United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
Washington, DC 20460
Directive 9200.3-01 H-1
PB92 - 963276
June 1992
Superfund Program
Implementation Manual
Fiscal Year 1993
Final
Volume I
Program Goals and Priorities
Superfund Information Management Systems
Program Planning and Reporting Requirements
Program Planning and Reporting Procedures
Financial Management and FTE Distribution
Response Budget and Workload Model
Enforcement Budget and Workload Model
Federal Facility Budget and Workload Model
-------
Directive 9200.3-01H-1
June 1992
Superfund Program
Implementation Manual
Fiscal Year 1993
Volume I
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
DISCLAIMER
The policies and procedures established in this document are intended
solely for the guidance of employees of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. They are not intended and cannot be relied upon to
create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party in
litigation with the United States. EPA reserves the right to act at
variance with these policies and procedures and to change them at any
time without public notice.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
USE AND STRUCTURE OF THE MANUAL
The information in this Manual is targeted to Information Management Coordinators
(IMCs), Remedial Project Managers (RPMs), and On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs). Its primary
purpose is to provide guidance to this audience on management of the Superfund program.
The FY 93 Superfund Program Implementation Manual consists of two volumes. Volume
I contains information on:
• Program goals and priorities;
• Superfund information systems;
• Program planning and reporting requirements;
• Program planning and reporting procedures;
• Financial management and FTE distribution;
• Response budget and workload model;
• Enforcement budget and workload model; and
• Federal Facility budget and workload model.
Volume n includes the following Appendices:
• Appendix A presents definitions for Federal Facility and non-Federal Facility site
assessment, response, removal and remedial/enforcement pipeline activities;
• Appendix B contains planning requirements and definitions for the Oil Pollution
Act;
• Appendix C contains the planning requirements and definitions for the Chemical
Emergency Preparedness Program (CEPP);
• Appendix D discusses the Environmental Indicators program;
• Appendix E provides the CERCLIS coding instructions and activity pricing
factors for the Regional enforcement extramural budget;
• Appendix F provides Federal Facility coding guidance;
• Appendix G provides information on the NPL book; and
• Appendix H discusses the applicability of the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) to SCAP.
In FY 93, for the first time two other documents have been developed to support the
program management needs of Branch Chiefs (Superfund Program Management Manual) and
Division Directors (Superfund Program Management Highlights). These documents present
pertinent information from this Manual.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
FY 93 SUPERFUND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I - PROGRAM GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS 1-1
OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM GOALS 1-1
FY 93 Themes 1-1
A Framework for Setting Priorities 1-2
Integrated Priority Setting Matrix 1-3
EFFICIENCY 1-6
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (S ACM) 1-6
Quick Response 1-8
Financial Considerations 1-8
Authorities and Contract Strategies 1-9
Procedures for Quick Response 1-9
Integrated Timeline for Site Management 1-9
Supporting Program Goals 1-15
Removal 1-15
Enforcement 1-16
Site Assessment 1-17
Federal Facilities 1-17
EFFECTIVENESS 1-18
Completions/Deletions 1-18
Five Year Reviews 1-19
STARS Targets and Measures 1-20
Supporting Program Goals 1-20
Removal 1-20
Enforcement 1-20
Remedial 1-20
Site Assessment 1-23
Federal Facilities 1-23
Management Initiatives 1-23
EQUITY 1-25
OTHER SUPERFUND RELATED PROGRAMS 1-26
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Program 1-26
Natural Disaster and National Security Emergency
Preparedness (NSEP) Programs 1-26
Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Program 1-27
CHAPTER II - SUPERFUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS II-l
OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM INFORMATION NEEDS AND
SYSTEMS II-l
CERCLIS II-2
WasteLAN II-3
Environmental Indicators II-4
RP2M H-5
NPL BOOK II-5
NPL-PAD II-6
SMARTech H-6
CERCLIS DATA QUALITY II-7
Audit Reports II-7
Data Sponsors II-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER III -PROGRAM PLANNING AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS in_l
INTRODUCTION IH-1
RELATIONSHIP OF SCAP TO OTHER MANAGEMENT TOOLS ffl-1
OVERVIEW OF THE SCAP PROCESS IH-2
SCAP CHANGE CONTROL REQUIREMENTS Ifl-3
HQ/REGIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES JE-4
Maintaining SCAP in CERCLIS IE-4
Program Assessment in-5
PROCEDURES FOR ANNUAL TARGET SETTING IH-6
PLANNING FOR NEGOTIATIONS ffl-9
Semi-Annual Planning Process IE-9
CERCLIS Reports for SCAP Planning/Target Setting ffl-10
REGIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORTING ffl-12
CERCLIS Reports for Accomplishment Reporting IE-IS
HQ PERFORMANCE EVALUATION IE-14
Quarterly Reviews ni-14
Mid-Year Assessment IE-16
End-of-Year Assessment 111-16
Management Reporting IE-16
Superfund Management Reports HI-17
SCAP 1STARS ADJUSTMENTS AND AMENDMENTS IE-18
Maintaining the Targets and Accomplishments File IE-21
CHAPTER IV - PROGRAM PLANNING AND REPORTING
PROCEDURES IV-1
INTEGRATED PLANNING IV-1
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES IV-3
SITE ASSESSMENT PLANNING AND REPORTING
PROCEDURES IV-4
Preliminary Assessments/Site Inspections IV-4
Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) IV-4
REMOVAL PLANNING AND REPORTING PROCEDURES '.IV-5
Removal Actions IV-5
Removal Planning '. IV_6
Removal Accomplishment Reporting IV-6
Technology Type Information jy.g
Chemical Information YV-6
RESPONSE PLANNING AND REPORTING
PROCEDURES IV-7
Project/Event Lead Codes jy_7
Lead Changes "!!lV-7
Probability of PRP Funded Response Actions ' '][^ jy_JQ
First and Subsequent Starts and Completions !!"!"jV-ll
Operable Units in Remedial and Enforcement Programs !lV-14
Sequence Numbers ......" IV-15
Operable Units .....".IV-15
Removal Events !!!!'."lV-16
Remedial Events FV-16
Project Phasing .........TV-ll
Links IV-17
TBD Sites ! IV-17
Standard Timeframes !'.IV-19
Records of Decision IV-20
Non-Significant Changes ' ^,23
Significant Changes to a Component of a Remedy .!........ JV-23
ii
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Fundamental Changes to the ROD IV-23
Ecological Risk Assessments IV-24
Planning for Response Mega-Sites FV-24
Treatability Study Planning IV-25
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program IV-25
Project Support Activities IV-26
Technical Assistance Grants IV-27
Assignment of Remedial Response and Oversight Work IV-27
Remedial Action Information IV-30
Planning and Accomplishment Data TV-30
RA Cost Estimate IV-31
Technical Information IV-32
ROD Technical Information IV-32
RD Technical Information IV-32
RA Technical Information IV-36
ENFORCEMENT PLANNING PROCEDURES IV-37
Mixed Funding Settlements and Cash Outs IV-37
De minimis Settlements IV-37
Settlements with Municipalities and Residential Property Owner FV-38
Administrative Record Status IV-39
Planning for Enforcement Mega-Sites/Projects IV-39
PRP Removal IV-40
RI/FS Enforcement Activity (PRP Search/Negotiations) IV-41
RD/RA Enforcement Activity (RD/RA Negotiations
Settlement and Oversight) FV-43
Cost Recovery IV-44
State Enforcement FV-46
FEDERAL FACILITIES IV-46
CHAPTER V - FINANCIAL MANAGEMENTAND FTE
DISTIBUTION V-l
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FY 93 NATIONAL BUDGET V-l
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCAP AND THE ANNUAL
REGIONAL BUDGET V-2
ADVICE OF ALLOWANCE PROCEDURES AND
FINANCIAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS V-3
Regional Allowances V-3
The AOA Process V-3
AOA Flexibility V-4
RA Allowance V-6
Non-site Specific Funding Flexibility V-6
AOA Change Request Procedures V-7
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCAP AND THE AOA V-10
SUPERFUND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT V-14
Regional Financial Management Responsibilities V-14
Regional Administrator V-14
Regional Program Office V-14
Regional Management Division V-16
HQ Financial Management Responsibilities V-17
Financial Management Division (FMD)IOC V-17
Program Development and Budget Staff (PDBS)IOERR V-18
Contracts and Planning Branch (CPB)IOWPE V-18
Procurement and Contracts Management Division
(PCMD)IOffice of Administration V-19
Grants Administration Division (GAD)IOffice of
Administration V-19
iii
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Budget Division!OC V-19
Financial Management Center (FMC-Ci) V-19
Research Triangle Park (RTF),'Office of Administration ......... ^.'.'.'. V-19
Financial Management Tools and Systems V-19
Integrated Financial Managment System (IFMS) V-19
Account Number (AN) V-20
Document Control Number (DCN) V-20
Automated Document Control Register (ADCR) V-20
Site Spill Identification Numbers (S/S IDs) V-20
Financial Management and Funding Processes V-21
Approvals V-21
Commitments V-23
Obligations V-23
Payments V-24
Deobligations V-24
Financial Management Funding Mechanisms V-24
Contracts V-24
lAGs V-28
CAs V-31
SSCs V-33
Cost Recovery/Cost Documentation V-34
HANDLING FINANCIAL DATA IN THE
WASTELAN/CERCLIS ENVIRONMENT V-35
Entering Remedial/Removal Data into CERCLIS V-35
Entering Enforcement Extramural Budget Data into CERCLIS V-36
IFMS to CERCLIS Financial Data Transfer V-36
Correcting Financial Data V-36
OVERVIEW OF THE FTE DISTRIBUTION PROCESS V-37
CHAPTER VI - THE RESPONSE BUDGET AND WORKLOAD
MODEL VI-1
RESPONSE BUDGET VI-1
Site Assessment Annual Regional Budget VI-1
Remedial Annual Regional Budget VI-2
Fund-Financed RI/FS Funding Strategy VI-2
Removal Annual Regional Budget (Fund-Financed) Vl-4
FINANCIAL PLANNING FOR AOA !"'".'.". VI-4
Remedial AOA VI-4
Removal AOA VI-6
Congressional Reporting Requirements VI-6
HAZARDOUS SPILL AND SITE RESPONSE MODEL ...........VI-7
General Model Description ....VI-7
Mainframe Application Concepts VI-8
Workload File Creation Process ."."."vi-8
Data Quality Checks Process "."'.'.VI-8
Target Overwrite Process ."."!vi-10
Data Review Process "!!!vi-ll
Pricing Factors Loading Process VI-11
Pure FTEs Calculation Process ]]"" VI-12
Calibrated FTEs Calculation Process ".."!! !./VI-12
PC Application Concepts ".!vi-13
Data Loading Process "!!!"vi-13
Data Maintenance Process !'.'.!'.VI-13
IV
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER VII - THE ENFORCEMENT BUDGET AND
WORKLOAD MODEL VH-1
ENFORCEMENT BUDGET W-1
OWPE REGIONAL EXTRAMURAL BUDGET PROCESS W-1
Preliminary Extramural Budget Allocation and Distribution VII-1
Litigation Support VH-2
Regional Planning Against Preliminary Budget VII-3
Final Extramural Budget Distribution VH-5
Budget Execution VH-5
TES Contract Obligations VH-7
Program Management Obligations VII-7
Generic Obligations to Cover TES Tasking VH-7
Buy-in Obligations VH-7
Obligations for Other Financial Vehicles VIt-8
TES WA Tasking Against Generic Obligations , VH-8
TES WA Tasking for Buy-ins VH-9
AOA Utilization VH-9
Budget Utilization VH-9
Disbursements VII-10
HQ/Regional Adjustment VII-11
Responsibilities VII-11
Enforcement Financial Reports VII-11
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT VH-14
TES Contract Management VH-14
Long Term Contracting Strategy W-14
Interagency Agreements Vtt-15
Department of Justice VII-15
8(a) Contracts VH-15
MANAGEMENT OF CASH OUTS VH-16
TECHNICAL ENFORCEMENT WORKLOAD MODEL VII-19
Program Resource Assumptions VII-19
Critical Outputs VH-19
Ongoing Support VII-20
Support Activities VII-21
CHAPTER VIII - THE FEDERAL FACILITY BUDGET AND
WORKLOAD MODEL VIH-1
FEDERAL FACILITIES BUDGET VOI-1
FEDERAL FACILITIES FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
RESPONSIBILITIES VHI-1
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES FEDERAL FACILITIES
ENFORCEMENT WORKLOAD MODEL VIE-2
ACRONYMS I
ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS VI
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement VI
CERCLA Enforcement Division VII
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Vffi
Office of Program Management IX
Emergency Response Division X
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division XI
Hazardous Site Control Division XII
U.S. EPA REGIONS MAP XIII
INDEX A
v
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 H-l
LIST OF EXHIBITS
CHAPTER I
1-1 Superfund Management Review Strategy 1-1
1-2 Integrated Priority Setting Matrix 1-4
1-3 The Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model 1-7
1-4 Integrated Timeline I-10
1-5 STARS Targets and Measures 1-21
1-6 CEPP STARS Measures 1-27
1-7 OPA STARS Targets and Measures 1-28
CHAPTER m
m-1 SCAP Planning Year IH-3
ffl-2 Evaluation Responsibilities III-6
m-3 Examples of Activity/Event Planning Status and Priority Funding
Status IH-8
m-4 SCAP Planning/Target Setting CERCLIS Reports IH-11
IH-5 Program Evaluation CERCLIS Reports ffl-14
IH-6 The Quarterly Review Process ffl-15
ffl-7 Amendments and Adjustments IE-19
ffl-8 SCAP Amendment Process 111-20
CHAPTER IV
IV-1 Flexibility Scale for Budgeting/Planning IV-2
IV-2 Project/Event Lead Codes in WasteLAN in FY 92 IV-8
IV-3 Event Takeover at Workplan Stage IV-9
IV-4 Event Takeover.. jy_9
IV-5 PRP Probabilities IV-10
IV-6 First and Subsequent Starts and Completions IV-11
IV-7 Operable Unit and First and Subsequent Start and Completion Coding IV-12
IV-8 Coding Anomalies IV-13
IV-9 Impossible FSS and FSC Code Combinations IV-14
IV-10 Criteria for OUs IV-14
IV-11 Examples of OUs iy_15
IV-12 Ground Rules for Coding Operable Units JV-16
IV-13 Pseudo State Codes jy_19
VI-14 Standard Timeframes JY.20
VI-15 Example Site Schedule (Fund-Financed Response Events) IV-21
vi
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
VI-16 Example Site Schedule (RP-Lead Response Events) IV-22
VI-17 Site Program Coding IV-26
VI-18 ARCS Contractor Codes IV-29
IV-19 RA Cost Estimating Coding IV-33
IV-20 Coding Guidance - Remedial Technology Types IV-34
IV-21 Remedial Action Technology Type Codes IV-35
CHAPTER V
V-l The Advice of Allowance Process V-5
V-2 Change Request Required V-8
V-3 AOA Change Process V-9
V-4 Site vs. Non-site Specific Planned Obligations V-10
V-5 Budget Source Codes V-ll
V-6 Who Pays for What V-12
V-7 Handling Financial Data in the CERCLIS Environment V-22
V-8 EPA Forms Commonly Used for Superfund Procurements V-26
V-9 Corrections to Financial Information in IFMS V-37
CHAPTER VI
VI-1 Site Assessment Pricing Factors VI-2
VI-2 Criteria For Proposed Regional Response Budget Development VI-3
VI-3 Workload Model Operations Remedial Pipeline Information VI-9
VI-4 Workload Model Operations Remedial Pipeline Processing VI-10
CHAPTER VII
VII-1 FY 93 Regional Enforcement Extramural Budget Funded Activities
Required to Achieve Program Outputs W-4
VH-2 Regional Extramural Budget AOA Limits VII-6
Vn-3 Extramural Budget Responsibilities VE-12
VII-4 Regional/HQ Extramural Budget Responsibilities VII-13
VII-5 OWPE Example Pricing and Budget Assumptions (1991) VII-22
Vll
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
(This page intentionally left blank)
viu
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS
JULY QUARTER 4 (FISCAL YEAR (FY) 92)
6 Fourth quarter Advice of Allowance (AOA) approved by the Assistant Admin-
istrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (AA SWER)
and the Office of the Comptroller (OC)
8 Headquarters (HQ) pulls accomplishments data from the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) and provides for:
1) Entry into the Office of Pollution Prevention (OPP) Strategic Targeted
Activities for Results System (STARS);
2) Special program reports; and
3) Assistant Administrator (AA) report
8 HQ/Regions pull data from CERCLIS to support negotiation of:
1) Final Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP)/STARS
FY 93 targets;
2) First quarter FY 93 removals; and
3) Final FY 93 operating plan
8 HQ distributes final FY 93 Superfund Program Management Manual
13-17 Regions verify accomplishments data contained in the OPP STARS system
(third quarter accomplishments)
17 OPP STARS system closes (third quarter accomplishments)
22 HQ distributes final FY 93 Superfund Program Management Highlights
AUG.
7 HQ pulls accomplishments data from CERCLIS
10-21 HQ/Regions conduct negotiations on final FY 93 SCAP/STARS targets and
budget
31 HQ sends memorandum to Regions on final budgets, targets and measures
SEPT.
4 Regions revise CERCLIS to reflect final budgets, targets and measures
8 HQ pulls data from CERCLIS for first quarter (FY 93) AOA
8 HQ pulls accomplishments data from CERCLIS
21 HQ makes final FY 93 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) distribution
IX
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (continued)
25 HQ submits FY 93 first quarter AOA request to the AA SWER and places it in
CERHELP
29 HQ/Regional conference call on final Remedial Action (RA) appropriation
30* Regions input AOA to the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS)
OCT. QUARTER 1 (FY 93)
5* First quarter AOA approved by the AA SWER and OC
7 HQ pull accomplishments data from CERCLIS and provides for:
1) AA report;
2) Special Program reports;
3) End-of-year assessment for FY 92; and
4) Entry into OPP system for FY 92 STARS end-of-year accomplishments
NOV.
6 HQ/Regions set FY 93 final targets, including open season changes in CER-
HELP
6 HQ pulls accomplishments data from CERCLIS
16-20 Regions verify accomplishment data contained in OPP STARS system (fourth
quarter FY 92)
20 OPP STARS system closes (fourth quarter FY 92)
30 Regions complete evaluation of Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RV
FS) start candidates
DEC.
1 HQ sends draft FY 94 Operating Guidance and STARS measures to Regions
for review
7 HQ pulls CERCLIS data for:
1) Second quarter AOA; and
2) FY 94 Congressional Budget
18 HQ submits second quarter AOA request submitted to AA SWER and places it
in CERHELP F
31 Regions input AOA to IFMS
* Dependent on approval of final appropriation
x
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (continued)
JAN. QUARTER 2 (FY 93)
6 Second quarter AOA approved by the AA SWER and OC
8 Regions submit list of non-Federal Facility proposed and final National Priori-
ties List (NPL) sites that did not receive a removal investigation during calen-
dar year 1992
8 HQ pulls SCAP data from CERCLIS and baseline FY 94 targets and measures
are developed using SCAP Methodologies
8 HQ pulls accomplishments data from CERCLIS and provides for:
1) Entry into OPP STARS system for first quarter review;
2) Special Program reports; and
3) AA report
12 HQ performs a preliminary run of workload model based on methodologies
15 HQ sends call memorandum containing schedules for semi-annual negotiations
and baseline targets and measures to Regions
15 Regional comments on FY 94 Operating Guidance due
21-27 Regions verify accomplishments data contained in the OPP STARS system
27 OPP STARS system closes
28-29 HQ/Regional Program Management meeting (S CAP/Workload Model)
29 Regions submit Fund mega-site Management Plans for FY 94 to the Hazardous
Site Control Division (HSCD)
HQ pulls accomplishments data from CERCLIS
HQ/Regions pull data from CERCLIS to support negotiation of:
1) FY 93 RA schedules;
2) Preliminary SCAP/STARS FY 94 targets;
3) Preliminary FY 94 annual Regional budget; and
4) Budget projections for FY 95 projects
HQ pulls national Environmental Indicators (El) data from CERCLIS
HQ/Regions begin negotiation of:
1) FY 93 third and fourth quarter targets and budget;
2) FY 94 SCAP/STARS targets and annual Regional budget; and
3) Preliminary FY 95 outyear budget
XI
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01H-1
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (continued)
19 HQ prepares El questions and answers to send to the Regions
26 HQ submits NPL proposed rules to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)
MARCH
1 HQ issues final FY 94 Operating Guidance
1 HQ/Regions complete preliminary negotiations of FY 94 targets
5 HQ pulls accomplishments data from CERCLIS
5 HQ pulls data from CERCLIS for enforcement extramural mid-year evaluation
and third-quarter AOA
19 HQ distributes draft FY 94 Superfund Program Implementation Manual for
Regional review
19 HQ pulls data from CERCLIS for mid-year assessment
19 HQ pulls CERCLIS data for third quarter AOA
19 Regions revise CERCLIS to reflect negotiated FY 94 preliminary targets and
measures
22 HQ runs workload model for preliminary FY 94 FTE distribution
26 HQ submits third quarter AOA request to the AA SWER and places it in
CERHELP
30 HQ sends memorandum to Regions on preliminary targets and FTEs
31 Regions input AOA to IFMS
31 Regional response to HQ El questions and answers
APRIL QUARTER 3 (FY 93)
1 HQ issues Addendum for FY 94 Operating Guidance
5 Third quarter AOA approved by the AA SWER and OC
6 Regional comments on FY 94 Superfund Program Implementation Manual due
XII
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (continued)
7 HQ pulls accomplishments data from CERCLIS and provides for:
1) Entry into OPP system for second quarter review;
2) AA report; and
3) Special Program reports
12-16 Change Management Council Meeting
14 Regions submit current FY STARS amendment requests to HQ
20-26 Regions verify accomplishments data contained in OPP STARS system (second
quarter accomplishments)
22 Regions submit data sheets on Remedial Design (RD) projects that will lead to
a FY 94 RA start
26 OPP STARS system closes (second quarter accomplishments)
30 HQ distributes FY 92 El analysis to HQ/Regional managers
MAY
7 HQ pulls accomplishments data from CERCLIS
7 HQ pulls SCAP planning data for outyear budget (FY 95)
15 All Regional NPL site fact sheets must be updated by the Regions in NPL-PAD
21 HQ distributes final FY 94 Superfund Program Implementation Manual
JUNE
7 HQ pulls CERCLIS data for fourth quarter AOA
7 HQ pulls accomplishments data from CERCLIS
9 HQ distributes draft FY 94 Superfund Program Management Manual
11 HQ/Regions complete negotiations on FY 93 fourth quarter AOAs for RD/RA,
removal, and enforcement
11 HQ sends call memorandum and FY 94 proposed Regional budget to the
Regions for semi-annual negotiations
18 HQ submits fourth quarter AOA request to the AA SWER and places it in
CERHELP
25 Regional comments on FY 94 Superfund Program Management Manual due
xm
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (continued)
30 Regions submit enforcement mega-site management plans to the Office of
Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE)
30 Regions input AOA to IFMS
JULY QUARTER 4 (FY 93)
6 Fourth quarter AOA approved by the AA SWER and OC
8 HQ pulls accomplishments data from CERCLIS and provides for:
1) Entry into OPP STARS;
2) Special Program reports; and
3) AA report
8 HQ/Regions pull data from CERCLIS to support negotiation of:
1) Final SCAP/STARS FY 94 targets;
2) First quarter FY 94 removals; and
3) Final FY 94 operating plan
9 HQ distributes final FY 94 Superfund Program Management Manual
22-27 Regions verify accomplishments data contained in OPP STARS system (third
quarter accomplishments)
23 HQ distributes final FY 94 Superfund Program Management Highlights
27 OPP STARS system closes (third quarter accomplishments)
AUG.
6 HQ pulls accomplishments data from CERCLIS
9-20 HQ/Regions conduct negotiations on final FY 94 SCAP/STARS targets and
budget
31 HQ sends memorandum to Regions on final budgets, targets and measures
31 HQ submits NPL proposed rules to OMB
SEPT.
8 Regions revise CERCLIS to reflect final budgets, targets and measures
8 HQ pulls data from CERCLIS for first quarter FY 94 AOA
8 HQ pulls accomplishments data from CERCLIS
xiv
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (continued)
20 HQ performs final FY 94 FTE distribution
24 HQ submits FY 94 first quarter AOA request to the AA SWER and places it in
CERHELP
30* Regions input AOA to IFMS
OCT. QUARTER 1 (FY 94)
5* First quarter AOA approved by the AA SWER and OC
7 HQ pulls accomplishment data from CERCLIS and provides for:
1) Special Program reports;
2) AA report;
3) Entry into OPP system for FY 93 STARS end-of-year; and
4) FY 93 end-of-year assessment
NOV.
5 HQ pulls accomplishment data from CERCLIS
5 HQ/Regions set FY 94 final targets, including open season changes in CER-
HELP
18-24 Regions verify accomplishments data contained in OPP STARS system (fourth
quarter FY 93)
24 OPP STARS system closes (fourth quarter FY 93)
24 Regions complete evaluation of FY 95 RI/FS start candidates
DEC.
1 HQ sends draft FY 95 Operating Guidance and STARS measures to Regions
for review
7 HQ pulls CERCLIS data for:
1) Second quarter AOA; and
2) FY 95 Congressional budget
7 HQ pulls accomplishments data from CERCLIS
11 HQ submits second quarter AOA request to AA SWER and places it in CER-
HELP
/
31 Regions input AOA to IFMS
* Dependent on approval of final appropriation
XV
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER I
PROGRAM GOALS ANDPRIORrrffiS
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER I - PROGRAM GOALS AND PRIORITIES
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.
Efficiency
• Regions should submit projects to pilot the new Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM) to the Superfund Revitalization Team.
• In Fiscal Year (FY) 93, incentives have been established for performing quick
response actions at National Priorities List (NPL) sites.
- The scope of site evaluations should include a determination of whether
there are opportunities for quick response.
- Regions must review half of their NPL sites each calendar year to ensure no
immediate threats have arisen.
- By January 7,1993, each Region needs to submit documentation on the
proposed or final non-Federal Facility NPL sites that were evaluated during
calendar year 1992.
- A $50 million set aside from the Remedial Action (RA) budget can be used
for quick response projects. Projects under $2 million and projects up to $5
million that contribute to substantial risk reduction, constitute a significant
interim action, or lead to site completion/NFL deletion may be funded.
• Trend measures to assess time efficiency of the remedial pipeline in each
Region are being implemented.
• The standard planning durations for response and enforcement activities
contained in the Integrated Timeline should only be used if more accurate
timeframes are not available. When better planning data and schedules are
developed, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS) must be revised.
• Regions are urged to use Site Management Plans (SMPs) to ensure that proper
funding, enforcement activities, and management responsibilities are laid out
for a site.
I-i
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER I - PROGRAM GOALS AND PRIORITIES (Cont.)
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Effectiveness
In FY 93, site constuction completions and NPL deletions are a high
priority.
- Prepare the Preliminary Site Close-Out Report as soon as
possible after construction is complete at the final OU.
- Prepare Interim and Final Superfund Site Close-Out Reports as
soon as possible after accepting the RA Report for the final RA.
- Shift sites into the Construction Complete category following
approval of Interim or Final Superfund Site Close-Out Reports.
- Removals that complete all remediation necessary at NPL sites
require completion of an Action Memoranda and a Record of
Decision (ROD) that documents that the site meets the statutory
requirements for site closeout.
Conduct five year reviews for appropriate sites so they are completed
within five years of award of RA contract.
Regions are required to develop and submit Mega-site Management
Plans for Fund-financed Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) projects if their costs exceed or are expected to exceed $3
million, or for enforcement projects where management costs are more
than $200,000 per year for removal oversight and litigation support and
$500,000 per year for RI/FS oversight.
Establish and enter into CERCLIS site assessment decisions/priority
recommendations at each step of the evaluation process.
Equity
Regions should evaluate sites and the Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs) to determine if an early deminimis settlement is appropriate.
The President has set a goal of recovering $300 million in FY 93 in his
Management by Objectives (MBO) system.
I-ii
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER I - PROGRAM GOALS AND PRIORITIES
OVERVIEW OF PROGRA M GO A TX
The focus of the Superfund program is to maximize the protection of human health and
the environment through fast, effective cleanup of priority hazardous waste sites and releases.
Maximizing appropriate participation of Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) and timely
remediation of sites are two of the Superfund program's highest priorities. Exhibit 1-1 summa-
rizes the long term strategy for Superfund as presented in the Superfund Management Review.
EXHIBIT 1-1
SUPERFUND MANAGEMENT REVIEW STRATEGY
Control acute threats immediately
Move sites to completion and deletion
Worst sites, worst problems first on the road to cleanup
Emphasize enforcement to induce private-party cleanup
Carefully monitor and maintain sites over the long term
Seek new technologies for more effective cleanup
Encourage full participation by communities
Improve efficiency of program operations
FY 93 Themes
Fiscal Year (FY) 93 is a critical year for the Superfund program as the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) enters the final year of the three-year extension to the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). Accomplishments in FY 93 will be the
most significant indicators of the program's performance. New initiatives are being proposed
that embody the Agency's vision for the future and reflect the application of three key principles:
efficiency, effectiveness, and equitability.
Efficiency and effectiveness initiatives will reduce the timeframe for moving sites
through the remedial pipeline and increase the number of site completions/National Priorities
List (NPL) deletions. An increase in the number of de minimis settlements, the allocation of
equitable costs to municipalities, and the pursuit of non-settlors will improve the Superfund
program's equity in dealing with the PRPs.
The following themes are highlighted in FY 93 in order to achieve these program goals
and principles:
• Accelerate and streamline the Superfund pipeline to mitigate risk and produce an
increase in the number of construction completions and NPL deletions;
1-1
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Continue to implement an integrated Fund/enforcement program driven by the
dual objectives of maximizing and increasing appropriate participation of PRPs
and timely remediation of sites;
Reduce risks by performing quick response actions at priority sites, including
effective pilot testing of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM);
Achieve early and appropriate settlements with collateral PRPs, including de.
minimis parties and municipalities;
• Select the best cases for cost recovery so as to ensure cost effective litigation
(both administrative and judicial) to maximize cost recovery to the Trust Fund;
Ensure that PRPs comply with Consent Decrees (CDs) and Administrative Orders
(AOs);
• Effectively communicate program progress through Environmental Indicators
(El) and other related initiatives;
• Ensure effective management of contracts; and
• Implement management initiatives to promote a well-managed Superfund pro-
gram.
A Framework for Setting Priorities
Over the past few years, Regional personnel have been told that "enforcement first,"
worst sites/worst problems first, and completions/deletions are each the highest program priority.
While it is frequently possible to address all priorities, it is not always possible to optimize them.
This section will address the reconciliation of the competing priorities of the Superfund program.
The highest priority of the Superfund program is the management of imminent risk to
human health and the environment. Once it is determined that the site poses no imminent
risk, the Agency moves on to other priorities. All other activities in the Superfund program are
directed toward optimizing completion of construction at sites (and deletion where feasible),
while using enforcement tools to ensure maximum PRP involvement.
Worst sites/worst problems first is a guiding principle within the context of the goal
of optimizing the number of completions, as well as when the choices made do not affect the
number of completions. When cleaning up sites, attention should be focused on ensuring risk
reduction and addressing the worst problems at the worst sites first. Records of Decisions
(RODs) that will document completion of site remediation will often have priority over sites that
have been stabilized, but will take longer to bring to completion. Although imminent threats
have been addressed, and the site is "under control," there may be times where the tentativeness
of the control warrants that the problem or site be given a higher priority than a site moving
toward completion. Common sense and public welfare must guide the manner in which the
priority given to completions is reconciled with the emphasis on reducing risk at the worst sites
first.
Enforcement first should remain an objective while balancing the need to expedite
completions/deletions. When PRPs are recalcitrant, the Region must determine what mix of
Fund and enforcement tools should be used to move the site expeditiously to cleanup. Both a
1-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) and Fund-financed action should be considered. If
UAOs are issued and the PRPs do not comply, a Fund-financed cleanup should be considered as
appropriate to ensure that the site moves forward quickly, and then treble damages pursued.
One of the tools used by the Agency to reconcile the competing Superfund priorities is
the Integrated Priority Setting Matrix. The Matrix was initially developed in 1989 by the Office
of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE), the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(OERR), and the Regions. It is evaluated on a yearly basis to ensure that the latest program
priorities are accurately reflected. The Matrix is used by OERR, OWPE, the Office of Federal
Facilities Enforcement (OFFE), and the Office of Enforcement (OE) to allocate resources in
Superfund to the highest priority activities. The Integrated Priority Setting Matrix is described in
the following section.
Integrated Priority Setting Matrix
The Integrated Priority Setting Matrix shown in Exhibit 1-2 has been reorganized to
reflect the key principles in FY 93 of efficiency, effectiveness and equity. The new Matrix is
designed to:
• Identify the most significant program priorities that support the three key prin-
ciples;
• List the major activities or tools that receive resources, grouped according to their
contribution to a program priority; and
• Arrange the program priorities and major tools in order of importance, where
possible.
The Matrix provides a framework for establishing, testing and adjusting resource levels.
This Matrix will be used by Headquarters (HQ) and the Regions in making trade off decisions
during:
• FY 94 budget formulation;
• FY 93 operating plan development, target setting and negotiation; and
• FY 93 mid-year adjustment.
The overall organization of the Matrix is governed by the following concepts:
• 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 activities must be supported 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.
1-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT 1-2
INTEGRATED PRIORITY SETTING MATRIX
PROGRAM
THEME
PROGRAM PRIORITIES
TOOLS
Mitigate Risks from Immediate
Threats
Classic Emergencies (Fund and PRP)
National Priorities List (NPL) Removals/
Expedited Response (Fund, PRP and Federal
Facility)
Enforcement First in
Superfund Actions
U
Remedial Design (RD)/Remedial Action (RA)
Negotiations
Section 106 Settlement Referrals
Section 106 Unilateral Administrative Orders
(UAOs)forRD/RA
Mixed Funding for RD/RA
Administrative Orders (AO) for Removals
Federal Facility Interagency Agreements (IAG)
Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Study (RJ/FS)
Negotiations
AOs for Non-NPL Time Critical Removals
Timely Remediation of Sites
RA Starts (Fund, PRP and Federal Facility)
NPL Base Closures
RD Starts (Fund, PRP, and Federal Facility)
RI/FS Starts (Fund, PRP, and Federal Facility)
Site Assessment (Preliminary Assessment
(PA)/Site Inspection (SI), Listing)
Non-NPL Time Critical Removals
Increase the Number of Site
Completions and NPL
Deletions
Complete Ongoing RAs
Prepare and Approve RA Reports,
Preliminary Site Close-Out Reports,
Interim Site Close-Out Reports and Final
Superfund Site Close-Out Reports
Delete Sites from the NPL
Five Year Reviews
Complete Ongoing RDs
Complete Ongoing RI/FSs
Take Enforcement Actions for
PRP Response
Section 104 Access
Section 106 Litigation to Enforce UAOs
Compliance Enforcement
Section 106/107 Litigation
Section 106 Litigation
1-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT 1-2 (CONTINUED)
INTEGRATED PRIORITY SETTING MATRIX
PROGRAM
THEME
PROGRAM PRIORITIES
TOOLS
Communicate Progress in the
Superfund Program
Pilot Projects to Support Efficiency,
Effectiveness and Equity
Technical Assistance Grants
Community Relations
Administrative Record (Removal and
Remedial)
Core Activities that Support
the Superfund Program
Contract Laboratory Program
Removal Support
Remedial Project Support
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Information
System (CERCLIS) Data Base
Management
Contract Management
Records Management
Program Management
Equity in Dealing with PRPs
De minimis Settlements
Settlements with Municipalities
Actions Taken to Recover
Trust Fund Monies
Section 107 Statute of Limitation (SOL) Cost
Recovery Referrals
Section 122 Administrative Settlements
Actions Taken to Identify
PRPs
Section 104(e) Referrals
NPL PRP Searches
Non-NPL PRP Searches
Equity in Dealing with Others
Core Program Cooperative Agreement
(CPCA)
State Program Support
1-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EFFICIENCY
A major theme of the Superfund program is an aggressive, well planned and tightly
coordinated system for moving sites to completed remediation, while maximizing the participa-
tion of the PRPs. This has led to the development and implementation of a number of program
initiatives. These initiatives, as well as the supporting response and enforcement goals and
priorities, are discussed in this section.
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM)
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), through its continued
investigation of ways to make the Superfund program more efficient, has developed a model for
streamlining and accelerating the Superfund program. This model concept is designed for a dual
purpose: to make the Superfund program work better and to communicate success in risk reduc-
tion to the public. The model:
• Combines and eliminates steps in the Superfund process;
• Identifies all sites/releases at which Superfund takes action as "Superfund sites";
• Shortens timeframes for performing cleanup actions at all Superfund sites; and
• Achieves immediate risk reduction by tackling the worst sites first using removal
and/or remedial authority.
The model will deliver results the public will value:
• Quick reduction of acute risks at all Superfund sites (removal and remedial); and
• Restoration of the environment over the long term.
The SACM, which is presented in Exhibit 1-3, includes:
• A one-step site screening and risk assessment at the front end of the process to
expedite cleanup and blend removal and remedial cultures;
Establishment of multi-disciplinary Regional Decision/Management Teams to
serve as "traffic cops" for moving sites to early response action or long-term
action. This team will also develop standards for remediation levels and tech-
nologies;
• Reduction of immediate risk by performing early actions;
• Implementation of long-term actions to restore the environment/media. These
sites will require years to clean up but pose no immediate threat; and
• Involvement of enforcement, community relations and the public throughout the
process.
In FY 93, piloting of the SACM concept will be a high priority. The results of the pilots
will be used to develop and refine the procedures for implementing SACM to cleanup sites.
Nationwide implementation of the SACM is expected in FY 94.
1-6
-------
EXHIBIT 1-3
THE SUPERFUND ACCELERATED CLEANUP MODEL
Public Notification of
Early Action Start
Public Notification
of Completion
Early Action
to Reduce
Risk
(<5 years)
t
^~~
T*.»..«
n«j
Early Action
Completed
«./
Issue Order/
Negotiate
All
Sites
Start
PRP Search/
Notification
Long-
Term
Action
for
Media
Restoration
Regional
Decision/
Management
Team
Long-Term
Hazard
Ranking
RCRA
or
Other
Authority
Enforcement Activities
State/Public Participation/Community Relations
O
i'
I
v£>
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Quick Response
Two of the goals of the SACM, streamlining cleanup actions and reducing risk using
remedial and/or removal authorities, are not new. In the past, the Agency has encouraged the use
of removal authorities to perform quick response actions (i.e., Initial Remedial Measures (IRMs)
and Expedited Response Actions (ERAs)). In FY 91 and FY 92, a variety of contracting mecha-
nisms were implemented that provided the capability to perform these actions.
During site evaluation phases, including the Preliminary Assessment (PA) and Site
Inspection (SI), removal assessment or scoping for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RtyFS), the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) or On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) should deter-
mine if the site is safe. A part of the site evaluation is a determination of the need for surface
cleanup that will reduce risk and can be accomplished quickly through the use of removal/
remedial authorities.
Quick response actions are designed to eliminate surface waste/chemicals, barrels, tanks,
pits, ponds, and lagoons. They also serve to develop information for use in the RI/FS scoping.
When evaluating the potential for a quick response, the following criteria should be considered:
• The cleanup actions should be well defined, of low to moderate technical com-
plexity, use a proven technology, have existing field information readily avail-
able, and have a low to moderate cost to complete. Examples are surface cleanup,
soil excavation, interim groundwater plume controls, tank or structure demolition,
and impoundment closure.
• A project should not be divided up and expedited just to "turn dirt." The decision
to perform a quick response should be based on an attempt to reduce risks and
compress the critical path for pipeline remedial activities. The actions must be
consistent and appropriate to the other response actions being performed at the
site.
Before an action is taken, certain enforcement issues need to be addressed - Are
willing and viable PRPs that are able to produce quality products involved? Are
these PRPs interested in conducting quick response actions?
These criteria will assist the Region in a decision as to whether to conduct a quick re-
sponse action at the site.
Financial Considerations
To provide incentives for quick response actions at remedial sites, the following manage-
ment procedures are in place:
$50 million dollars is set aside in the Remedial Action (RA) budget to be used for
quick response projects. This funding is available on a first ready, first funded
basis. It is not for emergencies or time critical actions, but for getting a head start
or fast start on remedial work.
Quick response projects should be less than $2 million, but projects up to $5 mil-
lion may be approved by HQ. These projects must demonstrate one or more of
the following:
Substantial contribution to risk reduction;
1-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Significant interim action; or
Activities lead to completion or deletion.
Authorities and Contracting Strategies
A separate determination needs to be made on which authority and contract vehicle will
be employed. EPA is planning to award several new Emergency Response Cleanup
Services (ERGS) contracts that may have the capability and capacity to perform rapid
response actions. Under the remedial program, the Alternative Remedial Contracting
Strategy (ARCS) contractor performing Rl/FS activities may be tasked by the RPM to
conduct quick response actions. Typically, the ARCS contractor will be able to subcon-
tract for work of this nature. EPA has also developed a Prequalified Offerers Procure-
ment Strategy, which provides a list of prequalified contractors that have the capability to
perform specified technologies. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) has rapid
response contracts for demolition actions, closures, point source contamination controls,
and site stabilization for use by EPA. Finally, separate site-specific contracts should be
considered.
Procedures for Quick Response
Projects for quick response funding must be identified by the third quarter in order to
guarantee funding. At that point, unplanned and unobligated funds remaining in the
quick response set aside will be placed back in the RA budget and used to fund priority
RAs or quick response projects identified after the third quarter. A Region may request
funding for quick response actions by writing the Director, Emergency Response Divi-
sion (ERD). The ERD Director is responsible for coordinating the request with the
Hazardous Site Control Division (HSCD), the Office of Program Management (OPM),
and OWPE. The request to the ERD Director should address the relevant criteria listed
earlier in this section to justify the need for the quick response. The request should be
supported by relevant documents.
If the quick response is a rapid remedial response, Regions are encouraged to conduct a
focused Feasibility Study (FS) that will lead to a "thin" or interim action ROD. Guid-
ance on preparing these RODs was issued in April 1991 ("Guide to Developing
Superfund No Action, Interim Action and Contingency Remedy RODs," OSWER Direc-
tive 9355.3-02FS-3). The ROD must be signed and the Superfund State Contract (SSC)
in place prior to initiating the action. In the event the Region targeted a ROD at a site and
a removal will be performed instead, and there are no other sites available to substitute
for the ROD target, the request for quick response funding should include a request for
relief from the ROD target.
Integrated Timeline for Site Management
Success in implementing the Superfund program depends in large part on identifying
critical decision points and timeframe goals for moving from one phase of activity to the next. In
1989, the Agency developed a timeline that provides an overview of the major remedial and
enforcements activities required in the Superfund site cleanup process. The Integrated Timeline
(Exhibit 1-4) is a multi-step site management process that, in the ideal situation, spans 24 quar-
ters. The Integrated Timeline will be evaluated in the upcoming year in light of the SACM.
Implementation of the SACM may result in the elimination of a number of steps and a reduction
in the duration of activities in the timeline.
1-9
-------
EXHIBIT 1-4
INTEGRATED TIMELINE
70
P§£fIliSF « ELAPSED TIME IN CHMRTESS
ACTIVITY 2 * 6 a 10 12 M ts ia 2&
RP Search and
Notification
RI/FS
Negotiation
Process
RI/FS
Settlement
Process
RI/FS
Implementation
Process
RD/RA
Negotiation
Process
RD/RA
Settlement/
Referral
Process
RD
Implementation
RA
Implementation
Community
Relations
Cost
Recovery
104
INFO RE
ISSU
W
RPS
GEh
eu
X
RPS
GNP
,*
ERALNO
ISSUED
RPS
SNP
ncE
,/0pDo
'Decision^
re: 104(8)
nforcsman
\/\
RPS
SNP
RNP
=lfcs (or Cc
aimed taU(
/ — f
*
RPS
* \
SPECIAL
ISS
AOP
(ml
\te
at
>U LIST*
RPS
.NOTICE
JED
/~A
WS >
m/
RI/FS
CRP
G
RPS
3CorUA
ISSUED
RI/FS
SUPPL
GENER
IS
Fat
~1
RPS
I
RI/FS
EMENTAL
ALNOTIC
SUED
Fa
IsheeVPu
RPS
Dra<
raftRI
ra/ps
E^
riScicd/Pi
»M
m
RPS
Propos
Final Di
FS
\
RI/FS
Public
bile Meet
%
r
RPS
id Plan
id
m RI/FS
Rt/FS
OOOC
Meeting.
\
RPS
ROD
SNP
FAITH 01
RDNP
I
pel"
,Upda
RPS
ROD
SNP
PER
RDNP
UAO
1
aDocum
on Pa;
/— RO
*
y-SPI
u
M
> SIGNAT
iCIALNO
k
ecisbnX
Extensioa/
S/
RON | |
<|
-eep"
5SUED''
<
^^^~~™
nlallon
it Costs
edsiorrX.
DRalenar
AO/BO A
urdraS
^
'Dedsion
re: UAO
|nlorcame
IRE
ICE ISS 1.
rCD
CDR
?
ED
5IGNED
CDE
K
[ UAOEorRDF
1 1
V
22 24
AOP|
CDE 1
CDP
CDR
CM
CRP
ICRPR
GNP
~PC~
RA
"BpT
RON
BEE
RI/FS
RN
"RNP"
ROD
[RPRD
fRPS-
5NP
=u/
=ct
=C!
=C!
=C<
=CI
.c
=G
=P(
,a
=R
=R
=R
«R
=R
=R
LEGEND
W/AOC Preparation
3 Lodging/Entering
3 Preparation
1 Referral
impliance Monitoring
^P Preparation
^P Revision
sneral Notice Preparation
jblic Comment Period
^ Implementation
D Funded
D/RA Negotiation
D Negotiation Prep.
/FS Activities
/FS Negotiation
I/FS Neg. Preparation
.ROD Preparation
=RP Remedial Design
.Responsible Party Search
^Special Notice Preparation
U | ,UAO Response Period
UAOEI =UAO Enforcement
• RPRD t CM
CRPR
-I1
-i
HI
I
•I™
First
Overslg
N
V
— i
Claim for >
M Costa ^
II I
1 1
K
tA* CM )
Filed.
1
Imfor F
Inanced
Y
1
id,
«v
v
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
In FY 93, the Integrated Timeline will continue to be utilized to establish performance
expectations. Performance improvements will be tracked against the Timeline. To embody the
concept of good timeline management, trends analyses will be undertaken. The average duration
will be measured—by Region—for sites where Remedial Design (RD)/RA negotiation starts or
completions, RD starts or RA starts are planned in FY 93 as follows:
• ROD to RD/RA negotiation starts;
• ROD to RD/RA negotiation completions;
• ROD to RD start; and
ROD to RA start.
Each of these averages will be reported relative to prior years (FY 91 and FY 92) and
prior quarters performance. In addition, RI/FS start to completion timeframes and RD/RA
negotiation timeframes will also be tracked. (See Volume n, Appendix A for more information.)
Regions are strongly urged to develop a Site Management Plan (SMP) for a site shortly
after proposal for the NPL. The plan should lay out important enforcement activities that are
essential at the site (PRP searches, issuance of RI/FS special notice, issuance of RD/RA special
notice, RD/RA negotiations, development and finalization of CD, issuance of UAO). These
enforcement activities should be integrated with response events at the site or Operable Unit
(OU). The plan can be used to ensure that funding is requested for the activities and that the
proper people in all affected offices have been brought into the process at the appropriate points.
The Agency is developing guidance to assist the Regions in the preparation of SMPs.
The durations in the Integrated Timeline are goals that should be used if more accurate
estimates are not available. When better planning data and schedules are developed, the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information Sys-
tem (CERCLIS) must be revised to reflect these schedules.
The phases of the Integrated Timeline are summarized below:
• Responsible Party (RP) Search and Notification — This first step in the site
management process generally takes from 6 to 13 quarters. This step begins with
the initiation of any component of the PRP search activities specified in the PRP
Search Manual and includes the following activities:
Distribution of Section 104(e) information requests to owners/operators
and generators/transporters;
Distribution of general notice to owners/operators and generators/trans-
porters;
Decision to pursue Section 104(e) enforcement activities; and
Preparation of waste-in information and volumetric allocation for the
RI/FS and decision making on early dj, minimis settlements.
The RP search timeframe may extend up to the point of RD special notice if a supple-
mental search is deemed warranted.
Ml
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01H-1
RI/FS Negotiation and Settlement Process — This process will continue for a
maximum of 3 quarters. Important milestones include:
Resolution of site lead with the State;
RI/FS negotiation preparation commencing after distribution of the gen-
eral notice;
Scoping activities in order to direct the work in the RI/FS Statement of
Work (SOW);
Formal RI/FS negotiations commencing with issuance of the special
notice and lasting a maximum of 90 days (without extension by Regional
Administrator). RI/FS negotiations will terminate 60 days after special
notice is issued if a Good Faith Offer (GFO) is not received; and
At the end of the negotiation process, issue either an Administrative Order
on Consent (AOC) or proceed with a Fund-financed RI/FS. In very
limited circumstances, a UAO may be issued.
RI/FS Implementation Process — This is the third step in the site management
process, and will begin after issuance of the AOC/UAO, or funding of the RI/FS.
The RI/FS begins approximately one quarter following the issuance of special
notice. At most sites, important milestones include:
Within a maximum of 4 quarters, the draft Remedial Investigation (RI)
report will be completed;
Within 4 to 5 quarters, a supplemental general notice to the PRPs will be
issued, if appropriate;
The draft FS report will be completed by the end of the fifth quarter;
The final draft of the RI/FS report and the proposed plan will be com-
pleted by the end of the sixth quarter;
Following completion of the RI/FS report, the lead agency begins prepara-
tion of the ROD, which should take no more than 2 quarters;
ROD signature occurs 8 quarters from the start of the RI/FS implementa-
tion process and 13 quarters from the start of the RP search and notifica-
tion process;
Opening and updating the Administrative Record (AR) file and conduct-
ing Community Relations (CR) activities; and
Ongoing PRP search as required.
Pre-referral and RD/RA Negotiation Pi-nr^s _ The pre-referral process begins
approximately 60 days prior to submitting a draft CD to the PRPs. RD/RA
negotiations should have a maximum duration of two quarters which formally
begin with the issuance of Special Notice Letters (SNLs). SNL preparation
1-12
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
should be performed concurrent with ROD preparation. Early decisions must be
made as to whether a GFO has been made, terminating negotiations that do not
appear to be leading to settlement. Use appropriate settlement tools (e.g., mixed
funding and ds minimisl and the judicial and administrative authorities under
Section 106 (such as UAOs for RD/RA) to bring about settlement or compel a
PRP response to a UAO. If the site has no viable or liable PRPs, a Fund-financed
RD should be scheduled to begin no later than the quarter after the ROD is signed.
Important milestones include:
Pre-referral litigation report and CD sent to Department of Justice (DOJ),
OE and OWPE;
Issuance of special notice with draft CD or waiver of special notice con-
current with ROD signature;
Formal negotiations commencing with the issuance of special notice and
lasting a maximum of 120 days if a GFO is received;
Termination of RD/RA negotiations if the GFO is not received within 60
days after issuance of special notice. As warranted, the Region will issue
the UAO and decide whether to fund the RD or litigate; and
Referral of CD, issuance of UAO, referral of Section 106 or 106/107 case,
or funds obligated for a Fund-lead RD mark the conclusion of RD/RA
negotiations.
Settlement/Referral Process — The settlement/referral process includes a maxi-
mum of 2 quarters of CD preparation (concurrent with ROD), 1 quarter for the
CD referral process, and 1 quarter for CD lodging and entry. The CD referral,
lodging, and entry process should take no longer than 2 quarters.
RD Implementation — This step of the site management process includes funded
RDs, RP-lead RDs and compliance monitoring. Credit is given for the RD on the
date the EPA approves the PRP's design contractor, or with the funding of a Fund-
lead RD. RP-lead RDs may be initiated without waiting for entry of the CD.
Important milestones include:
The conduct of treatability studies, if appropriate, within the first quarter;
Within two quarters, complete the preliminary specifications that reflect
the technical requirements of the design and initial construction drawings
(30 percent complete). Also, if treatability studies were performed, the
initial results should be included;
Within three quarters, complete the intermediate construction plans and
specifications and estimate the cost of construction (60 percent complete);
When the design is 90 percent complete, the following is required: pre-
final construction drawings, design specifications, construction cost
estimate, final results of the treatability studies, draft Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) Plan, draft Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
1-13
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
that identifies quality control and quality assurance responsibilities during
construction, and draft Site Safety Plan (SSP); and
Within four quarters, the following is required: final design plans and
specifications, final construction cost estimate, final draft O&M Plan, final
QAPP and final SSP.
RA Implementation — This step in the site management process includes RA
implementation and compliance monitoring. The RA will begin after the comple-
tion of the RD. Important milestones include:
Acquire site access or property if needed;
Procure the construction contractor and award the RA contract;
On-site construction;
Complete construction and conduct a pre-final inspection and final inspec-
tion. When construction is complete at all OUs, a Preliminary Site Close-
Out Report is prepared;
Determine that the remedy is Operational and Functional (O&F). The
determination of O&F is usually made within one year of completion of
construction activities.
EPA acceptance of the RA Report;
Initiation of O&M or Long Term Response Action (LTRA); and
When construction is complete at all OUs and the remedy is determined to
be O&F, an Interim Site Close-Out Report or Final Superfund Site Close-
Out Report is prepared. An Interim Site Close-Out Report is prepared if
LTRA is being conducted at the site.
Community Relations — CR activities begin after the decision on lead responsi-
bilities is made, continue throughout the RI/FS, RD/RA process, and terminate
with the completion of site cleanup activities and the deletion of the site from the
NPL. Major components of the CR program include:
CR plan preparation, a public comment period, and CR plan revision;
Opening and periodic updating of the AR file after the RI/FS work plan is
approved;
During the RI/FS process, prepare fact sheets and conduct public meet-
ings;
Conduct the public meeting during the public comment period after
distribution of the proposed plan; and
Revise the CR plan after the conclusion of RD/RA negotiations.
1-14
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
• Cost Recovery - Cost recovery activities also continue throughout the entire
remedial process. Important milestones include:
Opening of the cost documentation file concurrent with initiation of the
PRP search;
Obtaining documentation of removal costs prior to Rl/FS negotiations;
Updating documentation on past costs as the RI/FS activities are com-
pleted;
Issuing written demands in connection with the completion of each major
phase of response activity and with initiation of new phases;
Issuing written demands for oversight costs annually; and
Referring actions within one year after completion of conventional re-
moval actions and shortly after the execution of a contract for RA, but in
no event later than two quarters before the Statute of Limitations (SOL)
date.
Supporting Program Goals
The following sections described the specific goals that support a more efficient Super-
fund program.
Removal
In FY 93, 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 at non-NPL sites should be undertaken only as resources
allow and to expedite cleanup in conformance with the worst problems first policy. 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 PRPs 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 sched-
uled for completion based on the timing of the removal start.
Regions have the responsibility of reviewing half their NPL sites each calendar year to
ensure no immediate threats have arisen. By January 7,1993, each Region needs to
submit documentation on the completed evaluations of those non-Federal Facility pro-
1-15
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
posed and final NPL sites that were evaluated during calendar year 1992. The documen-
tation that must be submitted includes memoranda signed by a Regional Division Direc-
tor and sent to the Regional Administrator with a copy to the Director ERD, along with a
copy of the CERCLIS report RMVL-12, Summary of NPL Site Evaluations Conducted in
Calendar Year. This CERCLIS report is to be used to document sites where a biennial
NPL site evaluation was conducted in the last calendar year.
Enforcement
One of the goals of the enforcement program is to maximize efficient use of PRP re-
sources. To reach this goal, the following priorities have been identified for FY 93:
Aggressively seek settlement for PRP response with more parties — Regions are
encouraged to use SMPs to lay out negotiations responsibilities among the parties
involved and timeframes for deliverables. Well planned negotiations need to be
initiated and completed within the special notice moratoria or schedules presented
in general notice letters.
• RD/RA Negotiation process — Regions should manage the RD/RA negotiation
process within the timeframes established under Section 122. SNLs should be
issued in a timely manner. Regional Administrator or Assistant Administrator
(AA) extensions should be used only where settlement appears likely.
• Section 106 Settlements — Regions should be prepared to issue a UAO promptly
after the negotiation moratorium deadlines if there are viable PRPs and a settle-
ment has not been reached. UAOs with delayed effective dates should also be
considered in order to encourage the successful conclusion of negotiations. If a
Fund-financed response is initiated, all steps should be taken to seek treble dam-
ages against recalcitrant PRPs during cost recovery.
• Removal enforcement — Regions should work to maintain or increase the per-
centage of removals conducted by PRPs, particularly time critical and non-time
critical removals. In this effort, Regions should commence PRP searches early to
assess whether there are viable and liable PRPs. Where this is the case and an
AOC can not be negotiated, Regions should issue UAOs and, in cases of non-
compliance, pursue cost recovery. Regions are required to support their removal
enforcement decisions in action memos and other appropriate documents. A
sound administrative record will be the Agency's key to defending itself against
Section 106(b) claims from PRPs seeking reimbursement for their removal costs.
As the Superfund program uses more UAOs to compel response, there are likely
to be more claims.
In addition to the authorities provided by the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and SARA, the Agency may in some in-
stances use authorities provided by other environmental laws. For example, under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Agency can order owners and
operators of operating and closing hazardous waste facilities to investigate any potential
leaks, and to perform cleanups if necessary. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
and its regulations can be used by the Agency to impose conditions on the handling of
particularly hazardous substances, such as asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs). In addition, in some cases where releases affect surface waters, the provisions of
the Clean Water Act (CWA) can be used to impose fines and require cleanup. These
1-16
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
other statutes also provide the basis for many of the Applicable or Relevant and Appro-
priate Requirements (ARARs) on which cleanup levels are based in RODs.
Site Assessment
Site assessment demands are expanding and Regions are encountering more requirements
in screening sites and making worst sites first decisions. To ensure that the worst sites
enter the cleanup process first, the site assessment program has established the following
goals:
• Renewed and expanded emphasis on the removal program coordination. State,
ARCS, and EPA staff conducting PAs, site reconnaissance and Sis should con-
sider 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. Also, new policies on consideration of removals
in Hazard Ranking System (MRS) scoring increases the need for removal and site
assessment coordination.
• Make substantial progress on SI priorities. Resources will be provided in FY 93
to collect data as needed to determine a priority for sites that have had an SI in the
past, but require further work in order to 1) make a decision on whether to pro-
ceed with HRS ranking and NPL proposal, or 2) make a determination that the
site evaluation is complete. Over 6,000 sites have completed Sis and need to be
evaluated for inclusion on the NPL. The overreaching site assessment goal is to
set priorities for screening and listing the highest priority sites first. Each Region
will need to work with HQ to determine its most balanced priorities/workload and
division of labor with its States.
• Continue EPA's policy of conducting PAs within one year of CERCLIS listing in
order to prevent the build-up of a PA backlog.
• Perform PAs and Hazard Ranking System (HRS) scoring at Federal Facilities to
achieve SARA goals.
• Implement the revised HRS. Use the HRS to rank sites for proposal to the NPL.
An update to the NPL is scheduled for publication in the Federal Register (FR)
semi-annually.
Federal Facilities
Superfund Federal Facilities enforcement remains a key Agency issue because of the high
visibility and significant threat posed by military sites; the impact of military base clos-
ings; the significant resources needed to oversee Department of Defense (DOD)/Depart-
ment of Energy (DOE) efforts at NPL sites; and heightened public interest. Federal
Facilities program goals for FY 93 are based on a number of interacting factors, including
overall Superfund program goals, anticipated resource constraints, Congressional interest,
and statutory requirements. Program activities and resources should be planned to
achieve the following goals:
• Improve program efficiencies through accelerated response (including the use of
removal authorities);
1-17
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Continue integration of RCRA and CERCLA through the use of Interagency
Agreements (lAGs);
Use of innovative technologies and pollution prevention principles;
Compliance with statutory timeframes (i.e., IAG, ROD and RA);
• Enhanced oversight of base closure actions; and
Improved formal and informal HQ/Regional interaction, including workgroups.
EFFECTIVENESS
There are a number of program priorities that focus on the effectiveness of the Superfund
program in cleaning up hazardous waste sites and releases. The highest priority in FY 93 is the
completion of construction activities and the subsequent deletion of sites from the NPL. The
Strategic Targeted Activities for Results System (STARS) is one of the tools used by the Agency
to track progress toward Superfund site cleanup.
Completions/Deletions
The Preamble to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) describes the "Construction Completion" category of the NPL. The category consists of:
• Sites awaiting deletion; and
• Sites undergoing LTRA.
EPA shifts sites into the NPL Construction Completion category only after approval of
Interim Site or Final Supefund Site Close-Out Reports (final RA completion). Approval of an
Interim Site Close-Out Report indicates that construction of the remedy is complete and that it is
operating properly, but that the remedy must operate for a period of time before achieving
cleanup levels specified in the ROD. Approval of the Final Superfund Site Close-Out Report
indicates that the remedy has achieved protectiveness levels specified in the ROD, and that all
site activities except O&M are complete.
On October 2,1991, the EPA Administrator announced targets for sites where all con-
struction has been completed. The target includes 130 sites by the end of FY 92, 200 sites by the
end of FY 93, and 650 sites by the end of FY 2000. In order to meet this goal, construction
activities for the final OU must be complete, a pre-final inspection conducted, and a Preliminary
Close-Out Report must be signed by the designated Regional official (final RA NPL site con-
struction completion). The Preliminary Close-Out Report documents the completion of physical
construction, summarizes site conditions and construction activities, and provides, as appropri-
ate, the schedule for the final inspection, O&F phase, approval of the O&M work plan, and the
establishment of institutional controls.
LTRA sites may be recategorized in the awaiting deletion category upon attainment of
the final remediation goals. A site requiring only O&M at the time of construction completion
may be recategorized as awaiting deletion until the process of reviewing the site for deletion
from the NPL has been completed.
1-18
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Section 300.425(e) of the NCP states that "Releases may be deleted from or re-catego-
rized on the NPL where no further response is appropriate." It further states that in making a
determination to delete a release from the NPL, EPA shall consider, in consultation with the
State, whether any of the following criteria has been met:
• PRPs or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions re-
quired;
• All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA has been implemented
and no further response actions by the PRPs are appropriate; or
• The RI has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or
the environment and, therefore, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
While the current focus remains on site completions, a priority remains to delete sites
from the NPL when appropriate. Close-Out Reports and Federal Register notices for sites
eligible for recategorization as completions or for deletion from the NPL should be prepared and
submitted promptly to ensure that progress in accurately conveyed to those outside the Agency.
Interim and Final Superfund Site Close-Out Reports should be completed no later than the
quarter following EPA acceptance of the RA Report for the final RA. NPL sites that have been
completed and RA completions are targeted in the STARS in FY 93.
Five Year Reviews
SARA requires EPA to review those remedial actions that result "...in any hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site..." no less often than every five
years after implementation. The NCP states that RAs that result in hazardous substances, pollut-
ants, or contaminants remaining at the site "...above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure..." shall be reviewed no less than every five years after initiation of the
selected RA. In the Superfund Management Review, the Administrator decided that EPA would
not delete from the NPL sites that require SARA reviews until at least one review had been
completed. This policy was later rescinded by a notice in the Federal Register (56FR 6601,
December 24,1991).
The Agency must report to Congress on five-year reviews and actions taken in response
to such reviews. On May 23, 1991, OERR issued OSWER Directive 9355.7-02, entitled "Struc-
ture and Components of Five-Year Reviews." This guidance defines the scope of five-year
reviews and identifies two types of reviews: statutory reviews (i.e., reviews required by
CERCLA and the NCP) and policy reviews (i.e., reviews that EPA will implement as a matter of
policy). Each Region must schedule statutory reviews to assure that they are completed within
five years of award of the RA contract. In addition, Regions must determine whether to conduct
the review in-house (EP-lead), under a CD (PRP-lead), or through a contract (e.g., ARCS) or
assistance agreement (e.g., USAGE, Bureau of Reclamation (BUREC), State).
Since five-year reviews for appropriate sites are to be completed within five years of RA
contract award, reviews may be conducted during phases of the RA, during LTRA, and during
O&M. Where appropriate, additional reviews may be conducted after a site has been deleted
from the NPL. Each ROD attempts to identify when a five-year review is necessary based on the
nature of the remedy. Regions should identify sites where a five-year review is required and
develop workplans. HQ has established a mechanism to provide extramural funds for such
reviews on a site-specific basis and has projected completing 50 five-year reviews per year. The
1-19
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
President's FY 93 budget would redirect 15 FTEs and provide $1.5 million for five-year reviews.
Funds for five-year reviews are contained in the RA Advice of Allowance (AOA).
STARS Targets and Measures
Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishment Plan (SCAP) and STARS targets are the key
devices by which the program goals discussed in this Chapter are translated into quantifiable
program achievements. During the Program Management Meeting in January 1992, HQ and the
Regions discussed the SCAP/STARS targets and measures that were proposed in the FY 93
Agency Operating Guidance. Regions expressed concerns that since the budget and workload
models were frozen, HQ should reevaluate and consider dropping some of the SCAP/STARS
targets and measures. Based on this discussion, the Regions voted on the highest priority Super-
fund STARS targets/measures for FY 93. Seven targets/measures received the greatest number
of votes. The information contained in this Manual, Volume I and Volume II, reflects HQ
decisions relative to the Regional vote on the SCAP/STARS targets and measures.
Exhibit 1-5 contains the STARS targets and measures for the remedial, removal, enforce-
ment and Federal Facility program areas. Definitions for the STARS targets and measures can
be found in Volume II, Appendix A.
In FY 93, a number of Regions will be participating in the pilot efforts for testing the
SACM prior to full scale implementations. HQ will renegotiate any Regional SCAP/STARS
targets and measures affected by the pilot projects.
Supporting Program Goals
The following sections describe the specific goals that support a more effective Super-
fund program.
Removal
Removals that result in NPL site completions are a priority. In addition to the Action
Memorandum, these actions require a ROD that states that all necessary remedia-
tion has been completed. The ROD must document that the site meets the statutory
requirements for site closeout.
Enforcement
Following settlement for RI/FS, or RD/RA, or professed intent by a PRP to comply with
a UAO for RD/RA, the Region must ensure PRP compliance with the terms of the settle-
ment or UAO. EPA must ensure that PRP responses are timely, thorough, and do not
compromise environmental goals. Regions should assess penalties in situations where
PRPs clearly have not submitted major.deliverables of acceptable quality by the dates
specified in the AO, CD or UAO.
If PRP's fail to comply with a UAO, consideration should be given to referring a Section
106 judicial action to enforce compliance.
Remedial
The remedial program's highest priority is moving projects/sites toward construction
completion and NPL deletion in a timely and cost effective manner. The number of PRP-
1-20
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT 1-5
STARS TARGETS AND MEASURES
ACTIVITIES
STARS TARGET
STARS REPORTING
RI/FS ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES & SETTLEMENTS
De minimis Settlements prior to
ROD and Number of PRPs
(S/E-3b)
lAGs Signed at NPL or
Proposed NPL Federal
Facility Sites (FFE-2)
Federal Facility Remedy
Selection at NPL Sites (First
and Subsequent) (FFE-4)
RDIRA ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES. SETTLEMENTS
AND REFERRALS
RD/RA Settlements and
Injunctive Referrals (S/E-1)
De minimis Settlements and
Number of PRPs (S/E-3a)
Federal Facility RA Starts
(FFE-3)
RA Contract Award (S/C-1)
RA Construction Completion (S/C-2)
1-21
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT 1-5 (continued)
STARS TARGETS AND MEASURES
ACTIVITIES
STARS TARGET
STARS REPORTING
COST RECOVERY
Cost Recovery Actions/
Decisions > $200,000
(S/E-2a)
Cost Recovery Actions/
Decisions < $200,000
(S/E-25)
RESPONSE
NPL Sites Addressed Through
Removal Start or RI/FS Start
(S/C-4)
Decision Document
Development - Remedies
Selected and Action
Memoranda Signed (S/C-5)
NPL Site Construction
Completion (S/C-3)
Progress Through
Environmental Indicators
REMOVAL
Federal Facility Removals/
Expedited Response Actions
(ERA) Starts (FFE-3)
Federal Facility Removals/
ERAs Completed
X
X
X
X
X
X
1-22
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01H-1
lead RDs and RAs must be maximized. However, lead changes from EPA to the PRPs in
the middle of a phase of the Superfund process will be limited.
Greater emphasis will be placed on the evaluation and selection of alternative technolo-
gies 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 evaluate each technology
prior to remedy selection. Regions should provide technical oversight of all treatability
study activities.
Site Assessment
To facilitate program planning and expedite response to Congressional and public inquir-
ies, Regions should enter into WasteLAN all site assessment decisions/priority recom-
mendations at each step of the evaluation process and all appropriate identifiers (Federal
Facility, Indian lands, etc.) as rapidly as possible.
Federal Facilities
OE has initiated a national effort to develop cleanup priorities for Federal Facilities based
on the judgment of EPA, States, Indian Tribes, citizen groups and other Federal agencies
to target limited government resources.
Management Initiatives
The following initiatives have been implemented in recent years to ensure the effective-
ness of the Superfund program:
• Implementation of a well managed program by continuing the strategy of fully
funding all RI/FS projects. The program has set the goal of reducing RI/FS costs
to a national average of $750,000 per OU and $1,100,000 per site (exclusive of
treatability studies). Every effort should be made to ensure that the trend of RI/FS
costs is toward the overall national goal. Both the OU and site goals are impor-
tant. The OU 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 divide sites into OUs to increase its annual budget. Note,
however, that Regions are strongly encouraged to focus RI/FS projects on princi-
pal threats, even if this does require additional OU(s) to complete site
remediation. A Region's RI/FS budget is developed based on the full funding
strategy. "Mega-sites" are excluded from the OU and site level cost reduction
goals described above.
The Superfund enforcement budget has remained the same for the past two years
and is not expected to increase in FY 93. As a result, Regions are required to
manage their extramural budgets to ensure that current year needs are fully ad-
dressed. Forward funding of activities is a lower priority.
• Implement a mega-site management strategy that insures cost-effective environ-
mental management of these significant sites. Response mega-sites are defined as
sites where RI/FS work at the site reaches or exceeds $3 million. Regions are
required to develop and submit to the HSCD a response Mega-site Management
Plan that characterizes site problems and management options. Response mega-
site funding requests will be reviewed and resources allocated on a site by site
basis.
1-23
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
An enforcement mega-site has projects that require more than $200,000 per year
for enforcement actions or over $500,000 per year for RI/FS oversight. Regions
are required to develop and submit enforcement mega-site plans to the CERCLA
Enforcement Division (CED). Enforcement mega-site requests will be fully
funded wherever possible. (See Chapter IV for additional information on mega-
sites.)
Contract Management — During FY93, program emphasis should be placed on
ensuring contract management. Full implementation of the ARCS and Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP) task force recommendations remains a high priority.
Also, HQ and Regions must continue to focus on the management and control of
the ARCS program management costs to achieve Congressionally mandated
goals. Implementation of the Long Term Contracting Strategy (LTCS) will focus
on the phase-in of new contracts, most of which are delegated to the Regions for
management.
Make effective use of other agency expertise — It is important that EPA make
full use of construction management expertise available from the USAGE and the
BUREC, and that EPA staff avoid duplicative oversight of projects assigned to
these agencies. The USAGE has a mission assignment from EPA to provide
technical assistance, review RI/FS projects, oversee PRP RDs and RAs, and
conduct RDs and RAs depending on their estimated cost. Pursuant to OSWER
Directive 9242.3-08, RD assignments can be made to the ARCS contractors or the
USACE/BUREC at the Region's discretion. RA assignments with an estimated
cost over $15 million must be issued to the USAGE.
Information management — Continue the efforts toward making CERCLIS/
WasteLAN more of a management tool for the Regions. This includes integrating
the information needs external to OSWER (e.g., Office of Regional Counsel
(ORC), OE and DOJ) into the CERCLIS information management environment,
implementing and integrating project and program management tools (e.g., the
Superfund Management and Reporting Technology (SMARTech), and the Reme-
dial Pipeline Project Management (RP2M) System), and reporting technical data
using WasteLAN (e.g., El and RA information). HQ will continue to work with
the Regions to expand the use of CERCLIS/WasteLAN for these and other man-
agement initiatives.
Building public confidence — In the past three years the Agency has taken major
steps in improving the communication of the ongoing efforts of the Superfund
program and the progress being made in site cleanup. These efforts started in FY
90 with the implementation of the El program and the publishing of the NPL
Books. In FY 92, OWPE initiated a communication and outreach effort. Work-
ing closely with OERR, OWPE developed a format for telling site specific stories
of Superfund at Work. The Superfund at Work success stories, which will con-
tinue to be prepared in FY 93, demonstrate both the effort and results of the
program to key external audiences. In FY 93 and beyond, the Agency will look to
the S ACM as a means to communicate the successes in risk reduction.
Better communication of this type of information to Congress and the public will
help build confidence in the Agency and the Superfund program.
1-24
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EQUITY
The third key principle, equity, focuses on two key players in the Superfund arena - the
PRPs and the State. With respect to the PRP involvement in the Superfund program, the follow-
ing goals have been established:
• Equitably seek settlement for PRP response earlier in the process;
• Achieve early and appropriate settlement with collateral PRPs;
• Maximize cost recovery to the Trust Fund; and
• Send a clear message to the PRP community that recalcitrance is costly.
To reach these goals, the following priorities have been identified for FY 93:
• PRP search/compliance enforcement — A high-caliber PRP search is the founda-
tion of EPA's enforcement process. It must focus on obtaining the necessary
evidence of the liability and financial viability of all PRPs for Section 106 and
107 litigation. Regions should consider starting the PRP search earlier (i.e., at the
PA/SI phase). The focus should continue to be on thorough PRP searches with
the assistance of civil investigators. Also, Regions are encouraged to use admin-
istrative subpoena authorities in cases of non-compliance with information re-
quests issued under Section 104(e) and, if necessary, use statutory penalty provi-
sions to enforce compliance. PRP search activities should continue even if Re-
gions are unable to start the RI/FS as planned. If the start of the Rl/FS is delayed,
the actions that follow the RI/FS start should also be delayed.
• Achieve early and appropriate settlement with collateral PRPs — The main
objective of the early de minimis settlement strategy is to reduce PRP transaction
costs, preserve government resources, and settle with eligible de. minimis parties
quickly. Regions should use the data derived from waste-in lists, volumetric
ranking and Section 104(e) information to perform an allocation of responsibility.
Regions may also consider preparation of a Non-Binding Allocation of Responsi-
bility (NEAR) if it would assist in settlement. Regions should use an AOC for
early de minimis settlements.
Under EPA policy, the Agency generally will not pursue a generator or trans-
porter of municipal solid waste without site specific evidence that hazardous
substances were contained in the municipality's contribution of waste. However,
an increasing number of third party suits have been instituted against municipali-
ties. As a result, HQ is preparing guidelines to be used by the Regions in reaching
settlements with municipalities.
• Cost recovery — Cost recovery actions recover revenues to the Fund. An active
cost recovery program also will encourage voluntary PRP cleanup action by
eliminating incentives for PRPs to allow the government to conduct the response
action. In FY 93, the Agency will be re-examining its cost recovery strategy. The
focus of the cost recovery program will be on selecting and developing the best
cost recovery cases that will maximize recovery of Trust Fund monies. The
President has set a goal of recovering $300 million in FY 93 in his Management
By Objectives (MBO) system. The most significant step the Regions can take to
1-25
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
meet this goal is to initiate each cost recovery negotiation with a demand for 100
percent of all eligible costs. Ensuring timely completion of cost documentation,
issuing demand letters and addressing SOL sites will also help EPA reach the
President's goal. Regions must also pursue viable non-settlors where a partial
settlement was reached. In some cases, Regions may consider deferral of waiver
of past costs against settlors for response work and pursue non-settlors for recov-
ery of past costs. Such actions will reinforce the perception that recalcitrance is
costly.
States continue to play an important role in the Superfund enforcement process. Regions
are encouraged to enter into Cooperative Agreements (CAs), Superfund Memoranda of Agree-
ment (SMOA), or other management assistance agreements when the State expects to play a
significant role. State roles in the RD/RA negotiation process should be clearly defined prior to
the negotiations. Use of SMPs will ensure that all parties are aware of their roles, the timeframe
for negotiations, and the strategy that will be employed.
OTHER SUPERFUND RELATED PROGRAMS
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Program
The main goal of the Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Program
(CEPP) is to prevent harmful releases and to prepare for and respond quickly to chemical acci-
dents when they do occur. The program's authorities are CERCLA and the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), also known as Title HI of SARA.
CEPP's FY 93 STARS measures focus on key activities to meet the above goal; specifically,
technical assistance and training activities, chemical safety audits, and the Accidental Release
Information Program (ARIP) measure aimed at gathering and analyzing information on acciden-
tal releases and prevention methods (See Exhibit 1-6). SARA Title HI enforcement measures are
also included. CEPP activities are geared toward building state and local capacity while prepar-
ing groups to receive planning-related information generated as a result of the Clean Air Act
Amendments, the Oil Pollution Prevention Act, and the Hazardous Material Transportation
Uniform Safety Act.
With the implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, CEPP will also be
involved in developing guidance and regulations required under the Clean Air Act Accidental
Release provisions. These provisions build upon CEPP's existing initiatives to reduce the
number and severity of chemical accidents.
CEPP STARS information does not need to be entered into CERCLIS. The reporting
mechanism is outside the CERCLIS system.
Natural Disaster and National Security Emergency Preparedness (NSEP) Prngrams:
The Plan for Federal Response to a Catastrophic Earthquake was mandated by the Earth-
quake Hazards Reduction Act. In FY 91, the Plan was officially broadened to cover
Federal response to all catastrophic, natural and technological disasters, including earth-
quakes, hurricanes, floods, and terrorism. It was renamed the Federal Response Plan for
PL-93-288 (the Stafford Act). The Plan, which has been developed and signed by 28
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 these kind of disasters. EPA's responsibility in plan development is to act as
1-26
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
the primary agency for Emergency Support Function (ESF) #10 — "Hazardous Materi-
als," and as a support agency to other ESFs. All EPA Regions must develop a Regional
annex or supplement to the Plan in order to coordinate with other Federal departments
and agencies utilizing ESF #10 for catastrophic disasters. Regions that have more than
one of the 13 identified high-risk, high population areas for a catastrophic earthquake
within its boundaries must develop a specific hazardous materials annex supplement for
each risk area. This annex supplement operationally identifies how the Agency and its
support agencies would respond to multiple hazardous material incidents during a cata-
strophic earthquake.
For National Security Emergency Preparedness, Regions participate in developing plans
to prevent or minimize the impact of hazardous agents that may be introduced into the
environment by a national security emergency.
EXHIBIT 1-6
CEPP STARS TARGETS AND MEASURES
ACTIVITIES
Technical assistance and
training activities conducted,
sponsored, developed,
assisted in developing,
participated in or presented
byEPA(CEP-l)
ARIP quesnonaires returned
by facilities having releases
(CEP-2)
Chemical safety audits
conducted (CEP-3)
Adminstrative Complaints
referred to ORC (C/E-1)
Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Program
The Agency shares responsibility with the United States Coast Guard (USCG) for imple-
menting major provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). EPA will review area contin-
gency plans, issue regulations for facility response plans for non-transportation related facilities,
implement recommendations of a report to Congress on liners or other means of secondary
containment, inspect removal equipment at facilities, and address liability issues. The Agency
will approve certain facility response plans and conduct area drills. In addition, Regional offices
will assist SERCs, Indian Tribes and LEPCs in coordinating and linking facility response plans
with community response plans developed pursuant to EPCRA.
In FY 93, OSWER will focus on developing guidance or regulations for the review and
approval of Facility Response Plans and EPA's expanded response and enforcement activities in
oil spills and hazardous substances. The guidance is needed so that EPA may address the OPA's
1-27
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
requirement to approve by February 1993 with a possible two year extension to 1995 response
plans for all oil storage facilities which pose a threat of "significant and substantial" harm to the
environment. OSWER will also work with the Regions to develop risk-based decision criteria
for a range of EPA responses (from consulting to directing) to oil spills.
In FY 93, HQ and the Regions will continue to work to decrease the environmental
damage caused by oil spills. The activities to prevent oil spills will be expanded by:
• Increasing the numbers of inspections and targeting these at the highest risk
facilities. Where inspection discloses violations, enforcement actions will be
taken in an effort to prevent problems before they occur;
• Planning and conducting responses to oil spills with a goal of minimizing pollu-
tion and subsequent environmental damage, including increasing the number of
removal orders issued;
• Increasing the number of enforcement penalty actions taken as a result of oil or
hazardous substance discharges;
• Evaluating the Agency response to spills to determine the most appropriate
response to spills of varying severity; and
• Improving the science of oil spill response through efforts with other EPA offices
and industry groups to sponsor new technologies, such as bioremediation.
The STARS targets and measures for the Oil Pollution Prevention Program are contained
in Exhibit 1-7. Definitions can be found in Volume II, Appendix B.
1-28
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT 1-7
OPA STARS TARGETS AND MEASURES
STARS
REPORTING
STARS
TARGET
Spill Prevention Control
& Countermeasure
(SPCC) Inspection
Completion (OPA -
Ha))
Facilities with SPCC
Violations (OPA-2)
EPA Responses to Oil
Spills (OPA-3(a))
Responsible Party
Responses Conducted
Under OPA (OPA -
3(b))
Number of Oil Spills
Reported in the
Emergency Response
Notification System
(ERNSMOPA-4)
Violations of Section
311(j)And311(b)(3)of
the Clean Water Act
(CWA), as Amended
by OPA, Addressed
Through Enforcement
Actions
1-29
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER n
SUPERFUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER II - SUPERFUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
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.
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS) data must reflect the
latest project and site information in WasteLAN at least monthly,
as of the close of business on the fifth working day of the
following month.
• On the fifth working day of each month, HQ pulls official
planning and accomplishment data from CERCLIS to support a
variety of official reporting requirements including Superfund
Quarterly Management Reports, and Superfund Comprehensive
Accomplishments Plan (SCAP)/Strategic Targeted Activities for
Results System (STARS) quarterly reporting.
• Environmental Indicator (El) data are required to be entered into
WasteLAN for completed removals and completed RAs quarterly,
and for ongoing RAs annually.
• Regions must update the National Priorities List (NPL) Book site
fact sheets annually. HQ will publish updates to the NPL book
once a year.
• Regions, as data owners, are responsible for entering data and
ensuring the data accurately reflects actual plans and
accomplishments. Source documents to support accomplishments
must be in official site records maintained in the Regions.
• HQ program offices, as data sponsors, are responsible for entering
targets, reviewing the accuracy of the data that Regions enter, and
pulling planning and acomplishment data for negotiations, AOA
generation, and program evaluation purposes.
Il-i
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER H - SUPERFUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM INFORMATION NEEDS AND SYSTEMS
Effective management of the Superfund program requires the availability of accurate
information on Superfund sites throughout the country. National program managers must monitor
and oversee a complex, multi-billion dollar program that is carried out largely by the Regions, with
support from States, the USAGE, and others. In doing so they mustreport to Congress, the Executive
Branch and, ultimately, the public.
More specifically, managers are involved in program planning and budgeting, negotiating
Regional targets, monitoring and measuring program and site progress, estimating and tracking
costs, and developing policies and procedures to ensure consistency and enhance the program's
effectiveness.
In the mid-1980s, separate data bases were maintained for each of the Superfund program
areas and for other specific information purposes. This separation of data made it difficult to obtain
an integrated view of the program's efforts at an individual site, and also complicated program-wide
planning and accomplishment tracking. CERCLIS was subsequently developed as an integrated
system to hold national site assessment, remedial, removal, enforcement, and financial information.
To facilitate Regional use of the information in the centralized CERCLIS data base, a local area
network (LAN) version of CERCLIS, called WasteLAN, was implemented. In this manual, the term
CERCLIS is used when discussing official program data and HQ information management tools. It
will also be used to encompass both the CERCLIS (site specific) and CERHELP (non-site specific)
data bases. WasteLAN will be used when discussing rules for the Regions to follow when entering
and updating site and non-site information.
Examples of site-based information reflected in CERCLIS/WasteLAN include: site identi-
fication and characteristics data, whether each site is proposed, final, or deleted from the NPL,
planned and actual events and activities being undertaken by the program to address site problems,
the lead for each event or activity, technologies being employed to clean up sites, and planned and
actual expenditures at each site.
The breadth and complexity of the Superfund program has expanded every year, and systems
development activities must continue to keep pace with the increasing amount of cleanup related
information that must be recorded and reported. Realizing that the increased need for information
called for aggressive systems development strategies, EPA managers began integrating existing
program and project management tools and data bases into CERCLIS. In a few short years, the
Superfund systems environment has evolved from the centralized, keypunched data entry of
Regional data to a nationwide network of accurate, available, and sharable data. Superfund's
integrated information management components assure that all data users are working from the same
baseline. This eases the complex job of reporting and tracking Superfund program information.
The remainder of this Chapter provides information on the systems used for collection and
storage of the data needed by the Superfund program, the tools and reports that facilitate usage of the
information, the systems used for collection and storage of the data needed by the Superfund
program, and measures being taken to ensure that data quality is maintained in these systems.
n-i
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CERCLIS
CERCLIS is the official repository of all Superfund data. It contains the official inventory
of CERCLA sites and supports current site planning and accomplishment reporting functions. In
CERCLIS, financial data are integrated with data from the site assessment, remedial, removal, and
enforcement programs. CERCLIS allows for the centralized updating and reporting of site planning
and cleanup information. OWPE, OERR and OE rely heavily on CERCLIS for information on plans
and accomplishments, and they use the data base to generate national reports and perform program
analyses. CERCLIS also drives many other Superfund system components.
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, OU, event, enforcement
activity, technical and financial information. In CERCLIS, site assessment, removal and remedial
activities are called "events". Enforcement actions are labeled "activities".
CERHELP contains information such as SCAP/STARS targets and accomplishments, AOA,
budget and information on non-site/incident activities. The CERHELP data base contains the
following separate files:
• The Targets and Accomplishments System is the data file used for setting and
tracking SCAP/STARS targets. Preliminary and final Regional SCAP/STARS
commitments are entered into the system by the HQ SCAP Coordinators. Target
data are updated by the Region to reflect SCAP adjustments and by HQ to reflect
approved amendments. Regional reporting of non-site/incident accomplishments
is also performed through this system. Data from this system are used in all
official SCAP target and accomplishment reports, and are the baseline for Re-
gional evaluation.
The Budget Control/Advice of Allowance (BC/AOA) file is used by HQ for
SCAP budget development and control, and for tracking and reporting on the
AOA process.
• Planning and tracking of non-site/incident activities and financial data are accom-
plished through the Non-Site/Incident Activity System. Regions are responsible
for entering and maintaining SCAP non-site specific information.
Using CERHELP, Regions are able to trackplanning data and reconcile site specific planning
in CERCLIS with the AOA and SCAP/STARS targets. CERHELP serves as an important
management tool for both Regions and Headquarters.
In the past, CERCLIS was primarily used to support STARS and SCAP planning and
accomplishment reporting requirements. Prior to FT 89, Regions were required only to assure that
data were up-to-date before the quarterly planning and accomplishment data was pulled. In FY 89,
CERCLIS data became the basis for major periodic reports that served national information needs
(other than SCAP/STARS) on Superfund planning and progress. These reports provided historic,
current, and future information on Superfund sites at the national, Regional and State levels. The data
for these reports are pulled from CERCLIS on a monthly basis. As a result, CERCLIS data must
reflect the latest information in WasteLAN at least monthly, as of the close of business on the fifth
working day of the following month.
CERCLIS provides valuable information to a broad range of users. For example, public
access is provided to CERCLIS Superfund data that have not been designated as confidential under
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These data are provided to private citizens, public and
II-2
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01H-1
private interest groups, and industry (see Appendix H for FOIA information). Site name, description,
location, NPL status, and current site activity are of particular interest to some of these groups; these
data are not always critical to internal management reporting requirements.
In many cases, ad hoc requests from Congress can also be answered using data contained in
the CERCLIS data base. The more up-to-date and complete Superf und site data are, the better outside
requests can be satisfied by queries of the CERCLIS data base, reducing the need for HQ to make
special data requests of the Regions.
There are also data elements in CERCLIS that are used as a link to other data Agency
bases. For example, the EPA Identification Number (EPA ID) is supplied by the Facility Index
System (FINDS) and is used in data bases throughout EPA and other Federal agencies. Through
the use of FINDS, data on toxic releases (Toxic Release Inventory System), water pollutant
discharges (Permit Compliance System), and RCRA sites (Resource Conservation and Recovery
Information System), as well as other systems can be linked to CERCLIS information. The Zip
Code is used by the Geograph data base to provide system generated data to CERCLIS on site
latitude, longitude, hydrogeologic unit, standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA), county
name, county code, and Congressional district. The Superfund account number is used in
CERCLIS and the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) to link CERCLIS and IFMS
financial data. Although some of these elements are not critical to SCAP or STARS, they are
very important to the efficient running of the CERCLIS data base and related Agency programs.
WASTELAN
The site and non-site incident data in CERCLIS and CERHELP are also available to the
Regions in WasteLAN. WasteLAN maintains the Regional CERCLIS data base on multi-user LANs
featuring personal computers (PCs). The implementation of WasteLAN brought national consis-
tency to hardware and software configurations, while still providing the ability to address Region-
specific needs. Regions update site/project and non-site/incident specific planning, and target and
accomplishment information in WasteLAN. WasteLAN also allows Regional users to enter and
track customized information not required by the official CERCLIS system. Regions regularly
upload all of the data required by HQ directly from WasteLAN to the CERCLIS data base. Since
all official SCAP/STARS accomplishments and planning data are pulled from CERCLIS on
the fifth working day of each month, Regions must ensure that CERCLIS accurately reflects
the project and site information contained in WasteLAN.
WasteLAN and its applications are designed to meet the following three objectives:
• Support Regional program management - Regional program management needs
are supported by the use of an integrated data base that provides information for
program evaluation and management reporting of SCAP/STARS plans and
accomplishments. The Superfund Management and Reporting Technology
(SMARTech) is also used to support Regional program management. (See the
SMARTech section later in this Chapter for more information.);
• Provide key information to the mainframe - Information is entered into
WasteLAN. The system electronically transfers a copy of the data to the
CERCLIS mainframe data base; and
• Support site project management - Site project management needs are supported
by the detailed site and contract level data. The Remedial Pipeline Project Man-
II-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
agement (RP2M) system is also used to support Regional site planning and
project management. (See the RP2M section later in the Chapter for more infor-
mation.)
Two specific enhancements have been added to WasteLAN in the past year—Environmental
Indicators and RP2M — and are described below.
Environmental Indicators
The purpose of the El effort is to provide Superfund management, Congress, and the
public with direct evidence of environmental progress that results from Superfund cleanup
actions. Data are required to be entered into WasteLAN for completed removals and completed
RAs on a quarterly basis, and for ongoing RAs on an annual basis. Data are reported to support
the following three indicators:
• Reducing Immediate Threats: Controlling Threats to People and the Environment
- measures the extent to which acute threats to human health and the environment
have been reduced or eliminated at both NPL and non-NPL sites. This indicator
provides data on preventing exposure to contaminated materials through the
provision of site security, population relocation, alternate water supply, or the
treatment, removal, or containment of hazardous wastes;
• Progress Toward Permanent Cleanup Goals - measures progress toward the
achievement of cleanup goals established in the ROD for each contaminated
medium at NPL sites (land, surface water and ground water) in terms of three
degrees of goal achievement - full achievement, partial achievement, and cleanup
underway;
• Bringing Technology to Bear: Removing Contamination from the Environment -
measures the volume of contaminated material treated (on-site or off-site), re-
moved (to off-site landfills or approved storage facilities), or contained on-site at
both NPL and non-NPL sites.
In response to the Regional suggestion that El data be directly recorded and updated in
the WasteLAN/CERCLIS environment, a system for direct entry and reporting of El data by the
Regions was made available with the November 1991 release of WasteLAN. A screen interface
incorporating the site ID and event, media, materials, technology, chemicals, and receptor infor-
mation allows Regions to enter and update El data directly through WasteLAN. In addition,
routines to upload El data from the Regions to HQ, as well as standard data entry/turnaround
reports and site summary reports were developed.
HQ will continue to evaluate the ability of the current indicators to measure environmen-
tal progress. Studies will continue to identify other measures of progress in the areas of popula-
tions protected, ecological change, and contaminant concentration reductions. This work will
build on pilot studies that were conducted in the Regions in FY 91.
The goal is to rely upon existing national ecological data bases as much as possible to
develop additional indicators, and to take advantage of geographic information system capabili-
ties where possible. This approach will allow the program to build a solid foundation of environ-
mental information for developing ecological indicators with a minimum of additional Regional
effort.
II-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
As the Superfund program begins to rely more upon environmental indicators of
progress, geographic data gains more significance. For that reason, it is important that latitude
and longitude data recorded in CERCLIS be as accurate as possible.
RP2M
The Remedial Pipeline Project Management (RP2M) module of WasteLAN was devel-
oped to meet the project management needs of Regional RPMs and Section Chiefs. RP2M
provides an easy-to-use scheduling/planning system that provides site-by-site information.
Specifically, RP2M builds on the joint OERR/OWPE Links project, the Region V
RODEIS (ROD and Enforcement Information System), and the Region IMILSTONE project to
display Fund and enforcement data in an integrated manner and allow for simplified data entry.
RP2M is based on the formulation of project "templates". Templates can be customized based
on Regional or site needs to include milestones and subevents depending upon lead. These
templates form the foundation for project schedules. The system's cascading date feature allows
users to easily revise schedules. By changing one milestone date, all subsequent associated dates
can be set to change automatically.
RP2M generates the following four management reports:
• Summary Listing, which present all events, activities, subevents, and milestones
for a site, along with lead and planned and actual dates.
• Gantt Chart Report, which includes all events, activities, subevents, and mile-
stones with their respective durations at a given site. Actual and planned dates are
presented graphically starting with the discovery year.
• NPL Status Report (Region-wide or site-specific), which displays text on the last
RA, and the legal actions needed for the active site. Key personnel associated
with the site such as the RPM, DOT attorney, hydrologist, and toxicologist are
also listed.
• Calendar Report, which displays planned activities for the site for the present
month or the next ten months.
Following system implementation in FY 92, user's needs are being reassessed, which will
possibly result in system enhancements in FY 93.
NPL BOOK
Although deletion of a site from the NPL is not the only measure of Superfund progress,
it is the measure that receives the greatest focus. Focus on this measure often results in Congres-
sional and public criticism of the program's perceived lack of progress. The site cleanup process
takes several years and often represents multiple investigations, evaluations, removals and RAs.
One of the recommendations in the Superfund Management Review was to better communicate
the ongoing efforts of the Superfund program and the progress that is being made in site cleanup
activities.
Toward this goal, the Agency developed the NPL Books. These books are a concise,
readable compendium of site descriptions and the status of cleanup for all proposed, final, and
II-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
deleted NPL sites. They describe site history and location, major contaminants and human
health threats, NPL listing information, response actions ongoing and completed, environmental
progress, and plans for the future.
The NPL Books are published by State. Each book contains a short State summary and
the individual site summaries. (Appendix G provides a sample site fact sheet, which was pub-
lished in the first edition.) A companion book contains a national summary of the Superfund
program. It also includes: definitions; key to symbols; list of NPL sites by State; summary
status of NPL sites; summary of how NPL sites have been addressed; and environmental
progress statements.
The initial development of the NPL Books in FY 90 required a large contractor supported
data collection effort by OPM. This effort was designed to gather all information required for
the site summaries from site discovery to current status. Preparation of subsequent editions of
these books requires review and updating by Regional staff.
Regional personnel will be asked to review and update site summaries in the March-April
timeframe and return them to HQ for editing, formatting, and publishing. Summaries for sites
newly proposed to the NPL will be drafted by HQ from available information and sent to the
Region for review and correction. The NPL Books will be published annually by HQ.
NPL Production Assistance Database (NPL-PAD)
The National Priorities List-Production Assistance Database (NPL-PAD) is a system
developed to allow the Regions to regularly update the information in the NPL Books. This
LAN-based application was developed in response to a Regional need to have access to more up-
to-date site summaries more frequently than annually to answer public inquiries.
NPL-PAD is a separate application residing on Regional LANs; it uses WordPerfect 5.1
and interfaces with WasteLAN site information. Among its features, the system prompts the
user when significant milestones have occurred, it allows users to create customized site summa-
ries by adding specific community relations information, and it enables RPMs to report NPL site
progress on a real-time basis. Managers can also use the information to respond to FOIA re-
quests and other public information needs.
The site summaries that comprise the NPL Books were distributed to the Regions on disk
in a WordPerfect format during FY 92 to facilitate the annual update process. Regions will
receive an updated version in FY 93 as the new editions are published.
SMARTech
SMARTech (Superfund Management and Reporting Technology) is a LAN-based system
designed to use WasteLAN data to support the information management needs of Superfund
managers. It is a centralized select logic data base and graphic report retrieval tool capable of
evaluating complex Superfund program management and technical data maintained in
WasteLAN. SMARTech incorporates select logic and functions that are consistent with standard
SCAP and STARS targets and measures, and makes them accessible to users in the LAN envi-
ronment.
SMARTech has the ability to analyze and verify official targets, measures, and accom-
plishments, as well as build and modify the data to support HQ and Region-specific queries, ad
II-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
hoc requests, and "what if scenarios. It allows Regional managers and Information Manage-
ment Coordinators (IMCs) to view individual planning or accomplishment data without retriev-
ing a lengthy CERCLIS mainframe report. Other system features include the ability to run
"reverse logic" to identify why a site has or has not been included in an official count, and
graphics that depict data in a manner that is easily understood by managers.
CERCLIS DATA QUALITY
All data base users are concerned with the quality of the data that they enter and analyze.
Data entry screens, data entry edits, upload programs, and documentation that summarizes
required data base elements support the users' data quality efforts. The Regions, as data owners,
enter data, ensure that data accurately reflect actual plans and accomplishments, obtain credit for
accurate planning and for accomplishments. Source documents to support accomplishments
must be in official site records maintained in the Regions. The HQ offices, as data sponsors,
enter targets, review the accuracy of the data that the Regions enter, and pull planning and
accomplishment data for negotiations, AOA generation, and program evaluation.
Audit Reports
Focused data quality studies identify key data problems that make it difficult to interpret
data. The Office of Program Management (OPM) commenced an initiative in mid-FY 92 to
address data quality issues in frequently used CERCLIS data elements. A primary goal of this
initiative is to develop data quality tools that identify errors between records. Slated to be com-
pleted in early FY 93, this project relies upon the coordination between Headquarters and Re-
gional Information Management Coordinators (IMCs) to identify and prioritize problematic data,
as well as to test and implement correctional tools.
The ENFR-8 report is sorted site-specifically, and lists all enforcement and response
activities at a site that contain enforcement data entry errors. If there are no enforcement date
errors at a site, the site will not be displayed on the report. The meaning of each audit code is
listed at the bottom of each site summary.
The Emergency Response Division (ERD) is in the process of developing an audit report
that checks for the existence of key data for removal starts and completions.
Data Sponsors
HQ program offices have taken a more active role in identifying their data needs and in
checking data through either the audit reports described above or through focused data studies.
Data sponsors identify and define allowable data element values and develop coding guidance or
rules for each sponsored element or element group. This includes eh'minating duplicate data
entry through either using report select logic to calculate related values, or developing system
specifications to system generate the related value. Data sponsors perform periodic audits or
data quality reviews of data entered and maintained by the Regions to ensure coding guidance is
being properly followed. Sponsors work directly with the Regional IMC or program offices to
resolve and correct data errors or problems. Formal data quality processes and procedures are
developed and implemented, and training is provided to Regions and HQ program offices on
these processes and procedures.
II-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER HI
PROGRAM PLANNING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER III - PROGRAM PLANNING AND
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
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 have complete responsibility for maintaining WasteLAN,
CERCLIS, and selected portions of the CERHELP data base.
• On the fifth working day of February and July, HQ pulls SCAP data
from CERCLIS for negotiation of preliminary and final SCAP/STARS
targets.
• During negotiations, Regions may propose changes in targets to
match the total Regional Superfund resource level.
• The preliminary and final SCAP/STARS targets are established in
March and August, respectively.
• Response and enforcement funding needs identified in January form
the basis for the annual Regional budgets.
• RA cost estimates for the outyear budget should be derived using the
draft FS or the ROD estimates.
• Final "approved" funding requests must be within the annual
Regional budget proposed by HQ.
• Planning and accomplishment data should be updated in WasteLAN
within five days of the occurrence, or schedule/funding change, or at
least monthly.
m-i
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER III - PROGRAM PLANNING AND
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS (continued)
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
HQ will not recognize a SCAP/STARS accomplishment unless it is
correctly recorded in CERCLIS by the specified pull date. HQ bases its
evaluation of Regional performance on CERCLIS data.
On the fifth working day of each month, HQ pulls accomplishment data
from CERCLIS to support a variety of official reporting requirements.
Changes to STARS should not be made simply because a target
cannot be met.
Report STARS accomplishments in the Office of Prevention (OPP)
STARS system.
SCAP/STARS amendments require HQ concurrence and approval.
STARS amendments should be submitted by the Regional
Administrator to the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (AA SWER) by April 15.
Amendments will not be approved unless they are in CERCLIS.
IH-ii
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER HI - PROGRAM PLANNING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
INTRODUCTION
The 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 impact on Superfund resource allocation and program evaluation.
Planned obligations and STARS 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 for-
mally 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 informa-
tion.
RELATIONSHIP OF SCAP TO OTHER MANAGEMENT TOOLS
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, Agency Operating Plan, STARS, 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 operating year's
budget is developed 18 months prior to its beginning. For example, the SCAP existing in the
third quarter of FY 93 will be used to formulate the FY 95 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 FTEs to be made available for distribu-
tion through the workload model. Because dollars for Fund-financed RAs and RDs dominate
Superfund's overall 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 FS or ROD esti-
mates.
The Superfund budget provides the basis for the Agency Operating Plan. The Operating
Plan, which is finalized prior to the FY, establishes the funds available to the Regions for per-
forming Superfund work.
STARS is used by EPA to set and monitor the environmental objectives identified in the
Agency's Operating Guidance for a FY. National and Regional STARS goals for Superfund are
established and tracked through SCAP. STARS targets are a subset of those contained in SCAP.
STARS targets and measures are reported quarterly by HQ and the Regions to the Office of
Pollution Prevention (OPP). OPP tracks Regional progress toward STARS goals on a quarterly
basis as part of the overall Agency performance evaluation process. With the exception of CEPP
measures, HQ will not recognize a STARS accomplishment unless it is correctly recorded in
CERCLIS.
m-i
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
The Superfund workload models distribute FTEs for each program and Region. There
are three Superfund program models: the Hazardous Site and Spill Response model, which
distributes resources for the site assessment, remedial and removal programs; the Technical
Enforcement model which distributes enforcement FTEs; and the Federal Facilities Superfund
Workload model, which distributes resources for response and enforcement activities at Federal
Facilities. SCAP plans form the basis of the workload models. In FY 93, each Region's FTEs
will be frozen at the FY 90 levels provided that the national budget does not increase or decrease
by ten percent. While the freeze ensures that total Regional Superfund resources will not be
affected, shifting of resources within the Region among the different program areas may occur.
This includes shifts between the response and enforcement programs. All shifts will be based on
the FY 93 national budget and the Integrated Priority Setting Matrix (see Chapter 1).
OFFE will coordinate with OERR and OWPE throughout the SCAP process. OFFE will
rely on CERCLIS data in planning, budgeting, tracking, and evaluating progress at Superfund
Federal Facility sites. CERCLIS data is used, in part, to feed the Federal Facilities workload
model. In addition to CERCLIS, OFFE and the Regions will also utilize information gathered in
conjunction with the A-106 Pollution Abatement Planning Process to evaluate the adequacy of
other Federal agency budgeting for Superfund sites. These data will enable OFFE and the
Regions to evaluate actual outlays and accomplishments at Superfund sites in relationship to
budget authorities and obligations. Changes to the A-106 data base, also known as the Federal
Facilities Information System (FFIS), and to the information collection procedures will enable
improved planning and coordination with Federal agencies, and post-funding evaluation of
accomplishments. A-106 data will complement information provided in CERCLIS and will
provide OFFE and the Regions with additional insight into Federal agency planning and cleanup
support.
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 FY;
• Developing planning data for the upcoming FY; 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 and updated as neces-
sary.
The SCAP formal negotiation cycle is a semi-annual process. The focus of the two
formal negotiations is slightly different. Exhibit ni-1 indicates the significant differences be-
tween the February and August negotiating sessions.
The fourth quarter SCAP planning cycle is important because of its direct impact on the
upcoming FY's budget. Regions are required to manage their funds and operate within the
annual budgets established during the fourth quarter update. Non-RA funds within the Region's
budget must be reprogrammed to meet unexpected contingencies.
in-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 H-l
EXHIBIT IIT-1
SCAP PLANNING YEAR
SECOND QUARTER (JANUARY/FEBRUARY/MARCH 1993)
• Regional program office consults with States and ORC on plans and schedules
for the upcoming year
• Revise FY 93 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 FY 93
• Negotiate third and fourth quarter enforcement AOAs
• Negotiate preliminary FY 94 SCAP/STARS targets and measures
• Negotiate preliminary annual Regional budgets for FY 94
• Provide complete site schedules including planned RA obligations to
allow HQ to project the outyear budget (FY 95)
FOURTH QUARTER (JULY/AUGUST 1993)
Establish final SCAP/STARS commitments for FY 94
• Establish FY 94 annual Regional budget
SCAP CHANGE CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
Stability in the SCAP process through the year is essential to the success of SCAP plan-
ning and accomplishment reporting/evaluation procedures. The following procedures are used to
control changes to items in the SCAP:
• Changes (including additions or deletions) to SCAP targets, measures, definitions,
methodologies, planning processes, accomplishment reporting, financial manage-
ment or any other processes described in this Manual must be presented by the
Office Director for the program office proposing the change and have the concur-
rence of both OWPE and OERR;
• All proposed changes must be sent to the Regions and all other program offices
for review and comment prior to implementation; and
• The decision on whether to proceed with the proposed change must be docu-
mented in writing. If the proposed change will be implemented, an addendum to
the Superfund Program Management Manual will be issued.
ffl-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
HO/REGIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Maintaining SCAP in CERCLIS
HQ responsibilities for maintaining the SCAP in CERCLIS include:
• Entering negotiated preliminary and final S CAP/STARS 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 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/
change request process.
Regions have complete responsibility for maintaining CERCLIS/WasteLAN 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 FY, planning and
scheduling all pipeline remedial events and enforcement activities from PRP
search through the NPL deletion process. These data are to be entered into
WasteLAN in the month/day/year (MM/DD/YY) format;
Keeping SCAP planning data current in WasteLAN, including updating site
schedules established at the RI/FS stage and RA cost estimates when better
planning data become available;
Updating the site back-up in the CERHELP Targets and Accomplishments data
file to reflect adjustments to the SCAP throughout the year;
• Reporting accomplishments in WasteLAN as they occur;
Reconciling WasteLAN financial data with IFMS;
Uploading WasteLAN data to CERCLIS on a regular basis;
Entering and maintaining quarterly planning, budget and accomplishments report-
ing in CERHELP for non-site specific activities;
Preparing SCAP amendments and change requests; and
• Tracking and maintaining the enforcement extramural budget.
The IMC is a senior position which serves as Regional lead for all Superfund program
and systems management activities. The following lead responsibilities for Regional program
planning and management rest with the IMC:
IH-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
• Coordinate SCAP/STARS planning, development and reporting;
• Ensure Regional accomplishments in WasteLAN are accurately reflected in
CERCLIS;
Reconcile IFMS data with CERCLIS/WasteLAN financial data;
• Ensure WasteLAN data is accurate and up-to-date;
Provide liaison to HQ on SCAP/STARS 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.
Program Assessment
HQ and the Regions have different roles and responsibilities in Superfund program
evaluation and management, as shown in Exhibit III-2.
The Superfund evaluation process provides managers with an opportunity to meet pro-
gram objectives by:
• Examining program accomplishments;
• Analyzing and discussing issues that affect the successful operation of the Super-
fund program; and
• Initiating changes in program operations or reallocating resources.
The strategy for assessing the performance of the Superfund program is comprised of
monthly and quarterly SCAP/STARS performance evaluation based on CERCLIS data. 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.
In addition to the program management and assessment tools traditionally used by
OSWER, OE will also be utilizing the A-106 Pollution Abatement Planning Process to ensure
sufficient Federal agency funding of response programs. Modifications to the A-106 process
have been made to provide OE, Regions, OMB, other Federal agencies, and Congress with
improved information to evaluate accomplishments at Federal Facilities.
m-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT III-2
EVALUATION RESPONSIBILITIES
REGIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES
Meet quarterly SCAP and STARS targets and
solve performance problems when they arise
Provide quarterly SCAP and STARS data to
HQ through CERCLIS
Maintain CERCLIS data quality at high levels
for Superfund program and project management
Negotiate performance standards that provide
individual accountability for targets
Develop plans for meeting targets
Assess Federal agency needs identified during
the OMB A-106 process
Mil
RESPONSIBILITIES
Provide guidance to the Regions for the
quarterly review, the mid-year assessment,
the year-end assessment
Implement and report on follow-up action
items from the Superfund mid-year assessment
Review quarterly performance data reported
by the Regions and negotiate plans with
Regions for meeting targets
Continually assess program performance and
analyze timeliness and quality of work
Recommend resource reallocation based on
Regional needs and performance
Assure that all staff are informed of the
results of performance reporting
Compare Federal agency budget authorities,
obligations and outlays to monitor cleanup
activities
PROCEDURES FOR ANNUAL TARGET SETTING
The process for the development of SCAP and STARS targets/measures for a FY begins
with the SCAP developed during the second quarter of the previous FY. Preliminary targets/
measures for the upcoming FY are set by early March. All targets/measures are negotiated and
numbers are established only after discussions between OERR, OWPE, OFFE, and the Regions.
In the Regions, a joint review of cornmitments should be undertaken by the program office and
ORC. Final SCAP and STARS targets are negotiated in the fourth quarter (August) between HQ
and the Region. The dates for pulling CERCLIS information that will be used for negotiations
can be found in the Manager's Schedule of Significant Events presented at the beginning of this
Manual.
The negotiation of preliminary and final SCAP/STARS targets and measures has become
complicated as a result of the freeze in Regional FTEs. During negotiations, Regions may
propose changes in targets to match the total Regional Superfund resource level. The changes in
targets must be made in accordance with the Integrated Priority Setting Matrix and the overall
m-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
budget. HQ will work to ensure that the cumulative Regional targets meet national budget
commitments. Preliminary and final target negotiations also will be based, in part, on the defini-
tion of a steady state program as well as the availability of pipeline projects.
The procedures for target setting for the upcoming FY are as follows:
• At the beginning of the second quarter (January) HQ sends to the Regions initial
targets and planning estimates based on the SCAP/STARS methodologies and the
budget for the upcoming FY.
Regions will respond to proposed SCAP/STARS targets/measures by updating
WasteLAN and uploading the information to CERCLIS 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 ORC
should be consulted prior to making these decisions. Remedial and enforcement
projects should be identified as either "Primary" (P) or "Alternate" (A) in the
Activity/Event Planning Status field (C2110 and C1725) in WasteLAN. Primary
projects represent those that have the greatest likelihood of meeting the schedules
in WasteLAN. Alternates represent sites that can be substituted for primary
targets. The negotiated number of primary projects will be used to determine
preliminary SCAP/STARS 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. (See Exhibit in-3 for an example of the use of the Activity/
Event Planning Status field.)
• The Regional response to non-site/incident targets or planning estimates should be
reported in the Targets and Accomplishments file in WasteLAN. The Regional
target or planning estimate must be entered into WasteLAN with the appropriate
activity code and a "Proposed" (P) in the Version data field in WasteLAN. Ap-
pendix A identifies the targets and measures which are planned on a site specific
vs. non-site/incident basis.
• Regions must also identify FY 94 remedial and enforcement funding needs at
NPL sites in WasteLAN. 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 contract vehicle for response funding needs. Appendix E
contains the coding instructions for requesting enforcement extramural budget
funds.
• HQ/Regional negotiations and FTE reconciliation occur during the second quar-
ter. A 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.
• Preliminary targets/measures are set after completion of the negotiations in
March.
m-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT m-3
EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITY/EVENT PLANNING STATUS AND
PRIORITY FUNDING STATUS
ORIGINAL PLAN
Site
Name
(C104)
X
Y
Z
oy.
(CHOI)
01
01
01
Event
(C2101)
C01
C01
C01
Ld
(C2117)
F
F
F
Activity/Event
Planning Status
(C2110)
P
P
A
Plan
Start
(C2132)
91/2
91/4
91/2
Actual
Start Oual
(C2140) (C2103)
L
M
H
Funding
Status
(C3225)
APR
APR
CON
ALT
CON
Budget
Source
(C3229)
R
R
E
R
E
Finan 1
Amount m
(C3230) I
750,000 1
500,000 I
25,000 1
750,000 I
75,000 §
ALTERED PLAN
Site
Name OU Event
(C104) (CHOI) (C2101)
Ld
(C2117)
Activity/Event
Planning Status
(C2110)
Actual Funding
Start Oual Status
(C2132) (C2140) (C2103) (C3225)
Budget Finan
Source Amount
(C3229) (C3230)
91/4
91/2 2/16/91
91/2 3/20/91
ALT
APR
APR
R 750,000
R 500,000
E 75,000
X 01 C01 F
Y 01 C01 F
Z 01 C01 RP
Based on the fourth quarter SCAP reflected in CERCLIS, a second round of
negotiations and FTE reconciliation 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 negotia-
tions are conducted in 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 the removal, remedial, enforcement and Federal Facility
programs will be sent to the Regions. Those remedial events or enforcement
activities that have the greatest likelihood of requiring funding during the FY,
which are within the Region's budget allocation, should be identified by placing
"Approved" (APR) in the Funding Priority Status field (C3225 and C2909) in
WasteLAN. The total of all approved funding must not exceed the budget ceil-
ings or HQ will not initiate negotiations.
m-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
For all events (RI/FS, RD, RA) scheduled to begin during the FY, the "APR"
funding status can only be placed on funds for projects which are coded with "P"
c^nS?™ Plannin§ Status- For example, only RI/FS starts that are primary
^CAP/STARS targets will be used by HQ to establish the RI/FS budget. Projects
with a Funding Priority Status (C3225 and C2909) of "Alternate" (ALT) are
Sr?/uSftOWard ±G P°int °f obliSation- As with primary and alternate SCAP/
STARS targets and measures, projects with alternate funds may be substituted for
approved projects that experience slippage or are deferred due to changing priori-
ties. Activities/projects identified as alternate will also form the basis for any
requests for supplemental funding.
Projects may also be identified with a Funding Priority Status (C3225 and C2909)
of "CON" (Planned Contingency Funds). This code allows Regions to indicate
funding needs for projects that have a medium or high potential for the PRP
assuming lead responsibility. (See Chapter IV for additional information on
coding PRP probabilities.) The financial amounts associated with the event/
activity that has the greatest likelihood of requiring funding would be coded as
"APR." The financial amounts associated with the event/activity that has the least
likelihood of requiring funding would be coded as "CON." (See Exhibit IH-3 for
an example of the use of the Funding Priority Status field.)
The Activity/Event Planning Status also should be updated prior to fourth quarter
negotiations.
*
Any site scheduling or target changes that result from the negotiation of prelimi-
nary or final targets/measures must be entered into WasteLAN by the Regions.
Written concurrence of final 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 database.
Targets and measures, site back-up, and the Regional budget are sent to the AA
for approval in early September. They are then submitted to the OPP as final
STARS targets.
PLANNING FOR NEGOTIATIONS
Regions are required to keep the SCAP data in WasteLAN and CERCLIS up-to-date and
accurate. Changes in planning information (schedules and funds) should be entered into
WasteLAN within five days. If changes affect a SCAP or STARS target or measure or the
approved funding level for a site, the Activity/Event Planning Status and Funding Priority Status
fields in WasteLAN must also be updated.
Semi-Annual Planning Process
As a final check to ensure that SCAP data are up-to-date, Regions should generate
CERCLIS SCAP and Audit reports periodically, especially those Regions that have delegated
responsibility for the information in the WasteLAN data base to RPMs and OSCs. At a mini-
in-9
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
mum, reports should be generated in January and June prior to the major updates for internal
review of the planning data in CERCLIS. These planning data should reflect any adjustments or
approved amendments made to the annual plan. An alternative to using the CERCLIS SCAP
reports is to use SMARTech to ensure that SCAP data in WasteLAN are up-to-date. (See
Chapter U.) Regions should note that changes made in WasteLAN or CERCLIS to site sched-
ules and other planning data will not automatically result in changes to SCAP/STARS targets.
Although Regions have the flexibility to alter plans, they are still accountable for meeting the
targets negotiated at the beginning of the FY. (See the section later in this Chapter on SCAP/
STARS Adjustments and Amendments.)
On the fifth working day of February and July, HQ pulls SCAP reports from CERCLIS.
The data in these reports serve as the 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 data bases are frozen prior to pulling
the reports used for negotiations. As a result, all parties (HQ and the Regions) will have identi-
cal 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 UI-4 presents the CERCLIS reports used by HQ and the Regions in the develop-
ment and negotiation of Regional targets/measures. Following is a discussion of these reports:
• The Non-NPL Site Summary Report fSCAP-1') displays major planned, ongoing
and completed activities for sites that are not on the current NPL. Information on
PRP searches, non-NPL removals, non-NPL removal AOs, etc., are found on this
report. A site must have planned or ongoing work to show up on this report.
The NPL Site Summary Report (SCAP-2) is used by EPA to report planned and
actual events at NPL sites (this report is for internal use only).
• The SCAP Financial Report (SCAP-4) and Financial Summary for Enforcement
(SCAP-4E) 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 to the Regional budgets. Regions are prompted for "APR,"
"ALT," "CON" and "TOTAL."
• The Outyear Planning Report (SCAP-5) is used to identify events and activities
planned to occur over a five year period. This report selects events and activities
planned, final, deleted, removed, or soon to be proposed to the NPL,
• The Target/Negotiation Report (SCAP-16) is used for target negotiations for the
upcoming FY. The activity/event planning flags and other coding requirements
needed to identify a given event/activity as a planned start or completion is in-
cluded in the report.
m-io
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT m.4
SCAP PLANNING/TARGET SETTING CERCLIS REPORTS
SCAP-1:
SCAP-2:
SCAP-4:
SCAP-4E:
SCAP-5
SCAP-16:
SCAP-21:
SCAP-21E:
SCAP 23:
SCAP-27:
SCAP- ??:
ENFR-4:
ENFR-8:
ENFR-25:
ENFR-46:
ENFR-47:
ENFR-49:
AUDIT-26:
AUDIT-40:
Non-NPL Site Summary Report
NPL Site Summary Report
SCAP Financial Report
Financial Summary for Enforcement
Outyear Planning Report
Target/Negotiation Report
Budget Control Report
Financial Report for Enforcement
SCAP/STARS Measures Negotiations Report
Event/Activity Summary Report for NPL Sites
Remedial Pipeline Report
SOL Management Report
Enforcement Data Audit Report
Administrative/Unilateral Orders Issued
Cost Recovery Category Report (CRCR)
Case Budget Requests for Activity/Event
Supporting Primary Targets
Case Budget Modeling Audit Report
Underlying Data and Error Types Report
Enforcement Financial Audit Report
The Budget Control Report (SCAP-21) and Financial Report for Enforcement
(SCAP-2IE) are similar to the SCAP Financial Report and the Financial Sum-
mary for Enforcement (SCAP-4 and SCAP 4E). They provide quarterly and
annual Regional budget ceilings and show the difference between the ceilings and
the total annual Regional budget.
The SCAP/STARS Measures Negotiations Report (SCAP-23) is used for negotia-
tion of SCAP measures and for budget and FTE allocation.
The Event/Activity Summary Report for NPL Sites (SCAP-27) 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 and the deletion of the SCAP note field.
The Remedial Pipeline Report (SCAP - ??) is used to assist the Regions with
planning sites from the ROD through the RA start.
The SOL Management Report (ENFR-4) identifies planned and actual completion
dates and obligations for response activities.
m-ii
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
• The Enforcement Data Audit Report (ENFR-8) is used to monitor enforcement
data quality. The report lists enforcement activities with and without data quality
issues and response actions.
• The Administrative/Unilateral Orders Issued (ENFR-25) contains a list of AOs
and UAOs that have been issued.
The Cost Recovery Category Report CCRCRI (ENFR-46) is used to negotiate cost
recovery targets and track cost recovery actions at sites. It divides sites into a
number of categories based on SOL considerations and planned or actual cost
recovery enforcement activity.
• The Case Budget Requests for Activity/Event Supporting Primary Targets
(ENFR-47) is used to plan the Regional enforcement extramural budget.
• The Case Budget Modeling Audit Report (ENFR-49) is used to identify extramu-
ral budget data quality problems.
• The Underlying Data and Error Types Report (AUDIT-26) is an edit report used
to check data quality.
• A comprehensive Enforcement Financial Audit Report (AUDIT 40) lists those
records with data quality problems and identifies the specific errors.
REGIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORTING
Accomplishments data are entered into WasteLAN by the IMC, RPM, and OSC or are
recorded on Site Information Forms (SIF), Integrated SIFs (ISIFs), CERHELP Non-Site Incident
Activity Maintenance Forms, or other Regional data entry forms, and entered into WasteLAN by
the IMC or designee. Data on accomplishments should be entered into WasteLAN within five
working days of the event or activity. Only accomplishments correctly reported in CERCLIS
will be recognized by HQ. If a Region feels that it has correctly recorded an accomplish-
ment that is not showing in the SCAP/STARS Targets and Accomplishments Summary
Report (SCAP-14), please contact the appropriate HQ office.
Prior to the fifth day of each month, Regions should generate CERCLIS SCAP reports
for internal review or review WasteLAN data using SMARTech. Regions can use the reverse
function in SMARTech to compare WasteLAN data to the select logic used for reporting data on
the SCAP/STARS Targets and Accomplishments Summary Report (SCAP 14). Regions should
perform data quality checks and make adjustments to WasteLAN if the data base does not reflect
actual accomplishments. If a Region is having a problem with WasteLAN data and/or the
WasteLAN to CERCLIS upload process, accomplishment data may be entered directly into
CERCLIS. In any event, Regions need to be sure the information reflected in CERCLIS is up-
to-date and accurate.
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 (e.g., removals, negotiations, RI/
FS starts, RODs, RDs, RA starts, RD/RA CDs, cost recovery referrals). These numbers will be
the official numbers used in any reports of progress given to the Administrator, the Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (AA SWER), the AA for
OE, Congress, and the news media.
IH-12
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01H-1
On the fifth working day of each quarter, HQ pulls SCAP reports from CERCLIS. These
reports are reviewed by HQ to evaluate Regional progress toward SCAP targets and are submit-
ted to OPP for reporting STARS accomplishments. It is important to note that in addition to
reporting accomplishments through WasteLAN to CERCLIS, Regions must verify the accuracy
of the STARS data entered by HQ into the OPP STARS system. If a Region identifies a discrep-
ancy in the accomplishments reported by HQ, they should note it in the STARS system and
contact the relevant HQ program office. Discrepancies must be resolved, generally by the 18th
working day of a quarter.
End of the year accomplishments will be pulled on the fifth working day of October.
Final end-of-year accomplishments will be reported to OPP in November. This allows the
Regions ample opportunity to review end-of-year financial data, ensure that all accomplishments
are accurately reflected in CERCLIS, and determine which commitments were not met. The
commitments that were not met in the prior year are then added to the Regions' targets for the
current year during STARS open season.
CERCLIS Reports for Accomplishment Reporting
Exhibit ffl-5 presents the CERCLIS reports HQ uses to evaluate Regional accomplish-
ments. All are used for reporting and crediting SCAP/STARS targets and accomplishments.
Following is a discussion of these reports:
The SCAP/STARS Measures Report (SCAP-13), SCAP/STARS Targets and
Accomplishments Summary Report (SCAP-14) and Event/Activity Summary port
for NPL Sites (SCAP-27) reports are used by the site assessment, removal, reme-
dial and enforcement programs to provide planned and actual information for
events and activities.
• Financial information and the status of obligations are provided by the Financial
Report (SCAP- 4), Financial Summary for Enforcement (SCAP-4E), Budget
Control Report (SCAP-21) and the Financial Report for Enforcement (SCAP-
2 IE).
Trend Measures Reports Package - OERR, OWPE and OFFE are using SCAP to
evaluate the trends in the average duration for many activities in the remedial
pipeline. These trend measures include RI/FS duration, ROD to RD/RA negotia-
tion completion, ROD to RD start, and ROD to RA start. In FY 92, HQ will
complete development of the trend analysis measures reports.
Progress on 200 RA Starts Report - Under Section 116(e) of SARA, EPA was
required to initiate continuous and substantial remedial action at 200 new NPL
facilities during the period of October 18,1989 through October 17,1991. EPA
acknowledged that the mandate goal could not be achieved. HQ will use this
report to track the progress being made toward meeting the SARA mandate.
Information in this report will be pulled from the RA contract award data field
(C3101 = AC) in CERCLIS.
IH-13
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT m-5
PROGRAM EVALUATION CERCLIS REPORTS
SCAP-4: SCAP Financial Report
SCAP 4E: Financial Summary for Enforcement
SCAP-13: SCAP/STARS Measures Report
SCAP-14: SCAP/STARS Targets and Accomplishments
Summary Report
SCAP-21: Budget Control Report
SCAP -21E: Financial Report for Enforcement
SCAP-27: Event/Activity Summary Report for NPL Sites
Trend Analysis Reports
Progress on RA Starts
HO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Accomplishment data for SCAP and STARS are pulled from CERCLIS at the close of
business on the fifth working day of the month. Each quarter, accomplishment data in CERCLIS
are also used to support formal SCAP/STARS performance reporting. Management bases its
evaluations of Regional program performance on these data. The data are pulled on a selected
number of key indicators of progress in the Superfund (e.g., removal completions, RI/FS starts,
RD/RA settlements and referrals, RODs, RD starts, RA starts, and cost recovery activities).
These numbers are the official numbers used in any reports of progress given to the Administra-
tor, Deputy Administrator, AA, Congress and the media. Detailed management evaluations
occur at two points during FY: the second and third quarters (mid-year assessment) and after the
fourth quarter (end-of-year assessment). (See Exhibit ni-6.)
Quarterly Reviews
The purpose of the quarterly review is to:
• Track Regional progress toward accomplishing quarterly and end-of-year SCAP
and STARS targets;
• Identify and assess problems impacting performance soon after they arise; and
• Work with Regions to develop plans for meeting their targets.
The quarterly review process provides HQ with a way to monitor Regional progress
toward accomplishing program targets. On a national scale, the review process allows HQ
managers to identify trends in program performance and adjust program management strategies
accordingly.
IH-14
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXfflBIT m-6
THE QUARTERLY REVIEW PROCESS
3rd QUARTER
REVIEW
* Evaluate
Program Status
* Report on
Progress of Plans
4th QUARTER
END-OF-YEAR
ASSESSMENT
Evaluate
Program Status
Evaluate Annual
Performance and
Produce National
Progress Report
to Meet Targets
* Distribute DA
Memo
* Provide Input
into Next FY
Resource
Allocation
Process
* Brief Senior
Management
Distribute DA
Memo
Brief Senior
Management
1st QUARTER
REVIEW
* Evaluate
Program Status
* Distribute
Deputy
Administrator
(DA) Memo
* Brief Senior
Management
2nd QUARTER
MID- YEAR
ASSESSMENT
* Evaluate
Program Status
* Develop Plans to
Meet Targets
* Distribute DA
Memo
* Brief Senior
Management
HQ divisions are tasked, usually through a memorandum, to provide a narrative of activi-
ties taking place in the Regions. The primary purpose of this memo is to provide a routine
opportunity for top Agency managers to share their candid assessment of the program goals and
initiatives where the Regions are experiencing success and those that are failing, and the actions
HQ can take to improve Regional performance. These narratives, in conjunction with the quar-
terly performance numbers, are placed in a memorandum to the Deputy Administrator (DA),
giving a more balanced and thorough view of program status and issues. The memoranda con-
tain the most significant issues/activities and performance highlights from the previous quarter,
and may include information on removal actions in the news, emergency response activities, a
Total Quality Management (TQM) project taking place in a Region, and the like. It gives OERR
and OWPE the opportunity to convey important issues, instead of merely presenting SCAP/
STARS numbers.
In addition to reporting accomplishments through CERCLIS, Regions must verify the
accuracy of a subset of this data entered by HQ into the OPP STARS system. The STARS
accomplishments discrepancy resolution deadline is usually the 18th business day following the
end of the quarter. After the Regions have finalized their CERCLIS entries and tile DA Memo
IE-15
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
has been distributed throughout OERR, OWPE and the Regions (between 20 and 30 business
days following the end of the quarter), OERR and OWPE evaluation staff brief the AA's office
on response and enforcement program accomplishments made in that quarter.
Mid-Year Assessment
The focus of second quarter evaluation activities is the mid-year assessment. The pur-
pose of the mid-year assessment is to provide both HQ and the Regions with an opportunity to
assess performance. 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 STARS targets.
On the fifth working day of April, second quarter SCAP data are pulled from CERCLIS.
Prior to the mid-year STARS briefing (the second week in May), OERR and OWPE Directors
have briefed the AA SWER on the steps being 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; and reallocate resources. The results of the mid-
year assessment can also affect resource allocations for the next FY. This measure of a Region's
ability to meet their targets will be considered in August when final FY 94 SCAP/STARS com-
mitments and Regional budgets are established.
End-of-Year Assessment
Before the end of the fourth quarter, there is a preliminary pull for end-of-year accom-
plishments (the first week of September). This pull is used to project end-of-year accomplish-
ments. It is important to stress that this is only a projection and that the actual pull, on the fifth
working day of October, is likely to be somewhat different than the projected numbers. The
preliminary September pull is primarily used to help HQ prepare for the end-of-year assessment
in November.
In November, HQ conducts the official 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 (e.g., slipped targets and their impact on commit-
ments for the next year). The end-of-year review also notes progress toward implementing
strategies identified in the mid-year assessment, and identifies Regions that might require addi-
tional assistance as the new FY begins.
HQ considers the end-of-year assessment in developing the preliminary targets in mid-
December, as well as in the mid-year SCAP negotiations that are held in February/March for the
FY 93 third and fourth quarters. In this way, the results of the end-of-year assessment have a
double impact. The mid-year and end-of-year assessments follow the same format as the other
two quarterly assessments, with the exception that mid-year and annual data and briefing charts
are given more attention.
Management Reporting
Periodically, reports are pulled from CERCLIS that provide national information on
Superfund planning and progress. These reports must be consistent with the SCAP/STARS
in-16
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
data. It is essential that end-of-month CERCLIS data be up-to-date as of the close of business on
the fifth working day of the following month. (Specific dates are listed in the Manager's Sched-
ule of Significant Events found at the beginning of this Manual.) This is the day that data will be
pulled from CERCLIS to satisfy reporting requirements. It is strongly recommended that plan-
ning and accomplishment data be entered into WasteLAN as events, activities, and slippage
occur.
The following sections provide a brief description of the reports available to support
Superfund program management.
Superfund Management Reports
The implementation of an integrated CERCLIS database and the improvement of
CERCLIS data quality led to the development of a series of senior management reports.
These management tools are designed to supplement conventional quarterly SCAP/
STARS accomplishment reporting by providing a more comprehensive examination of
program activity. The format and content of the reports package has evolved over time to
address a variety of project needs. The INSITEII system was created to ease the process
of generating the Superfund Management Reports and to reduce calculation errors that
arose from constructing these reports by hand. Using data that is downloaded from
CERCLIS, INSITE II provides EPA senior managers with summary graphic reports and
backup site detail information.
In 1990, OERR and OWPE began producing expanded Quarterly Reports. The FY 93
quarterly packages provide graphical representations of the status of SCAP/STARS
targets and accomplishments, as well as analytic summaries of key aspects of the pro-
gram including: status and duration of events; trend analysis of PRP involvement; the
current status of RI/FS and RA projects; cost recovery candidates; and the current status
of negotiations, settlements, and litigation. Analysis of the status of RI/FS and RA
projects is used to support the review of the worst sites first initiative.
The reports, produced quarterly, illustrate the progress being made by the Agency in both
the movement of projects through the Superfund pipeline and in the trend toward in-
creased involvement by PRPs. The quarterly packages produced by OERR are divided
into three distinct sections:
• Report I: Targets and Accomplishments — This section graphically displays
specific SCAP/STARS program targets and accomplishments by Region, the
percent of annual targets achieved in the major site assessment and remedial
program areas, and annual target and accomplishment totals by SCAP/STARS
activity for each Region.
• Report II: Trends Analysis - These graphs present the duration analyses of
pipeline events, including RI/FS Start to RA Start and ROD to RD Start. Users
can request that the duration reports be run for a given FY or Region.
• Report HI: Superfund Historical Performance - These reports provide graphical
presentations of progress made at NPL and non-NPL sites. Various information,
including site, enforcement, budget and project data, are used to present an overall
picture of the Superfund program activities.
ffl-17
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 H-l
Additional management reports produced by OWPE include:
• Cost Recovery Category Report (ENFR-46) - This report lists all completed
removals, RA starts, and certain pre-RA activities that are candidates for cost
recovery. Sites/projects are divided into one of four universes and seven catego-
ries of cost recovery response.
• SOL Management Report fENFR-4) - This report lists all planned and actual
completion dates for removals, RI/FSs, and remedial activities by FY quarter.
Planned and actual obligations for each activity are linked with cost recovery
actions.
• Settlements Master Report (ENFR-3) - This report lists all settlements program-
to-date. Data are divided by settlement category and summarized by FY, Region,
and remedies.
• Litigation Master Report (ENFR-6) - This report lists all litigation cases program-
to-date. Data are divided by litigation type and summarized by FY and Region.
• Negotiation Master Report (ENFR-59) - This report lists all negotiations pro-
gram-to-date. Data are divided by negotiation category and summarized by FY,
Region, milestones, completed negotiations, and ongoing negotiations.
* Administrative/Unilateral Orders Issued (ENFR-25) - This report lists AOs and
UAOs that have been issued.
• Enforcement Data Audit Report (ENFR-S) — This is a comprehensive report used
to monitor enforcement data quality. The report consists of two pages per site;
the first page lists all enforcement data and the second page lists all response data
by site. Enforcement actions without a quality flag are printed on this report.
Summary pages are currently being developed.
SCAP/STARS ADJUSTMENTS AND AMENDMENTS
After targets have been finalized and funding levels developed, the SCAP process pro-
vides the flexibility to modify plans during the year. Modifications to planned targets are termed
either adjustments or amendments. Amendments require HQ concurrence and approval.
Adjustments do not require HQ approval, but may require HQ notification. Amendments and
adjustments should be reflected in CERCLIS by updating the WasteLAN site specific data base
and the CERHELP Targets and Accomplishments data file on an ongoing basis. Exhibit ni-7
lists the major Superfund amendments and adjustments. Exhibit ni-8 describes the procedures
that must be followed when processing amendments.
SCAP amendments should contain the following information:
• Site name and Site/Spill Identification number (S/S ID);
• Event/activity affected;
• Justification/purpose;
ffl-18
-------
EXHIBIT III-7
AMENDMENTS AND ADJUSTMENTS
AMENDMENT
OR
ADJUSTMENT
CHANGE
REQUEST
REQUIRED
PROCEDURES
INCREASE ANNUAL BUDGET
SEE EXHIBIT JH-8 OR CHAPTER V,
EXHIBIT V-3
AMENDMENT
YES, IF
APPROVED
REVISE WASTELAN/CERCLIS; NOTIFY
HQ PDBS, OERR OR CONTRACTS AND
PLANNING BRANCH (CPB), OWPE
DECREASE ANNUAL BUDGET
ADJUSTMENT
INCREASE TOTAL (OWPE AND OERR) ADA
AFTER ISSUANCE WITHIN ANNUAL BUDGET
AMENDMENT
SEE EXHIBIT ffl-8 OR CHAPTER V,
EXHIBIT V-3
DECREASE TOTAL (OWPE AND OERR) ADA
AFTER ISSUANCE
ADJUSTMENT
SEE CHAPTER V, EXHIBIT V-3
INCREASE/DECREASE RA FUNDING BEFORE
ADA ISSUED
ADJUSTMENT
REVISE WASTELAN/CERCLIS
DECREASE RA FUNDING AFTER ADA ISSUED
ADJUSTMENT
SEE CHAPTER V, EXHIBIT V-3
INCREASE RA FUNDING AFTER AOA ISSUED
AMENDMENT
SEE EXHIBIT IH-8 or CHAPTER V,
EXHIBIT V-3
SHIFT FUNDS WITHIN ALLOWANCE AFTER
AOA ISSUED
ADJUSTMENT
REVISE WASTELAN/CERCLIS
SHIFT FUNDS BETWEEN ALLOWANCES AFTER
AOA ISSUED
ADJUSTMENT
SEE CHAPTER V. EXHIBIT V-3
CHANGE ANNUAL SCAP TARGET
AMENDMENT
SEE EXHIBIT IH-8
CHANGE STARS QUARTERLY OR ANNUAL
TARGETS
AMENDMENT
SEE EXHIBIT m-
TARGET SITE SUBSTITUTIONS
ADJUSTMENT
REVISE WASTELAN/CERCLIS
O
en
90
O
§'
cr.
o
55
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT III-8
SCAP AMENDMENT PROCESS
Quarterly or Annual
STARS Targets
Annual SCAP
Target
Increase
Annual Budget
Increase Total AOA
or Increase RA
Funding After AOA
Issued
v J
Memorandum
from Regional
Administrator to
AASWER
explaining reason
for the change.
E-mail from
Regional Branch
Chief to HQ
Director, PDBS,
OERR or Chief,
CPB, OWPE
explaining reason
for change.
E-mail from
Regional Brance
Chief to Director,
PDBS, OERR, or
Chief, CPB,
OWPE. Copy
sent to the
Regional finance
office and HQ
PDBS or CPB
staff.
E-mail from IMC
to HQ PDBS or
CPB staff. Copy
sent to AA SWER
and Regional
finance office.
WasteLAN and
CERCLIS are
updated.
WasteLAN and
CERCLIS are
updated.
WasteLAN and
CERCLIS are
updated.
AA SWER reviews
request and, if
approved, sends
E-mail to Regional
program and finance
offices and HQ
Office of the
Comptroller (OC).
AASWER
approves SCAP
amendment/change
request and sends
E-mail to Regional
program and
finance offices and
HQOC.
' \
Regional finance |
^office updates IFMSy
HQ OC approves
revised AOA in
IFMS.
Regional finance |
office updates IFMSJ
HQ OC approves
revised AOA in
IFMS.
IH-20
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
• Funding amount (if the amendment requests an increase in the annual budget or is
a change request);
• Allowance that is being increased and/or allowance that is being decreased, if the
amendment is a change request; and
Program element (TGB-enforcement, TFA-response, or TYP-Federal Facility), if
the amendment is also a change request.
Amendments or adjustments that modify the Region's AOA require a change request. In
these situations, the change request becomes the SCAP amendment. Chapter V outlines the
change request procedures.
OPM coordinates change requests/SCAP amendments for the program offices in OERR.
OPM and CED of OWPE provide input on SCAP amendment approval decisions.
Changes to STARS 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., Con-
gressional action, natural disasters);
• 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 STARS amendments be submitted to HQ by April 15 in order
to meet the April 30 deadline for changing targets imposed by OPP. STARS amendments must
be approved by AA SWER. The OPM and program offices in OERR, and CED in OWPE,
provide input on STARS amendment approval decisions.
All amendments should be recorded in WasteLAN 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 HQ Office of the Comptroller (OC) and AA SWER
approve the revised AOA in IFMS. The site back-up in the CERHELP Targets and Accomplish-
ments and BC/AOA data files 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 WasteLAN
will have to be revised.
Maintaining the Targets and Accomplishments File
HQ is responsible for entering the preliminary and final negotiated SCAP/STARS targets
and site back-up in the Targets and Accomplishments file in CERHELP. During the FY, 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/
STARS adjustments. Appendix A contains tables which show which targets and measures
require site specific backup in CERHELP.
ffl-21
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01H-1
Following are guidelines for Regional maintenance of the Targets and Accomplishments
file. Additional detailed instructions on CERHELP can be found in the CERCLIS Users Refer-
ence Manual.
• Regions will be allowed to add to or delete sites from the Targets and Accom-
plishments file only in the case of site substitutions. However, the site specific
WasteLAN records should be updated at the time a SCAP or STARS amendment
is requested.
• The number of approved sites named in the Targets and Accomplishments file
must be at least equal to the numerical target. If a Region has a target of eight
RDs, for example, eight approved sites must be named in the Targets and Accom-
plishments 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 WasteLAN
that can be used to replace the TBD sites as soon as possible.
• A site and its associated events/activities that are planned site specifically must be
in CERCLIS before it can be in the CERHELP Targets and Accomplishments
file. FTEs are distributed using site data in CERHELP. Regions may lose FTEs
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 STARS or
SCAP targets.
Following are the procedures for making changes to the CERHELP target site data:
• Each time a change to site data in WasteLAN results in a SCAP adjustment, run
the CERHELP Target Maintenance Report (Report #6 on the CERCLIS Site
Reports Menu).
• Locate the Target Activity Code page on the report (report is sequenced alphabeti-
cally by Target Activity Code).
• Scan target site data to locate site no longer being targeted and delete the EPA
Identification Number (EPA ID), OU and Event or Enforcement Activity Code.
• Record corresponding codes for the replacement site.
• 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, FY,
activity type, lead, quarter and sequence number codes) directly from
report;
m-22
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Enter replacement site data (EPA ID, OU and Event or Enforcement
Activity Codes); and
Run Target Maintenance Report to verify changes. File report for use in
making subsequent changes.
The HQ SCAP Coordinators and interested program offices will run National
Target Maintenance Reports as needed to review changes.
IE-23
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER IV
PROGRAM PLANNING AND REPORTING PROCEDURES
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER IV - PROGRAM PLANNING AND REPORTING
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.
Site Assessment
- In order to receive credit for Preliminary Assessment (PA) and
Site Inspection (SI) completions, the SI start date, the PA and
SI completion date and a decision on further activities must be
entered into WasteLAN.
Removal
The removal investigation completion date must be entered
into WasteLAN.
- Copies of action memoranda with an approved consistency
exemption from the Regional Administrator are to be sent to
the Director, Emergency Response Division (ERD).
- Enter planning data on removal actions into WasteLAN as
soon as a site is identified or the quarter before a removal will
begin.
Regions are required to record the following removal
information in CERCLIS: actual start and completion date,
funds obligated, actual date of the action memorandum, EPA
removal approval official, removal type qualifiers, removal
category, technology type, and chemicals.
- In addition to an action memorandum, removals that result in
the completion of all cleanup work at a site need to have a
ROD prepared and signed stating that all necessary
remediation is complete. The ROD must document that the
site meets the statutory requirements for site closeout.
Response and Enforcement
WasteLAN must identify the lead for all response events and
enforcement activities.
IV-i
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER IV - PROGRAM PLANNING AND REPORTING
PROCEDURES (continued)
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Response and Enforcement (continued')
- Lead changes from EPA to the PRPs in the middle of a phase
of the Superfund process should be limited.
- The probability of PRPs assuming responsibility for response
activities must be entered into WasteLAN.
- For outyear budget purposes, provide schedules for all core
remedial events and enforcement activities when identifying
sites for Rl/FS starts.
- Develop Links site maps that show the relationship of events
and activities at the sites and indicate whether the
event/activity is completed, planned or ongoing. If an event
or activity does not occur as planned, then those
events/activities must be modified and the Link record
deleted and updated as appropriate.
- Standard durations should only be used if more accurate
timeframes for response events and enforcement activities
are not available. When better planning data and schedules
are developed, WasteLAN data must be revised accordingly.
- Send copies of RODs and ROD amendments to the
Hazardous Site Control Division (HSCD) and the CERCLA
Enforcement Division (CED).
- A response mega-site management plan must be submitted to
HSCD by January 31,1993 for all sites where the total site
RI/FS work exceeds or is expected to exceed $3 million.
- Request funds for treatability studies separate from the
RI/FS. Record actual start and completion dates for
treatability studies in WasteLAN.
IV-ii
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER IV - PROGRAM PLANNING AND REPORTING
PROCEDURES (continued)
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Response and Enforcement (continued^
- The nomination and acceptance of a project to the Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program must be
entered into WasteLAN
- Negotiate reimbursement of Technical Assistance Grants
(TAG) at Federal Facilities during Interagency Agreement
(IAG) negotiations.
- Assess the capacity and the capabilities of the various entities
available to perform response and oversight work prior to
assignment of Superfund work.
- Estimates of RA costs must be entered into WasteLAN at
various points along the remedial pipeline.
- Regions must ensure RA cost estimates for RAs scheduled to
begin in FY 95 are reflected in CERCLIS prior to mid-year
negotiations.
- Regions will not receive credit for an RA start unless the
remedial technology type is in CERCLIS.
- Regions will not receive funds for an RA in their Advice of
Allowance (AOA) unless the remedial technology type is in
CERCLIS.
- Mixed funding settlements must be planned. Funds are part of
the Region's response budget.
- De minimis settlements with appropriate PRPs should be
pursued prior to ROD signature.
- Enforcement mega-sites management plans must be submitted
to CED by June 30.
- Send notice letters to PRPs, conduct negotiations and issue
AOs at every removal, time permitting.
IV-iii
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER IV - PROGRAM PLANNING AND REPORTING
PROCEDURES (continued)
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
• Response and Enforcement (continued)
Issue notice letters for RI/FS at least 120 days prior to the
planned RI/FS start.
- Funds expended for oversight of PRP activities must be
tracked and billed to the PRPs. Collection of oversight funds
should be tracked and recorded in WasteLAN.
- Special Notice Letters for RD/RA should be issued about the
time of ROD signature.
- Regions should consult with CED when planning to fund an
RD and riot issue a UAO where there are liable and viable
PRPs.
- Regions should jointly plan PRP negotiations with ORC.
— Send copies of final CDs and 10 point referral documents to
the Compliance Branch in CED and OE-Superfund.
- Regions should follow procedures for requesting language
deviations for nationally significant provisions of the model
CD.
- Regions must provide estimates in WasteLAN of response
settlements/litigation ("R" dollars) and cost recovery
settlements/litigation ("F" dollars).
State Enforcement
Report State orders or CDs for RI/FS and/or RD/RA in
WasteLAN.
Federal Facilities
Schedules for ongoing or planned Federal Facility IAG
negotiations should be forwarded to HQ two weeks prior to
each quarter.
IV-iv
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER IV - PROGRAM PLANNING AND REPORTING
PROCEDURES
INTEGRATED PLANNING
Planning in the Superfund program is accomplished through the budget, operating
guidance, SCAP and the performance evaluation process. Successful planning requires the
reflection of program priorities in the budget and operating guidance, accurate costing of these
priorities in the budget, workload model and SCAP, and translation of the priorities and resource
requirements into specific output commitments in SCAP and STARS. Candid evaluation of
performance against these commitments is essential to assess the viability of program priorities,
resource requirements and overall effectiveness.
Integrated planning is the responsibility of HQ, Regional program offices, the States,
ORC and DOJ. In order to provide adequate resources for priority actions at Superfund sites,
HQ allocates resources within and between response and enforcement. Regions are responsible
for providing data on the level of resources needed to accomplish those priority activities and
negotiate commitments consistent with realistic site planning. Regions should not accept targets
that require completion of activities that cannot be funded or staffed within the resources
provided.
Flexibility to adjust resources in response to changing program conditions decreases as
the operating year approaches, especially since the total number of FTEs remains constant from
FY 90 to FY 93. The budget is most flexible while being developed, 12 to 18 months prior to the
FY, and becomes less flexible once the operating year starts. Exhibit IV-1 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 FY. Development
of the budget includes identification of major program issues, analysis of program
costs, and alignment of resources among competing priorities. These activities
receive resource allocations that are established by the Administrator and AA
SWER. These allocations balance the needs of the Superfund program with the
needs of other Agency programs.
• Development of the initial operating plan occurs six months prior to the FY and is
finalized before the start of the FY. The operating plan and associated SCAP/
STARS output commitments are the vehicle by which OSWER translates national
budget commitments into Region specific targets. OSWER provides resources to
support targets through the AOA and workload process. Regions are expected to
work 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 to shift funds as needed to meet priority
activities. Once the initial operating plan is established at the start of the year,
generally additional resources can be shifted to a Region only at the expense of
resources from other Regions. However, HQ may shift funds among the Regions
depending on the level of use and need.
The mid-year SCAP update is used to realign resources in the current FY and
establish preliminary resource and target levels for the upcoming FY. Current
year resource adjustments focus on changes needed due to cost arid project
IV-1
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT IV-1
FLEXIBILITY SCALE FOR BUDGETING/PLANNING
•MINIMUM-
MAXIMUM"
OPERATING YEAR BUDGET
(FY93)
PLANNING YEAR BUDGET
(FY94)
OUTYEAR BUDGET
(FY95)
1. Operating Plan Establishes
Funding Ceiling (92/4)
2. Quarter Specific Targets are
Set-
- STARS targets can be
changed only through
formal Regional Admin-
istrator request
Sites can be substituted
to meet commitments
3. Pricing Factors are Set -
Cannot Change Pricing on
Events/Activities
4. Additional Funds can
only be Obtained through
Special Requests
5. Regions have Flexibility
within General Budget and
AOA Structure to
Shift Funds to Meet Priority
Activities
6. Mid- Year SCAP Update Used
to Realign Resources
7. Flexibility on Dollars much
Greater than FTEs through
Reg. Reprogramming
1 . Development of Operating
Plan Begins 6 Months Prior
to FY (Begins 93/2)
2. Initial SCAP/STARS Targets
Set in March; Finalized in
August
3. Pricing Factors can be
changed through Regional/
HQ Consensus
4. The Budget is Set but There
is More Leeway to Make Ad-
justments Based on Proven
Need
6. Mid- Year SCAP Update Sets
Preliminary Resource Levels
7. Flexibility on Dollars and FTE
may be Constrained by
President's Budget
1
1. Formulation Begins 12 - 18
Months Prior to FY;
Largely Dependent on Reg.
Planning Data in CERCLIS
(Begins 93/2)
2. No Targets Set but Sche-
dules and Estimated RA
Cost Help to Drive Budget
Request
3. Pricing Factors are Subject
to Review
4. Budget is Constrained
Based on Resource Cap
Imposed by AA and Admin-
istrator Unless Exception
can be Justified
5. Maximum Flexibility to Design
Budget to Optimize
Cross-Program Priorities
IV-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
schedule modifications. Changes may result in shifts within program areas
and among Regions and revised annual funding levels. Estimates developed
for the upcoming FY 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 MA NA GEMENT PROCEDURES
This section describes the information flow and HQ/Regional responsibilities associated
with integrated planning.
HQ responsibilities in the integrated planning process include:
• Establishing a combined Fund and Enforcement hierarchy of program priorities
in consultation with the Regions to be used in negotiations and adjustments of
targets (Integrated Priority Setting Matrix);
• Reviewing integrated operating plans and site commitments proposed by the
Regions prior to negotiations;
• Coordinating OSWER, OE and OFFE activities throughout the planning process;
• Working with Regional managers to determine how resources should be adjusted
to meet program priorities;
• Negotiating and assessing the status of response and enforcement mega-sites;
• Communicating in a timely manner with the Regions on changes/additions to
SCAP schedules;
• Shifting Regional resources if needed to support priority activities;
• Providing the funding and FTE at levels consistent with established pricing
factors for negotiated targets and measures;
• Increasing participation of Regional managers in the formulation of preliminary
resource requests; and
• Developing 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;
• Negotiate and assess the status of response and enforcement mega-sites;
Involve the State and ORC in the planning process;
IV-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
• Provide accurate, complete and timely project planning data in WasteLAN and
assure that data are accurately uploaded to CERCLIS;
• Follow established planning procedures and requirements so that HQ has a com-
mon basis to evaluate Regional proposals;
• Assess Federal agencies cleanup needs identified as part of the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget (OMB) A-106 process;
• Identify multi-media planning and cleanup opportunities; and
• Recognize that missed commitments severely impact resource availability. (For
example, FTE and dollars budgeted for negotiations and/or RD in a FY cannot be
used if the ROD slips past the FY. The FTE cannot be replaced and the funds do
not automatically roll over into the next FY.)
SITE ASSESSMENT PLANNING AND REPORTING PROCEDURES
Preliminary Assessments/Site Inspections
Regions can only be given credit for PA and SI completions if the completion date and a
decision on further activities at the site are entered into the appropriate WasteLAN site record.
In addition, SI start dates must be entered into WasteLAN.
There are four decisions that must be made at the completion of the PA:
• Higher priority for an SI;
• Lower priority for an SI;
• Site Evaluation Accomplished (SEA); or
• Deferred to RCRA or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
There are four decisions that must be made at the completion of the SI:
• Higher priority for HRS scoring;
• Lower priority for HRS scoring;
SEA; or
• Deferred to RCRA or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Expanded Site Inspection (ESP
Expanded Site Inspections (ESI) are reserved for sites that are viable NPL candidates.
Under the revised HRS, an ESI may be many types of activities. For example, a site that has a
soil exposure problem may have an ESI that consists solely of community relations activities and
neighborhood soil sampling; another may involve ground water and air monitoring. The level of
effort and cost for this activity is highly variable.
IV-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
The decisions that must be made after an ESI are:
• Recommended for HRS scoring; or
SEA.
REMOVAL PLANNING AND REPORTING PROCEDURES
Removal Actions
Regions are required to perform a removal investigation at half their NPL sites every
calendar year. During the removal investigation, field data are collected for the purpose of
characterizing the magnitude and severity of the problems at the site, and determining if a
removal or quick response action is warranted. Upon completion of the removal investigation,
either a decision not to perform a removal must be documented, or an action memorandum or
site evaluation report must be prepared. The removal investigation (C2101='RS') completion
date must be entered into WasteLAN.
The nature of removal activities is to respond to emergency, time critical and non-time
critical situations at NPL and non-NPL sites. 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 NCP. Responsible management means having to make some tough decisions such
as deferring the funding of 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 remain the same and responses get more expensive. 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 AOs 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 PRPs for takeover of
cleanup actions or cost recovery. Non-time critical removals with viable PRPs are prime
candidates for PRP actions.
SARA limits removal actions to a cost of $2 million or one year unless an exemption is
approved by the AA SWER. Section 104(c) of SARA allows an exemption from the $2 million
limit if the continued response action is otherwise appropriate and consistent with the RA to be
undertaken. On February 24,1992, the AA SWER delegated the authority for approving these
consistency exemptions at proposed and final NPL sites to the Regional Administrator (OSWER
Directive 9360.2-04). A copy of each action memorandum signed under this authority must be
sent to the Director, ERD.
In addition to the action memorandum, removals that result in the completion of all
cleanup work at a NPL site need to have a ROD prepared and signed stating that all neces-
sary remediation is complete. The ROD must document that the site meets the statutory
requirements for site closeout.
IV-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Removal Planning
Since so much of the removal work cannot be anticipated, Regions are only required to
develop site specific plans one quarter in advance. Each quarter, a plan for the upcoming quarter
is prepared. A Region begins this planning period by identifying sites in WasteLAN which are
candidates for removal work in the upcoming quarter, designating the expected lead, identifying
the funding each action will require and the category of each removal. Valid removal categories
(C2118)are:
TC -Time Critical;
NT - Non-Time Critical; and
• EM - Emergency.
Removal Accomplishment Reporting
In addition to reporting the actual start and completion date and the funds obligated for
the removal, Regions are required to provide additional information on the removal in
WasteLAN. These data include:
• The actual date of the action memorandum (C3101='AM');
Whether an exemption to the $2 million (C3101='ME') or 1 year (C3101='SE')
limit was requested;
• The EPA official authorized to commit and obligate funds for the removal action
(C2109 - Approval Authority);
• Whether community relations activities will be conducted at the site
(C2101='RC');
• Event qualifier (C2103) to identify whether the removal resulted in a total site
cleanup (C2103='C) or a site stabilization (C2103='S');
• Technology type information; and
• Chemical information.
Technology Type Information
This segment of the WasteLAN data base is structured so that Regions first indicate in
general terms what removal work was done at the site using the Technology Information
Type (C3401), and then using the Technology Event Qualifiers (C3402), add more
specific data as it becomes available. For example, a Region indicates in the Technology
Information Type that a natural resource was affected (C3401='NR'). The Region then
must identify the particular natural resources that were affected, air (C3402='AR'), flora/
fauna (C3402='FF') or national forest or park (C3402='NT).
Chemical Information
Chemicals addressed during a removal action are entered to support program manage-
ment and reporting needs. Regions enter the official Chemical Abstracts (CAS) Number
IV-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
associated with the removal in the CAS No. field (C3701). The second field holds the
official chemical name (C3702), and the third field contains the common name for the
chemical (C3703). When the official chemical name is entered, the CAS No. is automati-
cally generated. When the CAS Number is entered, the chemical name is automatically
generated.
RESPONSE PLANNING AND REPORTING PROCEDURES
Project/Event Lead Codes
Project/event lead codes identify the entity performing the work at the site. Exhibit IV-2
shows the valid project/event lead codes.
A lead code must be placed in WasteLAN (C2117) for all response events and enforce-
ment activities. Regions have the ability to code the lead for project support activities (i.e.,
community relations, management assistance, etc.) based on Regional preference. The national
rule for coding project support leads was eliminated in FY 92. All enforcement actions (i.e.,
orders, decrees, PRP searches, etc.) performed by EPA and all RODs resulting from RP and PS-
lead Rl/FS projects should have a lead of "FE" (Federal Enforcement). All enforcement actions
conducted by the State should have a lead of "SE" (State Enforcement). RODs at SN and SR-
lead RI/FS projects should have a lead of "SE." RODs at Federal Facilities have a lead code of
"FF" (Federal Facility). WasteLAN should not contain planned obligations for projects with
"SR" or "SN" leads. No funds will be provided for activities with these leads.
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.
Chanes
A takeover or lead change occurs when the entity performing an event changes after the
event has started and credit has been given. Typically, this occurred when a settlement with the
PRP had been reached after the event started. It may also occur when the Fund assumes a RP-
lead project because of non-compliance with an AO or CD.
In an effort to make additional improvements in the enforcement program, potential
sources of delay were examined in the Superfund 30-Day Task Force Report. The results of the
study indicated that when PRPs assume the lead from EPA during a discrete phase of the project
(a takeover) the remedial process can be significantly delayed.
Because of these delays, a policy has been established that limits lead changes from EPA
to PRPs in the middle of a phase of the Superfund process, except in situations where the change
Sll not cause Mdue delays (OSWER Directive 9800.1-01, Limiting Lead Transfers to Private
Pities DS DiscrrPhases of the Remedial Process, November 14 1991). The policy
apples totead changes from EPA to PRPs only; not EPA takeovers of PRP work or lead changes
involving States.
If a takeover of a remedial or removal event does occur, a new WasteLAN record must
be created ^nd the First and Subsequent Start (FSS) and First and Subsequent Completion (FSC)
rv-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT IV-2
PROJECT/EVENT LEAD CODES IN WASTELAN
SE
FE
Definition
Fund financed response actions performed by EPA (applies to
response events)
PRP financed response actions performed by the PRP under a
Federal order/CD (applies to response events)
Fund financed response actions performed by a State — Money
provided through a CA (applies to response events)
PRP financed response actions performed by PRP under a State
order/CD with PRP oversight paid for or conducted by EPA
through an EPA CA with the State or, if oversight is not funded
by EPA, a SMOA or other formal document between EPA and
the State exists which allows EPA review of PRP deliverables
(applies to response events)
State financed (no Fund dollars) response actions performed by
the State (applies to response events)
PRP response under a State order/CD and no EPA oversight
support or money provided through a CA and np. other formal
agreement exists between EPA and the State
Work performed by the Coast Guard
(applies to response events)
Limited to removals
TL
Preauthorization Mixed Funding work performed by PRP under
a Federal CD with an agreement that the Fund will provide some
reimbursement to the PRP (applies to response events)
Enforcement activities performed by a State — Money provided
through a CA or if not funded by EPA, a comparable
enforcement document exists. (Also applies to ROD events at
SN and SR-lead response events)
Enforcement activities performed by EPA or work done by
enforcement program (also applies to ROD events at
RP and PS-lead response events). Historically (Pre-FY 89)
applied to RI/FS and RD response events
Response activities performed by EPA using in-house resources
Response activities performed by the Federal Facility with
oversight provided by EPA and/or the State at sites designated as
Federal Facilities on the NPL; also applies to RODs at Federal
Facilities
Indian Tribal Governments
IV-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
codes (C2115 and C2116) revised. A takeover does not create a new OU. The original
WasteLAN event must be updated to show the completion date as the date of the takeover The
start date for the new WasteLAN event is also the date of the takeover.
The WasteLAN 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.
The placement of the FSS and FSC codes in the event of a takeover is important. When
the takeover of a remedial event has occurred and work has not proceeded past the workplan
stage, the FSS and FSC codes should be placed with the event which was taken over. (See
Exhibit IV-3 for an example of the takeover coding.) However, if the takeover occurs after the
workplan stage or a removal action is taken over, the FSS code is placed with the original event
and the FSC code is placed with the new event. Exhibit IV-4 shows the proper placement of the
FSS/FSC codes under these circumstance
EXHIBIT IV-3
EVENT TAKEOVER AT WORKPLAN STAGE
OU EVENT
01 CO1
01 CO2
LEAD
RP
F
TAKEOVER
FLAG
T
CO1
ACTUAL
START
7/29/88
11730/88
COMMENTS
SITE WIDE
SITE WIDE
PLAN
COMP.
11/30/88
12/15/90
ACTUAL
COMP.
11/30/88
EXHIBIT IV-4
EVENT TAKEOVER
OU EVENT
01 CO1
01 CO2
LEAD
RP
F
TAKEOVER
FLAG
T
CO1
ACTUAL
START
11/15/87
4/30/89
PLAN
COMP.
4/30/90
2/20/90
ACTUAL
COMP.
4/30/89
COMMENTS I
SITE WIDE
SITE WIDE
When circumstances warrant passing the lead to PRPs during a phase of cleanup, steps
should be taken to minimize potential causes of delay. For example, if PRPs assume the lead
during RI/FS, they should be given a limit of 60 days to enter into an AOC or CD for performing
the work.
If a PRP is allowed to take over an RI/FS after response dollars have been obligated, the
Region should retain the funds needed for PRP oversight for the remainder of the FY and
deobligate the rest. Additional funds for oversight in future years should be obtained from the
Regional enforcement extramural budget. If the PRPs are allowed to take over the RD or RA
after response funds have been obligated, the Region can retain the funds needed to provide
oversight of the entire PRP RD or RA activities. The remainder should be deobligated. RD
funds that are deobligated may be replaced in the Region's AOA and used in accordance with the
flexible funding priorities outlined in Chapter V. Deobligated RA funds must be returned to HQ
for funding of other priority RA projects.
When the Fund originally obligated dollars for response activities and a takeover occurs,
Regions will have to request a change in account number through their Regional Financial
IV-9
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01H-1
Management Office (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.
RP-lead projects that are deficient or where the PRPs are recalcitrant may be addressed
by the response program. If the project requires substantial Fund involvement to correct, it
should be coded as a Fund takeover in WasteLAN.
Lead changes between discrete phases of the Superfund process are preferable to take-
overs. However, lead changes from EPA to the PRPs between the RD and the RA are a concern
because of the potential for significant delay. Therefore, steps should be taken to minimize the
time required for the change. Design changes should be discouraged and Regions should exam-
ine whether any preparations for carrying out the RA would best be completed by EPA before
the PRPs assume lead responsibility.
Probability of PRP Funded Response Actions
During the development of budget planning information, Regions should pay particular
attention to the probability of a PRP assuming responsibility for RD or RA or the potential for a
mixed funding response. Historically, twenty to twenty five percent of each Region's Fund-lead
RI/FS projects result in RP-lead RDs and RAs. Regions should examine the scheduled RD and/
or RA starts in FY 94 through FY 95, ascertain PRP viability and the strength of the enforcement
case, the relative environmental priority of the project, and the likelihood of a PRP assuming the
lead. The likelihood of the PRPs assuming lead responsibility should be recorded in WasteLAN
in the Event Qualifier data element (C2103) with the event(s) that are scheduled to begin. (See
Exhibit TV-5 for an example of coding PRP probabilities.) As better information is received on
the probability of the PRPs assuming responsibility, the qualifier in WasteLAN should be up-
dated.
Valid probabilities are:
H - High, estimated 75 percent or better chance of PRP takeover;
M - Medium, estimated 25 percent - 74 percent chance of PRP takeover; and
L - Low, estimated 24 percent or less chance of PRP takeover.
EXHIBIT TV-5
PRP PROBABILITIES
ou
(cnoi)
01
01
01
01
^^^^^^•••••M
EVENT
(C2101)
C01
R01
RD1
RA1
•MMMMBMMHMMi
TAKE
LD OVER
(C2117) (C2114)
F
F
F
F
•••^^^^^^^^•^••^••mijj — "" ' •
PLAN ACTUAL
START START
(C2130) (C2140)
3/30/88
1/10/91
8/5/91
IMHBH^^^^^^^H^HMBMMBiM^H^^^^
PLAN
COMP
CC2131)
9/30/90
9/30/90
5/3/91
7/1/92
ACTUAL
COMP QUAL
(C2141) (C2103) 1
1
M
M
^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^__^^^^^^_^^^^^^
IV-10
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
First and Subsequent Starts and Completions
FSS and FSC codes (C2115 and C2116, respectively) are used to identify and character-
ize the sequencing of event starts and completions at a site. They are not used for enforcement
activities. ROD events do not receive planned or actual start dates and, as a result, do not receive
FSS codes. If an event does not have actual dates, the FSS and FSC codes are determined by the
planned dates. One of the codes shown in Exhibit IV-6 must be assigned to each remedial event
as it is entered into WasteLAN. Exhibit IV-7 illustrates the use of FSS/FSC codes. Mass FSS/
FSC data generation routines have been implemented to ease data entry and maintenance bur-
dens. When a date is changed in WasteLAN for a project that causes the existing FSS/FSC
codes to be invalid, the Region can use the WasteLAN mass generation routine to revise the
codes. The Region selects mass generation from the WasteLAN main menu and highlights the
FSS/FSC codes that need to be revised. WasteLAN will automatically change these FSS/FSC
codes.
EXHIBIT IV-6
FIRST AND SUBSEQUENT STARTS AND COMPLETIONS
A
B
C
D
E
First and only event at a site
First of two or more events
Subsequent, but not final event
Final of two or more events
Anomaly
The FSS/FSC codes are based on planned or actual event start and completion dates, not
the system generated sequence number. Thus the first start of an event, for example an RD, at a
site is coded "A." If a second RD is started, the "A" code for the first RD start must be changed
to a "B" and the second RD is assigned a "D"code. If a third RD is started, the first RD remains
a "B," the second RD must be changed from a "D" to a "C" and the third RD is assigned a "D"
code. Event completions use the same methodology. If there is one occurrence of each event, all
FSS/FSC codes are "A."
Anomalies are those projects that do not fit the normal definitions of pipeline events and
activities. Anomalies can be those projects that 1) do not receive SCAP/STARS credit, but still
need to be traced, or 2) occur out of the ordinary pipeline progression. An example of an abnor-
mal pipeline progression is a removal that is conducted after the RD and in place of the RA.
(See Exhibit IV-7.) Anomalies must be manually coded in WasteLAN.
an
Another example of an anomaly would occur when EPA has decided not to complete;
ongoing event. The FSS/FSC code of 'E" is used in this situation to identify anomaly events that
do not meet the criteria for start or completion accomplishment reporting. Those dates associated
with the 'E" value will not receive SCAP/STARS credit. Suppose EPA discovers information
that leads to a decision not to implement a RD already underway. Instead, a new RD is neces-
IV-11
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT IV-7
OPERABLE UNIT AND
FIRST AND SUBSEQUENT START AND COMPLETION CODING
OPERABLE UNIT 'OO' AND REMOVAL EVENTS
m
00
00
00
00
00
00
01
01
01
01
01
01
^•••MMMHH
EVENT
DS1
PA1
SI1
RV1
TGI
ND1
FN01
CO1
RO1
AN01
RD1
RA1
RV1
CR1
mmmmmmmmmmmmm
LEAD
s
s
s
F
F
F
FE
F
F
FE
F
F
F
F
•••••••••••••••••••••i
PLAN
START
FY/O
83/3
84/2
85/2
86/3
92/1
86/1
86/3
88/3
89/1
90/2
87/4
86/2
mmttttmftfmfffmtttm
PLAN
COMP
FY/O
82/3
84/1
84/4
86/2
92/4
92/4
86/2
88/3
88/3
88/4
90/2
91/1
88/2
91/1
mnmimmrrtnirrnrrrrrrtrrrt
FSS
B
A
A
A
D
mfifmffifffVfff*Pifv*pi9i
FSC
B
A
A
A
A
D
PPPWPPWPPPWPP
COMMENT
ENTIRE SITE
RMVL PART OF REMEDY
CR ACTIVITIES FOR 1 OU
REMEDIAL EVENTS. ANOMALIES AND PROJECT PHASING
mi
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
04
04
••••MMBMMHHI
EVENT
FN01
CO1
CO2
RO1
AN01
RD1
RD2
RA1
RA2
RI1
FS1
RO1
AN02
RD1
RA1
FS1
RO1
AN03
RD1
RV1
RD1
RA1
mmmmmmmmm
LEAD
FE
S
F
F
FE
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
FE
F
F
F
F
FE
F
F
F
F
••••••••••WMMMM
PLAN
START
FY/O
87/1
87/3
87/4
88/3
89/1
89/2
90/3
90/3
87/4
88/4
89/3
89/4
90/4
89/1
90/3
90/3
91/1
90/1
91/3
•MMMMMMMMMMMi
PLAN
COMP
FY/Q
87/3
88/3
88/3
88/3
89/1
90/2
90/3
91/1
94/1
88/4
89/3
89/3
89/4
90/4
94/2
90/3
90/3
90/3
91/1
91/3
91/3
93/1
•MMMMMMMMMMMMHMMMBB
FSS
B
E
B
E
B
E
C
E
C
C
D
D
A
C
D
^^^^^^^^^•••••^^^M
FSC
E
B
B
E
B
E
C
E
C
C
C
D
D
D
C
A
D
B
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
COMMENT
LINKW/OU02RI
2 RI/FS PROJECTS W/l ROD
2 RI/FS PROJECTS W/l ROD
ROD FROM CO1 & CO2
PHASE I
PHASED
PHASE I
PHASE H
RI WITH 2 FS PROJECTS
1ST FS FROM OU 02 RI
2ND FS FROM OU 02 RI
RV INSTEAD OF RA
2ND RD FROM OU 02 ROD
2ND RA FROM OU 02 ROD
^^^^^m~^-^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^mmm^mf
IV-12
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHmiT IV-K
CODING ANOMALIES
mi
01
01
01
01
01
IMHBHBPMBHHI
EVENT
CO1
RO1
RD1
RD2
RA1
•MMMVMWMHMMMMI
LEAD
F
F
F
F
F
MNMMMMM^^^HI
PLAN
START
FY/0
86/3
89/2
89/4
90/3
•^^^^^^^^^••i^^^^^
PLAN
COMP
FY/0
88/3
88/3
89/4
90/2
91/1
••^^^^••••^^^•^^^^^M
FSS
A
A
E
A
^—^—^^^^^^^^^^
FSC COMMENT
A
A
E RD WILL NOT BE FINISHED
NO CREDIT FOR COMPLETION
A NO CREDIT FOR START, RD
ADDRESSES SAME ROD
A
SIMULTANEOUS RI/FS WORK
FSS FSC COMMENT
84/4 85/2
85/2 88/3
87/3 88/3
NO CREDIT FOR COMPLETION
NO CREDIT FOR START
OR COMPLETION
NO CREDIT FOR START
OU EVENT LEAD PLAN PLAN
START COMP
FY/O FY/O
FN01
01 CO1
01 CO1
sary. The anomaly coding allows the Region to receive and retain credit for the first RD that is
started and, at the same time, inform HQ and Regional managers that a significant occurrence
has taken place at the site. Since the first RD was interrupted and, therefore, was not completed
according to the definition, it does not meet SCAP criteria for credit as an RD completion (FSC
code = "E" and activity/event planning ="S" (Suspended)). The second RD will not be counted
as a subsequent start (FSS code = "E") because it is addressing the same remedy (ROD), but it
can receive credit for an RD completion. (See Exhibit IV-8.)
Another example of anomaly occurrences happens when different entities conduct RI/FS
work simultaneously that lead to a single ROD. Since it is inconsistent to give credit for more
RI/FS starts than completions (the Agency would have to explain why RI/FS work is not leading
to ROD), only one RI/FS can be credited for starting. These projects are coded under the same
OU with'multiple sequence numbers and the anomaly code ("E") in the appropriate FSS/FSC
fields (C2115 and C2116). (See Exhibit IV-7 and Exhibit IV-8.)
It is necessary to update FSS and FSC codes each time an event is added. Exhibit IV-9
indicates combinations of FSS/FSC codes that are inconsistent with the coding procedures.
IV-13
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT IV-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
Operable Units in Remedial and Enforcement Programs
The NCP defines OUs as "discrete actions that comprise incremental steps toward the
final remedy." An OU is the division of a project into meaningful remedial work elements
(events) that can be implemented on different schedules, resulting in acceleration of the RD and
RA. OUs allow certain elements of a project to be started ahead of others to lessen the hazards
present at the site and to complete some work elements ahead of more complex and hazardous
work elements. Each element can move at its own rate to completion, thereby preparing the site
for any further required remediation. Exhibit IV-10 presents the criteria for establishing OUs.
Exhibit IV-11 shows examples of OUs.
EXHIBIT IV-10
CRITERIA FOR OUs
Availability of existing information
Type of waste
Type of media involved
Technology requirements
Funding availability
Management considerations
The OU concept is one of the driving mechanisms for Superfund's budgeting, planning
and accomplishment reporting processes. Since the inception of CERCLIS, a standard method-
ology has been used by OSWER to code, track and evaluate site progress. OUs were distin-
guished by using a combination of data fields that made the event unique. This caused confusion
and multiple interpretations of OUs. The methodology currently being implemented uses OU
numbers (Cl 101 - Operable Unit Indicator), FSS/FSC codes (C2115 and C2116) and Links.
Links provides the technical ability to link response events or enforcement activities with another
IV-14
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01H-1
event or activity. This capability allows coding of o!iscrete parts of response actions at sites in
WasteLAN using unique OU numbers.
EXHIBIT IV-11
EXAMPLES OF OUs
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
Two important capabilities of the OU methodology are:
• Coding, tracking and consolidating investigation activities at multiple OUs into
one ROD; and
• Tracking single RODs with multiple RDs and RAs.
Following are the rules for coding OUs. These rules are summarized in Exhibit IV-12.
Sequence Numbers
If a site has multiple like-events (e.g., RDs) within a single OU, WasteLAN automati-
cally generates a sequence number for each event. The sequence number is dependent on
the order the event is entered into the system.
Operable Units
All site assessment activities are coded as OU '00'. Activities that reflect a site wide
condition or occurrence and events that cover the entire site are also coded as OU '00'.
For example, NPL deletions and Technical Assistance Grants (TAG) are not specific to
an OU, therefore these should be coded as OU number '00' (CHOI ='00'). Project support
activities, such as community relations, aerial surveys and topographical mapping, will
sometimes address a single event or span multiple events or even an entire site. In cases
IV-15
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
where the project support event addresses a single response event, the project support
event should be coded with the same OU number as the response event. Where the
project support event spans multiple response events, it should be coded with the same
OU number as the response event it is most closely related to and linked to the additional
response events as the other OUs it addresses. (See Exhibit IV-7.)
Removal Events
Removals that are strictly site wide and not related to a specific ROD are to be coded
with the OU '00'. (See Exhibit IV-7.) Removals that are performed as part of a long
term remedy resulting from a ROD will be coded with the OU number of that ROD.
Remedial Events
In order for a RI/FS project to receive credit for a start, it must result in a ROD. This
definition requires that the RI/FS and the ROD share the same OU. There are cases
where multiple RI/FS activities have occurred that lead to a single ROD. For SCAP
purposes, multiple RI/FS starts are not credited when the result is a single ROD. In these
cases, the Regions code each RI/FS with the same OU number. This results in different
system-generated sequence numbers for each RI/FS. Credit for only one start and one
completion is given in this case. (See Exhibit IV-7 and Exhibit IV-8.)
EXHIBIT IV-12
GROUND RULES FOR
CODING OPERABLE UNITS
Phased projects do not result in separate OUs
Removals for the entire site are OU '00'
Each RI/FS project and its associated RD are coded with
the same OU number as the ROD it is associated with;
subsequent RODs must address an aspect of the remedy
not developed in the initial ROD
Removals performed as a result of a ROD are coded with
the OU number for the 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
PRP, State or EPA takeovers do not result in separate
OUs
IV-16
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
At some sites, the RI may span multiple OUs, the entire site, or even multiple sites. From
these RIs, focused FS projects occur and multiple RODs may be signed. In these instances,
Regions can receive credit for multiple RI/FS starts. In the example in Exhibit IV-7, credit is
given when the RI starts at the first OU and when the FS starts at the second OU. Credit for an
Rl/FS completion is given for the completion of the FS at the first OU and the completion of the
FS at the second OU. This is consistent with the rule that for each ROD Regions can only
receive credit for one Rl/FS start.
Multiple RDs and RAs may be generated from the same ROD. These events are coded
with different OU numbers if they address discrete parts of the site cleanup. Links relates them
to the ROD designating the remedy they are addressing. (See Exhibit IV-7.)
Project Phasing
At the RD and RA stages, a project may be phased or time sequenced to accelerate the
cleanup effort. Phasing is complementary to OUs. Whereas OUs break large, complex
projects into smaller, more manageable work elements, phasing is a method to accelerate
the implementation of the OUs. Phasing manipulates the internal steps required to
complete each OU, thereby optimizing the overall schedule.
Event sequence numbers allow the Regions to code and track this phasing. Phases of
each response event are shown in WasteLAN by the use of sequence numbers and the
value of 'E' (anomaly) in the FSS/FSC codes (C2115 and C2116). Funding required for
each of the phases is tracked against the phase. However, the duration of the project is
calculated from the date the first phase started to the date the last phase is completed.
(See Exhibit IV-7.)
Links
The Links Module enables the integration of removal, site assessment, remedial and
enforcement data for a specific site in WasteLAN and CERCLIS. Links graphically connects
enforcement activities to enforcement activities, enforcement activities to response events, and
response events to response events.
A graphic representation of the flow of events and activities at a site, called a site map,
can be generated using Links. The site map shows the relationship of events and activities at the
site and indicates whether the event/activity is completed, planned or ongoing. Once the se-
quence and relationship of events and activities has been determined, they are linked using the
Links rules.
Events and activities and the appropriate links are entered as the site is planned. If an
activity or event does not occur as planned, then those activities/events must be modified and the
related link record deleted and updated as appropriate. For additional information on the Links
module and OUs, please refer to the Links Coding Guidance.
To Be Determined (TED) 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:
• Removals;
IV-17
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
First Rl/FS starts;
• Administrative cost recovery settlements; and
• Cost recovery referrals less than $200,000.
In such cases, Regions may enter planning data into TBD site records. WasteLAN
provides the capability, through the use of a pseudo-EPA ID, 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 WasteLAN.
The key data field for site and related records is the EPA ID. This number is twelve
characters in length with the first two characters identifying the State in which the site is located.
The remaining digits uniquely identify a site within the State. The method of handling TBD sites
in WasteLAN must be consistent with guidance for assigning EPA IDs to valid Superfund sites.
The procedure for assigning pseudo numbers is as follows. Each SCAP TBD site to be
entered into WasteLAN will be assigned a unique 12-character EPA ID which is constructed
from Regionally assigned State codes and numbers. The pseudo State codes shown in Exhibit
IV-13 for each Region would be used in the first two positions of the pseudo ID.
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 WasteLAN. EPA IDs 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
ID ZAT982565053 are deleted from the WasteLAN data base. Subsequently, the appropriate
planning data are added to the real site in the WasteLAN 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 FY 93. Even though TBDs are
being used for target setting purposes, Regions must have real sites in WasteLAN which can be
substituted at a later date for the pseudo sites.
Do not record actual financial data with TBD sites. Regions should be sure that this
information is reported with the real site data. Placement of actual financial data with a TBD site
record prohibits the deletion of the TBD site record from the WasteLAN data base.
IV-18
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT IV-13
PSEUDO STATE CODES
Region
Pseudo State Code
Standard Timeframes
When identifying sites for RI/FS starts, Regions must provide schedules for the remedial
and enforcement activities contained in the Integrated Timeline for site management (see Chap-
ter I). The timeframes should only be used if more accurate estimates are not available.
When better planning data and schedules are developed, WasteLAN must be revised to
reflect these schedules. Planned start and completion dates must be entered into WasteLAN in
the MM/DD/YY format. The Fiscal Year/Quarter (FY/Q) is system generated in CERCLIS
during the upload process. Exhibit IV-14 provides a summary of the timeframes for the steps in
the Integrated Timeline plus other critical activities. Exhibits IV-15 and IV-16 use the
timeframes to show how to schedule events and activities in WasteLAN.
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 FY. In essence, dollars associated with RA
project starts are locked in during budget formulation eighteen months prior to the beginning of
the FY. At any given juncture during a FY, this information may be pulled from CERCLIS to
support development of the Superfund budget. While every attempt will be made to contact the
Region when this occurs, there may be instances when this cannot be done. 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.
IV-19
-------
OSWBR Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT IV-14
STANDARD TIMEFRAMES
ACTIVITY
DURATIONS
(In Quarters)
Removal PRP Searches
Removal Negotiations
Removals
NPL PRP Searches*
(Phase I)
(Follow-up)
RI/FS Negotiations*
Federal Facility IAG Negotiations
Fund RI/FS or FF/PRP RI/FS Oversight*
(FS to Public)
(ROD)
RD/RA Negotiations (post ROD)*
Case Development (ends in referral)
Sec. 106 or 106/107 RD/RA Referrals without
Settlement or Section 107 Cost Recovery Referrals
(ongoing cases referred to DOJ until conclusion)
CD Referral, Lodging & Entry
Fund RD or FF/PRP RD Oversight*
Fund RA or FF/PRP RA Oversight*
RA Contract Award
2 (post RA start)
"Core Activities/Events
Records of Decisions
The ROD is the document prepared after completion of the public comment period on the
RI/FS. It identifies the Agency's selected remedy for a site or OU. After a ROD is signed, new
information may be generated that could affect the remedy selected. Three types of changes
could occur:
• A non-significant or minor change;
« A significant change to a component of the remedy; or
• A fundamental change to the overall remedy.
Each of these categories is discussed in the following sections.
IV-20
-------
IV-15
EXAMPLE SITE SCHEDULE (FUND-FINANCED RESPONSE EVENTS)
EVENT/
SUBEVENT/
ACTIVITY
CODE
AN*
EVENT/
SUBEVENT/
ACTIVITY
DESCRIPTION
^••MM^^^^M
IPRP SEARCH
| RI/FS NEGOTIATIONS
•••••••••••••••i
RI/FS
••^^^•^^^^^
RI/FS TO PUBLIC
Hm^f^tm^fH^^
ROD
^^^•^^•IB
RD/RA NEGOTIATIONS
PLANNED
START
••••••II^^^^^H
13/13/88
MMWOBI^^^^^^^^H
8/31/89
^^^^^^^^•^••••••H
12/20/89
1/2/92
PLANNED
COMPLE-
TION
•••MM^H
8/5/89
11/4/89
H^^^H^B^H^BAOM
12/30/91
^^^^^^^^^^^^•a
6/15/91
12/30/91
•••••••••••••••IIIIHIIIIIV
3/9/92
COMMENTS
•••MMMM^^^^^^^^
Phase I started at ESI stage - Duration 3 QTRS
•••••••••••••^^
Started after completion of PRP search - Duration 60-90 days after issuing
special notice (2 QTRS)
•••••^^••••••••••••••••••••^•^^•••^^^•••••^^^^^
Started after completion of negotiations - Duration 8 QTRS (total)
Occurs 6 QTRS after the start of the RI/FS
•••••••••••••••^^
Occurs 2 QTRS after RI/FS to public. ROD completion date is same as
RI/FS completion date
••••••••••••••••••••••••HBBIIBIIIIBMIB^^
RD/RA negotiations begin about the time the ROD is signed - Duration
60-120 days after issuing special notice (2 QTRS). Must have
moratorium extension approval if greater than 120 days
UA*
UAO
3/16/92
Issued if there are viable/liable PRPs prior to funding the RD
3/31/92 | 3/31/93 | Started after completion of negotiations - Duration 4 QTRS
•••••••••••••••••••••IHMMMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIH
4/30/93 10/31/94 Duration 6 QTRS
OM*
sv*
RA CONTRACT AWARD
••MV^H^^^^^^H^^H^^V^***
RAON-SITE
CONSTRUCTION
•••^^•^^••i
O&M
SECTION 107 COST
RECOVERY REFERRAL
10/31/93 Awarded 2 QTRS after RA start
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^•••••••••^•^^••^••^^•••IM^HMaHH
Placed in WasteLAN when the RA contract is awarded
10/31/94 10/31/94 Initiated after the remedy has achieved the RA objectives and remediation
goals in the ROD and is determined to be operational and functional
11/30/93 5/31/97 Initiated after RA CONTRACT AWARD and within a year of the RA
start- Duration 14 QTRS
* = Event/Activity
#= Subevent
o
CO
90
f
I
vo
o
re
-------
Exhibit TV-lfi
EXAMPLE SITE SCHEDULE (RP-LEAD RESPONSE EVENTS)
to
Is)
EVENT/
SUBEVENT/
ACTIVITY
CODE
EVENT/
SUBEVENT/
ACTIVITY
DESCRIPTION
PLANNED
COMPLE-
TION
PLANNED
START
PRP SEARCH
Phase I started at ESI stage - Duration 3 QTRS
PRP SEARCH
Phase n follow-up - Duration 10 QTRS-Should be completed by ROD
signature
RI/FS NEGOTIATIONS
Started after completion of Phase I PRP search - Duration 60-90 days after
issuing special notice (2 QTRS)
Signed at the completion of RI/FS negotiations
Started after completion of negotiations - Duration 8 QTRS (total)
RI/FS TO PUBLIC
Occurs 6 QTRS after the start of the RI/FS
Occurs 2 QTRS after RI/FS to public. ROD completion date is same as
RI/FS completion date
Begins about the time the ROD is signed - Duration 60-120 days after
special notice is issued (2 QTRS). Must have a moratorium extension if
greater than 120 days
RD/R A NEGOTIATIONS
Started after negotiations are complete. CD referral, lodging and entry
Duration 2 QTRS
CONSENT DECREE
Begins when the CD is lodged - Duration 4 QTRS
Duration 6 QTRS
Awarded 2 QTRS after RA start
R A CONTRACT AWARD
Response actions for the purpose of restoring ground or surface water
LONG TERM RESPONSE
ACTION
Begins after LTRA - Duration is the time specified in the ROD
f
I
VO
6
H-»
DC
* = Event/Activity
# = Subevent
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01H-1
Non-Significant Changes
Non-significant changes fall within the normal scope of changes occurring during the
RD/RA. These changes typically result from value engineering conducted during the RD
and RA. This may cause minor changes in the type/cost of materials, equipment, facili-
ties, services, and supplies. When such changes do not significantly affect the scope,
performance, or cost of the remedy, they are considered minor or non-significant.
Minor changes should be documented in the post-ROD files. The documentation should
not be part of the AR file for the ROD.
Significant Changes to a Component of a Remedy
Significant changes to a component of a remedy generally are incremental changes to the
hazardous waste approach selected for the site (i.e., a change in liming, cost, or imple-
mentation). These changes do not fundamentally alter the overall approach intended by a
remedy. When significant changes are made to a component of a remedy, an Explanation
of Significant Differences (BSD) should be prepared.
The BSD is made available to the public and placed in the AR. A formal public comment
period, public meeting and responsiveness summary are not required. While the BSD is
being prepared and made available to the public, response activities should continue. An
BSD is not a new ROD and should not be coded as such in WasteLAN. It should be
entered as a subevent to the ROD.
Fundamental Changes to the ROD
When the hazardous waste management approach selected in the ROD is reconsidered, it
is a fundamental change. For example, the innovative technology originally selected in
the ROD did not perform satisfactorily during the RD pilot scale testing and a decision is
made to switch to another remedy. This would represent a fundamental change. If, as a
result of PRP negotiations, the remedy in the ROD is changed from incineration to
bioremediation, this also represents a fundamental change. When such fundamental
changes or amendments are made to a remedy, the ROD process (revised proposed plan,
public comment period, public meeting, responsiveness summary, and amended ROD)
should be repeated. The amended ROD must be placed in the AR. A fundamental
change to the ROD should be recorded as a new ROD in WasteLAN. Since the original
ROD will no longer be implemented, an 'S' (Suspended) should be placed in the Event/
Activity Planning Status data field (C2110). The new ROD event should have an 'E'
(Anomaly) in the FSC data field (C2116). Regions must also be sure to record the reme-
dial technology type associated with the new ROD. Regions will receive SCAP/STARS
credit for amended RODs on a case by case basis. Regions should send special re-
quests for credit for amended RODs to the Director, OPM or the Director, CED. This is
a change from what was stated in the FY 92 Program Management Manual.
Additional guidance will be prepared on how ROD changes should be recorded in
WasteLAN and an addenda to the Manual may be issued. Further information on ROD changes
can be found in "Interim Final Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents,"
OSWER Directive 9355.3-02 and "Guide to Addressing Pre and Post-ROD Changes," OSWER
Directive 9355.3-02FS4, April 1991. Additional guidance on RODs is contained in OSWER
Directive 9355 3-02FS3 "Guide to Developing Superfund No Action, Interim Action, and
Contingency Remedy RODs," April 1991. Copies of all RODs and amended RODs should be
sent to HSCD and CED.
IV-23
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Ecological Risk Assessments
Agency policy requires a human health risk assessment and an ecological risk assessment
be conducted at every NPL site. An ecological risk assessment evaluates the harm to the envi-
ronment posed by hazardous substances at a site. The results of the ecological risk assessment
are used by the Natural Resource Trustee(s) to decide whether or not to grant a covenant not to
sue for natural resource damages pursuant to CERCLA Section 122(j). If there are natural
resource damages or if natural resources are at risk, but these damages or risks are not docu-
mented, the Trustees will not grant a covenant. It is EPA's responsibility to conduct the ecologi-
cal risk assessment and determine the appropriate response actions to address those risks. De-
pending on the site, an ecological risk assessment can be conducted for the entire site or on an
OU basis. The ecological risk assessment should be completed prior to ROD signature.
At sites where EPA is negotiating with the PRPs for RD/RA and an ecological risk
assessment has not been done, but where there will be a subsequent ROD for an additional OU,
delays can be avoided by preparing the CD with a "reservation of rights" provision. This re-
serves the opportunity for the Trustees to bring a claim for natural resource damages at a later
time. When negotiating at a site with only one ROD, or if it is the final OU for a site, the CD for
that OU must contain either a covenant not to sue, or a reservation of rights. PRPs are beginning
to refuse to sign a CD that does not contain a covenant not to sue. The result is no settlement
until an ecological risk assessment is completed.
Planning for Response Mega-Sites
FY 93 Regional requests in WasteLAN for Fund-financed RI/FS starts should be limited
to an average of $750,000 per project, and all ongoing Fund-financed and PRP RI/FS s (except
mega-sites) should be fully funded. The $750,000 limit and full funding requirement do not
pertain to response mega-sites (sites with total RI/FS projects in excess of or expected to exceed
$3 million). There are over 20 sites nationally that currently come under the RI/FS mega-site
definition. In light of increased stress on the Superfund budget, a national initiative is being
undertaken to scrutinize the management plans for these sites. The mega-site management plan
should characterize site problems and management options. RI/FS mega-site management plans
require joint development by response and enforcement personnel including 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. RI/FS mega-site management
plans are to be completed annually and submitted to HSCD by January 31,1993, so funding
issues can be resolved prior to the development of the operating plan for FY 94. All mega-site
plans will be reviewed with respect to the following three criteria:
• Enforcement strategy and approach—Has a comprehensive PRP search been
conducted? If PRPs were found, was general and/or special notice with a model
AOC issued? Were negotiations conducted? Were actions taken (e.g., NBARs,
de minimis settlements) to maximize PRP participation? What would prevent
PRPs from conducting the RI/FS?
• Financial obligations—Is the schedule for obligation and outlays of funds clearly
defined? Does the timing of these optimize the use of funds in the context of the
overall site strategy?
• Technical approach—Is the technical approach employed at the site consistent
with technical guidance and policy? Does the technical approach optimize use of
IV-24
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Fund money in the context of the overall site strategy? Decisions on funding
multi-source ground water sites will be based on technical guidance.
The relative priority of the RI/FS and the degree of risk reduction that may be achieved
will also be factors during the review of the plans and in the funding decisions.
HQ will provide feedback to the Regions on their mega-site plans. Technical assistance
on mega-site plans can be obtained from HSCD Remedial Operations and Guidance Branch.
Treatability Study Planning
The performance of treatability studies during the RI/FS is a priority for the remedial and
enforcement programs. 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 OU and $1.1 million per site RI/FS cost,
or the $250,000 for enforcement RI/FS oversight costs, it is necessary to establish treatability
studies as a separate event code ("TS") in WasteLAN. Funds should be planned site specifically
and planned and actual start and completion dates are required. Treatability study information/
results are to be submitted to the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) in Cincinnati.
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program
The purpose of the SITE program is to assess new technologies for the treatment of
hazardous waste in order to develop permanent technologies. The SITE demonstration program
sponsors pilot and full scale treatability studies at Superfund sites. The participating developers
mobilize and operate their equipment during the test period. The ORD develops the test plan,
provides for site preparation, funds sampling and analysis, and prepares the documentation.
Technologies enter the program through an annual solicitation. Proposals are reviewed
for their technical merit and applicability to Superfund problems. A number of developers are
currently in the program and new developers are added each year. Once new technologies are
accepted, it is necessary to find demonstration sites. A memorandum is sent to the Regional
Division Directors requesting the nomination of potential locations for testing the technologies.
All projects should be considered regardless of the entity performing response activities at the
site. Special consideration is given to selecting sites where the data will provide useful informa-
tion for the ROD or RD.
When a site is nominated by the Region for a SITE technology, the Region should enter
an EP-lead (in-house) treatability study (TS) with an "A" (alternative) Activity/Event Planning
Status (C2110) into WasteLAN. The date of the memorandum nominating the site for the
program should be recorded in the plan start data field (C2130). When the site is accepted by
HQ and matched with a technology, the actual start date should be entered and the Activity/
Event Planning Status (C2110) should be changed to a "P" (primary). (See Exhibit IV-17 for an
example of the coding of sites.) IMCs should work with the SITE coordinators in the Regions to
determine when information needs to be added to WasteLAN.
IV-25
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT IV-17
SITE PROGRAM CODING
Site Nominated
EVENT
PLANNING PLAN ACTUAL PLAN ACTUAL
OU EVENT LD STATUS START START COMPLETE COMPLETE
(CHOI) (C2101) (C2117) (C2110) (C2130) (C2140) (C2131) (C2141)
01
TS
EP
7/25/90
Site Matched with Technology
EVENT
PLANNING PLAN ACTUAL PLAN ACTUAL
OU EVENT LD STATUS START START COMPLETE COMPLETE
(CHOI) (C2101) (C2117) (C2110) (C2130) (C2140) (C2131) (C2141)
01
TS
EP
7/25/90 10/13/90 5/20/91
Project Support Activities
Regions are not required to plan or report the start or completion of project support
activities (CR, technical assistance, support agency management assistance, etc.). Because of
workload model impacts, this does not apply to treatability studies, O&M or LTRA. During the
development of the budget, funding needs can be planned site specifically or non-site specifically
by event type in the non-site portion of WasteLAN. During the operating year, activities needing
funds in the upcoming quarter must either be planned site specifically in WasteLAN 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 AOA in
CERHELP. If a Region plans project support activities non-site specifically, the planned fund-
ing 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 and topographical mapping by the
Environmental Management System Laboratories (EMSL) in WasteLAN. These project sup-
port activities are to be funded out of the Region's annual budget. This is a change from FY
92.
IV-26
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Funds for EMSL can be obligated through a Procurement Request (PR) or through the
change request procedures. The change 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 WasteLAN 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.
A Region may also request technical assistance from another entity within EPA (i.e.,
ORD). To the maximum extent practicable, the necessary funding should be planned in
WasteLAN prior to the FY. Funds may be transferred to the other entity through a PR or an
AOA change request. The AOA change request is the preferred method. In either situation, a
SOW should be prepared before the paperwork is processed. The SOW should clearly identify
the tasks that will be performed, any deliverables that are required, the timeframes for perfor-
mance, and the funds that will be transferred.
The lead code for project support activities is based entirely on Regional preference.
Technical Assistance Grants (TAG')
The Region should budget TAG funds at Fund or PRP-lead sites based on their knowl-
edge of which communities may request such grants. Since many communities may decline to
apply for various reasons, the Region should not assume that every NPL site will require a TAG.
Funds for TAGs at Fund-financed or RP-lead sites are in the response budget. TAGs at Federal
Facilities are funded by the Federal Facility budget. Regions should negotiate reimbursement of
TAG costs at the Federal Facility during IAG discussions. The Regions are to administer the
TAGs at Federal Facilities.
Assignment of Remedial Response and Oversight Work
Nationally, there are five primary entities available for assignment of Fund-financed
remedial activities. They are the State, ARCS contractors, USAGE, BUREC, and EPA. Each of
these entities has the capacity to do a certain amount of Superfund work. It is essential that the
assignment of work be balanced with the capabilities of the various entities. HSCD will track
the workload distribution between ARCS and USAGE based on information in CERCLIS.
If EPA and the State decide that EPA will take the lead for remedial activities, the fol-
lowing must be considered when making a decision on who will perform the work:
• ARCS contractors should receive a significant number of new remedial projects
in FY 93;
• ARCS should be tasked to provide oversight of PRP projects if the project will
continue beyond FY 93;
• USAGE should conduct the RD and RA for all projects with an estimated RA cost
of over $15 million;
RAs with a construction value of less than $15 million may be performed by
USAGE or the ARCS contractors;
IV-27
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
• USAGE may be tasked to review RI/FS projects or provide oversight of PRP
RI/FS projects;
• USAGE may be tasked to review PRP RDs and provide oversight of PRP RAs.
Assignments to USAGE for oversight of PRP RD or RA projects should be
accompanied by a start up period of training and Regional orientation; and
• USAGE should always receive PRP oversight assignments where USAGE per-
formed the RD and the PRP took over the RA.
As a reminder, when RD and RA assignments are planned for different entities, a smooth
transition is necessary. This can be easily achieved by giving a technical assistance assignment
to the entity that will be performing the RA during the RD. The purpose of the assignment
would be to review the plans and specifications for bidability, constructability, operability, and
claims prevention. The entity that performed the RD should also be retained during the RA in a
technical assistance role for design clarification, change order review, etc.
In order to convey ARCS contract information to HQ, the five character Financial Ve-
hicle data element in WasteLAN (C3239) will be used to identify the type of contract, the Re-
gion, 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 are
used to identify the type of contract and the last two characters should be blank. For example, if
the activity is assigned to the USAGE, the Financial Vehicle entered should be "COE" ("BUR"
for Bureau of Reclamation projects). If the activity is assigned to ARCS, the first three charac-
ters of the Financial Vehicle data element should be "ARC." The fourth and fifth characters
identify the particular ARCS contractor. Exhibit IV-18 contains the codes to be placed in char-
acters four and five based on the existing ARCS contractors. During event/activity planning
stages, work that will be assigned to the ARCS contractors should be identified by placing
"ARC" in the Financial Vehicle. The name of the ARCS contractor should be placed in
WasteLAN when inputting the actual obligation data. The Region should place the funds needed
for ARCS program management in the non-site portion of the WasteLAN data base by contrac-
tor.
If Regions are planning to use ARCS contractors and pay for them through the Regional
enforcement extramural budget, the same codes should be used. Regions need to determine if
any PRP RI/FS projects that are using TES for oversight will extend beyond the contract period
of performance, and begin to transition those projects to ARCS or USAGE early in FY 93.
The Superfund Management Review recommended all Regions initiate in-house RI/FS
projects. The objectives of the in-house RI/FS are to:
• Increase the RPM's awareness of available in-house resources;
• Enhance the RPM's project management skills;
• Reduce RI/FS costs by reducing contractor involvement; and
• Improve the training of junior RPMs.
IV-28
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT IV-18
ARCS CONTRACTOR CODES
CONTRACTOR
Arthur D. Little
Bechtel
Black & Veatch
CDM
CH2MH111
Donohue & Associates
EBASCO
Ecology & Environment
Fluor Daniel
ICF
Jacobs Engineering
Malcolm-Pirnie
Metoalf&Eddy
Morrison & Knudson
NUS Corporation
PRC Environmental
Sverdrup
TAMS Consultants
Tetra-Tech
TRC Environmental
URSCorp
Roy F. Western
WW Engineering
Two approaches are being used for the in-house RI/FS process:
A seasoned RPM manages the project and performs many of the tasks that, for
other RtyFS projects, are routinely performed by contractors; or
For each RI/FS, an RPM team is established to perform most of the required
tasks. The team consists of a seasoned RPM (group leader and mentor) and junior
RPMs. Matching new and experienced RPMs provides the new RPMs with the
needed experience at the same time that it ensures reasonable cost control and
quality of the project.
The general theme for either approach is the same, use non-contractor resources to
accomplish most, if not all, of the standard RI/FS tasks. (Non-contractor resources include EPA
Regional staff and personnel from other EPA offices or other Federal agencies.) Initial project
planning should assume that the RPM team will be directly involved in every task. As planning
progresses, the Region is responsible for determining the mix of contractor and non-contractor
resources most appropriate for a particular task. However, if the team approach is used, the
IV-29
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01H-1
group leader/mentor should ensure that each team member is exposed to as many Rl/FS tasks as
possible.
The decision to perform an in-house RI/FS is the Region's and is dependent on the sites
or projects in the Region where the RI/FS has not started. Selecting an appropriate site for an in-
house RI/FS will increase the probability of successfully completing a project and meeting the
objectives of the in-house RI/FS initiative. As a general rule, smaller, less complex sites should
be chosen. At the same time, sites should be complex enough that a wide assortment of RI/FS
tasks/skills will be required. A second important consideration is the proximity of the site to the
Regional office. Lastly, selecting sites for which the Region has previous experience may allow
for a more streamlined and focused study.
Remedial Action Information
As the Agency measures the progress made in meeting the requirements of SARA,
additional and more accurate information is required for RA activities. This information will be
used to:
• Support and justify the response RA budget;
• Facilitate priority setting for Fund-financed RAs;
• Provide RA cost tracking information; and
• Provide the capability to characterize RA projects and their associated costs.
The information on RAs that HQ will collect and must be entered into WasteLAN by the
Regions includes:
• Planned and actual start and completion dates for RD, RA, award of RA contract;
and RA on-site construction. Actual completion dates for Preliminary, Interim
and Final Site Close-Out Reports are also required;
• RA cost estimates at different times during the remedial pipeline; and
• Technical information on the selected remedy.
Each of these will be discussed in greater detail in the following sections.
Planning and Accomplishment Data
Planned start and completion dates for RD, RA, and award of RA contract are entered
into WasteLAN for a site at the start of the RI/FS. These dates represent the best estimate
for when the activities are scheduled to begin. The schedules are updated regularly until
the start or completion is actually accomplished. The scheduled start for RA on-site
construction is placed in WasteLAN when the RA contract is awarded. The actual
completion dates of Preliminary, Interim and Final Site Close-Out Reports are to be
entered into WasteLAN when the reports are approved.
The schedules for these activities will be closely tracked and used for many different
purposes, including:
IV-30
-------
OSWER Dkective 92(X).3-01H-1
• Reporting planned projects starts and completions during a given FY as Regional
SCAP/STARS targets or measures;
Indicating progress in site cleanup and movement of sites to the advanced phases
of the remedial pipeline;
• Analyzing standard durations and timeframes; and
• Tracking progress in meeting site completion goals.
RA Cost Estimate
There are five types of RA cost estimating/projections, discussed in the following para-
graphs, that need to be reported to HQ.
• Draft FS Estimate for Fund-Financed and PRP RI/FS Projects - Prior to ROD
signature, Regions can estimate the RA cost based on the information contained
in the draft FS. This RA estimate is entered into WasteLAN against the RI/FS or
FS event with a Financial Type (C3202) of "E" (RA Cost Estimate).
• ROD Estimate - When an F or FE-lead ROD is signed, the capital cost of the
remedy must be entered into CERCLIS against the ROD event with a Financial
Type (C3202) of "E" (RA Cost Estimate).
If the ROD is amended, an alternative technology is chosen over the original. The
new ROD capital cost should be entered against the new ROD event with a
Financial Type (C3202) of "E". When a significant change is made that alters the
scope, performance, or cost of a component of the remedy, it is documented in an
ESD. A second entry with the new cost estimate is reported with the original
ROD using a Financial Type (C3202) of "E." The date of the ESD is placed in
the Financial Date (C3220), and "ESD" is entered in the Financial Note Field
(C3242). In both situations, the original RA cost estimate remains in WasteLAN.
See the Records of Decisions section earlier in this chapter for additional informa-
tion.
• RD Estimate - When the Fund-financed RD reaches the 90 percent completion
point, the Region enters the total RA cost estimate in WasteLAN based on the
information gathered during the design. This estimate is entered against the RD
event with a Financial Type (C3202) of "E" (RA Cost Estimate).
• RA Contract Award - When the RA contract for a Fund-financed RA is awarded
to the construction contractor, Regions enter the construction contract award
amount into WasteLAN against the RA event with a Financial Type of "E" (RA
Cost Estimate). The date of the contract award should be entered into the Finan-
cial Date (C3220). If the contract is later increased, a second entry must be made
for the new total contract amount The Financial Date field (C3220) is used to
enter the date of the modification.
Total Fund-Financed RA Cost - Regions estimate and report the total Fund-
financed RA cost by entering planned obligations, actual obligations, and open
commitments into WasteLAN. This includes planned obligations for the current
year and upcoming FY as well as any incremental funding needs during the
IV-31
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
duration of the project. This total RA cost estimate constitutes the total Regional
funding request for an RA. The RA cost estimate for RAs scheduled to begin in
FY 94 must be in CERCLIS prior to mid-year negotiations. Regions should
update the RA cost estimate on a continuous basis as better information
becomes available.
The SCAP-25, RA Cost Estimate Information Report contains the information in CER-
CLIS on RA cost estimates/projections. Exhibit IV-19 provides examples for coding RA
cost estimates.
Technical Information
Regions will not receive funds for a RA in their AOA unless the remedial technology
type for the RA is in CERCLIS. Similarly, Regions will not receive credit for a RA start
unless the remedial technology type for the RA is in CERCLIS. Exhibit IV-20 contains
coding guidance for the remedial technology types. Exhibit IV-21 contains the WasteLAN
remedial technology type codes. SCAP-24, RA Technology and Pipeline Tracking Report,
displays the events and the remedial technology types.
ROD Technical Information
When a ROD is signed, an BSD becomes a component of the issued ROD, or when a
ROD is amended, the Region must enter the remedy technology type for the RA into
WasteLAN against the ROD events. This is done by entering Remedial Technology in
the RA Tech Type data field (C3401 = "RT") and the specific technology type(s) in the
Technical Information Qualifier fields (C3402-C3411). The first ten treatment types are
coded with a "1" in the Technical Information Type Suffix (C3415). When more than ten
technology types are chosen, the Region should adjoin the types to the ROD event by
entering the appropriate sequence number (C3415) in WasteLAN. If the ROD states that
all necessary remediation has been completed, the Regions should code the remedial
technology against the ROD with the "NA" (no action) technical qualifier. The "NA"
event (no action ROD) should not be used.
RD Technical Information
When a RD is started, the Region must enter the technology type for the RA into CER-
CLIS. Like the ROD, this is done by entering Remedial Technology in the RA Tech
Type data field (C3401="RT") against the RD and the specific technology type(s) in the
Technical Information Qualifier (C3402-C3411).
If the ROD is amended after the RD has started, the Region must determine if a new RD
is necessary. If a new RD is required, the original RD event should be discontinued and a
new RD event entered. An 'S' (suspended) code should be placed in the Event Status data
field (C2110) for the original RD. The FSC code (C2116) for the original RD should be
changed to an "E" (Event Anomaly). The completion date for the old RD and the start
date for the new RD should be the same. The FSS code for the new RD should be "E"
(Event Anomaly). If there is a new remedial technology type, it should be reported by
entering Remedial Technology in the RA Tech Type data field (C3401="RT") and the
specific technology type(s) in the Technical Information Qualifier (C3402-C3411) with
the new RD. If the ROD is amended and a new RD is not necessary, the Technical
. Information Qualifier field should be updated.
If the design is split into multiple OUs from the ROD, the appropriate remedial technol-
ogy and technical information qualifiers should be attached to the appropriate RD.
IV-32
-------
EXHIBIT IV-19
RA COST ESTIMATING CODING
ou
PLAN
START
FY/Q
C2132
EVENT LEAD
ACTUAL PLAN
START I COMP
FY/Q
FINAN
AMOUNT
ACTUAL
COMP
FUND BUDGET
STATUS SOURCE
INSTRUCTIONS
C2101 C2117
C01 p 87/2
DRAFT FS ESTIMATE = $10,000,000
3/30/89 E
ROD ESTIMATE = $12,000,000 (CAPITAL
COST) ENTERED WHEN ROD IS SIGNED
RD 90% ESTIMATE = $13,500,000
ENTERED WHEN RD IS 90% COMPLETE
89/4 9/19/89
TOTAL PLANNED RA COST
A I 90/4 19m&> [ APR
ORIGINALLY ENTERED 88/2, UPDATED
F 90/4 9/30/90 92/2
AS BETTER INFORMATION BECAME
AVAILABLE
A 9HZ 2GW
RA CONTRACT AWARD = $13,225,000
ENTERED WHEN CONTRACT IS
AWARDED
RA CONTRACT AWARD = $14,000,000
ENTERED WHEN CONTRACT IS
MODIFIED
6
EC
-------
EXHIBIT IV-20
CODING GUIDANCE - REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY TYPES
ya
O
PLAN
START
FY/Q
C2132
PLAN
COMP
FY/Q
C2133
RATECH
TYPE
SEQ
C3415
ac
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT TV-21
REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGY TYPE CODES
Code
Definition
Technology
OT
ON
RO
Incineration/Thermal Destruction
Solidification/Stabilization
Vacuum Extraction
Volatilization/Soil Aeration
Soil Washing/Flushing
Biodegradation/Land Application
Other Treatment Technologies
On-site Containment
Off-site Containment
On-site
Off-site
Fixation
Neutralization
Soil Vapor Extraction
Aeration
Flaring
Metals Precipitation
Ion Exchange
In-Situ Biodegradation
Biodentrification
Activated Sludge
Decontamination
Dewatering
Off-site RCRA Treatment and Recycling
In-Situ Flaming
Dechlorinization (APEG/KPEG)
Soil Cover
Asphalt Cap
RCRA Cap
Levees
Slurry Wall
On-site 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
Off-site RCRA Landfill
Off-site Solid Waste Landfill
IV-35
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT IV-21
REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGY TYPE CODES (Cont.)
Code
Definition
Technology
OS
PT
RH
OH
LT
NA
TS
Other Source Control Remedies
Pump and Treatment
Alternate Water Supply
Other
Leachate Collection/Treatment
No Action
Temporary Storage
On-site/Off-site 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 Attenuation
Subsurface Water Diversion/Collection
Slope Stabilization
Demolition
Relocation
Institutional Controls
On-site
Off-site
RA Technical Information
When requesting RA funds or recording a RA start, the Region must enter Remedial
Technology (C3401="RT") into the RA Tech Type data field and the remedial technol-
ogy types (C3402-C3411) for the RA against the RA event.
If the RA is split into multiple OUs from the ROD or RD, the appropriate remedial
technology and technical information qualifiers should be attached to the appropriate RA.
IV-36
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
ENFORCEMENT PLANNING AND REPORTING PKnrFnTJWS
Mixed Funding Settlements and Cash Outs
The term "mixed funding" is used genetically to refer to three types of settlements:
• Preauthorization (MR lead);
• Mixed work (two or more OUs or phases, RP and F or S lead); and
Cash outs (F, S, MR, or RP lead).
Preauthorization occurs where PRPs reach a settlement with EPA whereby they agree to
perform a share of the response actions, and the Agency agrees to reimburse some part of their
expenses. These are coded in WasteLAN (C2117) 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
OUs or phases in WasteLAN. OUs or phases where the PRPs are performing the work should
have 'RP' lead (C2117) events. The lead for events at the OUs or phases where Fund-financed
activities are being performed should be 'F' or 'S'. Funds for mixed funding settlements and
Preauthorization must be planned and are part of the Region's response budget.
A cash out is money received by EPA, a State, or another PRP under the terms of a
settlement agreement that is intended to pay, in whole or in part, the future costs for a response
action that is to be implemented at a specific Superfund site. EPA strongly prefers that PRPs
agree to perform the response action. The two primary circumstances when cash outs may be
acceptable are de minimis settlements and settlements with PRPs (i.e., owners/operators) that
lack resources to perform the response. In other very limited circumstances, cash outs with
major parties may be acceptable. (See "Interim Cash Out Settlements Procedures," January 7,
1992.)
The terms and conditions of the cash out settlement should be documented in an AO or
CD. The AO or CD must address the disposition of the monies. The two major considerations
are 1) whether all of the funds are for future expenses or part of the funds are to go toward past
costs, and 2) whether it is expected that other PRPs or EPA will perform the work. It may also
include future cost provisions for any portion of the expected remediation efforts at the site and
premium payments.
The response work at these sites may be performed by EPA, the State or other PRPs
using cash out funds. In situations where EPA or the State will be performing the work, the lead
for response events in WasteLAN (C2117) should be coded 'F' or 'S'. In a mixed funding
situation, where the Fund and PRPs contribute to the cleanup but the PRPs conduct the work, an
'MR' lead (C2117) should be assigned. If the PRPs, both de minimis and non-de minimis.
assume funding and lead responsibility for the site, response events should have a lead (C2117)
of 'RP'. Chapter VII contains information on the financial aspects of a cash out settlement.
De minimis Settlements
A primary concern of the Superfund enforcement program is to allocate response costs in
an equitable manner among the PRPs at a site. CERCLA Section 122 (g) authorizes de. minimis.
settlements, which may be used to reach early agreement with minor contributors of waste.
These actions would "cash out" the small contributors early (prior to ROD signature) and release
IV-37
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
them from liability, thus saving considerable transaction costs. EPA began undertaking several
activities in FY 92 to promote de minimis settlements nationally. This initiative is expected to
receive greater emphasis in FY 93.
The strategy for identifying early de minimis candidate sites requires the Regions to
obtain both PRP waste contributor information and potential remedial response action cost data.
Even when a site is a candidate for an early de. minimis settlement, the PRPs must qualify for de
minimis status and the liability and viability of the PRPs must be known. Viable non-de minimis
PRPs must exist before the Agency can consider a d£ minimis settlement.
The PRP waste contributor information can be obtained after completion of a waste-in
list and volumetric ranking. Guidance on preparing waste-in lists and volumetric ranking can be
found in OSWER Directive 985.16, Guidance on Preparing and Releasing Waste-In Lists and
Volumetric Rankings to PRPs Under CERCLA, February 22,1991. The data derived from the
waste-in list, volumetric ranking and Section 104(e) letters can then be used to perform an
allocation of responsibility to determine the de minimis status of PRPs. If it would assist in
settlement, the Region may consider preparation of a NEAR. (See OSWER Directive 9839.1,
Interim Guidelines for Preparing Non-binding Preliminary Allocations of Responsibility, May
29,1987.) Regions should also consider establishing a de minimis settlement cut-off to address
only the smallest waste contributors (e.g. those who contributed a small percentage of hazardous
substances to the site).
The remedial response action data that must be obtained include, the major contaminants,
the media contaminated and the quantifiable volume of contamination at the site. Using this
information, the Regions can use ROD data from similar sites to determine a possible range of
costs. Other site specific factors that would be applied to establish the cost estimate include
geology, hydrology, and known human exposure risks and sensitive environments.
Once the Region establishes the eligibility of the site and the PRPs for the de minimis
settlement, a Region should undertake appropriate means to hasten settlement. An AOC is
commonly used for early de. minimis settlements. A CD should be considered for global settle-
ments, involving all (both de minimis and non-de. minimis) PRPs at the site.
Settlements with Municipalities and Residential Property Owners
EPA has also developed or is in the process of developing guidance to address issues
pertaining to municipalities involved at and residential land owners located on Superfund sites.
An increasing number of third-party suits have been instituted against municipalities
solely for their generation or transportation of municipal solid waste. The term municipal solid
waste refers to solid waste generated primarily by households, but may also include the contribu-
tion of solid waste from commercial, institutional, or industrial sources. Under EPA policy, the
Agency generally will not pursue a generator or transporter of municipal solid waste, absent site-
specific evidence that hazardous substances were contained in the municipality's contribution of
waste. This policy does not, however, provide any protection for those parties who, although not
named by EPA as PRPs, are brought into the Superfund process by means of third-party actions.
The third-parties in these cases generally assert that municipalities should contribute cleanup
costs based on the volume of the wastes rather than the toxicity of the wastes. EPA believes the
complexity and gravity of the issues surrounding cost allocation in this situation warrant EPA
involvement. As a result, HQ will be preparing guidelines detailing cost allocation which would
be used by the Regions in reaching settlements with municipalities. Also under development is a
IV-38
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
model settlement document which will make it easier for municipalities to resolve their potential
liability and to obtain statutory contribution protection.
Several sites that are the subject of a Superfund response action include properties that
are used exclusively as single family residences. Some owners of residential property located on
a Superfund site are concerned about potential liability for performance of a response action or
payment of cleanup costs because they may come within the definition of "owner" under
CERCLA.
Under EPA policy, the Agency, in exercising its enforcement discretion, will not take
enforcement actions against an owner of residential property to require such owner to undertake
response actions or pay response costs, unless the residential homeowner's activities lead to a
release or threat of release of hazardous substances, resulting in the taking of a response action at
the site. The policy does not apply when an owner of residential property fails to cooperate with
the Agency's response actions or with a State that is taking a response action under a cooperative
agreement with EPA. The policy also does not apply where the owner of residential property
fails to meet other CERCLA obligations, or uses the residential property in any manner inconsis-
tent with residential use. For further information on this issue, see OSWER Directive 9834.6,
Policy Toward Owners of Residential Property at Superfund Sites, July 3,1991.
Administrative Record Status
The AR serves as the basis for the Agency's response selection and acts as a vehicle for
public participation. The Agency's AR guidance establishes procedures and timelines for com-
piling, updating, closing and locating the AR at or near the site. To facilitate management, and
in order to centralize and standardize data quality and data entry, these data are now tracked in
CERCLIS and WasteLAN. The following definitions apply:
• Actual Start Date: Date the AR is received at the site repository. The date is in
MM/DD/YY format; and
• Actual Completion Date: Date compilation of the AR is verified by the program
office. The date is in MM/DD/YY format.
For more information refer to "Final Guidance on Administrative Records for Selecting
CERCLA Response Actions, OSWER Directive #9833.3A-1," December 1990.
Planning for Enforcement Mega-Sites/Projects
An enforcement mega-site is a Superfund site that contains unusual characteristics that
separate it from a typical site or project These sites have projects that require more than
$200,000 per year for enforcement actions (i.e., removal oversight, litigation support, PRP
search, negotiation support) or over $500,000 per year for Rl/FS oversight. This is a change
from FY 92. Usually, the sites are characterized by:
» Large geographic area defining a site (e.g., Clark Fork);
• Area wide problem (e.g., San Gabriel);
« Unusual levels of community involvement requiring an above average level of
attention (e.g., Love Canal);
IV-39
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
• A large number of PRPs that refuse to form a coalition, thereby making the
negotiation and settlement process difficult (e.g., Maxey Flats);
• Sites receiving national attention (e.g., Times Beach/Ellisville); and
• Complex litigation issues (e.g., Hardage).
(Regions are reminded that the response definition for mega-sites is sites where the total
RI/FS costs exceed or are expected to exceed $3 million. Instructions for planning response
mega-sites are found earlier in this Chapter in the section titled Planning for Response Mega-
Sites.)
Consistent with the Integrated Priorities Setting Matrix, the FY 93 needs of the enforce-
ment mega-sites will be fully funded wherever possible. Mega-site funding will be allocated on
an annual basis. A priority list of non-funded mega-site needs will be developed and submitted
as a supplemental funding request. Regions are required to submit enforcement mega-site
management plans for FY 93 funds to HQ by June 30,1992. The methodology for the distribu-
tion of resources for enforcement mega-sites is defined in Chapter VII.
PRP Removal
PRP searches should be initiated as soon as a removal candidate has been identified.
Before most time critical and non-time critical removals are initiated, the baseline phase of the
search should be completed and the follow up phase started. This allows for timely negotiations
for AOs (unilateral or on consent) to begin before the start of the removal. PRP searches also
support possible cost recovery actions. Regions are required to report:
• PRP search start and completion dates, number of PRP identified and outcome;
• AO completion date, compliance status, removal remedy, value of removal;
• Removal start and completion dates, and lead; and
• Other technical data required by the removal program.
Notice letters to owners, operators and other identified PRPs should be sent and negotia-
tions conducted before the removal is initiated, time permitting. Oral notice, followed by written
notice, should be given in emergency situations. For certain non-time critical removals that are
major response actions, the special 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 issue AOs (unilateral or on consent) at every removal action where viable
PRPs have been identified. A model UAO and AOC for removal actions is currently being
developed. Unless time is a factor, an AOC is sent to the PRPs before a UAO is issued. Factors
that may justify Fund financing without an order include technical difficulty in defining the steps
to be taken; 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
UAO can be converted to an AOC, but this should be done without delaying PRP response.
Oversight costs should be taken into account in negotiations, particularly for large removals.
Action memoranda should be issued at all sites prior to initiation of the removal regard-
less of who is performing the response. It is particularly critical where PRPs are performing
IV-40
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
removals to provide for sufficient documentation and guard against subsequent 106(b) petitions
for reimbursement, especially if a UAO is issued.
Once RP-lead removals have begun, EPA will have an active oversight role, including
on-scene presence. Contractor assistance is available if needed. Where PRPs are not complying
with the order, they should be notified in writing what the deficiencies are and when they oc-
curred. Regions should be prepared to enforce the terms of the order via stipulated penalties,
statutory penalties, or other sanctions when the PRPs have violated some terms of the order but
are in compliance with other terms. When UAOs are issued and the PRPs are out of compliance
and not performing the response action, treble damages should be sought during cost recovery
where possible. Due to the time-critical nature of the removal program, Regions should be
prepared to quickly move forward with a Fund-financed response if the PRPs do not comply
with the order.
Regions should use judicial action to enforce a removal UAO only in exceptional circum-
stances. Regions should track the PRP's compliance status in WasteLAN. Regions must also
develop ARs to accompany their actions at removal sites. The date the AR is compiled and
available at the local repository must be recorded in WasteLAN. In addition, a 'V must be
recorded in the Event Qualifier field (C2103) to indicate that the AR is for a removal activity.
(See the Administrative Record section earlier in this Chapter for additional information.)
RI/FS Enforcement Activity (PRP Search/Negotiations/Settlements')
For sites likely to be added to the NPL, PRP searches should start concurrent with the SI
or ESI or, at the latest, the initiation of the listing process. The PRP search should be managed
— including follow up, civil investigator assistance, and ORC 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 at least 120 days before the
planned RI/FS obligation date. Information requests should be followed up to assure they are as
comprehensive as possible. If there is non-compliance with the information request, Regions
should issue a Section 104(e) referral to compel response. To the extent available, information
required for special notice should be presented to PRPs before the actual special notice is issued.
Regions are required to record dates associated with general notices, SNLs, and information
request letters in WasteLAN. If Regions are not entering notice letter data into the Superfund
Enforcement Tracking System (SETS) directly or providing an automated upload of data to
SETS, notice letters should be sent to the Program Management Support Office (PMSO) in
OWPE.
PRP searches should be completed prior to negotiations when possible and should be
planned in advance to avoid delaying a scheduled RI/FS start date. Upon completion of the first
phase of the PRP search Regions are required to record the outcome in WasteLAN. A decision
on the outcome should be made based on existing information and the Region's best judgment.
This outcome code should be updated as better information becomes available. Valid outcome
codes (C1719) are:
• NV - Search complete, no viable PRPs, orphan site;
• VC - Viable PRPs cannot do the work; and
• VP - Search complete, viable PRPs.
IV-41
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Regions should be prepared to move quickly through the negotiation process. This can
be accomplished through:
• Developing a SMP and negotiation strategy in conjunction with the State and
ORC;
• Using a model order;
• Scoping the RI/FS;
• Providing a draft of the model order and statement of work for the RTJFS with the
special notice; and
• Establishing interim milestones to judge whether real progress is being made.
Milestones 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 for cost recovery in
Rl/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 activities regarding a significant threat to
public health or the environment. The Regions may initiate a scope of work, workplan, or a
negotiations support document which should be funded by their enforcement extramural 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.
Settlements with PRPs for RI/FSs are typically accomplished through an AOC or in rare
circumstances by a CD or UAO. AOCs are strongly preferred. In any case, the settlement
document should include either a workplan prepared by EPA using the Regional enforcement
extramural budget funds or a detailed SOW with a workplan to be developed according to EPA
guidance manuals. A well-defined schedule that lists deliverables and milestones should also be
included. If a Region settles through a CD, a copy of the CD should be sent to the Chief of
Compliance Branch, CED in OWPE and to OE-Superfund.
EPA is required to use third party assistance in oversight of RP-lead RI/FS through the
Technical Enforcement Support (TES) contract, ARCS, other Federal agencies (e.g., USAGE) or
States. Regions should be transitioning or completing TES oversight projects because of the
TES contract close-out in FY 93. Oversight resources are obtained through the Regional en-
forcement extramural budget. At the time of settlement, a detailed oversight plan should be
developed identifying intramural and extramural resource needs. Oversight should include
active field oversight as well as desktop review of engineering reports and other deliverables.
Initially the program was seeing slightly higher oversight costs using ARCS contracts. Regions
are reminded that work plans and personnel (P) levels are negotiable. Oversight must be
tracked and billed to PRPs. Collection of oversight funds should be tracked. In addition,
Regions must ensure compliance with the cleanup standards in Section 121. RPMs must keep up
with the progress of RP-lead RI/FS as if it were an EPA contractor performing the work. Where
IV-42
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
delays or inadequacies are noted, prompt action, including assessment of penalties, should be
taken. Regions must maintain the PRP compliance status code (C1725) in WasteLAN.
RD/RA Enforcement Activity (RD/RA Negotiations. Settlement and Oversight
Prior to completion of the draft FS, Regions should undertake considerable planning,
including: (1) developing an enforcement strategy that includes activities, responsibilities and
dates; (2) reviewing PRP search information for completeness; (3) considering settlement op-
tions, mixed funding and dje minimis and discussions with PRPs before the special notice; (4)
documenting past costs (e.g., RI/FS) to include in RD/RA negotiations; and (5) preparing SNL
and accompanying draft CD. To assist the Regions, a model CD was developed and should be
used as needed.
SNLs for RD/RA should be planned and issued about the time of ROD signature. PRPs
have 60 days in which to submit a GFO after receiving notices. If a GFO is submitted in that
timeframe, another 60-day period follows for negotiations. If a GFO is not submitted, negotia-
tions should be terminated. Ideally, RD/RA negotiations should not last longer than two quarters
post ROD signature. The moratoriums established in the SNL should be honored. Negotiations
should be completed and settlement reached within the timeframes or a UAO should be issued to
viable and liable PRPs. PRPs have 30 days to provide notice of intent to comply. Negotiations
are completed when the CD or referral without settlement is sent to HQ or DOJ, a UAO is
issued, a trial is started or the RD is funded. During the moratorium, EPA may not initiate RA.
However, additional studies authorized under Sections 104 and 122 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, a coordinated team effort involv-
ing the program office, ORC, DOJ, the State, and HQ is required. This begins with the drafting
of a SMP and development of a negotiation strategy and pre-referral package. The negotiation
team should identify potential settlement issues up-front and be prepared to address them. 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 AA SWER.
If it appears negotiations will be extending beyond the 120 day negotiation moratorium,
RPMs should notify and coordinate with the OWPE Compliance Branch Regional Coordinators.
At least one week prior to the end of the Regional Administrator's extension, the Region should
send their additional 30 day negotiation extension request to the AA SWER with a copy to the
OWPE Director. A copy of this request should also be faxed or mailed directly to their enforce-
ment Regional Coordinator. The extension request should contain the following:
• Brief background summary;
• Status of negotiations;
• Likelihood of settlement;
• Information on whether the Region has begun drafting a UAO;
• A specific date when the UAO will be issued; and
IV-43
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
• An indication of the extent to which both ORC and DOJ concur in the proposed
approach to resolving negotiations.
Regions are urged to use UAOs when negotiations are protracted and PRPs are liable and
viable and the Agency determines it is in the public interest to compel the PRPs to respond. In
addition, where the negotiations do not produce agreement and there are viable and clearly liable
PRPs, UAOs should be considered to obtain treble damages or as a step prior to referral. Re-
gions are required to consult with CED Compliance Branch Chief prior to making a decision not
to issue a UAO to liable and viable PRPs and fund the RD.
When negotiating settlements for RD/RA, Regions should use the model CD and include
a provision in the CD allowing PRPs to begin the RD prior to lodging or entry. AOCs for RA
are not permitted under SARA. Regions should follow established procedures for requesting
language deviations for nationally significant provisions of the model CD. Regions should send
a copy of the CD and the 10 point referral document to the Chief of Compliance Branch, CED in
OWPE and to OE-Superfund.
Oversight of PRP-lead RD/RA is performed primarily through ARCS and USAGE.
Regions should seek payment of oversight costs in all settlements, as well as past costs of site
assessment, RI/FS, and other response costs. Where a partial settlement occurs, Regions should
aggressively pursue non-settlors. This may include the use of Section 104(e) information request
enforcement, as well as Section 106 and Section 107 cost recovery litigation. The status of the
PRP's compliance with the UAO or CD must be updated monthly in WasteLAN. RPMs are
required to track the compliance status of major PRP deliverables.
At the end of negotiations, if the decision is made to proceed with a Fund-financed RD,
monies will be available. However, Regions should reconsider issuing a UAO and pursuing
Section 106 litigation to enforce the UAO if there are viable PRPs at the site. In most cases,
Regions should plan that PRP-lead RI/FS projects without settlement and without compliance
with a UAO for RD/RA will be candidates for referral as Section 106/107 judicial actions.
The administrative authority under Section 106 should be used at all sites that meet the
criteria outlined in OWPE guidance ("Guidance on CERCLA 106(a) Unilateral Administrative
Orders for Remedial Design and Remedial Actions," OSWER Directive 9833.0-1 (a), March 7,
1990), to bring PRP negotiations to a close or compel PRP response at the site. A UAO should
be issued if a GFO is not submitted within the negotiation timeframes identified or a settlement
is not reached at the end of the moratorium and the PRPs are liable and viable.
WasteLAN should be updated monthly with actual dates of referrals and/or orders issued,
response remedy sought/obtained, compliance status, milestones, dollars sought (in case of a
Section 106/107 referral), value of RP work to be performed ("R" dollars), and dollars recovered
("F" dollars).
Cost Recovery
Cost recovery actions are one of the highest Enforcement program priorities in FY 93.
Consistent with the Integrated Priority Setting Matrix, Section 107 SOL referrals are the highest
priority, followed by actions against non-settlors/non-compliers and other non-SOL referrals.
HQ will be reevaluating the Agency's cost recovery strategy during the next year. Cost recovery
cases that are cost effective and maximize recovery of Trust Fund monies will be selected for
litigation. Sites ripe for cost recovery include non-SOL sites with completed removal, completed
RI/FS, and each RA where on-site construction has started. Regions should have a completed
IV-44
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
PRP search and information about the liability and viability of the PRPs; totals for funds obli-
gated/expended; removal, RI/FS and RD completion dates; RA and RA on-site construction start
dates; and SOL dates. The following is a list of cost recovery programmatic strategies:
• 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 WasteLAN;
• Where there is a partial settlement, an action against viable non-settlors should be
pursued promptly (before the response begins). Non-settlor and non-compliance
enforcement action on the part of the government can create a powerful deterrent
to non-cooperation by other PRPs in future cases. They also enhance the equi-
table position of the Agency in various sorts of enforcement litigation, and help
fulfill the assurance provided to Congress concerning the implementation of
CERCLA;
• Where a UAO was violated resulting in EPA incurring work performance or
enforcement costs, treble damages should be sought in the referral against the
non-compliers;
• Each Region should issue demand letters and pursue administrative settlement for
response activities less than $200,000, if resources are available. The use of
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is encouraged. EPA will refer some cases
where the PRPs did not respond to the demand letter; and
• Cost recovery decision documents should be initiated for all cases when a deci-
sion 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 supplemented as necessary (PRP search follow-up phase). As soon as a
preliminary decision is reached, the date of the cost recovery decision document
and the funds that will not be recovered should be entered into WasteLAN. If the
decision is preliminary, a planned date should be entered into WasteLAN for the
final decision document.
The following is a list of possible SOL issues and methods for recording data in
WasteLAN:
• Referrals for all removals greater than $200,000 must be planned in order to be
filed in court within one year of completion of the removal, if resources are
available. In no event should the referral be later than three years from the date of
completion of the removal, 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 to six months from referral 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 of the RI/FS or RD unless there is physical on-site construction of the
RA 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 SOL date for that component is 6 years
from the on-site construction date;
IV-45
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
• 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-settlors); and
• For cost recovery referrals and administrative settlements, WasteLAN data re-
quirements are the following:
- Plan/actual start and completions;
- Value of referral/settlement;
- Remedy; and
- Activity level indicator flag for settlement.
Negotiation of lAGs or other Federal agency compliance agreements at multiparty sites
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 supplementing PRP searches, assembly of ARs, 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.
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 or other compa-
rable State enforcement document with PRP oversight paid for or conducted by EPA (PS-lead),
and work financed by the PRP under a State order or other comparable State enforcement docu-
ment and no EPA oversight support or money is provided (SR). While this information is some-
times difficult to obtain, Regions should make reasonable efforts to get and report these data in
WasteLAN. HQ will be tracking State orders and other comparable State enforcement docu-
ments through the SCAP reporting measures - State CDs for RD/RA issued and State orders for
RI/FS issued.
By definition, SR-lead activities/events should have no planned obligations. Funds for
State oversight are awarded through CAs. Funds for oversight of PS-lead RI/FS projects are
provided by the enforcement extramural budget. Funds for RD/RA oversight are provided by the
response budget.
FEDERAL FACILITIES
Federal Facilities may be tracked in WasteLAN as one site/incident or as multiple sites in
the case of complex facilities. In most cases when a Federal Facility is included on the NPL, the
entire facility is addressed. Within WasteLAN, an OU at a Federal Facility will generally ad-
dress a grouping of waste release areas that have similar characteristics or that are in close
proximity. EPA has issued detailed guidance for coding events and enforcement activities at
Federal Facilities, which is contained in Appendix F.
IV-46
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01H-1
In FY 93, the focus of the Federal Facility program will be to implement completed lAGs
at all NPL facilities, to establish priorities for quick response actions at facilities posing the
greatest risk to human health, and to stress efficiency through streamlining and multi-media
enforcement and program integration. OFFE will be taking initiatives to streamline program
activities, to focus enforcement actions, and to coordinate and communicate closely with other
Federal agencies and multiple media programs to implement an effective multi-media enforce-
ment approach. For example, reduced oversight at facilities that have demonstrated consistently
high performance in field activities, self-auditing, compliance, and response will be examined as
a means to maximize the benefits from available government resources.
EPA's policy is to enter into Section 120 lAGs with all Federal Facilities proposed to or
on the NPL. The scope of these lAGs includes the RI/FS phase as well as the RD/RA phase.
Where appropriate, and in conjunction with the RCRA program offices, these LAGs may be used
to satisfy RCRA corrective action technical requirements. The concept is to use CERCLA to
satisfy RCRA so that only one set of requirements is applied to avoid redundant and duplicative
efforts. In some cases, however, a combined RCRA/CERCLA permuYIAG approach may be
taken when the situation warrants such an approach, or when the State or EPA RCRA program
has compelling interests at units on a facility. Regions should compare the RCRA permit re-
quirements with the provisions of the CERCLA IAG for the site to determine which approach is
appropriate. Pre-planning, coordination among appropriate offices, and definitive "scoping" of a
Federal Facility are necessary factors for successful IAG execution and site remediation.
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. Schedules for all ongoing or planned
negotiations 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 facility establishing the negotiation
time frame;
• Conduct three-party negotiations. The 90 day period may be extended 30 days if
settlement is close; and
If issues still remain after the 90/120 day period, the IAG is to be elevated to HQ
for dispute resolution. Along with the elevation, the Region should recommend
either a Section 106 AO or two-party agreement in the event that the HQ resolu-
tion fails. If a settlement is not reached, either the Section 106 AO will be re-
ferred 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, the agency is 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
Section 120 IAG approach.
IV-47
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER V
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND FTE DISTRIBUTION
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER V- FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND
FTE DISTRIBUTION
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.
Relationship Between SCAP and Annual Regional Budget
Regions are required to plan their obligations within the program
specific budget allocations given to the Regions prior to the August
negotiations.
• 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.
Advice of Allowance Procedures and Requirements
• Regions are required to operate within their quarterly AOA and final
negotiated annual operating budget
• 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 AOA/Budget Control report from CERHELP
and enter the AOA amounts for the upcoming quarter found in that
report into the IFMS before the end of each quarter.
Planned and actual obligations and open commitments in CERCLIS
cannot exceed the annual Regional budgets or the AOA will not be
approved.
HQ approval is not required to shift funds between projects within
the other response, RI/FS, RD, removal, enforcement or Federal
Facility AOA.
V-i
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER V - FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND FTE DISTRIBUTION
This chapter discusses the impact of the SCAP process on the Regional operating budget
and ADA, outlines Superfund financial management responsibilities, and provides an overview
of the FTE distribution process. Specific information on the FY 93 Response Budget, Enforce-
ment Budget, and Federal Facility Budget as well as each workload model is provided in Chap-
ters VI, VE, and VHI, respectively.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FY 93 NATIONAL BUDGET
In FY 93 there are insufficient resources for all ongoing activities plus the new activities
the Regions planned to begin. As a result, resource decisions were made based on the following
program priorities and consistent with the Integrated Priority Setting Matrix:
• Handle classic emergencies first;
• Move sites through the remedial pipeline to construction completion and NPL deletion;
• Make funding decisions, where resources are constrained, based on the worst problems
first strategy;
• Use enforcement tools to encourage PRP action;
• Fund response actions if enforcement cannot be used;
• Select the best cases for cost recovery litigation (both administrative and judicial) to
maximize cost recovery to the Trust Fund;
• Support ongoing projects to completion;
• Initiate new work to keep the pipeline full;
• Support long term goals via site assessment, removal, enforcement and State programs;
and
• Maintain essential program management elements within the limited budgets.
As shown by these criteria, after reducing imminent threats to human health and the
environment, optimizing site completions (and deletion where feasible), is the highest program
priority while using enforcement tools to ensure maximum PRP involvement. However, those
activities that optimize site completions and contribute to other program goals, and more gener-
ally contribute to the long-term vitality of the program need to be supported to the maximum
extent possible. Examples of such activities are enforcement first and equity initiatives (de
minimis and municipal settlements, PRP compliance oversight, and pursuing non-settlors) and
worst sites first initiatives. Worst sites first is a guiding principle within the context of optimiz-
ing the number of completions.
Applying these criteria and long-term goals, the response, enforcement and Federal
Facility programs made specific budget decisions. These budgets and program decisions are
discussed in Chapter VI (Response), Chapter VII (Enforcement) and Chapter VIH (Federal
Facilities).
V-l
-------
OSWER Dkective9200.3-01H-l
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCAP AND THE ANNUAL REGIONAL BUDGET
The SCAP process is the planning mechanism used by the Superfund program to identify
site assessment, remedial, removal, enforcement and Federal Facility funding needs for the FY.
The planned obligations included in the second quarter SCAP update (February) form the basis
for the Regional budgets for the next FY. The final annual Regional operating plan, and the
associated budget, are a result of the August HQ and Regional negotiations on the proposed
outputs and program budgets. Though Regions are required to operate within their final negoti-
ated annual operating budgets, adjustments within this budget can be made during the FY.
The actual allocation of funds is accomplished through the Agency's Phase El Operating
Plan. This plan is submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) prior to the start
of the FY for apportionment of funds. After the OMB review and concurrence, the Operating
Plan is submitted to the Congress for approval of significant reprogramming of funds. At this
time, Congress may also modify the Operating Plan based on Gramm-Rudman requirements,
shifts in emphasis among different environmental programs, etc. Changes made by Congress
may affect the Regional budget negotiated in August.
Prior to the beginning of the FY, each Region will be given a proposed budget allocation
for the site assessment, remedial, removal, enforcement and Federal Facility programs. The
budget allocations are developed using the program/activity-specific criteria discussed in subse-
quent Chapters. 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" ('APR') in the Funding Priority
Status data field (C3225). Funding needs above the HQ proposed total budget level must be
designated as "alternate" ('ALT'). 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 "approved" funds requested are within the proposed total Regional budget levels.
In the past, the AOA obligation rate through the first two quarters of the FY has been
low. As a result, HQ has implemented the following measures to improve performance:
• Regions will not receive their third quarter AOA for a specific response category
unless the commitment/obligation rate is 50 percent or greater in that AOA cat-
egory. For example, if the commitment/obligation rate for one response allowance (i.e.,
RDs) is 35 percent while the rate for another (i.e., removals) is 65 percent, the third
quarter removal AOA would be issued but the RD AOA would not be issued.
• Regions must obligate and task 60-65 percent of the enforcement Regional extramu-
ral funds received in their first and second quarter AOA in order to receive their
third quarter enforcement AOA. If a Region does not receive its third quarter enforce-
ment AOA due to such an obligation shortfall, it is required to produce a site specific
spending plan in WasteLAN for both the third and fourth quarters by mid-May.
For those Regions that continue to have a low rate of commitment/obligation/tasking,
OSWER will renegotiate the Region's operating plan for the remainder of the year during June.
This may result in a reduction in the Region's annual budget.
V-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
For further information on the Regional response, enforcement, and Federal Facility
annual budget requirements, see Chapters VI, VII, and VIE, respectively.
ADVICE OF ALLOW A NCE PROCEDURES AND FINANCIAL REPORTING REQUIRE-
MENTS
The planned obligations identified through the SCAP process are the basis for the AOA
approved by the Office of the Comptroller (OC) and AA SWER. No monies will be issued to
the Regions through the AOA process unless the appropriate project-specific obligation
and open commitment data are reflected in CERCLIS.
Regional Allowances
In FY 93, the OC will issue seven allowances to the Regions. They are:
RA (site-specific "site" allowance), which also includes funds for O&M, LTRA,
and five-year reviews;
• RD (non-site-specific "site" allowance), which also includes RD/RA oversight
funding;
• RI/FS (non-site-specific "site" allowance);
• Removal (non-site specific "site" allowance);
• Other response (non-site specific "regular" allowance) contains funds for site
assessments and response program and project support, including ARCS program
management, treatability studies and pollution liability insurance;
• Enforcement (non-site specific "regular" allowance); and
• Federal Facility (non-site specific "regular" allowance).
The "site" allowance is an event-specific allowance. It is issued on a site or non-site
specific basis. The "regular" allowance includes site and non-site specific events or activities
and is issued non-site specifically. The following sections explain how these allowances are
developed and the flexibility available in the AOA structure.
The AOA Process
The AOA is based on the Phase HI Operating Plan which identifies projected obligations
for each quarter of the FY. The Phase HI Operating Plan for FY 93 is based on the final SCAP
plans developed in the fourth quarter of FY 92. Funds available for obligation, however, are
limited to projected needs for the upcoming quarter.
Approximately four weeks before the end of each quarter, HQ will generate AOA reports
(SCAP-4 and SCAP-4E) that reflect the approved planned obligations in CERCLIS. If the
planned and actual obligations and committments in CERCLIS exceed the Regional budget, the
Region will be contacted. CERCLIS must be revised to match the Regional budget before HQ
will proceed with the AOA process in the Region. After discussions with the Regions to clarify
questions or issues and after ensuring that the Regional budget was not exceeded, HQ will enter
V-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
the AOAs into the CERHELP BC/AOA system two weeks before the end of the quarter. Re-
gions must pull these reports from CERHELP and enter these amounts into IFMS.
The AA SWER and the OC review the funding levels entered into IFMS by the Region
and compare them to the AOA amounts generated by the HQ program offices. If the two agree,
within three working days after the start of the quarter, the HQ OC Budget Division and the AA
SWER approve the AOA in IFMS and the funds are available for obligation. If the AOA entered
into IFMS by the Regions does not agree with the AOA in CERHELP, IFMS will not be ap-
proved and the Automated Document Control Register (ADCR) will not work. Only projects
planned in CERCLIS can be funded by the AOA. Exhibit V-l 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 OC Budget Division monitors obligations against the AOA weekly. If a Region
exceeds any of the allowances or a site-specific RA allocation, the HQ OC 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 overcommitmenl/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 allowance. Repeated violations of 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 OC Budget Division will withdraw obligation authority in accordance with existing proce-
dures. During the last quarter of the year, the HQ OC Budget Division will work with the Re-
gions, OSWER and OE as necessary to ensure that all allowances and obligations are aligned
prior to year-end closing.
The enforcement and response programs have developed rules for utilization of extramu-
ral budget funds. See the HQ/Regional Adjustment sub-section in Chapter VII for additional
information on enforcement requirements and financial planning for the AOA, and Chapter VI
for the response AOA requirements.
Based on a decision to continue to manually enter financial data into WasteLAN
(See IFMS to CERCLIS Data transfer in this Chapter), it is especially important that
Regions reconcile IFMS and WasteLAN data on a quarterly basis at a minimum. Regions
will not receive their FY 93 second quarter AOA until the FY 92 financial data in
CERCLIS and IFMS agree.
AOA Flexibility
Some flexibility exists within the AOA structure to shift funds both within and between
allowances. Regions can shift funds between projects within the other response, RI/FS, RD,
removal, enforcement, or Federal Facility allowances without HQ approval. Funds can also be
shifted between the RI/FS and RD allowances, out of (but not into) the other response budget,
and into (but not of) the RA allowance. Also, funds cannot be shifted into or out of the Federal
Facility allowance.
Shifting funds between projects within the other response, RI/FS, RD, removal, enforce-
ment, or Federal Facility allowance is a SCAP adjustment. It does not require HQ approval or a
change request, but WasteLAN must be revised to reflect the shift Allowable shifts between
allowances are also SCAP adjustments; however, HQ approval of a change request is required.
V-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXfflBTT V-1
THE ADVICE OF ALLOWANCE PROCESS
WEEK
WEEK
" 11
WEEK
" 13
WEEK
' 1
REGIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES
HQ RESPONSIBILITIES
Regions obligate
funds to projects
planned in SCAP as
reflected in
WasteLAN. Data
in WasteLAN
reguarly uploaded
to CERLIS
Pull AOA data
Enter AOA
data from
CERHELP
iiiiifHiiiiimiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimimiiiiiiiiiiHiiiiiim;
Regions obligate
funds to projects
planned in SCAP as
reflected in
WasteLAN
Review planned/
- actual obligation data
and commitments
and tasking and
compare them to
annual Regional
program budget
If data within
budget, OERR and
OWPE enter AOA
to CERHELP.
AOA provided to
OC and AA
SWER
OC and AA SWER
compare AOA data
to information
supplied by OWPE
and OERR
If all data agree, OC
and AA SWER
approve AOA
V-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
The change 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
change request and Congressional notification if the funds proposed for reprogramming exceed
$500,000. Federal Facility funds cannot be reprogrammed.
RA Allowance
The Regions ability to redirect RA funds is limited. Approval from the AA for Adminis-
tration and Resources Management (ARM) and AA SWER is required. Given the con-
straints in RA funding, HQ approval is highly unlikely. Funding for ongoing projects,
mixed funding settlements, LTRA, O&M and five-year reviews, however, may be repro-
grammed by the Regions. RA funds made available as a result of bids coming in below
expected amounts will be returned to HQ for funding of other priority RA projects. In
some cases, HQ may recommend that the Region retain the funds to support unantici-
pated RA cost escalations. In situations where the PRPs settle after the AOA is issued,
Regions may retain the funds needed for oversight. The remaining funds in the AOA
must be sent back to HQ through a change request. If the PRPs take over the RA after
funds are obligated, Regions should retain the funds needed for oversight and deobligate
the rest. The RA funds that are deobligated will be returned to HQ.
Non-Site Specific Funding Flexibility
Regions may redirect funds within the other response, removal, RI/FS, RD, enforcement,
and Federal Facility allowances to meet site or activity priorities. It is important to note
that, generally, funds cannot be shifted out of the removal allowance because Congress
specifically added resources to this area. Regions may shift funds more easily into the
removal allowance from other non-site specific allowances. Funds also cannot be shifted
into or out of the Federal Facility allowance.
Funds saved within the RI/FS and RD accounts as a result of a settlement or where actual
costs are lower than estimated will generally stay within the Region. These funds may be
used within the allowance for other RI/FS or RD projects, respectively. In addition,
Regions may retain and redirect non-RA response funds made available as a result of the
following actions:
• PRP takeovers or settlements;
• RI/FS or RD bids that are less than planned amounts; and
• Actual obligations less than planned obligations.
HQ approval will generally be given for the redirection of unused funds to the following
priorities:
• Classic emergencies;
• Removal actions to make NPL sites safe;
• Ongoing RA projects; and
• Funds necessary to oversee PRP activities.
V-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Regions may redirect RD funds when a CD is referred to HQ or DOJ for lodging or when
PRPs indicate they will comply with a UAO.
A change request must be approved by HQ before funds can be reprogrammed to activi-
ties outside the allowance.
Special non-site contingency accounts have been created in the CERHELP data base to
provide each Region with a means to "hold" and track the amount of funds made avail-
able through the actions described above. As Regions identify uses for these funds, the
contingency account should be reduced. If the funds will be used for an activity sup-
ported by a different allowance, a change request must be approved prior to obligation.
Response funds may be used to address deficient PRP projects. Regions are allowed to
redirect funds to accommodate this need. Funds for PRP projects that will require sub-
stantial Fund involvement should be transferred to the appropriate response AOA cat-
egory. For projects requiring limited Fund involvement, funds should be transferred to
the enforcement AOA. Again, a change request will be necessary for transfers between
AOA categories.
AOA Change Request Procedures
Regions are required to operate within their quarterly AOA and their annual Regional
budget Each Region will receive an RA budget based on the schedule for the RA. Regions are
responsible for managing the funds issued in the AOA and for operating within budget ceilings,
floors and other restrictions. Consistent with the flexible funding initiatives discussed earlier in
this chapter, Regions may:
• Shift funds between projects within the other response, RVFS, RD, removal,
Federal Facility or enforcement allowances. HQ approval is not required;
• Shift existing funds between certain allowances, e.g., the RI/FS and RD allow-
ances. HQ approval of a change request is required. However, funds cannot be
shifted into the other response allowance, out of the RA allowance, or into or out
of the Federal Facility allowance; and
• Move future planned obligations to the current quarter (increase total allowance
after issuance within the annual budget). HQ approval of a change request/SCAP
amendment is required.
In some situations, a change request is required as a result of Regional changes to the
SCAP. Chapter III identifies SCAP amendments and adjustments and when a change request is
needed. Exhibit V-2 discusses the flexible funding and other situations where an AOA change
request is required. Exhibit V-3 describes the procedures to be followed in each of these situa-
tions. HQ will not approve a change request unless CERCLIS is revised to reflect the change.
Under IFMS, change requests are electronically transferred to HQ. The following infor-
mation should be provided for a change request:
• Purpose/justification;
• Amount;
V-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT V-2
CHANGE REQUEST REQUIRED
CHANGE REQUEST SITUATION
PROCEDURES IN EXHIBIT V-3 TO
BE FOLLOWED:
Allocation transfer lAGs
Transfer funds to EMSL or other entity
within EPA
Shifting funds where allowable between
allowances after issuance
Increase total quarterly allowance after
issuance (within annual budget)
Decrease total quarterly allowance after
issuance
Increase RA funding after allowance is
issued
Decrease RA funding after allowance is
issued
Decrease RA funding as a result of PRP
takeover
New RA funding after allowance is
issued
Decrease allowance after issuance
Decrease allowance after issuance
Shifting funds between allowances after
issuance
Increase total allowance after issuance
within annual budget
Decrease allowance after issuance
Increase total allowance after issuance
within annual budget
Decrease allowance after issuance
Decrease allowance after issuance
Increase total allowance after issuance
within annual budget
• Site name and S/S ID if allowance is issued site specifically;
Program element(s) (TGB - enforcement, TFA - response or TYP - Federal
Facility); and
• Allowance that is being increased and/or allowance that is being decreased.
If the change request is a reprogramming of funds between allowances, the net change
should equal zero. The change request must be transmitted by authorized personnel in the
V-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT V-3
AOA CHANGE PROCESS
AOA CHANGES
Decrease Allowance
After Issuance
Increase Total Allowance
After Issuance Within Annual
Budget
V
| Shifting Funds Between ]
I Allowances After Issuance I
i
IMC sends E-mail
change request to the
Regional finance office,
with copies to OERR
PDBS staff or OWPE
CPB staff
IMC sends E-mail change
request to OERR PDBS
staff, or OWPE CPB staff
with copies to AA SWER
and Regional finance office
IMC sends E-mail change
request to the Regional
finance office, with copies
to OERR PDBS staff and/or
OWPE CPB staff and AA
SWER
C
V
Revise
WasteLAN/CERCLIS
^\
J
Revise
WasteLAN/CERCLIS
(
Revise
WasteLAN/CERCLIS
Change request is electronically
transmitted to HQ through IFMS
AOA in IFMS is revised to
reflect the change
A A SWER sends E-mail
approval memorandum to
Regional program and
finance offices and
HQOC
L
3
The change request is electronically transmitted to HQ through IFMS
AOA in IFMS is revised to reflect the change
OSWER and the OC review the request
Revised AOA is approved in IFMS by the HQ OC and AA SWER
Region's financial office. The site-specific record in WasteLAN should be revised at the time
the change request is transmitted. Regions should not initiate any obligations against the change
until the OC 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.
V-9
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCAP AND THE AOA
Within the SCAP process, obligations are planned either site, project and OU 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 WasteLAN and CERCLIS data bases have been designed to accommodate
site and non-site specific planning. Exhibit V-4 lists the events and enforcement activities for
which obligations are planned on a site, OU and project vs. non-site basis.
EXHIBIT V-4
SITE VS. NON-SITE SPECIFIC PLANNED OBLIGATIONS
Site Specific
Admin. Cost Recovery
Administrative Record**
CR**
Cost Document Preparation
Design Assistance**
Endangerment Assessment
Federal Facility Oversight
Forward Planning**
Litigation Support
LIRA
Management Assistance**
Negotiations:
— Removal**
— IAG
— RD/RA**
— RI/FS**
— Cost Recovery
Non-Binding Allocation of
Responsibility (NEAR)**
Other**
Oversight of PRP:
— RI/FS**
— RD
— RA
— O&M;LTRA
— Removals**
PRP Search
— NPL**
— Non-NPL**
RA
RD
RI/FS
Referrals
— 104(e)
— 106
—106/107**
—107**
— Bankruptcy Claims
Removals
Technical Assistance**
TAGs**
Treatability Study
Non-Site Specific*
ARCS Contractor Management
Aerial Surveys**
Contract or Program Management
Core Program Cooperative
Agreement (CPCA)
ERGS Management
Geophysical Support/
Topographical Mapping**
Information Management
Multi-site CA
PA/SI
Preliminary Natural Resource
Surveys (PNRS)
Records Management
Senior Environmental Employee
Program
State Enforcement Management
Assistance
TES 5+ 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.
V-10
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
WasteLAN and CERCLIS track only extramural funding needs. Therefore, Regions
should be certain all their extramural funding needs are reflected in WasteLAN and CERCLIS
such that there is a crosswalk between the WasteLAN 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 (C3229 and C2918)
identifies which program pays for the planned events/activities. Exhibit V-5 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 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 V-5
BUDGET SOURCE CODES
HQ Removal
HQ Remedial
Federal Facility
E
V
R
Enforcement
Removal
Remedial
Exhibit V-6 identifies the major events/activities and the appropriate budget source
codes, depending on the project/event lead, for planned obligations. 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 using the change request procedures. Funds
for aerial surveys and topographical mapping that are being conducted by EMSL and other intra-
agency assistance are allocated in the Regional budget. Once the change request transferring the
funds to the other entity is processed, the budget source code in WasteLAN should be changed to
an HQ budget source code.
As stated in Chapter IV, beginning in FY 92 the lead for project support activities are not
coded based on national rules, but left to the Regions' discretion. As a result of this change, the
budget source code becomes even more important. For example, an EPA funded community
relations activity (CR) at an RP-lead RI/FS should have a budget source code of "E" (Enforce-
ment). Funds for some project support activities (i.e., aerial surveys, topographical mapping,
geophysical support, etc.) at RP-lead RI/FS projects should be included in the RI/FS oversight
request.
The obligation authorities for mixed funding rests in the Regions. Funds needed for these
agreements are to be planned in advance and become part of the Region's budget.
V-ll
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT V-6
WHO PAYS FOR WHAT
EVENT/ACTIVITY
ARCS Management
Administrative Cost Recoveiy
CPCA
ERA Oversight (Federal Facility)
BRCS Management
Zone
Regional
ESI
Litigation Referrals and Ongoing Support
Section 106
Section 107
Section 106/107
Section 104(e)
Bankruptcy Claims
LIRA
LTRA Oversight
Negotiations (including development of site
workplans)
Removal
RI/FS
RD/RA
Cost Recovery
IAG
IAG (formerly owned Federal Facilities)
NEAR
PA/SI
PRP Searches
NPL
Non-NPL
Prepare Cost Documentation Package
Remedial/Enforcement Project Support:
Aerial Surveys
Administrative Record
Contract Program Management
TES 5+ Program Management
CR
Design Assistance
Endangerment Assessment
Federal Facility Docket
EVENT/ACTIVITY CODES
WasteLAN
site-specific
^BflH^H^BB0fllH^IIIIHIflllHMHMtf
AV
ER
ES
sx
sv
CL
SF
CB
LR
LR
RN
FN
AN
NE
IN
IN
NB
NS
RP
PC
AS
AR
—
CR
DA
ED
WasteLAN
non-site
specific
^^^^^^^^^^^•^^•WVi^BHV
AC.PM*
SC
EZ
RE
SX
SV
CL
RN
FN
AN
NB
PA
PS
RP
AS
AR
PM
TM
CR
DA
FD
WasteLAN
LEAD
••Ml^^K^^^^^^B^^^^M
—
FE
—
FF
—
—
S,F
FE
FE
FE
FE
FE
F,S,EP,MR
RP,PS,MR
FF
FE
FE.SE
FE.SE
FE
FE
FE
FE
S,F
FE
FE
FE
—
—
FF
—
—
—
—
—
FF
1
BUDGET
SOURCE
R
E
R.V
L
V
V
R
E
E
E
E
E
R
R
L
E
E
E
E
L
E
E
R
E
E
E
R,V
R.E.V
L
R.E.L
E,L
R.E.V
R
R,E
L
- Designates Historical Ongoing Only
V-12
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT V-fi
WHO PAYS FOR WHAT (CONT.)
EVENT/ACTIVITV CODES
EVENT/ACTIVITY
WasteLAN
site specific
WasteLAN
non-site
specific
WasteLAN
LEAD
BUDGET
SOURCE
Remedial/Enforcement Project Support
(continued):
Forward Planning/Mgmnt. Asst
Geophysical Support
Information Management
Management Assistance
Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement
O&M Oversight
Other (Specify)
Preliminary Natural Resource Surveys
Records Management
Senior Environmental Employee Program
State Enforcement Management Assistance
Technical Assistance
TAGs
Treatability Studies
Topographical Mapping
Training
Removal Actions:
Removal
NPL
- Non-NPL
Removal Contingency
Oversight of PRP Removal
RV,UR*JR*J»R*
Removal Support:
Administrative Record
Aerial Survey
Evacuation
Investigations
Removal Community Relations
Temporary Relocation
F.S.EP
RP.MRJPS
FF
RI,FS,CO
RLFS.CO
RI/FS
RI/FS Oversight
F.S.MR
RP,PS,MR
FF
RD
RD Oversight
F.S.MR
RP,PS,MR
FF
RA
RA Oversight
* - Designates Historical Ongoing Only
V-13
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
SUPERFUND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
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 complexities 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;
• Approve consistency exemptions at NPL sites where the removal will cost more
than $2 million;
• Award CAs;
• Award lAGs;
• Enter into Superfund State Contracts (SSCs);
• Initiate remedial planning activities;
• Grant States credit against their cost share; and
A ward TAGs.
All of these authorities may be re-delegated with the exception of removal actions
deemed to be "nationally significant," consistency exemptions and TAGs.
Regional Program Office
The financial responsibilities of the Regional program office include:
Providing technical support to the Contracting Officer (CO) in contracts manage-
ment;
• Reviewing vouchers and/or financial reports;
• Managing CA and LAGs;
• Preparing Commitment Notices (CN) and PRs;
Developing SSCs;
• Negotiating CAs with States, political subdivisions and Indian Tribal govern-
ments;
V-14
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Either issuing S/S ID or requesting that they be issued by the Regional Manage-
ment Division;
• Managing the Region's allowances;
Approving RFPs or Requests for 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 finan-
cial management responsibilities:
OSC — The Regional OSC is an employee of EPA or of the USCG. This em-
ployee reacts to hazardous substances spills and releases, or threats of release, by
initiating and managing the removal process. The OSC's financial management
responsibilities include preparing site budgets and contract action requests; com-
pleting 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 per-
forming their duties. The Ordering Officer, who typically is an OSC, may ini-
tially 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.
• RPM — 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 and enforcement 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 and en-
forcement site charges and for ensuring that costs are reasonable and necessary.
Regional Project Officer rRPO^/Deputv Project Officer (DPO) — The RPO is
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 respon-
sible for overall removal and general site support contract management functions.
The RPO/DPO evaluate and designate contractor award fees; monitor contractors'
activities; and review monthly contractor reports and site-specific attachments.
The RPM or the RPO may initiate Work Assignments (WAs), CAs, lAGs and contracts,
and approve site-specific IAG invoices.
Administrative Support Unit CASLD — ASUs may be established in each Re-
gional program office. The purpose of these ASUs is to assist the OSC/RPM in
performing their administrative duties, thus allowing the OSC/RPM to concen-
V-15
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
trate their efforts on technical site management activities. These units are de-
signed 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 office;
Provide liaison between the OSC/RPM and other groups involved in
administrative matters; and
Provide support to Regional remedial and removal program management.
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 Memo-
randa;
Assist in daily cost monitoring via daily contractor reports;
Maintain the Removal Cost Management System (RCMS);
Set up and maintain active remedial and removal site files;
Complete PRs and CNs; and
Request and review reports generated by IFMS and the Management and
Accounting Reporting System (MARS) for purposes of monitoring site
costs.
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 organiza-
tion in which financial management, budgetary, accounting, planning, and assistance
agreements administration functions are carried out. The Regional Servicing Finance
Office (SFO) and the COs for ARCS and ERCS aije considered to be a part of this divi-
sion. In most Regions, the Regional Management [Division:
• Assigns Account Number (AN) and Document Control Number (DCN) to all
Regional commitment and obligating documents;
• Controls the Regional allowance, maintains the ADCR, and reconciles transac-
tions;
• Generally issues S/S IDs for non-USCG-lead sites;
Sets up Regional account numbers in IFMS (new obligational authority only);
V-16
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Processes all PRs for national contracts and enters commitments into the IFMS;
Processes CNs for lAGs and enters commitments into 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; *- *-r r
Reviews EPA-Automated Clearing House (EPA-ACH) Payment System payment
requests;
• 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, cash outs, and the SSC cost
share, and maintains the billing and collection system;
• Provides Regional program office with financial data;
• Obligates contracts and modifications for the Regional ARCS and ERCS con-
tracts; and
• Reviews invoices and monthly financial reports for the Regionals ARCS and
ERCS contracts.
HO Financial Management Responsibilities
Selected offices in HQ have Superfund financial management responsibilities. Those
offices that the Regional program office may come in contact with are highlighted below.
Financial Management Division (FMD)IOC
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 the Trust Fund to invest cost recoveries, fines and penalties; and
• Establishes Superfund account numbers in IFMS.
V-17
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Program Development and Budget Staff (PDBS)IOERR
PDBS provides financial management and accounting support and guidance to OERR
and the Regional program offices. As one of HQ's Superfund allowance holders,
PDBS's responsibilities include the following:
• Maintains the OERR ADCR 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 lAGs.
PDBS's responsibilities in relation to the Regional program office are as follows:
• Maintains the central S/S ID system and assigns S/S IDs to USCG-lead removal
sites;
• Negotiates Regional budgets;
• Approves Regional allowances and processes change requests;
• Provides liaison with Regional program offices regarding OERR financial issues;
and
• Provides financial policies to Regional program offices.
Contracts and Planning Branch (CPB )/OWPE
Like PBDS, the CPB provides financial management and accounting support and guid-
ance to OWPE and the Regional program offices. Responsibilities include:
• Initiate the procurement of the TES contracts;
• Process and monitor WAs in the Technical Enforcement Support Work Assign-
ment Tracking System (TESWATS);
• Process and monitor OWPE lAGs;
• Process invoices for TES contracts;
• Negotiate Regional budgets;
• Coordinate issuance of Regional allowances and process change requests;
Provide liaison with Regional program offices on OWPE financial issues; and
Provide OWPE financial policies to Regional program offices.
V-18
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Procurement and Contracts Management Division (PCMD MOffi.ce of Administration
PCMD conducts the Superfund contracting program. This involves negotiating, award-
ing, 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 (GADVQffice of Admimstratinn
GAD issues policies, regulations and guidance for the processing, award and administra-
tive management of financial assistance agreements and lAGs; issues identification
numbers for all lAGs; and processes and awards HQ lAGs.
Budget Division/OC
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 repro-
grams allowances, as necessary.
Financial Management Center-Cincinnati (FMC-Ci)
The SFO in Cincinnati is responsible for providing accounting support for all Superfund
lAGs. The SFO processes disbursement requests from other agencies, processes the
billing for reimbursable activities and enters LAG obligations and disbursements into
IFMS.
Research Triangle Park (RTF )f Office of Administration
This SFO is responsible for providing accounting support for all Superfund contracts.
The SFO enters contract award data and obligations into IFMS, processes contractor
invoices, and enters payments into IFMS via the Contract Payment System.
Financial Management Tools and Systems
Integrated Financial Management System (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 Re-
sources Management.
Management and Accounting Reporting System (MARS) — Through IFMS's
MARS, an IFMS user will be able to run specialized reports from IFMS, showing
only the information selected. MARS can select any data element maintained in
IFMS, arrange those elements in any desired format, and print a report. The
Regional program office staff will be able to request MARS reports from the
Regional SFO. These reports are especially useful for determining the status of
commitments, obligations and payments for a given site.
responsibility — Though each Region is organized somewhat
differently, in most Regions the SFO enters commitments into IFMS for contracts
V-19
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
and lAGs. For CAs, 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 docu-
ments to the SFO as expeditiously as possible for entry into IFMS. The Regional
finance office is also responsible for entering the quarterly AOA into IFMS.
Account Number (AN)
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 IFMS uses a 10-digit account number to identify costs
associated with a specific site and activity.
Document Control Number (DCN)
The DCN is a six digit number assigned by the Regional SFO to PRs and CNs as a
control number. This same number is carried over from the PR or CN to the obligating
document.
Automated Document Control Register (ADCR)
The ADCR is the allowance holder's mechanism for maintaining a running balance of all
funds available to the allowance holder. The ADCR is generally maintained in the SFO.
Checking the ADCR's balance is part of the Funds Certifying Officer's (FCO) certifica-
tion of funds availability. Once the FCO certifies that funds are available and that the
appropriate funds are being used, the FCO assigns a DCN to the action and records it in
the ADCR. This number uniquely identifies the spending action in the Agency's IFMS,
just as a check number identifies a check.
Site/Spill Identification Numbers (S/S IDs)
Two-digit S/S IDs are used to identify costs associated with a specific site. S/S IDs are
established by the Regional offices, with the exception of USCG responses which are
provided through the OERR PDBS. 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
release in the CERCLIS inventory. This ID is based on FINDS. An EPA ID 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/release is not already listed under another name. Removal actions 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 HRS score
for the site indicates it will be proposed for the NPL and an AN is needed for the obliga-
V-20
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
tion of funds. Dioxin sites do not have to be on the NPL in order to have an ID estab-
lished. 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.
Financial Management and Fundinp Processes
Regional financial authority consists of three distinct, but interrelated, parts: approval,
commitment and obligation. Exhibit V-7 indicates the process by which the Regions commit
and obligate funds. These funding processes are outlined below.
Approvals
Authority to approve site assessment, removal, remedial, enforcement and Federal Facil-
ity oversight activities is contained in the Superfund delegations package. An approval
by the AA SWER, AA OE, Regional Administrator or official designee, 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 — The Regional Administrator has the authority to approve
removal actions costing up to $2,000,000 at NPL sites or non-NPL sites, and may
grant exemptions to the twelve-month statutory limit and to the $2 million re-
moval statutory limit based on consistency with the remedial action to be under-
taken at the site. In addition, Regional Administrators may re-delegate to the
OSCs the authority to approve actions costing up to $50,000 in emergency situa-
tions 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 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/her $50,000
authority without preparing the necessary documentation in advance. In these circum-
stances 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, enforcement and Federal Facility programs:
Financial Approval Mechanism — Planning of remedial, enforcement and Federal
Facility program activities is accomplished by means of the SCAP. Funds cannot
be committed or obligated for a remedial, enforcement or Federal Facility activity
unless it is included in the SCAP.
V-21
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT V-7
HANDLING FINANCIAL DATA IN THE CERCLIS ENVIRONMENT
Funding Document prepared
by Program Office in appropriate area
(Site Assessment, Remedial, Removal,
Federal Facilities, Enforcement)
Contracts signed
by CO
Approval of Funding Document J
FMO reviews the Funding
Document, assigns a unique
AN/DCN pair and enters
information into IFMS.
Funds are now committed
Regional IMC or designee
enters the commitment
data into
^ WasteLAN/CERCLIS j
CAs signed by
Regional Administrator
•••••^^^^•^^^^^^•^^••^^•^^•••••VIIMH^^M
lAGs signed by
Participating Parties
Funds are now obligated
Regions enter obligation data into WasteLAN/CERCLIS. Regions
or HQ enter obligation data into IFMS
V-22
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Obligations made at events which are planned on an OU basis must be planned
and executed on an OU basis. Outlays resulting from the obligations should also
be attributed to the appropriate OU.
ROD — A ROD is required for all RD and RA activities. The ROD, signed by
either the Regional Administrator/Deputy Regional Administrator or the AA
SWER, 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 tiie Regional FCO 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 PR and the CN. The PR is used to
commit funds for contracts; the CN is used to commit funds for CAs and reimbursable
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 Federal agency or State cannot start work until 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 deobligated.
Obligating documents must be processed in accordance with guidance issued by the
PCMD, GAD, and FMD. The majority of the contracts are currently awarded by PCMD
and entered into IFMS by the 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 FMC-Ci.
In the past, some Regions grouped several smaller sites into one new, larger pseudo site.
The purpose of these pseudo sites was to establish a mechanism for funding area-wide
studies of environmental issues. This practice caused problems for cost recovery because
costs could not be assigned directly to a given site. Additionally, by creating a new site,
it was difficult to reference the older sites. These problems may be alleviated by follow-
ing a simple procedure. Funds for area-wide studies can be awarded in one PR, IAG or
CA. However, they must be obligated to each of the sites involved by using separate
ANs and DCNs. Obligations must be identified for each OU; particularly when PRPs
exist.
V-23
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
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 receiv-
ing 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 FY. 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.
Deobligations
The deobligation 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. Copies of deobligations should
be sent to PDBS. The availability of funds after deobligation depends on when the funds
initially had been obligated. Current FY funds are available for reuse within the AOA as
soon as the deobligation is effective. (See the Flexible Funding discussion earlier in this
Chapter on the use of deobligated funds.) Prior FY funds that are deobligated revert back
to HQ for redistribution. In order to reuse the prior year funds, allowance holders must
request a recertification of the funds to their allowance from the OC in coordination with
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 deobligate these funds immediately to
make them available for other activities.
PDBS has established a HQ/Regional task force to assist the Regions in the deobligation
of funds from contracts, lAGs and CAs where work has been completed, bids have come
in lower than expected or PRPs have taken over the lead for site activities. In addition,
the Superfund Unliquidated Obligations Task Force encourages and tracks any intramural
deobligations that can be processed. The Task Force has established a reward system for
Regions that are active in processing deobligations. A Region may receive an increase in
their annual budget of 10 percent of the funds they deobligate, up to $250,000. In order
to receive credit, deobligation documentation must be sent to PDBS.
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
The Agency has developed a long term contracting strategy for the Superfund program.
This strategy identifies the long-term contracting needs of the program and designs a
portfolio of Superfund contracts to meet those needs over the next ten years. During
FY 93, implementation of the strategy will continue.
V-24
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Superfund contracts are awarded through standard procurement procedures (see the OC'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 V-8 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 Super-
fund sites and OUs in order to assist in the cost recovery process. Cost recovery negotia-
tions 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.
• 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.
Commitment of Funds — The 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 (AN, appropriation number and DCN). The
SFO must also check that the action has been approved. The Regional
SFO enters the commitment into the ADCR and IFMS.
Obligation of Funds — Site-specific removal cleanup contracts are obli-
gated by the Regional Ordering Officer (generally the OSC), the Regional
ERCS CO 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 PCMD or the Regional ERCS CO for obligation and
processing. The SFO/RTP enters the obligation into IFMS for all con-
tracts.
Tnvnice Processing — The OSC or DPO reviews the site portion of con-
tractor 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 CO,
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 CO. 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."
V-25
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT V-S
EPA FORMS COMMONLY USED FOR SUPERFUND PROCUREMENTS
EPA FORM
NUMBER
1900-8
1900-48
1900-49
1900-56
1900-59
FORM NAME
Procurement Request/
Purchase Order
Order for Services -
Emergency Response
to Hazardous Substance
Release
Notice to Proceed with
Emergency Response to
Hazardous Substance
Release
Letter contract for State,
Indian Tribal
Governments,
or Local Government
Response
to Emergency Hazardous
Substances Release
Delivery Order for
Emergency
Response Cleanup
Services
PURPOSE
The Agency's basic form for requesting
a procurement of any goods or services
to commit funds before obligating funds
on any of these documents. Must be
certified by FCO.
Used by 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 CO.
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 CO.
Used by OSCs to order services (up to
$250,000) from the ERCS contractor to
respond to a release. All modifications
and obligations over $250,000 will be
processed by the CO.
COMMENTS
This form is the basis for entering a
commitment in IFMS. TheFMO
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 stated 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 CO. FMO will process
notice as an obligation.
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
CO. The appropriate FMO will
process a letter contract as an
obligation.
Has time and material provisions,
but uses fixed rates negotiated in
ERCS contract. Order must be made
final by a designated CO. FMO will
process orders as an obligation.
V-26
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Site-Specific Remedial Cnntr^ — Site-specific remedial contracts refer to those
which are obligated site specifically. Remedial contractors provide site-specific
support for RI/FS, RD and RA projects at individual NPL sites, as well as general
management support to EPA HQ and Regions. Small Region-specific 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 (AN 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 modifi-
cations are processed in the Regions.
Obligation of Funds— Site-specific remedial contracts are obligated by
the ARCS CO in the Regions. These obligations represent contract modi-
fications which must be processed in accordance with guidance issued by
PCMD. The ARCS CO 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 CO and the
RPMs for review. 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 PO for
resolution. The PO will resolve any problems, certify that the voucher is
consistent with the services provided, and forward the invoice to the SFO/
RTP for processing and payment.
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, site
assessment, remedial or enforcement site on an "as needed" basis. Examples of
this type of contract include, but are not limited to: Technical Assistance Team
(TAT), CLP, and the Environmental Services Assistance Team (ESAT). Because
these types of contracts are administered by HQ, they will not be discussed in
detail in this document.
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;
V-27
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Base and award fees;
Non-site activities, identified separately, such as training of State person-
nel or coordination of Regional activities; and
Non-Superfund costs, as applicable, on one line item per appropriation.
The contractors submit original invoices to RTF and advance copies to the HQ
PO simultaneously. The PO 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 TES 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
WAs against the contract labor pool on a site-specific basis. Site-specific WAs
are not entered into IFMS.
Additional information on enforcement contracts can be found in Chapter VII or
Appendix E.
• General Program Support Contracts — 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.
Interagency Agreements (lAGs)
An IAG is a written agreement between Federal agencies under which goods and services
are provided. The Superfund program uses Disbursement lAGs and Allocation Transfer
lAGs to request Federal agencies assistance with site cleanups and associated activities
and provide ongoing support or services. The IAG specifies the services required and
identifies the method of payment.
• Disbursement 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 site and for non-site specific activities. EPA pays the other agency
either by advance payment or by payment following work performance (repay-
ment). The Regional program office initiates and manages site-specific LAGs.
The Administrative Assistance Unit (AAU) in the Regional Management Division
typically approves and awards site-specific lAGs. The exceptions are USCG-lead
removal lAGs and the DOJ LAG, which are negotiated, approved, awarded, and
managed at HQ.
Commitment — The Regional program office determines whether assis-
tance from another Federal agency is needed. The Regional SFO deter-
mines the availability of funds, upon request from the Regional program
office. The Regional program office then prepares the IAG funding
package, consisting of a CN, a transmittal memorandum, EPA Form 1610-
1, which is the IAG itself, and a Decision Memorandum, which verifies
V-28
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
legal authority for the IAG. The Decision Official in the Regional pro-
gram office reviews and approves the IAG. 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 ADCR as well as into
IFMS. The Regional program office establishes and maintains the official
site file(s). The AAU establishes and maintains the official financial file.
Obligation — Following pre-validation of the commitment, the AAU
obtains an IAG number from HQ GAD by E-mail. The Action Official
(the Regional Administrator or his/her designee) signs the IAG. The AAU
then sends the signed IAG to the other agency for signature. An
obligation is created when the IAG has been signed by both agencies. The
AAU distributes the executed IAG to the Regional program office, GAD,
and FMC-Ci, where the obligation is recorded in IFMS.
Payments — If the performing agency does not have OMB-approved
reimbursable authority, FMC-Ci pays that agency for EPA prior to execu-
tion 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 (SIBAC), the On-line Payment and Collec-
tions system (OP AC), and check payments. When the OP AC or SIBAC
system is used, funds exchange occurs prior to Regional program office
certification; however, the Regional program office may request adjust-
ments when necessary. For payment by check, the performing agency
submits vouchers to the FMC-Ci, who forwards them to the Regional
program office. The Regional program office reviews and certifies the
voucher and then returns both the voucher and the certification form to
FMC-Ci for processing and payment.
EPA and USAGE implemented the direct site payment process for
USAGE assigned projects on October 1,1991. This process allows EPA
to directly pay USAGE contractors for design or construction activities
and for in-house costs on Superfund projects with USAGE certification.
EPA RPMs will be provided copies of all payment requests and the oppor-
tunity to concur prior to final 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 FMC-Ci that the IAG is financially closed out and sends a
V-29
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
closeout letter to the other agency and notifies the Regional program office and
GAD. Both the Regional program office and the AAU then remove the appropri-
ate 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 IAG mechanism is similar to the OC 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.
Initiating the IAG — The Regional program office initiates the IAG.
After developing a preliminary cost estimate with the other agency, the
Regional program office prepares the funding package which includes
EPA Form 1610-1, a transmittal memorandum, and the Decision Memo-
randum. The Decision Official in the Regional program office reviews
and approves the funding package and submits it to the AAU. The AAU
obtains an IAG number from GAD by E-mail and conducts an administra-
tive review. The GAD enters LAG data from the E-mail request into the
Grants Information Control Systems (GICS). The Action Official (the
Regional Administrator or his/her designee) conducts a final review and
signs the IAG package. The AAU submits the IAG to the other agency for
signature. The AAU distributes the executed IAG to the Regional pro-
gram office, to the GAD, and to the OC. Upon initiation of the IAG, the
Regional program office submits a change request to the Budget Formula-
tion and Control Branch in the OC, so that the funds can be set aside in a
HQ transfer account The appropriate program's allowance is then re-
duced to reflect the transfer to the receiving agency.
Transfer of Funds — The executed IAG serves to transfer obligational
authority to the other agency. Once the IAG is signed, and upon receipt of
a change request from the Regional program office, the OC Budget Divi-
sion withdraws funds from the Region's allowance and transfers the funds
to the EPA Transfer Allocation account for future transfer to the desig-
nated 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 FMD and 2) periodic status
reports to the Regional program office and the HQ Superfund Budget
Branch. The IAG also requires the other agency to maintain records and
documentation by site and submit them to EPA upon request. The Re-
V-30
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
gional program office reviews progress reports and acts on them as neces-
sary.
Closeout — The Regional program office closeout procedures for an
allocation transfer IAG 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 IAG may be financially
closed out by the OC, the AAU asks the EPA Office of Inspector General
(OIG) to request the other agency's OIG to determine the financial status
of the IAG. Both the Regional program office and the AAU then remove
the appropriate files for that IAG from active status and retain them a
minimum of six years. Disposal of the files is subject to Regional pro-
gram office approval.
For further information on Regional lAGs, see OSWER Directive 9295.0-01
"Regional Interagency Agreements Handbook."
Cooperative Agreements (CAs)
A CA is the instrument EPA uses to provide assistance to States, political subdivisions or
Indian Tribal governments in conducting site assessment, remedial, removal, enforcement
and program and project support activities. CAs provide funding assistance to the State,
political subdivision, or Indian Tribal government, 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 out-
lined 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 ADCR and enters the com-
mitment into the IFMS. The Regional AAU assigns the CA identification num-
ber.
• 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 ADCR and IFMS.
Payments — Effective January 1,1991, EPAconverted the Letter of Credit (LOG)
process of paying CAs to the EPA-ACH Payment System. The EPA-ACH Pay-
ment System utilizes the Department of Treasury electronic payment mechanism
called "Vendor Express."
Using the EPA-ACH Payment System, the recipient presents an EPA-ACH
Payment Request (provided by EPA), via fax machine, courier mail, or U.S. Mail
to the recipient's respective EPA SFO location. The SFO reviews each request to
determine if:
Funds drawn are being used within a valid budget period;
The EPA-ACH account number is correct;
V-31
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Summary detail is entered correctly, project numbers are valid, and suffi-
cient project funds are available for the projects cited;
All required expenditure or program reports have been received; and
The balance on hand is not excessive.
Under the EPA-ACH Payment System, all or part of the request may be approved
for payment. If a request is modified or rejected, the EPA-SFO will immediately
notify the recipient and work with the recipient to resolve the problem.
When the request is approved for payment, EPA electronically transfers funds
through Treasury and the Federal Reserve for credit to the recipient's account at
its designated financial institution.
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.
Deobligations — Deobligations 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 deobligation depends on when the funds were
obligated initially. Current FY funds are available for reuse within the allowance
as soon as the deobligation is effective. (See the Flexible Funding section earlier
in this Chapter on the use of deobligated funds.) Prior FY funds that are
deobligated revert to HQ for redistribution.
In order to reuse prior FY funds:
The allowance holders must submit a request to recertify the funds to their
allowances;
OERR will evaluate the request based on the approved SCAP and will
recommend distribution of funds;
The OC must approve the request; and
The request must be approved and a reapportionment obtained from the
OMB.
Regions should regularly review the financial status of all CAs. 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 deobligate these
V-32
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
funds or transfer them to another site or response phase within the CA where
activities are being conducted. 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 an RA, the instrument used to
describe the State's role is a 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 reme-
dial implementation at a site. When a political subdivision has the lead for an RA, 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 PR with a
contractor or an IAG with another agency. Funds for political subdivision response
actions are provided through a CA.
• SSC Requirements — An SSC is required to be in place before EPA or the politi-
cal subdivision can begin an RA 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 privately operated sites. For
publicly operated sites, the State cost share is 50 percent. At the time of RA start,
the State is also required to provide 50 percent of the cost of prior removal, RI/FS,
RD and RA activities at publicly operated sites. In addition to cost share assur-
ances, 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.
V-33
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
• Payment Schedule — The State cost share must be received and recorded in
IFMS 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 RA
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 disbursement of funds
for each phase.
• Billing — Thirty days prior to the date on the SSC payment schedule, the Re-
gional Management Division will send to the State a notice of the amount re-
quired and the due date. The SSC, and any invoice to the State requesting pay-
ment, must include the requirement that payments be sent to the Regional Super-
fund 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. If the State provides its
cost share dollars prior to EPA's obligation of funds for each phase, no interest
will accrue on the invoiced amount. In this case, 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 Manage-
ment Division when it is time to close out the specific SSC. The Regional Man-
agement 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 cleanup costs from the parlies. Obtaining reim-
bursement for these costs through negotiation or 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 ORC, the Regional program office and the Regional SFO. The
involvement and distribution of responsibilities of each of these offices during the cost
recovery process does vary within each Region and may be defined by a Regional Inter-
Office Memorandum of Understanding. The following sequence of activities is provided
as a guide. The cost recovery case development process, which is typically completed
within an eight week timeframe, is briefly described below:
V-34
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
* Initiation of Cost Recovery Process — The Regional program office prepares and
submits the cost recovery checklist through the Regional Cost Recovery Coordi-
nator (RCRC) to the Regional SFO to begin the documentation process for HQ
and Regional Superfund site-specific costs. Among other things, the checklist
prescribes the date through which costs are to be documented and the date docu-
mentation is required by the case development team.
The RCRC obtains the cost documentation package from 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 MARS from the SFO, which
provides the cost basis for negotiations with PRPs.
Cost Documentation and Reconciliation — Cost documentation and reconciliation
involve collecting and reviewing required documentation to ensure that account-
ing and cost information are recorded correctly, that costs are properly charge-
able, that ANs 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 MARS
reports, and provides CA cost documentation.
The ORC reviews the final cost summary and documentation package in prepara-
tion 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 FMO until such time as cost recovery action is
initiated or a minimum of six years. Disposal of files is subject to Regional
program office approval. The cost recovery financial documentation case file
should be maintained by the RCRC until this cost documentation is required by
the litigation team.
HANDLING FINANCIAL DA TA JN THE WASTELAN/CERCLIS ENVIRONMENT
The implementation of IFMS has affected the handling of financial data in WasteLAN.
An automated link and procedures for reconciling data quality is currently being developed. The
Manual will be updated when procedures have been completed. Currently, there is no automated
link for downloading IFMS data to CERCLIS/WasteLAN.
Entering Remedial/Removal Data into WasteLAN
Once the funding document has been processed by the Region, the planned financial data
(C3203 = P) must be deleted and the commitment (C3202 = C) or obligation (C3202 = A) data
entered. The funding amount in WasteLAN and on the funding document must agree. If a
Region wants to retain planned financial data, it must enter the planned obligation into
WasteLAN with a Regional Financial Type of "X," "Y," or "Z." In any event, the Financial Type
code of "P" (planned) cannot remain in the system once the funds are committed or obligated.
V-35
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Failure to replace the "P" (planned) could cause the Region to exceed its annual budget, which
will result either in withholding AOA approval, or a reduction in next quarter's AOA.
Until an automated link between CERCLIS and IFMS is established, Regions are re-
quired to enter financial information into WasteLAN. This includes commitment'
decommitment or obligation/deobligation date, amount, financial type, contractor vehicle, and
contractor name. In addition, the obligating document must be placed in the official site file.
Regions are not required to enter outlay or credit information into WasteLAN.
Entering Enforcement Extramural Budget Data into WasteLAN
The Region will be responsible for entering obligations/tasking (WAs issued) into
WasteLAN. Responsibility for verifying the information in IFMS and WasteLAN for obliga-
tions or deobligations and outlays incurred resides with the Regions.
To ensure that all appropriate financial data are reflected in WasteLAN, the following
information should appear on obligation documents: EPA ID number, S/S ID, WasteLAN event
or enforcement activity codes and OU number, WA number, amendment number and amount.
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. Re-
gions 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 deobligated
from the generic account and obligated and disbursed from the site-specific account.
IFMS to CERCLIS Financial Data Transfer
The automated transfer of financial data into CERCLIS was suspended in February 1989
as a result of the implementation of IFMS. In March 1990, OERR formed a workgroup to
evaluate the automated transfer of financial data. Based on Regional discussions, a decision was
made to continue to manually enter financial data into WasteLAN until such time that a realistic
transfer scheme can be developed. A proposal for reestablishing an automated transfer of finan-
cial data into CERCLIS is currently under development.
It is important for the Regions to note that they are ultimately responsible for the accu-
racy of the WasteLAN and CERCLIS data bases. Regions will have to ensure that the planned,
commitment and obligation data entered as part of the SCAP process are accurate and current
and agree with the information in IFMS, the Agency's official source of financial data. Regions
will not receive their FY 93 second quarter AOA until the CERCLIS and IFMS data for
FY 92 agree.
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 WasteLAN.
V-36
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01H-1
EXHTBTT V-9
CORRECTIONS TO FINANCIAL
INFORMATION IN IFMS
Data entry errors in IFMS
Changing ANs or DCNs that were initially
entered into IFMS
Correcting errors in the source funding
document or making other amendments to
existing commitments or obligations
Upon determining that the data on the source document were correct and were correctly entered
into WasteLAN, 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 OC 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 V-9.
Correcting IFMS data entry errors or changing financial information in IFMS are per-
formed 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).
OVERVIEW OF FTE DISTRIBUTION PROCESS
Regional FTE allocations are made through the Hazardous Spill and Site Response
Model, the Technical Enforcement Model and the Federal Facilities Superfund Workload Model.
Resources for the site assessment, remedial and removal programs are contained in the Spill and
Site Response Model. Enforcement resources are in the Technical Enforcement Model and
resources for oversight of Federal Facilities activities are distributed by the Federal Facilities
Workload Model.
The workload models are designed to reflect priorities and policies contained in both the
budget and planning processes. For the most part, the workload models are a straight forward
application of FTE pricing factors from the national budget to Region-specific SCAP/STARS
targets and ongoing activities in the remedial pipeline. No FTEs are given to projects that are
incorrectly coded and scheduled in CERCLIS.
Regional FTE allocations usually occur in two stages. An initial allocation is made in
April based on preliminary negotiated SCAP/STARS targets and schedules in CERCLIS. A
final distribution is made in September. This distribution reflects the final SCAP and STARS
targets negotiated in August as reflected in CERCLIS and any adjustments to the budget as a
result of Congressional action.
In FY 93, each Region's Superfund FTEs will be frozen at the FY 90 levels. While the
freeze ensures that total Regional Superfund resources will not be affected, shifting of resources
within the Region among the different program areas may occur. This includes shifts between
V-37
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
the response and enforcement programs. All shifts will be based on the national budget and the
Integrated Priority Setting Matrix.
*
During negotiations of preliminary and final SCAP/STARS targets, Regions may propose
changes to the targets to match the total Regional Superfund resource level. These proposals
must be made in accordance with the Integrated Priority Setting Matrix. HQ will ensure that the
cumulative Regional targets meet national budget commitments.
It is anticipated that FY 94 workload models will be unfrozen, and FY 93 mid-year
negotiations will be particularly important. At this time, the process for distributing resources
(preliminary allocation in April, final in September) will be the same as in FY 90. Additional
guidance will be issued, pending Agency decisions.
While other Superfund FTEs remain frozen, OE has requested and received a significant
increase in resources to address Federal Facility cleanup and enforcement. OE will use the
Federal Facilities Superfund Workload Model to distribute these resources.
For descriptions of each of the three Superfund workload models, see Chapter VI (Haz-
ardous Spill and Site Response Model), Chapter VII (Technical Enforcement Model), and
Chapter Vin (Federal Facilities Superfund Workload Model).
V-38
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER VI
THE RESPONSE BUDGET AND WORKLOAD MODEL
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER VI- THE RESPONSE BUDGET
AND WORKLOAD MODEL
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.
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. RJ/FS budgets will be developed based on these
averages.
Regions will not receive RA funds in their AOA unless the remedy
technology type is in CERCLIS.
Each quarter, the actual and approved planned obligations and
actual comitments must be less than or equal to the annual Regional
budget or the AOA will not be approved.
Data quality checks used to identify response projects that will not
receive FTEs include:
- Missing First and Subsequent Start
(FSC) and Completion (FSC) codes;
- Missing planned start and completion dates;
- Missing project leads;
- Targets missed in previous years; and
- Projects identified as "Alternate"
targets.
Vl-i
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER VI - THE RESPONSE BUDGET AND WORKLOAD MODEL
This chapter discusses the response budget categories, the criteria used to develop Re-
gional budgets, financial planning for the AOA, and the operations involved in applying each of
the workload model phases.
RESPONSE BUDGET
The OMB pass back of the FY 93 President's response budget contains $896 million for
direct cleanup activities, including Rl/FS, RD, RA, RD/RA PRP oversight, removals, and labo-
ratory support for response actions. Approximately $295.7 million is available to support other
response actions, policy support, information management, laboratory analysis for site assess-
ment activities, the TAT, ARCS' and ERCS. In light of this, resources will be provided for:
• Removals at historical rates and within the budget constraints;
• All RA starts;
• Oversight of all RP-lead RD and RA projects;
• Ongoing RI/FS projects started as part of the "full funding strategy"; and
All RD starts.
To the greatest extent possible the following activities will be supported:
• New first and subsequent Rl/FS projects;
• Listing of new sites on the NPL; and
« Support activities, such as the laboratory support resources.
Regions will not receive remedial funds for new or on-going projects at non-NPL sites.
Following is an explanation of the criteria used to develop the Regional budgets.
Site Assessment Annual Regional Budget
The proposed Regional site assessment budgets were established based on the number of
EPA and State-lead PA/SI completions, NPL package development, Federal Facility PAs and
Federal Facility NPL package development targeted in the March negotiations. Exhibit VI-1
contains the national average pricing factor for the major site assessment activities. Management
assistance or other forms of State assistance should be funded as project support or Core Pro-
gram Cooperative Agreement (CPCA) funds.
VI-1
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT VI-1
SITE ASSESSMENT PRICING FACTORS
ACTIVITY
PA
SI
Site Inspection
Prioritizations
ESI
HRS Package
Development
(Federal Facility and
non-Federal Facility)
LEVEL OF EFFORT
fLOEVHOURS
130
440
DOLLARS
Remedial Annual Regional Budget
Funding for RAs will be distributed to the Regions based on a first ready/first funded basis.
Since the Regional RA budget is not developed prior to the FY, Regions have the flexibility to
modify their RA funding request during the year based on updated information.
The criteria used to develop the other major portions of the Regional remedial budgets are
shown in Exhibit VI-2.
Fund-Financed RIIPS Funding Strategy
Successful implementation of the Fund-financed RI/FS full funding strategy requires
meeting the Rl/FS cost reduction goals initiated in FY 89. This requires that Rl/FS costs
be reduced to a national average of $750,000 per OU and $1.1 million per site. Both the
OU and site goals are important The OU goal primarily affects year-to-year funding
limits. The site goal is needed for long term cost management and to eliminate the
incentive a Region may have to break sites into OUs to increase its annual budget. A
Region's RI/FS budget is developed based on the full funding strategy.
Treatability studies are not included in the cost goals. These activities are funded as a
separate event.
VI-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CRITERIA FOR PROPOSED REGIONAL
RESPONSE BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITY CRITERIA
RI/FS
RD
RA
PROJECT SUPPORT
TREATABILITY STUDffiS
TAG
CPCA
PRPRD/RA
OVERSIGHT
ARCS
MANAGEMENT
Negotiate mega-sites.
$750,000 per new start.
Other ongoing RI/FS based on number of
projects and funds obligated in previous FYs.
$700,000 for each Fund-financed RD start
targeted in the March negotiations.
Based on dollars and schedules in CERCLIS
Based on each Region's share of remedial
targets negotiated in March.
Funds allocated in proportion to each
Region's Fund-financed RI/FS starts.
Based on the number of NPL sites with
remedial work ongoing in FY 92.
Based on State CPCA draw down of current
funds.
Based on the Region's PRP RD and RA
projects priced at $37,500 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 9200.3-01H-1
Removal Annual Regional Budget (Fund-Financed^
The removal annual Regional budget consists of removal actions and removal support
dollars. The FY 93 removal action Regional budget allocations will be based on 90 percent of
the FY 92 initial Regional budget allocation. The balance of the FY 93 removal budget will be
held in reserve at HQ.
Oversight dollars for PRP removals will be provided through the Regional enforcement
extramural 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.
FY 93 removal support dollars will be the sum of the program management costs in each
Region's ERCS contracts.
FINANCIAL PLANNING FOR AOA
In the past, the AOA obligation rate through the first two quarters of the FY has been
low. As a result, Regions will not receive their third quarter AOA for a specific response
category unless the commitment/obligation rate is 50 percent or greater in that AOA cat-
egory. If the commitment/obligation rate for one response allowance (i.e., RDs) is 35 percent
while the rate for another allowance (i.e., removals) is 65 percent, the third quarter removal
AOA would be issued but the RD AOA would not be issued. For those Regions that continue to
have a low rate of commitmenl/obligation, OSWER will renegotiate the Regions' operating plan
for the remainder of the year during June.
Remedial AOA
The AOA for the remedial program is issued by the OC on a site and non-site specific basis
and is broken down into the following categories:
RI/FS;
• RD - includes funds for RD/RA oversight;
RA (site specific) - includes funds for RA, O&M, LTRA and five-year reviews;
and
• Other response - includes funds for site assessment activities, treatability studies,
and response program and project support.
Site specific planned obligations are entered directly into WasteLAN in the appropriate
event record for the site. The planned obligation date, amount, contract vehicle, budget source
and priority funding status are to be entered. Those remedial events at NPL sites that have the
greatest likelihood of requiring funding during the FY that are within the Region's budget alloca-
tion should be identified by placing "APR" (approved) in the Funding Priority Status field
(C3225 and C2909). The RI/FS, RD and other response AOAs are the total of the approved site
specific or non-site specific planned obligations at NPL sites in CERCLIS with a budget source
code of "R"( Remedial). CERCLIS financial reports (SCAP-4 and SCAP-21) provide a total for
the site specific and non-site specific planned obligations for the purpose of developing and
issuing the AOA.
VI-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
The AOA for RAs is pulled directly from the approved site specific planned obligation in
CERCLIS and is issued by site name, S/S ID and dollar amount. Regions must be sure the
planned obligation date, contract vehicle, budget source, priority funding status and remedy
technology type (Technology Information Qualifier (C3402)) are entered into WasteLAN.
Regions will not receive RA funds in their AOA unless the remedy technology type is
reflected in CERCLIS.
A Region will not receive funds above its annual Regional budget unless a SCAP amend-
ment/change request has 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 FY 90, HQ 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 made available: 1) as a
result of PRP takeovers; 2) by RD bids coming in under projected amounts; or 3) in situations
where the actual obligations were less than planned obligations.
As the Region identifies uses for these funds, the contingency account must be reduced and
the site specific planned/actual obligations entered into WasteLAN. The funds in the contin-
gency account will be reviewed by HQ at mid-year and throughout the third and fourth quarters.
If a Region has a funding request during the year that was unplanned, the following approach
should be followed in identifying funding sources:
• As a first step, Regions should determine if funds are available in the contingency
accounts that can be redirected within or between allowances to perform the
action;
• If no contingency funds are available, funds planned for obligation in future
quarters (within the Region's annual budget) that will not be used as originally
planned should be tapped;
• After mid-year, funds made available within the annual Regional budget as a
result of the mid-year or third/fourth quarter adjustment process should be used;
and
• If necessary, Regions may request an increase in their annual budget through the
redirection of funds made available as a result of mid-year or third/fourth quarter
adjustments in other Regions.
If a Region receives funds in their AOA which were not obligated during the quarter
received, the relevant planned obligation data in WasteLAN must be changed or the amount
placed in 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 response, RI/FS or RD funds by the
amount that was not committed or obligated; or
Request that Regions follow the OC's change request procedures to return RA
funds to HQ.
VI-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
The Financial Report (SCAP-4) and the Budget Control Report (SCAP-21) wiU be used
to evaluate the status of the RI/FS, other response, RD, RA and removal allowances.
To the maximum extent possible, Regions should plan for mixed funding requirements
prior to the development of the annual Regional budget. However, if a request for
preauthorization is received and funds are required during the current FY, Regions must identify
the source of the requested funds from within their annual budget.
Removal AOA
Each Region's removal annual budget will be established in August. The Regional AOA
will be distributed as follows: 30 percent of the annual budget in the first quarter, 20 percent in
the second quarter and 30 percent in the third quarter, as long as updated quarterly plans for
those amounts are reflected in CERCLIS by the specified pull dates. These plans may be ad-
justed, as needed, anytime after the pull date. HQ and the Regions will negotiate the fourth
quarter allocation in order to ensure that all removal funds are being used to the best advantage.
If at any time a Region needs additional funding, WasteLAN and CERCLIS should be updated to
show the proposed spending plan with a funding priority status of "Alternate." A change re-
quest/SCAP amendment should be sent to the Response Operation Branch in ERD. When the
change has been approved, the funding priority status code should be revised.
Congressional Reporting Requirements
In 1989, Congress imposed reporting requirements on the response program element. The
agreement originally stated that the Agency would budget and report financial information in the
following eight categories:
• Pre-Remedial;
RI/FS;
RD;
RA;
• Removal actions;
• Response support;
• Remedial support; and
• Removal support.
After further discussion, Congress determined that the response program must report on
four of these categories:
RI/FS;
RD;
RA; and
VI-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
• Removal actions.
Within 30 days following the end of the quarter, the Agency will report the status of the
current operating plan compared to the original operating plan. Immediate Congressional notifi-
cation is required if the cumulative changes in a single category exceed any of the funding levels
by $2 million or more. The RA threshold is $10 million. Since the reporting requirements are
after the fact they will have no impact on the flexible funding policy. The OC will monitor the
Congressional reporting requirement through the AOA. The Financial Summary Report (SCAP-
4) will be used to manage the monitoring and reporting requirements.
HAZARDOUS SPILL AND SITE RESPONSE MODEL
General Model Description
The Hazardous Spill and Site Response Resource Distribution Model (referred to as the
OERR Resource Distribution Model or Workload Model) system provides information necessary
to determine the total Regional response FTE allocation contained in the Congressional budget
among the 10 EPA Regions. The workload model reflects priorities and policies contained in
both the budget request and SCAP and STARS planning processes.
Specifically, the workload model is both a mainframe and PC system application utilizing
FTE pricing factors from the national budget (FTEs per unit of output), Regional SCAP/STARS
targets, ongoing projects and projections as entered into the pricing factors. If Regional targets
are not available, FTE allocations are based on algorithms which include related activities and/or
a percentage share of a given universe.
The workload model consists of six components: site assessment, remedial pipeline, reme-
dial support, analytical services, management support, and contract management. For remedial
pipeline events, FTE are allocated site and project specifically on a per quarter basis, using
current site planning data as reflected in CERCLIS and any SCAP/STARS targets negotiated for
the site. The direct use of CERCLIS SCAP/STARS targets and planning data provides solid
accountability for management support, and analytical services. FTE allocations are based on
non-site specific aggregated counts of activities per Region. The model then calibrates the FTE
levels calculated for most of the program areas (site assessment, remedial pipeline, remedial
support, and removal) to the FTE levels identified in the budget request. These calibrations
ensure that budget priorities are reflected in FTE distribution.
In past years Regional FTE workload model allocations occurred in two stages. An initial
allocation was made in March utilizing the preliminary SCAP/STARS targets; this allocation
distributed 95 percent of the total Regional response FTE contained in the Congressional budget
request The 95 percent level represents a baseline for each Region to allow for staff planning
prior to the start of the FY. A final distribution was made in September which reflected final
SCAP/STARS negotiated targets plus Congressional action to date on the budget request. In
FY 93 100 percent of the FTEs will be distributed in September. The FTEs contained in the
Congressional budget request will be distributed according to the FY 90 distribution level for
each Region. Targets will be reconciled to this level.
This section describes in more detail the operations involved in each of the workload model
phases There are a number of operating steps in each application of the model. Some operating
steps are required and must be executed in order for the model to function properly; others are
optional and the user must determine if these operating steps should be executed. Additionally,
VI-7
-------
EXHIBIT VT-3
WORKLOAD MODEL OPERATIONS
REMEDIAL PIPELINE INFORMATION
oo
MISSING LEADS
MISSING FSS/FSC
MISSING PLAN DATES
NO FINANCIAL DATA
MISSING FIN VEHICLES
MISSING EVENT
PLANNING STATUS
COMBINATIONS
S^^-"-M"<
WORKLOAD
INFORMATION
ALL PIPELINE
EVENTS
&
LEADS
FLAG PROBLEMS
QA/QC FLAGS
MODIFIED DATES
CHANGE FLAGS
CERCLIS AND TARGET
START AND COMPLETION
DATES ARE COMPARED
TARGET DATES ARE USED
WHERE DISCREPANCIES
OCCUR
3. DATE INCONSISTENCIES
ARE FLAGGED
4. RECORDS WHICH ARE NOT
IN THE TARGET FILE ARE
FLAGGED
THESE STEPS ARE AN
OPTIONAL PROCEDURE
o
oo
O
I
VO
8
p
u>
6
-------
EXHIBIT VI-4
WORKLOAD MODEL OPERATIONS
REMEDIAL PIPELINE PROCESSING
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
WEIGHT FTE
ALLOCATIONS
BASED ON #
OF OVERLAP QTRS
USE FINAN VEHICLE
FROM LAST
OBLIGATION
3. FTE ALLOCATION
CURRENT YEAR START
OUTYEAR COMP
QA/QC FLAGS
MODIFIED DATES
CHANGE FLAGS
CALIBRATE
FTE ALLOCATIONS
4. FTE ALLOCATION
CURRENT YEAR START
CURRENT YEAR COMP
FIX DATA OUAIJTY
PROBLEMS
FTE ALLOCATION
USING LEAD SPECIFIC
PRICING FACTORS
ONLY TO PROJECTS WITHOUT
DATA QUALITY FLAGS
6
I—j,
PC
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
users may experiment with a variety of operating combinations in order to identify the impact of
various "what if scenarios. Exhibits VI-3 and VI-4, on the following pages, are flowcharts for
the remedial pipeline information.
Mainframe Application Concepts
Workload File Creation Process
Data are extracted from the CERCLIS data base on a date negotiated by HQ and the
Regions to ensure that site data are accurately reflected on the mainframe computer. A
project specific workload file is created which includes RI/FS, RD and RA events. The
project-specific workload file contains every NPL site remedial pipeline project identified
in CERCLIS.
Data Quality Checks Process
Several data quality checks are performed against the project-specific workload file to
identify projects which have data errors. This step ensures that Regions will only receive
resources for projects which are properly planned and coded in CERCLIS. If a problem
exists, each of the fields for which a data quality check is performed have a flag field
equal to "Y" assigned. After all tests are performed, the field "BADFLAG" is updated to
"YES" if any of the individual problem flags are equal to "Y." Any project which has a
"BADFLAG" equal to "YES" will not receive FTEs. The user has the option to include
or exclude running the edit checks process. The individual data fields for which data
quality checks are performed include:
• FSS/FSC Codes — This check identifies projects which are missing both FSS
(C2115) and FSC (C2116) codes in CERCLIS. It is permissible for a project to
have one or the other (as in the case of a takeover), but a Region will not receive
FTEs for a project which has neither.
• Planned FY/O Starts and Completions — This check identifies projects missing
planned start or completion dates. Before this check is executed, a routine is run
to create planned dates from actual dates. Any project not having both a planned
start and completion date will not receive FTEs.
• Project Planned Obligations — This check identifies projects planned to start and
not having planned obligations with approved funding. Only projects with certain
leads (C2117 equal to "F," "S," or "EP") are subject to this test.
• Activity/Event Planning Status Codes — This check identifies projects planned to
start but are marked as alternates by the Activity/Event planning flag (C2110
equal to "A"). Projects containing a blank or "P" are eligible to receive FTEs.
Project Leads — This check identifies projects missing a lead (C2117 is blank).
Regions will not receive FTEs for any project which does not have a lead because
FTEs are calculated using lead-specific pricing factors.
Target Overwrite Process
This process compares the planning data in CERCLIS and S CAP/STARS targeting data
reflected in CERHELP. The user has the option to include or exclude running the target
VI-10
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 H-l
overwrite process of the workload model. If the user chooses to include the target over-
write process, the following steps are executed:
Identifying Targeted Projects _ The first step identifies specific projects which
are eligible to receive FTEs:
Does the project have an actual start date?
Is the project a type which is not a SCAP/STARS target?
Is the project a target in the CERHELP file?
Projects answering no to all of the above questions, are not targeted and are
marked by a "Y" in the "NOTARG" flag field.
• Identifying Model Calculation dates — The second step determines the FY/Q
dates used in the calculation of FTEs. The specific "Model Dates" used in
calculations are U2132 and U2133 as opposed to the CERCLIS planned dates
(C2132 and C2133).
The start date (U2132) used in calculations is the later of the planned (CERCLIS)
or targeted (CERHELP) start dates.
The completion date (U2133) used is always the targeted (CERHELP) completion
date. This ensures that resources are not provided for any project which has
missed its targeted completion date.
• Identifying Missed Projects — The third step identifies projects not receiving
FTEs for the following reasons:
Targeted date in CERHELP is historical;
Project does not have an actual start date; or
Planned project has not slipped in CERCLIS.
Note: For projects identified as not receiving FTE in this process, the system updates the
field BADFLAG to equal "YES."
Data Review Process
After edit checks are performed, an edit report may be produced identifying those
projects that are not currently receiving FTEs because of data quality problems men-
tioned above. This report should be used to correct data problems before the final execu-
tion of the workload model.
Pricing Facfnrx Inadin? Process
After the data in the workload and pricing factors data files are reviewed, pricing factors
are assigned to each project record. Each project record is matched on lead (C2117) and
event type (C2101) to the appropriate record in the pricing factors file; and the start,
ongoing, and completion pricing factors are loaded.
VI-11
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Pure FTEs Calculation Process
The model calculates FTEs for each project not having data quality problems. There are
four parts to the pure FTE calculations:
• Prior Year Start - Out Year Completion — The FTEs for each project are calcu-
lated by multiplying the number of ongoing quarters (four in this case) times the
ongoing pricing factor.
• Prior Year Start - Model Year Completion — The FTEs for each project are
calculated by multiplying the number of ongoing quarters times the ongoing
pricing factor plus the completion pricing factor if the FSC code (C2116) is not
equal to blank; if the FSC code is equal to blank, one additional ongoing quarter is
added.
• Model Year Start - Out Year Completion — The FTEs for each project are
calculated by multiplying the number of ongoing quarters times the ongoing
pricing factor plus the start pricing factor if FSS code (C2115) is not equal to
blank; if the FSS code is equal to blank, one additional ongoing quarter is added.
• Model Year Start - Model Year Completion — The FTEs for each project are
calculated by multiplying the number of ongoing quarters times the ongoing
pricing factor; plus the start and completion pricing factors if the FSS/FSC codes
(C2115/C2116) are not equal to blank. If the FSS code is equal to blank one
additional ongoing quarter is added. If the FSC code is equal to blank one
additional ongoing quarter is added.
Calibrated FTE Calculation Process
If concurrent projects exist at a site, the model then calibrates the pure FTEs assigned for
each project. There are four parts to the calibrated FTE calculations:
• Identify Ongoing Quarters for a Project — Set flags for each of the four quarters
identifying if the project is ongoing during that quarter based on the model dates.
• Identify Concurrent Quarters — Modify flags are set for each of the four quarters
to identify the existence of overlapping quarters by comparing each project to the
other projects at the site.
• Summarize Quarter Information — Accumulates the number of ongoing and
overlapping quarters for each project.
• Calculate the Calibrated FTEs — The FTEs for overlapping quarters are reduced
by 40 percent for the second project at a site and by 60 percent for the third or
greater project at a site. The first project at a site receives full FTEs.
VI-12
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
PC Application Concepts
Data Loading Process
After the mainframe processes are completed (including the creation of the nine Lotus
files and the download of those files to the PC), the data loading process is performed.
This automated process loads the nine Lotus files that were downloaded from the main-
frame into the spreadsheet, performs the necessary formatting, and places the data into
the appropriate cell locations. Specifically, the spreadsheet model retrieves the files from
the Remedial Pipeline Workload Model directory using the "Load Macro" function. (The
"Load Macro" function may vary from Region to Region.)
Note: This process will not function if the macro that retrieves the files references the
wrong directory.
Data Maintenance Process
Users may change the spreadsheet constant values to experiment with "what-if' sce-
narios. However, before changing data, it is recommended that each spreadsheet be
saved under a different file name to enable comparing the results of the different sce-
narios. Whenever spreadsheet data are changed, it is necessary to re-execute the model to
calculate the latest results.
VI-13
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER
THE ENFORCEMENT BUDGET AND WORKLOAD MODEL
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER VII- THE ENFORCEMENT BUDGET
AND WORKLOAD MODEL
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.
• Enforcement mega-site and litigation contingency funding needs must
be coded in CERCLIS and formally requested from HQ.
• The enforcement AOA is issued based on the planned obligation in
CERCLIS.
• Technical Enforcement Support (TES) work assignments must be
reflected into CERCLIS.
• Site specific spending plans for the third and fourth quarters are
required by mid-May if the Region does not obligate and task 60-65
percent of the funds received in the first and second quarter
enforcement allowance.
VH-i
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER VII - THE ENFORCEMENT BUDGET AND WORKLOAD MODEL
This chapter discusses the enforcement budget and Regional extramural process, the
management of cash outs, and the methodology used to distribute resources.
ENFORCEMENT BUDGET
The enforcement extramural budget for FY 93 is approximately $58 million. The budget
provides support for PRP searches, PRP removals, PRP RI/FS starts, response negotiations,
referrals, administrative and judicial cost recovery actions and project support activities. As with
the response budget, decisions on which activities will be funded are based on the Integrated
Priority Setting Matrix. Within the matrix, the following activities are priorities:
• Maintaining ongoing PRP oversight and compliance enforcement;
• Maintaining ongoing litigation for response and cost recovery;
• Referring SOL removal and remedial cost recovery cases; and
• Negotiating PRP RD/RA response.
Within this context, it is important to consider that the enforcement program has changed
significantly to take into account a greater PRP participation, a reduced cost recovery case
universe, dealing with recalcitrant PRPs, and addressing collateral PRPs, with an emphasis on de
minimis parties and municipalities. Therefore, activities that reinforce these criteria need to be
supported to the maximum extent possible within available resources.
OWPE REGIONAL EXTRAMURAL BUDGET PROCESS
This section provides an overview of the extramural budget process, including a
discussion of SCAP targeted and non-targeted activities needing extramural funding, financial
planning and tracking requirements and responsibilities, budget allocation and AOA distribution,
contract mechanisms, activities and their pricing factors, and CERCLIS extramural budget
reports. In addition, a brief summary of Regional/HQ responsibilities during the extramural
budget process is included.
There are five basic components to the extramural budget process. These are 1) prelimi-
nary budget allocation and distribution; 2) Regional planning against the preliminary budget;
3) HQ/Regional negotiations; 4) final budget distribution; and 5) budget execution. Each of
these five steps is fully detailed in the following sections.
Preliminary Extramural Budget Allocation and Distribution
A Region's budget allocation contains the Region's share of available extramural
resources used to support enforcement activities. This includes the following:.
• PRP removal program;
• PRP searches and RI/FS negotiations;
VII-1
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01H-1
PRP Rl/FS oversight;
• Litigation support;
• State enforcement; and
• Program implementation.
To allow Regions to make one request for litigation, the three budget categories of
RD/RA referral and negotiations, cost recovery, and ongoing litigation support have been col-
lapsed 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.
The extramural budget is formulated as follows:
• Requests for mega-site funding are made by June 30. Mega-site funding requests
for dollars needed in FY 93 will be fully funded where ever possible. A priority
list of mega-sites that were not funded will be developed and submitted for
supplemental funding;
• Initial allocation of the remainder of the budget is based on the technical enforce-
ment model;
• Preliminary budgets are sent to the Regions in June/July. Regions plan their
obligations for the upcoming FY against this budget. Prior to August SCAP
negotiations, the Regional plans are pulled from CERCLIS. During negotiations,
each Region's plan is generally reviewed to determine if the Region can utilize its
budget or needs additional funding; and
• Each Region's request is reviewed and a final budget/AOA for the Region is
developed in early September. For example, if a Region receives a preliminary
budget of $10 million in June and their site and non-site specific planned obliga-
tions in August total $8 million, $2 million will be reallocated to Regions with a
demonstrated need above their preliminary budget.
Litigation Support
To request litigation support contingency funding, the Region should send a letter to the
Division Director of CED addressing the following points:
• What the funds will be used for;
• Why the litigation support can not be funded out of the current budget;
• If it is an NEAR or de minimis settlement;
• Any extraordinary circumstances surrounding the case;
Viability of PRPs;
• Type of settlement; and
• National precedence issues.
VII-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Regional Planning Against Preliminary Budget
The goal of the FY 93 Regional extramural budget process is to increase effectiveness,
allow greater flexibility, and provide financial accountability through WasteLAN. Regions
should plan their budget site specifically or use a combination of site specific 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.
The Region's FY 93 extramural budget plans must be reflected in CERCLIS by the
August pull date. (Details on how to code extramural budget plans in WasteLAN are presented
in Appendix E.) It is important that Regions plan their extramural budget needs and requests
against specific sites and projects 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 or project
justification, HQ will not consider requests in excess of the proposed allocation. In addition,
throughout the FY, Regions should ensure that WasteLAN plans are updated to accurately reflect
funding requirements against the available budget
Because the Regional extramural budget is FY specific, all funding requests should be
limited to only the amount needed during FY 93 except in rare circumstances, which should be
discussed with HQ, or when requesting funds for RI/FS oversight. In the case of annually priced
activities, it is expected that the funding provided in one FY will support the activity through
completion and that additional funds will not be requested in subsequent FYs.
Exhibit VII-1 displays all the activities and events eligible for funding in FY 93 within
specific budget categories. Extramural budget dollars planned against other activities will not be
accommodated. It is important to note that any activity or event not listed in Exhibit VII-1 will
not be included on the standard reports (SCAP-4E and SCAP-21E). The extramural budget no
longer pays for many supporting activities (e.g., O&M, design assistance, geophysical support,
etc.). These activities are funded through the response budget. (See Chapter VI.)
Since the extramural 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, requests for PRP RI/FS oversight do not have to match the proposed allocation
for the PRP RI/FS oversight budget category. Therefore, Regions are not required 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 or events. The Funding Status field (C3225 and C2909) should be used to
indicate both requests within and above Regional allocations. This status should be reviewed
and monitored on a regular basis to ensure the availability of funds and identification of supple-
mental needs.
To determine the proper funding status code (C3225 and C2909), the activity/event must
be identified as a primary or alternate target/project (Activity/Event Planning Status - C2110). If
it is an alternate target/project, the entire funding request should be coded as "ALT." To
determine the funding status for primary targets/projects, the total of all the requests must be
considered. If the total request does nolexceed the available budget the funding status codes
may be "APR." If, however, the budget is exceeded, the planned obligation should be coded as
VII-3
-------
EXHIBIT VII-1
FY 93 REGIONAL ENFORCEMENT EXTRAMURAL BUDGET FUNDED ACTIVITIES REQUIRED TO
ACHIEVE PROGRAM OUTPUTS
AW:
DURATION
IN
QUARTERS
ASSOCIATED REGIONAL ENF
EXT. BUDGET FUNDED
ACTIVITIES
(Targets *)
VALID LEADS
FOR
SITE-SPECIFIC
PLANS
$K AVG.
PRICING FACTOR
OWPE DISTRIBUTION
MODEL
CATEGORIES
WASTE LAN
CODES
CERHELP
CODES
TOTAL
AVG. COST
ANNUAL QRTRLY
Non-NPLPRP Search
Removal Negotiation Starts
RP Oversight (PRP removals starts)*
RP
RN
RC,NA,NP
REMOVAL
PROGRAM
- NPL PRP Search (Phase I)
- NPL PRP Search (Phase II)
- RI/FS Negotiation Starts
PRP SEARCHES AND
RI/FS NEGOTIATIONS
PRP RI/FS Oversight*
Treatabrlility Study Oversight
Bndangerment Assessment Oversight
RI, FS, CO
TS
ED
RP.MR
RP.MR
RP.MR
PRP RI/FS
OVERSIGHT
Cost Recovery Negotiation
Prepare Cost Documentation Pkg.
Administrative Cost Recovery
RD/RA Negotiation Starts*
NEAR
IAO Negotiations (formerly owned
Federal Facilities)
Referral Development*
Section 106, 1O6/107
Section 107 Removal
Section 107 Remedial
Section 104 (e)
Claims in Bankruptcy
Ongoing Support
Section 1O6, 1O6/107
Section 107
LITIGATION
SUPPORT
STATE
ENFORCEMENT
PS RI/FS Oversight*
TES 5+ Program Management
Contract Program Management
Administrative Record
Records Management
CRs
State Enforcement
Management Assistance
Information Management
Management Assistance
PNRS
Technical Assistance
Multi-site CA
Training
Other
Senior Environmental Employee
Program
PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION
<
55
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
"ALT". The approved plans must not exceed Regional allocations. AOAs will not be distributed
to Regions with approved planned dollars totalling more than the available budget.
Potential funding requirements, such as potential PRP takeovers, should be coded with
"CON" as the funding status (C3225 and C2909).
Final Extramural 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
by quarter. HQ will not send out a memorandum containing the approved amounts. A Region's
"APR" planned obligations must not exceed their approved budget for the upcoming quarter. In
order to receive its allowance, a Region must have updated quarterly planned obligations for
those amounts in CERCLIS by the specified pull date.
CERHELP lists the AOA by quarter and also according to OWPE distribution model
categories. Prior year TES obligated and untasked funds (i.e., carryover funds) are also shown.
These amounts appear on the SCAP-4E and SCAP-21E reports.
Quarterly AOAs will be issued based on Regional quarterly plans reflected in CERCLIS
and identified on the SCAP-4E report. The dates for pulling data for generation of the AOA can
be found in the Manager's Schedule located at the beginning of this Manual. Regions should
plan on obligating approximately 40 percent of their extramural budget in the first quar-
ter, 18 percent in the second, and 21 percent in the third and fourth quarters. This distri-
bution is based on historical budget utilization. Regions may receive a higher percentage of
funds in a quarter only after discussions with HQ.
It is also recognized that Regions will have TES obligated untasked funds (carryover)
from one FY to the next. This amount will be determined and agreed upon with the Regions by
November 1. These amounts will be placed in CERHELP by contract vehicle in early Novem-
ber. They will be displayed on the SCAP-4E report under the Contract Use and Regional Allow-
ance sections.
Since these funds represent tasking authority, the use and planned use of funds will
exceed the annual Regional budget. To ensure that the budget is balanced and that AOA funds
requested do not exceed quarterly allocation percentages, Regions should adhere to the limits
displayed in Exhibit VII-2.
The purpose of the allocation strategy is to allow more accurate planning of resources and
ensure the availability of resources when they are needed. As budget utilization (TES tasking
and non-TES commitments and obligations) will be measured against quarterly plans, Regions
should request extramural budget funds the quarter in which they will be utilized.
Budget Execution
Ensuring the availability of funds when they are needed is crucial to the success of the
Enforcement program. While it is understood that the volatility of the program may inhibit the
planning process, Regions should do their best to use extramural budget funds in the quarters in
which they are planned.
VII-5
-------
EXHIBIT VTT-2
REGIONAL EXTRAMURAL BUDGET
AOA LIMITS
I
\o
FISCAL
QUARTER
LIMITS
1st QUARTER
Total approved planned obligations must equal negotiated budget (no
carryover funds).
First quarter planned obligations must not exceed 40% of annual budget.
2nd QUARTER
Total used funds and approved planned obligations must equal negotiated
budget plus carryover funds.
Sum quarter 1 used and quarter 2 planned obligations must not exceed
58% of annual budget plus carryover funds.
3rd QUARTER
Total used funds and approved planned obligations must equal negotiated
budget plus carryover funds.
Sum quarter 1 and 2 used and quarter 3 planned obligations must not
exceed 79% of annual budget plus carryover funds.
4th QUARTER
Total used funds and approved planned obligations must equal negotiated
budget plus carryover funds.
Sum quarter 1, 2, and 3 used and quarter 4 planned obligations must not
exceed 100% of annual budget plus carryover funds.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
To offer a credible argument for supplemental funds, it is imperative that the Regions
show adequate utilization of available resources. Close monitoring and management of the
Regional extramural budget is, therefore, essential. Outlined below are the major steps of the
budget execution processes that must be followed to manage extramural budget resources.
TBS Contract Obligations
Once quarterly AOAs are received by the Region at the beginning of the fiscal quarter,
the contract obligations may be initiated. Obligations are made to contracts when the CO signs
the contract or modification of the contract to include the new funds. RPOs make sure that the
PRs are committed by their FMOs in the ADCR before sending them to the CO.
RPOs will submit three types of obligations for the TES 5 + contracts:
• Program management obligations;
• Generic obligations to cover TES tasking; and
• Buy-in obligations.
Detailed instructions for coding all types of obligations are included in Appendix E.
Program Management Obligations
A program management obligation is the amount of the Regional management WA.
RPOs will send PRs to the COs to obligate funds to cover the Regional management
WAs. The IMCs, or their designees, will enter the PR commitment amounts in
WasteLAN as "Contract Program Management" using the coding reference guide and
data entry instructions included in Appendix E. If required by Regional procedures, the
RPOs will provide copies of the PRs and WasteLAN coding forms to the IMCs.
Generic Obligations to Cover TES Tasking
The generic PR or obligation provides funds to the contract to cover the value of Enforce-
ment program WAs. This type of obligation, however, is not activity or site specific.
The obligated dollars are used to fund anticipated WAs not initiated or approved under
previous obligations. Obligations must precede approved WAs and, therefore, any actual
work in the Region. These PRs create non-site specific obligations that will be
charged to the site specific WAs when the contractors' invoices are processed by
EPA. RPOs must ensure that enough money is obligated to cover the total value of
the WAs outstanding at any given time in each FY. Again, if Regional procedures
require, RPOs should provide copies of PRs with coding forms to the IMCs for the
commitments/obligations to be recorded in WasteLAN as 'OH' for other.
Buv-in Obligations
The third type of obligation is for TES WAs that are submitted with their own funding
PRs. These WAs are generally referred to as buy-ins. The most common form of a buy-
in is when "TFA" (remedial or removal funds) or "TYP" (Federal Facility) funds are used
to support the TES contractor's performance of non-enforcement work at the site. To
properly account for these funds RPOs must record the PR AN in the TESWATS in the
"funding account" field. Additionally, Superfund site specific buy-ins will have to be
VH-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
properly coded in WasteLAN using the EPA ID, OU number, event or enforcement
activity type, funding AN and DCN. RPOs should provide copies of PRs, properly coded
WA forms, or WasteLAN coding forms to the IMCs for the information to be entered in
the appropriate site records.
Obligations for Other Financial Vehicles
Regions may utilize other financial vehicles (ARCS, lAGs or CAs) to perform enforce-
ment related work. To access the ARCS contracts, the Region must write a PR committing funds
to the contract. The commitment initiates the process of obligating funds. The PR is written for
a specific activity or event to be performed at the site and upon approval by the CO, the contrac-
tor may begin the proposed work. Regional extramural budget funds ("TGB") obligated to one
of the non-TES contracts represents an enforcement buy-in to a non-TES contract vehicle.
If the State or another Federal agency will be performing the work, a CA or LAG, respec-
tively, is required. Like the PR, the IAG or CA is written for a specific activity or event to be
performed at the site. A CA requires the preparation of a CN and the CA funding document.
Funds are obligated and available for use by the State when the CA is signed by the Regional
Administrator or his/her designee. An IAG requires the preparation of a CN and the IAG
funding document which is signed by the decision official (Regional Administrator or his/her
designee) in the Regional office. The funds are committed when the IAG is signed by the
Regional decision official and obligated when signed by the other agency.
TES WA Tasking Against Generic Obligations
Once the TES generic commitment/obligation is initiated, the process of approving WAs,
also referred to as tasking, may begin. WAs are initiated in the Region and sent to the CO in the
PCMD. When the CO approves and signs the WA, the value of the assignment represents the
amount tasked against the generic obligation. Tasking amounts are not obligations but they do
show how the AOA is going to be used to support site activities or events.
TES WA amounts need to be reflected in WasteLAN to show the actual costs of tasking
the contractors when planned activities have started. RPOs need to make sure that every TES
5+ WA and amendment has an accurate WasteLAN event or enforcement activity. The
event or activity codes will relate to the appropriate site targets being supported, including the
relevant sequence numbers. If a TES WA is for multiple events, activities, or OUs, the funding
split must be shown in the comment field.
It is critical that RPOs enter accurate codes for EPA ID number (C101), OU number
(Cl 101), either Enforcement Activity Type (C1701), Event Type (C2101), or Non-Site Incident
(C402) and Account Number (C3204) in TESWATS. RPOs can obtain this WasteLAN informa-
tion from the RPMs, Enforcement Program Managers, or IMCs since they routinely use it to
prepare site specific plans. IMCs should provide RPOs with CERCLIS reports showing planned
funding, by site, for the current year (SCAP-4E or SCAP-21E, for example) so that RPOs will
know what WAs have an approved funding plan when RPMs request contract work. CERCLIS
planning reports also show the data that RPOs need to enter into TESWATS. The TESWATS
transaction report will be available for RPOs to use to review tasking data prior to entry into
WasteLAN. y
IMCs should ensure that data from TES WAs are entered correctly into WasteLAN. A
"Q" financial type (amount requested) may be entered into WasteLAN for TES WAs that have
been signed by the RPO and are awaiting signature by the CO. "Q" financial records should
VII-8
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01H-1
only be entered for positive WA amounts. There is no financial type for negative WAs awaiting
CO signature.
Once the COs approve a WA or an amendment to an existing WA, the amount can be
entered with the financial type (C2602 or C3202) of "H," (TES WA Amount (tasking)). The
"H" financial record must match the "Q" record with the same contract vehicle, WA number,
and amendment number. This will allow only the "H" record to appear on SCAP-4E once die
CO has signed the WA. Reductions in WA amounts (detasking) can be entered with the code
"W." RPOs should provide copies of properly coded WA forms or SIFs to the IMCs for the
amounts to be recorded in the appropriate site records.
TES WA Tasking for Buv-Tns
TES buy-ins (generally using "TFA" or "TYP" funds) require a separate commitment/
obligation as well as a WA. Two financial records must, therefore, be created in WasteLAN.
The first financial record indicates the commitment/obligation of funds into the contract In-
structions for entering this record are listed above. The second type of financial record that is
required is the tasked amount. The procedures for entering these data are identical to other
tasking data with the exception that the budget source code should indicate "R" for Remedial,
"V" for Removal, or "L" for Federal Facilities.
AOA Utilization
The initial measure of AOA utilization is the commitment/obligation of funds into the
TES and non-TES financial vehicles. The total of the TES and non-TES commitments/
obligations represents the amount of the AOA which has been put into the financial vehicles to
fund work to be performed at the site. The total of commitments and obligations, therefore,
should not exceed the AOA issued to date. Regions should review planned contract usage and
apportion funds to the contracts accordingly.
Budget Utilization
To examine overall budget utilization a more detailed analysis of TES contract usage is
required. The value of WAs approved by the CO further indicates TES contract usage. It is
important, therefore, that once commitments/obligations are made to the TES 5+ contracts, that
WA tasking occurs as planned. For the non-TES financial vehicles, commitments/obligations
will be used as the measure of utilization as no corresponding tasking exists for these vehicles.
The sum total of tasked amounts in the TES contracts and commitments/obligations in the non-
TES financial vehicles indicates the level of budget utilization.
CERCLIS is used to track and measure AOA and budget utilization through the SCAP-
4E and SCAP-21E reports. Regions are responsible, therefore, for entering the following data
into WasteLAN:
"APR," "ALT," and "CON" plans (C3225 and C2909);
• Non-TES ("TGB") commitments/decommitments and obligations/deobligations;
TES generic obligations/deobligations;
• Program management commitments/decommitments and obligations/
deobligations; and
VII-9
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
• TES tasked and de-tasked amounts.
Distinct codes exist for obligations and WA amounts to separately portray progress made
on obligating funds and tasking assignments to the TES 5+ contracts. The separation of obliga-
tions and tasking amounts accurately reflect budget and AOA utilization and prevent double
counting WA amounts as obligations. The SCAP-4E and SCAP-21E reports indicate TES
contract generic obligations, TES tasked amounts, non-TES commitments/obligations, and
"APR" planned amounts. Actual TES WA tasking amounts (rather than commitments and
obligations) will be compared to TES planned amounts to show the balance of funds available
for remaining TES plans. Regional extramural budget management through WasteLAN and
CERCLIS enables both the Regions and HQ to readily determine the status of the following:
• Contract obligations;
• TES tasked amounts against generic obligations;
• Plans vs. tasked amounts;
• Total level of AOA and budget utilization; and
• Carryover funds from previous fiscal quarters (obligated, untasked funds).
Regions, as the allowance holders, are responsible for fully managing extramural budget
data in WasteLAN. The strategy to accomplish this requires close monitoring of planning,
obligation, and tasking data. "Approved" (APR) planned obligations in present or future quar-
ters will indicate requests not yet used (tasked in TES or committed/obligated in non-TES). For
past quarters, only TES tasking or non-TES commitments/obligations will be shown on SCAP-
4E and SCAP-21E. Regions, therefore, must closely monitor planning data and actual usage. If
planned obligations are not "used" by the end of the quarter, they should be moved to a
subsequent quarter for the same or different site. If funds are "used" the planning record
2r the "APR" flag must be deleted. Either of these options will prevent current quarter tasked
or committed funds from showing on standard reports. Regions should, however, be consistent
in either deleting the planned record or the "APR" flag.
Disbursements
Although TES tasked amounts and non-TES Commitments/obligations will be used to
measure budget utilization, disbursements will also be reviewed as a further measure of budget
utilization. It is important that contractor invoices are received and processed in a timely man-
ner. The current disbursement tracking procedures for the TES and non-TES financial vehicles
are different in IFMS. Non-TES disbursements are directly linked to the site and work being
performed and may be compared with the planned amounts or requests. TES disbursements are
linked to the contract but are not directly linked to the specific WA for which the contractor is
being paid. When a TES disbursement is made, the generic contract obligation is reduced and a
site specific obligation (not WA specific) and outlay occurs.
VII-10
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01H-1
HO/Regional Adjustment
Throughout the FY, Regions must show adequate utilization of their extramural budget.
Prior to requesting additional funds, Regions should ask the following questions:
« Have all the funds from the generic WA been tasked?
• Have all the funds in the current AOA been obligated?
• Can funds be deobligated and recertified to the Region's AOA? Can funds be
detasked and retasked within the WA?
• Can funds planned for obligation in future quarters that will not be used as origi-
nally planned be moved to current quarters?
• Can activities be partially funded?
HQ must know that the Region is fully using its AOA before it can entertain additional
extramural budget requests. Consequently, it is imperative that 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.
The Regional extramural budget will be reviewed 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 unused funds in its AOA to subsequent quarters; however, Regions that have
not been using their allowance risk the loss of their entire third and fourth quarter AOA. Re-
gions must obligate and task 60-65 percent of the funds received in their first and second
quarter AO As in order to receive their third quarter AOA. If a Region does not receive its
third quarter AOA, it is required to produce a site specific spending plan in WasteLAN for
both the third and fourth quarters by mid-May. The Region's annual budget will be
reduced if 60-65 percent of the first and second quarter AOAs have not been obligated and
tasked by the start of the fourth quarter.
Responsibilities
To manage the extramural budget it is essential that Regional IMCs and TES RPOs
responsibilities are well coordinated. RPOs must incorporate WasteLAN information in
TESWATS and report enforcement obligations and work assignments to the IMCs. IMCs, in
turn, must provide extramural budget planning reports to RPOs and ensure accurate data entry
into WasteLAN. WasteLAN and CERCLIS are the only place where AOA funding, obligations,
and WA tasking amounts will be shown together. A more detailed description of the interrelated
roles and responsibilities is described in Appendix E. Exhibit VII-3 summarizes RPO and IMC
responsibilities, while Exhibit VII-4 describes general Regional and HQ responsibilities.
Enforcement Financial Reports
Enforcement activities requiring Regional extramural budget funds must be coded accu-
rately. To enhance financial planning data quality, several Enforcement financial reports have
been developed for both Regional and HQ use. On the main CERCLIS menu, under "SCAP" for
the Enforcement menu, are two Enforcement financial planning and management reports. The
user is prompted for a Region, sort criteria, and FY when selecting one of these reports. Follow-
ing is a description of these reports:
VII-11
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXfflBIT Vn-3
EXTRAMURAL BUDGET RESPONSIBILITIES
I
c
fc
>
;
2
2
•4
P
\
a
El
>
^
•«
t
a
fc
1
0!
e
*•*
u
J
- JANUARY
- FEBRUARY
- MARCH/
APRIL
§
A
H
5
q
r
T
J
H
— AUGUST
-SEPTEMBER
\
1
'i
I
4
j
^
)
j
<
<
<
r
REGIONAL I HQ
RESPONSIBILITIES j 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 m
ABOVE ALLOCATION (ALT)
AUGUST SCAP NEGOTIATIONS
REVISE REQUESTS IN
NEGOTIATIONS
DIRECT ENTRY OF
NON-TES OBLIGATIONS fc
(CAs, lAGs, PRs)
DIRECT ENTRY OP ,.fc
TES OBLIGATIONS
DIRECT ENTRY OF
ADJUSTMENT OF CASE
BUDGET PLANS BASED
(AT LEAST QUARTERLY)
1
c
E
R
C
I
S
MID-YEAR SCAP NEGOTIATIONS
REVIEW REGIONAL
REQUESTS, APPLY
PRICING FACTORS,
TO BASELINE
NEGOTIATED TAJIKS
ACTIVITIES- A™™^
REGIONS, POSSIBLE
ADJUSTMENTS TO
DOLLARS AND/OR
CONTRACT
MECHANISM
A^ CONFERENCE WITH REGIONS
TO DISCUSS REQUESTS
(ONGOING)
NOTIFICATION TO REGIONS OF
««• PRELIMINARY CASE BUDGET
ALLOCATION
DETERMINATION ON
SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST
AUGUST SCAP NEGOTIATIONS
NOTD7ICATION TO
REGIONS OF FINAL CASE
BUDGET ALLOCATION
REVIEW REGIONAL
OBLIGATIONS, TASKING
AND REVISED PLANS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH
GUIDANCE AND
CHANGING PROGRAM
PRIORITIES
b_ r UT7P/"^1}TC i
VII-12
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT VTT-4
REGIONAL/HQ EXTRAMURAL BUDGET RESPONSIBILITIES
REGIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
HQ RESPONSIBILITIES
Negotiate activity targets with HQ at
the mid-year SCAP negotiations in
February/March.
Submit extramural budget requests
(through CERCLIS) in response to
Regional allocations calculated by
HQ by mid-March. Identify
approved, alternate, and mega-site
funding needs.
Negotiate revisions to targeted
activities, extramural budget dollars,
and mega-site funding at August
SCAP negotiations.
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 extramural budget
requests submitted through CERCLIS
in response to allocations (March
through June). Assess mega-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.
Receive extramural budget AOAs.
Manage extramural budget within the
approved bottom-line allocation.
Enter contract obligations and work
assignment tasking amounts into
WasteLAN as they occur.
Negotiate mid-year adjustments.
Distribute AOA to the Regions.
AOAs consist of dollars for non-TES
financial vehicles and TES 5+
contractors.
Negotiate mid-year adjustments.
Review Regional budget execution
against allocations. Generate
CERCLIS reports in response to
extramural budget management
needs.
VII-13
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
• SCAP-4E indicates all current or future plans, TES commitments/obligations,
TES tasking, and non-TES commitments/obligations. This report is the standard
report to be used in balancing the enforcement budget
• SCAP-21E shows budget utilization and remaining planned obligations vs. the
Regions' annual budget. This report supplements the SCAP-4E.
A comprehensive Enforcement financial audit report, AUDIT 40, is also available on the
CERCLIS menu. This report lists those records with data quality problems and identifies the
specific error. AUDIT 40 should be used in conjunction with SCAP-4E and SCAP-21E reports
to ensure accurate budget balancing.
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
Enforcement oversight support, currently provided under TES 5+, will move to the
ARCS contracts early in FY 93. Regions should begin transferring assignments or giving new
work to the ARCS contracts, especially those assignments that will exceed the TES 5+ period of
performance.
TES Contract Management
In FY 93, eight 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 have
management responsibilities for these contracts. RPOs provide programmatic oversight and
technical direction for contractor performance from a Regional perspective. HQ Zone Project
Officers (ZPOs) provide guidance and technical assistance to the RPO for contract management.
Enforcement oversight support, currently provided under TES 5+, should be shifted to the
ARCS contract early in FY 93. Regions should begin transferring assignments or giving new
work to the ARCS contracts, especially those assignments that will exceed the TES 5+ period of
performance.
HQ periodically conducts TES contract management reviews in the Regions. Prior to
the review being held, copies of questionnaires to be used for interviewing TES RPOs and the
Work Assignment Managers, as well as a copy of the checklist to be used for reviewing the TES
Regional rules is forwarded to the RPO by HQ.
Long Term Contracting Strategy
The LTCS creates small, regionally-based contracts designed to provide specialized
services such as PRP searches and litigation and negotiation support. Under the LTCS, these
contracts are known as Enforcement Support Contracts.
OWPE has prepared a National Implementation Plan for phasing in these Enforcement
Support Contracts and for monitoring the award and administration of these contracts. A joint
HQ and Regional Quality Action Team (QAT) was established to ensure an orderly transition
from the current TES 5+ contracts to the Enforcement Support Contracts. The QAT is respon-
sible for reviewing the Implementation Plan, providing input during the development of the final
detailed plan, and monitoring progress in plan implementation. OWPE's role will be to coordi-
nate a number of related implementation activities such as guidance development, sponsoring
national meetings, training, and refinement of management information systems.
VII-14
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Interagencv Agreements
Regions have responsibility for developing Regional lAGs in FY 93 with the following
agencies: Department of the Interior (DOI), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), USAGE, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). HQ will maintain the national IAG with the DOJ in FY 93. OSWER Directive
9295.0-01 "Regional Interagency Agreements Handbook" provides detailed procedures for
initiating and obtaining the assistance needed from these Federal agencies. Technical assistance
from another Federal agency must be planned site specifically in WasteLAN. The contract
vehicle (C2608/C3239) must be coded "IAG."
Department of Justice
EPA HQ maintains the national IAG with the DOJ/Environment and Natural Resources
Division (ENRD) 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 support. DOJ/ENRD maintains a base level budget
for legal representation services. The DOJ IAG allows the Regions and DOJ to establish a case
strategy/management plan. This management plan encourages forward planning between the
DOJ attorney, ORC and a Regional program person. Case management plans will be prepared
by DOJ/ENRD for each case by the date of filing of the complaint and updated quarterly. This
forward planning process allows DOJ and the Regions to efficiently utilize the IAG resources
and to accommodate case needs or unforeseen changing priorities that may arise.
DOJ will provide expert witness support for referred cases. The Regions may also obtain
expert witnesses through the TES 5+ contracts. The Regions will coordinate the planning for
expert witnesses with the ORC and DOJ/ENRD. The Region should plan for the experts under
the appropriate enforcement activity (i.e., Section 106, Section 107). The funding vehicle would
be IAG, "EW" (expert witness) must be posted in the financial notes field.
OWPE, OE and DOJ are in the process of negotiating an addendum to the current IAG,
which will address the unique aspects of the Superfund enforcement program, and draw on the
interagency experiences gained since 1977. The IAG will address the conduct of CERCLA
litigation, litigation priorities, SCAP/STARS commitments, pre-referral negotiation procedures,
deadlines for filing and content of CERCLA referrals, case management plans, and docket
reviews.
Contracts
Regions are encouraged to use 8(a) minority contractors whenever alternatives to TES or
non-TES financial support is needed. Under the TES 5+ contracts each prime contractor submit-
ted plans to the PCMD for utilizing 8(a) minority contractors for a certain percentage of the TES
5+ work. 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 and
be procured through TES 5+. Use of 8(a) contractors is not limited to any particular type of
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.
VII-15
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
MANAGEMENT OF CASH OUTS
A cash out is money received by EPA, a State or another PRP from PRPs under the terms
of a settlement agreement that is intended to pay in whole or in part for the future costs of a
response action to be implemented at a specific Superfund site. A cash out may also include
PRP funds in payment of past costs. Interim Cash Out Settlement Procedures were issued on
January 7,1992. This section contains the cash out funding management policies and procedures
that are outlined in this document. If the procedures are revised, changes may be made in this
Manual.
When settlement funds are received by the Superfund, and either the future cost compo-
nent of a cash out settlements is a significant fraction of the estimated response costs, or short-
term accessibility is important, those funds will be deposited in a "special account," established
for the site. It is critical that the case management team carefully evaluate the circumstances at
the site before deciding that a "special account" is the best management procedure for handling a
cash out. Other management procedures include:
• When short term fund accessibility is not necessary, the dollars should be depos-
ited for credit to the Trust Fund for later appropriation to the Agency. These
funds are interest bearing. However, neither the principal or the interest is avail-
able for site work without a Congressional appropriation.
• At State-lead sites, the dollars can be deposited to a State managed escrow ac-
count or trust fund, where safeguards exist that ensure that the money will be used
for the specific site response.
• When a global settlement is expected, the dollars may be temporarily deposited to
a court managed escrow account for future distribution to major settlers. Court
managed accounts should not be utilized for long term funds management.
• When global settlements are reached and non-de minimis parties receive cash out
dollars directly from d£ minimis parties, the dollars can be deposited to a PRP
established and managed trust fund or escrow account that is approved by EPA.
When EPA will be responsible for implementing the response action or will be transfer-
ring funds to other settlors and short term fund accessibility is essential, the dollars should be
deposited in the Treasury for credit to the Superfund program's appropriation and be managed as
a "special account" established under a dedicated program element. These funds do not accrue
interest but are available to the Agency without Congressional appropriation. OMB apportion-
ment is required. The OC will issue an AOA to the Region for the use of the funds.
Cash out deposits to the Treasury will be credited to the Superfund program and line item
managed by the OC as site specific "special accounts" in program element RUBY9H. These
accounts provide EPA with immediate access to monies received from cash outs and serve to
assure the settlor(s) that the funds will be used for the purposes established in the settlement
document. Once a reimbursable allowance is issued for these funds, the allowance holder may
use the funds for site response in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
During each budget submission, EPA will request an appropriation equivalent to the
interest that would have accrued had the unexpended funds been invested in the Trust Fund.
Appropriated interest will be allocated to the "special account" to be used to implement the
response action. In addition, OSWER will request reimbursable FTE to manage the implementa-
VII-16
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
tion of the response action being funded by the "special account" for the site. When entering
into settlement agreements that include cash outs, it is important to take into consideration the
fact that Congress may choose not to appropriate the interest.
As long as the terms of the cash out settlement are adhered to, cash out monies can be
used according to any implementation plan EPA may have for the site. These funds can be used
to support EPA's intramural and extramural costs associated with the site. Unless otherwise
specified in the settlement document, funds (including premium payments) remaining after
completion of the response actions required by the settlement will be transferred from the "spe-
cial account" to the Trust Fund and treated as cost recovery. Such funds may be used at other
sites after being appropriated by Congress.
Following are the procedures the program and resources management staff must follow in
processing cash out monies:
• The settlement agreement must contain directions to the PRP on the remittance of
funds to EPA. It also must be made clear to the PRPs that the EPA will seek to
enforce the settlement if the funds are not received in accordance with the settle-
ment terms . The Agency is not required to seek remittance by issuing a demand
(invoice) for payment. The agreement must instruct the PRP to send the funds to
the appropriate "lockbox" bank for the Regional office. The PRP must make the
check payable to the "EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund." The PRP must also
transmit a letter or other document along with the check that clearly identifies the
site to which the funds apply.
• A copy of the settlement agreement must be sent to the Region's SFO with a
memorandum to the FMO that clearly summarizes the terms and conditions of the
settlement. The memorandum must be forwarded to the finance office within 10
working days of the date of the settlement. Mandatory information to be included
in the transmittal memo are:
Names and addresses of settling PRPs;
Site name;
S/S ID and DOJ case number as appropriate;
The exact amount of the past cost component including interest;
Amount being deposited on the "special account" for future activity;
Amount of "special account" deposit intended for O&M;
Amount of any premium payment;
Information concerning the OU and/or response activities;
If the settlement is d£ minimis and whether payment to major settlors is
anticipated;
VII-17
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01H-1
Whether or not a SSC or CA is signed or anticipated with the State; and
The RPM and attorney assigned to the site, including telephone numbers
and addresses.
The FMO will establish a suspense file on the cash out. When the check arrives,
the finance staff will match the check with the agreement and promptly notify the
program staff or attorneys that payment has been received.
Upon receipt of the PRP's check, the FMO will record the funds in IFMS. Any
portion intended to reimburse the Agency for past costs (cost recovery) will be
deposited to the Trust Fund account 20X8145.4. The balance will be credited to a
Regional suspense account to be transferred promptly by an Interoffice Transfer
Voucher (IOTV) to the EPA FMC-Ci. The FMO will also send FMC-Ci a copy of
the CD. FMC-Ci is EPA's SFO for "reimbursable" accounts, of which cash outs
are one type. FMC-Ci will account for the cash out portion of the funds as an
"advance" to the Agency's Superfund appropriation and will manage the funds on
a site specific basis. These funds cannot be used for work at the site until an
AOA for use of the funds is issued.
The FMO is responsible for sending a copy of the settlement agreement, deposit
ticket and check to the HQ OC Budget Division. If any part of the funds will be
used during the current year, the transmittal should include a request for a "reim-
bursable allowance." The remainder of the funds would remain controlled in
IFMS in a site specific advance account for later work at the site. FMC-Ci has
primary responsibility to account for these funds within IFMS, including liquida-
tion of the funds as they are used.
The Regional OC is responsible for notifying the Regional program office that the
AOA has been issued for use at the site. The FMO will request the FMC-Ci set
up a site specific reimbursable account in IFMS against which the program can
charge contractual services, salaries or whatever other costs are appropriate under
the settlement agreement.
If work at the site is being supplemented with Fund monies, the Regional program
office will be responsible for determining the funding source(s) for any particular
segment of the work. The Regional program office must also be sure that in-
voices or other payment documents clearly indicate what account is to be charged.
The financial activity codes for response work being charged to "special ac-
counts" are the same as those used by all Superfund programs. As EPA makes
payments against the cash out balances, the IFMS reimbursable accounts will be
reduced accordingly.
The OC and OSWER Resource Management staff will monitor the "special
account" balances and balances of cash outs deposited for investment in the Trust
Fund. The items that will be monitored include:
Amount of initial deposit;
Principal balance;
VII-18
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
Interest deposited to the account based on amounts appropriated by Con-
gress; and
Amount disbursed.
• After notification from the program office that a project has been closed out, and
after all payments have been made, the FMC-Ci office will credit any remaining
cash out balances to the Trust Fund as a cost recovery.
TECHNICAL ENFORCEMENT WORKLOAD MODEL
The FY 93 enforcement resource distribution methodology is intended to accomplish the
following significant goals:
• Focus the distribution of resources on a limited number of major activities, prima-
rily those that are STARS 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);
• Use preliminary targets as a means of recognizing past Regional performance and
the achievement of Regional program plans;
• Make preliminary (FTEs and extramural) resource estimates (based on prelimi-
nary targets) available for Regional planning prior to negotiation of target com-
mitments;
• Provide support for ongoing (non-targeted) enforcement activities based on
standard pricing factors; and
• Continue to provide resources for support activities not tied to output commit-
ments at a baseline level for all Regions.
Program Resource Assumptions
The Technical Enforcement model distributes resources using three methods that are
described as follows:
Critical Outputs
Removals — The budget provides resources for PRP searches at non-NPL
sites; issuance of AOs (unilateral or on consent) for removals; and over-
sight of PRP removals. The resources for orders and removal oversight
cover both NPL and non-NPL sites. The resources are distributed based
on targeted PRP removal starts. Resources for PRP searches at NPL sites
are included under the PRP RI/FS starts.
VH-19
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
PRP RT/FS Starts — This category combines resources for NPL PRP
searches, and RI/FS negotiations. Although in some cases the PRP search
resources will support RI/FS targets for the current year, most will prob-
ably 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. The resources are distributed
based on the targeted RI/FS starts.
RD/RA Referrals — This category combines resources for RD/RA nego-
tiations, UAOs, de. minimis settlements and RD/RA referrals. The as-
sumptions in the FY 93 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, settle-
ment or referral at 60 percent of the sites. Issuance of UAOs is a pre-
sumed outcome of at least 40 percent of the Fund RD starts.
These resources support ongoing and new RD/RA negotiations. In many
cases the new negotiations will not result in a referral prior to the follow-
ing FY.
Cost Recovery Referrals — This category provides resources for adminis-
trative settlements and Section 107 case development and referral. Prior-
ity is to be placed on SOL, non-settlors/non-compliers, remedial cases,
and large dollar removals.
Onsoine Support
PRP RI/FS Oversight — This category distributes resources only for PRP
RI/FS oversight. Resources are based on projected ongoing RI/FS in
CERCLIS in the fall of 1992 plus projected oversight support for new
starts. To the extent this projection has changed, 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.
Ongoing Case Support— Section 106.106/107 and 107 — This category
combines resources designated for Section 106 and Section 107 case
support. Resources are distributed based on the number of quarters pro-
jected for ongoing Section 106/107 actions plus the number of ongoing
quarters projected for new cases following referral, as reflected in CER-
CLIS. Small cases such as access, liens and bankruptcy are not provided
separate technical support resources. It is assumed that most of these
cases will generally require only ORC support post-referral.
PRP/State (PS') Lead Sites — The resources provided assume an average
cost of 75 percent of Federal-lead/PRP site response. The emphasis in this
category is on ongoing activities. Resources are provided for each quarter
a RI/FS is ongoing as projected in CERCLIS.
Enforcement Compliance Monitoring — The resources provided assume
approximately one half the sites with PRP response for design or remedia-
tion (at a cost of approximately one quarter of an FTE and $20,000) will
VII-20
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
require significant compliance enforcement for such activities as stipulated
penalties, oversight cost recovery activities, dispute resolution and review
of compliance schedules. Additionally, these resources are provided to
allow for referrals at those sites where PRPs have not responded to Section
104(e) information requests.
• Ongoing PRP Search — These resources are for search activity which
continues following the RI/FS starts. They support all PRP search activity
ongoing at Fund and Enforcement sites. These are not expected to con-
tinue beyond 12 quarters.
Support Activities
• 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, reportable quantities, and
civil investigators.
For an example of enforcement pricing and budget assumptions, see Exhibit VII-5.
VH-21
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
EXHIBIT VII-5
OWPE EXAMPLE PRICING AND BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS (1991)
ASSUMPTIONS
100%ofNon-NPL
Removals
Removal Non-NPL
Searches
70% of all Removals
35% of all Removals
100% of all NPL sites
Orders
Oversight
PRP Searches
Ongoing RI/FS
Ongoing RI/FS at Fund
and RP sites
100% RI/FS starts at RP
RI/FS; 65% Fund RI/FS
RI/FS Negotiations
RP RI/FS Oversight
Computes dates in
CERCLIS per OU
RD/RA Negotiations
All Fund and RP RODs
plus backlog RODs
without negotiations
25% of RD/RA
Negotiations completed
UAOs
Cost Documentation
Bankruptcy Liens
Per Region
10 cases Nationally
VII-22
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER Vin
THE FEDERAL FACILITY BUDGET AND WORKLOAD MODEL
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER VIII - FEDERAL FACILITY BUDGET AND
WORKLOAD MODEL
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 should review A-106 reports provided by other Federal
agencies
vin-i
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
CHAPTER Vin - THE FEDERAL FACILITY BUDGET AND WORKLOAD MODEL
This Chapter discusses the Federal Facility budget, financial management responsibilities
under the A-106 process, and the assumptions used in the compilation of the Federal Facility
Superfund Workload Model.
FEDERAL FACILITIES BUDGET
The Federal Facilities extramural budget for FY 93 is approximately $14 million. This
budget provides support for oversight of ah1 response work at Federal Facilities, the negotiation
and implementation of Federal lAGs, and activities necessary to facilitate the base closure of the
19 NPL sites designated by Congress. As with the response and enforcement budgets, decisions
on which activities will be funded are based on the Integrated Priority Setting Matrix. Within the
matrix, the following activities are priorities:
• Maintaining ongoing oversight activities;
• Targeting activities at bases to be closed; and
• Expediting response where possible.
No funds are available for projects at non-NPL sites.
FEDERAL FACILITIES FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
The A-106 Pollution Abatement Plan provides a mechanism for Federal agencies to
analyze their current and projected funding requirements for the next budget year in support of
pollution abatement projects. Reports are provided to agencies with information for planning
future program resource requirements. The A-106 process is primarily a system of setting
priorities to ensure environmental control projects are completed as needed to meet statutory and
regulatory requirements. The primary focus is to give the highest priority to those facilities that
are out of compliance or will go out of compliance if project funding schedules are not met. In
order to prepare the report, EPA's review considers the following:
• All Federal Facilities;
• All environmental statutory requirements;
• Compliance status of facilities;
• Compliance dates;
• Specific projects to be conducted;
• Project adequacy;
. Environmental priority assessment; and
• Estimated cost.
vm-i
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
In the past the A-106 process has had limited effectiveness. However, it has the potential
to become a comprehensive technical assistance and oversight tool. For example, the process
could assist EPA and the States in compliance monitoring; inform OMB on the adequacy of
Federal agency budget plans and evaluate Federal agency's environmental projects; and to
establish a role for EPA in evaluating other agencies' initial cost estimates and actual expendi-
tures on environmental programs during and after budget execution. The A-106 process will
continue to evolve.
EPA evaluates each project and assesses its priority and compliance status. Project priori-
ties are described as high priorities, projects considered critical; medium priorities, projects
considered important; and low priorities, projects considered desirable. The compliance status
categories include Class I, which are projects out of compliance, subject to enforcement, or
involving an enforcement agreement; Class n, projects subject to a compliance deadline in the
immediate future; and Class in, projects not subject to an imminent compliance requirement, but
considered important.
The A-106 Process will be useful to EPA by serving as a basis to compare the Federal
agency's plans versus accomplishments. It will also provide a source of information to support
Executive and Congressional oversight and appropriations hearings for Federal agency environ-
mental programs. Most importantly, it will establish a critical evaluative role for EPA through-
out project planning and implementation.
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE FEDERAL FACILITIES ENFORCEMENT WORKLOAD
MODEL
The Hazardous Substance Federal Facilities Enforcement Workload Model has been
frozen for the past three years, and is currently under review and revision by the OE to identify
and adjust the model to more accurately reflect the anticipated increase in activities related to
Federal Facilities. The anticipated increase at Federal Facility sites will require a significant
share of Superfund resources through the remainder of this decade. Once the model is unfrozen
again, it is anticipated the model will focus on IAG negotiations, oversight of cleanup activities,
and technical assistance for site assessment activity at Federal Facilities and military base clo-
sures. Additional decisions on how to handle these more complex governmental sites will be
made as this aspect of the program continues to develop.
vm-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
ACRONYMS
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
AA —
AASWER —
AAU —
ADCR —
ADR —
ALT —
AN —
AO —
AOA —
AOC —
APR —
AR —
ARAR —
ARCS —
ARIP —
ARM—
ASU —
ATSDR —
BC/AOA —
BLM —
BUREC —
CA —
CAS —
CD —
CED —
CEPP —
CEPPO —
CERCLA —
CERCLIS —
CERHELP —
CN —
CO —
CORA —
CPB —
CPCA —
CR —
CRCR —
CWA —
DA —
DCN —
DOD—
DOE —
DOI —
ACRONYMS
Assistant Administrator
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
Administrative Assistance Unit
Automated Document Control Register
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Alternate
Account Number
Administrative Order
Advice of Allowance
Administrative Order on Consent
Approved
Administrative Record
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy
Accidental Release Information Program
Administration and Resources Management
Administrative Support Unit
Agency for Toxic Substances and Diseases Registry
Budget Control/Advice of Allowance
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Reclamation
Cooperative Agreement
Chemical Abstract Number
Consent Decree
CERCLA Enforcement Division
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Program
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
CERCLIS non-site specific data base
Contract Laboratory Program
Commitment Notice
Contracting Officer
Cost of Remedial Action
Contracts and Planning Branch
Core Program Cooperative Agreement
Community Relations
Cost Recovery Category Report
Clean Water Act
Deputy Administrator
Document Control Number
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
-------
OSWER Dkective9200.3-01H-l
DOJ —
DPO —
gj
EMSL —
ENRD —
EPA —
EPA-ACH
EPA ID —
EPI —
EPCRA —
ERA —
ERGS —
ERD —
ERNS —
ESAT —
BSD —
ESF —
ESI —
FCO —
FE —
FEMA —
FFIS —
FINDS —
FMC-Ci—
FMD —
FMFIA —
FMO —
FOIA —
FR —
FS —
FSC —
FSS —
FTE —
FY —
FY/Q —
GAD —
GAO —
GFO —
GICS —
GNL —
HQ —
HRS —
HSCD —
HWC —
IAG —
IFMS —
IMC —
IRM —
ISIF —
LAN —
LEPC —
Department of Justice
Deputy Project Officer
Environmental Indicators
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Environment and Natural Resources Division
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Automated Clearing House
EPA Identification Number
Environmental Priorities Initiative
Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986
Expedited Response Action
Emergency Response Cleanup Services
Emergency Response Division
Emergency Response Notification System
Environmental Services Assistance Team
Explanation of Significant Differences
Emergency Support Function
Expanded Site Inspection
Funds Certifying Officer
Federal Enforcement
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Facilities Information System
Facility Index System
Financial Management Center - Cincinnati
Financial Management Division
Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act
Financial Management Office
Freedom of Information Act
Federal Register
Feasibility Study
First and Subsequent Completion
First and Subsequent Start
Full-time Equivalent
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year/Quarter
Grants Administration Division
Government Accounting Office
Good Faith Offer
Grants Information Control System
General Notice Letter
Headquarters
Hazard Ranking System
Hazardous Site Control Division
Hazardous Waste Collection
Interagency Agreement
Integrated Financial Management System
Information Management Coordinator
Initial Remedial Measure
Integrated Site Information Form
Local Area Network
Local Emergency Planning Committee
II
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
LOG —
LOE —
LTCS —
LTRA —
MARS —
MBO —
MM/DD/YY
MSCA —
NEAR —
NOAA —
NPL-PAD—
NRC —
NSEP —
NPL —
NRT —
OC —
OFFE —
O&M —
OE —
OERR —
OIG —
OMB —
OPA —
OPAC —
OPM —
OPP —
ORD —
ORC —
OSC —
OSW —
OSWER —
OU —
OUST —
OWPE —
PA —
PC —
PCB —
PCMD —
PDBS —
PES —
PMSO —
PNRS —
PO —
POLREP —
PR —
PRP —
QAPP—
QAT —
RA —
Letter of Credit
Level of Effort
Long Term Contracting Strategy
Long Term Response Action
Management and Accounting Reporting System
Management by Objectives
Month/Day/Year
Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement
Non-Binding Allocation of Responsibility
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan or
National Contingency Plan
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Priorities List - Production Assistance Database
National Response Center
National Security Emergency Preparedness
National Priorities List
National Response Team
Office of the Comptroller
Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement
Operations and Maintenance
Office of Enforcement
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of the Inspector General
Office of Management and Budget
Oil Pollution Act
On-line Payment and Collections
Office of Program Management
Office of Pollution Prevention
Office of Research and Development
Office of Regional Counsel
On-Scene Coordinator
Office of Solid Waste
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Operable Unit
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Preliminary Assessment
Personal Computer
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Procurement and Contracts Management Division
Program Development and Budget Staff
Planning and Evaluation Section (OERR)
Program Management Support Office
Preliminary Natural Resource Surveys
Project Officer
Pollution Report
Procurement Request
Potentially Responsible Party
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Quality Action Team
Remedial Action
ffl
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
RCMS —
RCRA —
RCRC —
RD —
REMT —
RFP —
RI —
RI/FS —
ROD —
RODEIS —
RP —
RPM —
RP2M —
RPO —
RRT —
RTF —
SAGA —
SACM—
SARA —
SCAP —
SEA—
SERC —
SETS —
SFO —
SI —
SffiAC —
SIF —
SITE —
SMARTech —
SMP —
SMOA —
SMSA —
SNL —
SOL —
SOW —
SPCC —
SRIS —
SSC —
S/SID —
SSP—
STARS —
TAG —
TAT —
TBD —
TESWATS —
TES —
TSCA —
TQM —
UAO —
USAGE —
USCG —
Removal Cost Management System
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Regional Cost Recovery Coordinator
Remedial Design
Regional Emergency Preparedness Team
Request for Proposal
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
Record of Decision
ROD and Enforcement Information System
Responsible Party
Remedial Project Manager
Remedial Pipeline Project Management
Regional Project Officer
Regional Response Team
Research Triangle Park
Site Assessment Cooperative Agreement
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan
Site Evaluation Accomplished
State Emergency Response Commissions
Superfund Enforcement Tracking System
Servicing Finance Office
Site Inspection
Simplified Interagency Billing and Collection
Site Information Form
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Superfund Management and Reporting Technology
Site Management Plan
State Memorandum of Agreement
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
Special Notice Letter
Statute of Limitations
Statement of Work
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure
Superfund Report Information System
Superfund State Contracts
Site/Spill Identification Number
Site Safety Plan
Strategic Targeted Activities for Results System
Technical Assistance Grants
Technical Assistance Team
To Be Determined
Technical Enforcement Support Work Assignment Tracking System
Technical Enforcement Support
Toxic Substances Control Act
Total Quality Management
Unilateral Administrative Order
United States Army Corps of Engineers
United States Coast Guard
IV
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
USFWS — United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS — United States Geologial Survey
WA — Work Assignment
WAM — Work Assignment Manager
ZPO — Zone Project Officer
-------
OFFICE OF WASTE PROGRAMS ENFORCEMENT
DIRECTOR
DEPUTY
DIRECTOR
POLICY I
COORDINATOR 1
o
CO
I
RCRA
ENFORCEMENT
DIVISION
PROGRAM MGMT
AND
SUPPORT OFFICE
CERCLA
ENFORCEMENT
DIVISION
COST
RECOVERY
BRANCH
BUDGET&
ANALYTICAL
SUPPORT
SECTION
TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE*
TRAINING
BRANCH
POLICY AND
REGIONAL
OPERATIONS
BRANCH
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
SECTION
CONTRACTS
AND
PLANNING
BRANCH
GUIDANCE
AND
EVALUATION
BRANCH
TRAINING &
GWDANCE
SECTION
CORRECTIVE
ACTION*
GROUNDWATER
SECTION
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
SECTION
ENFORCEMENT
SUPPORT
SECTION
REGIONAL
PLANNING
SECTION
CONTRACTS
MANAGEMENT
SECTION
TECHNICAL
OVERSIGHT
SECTION
COMPLIANCE
BRANCH
PROGRAM
ANALYSIS &
SECTION
OPERATIONS
MANAGEMENT
SECTION
POLICY
SECTION
REGIONAL
COORDINATORS
SECTION
REGIONAL
COORDINATORS
SECTION
REGIONAL
COORDINATORS
SECTION
-------
CERCLA ENFORCEMENT DIVISION
DIVISION DIRECTOR
GUIDANCE AND EVALUATION
BRANCH
CONTRACTS AND PLANNING
BRANCH
ENFORCEMENT
SUPPORT
SECTION
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION SECTION
CONTRACT
MANAGEMENT
SECTION
REGIONAL
PLANNING
SECTION
TECHNICAL OVERSIGHT
SECTION
COST RECOVERY BRANCH
COMPLIANCE BRANCH
REGIONAL
COORDINATORS
SECTION
REGIONS 5,6,7
REGIONAL
COORDINATORS
SECTION
REGIONS 1,2,9
REGIONAL
COORDINATORS
SECTION
REGIONS 3,4,8,
q
Oi
-------
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE
OFFICE OF THE
DIRECTOR
CONTRACT OPERATIONS
REVIEW AND
ASSESSMENT STAFF
OFFICE OF PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
I-
t—*
EC
POLICY & ANALYSIS
STAFF
MANAGEMENT &
SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT STAFF I
PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT AND
BUDGET STAFF
HAZARDOUS SITE
EVALUATION
DIVISION
ANALYTICAL OPERATIONS
BRANCH
SITE ASSESSMENT
BRANCH
TOXICS INTEGRATION
BRANCH
HAZARDOUS SITE
CONTROL
DIVISION
SPECIAL
PROJECTS AND
SUPPORT STAFF I
REMEDIAL OPERATIONS AND|
GUIDANCE BRANCH
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION!
MANAGEMENT BRANCH 1
STATE AND LOCAL
COORDINATION BRANCH
EMERGENCY RESPONSE |
DIVISION
RESPONSE OPERATIONS
BRANCH
RESPONSE STANDARDS AND
CRITERIA BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE
BRANCH
-------
OFFICE OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
POLICY AND
ANALYSIS STAFF
RCRApolllcy oversight
ARAR compliance policy and
NCP
Annual Report to Congress on
Superfund
Cross-cutting policy issues
Docket, Directives management
Strategic planning
COMPLIANCE WITH
OTHER LAWS
SECTION
EaiasK*SKKa™°KKKK™gmBgiag*1
REGULATORY &
SPECIAL PROJECTS
SECTION
OFFICE OF
PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT AND
SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT STAFF
CERCLIS management, support and
evaluation
Technical ADP systems development
and support
ADP administration
Administrative services
Records management
Personnel
Training
Directives system
Docket management
HQ contract management
ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT
SECTION
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS
COORDINATION
SECTION
CONTRACT OPERATIONS
REVIEW AND
ASSESSMENT STAFF
Regional contract assessment 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
O
on
yo
O
o
£
-------
o
C/3
EMERGENCY RESPONSE DIVISION
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
DIVISION
I
-------
HAZARDOUS SITE EVALUATION DIVISION
HAZARDOUS SITE
EVALUATION
DIVISION
SITE
ASSESSMENT
BRANCH
TOXICS
INTEGRATION
BRANCH
ANALYTICAL
OPERATIONS
BRANCH
Provide guidance to implement revised HRS.
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 site assessment background and field
studies.
Manage PA/SI SCAP process.
Develop PA/SI LSI guidance and training.
Support implementation of the Superfund Long Term
Contracting Strategy through FIT/ARCS and
TAT/FIT implementation
Coordinate site assesment with remedial and
removal programs
Ensure consistency of analytical methods.
Develop organic and inorganic technical
protocols and new CLP services.
Manage ES AT.
Manage Sample Management Ofice.
Streamline analysis and data review.
Establish national Q/A methods and
procedures.
Maintain analytical data base for sites.
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.
70
O
6
h-*
BC
-------
HAZARDOUS SITE CONTROL DIVISION
ye
O
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
SPECIAL PROJECTS
AND SUPPORT
STAFF
Conduct special projects on remedial policy and technical
issues
Remedial Program Strategy for SCAP/SPMS/budget target
setting
Manage Divsion budgets
Prepare management reports and analyses of program
performance
Implement FMFIA requirements
Provide administrative support for Division
Manage and support community relations
and technical advisor grant programs
• Manage ASTSWMO grant
• Conduct program evaluations of State
performance
-------
U.S. EPA REGIONS
,O
Boston
O
V)
VIRGIN ISLANDS
uo
6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
INDEX
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
INDEX
Accomplishment Reporting, III-12
Advice of Allowance (AOA)
Enforcement Program
Advice of Allowance (AOA) Utilization,
W-9
Regional Extramural Budget Process, VH-1
Advice of Allowance (AOA) Federal
Facility, VIII-1
Advice of Allowance (AOA)
Flexibility, V-4
Non-site Specific Funding Flexibility, V-6
RA Allowance, V-6
Advice of Allowance (AOA),
General
AOA Change Request Procedures, V-7
AOA Flexibility, V-4
AOA Process, V-3
Regional Allowances, V-3
Advice of Allowance (AOA),
Response
Congressional Reporting Requirements,
VI-6
Remedial AOA, VI-4
Removal AOA, VI-6
Advice of Allowance (AOA),
SCAP's Relationship to, V-10
Annual Regional Budget, SCAP's
Relationship to, V-2
Annual Target Setting, Procedures
for, III-6
Assignment of Remedial Response
and Oversight Work, IV-27
Budget
Enforcement, VII-1
Federal Facility, VIE-1
Remedial, VI-4
Budget Allocation and Distribution
(Preliminary), OWPE, VII-1
Litigation Support, VII-2
Case Budget (see Enforcement
Budget, Regional Extramural)
Cash Outs, IV-37, VII-16
CERCLIS
Audit Reports, H-7
Data Sponsors, n-7
Data Quality, H-7
Maintaining SCAP in CERCLIS, ffl-4
Reports for SCAP Planning/Target Setting,
m-io
Chemical Emergency and
Preparedness and Prevention Office
Natural Disaster and National Security
Emergency Preparedness (NSEP)
Programs, 1-26
Completions, 1-18
Cost Recovery, IV-44
Contract Management, OWPE
Extramural Budget Process, VII-14
8(a) Contracts, VH-15
Department of Justice, VII-15
Interagency Agreements, VII-15
Long Term Contracting Strategy, VII-14
TES Contract Management, VH-14
Data Quality, CERCLIS, II-7
De minimis Settlements, IV-37
Deletions, 1-18
Development of the FY 93 National
Budget, V-l
Ecological Risk Assessments, IV-24
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
INDEX
Effectiveness, (Program Theme),
1-18
Efficiency, (Program Theme), 1-6
End-of-Year Assessment, 111-16
Enforcement Budget, VII-1
Budget Distribution, Final Extramural,
vn-5
Budget Execution, VII-5
Cash Outs Management, VII-16
Contract Management, VII-14
Development of the FY 93 National
Budget, V-l
Financial Management, V-14
HQ/Regional Adjustment, VII-11
OWPE Regional Extramural Budget
Process, VII-1
Relationship Between SCAP and the
Annual Regional Budget, V-2
Technical Enforcement Workload Model,
VH-19
Enforcement Budget, Regional
Extramural, VIM
AOA Utilization, VII-9
Budget Distribution, VII-5
Budget Execution, VH-5
Budget Utilization, VII-9
Contract Management, VII-14
Disbursements, VII-10
Enforcement Financial Reports, VII-11
Final Extramural Budget Distribution, VII-5
HQ/Regional Adjustment, VII-11
Obligations for Other Financial Vehicles,
yn-8
Litigation Support, VII-2
Preliminary Extramural Budget Allocation
and Distribution, VII-1
Regional Planning Against Preliminary
Budget, yiI-3
Responsibilities, VII-11
TES Contract Obligations, VE-7
TES WA Tasking Against Generic
Obligations, VH-8
TES WA Tasking for Buy-Ins, VII-9
Enforcement Workload Model,
VII-19
Program Resource Assumptions, VII-19
Enforcement Planning
Requirements, IV-37
Administrative Record Status, IV-39
Cost Recovery, IV-44
Deminimis Settlements, IV-37
Mixed Funding Settlements and Cash Outs,
IV-37
Planning for Enforcement Mega-
Sites/Projects, IV-39
PRP Removal, IV-40
RD/RA Enforcement Activity, IV-43
RD/RA Negotiations and Oversight, IV-43
RI/FS Enforcement Activity (PRP
Search/Negotiations), IV-41
Settlements with Municipalities and
Residential Property Owners, IV-38
State Enforcement, IV-46
Environmental Indicators (El), II-4
Equity, (Program Theme), 1-25
Evaluations, Regional Performance,
111-14
Expanded Site Inspection (ESI),
IV-4
Federal Facilities
Budget, Vm-1
Program Goals, 1-17,1-23
Program Planning and Reporting, IV-46
Workload Model, VIH-2
Federal Facility Budget, VIII-1
Development of the FY 93 National
Budget, V-l
Federal Facilities Financial Management
Responsibilities, Vffl-1
Hazardous Substances Federal Facilities
Enforcement Workload Model, Vm-2
B
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
INDEX
Relationship Between SCAP and the
Annual Regional Budget, V-2
Superfund Financial Management, V-14
Federal Facility Program Goals,
1-17, 1-23
Financial Data in the WasteLAN/
CERCLIS Environment, V-35
Correcting Financial Data, V-36
Entering Enforcement Extramural Budget
Data into CERCLIS, V-36
Entering Remedial/Removal Data into
CERCLIS, V-35
IFMS to CERCLIS Financial Data
Transfer, V-36
Financial Management, V-14
Funding Mechanisms, V-24
Funding Processes, V-21
HQ Financial Management Responsibilities,
V-17
Regional Financial Management
Responsibilities, V-14
Tools and Systems, V-19
Financial Management and FTE
Distribution, V-l
Advice of Allowance Procedures and
Financial Reporting Requirements, V-3
Development of the FY 93 National
Budget, V-l
FTE Distribution Process, V-37
Handling Financial Data in the WasteLAN/
CERCLIS Environment, V-35
Overview of the FTE Distribution Process,
V-37
SCAP's Relationship to Annual Regional
Budget, V-2
SCAP's Relationship to the AOA, V-10
Superfund Financial Management, V-14
Financial Management and Funding
Processes, V-21
Approvals, V-21
Commitments, V-23
Deobligations, V-24
Obligations, V-23
Payments, V-24
Financial Management Funding
Mechanisms, V-24
Contracts, V-24
Cost Recovery/Cost Documentation, V-34
lAGs, V-28
SSCs, V-33
Financial Management Tools and
Systems, V-19
ADCR, V-20
AN, V-20
DCN, V-20
IFMS, V-19
S/S IDs, V-20
Financial Planning for Response
AOA, VI-4
Congressional Reporting Requirements,
VI-6
Remedial AOA, VI-4
Removal AOA, VI-6
AOA Change Request Procedures, V-7
Financial Reporting Requirements,
Advice of Allowance Procedures,
V-3
AOA Change Request Procedures, V-7
AOA Flexibility, V-4
AOA Process, The, V-3
Regional Allowances, V-3
First and Subsequent Starts and
Completions, IV-11
Five-Year Reviews, 1-19
FTE Distribution
Hazardous Spill and Site Response Model,
VI-7
Hazardous Substances Federal Facilities
Enforcement Workload Model, Vffl-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
INDEX
Overview of the FTE Distribution Process,
V-37
Technical Enforcement Workload Model,
VH-19
Funding Mechanisms, Financial
Management and, V-24
CAs,V-31
Contracts, V-24
Cost Recovery/Cost Documentation, V-34
lAGs, V-28
SSCs, V-33
Funding Processes, Financial
Management and, V-21
Approvals, V-21
Commitments, V-23
Deobligations, V-24
Obligations, V-23
Payments, V-24
Hazardous Spill and Site Response
Model, VI-7
General Model Description, VI-7
Mainframe Application Concepts, VI-8
PC Application Concepts, VI-13
HQ Financial Management
Responsibilities, V-17
Administration, V-19
Budget Division/OC, V-19
Contracts and Planning Branch
(CPB)/OWPE,V-18
Financial Management Division (FMD)/OC,
V-17
Financial Management Center (FMC-Ci),
V-19
Grants Administration Division
(GAD)/Office of Administration, V-19
PCMD/Office of Administration, V-19
PDBS/OERR, V-18
Research Triangle Park (RTP)/Office of
Administration, V-19
Integrated Planning, IV-1
Integrated Timeline, 1-9
Integrated Priority Setting Matrix,
1-3
Lead Changes, IV-7
Links, IV-17
Mainframe Processes, Hazardous
Spill and Site Response Model,
VI-8
Calibrated FTEs Calculation, VI-12
Data Quality Checks, VI-8
Data Review, VI-11
Pricing Factors Loading, VI-11
Pure FTEs Calculation, VI-12
Target Overwrite, VI-10
Workload File Creation, VI-8
Management Reports, III-16
Superfund Management Reports, HI-17
Mega-Sites
Planning for Enforcement, FV-39
Planning for Response, IV-24
Mid-Year Assessment (Performance
Evaluation), 111-16
Mixed Funding Settlements and
Cash Outs, IV-37
National Budget, Development of,
V-l
NPL Book, II-5
NPL-PAD, II-6
Oil Pollution Prevention and
Response Program, 1-27
Operable Units
Operable Units, IV-15
Operable Units in Remedial and
Enforcement Programs, IV-14
Project Phasing, IV-17
Remedial Events, IV-16
D
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
INDEX
Removal Events, IV-16
Sequence Numbers, IV-15
OWPE Regional Extramural Budget
Process, VIM
AOA Utilization, VH-9
Budget Distribution, Final Extramural
VH-5
Budget Execution, VII-5
Budget Utilization, VII-9
Contract Management, VII-14
Disbursements, VII-10
Enforcement Financial Reports, VII-11
Final Extramural Budget Distribution, VII-5
HQ/Regional Adjustment, VH-11
Litigation Support, VII-2
Obligations for Other Financial Vehicles,
vn-8
Preliminary Extramural Budget Allocation
and Distribution, VII-1
Regional Planning Against Preliminary
Budget, VII-3
Responsibilities, VII-11
TES Contract Obligations, VE-7
TES WA Tasking Against Generic
Obligations, VII-8
TES WA Tasking for Buy-ins, VH-9
PC Process Concepts, Hazardous
Spill and Site Response Model,
VI-13
Data Loading, VI-13
Data Maintenance, VI-13
Performance Evaluation, Regional,
111-14
End of Year Assessments, III-16
Evaluations, IE-14
Mid-Year Assessments, HI-16
Quarterly Reviews, IE-14
Pipeline
CERCLIS Reports for Accomplishment
Reporting, HI-13
Completions, 1-18
Deletions, 1-18
Enforcement Program Goals, 1-16,1-20
Expanded Site Inspection (ESI), IV-4
Federal Facility Program Goals, 1-17,1-23
Five-Year Reviews, 1-18
Preliminary Assessments/Site Inspections,
IV-4
RA Cost Estimate, IV-31
Records of Decision, IV-20
Remedial Program Goals, 1-23
ROD, IV-20
Site Assessment Planning and Reporting
Requirements, IV-4
Site Assessment Program Goals, 1-17,1-23
Planning and Accomplishment
Reporting, III-12
Planning and Reporting Procedures
for Remedial Response, IV-7
Assignment of Remedial Response and
Oversight Work, IV-27
Ecological Risk Assessments, IV-24
First and Subsequent Starts and
Completions, IV-11
Lead Changes, IV-7
Links, IV-17
Operable Units in Remedial and
Enforcement Programs, IV-14
Planning for Response Mega-Sites, IV-24
Probability of PRP Funded Response
Actions, IV-10
Project Support Activities, IV-26
Project/Event Lead Codes, IV-7
PRP Funded Response Actions
(Probability), IV-10
Remedial Action Information, IV-30
Records of Decision, IV-20
ROD, IV-20
Standard Timeframes, IV-19
Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation Program, IV-25
TBD Sites, IV-17
Technical Assistance Grants, IV-27
Treatability Study Planning, IV-25
Preliminary Assessments/Site
Inspections, IV-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
INDEX
Priorities
Framework for Setting, 1-2
Integrated Priority Setting Matrix, 1-3
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
(SACM), 1-6
Program Assessment, III-5
End-of-Year Assessment, HI-16
Mid-Year Assessment, III-16
Performance Evaluation, HI-14
Quarterly Reviews, IE-14
Program Goals, 1-1
Effectiveness, 1-18
Efficiency, 1-6
Equity, 1-25
Framework for Setting Priorities, 1-2
Themes, 1-1
Program Goals, Supporting
Enforcement, 1-16,1-20
Federal Facilities, 1-18,1-23
Management Initiatives, 1-15,1-23
Remedial, 1-20
Removal, 1-15,1-20
Site Assessment, 1-17,1-23
Program Management Procedures,
IV-3
Program Planning and Reporting
Procedures, IV-1
Enforcement Planning Procedures, IV-37
Federal Facilities, IV-46
Integrated Planning, IV-1
Program Management Procedures, IV-3
Removal Planning and Reporting
Procedures, IV-5
Response Planning and Reporting
Procedures, FV-7
Site Assessment Planning and Reporting
Procedures, IV-4
Program Resource Assumptions,
Technical Enforcement Model,
VII-19
Critical Outputs, VII-19
Ongoing Support, VH-20
Support Activities, VII-21
Program Themes
Effectiveness, 1-18
Efficiency, 1-6
Equity, 1-25
Project Support Activities, IV-26
Project/Event Lead Codes, IV-7
PRP Funded Response Actions,
Probability of IV-10
PRP Search/Negotiations, IV-41
Quarterly Reviews, III-14
Quick Response at NPL Sites, 1-8
Authorities and Contracting Strategies, 1-19
Financial Consideration, 1-18
Procedures, 1-9
RA Cost Estimate
Draft FS Estimate, IV-31
RD Estimate, IV-31
ROD Estimate, IV-31
Total RA Cost, IV-31
RA Technical Information, IV-36
RD Technical Information, IV-32
RD/RA Negotiations Settlement and
Oversight, IV-43
Records of Decision, IV-20
Fundamental Changes to the ROD, IV-23
Non-Significant Changes, IV-23
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01H-1
INDEX
Significant Changes to a Component of the
Remedy, IV-23
Technical Information, IV-32
Regional Accomplishment
Reporting, III-12
Regional Financial Management
Responsibilities, V-14
Regional Administrator, V-14
Regional Management Division, V-16
Regional Program Office, V-14
Regional Performance Evaluations
End-of-Year Assessment, El-16
Mid-Year Assessment, III-16
Quarterly Reviews, III-14
Regional Planning Against
Preliminary Budget, OWPE, VII-3
Remedial Action Information
Planning and Accomplishment Data, IV-30
RA Cost Estimate, IV-31
Technical Information, IV-36
Remedial Annual Regional Budget
Fund-Financed RI/FS Funding Strategy,
VI-2
Remedial Response Planning
Procedures (See Planning and
Reporting Procedures for Remedial
Response)
Removal Planning and Reporting
Procedures, IV-5
Chemical Information, IV-6
Removal Accomplishment Reporting, IV-6
Removal Actions, IV-5
Removal Planning, IV-6
Technology Type Information, IV-6
Removal Program Goals, 1-15, 1-20
Authorities and Contract Strategies, 1-9
Financial Considerations, 1-8
Procedures, 1-9
Quick Response, 1-8
Supporting Goals, 1-20
Reports
Audit, II-7
CERCLIS Reports for Accomplishment
Reporting, HI-13
Management Reports, HI-16
Superfund Management Reports (Response
and Enforcement), HI-17
Response Budget, VI-1
Development of the FY 93 National
Budget, V-l
Financial Planning for AOA, VI-4
Hazardous Spill and Site Response Model,
VI-7
Relationship Between SCAP and the
Annual Regional Budget, V-2
Superfund Financial Management, V-14
Response Budget and Workload
Model, VM
Financial Planning for AOA, VI-4
Hazardous Spill and Site Response Model,
VI-7
Response Budget, VI-1
ROD
Fundamental Changes to the ROD, IV-23
Non-Significant Changes, IV-23
Significant Changes to a Component of the
Remedy, IV-23
Technical Information, IV-32
Roles and Responsibilities, Program
Assessment, III-5
RP2M, II-5
SCAP Accomplishment Reporting,
III-12
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-1
INDEX
CERCLIS Reports for Accomplishment
Reporting, III-13
SCAP Change Control
Requirements, III-3
SCAP Planning for Negotiations,
III-9
CERCLIS Reports for SCAP
Planning/Target Setting, m-10
Semi-Annual Planning Process, ni-9
SCAP Requirements, III-l
HQ/Regional Roles and Responsibilities,
ffl-4
Maintaining the Targets and
Accomplishments File, ni-21
Overview of the SCAP Process, HI-2
Planning for Negotiations, ffl-9
Procedures for Annual Target Setting, ni-9
Regional Accomplishment Reporting,
HI-12
Relationship of SCAP to Other
Management Tools, ffl-l
SCAP Change Control Requirements, ffl-3
SCAP/STARS Adjustments and
Amendments, in-18
SCAP Process, Overview of, III-2
SCAP Roles and Responsibilities,
HQ/Regional, III-4
SCAP' s Relationship to the AOA,
V-10
SCAP's Relationship to Annual
Regional Budget, V-2
SCAP, Relationship to Other
Management Tools, III-l
SCAP/STARS Adjustments and
Amendments, III-18
Settlements with Municipalities and
Residential Property Owners, IV-38
SITE Program, IV-25
Site Assessment Planning and
Reporting Requirements
Expanded Site Inspection (ESI), IV-4
Preliminary Assessments/Site Inspections,
IV-4
Program Goals, 1-17,1-23
Site Assessment Program Goals,
1-17, 1-23
SMARTech, II-6
Standard Timeframes, Remedial
Response Planning Requirements
IV-19
STARS Targets and Measures, 1-20
SCAP/STARS Adjustments and
Amendments, III-18
Starts and Completions, First and
Subsequent IV-11
State Enforcement, IV-46
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
Model, (SACM), 1-6
Superfund Financial Management,
V-14
Financial Management and Funding
Processes, V-21
Financial Management Funding
Mechanisms, V-24 \
Financial Management Tools and Systems,
V-19
HQ Financial Management Responsibilities,
V-17
Regional Financial Management
Responsibilities, V-14
H
-------
OSWER Dkective 9200.3-01H-1
INDEX
Superfund Information Systems,
CERCLIS, H-2
CERCLIS Data Quality, H-7
Environmental Indicators, II-4
Management Reports, El-16
NPL Book, II-5
RP2M, II-5
SMARTech, H-6
WasteLAN, H-3
Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation Program, IV 25
Superfund Management Reports,
111-17
Superfund Related Programs
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and
Prevention Program, 1-26
Federal Facilities Program Goals, 1-17,
1-23
STARS Targets and Measures, 1-20
TAGS, IV-27
Targets and Accomplishments File,
Maintenance of, 111-21
Targets and Measures, STARS,
1-20
TBD Sites, IV-17
Technical Assistance Grants, IV-27
Technical Enforcement Model
Program Resource Assumptions, VII-19
Technical Information, IV-32
RA, IV-36
RD, IV-32
ROD, IV-32
TES
Buy-in Obligations, VH-7
Contract Management, VII-14
Contract Obligations, VII-7
Generic Obligations to Cover TES Tasking,
VH-7
Program Management Obligations, VII-7
WA Tasking Against Generic Obligations,
vn-s
WA Tasking for Buy-ins, VH-9
TES Contract Obligations, OWPE,
VII-7
Buy-in Obligations, VII-7
Generic Obligations to Cover TES Tasking,
VH-7
Program Management Obligations, VII-7
Treatability Study Planning, IV-25
WasteLAN/CERCLIS, Handling
Financial Data, V-35
Correcting Financial Data, V-36
Entering Enforcement Extramural Budget
Data into CERCLIS, V-36
Entering Remedial/Removal Data into
CERCLIS, V-35
IFMS to CERCLIS Financial Data
Transfer, V-36
Workload Model, Hazardous
Substances Federal Facilities,
VIII-2
Workload Model, Response Budget,
VI-7
Workload Model, Technical
Enforcement, VII-19
Program Resource Assumptions, VII-19
*U.S. G.P.O.:1992-341-835:60754
-------
. "..'<'i~~~~;~~~>~)i~:i.,;;Ii:ikfj;~~~';~6>:1!~~~~£~~~*~,;:~~~~~,~~~~iih.~~~~'~,'~~~~~~~).~;~:i-~~
------- |