CERHELP
and provided for:
1) Superfund Progress Report;
2) AA monthly report;
3) special program reports; and
4) Dingell Report.
Data pulled from CERCLIS for mid-year assessment
Pull CERCLIS/CERHELP data for third quarter advice of allowance
CERCLJS/CERHELP revised to reflect negotiated FY92 RA budget and FY91
preliminary targets and measures
Run workload model for preliminary FY91 FTE distribution
Third quarter Advice of Allowance request submitted to the AA SWER
and placed in CERHELP
Memorandum to regions on preliminary targets and FTEs
Draft FY91 SCAP Manual distributed for review
Regions input Advice of Allowance to Integrated Financial Management System
QUARTER 3
Issue Addendum for FY91 Operating Guidance
Third quarter Advice of Allowance approved by the AA SWER and Comptroller
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP and:
1) entered into OMSE system for second quarterly review;
2) provided for Superfund Progress Report;
3) AA monthly report;
4) special program reports; and
5) Dingell Report.
Pull of data from CERCLIS/CERHELP for pro-active memorandum
OMSE SPMS data verified (second quarter accomplishments)
OMSE SPMS system closes (second quarter accomplishments)
Program Management (Budget/pricing factor) meeting
MARCH
1
xui
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (Cont'd)
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP
and provided for:
1) Superfund Progress Report;
2) special program reports;
3) AA monthly report; and
4) Dingell Report.
Pull planning data for outyear budget
MAY
7
Regional Comments on FY91 SCAP Manual due
Pull of CERCLIS/CERHELP data for fourth quarter Advice of Allowance
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of fourth quarter RA Schedules
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP
and provided for:
1) Superfund Progress Report;
2) special program reports;
3) AA monthly report; and
4) Dingell Report.
Complete negotiations on RA, removal and enforcement 4Q AOAs
Final FY91 SCAP Manual
Call memorandum and FY91 proposed regional budget sent to the regions for
semi-annual planning update
Fourth quarter Advice of Allowance request submitted to the AA SWER
and placed in CERHELP
Regions input Advice of Allowance to Integrated Financial Management
System
QUARTER 4
Fourth quarter Advice of Allowance approved by the AA SWER and
Comptroller
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP
and provided for:
1) entry into OMSE SPMS;
2) Superfund Progess Report;
3) special progam reports;
4) AA monthly report; and
5) Dingell Report.
11
.TUNE
1
1
15
15
15
22
29
JULY
5
xiv
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (Cont'd)
Data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP for pro-active memorandum
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of fourth quarter RA projects
Data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP to support negotiation of:
1) final SCAP/SPMS FY91 targets;
2) first quarter FY91 removals;
3) final FY91 operating plan; and
4) final FY91 FTE allocation.
OMSE SPMS data verified (third quarter accomplishments)
OMSE SPMS system closes (third quarter accomplishments)
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP
and provided for:
1) Superfund Progress Report;
2) special program reports;
3) AA monthly report; and
4) Dingell Report.
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of fourth quarter RA projects
Complete negotiations on final FY91 SCAP/SPMS targets and budget
Memorandum to regions on final FY91 budgets, targets and measures
CERCLIS/CERHELP revised to reflect final FY91 budgets, targets and measures
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of fourth quarter RA projects
Data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP for first quarter Advice of Allowance
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS and provided for:
1) Superfund Progress Report;
2) special program reports;
3) AA monthly report; and
4) Dingell Report.
FY91 first quarter Advice of Allowance request submitted to the AA SWER
and placed in CERHELP
Run workload model for final FY91 FTE distribution
Regions input Advice of Allowance to Integrated Financial Management System
9-13
24
SEPTEMBER
7
xv
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (Cont'd)
01IARTER1(FY91> OCTOBER
First quarter Advice of Allowance approved by the AA SWER and the Comptroller 3
Accomplishment data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP 5
and provided for:
1) Superfund Progress Report;
2) special program reports;
3) AA monthly report;
4) entry into OMSE system for FY90 SPMS end-of-year;
5) FY90 end-of-year assessment; and
6) Dingell Report.
Data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP for pro-active memorandum 5
NOVEMBER
Accomplishment data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP
and provided for: 7
1) Superfund Progress Report;
2) AA monthly report;
3) special program reports; and
4) Dingell Report.
FY91 final targets, including open season changes, set in CERHELP 7
OMSE SPMS verified (fourth quarter FY90) 12-16
OMSE SPMS system closes (fourth quarter FY90) 16
xvi
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
TheFY90 Superfund Program Management Manual presents and discusses the
relationships among the major Superfund program management tools. This includes
identifying program goals and priorities, translating those program priorities into targets
and measures that are planned and tracked through the Superfund Comprehensive
Accomplishments Plan (SCAP), using the targets and measures to allocate resources and,
finally, using the evaluation process to determine whether program goals are being met.
Regions must develop solutions to performance problems as they encounter them,
and should strive for a balanced approach to site work, encouraging both potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) and states to assume responsibility for response activities.
States and Regional Counsel should be consulted throughout the SCAP planning process
as a primary means of ensuring an integrated and coordinated program effort.
PROGRAM GOALS
The central mission of the Superfund program is to use PRP resources as a first
option and then Fund or state resources to maximize the protection of human health and the
environment through fast, effective, and efficient cleanup of priority hazardous waste sites
and releases. The Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE) and the Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) collaborated on the development of a matrix
designed to identify and place in rough priority order the Superfund program goals for
FY90 and the activities which support achievement of those objectives.
The matrix is designed to 1) identify relative program priorities; 2) list major
program activities for which resources are provided; and 3) provide a framework to
estimate the funding levels needed to support the activities.
The overall goals identified in the matrix (Exhibit ES-1) are:
Mitigate immediate threats;
Move sites into cleanup using PRP resources as a first resort; and
Maintain a baseline of supporting activities.
The matrix will be used by HQ and the regions in making trade off decisions
during:
Budget formulation;
Operating plan development and initial and final target setting and
negotiation; and
Mid-year adjustment.
ES-1
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
p.YHTBIT ES-1
Priority Setting Matrix
PROGRAM PRIORITY
ACTIVITIES
FUNDING
LEVEL*
I. Mitigate Immediate Threat
Classic Emergencies (Removal and
Remedial, Fund and Enforcement)
NPL Removals (Fund and
Enforcement)
AOsfor NPL Removals
B
B
II. Move Sites to Cleanup
A. Support Ongoing Work to Com-
pletion of Current Phase (Oper-
able Unit)
Support Ongoing RD
Ongoing RA (Fund and PRP)
Ongoing RD/RA Negotiations
Ongoing RI/FS (Fund and PRP)
Ongoing 107 (SOL) Litigation
Ongoing 106 Litigation for Remedy
Ongoing 104 Access
Ongoing Compliance Enforcement
B. Take Enforcement Actions to En-
sure a Strong Enforcement Pre-
sence and to maximize Likelihood
of PRP Takeover
C. Fund RD and RA Starts Where
Enforcement Action is not
appropriate
RD/RA Negotiations (New)
PRP RD/RA Starts
106 Settlement Referrals
106 UAOs for RD/RA
107 SOL Referrals
106 Litigation for Remedy
Mixed Funding RD and RA
RD Start (Fund)
RA Start (Fund)
D. Federal Facilities
Negotiate lAGs
Oversee lAGs
'A' = ALL and 'B' = BASELINE
* "A" and "B" are designed to indicate degree of importance, not an absolute rule
with regard to funding. As used in this column "B" indicates that we continue to carry
out a level of activities consistent with prior year activity. "A" means all those activities
available to be done.
** Provided that timely special notice, special notice waiver or general notice with timelines has been issued
and extensions have been requested/approved consistent with Agency policy.
*** Consistent with cost recovery strategy.
(Note: All activities identified in the matrix are to be funded at least at a minimum baseline level.)
ES-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
EXHIBIT ES-1
Priority Setting Matrix (Cont.)
PROGRAM PRIORITY
II. Move Sites to Cleanup (continued)
E. Maximize Cost Recovery
F. Initiate RI/FS and Other Activities
to Keep Pipeline Balanced
G. Pre-Remedial, Removal,
Enforcement and
State Support Activities to
Support Long Term Goals
New Initiatives
Essential Program Management
Elements
A. Critical Path Support Activities
B. Core Program Support
^TiHB^^^SBBSSBBB9BS8B!B^SSBSSJSBB^BSBS^5B^?SBJSSS5BJBBBS8
ACTIVITIES
Non-SOLRA Referrals
PRP RI/FS
Fund RI/FS
Listing Sites
State Enforcement RI/FS
Non-NPL Time Critical Removals
AOs for Non-NPL Time Crit. Removal
Pre-Remedial (PA/SI)
1 07 Non-SOL Pre-RA Referrals
TAG Grants
Federal Facilities Pre-Remedial
Non-NPL PRP Search
Core Program Cooperative
Agreements
1 07 Administrative Settlements
PRP Searches
CLP
Removal Support
Remedial Project Support
Community Relations
CERCLIS Database Management
Contract Management
Records Management including
Administrative Records
Program Management
State Program Support
^^^%SR&$S&8SES&G&8G£&£&&S^S55^&Bffll^S&^^&^&^^&
FUNDING
LEVEL*
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B"*
B
B
B
B
B
Fund at
Level to
Support
Program
Integrity
Fund at
Level to
Support
Program
Integrity
WSSS3SSS&SSSS&££S^^&
'A' = ALL and 'B' = BASELINE
"A" and "B" are designed to indicate degree of importance, not an absolute rule
with regard to funding. As used in this column "B" indicates that we continue to carry
out a level of activities consistent with prior year activity. "A" means all those activities
available to be done.
*** Consistent with cost recovery strategy
(Note: All activities identified in the matrix are to be funded at leaslat a minimum baseline level.)
ES-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
fill PER FUND COMPREHENSIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN
The SCAP is the central mechanism for planning, tracking and evaluating
Superfund program activities. Because of its program-wide importance, SCAP has a
dynamic, interdependent relationship with other Agency planning and management
systems, including:
Agency Operating Guidance;
Superfund Budget;
Strategic Planning and Management System (SPMS);
Superfund Progress Report (SPR); and
Superfund Workload Models.
Priority activities (as reflected on Exhibit ES-1) and programmatic guidance are
used to guide the development of the SCAP. Planning reflects current goals under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA), the National Contingency Plan (NCP), and the FY90 Agency Operating
Guidance.
INTEGRATED PLANNING
Integrated planning is the responsibility of both HQ and the regions. HQ adjusts
resources within and between the response and enforcement programs to ensure that
priority activities have adequate resources. Regions provide specific input on the level of
resources needed to accomplish priority activities, and negotiate SPMS and SCAP
commitments consistent with realistic site planning.
Regions should realize, however, that the flexibility to adjust resources in response
to changing program conditions decreases through time. There is maximum flexibility
during the budget formulation 12 to 18 months prior to the fiscal year and minimum
flexibility once the operating year starts. There are no contingency reserves in the operating
plan. As a result, once the regional operating plan is established at the start of the year,
resources can be shifted to a region only at the expense of resources for other regions.
Exhibit ES-2, on the following page, describes the HQ and regional responsibilities
in the integrated planning process.
ENVIRONMENTAL PR1ORITIZA TION
In FY90, resources for enforcement activities and fund-financed RAs are
constrained. These resource problems have led to the development of a prioritization
scheme which ensures that the highest environmental priority sites are addressed and
enforcement flexibility is maintained. The prioritization scheme is not absolute.
Programmatic and other implementation factors could cause a site to be elevated in priority
at either the negotiation stage or the RA stage. It is important to realize that all NPL sites
which require further action after the RI/FS are, by definition, priority sites. The issue is
their relative priority.
ES-4
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01C
EXHIBIT ES-2
INTEGRATED PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES
REGIONS
Manage projects to integrate
enforcement and fund milestones and
to ensure that schedules and timelines
are met
Provide accurate, complete
and timely project planning data in
CERCLIS and SCAP
Follow established planning
procedures and requirements
HQ
Joint establishment of
program priorities
Joint review of operating
plans and site commitments
Work with regional managers
on adjusting resources to
meet program priorities
Timely communication with the regions
on changes/additions to SCAP schedules
Reprogram resources between
Fund and Enforcement to
support priority activities
Provide funding and FTE when targets
are negotiated
Involve regions in preliminary
resource requests
Develop policy and guidance in response
to Congressional or Agency initiatives
Recognize that missed
commitments in the operating year
severely affect resource availability
in future years
Enforcement activity budget constraints require that resources focus on actions to
ensure timely decisions as to whether settlements are likely to be achieved, or Fund-
financed response or litigation should be employed. RA funding constraints require
prioritization of scheduled projects to ensure that the most environmentally significant
projects can be supported. These criteria will be applied along with other program
considerations, including addressing sites through the operable unit or segmenting
approach, maximizing removal activity at NPL sites (including removal assessments), and
breaking out actions consistent with the "bias for action" approach.
The following sites and/or projects will not be evaluated under the environmental
Small dollar RA projects which lead to deletion upon completion;
Phased construction projects or actions that have been incrementally funded;
Mixed funding response actions; and
Long term response activities.
criteria:
ES-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
The RA environmental prioritization criteria is contained in Exhibit ES-3. Regions
should ensure that RD projects in the pipeline continue moving toward completion even if it
does not appear, based on the decisions made prior to the start of the FY, that these sites
will be funded for RA. Since the status of RA projects and the funding decisions will be
reassessed at mid year and throughout the third and fourth quarters, sites that are ready to
proceed could be moved up in the funding queue.
NATIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS
Although the major focus of this manual is the SCAP process and its planning and
reporting requirements, it must be recognized that Superfund program management
requires information beyond SCAP-specific reporting. Senior management must be kept
current on all aspects of progress at the regional level. Program offices require specific
program information to adequately manage segments of the Superfund process. Growing
public concerns related to hazardous waste management require timely and extensive data
reporting. Information beyond SCAP-specific data will continue to play a critical role in
managing and reporting progress of the Superfund program. On the fifth working day of
each month the national program office pulls data from the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) on a selected
number of key indicators of progress in the Superfund program. CERCLIS must be up-to-
date when these reports are prepared. The most effective way to assure that CERCLIS is
up-to-date is to enter data as an event or activity occurs. Within 5 working days of an
accomplishment (e.g., ROD signature, RA obligation, PRP search completion, Consent
Decree referral, issuance of special notice letters, etc.) regions are expected to have
recorded the information in CERCLIS. This will ensure that the monthly and quarterly
management reports given to senior program managers, the Assistant Administrator, the
Administrator, Congress or the news media are accurate and that any interim or ad hoc
reports will contain the latest information. Other non-recurring information requests, such
as Freedom of Information Act requests, can also be satisfied using up-to-date CERCLIS
data, with little or no need for additional data collection.
In FY90, the agency will report environmental results achieved by Superfund. The
data elements required for this reporting will be derived from the Superfund Environmental
Indicators Project that has been ongoing for the past year. It is unclear at this time how
these data will be collected and reported. Additional guidance on this initiative will be sent
to the regions.
HQ is requiring that regions place additional information into CERCLIS on RA
projects. This information will be used to develop and justify the RA budget and provide
for characterization of RA projects and their associated costs. Regions will not
receive funds for an RA in their Advice of Allowance unless the RA remedy
type is in CERCLIS. Regions will not receive credit for a PRP RA start
unless the remedy type is in CERCLIS.
HQ is also initiating several strategies for enhancing CERCLIS data quality. The
data quality problems which are the focus of the strategies include reconciling historical
data in CERCLIS, addressing problems with management reports that use inconsistent
select logic and improving operating year data in non-resource related areas.
ES-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
PRIORITY 1
EXHIBIT ES-3
RA PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
Immediate or imminent threat to human health as determined by
ATSDR or other.
PRIORITY 2
Actual exposure or exposure occurring within the short term* which
results in:
risk to human health greater than risk-based site
remediation goals; or
risk to human health greater than a hazard index of 1; or
contamination which exceeds health-based ARARs.
An ATSDR determination than an actual public health
threat exists.
Actual or short term threat to endangered species.
PRIORITY 3
An ATSDR determination that a probable health threat exists.
Existence of an actual or short term* threat to sensitive
environments.
PRIORITY 4
Potential for exceeding any ARAR in the long term.
Potential for exceeding risk-based site remediation goals in the
long term.
ATSDR determination that a potential public health problem exists.
PRIORITY 5
Potential threat to endangered species.
Potential threat to sensitive environments.
* Short term means the amount of time not exceeding twice the time of the
planned remedial action.
SCAP/CERCLIS RELATIONSHIP
The SCAP represents the management process used to set performance targets,
report significant accomplishments and allocate resources. CERCLIS is the information
system used to develop the SCAP. (Exhibit ES-4 indicates the major
Headquarters/regional SCAP/CERCLIS responsibilities.)
Only data as recorded in CERCLIS will be recognized by Headquarters for SCAP
tracking, planning and evaluation purposes. This includes information used for budget
formulation, the workload model, setting of annual and quarterly targets and other national
information needs. No monies will be issued to the regions through the
Advice of Allowance process unless the appropriate obligation and
ES-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
commitment data are reflected in CERCLIS No FTE) are given to projects
that are incorrectly coded and scheduled in CLKLLlfc.
f YHTRTT ES-4
SCAP/CERCLIS RESPONSIBILITIES
REGIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES
Plan and schedule all pre-remedial, remedial
and removal events and
enforcement activities
Update CERCLIS on a regular basis (within
5 days) to report accomplishments, changes
in planning data or adjustments in approved
plans
Reconcile CERCLIS financial data with
data automatically transferred from FMS
CERCLIS data maintenance and integrity
Update CERHELP to reflect
accomplishments and target site
substitutions
HEADQUARTERS
RESPONSIBILITIES
Determine the Advice of Allowance
(AOA) based on region's input of SCAP
planned activities and assure that
regional budgets are balanced
Respond to regional requests for
changes through the change request and
amendment process
Enter negotiated targets and measures and
site back-up in CERHELP
Update CERHELP to reflect
approved target changes
Enter and maintain data on AOA through
the CERHELP data base
REMEDIAL RESPONSE OUTYEAR PLANNING
When a site is proposed as a candidate for a RI/FS start regions must develop and
record in CERCLIS a schedule for the core remedial activities and core enforcement
activities. Where better data are not available, regions should use the standard timelines
provided in the manual. As better information on project schedules and RA
costs becomes available, regions must update their SCAP data in
CERCLIS. Keeping the data current in CERCLIS is a continuous process that is
particularly important for outyear budget planning, the workload model, regional
evaluation, and SCAP/SPMS target setting.
THE BUDGET PROCESS
The budget planning process begins a year and a half prior to the start of the fiscal
year. In February 1990, regions will begin planning for major remedial dollar
expenditures, as well as expenditures for key enforcement actions in FY92. To project the
FY92 budget, regions must review core activity schedules for projects expected to begin in
FY92. Since Fund-financed RAs play such a major role in the Superfund budget, it is
crucial that these projects are identified and reasonable cost estimates derived using the draft
Feasibility Study (FS), the Record of Decision (ROD) or Cost Of Remedial Action (CORA)
Model estimates.
ES-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
FY90 RESPONSE
The FY90 funding in the response program is essentially the same as FY89 in the
pre-remedial, removal, RI/FS, and remedial support areas. Significant growth is projected
for RA projects. However, a major portion of the FY90 RA budget will be needed to
support projects which were phase funded or deferred in FY89. This in turn will limit the
number of Fund-financed FY90 remedial actions which can be supported. A fundamental
concern in FY90, as in previous years, is that construction begins at all sites in a timely
mariner. To meet this objective, the recommended approach is that regions issue special
notice letters (where appropriate) and bring negotiations to a close within the moratorium
time periods, issue unilateral Administrative Orders where appropriate, lodge enforceable
Consent Decrees within a reasonable time period where settlement occurs, and use the
authority of Section 106 (administrative or judicial) to bring about a PRP lead cleanup. If
these methods fail, the Fund should be used. As in FY89, those sites which have
completed negotiations, have not settled and are not deemed suitable for litigation will be
funded for RD in FY90. This will ensure that PRPs are fully aware that Fund-financed
actions will be initiated when negotiations fail. Those sites at the RA phase which are not
candidates for a Section 106 action should be evaluated against the environmental
prioritization criteria and placed in the funding queue.
FY90 represents the third year of the Fund-financed RI/FS full funding strategy.
The strategy calls for full funding of all program lead RI/FS projects started prior to or
during FY90 by the end of the year. Successful implementation of this strategy requires
meeting the RI/FS cost reduction goals initiated in FY89. This requires that RI/FS costs be
reduced to a national average of $750,000 per operable unit and $1,100,000 per site. This
strategy does not include a small number of unusually large or complex sites which will
continue to be funded on an annual basis.
Regional activities must fall within the final negotiated budget levels. The
regional Advice of Allowance will not be issued unless the approved
planned obligations, commitments and actual obligations are within the
annual budget.
FY90 ENFORCEMENT BUDGET
Extramural funding in FY90 for enforcement activities is at approximately the same
level as in FY90. There was some modest growth in FTEs. The net result is, however,
shortfalls in both parts of the budget. This leads to constraints across the enforcement
program. The budget does not support as many PRP removals, RI/FS starts, ongoing
RI/FS, RD/RA negotiations and referrals, and cost recovery actions as is possible.
Consequently, regional managers must consider the effects across the program when
making a decision to focus on one part of the program as opposed to another. The rough
order of priority should be on maintaining ongoing project oversight and compliance
enforcement, maintaining ongoing litigation for response and cost recovery, referring
statute of limitation (SOL) cost recovery cases and negotiating PRP RD/RA response.
The extramural budget constraint in FY90 limits regional funding to the fiscal year.
That is, wherever possible, PRP oversight and ongoing case support should not be funded
into FY91. Fully funding projects into FY91 severely limits resources for FY90 projects.
Regional extramural budgets must fall within their Advice of Allowance. The AOA
will not be issued unless approved, planned obligations are within the budget ceiling.
ES-9
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
ENFORCEMENT CASE BUDGET
The Case Budget refers to the extramural financial resources necessary to pay for
Superfund enforcement support. A region's Case Budget Allocation contains its share of
available extramural resources to support the enforcement SPMS/SCAP targeted activities
and funding needs for non-targeted activities identified in CERCLIS. The budget for most
of the activities is based on the activity pricing factors in Appendix G.
FY90 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Congress is requiring that the Agency establish budget levels and track financial
activities for the following eight response program areas:
Pre-remedial;
RI/FS;
RD;
RA;
Removal actions;
Response support;
Remedial support; and
Removal support.
If planned or actual obligations exceed any of the budget levels by $2 million ($10
million for RAs) or more, the Agency must notify Congress. CERCLIS will be used to
manage the monitoring and after the fact reporting requirements. This requirement will not
affect the region's ability to obligate funds, nor will it impact the flexible funding initiatives
implemented in FY88.
SCAP FINANCIAL PLANNING AND THE REGIONAL ADVICE OF
ALLOWANCE
The SCAP financial planning process is the mechanism which drives the quarterly
AOA approved by the AA S WER and the Office of the Comptroller. The process for
issuing the AOA begins four weeks prior to the start of each quarter when planned site and
non-site specific obligation data are pulled from CERCLIS and reviewed by Headquarters.
Two weeks prior to the end of the quarter HQ will put the approved AOA amount into
CERHELP and send a copy to the AA SWER. Regions must put this amount into IFMS
before the end of the quarter. The AA SWER and the Office of the Comptroller will review
the amounts in IFMS and approve or disapprove the AOA at the beginning of the quarter.
The Office of the Comptroller will issue the following allowances to the regions in
FY90:
RA (site-specific);
RD (non-site specific);
RI/FS;
Other Remedial;
Removal; and
Enforcement.
The other remedial allowance includes site specific and non-site specific program
and project support activities and technical oversight of Potentially Responsible Party
(PRP) RD and RA projects. Consistent with the flexible funding criteria developed in
ES-10
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
FY88, regions have the flexibility to move funds among projects within the RD AOA, the
other remedial AOA and RI/FS AOA. Based on regional priorities, regions can also move
funds among projects covered by the RA AOA, between AOAs and between the
enforcement and response programs. These shifts require a SCAP amendment, must be
reflected in CERCLIS, and may require Congressional notification and/or approval. HQ
will generally approve shifting funds between allowances for the following activities:
Classic emergencies;
PRP oversight;
RA projects (consistent with the national prioritization); and
Removals at NPL sites.
WORKLOAD MODELS
Regional full time equivalent (FTE) allocations are made through the Hazardous
Spill and Site Response model and the Technical Enforcement model. Resources for the
pre-remedial, remedial, and removal programs are contained in the Response model.
Enforcement and Federal Facility resources are in the Technical Enforcement model.
The workload models are designed to reflect priorities and policies contained in
both the budget request and the SCAP/SPMS planning process. For the most part, the
workload models are a straightforward application of FTE pricing factors from the national
budget to region-specific SCAP/SPMS targets and projections in CERCLIS. No FTE
are given to projects that are incorrectly coded and scheduled in CERCLIS.
Regional FTE allocations occur in two stages. An initial allocation of 95% of the
total regional response and enforcement FTEs is made in April based on the preliminary
negotiated SCAP/SPMS targets and schedules. A final distribution is made in September
and reflects the final negotiated SCAP. Unless major target changes occur in the final
SCAP, each region receives, at a minimum, the FTE level developed in April.
FOCUS OF THE SCAP PROCESS THROUGH THE YEAR
Current fiscal year planning information must be updated regularly by the regions
through CERCLIS. Routine changes in planning information, i.e., those that do not
require a target or budget change, can be made by the region without HQ involvement. In
recognition of this, HQ and the regions will conduct formal negotiations twice a year.
During these formal negotiation time periods, current year issues and problems will be
discussed, as well as schedules and budgets for future fiscal years. States should be
consulted prior to negotiations to ensure an integrated and coordinated EPA and state effort.
The focus of regional responsibilities during the formal SCAP update/negotiation periods is
outlined in Exhibit ES-5.
Although RA funding will be based on the environmental prioritization criteria,
these RAs will be carefully assessed at mid-year and throughout the third and fourth
quarters to identify slippage in schedules. If it appears that planned RAs with approved
funding will not be ready to start in FY90, adjustments may be made within and among
regional RA budgets.
The fourth quarter SCAP update is the most important planning event of the year.
This update will yield final SPMS targets and will set each region's annual budget for the
upcoming year. In addition, commitments made during this update will be the basis of
final regional FTE distribution.
ES-11
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
pYHTRTT ES-5
SCAP PLANNING YEAR
SECOND QUARTER (JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1990)
Revise FY90 annual budget ceilings to reflect first and second quarter
performance and revised plans for the remainder of the year
Update and negotiate planning information in CERCLIS for the third and fourth
quarter FY90
Review slippage in FY90 targets for development of action strategies
Reassess the remedial action funding strategy
Negotiate preliminary FY91 SCAP/SPMS targets and measures
Negotiate preliminary annual regional budgets for FY91
Determine preliminary FY91 FTE allocations based on the
preliminary targets and measures
Provide complete site schedules including planned RA obligations to
allow HQ to project the outyear budget (FY92)
Negotiate third and fourth quarter enforcement AOA
FOURTH QUARTER (JULY 1990)
Finalize FTEs for FY91
Establish final SCAP/SPMS commitments for FY91
Establish FY91 annual regional budget
ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORTING
Data on accomplishments will be pulled from CERCLIS by Headquarters on the
fifth working day of each month. Monthly data will be used in reports to the Assistant
Administrator, Congress, the public, etc., on the progress of the Superfund program. This
is also the information that will be used for calls to the Regional Administrators regarding
progress on the key indicators tracked in the Assistant Administrator's pro-active
memorandum. Formal accomplishment reporting for SPMS and SCAP purposes will be
pulled on the fifth working day of each quarter. This information will be used to evaluate
regional progress toward meeting SCAP and SPMS targets and submitted to the Office of
Management Systems and Evaluation (OMSE) for reporting SPMS accomplishments.
The major regional responsibilities during the accomplishment reporting phase are
shown below in Exhibit ES-6.
ES-12
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
EXHIBIT ES-6
ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORTING PHASE
REGIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Reconcile financial data in CERCLIS with data
transferred from FMS;
Ensure accomplishment information in CERCLIS
is current;
Perform QA/QC procedures on SCAP and SPMS
data in CERCLIS.
SCAP/SPMS AMENDMENTS AND ADJUSTMENTS
SCAP incorporates flexibility into the planning process through the adjustments and
amendments mechanism which allows the regions to change their plans during the year.
Amendments are changes to SCAP which meet the conditions shown in Exhibit ES-7.
EXHIBIT ES-7
AMENDMENT CONDITIONS
Change a quarterly or annual SPMS or SCAP
target;
Increase the region's annual budget;
Change an Advice of Allowance.
Adjustments are any other changes to SCAP during the fiscal year. Regions may
adjust their SCAP plans without Headquarters approval. SCAP amendments must be
approved by the appropriate OSWER Office Director. SPMS amendments are reviewed
and concurred on by the relevant program office (OWPE or OERR), but must be approved
bytheAASWER.
Regions are responsible for maintaining the sites in the CERHELP Targets and
Accomplishments data file to reflect SCAP adjustments. Regions will be allowed to add or
delete sites from this file, for the purpose of substituting sites. The overall targeted number
of sites must remain constant throughout the year. However, the site-specific CERCLIS
records should be updated when a SCAP or SPMS amendment is requested.
ES-13
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ASSESSMENT
The Superfund program management and assessment strategy has four components
as shown in Exhibit ES-8.
EXHIBITES-S
SUPERFUND MANAGEMENT
AND ASSESSMENT
STRATEGY
Performance evaluation with
CERCLIS data;
Superfund participation in the OSWER
regional reviews;
* Special studies;* and
Coordination of responses to official
reports.**
* e.g., High priority studies tracked through the Office Director's
High Priority Workplans that assist the National Program Manager
in implementing the program and support the Federal Managers
Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) requirements.
** e.g.. Reports from the General Accounting Office (GAO) and
the Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
Together these components give program managers regular opportunities to
recognize high performance, focus resources in regions that demonstrate success, and
provide training and technical assistance to those regions that are experiencing difficulties.
Regional and HQ responsibilities for implementing and conducting the program
evaluation strategy process are shown in Exhibit ES-9.
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FY89 TO FY90
The following discussion summarizes the significant changes in the Superfund
Program Management Manual and the SCAP planning process between FY89 and FY90.
The Superfund program goals and priorities associated with site cleanup remain
unchanged. However, the performance expectations of each of the programs have been
revised. In the FY90 Manual, the concepts of integrated (Fund and Enforcement) planning
and the integrated Superfund priority setting matrix are elaborated upon (see Chapters I and
ES-14
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
EXHIBIT FS-9
IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES
REGIONAL
RESPONSIRTIJTTF^
Meet quarterly SCAP and SPMS targets
and solve performance problems when
they arise.
Provide quarterly SCAP and SPMS
data to HQ through CERCLIS.
Maintain CERCLIS data quality at high
levels for Superfund program and
project management.
Participate in OSWER On-Site reviews
Negotiate performance standards that
provide individual accountability for
quarterly targets.
Develop action strategy to recoup
slipping targets.
HEADQUARTERS
RESPONSIBILITIES
Provide guidance to the regions for
preparing the quarterly review, the
mid-year assessment, the year-end
assessment, and the OSWER
On-Site Review.
Identify priority issues and participate
in OSWER On-Site reviews.
Implement and report on follow-up
action items from the OSWER On-Site
review and Superfund mid-year
assessment.
Review monthly performance data
reported by the regions and negotiate
action strategies with regions for
recouping slipping targets.
Continually assess program
performance and analyze timeliness
and quality of work.
Recommend resource re-allocation
based on regional needs and
performance.
Assure that all staff are informed of the
results of performance reporting and
OSWER reviews.
Identify and undertake high priority
special studies.
Assure that special studies and external
official reports are reflected in FMFIA
documentation.
Resources for post-ROD activities (except RDs) are constrained. As a result, an
environmental prioritization scheme is being developed to focus regional resources on
priority sites (see Chapter I).
The SCAP/SPMS targets and measures, definitions and FY91 methodologies for
target setting are revised. The SPMS targeting measures for both programs have been
reduced. The SCAP targeting and reporting measures have increased (see Chapter IV and
Appendixes A and D).
ES-15
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
As part of the national information reporting needs, regions will begin reporting
indicators of environmental progress in Superfund (see Chapter HI).
New planning or information requirements for certain activities were incorporated
into the SCAP process. These include planning for treatability studies, projecting mixed
funding settlements, developing mega-site management plans, identifying ARCS
contractors with associated work, developing enforcement site management plans, and
recording additional information on RA projects and budgets in CERCLIS. To counter
these additional requirements, the planning of project support activities and site
classification have been revised and simplified (see Chapter V).
The removal Advice of Allowance process has been revised (see Chapter VI).
Regional contingency accounts for design projects and other (non-RA) activities
will be allowed. These accounts can be used for short term budget balancing, to identify
funds made available by PRP takeover, to "backstop" PRP negotiations and to cover
potential changeover costs. Dollar amounts in these accounts will be limited and monitored
byHQ. (see Chapter VI).
The Enforcement Case Budget system has been revised as a result of revisions to
the Technical Enforcement workload model. Chapter VI and Appendix G discuss the new
Case Budget planning requirements.
Congress is requiring the Agency to budget and report planned and actual
obligations in eight response program areas (see Chapter VI).
The Advice of Allowance structure has changed (see Chapter VI).
The Agency begins full implementation of the Integrated Financial Management
System (IFMS) in FY90. The effects of this system on SCAP financial planning and
management and the Advice of Allowance are described in Chapter VI.
The FY90 Manual has been expanded to include a discussion of the Response and
Enforcement workload models and an explanation on how resources are allocated in the
two models (see Chapter VIE).
The SCAP/SPMS planning requirements of the Chemical Emergency Preparedness
and Prevention Program have also been added to the Manual (see Chapter IV and Appendix
F).
USES OF THE MANUAL
The FY90 Program Management Manual includes information and guidelines for
regional staff on Superfund program goals and priorities, the development of planning
data, the application of planning data to the workload model process, Superfund financial
management (including the new Case Budget process), the tracking of accomplishments
and the evaluation of regional progress toward meeting program goals. The FY90 SCAP
planning and evaluation process is supported by the information contained in this manual
Users of the manual must also refer to the CERCLIS User Reference Notebook for specific
guidance on SCAP data coding, entry, maintenance and generation of SCAP reports.
ES-16
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
STRUCTURE OF THE MANTJAI
The FY90 Program Management Manual consists of two volumes. The remainder
of Volume I contains information on:
Program priorities and goals;
SCAP procedures;
National information needs;
SCAP targets and measures;
Program planning requirements and procedures;
Financial planning and management;
Evaluations; and
Workload models.
Volume II includes the following Appendices:
Appendix A presents the methodologies used to derive the FY91
preliminary targets and measures;
Appendix B discusses the applicability of the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) to SCAP;
Appendix C provides a crosswalk displaying the relationship between
CERCLIS Enforcement activities, remedies and events and their
corresponding codes;
Appendix D is divided into two sections. Section 1 provides technical
definitions for the SCAP/SPMS targets and measures and Section 2
provides definitions for other planning activities. A brief description of the
planning processes associated with each definition is included;
Appendix E is a compilation of select logic for SCAP reports;
Appendix F contains the planning requirements and definitions for the
Chemical Emergency Preparedness Program; and
Appendix G is the CERCLIS coding instructions and activity pricing factors
for Case Budget.
In summary, the FY90 Manual encompasses many new or revised program
management policies, processes and procedures. In order to acquire a more in-depth
understanding, the manual itself should be read.
ES-17
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
CHAPTER I
PROGRAM GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS
-------
OSWER Directive 92003-01C
CHAPTER I - PROGRAM GOALS
AND EXPECTATIONS
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Following are the actions regional managers must take to
comply with the requirements described in this Chapter.
In order to acquire a more in-depth understanding of
these requirements, the Chapter itself should be read.
Evaluate RA projects ready for funding in a given year
against the RA environmental prioritization criteria, and
submit documentation by June 23,1989 for RAs in
FY90.
Only RA projects with documentation will be considered
for funding.
The RA funding decisions will be reevaluated at mid-year
and throughout the third and fourth quarter, therefore
keep RDs on schedule.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
CHAPTER T - PROGRAM
AND FXPECTATIQNS
OVERVIEW
A !S a vital year for ^ Superfund program as the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) enters the fourth year of the five year Superfund Amendments and
Keautnorization Act (SARA) and looks toward reauthorization. Exhibits 1-1 and 1-2 outline
major SARA goals. By October 16, 1989, EPA faces the statutory deadlines for starting
l /} Remedial Actions (RAs) and 275 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies (RI/FS).
in addition, the pipeline for meeting the subsequent 1991 deadline for starting another 200
RAs must be well underway. As funding grows tighter, regions need to increase their use
or the wide range of settlement authorities provided by SARA to compel Potentially
Responsible Party (PRP) response. Where this cannot be achieved, regions should issue
unilateral orders to viable PRPs and/or refer Section 106/107 cases. Cost recovery actions
should be initiated to address the backlog of cost recovery sites. Removals will need to be
undertaken for "classic emergencies" first and then for time critical removals at National
Priorities List (NPL) sites where the removal will lead to deletion. The goals for the pre-
remedial program found in SARA require that all sites in the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) as of October 16,
1986 be evaluated for inclusion on the NPL by October 1990.
Effective pursuit of SARA's statutory goals, as well as achieving the goal of
cleaning up sites, requires constant attention to the proper balance among enforcement and
Fund-financed options.
EXHIBIT T-1
SCHEDULE FOR ACHIEVEMENT OF SARA GOALS
SECTION
M^kHH|H^H^^^B^^^^^^^H
SARA116(a)(l)
SARA 116(a)(2)
SARA 116 (b)
SARA116(d)(l)
SARA 116(e)(l)
SARA116(e)(2)
GOAL
To the maximum extent practicable, (MEP) EPA shall have
conducted Preliminary Assessments at all sites on CERCLIS
at the time of enactment of SARA.
To the MEP, EPA shall have performed Site Investigations where
PAs have shown they were warranted.
All sites on CERCLIS at the time of enactment of SARA will be
evaluated for inclusion on the NPL.
EPA will commence at least 275 Remedial Investigations/
Feasibility Studies.
OR
EPA will commence 450 RI/FS
and an additional 20O RI/FS.
EPA will commence 175 Remedial Actions.
EPA will commence 200 additional Remedial Actions.
10/89
10/90
10/91
10/89
10/91
1-1
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
F.XHTRTT 1-2
QUALITATIVE LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY GOALS
^^W^^MHIB
SECTION GOAL
^^^^^H
SARA 121 (a) To the extent practicable, Remedial Actions shall be in accordance with the
NCP and shall be cost effective remedies.
SARA 121 (b) A preference shall be given to remedies that include, as their principal
element, treatment that permanently and significantly reduces the volume,
toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants.
RAs should be protective of human health and environment, cost effective,
and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or
resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
SARA 121 (d) Applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal standards and more stringent
State standards must be attained in CERCLA cleanups.
SARA 118 High priority for remedial action shall be given to sites at which the drinking
water supply has been contaminated.
CERCLA 104 (a) Primary attention in response actions should be given to public health threats.
NCP 300.61 (c) In determining the need for and in planning or undertaking Fund financed
action, the lead agency shall engage in prompt response, encourage state
participation in response actions, conserve Fund monies by encouraging
private party cleanups, be sensitive to local community concerns, rely on
established technology, but also consider alternative...technology, involve
the RRT...at appropriate stages, encourage involvement...by industry and
other experts, and encourage involvement of organizations to coordinate
responsible party actions, foster site cleanup, and provide technical advice
to the public.
INTEGRATED PROGRAM PRIORITIES
In FY89, the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE) and the Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) worked with the regions to develop a matrix
designed to identify and place in rough priority order the Superfund program's goals for
FY90 and the activities which support achievement of those objectives.
The matrix is designed to provide the following:
Identification of the most significant categories of program priorities,
arranged in order of importance where possible;
Listing of all the program activities that receive resources, grouped
according to their contribution to a program priority; and
Estimation of the funding level needed to support that activity.
1-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
The matrix provides a framework for establishing, testing and adjusting resource
levels. This matrix will be used by HQ and the regions in making trade off decisions
during:
Budget formulation;
Operating plan development and initial target setting and negotiation; and
Mid-year adjustment.
The overall organization of the matrix is governed by the following concepts:
After dealing with any emergency situations that may arise, the highest
priority for the Superfund program is to maintain ongoing projects. The
next highest priority is to move sites quickly into construction while
insuring that PRPs are always the first option for financing cleanup actions;
All of the activities listed in the matrix contribute in a significant manner to
Superfund program success. Therefore, priority setting must be couched in
terms of maintenance of an essential minimum baseline of activity across the
board; and
A baseline of supporting activities must be maintained to ensure that a
constant flow of projects is maintained across the remedial and removal
pipelines, and that the entire program maintains its operating integrity.
Use of the matrix is constrained by the following assumptions:
Although baseline levels may be adjusted, there is a minimum level of
activity that will be supported, even if all of the high priority activities that
fall under funding level "A" are not funded. The basic decision on the
baseline is the responsibility of the national program managers;
Proposed shifts in funding between activities during the course of an
operating budget year will be carefully scrutinized to assure their possibility
of implementation;
The ordering of the matrix may change from year to year in response to
Congressional or Agency initiatives; and
Shortfalls in priority activities that may lead to a requested reprogramming
are evaluated at a national level.
Exhibit 1-3, on the following page, is the integrated priority setting matrix.
1-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Priority Setting Matrix
PROGRAM PRIORITY
ACTIVITIES
FUNDING
LEVEL*
L Mitigate Immediate Threat
Classic Emergencies (Removal and
Remedial, Fund and Enforcement)
NPL Removals (Fund and
Enforcement)
AOsfor NPL Removals
B
B
II. Move Sites to Cleanup
A. Support Ongoing Work to Com-
pletion of Current Phase (Oper-
able Unit)
B. Take Enforcement Actions to En-
sure a Strong Enforcement Pre-
sence and to maximize Likelihood
of PRP Takeover
C. Fund RD and RA Starts Where
Enforcement Action is not
appropriate
D. Federal Facilities
Support Ongoing RD
Ongoing RA (Fund and PRP)
Ongoing RD/RA Negotiations
Ongoing RI/FS (Fund and PRP)
Ongoing 107 (SOL) Litigation
Ongoing 106 Litigation for Remedy
Ongoing 104 Access
Ongoing Compliance Enforcement
RD/RA Negotiations (New)
PRP RD/RA Starts
106 Settlement Referrals
106 UAOs for RD/RA
107 SOL Referrals
106 Litigation for Remedy
Mixed Funding RD and RA
RD Start (Fund)
RA Start (Fund)
Negotiate lAGs
Oversee lAGs
'A'= ALL and'B' = BASELINE
* "A" and "B" are designed to indicate degree of importance, not an absolute rule
with regard to funding. As used in this column "B" indicates that we continue to carry
out a level of activities consistent with prior year activity. "A" means all those activities
available to be done.
** Provided that timely special notice, special notice waiver or general notice with timelines has been issued
and extensions have been requested/approved consistent with Agency policy.
*** Consistent with cost recovery strategy.
(Note: All activities identified in the matrix are to be funded at least at a minimum baseline level.)
1-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
EXHTBTT y-3
Priority Setting Matrix (Cont.)
PROGRAM PRIORITY
ACTIVITIES
FUNDING
LEVEL*
Move Sites to Cleanup (continued)
E. Maximize Cost Recovery
Non-SOLRA Referrals
B
F. Initiate RI/FS and Other Activities
to Keep Pipeline Balanced
PRP RI/FS
Fund RI/FS
Listing Sites
State Enforcement RI/FS
B
B
B
B
G. Pre-Remedial, Removal,
Enforcement and
State Support Activities to
Support Long Term Goals
Non-NPL Time Critical Removals
AOs for Non-NPL Time Crit. Removal
Pre-Remedial (PA/SI)
107Non-SOLPre-RA Referrals
TAG Grants
Federal Facilities Pre-Remedial
Non-NPL PRP Search
Core Program Cooperative
Agreements
107 Administrative Settlements
B
B
B
B"*
B
B
B
B
B
New Initiatives
Essential Program Management
Elements
A. Critical Path Support Activities
PRP Searches
CLP
Removal Support
Remedial Project Support
Community Relations
Fund at
Level to
Support
Program
Integrity
B. Core Program Support
CERCLIS Database Management
Contract Management
Records Management including
Administrative Records
Program Management
State Program Support
Fund at
Level to
Support
Program
Integrity
'A' = ALL and 'B' = BASELINE
* "A" and "B" are designed to indicate degree of importance, not an absolute rule
with regard to funding. As used in this column "B" indicates that we continue to carry
out a level of activities consistent with prior year activity. "A" means all those activities
available to be done.
*** Consistent with cost recovery strategy
(Note: All activities identified in the matrix are to be funded at least at a minimum baseline level.)
1-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
REMEDIAL PKOKRAM GOALS
The remedial program will continue the efforts begun in FY89 to improve and better
integrate the response and enforcement management approach. The program priorities of
moving sites toward cleanup result in the following remedial objectives:
Issue special notice, where appropriate, at all sites where a Record of
Decision (ROD) has been signed. Make early decisions as to whether a
good faith offer has been made and termiiiate negotiations that do not appear
to be leading to settlement. Use appropriate incentives for settlement (e.g.,
mixed funding). Also use the judicial and administrative authorities of
Section 106 to bring about a settlement or compel a PRP response.
Continue an active remedial action strategy - the program should continue
to work toward the mandates set forth in SARA by moving sites through the
remedial pipeline in a timely and cost effective manner. The number of
PRP-lead Remedial Designs (RD) and Remedial Actions (RA) must be
maximized. For those sites where PRPs are not viable or available, the
regions will use the environmental prioritization scheme (discussed later in
this Chapter) to determine which projects to fund and which to place on
temporary hold. The funding outlook for FY91 looks the same as FY89
and FY90 and hard decisions on fund balancing and the use of alternative
technologies in order to control outyear construction costs will have to be
made.
Alternative technologies greater emphasis will be placed on the evaluation
and selection of alternative technologies and the employment of the
technologies on-site. Treatability studies will be an important part of the
RI/FS ensuring that adequate data exist to effectively evaluate each
technology prior to remedy selection.
Make effective use of other agency expertise - It is important that EPA
make full use of construction management expertise available from the
Corps of Engineers (COE) and the Bureau of Reclamation (BUREC), and
that EPA staff avoid duplicative oversight of projects assigned to these
agencies. Our goal for FY90 is to assign oversight responsibility to the
COE or BUREC or 65% to 75% of RP, RD, and RA projects started on
FY90. In addition, a significant portion of Federal Lead, Fund financed RD
and RA Projects should be assigned to the COE or BUREC.
Implementation of a well managed program - FY90 represents the third
year of a strategy calling for full funding of all RI/FS projects started prior
to or during FY90. Successful implementation of this strategy requires that
regions meet the RI/FS cost reduction goals initiated in FY89. This requires
that RI/FS costs be reduced to a national average of $750,000 per operable
unit (OU) and $1,100,000 per site exclusive of treatability studies. Both the
operable unit and site goals are important. The operable unit goal primarily
affects year-to-year funding limitations. The site goal is needed for long
term cost management and to eliminate the incentive a region may have to
break sites into operable units to increase its annual budget. A region's
RI/FS budget is developed based on the full funding strategy. "Mega Sites"
are excluded from the operable unit and site level cost reduction goals
1-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
described above. However, regions will be required to develop a Mega-site
Management Plan characterizing site problems and management options for
mega sites. Mega-sites are defined as sites where RI/FS work at the site
exceeds $3 million.
Building public confidence - In FY90, regions will begin reporting on
environmental indicators of progress in the Superfund program. In
addition, the use of the environmental prioritization approach will ensure
that the Agency will be able to communicate to the public which RA projects
will be initiated. (The environmental prioritization approach is discussed
later in Chapter I.)
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM GOALS
The goals of the Enforcement Program are to maximize efficient PRP responses, to
maximize cost recovery to the Fund and to send a clear message to the PRP community that
inaction is costly. To reach these goals, the following priorities have been identified for
FY90.
Aggressively seek settlement for PRP response in order to promote PRP
participation in the response program, and to assure cost recovery, PRP
searches should be comprehensive and completed early. General and
special notice letters should be issued in a timely manner. Well planned
negotiations need to be initiated and completed within the special notice
moratorium or the schedules in a general notice letter. Regional
Administrator or Assistant Administrator extensions should be used only
where settlement appears likely. Regions are encouraged to develop
enforcement site management plans to lay out their strategy for a site. Use
of the enforcement site management plan or negotiation strategy develops
positions to ensure that roles/responsibilities of Department of Justice
(DOJ), Regional Counsel, Office of Enforcement Compliance Monitoring
(OECM), and the regional and HQ program staff are outlined at the start of
negotiations. The settlements incentives/disincentives concepts are to be
applied at multipary sites. Effective use of the settlement authorities under
SARA (e.g., mixed funding and de minimis) should be applied where
appropriate.
Negotiate and execute Section 120 Interagencv Agreements at Federal
Facilities - regions should issue notice letters and conduct 90-day
negotiations to execute 3-party Interagency Agreement (IAG) at Federal
Facilities on or proposed for the NPL for RI/FS through RD/RA. Regions
should coordinate negotiations and enforcement strategies among
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA), RCRA and Office of Regional Council (ORC) offices
as well as with headquarters. The overall priorities for Federal Facilities are
to (1) oversee work at Federal Facilities pursuant to a Section 120 IAG; (2)
complete negotiations at any facilities that may have slipped from FY89 to
FY90; and (3) negotiate lAGs at the remaining proposed and final NPL
facilities.
1-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Effective PRP oversight -- having achieved settlement, regions should
diligently monitor PRP compliance and take actions to enforce settlements.
Regions should use stipulated penalties and dispute resolution to enforce
compliance, especially where schedules are not met or work products are of
poor quality. Compliance status must be maintained in CERCLIS.
Cost recovery -- Cost recovery actions should maximize returns to the
Fund. Statute of limitations sites should be addressed first. Demand letters
should be issued prior to cost recovery actions.
. Pursuit of non-settlers ~ Section 106 actions or cost recovery should be
sought against viable non-settlers where there are partial settlements for less
than complete relief. Actions should be filed in a timely manner so as to
discourage recalcitrants and encourage settlement.
Increase the use of Section 106 orders and litigation regions should
consider issuing unilateral administrative orders (UAO) for remedial and
removal actions to compel a PRP to initiate response actions and/or
encourage settlements and refer Section 106 actions without settlement for
RD/RAs, especially where RA funds are not available and there are viable
PRPs.
Support state participation in the enforcement program states are playing
an increased role in the Superfund Enforcement process and regions should
encourage state participation by entering into Superfund Memoranda of
Agreement (SMOA) or Cooperative Agreements.
ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIZATION INITIATIVE
In FY90, resources for enforcement activities and fund-financed RAs are
constrained. These resource problems have lead to the development of a RA prioritization
approach which ensures that the highest environmental priority sites are addressed. The
prioritization approach is not absolute. Other environmental, programmatic and other
implementation factors could cause a site to be elevated in priority. It is important to realize
that all NPL sites which require further action after the RWS are, by definition, priority
sites. The issue is their relative priority.
Criteria For RA Environmental Priorirization
Prioritization begins with the ROD. A set of environmental criteria have been
developed and each region determines which criteria are applicable to a particular ROD.
The RODs are then grouped according to their relative environmental priority. There are a
subset of sites and projects that will not be evaluated under the environmental prioritization
criteria. These are:
Small dollar RA projects which will lead to deletion upon completion;
Phased construction projects or actions that have been incrementally funded;
Mixed funding (preauthorization) response actions; and
Long term response activities.
1-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
The prioritization criteria, which are contained in Exhibit 1-4, were based on the
following principles:
Protection of human health is the highest priority;
Actual threats to sensitive ecosystems and endangered species also are high
priority;
Priority is increased as the risk becomes nearer in time;
Most priority levels have several factors, and a ROD receives higher priority
if more than one factor is met; and
Only results from a full Health Assessment may be used in ranking priority.
ATSDR may do a preliminary health assessment based on PA/SI data, but
this should not be used to determine the priority for post-ROD activities.
A variety of other environmental criteria can also influence which projects will be
funded. These include:
The degree to which actual exposure exceeds health based levels;
The stability of the site; and
Sites which may be considered of a relatively lower environmental priority
as a result of a potential, not actual, threat where a variety of factors suggest
that if the region did not accurately project the likelihood of near-term risk,
public health, environmental and dollar costs could escalate considerably.
Application Of Prioritization To Fund Financed Remedial Actions
Environmental prioritization is the primary consideration in determining what sites
are funded for fund-financed construction. However, it is also desirable to maintain a
balance of both RA starts and completions. Therefore a moderate level of RAs which will
lead to completions will be funded regardless of the relative environmental priority of the
operable unit. Protocols for managing the queue will be established before the beginning
of the fiscal year.
A variety of other programmatic factors can also influence which projects will be
funded. These include:
Escalating costs ~ remedy is certain and delays in funding will cause a
sharp rise in remedy costs due to need for redesign under changing site
conditions;
Advancing technology - this factor may cause a region to delay funding an
RA project while testing a more cost-effective remedy or quickly funding
site work could enable the technology to be used more cost-effectively at
other sites;
Contracting obligations - Agency has contracted for RA and the effect of
delayed funding would be to break federal obligation under the terms of the
contract;
1-9
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
PRIORITY 1
pyyiTRTT 1-4
RA PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
-
Immediate or imminent threat to human health as determined by
ATSDR or other.
PRIORITY 2 I Actual exposure or exposure occurring within the short term* which
results in:
risk to human health greater than risk-based site
remediation goals; or
risk to human health greater than a hazard index of 1; or
contamination which exceeds health-based ARARs.
An ATSDR determination than an actual public health
threat exists.
Actual or short term threat to endangered species.
PRIORITY 3 I An ATSDR determination that a probable health threat exists.
Existence of an actual or short term* threat to sensitive
environments.
PRIORITY 4 I Potential for exceeding any ARAR in the long term.
Potential for exceeding risk-based site remediation goals in the
long term.
ATSDR determination that a potential public health problem exists.
PRIORITY 5 | Potential threat to endangered species.
Potential threat to sensitive environments.
* Short term means the amount of time not exceeding twice the time of the
planned remedial action.
Enforcement considerations priority funding is not available in support of
a priority enforcement action;
Priority RA action is linked to another site for example, an incinerator
brought on to a priority site is planned to be used for another site; and
Schedule - if the schedule for a priority site slips beyond FY90, a site of
relatively lower environmental priority which is ready to proceed in FY90
may be moved up in the queue. For this reason, regions should ensure that
RD projects continue to meet their completion schedules.
1-10
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
; activities must be
A thorough responsible party search has been completed, after which
general notice with negotiating deadlines and/or special notice, if
appropriate, and reasonable opportunity for willing PRP negotiations has
been afforded.
Large scale projects have been evaluated to determine whether aspects of the
project can be "phase-funded" consistent with a well engineered approach to
the site without increasing cost or risk to health or the environment.
Remedial design must be 95% complete.
State match must be available through a signed Superfund State Contract for
Federal-lead sites.
Site access for RA has been secured.
Documentation
The initial prioritization is performed by the regions. All sites within a region that
will be ready for funding in a given year are examined. Once the region has evaluated their
RA projects against the prioritization criteria, the documentation and resulting priority
category within which that site is located should be sent to HQ. For RAs scheduled to
begin in FY90, documentation must be submitted to HQ by June 23,1989. Only projects
where documentation has been submitted will be considered for funding.
The Decision Making Process
Decisions on funding will be made by a panel composed of HQ and regional senior
management. In general, the following rules will apply:
Only when sites are of comparable risk, will funding for a large site be
postponed in favor of funding for a number of smaller sites;
Projects in the first three priority categories will never sit for more than one
year awaiting funding or litigation;
Projects of lessor environmental priority may be queued for several years if
there are sufficient projects of higher or equal priority except when
recalcitrant PRPs are present. In such cases, the site will not sit for more
than a specified period of time before funding or litigation proceeds.
Substantial flexibility will be allowed when a region needs to make a point
with a recalcitrant PRP even if a project is not scheduled for funding; and
Each region will receive some level of RA funding based on the number of
sites scheduled to begin during the FY.
The funding decisions will be re-evaluated at mid-year and throughout the
third and fourth quarters and adjustments may be made at these points, both
within and among regional RA budgets. As the end of the fiscal year
approaches, the more likely a lower priority project that is "ready to go" will
1-11
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
be funded. As the result of RP takeovers and project slippages, these lower
priority projects could become a reality. It is important, therefore, to
complete RD projects on schedule, and have projects ready to go, regardless
of where the project fits in the environmental priority scheme.
CERCLIS Implementation
FY89 RA projects that will not be started because of funding constraints should be
shown by placing a 'Q' (queued) in the Strategic Planning and Management
System/Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SPMS/SCAP) Target Status
(C2110). The planned start date should be changed to FY90. This information should be
in CERCLIS by the July 10,1989 pull data for final FY90 negotiations.
By September 8,1989, regions should identify which of their FY90 RA projects
will be funded and which will be queued. Projects that will be funded should be identified
by placing a 'P (primary) in the SPMS/SCAP Target Status field (C2110) and 'APR1
(approved) in the Funding Priority Status (3225). Projects that have gone through the RA
prioritization decision making process and were not funded should be identified by placing
a 'Q' in the SPMS/SCAP Target Status (C3225). Other RAs that mavbe ready to begin in
FY90 should be coded as 'Alternate' in both the SPMS/SCAP Target Status and Funding
Priority Status Fields. The SPMS/SCAP Target Status and the Funding Priority Status
must be maintained throughout the FY. If queued projects are funded the 'Q' should be
replaced with a 'P1 and the 'ALT' with 'APR.1
During the fiscal year (FY), regions should also maintain the planned start and
completion dates for all RA projects. If a project that has been queued is ready to proceed
and the planned start date has passed without funds, the planned start date should be moved
to the next quarter.
Queued RA projects which experience schedule slippages which cause them to be
moved out of the current FY will have to be reevaluated for funding. Prior to the
preliminary negotiation of future year targets the 'Q' in the SPMS/SCAP target should be
changed to a 'P1 or an 'A' (Alternate).
PRE-REMEDIAL PROGRAM GOALS
The FY89 Site Inspection (SI) completion goals imposed by SARA were met in
only two regions. However, the program must continue to make steady progress toward
eliminating the SI backlog prior to reauthorization. Resources will be placed wherever Sis
are needed to carry the program forward.
The last SARA pre-remedial goal requires all sites in CERCLIS as of the date of
enactment to be evaluated for inclusion on the NPL by October 1990. The transition to the
new Hazard Ranking System (HRS) will be completed during FY90 and the program must
concentrate now on using the new HRS to score sites. It is doubtful that the SARA goal
can be met, but as regions work toward eliminating the SI backlog, they should also
evaluate the NPL potential of those sites.
The regional objectives of the pre-remedial program are as follows:
Continue EPA's policy of conducting preliminary assessments (PAs) within
one year of CERCLIS listing in order to prevent the build-up of a PA
backlog;
1-12
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Maintain site inspection (SI) momentum during the transition to the revised
HKJ>, stressing commitment to completing pre-SARA sites within the
context of "worst sites first";
Review all completed Sis to determine which sites require listing site
inspections (LSIs) or the development of HRS listing packages i e "SI
reassessment".
Implement the Environmental Priorities Initiatives (EPI).
Enter all pre-remedial decisions/priority recommendations at each step of the
evaluation process and all appropriate identifiers (RCRA, Federal Facilities,
Indian lands, etc.) into CERCLIS as rapidly as possible to facilitate overall
program planning and to expedite response to Congressional and public
inquiries;
Gradually phase in use of the revised HRS in all parts of the pre-remedial
process as data collection requirements become more clearly defined;
Assist Headquarters to finalize some 400 currently proposed NPL sites by
providing input to EPA's response-to-comment activity; and
As stated in both the FY88 and FY89 Pre-remedial guidance, state, Field
Investigation Team (FIT) and EPA staff conducting PAs, PA site
reconnaissances and Sis should consider the need for removal activities at
all sites evaluated. Removal personnel must be notified in all instances
where evidence of potential fire, explosion or direct exposure hazards exist
or where removal activities may substantially improve a hazardous situation.
REMOVAL PROGRAM GOALS
In FY90, as in the past, the key goal of the removal program is to ensure that
resources are available for time critical removals and not diverted to less critical removal
actions. Regions should prioritize time critical removals in the following order:
Classic emergencies;
Removals at NPL sites; and
Time critical removals at non-NPL sites posing major environmental and
public health threats that can not be addressed by other authorities.
Non-time critical removals should be undertaken only as resources allow. Non-
time critical removals at NPL sites should be planned and budgeted site-specifically. For
all non-time critical removals, regions should involve states and responsible parties to the
maximum extent practicable. In classic emergencies, PRPs should be notified orally and
given up to 24 hours to respond, depending on the situation. Oral notification should be
followed up in writing. For time critical removals, enforcement activities (PRP searches,
negotiations and issuance of an order) should be initiated as soon as the site is identified
and scheduled for completion based on the timing of the removal start.
Regions should give more attention to conducting removal investigations at NPL
sites. Many of these sites have never been looked at by removal personnel and may be a
substantially improved by removal activity. To the extent resources allow, regions should
conduct removal investigations at all NPL sites that have never received such a review.
1-13
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
FEDERAL FACILITIES PROGRAM GOALS
The primary focus of the program is on Federal Facilities currently on or proposed
to the NPL and entering into Section 120 Federal Facility Agreements/Interagency
Agreements (FFA/IAG) with these facilities. The first priority for FY90 is to continue to
oversee work at facilities with §120 FFA/IAGs signed in FY89. The second pnonty is to
complete §120 FFA/IAG negotiations at facilities which were targeted in FY89 but slipped
to FY90 and the third priority is to enter into § 120 FFA/IAGs at all facilities that were not
targeted for § 120 FFA/IAGs in FY89. All proposed and final Federal Facilities, including
Update 9 sites, should have signed §120 FFA/IAGs by the end of FY90, except for several
Federal Facilities which will be targeted in FY91.
Many of the Federal Facilities will have significant RCRA/CERCLA integration
issues. Regions, in conjunction with states, need to address these issues relative to the
scope of the FFA/IAG early in the negotiations process. Both RCRA and CERCLA
program staff, as well as the Office of Regional Counsel, need to be involved in these
discussions.
CHEMICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND PREVENTION
PROGRAM
The main goal of the Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Program
(CEPP) is to prevent and prepare for chemical accidents. The program's authorities are
CERCLA and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, also
know as Title IH of SARA. CEPP's FY90 SPMS measures focus on key activities to meet
the above goal, specifically State status reports, technical assistance activities, EPA
assistance with emergency simulations, chemical safety audits, and the Accidental Release
Information Program measure aimed at gathering and analyzing information on accidental
releases and prevention methods. Enforcement measures have been added. The SCAP
measures for CEPP complement and supplement the SPMS measures and include outreach
activities and training to Federal, state, and local governments and industry officials.
Because the deadline for completion of initial Local Emergency Planning Committee
emergency response plans occurred in FY89, review, exercise, revision, and improvement
of plans will be emphasized in FY90. Plans must be reviewed, revised, and updated at
least annually. Regional Response Teams (RRTs) may also review plans.
Reporting by regions of SPMS information in the CEPP program does not need to
be entered into CERCLIS. The reporting mechanism is outside the CERCLIS system.
Earthquake and National Security Emergency Preparedness Programs
The plan for Federal response to a catastrophic earthquake was mandated by the
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act. The plan, which is being developed by 25 Federal
departments and agencies and is coordinated by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), is an effort to improve Federal, state, and local preparedness and
response to a catastrophic earthquake. EPA's responsibility in plan development is to act
as the primary agency for Emergency Support Function (ESF) #10 - "Hazardous
Materials", and as a support agency to other ESFs. Each EPA region which has a high-
risk, high population area for a catastrophic earthquake within its boundaries must develop
a risk-area specific, hazardous materials annex to the multi-agency regional response plan
which operationally identifies how the agency and its support agencies would respond to
multiple hazardous material incidents, including radiological incidents, during a
1-14
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01C
catastrophic earthquake. In regions containing more than one catastrophic risk area, risk-
area specific sub-plans are necessitated.
The purpose of the National Security Emergency Preparedness Program is to
ensure the performance of essential functions of the agency in the event of a national
security emergency. EPA's responsibilities are outlined in Executive Order 12656 and
related directives. Each region is required to establish and maintain a designated team of
personnel for such events; participate in EPA, FEMA or other agency sponsored planning
sessions, workshops, training and exercises; and assist in preparing program support
materials.
1-15
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
CHAPTER II
SUPERFIJND COMPREHENSIVE
ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN PROCEDURES
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
CHAPTER H - SUPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE
ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN PROCEDURES
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Following are the actions regional managers must take to
comply with the requirements described in this Chapter.
In order to acquire a more in-depth understanding of
these requirements, the Chapter itself should be read.
Most of the Superfund Budget is based on the SCAP.
HQ will not recognize an SPMS/SCAP accomplishment
unless it is recorded in CERCLIS by the specified pull
date.
The preliminary and final distribution of resources for
the upcoming fiscal year is based on planning
information in SCAP as of the beginning of April and
the beginning of August, respectively.
No FTE are given to projects incorrectly coded and
scheduled in CERCLIS.
The preliminary and final SPMS/SCAP targets are
established in March and August, respectively.
Response and enforcement funding needs identifying in
January form the basis for the annual regional budgets.
RA cost estimates for outyear budget should be derived
using the draft FS, the ROD or Cost of Remedial
Action (CORA) model.
Final 'approved' funding requests must be within the
annual regional budget proposed by HQ.
On the fifth working day of February and July, HQ
pulls SCAP data from CERCLIS for negotiations.
On the fifth working day of each month, HQ pulls
planning and accomplishment data from CERCLIS to
support a variety of official reporting requirements.
SCAP/SPMS amendments require HQ concurrence and
approval.
Changes to SPMS should not be made simply because a
target cannot be met.
Final SPMS amendments should be submitted from the
Regional Administrator to the AA SWER by April 15.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
CHAPTER H - SUPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE
ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN PROCEDURES (Cont'd)
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Amendment requests will not be approved unless
they are in CERCLIS.
Planning and accomplishment data should be
updated at least monthly.
Regions will not receive credit for an
accomplishment unless the appropriate site name
is reflected in the CERHELP Targets and
Accomplishments file.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
INTRODUCTION
*u o 15eS,uPerfundComPrehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP) process is used by
the Superfund program to plan, budget, track, and evaluate progress toward Superfund site
cleanup. The SCAP planning process is a dynamic, ongoing effort that has a significant
unpact on Superfund resource allocation and program evaluation. Planned obligations and
Strategic Planning and Management System (SPMS) targets and measures are generated
through SCAP and influence the Superfund budget and evaluation process. SCAP
planning is a day-to-day responsibility of the regions. A semi-annual process has been
established through which HQ and regions formally negotiate plans for the future.
CERCLIS serves as the conduit for the SCAP process. CERCLIS provides both HQ and
regions with direct access to the same data. Reports can be produced allowing for daily,
interactive updates of planning and site cleanup progress information.
BACKGROUND
The SCAP process is crucial to Superfund program planning, tracking, and
evaluation. As the Superfund program's central planning mechanism, it is interrelated with
all Agency and Superfund program specific planning and management systems, such as the
Agency Operating Guidance, the Superfund budget, SPMS, and the Superfund workload
models. The Agency Operating Guidance defines Superfund goals for the upcoming year.
SCAP targets/measures are designed to reflect the Agency Operating Guidance. In some
cases, new SCAP categories are developed, or the projections for SCAP activities are
adjusted to match the Agency's goals.
Most of the Superfund program's budget is based on the SCAP. The budget is
developed 18 months prior to the fiscal year being planned. For example, the SCAP
existing in the third quarter of FY90 will be used to formulate the FY92 budget. The site
schedules reflected in the SCAP serve as the foundation for determining outyear budget
priorities, such as the dollar levels to be requested in the budget and the total level of full-
time equivalents (FTEs) to be made available for distribution through the workload model.
Because dollars for Fund-financed RAs and RDs dominate Superfund's budget, it is critical
that the SCAP identify RD and RA candidates and projected funding needs. RA cost
estimates should be derived using the draft Feasibility Study (FS), the Record of Decision
(ROD) or Cost of Remedial Action (CORA) Model estimates.
The Superfund budget provides the basis for the Agency Operating Plan. The
Operating Plan, which is finalized prior to the fiscal year, establishes the funds available to
the regions for performing Superfund work.
SPMS is used by EPA to set and monitor the environmental objectives identified in
the Agency's Operating Guidance for a fiscal year. National and regional SPMS goals for
Superfund are established and tracked through SCAP. SPMS targets are a subset of those
contained in SCAP. SPMS targets and measures are reported quarterly by HQ and the
regions to the Office of Management Systems and Evaluation (OMSE). OMSE tracks
regional progress toward SPMS goals on a quarterly basis as part of the overall Agency
performance evaluation process. HQ will not recognize a SPMS accomplishment unless it
is recorded in CERCLIS.
H-l
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
The Superfund workload models distribute FTEs for each program and region.
There are two Superfund program models, the Site and Spill Response model, which
distributes resources for the pre-remedial, remedial and the removal programs, and die
Technical Enforcement model which distributes enforcement and Federal Facility FTEs.
SCAP plans form the basis for the workload models. The preliminary and final
distributions of regional and program resources for the upcoming fiscal year are based on
the planning information contained in SCAP in April and August, respectively.
SCAP/CERCLIS RELATIONSHIP
CERCLIS is the data base that is used by HQ and regional personnel for Superfund
site, program and project management. CERCLIS contains the official inventory of
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) sites and supports current site planning and tracking functions. In CERCLIS,
financial data are integrated with data from the pre-remedial, remedial, removal and
enforcement programs. Pre-remedial, remedial and removal activities are called "events" in
CERCLIS. Enforcement actions are called "activities". SCAP information is a subset of
the site data collected through CERCLIS. Data entry responsibilities and report retrieval
abilities are at the regional level so that regional managers and users play a central role in
maintaining and using the data base. HQ relies on CERCLIS as the sole repository of
information on plans and accomplishments.
CERCLIS consists of two data bases: a site-specific data base, CERCLIS, and a
non-site specific data base, CERHELP. The site-specific data base contains site, operable
unit (OU), event, enforcement activity, technical and financial information. Each week
financial data from the agency-wide integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) are
transferred into CERCLIS. The data transferred include such information as commitments,
decommitments, obligations, deobligations, outlays, credits, transaction date, obligating
document number and funding vehicle.
CERHELP contains information such as SCAP/SPMS targets and
accomplishments, Advice of Allowance (AOA), budget, and information on non-site
specific activities. The CERHELP data base consists of the following separate files:
The Targets and Accomplishments System is the data file used for setting
and tracking SCAP/SPMS targets and measures. Preliminary and final
regional SCAP/SPMS commitments are entered into the system by the HQ
SCAP Coordinator. Target data are updated by the region to reflect SCAP
adjustments and by HQ to reflect approved amendments. Regional
reporting of non-site specific accomplishments is also performed through
this system. Data from this system are used in all "official" SCAP Targets
and Accomplishment Reports and are the baseline for regional evaluation.
The Budget Control/Advice of Allowance file is used by HQ for SCAP
budget development and control and for tracking and reporting the AOA
process.
Planning and tracking of non-site/incident activities and financial data are
accomplished through the Non-Site/Incident Activity system. Regions are
responsible for entering and maintaining SCAP non-site specific
information.
H-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Using CERHELP.regions will be able to track planning data and reconcile the site-
specific planning in CERCLIS with the AOA and SCAP/SPMS targets. It serves as an
important management tool for regions and HQ.
SCAP reports comprise over sixty percent of the total volume of reports generated
by users in the CERCLIS system. In response to concerns voiced by users, the method for
generating SCAP reports is being revised. By the start of FY90, Regions will be able to
generate standard reports or customize the reports to select a specific data base, a specific
region, a particular state, remedial project manager or EPA ID. Users will also be able to
specify the fiscal year and quarter. Instructions and further information on the new SCAP
report menu restructuring is found in Appendix E.
Additional information including regional responsibilities for CERCLIS and
CERHELP can be found in the CERCLIS Users Reference Manual.
SCAP ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
HQ responsibilities for maintaining the SCAP in CERCLIS include:
Entering negotiated preliminary and final SCAP/SPMS targets and measures
and site back-up in the CERHELP Targets and Accomplishments data file;
Updating the numbers and site back-up in the Targets and Accomplishments
data file to reflect approved amendments to the SCAP throughout the year;
Entering preliminary and final budget data in the CERHELP Budget
Control/Advice Of Allowance (BC/AOA) system;
Determining the AOA based on SCAP planned activities in CERCLIS;
Entering and maintaining AOA data in the CERHELP BC/AOA system; and
Responding to regional requests for changes in plans through the
amendment and change request process.
Regions have complete responsibility for maintaining CERCLIS and selected
portions of the CERHELP data base. At a minimum this requires:
For sites which are beginning the RI/FS in the current or next fiscal year,
planning and scheduling all remedial events and enforcement activities
through the NPL deletion process;
Keeping SCAP planning data current. This includes updating site schedules
established at the RI/FS stage and RA cost estimate when better planning
data become available;
Updating the site back-up in the Targets and Accomplishments data file to
reflect adjustments to the SCAP throughout the year;
Reporting accomplishments as they occur,
Reconciling CERCLIS financial data with IFMS;
II-3
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01C
Entering and maintaining quarterly planning and accomplishments reporting
for non-site specific activities; and
Preparing SCAP amendments and change requests.
The regional Information Management Coordinator (IMC) is a senior position
which serves as regional lead for all Superfund program and systems management
activities. The IMC serves as the liaison between the Waste Management Division and the
Environmental Services and Management Divisions. The following lead responsibilities
for regional program planning and management rest with the IMC:
Coordinate SCAP/SPMS planning, development and reporting;
Ensure regional accomplishments are accurately reflected in CERCLIS;
Reconcile IFMS data transferred into CERCLIS;
Provide liaison to HQ on SCAP/SPMS and program evaluation issues;
Coordinate regional evaluations by HQ; and
Ensure that the quality of CERCLIS data are such that accomplishments and
planning data can be accurately retrieved from the system.
SCAP CHANGE CONTROL PROCEDURES
Stability in the SCAP through the year is essential to the success of SCAP planning
and accomplishment reporting/evaluation procedures. As a result, the following
procedures were implemented in FY89 to control changes to the SCAP:
Changes (including additions or deletions) to the SCAP targets, measures,
definitions, methodologies or processes must be presented by the Office
Director for the program office proposing the change;
All proposed changes must be sent to the regions and all other program
offices for review and comment prior to implementation;
The decision on whether to proceed with the proposed change must be
documented in writing. If the proposed change will be implemented, an
addendum to the Program Management Manual will be published.
OVERVIEW OF THE SCAP PROCESS
The SCAP process generates data that fulfill the following functions:
Tracking of accomplishments against targets/measures;
Updating planning (schedules and funds) for the current fiscal year;
Developing planning data for the upcoming fiscal year; and
Providing data for outyear budget planning purposes.
It is essential that SCAP data remain current and up-to-date and that
accomplishments be reported as soon as they occur. Planning information should be
reviewed on at least a weekly basis and information updated as necessary.
H-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
the 1S imp0rtant tecause of its ««« ^^t on
me '
's budget. Regions are required to manage their funds and
re's b eStabUShed *?*** Ae ^ <*»** upS^R
region s budget must be reprogrammed to meet unexpected contingencies.
^f otiati°ns, and throughout the third and fourth
n f 11** acheSIed$r ^nding ba^d on the environmental prioritization
B 5?S A *?? Uy/ssess.^ to ^tify schedule slippage. If it appears that planned
RAs with approved funding will not be ready to proceed in FY90, adjustments may be
made within and between regional RA budgets.
EXHTBTT TT-1
SCAP PLANNING YEAR
SECOND QUARTER HANIT4RY/FRRRTTARV IQOm
Revise FY90 annual budget ceilings to reflect first and second quarter
performance and revised plans for the remainder of the year
Update and negotiate planning information in CERCLIS for the third and fourth
quarter FY90
Review slippage in FY90 targets for development of action strategies
Reassess the remedial action funding strategy
Negotiate preliminary FY91 SCAP/SPMS targets and measures
Negotiate preliminary annual regional budgets for FY91
Determine preliminary FY91FTE allocations based on the
preliminary targets and measures
Provide complete site schedules including planned RA obligations to
allow HQ to project the outyear budget (FY92)
Negotiate third and fourth quarter enforcement AOA
FOURTH QUARTER (JULY 1990)
Finalize FTEs for FY91
Establish final SCAP/SPMS commitments for FY91
Establish FY91 annual regional budget
PROCEDURES FOR ANNUAL TARGET SETTING
The process for the development of a fiscal year's SCAP and SPMS
targets/measures begins with the SCAP developed during the second quarter of the
previous fiscal year. Preliminary targets/measures for the upcoming fiscal year are set by
early March and used to derive the preliminary FTE allocations for the coming year. No
FTE are given to projects that are incorrectly coded and scheduled in
CERCLIS. All targets/measures are negotiated and numbers are established only after
discussions between Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), Office of
H-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE), and the regions. Final SCAP and SPMS targets
are set in the fourth quarter SCAP which is finalized in August. Final targets/measures also
involve HQ/regiona][negotiations. The dates for pulling CERCLIS information that will be
used for negotiations can be found in the Manager's Schedule of Significant Events found
at the beginning of this Manual.
The procedures for target setting for the upcoming fiscal year are as follows:
At the beginning of the second quarter HQ sends to the regions initial targets
and planning estimates based on the SCAP Methodologies (SCAP
Methodologies for FY91 are presented in Appendix A).
Regions will respond to proposed SCAP targets/measures through
CERCLIS and CERHELP within the timeframes established for the second
quarter SCAP negotiations. To adequately plan for the year, a region must
make decisions on the status of projects. States and Regional Counsel
should be consulted prior to making these decisions. Remedial and
enforcement projects should be identified as either "Primary" (P) or
"Alternate" (A) in the SCAP/SPMS Target Status field (C2110 and C1725)
in CERCLIS. Primary projects represent those that have the greatest
likelihood of meeting the schedules in CERCLIS. Alternates represent sites
that can be substituted for primary targets. The negotiated number of
primary projects will be used to determine SCAP/SPMS preliminary
commitments. A sufficient number of alternate projects should be
maintained to replace primary projects which experience slippage or are
deferred because of revised project priorities. A region should identify
alternate projects to ensure that it can maintain a steady pipeline of remedial
activity. At this time the schedules for queued RA projects should be
reevaluated. Projects experiencing slippage which will lead to a planned
start date in the upcoming fiscal year must be reclassified. The 'Q' (queued)
in the SCAP/SPMS target status field must be changed to a 'P' or 'A.' The
'Q1 should only be found on RA projects scheduled to begin in the current
FY. (See Exhibit II-2 for an example of the use of primary or alternate
target status field.)
The regional response to non-site specific targets or planning estimates
should be reported in the Targets and Accomplishments file in CERHELP.
The regional target or planning estimate must be entered into CERHELP
with the appropriate activity code and a "Proposed" (P) in the Version data
field in CERHELP. Appendix D identifies the targets and measures which
are planned on a site-specific vs. non-site specific basis.
Regions must also identify FY91 remedial and enforcement funding needs
in CERCLIS and CERHELP. States should be consulted to ensure that
State-lead activities and State funding needs are accurately reflected in
SCAP. At this time, the region only needs to provide the planned quarter of
obligation, the budget source, amount, and contractor vehicle for Response
funding needs. Appendix G contains the CERCLIS coding instructions for
requesting Case Budget funds.
HQ/regional negotiations occur during the second quarter (A separate
negotiation schedule is sent to the regions). Action strategies developed for
current year performance problems are a factor in the negotiation of targets
and measures.
n-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Draft final targets/measures are set after completion of the negotiations in
early March. These are used for the preliminary workload distribution.
Based on the fourth quarter SCAP reflected in CERCLIS and CERHELP, a
second round of negotiations is held to finalize the targets and planning
estimates and the regional budget. At this time, only minor changes to
targets and measures developed during the second quarter should occur.
These negotiations are conducted in early August and final targets, measures
and associated budgets are in place by early September.
In preparation for the fourth quarter SCAP negotiations, final proposed
regional budget ceilings for removal, remedial and enforcement programs
will be sent to the regions. Those remedial events or enforcement activities
which have the greatest likelihood of requiring funding during the fiscal
year that are within the region's budget allocation should be identified by
placing "Approved" (APR) in the Funding Priority Status field in CERCLIS
and CERHELP. The total of all approved funding must not exceed the
budget ceilings or HQ will not initiate negotiations. "Alternate" (ALT)
projects are a pool of projects which are moving toward the point of
obligation. As with primary and alternate SCAP/SPMS targets and
measures, projects with alternate funds may be substituted for approved
projects which experience slippage or are deferred due to changing
priorities. Activities/projects identified as alternate will also form the basis
for any requests for supplemental funding. For all events (RI/FS, RD, RA)
scheduled to begin during the fiscal year, the "APR" funding status can only
be placed on funds for sites which are coded as "P" SCAP/SPMS targets.
For example, only RI/FS starts that are primary SCAP/SPMS targets will be
used by HQ to establish the RI/FS budget. (See Exhibit E-2 for an example
of the use of the funding priority status field.)
The SCAP/SPMS Target Status should also be updated prior to fourth
quarter negotiations.
Any site scheduling or target changes that result from the negotiation of
preliminary or final targets/measures must be entered into CERCLIS by the
regions. At this point, regions should also reflect the RA prioritization
funding decisions in CERCLIS.
Written concurrence of negotiated targets and budget levels will be obtained
at the close of negotiating sessions between HQ and each region.
HQ will enter preliminary and final commitments including the site-specific
back-up where appropriate into the Targets and Accomplishments file in the
CERHELP non-site specific data base.
Targets and measures, site back-up, and the regional budget are sent to the
Assistant Administrator for approval in early September. They are then
submitted to the Office of Management Systems and Evaluation as final
SPMS targets and are used for final FTE distribution.
n-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
EXHIBIT II-2
PRIMARY VS. ALTERNATE SPMS STATUS AND
"APPROVED" VS. "ALTERNATE" BUDGET PRIORITY
ORIGINAL PLAN
SCAP/SPMS Activity
Target Target
(C2I10)
P
P
A
First RI/FS Starts
Program
TOTALS
Site
Name
(C104)
X
Y
Z
2
State
(C2)
IA
MO
KS
{fc
Unit
(C1101)
01
01
01
Evt
TVDC
(C2I01)
CO1
C01
C01
Ld
(C21
F
F
F
Plan Actual j
Start Start
I7)(C2I32)(C2140)
88/2
88/4
88/4
Funding
Status
(C3225)
APR
APR
ALT
ALTERED PLAN
SCAP/SPMS Activity
Target
(C21IO)
A
P
P
Target
First RI/FS Starts
Program
TOTALS
Site
Name
(C104)
X
Y
Z
2
State
(C2)
IA
MO
KS
Ofi
Unit
(CHOI)
01
01
01
Evt
l£D£
(C2101)
CO1
CO1
C01
Ld
(C2I
F
F
F
Plan
Start
Actual Funding
Start
I7HC2I32HC2140)
88/4
88/4
88/2
2/09/88
Status
(C3225)
ALT
APR
APR
SCAP PLANNING
Regions are required to keep the SCAP data in CERCLIS and CERHELP up-to-
date and accurate. Changes in planning information (schedules and funds) should be
entered into CERCLIS or CERHELP within five days. If changes affect a SCAP or SPMS
target or measure or the approved funding level for a site, the SCAP/SPMS Target Status
and Funding Priority Status fields in CERCLIS must also be updated.
Semi-Annual Planning Process
As a final check to ensure that SCAP data are up-to-date, regions should generate
SCAP and Audit reports periodically, especially those regions which have delegated
responsibility for the database to RPMs and OSCs. At a minimum reports should be
generated beginning on the first working day of January and June for internal review of the
planning data in CERCLIS and CERHELP. These planning data should reflect any
adjustments or approved amendments made to the annual plan. Regions should note that
changes made in CERCLIS to site schedules and other planning data will not automatically
result in changes to SCAP/SPMS targets. Although regions have the flexibility to alter
plans, they are still accountable for meeting the targets negotiated at the beginning of the
fiscal year. (See the section on SCAP/SPMS Adjustments and Amendments).
n-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
*** flfth working da? of February and July, HQ pulls the proposed regional
*? serves as ** basis for HQ/regional mid-year and final negotiations.
HQ will perform all negotiations based on the information in CERCLIS on these pull dates
To ensure consistency in the negotiation phase, the CERCLIS and CERHELP data bases
are frozen pnor to pulling the reports used for negotiations. As a result, all parties (HQ and
the regions) will have identical data for use during the negotiation process.
CERCLIS data quality problems that affect the SCAP update shall be resolved prior
to negotiations. These problems are to be resolved on a region-specific basis through
telephone calls between HQ and the IMC or program manager.
CERCLIS Reports for SCAP Planning/Target Setting
Exhibit II-3 presents the CERCLIS reports used by HQ and the regions in the
development and negotiation of regional targets/measures. Following is a discussion of
these reports:
The SCAP/SPMS Targets and Accomplishments Summary Report (SCAP-
14) displays current year aggregate quarterly target totals and site back-up
by SCAP activity.
The Event/Activity Summary Report for NPL Sites (AUDIT-10) provides
planned obligations, first and subsequent start and completion codes and
budget source for events and activities at sites on the NPL. It is similar to
the SCAP-2 except for the addition of these codes.
The Non-NPL Site Summary Report (SCAP-1) displays major planned,
ongoing and completed activities for sites which are not on the current NPL.
Information on PRP searches, non-NPL removals, non-NPL removal
Administrative Orders, etc. are found on this report. A site must have
planned or ongoing work to show on this report.
The NPL Site Summary Report (SCAP-2) contains major planned and
actual data for remedial events and enforcement activities at sites which are
on the NPL.
The SCAP Financial Report - FY9Q APPR (SCAP-4) and SCAP Financial
Report-FY90 ALT (SCAP-5) aggregate dollars by program area and
provide both site-specific backup from CERCLIS and non-site-specific
backup from CERHELP. These reports should be used to compare the
funding requests contained in CERCLIS and CERHELP against the
regional budget. SCAP-4 and SCAP-5 are both new reports for FY90.
They combine the Financial Summary Report (SCAP-15) with the Projects
Report (SCAP-3).
ThP Data Quality Check Reports (DQCK-1) are a series of edit reports the
regions can use to check CERCLIS data quality. Any errors noted in these
reports should be corrected in CERCLIS prior to the HQ deadline for
pulling reports from CERCLIS. Enforcement also has a series of reports
which can be used to identify enforcement data quality problems (ENFR 2-
8).
n-9
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
(SCAP-16) is similar to the
r LH Accomplishments Report and is used for target negotiations for
the upcoming FY. The SCAP flags and other coding requirements needed
to identify a liven event/activity as a planned start or completion is included
in the report. A similar report, Projected Planning Estimates and Prelected
Measures (SCAP-13) will be used for negotiation of SCAP measures and
used for budget and FTE allocations.
The Planned Starts. Completes. Ongoing and Obligations Report (RMVL-
18), provides planning information for the removal program.
The Cost Recovery Category Report (CRCR) will be used to negotiate cost
recovery targets.
F.YHTBTT II-3
SCAP PLANNING AttHF/T SETTTNH
S REPORTS
DQCK-1: Data Quality Check Reports
SCAP-1: Non-NPL Site Summary Report
SCAP-2: NPL Site Summary Report
SCAP-4: Financial Report - FY90 APPR
SCAP-5: Financial Report - FY90 ALT
SCAP-13: Projected Planning Estimates and Projected
Measures
SCAP-14: SCAP/SPMS Targets and Accomplishments
Summary Report
SCAP-16: Target/Negotiation Report
AUDIT-10: Event/Activity Summary Report for NPL Sites
RMVL-18: Planned Starts, Completions, Ongoing and
Obligations
ENFR-2: Litigation/Consent Decree Summary Report
ENFR-3: RD/RA Negotiations Report
ENFR-4: Statute of Limitations Management Report
ENFR-(TBD): CRCR - Cost Recovery
SCAP ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORTING
Accomplishments data are recorded on Site Information Forms (SIF) and
CERHELP Non-Site Incident Activity Maintenance Forms, or other regional data entry
forms and entered into Wastelan, CERCLIS and CERHELP by the IMC or designee. Data
on accomplishments should be entered into Wastelan or CERCLIS within five working
days of the event or activity. Only accomplishments reported in CERCLIS will
be recognized by HQ.
Beginning on the first day of each month, regions should generate SCAP reports
for internal review. Regions should perform data quality checks and make adjustments to
CERCLIS or CERHELP if the data bases do not reflect actual accomplishments.
On the fifth working day of each month, HQ will pull data from CERCLIS on a
selected number of key indicators of progress in the Superfund program (i.e., Removals,
RI/FS starts, RODs, RDs, RA, Post SARA RA starts, RD/RA Consent Decrees, Section
II-10
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
numb^s will be the official numbers used for
r a°,y uep°rtS °f P10^688 8iven to ^ Administrator,
wn Congress and the news media. This is also the information that
wJl be used for calls to the Regional Administrators regarding progress on the key
indicators tracked in the Assistant Administrator's pro-active memorandum.
A ?e/rf£lWOrking day of each 1uarter' HQ ?ulls SCAP reports from CERCLIS
and ChKHhLP. These reports are reviewed by HQ to evaluate regional progress toward
SCAP targets and are submitted to OMSE for reporting SPMS accomplishments It is
important to note that in addition to reporting accomplishments in CERCLIS, regions must
continue to enter SPMS data into the OMSE SPMS system. If a region identifies a
discrepancy between the accomplishments the region entered into the OMSE system and the
accomplishments reported by HQ, they should note it in the system and contact the relevant
HQ program office. Discrepancies must be resolved generally by the 15th working day of
a quarter.
CERCLIS Reports for Accomplishment Reporting
Exhibit n-4 presents CERCLIS reports HQ uses to evaluate regional
accomplishments. All are used for reporting and crediting SCAP/SPMS targets and
accomplishments. Following is a discussion of these reports:
The Projected Planning Estimates and Projected Measures (SCAP-13),
SCAP/SPMS Targets and Accomplishments (SCAP-14) and Event/Activity
Report for NPL Sites (AUDIT-10) reports are used by the pre-remedial,
remedial and enforcement programs to provide planned and actual
information for events and activities.
Quarterly Removal Plans and Accomplishments Summary show actual
(RMVL-7A) removal starts and actual (RMVL-7B) removal completions.
Financial information and the status of obligations are provided by the
SCAP Financial Report - FY9Q APPR (SCAP- 4) and the SCAP Financial
Report - FY90 ALT (SCAP-5).
SCAP/SPMS ADJUSTMENTS AND AMENDMENTS
After targets have been finalized and planned funding levels developed, the SCAP
process provides the flexibility to modify plans during the year. Modifications to planned
targets are termed either adjustments or amendments. Amendments are SCAP changes
which:
Increase the region's annual operating budget (OERR or OWPE);
Change the AOA; or
Change a quarterly or annual SCAP or SPMS target.
11-11
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
F.XHTBTT II-4
PROGRAM EVALUATION CERCLTS REPORTS
SCAP-4: SCAP Financial Report - FY90 APPR
SCAP-5: SCAP Financial Report - FY90 ALT
SC AP-13: Projected Planning Estimates and Projected Measures
Report
SCAP-14: SCAP/SPMS Targets and Accomplishments
Summary Report
RMVL-7: Quarterly Removal Plans and Accomplishments
Summary
AUDIT-10: Event/Activity Report for NPL Sites
Amendments require HQ concurrence and approval. Any other SCAP
change, including site substitutions, is an adjustment and does not require HQ approval.
Adjustments should be reflected in CERCLIS by updating the site-specific data base and
the CERHELP Targets and Accomplishments data file on an ongoing basis. The processes
described in Exhibit n-5 must be followed when amending the SCAP. Chapter VI outlines
the procedures for processing AOA change requests. The Office of Program Management
(OPM) and the program offices in OERR and the Compliance Branch of OWPE provide
input on SCAP amendment approval decisions.
Changes to SPMS commitments should not be made simply because targets will not
be met. However, in some cases, amendments to targets may be necessary and may be
changed under the following conditions:
Major, unforeseen contingencies arise that alter established priorities (i.e.,
Congressional action);
Major contingencies arise to alter established regional commitments (i.e.,
state legislative action); or
Measure or definition in system is creating an unanticipated negative impact.
OSWER requires that all SPMS amendments be submitted to HQ by April 15 in
order to meet the April 30 deadline imposed by OMSE. SPMS amendments must be
approved by the AA SWER. The OPM and program offices in OERR and the Compliance
Branch in OWPE provide input on SPMS amendment approval decisions. All amendments
should be recorded in the CERCLIS site-specific data base as an "approved" action after the
region issues the change request or memorandum to OSWER. Regions should not initiate
any obligation against change requests until the Office of the Comptroller and AA SWER
approve the revised AOA in IFMS. The site back-up in the Targets and Accomplishments
data file will be revised by HQ if the amendment is approved. If the amendment is not
approved, HQ will notify the region and the "approved" record in CERCLIS will have to
be revised.
11-12
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
EXHIBIT II-5
SCAP AMENDMENT PROCESS
AMENDMENTS
Affecting quarterly
or annual
SPMS targets
or measures
Affecting
SCAP but
not the AOA
Affecting
SCAP and
the AOA
Memorandum from
Regional Administrator
to the Assistant
Administrator of
SWER explaining
the reason for the
change.
Memorandum from
Regional Director to
the HQ OSWER
Office Director
explaining the
reason for the change.
Region will contact the
appropriate HQ program
office to discuss the
planned
change.
Memorandum from regional director to HQ OSWER Office Director
explaining the reason for the change
The change request is electronically transmitted to HQ through
IFMS
AOA in IFMS is revised to reflect the change
The requested amount is entered into CERCLIS
OSWER and the Comptroller review the request
After OSWER concurrence, the revised AOA in IFMS
is approved by the Comptroller and AA SWER
11-13
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
MAINTAINING THE TARKK AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS FILE
HQ is responsible for putting the preliminary and final negotiated SCAP/SPMS
targets and site back-up in the Targets and Accomplishments file in CERHELP. During the
fiscal year, HQ will also be responsible for changing the targets and site back-up if
amendments are approved. Regions are responsible for updating the Targets and
Accomplishments file to reflect SCAP/SPMS adjustments. Regions will not receive
credit for an accomplishment(s) unless the appropriate site name(s) is
recorded in the Targets and Accomplishments file in CERHELP. Appendix D
contains tables which show which targets and measures require site-specific backup in
CERHELP.
Following are guidelines for regional maintenance of the Targets and
Accomplishments file. Additional detailed instructions on CERHELP can be found in the
CERCLIS Users Reference Manual.
Regions will be allowed to add to or delete sites from the Targets and
Accomplishments file only in the case of site substitutions. However, the
site-specific CERCLIS records should be updated at the time a SCAP or
SPMS amendment is requested.
The number of approved sites named in the Targets and Accomplishments
file must equal the numerical target. If a region has a target of eight RDs,
for example, eight approved sites must be named in the Targets and
Accomplishments site back-up.
If "to be determined" (TBD) sites are used instead of real sites in the Targets
and Accomplishments file, there must be enough candidate sites in
CERCLIS that can be used to replace the TBD sites as soon as possible.
A site and its associated events/activities which are planned site-specifically
must be in CERCLIS before they can be in CERHELP. FTE
distributions use site data in CERHELP. Regions may lose FTE if
appropriate site backup is not in CERHELP.
It is essential that the list of sites that support the targets be kept up-to-date
and current. Regional SCAP adjustments must be reflected in CERHELP.
This includes site substitutions and changes in schedules that do not affect
SPMS or SCAP targets.
Following are the procedures for making changes to the CERHELP target site data:
Each time a change to site data in CERCLIS results in a SCAP adjustment,
run the CERHELP Target Maintenance Report for FY90 (Report #4 on the
CERCLIS Site Reports Menu).
Locate the Target Activity Code page on the report (report is sequenced
alphabetically by Target Activity Code).
Scan target site data to locate site no longer being targeted and delete the
EPA ID, Operable Unit and Event Codes or Enforcement Activity Code.
Record corresponding codes for the replacement site.
II-14
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Access Non-Site/Incident Screen #27 -- CERHELP Target/Accomplishment
Data Maintenance Screen:
Enter Action Code C=Change and Record Type S=Site
To access record to be changed, enter required field data (region,
Fiscal Year, activity type, lead, quarter and sequence number codes)
directly from report
Enter replacement site data (EPA ID, OU and Event or Enforcement
Activity Codes)
Run Target Maintenance Report to verify changes. File report for
use in making subsequent changes.
The HQ SCAP Coordinator and interested program offices will run National
Target Maintenance Reports as needed to review changes.
11-15
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
CHAPTER III
NATIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
CHAPTER ffl - NATIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Following are the actions regional managers must take to
comply with the requirements described in this Chapter.
In order to acquire a more in-depth understanding of
these requirements, the Chapter itself should be read.
CERCLIS data should be updated at least monthly.
On the fifth working day of each month, HQ pulls
planning and accomplishment data from CERCLIS
to support a variety of official reporting
requirements.
No accomplishments are reported that are not
accurately recorded in CERCLIS by the pull date.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
CHAPTER III - NATIONAL INFORMATION NF.F.HS
thm,iahrrarRKi^ntiSfS ISS?n1!SSrting SuPerfund nati°nal information needs obtained
through CERCLIS (other than SCAP/SPMS which are fully discussed in other parts of this
manual) and associated regional CERCLIS data entry requirements. Particular emphasis is placed
on the necessity for more frequent updating (within five working days) of the planning and
accomplishment data in CERCLIS to support monthly and ad hoc management reporting. The
chapter describes data entry and reporting schedules for the CERCLIS Superfund I Progress Report,
senior management monthly program status reports, and Enforcement program management
reports. Some of the reports may change as a result of changes in HQ senior management. The
regions will be kept informed of any new or revised reporting requirements.
INTRODUCTION
In the past, most Superfund reporting has been on a quarterly basis to support the
SCAP/SPMS process. Prior to the start of FY89, the regions were only required to assure that
data were up-to-date just before the quarterly planning and accomplishment data pulls. However,
now that data quality has improved to the point that CERCLIS can be used for its intended ongoing
program and project management function, Superfund managers are starting to request more
frequent reports on program status.
CERCLIS data are now the basis of the monthly management reporting process. For this
process to be effective, the data must be updated on at least a monthly basis. This includes not only
actual accomplishment data but current planning data as well. Emphasis has been placed on the
importance of providing official Superfund numbers and site names to CERCLIS in a timely
manner. Since accomplishment for RODS, RDs, RAs, Removals, site completions/deletions,
negotiation conclusions, cost recovery, AOs and referrals with and without settlement are taken
from CERCLIS, it is no longer acceptable to report success in a less than formal manner.
In addition, Headquarters is also initiating several strategies for enhancing data quality in
CERCLIS. In December 1988 Headquarters began a comprehensive effort to clean up the data in
CERCLIS. While current SPMS and SCAP data seem to be of fairly high quality, significant
problems exist with historical program-to-date and SARA-to-date data. In addition, the various
management reports that are now being produced on a monthly basis are giving inconsistent data.
The purpose of the data quality initiative is to 1) establish consistent select logic among the
various management reports; 2) correct historical and miscoded data in CERCLIS; 3) produce
CERCLIS reports which are consistent with each other and with numbers from definitive outside
sources; and 4) establish an ongoing data quality program.
A detailed review of all major management reports has already been completed, including
SPMS, SCAP, the Superfund Progress Report, enforcement reports, and workload model reports,
and reprogram'ming is underway to make the select logic more consistent. Upon completion of this
effort the select logic will be made available to the regions. Also, audit reports have been added to
the CERCLIS menu for regional use in cleaning up historical data. The effort has been prioritized
so that the data quality effort is focused on the more critical measures, such as RODs, RD starts,
RA starts, Consent Decree, Litigation, etc. Headquarters will also be forming a workgroup to look
into the ongoing problem of data quality in CERCLIS data elements not used for ongoing SPMS
and SCAP reporting, such as technical and administrative data elements. Data quality in data
elements that are not directly tied to regional Advices of Allowance, SPMS accomplishments, the
workload model, etc., is of growing concern, particularly with the start of the environmental
results initiative The workgroup will be soliciting regional participation and suggestions in this
area.
III-l
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
To be consistent with the quarterly SCAP/SPMS reporting requirements,
end-of-month CERCLIS reports will be run on the fifth working day of the next
month (specific dates are contained in the manager's schedule of significant events found at the
beginning of this manual). CERCLIS must be up-to-date when these reports are prepared. The
most effective way to assure that CERCLIS is up-to-date is to enter data as an event or activity
occurs (i.e., on a real-time basis). This will ensure that the monthly and quarterly management
reports are accurate and that any interim ad hoc reports will contain the latest information. Other
non-recurring information requests, such as Freedom of Information Act requests, can also be
satisfied using up-to-date CERCLIS data, with little or no need for additional data collection.
In FY90 the Agency will begin reporting environmental results achieved by Superfund.
The data elements required for this reporting will be derived from the Superfund Environmental
Indicators Project that has been ongoing for the past year. The reporting requirements will be
phased in over the next two years, starting at the beginning of FY90 with data that are readily
available to the regions in such potential areas as volumes of waste handled, reduced human
exposure, reduced concentrations, and elimination of pathways of exposure. Specific guidance on
required elements, data sources, and how this information will be collected and reported will be
issued separately.
The following sections provide a brief description of the reporting requirements (other than
SCAP/SPMS) used for Superfund program management and in the Monthly Management Reports
package.
SUPERFUND PROGRESS REPORT (SPR)
The Superfund Progress Report is a monthly report of year-to-date and inception-to-date
accomplishments of the Superfund program. No planning data are included in the SPR. The
report records site-level (as opposed to operable unit, event and activity) accomplishments at all
NPL and non-NPL sites. It is derived from essentially the SCAP/SPMS event and activity data.
The Superfund Progress Report is distributed widely to the press, public and Congress and is the
official source for many of the statistics used to measure the progress of the Superfund program.
Because the SPR is run monthly, relevant CERCLIS accomplishment data must be updated
on a monthly basis. The SPR report will be run on the fifth working day of each
month. To be available for the SPR Report, CERCLIS changes must be complete by close of
business on the fifth working day of each month. This also means that uploads from Wastelan
must be done by then. It is critical that the data used in generating the SPR be as up-to-date and
accurate as possible. Inaccurate, misleading, or outdated information will severely affect program
credibility since this report is regularly given to Congress and the public.
This report is also a part of the OERR Monthly Management Reports mentioned later in this
chapter.
SENIOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STATUS REPORTS
Now that CERCLIS is in the full production mode and data quality has improved to the
point that it can be used effectively for program and project management, a series of monthly
reports are being generated for senior managers. Primary among these requirements is the
"Superfund Monthly Briefing" package for the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. This package, run on the fifth working day of each month and presented to
the AA at a monthly status briefing given by the OERR and OWPE Office Directors, contains
progress status information and regional comparison in graphical format. The monthly
III-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
RI/FS Starts and Completions (First and Subsequent, PRP, Fund and State lead) ~
shows regional progress against both RI/FS start and completion SCAP/SPMS
fQT*(Y£*f"O* *
targets;
RI/FS Progress Ongoing (First and Subsequent) - compares the number of RI/FS
events that have been ongoing less than six quarters to RI/FS ongoing over six
quarters;
Average RI/FS Duration and Cost - compares the average cost and duration of
completed projects, pre-SARA starts that are still ongoing, and post-SARA starts
that are still ongoing;
First RODs - shows the number of first RODs signed as well as the number on
schedule and behind schedule for the current year SPMS cycle. Behind schedule is
defined as when the current planned quarter is later than the targeted quarter;
Subsequent RODs shows the number of subsequent RODs signed as well as the
number on schedule and behind schedule. For a definition of behind schedule refer
to the First RODs definition above;
First RD Starts - shows the number of first RDs started as well as the number on
schedule and behind schedule. For a definition of behind schedule refer to the First
RODs definition above;
First RA Starts shows the number of first RAs started as well as the number on
schedule and behind schedule. For a definition of behind schedule refer to the First
RODs definition above;
Post-Sara RA Start Target ~ displays progress towards the SARA RA start target.
Site progress is classified as either pre-remedial design, in remedial design, RA
start no contract award, or RA contract awarded;
RD/RA Negotiations -- depicts the target RD/RA negotiations and shows where
negotiations have been completed or have slipped;
RD/RA Settlements -- depicts total RD/RA consent decrees and unilateral orders in
compliance;
RD/RA Enforcement -- shows UAOs for RD/RA as well as 106 referrals for
RD/RA;
Settlements for PRP Work and Cost Recovery - depicts the value of settlements for
PRP work to be performed (Section 106) and the dollars recovered from PRPs via
settlements (Section 107 & 122);
Cost Recovery Actions Referred to Headquarters/DOJ - depicts the number of site
referrals and dollars per region where cost recovery actions for pre-remedial action
and remedial projects have been referred to Headquarters or to the Department of
Justice;
III-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Removal Starts and Obligations (First and Subsequent, PRP and Fund lead) -- a
comparison of removal starts as a percent of target and obligations, shown as a
percent of allowance. RP response cost estimates are also shown;
PA and SI Completions -- displays progress towards the annual PA and SI target
levels;
Superfund Site Completions and Deletions from the NPL -- displays the number of
sites deleted from the NPL, sites noticed for deletion, sites with completed close out
reports awaiting publication of deletion notice, Long Term Response Actions, and
sites with completed final action but close out report not final; and
Federal Facility IAG Negotiations -- depicts the number of sites where IAG
negotiations for RI/FS through RD/RA or RD/RA only have been completed, have
slipped, or are anticipated to start by years end.
The management reports, listed above, are being supplemented by monthly management
reporting packages in both OERR and OWPE and gathered into the "OSWER Monthly
Management Reports" package which is distributed to both Headquarters and regional
management. It is absolutely essential that end-of-month CERCLIS data be up-to-
date as of the fifth working day of each month. This is the day that reports will be pulled
from CERCLIS to satisfy these monthly reporting requirements. Again it is strongly
recommended that planning and accomplishment data be entered on a daily basis as events,
activities, and slippage occur.
Response Reports
The following CERCLIS reports along with the "Superfund Monthly Briefing" are part of
the OERR Monthly Reports to management:
Proactive Report -- shows targets and slippages for current quarter targets
for RODs, RDs and RAs. Slips are defined as where the current planned
accomplishment quarter is later than the originally targeted quarter or where
the current planned quarter is blank. Target and slippage data presented on
this report are only through the current FY/Quarter. This should not be
confused with the Proactive Memorandum that was formerly produced;
Average Duration and Costs of Major Activities -- presents the number, the
average duration in quarters, and the average cost of major remedial events
for three classes of events: completed events, pre-SARA starts still ongoing,
and post-SARA starts still ongoing;
Pipeline of Ongoing Major Remedial Events -- shows total starts and
completions of fund lead remedial events by year. By computing starts and
completions the report indicates the number of ongoing projects (operable
units) at the end of the fiscal year;
Pre-Remedial and Remedial Program Performance - displays the percent
of the current quarter target that was achieved in the major pre-remedial and
remedial program areas. Performance is aggregate performance
(Fund/PRP);
III-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Ongoing Work at NPL Sites - shows the number of ongoing RI/FS, RD
and RA (operable units) over time, by lead;
StartS and ComPletions " provides a summary of all NPL and
Non-NPL Removal starts and completions since inception and also includes
information on the duration of ongoing removals;
Superfund Progress Report -- provides information on site activity,
including financial and enforcement information. This report is also used as
a stand alone report. For a more detailed description refer to the previous
section in this chapter titled Superfund Progress Report;
Superfund Numbers Matrix (event- and activity-based counts) - displays
accomplishment totals, by lead, over three time periods: since program
inception, post-SARA, and pre-SARA;
Completions/Deletions Site Listing - lists sites deleted from the NPL, sites
noticed for deletion, sites with completed close out reports awaiting
publication of deletion notice, Long Term Response Actions, and sites with
completed final action but close out report not final;
Site Inventory and Progress Toward SARA Targets ~ provides a summary
of pre-remedial activity with an emphasis on progress towards SARA
targets and annual SPMS commitments; and
Regional Commitments and Obligations - shows commitments and
obligations against the quarterly advice of allowance by allowance type and
by region.
Enforcement Reports
The following CERCLIS reports along with the "Superfund Monthly Briefing" are used by
Enforcement management in order to monitor not only accomplishments versus targets, but also
planned activities or any activities that might call for immediate action:
Program to Date Superfund Settlements ~ This report lists all Settlements
with a financial type of "R", or where PRP work is to be performed;
Statute of Limitations Management Report - This report lists planned and
actual completion dates for removal, Rl/FS, and remedial activities for all
quarters. Planned and actual obligations for each type of activity are also
included;
Dingell Quarterly Report - This report lists the status of ongoing
negotiations, special notice letter information, sites where federal agencies
are PRPs, and those federal agencies that are PRPs;
Cost Recovery Category Report - This report lists every removal
completed every RA started and some pre-RA activities that are ripe for
cost recovery. The sites are divided into two categories - actions already
taken and sites needing action.
III-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
"Report Card" Reports -- The reports list, by fiscal year, PRP and Fund
response counts along with site back-up. Additional enforcement Activity
Reports, by fiscal year, recording counts with site back-up for major
enforcement activities are also used.
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
In addition to the previously mentioned reporting requirements, CERCLIS provides
valuable information to a broad range of users. For example, the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) provides public access to CERCLIS data that have not been designated as confidential.
These data are provided to private citizens, public and private interest groups, and industry (See
Appendix B for FOIA information). Site name, description, location, NPL status, and current site
activity are of particular interest to some of these groups, while not always being critical to internal
management reporting requirements.
Ad hoc requests from Congress can also be answered, in many cases, by data contained in
the CERCLIS data base. The more up-to-date and complete Superfund site data are, the more
outside requests can be satisfied by queries of the CERCLIS database, and less time will have to be
spent by the regions in searching through files.
There are also data elements in CERCLIS that are used as links to other data bases. The
Zip Code is used by the Geograph data base to provide system-generated data to CERCLIS with
site latitude, longitude, hydrogeologic unit, standard metropolitan statistical area, county name,
county code, and congressional district. The EPA ID is supplied by the FINDS system and is used
in data bases throughout EPA and other Federal Agencies, which relate to Superfund sites. The
Superfund account number is used in CERCLIS and the Integrated Financial Management System
(IFMS) and links CERCLIS and IFMS financial data. While some of these elements are not
critical to SCAP, SPMS or SPR, they are nonetheless of great importance to the efficient running
of the CERCLIS data base and other related programs.
III-6
-------
OSWER Directive 92003-01C
CHAPTER IV
TARGETS AND MEASURES
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
CHAPTER TV - TARmrTfr A.ND ME ASTTPF.fi
ROLE OF SCAP
and SPMS ^gets *& the key device by which program goals are translated
into quantifiable program achievements. They identify performance expectations for the
regions and should not be seen as only a method for allocating resources. Specific targets
are negotiated by HQ and the regions. The regions are expected to concentrate their
resources on achieving these targets.
SPMS is used by the Administrator to set and monitor the progress each program is
making toward meeting its environmental goals. SPMS targets and measures are reported
quarterly by HQ and the regions to the Office of Management Systems and Evaluation
(OMSE) through the OMSE SPMS computer system. SCAP is used by the Assistant
Administrator SWER and senior Superfund managers to monitor the progress each region
is making toward achieving its Superfund goals. SCAP targets and measures are reported
monthly by the regions through CERCLIS. As discussed in Chapter I, the CEPP does not
use CERCLIS for reporting SCAP accomplishments. The reports used by the CEPP in
recording quarterly accomplishments can be found in Volume II, Appendix F "reserve".
National and regional SPMS goals are established and tracked through SCAP.
SPMS targets are a subset of those contained in SCAP.
SCAP/SPMS TARGETS AND MEASURES
A SCAP or SPMS target (either quarterly or annual) is a pre-determined numerical
goal that is established prior to the fiscal year the designated activities will take place. All
SPMS targets are SCAP targets. An example of a SCAP and SPMS targeted activity is a
first RD start. Annual budgets and resources are allocated based on SPMS and SCAP
targets. In addition, regions are evaluated on a quarterly basis according to their
completion of activities with established targets.
A SCAP or SPMS measure, on the other hand, is used to track an activity that is
important in monitoring overall program progress. The three types of measures are SCAP
planning estimates, SPMS reporting, and the Chemical Emergency Preparedness Program
(CEPP), which uses SCAP reporting measures. Planning estimates result in numerical
goals being established prior to the fiscal year (e.g., RD completions) which are used in
setting annual budgets and full-time equivalent (FTE) staff allocations. Regions report
progress against the planning estimates. SPMS reporting measures have no associated
quantitative goals; only actual accomplishments are tracked (e.g., AOs for PRP response).
SCAP reporting measures are used by the CEPP to report progress toward achieving a
SCAP target or to describe the types of activities being conducted.
IV-1
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
There has been growing concern during the past two years that the SPMS measures
have been increasing in number and require reporting on milestones that are difficult to
predict months in advance or that are so closely related in time that it is unnecessary to
report on both. In an effort to address these concerns, continue to provide the
Administrator with information on the progress of the program and retain or develop
measures that support environmentally significant program priorities, the FY90 combined
Fund and Enforcement SPMS targeted activities have been reduced to the following:
Number of sites with completed Site Inspections;
Number of NPL sites addressed through a removal action or RI/FS start;
Number of remedies selected at NPL sites;
Number of remedial design activities started;
Number of remedial action activities started; and
Number of sites where all remedial/removal implementation has been
completed.
The new measures are the number of NPL sites addressed and the number of sites
where all remedial/removal implementation has been completed. The NPL sites addressed
measure is an effort to initiate response actions at the backlog of NPL sites which have
been left dormant after the SI stage. The remaining measures are unchanged from FY89
and represent the major environmental milestones of the program. Measures being dropped
from SPMS will still be included as SCAP targets or measures to be targeted, reported
against and evaluated by the Assistant Administrator and senior Superfund management.
Exhibits IV-1 and IV-2 on the following pages contain the SCAP/SPMS Targets
and Measures. Definitions and planning requirements for Pre-Remedial, Remedial,
Removal, Enforcement, Federal Facility and Oil Spill activities are in Volume n, Appendix
D. SCAP/SPMS Targets and Measures for the Chemical Emergency Preparedness and
Prevention Program are found in Exhibits IV-3 and IV-4. CEPP definitions and
requirements can be found in Appendix F.
IV-2
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01C
EXHIBIT IV-1
SCAP/SPMS TARGETS
ACTIVITIES
^^^^^^"^^^^^i^MI
Pre-Rcmcdial
Preliminary Assessment (PA) Completions
Site Inspection (SI) Completions (S/F-1)
Remedial
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Start
First RI/FS Starts
Subsequent RI/FS Starts
RI/FS To Public
RI/FS Completions (ROD) (S/C-3)
First RI/FS Completions (ROD)
Subsequent RI/FS Completion (ROD)
Final RI/FS Completion (ROD)
Remedial Design (RD) (S/C-4)
First RD Start
Subsequent RD Starts
Final RD Start
Remedial Action (RA) Start (S/C-5)
First RA Start-RP
First RA Start-Fund
Subsequent RAStart-RP
Subsequent RA Start - Fund
Final RAStart-RP
Final RA Start-Fund
NPL Sites with RA Starts Post-SARA
Final RA Completions
Deletion Initiated
SPMS
TARGET
SCAP
TARGET
QUARTERLY
TARGET
ANNUAL
TARGET
' The SPMS target combines first, subsequent and final as a single target.
IV-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
EXHIBIT IV-1 (CONTINUED)
SCAP/SPMS TARGETS
ACTIVITIES
SPMS
TARGET
SCAP
TARGET
QUARTERLY
TARGET
ANNUAL
TARGET
Removal
NPL Removal Start
Non-NPL Removal Start
NPL Site Completions through
Removal Actions
Remedial/Removal
NPL Sites Addressed through removal
action or RI/FS start (S/C-2)
NPL Sites where all remedial/removal
implementation has been completed (S/C-6)
Enforcement
Start of RD/RA Negotiations
Conclusion of RD/RA Negotiations
Small Case Cost Recovery Referrals
Administrative Settlements
Section 106 RD/RA Referrals/Orders (S/E-4)
- with settlement
- without settlement
- Unilateral Orders
Section 107 Cost Recovery Referral Actions
and Settlements (>$200,000) (S/E-2)
- Pre-RA
- Remedial Action and other pre-RA Events
Federal Facility
NPL Sites with Federal Facility Agreements/
Interagency Agreements (S/E-5)
RI/FS Start
RVFS Completions (ROD)
RD Start
Remedial Action Start
First RA Start
Subsequent RA Start
Final RA Start
X
IV-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
ACTIVITIES
EXHIBIT IV-2
SCAP/SPMS MEASURES
SPMS I SCAP
REPORTING PLAN/REPORT
QTRLY
ANNUAL
Pre-Remedial
% SI Candidates Req.Further Action
(S/F-la)
FTT-PA/SI Completions
State-PA/SI Completions
Sites with LSI Starts
Remedial/Removal
Percent of NPL Sites Addressed
todate(S/C2a)
Remedial
RD Completions
RA Completions
RA On-Site Construction
Tieatability Studies
Removal Completions
Removal Investigations Completed at
NPL Sites
Removal Completions
Federal Facilities
NPL Sites with RA Start Post -
SARA
Oil Spill Activities
SPCC Inspections/Reviews
Clean Water Act Funded Oil Spills
Cleaned Up by EPA
On-Scene Monitoring of Oil Spill
Responses
X
IV-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
EXHIBIT IV-2 (CONTINUED)
SCAP/SPMS MEASURES
ACTIVITIES
Enforcement
NPL PRP Search Start
Non-NPL PRP Search Start
NPL Sites with Completed
PRP Searches
Non-NPL Sites with Completed
PRP Searches
Issuance of General Notice Letters
Issuance of Special Notice Letters
Removal Negotiations Starts
Removal Negotiations Complete
Administrative Orders for Removals
(S/E-1)
RI/FS Negotiations Start
RI/FS Negotiations Complete
Section 106/107 Referrals with or w/o
Settlement (>$200,000) (S/E-2)
- Pre-RA
- Remedial Action and other pre-RA
Events
Section 106, 106/107 Case Resolution
Section 107 Case Resolution
Dollars Achieved thru Cost Recovery
(S/E-3)
104(e) Letters Issued
104(e) Referrals
Demand Letters Issued
Cost Recovery Close-out Memo
Administrative Record Compilation
Completed (Removal and Remedial)
Compliance Enforcement
SPMS
REPORTING
X
X
X
X
SCAP
PLAN/REPORT
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QTRLY
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ANNUAL 1
1
X I
X I
1
x H
1
^ 1
X 1
X 1
X 1
x 1
1
x H
x I
x H
1
I
x 1
1
X H
x 1
X H
1
x 1
x 1
x 1
x 1
x 1
I
x I
I
IV-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
EXHIBIT IV-3
CEPP SCAP/SPMS TARGETS
ACTIVITIES
CEPP
Status of Tide HI implementation
in each State
Technical assistance activities which EPA
conducted, sponsored, assisted in developing
or participated
Exercises in which EPA provided assistance to
or participated in to test Federal, State or
local plan
Chemical safety audits conducted
Formal training courses EPA conducts
or participates in to improve Federal,
State and local chemical emergency
preparedness programs
SPMS
TARGET
X
X
X
X
X
SCAT
TARGET
X
X
X
X
X
QUARTERLY
TARGET
X*
X
X
X
X
ANNUAL
TARGET
X
X
X
X
X
Quarterly targets vary. Specific dates are to be determined. * Second and fourth quarters only,
by state.
IV-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
EXHIBIT IV-4
CEPP SCAP/SPMS MEASURES
ACTIVITIES
CEPP
Outreach activities in which EPA
participated in, conducted, sponsored
or developed
Investigations of possible violations
of Sections 302,303,304,311 or 312
Section 304 violations identified
Facilities determined to be in violation
of Sections 302,303,311 or 312
Administrative Orders, judicial referrals
and State orders for 302,303,304,311
and 312
EPA informal or formal enforcement
actions which resulted in non-compliers
returning to compliance
Eartnauake Prenaredness Program
Completion of draft Hazardous Materials
Annex to the multi-agency plan for Federal
response to a catastrophic earthquake
for the region
Participation in earthquake preparedness
activities
National Security Emergency
Preoaredness Proeram
Participation in National Security
Emergency Preparedness activities
Quarterly targets vary. Specific dates are to be determined. * Second and fourth quarters only.
IV-8
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01C
CHAPTER V
PROGRAM PLANNING REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES
-------
OSWER Directive 92003-01C
CHAPTER V - PROGRAM PLANNING
REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
_____
Following are the actions regional managers must take to
comply with the requirements described in this Chapter.
In order to acquire a more in-depth understanding of
these requirements, the Chapter itself should be read.
Pre-remedial
- In order to receive credit for Preliminary
Assessments and Site Inspection completions,
the completion date and a decision on further
activities must be entered into CERCLIS.
Removal
- Enter planning data on removal actions into
CERCLIS as soon as a site is identified or the
quarter before a removal will begin.
* Response
- CERCLIS must identify lead for all response events
and enforcement activities.
- If a PRP takes over an RI/FS after Fund dollars
have been obligated, the unspent funds should
be deobligated.
- If a PRP takes over an RD/RA after Fund dollars
have been obligated, the region should retain
the fund's needs for oversight, and deobligate the
remainder.
- For outyear budget purposes provide schedules for
all core remedial events and enforcement activities
when identifying sites for RI/FS starts.
- Standard durations should only be used until more
accurate timeframes for response events and
enforcement activities are not available. When
better planning data and schedules are developed
CERCLIS must be revised.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
CHAPTER V - PROGRAM PLANNING
REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES (Cont'd)
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Response (Cont'd)
A mega-site management plan must be submitted
to HQ for all sites where the total site RI/FS
work exceeds $3 million.
Request funds for treatability studies separate
from the RI/FS under the "TS" event in CERCLIS.
Record actual start and completion dates for
treatability studies in CERCLIS.
Remedial action information must be entered into
CERCLIS. Regions will not receive funds for an
RA in their Advice of Allowance unless the R A
remedy type is in CERCLIS. Regions will not
receive credit for a PRP RA start unless the remedy
type is in CERCLIS.
Negotiate reimbursement of Technical
Assistance Grants at Federal Facilities
during FFA/IAG negotiations.
Mixed funding settlements must be planned.
Funds are part of the region's RA budget.
Send notice letters to PRPs, conduct negotiations and
issue administrative Orders at every removal, time
permitting.
Prepare enforcement site management plans
shortly after a site is proposed for the NPL.
Issue notice letters for RI/FS at least 90 days prior to
the planned RI/FS start.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
CHAPTER V - PROGRAM PLANNING
REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES (Cont'd)
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Response (Cont'd^
A mega-site management plan must be submitted
to HQ for all sites where the total site RI/FS
work exceeds $3 million.
Request funds for treatability studies separate
from the RI/FS under the "TS" event in CERCLIS.
Record actual start and completion dates for
treatability studies in CERCLIS.
Remedial action information must be entered into
CERCLIS. Regions will not receive funds for an
RA in their Advice of Allowance unless the RA
remedy type is in CERCLIS. Regions will not
receive credit for a PRP RA start unless the remedy
type is in CERCLIS.
Negotiate reimbursement of Technical
Assistance Grants at Federal Facilities
during FFA/IAG negotiations.
Mixed funding settlements must be planned.
Funds are part of the region's RA budget.
Send notice letters to PRPs, conduct negotiations and
issue administrative Orders at every removal, time
permitting.
Prepare enforcement site management plans
shortly after a site is proposed for the NPL.
Issue notice letters for RI/FS at least 90 days prior to
the planned RI/FS start.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
CHAPTER V - PROGRAM PLANNING REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES
INTEGRATED PLANNING
Planning in the Superfund program is accomplished through the budget, operating
guidance, SCAP and performance evaluation process. Successful planning requires the
clear articulation of program priorities in the budget and operating guidance, accurate
costing of these priorities in the budget, workload model and SCAP, and careful translation
of the priorities and resource requirements into specific output commitments in SCAP and
SPMS. Candid evaluation of performance against these commitments is essential to the
assessment of the viability of program priorities, resource requirements and overall
effectiveness.
Integrated planning is the responsibility of both HQ and the regions. HQ adjusts
resources within and between the response and enforcement programs to ensure that
priority activities have adequate resources. Regions provide specific input on the level of
resources needed to accomplish priority activities and negotiate commitments consistent
with realistic site planning. Regions should not accept targets that require completion of
activities which cannot be funded or staffed within the resources provided.
Flexibility to adjust resources in response to changing program conditions
decreases through time. Exhibit V-l on page V-3, summarizes levels of flexibility as the
operating year is entered. Major phases in the decision making continuum include:
Formulation of the outyear budget 12 to 18 months prior to the fiscal year.
Development of the budget includes identification of major program issues,
analysis of program costs, and alignment of resources among competing
priorities. These activities occur within an overall resource cap established
by the Administrator and Assistant Administrator (AA) which balances
Superfund needs against other Agency programs.
Development of the initial operating plan six months prior to the fiscal year
and final operating plan immediately prior to the start of the fiscal year. The
operating plan and associated SCAP/SPMS output commitments are the
vehicle by which OSWER translates national budget commitments into
region specific targets and provides resources to support targets through the
Advice of Allowance (AOA) and workload process. Regions are expected
to live within the annual regional budgets established at the start of the year
until the mid-year SCAP update. Regions have substantial flexibility within
the general budget and AOA structure constraints to shift funds as needed to
meet priority activities. Continued shifting of enforcement funds to the
regional AOAs will increase this flexibility in FY90. HQ does not maintain
contingency reserves in the operating plan. As a result, once the initial
operating plan is established at the start of the year, resources can be shifted
to a region only at the expense of resources for other regions.
V-l
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
The mid-year update is used to realign resources in the current fiscal year
and establish preliminary resource and target levels for the upcoming fiscal
year. Current year resource adjustments focus on changes needed due to
cost and project schedule changes. Changes may result in both shifts
within program areas and revised annual funding levels.
Estimates developed for the upcoming fiscal year represent the first formal
opportunity for changing resources among program areas at a national level.
The revised resource estimates also serve as a "baseline" for examining
program needs in the budget year.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
This section describes the information flow and HQ/regional responsibilities
associated with the integrated planning.
HQ responsibilities in the integrated planning process include:
Joint (Fund and Enforcement) establishment of a hierarchy of program
priorities in consultation with the regions to be used in negotiations and
adjustments of targets;
Joint (Fund and Enforcement) review of operating plans and site
commitments proposed by the regions prior to negotiations;
Work with regional managers to determine how resources should be
adjusted to meet program priorities;
Timely communication with the regions on changes/additions to SCAP
schedules;
Seek to reprogram resources between the Fund and Enforcement programs
if needed to support priority activities;
Provide the funding and FTE at levels consistent with established pricing
factors when targets are negotiated;
Increased participation of regional managers in the formulation of
preliminary resource requests; and
Develop policy and guidance in response to Congressional or Agency
initiatives.
Effective operation of integrated priority setting depends heavily on regional
willingness to do the following:
Manage projects to integrate enforcement and fund milestones and to ensure
schedules and timelines are met;
Provide accurate, complete and timely project planning data in CERCLIS
and SCAP;
Follow the established planning procedures and requirements so that HQ
has a common basis to evaluate regional proposals; and
V-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Recognize that missed commitments severely impact resource availability
(for example, FTE and dollars budgeted for negotiations and/or RD in a
fiscal year cannot be used if the ROD slips past the fiscal year. The FTE
cannot be replaced and the funds do not automatically roll over into the next
fiscal year.)
EXHIBTT V-l
FLEXIBILITY SCALE FOR BUDGETING/PLANNING
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
OPERATING YEAR BUDGET
(FY90)
OPERATING YEAR BUDGET
(FY92)
OPERATING YEAR BUDGET
(FY91)
1. Operating Plan Sets Fund-
ing Ceiling
1. Development of Operating
Plan Begins 6 Months Prior
toFY
1. Formulation Begins 12 -18
Months Prior to FY
Largely Dependent on Reg
Planning Data in CERCLIS
2. Quarter Specific Targets are
Set-
2. Initial SCAP/SPMS Targets
Set in March; Finalized in
August
2. No Targets Set but Sche-
dules and Estimated RA
Cost Help to Drive Budget
Request
- SPMS Targets can be
Changed only through
Formal RA Request
- Sites can be Substituted
to Meet Commitments
3. Pricing Factors are Subject
to Review
Pricing Factors are Set -
Cannot Change Pricing on
Events/Activities
Pricing Factors can be
changed through Regional/
HO Consensus
Budget is Constrained
Based on Resource Cap
Imposed by AA and Admin
istrator Unless Exception
can be Justified
4. Additional Funds/FTEs can
only be Obtained through
Special Requests
The Budget is Set but There
is More Leeway to Make Ad-
justments Based on Proven
Need
Flexibility to Design Budget
to Optimize Cross-Program
Priorities at Maximum
Regions have Flexibility
within General Budget and
AOA Structure Constraint to
Shift Funds to Meet Priority
Activities
Mid-Year SCAP Update Sets
Preliminary Resource Levels
6. Mid-Year SCAP Update Used
to Realign Resources
Flexibility on Dollars and FTE
may be Constrained by Pre-
sent Budget
7. Flexibility on Dollars much
Greater than FTEs through
Reg. Reprogramming
V-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
PRE-REMEDIAL PLANNING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Preliminary Assessments/Screening Site Inspections
Regions can only be given credit for Preliminary Assessment (PA) and Screening
Site Inspection (SSI) completions if the completion date and a decision on further activities
at the site are entered into the appropriate CERCLIS site record.
There are three decisions on further activities that must be made at the completion of
the PA:
High priority for an SI;
« Medium priority for an SI; and
No further remedial action planned (NFRAP).
There are two decisions on future activities that must be made at the completion of
the SSI:
Recommendation for an LSI; and
No further remedial action planned (NFRAP).
Listing Site Inspection
Listing Site Inspections (LSIs) are the field efforts to support proposals to the NPL
using the revised HRS. LSIs are not RI/FS substitutes and, consequently, the
expenditures must be efficient and focused. Two important goals are to limit technical
hours for each LSI and to minimize subcontracting expenditures. LSIs to meet SCAP
planning estimates must be identified on a site-specific basis.
REMOVAL PLANNING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The nature of removal activities is to respond to emergency, time critical and non-
time critical situations at NPL and non-NPL sites. Planning for removal actions in FY90
will be more difficult than ever before. On the one hand, SARA provides broader removal
authority and imposes new requirements; on the other hand, removal funding did not
increase above the FY89 level.
Each region should recognize that it probably does not have sufficient funds to
address all actual or threatened releases that meet the removal criteria in the National
Contingency Plan (NCP). Responsible management means having to make some tough
decisions. Regions may have to defer funding time critical actions in order to maintain a
sufficient contingency for classic emergencies. Additionally, regions have to depend more
upon state and local authorities to address the real, but smaller threats that regions now
occasionally handle.
The increased use of enforcement authorities becomes essential as the funds for
removal actions are reduced. PRP searches should be initiated as soon as a candidate site
has been identified. Oral notice, followed by written notice, should be given to PRPs in
emergency situations. For time critical situations, written notice should be given to
identified PRPs, negotiations should be conducted and administrative orders issued to the
extent possible where there are viable parties and the work can be properly scoped and
implemented. PRP searches may continue after the removal has started to further identify
V-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
PRPs for take-over of actions or cost recovery. Non-time critical removals with viable
PRPs are prime candidates for PRP actions.
Since so much of the removal work cannot be anticipated, regions are only required
to do site-specific planning one quarter in advance. Each quarter, a plan for the upcoming
quarter is prepared. A region begins this planning period by identifying sites in CERCLIS
which are candidates for removal work in the upcoming quarter, designating the expected
lead and identifying the funding each action will require. Oversight dollars for PRP
removals will be provided through the Case Budget. In order for funds to be available for
classic emergencies or for sites that cannot be identified during the planning process, a
removal contingency amount is placed in the non-site/incident activity section of the
CERHELP data base by the region.
Conducting removal investigations at unaddressed NPL sites is a high priority in
FY90. A new event (RS) has been added to CERLCIS to report completed removal
investigations at NPL sites. There is no planning requirement; actual completions should
be reported as they occur.
The process for determining quarterly Advices of Allowance for the removal
program is described in Chapter VI.
REMEDIAL PLANNING REQUIREMENTS
Site Classification
As a result of the recommendations of the 90 day study, regions will no longer be
required to enter or maintain the site classification.
NV - Search complete, no viable PRPs, orphan site;
VC - Viable PRP; cannot do work; and
VP - Search complete, viable PRPs.
Regions will be required to enter into CERCLIS outcome codes upon completion of an
NPL or non-NPL PRP search. See the Enforcement Planning Requirements section of this
Chapter for additional information.
Project/Event Lead Codes
Project/event lead codes identify the entity performing the work at the site. Exhibit
V-2, on page V-8, shows the valid project/event lead codes. Beginning in FY90, RI/FS
and RD projects can no longer be identified as SE lead.
A lead code must be placed in CERCLIS for all response events and enforcement
activities. The lead code for a project support activity is the same as the lead code for the
activity being supported. For example, management assistance funds to a state in support
of a PRP RI/FS should be coded as RP lead. All enforcement actions (i.e., orders,
decrees, PRP searches, etc.) performed by EPA and all RODs resulting from PRP RI/FS
projects should have a lead of "FE". All enforcement actions conducted by the state should
have a lead of "SE". RODs at Federal Facilities have a lead code of "FF". CERCLIS
should not contain planned obligations for projects with "SR" or "SN" leads.
V-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
The Agency acknowledges that states can and have assumed the lead role in
reaching an agreement with the PRPs for response activities at NPL sites without
negotiating a cooperative agreement or other formal agreement with EPA (SR lead).
However, the NCP has determined that in the absence of a formal agreement the state will
not be officially recognized as the "lead agency" for the project and EPA will not concur on
the remedy selected.
EXHIBIT V-2
PROJECT/EVENT LEAD CODES IN CERCLIS IN FY9O
Lead
F
RP
PS
SN
SR
CO
MR
SE
FE
EP
FF
Definition
Federally financed work performed by Fund/EPA
with no enforcement component (applies to response events)
Potentially Responsible Party financed work
performed by the PRP under a federal order (applies to
response events)
Federally financed work by a State with no
enforcement component - Money provided through
a cooperative agreement (applies to response events)
Potentially Responsible Party financed work
performed by PRP under a state order with
oversight paid for or conducted by EPA through a
cooperative agreement or, if oversight is not funded by EPA,
a State Memorandum of Agreement or other formal
document between EPA and the state (applies to response
events)
State financed (no Fund dollars) work performed by
the state (applies to response events)
Potentially Responsible Party response under a
state order and no EPA oversight support or money
provided through a cooperative agreement and no other
formal agreement exists between EPA and the state (applies to
response events)
Work performed by the Coast Guard - Limited to
removals (applies to response events)
Preauthorization Mixed Funding (Fund/Responsible Party)
work performed by PRP under a federal decree with
an agreement that the fund will provide
reimbursement to the PRP (applies to response events)
Federally financed work performed by a State with
a state enforcement component - Money provided
through a cooperative agreement or other comparable
enforcement document (No longer applies to Rl/FS and RD,
Beginning in FY9O only applies to enforcement activities and
ROD events.)
Federally financed work perfomed by Fund/EPA with
an enforcement component or work done by enforcement
program (No longer applies to RI/FS and RD. Beginning in
FY89 only applies to enforcement activities and ROD
events.)
Work performed by EPA using in-house resources
(only applies to response events)
Work performed by the Federal Facility with oversight
provided by EPA and/or the State
V-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Takeovers
A takeover means a change in entity performing an event. Typically, this occurs
where a PRP settlement has been concluded after the event has been started. It may also
occur where the fund assumes a PRP-lead project because of non-compliance.
For each remedial or removal event takeover, a new CERCLIS record must be
created and the first and subsequent start (FSS) and complete (FSC) codes (C2115 and
C2116) revised. A takeover does not create a new OU. The original CERCLIS event must
be updated to show the completion date as the date of the takeover. The start date for the
new CERCLIS event is also the date of the takeover.
The CERCLIS Event Takeover Flag (C2114) is manually maintained. A "T" is
used in this field to flag the original event which has the change in lead. The new event has
an event code followed by a sequence number to indicate the original event that was taken
over.
When the takeover of a response event occurs and work has not proceeded past the
workplan stage, credit will be given to the program taking over the lead for both a start and
completion. For example, assume a settlement is reached for a PRP to conduct a RI/FS for
which a fund has already obligated funds but no work has been approved. The PRPs, in
picking up the project at this stage, will get a RI/FS start. Had the work plan been
approved, the fund would have received RI/FS start credit. In order to assure credit is
given to the proper program, the FSS and FSC codes should be placed with the event
which was taken over. (See Exhibit V-3 for an example of the takeover coding.)
However, if a takeover occurs after the workplan stage then the new lead will only receive
credit for a completion; the previous lead retains credit for the start. Exhibit V-4 shows the
proper placement of the FSS and FSC codes under these circumstances. Basically the FSS
code stays with the original event record and the FSC code is placed with the new record.
EXHIBIT V-3
EVENT OR ACTIVITY TAKEOVER AT WQRKPLAN STAGE
TAKEOVER PLAN ACTUAL PLAN ACTUAL
QU EVENT LEAD FLAG START START COMP. COMP. F§£ FSC COMMENTS
01 C01 F T 88/4 7/29/88 89/1 11/30/88 SITE WIDE
01 C02 RP C01 89/1 11/30/88 91/1 A A SITE WIDE
V-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
EXHIBIT V-4
EVENT OR ACTIVITY TAKEOVER
TAKEOVER PLAN ACTUAL PLAN
Oil EVENT LEAD FLAG START START COMP. COMP. FSS FSC COMMENTS
01 C01 F T 88/1 H/15/87 89/3 4/30/89 A SITE WIDE
01 C02 RP C01 89/3 4/30/89 90/2 A SITE WIDE
If a PRP takes over RI/FS after program dollars have been obligated, unspent funds
should be immediately deobligated. After these funds are replaced in the region's Advice
of Allowance, they may be used by the region for other RI/FS activities or in accordance
with the flexible funding priorities outlined in Chapter VI. If the region does not have
sufficient Case Budget funds to oversee the PRP RI/FS, it may request a change in the
Advice of Allowance to move funds from the program to enforcement. However, only the
funds needed to provide oversight during the current fiscal year should be requested.
Additional funds for RI/FS activities in subsequent fiscal years may be requested from the
Case Budget. If the PRPs take over the RD or RA after program funds have been
obligated, the region can retain the funds needed to provide oversight of the PRP RD or
RA activities since they are in the same program element. The remainder should be
deobligated. Once again, after these funds are replaced in the region's AOA they may be
used for other RD activities or in accordance with the flexible funding priorities. Funds to
support PRP negotiations, including the development of workplans, should be funded by
the Case Budget.
When PRP RI/FS requires significant revisions to the Feasability Study or Field
work prior to signing the ROD, the event should be coded as a Fund takeover before
dollars are obligated.
If the Fund originally obligated dollars for RD and/or RA activities and a takeover
occurs, regions will have to request a change in account number through their regional
Financial Management Officer (FMO). The activity code within the account number
changes if the Agency is acting in an oversight role as opposed to performing the response
action.
When there is a takeover of a removal action, credit is given to the program with the
original start and the completion is credited to the program assuming the work.
Impact on Funding Status of PRP Takeover
During the development of outyear budget planning information, regions should
pay particular attention to the probability of a PRP takeover or the potential for a mixed
funding response. Historically, twenty to twenty five percent of each region's Federal or
state lead RI/FS result in PRP lead RDs and RAs. Regions should examine the sites
scheduled for RD and/or RA in FY91 and FY92, ascertain PRP viability and the strength of
their enforcement case, there relative environmental priority, and determine the likelihood
of a PRP takeover.
V-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
No Action RODs
The NA (No Action ROD) event should not be used begining in FY90. All
completed RI/FS should have an RO (ROD) event entered. No action remedies should be
shown through use of the remedial technology code (C3401 = RT and C3402 = NA).
Operable Units in Remedial and Enforcement Programs
One of the driving mechanisms for Superfund's budgeting and planning process is
the Operable Unit (OU) concept. Confusion over the definition of OU has led to
conflicting planning and tracking methodologies among regions. Outlined below is a
standard methodology for tracking OUs on an event-specific level that must be followed by
all regions.
The NCP defines an OU as "discrete actions that comprise incremental steps toward
the final remedy." This means that any specific area or response may be considered an
OU. Exhibit V-5 provides the ground rules for OUs and Exhibit V-6 provides examples of
operable units for the different remedial phases.
The OU field in CERCLIS does not reflect the definitions or ground rules for
operable units. In CERCLIS, an operable unit is defined by the combination of operable
unit number, event sequence number, and the first and subsequent start and completion
codes. Past the ROD stage the QU number field in CERCLIS is used to tie the RD and RA
back to a particular ROD. For example, if you have only one ROD, no matter how many
separate plans and specifications or separate bid packages are developed, the OU number in
CERCLIS will remain "01". In this situation, the sequence number and first and
subsequent start and completion codes would be used to delineate that, by definition, there
is more than one operable unit.
Many enforcement activities are conducted on an OU basis, e.g., negotiations and
Orders on Consent Decrees. A CERCLIS change request is under regional review which
will allow OU coding of these activities. The OU number, event and event sequence
number must be identified in CERCLIS in the remedy section of the enforcement activity.
There are several OU structures, as shown in Exhibit V-7 including:
one occurrence of each event;
multiple events (RDs, RAs) from a single ROD;
multiple events from multiple RODs.
If a site has multiple like-events (e.g., RDs) within a single operable unit,
CERCLIS automatically generates a sequence number for each event. The sequence
number is dependant on the order the event is entered into the system. If a single operable
unit has multiple RDs and RAs, the only way to tie an RD with its corresponding RA is
through the system-generated sequence number. Therefore, regions must be certain that
the planning information for the RD and its RA are entered into CERCLIS at the same time.
V-9
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
EXHIBIT V-5
OPERABLE UNIT GROUNDRULES
Each OU at the RI/FS stage must result in
a ROD; subsequent RODs must address
an aspect of the remedy not developed in
the initial ROD.
Each OU at the RD stage must result in
separate plans and specifications.
Each OU at the RA stage must be based
on a separate bid package.
Potentially Responsible Party, state or
EPA takeovers do not result in separate
OUs.
EXHIBIT V-6
EXAMPLES OF OPERABLE UNITS
RI/FS
Source Control
Groundwater Cleanup
Permanent Relocation
RDandRA
Pump and Treat System
Pilot Testing
Incineration
Cap
Waterline Installation
Soil Removal
V-10
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
EXHIBIT V-7
OPERABLE UNITS AND
FIRST AND SUBSEQUENT START AND COMPLETIONS CODING
ONE OCCURRENCE OF EACH EVENT/ACTIVITY
mi
01
01
01
01
01
01
EVENT
FN1
CO1
RO1
AN1
RD1
RA1
PLAN
START
87/3
88/1
89/4
90/2
91/2
ACTUAL
START
5/25/87
11/15/87
PLAN ACTUAL
COM P. COMP.
88/1 10/20/87
89/4
89/4
90/2
91/2
93/2
ESS
A
A
A
FSC
A
A
A
A
COMMENT
SITE WIDE
SITE WIDE
SITE WIDE
SITE WIDE
MULTIPLE EVENTS/ACTIVITIES FROM A SINGLE ROD
mi
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
EVENT
FN1
CO1
RO1
AN1
RD1
RA1
AN2
RD2
RA2
PLAN ACTUAL
START START
87/3 5/25/87
88/1 11/15/87
89/4
90/2
91/2
90/4
91/2
91/3
PLAN ACTUAL
COMP. COMP.
88/1 10/20/87
89/4
89/4
90/2
91/2
93/2
91/2
92/2
93/4
ESS
A
B
B
D
D
FSC COMMENT
A SITE WIDE
A SITE WIDE
B SOURCE
B SOURCE
D GROUNDWATER
D GROUNDWATER
MULTIPLE EVENTS/ACTIVITIES WITH MULTIPLE RODS
mi
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
EVENT
FN1
RI1
FS1
FS2
RO1
AN1
RD1
RD2
RA1
RA2
FN2
CO1
RO1
AN1
RD1
RD2
RA1
RA2
PLAN
START
87/3
88/1
89/1
89/2
90/2
90/4
91/2
91/2
92/1
87/4
88/2
90/1
90/3
90/4
91/3
93/3
ACTUAL
START
5/25/87
11/15/87
12/23/88
1/5/89
9/25/87
2/5/88
PLAN ACTUAL
COMP. COMP.
88/1 10/20/87
89/1 12/23/88
90/1
90/2
90/2
90/4
91/2
92/1
93/4
92/3
88/2 3/22/88
90/1
90/1
90/3
91/3
93/3
94/1
94/4
JESS
B
C
D
B
C
D
B
C
C
D
FSC
C
D
D
B
C
C
B
B
B
C
D
C
D
COMMENT
WATERLINE
WATERLINE
WATERLINE
WATERLINE
WATERLINE
WATERLINE A
WATERLINE B
WATERLINE A
WATERLINE B
GROUNDWATER
GROUNDWATER
GROUNDWATER
GROUNDWATER A
GROUNDWATER B
GROUNDWATER A
GROUNDWATER B
V-ll
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
First and Subsequent Starts and Completions
Start and completion codes (C2115 and C2116, respectively) are used to identify
and characterize the sequencing of events and operable units. They are not used for
enforcement activities. If an event does not have actual dates, the start and completion
codes are determined by the planned dates. One of the codes shown in Exhibit V-8 must be
assigned to each remedial event as it is entered into CERCLIS.
EXHIBIT V-8
FIRST AND SUBSEQUENT START AND COMPLETIONS
A = First and only event at a site
B = First of two or more events
C = Subsequent, but not final event
D = Final of two or more events.
The first and subsequent start (FSS) and first and subsequent complete (FSC)
codes are based on event start and completion dates, not the system generated sequence
number. Thus the first start of an event at a site is coded "A". If a second like event is
started, the "A" code for the first event start must be changed to a "B" and the second like
event is assigned a "D" code. If a third like event is started, the first event remains a "B",
the second event must be changed from a "D" to "C" and the third event is assigned a "D"
code. Event completions use the same methodology. If there is one occurrence of each
event, all FSS and FSC codes are "A".
Exhibit V-7 illustrates the use of the first and subsequent start and completion
codes. Since the FSS and FSC codes are manually maintained, it is necessary to update
these codes each time an event is added. Exhibit V-9 indicates combinations of FSS/FSC
codes that are inconsistent with the coding procedures.
EXHIBIT V-9
IMPOSSIBLE FSS AND FSC CODE COMBINATIONS
More than one A, B, or D
An A and B
An A and D
An A and C
C without a D and B
B and C without a D
C and D without a B
V-12
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
To Be Determined fTBD) Sites
Under certain circumstances, regions may not be able to identify all the sites
necessary to meet SCAP targets. This may occur for the following activities:
First RI/FS starts;
Administrative Cost Recovery;
Small Case Cost Recovery;
Section 106 RD/RA referrals without settlement; and
Unilateral Administrative Orders (UAOs) for RD/RA
In such cases, regions may enter planning data into TBD site records. CERCLIS
provides the capability, through the use of a pseudo-EPA identification number, to set up
temporary site records as TBDs until the actual site is identified. Following are procedures
for handling SCAP TBD sites and associated planning data in CERCLIS.
The key data field for all CERCLIS site and related records is the EPA Identification
Number. This number is twelve characters in length with the first two characters
identifying the state in which the site is located. The third position identifies it as a
permanent or temporary Dun & Bradstreet number, and the remaining nine digits are
unique to a site within the state. The method of handling TBD sites in CERCLIS must be
consistent with guidance for assigning EPA Identification Numbers to valid Superfund
sites.
The procedure for assigning pseudo numbers is as follows. Each SCAP TBD site
to be entered into CERCLIS will be assigned a unique 12-character EPA Identification
Number which is constructed from regionally assigned state codes and numbers. The
pseudo state codes shown in Exhibit V-10 for each region would be used in the first two
positions of the pseudo ID.
EXHIBIT V-10
PSEUDO STATE CODES
Reeion Pseudo State Code
V-13
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
The third position of the code will always be "T" which further identifies the site as
being a "TBD" site. The remaining nine digits will be selected from the 1000 numbers
purchased from Dun & Bradstreet by HQ and allocated to each region.
An example of the use of the code is as follows. Region I has three TBD sites for
RI/FS starts to be entered into CERCLIS. EPA Identification Numbers to be used for the
three sites are as follows:
TBD site #1 - ZAT982565053
TBD site #2 - ZAT982565061
TBD site #3 -- ZAT982565079
At the time a real site is determined for TBD site #1, the site and associated data for
EPA Identification Number ZAT982565053 are deleted from the CERCLIS data base.
Subsequently, the appropriate planning data are added to the real site in the CERCLIS data
base. The pseudo number, ZAT982565053, is then recycled for future use.
Regions may not use TBDs in planning subsequent RI/FS starts. When multiple
OUs at a site are involved, regions should schedule the subsequent starts and associated
core activities when planning the first RI/FS start at the site to the maximum extent
possible. Subsequent starts should be scheduled even if they are not planned to begin in
FY90. Even though TBDs are being used for target setting purposes, regions must have
real sites in CERCLIS which can be substituted at a later date for the pseudo sites.
Standard Timeframes
When identifying sites for RI/FS starts, regions must provide schedules for all
associated remedial and enforcement core activities, including date of RA contract award
and Section 106 and/or Section 107 referrals to HQ for removal and remedial activities.
Exhibit V-l 1 is a list of some of the core activities and their respective standard durations.
Standard durations should only be used if more accurate estimates are not
available. When better planning data and schedules are developed
CERCLIS must be revised to reflect these schedules. Following are special
guidelines that should be considered when establishing schedules for certain core activities:
RD/RA negotiations begin when the first special notice for RD/RA is
issued, when a waiver of special notice for RD/RA is issued or when the
first general notice letter for RD/RA with expected completion dates is
issued. HQ strongly encourages beginning RD/RA negotiations when the
draft FS and proposed plan are released to the public, especially in cases
where the PRPs conducted the RI/FS or the proposed remedy is non-
controversial. At the very latest, special/general notice should be issued
when the ROD is signed. The maximum duration of RD/RA negotiations is
two quarters post ROD. If no good faith offer is received, regions should
proceed with a unilateral Administrative Order (where applicable) or Fund-
financed RD. Use the following guidelines when scheduling RD/RA
negotiations:
PRPs conducted RI/FS or strong likelihood of PRP takeover- 2
quarters post ROD. The referral to DOT or HQ or a Fund-financed
RD should be planned in the same quarter as completions of the
negotiations.
V-14
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Fund RI/FS, some viable PRPs, some likelihood of PRP takeover--
2 quarters post ROD. The referral to DOJ or HQ or a Fund-financed
RD should be planned in the same quarter as completions of the
negotiations.
Fund RI/FS, few PRPs, little possibility of PRP takeover-- 1
quarter post ROD. A Fund-financed RD would be scheduled to
begin the same quarter negotiations are planned to be complete.
Orphan site ~ O quarters. A Fund-financed RD would be scheduled
to begin the quarter after the ROD is signed.
The date of contract award for a Fund-financed RA is assumed to be two
quarters after the start of the RA.
Federal Facility LAG negotiations, pursuant to notice letters, are on a 90-day
time frame, with a one-time ability to extend to 120 days. Schedules for
these three-party negotiations are to be established at least two weeks prior
to the quarter that the LAG settlement is targeted.
Identifying core activities and providing planned obligation estimates are important
due to the impacts these projects, especially RAs, have on outyear budgets for the program
areas. The cost of RA projects makes it imperative that scheduled start dates and planned
obligations are known well in advance of the beginning of the fiscal year. In essence,
dollars associated with RA project starts are locked in during budget formulation eighteen
months prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. As a result, as better information becomes
available on project costs, dollar estimates, and project schedules, the core activity plans
should be updated and kept current in CERCLIS.
Planning for Mega Sites
FY90 regional requests in CERCLIS for RI/FS starts should be limited to an
average of $750K per project and all ongoing RI/FS should be fully funded. The $750K
limit and full funding requirement do not pertain to mega sites (sites with total RL/FS
projects in excess of or expected to exceed $3 million) For mega-sites a new requirement
for FY90 is the submission of a mega-site management plan characterizing site problems
and management options. Mega-site management plans require joint development by
response and enforcement personnel including Office of Regional Council (ORC). The
purpose of the plan is to document the region's approach for managing the site, to identify
coordination options, and to project total resource requirements for the site. Mega-site
management plans are to be completed by June 1989 and June 1990, so issues can be
resolved prior to the development of the operating plan for FY90 and FY91, respectively.
Examples of mega-site management plans for large sites can be obtained from Region I
(New Bedford site) and Region VIII (Clark Fork site). Technical assistance can be
obtained from HSCD.
Treatability Study Planning
The performance of treatability studies during the RI/FS is a priority for the
remedial program. Separate identification of this work allows the program to determine
and explain the impact of treatability studies on RI/FS and RD costs and schedules. Since
funds for treatability studies are not included in the $750,000 per operable unit and
$1,100,000 per site RI/FS cost, it is necessary to establish treatability studies as a separate
V-15
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
event code ("TS") in CERCLIS beginning in FY90. Funds should be planned site-
specifically and, since regions will receive resources through the workload model for
treatability studies, planned start and completion dates are required. Regions should also
record actual start and completion dates in CERCLIS.
EXHIBITV-n
STANDARD TIMEFRAMES
ACTIVITY
Non-NPL PRP Searches
NPL PRP Searches
RI/FS Negotiations
Federal Facility Negotiations
Fund RI/FS
(FS to Public)
(ROD)
PRP RI/FS
(FS to Public)
(ROD)
RD/RA Negotiations (post ROD)
Case Development (ends in referral)
Sec. 106 or 106/107 Settlement Referrals for
Concurrence (time at DOJ)
Sec. 106 or 106/107 RD/RA Referrals without
Settlement or Cost Recovery Referrals
(ongoing cases
referred to DOJ until conclusion)
RD or FF/PRP RD Oversight
RA or FF/PRP RA Oversight
Removal Negotiations
Removals
DURATIONS
(In Quarters)
Alternate Remedial Contracts Strategy (ARCS') Coding
The ARCS was developed in response to the need for additional competition and
the desire for more contractors in the remedial contracting program. The strategy builds on
the concept of rewarding good performance on the part of the contractors by assigning
more work to good performers.
Each region or group of regions has a set of contractors to which remedial
planning, design and construction management work may be assigned. Each contract will
have a small base quantity of work and many options for additional work. With ARCS,
regions will have complete responsibility for contract management.
V-16
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
It is essential to the integrity of the ARCS concept that the work be distributed
evenly to all contractors during start up. This will ensure a sound basis for evaluation and
decisions regarding future assignment of work. It is also important for regions to establish
systems for monitoring, analyzing and projecting program management costs which will
become part of the SCAP negotiations.
In order to convey contract information to HQ, the five character Financial Vehicle
data element in CERCLIS (C3239) will be used to identify the type of contract and the
name of the ARCS contractor. If an entity other than the ARCS contractor will perform the
work, the first three positions of the five character Financial Vehicle element is used to
identify the type of contract and the last two characters should be 00. For example, if the
contract is assigned to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Financial Vehicle entered
should be "COEOO" (BUROO for Bureau of Reclamation projects). If the contract is
assigned to ARCS, the first three characters of the Financial Vehicle data element should be
"ARC." The fourth and fifth characters identify the particular ARCS contractor. Exhibit
V-12, on the following page, contains the codes to be placed in characters four and five
based on the regions and existing ARCS contractors. As new contractors are awarded
contracts, the region should contact HQ and a new code will be reserved for that contractor.
The contractor information should be placed in CERCLIS when inputting the planned
obligation data for FY90 and beyond. HQ will work with the regions to develop a
schedule for revising the historical ARCS financial information. Funds needed for ARCS
program management should be placed in the CERHELP data base by contractor.
If regions are planning to use ARCS contractors and pay for them through the Core
Budget, the same codes should be used.
Remedial Action Information
As the Agency approaches reauthorization in an era of reduced RA budgets, there is
a need for additional information to (1) support and justify the response RA budget; (2)
provide RA cost tracking information; and (3) provide for characterization of the RA
projects and their associated costs. The information to be placed in CERCLIS includes:
RA cost estimate (capital cost) at the ROD stage. This information must be
entered into CERCLIS when the ROD for both Fund and PRP financed
activities is signed.
RA cost estimate at the completion of the RD phase. This information is
required for Fund-financed RAs only and must be entered into CERCLIS
when the RD is complete.
Current year Fund-financed RA planned obligation.
Contract award amount. This information must be entered into CERCLIS
when the contract is awarded for a Fund-financed RA.
Type of RA. This information must be entered into the Technology
Information Qualifier (C3402) against the ROD event when the ROD is
signed and against the RA event when requesting RA funds or recording a
PRP PA start. Exhibit V-13, on the following page, contains the RA type
codes.
V-17
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
F.YHTRTT V-12
ARCS CONTRACTOR CODES
REGION
CONTRACTOR
CODE
REGION I
ARTHUR D. LITTLE
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL
METCALF & EDDY
NUS CORPORATION
ROYF.WESTON
EBASCO
COM
REGION I
TAMS CONSULTANTS
MALCOLM-PIRNIE
ROYF.WESTON
EBASCO
COM
ICF
REGION III
TETRA-TECH
NUS CORPORATION
ECOLOGY* ENVIRONMENT
CH2M HILL
BLACK &VEATCH
REGION IV
ROY F. WESTON
EBASCO
COM
CH2M HILL
BLACK & VEATCH
BECHTEL
REGION V
WW ENGINEERING
PRC ENVIRONMENTAL
DONOHUE & ASSOCIATES
ROYF.WESTON
ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT
CH2M HILL
BLACK & VEATCH
REGIONS VI, VII AND VII
MORRISON-KNUDSON
JACOBS ENGINEERING
SVERDRUP
FLUOR DANIEL
URS CORPORATION
ROY F. WESTON
CDM
CH2M HILL
REGIONS IX AND X
URS CORPORATION
ROYF.WESTON
ICF
ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT
CH2M HILL
BECHTEL
V-18
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Planned and actual RD completion date (mm/dd/yy) for Fund and PRP
financed RDs (subevent completion);
Planned and actual RA contract award date (mm/dd/yy); and
RA on-site construction actual start (subevent start required for cost
recovery).
Regions will not receive funds for a RA in their Advice of Allowance
unless the RA remedy type is in CERCLIS. Regions will not receive credit
for a PRP RA start unless the remedy type is in CERCLIS.
The necessary financial information must be entered into CERCLIS with a
financial type (C3202) of "E" against the ROD, RD, RA and RA contract award events.
Since information on planned RA funding needs is constantly being reviewed, it is
essential that the planned obligation for RA placed in CERCLIS when projecting the
putyear budget be updated when better information is available (i.e., ROD is signed or RD
is completed). The specific dates (mm/dd/yy) for RD completion and RA contract award
should be added when initial targets are set in February with monthly updates until the
actual dates occur.
It is recognized that most RODs contain multiple remedies. Regions should select
all the categories from Exhibit V-13 that are described in the ROD. No-action ROD should
be identified by entering "NA" in the Technology Information Qualifier with the "ROD
event.
Project Support Activities
Planning requirements for project support activities (community relations, technical
assistance, state management assistance, etc.) has been changed for FY90. Regions will
no longer be required to plan or report the start or completion of these activities. Because
of workload model impacts, this change does not apply to treatability studies operation and
maintenance (O&M) or long term response (LTR). During the development of the budget,
funding needs can be planned site-specifically or non-site specifically by event type in
CERHELP. During the operating year, activities needing funds in the upcoming quarter
must either be planned site-specifically in CERCLIS prior to generation of the CERCLIS
AOA report or a quarterly breakout (by activity) of the annual funding need must be
provided in CERHELP.
If the regional project support budget is established non-site specifically then,
regardless of whether the quarterly planning is site or non-site specific, the total annual
project support budget must be reduced by the quarterly funding needs prior to HQ
placement of the Advice of Allowance in CERHELP. If a region plans project support
activities non-site specifically, the planned funding amount in CERHELP must be reduced
as the site-specific funding documents are processed (See Chapter VI on handling financial
data in CERCLIS). Failure to make these adjustments could cause the region to exceed its
annual budget and result in approval of their AOA being withheld.
Regions should also plan the conduct of aerial surveys by the Environmental
Management System Laboratories (EMSL) in CERCLIS. Funds for EMSL can be
obligated through a procurement request or through the change request procedures. The
transferring of funds to EMSL follows the normal change request procedures. The change
V-19
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
request would keep the funds under TFAY9A and show the Allowance Holder as 60. The
purpose should be shown as Aerial Surveillance. Regions must be sure to change the
budget source in CERCLIS to a HQ account after the change request is processed. (See
Chapter VI for additional information on budget source codes and change request
procedures.) If a change request is used, regions should follow up with a letter to EMSL
detailing the site names and/or specific instructions.
The lead code for project support activities must match the lead code for the
project/event being supported. For example, the lead for community relations at an RP lead
RI/FS should be RP.
EXHIBIT V-13
REMEDIAL ACTION REMEDY TYPE CODES
Code
Definition
Technology
RI
SO
vx
vs
WF
BO
or
ON
Incineration/Thermal Destruction
Solidification/Stabilization
Vacuum Extraction
Volatilization/Soil Aeration
Soil Washing/Flushing
Biodegradation/Land Application
Other Treatment Technologies
Onsite Containment
RO
Offsite Containment
Onsite
Offsite
Fixation
Neutralization
Soil Vapor Extraction
Aeration
Flaring
Metals Precipitation
Ion Exchange
In Situ Biodegradation
Biodentrification
Activated Sludge
Decontamination
Dewatering
Offsite RCRA Treatment and Recycling
InSitu Flaming
Dechlorinization (APEG/KPEG)
Soil Cover
Asphalt Cap
RCRA Cap
Levees
Slurry Wall
Onsite RCRA Landfill (Above/Below Grade)
Deep Well Injection
Excavation
Sediment Excavation and Dredging
Pumping Contained Wastes
Debris Removal
Groundwater Extraction/Injection (Hydraulic Containment)
Active Landfill Gas Collection
Soil Excavation
Sediment Excavation and Dredging
Pumping Contained Wastes
Debris Removal
Groundwater Extraction/Injection (Hydraulic Containment)
Active Landfill Gas Collection
Offsite RCRA Landfill
Offsite Solid Waste Landfill
V-20
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
EXHTBTT V-13
REMEDIAL ACTION REMEDY TYPE CODES (Cont.)
Code
Definition
Technology
OS
PT
Other Source Control Remedies
Pump and Treatment
RH
OH
Alternate Water Supply
Other
LT
NA
TS
Leachate Collection/Treatment
No Action
Temporary Storage
Onsite/Offsite Residual
Air Stripping
Carbon Absorption
Electrochemical Reduction
Extraction
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Oil/Water Separator
Precipitation
Wellhead Treatment
Activated Carbon Units - Residential
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
Coagulation
Flocculation
Activated Sludge
Municipal Distribution System
Monitoring
Plume Management
Natural Atenuation
Subsurface Water Diversion/Collection
Slope Stabilization
Demolition
Relocation
Institutional Controls
Onsite
Offsile
Technical Assistance Grants
The region should budget technical assistance grant (TAG) funds at Fund or PRP
sites based on their knowledge of which communities may request such grants. Since
many communities may not be eligible or may decline to apply for various reasons, the
region should not assume that every NPL site will require a TAG. Funding for all TAGs,
including TAGs at Federal Facilities, is in the response budget. Regions should negotiate
reimbursement of TAG costs at the Federal Facility during FFA/IAG discussions. The
regions are to administer the TAGs at Federal Facilities.
V-21
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
ENFORCEMENT PLANNING REQUIREMENTS
Mixed Funding Settlements
The term "mixed funding" is used generically to refer to three types of settlements:
pre-authorization ("MR" lead);
mixed work (two or more operable units or phases, "RP" and "F" or
"S"lead); and
cashouts ("F" or "S" lead).
Pre-authorization occurs where PRPs reach a settlement with EPA whereby they
agree to perform a share of the response, and the Agency agrees to reimburse some part of
their expenses. These are coded in CERCLIS as "MR" lead events. Mixed work occurs
where PRPs and EPA agree to jointly work on a project or where work may be divided
between the parties. No reimbursement to the PRPs occurs. Mixed work should be
shown as separate operable units or phases in CERCLIS. Operable units or phases where
the PRP are performing the work should have "RP" lead events. The lead for events at the
operable units or phases where Fund-financed activities are being performed should be "F"
or "S". Cashouts occur where PRPs agree to pay some share of the site response cost,
past or future, and do not perform any work themselves. This is typically done by PRPs to
"buy-out" their liability at the site. Events at sites with cashout settlements should be coded
in CERCLIS as "F" or "S". Cashouts also occasionally require the establishment of a
special account because the PRPs have agreed only to pay for work at a particular site.
Regions are encouraged to use mixed funding settlements where possible.
For FY90, HQ will be shifting the obligation authorities for pre-authorization to the
regions. Funds needed for these agreements are part of the region's RA budget. Projects
should be given an "MR" lead. Funds needed for PRP oversight should reflect the
appropriate contractor/agency (COE/BUREC) carrying out the oversight in the financial
vehicle field m CERCLS. EPA's cost share should be identified by entering "PRPOO" in
the financial vehicle field.
PRP Removal
For non-NPL sites, PRP searches should be initiated as soon as a removal
candidate has been identified. The preliminary PRP search should be completed with
additional research occurring, before most time critical and non-time critical removals are
initiated. This allows for timely negotiations for Administrative Orders (AO) to occur
before the start of the removal. PRP searches also support possible cost recovery actions
Regions are required to report both planned and actual PRP search start and completion
dates, outcome of the PRP search,PRP lead removal start and completion dates remedy
code, value of removal, AO completion data, and completion status in CERCLIS.
Notice letters to owners, operators and other identified PRPs should be given and
negotiations conducted before the removal is initiated in every instance unless time does not
allow. Oral notice, followed by written notice, should be given in emergency situations
For certain non-time critical removals which represent major response efforts the special
V-22
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
notice procedures of Section 122(e) should be employed. Where special notice is not
employed, written notice under Section 122(a) must be given.
Regions should operate on the assumption that, time permitting, where viable PRPs
have been identified, they will issue administrative orders, unilateral or consent, at every
removal action. Ordinarily, where time allows, a consent order is sent to PRPs before a
unilateral order is issued. Factors which may justify fund financing without an order
include technical difficulty in defining the steps to be taken in an order, unique technical
complexity, inappropriateness of allowing a particular PRP to do the work, and insofar as
resources are constrained, very low cost of remedy. In some cases, a unilateral order can
be converted to a consent order, but this should be done without delaying PRP response.
Oversight costs should be taken into account in negotiations, particularly in large removals.
Once PRP lead removals have begun, EPA should have an active oversight role,
including on-scene presence. Contractor assistance is available if needed. Where PRPs are
not complying with the order, regions should be prepared to quickly move forward with
Fund-financed response and later seek treble damages during cost recovery actions. Due to
the time-critical nature of the removal program, regions should seek judicial action for
preliminary relief to compel PRP response only in exceptional circumstances.
Where PRPs comply generally, but violate terms (deadlines, etc.) of the order,
regions should be prepared to enforce the terms of the order via stipulated penalties,
statutory penalties, or other sanctions. When unilateral AOs are issued and not complied
with, treble damages should be sought during cost recovery (unless there was a viable
reason for PRPs not to conduct the work). Regions should track the PRP's compliance
status in CERCLIS. Regions must also develop administrative records to accompany their
actions at removal sites. These records must be available at the local repository.
Pre-RI/FS Enforcement Activity
Regions are strongly urged to use an enforcement site management plan to ensure
that proper funding/enforcement activities and management responsibilities are laid out for a
site. An enforcement site management plan should be put together for a site shortly after
proposal for the NPL. The plan should lay out important enforcement activities that are
essential to happen at the site (proper PRP searches, issuance of RI/FS special notice,
issuance of RD/RA special notice, RD/RA negotiations, development and fmalization of
Consent Decree, issuance of Unilateral Administrative Order). These enforcement activities
should be integrated with Fund-financed or PRP response events at the site or operable
unit. The plan can be used to ensure that funding is requested for the above mentioned
activities and that the proper people in all affected offices (OWPE, OECM, ORC, DOJ, and
region) have been brought into the process at the appropriate points.
For sites likely to be added to the NPL, PRP searches should start concurrently
with the Listing Site Inspection (LSI) or at the latest initiation of the listing process.
The PRP search should be managed ~ including follow up, civil investigator
assistance, and Office of Regional Counsel review -- to assure that: (1) PRPs, particularly
generators, are identified early, (2) general notice is issued well before RI/FS special notice
to enable PRPs to organize, (3) information related to PRPs is obtained months before the
RI/FS special notice, and (4) special notice is issued over 90 days before the planned RI/FS
obligation date. Information requests should be issued at least two quarters before general
notice and must be followed up to assure they are as comprehensive as possible. To the
extent available, information required for special notice should be presented to PRPs before
V-23
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
the actual special notice is issued. Regions are required to record dates associated with
general notices, special notice letters, and information request letters in CERCLIS. Copies
of notice letters should be sent to HQ.
PRP searches should be completed to the extent possible prior to negotiations and
should be planned enough in advance to avoid delaying a scheduled RI/FS start date.
Upon completion of the PRP search regions are required to record the outcome in
CERCLIS. Valid outcome codes (C1719) are:
Search complete, no viable PRPs, orphan site;
Viable PRPs cannot do the work; and
Search complete, viable PRPs.
Regions should be prepared to move quickly through the negotiation process. This
can be accomplished through:
Advance scoping of the RI/FS;
Providing a draft order and statement of work for the RI/FS with the special
notice; and
Establishing interim milestones to judge whether real progress is being
made. These should be shared with the negotiating parties.
The regions have the option of starting discussions with PRPs before, as well as
during the initial 60-day moratorium period. In addition, costs for ongoing or completed
response actions, such as removals should be documented in advance and included in
RI/FS negotiations.
The PRPs who receive special notice have 60 days to submit a proposal to
undertake or finance the RI/FS. During this 60 day period, EPA may not initiate the
RI/FS. Additional studies or investigations authorized under Section 104 may be initiated
and nothing precludes EPA's authority to undertake response or enforcement activity
regarding a significant threat to public health or the environment. The regions may initiate a
scope of work or a negotiations support document which should be funded by Case
Budget. These activities are to be funded under RI/FS negotiations. The scope of work or
negotiations support document should be provided to the PRPs when notice is given so
they can prepare an adequate proposal.
RI/FS Settlement and Oversight
Settlements with PRPs for RI/FS are typically accomplished through an
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) or in rare circumstances by consent decree (CD)
or Unilateral Order (UAO). AOCs are preferred. In any case, the settlement document
should include either a work- plan prepared by EPA using Case Budget funds or a detailed
Statement of Work with a workplan to be developed according to EPA guidance manuals.
A well-defined schedule that lists deliverables and milestones should also be included.
EPA is required to use third party assistance in oversight of PRP lead RI/FS
through Technical Enforcement Support (TES), ARCS, other Federal agencies (e.g.,Corps
of Engineers) or states. Oversight resources are obtained through the Case Budget process.
V-24
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
At the time of settlement a detailed oversight plan should be developed which identifies in-
house and extramural support needs. Oversight should include active field oversight as
well as desktop review of engineering reports and other deliverables. Oversight must be
tracked and billed to PRPs. In addition, regions must ensure compliance with the cleanup
standards in Section 121 for ongoing and new PRP lead RI/FS. Remedial Project
Managers (RPMs) must keep up with progress on PRP lead RI/FS as if it were an EPA
contractor performing the work. Where delays or inadequacies are noted, prompt action,
including enforcement actions, where appropriate, should be taken. Regions must maintain
the PRP compliance status in CERCLIS.
Pre-RD/RA Enforcement Activity - RD/RA Negotiations and Oversight
Prior to completion of the draft FS, regions should undertake considerable planning
and review, including: (1) development of an enforcement strategy with activities,
responsibilities and dates; (2) review of PRP search information for completeness; (3)
consideration, where appropriate, of mixed funding and de minimis settlement options and
discussions with PRPs before the special notice; (4) documentation of past costs (e.g.,
RI/FS) for inclusion in RD/RA negotiations; (5) preparation of a special notice letter and
accompanying draft CD.
HQ strongly encourages special notice for RD/RA be planned and issued concurrent
with the release of the FS to the public or at the latest, when the ROD is signed. PRPs will
have 60 days in which to submit a settlement proposal after receiving notices. If a good
faith proposal is submitted in that timeframe, another 60-day period follows for
negotiations. If a good faith offer is not submitted, negotiations should be terminated.
RD/RA negotiations should not last longer than two quarters post ROD or from the
issuance of special notice or general notice letters with a schedule. The moratoriums set up
by issuance of special notice should be honored. Negotiations should be completed and
settlement reached within the timeframes or a unilateral order should be issued.
Negotiations are completed when the Consent Decree or referral without settlement is sent
to HQ or DOT, a unilateral order is issued or the RD is funded. During the moratorium,
EPA may not initiate remedial action. Additional studies authorized under Section 104,
however, may be initiated during the negotiation period. Initiation of RD during the
moratorium period will only occur in exceptional circumstances and must have advance
concurrence from HQ.
In order to proceed through negotiations expeditiously, regions should prepare a
draft CD early in the process, and establish interim milestones in the RD/RA negotiation
process. Regions are urged to use unilateral orders when negotiations are protracted. In
addition, where the negotiations do not produce agreement and there are viable PRPs, AOs
should be considered to set up treble damages or as a step prior to referral. Every attempt
should be made to complete negotiations within 120 days. However, in accordance with
the streamlined settlement guidance, Regional Administrators may extend the negotiation
period for up to 30 days. Further extensions require the approval of the OWPE Office
Director.
All negotiated settlements for RD/RA, under SARA, must be in the form of CDs.
Regions should consider including a provision in the Consent Decree allowing PRPs to
begin the RD prior to lodging. Administrative Orders on Consent for RA are not permitted.
Oversight of PRP lead RD/RA is performed primarily through REM and ARCS,
though some TES oversight capacity exists. Regions should seek payment of oversight
costs in all such settlements, as well as past costs of RI/FS and other removal response
V-25
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
costs. The status of the PRP's compliance with the AO or CD must be kept up-to-date in
CERCLIS.
Section 106 Judicial and Administrative Activity
Referrals for Section 106 enforcement action for RD/RA without settlement are an
integral part of the Superfund Enforcement program. At the end of negotiations, if the
decision is made to proceed with a Fund-financed RD, monies will be available. However,
given the number of RODs signed and RDs completed in the last two years and scheduled
for FY90 even assuming a significant settlement rate, many sites will go without RA
funding. The decisions made on which sites to fund and which to queue will be based on
the environmental prioritization factors. If RA funds are not available, regions may want to
reconsider issuing a unilateral AO or pursuing Section 106 litigation.
The administrative authority under Section 106 should be used at all sites that meet
the criteria outlined in OWPE guidance, to bring PRP negotiations to a close or compel
PRP response at the site. A unilateral order should be issued if a good faith offer is not
submitted within the negotiation timeframes identified or a settlement is not reached at the
end of the moratorium. Unilateral orders issued should include oversight costs.
For PRP lead RI/FS, regions should plan that, absent settlement or compliance with
a unilateral administrative order, these sites will be candidates for referral as Section 106
judicial actions. In addition, on Program lead RI/FS, regions should expect that where
there are viable PRPs, absent settlement, funding or compliance with a unilateral
administrative order, these sites will be candidates for referral as Section 106 actions.
Section 106 actions are expected to become easier, given review of remedial decisions on
the record, and the general success in motions for summary judgment on liability.
CERCLIS needs to be updated monthly with dates of referrals or orders issued,
remedy, compliance status, dollars sought (in case of a cost recovery referral), and value of
remedy.
Cost Recovery
Cost recovery actions are one of the highest Enforcement program priorities in
FY90. Consistent with the priorities matrix, 107 statute of limitation referrals are the
highest priority, followed by non-statute of limitation RA and non-statute of limitation pre-
RA (removal) referrals, respectively. For each site ready for cost recovery (each completed
removal, completed RI/FS, and each RA on-site construction started), regions should have
a completed PRP search and information about the viability of the PRPs; totals for funds
obligated/expended; removal, RI/FS and RD completion dates and RA start dates; RA on-
site construction; and statute of limitations dates. The regions should have strategies that
include the following elements:
Where there are viable PRPs, costs should be documented and a demand
letter sent prior to or concurrent with cost recovery actions. The date the
demand letter is issued should be recorded in CERCLIS;
V-26
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
for a11 removals greater than $200K must be planned in order to be
filed in court within one year of completion, if resources are available, but
in no event later than three years, from the date of completion, unless there
was a Section 104(c)(l)(C) waiver or there clearly will be physical initiation
of on-site construction of the RA within three years. It generally takes three
months from referrral to filing, but may take longer for complex sites;
Referrals for RI/FS and RD should be planned to be filed within two years
from completion unless there is physical on-site construction of the remedial
action within three years;
If an RA on-site construction is started within 3 years of a removal
completion, RI/FS completion or RD completion, the statute of limitation
date for that component is 6 years from the on-site construction date;
Referrals for remedial activities should be planned within a year of the RA
start, if resources are available. If a RI/FS referral was conducted
separately or there are no unreimbursed past costs, a referral should be
initiated when RA funds have been expended unless special circumstances
exist (i.e., non-settlers);
Where there is a partial settlement, an action against viable non-settlers
should be pursued promptly (before the response begins) and treble
damages should be pursued if a unilateral order was issued;
Treble damages should be sought in the referral where Unilateral Orders are
violated;
Each region should issue demand letters and pursue administrative
settlement for response activities less than $200K. EPA will refer some
cases where the PRPs did not respond to the demand letter;
Close Out memorandums should be initiated for all cases when a decision
not to pursue some or all costs has been made. Prior to making this
decision, particularly for large RAs, the PRP search is to be reviewed by a
civil investigator and upgraded as necessary. The date of the Close Out
memorandum and the funds that will not be recovered should be entered
into CERCLIS. If the decision is preliminary, a planned date should be
entered into CERCLIS for the decision document.
Negotiation of Interagency Agreements or other Federal agency compliance
agreements should include a provision for recovery of past Fund expenditures, including
EPA oversight costs.
As part of cost recovery management and preparation for civil referrals, regions
should plan upgrading of PRP searches, assembly of administrative records, cost
documentation, and demand letters. In addition, planning for RI/FS and RD/RA
negotiations should include cost documentation of past removal and RI/FS costs. Finally,
oversight cost recovery and accounts receivable must be managed.
V-27
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
State Enforcement
Regions are required to report progress on State Enforcement lead sites as they
would any other site. This universe includes work financed by the PRP under a state order
with oversight paid for or conducted by EPA (PS-lead) and work financed by the PRP
under a state order and no EPA oversight support or money is provided (SR). SR lead
activities/events should have no planned obligations. Funds for state oversight are
provided through cooperative agreement (CA) or other comparable enforcement document.
While it is recognized that information at SR lead sites is difficult to obtain, regions are
requested to report, through CERCLIS, any information they have on these sites,
particularly if it may contribute to the RA start goals.
FEDERAL FACILITIES
The primary focus of the program is on Federal Facilities currently on or proposed
to the NPL and entering into Section 120 Federal Facility Agreements/Interagency
Agreements (FFA/IAG) with these facilities. The first priority for FY90 is to continue to
oversee work at facilities with §120 FFA/IAGs signed in FY89. The second priority is to
complete §120 FFA/IAG negotiations at facilities which were targeted in FY89 but slipped
to FY90 and the third priority is to enter into § 120 FFA/IAGs at all facilities that were not
targeted for §120 FFA/IAGs in FY89. All proposed and final Federal Facilities, including
Update 9 sites, should have signed §120 FFA/IAGs by the end of FY90, except for several
Federal Facilities which will be targeted in FY91.
Many of the Federal Facilities will have significant RCRA/CERCLA integration
issues. Regions, in conjunction with states, need to address these issues relative to the
scope of the FFA/IAG early in the negotiations process. Both RCRA and CERCLA
program staff, as well as the Office of Regional Counsel, need to be involved in these
discussions.
Federal Facilities are defined as "Facilities owned or operated by a department,
agency, instrumentality of the United States." The Federal Facility Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket contains the primary universe of Federal Facilities that are being
assessed for inclusion on the National Priorities List. The bulk of these Facilities on the
Docket that have been or will be placed on the NPL are Facilities owned by the
Departments of Defense and Energy. Over time, Facilities and lands owned by the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) within the Department of Interior will probably score high
enough for inclusion on the NPL. To date, the Docket does not contain Facilities that fall
within the "Formerly-Owned" category. HQ is currently analyzing these Facilities relative
to the requirements of CERCLA §120.
EPA's policy is to enter into §120 lAGs with all Federal Facilities proposed to or
on the NPL. The scope of these lAGs is to include the RI/FS phase as well as the RD/RA
phase. Where appropriate, and in conjunction with the RCRA program offices, these LAGs
can be used to justify RCRA corrective action requirements. The concept is to use
CERCLA to justify RCRA so that only one set of requirements is applied to avoid
redundant and duplicative efforts. In some cases, however, a combined RCRA/CERCLA
permit/IAG approach may be taken when the situations warrant such an approach, e.g., at
DOE Weapons Facilities, or when the State or EPA RCRA program has compelling
interests at units on a Facility. Pre-planning, coordination among appropriate offices, and
definitive "scoping" of a Federal Facility are necessary factors for successful remediation.
V-28
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Regions should follow the Federal Facility negotiation policy for addressing
Federal Facilities. In essence, the policy is as follows:
Establish 90 day IAG negotiation periods based on the quarterly SCAPIAG
targets. These schedules are to be forwarded to HQ two weeks prior to
each quarter.
Address the RCRA/CERCLA issues prior to the negotiation period in
conjunction with the State and RCRA program offices.
Issue a Federal Facility notice letter to the Federal Facility establishing the
negotiation time frame.
Conduct three-party negotiations. The 90 day period may be extended 30
days if settlement is close.
If issues still remain after the 90/120 day period, the IAG is to be elevated to
HQ (FFHWCO) for dispute resolution. Along with the elevation, the
region should recommend either a 106 AO or two-party agreement should
HQ resolution fail. If settlement is not reached, either the 106 AO will be
referred to DOJ or the region will enter into a two-party agreement,
depending on which is appropriate.
In situations where a Federal agency is a PRP at a private site, they are to be treated
the same as a private party. Cash-outs with premiums with the Federal agency may
expedite RI/FS and RD/RA. negotiations. Similarly, at formerly-owned sites with multiple
PRPs, the Federal agency is to be treated the same as a private party. At formerly-owned
sites where the Federal agency is taking sole responsibility for the RI/FS and RD/RA, the
regions may use a §120 IAG approach.
V-29
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
CHAPTER VI
FINANCIAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
CHAPTER VI - FINANCIAL PLANNING
AND MANAGEMENT
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Following are the actions regional managers must
take to comply with the requirements described in this
Chapter. In order to acquire a more in-depth
understanding of these requirements, the Chapter
itself should be read.
Regions are required to plan their obligations
within program specific budget allocations
given to the regions prior to the July update.
Funding needs within the budget allocation should
have a funding priority status of "Approved."
Funding needs above the budget allocation should
have a funding priority status of "Alternate."
* HQ will not initiate negotiations with a region
until the "Approved" funds requested are
within the budget allocations.
Regions are required to operate within their
final negotiated annual operating budget and
quarterly Advice of Allowance (AOA).
RA funding decisions will be made based on the
RA environmental prioritization. These
decisions will be re-evaluated at mid-year and
throughout the third and fourth quarters.
RI/FS costs should be reduced to a national
average of $750,000 per operable unit and $1.1
million per site with the exception of Mega-sites.
RI/FS budgets will be developed based on these
averages.
No monies will be issued to the region through
the AOA process unless the appropriate project
specific obligation and commitment data are
reflected in CERCLIS.
Regions must pull an Advice of Allowance report
from CERHELP and enter the AOA amounts
from that report into the Integrated Financial
Management System (IFMS) before the end of
the funding quarter.
-------
CHAPTER VI - FINANCIAL PLANNING
AND MANAGEMENT (Cont'd)
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Planned and actual obligations and commitments
in CERCLIS and CERHELP cannot exceed the
annual regional budgets or the AOA will not be
approved.
Shifts of funds between allowances and any
addition or deletion of funds from any
allowances require HQ approval of a SCAP
amendment and a change request.
HQ approval is not required to shift funds
between projects in the other remedial, RI/FS,
RD, removal or enforcement AOA.
CERCLIS must be revised to reflect shifts
between projects within allowances and shifts
between allowances. HQ will not approve a
SCAP amendment request or a change order
until CERCLIS reflects the proposed revisions.
Regions will not receive funds for an RA in their
AOA unless the RA remedy type has been entered
into CERCLIS and the RA has been evaluated and
approved for funding under the RA environmental
prioritization criteria.
A region will not receive funds above its annual
regional budget unless CERCLIS is revised and
a SCAP amendment and change request has been
approved by HQ.
A regional contingency account can "hold"
remedial response funds (except RAs) made
available as a result of PRP takeovers, RD bids
coming in under projected amounts or when
actual obligations were less than planned
obligations.
The contingency account must be reduced when
the region identifies uses for these funds.
In the event of a funding shortfall, the regional
contingency account will be tapped as a first
source of additional monies.
-------
OSWER Directive 92003-01C
CHAPTER VI - FINANCIAL PLANNING
AND MANAGEMENT (Cont'd)
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
If a region receives funds in their AOA which
were not obligated during the quarter, the
relevant planned obligation data in CERCLIS
must be revised or the amount placed in the
contingency account. Failure to make this change
in CERCLIS may cause a reduction in the next
quarter AOA.
Regions will receive their percentage of the
annual removal budget if they have updated
quarterly plans for those amounts in CERCLIS
by the AOA pull date.
Review the financial status of all contracts, lAGs
and CAs regularly. If the required activities have
been completed and there are funds outstanding,
the outstanding funds should be deobligated
immediately.
When a funding document has been processed by
the region, the planned financial data in CERCLIS
must be replaced by the commitment or obligation
data. Failure to make this change may cause a
reduction or withholding of the AOA for
subsequent quarters.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
CHAPTER VT - FTNANCTAT. PT.ANM1NG AND MANAGEMF.1VT
This chapter discusses the impact of the SCAP process on the regional operating
budget and AOA and outlines Superfund financial management responsibilities.
In FY89, the Agency began implementation of the new Integrated Financial
Management System (IFMS). This system will be implemented in two phases. The first
phase is now in place; the second phase is scheduled for implementation in October 1989.
The Agency is still in the developmental stages of phase n. As a result, many of the
financial management systems decisions have not been made and the information in this
chapter will need to be revised. Addenda to the Manual will be issued later in the FY.
SCAP'S RELATIONSHIP TO ANNUAL REGIONAL BUDGET
The SCAP process is the planning mechanism used by the Superfund program to
identify pre-remedial, remedial, removal and enforcement funding needs for the fiscal year.
The planned obligations included in the second quarter SCAP update (February) form the
basis for the regional budgets for the next fiscal year. The final annual regional operating
plan, and the associated budget, are a result of the August HQ and regional negotiations on
the proposed program budgets. Though regions are required to operate within their final
negotiated annual operating budget, adjustments within this budget can be made during the
fiscal year.
The actual allocation of funds is done through the Agency's Phase m Operating
Plan. This plan is submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for apportionment
of funds. After OMB review and concurrence, the Operating Plan is submitted to the
Congress for approval of significant reprogramming of funds.
Prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, each region will be given a proposed
budget allocation for the remedial (including pre-remedial), removal and enforcement
programs. The budget allocations are developed using the program/activity specific criteria
discussed later in this section. Regions are required to plan their obligations within the
program specific allocations, they are not required to plan obligations within the activity
specific criteria. Final budgets will be developed upon completion of the fourth quarter
negotiations between HQ and the regions. Planned obligations for regional activities must
fall within the total identified budget levels, and should be shown by entering "approved"
in the funding priority status data field. Funding needs above the HQ proposed total
budget level must be designated as "alternate". This will allow HQ to see the regional
funding priorities, what activities will not be performed as a result of lack of funds, and
provide the information needed for any supplemental funding requests. HQ will not initiate
negotiations with a region until the funds requested are within the proposed total budget
levels.
Following is an explanation of the criteria used to develop the regional budgets.
Pre-Remedial Annual Regional Budget
The HQ and regional budget for the pre-remedial program is $2 million less than the
funds available in FY89. The proposed regional pre-remedial budget was established
based on the number of State-lead PA/SI completions targeted in the March negotiations.
PA's are priced at $6 K and Si's are priced at $25 K each. Management assistance or other
VI-1
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
forms of state assistance should be funded as project support or Core Program Cooperative
Agreement funds.
Remedial Annual Regional Budget
In FY89, a number of Fund-financed subsequent RA projects starts were not
funded and there are not enough funds for the RAs scheduled to begin in FY90. Funding
for RAs will be distributed to the regions based on the RA environmental prioritization
approach presented in Chapter I. Projects deemed to be of highest environmental priority
will be funded. The funding decision will be reevaluated at mid-year and throughout the
third and fourth quarters.
The criteria used to develop the major portions of the regional budget are shown in
Exhibit VI-1 on the following page.
Fund-Financed Rl'IPS Funding Strategy
FY90 represents the third year of the Fund-financed RI/FS full funding strategy.
The strategy calls for full funding of all projects started prior to or during FY90 by
the end of the year. This strategy excludes a small number of unusually large or
complex sites (Mega sites) which will continue to be funded on an annual basis.
Successful implementation of this strategy requires meeting the RI/FS cost
reduction goals initiated in FY89. This requires that RI/FS costs be reduced to a
national average of $750,000 per operable unit and $1.1 million per site. Both the
operable unit and site goals are important. The operable unit goal primarily affects
year-to-year funding limits. The site goal is needed for longterm cost management
and to eliminate the incentive a region may have to break sites into operable units to
increase its annual budget. A region's RI/FS budget is developed based on the
funding strategy.
Treatability studies are not included in the cost goals. These activities are funded as
a separate event.
Removal Annual Regional Budget
The Removal Annual Regional Budget consists of removal actions and removal
support dollars. The FY90 Removal Action Regional Budget allocations will be distributed
based on 90% of the FY89 initial regional budget allocation. The balance of the FY90
removal budget will be held in reserve at HQ.
FY90 Removal support dollars will be calculated using the program management
costs specified in the mini-ERCS contract.
Enforcement Case Budget Annual Regional Budget
The Case Budget refers to the extramural financial resources necessary to pay for the
support provided to OWPE for Superfund work by contractors, other federal agencies, and
the states. The majority of the Case Budget is used to pay for contractor support.
VI-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
EXHTBTT VT-1
CRITERIA FOR PROPOSED REGIONAL
REMEDIAL BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITY CRITERIA
RI/FS Negotiate Mega-Sites.
$750K per new start.
$250K per FY89 start.
Other ongoing RI/FS based on
number of projects and funds
obligated in previous FYs.
RD $700K for each Fund-financed
RD start targeted in the March
negotiations.
RA Based on dollars and schedules
in CERCLIS in accordance
with the RA environmental
prioritization criteria.
PROJECT SUPPORT
Based on each region's share
of remedial targets negotiated
in March.
TREATABUJTY STUDIES
TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE GRANT
Funds were allocated in
proportion to each region's
Fund-financed RI/FS
starts.
Based on the number of NPL
sites with remedial work
ongoing in FY90.
COREPROGRAM
COOP. AGREEMENT
PRPRD/RA
OVERSIGHT
ARCS
MANAGEMENT
Based on actual and planned
Core Program Cooperative
Agreement obligations in FY89.
Based on the region's
PRP RD and RA projects priced
at $37.5K per quarter.
Based on the number of ARCS
contracts in each region multiplied by
pricing factors for new or ongoing
contracts. Funds are allocated to
regions that have ARCS project
officers.
VI-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Enforcement Case Budget - Annual Regional Budget
The Case Budget refers to the extramural financial resources necessary to pay for the
support provided to OWPE for Superfund work by contractors, other federal agencies, and
the states. The majority of the Case Budget is used to pay for contractor support.
The process for allocating and planning Case Budget spending in FY90 will change
somewhat over the FY89 process. The Case Budget of this chapter describes these
changes and provides guidance on the activities that will require Case Budget support and
detailed instructions on how to secure extramural resources.
A region's Case Budget allocation contains its share of available extramural
resources to support the enforcement activities. This includes the following:
RP Searches;
Removal Negotiations and Oversight;
RI/FS Negotiations;
RD/RA Negotiations;
Federal Facility IAG Negotiations and Oversight;
Sections 106,107 Referrals;
Ongoing PRP Rl/FS Oversight;
Ongoing Litigation Support;
Oversight of State Enforcement;
Project Support; and
Complete Site Support.
As was the case in FY89, Case Budget funds will continue to be allocated in FY90
based on the number of targeted enforcement activities requiring case budget funding
identified in CERCLIS, as well as non-targeted enforcement activities that also need
funding. The budgets for most of the activities are based on activity pricing factors.
(Appendix G includes a discussion of enforcement activity pricing factors.) In FY90, the
Case Budget allocation will be apportioned to the regions based on program outputs in the
Technical Enforcement Workload Model.
Ninety-five percent of the total regional enforcement budget will be allocated to the
regions. Three percent will be used to address complex site needs. Distribution of these
funds for complex sites will occur following the August SCAP negotiations in accordance
with agreements reached by the HQ/regional budget and SCAP planning workgroup. The
remaining two percent of the SCAP budget will be held in HQ as a reserve to meet
unexpected funding requirements.
VI-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
The process for allocating and planning the Case Budget in FY90 will change
somewhat over the FY89 process though funds will still be apportioned based on
SCAP/SPMS targets and measures, financial needs identified in CERCLIS and pricing
factors. The Case Budget section, appearing later in this chapter, describes changes to the
allocation process, while providing guidance on the activities that Case Budget will fund
and detailed instructions on how to secure extramural resources.
ADVICE OF ALLOWANCE PROCEDURES AND FINANCIAL
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The planned obligations identified through the SCAP process are the basis for the
Advice of Allowance (AOA) approved by the Office of the Comptroller and AA SWER.
No monies will be issued to the regions through the AOA process unless
the appropriate project specific obligation and commitment data are
reflected in CERCLIS.
Regional Allowances
In FY90, the Office of the Comptroller will issue six allowances to the regions.
They are:
RA (site specific site allowance);
RD (non-site specific site allowance);
RI/FS (non-site specific allowance);
Removal (non-site specific site allowance);
Other remedial (regular or "O" Allowance); and
Enforcement (regular allowance).
This structure may change as a result of the Congressional reporting requirements
discussed later in this section. The following sections explain how these allowances are
developed and the flexibility available in the Advice of Allowance structure.
The AOA Process
The AOA is based on the Phase m Operating Plan which identifies projected
obligations for each quarter of the fiscal year. The Phase ffl Operating Plan for FY90 is
based on the final SCAP plans developed in the fourth quarter of FY89. Funds available
for obligation, however, are limited to projected needs for the upcoming quarter. The AOA
process has been revised with the implementation of IFMS. Beginning in FY89, regions
enter the quarterly AOA into IFMS. The AA SWER and the Comptroller's office review
the funding levels entered by the region and compare them to the AOA amounts generated
by the HO program offices. If the two agree, within three working days after the start of
the quarter, the Comptroller's Office and the AA SWER approve the AOA in IFMS and the
funds are available for obligation.
Four weeks before the end of the quarter, HQ will generate an AOA report which
reflects the approved planned obligations in the CERCLIS and CERHELP data bases. HQ
will enter the AOAs into the CERHELP AOA system two weeks before the end of the
quarter. Regions must pull the report from CERHELP and enter these amounts into IFMS
ff the planned and actual obligations and commitments in CERCLIS and CERHELP exceed
the regional budget, the region will be contacted, the AOA will not be entered into
VI-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
CERHELP and the AOA in IFMS will not be approved until CERCLIS is revised. If the
AOA entered by the regions does not agree with the AOA in CERHELP, IFMS will not be
approved and the Automated Document Control Register will not work. Only projects
planned in CERCLIS can be funded by the AOA. Exhibit VI-2 illustrates the AOA
process. Regional IMCs should work closely with their Regional Finance Office on the
entry of the correct AOA into IFMS.
The HQ Budget Division monitors obligations against the AOA weekly. If a region
exceeds any of the allowances, or a site-specific RA allocation, the HQ Budget Division
will notify the region and request resolution of the overcommitment/overobligation. The
region then has until the end of the current month to rectify the
overcommitment/overobligation or shut down procedures will be initiated.
If the region does not submit a change request, decommit or deobligate funds, or
effect corrections in IFMS as necessary, the HQ Budget Division will initiate
reprogramming from the region's regular or other remedial allowance. Repeated violations
for site or allowance allocations may result in partial or total withdrawal of the region's site
allowance.
As is standard Agency policy, if a region exceeds either the regular or site
allowance, the HQ Budget Division will withdraw obligational authority in accordance with
existing procedures. During the last quarter of the year, the HQ Budget Division will work
with the regions and OSWER as necessary to ensure that all allowances and obligations are
aligned prior to year-end closing.
AOA Flexibility
Flexibility exists within the AOA structure to shift funds both within and between
allowances. Shifts between allowances require a SCAP amendment and must be reflected
in CERCLIS prior to HQ approval. Based on Regional priorities funds may also be
reprogrammed between response and enforcement. These shifts, require a SCAP
amendment and may require Congressional notification. If the funds proposed for
reprogramming exceed $500,000 Congressional approval is required.
Funds saved within the RD account due to PRP takeovers, or due to bids coming in
under the previously projected amount may be used for other RDs or will generally be
approved by HQ for use within the region consistent with the following priorities:
Classic emergencies;
Funds necessary to conduct oversight of PRP settlements;
RA projects; and
Removal actions at NPL sites.
The RD funds may be placed in the regional contingency account, described later in
this chapter, until a decision is made on where they can best be utilized. Regions must
submit a SCAP amendment and AOA change request to HQ and update CERCLIS prior to
obligating the saved RD funds for any of the above activities.
VI-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
EXHIBIT VT-2
THE ADVICE OF ALLOWANCE PROCESS
4 Weeks
before the
quarter ends
Approved planned obligation
data are pulled from
CERCLIS/CERHELP
c
HQ reviews approved obligation data a
compares them to the annual regional
program budgets
If the planned and actual obligations and commitments do not exceed
the annual regional budgets, OWPE and OERR enter AOA data into
CERHELP and provide AOA to Comptroller and AA SWER two
weeks before the quarter ends
I
Regions pull AOA data
from CERHELP
Regions enter AOA data from
CERHELP into IFMS before the end
of the quarter
__ ^^
Comptroller and AA SWER compares AOA
in IFMS to AOA data provided by OERR and
OWPE within 3 working days after quarter
begins
If IFMS and Comptroller/AA SWER
AOA data agree, Comptroller and
AA SWER approve AOA in IFMS
Regions obligate funds to
projects planned in SCAP as
reflected in CERCLIS
VI-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Given the constraints in RA funding for FY90, approval of the redirection of RA
funds to other program needs is highly unlikely. If a region is able to save RA money
(through a PRP takeover, or a bid coming in under budget) HQ will look favorably toward
directing that savings to other environmentally significant remedial actions within the
region, after consideration, however, of national environmental needs. Once again, a
SCAP amendment and change request must be approved before the RA funds can be
redirected.
AOA Change Request Procedures
Regions are required to operate within their quarterly AOA, and their annual
regional budget They are also responsible for managing the funds issued in the AOA. HQ
approval is not required to shift funds between projects within the other remedial, RI/FS ,
RD, removal or enforcement portions of the AOA. CERCLIS must be revised to reflect the
shift of funds between projects. Any shifts of funds between allowances, and any addition
or deletion of funds from any of the allowances requires HQ approval through the SCAP
amendment and adjustment procedures. (See Chapter n for more detail on amendments
and adjustments.) HQ will not approve the change request unless the shift between AOAs
is reflected in the CERCLIS data.
Under IFMS, change requests are electronically transferred to HQ. Each change
request should equal a net change of zero dollars. The change request must be transmitted
by authorized personnel in the region's financial office. The site-specific record in
CERCLIS should be revised at the time the change request is transmitted. Regions should
not initiate any obligations against the change until the Office of the Comptroller and AA
SWER approves the revised AOA.
Since the AOA is updated daily, change requests transmitted to HQ can be
processed and a revised allowance approved immediately.
FY9Q Congressional Reporting Requirements
New Congressional budget and reporting requirements in eight programmatic areas
have resulted in an increase in financial data collected by the Superfund response program
and may change the AOA structure in FY90. It will not affect the region's ability to
obligate funds, nor will it impact the flexible funding initiatives implemented in FY88.
The eight programmatic areas are:
Pre-Remedial;
RI/FS;
RD;
RA;
Removal Actions;
Response Support;
Remedial Support; and
Removal Support.
A funding level for each of the eight programmatic areas is specified in the budget
and after the fact Congressional notification is required if the planned or actual obligations
exceed any of the funding levels by $2 million or more. The RA threshold is $10 million.
VI-8
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01C
The Comptroller's office will monitor this requirement through the AOA. The SCAP-15
financial Summary Report will be used to manage the monitoring and reporting
requirements. & F- &
SCAP'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE AHA
Within the SCAP process, obligations are planned either site, project and operable
unit specifically or non-site specifically. That is, some planned obligations are associated
with specific site activities while other planned obligations are estimates of total funding
required for an activity within a region. The CERCLIS and CERHELP data bases have
been designed to accommodate site- and non-site specific planning. Exhibit VI-3 lists the
events and enforcement activities for which obligations are planned on a site, operable unit
and project vs. non-site basis.
EXHIBTT VT-3
SITE VS. NON-SITE SPECIFIC PLANNED OBLIGATIONS
Site Specific
Community Relations**
Design Assistance**
Expedited Response Actions
Federal Facility Oversight
Forward Planning**
Litigation Support
Long Term Response
Management Assistance**
Negotiations:
-IAG
--RD/RA
--RI/FS
Operation and Maintenance**
Oversight of PRP:
-RI/FS
-RD
-RA
Removals
RA
RD
RI/FS
Removals
Technical Assistance**
Technical Assistance Grants**
Workplans**
Non-Site Specific*
ARCS Contractor Management
Administrative Record Backlog
Aerial Surveys
Compliance Monitoring
Core Program Cooperative
Agreements
Geophysical Support/
Topographical Mapping
Mini-ERCS Management
PRP Searches
Preliminary Assessment/
Site Inspection
Preliminary Natural Resource
Surveys
Records Management
State Enforcement Management
Assistance
TES Contractor Management
Training
* For these activities, regions
must enter the number of sites
involved and the contract
vehicle.
** These activites may be
planned site-specifically or
non-site specifically.
VI-9
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
CERCLIS only tracks extramural funding needs. Therefore, regions should be
certain all their extramural funding needs are reflected in CERCLIS and CERHELP such
that there is a crosswalk between the CERCLIS planned financial data and the regional
AOA.
In addition to the site and non-site specific planning, obligations are also planned
and budgets developed on a program specific basis. The Budget Source field in CERCLIS
identifies which program pays for the planned events/activities. Exhibit VI-4 presents the
budget source codes associated with each program. It is important that regions accurately
identify the budget source since each program develops an annual budget and each program
has a separate AOA process. It is also important that the regions maintain this budget
source code to eliminate potential impacts on the regional AOA.
EXHIBIT VI-4
BUDGET SOURCE CODES
E = Enforcement
V = Removal
R = Remedial
N = HQ Enforcement
M = HQ Removal
D = HQ Remedial
Exhibit VI-5 identifies the major events/activities and the appropriate budget source
codes, depending on the project/event lead, for planned obligations. In general, TES 3 and
4 funds should be given a budget source of "N" instead of "E". Funds for temporary or
permanent relocations conducted by FEMA should be given a budget source of "M" or "D"
after the IAG is signed and funds are transferred to HQ through the change request
procedures. Funds for aerial surveys are allocated in the regional budget. Once the change
request transferring the funds to EMSL is processed, the budget source code in CERCLIS
should be changed to an HQ budget source code. Funds for some project support activities
(i.e., aerial surveys, topographical mapping, geophysical support, etc.) at PRP lead RI/FS
should be included in the RI/FS oversight request.
For FY90, HQ will be shifting the obligation authorities for mixed funding to the
regions. Funds needed for these agreements will have to be planned in advance and
become part of the region's budget.
VI-10
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
EXHIBIT VI-5
WHO PAYS FOR WHAT
EVENT/ACTIVITY CODES
EVENT/ACTIVITY
ARCS Management
Administrative Cost Recovery
Compliance Monitoring (RD,RA,O&M,LTR)
Core Program Cooperative Agreement
ERA
ERA Oversight
Federal Facilities
Docket
RI/FS Oversight
RD Oversight
RA Oversight
Litigation Referrals (with or without
Settlement) and Ongoing Support
Section 106
Section 107
Section 106/107
Negotiations(including development
of site workplans)
Removal
RI/FS
RD/RA
PRP Searches
NPL
Non-NPL
Project Support*
Aerial Surveys
Administrative Record
ALL
F,S,MR,SE
FE.RP
F,S,MR,FE,SE
PS,RP
ALL
ALL
ALL
F,MR
RP
ALL
RP
Operation & Maintenance
Preliminary Natural Resource Surveys
* Guidance on assigning leads for project support activities is found in Chapter V.
VI-11
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
EXHIBIT VI-5
WHO PAYS FOR WHAT (Cont'd)
BUDGET
SOURCE
EVENT/ACTIVITY CODES
EVENT/ACTIVITY
State Enforcement Management Assistance
F,S,MR
PSJU>
Technical Assistance
Technical Assistance Grants
Topographical Mapping
Removal
Contingency
Investigations
NPL
Non-NPL
Oversight of PRP removals
RV
RC
RS
NP
NA
RVJR.PR
RI/FS
Technical Oversight of PRP
RI,FS,CO,FF
RI,FS,CO,FF
F,S,MR
RP.PS.MR
Technical Oversight of PRP
F.S.MR
RP,PS,MR
Technical Oversight of PRP
Records Management
TES 5+ Program Management
Temporary Relocation
Remedial
Removal
Treatability Studies
*Guidance on assigning leads for project support activities is found in Chapter V.
VI-12
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01C
Remedial Financial Planning for AQA
The AOA for the remedial program is issued by the Office of the Comptroller on a
site and non-site specific basis and is broken down into the following categories:
Rl/FS;
RD;
RA (site-specific); and
Other remedial.
The other remedial allowance includes site-specific and non-site specific program
and project support activities, and oversight of PRP-lead RDs and/or RAs. Site-specific
planned obligations are entered directly into CERCLIS in the appropriate event record for
the site. At this time, the planned obligation date, amount, contractor vehicle, budget
source and priority funding status are to be entered. The regional other remedial AOA is
the total of the approved site-specific or non-site specific planned obligations in CERCLIS
and CERHELP with a budget source code of "R". CERCLIS will automatically aggregate
the site-specific and non-site specific planned obligations for the purpose of developing and
issuing the AOA.
The RI/FS and RD allowances are issued on a non-site specific basis. Site-specific
planned RI/FS and RD obligations are to be entered directly into CERCLIS, with the
planned obligation date, contractor vehicle, budget source and priority funding status. The
AOAs are the total of the approved RI/FS and RD planned obligations with a budget source
code of "R".
Unlike the RI/FS and RD, the Office of the Comptroller issues the AOA for RA
activities on a site-specific basis. The AOA for RAs is pulled directly from the approved
site-specific planned obligations in CERCLIS and is issued by site name, site/spill identifier
and dollar amount. Regions must be sure the planned obligation date, contractor vehicle,
budget source, priority funding status and remedy type are entered into CERCLIS.
Regions will not receive RA funds in their AOA unless the remedy type has
been entered into CERCLIS. In addition, in order to be approved for
funding, the region must submit the RA environmental prioritization
documentation for evaluation.
A region will not receive funds above its annual regional budget unless a SCAP
amendment and change request have been approved by HQ. Each quarter the actual
and approved planned obligations and actual commitments must be less than
or equal to the annual regional budget or the AOA will not be approved.
In FY90, HQ has established a non-site specific remedial contingency account in
CERHELP. The remedial contingency account cannot be used for developing regional
budgets. It can only be used during the operating year for "holding" remedial response
funds (except RAs) made available; 1) as a result of PRP takeovers; 2) RD bids coming in
under projected amounts; or 3) in situations where the actual obligations were less than
planned obligations.
As regions identify uses for these funds, the contingency account must be reduced
as the region enters site specific planned obligations in CERCLIS. The funds in the
contingency account will be reviewed by HQ at mid-year and throughout the third and
fourth quarters. In the event of a funding shortfall, the regional contingency accounts will
be tapped as a first source of additional monies.
VI-13
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
If a region receives funds in their AOA which were not obligated during the quarter
received, the relevant planned obligation data in CERCLIS must be changed or the amount
placed iri the contingency account. At the end of each quarter HQ will review the AOA
funds remaining, commitments and obligations made, the contingency account, and
planned obligation data. If AOA funds were not committed or obligated and the planned
obligation data were not changed, HQ will take the following actions:
Reduce the next quarter's AOA for other remedial, RI/FS or RD funds by
the amount that was not committed or obligated; or
Request that regions follow the Office of the Comptroller's change request
procedures to return RA funds to HQ.
The Financial Summary Report (SCAP-15) wiU be used to evaluate the status of the
RI/FS, other remedial, RD and removal allowances. The Projected Fund-Financed
Remedial Projects Report (SCAP - 3) will be used for the RA allowance.
To the maximum extent practicable, regions should plan for mixed funding
requirements prior to the development of the annual regional budget. However, if a request
for pre-authorization is received and funds are required during the current fiscal year,
regions must identify the source of the requested funds from within their annual budget.
Removal Financial Planning for AOA
In FY90 the process for determining quarterly AOAs for the removal program will
change. As usual, each region's annual budget will be established in August 1989.
Regions will get 30% of their annual budget in the first quarter, 20% in the second quarter
and 30% in the third quarter, as long as they have updated quarterly plans for those
amounts in CERCLIS by the specified pull dates. These plans can still be adjusted, as
needed, anytime after the pull date. There will be a negotiation with HQ for the fourth
quarter allocation in order to help ensure that all removal funds are being used to the best
advantage. As is currently the procedure, if at any time a region needs additional funding,
CERCLIS should be updated to show the proposed spending plan with a funding priority
status of "Alternate" and a request for a change should be made to the Response Operation
Branch. When the change has been approved, the funding priority status code in
CERCLIS should be revised.
Enforcement Financial Planning for AOA
In FY90, the Case Budget AOA allocation will be displayed by contract mechanism
as in the past, as well as according to Workload Model output categories. The CERHELP
portion of CERCLIS will be modified to allow the AOA to be reflected in terms of the
output categories. Three quarterly AOAs have been proposed for FY90. The AOA issued
in the first quarter will contain the first and second quarter funding needs identified in
CERCLIS. Funds for tasks planned in the third and fourth quarters will be issued in the
third and fourth quarter AOAs, respectively.
OWPE CASE BUDGET PROCESS
This section provides an overview of the CB process, including a discussion of
SCAP targeted and non-targeted activities needing Case Budget funding, financial planning
VI-14
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
and tracking requirements and responsibilities, budget allocation and AOA distribution,
contract mechanisms, activities and their pricing factors, CERCLIS coding instructions,
and CERCLIS Case Budget reports. In addition, a brief summary of regional/HQ
responsibilities during the Case Budget process is included.
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE BUDGET PROCESS
There are five basic components to the Case Budget process. These are 1)
preliminary Case Budget allocation and distribution, 2) regional planning against the
preliminary budget, 3) HQ/regional negotiations, 4) the final Case Budget distribution, and
5) actual work assignment tasking. Each of these steps within the Case Budget process is
fully detailed in the chapter.
Preliminary Case Budget Allocation and Distribution
A Region's CB allocation contains the region's share of available extramural
resources used to support enforcement activities. This includes the following:
* PRP Removals
' Pre-RI/FS Starts Enforcement Activity
PRP RI/FS Oversight
RD/RA, O/M, LTR Compliance Monitoring
Litigation Support
- RD/RA Referrals and Negotiation
- Cost Recovery Referral Development
- Ongoing Litigation Support
State Enforcement RI/FS Oversight
Federal Facility Activity (Negotiation/Oversight)
Program Implementation/Support
Complex Sites.
As was the case in FY89, Case Budget funds will continue to be allocated in FY90
based on the number of targeted Enforcement activities requiring CB funding listed in
CERCLIS ongoing projects and non-targeted enforcement activities that also need
funding The budgets for most of the activities and events are based on average pricing
factors (See page VI-16 for a discussion of Enforcement activity pricing factors. Also see
Exhibit VI-6, which lists all targeted and non-targeted enforcement activities that can
receive funding in FY90, along with their pricing factors). In FY90, the Case Budget
allocation will be apportioned to the regions based on program outputs in the Technical
Enforcement Workload Model. To allow regions to make one request for litigation, the
three budget categories of RD/RA Referral and Negotiation, Cost Recovery and Ongoing
Litigation Support have been collapsed into the general category of litigation support One
request, therefore, may be made for both the quarter in which the litigation is referred and
for the subsequent ongoing quarters.
VI-15
-------
FY90 CASE BUDGET FUNDED ACTIVITIES REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE PROGRAM OUTPUTS
AVU.
DURATION | TOTAL
. AVG.COST
U
$KAVG.
PRICING FACTOR
ASSOCIATED CASE BUDGET
FUNDED ACTIVITIES
(Target**)
TECHNICAL ENFORCEMENT
SUPPORT WORKLOAD MODEL
CATEGORIES
CERHELP
CODES
CERCLIS CODES
RP
RN
RV,IR,PR
NON-NPLRP Search
Removal Negotiation Starts
RP Oversight (PRP removals)*
REMOVAL
PROGRAM
PRERI/FS
(Enforcement Activity)
-NPLRP Search
- RI/FS Negotiation Starts
PRPRI/FS
OVERSIGHT
RP RI/FS Oversight
(Starts*, Ongoing
through Completion*)
RD/RA
COMPLIANCE
MONITORING
RA Oversight
RD Oversight
RP.MR
RP.MR
Administrative Cost Recovery
RD/RA Negotiation Starts*
NBARS
Referrals*
Section 106,106/107
Section 107 Removal
Section 107 Remedial
Ongoing Support
Section 106,106/107
Section 107
LITIGATION
SUPPORT
-------
EXHIBIT VI-6(CONT.)
FY90 CASE BUDGET FUNDED ACTIVITIES REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE PROGRAM OUTPUTS
TECHNICAL
ENFORCEMENT
SUPPORT WORKLOAD
MODEL
CATEGORIES
AVERAGE
DURATION
IN
QUARTERS
PRICING
FACTORS
ASSOCIATED CASE BUDGET
FUNDED ACTIVITIES
(Target
CERCUS CODES
CERHELP
CODES
AVG.
TOTAL
COST
PS Lead RI/FS Oversight
STATE
ENFORCEMENT
1AG Negotiations*
RI/FS Oversight*
1st Operable Unit
2nd Operable Unit
3rd + Operable Unit
RD/RA Oversight*
1st Operable Unit
2nd Operable Unit
3rd + Operable Unit
FEDERAL
FACUJTIES
RI.FS.CO
RLFS.CO
RLFS.CO
RDJRA
RDM
RDM
RD.RA
RD.RA
RD.RA
PROGRAM
MPLEMENTAION
TES 5+ Program Management
Administrative Record
Records Management
Federal Facility Docket
Community Relations
State Enforcement
Information Management
ERA Oversight
Management Assistance
Preliminary Natural Resource
Surveys
Technical Assistance
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01C
Based on the revision agreed upon by HQ and the regions on the Technical
Enforcement Support Distribution Model, the Case Budget will be distributed as follows:
Three percent (3%) of the total budget will be held back for complex/mega
sites;
Two percent (2%) of the total budget will be held at HQ for contingency
funding and distributed in a hand AOA;
The remaining ninety-five percent (95%) of the budget will be distributed to
the Regions through quarterly AOAs.
Complex site funding will be based on individual regional appeals to be delivered to
HQ prior to the August SCAP negotiations. Requests for complex site funding should be
limited to those activities/events for which the funding requirement is at least twice the
average pricing factor or which the region cannot adequately fund within their allocation.
Regional appeals, both in CERCLIS and written, therefore, should identify the site, activity
or event, and the Case Budget need. Following the negotiations, a review board consisting
of HQ, the lead region and 3 to 4 other regional representatives will review the appeals and
make final distribution decisions.
In FY90 the CERHELP portion of CERCLIS will be modified to allow the Advices
of Allowance (AOA) to be shown according to Technical Enforcement Support Workload
categories. In addition, AOAs will be distributed and tracked according to specific contract
mechanisms (e.g. Non-TES, TES 5).
Quarterly AOAs have been proposed in FY90. The first quarter AOA would
distribute all approved complex site funding, fifty percent of all annually priced activities,
and the first quarter allocation for quarterly priced activities, both new and ongoing. The
second quarter AOA would include funding for second quarter new and ongoing activities
with a quarterly pricing factor. At the mid-year SCAP negotiations, HQ and the regions
will negotiate the funding requirements associated with the remaining fifty percent for
annually priced activities, as well as new and ongoing quarterly priced activities needing
funds in the third and fourth quarter. These negotiations will be the basis for a
redistribution of the Case Budget in order to address changes in regional plans and program
priorities. Specific guidance regarding the process and data sources to be used during these
negotiations will be provided prior to the end of fiscal year 1989 as a supplement to the
FY90 SCAP Manual.
The third quarter AOA would reflect the outcome of mid-year negotiations.
Remaining funds for annually priced activities would be distributed along with updated
needs for quarterly priced activities requiring funds in the third quarter. Prior to the fourth
quarter AOA, another round of negotiations will occur to ensure that any changes in
regional plans are addressed. The fourth quarter AOA would allocate only those funds
associated with quarterly priced activities occurring in the fourth quarter. In addition,
however, the two percent held at HQ for contingency funding will be distributed to the
regions as needed in a an AOA.
Regional Planning Against Preliminary Budget
The goal of the FY90 Case Budget process is to increase effectiveness, allow greater
flexibility and provide financial accountability through CERCLIS. The Case Budget will
be distributed according to Technical Enforcement Support Workload Budget categories,
VI-18
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
h32?V ! ^f ^i P tanncd "^ """"Wed at the bottom line. Regions should plan their
budget site-specifically or use a combination of site-specfic and non-site-specific planning
where actual sites are undetermined prior to the start of the fiscal quarter. Non-site-specific
plans should be replaced with site-specific plans when sites are identified.
u T , ^g10118 should indicate their Case Budget plans in CERCLIS and CERHELP by
the July 10 data pull. (Details on how to code Case Budget plans in CERCLIS are
presented in Appendix G) It is important that regions plan their Case Budget needs and
requests against specific sites where possible. This will enable both the regions and HQ to
identify regional priorities and budget needs that exceed the proposed allocation. Such
detail is crucial to any attempt by HQ to seek supplemental funding. Without site- specific
justification, HQ will not consider requests in excess of the proposed allocation. In
addition, throughout the fiscal year regions should ensure that CERCLIS plans are updated
to accurately reflect funding requirements against the available budget.
Because the Case Budget is fiscal year specific, all budget requests should be limited
to only the amount needed during the fiscal year being planned. The budget should not be
used to fund activities priced quarterly into FY91 except in rare circumstances. In the case
of annually priced activities, it is expected that the funding provided in one fiscal year will
support the activity through completion and that additional funds will not be requested in
subsequent fiscal years. Unless there are extraordinary circumstances, which should be
discussed with HQ, regions should only plan for the amount needed to fund the activity or
event through the end of the fiscal year.
Exhibit VI-6 on page VI- 16 displays all the activities and events eligible for funding
in FY90 within specific budget categories. Case Budget dollars planned against other
activities will not be accommodated. It is important to note that any other activity or event
not listed here will not be included on the standard reports currently being developed. In
FY90, the Case Budget no longer pays for many supporting activities (e.g. Operation and
Maintenance, Design Assitance, Geophysical Support, etc.). These activities are now
being funded through the Remedial budget Regions should reference Exhibit VI-5 for a
complete listing of which budget supports specific activities and events.
Since the Case Budget is to be managed at the overall or bottom line level, regions
must consider both their actual allocation and funding priorities when planning their
budgets. In addition, average pricing factors and budget categories should be considered
when determining site and regional funding requirements. For example, if a region's total
request is within the allocated budget the request within the budget category of PRP RI/FS
Oversight does not have to match the proposed allocation for that budget category.
Regions are not required, therefore, to request dollars within budget category pricing.
It is recognized that regions may have to shift funds among budget categories in
order to fund priority activities. However, should an additional need arise within a
category that has been "switched from", additional funds from the contingency fund will be
made available based on the need, other regions' needs, and the amount available. If
additional funds are determined to be necessary, the funding status codes, 'APR' and
'ALT, must be properly used to identify funding priorities.
To determine the proper funding status code, the activity/event must be identified as
a primary or alternate activity/event to meet a target. If it is an alternate, the entire request
should be coded as 'ALT. To determine the funding status for primary activities/events,
the total of all the requests must be considered. If the total request does not exceed the
available budget the funding status codes may be 'APR'. If, however, the budget is
exceeded two financial records must be created for the activity/event. The records, that
VI- 19
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
have a corresponding approved record for the same site, activity or event, and operable
unit, will identify supplemental funding requirements for primary activities and events.
The approved plans must not exceed preliminary distributed allocations. AOAs; wiU not be
distributed to regions with approved planned dollars totalling more than the available
budget.
HP/Regional Adjustment
Throughout the fiscal year, regions must also show adequate utilization of its Case
Budget Regions should, therefore, examine its entire AOA, its utilization and ascertain
whether funds are available from other budget categories prior to requesting additional
funds. HQ must know that the region is fully using its AOA through adequate obligating
and tasking before it can entertain additional Case Budget requests. Consequently, it is
imperative that TESWATS and CERCLIS consistently reflect obligations and work
assignment tasked amounts. Additional requests for HQ held contingency funding will be
reviewed on the basis of need, other regions' needs, and the amount of dollars available.
In FY90 there will be a Case Budget review during the mid-year SCAP
negotiations. There will also be a round of negotiations in June for the fourth quarter
AOA. A region may carry unobligated AOA to subsequent quarters, however, regions that
have not been obligating and tasking their allowance risk the loss of their entire third and
fourth quarter AOA. If a region has an excessive unobligated allowance (greater than
twenty percent) at the beginning of the third quarter, it will be required to produce a site-
specific spending plan in CERCLIS for both the third and fourth quarters by mid-May in
order to retain its entire fourth quarter AOA.
Final Budget Distribution
Approximately fifteen days prior to the beginning of the quarter, HQ will indicate
the approved quarterly budget levels in CERHELP. AOAs will be displayed as approved
amounts for each Workload Model output category as well as for the TES 5+ and Non-TES
contract categories. HQ will not send out a memorandum containing the approved
amounts, however, it will send notification that the approved budget has been recorded in
CERHELP. A region's 'APR' records must not exceed their approved budget for the
upcoming quarter. In order to receive its allowance, a region must have updated quarterly
plans for those amounts in CERCLIS by the specified pull date.
Tasking
The manner in which HQ reviews regional Case Budget tasking will change
significantly in FY90. It is HQs' goal to integrate the Enforcement contract and financial
information in CERCLIS with TESWATS and FMS. The tracking of actual tasked dollars
will be done through CERCLIS. (See Appendix G for details about how to enter tasking
data into CERCLIS). Tasking will not be reviewed for each activity for consistency with
pricing factor methodology, however, HQ will seek to ensure that tasking is consistent
with regional plans and the approved bottom line allocation for the fiscal quarters. Tasking
that exceeds an approved allocation will be addressed with the region.
To manage the Case Budget it is essential that regional Informational Coordinators
(IMCs) and TES regional Project Officers (RPOs) responsibilities are well coordinated
RPOs must incorporate CERCLIS information in TESWATS and report Enforcement
obligations and work assignments to the IMCs. MCs, in turn, must provide Case Budget
planning reports to RPOs and ensure accurate data entry into CERCLIS and CERHELP.
CERCLIS/CERHELP will be the only, place where AOA funding, obligations, and work
VI-20
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
assignment tasking amounts will be shown together. A more detailed description of the
ffltenelated roles and responsibilities is described in Appendix G. Exhibit VI-7 summarizes
RPO and IMC responsibilities while Exhibit VI-8 describes general regional and HO
responsibilities.
EXHIBIT VT-7
CASE BUDGET RESPONSIBILITIES
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
_ MARCH/
APRIL
Ed
AUGUST
- SEPTEMBER
w
O
C/5
£
REGIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES
HEADQUARTERS
RESPONSIBILITIES
PLAN SCAP ACTIVITIES,
IDENTIFY TARGETED AND
NON-TARGETED FUNDING
NEEDS.
MID-YEAR SCAP NEGOTIATIONS
CONFERENCE WITH HQ
TO DISCUSS REQUESTS
(ONGOING)
INDICATE CASE BUDGET
NEEDS WITHIN
ALLOCATION (APR) AND
ABOVE ALLOCATION (ALT)
AUGUST SCAP NEGOTIATIONS
REVISE REQUESTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SCAP
NEGOTIATIONS
DIRECT ENTRY OF
NON-TES TASKING
(CAs, lAGs, POs,
ARCS, REM)
TESWATS
iiH
ENTRY OF TES*
APPROVED
OBLIGATIONS
(TASKING)
ADJUSTMENT OF CASE
BUDGET PLANS AS
NECESSARY
(AT LEAST QUARTERLY)
E
R
C
L
I
MID-YEAR SCAP NEGOTIATIONS
NEGOTIA
ACTIVITIES
REVIEW REGIONAL
REQUESTS, APPLY
PRICING FACTORS,
TO BASELINE
TARGETS TO
CALCULATE
PRELIMINARY
ALLOCATIONS TO
REGIONS, POSSIBLE
ADJUSTMENTS TO
DOLLARS AND/OR
CONTRACT
MECHANISM
CONFERENCE WITH REGIONS
TO DISCUSS REQUESTS
(ONGOING)
NOTIFICATION TO REGIONS OF
PRELIMINARY CASE BUDGET
ALLOCATION
DETERMINATION ON
SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST
AUGUST SCAP NEGOTIATIONS
NOTIFICATION TO
REGIONS OF FINAL CASE
BUDGET ALLOCATION
REVIEW REGIONAL
OBLIGATIONS, TASKING
AND REVISED PLANS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH
GUIDANCE AND
CHANGING PROGRAM
PRIORITIES
.* See the exhibits on enforcement financial/audit reports later in this chapter.
VI-21
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
VI-8
REGIONAL/HQ CASE BUDGET RESPONSIBILITIES
REGIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
HQ RESPONSIBILITIES
Negotiate activity targets with
Headquarters at the mid-year SCAP
negotiations in February.
Submit Case Budget requests (through
CERCLIS) in response to Regional
allocations calculated by HQ by
mid-March. Identify approved,
alternate, and complex site funding
needs.
Negotiate revisions to targeted activities
and Case Budget dollars at August
SCAP negotiations. Receive Case
Budget AOA distributions.
Calculate regional allocations for
activities planned by the regions following
the mid-year SCAP negotiations in
February. Allocations are made for:
- targeted enforcement activities
(based on pricing factors); and
- non-targeted enforcement activities
(based on a combination of pricing
factors and priorities identified by
the regions during negotiations).
Review regional Case Budget requests
submitted through CERCLIS in response
to allocations (March through June).
Assess complex site issues and initial
need for supplemental funding request.
Confer with Region as necessary.
Proceed, if necessary, with supplemental
funding request.
Determine final allocations at August
SCAP negotiations.
Distribute Advices of Allowance (AOA)
to the Regions in September. AOAs
consist of dollars for no-TES and TES V+
contractors.
Manage Case Budget within the
approved bottom-line allocation.
Enter work assignment tasking amounts
into CERCLIS as they occur.
Negotiate Mid-year adjustments.
Negotiate Mid-year adjustments.
Review Regional tasking against
allocations. Generate CERCLIS
mainframe obligations reports in response
to Regional or HQ information needs.
* The Enforcement Financial Workgroup organized by the Program Management and Support Office (PMSO) and
including regional representation will address ways for the regions to receive and enter this data. ^
VI-22
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
ACTIVITY SPECIFIC CHiyiNG
FY90 Budget Category: PRP Remnvak
Non-NPL PRP
Non-NPL (Removal) PRP Searches should be coded as 'RP for the activity type
(C1732). The CERHELP activity code (C402) should be 'RP' for Removal PRP
Searches. The only valid lead for this activity is 'FE' for Federal Enforcement.
These activities capture notice letter support, financial assessment, record
compilation, title search, and de minimis determination. The PRP searches for
large removals are estimated to cost $13 K. For small removals where the owner or
operator is known or where cost recovery litigation is a low priority, the PRP
search costs may be closer to $2.2 K.
Removal Negotiation Start?
The CERCLIS and CERHELP activity code for Removal Negotiations is 'RN1.
The only valid lead for this activity is 'FE1. An average pricing factor has not been
established for this activity, however, it has been acknowledged as a regional need
to be funded from the category of PRP Removals.
PRP Removal Oversight
CB requests for oversight of PRP Removals should be coded with an event type
(C21 1 1) of 'RV for removal action. All removal events must be coded with a lead
of 'RP' for potentially responsible party or 'MR' for mixed funding. The average
pricing factor for oversight of this event is $50 K in total. Requests for these funds
should be entered in the quarter in which the removal is planned to start, but
oversight costs will only be provided at sites covered by an Enforcement agreement
(e.g., Administrative Order, Consent Decree, Judgment).
FY9Q Budget Category: Pre RI/FS Starts
NPL PRP Search
Regions should code PRP searches as 'NS' CERCLIS (C1732) or 'PS' in
CERHELP (C402) when initial HRS scoring indicates the site will be listed on the
NPL. Continuing PRP search activities should be coded as a second PRP search.
The lead for these activities should be designated as 'FE'. The average annual
pricing factor for this activity is $50 K.
RI/FS Negotiation Starts
Rl/FS negotiations are priced at $50 K in total. This represents the funds for
negotiations including support for negotiation meetings and developing negotiation
support documents (e.g., a detailed scope of work, forward planning, and records
compilation) and the issuance of administrative orders. These funds are not to
support the full range of activities and workplan development for a Fund-financed
RI/FS.
Requests for this activity should be coded as 'FN' for both the CERCLIS and
CERHELP activity type (C1732 and C402 respectively). The quarter in which the
VI-23
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
request is made must be consistent with the planned start date. The only valid lead
(C1707 and C404) for this activity is TE' for Federal Enforcement. RI/FS
negotiations at a federal facility, however, are not funded by this category.
FY9Q Budget Category: PRP RT/PS Oversight
PRP RIIFS Oversight
The CERCLIS event codes (C21 1 1) for RVFS oversight are 'RT for Remedial
Investigation, 'FS' for Feasibility Study, and 'CO' for Combined Rl/FS. This
event has an average pricing factor of $20 K per quarter, however, funding
requests may only be for the quarters in which the event spans in the planned fiscal
year. For example, if a RI/FS is planned to start in the third quarter, $20 K may be
requested in both the third and fourth quarter. The remaining quarters to be funded
must be requested in subsequent years. In addition, the valid leads (C21 17) to
receive CB funds from this category are 'RP for Responsible Party and 'MR' for
Mixed Funding.
FY90 Budget Category: RD/RA Compliance Monitoring
RDIRA Oversight
The CERCLIS and CERHELP event code (C2111 and C402) is 'RD1 and 'RA' for
Remedial Design and Remedial Action. The pricing factor is $2.5 K per quarter.
The lead for this event (C21 17) must be either 'RP' or 'MR' in order to request
Case Budget oversight dollars.
FY90 Budget Category: Litigation Support
Administrative Cost Recovery
Administrative Cost Recovery , 'AV, is priced at $12 K in the quarter the action is
initiated.
RDIRA Negotiation Starts
The CERCLIS and CERHELP activity code (C1732 and C402) for RD/RA
negotiations is 'AN'. The average pricing factor is $30 K, funded in the quarter in
which the negotiations are planned to start. The review of a PRP remedy or review
of PRP comments to a recommended remedy, are generally included in the RI/FS
budget as response to public comments. This activity consists primarily of
negotiation sessions and responses to additional PRP inquiries. Costs associated
with preparation of UAOs are also included in the $30 K pricing factor. The valid
lead (C1707 in CERCLIS and C404 in CERHELP) for this activity to receive CB
funds is 'FE' for Federal Enforcement.
Non-Bindine Allocation nf Responsibility
NBARs are elgibile to receive Case Budget funds in FY90. The average pricing
(CITOT) m K' be^ CFRCLIS activity code
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Litigation Referrals
There are three litigation referral activities (C1732) eligible to receive CB funds in
FY90. The pricing factor for Section 106 Referrals, 'SX' is $20 K per quarter.
Section 107 Litigation, 'SV, is priced at $7.8 K per quarter with an average
quarterly duration of 14 quarters. Section 106/107 Litigation, 'CL1, has a pricing
lactor of $20 K per quarter and also has an average quarterly duration of 14
quarters. In addition, to request funding for these activities, it is necessary to
identify the Remedy Type (C2731) associated event for which costs are being
recovered. The valid cost recovery codes are 'VM1 for removal action, 'VO' for
RI/FS, 'VD1 for RD, 'VA' for RA, and 'VS' for oversight. The only valid lead
(C1707) that receives funds for these cost recovery activities is 'FE'.
Ongoing Litigation Support
Ongoing litigation support may be requested for the above referenced litigation. It is
important for ongoing work that actual start dates (C1716) and planned completion
dates (C1715) are coded accurately.
FY90 Budget Category: State Enforcement
Case Budget dollars may be requested for RI/FS with a 'PS' lead. The valid event
codes (C2111) are 'RI', 'FS' or 'CO'. This lead (C2117) indicates that the PRP is
performing the work under state order, that the request is for costs associated with
oversight of the PRP and that an Enforcement agreement exists between the State and EPA.
FY90 Budget Category: Federal Facilities
The Federal Facility budget in FY90 is $6,295 K nationally. This money is used to
fund the above Case Budget activities at Federal Facility sites. It is imperative, therefore,
to code the site (C135) a 'Y' indicating that it is a Federal Facility. In addition, the valid
leads are 'FF for events (C2117) and 'FE' for activities (C1707).
IAG Negotiations
In FY90 $2 750 K is available nationally to fund IAG negotiations. The activity
code in CERCLIS (C1732) is 'IN'. The valid lead (C1707) is 'FE1. The average
pricing factor is $50 K annually.
fif/pp nr.,1 RFHRA Oversieht
RI/FS and RD/RA Oversight costs at Federal Facilities are associated with the
appropriate operable unit. It is imperative, therefore, that the CB request
corresponds to the operable unit for which the event is planned. Oversight at the
first operable unit is priced at $20 K per quarter. The cost of oversight at the
second operable unit is $12 K per quarter. The oversight at the third or subsequent
operable unit is priced quarterly at $8 K.
FYQO Budget Category: Prnpram Implementation
Reeions should plan up to 10% of their total TES 5 allocation for program
management purposes. This request for funding should be made non-site
VI-25
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
specifically The code in CERHELP (C402) for this activity is'PM'. The contract
vehicle (C1408) must be coded to correspond to the specific contract for which
management costs are associated.
Mmifl"trativt! Records
SARA specifies that Administrative Records be developed at Superfund sites where
remedial or removal responses are planned, are occurring, or where EPA is issuing
a unilateral order or initiating litigation. In FY90, CB funds are available for
Administrative Record development The cost for Administrative Record
development may vary from $5,000 to $20,000, depending upon the number of
PRPs involved, the number of documents that must be compiled, and the history of
the site. HQ anticipates that the cost of most Administrative Records will not
exceed $12,000. HQ has not established firm pricing factors for Administrative
Record development, but rather has allowed for a range of expected costs,
depending upon the priority of the Administrative Record being funded.
Funding requests for Administrative Record development or modification at sites
with an ongoing RI/FS should be made site-specifically. The Event Type
CERCLIS code (C2111) is 'AR'. In addition, the 'AR1 event record should be
placed in the appropriate RI/FS operable unit if a separate funding action is
anticipated for AR work. Costs for Administrative Record development for new
RI/FS starts are included in the RI/FS pricing factor of $20 K per quarter. All other
requests for Administrative Record backlog work (for planned or signed RODs,
Enforcement Referrals, Removals where Sections 106 or 107 activity is planned or
in process, including completed removals) may be made non-site specifically. The
CERHELP Event code (C402) is also 'AR'. The valid leads for Administrative
Record are 'RP' and 'FE'.
Records Management
Funding requests for Records Management activities may be planned non-site
specifically. The activity type in CERHELP (C402) is 'RM' for records
management. Records management activities eligible for funding include planning
of systems, development of file structures, as well as operation of systems for
retention and retrieval of Superfund site files.
Community Relations
The CB is used to pay for Community Relations (CR) for a removal and other
remedial events when a PRP leads the response. The community relations plan
should be funded concurrently with negotiations. Funds for a community relations
plan can be combined with the TES work assignment (WA) funding the
negotiations, or it can be a separate funding action. CR implementation should be
funded concurrently with the oversight of PRP response and again, can be
combined with the oversight funding in one WA, or funded separately.
CR funding requests may be requested either site-specifically or non-site
specifically, depending on if the site is known prior to the fiscal year. In CERCLIS
the event code (C2111) is'CR' for those community relations activities associated
with remedial response activities. Those activities associated with removal
response events are entered as 'RC. Specific elements of CR work (e.g., CR
plan, CR implementation, revised CR plan, etc.) are considered subevents to the
VI-26
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
MrSS^f'/^ therefore, cannot be specified for subevents. The
valid CERCLIS leads (C2117) for CR are 'RP, 'PS', and 'SF.
Non-site specific CR funding requests may also be made. The CERHELP Activity
?J t°2), 5s, CR and 'RC for these activities. The lead codes in CERHELP
(C404) should also be 'RP, 'PS', or 'SE'
Federal Facility
In FY90 there is $1,000 K available nationally for implementation of the Federal
Facilities Compliance Docket and maintenance of existing docket facilities. All
requests for this activity may be made non-site specifically in CERHELP (C402).
Funding requests for docket activities should be entered as 'FD' for Federal Facility
Docket. The lead in CERHELP (C404) must be 'FF.
State Enforcement Management Asswtanrf
Funding requests for state management assistance during Federal lead enforcement
activities should be made non-site specifically. The Activity Type code in
CERHELP (C402) is 'EM'. Separate non-site specific records should be entered to
show total management requests by state. The lead code (C404) should be 'PS1 for
Potentially Responsible Party financed work performed by the PRP under a state
order. The Financial Vehicle (C1408) must be coded as 'CAG' to indicate funding
through a Cooperative Agreement.
Information Management
Case Budget funds may be requested in FY90 to cover costs associated with
information management Requests should be made non-site-specifically with the
CERHELP activity code (C402) coded as 'IM'.
ERA Oversight
Costs associated with ERA oversight may be requested in FY90. The CERCLIS
code (C1732) is 'ER'. The valid lead is 'RP1 for oversight.
Management Assistance
Managment Assistance funds may be requested from the Case Budget if the costs
are associated with an RP lead event or activity. The CERCLIS and CERHELP
activity code is 'MA' and the lead must specifiy 'RP'.
Preliminary Natural Resource Surveys
Interagency Agreements with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and the Department of Interior (DOI) will be available for Regions to
manage for initiating Preliminary Natural Resource Surveys (PNRS). Detailed
guidance has been provided in a joint document with OERR entitled "Regional
Processing of Superfund lAGSs. Planning for these activities is through the
CERHELP The Activity Type (C402) code is 'PN'. The agency through which
the work will be performed must be listed in the comment field (C1421). Regions
should use $6 K per site to estimate funding requirements. The only valid lead for
PNRS to be funded from the Case Budget is 'RP'.
VI-27
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01C
Technical Assistance
Final draft guidance was sent to the Regions on Interagency Agreements (lAGs) for
technical assistance in March 1989. This guidence detailed processes and
procedures for obtaining technical assistance with the above referenced agencies.
Site specific planning for enforcement activities/events is required in CERCLIS.
The contract vehicle (C2908/C3239) must be coded 'IAG' for Interagency
Agreements.
ENFORCEMKNT FINANCIAL REPORTS
Enforcement activities/events requiring CB funds must be coded accurately. To
enhance financial planning data quality, several Enforcement financial reports have been
developed for both regional and HQ use.
Financial Planning Reports
On the main CERCLIS menu, under 'ENFR' for the Enforcement menu, are seven
Enforcement financial planning reports. Exhibit VI-9 lists each report number, title, and a
brief description. The user is prompted for a region and a fiscal year when selecting these
reports. Specific select logic for these reports may be found in the CERCLIS Reports
Library. Currently two reports are being developed to indicate primary and alternate
activity and event requests within the specific budget category to which they apply. These
reports will be put on the main CERCLIS menu and will be available by late June.
Financial Planning Audit Reports
Six audit reports have been programmed to ensure data accuracy for Enforcement
financial data. These reports are available on the main CERCLIS menu, under 'AUDT for
SCAP Audit reports. Exhibit VI-10 lists each report number, title, and a brief report
description. Like the standard Enforcement financial reports, the user is prompted for both
a Region and a fiscal year. By late June one Case Budget audit report (a consolidation of
six previously available audit reports) will be available on the main CERCLIS menu. This
audit report will isolate the key CB field (CERCLIS or CERHELP data element) which is
either inaccurate or nonexistent. Without this required information, requests will not
appear on the standard Enforcement financial reports. These standard reports are used by
HQ to determine Regional Case Budget needs. It is important, therefore, that records
appearing in the audit reports be verified for accuracy and modified as necessary.
Contract Management
Contract Management Delegation
In FY90 eight Technical Enforcement Support (TES) contracts are available for
Regions to support their Enforcement programs. These contracts are referred to
collectively as TES 5. Both the Regions and HQ will have management
responsibilities for these new contracts. Regional Project Officers (RPOs) will
provide programmatic oversight and technical direction for contractor performance
from a Regional perspective. HQ Zone Project Officers (ZPOs) will provide
guidance and technical assistance to the RPO for contract management.
VI-28
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
EXHTRTT
NUMBER
TITLE
ENFORCEMENT FINANCIAL REPORTS
DESCRIPTION
ENFR-10
ENFR-11
ENFR-13
ENFR-20
ENFR-21
ENFR-22
ENFR-23
EN F Planned Dollars Report for 'SE1 & 'PS Lists Enforcement FY90 site-specific 'State" activities/events,
planned dollars by region, activity /event type funding status, state,
site name, totals by activity/event funding status, activity/event,
region, and grand total are calculated.
ENF Non-site Specific Planned Dollars Lists Enforcment FY90 non-site specific planned dollars by region,
activity/event type, funding status, and state, totals by activity/event
region, and grand total are calculated.
ENF Obligation & Approved Planned Dollars Lists Enforcement site-specific FY90 obligated and approved planned
dollars by region, state, site name, activity/event, contract vehicle, totals
by region and grand total are calculated.
ENF Planned Dollars for Federal Facilities
ENF and Remedial Planned Dollars
ENF Planned Dollars by Activtiy/Event
ENF Planned Dollars by Budget Sources &
Contract Vehicle
Lists Federal Fatties site-specific FY90 planned dollars
by region, activity/event type, funding status, state, and site name,
totals by activity/event funding status, activity/event, region, and
grand total are calculated.
Lists Enforcement and Remedial site-specific FY90 planned dollars by
region, activity/event type, funding status, state and site name, totals by
activity/event type, regional Enforcement/Remedial funding status, region,
and grand total are calculated.
Lists Enforcement site-specific FY90 planned dollars by region,
activity/event, funding status, state, and site name, totals by
actiivity/event funding status, activity/event, region, and grand total
are calculated.
Lists Enforcement site-specific FY90 planned dollars by region, budget
source, contract vehicle funding status, state and site name, totals
by contract vehicle funding status, contract vehicle, budget source, region,
and grand total are calculated.
OSWER Directive No.9871.0-la, dated March 3,1989, outlines the
responsibilities for both HQ and the Regions. The specific directive should be
referenced for additional guidance.
fnteragencv Agreements
Regions have been delegated responsibility for developing Regional Interagency
Agreements (TAG) in FY90 for the following agencies: Department of the Interior
VI-29
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
fiftffTRTT VT-10
ENFORCEMENT RNANCIAL AUDIT REPORTS
NUMBER
TITLE
DESCRIPTION
AUDT-27
ENF. FIN, AUDIT-No Contract Vehicle
Events/Activities with a FY(89 or 90)
financial plan FYQ, an Enforcement
budget source, a financial amount,
and no contract vehicle.
AUDT-28
ENF. FIN. AUDIT- No Actual or Planned Start Date
Events/Activities with a FY (89 or 90)
financial plan FYQ, an Enforcement
budget source, a financial amount
planned, or no actual start date.
AUDT-29
ENF. FIN. AUDIT- No Actual or Planned Start and
Passed Plan Start Date
Events/Activities with a FY (89 or 90)
financial plan FYQ, an Enforcement
budget source, a financial amount,
and no actual start date.
AUDT-30
ENF. FIN. AUDIT-No Lead
Events/Activities with a FY (89 or 90)
financial plan FYQ, an Enforcement
budget source, a financial amount,
and no lead.
AUDT-31
ENF. FIN. AUDIT-Actual Completion Date Before
Planned $ FYQ
AUDT-38
ENF. FIN. AUDIT-No Funding Status
Events/Activities with a FY (89 or 90)
financial plan FYQ, an Enforcement
budget source, a financial amount,
and an actual complete date prior to
the financial plan FYQ.
Events/Activities with a FY (89 or 90)
financial plan FYQ, an Enforcement
budget source, a financial amount,
and no funding status
(DOI), Department of Justice (DOJ), National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). HQ
will maintain the national JAG with the Department of Justice (DOJ) in FY90 and all
other JAGs managed by HQ will be closed out after FY89. A Region, therefore,
must initiate an agreement with the respective Agency. For detailed IAG guidance
the regions should reference OSWER Directive 9295.0-01 "Superfund: regional
Interagency Handbook".
VI-30
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01C
Technical AsxLwifirr
Final draft guidance was sent to the regions on Interagency Agreements (lAGs) for
technical assistance in March 1989. This guidance detailed processes and
procedures for obtaining technical assistance with the above referenced agencies.
Site specific planning for enforcement events/activities is required in CERCLIS.
The contract vehicle (C2908/C3239) must be coded 'IAG1 for Interagency
Agreement.
Department of
EPA HQ maintains a national agreement with the DOJ/Land and Natural Resources
Division (LNRD) to provide legal representation and associated support services on
behalf of EPA for all matters arising from or related to CERCLA and SARA.
Support services are defined as expert witness and automated litigation services.
DOJ/LNRD maintains a base level budget for legal representation services. The
purpose of this section is to provide the regions with a forward planning process
that will identify needs for these services. EPA HQ will transfer funding to DOT
based on those estimates. The region's Non-TES budget will be reduced by HQ in
the amount transferred to DOJ. The region will delete their planned financial
records when they are notified by HQ that the transfer has been complete.
DOJ will provide expert witness (EW) for referred cases. The regions will
coordinate the planning for expert witness with the Office of Regional Counsel
(ORC) and DOJ/LNRD. The region should plan for the experts under the
appropriate enforcement activity (i.e., Section 106, Section 107). The funding
vehicle would be LAG and DOJ, "EW" must be posted in the financial notes field.
DOJ may provide automated litigation support (ALS) for referred cases. This
support and the use of EPA regional funds is discretionary and is based on the
requirements for a particular case. The regions must coordinate the planning for
ALS with the ORC and DOJ/LNRD. The region should plan for the ALS under the
appropriate enforcement activity (Sections 106, Section 107). The funding vehicle
would be LAG and DOJ, "ALS" must be posted in the financial notes field.
8(a\ Contracts
Regions are encouraged to use 8(a) minority contractors whenever alternatives to
TES or other contracts are needed. Historically, 8(a) contractors have been used
primarily for PRP searches. They can, however, be used for oversight support,
records management, sampling and other activities. Use of 8(a) contractors is not
limited to any particular type or activity.
Funding for 8(a) requests will be included in the regional AOA. Requests for 8(a)
contract dollars should be made through the usual SCAP process; i.e., they should
be entered into CERCLIS site-specifically using 8(a) contract spending, though
requests should fall within the appropriate activity pricing factors.
VI-31
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
SUPERFUNP FINANCIAL
The purpose of the following section is to assist regional Program Offices in
carrying out their financial management responsibilities.
Regional Financial Management Responsibilities
Due to the complexity of the Superfund program, numerous organizational units
within the regional EPA offices have responsibility for Superfund financial management.
These organizations and their responsibilities are detailed below.
Regional Administrator
Regional Administrators have the authority to:
Approve removal actions up to $2 million per site;
Award Cooperative Agreements (CAs);
Award Interagency Agreements (IAGs);
Enter into Superfund State Contracts (SSCs);
Initiate remedial planning activities;
Grant states credit against their cost share; and
Award Technical Assistance Grants.
All of these authorities may be re-delegated with the exception of 1) removal actions
deemed to be "nationally significant" and 2) Technical Assistance Grants.
Regional Program Office
Regional Program Office financial responsibilities include:
Providing technical support to the Contracting Officer in contracts
management;
Reviewing vouchers and/or financial reports;
Managing Cooperative Agreements (CA) and Interagency Agreements
(IAGs);
Preparing Commitment Notices (CN) and Procurement Requests (PR);
Developing Superfund State Contracts (SSC);
Negotiating CAs with states, political subdivisions and Indian Tribal
governments;
Either issuing site/spill identifiers (S/S ID) or requesting that they be issued
by the regional Management Division;
Managing the region's allowances;
Approving Requests for Proposals or Bids and contracts developed by the
states; and
Participating in pre-award financial management system reviews.
Within the regional Program Offices, the following staff have specific Superfund
financial management responsibilities:
On-Scene Coordinator (QSCV The regional OSC may be an employee of
EPA or of the U.S. Coast Guard. This employee reacts to hazardous
VI-32
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
substances spills and releases or threats of release by initiating and
managing the removal process. The OSCs financial management
responsibilities include preparing site budgets and contract action requests;
completing Action Memoranda; preparing delivery orders and PRs for
contracts; establishing and maintaining official removal site files; reviewing
and approving the removal cleanup contractors' charges on a daily basis;
tracking site costs against the established site ceiling; and approving removal
contractors' invoices. The OSC must be aware of, in control of and
responsible for all removal site charges and for ensuring that costs are
reasonable and necessary.
Ordering Officer. All Ordering Officers must have a written "Delegation of
Procurement Authority" signed by a Senior Procurement Manager prior to
performing their duties. The Ordering Officer, who typically is an OSC,
may initially obligate up to a maximum of $250,000 for removals at a
specific site by issuing a Delivery Order under an existing contract. This
person also develops the statement of work and cost ceiling for removals.
Remedial Project Manager (RPM1. The RPM, in coordination with state
program personnel, is responsible for managing remedial and enforcement
costs and activities on a site-specific basis, for reviewing remedial
contractor invoices and financial reports, and for establishing and
maintaining the official site files. Like the OSC, the RPM must be aware
of, in control of and responsible for remedial site charges and for ensuring
that costs are reasonable and necessary.
Regional Project Officer CRPOVDeputv Project Officer (DPO). TheRPOis
responsible for overall remedial and enforcement contract management
functions, including identification of regional and site-specific contract
requirements, reviewing invoices, and financial monitoring of the contract.
The DPO is responsible for overall removal and general site support contract
management functions. The RPO/DPO evaluates and designates contractor
award fees; monitors contractors' activities; and reviews monthly contractor
reports and site-specific attachments.
The RPM or the RPO may initiate work assignmentsX-WAs), CAs, lAGs and
contracts, and approve site-specific IAG invoices.
Administrative Support Unit (ASU). Administrative SuppoTfOnits may be
established in each regionalS-ogram Office. The purpose of these ASUs is
_ to assist the OSC/RPM in performing their administrative duties, tnus -
allowing the OSC/RPM to concentrate their efforts on their technical site
management activities. These units are designed to perform at least four
important functions:
Provide administrative support to the OSC/RPM on site;
Provide the OSC/RPM with administrative support in the regional
Program Offices; .
Provide liaison between the OSC/RPM and other groups involved in
administrative matters; and
Provide support to the regional remedial and removal program
management.
VI-33
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Specific examples of the kind of administrative and financial management support
the ASUs may provide to the OSC/RPM are as follows:
Assist in developing removal site budgets and preparing Action
Memoranda;
Assist in daily cost monitoring via daily contractor reports;
Maintain the Removal Cost Management System;
Set up and maintain active remedial and removal site files;
Complete PRs and CNs; and
Request and review reports generated by REPORTER for purposes
of monitoring site costs. REPORTER is the new report writer
package which has replaced the Software Package for Unique
Reports (SPUR) of the Integrated Financial Management System
(IFMS).
The ASUs may be staffed with EPA staff or the non-government functions may be
contracted out. Additional information on the model of an ASU is found in the
Report of the Workgroup on Management Support for Superfund's On-Scene
Coordinators, dated March 1987.
Regional Management Division
For the purposes of this document, the regional Management Division is the
organization in which financial management, budgetary, accounting, planning, and
assistance agreements administration functions are carried out. The regional
Servicing Finance Office (SFO) and Contracting Officers for the Alternative
Remedial Contracting Strategy (ARCS) and the Emergency Response Cleanup
Services (mini-ERCS) are considered to be a part of this division. In most regions,
the regional Management Division:
Assigns account numbers (AN) and Document Control Numbers (DCN) to
all regional commitment and obligating documents;
Controls the regional allowance, maintains the Document Control Register
(DCR), and reconciles transactions;
Generally issues S/S IDs for non-Coast Guard-lead sites;
Sets up regional account numbers in IFMS (new obligational authority
only); - - ^
Processes all PRs for national contracts and enters commitments into the
IFMS;
Processes CNe-for IAG& and enters «ommitmentsJntO IFMS'
Processes CAs, assigns CA identification numbers, enters CA -
commitments, obligations and drawdowns into IFMS;
Assists the regional Program Office in the negotiation or pre-application
phases of the CA development;
Processes all Letter of Credit increases and monitors drawdowns;
Receives and reviews financial reports required by the CAs;
Maintains Superfund original and site-specific document files on all regional
costs and supports the regional Program Offices in preparing cost
summaries and documentation for cost recovery purposes-
Maintains accounts receivable for cost recovery and SSC cost share, and
maintains billing and collection system;
Provides regional Program Office with financial data;
Obligates contracts and modifications for the ARCS and mini-ERCS
contracts; and
VI-34
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Reviews invoices and monthly financial reports for the ARCS and mini-
ERCS contracts.
HO Financial Management Respnnsihitiri,
es
Selected Superfund financial management responsibilities which the regional
Program Office may come in contact are highlighted below.
Financial Management DivixinnlOffice nfthe Comptrnll^r
This Office, which monitors the financial aspects of the Superfund program
through four of its branches, performs many Superfund-related functions,
including the following:
Collects HQ's Superfund cost documentation for cost recovery;
Oversees annual site-specific reporting processes;
Issues financial policies and procedures;
Provides general accounting support;
Records transfer allocations;
Notifies Trust Fund to invest cost recoveries, fines and penalties;
and
Establishes Superfund account numbers in IFMS.
Financial and Administrative Management Section/Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (FAMSIOERR)
FAMS provides financial management and accounting support and guidance to
OERR and the regional Program Offices. As one of HQ's Superfund Allowance
Holders, FAMS1 responsibilities include:
Maintains the OERR DCR and controls the HQ allowances;
Commits funds for HQ OERR contracts and lAGs;
Assigns accounting data to monthly site-specific invoices; and
Processes and monitors HQ OERR
FAMS' responsibilities in relation to the regional Program Office are as follows:
MaJPtain3 tho central S/S ID system anrl assigns S/S IDs tO Coast
, Guard-lead removal sites;
financial issues; and
Provides financial policies to regional Program Offices.
'jHfGifitznit jj^L.**LfM ~*~"j "fc^*"' "j *' T' " ^*i ""
'(TM^IOWPE)
Like FAMS, the Contracts Management Section provides financial management and
VI-35
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
accounting support and guidance to OWPE and the regional Program Offices.
Responsibilities include:
Obligates funds for the TES contracts;
Processes and monitors WAs in TESWATS;
Processes and monitors OWPE lAGs;
Processes invoices for TES contracts;
Coordinates issuance of regional allowances and processes change
requests;
Provides liaison with regional Program Offices on OWPE financial
issues; and
Provides OWPE financial policies to regional Program Offices.
Procurement and Contracts Management Division/Office of Administration (PCMD)
PCMD conducts the Superfund contracting program. This involves negotiating,
awarding, monitoring, modifying, and terminating contracts and providing
technical guidance on contract administration. PCMD also provides cost and price
analysis for Superfund contracts.
Grants Administration Division/Office of Administration
This division issues policy, regulations and guidance for the processing, award and
administrative management of financial assistance agreements and lAGs; issues
identification numbers for all lAGs; and processes and awards HQ lAGs.
Budget Division/Office of the Comptroller
This division allocates the Superfund allowances among the HQ and regional
offices; approves regional allowances; monitors obligations against regular and site
allowances on a weekly basis; processes transfer allocations; processes change
requests, and reprograms allowances, as necessary.
Cincinnati Financial Management C.cn^r
The Servicing Finance Office in Cincinnati is responsible for providing accounting
support for all SuperfuruiiAGt TheJDffiee^mTccsseB-dishnrsement reauests from
od£ agencies, processes the billing for SSanSfc.aSSSSSXSS^
obligations and disbursements into IFMS.
Office of Adminl'itratinnlResearc.h Triangle Park
This Servicing Finance Office (SFO) is responsible for providing accounting
support for all Superfund contracts. The Office enters contract award data and
obligations into IFMS, processes contractor invoices, and enters payments into
IHvIS via the Contract Payment System.
VI-36
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Financial Management Tools and
Integrated Financial Mgnaeement Svxtem (IFMS)
The IFMS is the Agency's official automated accounting, funds control and
monitoring system. It encompasses all of the Agency's financial systems for
planning, budget formulation and execution; program and administrative
accounting; and audit. IFMS is maintained by the Administrative Systems Division
of the Office of Information Resources Management. The Financial Systems
Branch of the Financial Management Division, Office of the Comptroller, provides
IFMS user support. IFMS is new to EPA and was implemented in order to expand
upon and improve the original Financial Management System (FMS). Because
IFMS is so comprehensive, it requires a two-stage implementation process. The
first phase, which is now in place, expands upon the original FMS data and
provides a mechanism to allow for cross referencing between the old and new
system. The second phase, scheduled for implementation in October 1989, will
complete the restructuring of the financial system to allow for more exact
accounting of financial transactions. The second phase is still under development
and not all the changes which will result from the implementation of IFMS are
currently known. Addenda to this Manual will be issued during the year as more
information is received.
REPORTER. Through IFMS's REPORTER, formerly Software Package
for Unique Reports (SPUR), an IFMS user can run specialized reports from
IFMS, showing only the information selected. REPORTER can select any
data elements maintained in IFMS, arrange those elements in any desired
format, and print a report. The regional Program Office staff may request
REPORTER reports from the regional Servicing Finance Office (SFO).
These reports are especially useful for determining the status of
commitments, obligations and payments for a given site.
Regional IFMS Responsibility. Though each region is organized somewhat
differently, in most regions the SFO enters commitments into IFMS for
contracts and Interagency Agreements (lAGs). For Cooperative
Agreements, the SFO enters not only commitments, but obligations and
drawdowns as well. At the request of the regional Program Office, the SFO
sets up regional account numbers in IFMS. Since the Agency does not
officially recognize commitments or obligations until they appear in IFMS,
it is imperative that the regional Program Office forward all commitment and
obligating documents to the SFO as expeditiously as possible for entry into
IFMS.
Account Number
To manage the Superfund Program effectively, and to recover cleanup costs, EPA
must carefully document and record its direct and indirect costs for each cleanup
action and track the costs through IFMS. The new IFMS account structure is still
under development. An addendum to this Manual will be issued when it is
finalized.
VI-37
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
nnrument Cotf") Minuter (DCN)
The DCN is a six digit number assigned by the regional SFO to Procurement
Requests (PRs) and Commitment Notices (CNs) as a control number. This same
number is carried over from the PR or CN to the obligating document. DCNs will
continue to exist through both phases of IFMS implementation.
Document Contrnl Roister (OCR)
The DCR is the Allowance Holder's mechanism for maintaining a running balance
of all funds available to the Allowance Holder. The DCR can be manual or
automated (Automated DCR, or ADCR) and is generally maintained in the SFO. In
Phase 2 of the IFMS implementation, the ADCR function will be integrated into
IFMS.
Checking the OCR's balance is part of the Funds Certifying Officer's (FCO)
certification of funds availability. Once the FCO certifies that funds are available
and that the appropriate funds are being used, the FCO assigns to the action a DCN
and records it in the DCR. This number uniquely identifies the spending action in
the Agency's DFMS, just as a check number identifies a check.
Site/Spill Identifiers (S/S IDs)
Site/Spill identifiers are used to identify costs associated with a specific site. In
IFMS, the S/S ID has been expanded to three digits. The position of S/S IDs has
not been defined in Phase 2 of the IFMS implementation.
S/S IDs are established by the regional offices, with the exception of Coast Guard
responses which are provided through the OERR FAMS. Each regional office has
one or more persons responsible for assigning S/S IDs and communicating updated
S/S ID information to HQ. This is usually done by calling or sending an updated
copy of the regional S/S ID list to the S/S ID contact in HQ.
Before assigning an S/S ID, an EPA ID must exist in the CERCLIS data base. The
EPA ID is a 12-character unique identifier which is used to identify a hazardous
waste site or an unanticipated removal in the CERCLIS inventory. This ID is based
on the Facility Index System (FINDS). An EPA ED must be established prior to
assignment of an S/S ID. Each site should have a single EPA ID. In addition,
there can only be one S/S ID for each EPA ID.
Before establishing a new S/S ID, a thorough check should be made to ensure that
the site is not already listed under another name. Removal sites should receive
identifiers as soon as it appears that more than approximately $5,000 will be spent
on removal work at the site. Remedial sites should receive identifiers when the
Hazard Ranking System score for the site indicates it will be proposed for the NPL
and an account number is needed for the obligation of funds. Dioxin sites do not
have to be on the NPL in order to establish an ID. Enforcement sites receive
identifiers when costs for an enforcement activity are expected to exceed 24
workhours per pay period, and when a cost recovery action is likely.
Instructions for the assignment of three-digit S/S IDs will be forthcoming.
VI-38
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
EXHTRTT yy.jj
HANDLING FINANCIAL DATA IN THE CERCLIS ENVIRONMENT
Funding Document prepared
by Program Officer in appropriate
area (Pre-Remedial, Remedial, Removal,
Enforcement)
f Approval of Funding Document )
Financial Management Officer
reviews the Funding Document,
assigns a unique Account Number
and Document Control Number
(AN/DCN) pair and enters
information into IFMS.
Funds are now committed
Regional IMC or designee
enters the commitment data
into CERCLIS or
TESWATS
CAs signed by
Regional Administrator
lAGs signea oy
Participating Parties
Contracts signed
bv Contracting Officer
unds are now obligated
Regions enter obligation data into CJiKULlb. Kegions
or HQ enter obligation data into IFMS or TESWATS
VI-39
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Approvals
Authority to approve pre-remedial, removal, remedial and enforcement activities is
contained in the Superfund delegations package. An approval by the Assistant
Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response or Regional
Administrator, as appropriate, is an authorization to undertake a CERCLA-funded
response action. Examples of these approvals include Removal Action Memoranda
and SCAP submissions. A site/activity must be approved before any commitments
can be made.
The following paragraphs highlight the region's financial management authority and
responsibility in the removal program:
Approval Authority. In accordance with Delegation 14-1-A, the Regional
Administrator has the authority to approve removal actions costing up to
$2,000,000 at National Priorities List (NPL) sites or non-NPL sites and
may grant exemptions to the twelve-month statutory limit. In addition,
Regional Administrators may re-delegate to the On-Scene Coordinators
(OSCs) the authority to approve actions costing up to $50,000 in emergency
situations where an expeditious response is required.
Action Memorandum. Except in emergency situations, before a removal
action can begin, an Action Memorandum must be approved. The Action
Memorandum must document that the release meets the criteria of
CERCLA, as amended, and the National Contingency Plan (NCP). In
addition to the technical data, the Action Memorandum, must include, to the
extent practicable, an estimated total project ceiling. The OSC uses the
estimate of the duration and cost of the removal actions in order to determine
the proper approval authority. The OSCs or other Ordering Officers are
responsible for obtaining all necessary Regional Office approvals and
signatures.
Generally, the Action Memorandum is prepared prior to initiating response
activities. In extreme emergencies, however, the OSC may initiate activities
under his or her $50,000 authority without preparing the necessary
documentation in advance. In these circumstances OSCs must document
their decision within 24 hours of initiating response.
The following paragraphs highlight the region's financial management authority and
responsibility in the remedial and enforcement programs:
Financial Approval Mechanism. Planning of remedial and enforcement
program activities is accomplished by means of the SCAP. Funds cannot
be committed or obligated for a remedial or enforcement activity unless it is
included in the SCAP.
Obligations made at events which are planned on an operable unit basis
must be planned and executed on an operable unit basis. Outlays resulting
form the obligations should also be attributed to the appropriate operable
unit.
VI-40
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Record of Decision (Pnr>) A ROD is required for aU RD and RA
SESS6!; R°D> Signed by either ±e Regional Administrator or the AA
a WtK, documents the Agency's remedial alternative decision-making
process and demonstrates that the requirements of CERCLA, as amended
and the NCP have been met. The ROD also provides the basis for future
cost recovery actions that may be taken.
Commitments
Once the regional Funds Certifying Officer certifies the availability of funds, a
spending action becomes a commitment, which is a reservation of funds but not a
legal promise to pay a supplier. Commitments which have not yet been processed
are called open commitments until they become obligations.
There are two types of commitment documents: the Procurement Request (PR) and
the Commitment Notice (CN). The PR is used to commit funds for contracts; the
CN is used to commit funds for Cooperative Agreements (CAs) and reimbursable
Interagency Agreements (lAGs).
Obligations
Unlike a commitment, an obligation legally binds the government to pay a supplier
for delivery of goods or services. Thus, once funds are obligated, the region may
no longer release the funds for another purpose.
A contractor, another agency or state cannot start work until the funds have been
obligated. In addition funds may only be used for the purpose for which they were
obligated under the contract, IAG or CA, and may not be transferred to another
activity and/or site within the contract, IAG or CA without first being de-obligated.
Obligating documents must be processed in accordance with guidance issued by the
Procurement and Contracts Management Division (PCMD), the Grants
Administration Division, and the Financial Management Division. The majority of
the contracts are currently awarded by PCMD and entered into IFMS by the
Servicing Finance Office/Research Triangle Park (SFO/RTP). Certain contracting
functions, particularly those related to regional contracts, have been decentralized to
the regions. Obligations for CAs are entered into IFMS by the regions; for lAGs,
by the Cincinnati Financial Management Center.
Recently some regions have grouped several smaller sites into a new, larger pseudo
site. The purpose of these pseudo sites is to establish a mechanism for funding
area-wide studies of environmental issues. This practice has caused problems for
cost recovery because costs cannot be assigned directly to a given site.
Additionally, by creating a new site, it is difficult to reference the older sites. These
problems may be alleviated by following a simple procedure. Funds for area-wide
studies can be awarded in one contract procurement request, Interagency Agreement
or Cooperative Agreement. However, they must be obligated to each of the sites
involved by using separate account and document control numbers. Obligations
must be identified for each operable unit; particularly when PRPs exist.
VI-41
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Payments
Each contractor/supplier submits an invoice to the proper SFO for payment. Before
the SFO may pay the contractor/supplier, it must have an obligating document and a
receiving report (sent by the originating office) to verify that the work was
completed or the goods were received satisfactorily. Unpaid obligations are not
removed from IFMS at the end of the fiscal year. Rather, they remain in the system
until paid or until the Allowance Holder or obligating official notifies the SFO that
no further payments will be made against the obligation.
De-obligations
The de-obligation of funds is handled similarly to the obligation of funds. The
same commitment and obligation documents and procedures are used, except that
the dollar amount indicated is a reduction rather than an addition. The availability of
funds after de-obligation has taken place depends on when the funds initially had
been obligated. Current fiscal year funds are available for reuse within the
allowance as soon as the de-obligation is effective. Prior fiscal year funds that are
de-obligated revert back to HQ for redistribution. In order to reuse the prior year
funds, allowance holders must request a re-certification of the funds to their
allowance from the Office of the Comptroller in coordination with the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER).
Regions should review the financial status of all contracts, lAGs and CAs
regularly. If all activities requested have been completed, and there are funds
outstanding, the region should follow the procedures outlined above to de-obligate
these funds immediately to make them available for other activities.
Financial Management Funding Mechanisms
EPA uses a variety of funding mechanisms to carry out CERCLA-funded response
actions. Included in these are the following:
Contracts
Superfund contracts are awarded through standard procurement procedures (see the
Office of the Comptroller's Resources Management Directives Systems 2550C
Chapter 2 and the EPA Contracts Management Manual, or refer directly to the
directives prepared for each contract). Exhibit VI-12 contains information on the
procurement forms used for most Superfund contracts. The unique aspect of
Superfund contract processing and financial tracking stems primarily from the need
to associate contractor costs incurred with specific Superfund sites in order to assist
in the cost recovery process. Cost recovery negotiations with PRPs or court
actions require careful documentation of Federal costs incurred at each site/spill.
The following paragraphs describe key financial management processes for each of
the primary categories of Superfund contracts.
VI-42
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
EXHIBIT VM2
EPA FORMS COMMONLY USED FOR SUPERFUND PROCUREMENTS
EPA FORM NO. ZQEMJiAME
1900-8
1900-48
1900-49
Purchase Order
Orfer for Services -
Emergency Response
to Hazardous Substance
Release
Notice to Proceed with
Emergency Response to
Hazardous Substance Release
PURPOSE
i procurement of any goods or services
to commit funds before obligating funds
on any of these documents. Must be
certified by funds commitment clerk.
Used by On-Scene Coordinate (OSCs)
to obligate funds and contract for services
(up to $2,500) from commercial firms
or a state or local government (if site not
owned by state or subdivision at time
wastes were disposed of) to respond to
a release.
Used by OSC to authorize a contractor to
begin work on an emergency response
(up to $10,000 per incident). Negotiation
of definitive contract and any modifications
performed by HQ Contracting Officer.
COMMENTS
commitment in 1FMS. The FMO
enters an obligation only upon
receiving a contract document or
purchase order.
Results in a firm, fixed-price
contract. No price adjustment may
be made for work staled in contract.
Contractor may submit only one
invoice. FMO will process contract
as an obligation.
A preliminary contractual instrument
that must be made final by a
designated Contracting Officer in HQ.
FMO will process notice as an
obligation.
1900-56 Letter contract for State,
Indian Tribal Governments,
or Local Government Responsi
to Emergency Hazardous
Substances Release
Used by OSC to procure services from a
state, local or Indian tribal government to
begin work on an emergency response
(up to $10,000 per incident) if site was
not owned by state or subdivision at time
of hazardous waste disposal. Negotiation
of definitive contract and any modifications
performed by HQ Contracting Officer.
Results in a cost reimbursement type
agreement with a State, local or
Indian tribal government. It is a
preliminary contractual instrument
that must be made final by a
Contracting Officer in HQ. The
appropriate FMO will process a letter
contract as an obligation.
1900-59 Delivery Order for Emergency
Response Cleanup Services
Used by OSCs to order services (up to
$250,000) fiom the ERCS contractor to
respond to a release. All modifications
and obligations over $250,000 will be
tticer.
Has time and material provisions,
but uses fixed rates negotiated in
ERCS contract. Order must be made
final by a designated Contracting
Officer in HQ. FMO will process
orders as an obligation.
VI-43
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01C
Site-Specific Removal Contracts. Site-specific removal contracts are
obligated and tracked on a site-specific basis in the Agency's IFMS.
Removal cleanup contracts may be awarded on a zone-, region- or site-
specific basis. These include the Emergency Response Cleanup Services
(ERGS) and mini-ERCS contracts.
Commitment of Funds. The Procurement Request (PR) is used to
commit funds for contracts. OSCs or other Ordering Officers
prepare the PR for the site portion of the contract and obtain all
necessary regional office approvals and signatures. They send the
document to the SFO for certification of funds and addition of
accounting information (account number, appropriation number and
document control number). The SFO must also check that the action
has been approved. The regional SFO enters the commitment into
the Automated Document Control Register (ADCR) and IFMS.
Obligation of Funds. Site-specific removal cleanup contracts are
obligated by the regional Ordering Officer (generally the OSC), the
mini-ERCS Contracting Officer or at HQ. Obligational authority is
determined by the type and amount of the contract. Although a PR
is generally prepared in advance of the obligating document for
removals, these documents may be processed simultaneously or out
of sequence, due to the urgent nature of removals. OSCs have the
contractual authority to obligate up to $250,000 via a Delivery Order
under an existing contract; however, regions have limited this
authority to $50,000. For contract amounts over this authority, the
OSC forwards the obligating document to the Regional
Administrator for approval and to Procurement and Contracts
Management Division (PCMD) or the mini-ERCS Contracting
Officer for obligation and processing. The SFO/Research Triangle
Park (RTP) enters the obligation into IFMS for all contracts.
Invoice Processing. The OSC or Deputy Project Officer reviews the
site portion of contractor invoices and signs a statement indicating
that the services for which the contractor is invoicing have been
provided. The OSC forwards the certified copy of the invoice
within five days to the SFO/RTP for processing and payment.
If the OSC disallows any charges, copies of the invoice should be
sent to the Contracting Officer, along with an explanation for
disallowing the costs. When a disputed charge cannot be settled
with the contractor, the OSC prepares a memo/letter with a copy of
the voucher and sends them to the Contracting Officer. The OSC
sends the original voucher with a copy of the letter to RTP.
Additional guidance for processing site-specific contractor invoices
are included in the "Removal Cost Management Manual",
"Superfund Removal Procedures" manual and the "ERCS Users
Manual."
VI-44
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Site-Specific Remedial Crmm,ntg Site-specific remedial contracts refer to
those which are obligated site-specifically. Remedial contractors provide
site-specific support for RI/FS, RDs and RAs at individual NPL sites, as
well as general management support to EPA HQ and regions. Both large,
national contracts as well as smaller, region-specific contracts e g
Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy (ARCS) contracts are in place.
Site-specific remedial contracts are obligated and tracked on a site-specific
basis in the Agency's IFMS.
Commitment of Funds. To commit funds, the regional Program
Office prepares the PR for site-specific activities, obtains all
necessary regional Program Office approvals and signatures, and
forwards the approved document to the regional SFO for
certification of funds availability and the addition of accounting
information (account number and DCN). The Regional SFO enters
the commitment into IFMS. For region-specific contracts, e.g.,
ARCS contracts, the basic contract is prepared in HQ and contract
modifications are processed in the regions.
Obligation of Funds. Site-specific remedial contracts are obligated
by PCMD in HQ or the ARCS Contracting Officer in the regions.
These obligations represent contract modifications which must be
processed in accordance with guidance issued by PCMD. PCMD or
the ARCS Contracting Officer distributes the processed obligating
document, and the SFO/RTP enters the obligation into IFMS.
Invoice Processing. Site-specific remedial contractors will provide
copies of their monthly invoice or voucher for payment to the
Contracting Officer and the regions for review. For HQ contracts,
RPMs have five days to review the invoice. If the invoice accurately
reflects contractor activities, the RPM will inform the PO that the
voucher is consistent with the service provided. If the RPM
identifies a problem, it should be reported to the appropriate HQ
Project Officer for resolution. The HQ Project Officer will resolve
any problems, certify Jhat the voucher is consistent with the services
provided, and forward the invoice to the SFO/RTP for processing
and payment.
In the case of region-specific contracts, e.g. ARCS, the RPM and/or
the RPO is responsible for processing the invoices, resolving any
problems and forwarding the invoices to RTF.
General Site Support Contracts. This category includes contracts which are
not obligated on a site-specific basis. These contracts create a pool of
contract labor capable of providing broad technical and planning support to
any removal pre-remedial, remedial or enforcement site on an "as needed"
basis Examples of this type of contract include, but are not limited to: the
Field Investigation Team, Technical Assistance Team, Contract Laboratory
Program and the Environmental Services Assistance Team. Because these
types of contracts are administered by HQ, they will not be discussed in
detail in this document.
VI-45
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
General site support contractors must submit with each invoice a site-
specific attachment, which details the costs incurred at each site with an
EPA S/S ID. The site-specific attachment must include the invoiced costs
for each of the following categories:
Each site with an EPA S/S ID
All other sites, i.e., those without an EPA S/S ID, on one line item
per region
Program management
Base and award fees
Non-site activities, identified separately, such as training of state
personnel or coordination of regional activities
Non-Superfund costs, as applicable, on one line item per
appropriation.
The contractors submit original invoices to RTP and advance copies to the
HQ Project Officer simultaneously. The Project Officer reviews the invoice
and the site-specific attachment for reasonableness of the site-specific
charges. In some cases, the RPOs and DPOs will conduct a concurrent
review of the invoice.
Enforcement Contracts. The Technical Enforcement Support contracts are a
combination of the general site support contracts and the site-specific
removal/remedial contracts. The TES contracts are not obligated on a site-
specific basis, however, the regions issue work assignments against the
contract labor pool on a site-specific basis. Site-specific work assignments
are not entered into IFMS.
Commitment of Funds. The RPM in the region prepares the work
assignment for site and non-site specific activities, obtains all the
necessary regional Program Office approvals and signatures and
forwards the approved document to the RPO for processing. The
RPO enters the work assignment into TESWATS.
Obligation of Funds. In TES 5+, the regions are provided funds
within their Advice of Allowance which are obligated non-site
specifically against the contract to provide capacity for technical and
planning support. HQ performs this function for the TES 3 and 4
contracts. After the regional RPO processes the site-specific work
assignment it is approved by the HQ Contracting Officer in PCMD.
Approved work assignments are so noted in TESWATS.
Invoice Processing. TES contractors provide copies of their
monthly invoice to the regions through FMD for review. The
invoice must be submitted with a site-specific attachment, similar to
the general site support contracts, which details the costs incurred at
each site. For TES 3 and 4, if the invoice is correct, the RPO
certifies that the invoice is consistent with the services provided and
forwards the certification to OWPE for processing and payment. If
the RPO identifies a problem, it should be reported to the
appropriate HQ official in OPWE for resolution. Under the TES 5+
contracts the RPO is responsible for processing the invoices and
resolving any problems.
VI-46
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
General Program Support Contra^ This group of contracts provides
general program management support to HQ and regional Program Offices.
These contracts are not for site-specific work and are not obligated site-
specifically. They are administered totally by HQ and will not be discussed
in this document.
Contract Transition By FY90, the Superfund program will have completed
the transition from relying solely on the major REM and TES contracts to
the more competitive ARCS contracts. As REM contracts approach the end
of the contracting periods, the regions will be shifting unfinished or new
work assignments to the ARCS contracts. These actions may require the
de-obligation of prior year funds. Normally, prior year de-obligations are
returned to Agency reserves for later use. For de-obligations related solely
to changes in contract vehicles, re-certification of these prior year de-
obligations will be executed with minimum overlap and the amount de-
obligated will be reissued to the region in the next regularly scheduled AOA.
Annual budget ceilings will be increased when funds are recertified. The
procedures for de-obligation and re-certification of the funds are as follows:
The region identifies the amount to be transferred.
If the amount to be transferred exceeds $1 million for either a
specific site or an accumulation of sites, the region will contact
OSWER with the total dollar need and request approval to proceed.
If the total need is under $1 million or OSWER has been contacted,
the region will prepare and forward the de-obligating PR to PCMD.
A package of information should be sent to OSWER at the same
time. It should include: 1) a copy of the contract
modification/procurement request de-obligating the funds; 2) a list of
the sites (by activity) where the funds are being withdrawn; and 3) a
list of the sites (by activity) where the funds will be obligated. This
package should be sent to the Budget and Administration Section,
Resource Management Staff, OSWER (OS-110).
OSWER will submit a change request to the Office of the
Comptroller for a dollar amount not to exceed the proposed de-
obligation.
The Office of the Comptroller will issue these funds in the next
regularly scheduled AOA.
The region will prepare and forward to PCMD documents to
obligate the funds.
Tnterapencv A vreementS
An Interagency Agreement (IAG) is a written agreement between Federal agencies
uldS wS good?and services are provided. The Superfund program uses
Stement SGS and Allocation Transfer lAGs to request that certain Federal
ageSS with site cleanups and associated activities and provide ongoing
VI-47
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
support or services. The IAG specifies the services required and identifies the
method of payment.
Disbursement Interagencv Agreements (LAGs). Disbursement lAGs are
agreements in which another Federal agency provides goods or services to
EPA. This category of IAG is similar in concept to obtaining goods or
services from a contractor. Superfund program staff prepare lAGs to pay
other agencies for work performed at a specific Superfund removal,
remedial or enforcement site and for non-site specific activities. EPA pays
the other agency either by advance payment or by payment following work
performance (repayment). The regional Program Office initiates and
manages site-specific lAGs. The Assistance Administration Unit (AAU) in
the regional Management Division typically approves and awards site-
specific LAGs. The exception is U.S. Coast Guard-lead removal LAGs,
which are negotiated, approved, awarded, and managed at HQ.
Commitment of Funds. The regional Program Office determines
whether assistance from another Federal agency is needed. The
regional SFO determines the availability of funds, upon request
from the regional Program Office. The regional Program Office
then prepares the LAG funding package, consisting of a
Commitment Notice (CN), a transmittal memorandum, EPA Form
1610-1, which is the LAG itself, and a Decision Memorandum,
which verifies legal authority for the LAG. The Decision Official in
the regional Program Office reviews and approves the LAG. The
staff of the AAU then conducts an administrative review of the
funding package. The SFO adds accounting data and enters the
commitment in the Document Control Register (DCR) as well as into
LFMS. The regional Program Office establishes and maintains the
official site file(s). The AAU establishes and maintains the official
financial file.
Obligation of Funds. Following pre-validation of the commitment,
the AAU obtains an LAG number from Headquarters Grants
Administration Division (GAD) by E-Mail. The Action Official (the
Regional Administrator or his/her designee) signs the LAG. The
AAU then sends the signed LAG to the other agency for signature.
An obligation is created when the LAG has been signed by both
agencies. The AAU distributes the executed LAG to the regional
program office, the GAD, and the Cincinnati Financial Management
Center (CFMC), where the obligation is recorded in LFMS.
Payments. If the performing agency does not have OMB-approved
reimbursable authority, the CFMC pays that agency for EPA prior to
execution of the agreement activities. For those agencies that do not
require advances, the regional Program Office certifies that charges
are accurate following execution of the activities. There are three
ways in which EPA accomplishes exchange of funds for LAGs: the
Simplified Interagency Billings and Collection system (SLBAC), the
On-line Payment and Collections system (OPAC), and check
payments. When the OPAC or SLBAC system is used, funds
exchange occurs prior to regional Program Office certification;
however, the regional Program Office may request adjustments
when necessary. For payment by check, the performing agency
VI-48
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
, - wh° fonvards
ce The regional Program Office reviews and certifies
,?? then retums bo* d* voucher and the certification
form to CFMC for processing and payment.
Closeout. The regional Program Office is responsible for managing
pre-closeout activity. If all work has been completed, the regional
Program Office accepts the final report from the other agency and
initiates closeout procedures. The AAU queries the regional
Program Office when the project period has expired or when there
has been no project activity for two quarters. If the AAU requests a
project status determination, the regional Program Office determines
whether the IAG should remain open/extended or be closed, and
notifies the AAU.
When no further activity will occur under the IAG (e.g. project
completed, funds availability period expired, funds expended,
unsatisfactory/incomplete work product) and final invoices have
been certified, the regional Program Office prepares a written
closeout request and sends it to the AAU. The AAU then
determines from CFMC that the LAG is financially closed out and
closes out the IAG by sending a closeout letter to the other agency
and notifying the regional Program Office and GAD. Both the
regional Program Office and the AAU then remove the appropriate
files from active status and retain them a minimum of six years.
Disposal of the files is subject to regional Program Office approval.
When applicable, within thirty days of completion of work under the
agreement, the regional Program Office prepares, or obtains from
the other agency, a final inventory and disposition recommendations
for non-expendable property. The regional Program Office
forwards a copy of this report to the appropriate property
management office in the regional Management Division.
Allocation Transfer lAGs. Allocation Transfer lAGs transfer obligational
authority from EPA to the designated agency at the appropriation level. The
funds are transferred to the other agency from an EPA allowance via EPA's
Transfer Allocation account. This LAG mechanism is similar to the
Comptroller providing allowances to EPA Program Offices to carry out
specific functions; however, transfers occur at the appropriation level.
Obligations and payments are made by the other agency and are reported
monthly to EPA.
Interagency agreements with FEMA for permanent or temporary relocations
are allocation transfer LAGs. The regional Program Office, in conjunction
with the AAU in the regional Management Division, typically initiates,
approves, awards, and manages site-specific Allocation Transfer LAGs.
Implementation of an allocation transfer LAG must be in accordance with
Department of Treasury procedures and can only be used with prior
approval from the Office of the Comptroller.
Initiating the LAG. The regional Program Office initiates the LAG.
After developing a preliminary cost estimate with the other agency,
the regional Program Office prepares the funding package which
VI-49
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
includes EPA Forni 1610-1, a transmittal memorandum, and the
Decision Memorandum. The Decision Official in the regional
Program Office reviews and approves the funding package and
submits it to the AAU. The AAU obtains an LAG number from
GAD by E-Mail and conducts an administrative review. The GAD
enters LAG data from the E-Mail request into the Grants Information
Control Systems (GIGS). The Action Official (the Regional
Administrator or his/her designee) conducts a final review and signs
the LAG package. The AAU submits the LAG to the other agency
for signature. The AAU distributes the executed LAG to the regional
Program Office, to the GAD, and to the Office of Comptroller.
Upon initiation of the LAG, the regional Program Office submits a
change request to the Budget Formulation and Control Branch in the
Office of the Comptroller, so that the funds can be set aside in a HQ
transfer account The appropriate program's allowance is then
reduced to reflect the transfer to the receiving agency.
Transfer of Funds. The executed LAG serves to transfer obligational
authority to the other agency. Once the LAG is signed, and upon
receipt of a change request from the regional Program Office, the
Budget Division in the Office of the Comptroller withdraws funds
from the region's allowance and transfers the funds to the EPA
Transfer Allocation account for future transfer to the designated
agency. The Financial Reports and Analysis Branch executes the
transfer from EPA to the performing agency.
Financial Monitoring. The performing agency is required to submit:
1) monthly reports via SF133, "Budget Execution," on obligations
and expenditures during the period to EPA's Financial Management
Division and 2) periodic status reports to the regional Program
Office and the HQ Superfund Budget Branch. The LAG also
requires the other agency to maintain records and documentation by
site and submit them to EPA upon request. The regional Program
Office reviews progress reports and acts on them as necessary.
Closeout. The regional Program Office closeout procedures for an
Allocation Transfer LAG are the same as those for Disbursement
LAGs. Since there are no billing transactions, outstanding invoices
or payments are not a concern; however, to determine that the LAG
may be financially closed out by the Office of the Comptroller, the
AAU asks the EPA Inspector General to request the other agency's
Inspector General to determine the financial status of the LAG. Both
the regional Program Office and the AAU then remove the
appropriate files for that LAG from active status and retain them a
minimum of six years. Disposal of the files is subject to regional
Program Office approval.
For further information on Regional LAGs, see the Regional Interagency
Agreements Handbook. October 1988.
VI-50
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Cooperative. Agreements (CA)
A CA is the instrument EPA uses to provide assistance to states, political
subdivisions or Indian Tribal governments in conducting pre-remedial, remedial,
removal, enforcement and program and project support activities. CAs provide
hmding assistance to the state, political subdivision, or Indian Tribal governments
documents responsibilities and obtains state assurances. CAs must be approved by
the Regional Administrator or designee. The steps for developing and managing
the financial aspects of a CA in the region are outlined below.
Commitments. The regional Program Office prepares the CN and obtains
all necessary program approvals and signatures to commit funds for the CA.
The regional Management Division certifies the availability of funds,
assigns the accounting data, sets aside the required funds on the DCR and
enters the commitment into the IFMS. The regional AAU assigns the CA
identification number.
Obligations. The signature of the Regional Administrator, or his/her
designee, obligates CAs. The regional Management Division is responsible
for processing obligations in accordance with the guidance issued by
PCMD, GAD and FMD, and for entering the obligations into the DCR and
IFMS.
Letter of Credit. If a state environmental agency, political subdivision or
Indian Tribal government does not have an established consolidated Letter
of Credit (LOG) with EPA, one should be established. The LOG is the
preferred method for providing Superfund payment assistance to states,
political subdivisions or Indian Tribal governments. The CA recipient
"draws down" funds from the appropriate credit account at the Federal
Reserve Bank to cover EPA's share of immediate cash needs for each
activity approved in the CA.
The state, political subdivision or Indian Tribal government may only draw
down funds from the LOG for work authorized for specific sites and/or
activities. The total drawdown may not exceed the amount obligated for
each activity and/or site in the CA. Drawdowns must be made
proportionally to the amount of work completed, and may only be made for
the EPA share of project costs. If funds obligated for a specific site or
activity have been exhausted, the recipient may not draw down from another
account number within the consolidated LOG.
The regional Management Division reviews drawdowns on a monthly basis
and determines whether the account structure established in the CA is being
followed and that the drawdowns are only large enough to cover immediate
(usually one month) cash needs. The account from which drawdowns were
made, identified in the IFMS Outlay Report or state quarterly report, must
match the activities being undertaken.
Financial Monitoring. On a regular basis, the RPM should review the
IFMS Outlay Report and the quarterly progress report prepared by the state,
political subdivision or Indian Tribal government. The review should
determine that drawdowns at the site correspond to technical progress.
VI-51
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
De-obligations. De-obligations of funds are handled similarly to obligations
of funds. The same commitment and obligation documents and procedures
are used, except that the dollar amount indicated is a reduction rather than an
addition. The availability of funds following de-obligation depends on
when the funds were obligated initially. Current fiscal year funds are
available for reuse within the allowance as soon as the de-obligation is
effective. Prior fiscal year funds that are de-obligated revert to HQ for
redistribution.
In order to reuse prior fiscal year funds:
The Allowance Holders must submit a request to re-certify the funds
to their allowances;
OERR will evaluate the request based on the approved SCAP and
will recommend distribution of funds;
The Office of the Comptroller must approve the request; and
The request must be approved and a reapportionment obtained from
the Office of Management and Budget.
Regions should regularly review the financial status of all cooperative
agreements. If all activities to be conducted under the agreement have been
completed and there are funds outstanding, the region should follow the
procedures above to de-obligate these funds or transfer them to another site
or response phase. The transfer of funds under a CA is discussed below.
Transfer of Funds. Under a multi-site CA funds can be transferred from
one site to another site. This transaction is called a 'transwitch' and requires
a formal CA amendment. The CA amendment must show the transfer of
funds from one site to another by changing the accounting information on
the funds being transferred to reflect the new site. CA funds can also be
transferred from one remedial response phase to another remedial response
phase at the same site. Again, a formal CA amendment is required in order
to change the accounting information to reflect the actual response activity
being performed.
For additional information on the financial management of CAs, refer to the
Resources Management Directives Systems 2550D. Chapter 9, and the State
Participation in the Superfund Program guidance, Chapters 7 and 10.
Superfund State Contracts (SSCs)
When EPA or a political subdivision has the lead for a remedial action, the
instrument used to describe the state's role is a Superfund State Contract (SSC).
An SSC is a legally binding agreement that provides the mechanism for obtaining
required state cost share and other assurances, outlines the statement of work for
the response action and also documents responsibilities for remedial implementation
at a site. When a political subdivision has the lead for a remedial action, the SSC is
signed by EPA, the state and the political subdivision. The SSC does not obligate
funds; funds for Federal-lead projects must be obligated through an EPA
procurement request with a contractor or an Interagency Agreement with another
agency. Funds for political subdivision response actions are provided through the
CA.
VI-52
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
SSC Requirements. An SSC is required to be in place before EPA or the
political subdivision can begin a remedial action funded by the Superfund
An SSC must contain several state assurances. One is that the state will pay
its cost share for response actions. The state cost share is ten percent for
pnvately operated sites. For publicly operated sites, the state cost share is
50 percent and is required for prior removal, RI/FS and RD activities as
well as the RA. In addition to cost share assurances, SSCs must contain
state program assurances and must also include a tentative payment
schedule.
SSC Development. The SSC is developed by the regional Program Office.
The RPM/RPO must insure that, in addition to program assurances, the
financial cost share requirements and payment schedule are included in the
SSC.
Accounts Receivable. Like a CA, an SSC requires state cost share. To
cover its share of remedial costs under an SSC, the state may be required to
provide cash payments to EPA. Following execution of the SSC, the
RPM/RPO must immediately forward a copy of the executed SSC to the
regional Management Division for necessary accounts receivable
processing. The RPM/RPO is also responsible for forwarding immediately
to the regional Management Division any SSC modifications that may affect
the payment schedule.
Payment Schedule. The state cost share must be received and recorded in
EFMS before EPA will pay for the work to which the state is contributing
funds. Therefore, state payments should be scheduled approximately two
weeks ahead of the anticipated outlay date to allow for administrative
processing. If a remedial action occurs in several phases the payments may
be spread out accordingly. In this situation, the SSC will schedule the
respective state payments to ensure deposit in the Treasury and recording in
IFMS no later than EPA's obligation of funds for each phase.
Billing. Thirty days prior to the date on the SSC payment schedule, the
regional Management Division will send to the state a notice of the amount
required and the due date. The SSC, and any invoice to the state requesting
payment, must include the requirement that payments be sent to the regional
Superfund lockbox address. The regional Management Division will
reference the SSC, including the EPA site name and identifier, on the
invoice. The Division will also require the state to include a copy of the
invoice with any remittance sent to the regional Superfund lockbox address.
Receipt of Payment. If EPA does not receive the requested funds by the
date on the payment schedule, the regional Management Division will notify
the RPM/RPO immediately. The RPM/RPO is responsible for follow-up
with the state and will keep the regional Management Division advised. No
interest will accrue on the invoiced amount, because the state cost share is
not a debt to the Agency, but rather an advance payment. The region
deposits its cost share in the Trust Fund and receives in return a
reimbursable allowance.
Closeout. The RPM/RPO is responsible for notifying the regional
Management Division when it is time to close out the specific remedial
VI-53
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
action. The regional Management Division will reconcile the financial data
on the Federal-lead action.
For additional information on financial management responsibilities related to
SSCs, refer to the Resources Management Directives Systems 2550D. Chapter 9
and State Participation in the Superfund Program guidance, Chapter 7.
Cost Recovery/Cost Documentation
CERCLA, as amended, imposes liability on responsible parties for the cost of
responding to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances from
hazardous waste sites or spills. When these PRPs fail to clean up sites on their
own, EPA may perform the cleanup and later attempt to recover the clean-up costs
from the parties. Obtaining reimbursement for these costs through judicial action is
one of the chief goals of the Superfund program.
Cost recovery documentation is performed by a case development team comprised
of representatives from the Office of Regional Counsel (ORC), the regional
Program office and the regional Servicing Finance Office. The involvement and
distribution of responsibilities of each of these offices during the cost recovery
process does vary within each region. The sequence of activities is provided as a
guide. The cost recovery process, which is typically completed within an eight
week time frame, is briefly described below:
Initiation of Cost Recovery Process. The regional Program Office prepares
and submits the Cost Recovery Checklist to OWPE through the Regional
Cost Recovery Coordinator (RCRC) to initiate the HQ documentation
process. The checklist is also submitted to the regional SFO to begin the
documentation process for regional Superfund site-specific costs. Among
other things, the checklist prescribes the date through which costs are to be
documented and the date documentation is required by the Case
Development Team.
The RCRC obtains the cost documentation package from OWPE and the
SFO and prepares a "merged" cost summary (if this is not done by the
regional SFO). The RCRC also requests site-specific reports generated by
REPORTER, formerly Software Package for Unique Reports (SPUR),
from the SFO which provide the cost basis for negotiations with potentially
responsible parties. IN FY90, THE HQ RESPONSIBILITIES
WILL BE DELEGATED TO THE REGIONS.
Cost Documentation and Reconciliation. Cost documentation and
reconciliation involve collecting and reviewing required documentation to
ensure that accounting and cost information are recorded correctly, that
costs are properly chargeable, that account numbers refer to the appropriate
site, and that costs on the documents are reflected accurately in IFMS. The
regional SFO documents regional Superfund site-specific costs and prepares
the regional office cost summary; computes indirect costs; provides expert
and factual financial witness testimony; provides assistance to legal and
program staff interpreting financial documents and REPORTER reports,
and provides CA cost documentation.
VI-54
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
The Office of Regional Counsel reviews the final cost summary and
documentation package in preparation for litigation and takes appropriate
actions pursuant to the Privacy Act and regulations concerning Confidential
Business Information to ensure that protected information is not released.
Site File Maintenance. Diligent maintenance of the site files is crucial to cost
recovery and is the responsibility of the regions. Site-specific financial files
should be maintained by the Financial Management Officer until such time
as cost recovery action is initiated or a minimum of six years. The cost
recovery financial documentation case file should be maintained by the
RCRC until this cost documentation is required by the litigation team.
VI-55
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
HANDLING FINANCIAL DATA IN THE CERCLIS ENVIRONMENT
The implementation of IFMS will affect the handling of financial data in CERCLIS.
This process has not been developed yet The Manual will be updated when procedures
have been completed.
Entering Remedial/Removal Data into CERCLIS
Once the funding document has been processed by the region, the planned financial
data must be replaced by the commitment or obligation data. The "P" in the financial type
field in CERCLIS must be changed to a "C" (commitment) or an "A" (actual obligation)
and the funding amount in CERCLIS and on the funding document must agree. If a region
wants to retain planned financial data, it must enter the planned obligation into CERCLIS
with a regional financial type of "X", "Y", or "Z". In any event, the financial type code of
"P" cannot remain in the system once the funds are committed or obligated. Failure to
replace the "P" could cause 1) the region to exceed its annual budget which will result in
withholding AOA approval or 2) a reduction in next quarter's AOA.
At this time, certain data are optional for entry into CERCLIS or CERHELP by the
regions. These include commitment/de-commitment or obh'gation/de-obligation date and
amount, financial type and contractor name. Regions are not required to enter outlay or
credit information into CERCLIS.
Entering Enforcement Case Budget Data into CERCLIS
The region will be responsible for entering obligations/tasking (WAs issued) into
CERCLIS. For lAGs that support enforcement activities, regions will have to post the
AN/DCN in the financial notes. For all TES actions, TESWATS will produce a weekly
report listing actual WAs issued (CO sign off). This information is to be posted into the
current year obligation field in the CERCLIS financial field record. Each transaction for
each WA will be entered into CERCLIS as a separate record. It is expected that TESWATS
will provide an automated upload to CERCLIS shortly. All regional transactions should be
entered on a real time basis or, at a minimum, by the 7th of the following month. The
regions are responsible for verifying the information in IFMS and CERCLIS for
obligations or de-obligations and outlays incurred.
To ensure that all appropriate financial data are reflected in CERCLIS, the following
information should appear on obligation documents: EPA ID number, site/spill ID number,
CERCLIS Event or Enforcement activity codes and OU number, WA number, and dollars.
A crosswalk is provided in Appendix C displaying the relationship between
CERCLIS Enforcement activities, Remedies and Events and their corresponding codes.
ANs must be established for each transaction before commitment and obligation. A
CA is considered obligated when it is signed by the Regional Administrator. An IAG is
considered obligated when it is signed by the other agency. Contracts are considered
obligated when the CO signs the obligating document or, in the case of a TES WA, when
the CO signs the WA. Regions are also responsible for reviewing and recommending
payment of the invoice/voucher (outlays) for these mechanisms. Once invoices are paid,
these dollars are entered into IFMS. If the obligation was generic and the invoice is site-
specific, IFMS shows the funds de-obligated from the generic account and obligated and
disbursed from the site-specific account.
VI-56
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
IFMS to CERCLIS Financial Data Transfer
On Thursday of each week, an automated transfer of selected financial data from
IFMS to CERCLIS and CERHELP will take place. Exhibit VI-13 indicates the removal
and remedial financial data to be transferred.
EXHIBIT VT-13
REMOVAL AND REMEDIAL FINANCIAL DATA
TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM IFMS
Commitments and decommitments
Obligations and deobligations
Funding vehicle
Outlays and credits (funding type and amount)
Obligating document number
Document control number
It is important for the regions to note that they are ultimately responsible for the
accuracy of the CERCLIS or CERHELP data bases. Regions will have to ensure that both
the planned, commitment and obligation data entered as part of the SCAP process and the
actual data transferred from IFMS are accurate and current. Since IFMS is the Agency's
official source of financial data, data transferred from IFMS will override CERCLIS data
entered by the regions. A weekly exception report is used to aid in identifying errors or
differences between IFMS and CERCLIS. Errors that have been carried over from IFMS
must be corrected in both IFMS and CERCLIS.
Correcting Financial Data
The region's IFMS administrator is the only person authorized to make changes in
the IFMS data base. The IMC or designee should work with the regional FMO on a
regular basis to make sure that all IFMS errors are corrected. The IMC can request, on a
regular basis, a report from the regional Financial Office which contains all Superfund
financial transactions in IFMS. The information in this report can be compared with the
funding documents and CERCLIS. Upon determining that the data on the source
document was correct and were correctly entered into CERCLIS, the IMC should give the
regional FMO a copy of the funding document, and any other relevant documentation,
showing that the IFMS data are in error.
The Office of the Comptroller has issued standard procedures for correcting IFMS
data. There are three kinds of corrections which may be needed on financial information in
IFMS as shown in Exhibit VI-14.
VI-57
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
RYHTRTT VI-14
CORRECTIONS TO FINANCIAL
INFORMATION IN IFMS
Data entry errors in IFMS.
Changing account numbers or document control
numbers that were initially entered into IFMS.
Correcting errors in the source funding document
or making other amendments to existing
commitments or obligations.
IFMS data entry errors are resolved by the FMO. Errors in AN/DCN, or other
information on the original funding document can only be corrected by the same process
used to initially create the financial record (by a contract/PR or by amendment of the IAG or
CA).
VI-58
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
CHAPTER VII
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ASSESSMENT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-OK
CHAPTER VII PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
AND ASSESSMENT
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Following are the actions regional managers must take to
comply with the requirements described in this Chapter.
In order to acquire a more in-depth understanding of
these requirements, the Chapter itself should be read.
Report Superfund accomplishments as soon as
they occur or, at a minimum, on a monthly basis
through CERCLIS. HQ management bases its
evaluation of regional performance on these data.
Regions are responsible for CERCLIS data entry
and data quality control.
Regions and HQ will work together at mid-year
to develop strategies for improving performance.
Regions that are scheduled for an OSWER review,
conduct and submit to HQ a written self-evaluation
of the priority issues HQ will focus on during the
review.
Regions participate in the OSWER review.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
CHAPTER VTT . PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ASSESSMENT
This chapter describes the established procedures for assessing the overall
performance of the Superfund program. Specifically, this chapter:
Outlines the objectives of Superfund's internal evaluation efforts, the
process by which these objectives are met, and the tools that EPA uses
in the evaluation process; and
Provides Superfund management and staff with a quick-reference guide to
their roles and responsibilities in the evaluation process.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
HQ and the regions have different roles and responsibilities in Superfund program
evaluation and management, as shown in Exhibit VII-1.
EXHIBIT VIM
IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES
REGIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES
Meet quarterly SCAP and SPMS targets and
solve performance problems when they arise.
Provide quarterly SCAP and SPMS data to HQ
through CERCLIS.
Maintain CERCLIS data quality at high levels
for Superfund program and project management.
Participate in OSWER On-Site reviews
Negotiate performance standards lhat provide
individual accountability for quarterly targets.
Develop action strategy to recoup slipping
targets.
HEADQUARTERS
RESPONSIBILITIES
Provide guidance to the regions for preparing
the quarterly review, the mid-year assessment,
the year-end assessment, and the OSWER
On-Site Review.
Identify priority issues and participate in
OSWER On-Site reviews.
Implement and report on follow-up action
items from the OSWER On-Site review and
Superfund mid-year assessment.
Review monthly performance data reported
by the regions and negotiate action strategies
with regions for recouping slipping targets.
Continually assess program performance and
analyze timeliness and quality of work.
Recommend resource re-allocation based on
regional needs and performance.
Assure that all staff are informed of the
results of performance reporting and
OSWER reviews.
Identify and undertake high priority special
studies.
Assure that special studies and external
official reports are reflected in FMFIA
documentation.
VIM
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
The Superfund evaluation process provides managers with a chance to meet
program objectives by:
Examining program accomplishments;
Analyzing and discussing issues that affect the successful operation of the
Superfund program; and
Initiating changes in program operations or reallocating resources.
The strategy for assessing the performance of the Superfund program is comprised
of the following parts:
SCAP/SPMS performance evaluation with CERCLIS data;
» OSWER reviews of regional performance;
Special studies of high-priority issues, including studies that support the
Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA); and
Coordination of responses to official reports prepared by the General
Accounting Office (GAO) and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
This strategy enables management to recognize high performance, concentrate
Superfund resources in those regions that demonstrate success, and provide training and
technical assistance to those regions that are experiencing difficulties.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
The regions report their Superfund activities on a monthly basis through CERCLIS.
CERCLIS monthly progress reports indicate program accomplishments for SCAP and
SPMS measures on a region-by-region basis. Management bases its evaluations of
regional program performance on these data. Each quarter, accomplishment data is used to
support formal SCAP/SPMS performance reporting and to produce proactive memoranda.
Detailed management evaluations occur at two points of the fiscal year: during the second
and third quarters (mid-year assessment) and after the fourth quarter (end-of-year
assessment) (see Exhibit VII-2).
The regions are responsible for data entry and data quality control. Accomplishment
data for SCAP and SPMS reports are "pulled" from CERCLIS at the close of business on
the fifth working day of the month. If a region has not entered its accomplishments into
CERCLIS by that time, its performance will not be captured in the data pull, nor will its
accomplishments be reported in SPMS reports.
Quarterly Reviews
The purpose of the quarterly review is to:
Track regional progress toward accomplishing quarterly and end-of-year
SCAP and SPMS targets;
Identify and assess problems impacting performance soon after they arise;
and
VIM
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Develop strategies for regions that are not meeting their targets.
EXHIBIT VII.7,
THE QUARTERLY REVIEW PROCESS
1ST QUARTER
REVIEW
* Evaluate Program
Status
* Brief Senior
Management
2nd QUARTER
ME)- YEAR
ASSESSMENT
* Evaluate Program
rt . *
Status
* Develop Action
Strategy to
Meet Slipping
Targets
* Brief Senior
Management
±
3RD QUARTER
REVIEW
* Evaluate Program
Status
* Report on Progress
of Action Strategy
to Meet Slipping
Targets
* Brief Senior
Management
k.
4th QUARTER
END-OF-YEAR
ASSESSMENT
* Evaluate Program
Status
* Evaluate Annual
Performance and
Produce National
Progress Report
* Provide Input into
Next FY Resource
Allocation Process
* Report on Progress
of Strategy to meet
Slipping Targets
* Brief Senior
Management
Between 15 and 30 business days following the end of the quarter, after the regions
have finalized their CERCLIS entries, evaluation staff brief individually the HQ and
Regional Division Directors, the OERR and OWPE Office Directors, the AA SWER, and
the EPA Deputy Administrator.
Mid-Year Assessment
The focus of second quarter evaluation activities is the mid-year assessment. The
purpose of the mid-year assessment is to provide both HQ and the regions with an
opportunity to assess performance and take appropriate action to enhance progress toward
meeting annual commitments. During the mid-year assessment, management also
considers the impact of regional program performance on the Superfund pipeline. The
mid-year assessment begins near the end of the second quarter, when HQ and the regions
examine progress made during the first five months of the year. By early March, the
regions should be able to assess the progress that they have made toward meeting second-
quarter SCAP and SPMS targets. By that time, they should also be able to know whether
they are likely to achieve their end-of-year targets.
VII-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Preliminary performance data for the mid-year assessment are pulled from
CERCLIS on the fifth working day of March and compared to data on missed targets,
which were previously identified in the second quarter proactive memorandum and in
second quarter targets. Based on these comparisons, HQ develops a list of regions that
seem to be having trouble meeting their targets. During the following week, HQ meets with
staff of each of these regions to discuss strategies for improving program performance. If
these regions have not improved their performance by the end of the second quarter, a HQ
team may visit each of them to assist staff in developing strategies for improving
performance. HQ will advise the regions of the extent to which they should consider
additional resources (e.g., contractual, personnel, technical assistance) in making their
plans.
On the fifth working day of April, second quarter SCAP data are pulled from
CERCLIS. The regions that CERCLIS data show have resolved performance problems
and are projected to meet annual targets are then dropped from the final list of regions to
visit. The OERR and OWPE Directors are then briefed on the mid-year assessment
strategy. The regions are notified of their status by mid-April.
By the mid-year SPMS briefing (the second week in May), HQ divisions brief the
OERR and OWPE Directors on the steps taken to ensure the accomplishment of annual
targets. The mid-year assessments result in a series of agreements between HQ and the
regions on actions that the regions will take either to achieve or to exceed end-of-year
accomplishment targets. To ensure that these actions are implemented, HQ will: distribute
action agreements to appropriate managers; track follow-up items; reallocate resources; and
provide the regions with technical assistance. The results of the mid-year assessment can
also affect resource allocations for the next fiscal year. This measure of a region's ability to
meet their targets will be considered in July, when final FY91 SCAP/SPMS commitments
and regional budgets are established.
End-of-Year Assessment
After the end of the fourth quarter, in October, HQ conducts an end-of-year
assessment. This assessment is an integrated analysis of program performance activities
for the year. The purpose of the end-of-year assessment is to emphasize pipeline issues.
The end-of-year review also notes progress toward implementing strategies identified in the
mid-year assessment and identifies regions that might require additional assistance as the
new fiscal year begins.
HQ considers the end-of-year assessment in developing the preliminary budget
workload model in mid-December and the mid-year SCAP negotiations that are held in
February for the FY90 third and fourth quarters. In this way, the results of the end-of-year
assessment have a double impact. First, the results are made available to workload model
staff in December, so the staff can analyze the impact of funding factors on the success of
regions to meet targets. Second, as a measure of a region's ability to meet their targets will
be considered in February, when mid-year SCAP/SPMS commitments and regional
budgets are adjusted to attempt to meet national targets.
OSWER REVIEWS OF REGIONAL PERFORMANCE
The OSWER review integrates the regional program review needs of OERR,
OWPE, OSW, OUST, and the AA SWER's staff. An OSWER review occurs
approximately every 7 to 10 weeks, so that each region is reviewed once every 18 to 24
months.
vn-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
The OSWER review:
Assesses regional performance;
Provides HQ with each region's perspective on important
program implementation issues;
Helps solve regional problems by identifying HQ or regional
actions;
Facilitates communication among regions; and
Discusses the relationships among OSWER programs.
The roles of OERR and OWPE/CERCLA Enforcement Division in the OSWER
review are to:
Identify priority Superfund issues that are suitable for in-depth, on-site
analysis;
Negotiate program strategies to solve regional performance problems; and
Facilitate communication among regions.
There are five stages to the Superfund portion of the OSWER review process (see
Exhibit VII-3).
EXHIBIT VII-3
THE OSWER REVIEW PROCESS
'"UDBU
SET THE
AGENDA
Identify
Priority
Issues
i
i
-*
REPORT
REGIONAL
PERFORMANCE
Analyze Priority
Issues
(Optional Fact
Finding)
-*
DETERMINE
HQ STRATEGY
Brief
and
Report HQ
^
^
OSWER
ON-SITE
REVIEW
Negotiate
with the
Region
fc.
FOLLOW-
UP
Implement
HQ Strategy/
Transfer
Information
iiiiiuL....j.l..J»WimmiUUIJtlHHatH^^
m
VII-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Identification of Superfund Priority Issues
At the beginning of each fiscal year, HQ notifies the regions that are to be reviewed.
The review process for each region begins about 10-12 weeks before the actual OSWER
review, when the OERR and OWPE Office Directors hold a meeting of HQ Division
Directors to identify Superfund priority issues for the review. Issues that can be dealt with
through other channels of HQ-Regional communication and evaluation should not be
proposed as priorities for the OSWER regional review. The Superfund portion of the
reviews will be focused, analytical, and tailored to each individual region. Priority issues:
Significantly affect regional program performance and accomplishments;
Can be issues to be solved or successful solutions to issues from which
other regions would benefit;
Have program-wide or cross-program implications;
Are addressed in a manner specific to the region under review; and
Are best addressed through an in-depth site visit.
HQ review participants are selected based on their familiarity with the region's
priority issues. Therefore, not all program areas are necessarily involved in every review.
HQ will also actively seek to involve review participants from other regions with similar
problems or successful experience in resolving the issue.
After the focus of the review has been agreed upon, the lead Division establishes a
work group to define the scope of the review and provide direction. The work group
should review both CERCLIS and other available data to identify any other issues related to
regional performance that the review team needs to examine during die site visit. A list of
the priority issues is sent to the region approximately eight to nine weeks before the
OSWER review.
Assessment of Regional Performance
The region is given approximately three weeks to conduct and submit a written self-
evaluation of the priority issues. The self-evaluation consists of an analysis of each issue,
options, and proposed solutions.
After the work group receives the self-evaluation and completes its initial review,
program staff gather additional in-depth information on priority issues. As part of this
exercise, the work group conducts an on-site visit to the region approximately four weeks
before the OSWER visit. The purpose of this visit is to conduct a staff-level assessment
and review the facts behind the region's self-evaluation with regional staff. A report is not
written at this point but regional management will have an opportunity to discuss the results
of the work group's fact-finding trip in an exit conference.
Headquarters Strategy Determination
The work group briefs senior OERR and OWPE managers. HQ then develops its
strategy and proposed action plans. The proposed plans focus on specific actions needed to
correct weaknesses identified in the region's self-evaluation and the work group's fact-
finding trip.
VII-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
The OSWRR nn-5Mtft Review
The OSWER on-site review provides a forum for HQ and regional senior
management to have face-to-face meetings and seek agreement on solutions and negotiate
specific action plans to correct problems. It also is an opportunity for understanding and
documenting a region's success stories and developing an action plan to disseminate it to
other regions. The emphasis of the review is on developing an action plan for the region
and an action plan for HQ that identifies a limited number of key implementation items to be
tracked. This action plan is incorporated into a final report.
Follow-Up
After the review is complete, HQ assigns the Divisions responsibilities for
following up on the progress toward addressing problem areas. The HQ Divisions'
responsibility is to make periodic reports on the region's progress on their action plans and
on the progress made on HQs' action items. HQ also ensures that findings from the review
are disseminated both at HQ and to the regions.
SPECIAL STUDIES & FMFIA
A special study is any in-depth review of important topics pertaining to the
Superfund program. In the third quarter of every fiscal year, OERR Divisions identify
Special Studies for selection by the OERR Director. Resources are then budgeted in July
and August to meet these needs. These studies will be tracked through the OERR's
Milestone Tracking System.
Special studies will also help fulfill annual FMFIA reporting requirements.
Implementation of FMFIA is an important part of the Superfund management strategy.
Compliance with FMFIA, requires manager's to:
Evaluate their organization's goals and missions and the structure or
segmentation of the organization;
Identify and document internal control and management systems;
Assess potential weaknesses, risks or vulnerabilities in existing systems
Develop annually a five year Management Control Plan (MCP) to address
weaknesses and to test for other weaknesses which includes the Special
Studies;
Conduct Internal Control Reviews or Alternative reviews on highly
vulnerable areas of the program;
Develop and report quarterly on corrective action plans to respond to
weaknesses; and
Report annually to Congress and the President on weaknesses and
corrections.
Implementation of FMFIA and the Special Studies process are primarily the HQ
Divisions'responsibility. Those Divisions receiving a highly vulnerable rating m the 1989
Vulnerability Assessments released on April 20,1989, must conduct Internal Control
Reviews (ICRs) by April, 1990. These ICRs and other significant reviews must be
VII-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
represented in plans for Special Studies and in the MCP for the Division. Studies
contained in the MCP should also be cited in the Division's annual FMFIA report.
COORDINATION OF RESPONSES TO OFFICIAL REPORTS
The EPA OIG and the U.S. GAO issue reports that are relevant to the Superfund
program. The HQ Divisions should maintain records to help in producing their responses
to official reports. Within OERR, the OPM will coordinate responses to the reports and
implementation of the recommendations. Regions and HQ may have to coordinate their
responses, when a report's findings or recommendations have a national impact on the
Superfund program. OSWER must track the implementation of actions undertaken in
response to official reports. Findings and recommendations from official reports and
EPA's responses to them must be considered in fulfilling FMFIA annual reporting
requirements.
VII-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
CHAPTER VIII
WORKLOAD MODELS
-------
OSWER Directive 92003-01C
CHAPTER Vni - WORKLOAD MODELS
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Following are the actions regional managers must take to
comply with the requirements described in this Chapter.
In order to acquire a more in-depth understanding of
these requirements, the Chapter itself should be read.
No FTE are given to projects that are incorrectly
coded and scheduled in CERCLIS.
A 95% allocation of resources is made in April
based on preliminary negotiated SCAP/SPMS
targets and schedules in CERCLIS. A final
allocation is made in September based on final
negotiated SCAP/SPMS targets and schedules in
CERCLIS.
Data quality checks used to identify response
projects that will not receive FTE include:
- Missing first and subsequent start and
completion codes;
- Missing planned start and completion dates;
- Missing project leads;
- Targets missed in previous years; and
- Projects identified as " Alternate" targets.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
CHAPTER VTTT - WORiqn^ *^rn p
OVERVIEW
± SS^f F^ftf118 "* C°ntamed * ** SpiU ^ Site ResP°nse M«iel. Enforcement
and Federal Facilities resources are in the Technical Enforcement Model.
u ,. ew°rkload models are designed to reflect priorities and policies contained in
both the budget request and SCAP/SPMS planning processes. For the most pan, the
workload models are a straight forward application of FTE pricing factors from the national
budget to region-specific SCAP/SPMS targets and projections on the duration of activities
in the remedial pipeline. No FTE are given to projects that are incorrectly coded
and scheduled in CERCLIS.
Regional FTE allocations occur in two stages. An initial allocation is made in April
based on preliminary negotiated SCAP/SPMS targets and schedules in CERCLIS. This
allocation distributes 95% of the total regional Response and Enforcement FTEs contained
in the Congressional budget request. The 95% level represents a "floor" for each region to
allow staff planning prior to the start of the fiscal year in October. A final distribution is
made in September. This distribution reflects the final SCAP and SPMS targets negotiated
in August as reflected in CERCLIS plus the affects, if known, of Congressional action on
the budget request.
HAZARDOUS SPILL AND SITE RESPONSE MODEL
The Response model is calibrated at five points to FTE levels found in the budget
request Each point represents a major program area (i.e., pre-remedial, removal, etc.).
Those calibrations ensure that budget priorities are reflected in the distribution of resources.
SCAP/SPMS targets generally represent program priorities and planning assumptions (i.e.,
project durations). The direct use of these targets and the use of pricing factors on a per
quarter basis for longer term projects provide solid accountability to performance targets
and planning assumptions. Situations may arise where application of the formulas in the
workload model yield anomalous staffing changes or isolated problems. The model allows
the national program manager to make discretionary adjustments to FTE levels. Reductions
to meet needs of another region may not exceed 10% of any region's FTE level.
Though a majority of the model is based on SCAP/SPMS targets, where pricing
factors or targets are not available FTE calculations are based on algorithms including
related activities, and/or percentage shares of a given universe. For example, general
program management FTE are distributed on the basis of the relative size of a region's
remedial and removal programs plus an equal percentage share of total program
management FTE available in the budget.
There are three distinct phases involved in the execution and maintenance of the
Response model. The first phase is the CERCLIS/CERHELF 'data "*"P^ *^
transfers CERCLIS and CERHELP data into the workload model The second phase
assigns the remedial pipeline FTE. The third phase calculates total budget FTE aggregated
by program area and region.
vm-i
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Data are accessed from CERCLIS/CERHELP for SCAP/SPMS targets and the
development of the remedial pipeline of sites. Several data quality checks are then
performed to identify projects which will not receive FTE. This step ensures that regions
will only receive resources for projects which are properly planned and coded in
CERCLIS. Data quality checks include:
First/Subsequent Start and Completion Codes (FSS/FSC) -- identifies
projects which are missing both FSS and FSC codes. It is permissible for a
project to have one or the other, but a region will not receive FTE for a
project which has neither.
Planned Start and Completion Dates - any project not having planned or
actual start and completion dates will not receive FTE.
Planned Obligations - Projects planned to start which do not have planned
obligations with approved funding are identified.
SCAP/SPMS Codes -- projects containing a blank or a "P" in the
SCAP/SPMS flag are eligible to receive FTE.
Project Leads ~ regions will not receive FTE for any project which does not
have a lead. FTE are calculated using lead-specific pricing factors.
" Missed Targets - the planning data in CERCLIS/CERHELP are compared
to the targets file in CERHELP. Targets which were missed in previous
years are identified and eliminated from the FTE calculations.
The model next calculates FTEs for each project and reduces the resources if
concurrent activities are being conducted at sites with more than one operable unit. The last
steps are the final program and region-specific distribution and the calibration of the model
to the budget
Exhibits VIII-1 and 2, on the following pages, are flowcharts for remedial pipeline
information and processing.
TECHNICAL ENFORCEMENT MODEL
The FY90 Enforcement resource distribution methodology is intended to
accomplish three significant goals:
Provide a clear connection between resources and achievement of critical
enforcement activities;
Establish incentives to focus effort on most critical areas; and
Involve regional and HQ managers in choosing targets for resource
distribution.
vm-2
-------
EXHIBIT VIII-1
WORKLOAD MODEL OPERATIONS
REMEDIAL PIPELINE INFORMATION
QA/QC CHECKS
MISSING LEADS
MISSING FSS/FSC
MISSING PLAN DATES
NO FINANCIAL DATA
MISSING FIN VEHICLES
MISSING SPMS FLAG
COMBINATIONS
CERCLIS
INFORMATION
RI/FS(RI/FS/CO)
RD
RA
ERA
WORKLOAD
INFORMATION
ALL PIPELINE
EVENTS
&
LEADS
ALL LEADS
FLAG PROBLEMS
QA/QC FLAGS
MODIFIED DATES
CHANGE FLAGS
CERHELP
INFORMATION
1. CERCLIS AND TARGET
START AND COMPLETION
DATES ARE COMPARED
RI/FS (RI/FS/CO)
RD
RA
ERA
TARGET DATES ARE USED
WHERE DISCREPENCIES
OCCUR
ALL LEADS
3. DATE INCONSISTENCIES
AREFLAGGED
4. RECORDS WHICH ARE NOT
IN THE TARGET FILE ARE
FLAGGED
THESE STEPS ARE AN
OPTIONAL PROCEDURE
O
GO
a
S
-------
y
S
EXHIBIT VIII-2
I
3
I
WORKLOAD MODEL OPERATIONS
REMEDIAL PIPELINE PROCESSING
1. FTE ALLOCATION
PRIOR YEAR START
OUTYEAR COMP
WORKLOAD
INFORMATION
CREATE PLAN DATES
FROM ACTUALS
2. FTE ALLOCATION
PRIOR YEAR START
CURRENT YEAR COMP
ALL PIPELINE
EVENTS
&
LEADS
WEIGHT FTE
ALLOCATIONS
BASED ON #
OF OVERLAP QTRS
USE FINAN VEHICLE
FROM LAST
OBLIGATION
FTE ALLOCATION
CURRENT YEAR START
OUTYEAR COMP
QA/QC FLAGS
MODIFIED DATES
CHANGEFLAGS
CALIBRATE
FTE ALLOCATIONS
4. FTE ALLOCATION
CURRENT YEAR START
CURRENT YEAR COMP
FIX DATA QUALITY
PROBLEMS
FTE ALLOCATION
USING LEAD SPECIFIC
PRICING FACTORS
ONLY TO PROJECTS WITHOUT
DATA QUALITY FLAPS
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Developed by a joint regional/HQ group of key enforcement staff, the FY90
methodology is intended to:
Focus the distribution of resources on a limited number of major activities,
primarily those that are SPMS or SCAP targets;
Fold the distribution of resources for functions closely associated with
achieving the major target activities into the distribution of resources
associated with the targets themselves. (For example, the removal start
target will determine the share of resources for all activities attempting to
achieve the PRP response, such as non-NPL search activities, negotiations
and all enforcement actions);
Introduce incentives for preliminary targets that take into account current
regional program profile and past regional performance in achieving
commitments;
Make preliminary FTE and extramural resource estimates available for
regional planning prior to negotiation of target commitments;
Provide support for ongoing (non-targeted) enforcement activities based on
standard pricing factors; and
Continue to provide resources for support activities at a baseline level for all
regions, not tied to output commitments.
Program Resource Assumptions
As presented to Congress, the budget for Superfund enforcement identifies
categories of activity at a level of detail greater than that which the regional/HQ workgroup
thought made sense for resource distribution. The group, therefore, identified certain
budget items as subactivities which supported major target areas.
Because the FY90 methodology ties resources for certain subactivities to the
distribution of resources for major targets, it depends on several sets of standard
assumptions about which activities should be grouped together and the proportional
relationships among those activities. Following is an explanation of those standard
assumptions.
vin-s
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Removals
The FY90 budget provides resources for approximately 100 PRP searches at non-
NPL sites; issuance of approximately 65 Administrative Orders (unilateral or on
consent) for removals; and oversight of approximately 40 PRP removals. The
resources for orders and removal oversight cover both NPL and non-NPL sites.
Resources for PRP searches at NPL sites are included under the PRP RI/FS starts.
PRP RIIFS Starts
This category combines resources for NPL PRP searches, and RI/FS negotiations.
The resources provided under this category cover NPL PRP searches and RI/FS
negotiation. It is assumed that there is an approximate 2:1 ratio of PRP search and
negotiations to each RI/FS start. (For example, if a region targets 10 PRP RI/FS
starts, it is receiving resources for 20 PRP searches and 20 negotiations.) Although
in some cases the PRP search resources will support RI/FS targets for the current
year, most will probably support future RI/FS starts. It is therefore important that
the regions carefully plan not only support for current year targets, but that it assess
the impact of its searches on future years.
PRP RI/FS Oversight
This category distributes resources only for PRP RI/FS oversight. The FY90
budget was based on the assumptions of an average PRP RI/FS duration of ten
quarters and fewer RI/FS projects in the pipeline. To the extent the average
duration of RI/FS is greater than the ten quarters and the RI/FS have a full
workload requirement, there are significant resource constraints. Adjustment of
resources to fully support this area, if needed, will depend on decisions made in the
context of the Superfund priority matrix presented in Chapter I. To the extent that
additional resources are not forthcoming, each region should carefully review its
program profile to determine if those commitments can be met without causing
significant disruption to the progress of the program.
RDIRA Referrals
This category combines resources for RD/RA negotiation starts, unilateral
Administrative Orders, NEAR and RD/RA referrals. The assumptions in the FY90
budget are that RD/RA negotiations will be attempted at all sites with viable PRPs,
beginning the quarter of ROD signature, and that those negotiations will produce
PRP responses, settlement or referral at 50% of the sites. Issuance of unilateral
AOs is a presumed outcome of 40% of the Fund RD starts. Resources are included
in the negotiations FTE at the rate of 1.6 negotiation (start) per referral targeted.
Because negotiations are presumed to take at least three quarters (on average), most
of the referrals targeted forFY90 will be the result of negotiations which began
(and received negotiation FTE) in FY89. The negotiations resources which are
distributed in conjunction with the FY90 referral FTE are for starts which will
produce either PRP or Fund RD starts in FY91.
vm-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
Cost Recovery Referrals
This category combines resources for Section 107 Case Development Referrals
and Administrative Cost Recovery. The resources provided anticipate a stable
number of remedial referrals. The Pre-RA (removal) pricing is estimated on
average to be; .45/referral. This is one half the .9 FTE level of effort of a remedial
referral and the same for the extramural resources. Administrative and other small
recovery actions are expected to average .3 FTE and 60% of the cost of a remedial
referral. Priority will be placed on statute of limitation, remedial and other removal
cases over $200K.
Oneoine Case Support - Section 106 1061 107 and 107
The resources provided assume an average duration of 14 quarters from the point of
referral to case resolution. To the extent that these cases (including those that settle
prior to litigation) have a longer average duration, there could be significant
resource constraints and resources may have to be shifted from other areas to
support ongoing cases. Small cases such as access, liens and bankruptcy are not
provided technical support resources. It is assumed that most of these cases will
generally require only regional council support post-referral.
PRPISate (PS) Lead Sites
The resources provided assume an average cost of .75% of federal-lead/PRP site
response. Because targeting new site-specific state lead commitments is a new
initiative in the FY90 budget, no specific activity pricing was done. Instead,
thirteen new sites were estimated for FY89 and an additional seventeen in FY90 for
which generic site pricing was budgeted. The commitments anticipated are new
enforceable agreements with either a site-specific RI/FS start or ROD. Resources
for enforceable agreements where these site-specific commitments cannot be made
are discussed below in the program implementation section.
Remedial RDIRA Enforcement (Compliance)
The resources provided assume approximately one half the sites with PRP response
for design or remediation (at a cost of approximately one quarter of an FTE and
$20,000) will require significant compliance enforcement for such activities as
stipulated penalties, oversight recovery activities, dispute resolution and review of
compliance schedules. This is a new activity in the FY90 budget.
Federal Facilities
Federal facilities resource distribution is managed somewhat differently than private
sites because (1) many are "mega-sites" and (2) there is little historical data.
Resources are distributed based on commitments to lAGs and activities (1.6.,
RI/FS RD RA) conducted pursuant to the lAGs. As we move towards FY91,
regions and HQ will discuss modifying the current distribution process to account
for regional performance in meeting SCAP/SPMS commitments.
Vffl-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
For negotiations, the pricing factors are 0.27 FTE and $50K extramural monies.
These resources are to be used for preparing for and conducting the negotiations as
well as reviewing and preparing technical work plans.
All activities conducted pursuant to an IAG (i.e., RI/FS, RD/RA) are priced the
same utilizing an operable unit, discounting approach which accounts for multiple,
concurrent activities and economies of scale because the same Federal facility and
contractors will be conducting the operable unit work.
The pricing factors are:
1st O.U. . 17 FTE/Qtr.; $20K/Qtr.
2nd O.U. .12 FTE/Qtr.; $12K/Qtr.
Remaining O.U.s .08 FTE/Qtr.; $8K/Qtr.
Priority is an ongoing work pursuant lAGs.
Program Implementation
The resources provided are primarily core management and non-site specific
program implementation activities. The distribution methodology indicates the
specific method used for each item. It should be noted that non-site specific
resources are provided here for state coordination and enforcement agreements,
Federal Facility support, reportable quantities, and civil investigators.
vm-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
AA SWER --
AAU-
ADCR--
ADP-
ALS--
ALT--
AN-
AO-
AOA-
APR-
AR--
ARIP--
ARCS -
ASU--
BC/AOA -
BFS--
CA-
CB--
CERCLA -
CERCLIS --
CFMC --
CD-
CPCA--
CLP-
CN-
CO--
COE--
CORA-
CR--
CWA--
DCN-
DCR--
DOD--
DOE-
DOI-
DOJ-
DPO-
CEPP --
EMI--
EMSL --
ESF--
ERA--
ERCS -
ERD--
EW--
FAMS -
FCO-
FE-
ACRQNYMS
Assistant Administrator Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Administrative Assistance Unit
Automated Document Control Register
Automated Data Processing
Automated Litigation Support
Alternate
Account Number
Administrative Order
Advice of Allowance
Approved
Administrative Record
Accidental Release Information Program
Alternative Remedial Contracts Strategy
Administrative Support Unit
Budget Control/Advice of Allowance
Budget and Forecasting Section
Cooperative Agreement
Case Budget
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System
Cincinnati Financial Management Center
Consent Decree
Core Program Cooperative Agreement
Contract Laboratory Program
Commitment Notice
Contracting Officer
Corps of Engineers
Cost of Remedial Action
Community Relations
Clean Water Act
Document Control Number
Document Control Register
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Deputy Project Officer
Chemical Emergency Preparedness Program
Environmental Priorities Initiative
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Emergency Support Function
Expedited Response Action
Emergency Response Cleanup Services
Emergency Response Division
Expert Witness
Financial and Administrative Management bystems
Funds Certifying Officer
Federal Enforcement
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
FEMA--
FIT--
FIRSTUP --
FMFIA--
FMO--
FMS--
FOIA--
FS--
FSS/FSC --
FTE--
FY-
GAD-
HQ-
HRS--
IAG--
IMC-
IRMs--
LNRD-
LOC-
LSI--
MEP--
MES--
MSCA -
NFRAP--
NBAR --
NCP--
NOAA--
NPL-
O&M/LTR--
OERR--
OMB-
OMSE--
OPAC --
OPM-
ORC--
OSC-
OSWER-
OU-
OWPE-
PA-
P&CMD --
PMSO -
PNRS --
PO-
PR--
PRP--
QA/QC-
RA-
RCRC --
RD-
REM-
RI--
RI/FS-
ROD--
Federal Emergency management Agency
Field Investigation Team
Financial Information Register Satellite Terminal User's Package
Federal Managers Financial Intergrity Act
Financial Management Officer
Financial Management System
Freedom of Information Act
Feasibility Study
First and Subsequent Start and First and Subsequent Completion
Full-time Equivalent
Fiscal Year
Grants Administration Division
Headquarters
Hazard Ranking System
Interagency Agreement
Information Management Coordinator
Initial Remedial Measures
Land and Natural Resources Division
Letter of Credit
Listing Site Inspection
Maximum Extent Practicable
Management and Evaluation Section
Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement
No Further Rremedial Action Planned
Non-Binding Allocation of Responsibility
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
National Oceanic and Atomspheric Administration
National Priorities List
Operations and Maintenance/Long Term Response
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Management and Budget
Office of Management Systems and Evaluation
On-line Payment and Collections
Office of Program Management
Office of Regional Counsel
On-Scene Coordinator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Operable Unit
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Preliminary Assessment
Procurement and Contracts Management
Program Management Support Office
Preliminary Natural Resource Surveys
Project Officer
Procurement Request
Potentially Responsible Party
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Remedial Action
Regional Cost Recovery Coordinator
Remedial Design
Remedial Contractor
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
Record of Decision
II
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01C
RP--
RPIO--
RPM--
RPO--
RRT-
RTP--
RTS--
SARA--
SCAP--
SFO--
SfflAC --
SIF--
SIM--
SMOA--
SOL-
SPCC --
SPMS --
SPR--
SPUR--
SSC--
SSI--
S/S ID --
TAG-
TAT-
TBD--
TESWATS --
TES-
USACE --
USFWS --
USCG --
WA--
Responsible Party
Regional Planning and Implementing Officer
Remedial Project Manager
Remedial Project Officer
Regional Response Team
Research Triangle Park
Removal Tracking System
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
Superftmd Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan
Servicing Finance Officer
Simplified Interagency Billing and Collection
Site Information Form
State Implementation Memorandum
State Memorandum of Agreement
Statute of Limitations
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure
Strategic Planning and Management System
Superfund Progress Report
Software Package for Unique Reports
Superfund State Contracts
Screening Site Inspection
Site/Spill Identification Number
Technical Assistance Grants
Technical Assistance Team
To Be Determined
Technical Enforcement Support Work Assignment Tracking System
Technical Enforcement Support
United States Army Corp of Engineers
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
United States Coast Guard
Work Assignment
in
-------
OFFICE OF WASTE PROGRAMS ENFORCEMENT
BRUCE DIAMOND
DIRECTOR
ELAINE STANLEY
DEPUTY DIRECTOR I
KEN PATTERSON
POLICY
COORDINATOR
RCRA
ENFORCEMENT
DIVISION
SUSAN BROMM,
DIRECTOR
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
SALLY MANSBACH
ACTING
CERCLA
ENFORCEMENT
DIVISION
LLOYD GUERCI
DIRECTOR
1
COMPLIANCE &
IMPLEMENTATION
BRANCH
STEVE HEARE
CHIEF
1
GUIDANCE &
EVALUATION
BRANCH
SCOTT PARRISH
CHIEF
GUIDANCE &
EVALUATION
BRANCH
FRANK BIROS,
ACTING CHIEF
Regional
Coordination
Section
Technical
Implementation
Section
GUIDANCE &
OVERSIGHT
BRANCH
JOHN CROSS
CHIEF
Contracts
Management
Section
Cost Recovery
Ops/Analysis
Section
Support
Section
K. Gigliello
Chief
FED. FAC. H.W.
COMPLIANCE
OFFICE
CHRIS GRUNDLER
DIRECTOR
PROGRAM MNGT.
AND
SUPPORT OFFICE
BOB HERMAN
DIRECTOR
Budget &
Analytical
Support Section
Information
Management
Section
COMPLIANCE
BRANCH
FRANK RUSSO
CHIEF
D. Chamberlin
Director
Joe Acton
Acting Chief
Regional Pin.
Evaluation
Section
Enforcement
Section
Settlements
Operations
Section
Oversight &
Documentation
Section
-------
OFFICE OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
POLICY AND
ANALYSIS STAFF
RCR A polilcy oversight
ARAR compliance policy and
assistance
NCP
Delegations
Annual Report to Contress on
Superfund
Cross-cutting policy issues
Docket, Directives management
Strategic planning
COMPLIANCE WITH
OTHER LAWS
SECTION
REGULATORY &
SPECIAL PROJECTS
SECTION
CONTRACT OPERATIONS
REVIEW AND
ASSESSMENT STAFF
OFFICE OF
PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT AND
SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT STAFF
CERCLJS management, support and
evaluation
Technical ADP systems development
and support
ADP administration
Administrative services
Records management
Personnel
Training
Directives system
Correspondence
Docket management
HQ contract management
ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT
SECTION
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS
COORDINATION
SECTION
> Regional contract qassessment and assistance
QA/QC
Procurement Strategies and PEB
PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT
AND BUDGET STAFF
Budget formulation/operating plan
development and implementation
Resource allocation
Regional workload model
Cost Control/estimation models
Program forecasting
Accountability measures and tracking
Program evaluation
SCAP planning and negotiations
Regional review
Work assignment manager training
Financial policy, accounting and tracking
PLANNING AND
EVALUATION
SECTION
RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
SECTION
-------
EMERGENCY RESPONSE DIVISION
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
DIVISION
ERNS
SERA Summary
ERT Liaison
RESPONSE OPERATIONS
BRANCH
TAT Zone I, H
ERCSZoneI,4and4B
Budget/Regional Allowance
SCAP/SPMS/CERCUS Management
Oversight
Operations
EASTERN SECTION
(REGIONS I -IV)
WESTERN SECTION
(REGIONS V-X)
RESPONSE STANDARDS
AND CRITERIA
BRANCH
State Lead Removal Guidance
Drinking Water Action Levels
Land Disposal Restrictions
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
(EE/CA)
Removal Procedures Guidance
CERCLA Hazardous Substance Designations
Repoitable Quantity Adjustments
Radionuclides/Potentitl Carcinogens
Oil Regulations and Guidance
Continuous Releases
Federally-Permitted Releases
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESPONSE BRANCH
RESPONSE POLICY
GUIDANCE &
SUPPORT SECTION
RESPONSE
REGULATION
SECTION
On-Site Cleanup Assistance
Coordination of Emergency Response
ERT Training Program
Radiation Response Capability
Extent of Contamination Studies
Groundwater Studies
Soil Gas Studies
Bloassessment Studies
Innovative Technology Demonstration
Treatability Testing
Site-Specific Cleanup Standards
Alternative Technology Feasibility Standards
SITE Program Coordination
Support Contract Management
Administrative Support
Automated Data Support
Analytical Support
QA/QC Activities
Safely and Health Activities
'Preparedness Program Support
Air Monitoring Activities
Coordination with OSHA
OPERATIONAL
SUPPORT SECTION
SITE
INVESTIGATION
SECTION
CONTRACTS AND
DATA MANAGEMENT
SECTION
ALTERNATIVE
TECHNOLOGY
SECTION
SAFETY AND AIR
SURVEILLANCE
SECTION
-------
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE
OFFICE OF THE
DIRECTOR
ACTING EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
_L
OFFICE OF PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT
CONRACT OPERATIONS |
REVIEW AND
ASSESSMENT STAFF
J_
POLICY & ANALYSIS
STAFF
MANAGEMENT &
EVALUATION STAFF
RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT STAFF
HAZARDOUS SITE
EVALUATION
DIVISION
ANALYTICAL OPERATIONS
BRANCH
PRE-REMEDIAL BRANCH
_L
HAZARDOUS SITE
CONTROL
DIVISION
SPECIAL
PROJECTS AND
SUPPORT STAFF I
REMEDIAL OPERATIONS AND
GUIDANCE BRANCH
TOXICS INTEGRATION
BRANCH
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT BRANCH
STATE AND LOCAL
COORDINATION BRANCH
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
DIVISION
RESPONSE OPERATIONS
BRANCH
RESPONSE STANDARDS AND I
CRITERIA BRANCH
ENVIRANMENTAL RESPONSE
BRANCH
8
fa
I
u>
I
o
I*
o
-------
o
*-«
o
1
HAZARDOUS SITE EVALUATION DIVISION
CO
O
PRE-REMEDIAL
BRANCH
Evaluate revised HRS for technical changes
under SARA.
Promulgate proposed and final HRS revisions.
Develop and refine NPL eligibility policies.
Develop and finalize NPL updates.
Provide QA on NPL proposals.
Improve quality of Regional NPL submissions.
Phase-in new NPL support contract
Conduct pre-remedial background and field studies.
Manage PA/SI LSI SCAP process.
Develop PA/SI LSI guidance and training.
Manage FIT contract to meet Region's needs and
ensure proper contract oversight
HAZARDOUS SITE
EVALUATION DIVISION
ANALYTICAL
OPERATIONS
BRANCH
Ensure consistency of analytical methods.
Develop organic and inorganic technical
protocols and new CLP services.
Manage ESAT.
Manage Sample Management Ofice.
Streamline analysis and data review.
Establish national Q/A methods and
procedures.
Maintain analytical data base for sites.
TOXICS
INTEGRATION
BRANCH
Manage risk assessment QA/QC program.
Provide Regions with immediate expert
health/environmental science responses to
RI/FS issues.
Update Superfund risk data bases and ensure
consistency/utility of other data bases.
Provide TA to Regions on the revised public
health and ecological evaluation manuals.
Coordinate with ATSDR and lead EPA/ATSDR
dispute resolution process/follow-up on
Regional problems.
Evaluate results of Section 111 three-city lead
pilot program for soil clean-up/blood-lead-level
correlation.
-------
HAZARDOUS SITE CONTROL DIVISION
SPECIAL PROJECTS
AND SUPPORT
STAFF
HAZARDOUS SITE CONTROL
DIVISION
REMEDIAL OPERATIONS
AND GUIDANCE
BRANCH
Provide Regional Coordinator support for RI/FS,
RODs and post-ROD environmental review
Support development of soil and debris land
disposal restriction regulations
Review and finalize NCP and RI/FS, selection
of remedy, and ROD guidance
Direct and evaluate improvements process
Develop technical guidance
implementation of treatability studies
Provide information transfer support
for ROD data and treatability studies
Conduct quarterly and other programmatic
reviews for RI/FS. ROD and post-ROD
activity implementation
Conduct special projects on remedial policy and technical
issues
Remedial Program Strategy for SCAP/SPMS/budget target
Manage Divsion budgets
Prepare management reports and analyses of program
performance
Implement FMFIA requirements
Provide administrative support for Division
DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT BRANCH
Provide regional coordination support for RD/RA
projects and completion/delegations for EPA,
State and PRP projects
Manage MOUs with Corps and BUREC
Provide RD/RA management support, guidance,
training and RD/RA Update
Manage REM contracts
Support implementation and program
management of ARC's contracts
Revise and implement RD/RA guidance
Manage value engineering program
Conduct quarterly and other programmatic
reviews for RD/RA and completion/delegation
STATE AND LOCAL
COORDINATION
BRANCH
«Develop regulations, policy and guidance fen-
State program development and participation
Develop policy and guidance for participation
of Indians in remedial program
Conduct response agreement training
Provide SSC management control
Conduct Regional MAP reviews
Manage and support response claims program
Manage and support community relations
and technical advisor grant programs
. Manage ASTSWMO grant
Conduct program evaluations of State
performance
O
oo
I
«s
s
Lo
-------
u
TI
9
a-
I
8
U.S. EPA REGIONS
Boston
S^ X \
VIRGIN ISLANDS
-------
Dr~_i.
.;j'..,;:/~....- 1"> &.i-
,'....'
."
,.,
------- |