Uni tJ Stites Ofice of Emergency arid OSWER Directive 92003-O1B
Environruertiil Protecton Remedial Response October 1
AgenLy — _________ Washington DC 20460
Supulund -
? IEPA SCAP for Fiscal Year 1989
Superfund Comprehensive
Accomplishments Plan
Manual - Volume 1
• Planning Procedures and Requirements
• Financial Management
• Program Assessment
___ HJ
__ __ __ -
w w w w
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-O1B
SUPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN
(SCAP)
VOLUME I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF EXHIBITS v
ACRONYMS vu
MANAGER’S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS x
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-I
OVERVIEW ES-i
PROGRAM GOALS ES-i
SUPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE ACCOMPUSHMENTS PLAN ES-i
SCAP CHANGES FY88-FY89 ES-2
NATIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS ES-2
SCAP/CER GUS RELATIONSHIP ES-2
REMEDIAL RESPONSE OUTYEAR PLANNING ES-3
THE BUDGET PROCESS ES-3
FY89 BUDGET ES-4
SCAP FINANCIAL PLANNING AND THE REGIONAL ADVICE OF
ALLOWANCE ES-4
FOCUS OF THE SCAP PROCESS THROUGH THE YEAR ES-5
ACCOMPUSHMEWT REPORTING ES-S
SCAPISPMS AMENDMENTS AND ADJUSTMENTS ES-6
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ASSESSMENT ES-7
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION 1-1
OVERVIEW 1-1
Take Action 1-1
Make Decisions that Lead to Targeted Accomplishments 1-1
Headquarters/Regional Partnership I-i
SUPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE ACCOMPUSHMENTS PLAN 1-2
Background 1-2
SCAP Changes Between FY88 and FY89 1-3
SCAP/CERCLIS Relationships 1-3
SCAP CHANGE CONTROL PROCEDURES 1-4
USES OF THE MANUAL 1-4
STRUCTURE OF THE MANUAL 1-5
I
-------
OSWER DiTecrive 9200.3-O1B
CHAPTER II- PROGRAM GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS . 1 1-1
PROGRAM GOALS 1 1-1
PRE-REMEDIAL PROGRAM II -!
REMEDIAL PROGRAM 1 1-1
REMOVAL PROGRAM 11-3
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM 11.4
STATE ENFORCEMENT 11-4
FEDERAL FACJUT!ES PROGRAM 11-4
CHEMICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND
PREVENTION PROGRAM 11-5
Earthquake and National Security Emergency
Preparedness Programs 11-6
CHAPTER III - NATIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS 111-1
CHAPTER IV - TARGETS AND MEASURES TV-i
ROLE OF SCAP IV-1
SCAP/SPMS TARGETS AND MEASURES TV-i
CHAPTER V - SCAP PLANNING PROCESS & PROCEDURES V-i
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES V-i
OVERVIEW OF THE SCAP PROCESS V-2
PROCEDURES FOR ANNUAL TARGET SETTING V-3
SCAP PLANNING V-5
Semi-Annual Planning Process V-5
CERCLIS Reports for SCAP Planning/Target Setting V-6
Accomplishment Reporting V-7
CERCLIS Reports for Accomplishment Reporting V-7
QUARTERLY REMOVAL PLANNING PROCESS V-8
SCAPISPMS ADJUSTMENTS AND AMENDMENTS V-9
MAINTAINING THE TARGETS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS FILE V-il
PLANNING REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES V-12
Preliminary Assessments/Screening Site Inspections V-12
Listing Site Inspection V-12
Site Classification V-12
Project/Event Lead Codes V-13
Takeovers V-iS
Impact on Funding Status of PRP Takeover V-16
Operable Units in Remedial and Enforcement Programs V-16
First and Subsequent Starts and Completions V-19
To Be Detemiined (TED) Sites V-20
Standard Timeframes V-21
Project Support Activities V-22
Technical Assistance Grants V-22
Administrative Records V-23
PRP Removal V-24
Pre-RI/FS Enforcement Activity V-24
RIJFS Settlement and Oversight V-25
Pre-RD/RA Enforcement Activity V-25
Section 106 Judicial Activity V-26
Cost Recovery V-26
State Enforcement V-27
I’
-------
OSWER Direcuve 9200.3-O1B
CHAPTER VI- FINANCIAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT . VI- 1
SCAP’S RELATIONSHIP To ANNUAL REGIONAL BUDGET VT-i
Pre-Remedial Annual Regional Budget VT-i
Remedial Annual Regional Budget VT-I
Removal Annual Regional Budget VI-2
Enforcement Case Budget -- Annual Regional Budget VI-3
SCAP’S RELATIONSHIP TO THE AOA VI-5
Regional Allowances VI-9
The AOA Process V1-9
AOA Flexibility VT-il
AOA Change Request Procedures VI-li
Remedial Financial Planning for AOA Vl-12
Removal Financial Planning for AOA VI-13
OWPE CASE BUDGET PROCESS V1-13
The Case Budget Allocation VI-13
Financial Planning Requirements VI-15
Fiscal Delegation/Management VI-16
Contract Management Delegation VI- 16
Interagency Agreements VI- 16
Interagency Agreements for Technical Assistance VI-16
Interagency Agreements for Preliminary Natural
Resources Survey VI-17
Department of Justice VI-17
8(a) Contracts VI- 18
Activity/Event Budget Pricing Factors VI- 18
PRP Search/Non-Binding Allocation of Responsibility VI-18
RIIFS Negotiations VI- 18
Oversight VI-18
RDIRA Negotiations VI-19
Operation and Maintenance/Long Term Response, Deletion VI-19
Section 106 Judicial Litigation without Settlement VI- 19
Section 107 VI-19
Com,nuniiy Relations VI-20
State Activities V 1-20
Federal Facilities VI-21
SUPERFUND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT VI-22
Regional Financial Management Responsibilities VI-22
Regional Administrator VI-22
Regional Program Office VI-22
Regional ManagementDivision VI-24
HQ Financial Management Responsibilities V 1-25
Financial Management Divisioni Office of the Comptroller V 1-25
Financial and Administrative Management
Section/Office of Emergency and Remedial Response VI-25
Contracts Enforcement Section/Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement VI-26
Procurement and Contracts Management Division/Office of
Administration VI-26
Grants Administration Division/Office of Administration V1-26
Budget Division/Office of the Comptroller V 1-26
Cincinnati Financial Management Center V 1-26
Office of AdministrationfResearch Triangle Park VI-26
111
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-O1B
Financial Management Tools and Systems . VI-27
Account Number VI-27
Document Control Nwnber VI-30
Financial Management System VI-30
Document Control Register VI-30
Assignment of Site/Spill Identifiers VI-3 1
Financial Management Funding Processes VI-31
Approvals VI-31
Commitments VI-34
Obligations VI-34
Payments VI-34
De-obligations VI-35
Financial Management Funding Mechanisms VI-35
Contracts VI-35
Interagency Agreements VI-39
Cooperative Agreements VL-42
Superfund State Contracts VI-44
Cost Recovery/Cost Documentation VI-45
HANDLING FINANCIAL DATA IN THE CERCLIS ENViRONMENT VI-48
Entering Remedial/Removal Data into CERCLIS VI-48
Entering Enforcement Case Budget Data into CERCLIS VI-48
FMS to CERCLIS Financial Data Transfer VI-49
Correcting Financial Data VI-50
CHAPTER VII- PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ASSESSMENT VII- 1
HQ/REGIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES VII-!
HOW EVALUATION FITS IN VII-1
QUARTERLY REVIEWS VII-3
The Mid-Year Assessment VII-5
End-of-Year Assessment VII-5
OSWER REVIEW VII-6
Preparing the Preliminary Review VII-6
Preparing the Self-Evaluation VH-7
What Should the Evaluation Cover VH-7
In the Region VH-8
Follow-Up Vfl-8
SPECIAL STUDIES VI1-9
iv
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-OIB
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT PAGE NUMBER
ES-I Regional and Headquarters Responsibilities ES-3
ES-2 SCAP Planning Year ES-5
ES-3 Accomplishment Reporting Phase-Regional ES-6
Responsibilities
ES-4 Amendment Conditions ES-6
ES-5 Management/Assessment Strategy ES-7
ES-6 Implementation Responsibilities ES-7
11-I Schedule for Achievement of SARA Goals 11-2
11-2 Qualitative Legislative and Regulatory Goals 11-3
P 1-i SCAP/SPMS Targets IV-2
JV-2 SCAP/SPMS Measures IV-3
V-i SCAP Planning Year V-2
V-2 Preliminary vs. Alternate SPMS Status and
“Approved” vs. “Alternate” Budget Priority V-5
V-3 SCAP Planningfl’arget Setting CERCLIS Reports V-i
V-4 Program Evaluation CERCLIS Reports V-8
V-5 SCAP Amendment Process V-IO
V-6 Project/Event Lead Codes in CERCLIS in FY89 V- 14
V-7 Event or Activity Takeover at Workplan Stage V-IS
V-8 Event or Activity Takeover V-I 5
V-9 Operable Unit Groundrules v- r i
V-iO Examples of Operable Units V-17
V-il Operable Units and First and Subsequent
Start and Completion Coding v-i 8
V-12 First and Subsequent Start and Completions V-19
v
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-OIB
EXHIBIT PAGE NUMBER
V-13 Impossible FSS and FSC Code Combinations V-19
V- 14 Pseudo State Codes V-20
v-I 5 Standard Time Frames V-22
VI- 1 Criteria for Regional Remedial Budget Development VI-3
VI-2 OWPE FY89 Extramural Pricing Factors VI-4
VI-3 Site vs. Non-Site Specific Planned Obligations VI-5
VI-4 Budget Source Codes VI-6
VI-5 Who Pays For What VI-7
VI-6 The Advice of Allowance Process VI-lO
VI-7 Case Budget Data Flow VI-14
VI-8 Hypothetical Superfund Accounting Data VI-28
VI-9 Superfund Activity Codes VI-29
VI-lO Handling Financial Data in the CERCLIS
Environment VI-32
VI- 11 EPA Forms commonly used for Superfund Procurements VI-36
VI-12 Cost Recovery Documentation Process VI-47
VI-13 Removal and Remedial Financial Data
to be Transferred to FMS VI-49
VI-14 Corrections to Financial Information in FMS VI-50
VII-1 Management/Assessment Strategy VU-i
VLI-2 Implementation Responsibilities Vfl-2
VII-3 Evaluation Influences Program Performance Vll-3
Vll-4 Quarterly Review Process VU-4
VII-5 Quarterly Review Schedule Vll-4
VII-6 OSWER Review Process VH-6
VU-i When Should the Self-Evaluation be Prepared VH-8
VII-8 Products of the OSWER On-Site Review Vll-9
vi
-------
OSWER D rccuve 9200 3-018
ACRONYMS
AA SWER -- Assistant Administrator Solid Waste and Emergency Response
AAU -- Administrative Assistance Unit
ADCR -- Automated Document Control Register
ADP -- Automated Data Processing
ALS -- Automated Litigation Support
ALT-- Alternate
AN -. Account Number
AO -- Administrative Order
AOA -- Advice of Allowance
APR -- Approved
AR -- Administrative Record
ARCS -- Alternative Remedial Contracts Strategy
ASU -- Administrative Support Unit
BC/AOA -- Budget Control/Advice of Allowance
BFS -- Budget and Forecasting Section
CA -- Cooperative Agreement
CB -- Case Budget
CERCLA -- Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980
CERCLIS -- Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
CFMC -- Cincinnati Financial Management Center
CD -. Consent Decree
CPCA -- Core Program Cooperative Agreement
CLP -- Contract Laboratory Program
CN -- Commitment Notice
CO -- Contracting Officer
COE -- Corps of Engineers
CORA -- Cost of Remedial Action
CR -. Community Relations
CWA -- Clean Water Act
DCN -- Document Control Number
DCR -- Document Control Register
DOD -- Department of Defense
DOE -- Department of Energy
DO! -- Department of the Interior
DOJ -- Department of Justice
DPO -- Deputy Project Officer
CEPP -- Chemical Emergency Preparedness Program
EM! -- Environmental Priorities Initiative
EMSL -- Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
ESF -- Emergency Support Function
ERA -- Expedited Response Action
ERCS -- Emergency Response Cleanup Services
ERD -- Emergency Response Division
EW -- Expert Witness
FAMS -- Financial and Administrative Management Systems
FCO -- Funds Certifying Officer
FE -- Federal Enforcement
FEMA -- Federal Emergency Management Agency
vii
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-OIB
FIT -- Field Investigation Team
FIRSTUP -- Financial Information Register Satellite Terminal User’s Package
FMFIA -- Federal Managers Financial Intergrity Act
FMO -- Financial Management Officer
FMS -- Financial Management System
FOJA -- Freedom of Information Act
FS -- Feasibility Study
FSS/FSC -- First and Subsequent Start and First and Subsequent Completion
FTE -- Full-time Equivalent
FY -- Fiscal Year
GAD -- Grants Administration Division
HQ -- Headquarters
HRS -- Hazard Ranking System
lAG -- Interagency Agreement
IMC -- Information Management Coordinator
IRMs -- Initial Remedial Measures
LNRD -- Land and Natural Resources Division
LOC -- Letter of Credit
LSI -- Listing Site Inspection
MEP -- Maximum Extent Possible
MES -- Management and Evaluation Section
MSCA -- Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement
NFRAP -- No Further Remedial Action Planned
NBAR -- Non-Binding Allocation of Responsibility
NCP -- National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NOAA -- National Oceanic and Atomspheric Administration
NPL -- National Priorities List
O&M/LTR -- Operations and Maintenance/Long Term Response
OERR -- Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
0MB -- Office of Management and Budget
OMSE -- Office of Management Systems and Evaluation
OPAC -- On-line Payment and Collections
OPM -- Office of Program Management
ORC -- Office of Regional Counsel
OSC -- On-Scene Coordinator
OSWER -- Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OU -- Operable Unit
OWPE -- Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
PA -- Preliminary Assessment
P&CMD -- Procurement and Contracts Management
PMSO -- Program Management Support Office
PNRS -- Preliminary Natural Resource Surveys
P0-- Project Officer
PR -- Procurement Request
PRP -- Potentially Responsible Party
QA/QC -- Quality Assurance and Quality Control
RA -- Remedial Action
RCRC -- Regional Cost Recovery Coordinator
RD -- Remedial Design
REM -- Remedial Contractor
RI -- Remedial Investigation
RI/FS -- Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
ROD -- Record of Decision
RP -- Responsible Party
viii
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-0 lB
RPM -- Remedial Project Manager
RPO -- Remedial Project Officer
RRT -- Regional Response Team
RTP -- Research Triangle Park
RTS -- Removal Tracking System
SARA -- Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SCAP -- Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan
SF0 -- Servicing Finance Officer
SIBAC -- Simplified Interagency Billing and Collection
SIP -- Site Information Form
SMOA -- State Memorandum of Agreement
SPCC -- Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure
SPMS -- Strategic Planning and Management System
SPR -- Superfund Progress Report
SPUR -- Software Package for Unique Reports
SSC -- Superfund State Contracts
SSI -- Screening Site Inspection
S/S ID -- Site/Spill Identification Number
TAG -- Technical Assistance Grants
TAT -- Technical Assistance Team
TBD -- To Be Determined
TESWATS -- Technical Enforcement Support Work Assignment Tracking System
TES -- Technical Enforcement Support
US ACE -- United States Army Corp of Engineers
USFWS -- United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USCG -- United States Coast Guard
WA — Work Assignment
ix
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
MANAGER’S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS
OUARTER 1 OCTOBER
First quarter Advice of Allowance issued 1
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP 11
and provided for
1) entry into OMSE SPMS system for preliminary FY88 End-of-Year,
2) AA monthly report; and
3) special program reports.
Final SPMS accomplishment data pulled from CERCLIS and provided foc 18
1) Superfund Progress Report;
2) pro-active memorandum;
3) end-of-year assessment for FY88; and
4) final FY88 SPMS Accomplishments.
Pull of CERCLIS enforcement data for funds to be transferred to DOJ 29
for expert witnesses and litigation support
NOVEMBER
FY89 final targets, including open season changes, set in CERHELP 7
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP 7
and provided for:
1) Superfund Progress Report;
2) special program reports;
3) AA monthly report; and
OMSE SPMS verified (fourth quarter FY88) 14-18
OMSE SPMS system closes (fourth quarter FY88) 21
DECEMBER
Draft FY90 Operating Guidance and SPMS Measures sent to 1
regions for review
Pull of CERCLIS/CERHELP data for: 2
1) second quarter Advice of Allowance;
2) removal planning; and
3) project support planning.
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP 7
and provided for:
1) Superfund Progress Report;
2) special program reports; and
3) AA monthly report.
Call memorandum for semi-annual planning and mid-year assessment sent 12
to the regions
Second quarter Advice of Allowance request submitted to Office of Budget 16
x
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-0 lB
MANAGER’S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (Cont’d)
OUARTER 2 JANUARY
Second quarter Advice of Allowance issued 5
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCUS/CERHELP 6
and provided for
1) entry into OMSE SPMS system for first quarterly review;
2) Superfund Progress Report;
3) special program reports; and
4) AA monthly report.
Data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP for pro-active memorandum 6
OMSE SPMS data verified 9-13
OMSE SPMS system closes 13
Regional comments on FY90 Operating Guidance due 15
Program management conference 23-27
FEBRUARY
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCUS/CERHELP 7
and provided for
1) Superfund Progress Report;
2) special program reports;
3) AA monthly report; and
4) mid-year assessment.
Data pulled from CERCUS/CERHELP to support negotiation of: 7
1) preliminary SCAP/SPMS FY90 targets;
2) preliminary FY90 FIt allocation; and
3) budget projections for FY91 RA projects.
Draft FY90 SCAP Manual distributed for review 17
Complete development of mid-year action strategy 24
xi
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-0 lB
MANAGER’S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (Cont’d)
MARCH
Final FY90 Operating Guidance issued 1
Pull CERCUS/CERHELP data for 3
1) third quarter advice of allowance
2) planning for third quarter removals; and
3) planning for third quarter project support activities.
Complete HQ/regional negotiations of: 3
1) FY89 third and fourth quarter targets and budget
2) FY90 SCAP/SPMS targets; and
3) FY91 outyear budget negotiations.
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP 7
and provided for:
1) Superfund Progress Report;
2) AA monthly report; and
3) special program reports.
CERCLIS/CERHELP revised to reflect negotiated FY91 RA budget and FY90 16
preliminary targets and measures
Run workload model for preliminary FY90 FTE distribution 17
Third quarter Advice of Allowance request submitted to the Office of Budget 17
Memorandum to regions on preliminary budget, targets and FFEs. 24
OUARTER 3 APRIL
Third quarter Advice of Allowance issued 5
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCUSICERHELP and: 7
1) entered into OMSE system for second quarterly review;
2) provided for Superfund Progress Report;
3) AA monthly report; and
4) special program reports.
Pull of data from CERCUS/CERHELP for pro-active memorandum 7
OMSE SPMS data verified (second quarter accomplishments) 10-14
OMSE SPMS system closes (second quarter accomplishments) 14
Regional comments on FY90 SCAP Manual due 17
, “I iii ±i ”iti ”
X I I
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3 -0 lB
MANAGER’S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (Cont’d)
MAY
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCUS/CERIIELP 5
and provided for
1) Superfund Progress Report;
2) special program reports; and
3) AA monthly report.
FY91 Outyear Budget prepared at HQ 10
Pull of CERCLIS/CERHELp enforcement data for funds to be transferred 29
to DOJ for expert wimesses and litigation support
JUNE
Pull of CERCLIS/CERHELp data for 2
1) fourth quarter Advice of Allowance;
2) planning for fourth quarter removals; and
3) planning for fourth quarter project support activities.
Final FY90 SCAP Manual 5
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP 7
and provided for
1) Superfund Progress Report;
2) special program reports; and
3) AA monthly report.
Fourth quarter Advice of Allowance request submitted to the Office of Budget 16
Call memorandum and FY90 proposed regional budget sent to the regions for 17
semi-annual planning update
OUARTER 4 JULY
Fourth quarter Advice of Allowance issued 6
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP 10
and provided for
1) entry into OMSE SPMS;
2) Superfund Progess Report;
3) special progam reports; and
4) AA monthly report.
Data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP for pro-active men iorandum 10
Data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP to support negotiation of: 10
1) final SCAP/SPMS FY90 targets;
2) first quarter FY90 removals;
3) first quarter FY90 project support activities;
4) final FY90 operating plan; and
5) final FY90 Fit allocation.
OMSE SPMS data verified (third quarter accomplishments) 10-14
OMSE SPMS system closes (third quarter accomplishments) 14
XI I I
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
MANAGER’S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (Cont’d)
AUGUST
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP 7
and provided for:
1) Superfund Progress Report;
2) special program reports; and
3) AA monthly report.
Complete negotiations on final FY90 SCAP/SPMS targets and budget 11
Memorandum to regions on final budgets, targets and measures 25
SEPTEMBER
CERCLIS/CERHELP revised to reflect final budgets, targets and measures 8
Data pulled from CERCLIS/CERHELP for first quarter Advice of Allowance 8
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS and provided for: 8
1) Superfund Progress Report;
2) special program reports; and
3) AA monthly report
FY90 first quarter Advice of Allowance request submitted to the Office of Budget 15
Run workload model for final FY90 FTE distribution 18
OUARTER 1 (FY90) OCTOBER
First quarter Advice of Allowance issued 4
Accomplishment data pulled from CERCUS/CERHELP 20
and provided for:
1) Superfund Progress Report;
2) special program reports;
3) AA monthly report;
4) pro-active memorandum;
5) entry into OMSE system for FY89 SPMS end-of-year and
6) FY89 end-of-year assessment.
NOVEMBER
Accomplishment data pulled from CERCUS/CERHELP 7
and provided for:
1) Superfund Progress Report;
2) AA monthly report; and
3) special program reports.
FY90 final targets, including open season changes, set in CERHELP 7
OMSE SPMS verified (fourth quarter FY89) 13-17
OMSE SPMS system closes (fourth quarter FY89) 17
xiv
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-0 lB
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
The FY89 Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP) Manual presents and
discusses the relationships among the major Superfund program management tools. This includes
identifying program goals and priorities, translating those program priorities into targets and measures
that are planned and tracked through the SCAP and, finally, using the evaluation process to determine
whether program goals are being met.
The program management philosophy for FY 1989 emphasizes rapid decision making and a
bias for action. Program actions need to be directed toward achieving and exceeding program
targets where possible. Problems in meeting targets should be confronted and dealt with in a
purposeful, problem solving manner. Regions must develop solutions to performance problems as
they encounter them, and should strive for a balanced approach to site work, encouraging both
potentially responsible parties and states to assume responsibility for response activities. States should
be consulted throughout the SCAP planning process as a primary means of ensuring an integrated and
coordinated program effort.
PROGRAM GOALS
The central mission of the Superfund Program is to maximize the protection of human health
and the environment through fast, effective, and efficient cleanup of priority sites and releases. In
order to fuffill this mission, the following overriding goals have been identified:
• Address high priority sites and releases first;
• Make significant progress toward meeting the pre-remedial site inspection completion
deadline imposed by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA);
• Streamline and reduce costs of conducting remedial investigations/feasibility studies
(RI/FS);
• Maximize progress toward the SARA mandated deadlines (e.g., 175 Remedial Action
(RA) starts by October 1989 and the additional 200 RA starts by 1991), while ensuring
steady funding of those projects that are ready to proceed to construction, and in
particular, those projects that are most environmentally significant;
• Encourage potentially responsible party participation in the Superfund program through
the timely completion of negotiations and effective use of the settlement authorities in
SARA; and
• Pursue cost recovery of Superfund monies expended.
SUPERFUNL) COMPREHENSiVE ACCOMPLiSHMENTS PLAN
The SCAP is the central mechanism for planning, tracking and evaluating Superfund program
activities. Because of its program-wide importance, SCAP has a dynamic, interdependent relationship
with other Agency planning and management systems, including:
• Agency Operating Guidance;
• Superfund Budget;
• Strategic Planning and Management System (SPMS);
ES-I
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3 -DIB
• Superfund Progress Report (SPR);
• Superfund Workload Models; and
• State Memoranda of Agreements (SMOAs).
Priority activities and programmatic guidance are used to guide the development of the SCAP.
Planning reflects current goals under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986 (SARA), the National Contingency Plan (NCP), and the FY89 Agency Operating Guidance.
SCAP CHANGES FY88-FY89
Significant progress was made at the May 1988 SCAP Workshop to simplify planning
procedures and to reduce the number of SCAP targeted activities. Overall, the number of SCAP target
categories has been reduced from more than 150 to fewer than 50 . In addition, the formal quarterly
procedures for negotiating SCAP plans have been replaced by a semi-annual process. Reduction in the
number of targeted activities will significantly reduce the need for Headquarters/regional interface. As
long as commitments are met, regions will have greater flexibility in adjusting plans to meet
unexpected events. The reduction in targets will also help expedite the semi-annual negotiations
process.
Regions must recognize, however, that the reduction in targeted events and the semi-annual
negotiating cycle does not preclude the need for complete and timely data reporting. Regions should
not interpret the reduction in SCAP targets as a reduction in reporting requirements. In addition, semi-
annual formal negotiations should not be interpreted as an impetus for lengthening the time between
planning updates. Regular planning updates will continue to be necessary to support such activities as
Advice of Allowance (AOA) issuance and Superfund progress reporting. (See the Manager’s
Schedule of Significant Events at the beginning of this manual.)
NATIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS
Although the major focus of this manual is the SCAP process and its planning and reporting
requirements, it must be recognized that Superfund program management requires information beyond
SCAP-specific reporting. Senior management must be kept current on all aspects of progress at the
regional level. Program offices require specific program information to adequately manage segments
of the Superfund process. Growing public concerns related to hazardous waste management require
timely and extensive data reporting. Information beyond SCAP-specific data will continue to play a
critical role in managing and reporting progress of the Superfund program. Beginning in FY89, on a
monthly basis the national program office will pull data from the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) on a selected number of key
indicators of progress in the Superfund program (i.e., removal starts and completions, pre-remedial
accomplishments, RODs, RDs, RAs, 175 RA, etc). These numbers will be the official numbers used
for the Superfund Progress Report, and any reports of progress given to the Administrator, Assistant
Administrator, Congress and the news media.
SCAPICERCLJS RELATIONSHIP
The SCAP represents the management process used to set performance targets, report
significant accomplishments and allocate resources. CERCLIS is the information system used to
develop the SCAP. (Exhibit ES-i indicates the major Headquarters/regional SCAP/CERCLIS
responsibilities.)
ES-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-0 lB
EXHIBIT ES-i
REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS
RESPONSIBILITIES RESPONSIBILITIES
Planning and scheduling all events and Determining the Advice of Allowance
enforcement activities (AOA) based on regions input of SCAP
planned activities and assuring that
Updating CERCLIS on a regular basis to regional budgets are balanced
report accomplishments, changes in planning
data or adjustments in approved plans Responding to regional requests for
changes through the change request and
Updating CERI-IELP to reflect accomplishments amendment process
and target site substitutions
Entering negotiated targets and measures and
Reconciling CERCLIS fmancial data with Site back-up in CERHELP
data automatically transferred from FMS
Updating CERHELP to reflect
CERCUS data maintenance approved target changes
CERCLIS data integrity (QA/QC) Entering and maintaining data on AOA through
the CERHELP data base
Only data as recorded in CERCLIS will be recognized by Headquarters for SCAP tracking,
planning and evaluation purposes. This includes information used for budget formulation, the
workload model, setting of annual and quarterly targets and other national information needs. No
monies will be issued to the regions through the Advice of Allowance process unless
the appropriate obligation and commitment data are reflected in CERCLIS.
REMEDIAL RESPONSE OUTYEAR PLANNING
When a site is proposed as a candidate for a RIJFS start, regions must submit a schedule for the
core remedial activities (R1/FS, Remedial Design (RD), Remedial Action (RA) and RA start post-
SARA) and core enforcement activities (PRP search, Rl/FS negotiation, and RD/RA negotiations).
Where better data are not available, regions should use the standard timelines provided in the manual.
As better information on project schedules becomes available, regions should update their SCAP data
in CERCLIS. Keeping the data current in CERCLIS is a continuous process that is particularly
important for outyear budget planning, the workload model, regional evaluation, and SCAP/SPMS
target setting.
TilE BUDGET PROCESS
The budget planning process begins a year and a half prior to the start of the fiscal year. In
February 1989, regions will begin planning for major remedial dollar expenditures, as well as
expenditures for key enforcement actions, in FY91. To project the FY91 budget, regions must review
core activity schedules for projects expected to begin in FY91. Since Fund-financed RAs play such a
major role in the Superfund budget, it is crucial that these projects are identified and reasonable cost
estimates derived using the draft Feasibility Study (FS), the Record of Decision (ROD) or Cost Of
Remedial Action (CORA) Model estimates.
ES-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
FY89 BUDGET
The Superfund budget for FY89 contains cuts from the levels the Agency requested. As a
result, each region was given a preliminary budget by program area. The majority of the regional
remedial budgets were established based on the R1/FS full funding initiative and the RA budget
reduction strategy. In FY89 the implementation of the RI/PS full funding initiative resulted in full
funding for all ongoing RT/FS that will result in a remedial action in FY90 or FY91. The remaining
ongoing projects in FY89 were incrementally funded to the amount needed to keep them going through
the year. In addition, all new RI/PS starts in FY89 were funded at least $500,000. The national goal
for these RI/PS is an average cost of $750,000 per project and $1,100,000 per site. Regions are
responsible for managing their RJ/FS projects within the fixed budget established during negotiations.
The FY89 budget strategy for remedial actions is to fund these projects as they are ready to
proceed. This strategy will be re-evaluated during the mid-year negotiations and may result in
adjustments in funding between regions.
Regional activities must fall within the final negotiated budget levels. The regional Advice
of Allowance will not be issued unless the approved planned obligations,
commitments and actual obligations are within the annual budget and the RIJFS data
are within the established ceiling.
SCAP FINANCIAL PLANNING AND THE REGIONAL ADVICE OF ALLOWANCE
The SCAP financial planning process is the mechanism which drives the quarterly AOA issued
by the Office of the Comptroller. The process for issuing the AOA begins four weeks prior to the start
of each quarter when planned site and non-site specific obligation data are pulled from CERCLIS and
reviewed by Headquarters. Using this information, the official AOA request is prepared and sent to
the Assistant Administrator for review and approval. The final step in the process is the issuance of
the AOA to the regions by the Office of the Comptroller at the beginning of the quarter.
OERR and the Office of the Comptroller are continuing to discuss the Advice of Allowance
structure. Regions will be informed if a change in allowances will be implemented. Currently, the
allowance structure will not be changed from FY88 and the Office of the Comptroller will issue the
following five allowances to the regions:
• RA (site specific);
• RD (site specific);
• Other Remedial;
• Removal; and
• Enforcement.
The other remedial allowance includes RIIFS and site specific and non-site specific program
and project support activities and oversight of Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) RD and RA
projects. When the other remedial allowance is issued, a ceiling will be placed on the funds that can be
obligated for new or ongoing RI/PS projects. This ceiling cannot be raised without HQ approval.
Regions have the flexibility to move funds within the other remedial AOA and RI/PS ceiling.
ES-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-0 lB
FOCUS OF THE SCAP PROCESS THROUGH THE YEAR
Current fiscal year planning information must be updated regularly by the regions through
CERCLIS, especially since this information is used by HQ to issue the quarterly regional Advice of
Allowance. Routine changes in planning information, i.e., those that do not require a target or budget
change, can be made by the region without HQ involvement. In recognition of this, the cycle for
formal negotiations with HQ has been reduced to twice a year. During these formal negotiation time
periods, current year issues and problems will be discussed, as well as schedules and budgets for
future fiscal years. States should be consulted prior to negotiations to ensure an integrated and
coordinated EPA and state effort. The focus of regional responsibilities during the formal SCAP
update/negotiation periods are outlined in Exhibit ES-2.
As part of the mid-year assessment HQ will closely evaluate the status of the remedial actions
scheduled to begin during FY89. The evaluation will focus on those remedial actions scheduled to
begin in the third and fourth quarters and the funding levels required. Based on the results, the
remedial action funding strategy may be revised and adjustments may be made within arid between
regional remedial action budgets. The fourth quarter SCAP update is the most important planning
event of the year. This update will yield fmal SPMS targets and will set each region’s annual budget
for the upcoming year. In addition, commitments made during this update will be the basis of final
regional FTE distribution.
EXHIBIT ES-2
SCAP PLANNING YEAR
SECOND OUARTER (FEBRUARY 1989 )
• Update and negotiate planning information in CERCLIS for the third and fourth
quart FY89
• Review slippage in FY89 targets for development of action strategies
• Reassess the remedial action funding strategy
• Negotiate preliminary SCAP/SPMS targets and measures for FY90
with HQ and the regions
• Determine preliminary FY90 FTE allocations based on the
preliminary largets and measures
• Provide complete site schedules including planned RA obligations to
allow HQ to project the outyear budget (FY91)
FOURTH OUARTER (JULY 1989 )
• Establish final SCAP/SPMS commitments for FY90
• Finalize resources for FY90
• Set FY90 annual regional budget
ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORTING
Data on accomplishments will be pulled from CERCLIS by Headquarters on the fifth working
day of each month.
Monthly data will be used in reports to the Assistant Administrator, Congress, the public, etc.,
on the progress of the Superfund program. This is also the information that will be used for calls to
the Regional Administrators regarding progress on the key indicators tracked in the Assistant
Administrator’s pro-active memorandum. Formal accomplishment reporting for SPMS and SCAP
purposes will be pulled on the fifth working day of each quarter. This inforniation will be used to
evaluate regional progress toward meeting SCAP and SPMS targets and submitted to the Office of
Management Systems and Evaluation (OMSE) for reporting SPMS accomplishments.
ES-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-0 lB
The major regional responsibilities during the accomplishment reporting phase are shown in
Exhibit ES-3.
EXHIBIT ES-3
ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORTING PHASE
REGIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
• Reconcile financial data in CERCLIS with data
transferred from FMS
• Ensure accomplishment information in CERCLIS
is current
• Perform QA/QC procedures on SCAP and SPMS
data in CERCLLS
SC 1 4P/SPMS AMENDMENTS AND ADJUSTMENTS
SCAP incorporates flexibility into the planning process through the adjustments and
amendments mechanism which allows the regions to change their plans during the year. Amendments
are changes to the SCAP which meet the conditions shown in Exhibit ES-4.
EXHIBIT ES.4
AMENDMENT CONDITIONS
• Change a quarterly or annual SPMS or SCAP
target
• Increase the region’s annual budget
• Change an Advice of Allowance or increase
the RTJFS ceiling in the other remedial Advice
of Allowance
Adjustments are any other changes to the SCAP during the fiscal year. Regions may adjust their
SCAP plans without Headquarters approval. SCAP amendments must be approved by the OSWER
Officer Director. SPMS amendments must be approved by the AA SWER.
Regions are responsible for maintaining the CERHELP Targets and Accomplishments file to
reflect SCAP adjustments. Regions will be allowed to add or delete sites from this file, only
changes will be allowed. However, the site-specific CERCLIS records should be updated when a
SCAP or SPMS amendment is requested.
ES-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-0 lB
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ASSESSMENT
The Superfund program management and assessment strategy has four components as shown
in Exhibit ES-5.
EXHIBIT ES-S
MANAGEMENT/ASSESSMENT
STRATEGY
• Assistant Administrator monthly
progress reviews
• Quarterly reviews with mid-year and
end-of-year assessment and the
development of action strategies for
slipping targets
• OSWER reviews, which include regional
self-evaluations and on-site review
• Special studies
Together these components give program managers regular opportunities to initiate changes in program
operations, examine program accomplishments, raise issues that have an impact on performance, and
reallocate resources or provide technical assistance to influence objectives.
Regional and HQ responsibilities for implementing and conducting the program evaluation
strategy process are shown in Exhibit ES-6.
EXHIBIT ES-6
IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES
REGIONAL HEADOUARTERS
RESPONSIBILITIES RESPONSIBILITIES
Meet quarterly SCM’ and SPMS targets and Provide guidance to the regions for prepanng
solve performance problems when they anse. the quarterly review, and the OSWER
On-Site Review
Provide quarterly SCM’ and SPMS data to HQ
through CERCLIS Review regional Self-Evaluation and participate
OSWER On-Site Reviews
Maintain CERCLIS data quality at high levels
for Superfluid program and project management Review quarterly data reported by the
regions.
Prepare Self-Evaluations and participate in
OSWER On-Site Reviews. Negotiate action strategies with regions for
recouping slipping targets
Provide Input to the development of qualitative
measines for Self-Evaluations Recommend iesowrm re-allocations based on
regional needs arid performance.
Neçotsate perfoTmance standards that provide
individual accountability for quarterly targets Implement and report on follow-up action
items from the OSWER On-Site Review,
Develop aetion strategy to recoup slipping Superfimd quarterly reviews and mid-year
targets assessment and track regional implementation
Assure that all staff axe informed of the
results of quarterly reporting and OSWER
reviews
In summary, the FY89 SCAP Manual encompasses many new or revised program
management policies, processes and procedures. In order to acquire a more in-depth understanding,
the manual itself should be read.
ES-i
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-0 lB
CHAPTER I- INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW
FY89 is a vital year for the Superfund program. By October 1989, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) will be three years into the five year Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) and will be facing the statutory deadline for commencement of 175
remedial action (RA) starts and the 275 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RIIFS) starts. In
addition, the pipeline for meeting the subsequent 1991 deadline for starting another 200 RAs must be
well underway. Regions will need to use the wide range of settlement authorities provided by SARA
to compel Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) response. Where this is not achieved, prompt cost
recovezy actions should be initiated. Removals will need to be undertaken for “classic emergencies”
first and then for time-critical removals at National Priorities List (NPL) sites where the removal will
lead to deletion. Furthermore, SARA mandates that the Agency perform all site inspections (SIs), by
January 1989, where preliminary assessments (PAs) have shown that they are warranted. While this
goal will not be attained, the Agency must continue to work steadily towards accomplishing high
priority SIs in a timely manner. In addition, Superfund must implement the revised Hazard Ranking
System (I -IRS) during this time.
To meet these statutory deadlines and program priorities, the program management philosophy
for FY 1989 must emphasize rapid decision making and a bias for action. Program actions need to
be directed towards achieving and exceeding program targets. Problems in meeting targets should be
confronted and dealt with in a purposeful, problem solving manner. Regions must use their initiative
and develop solutions to performance problems as they are encountered.
Take Action
Regions should concentrate resources on projects where progress can be made toward meeting
the statutory and program goals, shifting them as necessary from lower priority projects. Wherever
possible, regions should attempt to streamline the RI/PS process and avoid producing unnecessarily
detailed analyses. There are r io “perfect” remedies, and site conditions can deteriorate while searching
for such a remedy or striving for unanimity . Regions should try to maximize PRP settlements and
encourage states to take the lead responsibility for response activities at sites as a means of extending
Agency capabilities.
Make Decisions that Lead to Targeted Accomplishments
The key to meeting program targets is to make decisions. Often in this program there are
difficult problems for which there are no easy answers. Decisions may be unpopular or difficult to
make. Nevertheless, the need to progress toward program goals means that these decisions must be
made. In spite of the complexity of the remedial and enforcement processes, the statutory mandates
under which the Agency operates, and the desire for consensus, necessary decisions must be made so
that the projects can move forward.
Headquarters/Regional Partnership
The regions alone cannot implement the strategy outlined in this guidance. The strategy is a
Headquarters/regional partnership. In order to facilitate the achievement of performance goals,
Headquarters (HQ) is prepared to:
Focus added resources on regions that are meeting their targets and can help
make up national shortfalls; and
I-i
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
Provide assistance and focus attention on regions that are having problems
achieving their performance targets.
The demand for rapid action must be coordinated with other program requirements. HQ will
help to prioritize competing demands. Similarly, HQ will assist the regions in making tough decisions
and will support them in the choices that are made.
SUPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN
The Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP) process is used by the
Superfund program to plan, budget, track, and evaluate progress toward Superfund site cleanup. The
SCAP planning process is a dynamic, ongoing effort that has a significant impact on Superfund
resource allocation and program evaluation. Planned obligations and Strategic Planning and
Management System (SPMS) targets and measures are generated through SCAP and influence the
Superfund budget and evaluation process. SCAP planning is a day-to-day responsibility of the
regions. A semi-annual process has been established through which HQ and regions formally
negotiate plans for the future. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS) serves as the conduit for the SCAP process. CERCLIS
provides both HQ and regions with direct access to the same data. Reports can be produced allowing
for daily, interactive updates of planning and site cleanup progress information.
Background
The SCAP process is crucial to Superfund program planning, tracking, and evaluation. As the
Superfund program’s central planning mechanism, it is interrelated with all Agency and Superfund
program specific planning and management systems, such as the Agency Operating Guidance, the
Superfund budget, SPMS, and the Superfund workload models. The Agency Operating Guidance
defines Superfund goals for the upcoming year. SCAP targets/measures are designed to reflect the
Agency Operating Guidance. In some cases, new SCAP categories are developed, or the projections
for SCAP activities are adjusted to match the Agency’s goals.
Most of the Superfund program’s budget is based on the SCAP. The budget is developed 18
months prior to the fiscal year being planned. For example, the SCAP existing at the start of the third
quarter of FY89 will be used to formulate the FY91 budget. The site schedules reflected in the SCAP
serve as the foundation for determining outyear budget priorities, such as the dollar levels to be
requested in the budget and the total level of full-time equivalents (FFEs) to be made available for
distribution through the workload model. Because dollars for Fund-financed RAs and remedial
designs (RDs) dominate Superfund’s budget, it is critical that the SCAP identify RD and RA
candidates and projected funding needs.
The Superfund budget provides the basis for the Agency Operating Plan. The Operating Plan,
which is finalized prior to the fiscal year, establishes the funds available to the regions for performing
Superfund work.
SPMS is used by EPA to set and monitor the environmental objectives identified in the
Agency’s Operating Guidance for a fiscal year. National and regional SPMS goals for Superfund are
established and tracked through SCAP. SPMS targets are a subset of those contained in SCAP.
SPMS targets and measures are reported quarterly by HQ and the regions to the Office of Management
Systems and Evaluation (OMSE). OMSE tracks regional progress toward SPMS goals on a quarterly
basis as part of the overall Agency performance evaluation process.
The Superfund workload models distribute FTEs for each program and region. There are two
Superfund program models, the Site and Spill Response model, which distributes resources for the
pre-remedial, remedial and the removal programs, and the Technical Enforcement model which
1-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-0 lB
distributes enforcement FTEs. SCAP plans form the basis for the workload models. The preliminary
and final distribution of regional and program resources for the upcoming fiscal year is based on the
planning information contained in SCAP as of the beginning of March and the beginning of August,
respectively.
The Superfund Progress Report (SPR) is a monthly report of Superfund program
accomplishments to date. SPR information is very similar to and in many cases overlaps with SCAP
information. However, it focuses on site rather than project accomplishments. The SPR is used to
provide information to the press, the public and Congress. It is important that regions keep CERCLIS
data current to ensure that SPR data are current and timely.
SCAP Changes Between FY88 and FY89
Significant progress was made at the May 1988 SCAP workshop to simplify planning
procedures and reduce the number of SCAP targets. Overall, the number of SCAP target activities has
been reduced from more than 150 to less than 50. Chapter IV outlines the targets and measures for
FY89. In addition to the changes in targets and measures, many of the definitions for these activities
have been revised. This is also a result of the May SCAP workshop and the SPMS measures
development work done during the creation of the FY89 Agency Operating Guidance.
In the effort to simplify the SCAP planning procedures, a semi-annual process for negotiating
future site-specific activities has been established in FY89. During the second quarter, HQ and the
regions will negotiate the revised SCAP for FY89 and develop preliminary targets and resources for
FY90. During the fourth quarter, these FY90 targets and resources will be finalized.
During the second quarter negotiation cycle, HQ and the regions will perform a mid-year
assessment of the progress being made toward meeting SCAP/SPMS targets. Action strategies to
recoup slipping targets will be developed and resources for the remainder of the year may be
reallocated.
SCAP/CERCLIS Relationships
CERCLIS is the data base that is used by HQ and regional personnel for Superfund site,
program and project management. CERCLIS contains the official inventory of Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) sites and supports
current site planning and tracking functions. In CERCLIS, financial data are integrated with data from
the me-remedial, remedial, removal and enforcement programs. Pre-remedial, remedial and removal
activities are called “events” in CERCLIS. Enforcement actions are called “activities”. SCAP
information is a subset of the site data collected through CERCLIS. Data entry responsibilities and
report retrieval abilities are at the regional level so that regional managers and users play a central role
in maintaining and using the data base, HQ relies on CERCLIS as the sole repository of information
on plans and accomplishments.
CERCLIS consists of two data bases: a site-specific data base, CERCLIS, and a non-site
specific data base, CERHELP. The site specific data base contains site, operable unit (OU), event,
enforcement activity, technical and financial information. Each week financial data from the agency-
wide Financial Management System (FMS) are transferred into CERCLIS. The data transferred
include such information as commitments, decommitments, obligations, deobligations, outlays,
credits, transaction date, obligating document number and funding vehicle.
1-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-0 lB
CERHELP contains information such as SCAP/SPMS targets and accomplishments, Advice of
Allowance (AOA), budget, and information on non-site specific activity. The CERHELP data base
consists of the following separate files:
The Targets and Accomplishments System is the data file used for setting and tracking
SCAPISPMS targets and measures. Preliminary and final regional SCAP/SPMS
commitments are entered into the system by the HQ SCAP Coordinator. Target data
are updated by the region to reflect SCAP adjustments and by HQ to reflect approved
amendments. Regional reporting of non-site specific accomplishments is also
performed through this system. Data from this system are used in all “official” SCAP
Targets and Accomplishment Reports and are the baseline for regional evaluation.
• The AOA file is used by HQ for SCAP budget development and control and for
tracking and reporting the AOA process.
• Planning and tracking of non-site/incident activities and financial data are accomplished
through the Non-Site/Incident Activity system. Regions are responsible for entering
and maintaining SCAP non-site specific information.
Using CERHELP, regions will be able to track planning data and reconcile the site specific
planning in CERCLIS with the AOA and SCAP/SPMS targets. It serves as an important management
tool for regions and HQ.
Additional information including regional responsibilities for CERCLIS and CERFIELP can be
found in the CERCLIS Users Reference Manual.
SCAP CHANGE CONTROL PROCEDURES
Stability in the SCAP through the year is essential to the success of SCAP planning and
accomplishment reporting/evaluation procedures. As a result, the following procedures will be
implemented in FY89 to control changes to the SCAP:
• Changes (including additions or deletions) to the SCAP targets, measures, definitions,
methodologies or processes must be presented by the Office Director for the program
office proposing the change;
• All proposed changes must be sent to the regions and all other program offices for
review and comment prior to implementation;
• The decision on whether to proceed with the proposed change must be documented in
writing. If the proposed change will be implemented, an addendum to the SCAP
Manual will be published.
USES OF THE MANUAL
The FY89 SCAP Manual has been expanded to include information and guidelines for regional
staff on Superfund program goals and priorities, the development of planning data, Superfund
financial management, the tracking of accomplishments and the evaluation of regional progress toward
meeting program goals. The FY89 SCAP planning and evaluation process is supported by the
information contained in this manual. Users of the manual must also refer to the CERCLIS User
Reference Notebook for specific guidance on SCAP data coding, entry, maintenance and generation of
SCAP reports.
1-4
-------
OSWER Directive 92003-OIB
STRUCTURE OF THE MANUAL
The FY89 manual consists of two volumes. The remainder of Volume I contains information
on:
• Program priorities and goals;
• National information needs;
• SCAP targets and measures;
• SCAP planning process and procedures;
• Financial planning and management; and
• Evaluations.
Volume II includes the following Appendices:
• Appendix A presents the methodologies used to derive the FY90 preliminary targets
and measures;
• Appendix B discusses the applicability of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to
SCAP;
• Appendix C provides a crosswalk displaying the relationship between CERCLIS
Enforcement activities, remedies and events and their corresponding codes;
• Appendix D is divided into two sections. Section 1 provides technical definitions for
the SCAP/SPMS targets and measures and Section 2 provides definitions for other
planning activities. A brief description of the planning processes associated with each
definition is included; and
• Appendix E is a compilation of CERCLIS select logic flow charts.
1-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
CHAPTER II - PROGRAM GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS
PROGRAM GOALS
The central mission of the Superfund Program is to maximize the protection of human health
and the environment through fast, effective, and efficient cleanup of high priority sites and releases. In
order to fulfill this mission, six overriding goals have been identified:
• Address high priority sites and releases first;
• Implement effective remedies -- those removal and RAs that:
-- Mitigate the threat to public health and environment for a particular pathway;
-- Can be implemented within budget, political, and public constraints; and
-- Typically require a technical remedy, which may be supplemented by
institutional controls.
• Achieve efficient implementation of all Program activities;
• Pursue enforcement actions;
• Increase the role of others (PRPs and States); and
• Achieve a well managed Superfund.
In reauthorizing the Superfund program, Congress identified a number of specific numeric and
qualitative goals. These mandates will have a significant impact on the FY89 planning and program
priorities. Exhibits 11-1 and 11-2 on the following page provide the major Superfund goals as identified
by Congress.
In keeping with the bias for action and these goals, each program office in HQ has identified a
series of individual goals for FY89. These goals have been translated into a set of performance
expectations through the SCAP and SPMS process.
PRE-REMEDIAL PROGRAM
The goals of the pre-remedial program for FY89 come from the completion goals imposed by
SARA. While the Agency has already met the PA deadline it is likely that the SI goal will not be met.
However, the program must continue to make steady progress toward this goal, concentrating
resources wherever SIs are needed to cany the program forward. The pre-remedial program has
established the following additional goals for FY89:
• Implement the Environmental Priorities Initiative;
• Conduct PAs for all sites within 1 year of their placement in CERCLIS;
• Review SIs and NPL listings for Federal Facilities; and
• Ensure a smooth transition to the revised HRS.
REMEDIAL PROGRAM
The top priority in the remedial program is to balance work at sites with the most serious
environmental or health threats against the SARA mandated deadline of 175 RA starts by October 1989
and the additional 200 RA starts by 1991. As a result, the funding priorities for the remedial program
focus on the construction pipeline and remedial action projects will be funded as they are ready to
proceed. This approach will be re-examined at mid-year to determine whether environmentally
significant sites will not be funded due to the timing of the remedial action start at that site and the
budget constraints. Despite the funding constraints, regional progress toward the SARA mandated RA
start goal will continue to be monitored and schedules are expected to be met.
11-1
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-OlE
A goal shared by the remedial and enforcement programs is to maximize the number of PRP-
lead RDs and RAs. This is especially important as budget constraints in FY89 have led to a reduction
in the total funds available for RA projects. Planned obligations for Fund-financed RDs and RAs can
be used for oversight of PRP-lead activities.
During the past three years, the costs associated with R1/FS at operable units and whole sites
have almost doubled. One of the reasons cited for the escalating costs is the incremental funding of
RIIFS. FY89 marks the second year of a three-year initiative to ensure that no RI/FS projects are
incrementally funded. The national goal for new RJ/FS started in FY89 is an average cost of $750,000
per project and $1,100,000 per site. Some projects may obviously cost less and some may cost more.
Regions are expected to manage the size, scope and duration of their projects to ensure that this goal
can be achieved.
EXHIBIT Il-I
SCHEDULE FOR ACHIEVEMENT OF SARA GOALS
SECTION
GOAL
DATE
SARA 116 (a)(1)
To the maximum extent practicable, (MEP) EPA shall have
conducted Preliminary Assessments at all sites on CERCUS
at the time of enactment of SARA.
1/1188
SARA 116 (a)(2)
To the MEP, EPA shall have performed Site Investigations where
PAs have shown they were warranted.
1/1/89
SARA 116 (b)
All sites on CERCLIS at the time of enactment of SARA will be
evaluated for inclusion on the NPL.
10/90
SARA 116 (d)(1)
EPA will commence at least 275 Remedial Investigations!
Feasibility Studies.
OR
EPA will commence 450 RJIFS
and an additional 200 RI/PS.
10/89
10/90
10/9 1
SARA 116 (e)(1)
EPA will commence 175 Remedial Actions.
10/89
SARA 116 (e)(2)
EPA will commence 200 additional Remedial Actions.
10/9 1
11-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-OlB
EXHIBIT 11-2
QUALITATIVE LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY GOALS
SECTION
SARA 121(a)
SARA 121 (b)
SARA 121 (d)
SARA 118
CERCLA 104 (a)
GOAL
To the extent practicable, Remedial Actions shall be in accordance with the
NCP and shall be cost effective remedies.
A preference shall be given to remedies that include, as their pnncipal
element, treatment that permanently and significantly reduces the volume,
toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants.
RAs should be protective of human health and environment, cost effective,
and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or
resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Applicable or relevant and appropnate Federal standards and more stringent
State standards must be attained in CERCLA cleanups.
Fligh priority for remedial action shall be given to sites at which the dnnking
water supply has been contaminated.
Primary attention in response actions should be given to public health threats.
In determining the need for and in planning or undertaking Fund financed
action, the lead agency shall engage in prompt response, encourage state
participation in response actions, conserve Fund monies by encouraging
private party cleanups, be sensitive to local commuruty concerns, rely on
established technology, but also consider alternative., technology, involve
the RRT...at appropnate stages, encourage involvement. ..by industry and
other experts, and encourage involvement of organizations to coordinate
responsible party actions, foster site cleanup, and provide technical advice
to the public.
In FY89, 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;
• Time-critical removals at NPL sites; and
• Time-critical removals at non-NPL sites posing major environmental and public health
threats that can not be addressed by other authorities.
Non-time-critical removals should be undertaken only as resources allow. Non-time-critical
removals at NPL sites should be planned and budgeted site-specifically. For all non-time-critical
removals, regions should involve states and responsible parties to the maximum extent pracucable.
Enforcement authorities should be tapped to reduce the drain on the removal budget.
NCP 300.61 (c)
REMOVAL PROGRAM
11-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
The following Enforcement program priorities should be considered in FY89:
• Initiating and completing potentially responsible party (PRP) searches earlier and
making them more comprehensive in order to promote more PRP participation in
removals and RJ/FS, as well as RD/RA, and to assure effective cost recovery;
• Developing Administrative Records for removal and remedial activities;
• Referring cost recovery cases, especially where RAs have begun, where removals
(greater than $200K) have been completed, and RI/FS which have been completed
where the statute of limitations is a factor,
• Initiating and setting deadlines for concluding RD/RA negotiations including sending
out special notice letters in a timely fashion;
• Encourage state enforcement activities;
• Making effective use of SARA settlement authorities (e.g., mixed funding, and de
minimis authorities) to maximize PRP lead RD and RA starts; and
• Referring Section 106 actions without settlement for RD/RAs, particularly where RA
funds are not available through SCAP (i.e., PRP activity sites).
STATE ENFORCEMENT
A major goal of the enforcement program is to encourage state enforcement activity, that is, to
encourage the states to issue enforcement orders and enter into agreements for PRPs to conduct
cleanups. An additional goal is to have these state-lead enforcement sites count toward the 175 RA
starts mandated by SARA. States are encouraged to enter into either a cooperative agreement or other
formal agreement for state action with EPA.
Four criteria have been proposed for state-lead enforcement sites to count toward the 175 RA
starts:
• The site is on the final or proposed NPL list;
• Cleanup is considered consistent with the basic requirements of Section 121;
• An enforceable agreement exists between the state and the PRPs; and
• The state certifies that substantial and continuous physical on-site work is
being conducted by the PRPs.
FEDERAL FACiLiTiES PROGRAM
As required by Section 120 of SARA, the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket was established in FY88, and is the basis for Federal Facility remedial
activities. At twice yearly intervals, a listing of Federal Facilities submitted to the docket
during the immediately preceding six month period will be published in the Federal
Register. The Federal Facilities Task Force is also working on incorporating the Federal
Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket into CERCLIS.
11-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
EPA responsibilities for Federal Facilities include reviewing PAs and SIs submitted
by the Federal agency and determining their adequacy. The anticipated approach to NPL
listing will be for the Federal Facility to prepare the technical reports and organize an index
for relevant HRS data. EPA, through the Field Investigation Team (FiT) contractors, will
prepare Federal Facility HR packages in FY89. For sites on the NPL, EPA is responsible
for reviewing, awarding and providing oversight of Technical Assistance Grants.
Comprehensive guidance for EPA involvement in Federal Facility activities in FY89 will
be developed once the status of docket submittals and the associated workload is accurately
determined. Currently, the regional effort will be to coordinate activities, carefully QA/QC
the final HRS package, and resolve any outstanding issues.
Not later than six months after the inclusion of any Federal Facility on the NPL, the
Federal agency responsible for the site, after consultation with EPA and the state, will
commence work on an R1/FS. A timetable and deadlines for expeditious completion of the
RI/PS will be published by EPA or the appropriate state authorities.
Within six months of completing the RI/PS, EPA will enter into an LAG with the
responsible Federal agency which requires the expeditious completion of all necessary
remedial action at the listed facility. Commencement of remedial action will take place no
later than 15 months after the completion of the R1/FS.
Entering into enforceable agreements, preferably Section 120 lAGs, is one of the primary goals
of the Federal Facility enforcement program. The Task Force has recendy entered into national model
agreements with DOD and DOE which should facilitate site-specific negotiations. In the absence of an
[ AG, regions should consider alternative enforcement strategies such as issuing Section 106 orders,
Section 3008(h) orders, orders to government owned/contractor operated facilities and publishing
enforceable timetables and deadlines for remedial activity.
CHEMICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND PREVENTiON
PROGRAM
The main goal of the Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Program
(CEPP) is to prevent and prepare for chemical accidents. The program’s authorities are
CERCLA and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, also
know as Title Ill of SARA. CEPP’s FY89 SPMS measures focus on key activities to meet
the above goal. These include:
State Implementation Memoranda (SIMs) which are joint agreements
between the regions and the states which lay out their fundamental roles in
implementing the program and describe joint activities for each fiscal yeal
• EPA-assistance or training in chemical emergency preparedness, prevention
or community right-to-know;
• EPA-assistance with emergency simulations; and
• Accidental Release Information Program measures aimed at gathering and
analyzing information on accidental releases and prevention methods and
chemical safety process audits.
11-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
Wl 1e the ,statuto!ydea4linefor completion of contingency -plaüs under Title,ffl is
October 17; 19$8,(first, quarter FY89), it is expected that not all 3,800,plans. will be.
entirelycomplete by this dare. Fu ther,plans must be reviewed, re ised, and updated at
least annually. l egioi a1 ‘Response Teams (RRTs) may also reviewiplans:
Earthquake and NarionalSecurity Emergen vPreparedness Pmgrams
fl e, plan .ior Federa’ resppnse 1 to a catastrophic earthquake was rtianthted by. the
Earthquake Hàzárds Reduction Act. The plan,which ia,be ng developed by 25;Fedei al’
departments and agencies and is coordinated by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FE MA), is an effoit to imprpve Federal, state, and local preparedness and
response to a catastrophic, e arthquaice: EPA’s. responsibility in plan development is to act
as the primary agency)for Emerge cy S,uppor ullction ( FSF) # lO -; ‘Hazardous-
Materials”, and as a support agency to otljerESFs Each EPAregionwhich has aiigh-
risk, high population area for a catastrophic earthquake within its boundaries must develop
a risk-area specific, hazardous materials annex to the multiragency regionairesponse plan
which operationally identifies how the agencyLand its support agencies would respond to
multiple l azardous material incident ,includingjadiologicalincidents during.a
catastrophic earthquake. In regions containing mor e than one catastrophic risk area•, 1 risk-
area specific sub-plans are necessitated. Each region shall also participate in earthquake
exeicise s, -simulations, workshops, planning sessions and other similar’earthquake
preparedness actiyities.
- The purpose of the l ational Security Emergency Preparedness Program is to
ensuie the performanceof essential functions of the agency in the events of a national’
security emergency. EPA’s responsibilities are-outlined in Executive Order 11490 and
related directives. Each region is required to establish and maintain a designated team of
personnel for such events; participate in EPA, FEMA or other agency sponsored planning
sessions, workshops; training and exercises; and assist in preparingTprogranfsupport
materials.
11-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-OIB
CHAPTER III. NATIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS
The focus of this chapter will be the major recurring Superfund information needs and the
related regional CERCLIS data entry requirements supporting those needs. It will identify and explain
management’s individual data needs, such as: quarterly SCAP accomplishment reporting; semi-annual
SCAP and budget planning; the monthly SPR; monthly progress reporting on the “175”; and
preparation of senior management briefings. It will also list specific data elements needed to support
each of these activities. In the past the primary use of CERCLIS has been in support of budget and
SCAP planning, SPMS reporting, and the allocation of resources. In the future the Agency will
continue all of these activities and will be increasing the use of CERCLIS as a tool for ongoing
program management. This will mean that actual site and incident status data must be entered more
frequently than was previously necessary. While it is strongly recommended that actual
accomplishment and current planning data both be updated as an action occurs (on a real-time basis),
other non-recurring information requests, such as FOIAs, will be taken from data required for other
program management purposes.
Although this chapter is still under development, several specific requirements that must be met
on a continuing basis have been identified. These requirements include:
• AA Monthly Bnefmg - Information on ROD, RD and RA events as well as Section 107
referrals, consent decrees and RD/RA negotiations.
• 175 RA Start Tracking - All relevant information regarding the start of RA, ROD and
RD events, including dates and indicators, must be updated monthly in CERCLIS.
• RTS Report - The Removal program will be publishing a widely distributed monthly
report. Removal event dates, descriptive text, and technical qualifiers will have to be
kept current to support this effort.
• SPR - The public SPR will necessitate a monthly update of event dates and flags used
in the report.
111-1
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-OIB
CHAPTER IV - TARGETS AND MEASURES
ROLE OF SCAP
SCAP and SPMS targets are the key device by which program goals are translated into
quantifiable program achievements. Specific targets are negotiated by HQ and the regions and regions
commit themselves to achieving these goals. SCAP and SPMS targets therefore play a central role in
achieving program goals and should not be seen as only a method for allocating resources. They
identify performance expectations for the regions, and regions are expected to concentrate their
resources on achieving these targets.
SCAP/SPMS TARGETS AND MEASURES
A SCAP or SPMS target (either quarterly or annual) is a pre-determined numerical goal that is
established prior to the fiscal year the designated activities will take place. All SPMS targets are SCAP
targets. An example of a SCAP and SPMS targeted activity is a first R1/FS start. Annual budgets and
resources are allocated based on SPMS and SCAP targets. In addition, regions are evaluated on a
quarterly basis according to their completion of activities with established targets.
A SCAP or SPMS measure , on the other hand, is used to track an activity that is important in
monitoring overall program progress. The two types of measures are SCAP planning estimates and
SPMS reporting. Planning estimates result in numerical goals being established prior to the fiscal year
(e.g., RD completions) which are used in setting annual budgets and full-time equivalent (FTE) staff
allocations. Regions report progress against the planning estimates. SPMS reporting measures have
no associated quantitative goals; only actual accomplishments are tracked (e.g., AOs for PRP
response).
SCAP/SPMS Targets and Measures for FY89 are identified in Exhibit IV- !. As a result of the
May 1988 SCAP Conference, a large number of the FY88 SCAP targets and measures have been
changed for FY89. Some activities which were SCAP targets in FY88 are SCAP measures in FY89
(e.g., RD completions). In other cases, first and subsequent activities which were targeted separately
in FY88, have been combined in FY89 (e.g., RA completions). And, finally, activities which had
separate program lead SCAP targets in FY88, have a combined program FY89 SCAP target (e.g.,
RJ/FS starts). The SCAP/SPMS targets for RA starts were not revised and targets are still established
on a program specific basis. However, the takeover of an RA by the PRPs or the Fund will result in an
increase and/or decrease of the appropriate program’s SPMS targets. The combined program quarterly
or annual target will not change. As a result of these changes regions should review the SCAP/SPMS
Targets and Measures tables and the Definitions and Planning Requirements in Volume II prior to
finalizing their FY89 SCAP.
IV- ’
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-018
Federal Facility
First RIJFS Completion (ROD)
NFL Sites with Interagency Agreements
EXHIBIT IV- ! ,
SCAP/SPMS TARGETS
ACTIVITIES
SPMS
TARGET
SCAP
TARGET
QUARTERLY
TARGET
ANNUAL
TARGET
x•
x
- Pre-Remedial
Preliminary Msessment (PA) Completions
ScreeningSite Inspection (SSI) Completions
nyironmentaI pJnith’ tiveSites,
with completedP4&and SSI
Remedial
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
First RI/FS Starts
Subsequent RI/FS Starts
R1/FS To Public
First RI/FS Completions (ROD)
St bseqqent RJ/FS Completion(ROD)
Final’RI/FS,Completion (ROD)
‘Renie 1ial Design (RD)
FirstRDStaii
Subsequent RD $tarti
Final RD Start
Remedial Action (RA)
FirstRAStart-RP
FirstRA Start ;Fund
-, Subsequent RA S(art RP
Subsequent RA Stait ’Fund
FinalR Start,RP .
FinaiRA Stan-Fund
NPL Sites with RATSLarts Post SARA
Final RA Completions
Deletion Initiated
Removal
First NFL Remb’val’Start
• Subsequent NPLRèmoval Start
NPL Removal Completion
Non-NPLRerno a1 Start
• Non-NPL Removal Completion
Enf r inent ,
Admilustrative Co Rëcov ery Settlement:s
S tion 1O6 RD/RE Réfthals/OFde’rs
with settlènfent
.‘ ithout settlement (includes unilateral ord&s)
Seciion106 Case Resolution
Section 107 Cost Recovery Judi ial Settlement
Section 107 Cost Recovery Referral Actions
(>$200,000)
- Removals
- Remedial Action
x
x
x
x
-x
x .
x
x
-x
x.
x
x
-x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x • —
-
x
x
x
x
x
-x-
x. .
x-
x
x
x
x
x,
x,
x•
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
rX>
x .
x
x
x
x,
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
-x
x
x
x
x’
x
x
-x
x,
x
x
x
x ’
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
IV-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-018
EXHIBIT IV-2
SCAP/SPMS MEASURES
ACTIVITIES
SPMS
REPORTING
SCAP
PLANNING EST
QTRLY
ANNUAL
Pre-Remedial
FIT-PA/SI Completions X X X
State-PA/SI Completions X X X
SiteswithLS lStarts X X
Remedial
U) Completions X X X
? .A Completions X X X
)eletion-Fund X X X X
)eletion-PRP X X X X
Removal
NPL Removal Completions X X
NPL Removal Deletions X X
Enforcement
NPL PRP Search Start X X
Non-NPL PRP Search Start X X
NPL Sites with Completed
PRY Searches X X X
Non-NPL Sites with Completed
PRY Searches X X
Administrative Orders for Removals X X X
R1/FS Negotiations Start X X X
R1/FS Negotiations Complete X X X
RD/RA Negotiations Start X X X
Section 106/107 Referrals
-Removal x x x x
- RemedialAction X X X X
Section 107 Cost Recovery/Settlement X x x
Federal Facilities
PA Completion X X X
SI Completion X X X
FinaIROD X X X
NPL Sites with RA Start Post - SARA X X X X
Oil SDill Activities
SPCC Inspections/Reviews X X
Clean Water Act Funded Oil Spills Cleaned
UpbyEPA X X
Dn-Scene Monitoring of Oil Spill
Responses - X X
IV-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-0 lB
CHAPTER V. SCAP PLANNING PROCESS & PROCEDURES
Beginning in FY89, HOJregional SCAP negotiations will occur on a semi-annual basis in
February and July. This change in the SCAP process is intended to take advantage of the greater
flexibility provided through the regular use of CERCLIS as a management planning tool.
It should be noted, however, that the shift to twice yearly formal updates and negotiations in no
way changes the regional responsibility for frequent and timely updates of CERCLIS. SCAP related
planning and accomplishment data serve many functions including SPR, SPMS, FTE allocation,
budget development, AOA issuance and reporting to Congress. Some of these have reporting cycles
and information needs that are far more frequent than the semi-annual SCAP negotiating cycle.
Because of those interdependencies it is critical that regions keep all SCAP information current and
update all CERCUS and CERHELP data bases regularly.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
This section describes the information flow and HOJregional responsibilities associated with
the FY89 Superfund planning process.
HQ responsibilities include:
• Entering negotiated preliminary and final SCAP/SPMS targets and measures and site
back-up in the CERI-IELP Targets and Accomplishments data file;
• Updating the numbers and site back-up in the Targets and Accomplishments data file to
reflect approved amendments to the SCAP throughout the year;
• Entering preliminary and final budget data in the CERHELP Budget Control/Advice Of
Allowance (BC/AOA) system;
• Determining the AOA based on SCAP planned activities in CERCLIS;
• Entering and maintaining AOA data in the CERHELP BC/AOA system; and
• Responding to regional requests for changes in plans through the amendment and
change request process.
Regions have complete responsibility for maintaining CERCLIS and selected portions of the
CERHELP data base. At a minimum this requires:
• For sites which are beginning the RI/FS in the current or next fiscal year, planning and
scheduling all events and enforcement activities through the NPL deletion process;
• Keeping SCAP planning data current;
• Updating the site back-up in the Targets and Accomplishments data file to reflect
adjustments to the SCAP throughout the year,
• Reporting accomplishments as they occur,
• Reconciling CERCUS financial data with FMS;
• Entering and maintaining quarterly planning and accomplishments reporting for non-
site specific activities; and
• Preparing SCAP amendments and change requests.
The regional Information Management Coordinator (IMC) is a senior position which serves as
regional lead for all Superfund program and systems management activities. The IMC serves as the
liaison between the Waste Management Division and the Environmental Services and Management
v-i
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-018
Divisions. The following lead iesponsibilities for regional program planning and management rest
with the IMC:
• Coordinate SCAP/SPMS planning, development and reporting;
• Ensure regional accomplishments are accurately reflected in CERCLIS;
• Reconcile FMS data transferred into CERCLIS;
• Provide liaison to HQ on SCAP/SPMS and program evaluation issues;
• Coordinate regional evaluations by HQ; and
• Ensure that the quality of CERCLIS data are such that accomplishments and planning
data can be accurately retrieved from the system.
OVERVIEW OF THE SCI4P PROCESS
The SCAP process generates data that fulfill the following functions:
• Tracking of accomplishments against targets/measures;
• Updating planning (schedules and funds) for the current fiscal year;
• Developing planning data for the upcoming fiscal year; and
• Providing data for outyear budget planning purposes.
It is essential that SCAP data remain current and up to date and that accomplishments be
reported as soon as they occur. Planning information should be reviewed on at least a weekly basis
and information updated as necessary.
However, as noted earlier in this document, the SCAP formal negotiation cycle has been
changed to a semi-annual process. The focus of the two formal negotiations is slightly different.
Exhibit V-i indicates the significant differences between the February and July negotiating sessions.
EXHIBIT V-i
SCAP PLANNING YEAR
SECOND OUARTER (FEBRUARY 1989 )
• Update and negotiate planning information in CERCLIS for the third and fourth
quarter FY89
• Review slippage in FY89 targets for development of action strategies
• Reassess the remedial action funding strategy
• Negotiate preliminary SCAP/SPMS targets and measures for FY90
with HQ and the regions
• Determine preliminary FY90 FTE allocations based on the
preliminary targets and measures
• Provide complete site schedules including planned RA obligations to
allow HQ to project the outyear budget (FY91)
FOURTH OUARTER (JULY 1989 )
• Establish final SCAP/SPMS commitments for FY90
• Finalize resources for FY90
• Set FY90 annual regional budget
V-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-O1B
The fourth quarter SCAP planning cycle is important because of its direct impact on the
upcoming fiscal year’s budget. Regions are required to manage their funds and operate within the
annual budget established during the fourth quarter update. Funds within the region’s budget must be
reprogrammed to meet unexpected contingencies.
During the second quarter negotiations, if there are issues that were not fully resolved, or if
there are activities that are significantly behind schedule, HQ will consider shifting funds between
regions. At this time also HQ will closely evaluate the status of the remedial actions scheduled to begin
in FY89. The evaluation will focus on those remedial actions scheduled to begin in the third and
fourth quarters and the funding levels required. Based on the results, the remedial action funding
strategy may be revised and adjustments may be made within and between regional remedial action
budgets. Any decision to shift funds will be based on need and the expectation that the region has the
ability to improve Agency-wide achievement of National targets.
PROCEDURES FOR ANNUAL TARGET SETTiNG
The process for the development of a fiscal year ’s SCAP and SPMS targets/measures begins
with the SCAP developed during the second quarter of the previous fiscal year. Preliminary
targets/measures for the upcoming fiscal year are set by early March and used to derive the preliminary
VFE allocations for the coming year. All targets/measures are negotiated and numbers are established
only after discussions between Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement (OWPE), and the regions. Final SCAP and SPMS targets are set in the fourth
quarter SCAP which is finalized in August. Final targets/measures also involve HQ/regional
negotiations.
The procedures for target setting for the upcoming fiscal year are as follows:
• At the beginning of the second quarter HQ sends to the regions initial targets and
planning estimates based on the SCAP Methodologies (SCAP Methodologies for
FY90 are presented in Appendix A).
• Regions will respond to proposed SCAP targets/measures through 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 should
be consulted prior to making these decisions. Remedial and enforcement projects
should be identifl d as either “Primary” (P) or “Alternate” (A) in the SCAP/SPMS
Target Status field in CERCLIS. Primary projects represent those that have the greatest
likelihood of meeting the schedules in CERCLIS. The number of primary projects will
be used to determine SCAP/SPMS preliminary commitments. Alternate projects may
be substituted to replace primary projects which are experiencing 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 V-2 for an example of the use of primary or alternate target status field.)
• The regional response to non-site specific targets or planning estimates should be
reported in the Targets and Accomplishment file in CERHELP. The target or planning
estimate should be entered into CERI-IIELP with the appropriate activity code and a
“Proposed” (P) in the Version data field in CERHELP. Appendix D identifies the
targets and measures which are planned on a site specific vs. non-site specific basis.
V-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
• HOJregional negotiations occur during the second quarter (A separate negotiation
schedule is sent to the regions). Action strategies developed for current year
performance problems are a factor in the negotiation of targets and measures.
• Draft final targets/measures are set after completion of the negotiations in early March.
• In preparation for the fourth quarter SCAP negotiations, regions must not only make
decisions on the status of projects but must also anticipate funding needs. States
should be consulted to ensure that state-lead activities and state funding needs are
accurately reflected in SCAP. Those sites which have the greatest likelihood of
requiring funding during the fiscal year that are within the region’s budget allocation
should be identified by placing “Approved” (APR) in the Funding Priority Status field
in CERCLIS. “Alternate” (ALT) projects are a pool of projects which are moving
towani the point of obligation. As with primary and alternate SCAP/SPMS targets and
measures, alternate projects may be substituted for approved projects which experience
slippage or are deferred due to changing priorities. For all events (RJJFS, RD, RA)
scheduled to begin during the fiscal year, the “APR” funding status can only be placed
on funds for sites which are coded as “P” SCAP/SPMS targets. For example, only
R1/FS starts that are primary SCAP/SPMS targets will receive funds. (See Exhibit V-2
for an example of the use of the funding priority status field.)
• Based on the fourth quarter SCAP reflected in CERCLIS and CERHELP, a second
round of negotiations is held to finalize the targets and planning estimates and the
regional budget. At this time, only minor changes to targets and measures developed
during the second quarter should occur. These negotiations are conducted in July and
final targets, measures and associated budgets are in place by early August.
• Any changes that result from the negotiation of preliminary or final targets/measures
must be entered into CERCLIS by the regions.
• HQ will enter preliminary and final commitments including the site-specific back-up
where appropriate into the Targets and Accomplishments file in the CERHELP non-site
specific data base.
• A memorandum and a copy of the Targets and Accomplishments report providing final
agreed upon targets and measures is sent to the regions for concurrence.
• After regional concurrence, the targets and measures, site back-up, and the regional
budget are sent to the Assistant Administrator for approval in early September. They
are then submitted to the Office of Management Systems and Evaluations as final
SPMS targets and are used for final FTE distribution.
V-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-OIB
EXHIBIT V-2
PRIMARY VS. ALTERNATE SPMS STATUS AND
“ APPI OVED” VS. “ALTERNATE” BUDGET PRIORITY
ORIGINAL PLAN
SCAP/SPMS Activity S1L Qp fj Actual Funding
Taroet Target Name L ft Iy.g.g Status
First RI/FS Starts
1’
Program
P X IA 01 COt F 88/2 APR
P V MO 01 COl F 88/4 APR
A Z KS 01 COl F 88/4 ALT
TOTALS 2
ALTERED PLAN
SCAPISPMS Activity 5jj Q j Actual Funding ‘
Taraet Taraet Name j jj Ix & & 1azi Status
First RI/FS Starts ..
Program
A X IA 01 COl F 88/4 ALT
P Y MO 01 COl F 88/4 APR
P Z KS 01 COl F 88/2 2/09/88 APR
TOTALS 2
?
,.
.
SCAP PLANNING
Regions are required to keep the SCAP data in CERCLIS and CERHELP up-to-date and
accurate. Changes in planning information (schedules and funds) should be entered into CERCLIS or
CERHELP within five days of the RPM becoming aware of the need for the change. If changes affect
a SCAP or SPMS target or measure or the approved funding level for a site, the SCAP/SPMS Target
Status and Funding Priority Status fields in CERCLIS must also be updated.
Semi-Annual Planning Process
As a final check to ensure that SCAP data are up to date, regions should generate SCAP reports
beginning on the first working day of January and June for internal review of the planning data in
CERCLIS and CERJ-IELP. These planning data should reflect any adjustments or approved
amendments made to the annual plan. Regions should note that changes made in CERCLIS to site
schedules and other planning data will not automatically result in changes to SCAP/SPMS targets.
Although regions have the flexibility to alter plans, they are still accountable for meeting the targets
negotiated at the beginning of the fiscal year. (See the section or. SCAP/SPMS Adjustments and
Amendments).
On the fifth working day of February and July, HQ pulls the proposed regional SCAP update
which will serve as the basis for HOJregional negotiations. To ensure consistency in the negotiation
phase, the CERCLIS and CERF [ ELP data bases are frozen prior to pulling the regional reports. As a
result, all parties (HQ and the regions) will have identical data for use during the negotiation process.
V-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
CERCLIS data quality problems which affect the SCAP update are resolved prior to
negotiations. These problems are to be resolved on a region-specific basis through telephone calls
between HQ and the IMC.
CERCLIS Reports for SCAP Planning/Target Setting
Exhibit V-3 presents the CERCLIS reports used by HQ and the regions in the development and
negotiation of regional targets/measures. Following is a discussion on these reports:
The SCAP/SPMS Targets and Accomplishments Summary Report (SCAP-14) displays
aggregate quarterly target totals and site back-up by SCAP activity.
• The Event/Activity Summary Report for NPL Sites (EVAL-15) provides planned
obligations, first and subsequent start and completion codes and budget source for
events and activities at sites on the NPL.
• The Non-NPL Site Summary Repori(SCAP-1 ) displays major planned, ongoing and
completed activities for sites which are not on the current NPL. Information on PRP
searches, non-NPL removals, non-NPL removal Administrative Orders, etc. are found
on this report.
• The NPL Site Summary Report (SCAP-2) contains major planned and actual data for
remedial events and enforcement activities at sites which are on the NPL.
• The Financial Summary Report (SCAP-15) aggregates dollars by program area. This
report should be used to compare funding requests in CERCLIS and CERI-IELP
against the regional budget. Site specific backup to the Financial Summa Report for
Fund-financed remedial projects is available through the Projected Fund-Financed
Remedial Projects Report (SCAP-3). Backup to the non-site specific funding is
available through the SCAP Non-Site/Incident Activity Planning Report on the
CERITIELP menu.
• The Data Oualitv Check Reports (DQCK-1) are a series of edit reports the regions can
use to check CERCLIS data quality. Any errors noted in these reports should be
corrected in CERCLIS prior to the HQ deadline for pulling reports from CERCLIS.
The RIIFS Liability Report was added to the Data Quality Reports section. This report
shows FY89 and total project RI/FS funding needs. The report was used by HQ to
develop regional RIIFS budgets and the R!/FS funding strategy. Regions can use this
report to develop the regional RIIFS budget.
• The Target/Negotiation Report (SCAP-16) is similar to the SCAP/SPMS Targets and
Accomplishments Report and is used for target negotiations. The SCAP flags and
other coding requirements needed to identify a given event/activity as a planned start or
completion is included in the report. A similar report, Projected Planning Estimates and
Projected Measures (SCAP-13) will be used for negotiation of SCAP measures and
used for budget and FTE allocations.
• The Planned Starts. Completes. Ongoing and Obligations Report (RMVL-18), which
will be available the beginning of FY89, will provide planning information for the
removal program.
V-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
EXHIBIT V-3
SCAP PLANNING/TARGET SETTING CERCLIS REPORTS
DQCK-1: Data Quality Check Reports
SCAP-1: Non-NPL Site Summary Report
SCAP-2: NPL Site Summary Report
SC AP- 3: Projected Fund-Financed Re,nedial Projects
Report
Sc A P-i 3: Projected Planning &timates and Projected
Measures
SC A P-14: SCAP/SPMS Targets and Accomplishments
Summary Report
SCAP-15: Financial Swnmary Report
SC A P-i 6: Target/Negotiation Report
EVA L-iS: Event/Activity Summary Report for NPL Sites
RMVL-18: Planned Starts, Completions, Ongoing and
Obligations
Accomplishment Reporting
Accomplishments data are recorded on CERCLIS Site Information Forms (SW) and
CERHELP Non-Site Incident Activity Maintenance Forms, or other regional data entry forms and
entered into CERCLIS and CERHELP by the IMC or designee. Data on accomplishments should be
entered into CERCLIS within five days of the event.
Beginning on the first day of each month, regions should generate SCAP reports for internal
review. Regions should perform data quality checks and make adjustments to CERCLIS or
CERI-IELP if the data bases do not reflect actual accomplishments.
On the fifth working day of each month, HQ will pull data from CERCLIS on a selected
number of key indicators of progress in the Superfund program (i.e., Removals, RJ/FS starts, RODs,
RDs, RA, 175 RAs). These numbers will be the official numbers used for the Superfund Progress
Report and any reports of progress given to the Administrator, Assistant Administrator, Congress and
the news media. This is also the information that will be used for calls to the Regional Administrators
regarding progress on the key indicators tracked in the Assistant Administrator’s pro-active
memorandum.
On the fifth working day of each quarter, HQ pulls SCAP reports from CERCLIS and
CERHELP. These reports are reviewed by HQ to evaluate regional progress toward SCAP targets and
are submitted to OMSE for reporting SPMS accomplishments. It is important to note that in addition
to reporting accomplishments in CERCLIS, regions must continue to enter SPMS data into the OMSE
SPMS system.
CERCLIS Reports for Accomplishment Reporting
Exhibit V-4 presents CERCLIS reports HQ uses to evaluate regional accomplishments. All are
used for reporting and crediting SCAP/SPMS targets and accomplishments. Following is a discussion
of these reports:
v-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-OLB
• The Projected Planning Estimates and Projected Measures (SCAP-13), SCAP/SPMS
Targets and Accomplishments (SCAP-14) and EventlActivitv Report for NPL Sites
(EVAL-15) reports are used by the pre-remedial, remedial and enforcement programs to
provide planned and actual information for events and activities.
• Ouarterlv Removal Plans and Accomplishments Summary show actual (RMVL-7A)
removal starts and actual (RMVL-7B) removal completions.
• Financial information and the status of obligations are provided by the Projected Fund-
Financed Remedial Projects Report (SCAP-3) and the Remedial/Removal Site-Specific
Funding Reports (FINC-4, 5 and 6).
EXHIBIT V.4
PROGRAM EVALUATION CERCLIS REPORTS
SC A P.3: Projected Fund-Financed Remedial Projects Report
Sc A P.13: FY89 Projected Planning Estimates and Projected Measures
Report
SCAP- 14: FY89 SCAPISPMS Targets and Accomplishments
Summary Report
RMVL-7: Quarterly Removal Plans and Accomplishments
Summary
FINC-4: Remedial/Removal Site-Specific Funding Report
FINC.5: Remedial Sice-Spe fic Funding Report
FINC.6: Removal Site-Spec j/ic Funding Report
EVAI- 15: Event/Activity Report for NPL Sites
QUARTERLY REMOVAL PLANNING PROCESS
The nature of removal activities is to respond to emergency, time critical and non-time critical,
situations at NPL and non-NPL sites. Planning for removal actions in FY89 will be more difficult
than ever before. On the one hand, SARA provides broader removal authority and imposes new
requirements; on the other hand, removal funding increased slightly but not enough to cover the
potential increase in costs caused by the SARA requirements.
Each region should recognize that it probably does not have sufficient funds to address all
actual or threatened releases that meet the removal criteria in the National Contingency Plan (NCP).
Responsible management means having to make some tough decisions . Regions may have to defer
funding non-time critical actions in order to maintain a sufficient contingency for classic emergencies.
Additionally, regions may have to depend more upon state and local authorities to address the real, but
smaller threats that regions now occasionally handle.
The increased use of enforcement authorities becomes essential as the funds for removal
actions are reduced. Removal PRP searches should be initiated as soon as a candidate site has been
identified. Notice should be given to identified PRPs and administrative orders issued when time
permits. Non-time critical removals are prime candidates for PRP actions.
V-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-0 lB
Since so much of the removal work cannot be anticipated, the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) requires site specific planning only one quarter in advance. Each
quarter a plan for the upcoming quarter is prepared. A region begins this planning period by
identifying sites in CERCLIS which are candidates for removal work in the upcoming quarter and the
funding each action will reqtth’e. 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-sitefmcident activity section of the CERFIELP data base by the region. The region also has the
discretion to identify sites it cannot afford to do by using the CERCLIS “ALT” funding status flag.
HQ reviews this plan and discusses any proposed changes with the region. When both sides reach
agreement the region enters the final plan in CERCLIS and CERHELP and the AOA is generated.
At any time after the plan for the quarter is approved, regions have the authority to change it.
However, entry of changes must follow the SCAP amendment/adjustment procedures outlined below.
SCAP/SPMS ADJUSTMENTS AND AMENDMENTS
After targets have been finalized and planned funding levels developed, the SCAP process
provides the flexibility to modify plans during the year. Modifications to planned targets are termed
either adjustments or amendments. Amendments are SCAP changes which:
• Increase the region’s annual operating budget (OERR or OWPE);
• Change the AOA or increase the RI/FS budget ceiling within the other remedial AOA;
or
• Change a quarterly or annual SCAP or SPMS target.
Amendments require HQ concurrence and approval. Any other SCAP change, including site
substitutions, is an adjustment and does not require HQ approval. Adjustments should be reflected in
CERCLIS by updating the site-specific data base and the CERFIELP Targets and Accomplishments
data file on an ongoing basis. The processes described in Exhibit V-5 must be followed when
amending the SCAP. Chapter VI outlines the procedures for processing AOA change requests. The
Office of Program Management and the program offices in OERR and the Compliance Branch of
OWPE provide input on SCAP amendment approval decisions.
Changes to SPMS commitments should not be made simply because targets will not be met.
However, in some cases, amendments to targets may be necessary and may be changed under the
following conditions:
• Major, unforeseen contingencies arise that alter established priorities (i.e.,
Congressional action);
• Major contingencies arise to alter established regional commitments (i.e., state
legislative action); or
• Measure or definition in system is creating an unanticipated negative impact.
All amendments should be recorded in the CERCLIS site-specific data base as an “approved”
action after the region issues the change request or memorandum to OSWER. Regions should not
initiate any obligation against change requests until confirmation is received from the Office of the
Comptroller. The site back-up in the Targets and Accomplishments data file will be revised by HQ if
the amendment is approved. If the amendment is not approved, HQ will notify the region and the
“approved” record in CERCLIS will have to be revised.
V-9
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-O1B
EXHIBIT V-S
SCAP AMENDMENT PROCESS
MENTS
Affecting quarterly
or annual
SPMS targets
or measures
Affecting
SCAP but
not the AOA
Affecting
SCAP and
the AOA
Memorandum from ‘\
Regional Administrator
to the Assistant
Administrator of
OSWER explaining
the reason for the
change.
Memorandum from
Regional Director to
the HQ OSWER
Office Director
explaining the
reason for the change.
Region will contact the
appropriate HQ program
office to discuss the planned
change.
The program office will
determine the urgency of the
request and notify the
Financial and Administrative
Management Section of the
pending request.
$
Region prepares a formal
change request and sends
it to HQ with a memorandum
from the Regional Director
to the OSWER Office Director.
The requested amount is
entered into CERCLIS.
After OSWER concurrence,
the approved change request
is forwarded to the Office of
the Comptroller for execution.
$
The Office of the Comptroller
sends a confirmation notice to
the region.
v-iD
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-OIB
MAINTAINING THE TARGETS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS FILE
HQ is responsible for putting the preliminary and final negotiated SCAP/SPMS targets and site
back-up in the Targets and Accomplishments file in CERHELP. During the fiscal year, HQ will also
be responsible for changing the targets and site back-up if amendments are approved. Regions are
responsible for updating the Targets and Accomplishments file to reflect SCAP/SPMS adjustments.
Appendix D contains tables which show which targets and measures require site-specific backup in
CERHELP.
Following are guidelines for regional maintenance of the Targets and Accomplishment file.
Additional detailed instructions on CERHELP can be found in the CERCLIS Users Reference Manual.
Regions will j be allowed to add to or delete sites from the Targets and
Accomplishments file. Only changes will be allowed. However, the site specific
CERCLIS records should be updated at the time a SCAP or SPMS amendment is
requested.
• The number of sites named in the Targets and Accomplishments file must equal the
numerical target. if a region has a target of eight RDs, for example, eight sites must be
named in the Targets and Accomplishments site back-up.
• If “to be determined” (TBD) sites are used instead of real sites in the Targets and
Accomplishments file, there must be enough candidate sites in CERCLIS that can be
used to replace the TBD sites as soon as possible.
• A site must be in CERCLIS before it can be in CERI-IELP.
• The Assistant Administrator ’s pro-active memorandum is developed using the data in
the Targets and Accomplishments file. Therefore, 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 CERI- [ ELP. This includes site substitutions and changes in schedules
which do not affect SPMS or SCAP targets.
Following are the procedures for making changes to the CERI- [ ELP target site data:
• Each time a change to site data in CERCLIS results in a SCAP adjustment, run the
CERHELP Target Maintenance Report for FY89 (Report #4 on the CERCLIS Site
Reports Menu).
• Locate the Target Activity Code page on the report (report is sequenced alphabetically
by Target Activity Code).
• Scan target site data to locate site no longer being targeted and cross out EPA ID,
Operable Unit and Event Codes 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
V-li
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-0 lB
-- To access record to be changed, enter required field data (region, Fiscal Year,
activity type, lead, quarter and sequence number codes) directly from report
-- Enter replacement site data (EPA ID, OU and Event or Enforcement Activity
Codes)
-- Run Target Maintenance Report to verify changes. File report for use in
making subsequent changes.
The HQ SCAP Coordinator and interested program offices will run National Target
Maintenance Reports as needed to review changes.
PLANNING REOUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES
Preliminary Assessments/Screening Site Inspections
Regions can only be given credit for Preliminary Assessment (PA) and Screening Site
Inspection (SSI) completions if the completion date and a decision on further activities at the site are
entered into the appropriate CERCLIS site record.
There are three decisions on further activities that must be made at the completion of the PA:
• High priority for an SI;
• Medium priority for anSI; and
• No further remedial action planned (NFRAP).
There axe two decisions on future activities that must be made at the completion of the SSI:
Recommendation for an LSI; and
No further remedial action planned (NFRAP).
Listing Site Inspection
The FY89 Listing Site Inspections (LSIs) will be the field effort to support FY90 proposals to
the NPL using the revised HRS. The re j ..Hl S Early in
listing will be developed so that the firsfllsting under the revised HRS can be
promulgated as exped1Ti tI ly’ã possible.
LSIs are not RI/FS substitutes and, consequently, the expenditures must be efficient and
focused. Two important goals are to limit technical hours for each LSI and to minimize subcontracting
expenditures. LSIs to meet SCAP planning estimates must be identified on a site specific basis.
Site Classification
Site classification is not the same as project/event lead codes. Classification of sites on the
NPL is determined by the regions upon completion of a PRP search. The identification is made based
on the number of PRPs identified and the probability of the PRPs assuming responsibility for remedial
activities at the site. NPL sites may be classified as Federal Enforcement, State Enforcement, Fund or
program Lead, and Fund or program Lead with Negotiation.
V-12
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-0 lB
Federal Enforcement sites are defined as those sites where work is being performed by the
PRP under a federal order.
Sites classified as Fund or program Lead and Fund or program Lead with Negotiation include
those sites with activities that re Federally financed and the work is being performed by EPA or the
state.
When the state takes the lead for working with the PRPs, the site is classified as State
Enforcement. State enforcement sites do not have a funded RA component
The site classification must be kept up to date. If the PRPs take over remedial activities at a site
classified as Fund, the classification should be changed to Federal Enforcement. Changes in site
classification from enforcement to fund or program lead may be appropriate based on the nonviability
of PRPs or related reasons. In these cases, the concurrence of the Director, OERR, and the Director,
OWPE, will be necessary.
Project/Event Lead Codes
Project/event lead codes are different from site classification. The lead code identifies the entity
performing the work at the site. Exhibit V-6, on the following page, shows the valid project/event lead
codes. A lead code must be placed in CERCLIS for all remedial events and enforcement activities.
The lead code for a project support activity is the same as the lead code for the activity being
supported. For example, management assistance funds to a state in support of a PRP RIJFS should be
coded as RP lead. Beginning in FY89, RI/FS and RD projects can no longer be identified as FE lead.
However, regions will not be required to change historical data on FE lead events in CERCLIS.
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 draft 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.
V-13
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
EXHIBIT V-6
PROJECT/EVENT LEAD CODES IN CERCLIS IN FY1989
Lead Definition
F Federally financed work performed by Fund/EPA
with no enforcement component
RP Potentially Responsible Party financed work
performed by the PRP under a federal order
S Federally financed work by a State with no
enforcement component - Money provided through
a cooperative agreement
SE Federally financed work performed by a State with
a state enforcement component - Money provided
through a cooperative agreement or other comparable
enforcement document
PS Potentially Responsible Party financed work
performed by PRP under a state order with
oversight paid for or conducted by EPA through a
cooperative agreement or, if oversight is not funded by EPA,
a State Memorandum of Agreement or other formal
document exists between EPA and the state
SN State financed (no Fund dollars) work performed by
the state
SR Potentially Responsible Party response under a
state order and no EPA oversight support or money
provided through a cooperative agreement and no other
formal agreement exists between EPA and the state
CG Work performed by the Coast Guard - Limited to
removals
Mixed funding (Fund/Responsible Party) work
performed by PRP under a federal decree with
an agreement that the fund will provide
reimbursement to the PRP
FE Federally financed work perfomed by Fund/EPA with
an enforcement component (No longer applies to RI/PS and
RD beginning in FY89)
Work performed by EPA using in-house resources
FF Work performed by the Federal Facility with oversight
provided by EPA and/or the State
V-14
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-OIB
Takeovers
A takeover means a change in lead for an event. For each remedial or removal event takeover,
a new CERCLIS record must be created and the first and subsequent start (FSS) and complete (FSC)
codes revised. A takeover does not create a new OU. The original CERCLIS event must be updated
to show the completion date as the date of the takeover. The start date for the new CERCLIS event is
also the date of the takeover.
The CERCLIS Event Takeover Flag is manually maintained. A “T” is used in this field to flag
the original event which has the change in lead. The new event has an event code followed by a
sequence number to indicate the original event that was taken over.
When the takeover of a remedial event occurs and work has not proceeded past the workplan
stage, credit will be given to the program taking over the lead for both a start and completion. In order
to assure credit is given to the proper program, the FSS and FSC codes should be placed with the
event which was taken over. (See Exhibit V-7 for an example of the takeover coding.) However, if a
takeover occurs alter the workplan stage then the new lead will only receive credit for a completion; the
previous lead retains credit for the start. Exhibit V-8 shows the proper placement of the FSS and FSC
codes under these circumstances. Basically the FSS code stays with the original event record and the
FSC code is placed with the new record.
EXHIBIT V-7
EVENT OR ACTIVITY TAKEOVER AT WORKPLAN STAGE
TAKEOVER PLAN ACTUAL PLAN ACTUAL
1111 EVENT LEAD FLAG START START COMP. COMP. ES. ES1 COMMENTS
01 COt F 1 88/4 7/29/88 89/1 11/30/88 SITE WIDE
01 CO2 RP COl 89/1 11/30/89 91/1 A A SITE WIDE
EXHIBIT V-8
EVENT OR ACTIVITY TAKEOVER
TAKEOVER PLAN ACTUAL PLAN ACTUAL
QI1 EVENT LEAD FLAG START START COMP. COMP. E S COMMENTS
01 COl F T 88/1 11/15/87 89/3 4/30/89 A SITE WIDE
01 C02 RP COl 89/3 4/30/89 90/2 A SITE WIDE
If a PRP takes over an R1/FS after program dollars have been obligated, unspent funds should
be immediately deobligated. If the PRPs take over the RD or RA after program funds have been
obligated, the region can retain the funds needed to provide oversight of the PRP RD or RA activities.
The remainder should be deobligated. Funds for the development of workplans to support PRP
negotiations should be funded by the Case Budget.
V-15
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
if the Fund originally obligated dollars for RD and/or RA activities and a takeover occurs,
regions will have to request a change in account number through their regional Financial Management
Officer. The activity code within the account number changes if the Agency is acting in an oversight
role as opposed to performing the response action. Chapter VI includes a discussion on the valid
activity codes for FY89.
When there is a takeover of a removal action, credit is given to the program with the original
start and the completion is credited to the program assuming the work.
Impact on Funding Status of PRP Takeover
During the development of outyear budget planning information, regions should pay particular
attention to the probability of a PRP takeover or the potential for a mixed funding response. Twenty to
twenty five percent of each region’s Federal or state lead RI/FS should result in PRP lead RDs and
RAs. Regions should look at the sites scheduled for RD and/or RA in FY91 and determine the
likelihood of a PRP takeover.
New CERCLIS codes have been established to show the probability that PRPs will assume
project lead. Each RD and/or RA scheduled to begin in FY91 should be assigned a “H” (high), “M”
(medium),”L” (low) or “U” (unknown) code based on the likelihood of PRP action. These
probabilities will only be used for the development of outyear budgets and will not be used for
operating year resource decisions. During negotiations, HQ and regions will discuss the likelihood of
PRP takeovers and targets will be adjusted accordingly.
Operable Units in Remedial and Enforcement Programs
One of the driving mechanisms for Superfund’s budgeting and planning process is the
Operable Unit (OU) concept. Confusion over the definition of OU has led to conflicting planning and
tracking methodologies among regions. Outlined below is a standard methodology for tracking OUs
on an event-specific level that must be followed by all regions.
An OU is defined by the existing NCP as “a discrete part of an entire response action that
decreases a release, threat of release or pathway of exposure” (NCP, Section 300.6). The draft NCP
defines an OU as “discrete actions that comprise incremental steps toward the final remedy.” This
means that any specific area or response may be considered an OU. Exhibit V-9 provides the ground
rules for OUs and Exhibit V- 10 provides examples of operable units for the different remedial phases.
The OU field in CERCLIS does not reflect the definitions or ground rules for operable units.
In CERCLIS, an operable unit is defined by the combination of operable unit number, event sequence
number, and the first and subsequent start and completion codes. Past the ROD stage the OU number
field in CERCLIS is only used to tie the RD and RA back to a particular ROD . For example, if you
have only one ROD, no matter how many separate plans and specifications or separate bid packages
are developed, the OU number in CERCLIS will remain “01”. In this situation, the sequence number
and first and subsequent start and completion codes would be used to delineate that, by definition,
there is more than one operable unit.
Many enforcement activities are conducted on an OU basis, e.g., negotiations and orders or
Consent Decrees. The OU number, event and event sequence number must be identified in CERCLIS
in the remedy section of the enforcement activity.
V-16
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-0 lB
EXHIBIT V-9
OPERABLE UNIT GROUNDRULES
Each OU at the RJJFS stage must result in
a ROD; subsequent RODs must address
an aspect of the remedy not developed in
the initial ROD.
• Each OU at the RD stage must result in
separate plans and specifications.
• Each OU at the RA stage must be based
on a separate bid package.
• Potentially Responsible Party, state or
EPA takeovers do not result in separate
OUs.
EXHIBIT V.10
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
There are several OU structures, as shown in Exhibit V-il including:
• one occurrence of each event;
• multiple events (RDs, RAs) from a single ROD;
• multiple events from multiple RODs.
if a site has multiple like events (e.g., RDs) within a single operable unit, CERCLIS generates
a sequence number for each event. The sequence number is dependant on the order the event is
entered into the system. if a single operable unit has multiple RDs and RAs, the only way to tie an
RD with its corresponding RA is through the systems generated sequence number. Therefore, regions
must be certain than the planning information for the RD and its RA are entered into CERCLIS at the
same time.
V-li
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-018
EXHIBIT V-li
OPERABLE UNITS AND
FIRST AND SUBSEOUENT START AND COMPLETIONS CODING
ONE OCCURRENCE OF EACH EVENT
PLAN
ACTUAL
PLAN
ACTUAL
Qfl
EVENT
START
START
COMP.
COMP.
FSC
COMMENT
01
COl
88/1
11/15/87
89/4
A
A
SITE WIDE
01
ROl
89/4
A
SITE WIDE
01
RD1
90/1
90/4
A
A
SITE WIDE
01
RA1
91/1
:::::::: ;....:::::
93/2
A
A
SITE WIDE
MULTIPLE EVENTS FROM A SINGLE ROD
PLAN ACTUAL PLAN ACTUAL
QJJ EVENT START START COMP. COMP. f. FSC COMMENT
01 CO1 88/1 11/15/87 89/4 A A SITE WIDE
01 RO1 89/4 A SITE WIDE
01 RD1 90/1 90/4 B B SOURCE
01 RA 1 91/1 93/2 B B SOURCE
01 RD2 90/3 91/2 D D GROUNDWATER
01 RA2 91/3 93/4 D D GROUNDWATER
MULTIPLE EVENTS WITH MULTIPLE RODS
PLAN ACTUAL PLAN ACTUAL
Q.LI EVENT START START COMP. COMP. ffl FSC COMMENT
01 Rh 88/1 11/15/87 89/1 B WATERLINE
01 FS1 89/1 90/1 WATERLINE
01 FS2 89/2 90/2 B WATERLINE
01 ROi 90/2 B WATERLINE
01 RD1 90/2 90/4 B B WATERLINE A
01 RD2 90/3 91/2 C C WATERLINE B
01 RA 1 91/1 93/4 B B WATERLINE A
01 RA2 91/3 90/1 C C WATERLINE B
02 COl 88/2 90/1 D D GROUNDWATER
02 ROl 91/1 D GROUNDWATER
02 RD1 90/2 91/3 C C GROUNDWATER A
02 RD2 90/4 93/3 D D GROUNDWATER B
02 RA 1 91/2 94/1 C C GROUNDWATER A
02 RA2 91/4 D D GROUNDWATER B
V-18
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-OIB
First and Subsequent Starts and Completions
Start and completion codes are used to identify and characterize the sequencing of events and
operable units. if an event does not have actual dates, the start and completion codes are determined
by the planned dates. One of the codes shown in Exhibit V-12 must be assigned to each remedial
event as it is entered into CERCLIS.
EXHIBIT V-12
FIRST AND SUBSEQUENT START AND COMPLETIONS
A = First and only event at a site
B = First of two or more events
C = Subsequent, but not final event
D = Final of two or more events.
The first and subsequent start (FSS) and first and subsequent complete (FSC) codes are based
on event start and completion dates, not the system generated sequence number. Thus the first start of
an event at a site is coded “A”. If a second like event is started, the “A” code for the first event start
must be changed to a “B” and the second like event is assigned a “D” code. If a third like event is
started, the first event remains a “B”, the second event must be changed from a “D” to “C” and the
third event is assigned a “D” code. Event completions use the same methodology. If there is one
occurrence of each event, all FSS and FSC codes are “A”.
Exhibit V-il on the previous page illustrates the use of the first and subsequent start and
completion codes. Since the FSS and FSC codes are manually maintained, it is necessary to update
these codes each time an event is added. Exhibit V-13 indicates combinations of FSSIFSC codes that
are inconsistent with the coding procedures.
EXHIBIT V-13
IMPOSSIBLE FSS AND FSC CODE COMBINATIONS
• MorethanoneA,B,orD
• AnAandB
• AnAandD
• AnAandC
• CwithoutaDandB
• BandCwithoutaD
• CandDwithoutaB
V-19
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01B
To Be Determined (TBD) Sites
Under certain circumstances, regions may not be able to identify all the sites necessary to meet
SCAP targets. This may occur for the following activities:
• First RIIFS starts; and
• Section 106 RDIRA referrals without settlement
In such cases, regions may enter planning data into TBD site records. CERCLIS provides the
capability, through the use of a pseudo-EPA identification number, to set up temporary site records as
TBDs until the actual site is identified. Following are procedures for handling SCAP TBD sites and
associated planning data in CERCLIS.
The key data field for all CERCLIS site and related records is the EPA Identification Number.
This number is twelve characters in length with the first two characters identifying the state in which
the site is located, the third position identifies it as a permanent or temporary Dun & Bradstreet
number, and the remaining nine digits being unique to a site within the state. The method of handling
TBD sites in CERCLIS must be consistent with guidance for assigning EPA Identification Numbers to
valid Superfund sites.
The procedure for assigning pseudo numbers is as follows. Each SCAP TBD site to be
entered into CERCLIS will be assigned a unique 12-character EPA Identification Number which is
constructed from regionally assigned state codes and numbers. The pseudo state codes shown in
Exhibit V- 14 for each region would be used in the first two positions of the pseudo ID.
EXHIBIT V-14
PSEUDO STATE CODES
Region Pseudo State Code
1 ZA
2 ZB
3 ZC
4 ZD
5 ZE
6 ZF
7 ZG
8 lB
9 ZJ
10 ZK
:::.L.. ::.
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 RIJFS starts
to be entered into CERCLIS. EPA Identification Numbers to be used for the three sites are as follows:
V-20
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
TBD site #1 -- ZAT982565053
TBD site #2 -- ZAT982565061
TBD site #3 -- ZAT982565079
At the time a real site is determined for TBD site #1, the site and associated data for EPA
Identification Number ZAT982565053 are deleted from the CERCLIS data base. Subsequently, the
appropriate planning data are added to the real site in the CERCLIS data base. The pseudo number,
ZAT982565053, is then recycled for future use.
Regions may 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 RIJFS start at the site to the maximum extent possible. Subsequent starts should be
scheduled even if they are not planned to begin in FY89. Even though TBDs are being used for target
setting purposes, regions must have real sites in CERCLIS which can be substituted at a later date for
the pseudo sites.
Standard Timeframes
When identifying sites for RIIFS starts, regions must provide schedules and planned
obligations for all associated core activities, including date of RA contract award and Section 106
and/or Section 107 referrals to HQ for removal and remedial activities. Exhibit V-15 is a list of some
of the core activities and their respective standard durations. Standard durations should Qjjiy be used if
more accurate estimates are not available. Following are special guidelines that should be considered
when establishing schedules for certain core activities:
RD/R.A negotiations are normally scheduled for three quarters and begin one quarter
prior to the planned ROD signature and last two quarters after the ROD is signed. If
negotiations are scheduled for a site where there is a low probability of PRP takeover or
the PRPs providing a good faith offer, shorten the RD/RA negotiations to two quarters.
A Fund-financed RD would be scheduled to begin the same quarter negotiations are
planned to be complete. If the site is a true “orphan site”, do not plan any negotiations
and schedule the Fund-financed RD to begin the quarter after the ROD is signed. If a
settlement for RD/RA is assumed to be achieved, the referral to DOJ or HQ should be
planned in the same quarter as the completion of negotiations.
The date of contract award for RA is assumed to be two quarters after the start of the
RA.
Identifying core activities and providing planned obligation estimates are important due to the
impacts these projects, especially RAs, have on outyear budgets for the program areas. The cost of
RA projects makes it imperative that scheduled start dates and planned obligations are known well in
advance of the beginning of the fiscal year. In essence, dollars associated with RA project starts are
locked in during budget formulation eighteen months prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. As a
result, as better information becomes available on project costs, dollar estimates, and project
schedules, the core activity plans should be updated and kept current in CERCLIS.
V-21
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
EXHIBIT V-iS
STANDARD TIMEFRAMES
DURATIONS
ACTIVITY ( In quarters )
PRP Searches 2
RI/FS Negotiations 2
RIIFS 7
PS to Public 6
ROD 1
RI/FS Oversight 10
FS to Public 9
ROD 1
RD/RA Negotiations (begins 1 quarter
before the end of the RI/FS and
extends 2 quarters beyond the
RI/PS completion) 3
Case Development (ends in referral) 2
Sec. 106 Settlement Referrals for Concurrence
(time at D()J) 2
Litigation or Sec. 106 RD/RA Referrals without
Settlement (ongoing cases referred to DOJ
until conclusion) 12
RD or RD Oversight 3
RAorRAOversight 10
Removal Negotiations 1
Project Support Activities
Planning requirements for project support activities (community relations, technical assistance,
state management assistance, etc.) has been changed in FY89. Only activities scheduled to begin and
funds needed in the upcoming quarter must be planned site-specifically. Out quarters may be planned
non-site specifically by event type in CERHELP. The quarterly site-specific planning of these
activities will follow the same schedule as the quarterly removal planning. Funds must be moved from
CERHELP to the site-specific CERCLIS records by the time Advice of Allowances are generated for
the upcoming quarter. Also, as was explained in the section on project/event lead codes, the lead code
for project support activities must match the lead code for the project/event being supported.
Technical Assistance Grants
The region should budget technical assistance grant (TAG) funds at Fund, PRP or Federal
Facility sites based on their knowledge of which communities may request such grants. Since many
communities may not be eligible or may decline to apply for various reasons, the region should not
assume that every NPL site will require a TAG.
V-22
-------
OSWER DirecLive 9200 3.O1B
Administrative Records
SARA specifies that Administrative Records be compiled at Superfund sites where remedial or
removal responses are planned, or are occurring, or where EPA is issuing a unilateral order or
initiating litigation. Enforcement Case Budget and program funds are available for Administrative
Record development in accordance with priorities specified by OWPE in FY88.
A total of $1.7 million is available nationally from OWPE for Administrative Record activities.
The cost for compiling an Administrative Record will vaiy generally from $5,000 to $20,000,
depending upon the number of PRPs involved, the amount of documents that must be compiled, and
the history of the site, although HQ anticipates that the cost of most Records will not exceed $12,000.
To allow for flexibility, HQ has not established firm pricing factors for Records, but rather has
allowed for a range of expected costs, depending upon the priority of the Record being funded.
Priorities for Record compilation and their expected cost ranges are listed below.
Administrative Records Priorities:
1. Planned FY89 RODs. Cost Range: $10,000-$ 12,000 each;
2. Enforcement Referrals:
- Unilateral AOs under Section 106. Cost Range: $8,000-$ 10,000 each.
- Section 106 litigation referrals to DOJ. Cost Range: $8,000-$ 10,000 each.
- Section 107 litigation referrals to DOJ. Cost Range: $8,000-$ 10,000 each.
3. Ongoing RI/FS. For this priority, Regions will either be opening a Record or adding
documents to an existing Record. Cost Range: $5,000-$ 10,000 each.
4. Planned RI/FS starts, following workplan approval. Cost Range: included in RIJFS
pricing factor.
5. Signed RODs. This priority concerns the backlog of Records not completed at sites
where RODs have already been signed. Completion of Records depends upon
available funding. Most important among these are sites where there are viable PRPs
who are not undertaking the RD or RA and where EPA may initiate Sections 106 or
107 litigation. Cost Range: $8,000-$ 10,000 each.
6. Removals where Sections 106 or 107 activity is planned or in process. Includes
completed removals. Cost Range: $5,000-$8,000 each.
All new-start or ongoing Federal and state lead projects should be funded by OERR through
the RIJFS or removal funding, or as separate Administrative Record events.
For Administrative Record compilation under priorities 1, 2, 5 and 6 above, regions should
request Case Budget funding through the non-site specific portion of CERCLIS. These priorities
represent mostly backlog funding needs which need not be shown site-specifically. Funding for
compilations under priorities 3 and 4 should be requested site-specifically, either within the RI/FS
funding request or as a separate Administrative Record funding action. A new Event code, “AR,” has
been added to CERCLIS for this work; CERFIELP already contains an “AR” code. An AR event
record should be placed in the appropriate RI/FS OU if a separate funding action is anticipated for AR
work. Otherwise, the cost of AR compilation should be included in the RI/FS or RI/PS oversight
funding request. There is no pre-set limit on a region’s spending though HQ will negotiate
redistribution of funds when necessary to fund priority projects in all regions.
V-23
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
Contract mechanisms should be also designated in CERCLIS (e.g., TES 3, & 4, 8(a) minority
contracts). Regions are strongly encouraged to use TES or other contractors to develop records
management procedures for administrative records and to move to contracts with 8(a) firms to perform
ongoing maintenance and compilation tasks.
PRP Removal
For non-NPL sites, PRP searches should be initiated as soon as a removal candidate has been
identified. The PRP search should be completed before most non-time critical removals, and at least
concurrently with time critical removal actions so that negotiations for Administrative Orders (AO) can
occur before the start of the removal, if negotiations are unsuccessful, issuance of a Unilateral
Administrative Order should be considered. PRP searches also support possible cost recovery actions.
Regions are required to report both planned and actual PRP search start and completion dates in
CERCLIS.
Notice to owners, operators and other identified PRPs should be given and negotiations
conducted before the removal is initiated in every instance unless time does not allow. For certain
large removals which represent major response efforts, 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 administrative orders (AOs) at every removal action where viable PRPs
have been identified, time permitting. It is expected that AOs (unilateral or on consent) will be issued
at 33 percent of all sites where removals are undertaken. In some cases, a unilateral order can be
converted to a consent order, but this should be done without delaying PRP response. Oversight costs
should be taken into account in negotiations, particularly in large removals.
Once PRP lead removals have begun, EPA should have an active oversight role, including on-
scene presence. Contractor assistance is available if needed. Where PRPs are not complying with the
order, regions should be prepared to quickly move forward with Fund-financed response and seek
treble damages during cost recovery actions. When appropriate, regions may seek judicial action for
preliminary relief to compel PRP response.
Where PRPs comply generally, but violate terms (deadlines, etc.) of the order, regions should
be prepared to enforce the terms of the order via stipulated penalties, statutory penalties, or other
sanctions. When unilateral AOs are issued and not complied with, treble damages should be sought
during cost recovery (unless there was a viable reason for PRPs not to conduct the work) or on a
limited number, a Section 106 referral. Regions should track the PRPs compliance status in
CERCLIS. Regions must also develop administrative records to accompany their actions at removal
sites.
Pre-RJJFS Enforcement Activity
For sites likely to be added to the NPL, PRP searches should start concurrently with the
Listing Site inspection (LSI) or at the latest, initiation of the listing process.
The PRP search should be managed -- including follow up, civil investigator assistance, and
Office of Regional Counsel review -- to assure that: (1) PRPs, particularly generators, are identified
early, (2) general notice is issued well before RIJFS special notice to enable PRPs to organize, (3)
information related to PRPs is obtained months before the R1/FS special notice, and (4) special notice
is issued over 90 days before the planned RJJFS obligation date. Information requests should be
issued at least two quarters before general notice and must be followed up to assure they are as
V-24
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
comprehensive as possible. 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, special notice letters, and demand letters in CERCLIS. Copies of
notice letters should be sent to HQ.
PRP searches should be completed prior to negotiations and should be planned enough in
advance to avoid delaying a scheduled RI/FS start date. In addition, costs for past response actions,
such as removals should be documented in advance and included in RI/FS negotiations. Regions
should be prepared to move quickly through the negotiation process. This can be accomplished
through:
• Providing a draft order and statement of work for the RJ/FS with the special notice; and
• Establishing interim milestones to judge whether real progress is being made. These
should be shared with the negotiating parties.
The regions have the option of starting discussions with PRPs before, as well as during the
initial 60-day moratorium period.
RI/FS Settlement and Oversight
Settlements with PRPs for RJ/FS are typically accomplished through an AO or in rare
circumstances by consent decree (CD). The former is preferred. In any case, the settlement document
should include either a work- plan prepared by EPA using Case Budget funds or a detailed Statement
of Work with a workplan to be developed according to EPA guidance manuals. A well-defined
schedule which lists deliverables and milestones should also be included.
Under SARA, EPA is required to use third party assistance in oversight of PRP lead Rl/FS
through Technical Enforcement Support (TES), other Federal agencies (e.g.,Corps of Engineers) or
states. Oversight resources are obtained through the Case Budget process. At the time of settlement a
detailed oversight plan should be developed which identifies in-house and extramural support needs.
Oversight should include active field oversight as well as desktop review of engineering reports and
other deliverables. Oversight must be tracked and billed to PRPs. In addition, regions must ensure
compliance with the cleanup standards in Section 121 for ongoing and new PRP lead RI/FS.
Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) must keep up with progress on PRP lead RJ/FS as if it were an
EPA contractor performing the work. Where delays or inadequacies are noted, prompt action,
including enforcement actions, where appropriate, should be taken. Regions must maintain the PRP
compliance status in CERCLIS.
Pre-RD/RA Enforcement Activity -- RDJRA Negotiations and Oversight
Prior to completion of the draft FS, regions should undertake considerable planning and
review, including (1) review of PRP search information for completeness; (2) consideration, where
appropriate, of mixed funding and de minimis settlement options and discussions with PRPs before
the special notice; (3) documentation of past costs (e.g., R1/FS) for inclusion in RD/RA negotiations;
(4) preparation of a special notice letter and accompanying draft CD; and (5) preparation for issuance
of a Section 106 unilateral administrative order (AO) setting up treble damages where the case does not
settle and there are viable PRPs, and referral of a §106 judicial action (e.g., for any site that does not
settle and for which there are not funds for RD/RA.)
Special notice for RD/RA should be planned and issued concurrent with the release of the FS to
the public. PRPs will have 60 days in which to submit a settlement proposal after receiving notices. If
a good faith proposal is submitted in that timeframe, another 60-day period follows for negotiations.
In order to proceed through negotiations expeditiously, regions should prepare a draft CD early in the
V-25
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
process, and establish interim milestones in the RD/PA negotiation process. 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 Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (AA SWER).
All settlements for RD/RA, under SARA, should be in the form of CDs. While SARA allows
EPA to perform RD work during the special notice moratorium, as a matter of policy this should be
avoided unless there are extenuating circumstances.
jj sites with Records of Decision (RODs) should be evaluated for viable PRPs that may be
willing to settle. It is expected that RD/PA negotiations will occur at about 80 percent of the sites.
Where negotiations are unsuccessful and there are viable PRPs who could fund the RA, a unilateral
AO requiring implementation of RD/PA (or in cases where RD has begun, for implementation of RA
only) may be issued to encourage settlement and set up the disincentives and penalties and/or treble
damages. AOs are to be issued prior to bringing Section 106 judicial actions. Approximately 40
percent of the RODs should be candidates for AO issuance. Where there is a partial settlement, actions
against viable non-settlers should be pursued promptly .
Oversight of PRP lead RD/PA can be performed by TES, REM, ARCS, or other Federal
agencies. Regions should seek payment of oversight costs in all such settlements, as well as past costs
of RI/FS and other removal response costs. The status of the PRFs compliance with the AO or CD
must be kept up-to-date in CERCLIS.
Section 106 Judicial Activity
Referrals for Section 106 action for RD/PA are an integral part of the Superfund Enforcement
program because there is not enough Fund money to clean up all NPL sites. Given the number of
RODs signed in FY88 and scheduled for FY89 even assuming a significant settlement rate, many sites
will go without funding after the budgeted number of RDs and RAs are funded. These are presumed
to be Section 106 judicial action referrals.
For PRP lead RI/FS, regions should plan that, absent settlement, these sites will be referred as
Section 106 judicial actions. In addition, on Program lead RJ/FS, regions should expect that where
there are viable PRPs, absent settlement or funding, these sites will be referred as Section 106 actions.
Section 106 actions are expected to become easier, given review of remedial decisions on the record,
and the general success in motions for summary judgment on liability.
Cost Recovery
Cost recovery actions are one of the highest Enforcement program priorities in FY89. For
each site ready for cost recovery (each completed removal, completed RI/FS, and each RA started),
regions should have a completed PRP search and information about the viability of the PRPs; funds
obligated/expended; removal, RI/PS and RD completion dates and RA start dates; and possible statute
of limitations dates. The regions should have strategies that include the following elements:
• Where there are viable PRPs, costs should be documented and a demand letter sent as
soon as possible;
• Referrals for all removals greater than $200K, RI/PS and RDs must be planned in order
to be filed in court within one year, but in no event later than three years, from the date
of completion, unless there was a Section 104(c)(1)(C) waiver or there clearly will be
physical initiation of on-site construction of the PA within three years;
V-26
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-0 lB
Referrals for remedial activities should be planned in the year the RA began. If an
R1/FS referral was conducted separately or there are no unreimbursed past costs, a
referral should be initiated when RA funds have been expended;
• Where there is a partial settlement, an action against viable non-settlers should be
pursued promptly; and treble damages should be pursued;
• Based upon relevant factors including ongoing case load, mandatory new referrals, and
resources, the regions must develop and implement a strategy that includes follow-up
on some cases less than $200K (referrals, arbitrations, etc.); and
• Close Out memorandums should be initiated for all cases when a decision not to pursue
some or all costs has been made. The date of the Close Out memorandum and the
funds that will not be recovered should be entered into CERCLIS.
Where there are not viable PRPs, regions must document this conclusion. Particularly for
large RAs, the PRP search is to be reviewed and upgraded as necessary.
Negotiation of Interagency Agreements or other Federal agency compliance agreements should
include a provision for recovery of past Fund expenditures, including EPA oversight costs.
As part of cost recovery management and preparation for civil referrals, regions should plan
upgrading of PRP searches, assembly of administrative records, cost documentation, and demand
letters. In addition, planning for RI/FS and RDIRA 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 State Enforcement (SE) leads where there is
Federally financed work performed by the state with a state enforcement component; work
financed by the PRP under a state order with oversight paid for or conducted by EPA (PS-
lead) and work financed by the PRP under a state order and no EPA oversight support or
money is provided (SR). Funds for state oversight are provided through cooperative
agreement (CA) or other comparable enforcement document. While it is recognized that
information at SR lead sites is difficult to obtain, regions are requested to report, through
CERCLIS, any information they have on these sites, particularly if it may contribute to the
175 and 200 RA start goals.
V-27
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-0 lB
CHAPTER VI - FINANCIAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
The primaiy focus of this chapter is to discuss the impact of the SCAP process on the regional
operating budget and AOA.
The planned obligations identified through the SCAP process are the basis for the AOA issued
by the Office of the Comptroller. No monies will be issued to the region through the AOA
process unless the appropriate obligation and commitment data are reflected in
CERCLIS.
SCAP’S RELATIONSHIP TO ANNUAL REGIONAL BUDGET
The SCAP process is the planning mechanism used by the Superfund program to identify pre-
remedial, remedial, removal and enforcement funding needs for the fiscal year. The planned
obligations included in the fourth quarter SCAP update (July) form the basis for the regional budgets
for the next fiscal year.
The annual regional operating plan, and the associated budget, are a result of the HQ and
regional negotiations on the proposed program budgets. Though regions are required to operate within
their final negotiated annual operating budget, adjustments within this budget can be made during the
fiscal year.
The actual allocation of funds is done through the Agency’s Phase III Operating Plan. This
plan is submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for apportionment of funds. After 0MB
review and concurrence, the Operating Plan is submitted to the Congress for approval of significant
reprogramming of funds.
Prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, each region will be given a proposed budget allocation
by program area. Final budgets will be developed upon completion of the fourth quarter negotiations
between HQ and the regions. Planned obligations for regional activities must fall within the total
identified budget levels, and should be shown by entering “approved” in the funding priority status
data field. Regions are not required to plan their obligations to meet the budget development criteria
for the separate activities. Funding needs above the HQ proposed total budget level must be
designated as “alternate”. This will allow HQ to see the regional funding priorities and what activities
will not be performed as a result of lack of funds. HQ will not initiate negotiations with a region until
the funds requested are within the proposed total budget levels.
Following is an explanation of the criteria used to develop the regional budgets.
Pre-Remedial Annual Regional Budget
In FY89, the outputs and dollars available for the pre-remedial program were reduced from the 7
FY88 levels, areexp ttn b reduced fiirthe ji f ’9O . The proposed pre-remedial budget for
PA/SI was established based on the regional PA/SI targets. After negotiation, the final regional pre-
remedial budgets are higher than the outputs being produced.
vI-1
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-0 lB
Remedial Annual Regional Budget
The total Superfund budget was reduced by Congress in FY89. These cuts were taken in the
remedial action budget. The plan is to fund remedial action projects as they are ready to proceed. With
this strategy, funds are available for those remedial action projects whose schedules are most certain --
those ready to start in the beginning of the year. All cuts in the RA budget will, therefore, be taken on
projects scheduled to begin in the fourth quarter.
This strategy will be re-evaluated at mid-year to determine whether projects of environmental
significance that would otherwise be ready to go will be slipped to next fiscal year in favor of less
significant projects. Adjustments may be made at this point, both within and between regional RA
budgets.
During the past three years, the cost of R1/FS for both operable units and for the whole site
have almost doubled. One of the reasons for the continually escalating costs is that regional managers
are paying insufficient attention to cost control. Another reason is the incremental funding of RIJFS.
FY89 marks the second year of a three year initiative to ensure that no RJJFS projects are incrementally
funded. Regional R1/FS budgets will be established during SCAP negotiations, and regions will be
accountable for managing their agreed upon outputs within the final budget.
HQ will use the following procedures and ground rules to insure that RI/FS full funding and
cost control initiatives are implemented within the budget ceiling:
• Fully fund (to project completion) all R1/FS yielding RA starts by the end of FY91.
These RIJFS projects will not be included in the calculations for the regional allocation
of the FY90 budget.
• Fund only FY89 needs of other projects started prior to FY89. The balance of the
amount needed to complete these projects will be provided in FY90.
• Provide an average of $500,000 for first and subsequent operable unit starts in FY89.
An additional $250,000 average will be provided in FY90. Total project costs will be
limited to an average of $750,000 over the two year period. Total site costs will be
limited to an average of $1.1 million.
• A small number of R1/FS have total projected costs in excess of $3.0 million. The
budget figures include FY89 “minimum” needs for these projects, as identified by the
regions. These projects will be addressed during the HOJregional negotiations.
The criteria used to develop the other major portions of the regional budget are shown in
Exhibit VI-1 on the following page.
Removal Annual Regional Budget
The national removal budget has grown slightly over FY88 to reflect the increased cost of
removal actions. In FY89 each region was given a preliminary annual removal budget. Ninety-five
percent of the total removal budget was distributed to the regions based on an average of previous
years (FY85-FY88) allocations. The remaining 5% of the budget will be held in HQ as a regional
contingency. Funds for management of the mini-ERCS contracts will also be allocated to the regions
in FY89.
VI-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-0 lB
EXHIBIT VI- !
CRITERIA FOR PROPOSED REGIONAL
REMEDIAL BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITY CRITERIA
RI/FS . Average HOOK for first and
subsequent starts in FY89
• Fully fund all RIJFS yieldin
RA starts by the end of FY9
• Fund FY89 needs of other
projects started prior to FY89
RD • Based on projects and dollars
in CERCLIS. Projects without
estimates were budgeted at
$75 OK
RA • Based on dollars and schedules
in CERCLIS.
PROJECT SUPPORT • Based on a share of each
region’s remedial targets and
dollars
TECHNICAL • Based on the number of NPL
ASSISTANCE GRANT sites with remedial work on-
going in FY89
CORE PROGRAM • Based on actual and planned
COOP. AGREEMENT Core Program Cooperative
Agreement obligations in FY88
PRP RD/RA • Based on the region’s share of
OVERSIGHT PRP RD and RA projects
ARCS • Based on the number of ARCS
MANAGEMENT contracts projected for each
region in FY89
Enforcement Case Budget -- Annual Regional Budget
Case Budget (CB) funds will be apportioned to the regions based on the annual targets and
measures and the region’s financial planned amounts reflected in the CERCLIS and CERHELP Site
and non-site data bases. Each activity has a pricing factor that is used during the allocation process.
These factors are itemized in Exhibit VI-2. Activities whose duration is less than one year are fully
funded (e.g., PRP search, negotiations, removal oversight, long-term response, Section 107
administrative.) Activities with a duration exceeding one year are funded quarterly (e.g., RI/FS
Oversight. Section 106 and 107 litigation.) Other priority activities (administrative record, Federal
Facility NPL listing support, state management assistance, and preliminary natural resource surveys)
are added to this calculation. Allocations will be reviewed and adjusted quarterly based on changing
targets and the number of quarters remaining in the current fiscal year.
VI-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-018
EXHIBIT VI-2
OWPE FY89 EXTRAMURAL PRICING FACTORS
(in thousands)
ACTIVITY
FULL
PRICING
FACTOR
QUARTERLY
PRICING
FACTOR*
DURATION
(in Quarters)
PRP SEARCH (NPL) 50.0 3
PRP SEARCH (REMOVAL) 1.3 1
§107 REFERRAL 112.0 8.0 14
§107 ADMINISTRATION 12.0 2
RD/RA NEGOTIATIONS 30.0 3
§106 REFERRAL (COMBINED*106/ 107) 280.0 20.0 14
RI/FS NEGOTIATIONS 50.0 - 2
RI/FS OVERSIGHT 200.0 20.0 10
SUBSEQUENT RI/FS OVERSIGHT 200.0 20.0 10
NPL REMOVAL OVERSIGHT 50.0 3
SUBSEQ NPL REMOVAL OVERSIGHT 50.0 3
NON-NPL REMOVAL OVERSIGHT 50.0 1
SUBSEQ NON-NPL REMOVAL OVERSIGHT 50.0 - 1
FF RI/FS OVERSIGHT 200.0 20.0 10
FF RD OVERSIGHT 150.0 . 3
FF RA OVERSIGHT 300.0 30.0 10
lAG NEGOTIATIONS 50.0 2
PRELIM. NATURAL RESOURCE SURVEY 6.0 . 1
NBAR 3.0 2
* Activities of more than 4 Quarters duration may not receive full funding in FY89.
• TES 3 & 4 contracts will fund ongoing RD/RA oversight.
Vl-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3 - .O1B
SCAP’S RELATIONSHIP TO THE AOA
Within the SCAP process, obligations are planned either site or non-site specifically. That is,
some planned obligations are associated with a specific site while other planned obligations are
estimates of total funding required for an activity within a region. The CERCLIS and CERI-IELP data
bases have been designed to accommodate site- and non-site specific planning. Exhibit VI-3 lists the
events and enforcement activities for which obligations are planned on a site vs. non-site basis.
EXHIBIT VI-3
SITE VS. NON-SITE SPECIFIC PLANNED OBLIGATIONS
Site Specific Non-Site Specific t
Community Relations ARCS Contractor Management
Design Assistance Administrative Record Backlog
Expedited Response Actions Aerial Surveys
Federal Facility Oversight Core Program Cooperative
Forward Planning Agreements
Geophysical Support! Geophysical Support!
Topographical Mapping Topographical Mapping
(Over $50K or funded through (Less than $50K)
lAG or CA) Mini-ERCS Management
Litigation Support PRP Searches
Long Term Response Preliminaiy Assessment!
Management Assistance Site Inspection
Negotiations Preliminary Natural Resource
-- lAG Surveys
-- RD/RA Records Management
-- RI/FS State Enforcement Management
Operation and Maintenance Assistance
Oversight of PRP: Training
--RI/PS
--RD
--RA ________
-- Removals
RA
pi * For these activities, regions
RI/PS must enter the number of sites
Removals involved and the contract
Technical Assistance vehicle.
Technical Assistance Grants
Workplans
Effl1U _ L - - -11-”—--”- - . ___ i __ i
YI-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-0 lB
In addition to the site and non-site specific planning, obligations are also planned and budgets
developed on a program specific basis. The Budget Source field in CERCLIS identifies which
program pays for the planned events/activities. Exhibit VI-4 presents the budget source codes
associated with each program.
EXHIBIT VI -4
N = HQ Enforcement
M
= HQ Remedial
It is important that regions accurately identify the budget source since each program develops
an annual budget and each program has a separate AOA process. Exhibit VI-5 identifies the major
events/activities and the appropriate budget source codes, depending on the project/event lead, for
planned obligations. In general, TES 3 and 4 funds should be given a budget source of “N” instead of
“E”. Funds for temporary or permanent relocations conducted by FEMA should be given a budget
source of “M” or ‘D” after the [ AG is signed and funds are transferred to HQ through the change
request procedures. Funds for mixed funding RDs and RAs are obligated by HQ and should have a
budget source of ‘D”. It is important that the regions maintain this budget source code to eliminate
potential impacts on the regional AOA.
CERHELP includes an AOA system that identifies the Comptroller approved AOA. HQ enters
the official AOA numbers. Use of this data file allows regions to compare their aggregate planned
obligations, provided on the AOA report, with the HQ version of the “Official AOA”. If discrepancies
between the two occur, regions must initiate contacts with the appropriate program office and the
Office of Program Management (OPM) to determine the reason for the variance.
BUDGET SOURCE CODES
E = Enforcement
V = Removal
R = Remedial
= HQ Removal
D
VT-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3.0 lB
EXHIBIT VI-S
ARCS Management
Core Program Cooperative Agreement
RA cal)
Seetion 106
Section 107
S ion 106/107
Mini-ERCS Management
N oiinn ndmiino davdnnment
FE,SE
FE,SE
FE,SE
S
FE,SE
FE,SE
F,S,FE,SE,MR
PS,RP
F.S,FE.SE,MR
PS,RP
F.S.FE,SE.MR
PS,RP
F,S,MR
PS.RP
F,S,SE
PS,RP
F,S,FE,SE,MR
PS.RP
F,S.FE,SE
PS.RP
F.S,MR
PS,RP
F,FE.MR
RP
F.S,MR
PS,RP
PS,RP
E. N
E,N
E,N
R
E,N
E,N
R
E,N
R
E, N
R
E,N
R
E.N
R
E, N
R
E,N
R
E.N
R
E, N
R
E.N
R
E,N
E,N
WHO PAYS FOR WHAT
EVENT/ACTIVITY
CERCLIS/CERHELP
EVENTIACTIVI1Y CODES
LEAD
BUDGET
SOURCE
S
F
S
FE,SE
FE,SE
FE.SE
R
R
R
R
E, N
E,N
E,N
V
AR
Sc
ER
ES/U
Sx
Sv
CL
PM
RN
FN
AN
PA
RP
PS
AS
AR
CR
FP
GS
HA
LR
cM
PN
--
Removal
RUF
RD/RA
PA/SI
PR1’ Searches
Removal
Remedial
Project Suppost
Aerial Surveys
Administrative R rd
Community Relalions
Design Assistance
Forward Plamung
Geophysical Support
Health Assessment
Long Term Response
Management Assistance
Operation & Maintenance
Preliminary Natural Resource Surveys
‘Guidance on assigning leads for project suppoit activities is found in Chapter V
vI-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
EXHIBIT VI-5
WHO PAYS FOR WHAT (Contd)
EVENT/ACTIVITY
CERCL ISICERHELP
EVENT/ACTIVITY CODES
LEAD
BUDGET
SOURCE
PublicCommentonDeletionPackage
PD
F,S,MR
RP,PS
R
E,N
State Enforcement Management Assistance
1
PS
E,N
Techmcal Assistance
TA
F,S,FE,SE.MR
PS,RP
R
E.N
Tcchmcal Assistance Grants
TO
ALL
R
Topographical Mapping
10
F,S,FE,SE,MR
PS,RP
R
E,N
Removal
Contingency
NPL
Non-NFL
Overaight of PRP removals
RV,IR,PR
RC
NP
NA
RV,IR .PR,OS
P .S
F
F
F
RP
V
V
V
V
E,N
RIJFS
Ovemight of PRP or Federal Facility RIJFS
RI.FS,CO
RI,FS.CO
F,S,FE,SE
RP,PS,FF
R
E,N
RD
OversightofPRPorFederal Facihty RD
RD
RD
F,S
MR
RP,PS,FF
MR
R
D
E,N
R
RA
Oversight of PRP or Federal Facihty RA
RA
RA
F.S
MR
RP,PS,FF
MR
R
D
E
R
Records Management
RM
-
E,N,R
Temporary Relocation
Remedial
Removal
1R
1R
F,S,MR
F,S
R
V
Guidance on assigning leads for project support activities is found in Chapter V
VJ-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-018
Regional Allowances
In FY89, the Office of the Comptroller will issue five allowances to the regions. They are:
• RA (site-specific site allowance);
• RD (site-specific site allowance);
• Removal (non-site specific site allowance);
• Other remedial with an RJ/FS ceiling (regular or “0” Allowance); arid
• Enforcement (regular allowance).
OERR and the Office of the Comptroller are still working on changing the Advice of Allowance
structure. Regions will be informed of any changes prior to implementation..
The following sections explain how these allowances are developed and the flexibility available in the
Advice of Allowance structure.
The AOA Process
The Office of the Comptroller issues the quarterly AOA usually on the third working day of
each quarter. The AOA is based on the Phase ifi Operating Plan which identifies projected obligations
for each quarter of the fiscal year. The Phase ifi Operating Plan for FY89 is based on the final SCAP
plans developed in the fourth quarter of FY88. Funds available for obligation, however, are limited to
projected needs for the upcoming quarter. Regional AOAs are based on approved planned obligations
contained in the CERCLIS and CERHELP data bases four weeks prior to the start of each quarter. An
AOA report, which reflects the final SCAP plan for the upcoming quarter, will be generated from
CERCLIS during the ninth week of the quarter. If the planned and actual obligations and
commitments exceed the regional budget or the RIIFS ceiling, the region will be
contacted and the AOA will not be issued until CERCLIS is revised. The HQ Budget
and Forecasting Section (BFS) forwards the planned obligation totals for regional response activities to
the Financial and Administrative Management Section (FAMS). After review, the FAMS sends the
AOA request to the AA OSWER. From the AA’s Office, the AOA request is forwarded to the Office
of the Comptroller where the AOA is prepared and sent to the Regional Financial Officer. HQ will
enter the final AOA into the CERHELP AOA system. Only projects planned in CERCLIS can be
funded by the AOA. OWPE has a similar process for the Enforcement AOA. Exhibit VI-6 illustrates
the AOA process.
VI-9
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-018
EXHIBIT VI-6
THE ADVICE OF ALLOWANCE PROCESS
4 Weeks
before the
Quarter Ends
lApproved planned obligation\
data are pulled from
CERCLIS/CERHELP
r
(HQ program\
offices review
the data J
( Resources management staff review approved planned \.
obligations, compares them to the annual regional budget.
If the planned and actual obligations and commitments
I do not exceed the regional budget or the RI/FS ceiling,
the AOA request is prepared.
-
C Assistant
I Administrator’s
I office reviews
Comptroller issues
official AOA
on
Regions obligate
funds to projects
planned in SCAP as
reflected in CERCLIS
VI- 10
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-018
The HQ Budget Division monitors obligations against the AOA weekly. If a region exceeds
any of the allowances, the RI/FS ceiling or a site-specific RD or RA allocation, the HQ Budget
Division will notify the region and request resolution of the overcommitment/overobligation. The
region then has until the end of the current month to rectify the overcommitment/obligation or shut
down procedures will be initiated.
if the region does not submit a change request, decommit or deobligate funds, or effect
corrections in FMS as necessary, the HQ Budget Division will initiate reprogramming from the
region’s regular or other remedial allowance. Repeated violations for site or allowance allocations may
result in partial or total withdrawal of the region’s site allowance.
As is standard Agency policy, if a region exceeds either the regular or site allowance, the HQ
Budget Division will withdraw obligational authority in accordance with existing procedures. During
the last quarter of the year, the HQ Budget Division will work with the regions and OSWER as
necessary to ensure that all allowances and obligations are aligned prior to year-end closing.
AOA Flexibility
Flexibility exists within the AOA structure to shift funds both within and between allowances.
Funds can be shifted within the other remedial allowance and within the R1/FS ceiling. However, the
RI/FS ceiling cannot be exceeded without HQ approval of a SCAP amendment.
Funds saved within the site-specific RD account due to PRP takeovers, or due to bids coming
in under the previously projected amount, will generally be approved by HQ for use within the region
consistent with the following priorities:
• Classic emergencies;
• Funds necessary to conduct oversight of PRP settlements;
• Other RD/RA projects; and
o Removal actions at NPL sites.
Regions must submit a SCAP amendment and AOA change request to HQ prior to shifting the
RD funds saved.
Given that Congress reduced RA funding for FY89, approval of the redirection of RA funds to
other program needs is highly unlikely, If a region is able to save RA money (through a PRP
takeover, or a bid coming in under budget) HQ will look favorably toward directing that savings to
other environmentally significant remedial actions within the region, after consideration, however, of
national environmental needs, and the national needs to meet the 175 statutoiy mandated RA starts.
Once again, a SCAP amendment and change request must be approved before the RA funds can be
redirected.
AOA Change Request Procedures
Regions are required to operate within their quarterly AOA, RJ/FS ceiling and their annual
regional budget. They are also responsible for managing the funds issued in the AOA. HQ approval
is not required to shift funds between projects within the other remedial, RIIFS ceiling, removal or
enforcement portions of the AOA. Any shifts of funds between allowances, any addition or deletion
of funds from any of the allowances and a planned increase to the RJ/FS ceiling requires HQ approval
through the SCAP amendment and adjustment procedures. (See Chapter V for more detail on
VI-!’
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-018
amendments and adjustments.) CERCLIS must be revised to reflect shifts in funds between projects
and AOA change requests.
Each change request (EPA Form 2410-20) should clearly identify the changes being made to
the allowance. If the change is in the RD or RA allowances, the site/spill identification number, OU,
and event must be on the change request form. Each change request should equal a net change of zero
dollars and provide an explanation as to why funds are being shifted. The change request must be
signed by authorized personnel in the region’s financial office. The change request is submitted to the
appropriate OSWER Office Director by memorandum from the Regional Division Director and a copy
of the change request should be sent to the Superfund Branch Chief in the HQ Budget Division. The
site-specific record in CERCLIS should be revised at this time. After OSWER approval, the change
request is submitted to the Office of the Comptroller for review and execution of the revised AOA.
Regions should not initiate any obligations against the change until confirmation is received from the
Office of the Comptroller.
Change requests submitted to HQ can be processed and a revised allowance issued mid-month
or the first of the next month. In emergency situations, the Office of the Comptroller can issue a hand
allowance as soon as the change request is approved.
Remedial Financial Planning for AOA
The AOA for the remedial program is issued by the Office of the Comptroller on a site and non-
site specific basis and is broken down into the following categories:
• RD (site-specific);
• RA (site-specific); and
• Other remedial.
The other remedial allowance includes RI/FS, site specific and non-site specific program and
project support activities, and oversight of PRP-lead RDs and/or RAs. Site-specific planned
obligations are entered directly into CERCLIS in the appropriate event record for the site. At this time,
the planned obligation date, amount, contractor vehicle, budget source and priority funding status are
to be entered. The regional other remedial AOA is the total of the approved site specific or non-site
specific planned obligations in CERCLIS and CERHELP with a budget source code of “R”. When the
other remedial allowance is issued a ceiling will be placed on the funds that can be obligated for new
and ongoing RJ/FS projects. This ceiling cannot be raised without HQ approval. HQ will monitor the
status of planned and actual RI/FS obligations on a monthly basis. CERCLIS will automatically
aggregate the site-specific and non-site specific planned obligations for the purpose of developing and
issuing the AOA and establishing the RI/FS ceiling.
Unlike the R1/FS, the Office of the Comptroller issues the AOA for RD and RA activities on a
site-specific basis. The AOAs for RD and RA are pulled directly from the approved site-specific
planned obligations in CERCLIS and are issued by site name, site/spill identifier and dollar amount.
A region will not receive funds above its annual regional budget unless a SCAP amendment
and 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 and the RIIFS ceiling or the AOA will not be issued.
If a region receives funds in their AOA which were not obligated during the quarter received,
the relevant planned obligation data in CERCLIS must be changed. At the end of each quarter HQ will
review the AOA funds remaining, commitments and obligations made and planned obligation data. If
VI- 12
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-OIB
AOA funds were not committed or obligated and the planned obligation data were not changed, HQ
will take the following actions:
• Reduce the next quarter’s AOA for other remedial funds by the amount that was not
committed or obligated; or
• Request that regions follow the Office of the Comptroller’s change request procedures
to return RD or RA funds to HQ.
The Financial Summary Report (SCAP- 15) will be used to evaluate the status of the other remedial,
RD and removal allowances. The Projected Fund-Financed Remedial Projects Report (SCAP -3) will
be used for the RA allowance.
To the maximum extent p acticable, regions should plan for mixed funding requirements prior
to the development of the annual regional budget. However, if a request for pre-authorization is
received and funds are required during the current fiscal year, regions must identify the source of the
requested funds from within their annual budget. Since the authority to obligate Fund monies to mixed
funding activities has not been delegated to the regions, the change request procedures will have to be
followed to return approved pre-authorized funds to HQ and the budget source for the planned
obligation will have to be revised in CERCLIS.
Removal Financial Planning for AOA
Five weeks prior to the start of the SCAP current year quarter, the region prepares a plan for
the upcoming quarter using the quarterly regional budget as a guide. This plan serves as the basis for
issuing the Removal AOA. This plan includes new actions scheduled to begin during the upcoming
quarter as well as ongoing actions where additional funds are needed. The region then has to decide,
in the context of its remaining budget for the year, how much it can afford to do during the quarter.
The region must also plan, in the non-sitelincident portion of CERCLIS, an adequate contingency for
emergency actions.
OWPE CASE BUDGET PROCESS
This section describes the Case Budget (CB) strategy, financial planning requirements,
budget/AOA, allocations, contract mechanisms including delegations, activities/pricing factors and
integration of CERCLIS and Technical Enforcement Support Work Assignment Tracking System
(TESWATS) for FY89. Exhibit VI-7 shows the interaction between the regional and HQ
responsibilities for CB data flow.
The Case Budget Allocation
The CB allocation is the approved funding for enforcement activities/events identified in
CERCLIS or CERHELP as having a Financial Budget Source “E” or “N”. The allocation is
comprised of three Budget/AOA types: 1) TES 3 & 4 2) Non-TES; and 3) TES 5+. The TES 3 & 4
type is a budget whose funding remains in HQ for obligation and is available to the regions based on
an allocation of contract capacity (Financial Budget Source “N”). The Non-TES and TES 5+ types are
an AOA transferred to the region for obligation (Financial Budget Source “E”).
VI- 13
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-0 lB
EXHIBIT VI-7
CASE BUDGET DATA FLOW
REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS
RESPONSIBILITIES RESPONSIBILITIES
—MAY SCAP/SPMf ’
CALCULATE
TARGETS ALLOCATIONS
& I TO REGIONS
MEASURES
SCAP CASE
BUDGET
-T S3&4
: SN ES
REVIEW OF
REGIONAL
C REQUEST;
POSSIBLE M
ADJUSTMENT TO
DOLLARS AND/OR
E CONTRACT
NIS
—JULY/
AUG NEGOTIATIONS R NEGOTIATIONS
1 ,
ENTER “APR”
FOR DOLLARS
WITHIN
ALLOCATION,
“ALT’ FOR ALL
4
I ENTRY OF
NON-TES
OBLIGATIONS
__I—.
(C.As, IAGs,POs,
REM, ETC.)
C.)
TESWATS ENTRY 0
— ____
s.
I ADJUSTMENT
I OF CASE
I BUDGET PLANS
TS*
C
L
I
S
LNOiii ’ICAiIOIN i )
REGIONS OF:
- NON-TES1... .AOA (sent
- TES 5+ J Regions)
- TES 3 & J_Fundlng
Level (Held
at HQ)
* TS
tol
VI- 14
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 34MB
Financial Planning Requirements
The following guidance is provided to assist the region in fulfilling the CB strategy and to
identify needs not addressed by the average pricing factors. Financial planning data will be entered in
both the CERCLIS and CERHELP data bases.
There is a growing disparity between the amount of dollars the regions have obligated/tasked
and the amount that has been disbursed (outlayed). There are many factors that have contributed to
this problem; progress of response by PRPs, obligating/tasking amounts in excess of requirements for
the current fiscal year (i.e., not adhering to quarterly funding methodology), and obligating/tasking
oversight assignments prior to the signing of settlement documents. These actions have contributed to
both a contract capacity problem and the realtime disbursement (utilization) of CB funding.
The region must review the financial status of each ongoing Work Assignment (WA) (i.e.,
approved budget hours/dollars and expected outlays by the end of FY88) prior to requesting additional
incremental funding for FY89. The total carryover needs for FY89 for TES 3 and 4 (i.e., total WAs
issued in FY88 [ approved budgets] - total estimated outlays in FY88 = total carryover for FY89) will
be posted in the non-site specific data base as a first quarter planned amount. The carryover will be
entered as an “Other” activity (Financial Budget Source “N”), using the financial comment field to
identify the record as TES 3 or 4 carryover. In addition, new start activities must be analyzed to
determine whether quarterly (incremental) or full funding is appropriate, depending on the type of
assignment.
It is acknowledged that there are sites where, due to their complexity or size, the application of
average pricing factors results in a substantial underestimation of required resources. To address this
issue in the budget process, the region will identify events/activities that are expected to exceed the
pricing factor by greater than 100% (i.e., 2x the pricing factor). Two financial records must be created;
one record will contain the dollars above the pricing factor coded as “ALT” in the financial funding
status, a second record will contain the pricing factor dollars coded as “APR” in the financial funding
status. The rules for full or quarterly funding also apply here.
There are some events/activities, such as a second PRP search, which are not captured in the
target/pricing factor methodology. To address this issue, the region will create one financial record
containing the estimated dollars coded as “ALT” in the financial funding status.
Dollars coded as “ALT” will remain in that status until one of two things occurs: 1) The regions
CB allocation will support those needs; or 2) additional funds are received by OWPE and allocated to
the regions.
Regions that use “TBDs” to target activities/events must create a financial record with the
appropriate CB planned dollars.
The non-site data base, CERI-IELP, can be used for CB planning for activities that are non-site-
specific. Examples of these are administrative records (backlog), state enforcement management
assistance, PNRS, records management, and training. Records that apply to more than one site must
indicate the number of sites. Those activities where there is a change in lead, state, financial planned
quarter, or fmancial vehicle will require multiple activities records.
It is imperative that the region complete an entry for the Contract Vehicle (contract mechanism)
on each record where there is a request for CB dollars. TES 3 or 4 must be identified. TES 5+ will be
identified as “TES” until the new contracts are awarded. lAGs will be identified for a specific agency
in the fmancial notes field until agency-specific codes are reestablished as a funding vehicle.
VI-15
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
Fiscal Delegation/Management
In FY88 the fiscal responsibilities and contracts management functions were delegated to the
regions, making them responsible for obligating funds for all actions except generic obligations to TES
3 and TES 4. This includes mechanisms such as CAs, contracts, and lAGs (e.g., small purchases,
ARCS, regional contracts, TES 5+ contracts, and REM)). The region must request a quarterly AOA
from OWPE four weeks prior to the start of the quarter for all contract mechanisms (funding vehicles)
other than TES 3 and TES 4 (TES 3 will expire on June 30, 1989 and TES 4 on September 30, 1989).
These requests should coincide with the planned budgets in the BudgetJAOA portion of the non-site
specific data base maintained by HQ. A quarter’s AOA will be subject to adjustment based on the
funds remaining in the regional AOA.
If a regional non-TES obligation is made and is not going to be expended in that year, the
funds can be deobligated and will revert back to that region’s AOA. If the deobligation occurs after the
fiscal year, the funds become part of the national carry-over. Efforts should be made to deobligate
funds, if necessary, within the same fiscal year.
Contract Management Delegation
For all TES contracts, Project Officer (P0) approval authority for WAs has been delegated to
the Regional POs (RPO). With respect to the SCAP process, this involves two items. First, the
regions are responsible for assuring that all required information is completed correctly to track the
transaction in TESWATS and CERCLIS. The WA form, produced by TESWATS, has been designed
to provide fields for EPA ID#, Event and Enforcement activity codes, and OU #.
Secondly, the regions will be given a combined budget for TES 3 & 4 contracts. The budget
break down between TES 3 and 4 will be transmitted by memorandum to the regions. Decisions must
be made within the regions on which projects should be completed by TES 3 & 4 contractors and
which through Non-TES or TES 5+ means, without exceeding their total Case Budget allocation. Any
changes must also be made in CERCLIS. WA numbers will be issued in the regions when the WA is
originated. These numbers are critical in matching obligations. Regional extramural technical case
support taken under Department of Justice (DOJ) JAG will be subtracted from the regional budget.
Interagency Agreements
The regions were delegated general Interagency Agreements (LAG) obligation and Project
Officer (P0) authority in FY88. In addition, HQ maintains a national LAG with the Department of
Justice (DOJ), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The HQ LAGs with the USACE, USGS, and
USFWS will be closed out at the end of FY89.
Interagency A greements for Technical Assistance
Final draft guidance was sent to the regions on Interagency Agreements (lAGs) for
technical assistance in February 1988. This guidance detailed processes and
procedures for obtaining technical assistance from the USACE, USGS, and USFWS.
This guidance will become final on October 1, 1988, in a joint document with OERR
entitled “Regional Processing of Superfund lAGs”. Technical assistance from these
agencies will be provided through a site-specific JAG. The EPA RPM will plan for
USACE, USGS, and USFWS support through the site specific data base of
CERCLIS, under the appropriate event or enforcement activity. Upon receipt of the
VI- 16
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-018
signed lAG, the actual obligations and their corresponding AN and DCN must be
entered into CERCLIS. lAGs that support enforcement activities will have to post the
AN and DCN in the financial notes until CERCLIS is modified.
! ntera2encv Agreements for Preliminary Natural Resources Survey
Final draft guidance for Preliminary Natural Resource Survey (PNRS) LAGs was sent
to the regions in February 1988. This guidance detailed process and procedures for
initiating PNRS with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
and/or the Department of the Interior (DO!). This guidance will become final on
October 1, 1988 in a joint document with OERR entitled “Regional Processing of
Superfund lAGs”. PNRS with these agencies will be provided through a generic lAG.
Planning for these activities is through the non-site specific data base of CERCLIS. If
the region expects to conduct surveys with both DO! and NOAA, then two planning
records will be required in the CERHELP data base. Actual obligations will be posted
in the non-site specific data base. The region should use $6K per site to estimate
funding requirements.
Department of Justice
EPA HQ maintains a national agreement with the DOJILand and Natural Resources
Division (LNRD) to provide legal representation and associated support services on
behalf of EPA for all matters arising from or related to CERCLA and SARA. Support
services are defined as expert witness and automated litigation services. DOJ/LNRD
maintains a base level budget for legal representation services. The purpose of this
section is to provide the regions with a forward planning process that will identify
needs for these services. EPA HQ will transfer funding to DOJ based on those
estimates. The region’s Non-TES budget will be reduced by HQ in the amount
transferred to DOJ. The region will delete their planned financial records when they are
notified by HQ that the transfer has been complete.
DOJ will provide expert wimess (EW) for referred cases. The regions will coordinate
the planning for expert witness with the Office of Regional Counsel (ORC) and
DOJILNRD. The region should plan for the experts under the appropriate enforcement
activity (i.e., Section 106, Section 107). The funding vehicle would be JAG and DOJ,
“EW” must be posted in the financial notes field.
DOJ may provide automated litigation support (ALS) for referred cases. This support
and use of EPA regional funds is discretionary and is based on the requirements for a
particular case. The regions must coordinate the planning for ALS with the ORC and
DOJILNRD. The region should plan for the ALS under the appropriate enforcement
activity (Sections 106, Section 107). The funding vehicle would be [ AG and DOJ, ALS
must be posted in the financial notes field.
EPA HQ will pull this planning data on October 29, 1988 and on April 29, 1989.
Those funds will be transferred to DOJ and the region’s Non-TES budget will be
reduced by an equivalent amount. The Director OWPE CERCLA Enforcement
Division will manage this account.
VI- 17
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
8(a) Contracts
Regions are encouraged to use 8(a) minority contractors whenever alternatives to TES or other
contracts are needed. Historically, 8(a) contractors have been used primarily for PRP searches. They
can, however, be used for oversight support, records management, sampling and other activities. Use
of 8(a) contractors is not limited to any particular type or activity.
Funding for 8(a) requests will be included in the regional AOA, which will cover all non-TES
3 and 4 CB needs. 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.
Activity/Event Budget Pricing Factors
PR? Search/Non-Binding Allocation of Responsibility
These two line items are meant to capture the notice letter support, financial assessment,
record compilation, title search, de minimis determination, and Non Binding Allocation
of Responsibility (NBAR) allocations. The PRP search for remedial activities is
budgeted at $50K. The PRP searches for large removals are estimated to cost $13K.
For small removals where the owner or operator is known or where cost recovery
litigation is a low priority, the PRP search dollars may be closer to $1.3K.
The CERCLIS Enforcement Activity Code ‘RP’ should be used for removal searches.
Enforcement Activity Code ‘NS’ should be used for remedial search activities.
Regions are encouraged to initiate PRP searches using ‘NS’ when the initial scoring
predicts the site to be listed on the NPL. Continuing PRP search activities, after the
PRP search has formerly been designated as completed should be coded as a second
PRP search. NBAR should be used for allocation type categories (i.e., NBAR, Non-
Binding Preliminary Allocation Responsibility (NPAR), de minimis). The lead for
these activities should be designated as RP or SE.
RIIFS Negotiations
These dollars represent the funds for negotiations including support for negotiation
meetings and developing negotiation support documents (e.g., a detailed scope of
work, forward planning and records compilation) and the issuance of administrative or
consent orders. The dollars allocated to this category are generally limited to $50K.
These funds are not expected to support the entire scoping activities and workplan
development of a Fund-financed RI/PS. In addition, separate WAs must be initiated
for the RI/PS Negotiation (FMS Activity Code “B”) and one for the Oversight of a PRP
RI/FS (FMS Activity Code “P”), to allow for the tracking and cost recovery of the
oversight costs.
Oversight
The FY89 budget pricing factors for PRP oversight are as follows: $50K for removal,
and $200K for RI/PS. Oversight of PRP RD and RA will be funded by the Response
program through the AOA process in FY89. These projects should be given a budget
source code (C3229) of “R”. An exception to this is ongoing PRP RD or RA oversight
using TES 3 and 4 contracts. Planned obligations under these contracts should be
VI- 18
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-0 lB
given a budget source code of “N” (HQ Enforcement). The pricing factors are
expected to provide oversight support for the duration of the activity. RI/FS are
budgeted to be ongoing for ten quarters, RAs for ten quarters, and RDs for three
quarters. It is important to note that oversight costs vary from project to project arid
these pricing factors represent an average. TES WAs or other funding vehicles should
not be processed until the settlement document is signed (consent order by PRPs and
regions; CD by DOJ) to avoid having funds and contract capacity tied up for anticipated
rather than actual needs. Dollars should not be put into the ROD line item.
Enforcement support during the ROD preparation should be included in the R1/FS event
for PRP lead sites or with the RD/RA negotiations activity for other leads.
For PRP removal oversight, TES capacity needs should be listed on the non-site
specific portion of SCAP. Generic assignments can be submitted to the CO in advance
for emergency removals only. Advance submission will allow the assignment to be
activated immediately after the order is signed. The CO will hold the assignment until
the regional P0 notifies the CO that the order has been signed by EPA. To activate the
assignment they will need the site name and the 12 digit EPA ID#, the site/spill !D#,
CERCLIS event code and OU#.
RDIRA Negotiations
The pricing factor for RD/RA negotiations for FY89 is $30K. Review of a PRP
remedy or PRP comments to a recommended remedy, is generally included in the
response to public comments in the R1/FS budget. This category is mainly for
negotiation sessions and responses to additional PRP inquiries. Any cost associated
with issuing unilateral AOs at these sites is also included in the $30K pricing factor. In
addition, separate WAs must be initiated for the RD/RA Negotiation (FMS Activity
Code “B”), one for the oversight of PRP RD (FMS Activity Code “P”), and one for the
oversight of the RA (FMS Activity Code “P”) to allow for the tracking and cost
recovery of the oversight costs.
Operation and Maintenance/Long Term Response (O&M/LTR). Deletion
The budget for O&M/LTR for FY89 is $40K per year per site. The CB for deletion of
PRP lead activities is combined with the activity preceding deletion.
Section 106 Judicial Litigation without Settlement
There is a $20K budget for case development and $246K for litigation support for
cases referred to DOJ. For planning purposes it is assumed that litigation will be
ongoing for 3 years. The $246K is for the 3 year period.
Section 107
Cost recovery is a budget activity for FY89. Costs are estimated at $12K for
administrative recovery and $1 13K over 3 years for judicial cost recovery per new site.
VI- 19
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
Community Relations
The CB is used to pay for Community Relations (CR) for removal and other remedial
events when a PRP-lead is expected for the response. The community relations plan
should be funded concurrently with negotiations. Funds for a community relations
plan can be combined with the TES WA funding the negotiations, or it can be a
separate funding action. CR implementation should be funded concurrently with the
oversight of PRP response and, again, can be combined with the oversight funding in
one WA, or funded separately.
CR funding may be requested either site-specifically or non-site specifically. CR
obligations, however, must be made site-specifically. If funding is requested non-site
specifically, the requested amount must be reduced as site-specific obligations occur.
Separate CR records are always entered into CERCLIS as Events. Those associated
with remedial response activities are entered as “CR.” Those associated with removal
response activities are entered as “RC.” Specific elements of CR work (e.g., CR plan,
CR implementation, revised CR plan, etc.) which used to be funded individually, are
not entered as separate events, but are considered subevents to the CR or RC record.
Funds cannot be specified for subevents. The enforcement CB does not fund CR
activities at Federal, State, or FE lead sites. The lead for CR funded by the CB should
be “RP”.
State Activities
The FY89 OWPE CB includes $5 million to support enforcement Cooperative
Agreements (CAs) with States. This money is intended to: 1) fund State support
activities during EPA-lead enforcement actions; and 2) conduct State-lead enforcement
actions (SE-lead) or oversight (PS-lead). These resources will be distributed to each
region through the OWPE Advice of Allowance. Specifically, state enforcement CAs
should be used to fund the following state activities:
• PRP search and notice;
• Negotiations;
• Administrative or judicial enforcement;
• Oversight of PRP response (RI/FS, RD. RA); and
• Participation in site specific activities where EPA has reached a settlement
agreement with the PRPs.
Funds for state enforcement CAs are not intended to provide states with resources to:
• Conduct state-lead RIJFS, RDs, or RAs. Dollars for these events are allocated
by OERR;
• Oversee PRPs at Federal-lead sites. Dollars for oversight of PRP response are
generally allocated from the TES contracts; or
• Award CR technical assistance grants. Funds for these are allocated by OERR.
Three priorities have been established to help guide the regions in planning enforcement
CA resource needs in FY89. The priorities are consistent with EPA’s responsibility to
meet statutory RA start requirements and with the Agency’s policy of encouraging state
involvement in CERCLA enforcement activities. Accordingly, the regions should,
when possible, use CAs to fund state management assistance and state-lead
enforcement activities at sites in each of the following categories:
VI-20
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3 0iB
• Sites counting toward the 175 RA start mandate;
• Sites counting toward the 200 RA start mandate; and
• Sites in which states have shown strong enforcement interest (primarily state-
lead sjtes).
While the first two categories represent the highest funding priorities, all states are
eligible for CA funding even if they do not contain sites that contribute to the RA start
mandates. Regions with either state-lead enforcement sites that will not contribute to
the mandate or with states actively interested in participating in CERCLA enforcement
as the lead for an NPL site should attempt to use state enforcement CAs. Regions with
sites that will contribute to the RA mandates are encouraged to use CAs that fall into the
third category as well.
Funding requests for state management assistance during Federal lead enforcement
activities should be made non-site specifically. A separate non-site specific record
should be entered to show total management assistance requests by state. Funding
requests for all state-lead enforcement activities or oversight should be made site-
specifically.
Federal Facilities
The Federal Facility Hazardous Waste Compliance Office (“Federal Facilities Task Force”)
within OWPE manages the Federal Facility compliance and enforcement program. The program is
charged with developing and implementing enforcement policy for Superfund sites that are Federal
Facilities. The issues surrounding Federal Facilities are highly complex and generally have not been
addressed before by OWPE. Many aspects of OWPE Federal Facilities policy, therefore, are uncertain
and will take considerable time to resolve. The following guidance for using CB resources for Federal
Facility enforcement activities is consistent with that for other sites, but may be revised as the fiscal
year progresses and OWPE Federal Facility policies and priorities continue to develop.
The Federal Facility budget in FY89 is $4.6 million nationally. This money is to be divided
into two categories, consistent with the priorities of the Federal Facility program, as follows:
• Technical oversight and related activities: $3.9 million. This includes funding for
oversight of RI/FS, RDs and RAs at both NPL and non-NPL sites, as well as funding
of negotiations of enforceable lAGs (preferably under Section 120) through which
Federal agencies perform those activities.
• Implementation of the Federal Facilities Compliance Docket and related activities:
$700K. This includes both docket development as well as maintaining existing docket
facilities.
In FY89, FTE resources will be distributed based on the NPL universe (including proposed
facilities). The FY89 budget contains 27 FTE for JAG negotiations and technical oversight at NPL and
priority sites and ten FTE for docket and related Federal facility activities. All requests for CB funding
at Federal Facilities will be handled through the normal CB process, i.e., requests will be reviewed to
ensure that the national budget for Federal Facilities is not exceeded. Oversight of Federal Facility
R1/FS, RD and RA response activities will be funded by the enforcement budget in FY89. These
projects should be given a budget source code of “E”. An exception to this is ongoing Federal Facility
RI/FS, RD or RA oversight using TES 3 and 4 contracts. Planned obligations under these contracts
should be given a budget source code of “N” (HQ Enforcement). There is no pre-determined limit on
a region’s Federal Facility funding. HQ will negotiate appropriate adjustments with the regions to stay
VI-21
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-0 lB
within the $3.9M and $700K funding levels described above. HQ will also review regional requests
for consistency with the pricing factor for the activity.
All requests must be reflected appropriately in CERCLIS, with both dollar amounts and
contract mechanism specified. Funding requests for technical oversight and related activities should be
entered into CERCLIS as planned obligations associated with the appropriate remedial event. There is
no CERCLIS code for docket activities. Funding requests for docket activities, therefore, should be
entered as an “OTI-IER” event, using the event code “OH”, with one of the available comment fields
used to specify “Federal Facility docket.’ If some Federal Facilities needing CB funding cannot be
specified, requests should be made at “TBD” sites in the site-specific portion of the data base.
Instructions for entering IDs for TBD sites can be found in Chapter V.
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 complexity of the Superfund program, numerous organizational units within the
regional EPA offices have responsibility for Superfund financial management These organizations
and their responsibilities are detailed below.
ReQional Administrator
Regional Administrators have the authority to:
• Approve removal actions up to $2 million per site;
• Award Cooperative Agreements (CAs);
• Award Interagency Agreements (lAGs);
• Enter into Superfund State Contracts (SSCs);
• Initiate remedial planning activities;
• Grant states credit against their cost share; and
• Award Technical Assistance Grants.
All of these authorities may be redelegated with the exception of 1) removal actions
deemed to be “nationally significant” and 2) Technical Assistance Grants.
Regional Program Office
Overall regional Program Office financial responsibilities include:
• Providing technical support to the Contracting Officer in contracts management;
• Reviewing vouchers and/or financial reports;
• Managing Cooperative Agreements (CA) and Interagency Agreements (lAGs);
• Preparing Commitment Notices (CN) and Procurement Requests (PR);
• Developing Superfund State Contracts (SSC);
• Negotiating CAs with states, political subdivisions and Indian Tribal
governments;
• Either issuing site/spill identifiers (S/S ID) or requesting that they be issued by
the regional Management Division;
VI-22
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-OIB
• Managing the region’s allowances;
• Approving Requests for Proposals or Bids and contracts developed by the
states; and
• Participating in pre-award fmancial management system reviews.
Within the regional Program Offices, the following staff have specific Superfund
financial management responsibilities:
• On-Scene Coordinator ( OSC) . The regional OSC may be an employee of EPA
or of the U.S. Coast Guard. This employee reacts to hazardous substances
spills and releases or threats of release by initiating and managing the removal
process. The OSCs financial management responsibilities include preparing
site budgets and contract action requests; completing Action Memoranda;
preparing delivery orders and PRs for contracts; establishing and maintaining
official removal site files; reviewing and approving the removal cleanup
contractors’ charges on a daily basis; tracking site costs against the established
site ceiling; and approving removal contractors’ invoices. The OSC must be
aware of, in control of and responsible for all removal site charges and for
ensuring that costs are reasonable and necessary.
• Ordering Officer . All Ordering Officers must have a written “Delegation of
Procurement Authority” signed by a Senior Procurement Manager prior to
performing their duties. The Ordering Officer, who typically is an OSC, may
initially obligate up to a maximum of $250,000 for removals at a specific site by
issuing a Delivery Order under an existing contract. This person also develops
the statement of work and cost ceiling for removals.
• Remedial Project Manager (RPM) . The RPM, in coordination with the state
program personnel, is responsible for managing remedial and enforcement costs
and activities on a site-specific basis and for establishing and maintaining the
official site files.
• Regional Project Officer (RPO)/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 and certifying invoices, and financial monitoring of the
contract. The DPO is responsible for overall removal and general site support
contract management functions. The RPO/DPO evaluates and designates
contractor award fees; monitors contractors’ activities; and reviews monthly
contractor reports and site-specific attachments.
The RPM or the RPO may initiate work assignments (WAs), CAs, lAGs and contracts,
and approve site-specific lAG invoices.
• Administrative Support Unit (ASU) . Administrative Support Units may be
established in each regional Program Office. The purpose of these ASUs is to
assist the OSC/RPM in performing their administrative duties, thus allowing the
OSC/RPM to concentrate their efforts on their technical site management
activities. These units are designed to perform at least four important functions:
-- Provide administrative support to OSCIRPM on site;
-- Provide the OSC/RPM with administrative support in the regional
Program Offices;
Vl-23
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-OIB
-- Provide liaison between the OSC/RPM and other groups involved in
administrative matters; and
-- Provide support to the regional remedial and removal program
management
Specific examples of the kind of administrative and financial management
support the ASUs may provide to the OSCIRPM are as follows:
-- Assist in developing removal site budgets and preparing Action
Memoranda
-- Assist in daily cost monitoring via daily contractor reports;
-- Maintain the Removal Cost Management System;
-- Set up and maintain active remedial and removal site files;
-- Complete PRs and CNs; and
-- Request and review reports generated by Software Package for Unique
Reports (SPUR) 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 purposes of this document, the regional Management Division is the organization in
which financial management, budgetary, accounting, planning, and assistance
agreements administration functions are carried out. The regional Servicing Finance
Office (SF0), the Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy (ARCS) and the
Emergency Response Cleanup Services (mini-ERCS) Contracting Officers are
considered to be a part of this division. In most regions, the regional Management
Division:
• Assigns account numbers (AN) and Document Control Numbers (DCN) to all
commitment and regional obligating documents;
• Controls the regional allowance, maintains the Document Control Register
(DCR), and reconciles transactions;
• Generally issues S/S IDs for non-Coast Guard-lead sites;
• Sets up regional account numbers in FMS (new obligational authority only);
• Processes all PRs for national contracts and enters commitments into the
Financial Management System (FMS);
• Processes CNs for lAGs and enters commitments into FMS;
• Processes CAs, assigns CA identification numbers, enters CA commitments,
obligations and drawdowns into FMS;
• Assists the regional Program Office in the negotiation or pre-application phases
of the CA development;
• Processes all Letter of Credit increases and monitors drawdowns;
• Receives and reviews financial reports required by the CAs;
• Maintains Superfund original and site-specific document files on all regional
costs and supports the regional Program Offices in preparing cost summaries
and documentation for cost recovery purposes;
• Maintains accounts receivable for cost recovery and SSC cost share, and
maintains billing and collection system;
VI-24
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-0 lB
• Provides regional Program Office with financial data;
• Obligates contracts and modifications for the ARCS and mini-ERCS contracts;
and
• Reviews invoices and monthly financial reports for the ARCS and mini-ERCS
contracts.
HO Financial Management Responsibilities
Selected Superfund fmancial management responsibilities of certain HQ divisions with whom
the regional Program Office may come in contact are highlighted below.
Financial ManaQement Division/Office of the Comotroller
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 monthly and annual site-specific reporting processes;
• Issues financial policies and procedures;
• Provides general accounting support;
• Records transfer allocations;
• Notifies Trust Fund to invest cost recoveries, fines and penalties;
• Establishes Superfund account numbers in FMS.
Financial and Administrative Management Secrion/Otfice of E.rnergencv and Remedial
Response (FAMS/OERR )
FAMS provides financial management and accounting support and guidance to OERR
and the regional Program Offices. As one of HQ’s Superfund Allowance Holders,
FAMS’ responsibilities include:
• Maintains the OERR DCR and controls the HQ allowances;
• Commits funds for HQ OERR contracts and lAGs;
• Assigns accounting data to monthly site-specific invoices;
• Processes and monitors HQ OERR lAGs.
FAMS’ responsibilities in relation to the regional Program Office are as follows:
• Maintains the central S/S ID system and assigns S/S IDs to Coast Guard-lead
removal sites;
• Coordinates issuance of regional allowances and processes change requests;
• Provides liaison with regional Program Offices regarding OERR financial
issues; and
• Provides financial policies to regional Program Offices.
VI-25
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-0 lB
Contracts E,tforcemenr Section/Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Like FAMS, the Contracts Enforcement Section provides financial management and
accounting support and guidance to OWPE and the regional Program Offices.
Responsibilities include:
• Obligates funds for the TES contracts;
• Processes and monitors WAs in TESWATS;
• Processes and monitors OWPE lAGs;
• Processes invoices for TES contracts;
• Coordinates issuance of regional allowances and processes change requests;
• Provides liaison with regional Program Offices on OWPE financial issues; and
• Provides OWPE financial policies to regional Program Offices.
Procurement and Contracts Management Division/Office of Administration (P&CMD )
P&CMD conducts the Superfund contracting program. This involves negotiating,
awarding, monitoring, modifying, and terminating contracts and providing technical
guidance on contract administration. P&CMD also provides cost and price analysis for
Superfund contracts.
Grants Administration DivisionIO ?ice of Administration
This division issues policy, regulations and guidance for the processing, award and
administrative management of financial assistance agreements and lAGs; issues
identification numbers for all lAGs; and processes and awards HQ lAGs.
Budget Division/Office of the Comptroller
This division allocates the Superfund allowances among the HQ and regional offices;
monitors obligations against regular and site allowances on a weekly basis; processes
transfer allocations; processes change requests, and reprograms allowances, as
necessary.
Cincinnati Financial Management Center
The Servicing Finance Office in Cincinnati is responsible for providing accounting
support for all Superfund lAGs. The Office processes disbursement requests from
other agencies, processes the billing for reimbursable activities and enters JAG
obligations and disbursements into FMS.
Office of Administration/Research Triangle Park
This Servicing Finance Office (SF0) is responsible for providing accounting support
for all Superfund contracts. The Office enters contract award data and obligations into
FMS, processes contractor invoices, and enters payments into FMS.
VI-26
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-0 lB
Financial Management Tools and Systems
Account Number
To manage the Superfund program effectively, and to recover cleanup costs, EPA must
carefully document and record its direct and indirect costs for each cleanup action and
track the costs through its Financial Management System (FMS). To this end, EPA has
defined specific uses of the last four positions of the Agency’s standard ten-digit
Headquarters account number for the Superfund program. An example of the
Superfund account number is illustrated in Exhibit VI-8.
Appropriation Year . The first field of the account number is the last number of
the year for which the funds were appropriated, e.g., a “7” would stand for
Fiscal Year 1987.
• Program Element . The second, third and fourth fields consist of three letters
representing the first three positions of the six-position Superfund program
elements used for budget development. The program element for the pre-
remedial, remedial and removal programs is TFA. The program element for
enforcement is TGB.
• Allowance Holder . The fifth and sixth field of the account number represent the
Allowance Holder and the type of allowance (Site or regular). The Allowance
Holder is the entity, either the HQ program offices or the regions, which receive
the AOA.
• Site/Spill Identifier . The ninth and tenth fields are used for identifying the site
associated with the particular financial transaction. Procedures for assignment
of this number are detailed later in this section.
• Responsibility Center . For regional Allowance Holders, the seventh field of the
account number identifies the responsibility center, as assigned by the region.
The responsibility center is generally the regional division or office which has
the responsibility for managing the funds in the AOA.
• Activity Codes . The eighth field contains a number or letter representing
different remedial, removal, and enforcement activities. A list of these codes is
included in Exhibit VI-9.
V1-27
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-OIB
EXHIBIT VI-8
HYPOTHETICAL SUPERFUND ACCOUNTING DATA
Superfund Document Control Number
i __
RESPONSI-
BILITY
CENTER
(DIVISION)
Superfund Regional Office Account Number
8TFAO7MLA8
07
AB 0004
-
A
-
B
BRANCH
0004
NEXT
CONSECUTIVE
NUMBER
TFA
8
PPROPRIA
TION
YEAR
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
LLOWANCI
HOLDER
RESPONSI-
BILITY
CENTER
ACTIVITY
CODE
SITE/SPILL
IDENTIFIER
VI-28
-------
OSWER Direciive 9200.3-0 lB
EXHIBIT VI-9
SUPERFUND ACTIVITY CODES
REMEDIAL PROGRAM
J - Pre-Remedial - Extramural only (1)
L - RI/FS - Extramural only (2)
N - RD - Extramural only (3)
P - Oversight of Responsible Party - Extramural (3)
R - RA (including operation and maintenance) - Extramural only (3)
Z - Technical Assistance Grants - Extramural only (2)
9 - Remedial Support and Management - Extra and Intramural (1)
REMOVAL PROGRAM
E - Removal Actions - Extramural only (3)
W - Expedited Response Actions - Extramural only (3)
Y - Removal TAT Activities - Extramural only (1)
8 - Removal Support and Management - Extra and Intramural (1)
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
B - Pre-enforcement Activity - Extramural only (1)
P - Oversight of Responsible Party - Extramural (3)
2 - Judicial Enforcement - Extramural only (3)
3 - State/Federal Facility Liaison - Extramural only (1)
4 - General Enforcement - Extra and Intramural (1)
5 - Removal Enforcement - Intramural only (2)
6 - Remedial Enforcement - Intramural only (2)
OTHER CODES
7 - General Support and Management - Extra and Intramural (1)
U - Laboratory Analysis - Extra and Intramural (1)
o - Research and Development (Numeric 0) - Extra and Intramural (4)
Notes :
(1) Can only be used with non-site specific, site specific and “ZZ” account numbers
(2) Can only be used with site specific account numbers (includes”ZZ” account numbers)
(3) Can only be used with site specific account numbers (excludes “ZZ” account numbers)
(4) Account numbers with 0 as the activity will always be considered as non-site specific
VI-29
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
Document Control Number (DCN )
The DCN is a six digit number assigned by the regional SF0 to Procurement Requests
(PRs) and Commitment Notices (CNs) as a control number. This same number is
carried over from the PR or CN to the obligating document. An example of the DCN is
found in Exhibit VI-8.
Financial Management System (FMS )
The EMS 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. FMS is
maintained by the Administrative Systems Division of the Office of Information
Resources Management. The Financial Systems Branch of the Financial Management
Division, Office of the Comptroller, provides FMS user support.
SPUR . Through FMS’s Software Package for Unique Reports (SPUR), an
EMS user can run specialized reports from EMS, showing only the information
selected. SPUR can select any data elements maintained in FMS, arrange those
elements in any desired format, and print a report. The regional Program Office
staff may request SPUR reports from the regional Servicing Finance Office
(SF0). These reports are especially useful for determining the status of
commitments and obligations and payments for a given site.
• Regional EMS Responsibility . Though each region is organized somewhat
differently, in most regions the SF0 enters commitments into EMS for contracts
and Interagency Agreements (lAGs). For Cooperative Agreements, the SF0
enters not only commitments, but obligations and drawdowns as well. At the
request of the regional Program Office, the SF0 sets up regional account
numbers in EMS. Since the Agency does not officially recognize commitments
or obligations until they appear in EMS, it is imperative that the regional
Program Office forward all commitment and obligating documents to the SF0
as expeditiously as possible for entry into EMS.
Document Control Register (DC!? )
The DCR is the Allowance Holder’s mechanism for maintaining a running balance of
all funds available to the Allowance Holder. The DCR can be manual or automated
(Automated DCR, or ADCR) and is generally maintained in the SF0.
Checking the DCR’s balance is part of the Funds Certifying Officer’s (FCO)
certification of funds availability. Once the FCO certifies that funds are available and
that the appropriate funds are being used, the FCO assigns to the action a DCN and
records it in the DCR. This number uniquely identifies the spending action in the
Agency’s FMS, just as a check number identifies a check.
An office using an ADCR system which automatically transmits commitment data to
EMS should keep the commitment copy of the spending document. If an office does
not use such a system, it may use the Financial Information Register Satellite Terminal
User’s Package (FIRSTUP) to transmit commitments electronically to EMS. If an
office does not use FIRSTUP or an ADCR, it should send the commitment copy to the
proper SF0.
VI-30
-------
OSWER DLrectIve 9200 3-0 lB
Site/Spill !denr(uiers (S/S IDs )
The ninth and tenth fields of the Superfund account number, which are used to identify
costs associated with a specific site, contain the site/spill identifier (S/S ID) code. S/S
IDs are established by the regional offices, with the exception of Coast Guard
responses which are provided through the OERR FAMS. Each regional office has one
or more persons responsible for assigning S/S IDs and communicating updated S/S ID
information to HQ. This is usually done by calling or sending an updated copy of the
regional S/S ID list to the S/S ID contact in HQ.
Before assigning an S/S ID, an EPA ID must exist in the CERCLIS data base. The
EPA II) is a 12-character unique identifier which is used to identify a hazardous waste
site or an unanticipated removal in the CERCLIS inventory. This ID is based on the
Facility Index System (FINDS). An EPA ID must be established prior to assignment of
an S/S ID. In addition, there can only be one S/S ID for each EPA ID.
Because of the limited number of site codes available for each region, it is important to
refrain from issuing S/S ll)s until they are actually needed to establish account numbers
for the commitment and obligation of funds. Before establishing a new S/S ID, a
thorough check should be made to ensure that the site is not already listed under another
name. Removal sites should receive identifiers as soon as it appears that more than
approximately $5,000 will be spent on removal work at the site. Remedial sites should
receive identifiers when the Hazard Ranking System score for the site indicates it will
be proposed for the NPL and an account number is needed for the obligation of funds.
Dioxin sites do not have to be on the NPL in order to establish an ID. Enforcement
sites receive identifiers when costs for an enforcement activity are expected to exceed
24 workhours per pay period, and when a cost recovery action is likely.
The codes to be assigned follow a set pattern. When the S/S ID exceeds 99, the next
nine sites will be identified as Al to A9, the following nine, B 1 to B9, and so on.
After site Z9, the sequence will continue with 1A to 9A, then lB to 9B, and so on.
After site 9Z, the sequence will continue with double alpha characters (example: AA,
AB through AZ and then continue with BA, BB, and so on). The letters I or 0 are not
used, since they may be easily confused with “ones” and “zeros”. In addition, the
letters U, V and W in the ninth field are reserved for U.S. Coast Guard responses.
Financial Management and Funding Processes
Regional fmancial authority consists of three distinct, but interrelated, parts: approval,
commitment and obligation. Exhibit VI-lO indicates the process by which the regions commit and
obligate funds. These funding processes are outlined below.
Approvals
Authority to approve pm-remedial, removal, remedial and enforcement activities is
contained in the Superfund delegations package. An approval by the Assistant
Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response or Regional
Administrator, as appropriate, is an authorization to undertake a CERCLA-funded
response action. Examples of these approvals include Removal Action Memoranda,
SCAP submissions, etc. A site/activity must be approved before any commitments can
be made.
V1-3 I
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
EXHIBIT VI-lO
HANDLING FINANCIAL DATA IN THE CERCLIS ENVIRONMENT
fi j ria t \,
area (Pre-Remedial,Remedial, Removal,1
______ Enforcement) ____
CAPpro a1 of Funding Documen
Financial Management Officer
reviews the Funding Document,
I assigns a unique Account Number
I and Document Control Number
I (AN/DCN) pair and enters
information into FMS.
a re now corn mitted
r Regional IMC ordesignee ass ns Operable
I number, if necessary, to the funding document
and enters this information into CERCLIS
unds are now obligate
r Regions enter obligation ata into CERCLIS. Regions
or HQ enter obligation data into FMS or TESWATS
VI-32
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
The following paragraphs highlight the region’s financial management authority and
responsibility in the removal program:
Approval Authority . In accordance with Delegation 14-1-A, the Regional
Administrator has the authority to approve removal actions costing up to
$2,000,000 at National Priorities List (NPL) sites or non-NPL sites and may
grant exemptions to the twelve-month statutory limit. In addition, Regional
Administrators may redelegate to the On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) the
authority to approve actions costing up to $50,000 in emergency situations
where an expeditious response is required.
Action Memorandum . Except in emergency situations, before a removal action
can begin, an Action Memorandum must be approved. The Action
Memorandum must document that the release meets the criteria of CERCLA, as
amended, and the National Contingency Plan (NCP). In addition to the
technical data, the Action Memorandum, must include, to the extent practicable,
an estimated total project ceiling. The OSC uses the estimate of the duration and
cost of the removal actions in order to determine the proper approval authority.
The OSCs or other Ordering Officers are responsible for obtaining all necessary
Regional Office approvals and signatures.
Generally, the Action Memorandum is prepared prior to initiating response
activities. In extreme emergencies, however, the OSC may initiate activities
under his or her $50,000 authority without preparing the necessary
documentation in advance. In these circumstances OSCs must document their
decision within 24 hours of initiating response.
The following paragraphs highlight the region’s financial management authority and
responsibility in the remedial and enforcement programs:
• Financial Approval Mechanism . Planning of remedial and enforcement
program activities is accomplished by means of the SCAP. Funds cannot be
committed or obligated for a remedial or enforcement activity unless it is
included in the SCAP.
• Record of Decision (ROD) . A ROD is required for all RD and RA activities.
The ROD, signed by either the 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.
VI-33
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-018
Com,nitments
Once the regional Funds Certifying Officer certifies the availability of funds, a spending
action becomes a commitment, which is a reservation of funds but not a legal promise
to pay a supplier. Commitments which have not yet been processed are called open
commitments until they become obligations.
There are two types of commitment documents: the Procurement Request (PR) and the
Commitment Notice (CN). The PR is used to commit funds for contracts; the CN is
used to commit funds for Cooperative Agreements (CAs) and reimbursable Interagency
Agreements (lAGs).
Obligations
Unlike a commitment, an obligation legally binds the government to pay a supplier for
delivery of goods or services. Thus, once funds are obligated, the region may no
longer release the funds for another purpose.
A contractor, another agency or state cannot start work until the funds have been
obligated. In addition funds may only be used for the purpose for which they were
obligated under the contract, LAG or CA, and may not be transferred to another activity
and/or site within the contract, lAG or CA without first being deobligated.
Obligating documents must be processed in accordance with guidance issued by the
Procurement and Contracts Management Division (P&CMD), the Grants
Administration Division, and the Financial Management Division. The majority of the
contracts are currently awarded by P&CMD and entered into EMS by the Servicing
Finance Office/Research Triangle Park (SFO/RTP). Plans are underway to decentralize
the contracting function to the regions. Obligations for CAs are entered into FMS by
the regions; for lAGs, by the Cincinnati Financial Management Center.
Payments
Each contractor/supplier submits an invoice to the proper SF0 for payment. Before the
SF0 may pay the contractor/supplier, it must have an obligating document and a
receiving report (sent by the originating office) to verify that the work was completed or
the goods were received satisfactorily. Unpaid obligations are not removed from FMS
at the end of the fiscal year. Rather, they remain in the system until paid or until the
Allowance Holder or obligating official notifies the SF0 that no further payments will
be made against the obligation.
VT-34
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-OIB
De-obligations
The dc-obligation of funds is handled similarly to the obligation of funds. The same
commitment and obligation documents and procedures are used, except that the dollar
amount indicated is a reduction rather than an addition. The availability of funds after
dc-obligation has taken place depends on when the funds initially had been obligated.
Current fiscal year funds are available for reuse within the allowance as soon as the de-
obligation is effective. Prior fiscal year funds that are dc-obligated 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 Office of the
Comptroller in coordination with the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER).
Financial Management Funding Mechanisms
EPA uses a variety of funding mechanisms to carry out CERCLA-funded response actions.
Included in these are the following:
Contracts
Superfund contracts are awarded through standard procurement procedures (see the
Office of the Comptroller’s Resources Management Directives Systems 2550C Chapter
2 and the EPA Contracts Management Manual or refer directly to the directives prepared
for each contract). Exhibit VI- 11 contains information on the procurement forms used
for most Superfund contracts. The unique aspect of Superfund contract processing and
fmancial tracking stems primarily from the need to associate contractor costs incurred
with specific Superfund sites in order to assist in the cost recovery process. Cost
recovery negotiations with PRPs or court actions require careful documentation of
Federal costs incurred at each site/spill. The following paragraphs descnbe 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 FMS. Removal cleanup
contracts may be awarded on a zone-, region- or site-specific basis. These
include the Emergency Response Cleanup Services (ERCS) and mini-ERCS
contracts.
-- Commitment of Funds . The Procurement Request (PR) is used to
commit funds for contracts. OSCs or other Ordering Officers prepare
the PR for the site portion of the contract and obtain all necessary
regional office approvals and signatures. They send the document to the
SF0 for certification of funds and addition of accounting information
(account number, appropriation number and document control
number). The SF0 must also check that the action has been approved.
The regional SF0 enters the commitment into the Automated Document
Control Register (ADCR) and FMS.
VI-35
-------
OSWER Du ecnve 9200.3-GIB
EXHIBIT VI-li
EPA FORMS COMMONLY USED FOR SUPERFUND PROCUREMENTS
1900-8
Procurement Request!
Purchase Order
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 funds commitment clerk.
This form is the basis for entering a
commitment in FMS. The FMO
enters an obligation only upon
receiving acontraci document or
eor .
1900 -48
Order forServices-
Emergency Response
to Hazardous Substance
Release
Used by Q -Scene Coordinators (OSCs)
to obligate funds and contract for services
(up to $Z500) from conuneitial firnis
or a state or local government (if site not
owned by state or subdivision at time
wastes were disposed oU to respond to
a release.
Results in a firm, fixed-price
contract No price adjustment may
be made for work stated in contract
Contractor may submit only one
invoice. R O will process contract
as an obligation.
1900-49
Notice to Proceed with
Emergency Response to
Hazardous Substance Release
Used by OSC to authorize a contractor to
begin work on an emergency response
(up to $10,000 per incident). Negotiation
of definitive contract and any modifications
performed by HQ Contracting Officer.
A preliminary contractual instrument
that must be made final by a
designated Contracting Officer in HQ.
FMO will process notice as air
obligation.
1 .ettu contract for State,
Indian Tnbal Governments,
or Local Government Response
to Emergency Hazardous
Substances Release
Used by OSC to procure services from a
state, local or Indian tribal government to
begin work on an emergency response
(up to $10,000 per incident) if site was
not owned by state or subdivision at time
of hazardous waste disposal. Negotiation
of definitive contract and any modifications
paformed by HQ Contracting Officer,
Results in a cost reimbursement type
agreement with a State, local or
Indian tribal government It is a
preliminary contractual imtruinient
that must be made final by a
Conti cting Officer in HQ. The
appropriate FMO will process a letter
contract as an obligation.
1900-59
[ llvery Order for Emergency
Response Cleanup Services
Used by OSCs to order services (up to
$250,000) from the ER contractor to
respond toarelease. All modifications
and obligations over $250000 will be
processed by the HQ Contracting Officer,
Has time and material provisions,
but uses fixed rates negotiated in
ER( contract Ordermustbemade
final by a designated Contracting
OfficermnHQ, FMOwilI process
orders as an obligation.
EPA FORM NO .
FORM NAME
PURPOSE
COMMENTS
1900-56
VI-36
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-0 lB
Obligation of Funds . Site-specific removal cleanup contracts are
obligated by the regional Ordering Officer (generally the OSC), the
mini-ERCS Contracting Officer or at HQ. Obligational authority is
determined by the type and amount of the contract. Although a PR is
generally prepared in advance of the obligating document for removals,
these documents may be processed simultaneously or out of sequence,
due to the urgent nature of removals. OSCs have the contractual
authority to obligate up to $250,000 via a Delivery Order under an
existing contract; however, regions have limited this authority to
$50,000. For contract amounts over this authority, the OSC forwards
the obligating document to the Regional Administrator for approval and
to Procurement and Contracts Management Division (P&CMI)) or the
mini-ERCS Contracting Officer for obligation and processing. The
SF0/Research Triangle Park (RTP) enters the obligation into FMS for
all contracts.
Invoice Processing . The OSC or Deputy Project Officer reviews the site
portion of contractor invoices and signs a statement indicating that the
services for which the contractor is invoicing have been provided. The
OSC forwards the certified copy of the invoice within five days to the
SFO/RTP for processing and payment.
If the OSC disallows any charges, copies of the invoice should be sent
to the Contracting Officer, along with an explanation for disallowing the
costs. When a disputed charge cannot be settled with the contractor, the
OSC prepares a memo/letter with a copy of the voucher and sends them
to the Contracting Officer. The OSC sends the original voucher with a
copy of the letter to RTP. Additional guidance for processing site-
specific contractor invoices are included in the “Removal Cost
Management Manual,” “Superfund Removal Procedures” manual and
the “ERCS Users Manual”.
Site-Specific Remedial Contracts . Site-specific remedial contracts refer to those
which are obligated site-specifically. Remedial contractors provide site-specific
support for remedial investigations! feasibility studies, remedial designs and
remedial actions at individual NPL sites, as well as general management support
to EPA HQ and regions. Both large, national contracts as well as smaller,
region-specific contracts, e.g. Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy
(ARCS) contracts are in place. Site-specific remedial contracts are obligated
and tracked on a site-specific basis in the Agency’s FMS.
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 SF0 for certification of funds availability and
the addition of accounting information (account number and DCN). The
Regional SF0 enters the commitment into FMS. For region-specific
contracts, e.g., ARCS contracts, the basic contract is prepared in HQ
and contract modifications are processed in the regions.
Obligation of Funds . Site-specific remedial contracts are obligated by
P&CMD in HQ or the ARCS Contracting Officer in the regions. These
obligations represent contract modifications which must be processed in
accordance with guidance issued by P&CMD. P&CMI) or the ARCS
V1-37
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
Contracting Officer distributes the processed obligating document, and
the SF0 /Ri ? enters the obligation into FMS.
-- Invoice Processing . Site-specific remedial contractors will provide
copies of their monthly invoice or voucher for payment to the
Contracting Officer and the regions for review. For HQ contracts,
RPOs have five days to review the invoice. If the invoice accurately
reflects contractor activities, the RPO will certify that the voucher is
consistent with the service provided and forward the certification to the
SFOIRTP for processing and payment. If the RPO identifies a problem,
it should be reported to the appropriate HQ Project Officer for
resolution. The HQ Project Officer will resolve any problems, certify
that the voucher is consistent with the services provided, and forward
the certification to the SFO/RTP for processing and payment.
In the case of region-specific contracts, e.g. ARCS, the RPO is
responsible for processing the invoices, resolving any problems and
forwarding the invoices to RTP.
General Site Support Contracts . This category includes contracts which are not
obligated on a site-specific basis. These contracts create a pool of contract labor
capable of providing broad technical and planning support to any removal, pre-
remedial, remedial or enforcement site on an “as needed” basis. Examples of
this type of contract include, but are not limited to: the Field Investigation
Team, Technical Assistance Team, Contract Laboratory Program, and the
Environmental Services Assistance Team. Because these types of contracts are
administered by HQ, they will not be discussed in detail in this document.
General site support contractors must submit with each invoice a site-specific
attachment, which details the costs incurred at each site with an EPA S/S ID.
The site-specific attachment must include the invoiced costs for each of the
following categories:
-- Each site with an EPA S/S ID
-- All other sites, i.e., those without an EPA S/S ID, on one line item per
region
-- Program management
-- Base and award fees
-- Non-site activities, identified separately, such as training of state
personnel or coordination of regional activities
-- Non-Superfund costs, as applicable, on one line item per appropriation.
The contractors submit original invoices to RTP and advance copies to the HQ
Project Officer simultaneously. The Project Officer reviews the invoice and the
site-specific attachment for reasonableness of the site-specific charges. In some
cases, the regional DPOs will conduct a concurrent review of the invoice.
Enforcement Contracts . The Technical Enforcement Support contracts are a
combination of the general site support contracts and the site-specific
removal/remedial contracts. The TES contracts are not obligated on a site-
specific basis, however, the regions issue work assignments against the
contract labor pool on a site-specific basis. Site-specific work assignments are
not entered into FMS.
VI-38
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-018
-- Commitment of Funds . The RPM in the region prepares the work
assignment for site and non-site specific activities, obtains all the
necessaiy regional Program Office approvals and signatures and
forwards the approved document to the regional RPO for processing.
The regional RPO enters the work assignment into TESWATS.
-- Obligation of Funds . In TES 5+, the regions are provided funds within
their Advice of Allowance which are obligated non-site specifically
against the contract to provide capacity for technical and planning
support. HQ performs this function for the TES 3 and 4 contracts.
After the regional RPO processes the site-specific work assignment it is
approved by the HQ Contracting Officer in OWPE. Approved work
assignments are entered into TESWATS.
-- Invoice Processing . TES contractors provide copies of their monthly
invoice to the regions for review. The invoice must be submitted with a
site-specific attachment, similar to the general site support contracts,
which details the costs incurred at each site. For TES 3 and 4, if the
invoice is correct, the regional RPO certifies that the invoice is
consistent with the services provided and forward the certification to
OWPE for processing and payment. If the RPO identifies a problem, it
should be reported to the appropriate HQ official in OPWE for
resolution. Under the TES 5+ contracts the RPO is responsible for
processing the invoices and resolving any problems.
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
An Interagency Agreement (lAG) 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 that certain Federal
agencies assist with site cleanups and associated activities and provide ongoing support
or services. The lAG specifies the services required and identifies the method of
payment.
• Disbursement Interagency Agreements (LAGs) . Disbursement lAGs are
agreements in which another Federal agency provides goods or services to
EPA. This category of lAG is similar in concept to obtaining goods or services
from a contractor. Superfund program staff prepare lAGs to pay other agencies
for work performed at a specific Superfund removal, remedial or enforcement
site and for non-site specific activities. EPA pays the other agency either by
advance payment or by payment following work performance (repayment).
The regional Program Office initiates and manages site-specific lAGs. The
Assistance Administration Unit (AAU) in the regional Management Division
typically approves and awards site-specific TAGs. The exception is U.S. Coast
Guard-lead removal lAGs, which are negotiated, approved, awarded, and
managed at HQ.
VI-39
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-018
Commitment of Funds . The regional Program Office determines
whether assistance from another Federal agency is needed. The regional
SF0 determines the availability of funds, upon request from the regional
Program Office. The regional Program Office then prepares the LAG
funding package, consisting of a Commitment Notice (CN), a
transmittal memorandum, EPA Form 1610-1, which is the lAG itself,
and a Decision Memorandum, which verifies legal authority for the
LAG. The Decision Official in the regional Program Office reviews and
approves the JAG. The staff of the AAU then conducts an
administrative review of the funding package. The SF0 adds
accounting data and enters the commitment in the Document Control
Register (DCR) as well as into FMS. The regional Program Office
establishes and maintains the official site file(s). The AAU establishes
and maintains the official financial file.
Obligation of Funds . Following prevalidation of the commitment, the
AAU obtains an JAG number from Headquarters Grants Administration
Division (GAD) by E-Mail. The Action Official (the Regional
Administrator or his/her designee) signs the lAG. The AAU then sends
the signed LAG to the other agency for signature. An obligation is
created when the LAG has been signed by both agencies. The AAU
distributes the executed JAG to the regional program office, the GAD,
and the Cincinnati Financial Management Center (CFMC), where the
obligation is recorded in FMS.
Payments . If the performing agency does not have 0MB-approved
reimbursable authority, the CFMC pays that agency for EPA prior to
execution of the agreement activities. For those agencies that do not
require advances, the regional Program Office certifies that charges are
accurate following execution of the activities. There are three ways in
which EPA accomplishes exchange of funds for lAGs: the Simplified
Interagency Billings and Collection system (SIBAC), the On-line
Payment and Collections system (OPAC), and check payments. When
the OPAC or SIBAC system is used, funds exchange occurs prior to
regional Program Office certification; however, the regional Program
Office may request adjustments when necessary. For payment by
check, the performing agency submits vouchers to the CFMC, who
forwards them to the regional Program Office. The regional Program
Office reviews and certifies the vouchers and then returns both the
voucher and the certification form to CFMC for processing and
payment.
Closeout . The regional Program Office is responsible for managing
pre-closeout activity. If all work has been completed, the regional
Program Office accepts the final report from the other agency and
initiates closeout procedures. The AAU queries the regional Program
Office when the project period has expired or when there has been no
project activity for two quarters. If the AAU requests a project status
determination, the regional Program Office determines whether the LAG
should remain open/extended or be closed, and notifies the AAU.
When no further activity will occur under the LAG (e.g. project
completed, funds availability period expired, funds expended,
unsatisfactorylincomplete work product) and fmal invoices have been
V1-40
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-O1B
certified, the regional Program Office prepares a written closeout request
and sends it to the AAU. The AAU then determines from CFMC that
the JAG is financially closed Out and closes out the JAG by sending a
closeout letter to the other agency and notifying the regional Program
Office and GAD. Both the regional Program Office and the AAU then
remove the appropriate files from active status and retain them a
minimum of six years. Disposal of the files is subject to regional
Program Office approval.
When applicable, within thirty days of completion of work under the
agreement, the regional Program Office prepares, or obtains from the
other agency, a final inventory and disposition recommendations for
non-expendable property. The regional Program Office forwards a
cOpy of this report to the appropriate property management office in the
regional Management Division.
Allocation Transfer lAGs . Allocation Transfer lAGs transfer obligational
authority from EPA to the designated agency at the appropriation level. The
funds are transferred to the other agency from an EPA allowance via EPA’s
Transfer Allocation account. This JAG mechanism is similar to the Comptroller
providing allowances to EPA Program Offices to carry out specific functions;
however, transfers occur at the appropriation level. Obligations and payments
are made by the other agency and are reported monthly to EPA.
Interagency agreements with FEMA for permanent or temporary relocations are
allocation transfer lAGs. The regional Program Office, in conjunction with the
AAU in the regional Management Division, typically initiates, approves,
awards, and manages site-specific Allocation Transfer lAGs. Implementation
of an allocation transfer lAG must be in accordance with Department of
Treasury procedures and can only be used with prior approval from the Office
of the Comptroller.
-- Initiating the JAG . The regional Program Office initiates the JAG. 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
Memorandum. The Decision Official in the regional Program Office
reviews and approves the funding package and submits it to the AAU.
The AAU obtains an lAG number from GAD by E-Mail and conducts
an administrative review. The GAD enters JAG 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 JAG package. The AAU submits
the JAG to the other agency for signature. The AAU distributes the
executed lAG to the regional Program Office, to the GAD, and to the
Office of Comptroller. Upon initiation of the JAG, the regional
Program Office submits a change request to the Budget Formulation and
Control Branch in the Office of the Comptroller, so that the funds can be
set aside in a HQ transfer account. The appropriate program’s
allowance is then reduced to reflect the transfer to the receiving agency.
-- Transfer of Funds . The executed JAG serves to transfer obligational
authority to the other agency. Once the JAG is signed, and upon receipt
of a change request from the regional Program Office, the Budget
VJ-41
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
Division in the Office of the Comptroller withdraws funds from the
region’s allowance and transfers the funds to the EPA Transfer
Allocation account for future transfer to the designated agency. The
Financial Reports and Analysis Branch executes the transfer from EPA
to the performing agency.
-- Financial Monitoring . The performing agency is required to submit: 1)
monthly reports via SF133, “Budget Execution,” on obligations and
expenditures during the period to EPA’s Financial Management Division
and 2) periodic status reports to the regional Program Office and the
HQ Superfund Budget Branch. The lAG also requires the other agency
to maintain records and documentation by site and submit them to EPA
upon request. The regional Program Office reviews progress reports
and acts on them as necessary.
-- Closeout . The regional Program Office closeout procedures for an
Allocation Transfer lAG are the same as those for Disbursement lAGs.
Since there are no billing transactions, outstanding invoices or payments
are not a concern; however, to determine that the lAG may be financially
closed out by the Office of the Comptroller, the AAU asks the EPA
Inspector General to request the other agency’s Inspector General to
determine the financial status of the lAG. Both the regional Program
Office and the AAU then remove the appropriate files for that lAG from
active status and retain them a minimum of six years. Disposal of the
files is subject to regional Program Office approval.
For further information on Regional lAGs, see the Regional Processing of Superfund
Interagency Agreements handbook, DRAFF, July 1987.
Cooperative Agreements (CA )
A CA is the instrument EPA uses to provide assistance to states, political subdivisions
or Indian Tribal governments in conducting pre-remedial, remedial, removal,
enforcement and program and project support activities. CAs provide funding
assistance to the state, political subdivision, or Indian Tribal governments, documents
responsibilities and obtains state assurances. CAs must be approved by the Regional
Administrator or designee. The steps for developing and managing the financial
aspects of a CA in the region are outlined below.
• Commitments . The regional Program Office prepares the CN and obtains all
necessary program approvals and signatures to commit funds for the CA. The
regional Management Division certifies the availability of funds, assigns the
accounting data, sets aside the required funds on the DCR and enters the
commitment into the FMS. The regional AAU assigns the CA identification
number.
• Obligations . The signature of the Regional Administrator, or his/her designee,
obligates CAs. The regional Management Division is responsible for
processing obligations in accordance with the guidance issued by P&CMD,
GAD and FMD, and for entering the obligations into the DCR and FMS.
Vl-42
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-0 lB
Letter of Credit . If a state environmental agency, political subdivision or Indian
Tribal government does not have an established consolidated Letter of Credit
(LOC) with EPA, one should be established. The LOC is the preferred method
for providing Superfund payment assistance to states, political subdivisions or
Indian Tribal governments. The CA recipient “draws down” funds from the
appropriate credit account at the Federal Reserve Bank to cover EPA’s share of
immediate cash needs for each activity approved in the CA.
The state, political subdivision or Indian Tribal government may only draw
down funds from the LOC for work authorized for specific sites and/or
activities. The total drawdown may not exceed the amount obligated for each
activity and/or site in the CA. Drawdowns must be made proportionally to the
amount of work completed, and may only be made for the EPA share of project
costs. If funds obligated for a specific site or activity have been exhausted, the
recipient may not draw down from another account number within the
consolidated LOC.
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 FMS Outlay Report or state quarterly report, must match
the activities being undertaken.
• Financial Monitoring . On a regular basis, the RPM should review the FMS
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.
• De-obligations . De-obligations of funds are handled similarly to obligations of
funds. The same commitment and obligation documents and procedures are
used, except that the dollar amount indicated is a reduction rather than an
addition. The availability of funds following de-obligation depends on when
the funds were obligated initially. Current fiscal year funds are available for
reuse within the allowance as soon as the de-obligation is effective. Prior fiscal
year funds that are de-obligated revert to HQ for redistribution.
In order to reuse prior fiscal year funds:
-- The Allowance Holders must submit a request to recertify the funds to
their allowances;
-- OERR will evaluate the request based on the approved SCAP and will
recommend distribution of funds;
-- The Office of the Comptroller must approve the request; and
-- The request must be approved and a reapportionment obtained from the
Office of Management and Budget.
• 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. 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.
VT-43
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-018
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.
Superfun,d State Contracts (SSCs )
When EPA or a political subdivision has the lead for a remedial action, the instrument
used to describe the state’s role is a Superfund State Contract (SSC). An SSC is a
legally binding agreement that provides the mechanism for obtaining required state cost
share and other assurances, outlines the statement of work for the response action and
also documents responsibilities for remedial implementation at a site. When a political
subdivision has the lead for a remedial action, the SSC is signed by EPA, the state and
the political subdivision. The SSC does not obligate funds; funds for Federal-lead
projects must be obligated through an EPA procurement contract with a contractor or an
Interagency Agreement with another agency. Funds for political subdivision response
actions are provided through the CA.
SSC Reciuirements . An SSC is required to be in place before EPA or the
political subdivision can begin a remedial action funded by the Superfund. An
SSC must contain several state assurances. One is that the state will pay its cost
share for response actions. The state cost share is ten percent for privately
operated sites. For publicly operated sites, the state cost share is 50 percent and
is required for prior removal, RI/FS and RD activities as well as the RA. In
addition to cost share assurances, SSCs must contain state program assurances
and must also include a tentative payment schedule.
• SSC Develooment . The SSC is developed by the regional Program Office.
The RPM/RPO must insure that, in addition to program assurances, the
fmancial 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 RPMJRPO is also
responsible for forwarding immediately to the regional Management Division
any SSC modifications that may affect the payment schedule.
• Payment Schedule . The state cost share must be received and recorded in FMS
before EPA will pay for the work to which the state is contributing funds.
Therefore, state payments should be scheduled approximately two weeks ahead
of the anticipated outlay date to allow for administrative processing. If a
remedial action occurs in several phases the payments may be spread out
accordingly. In this situation, the SSC will schedule the respective state
payments to ensure deposit in the Treasury and recordation in the FMS no later
than EPA’s obligation of funds for each phase.
• Billing . Thirty days prior to the date on the SSC payment schedule, the
regional Management Division will send to the state a notice of the amount
required and the due date. The SSC, and any invoice to the state requesting
payment, must include the requirement that payments be sent to the regional
Superfund lockbox address. The regional Management Division will reference
VI-44
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-0 lB
the SSC, including the EPA site name and identifier, on the invoice. The
Division will also require the state to include a copy of the invoice with any
remittance sent to the regional Superfund lockbox address.
• Receipt of Payment . If EPA does not receive the requested funds by the date on
the payment schedule, the regional Management Division will notify the
RPM/RPO immediately. The RPM/RPO is responsible for follow-up with the
state and will keep the regional Management Division advised. No interest will
accrue on the invoiced amount, because the state cost share is not a debt to the
Agency, but rather an advance payment The region deposits its cost share in
the Trust Fund and receives in return a reimbursable allowance.
• Closeout . The RPMIRPO is responsible for notifying the regional Management
Division when it is time to close out the specific remedial action. The regional
Management Division will reconcile the financial data on the Federal-lead
action.
For additional information on financial management responsibilities related to SSCs,
refer to the Resources Management Directives Systems 2550D , Chapter 9 and State
Participation in the Superfund Program guidance, Chapter 7.
Cost Recovery/Cost Documentation
CERCLA, as amended, imposes liability on responsible parties for the cost of
responding to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances from hazardous
waste sites or spills. When these PRPs fail to clean up sites on their own, EPA may
perform the cleanup and later attempt to recover the clean-up costs from the parties.
Obtaining reimbursement for these costs through judicial action is one of the chief goals
of the Superfund program.
Cost recovery documentation is performed by a case development team comprised of
representatives from the Office of Regional Counsel (ORC), the regional Program
office and the regional Servicing Finance Office. Exhibit VI-12 provides an overview
of the cost recovery documentation process. This flow chart identifies the key activities
performed, the regional and HQ offices responsible, and the sequence of activities from
initiation through completion of the documentation process. The involvement and
distribution of responsibilities of each of these offices during the cost recovery process
does vary within each region. The flow chart and sequence of activities is provided as
a guide. The cost recovery process, which is typically completed within a six week
time frame, is briefly described below:
• Initiation of Cost Recovery Process . The regional Program Office prepares and
submits the Cost Recovery Checklist to OWPE through the Regional Cost
Recovery Coordinator (RCRC) to initiate the HQ documentation process. The
checklist is also submitted to the regional SF0 to begin the documentation
process for regional Superfund site-specific costs. Among other things, the
checklist prescribes the date through which costs are to be documented and the
date documentation is required by the Case Development Team.
The RCRC obtains the cost documentation package from OWPE and the SF0
and prepares a “merged” cost summary (if this is not done by the regional
SF0). The RCRC also requests site-specific Software Package for Unique
VT-45
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-aiR
Reports (SPUR) from the SF0 which provide the cost basis for negotiations
with potentially responsible parties.
Cost Documentation and Reconciliation . Cost documentation and reconciliation
involve collecting and reviewing required documentation to ensure that
accounting and cost information are recorded correctly, that costs are properly
chargeable, that account numbers refer to the appropriate site, and that costs on
the documents are reflected accurately in FMS. The regional SF0 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 SPUR reports, and provides CA cost documentation.
The Office of Regional Counsel reviews the final cost summary and
documentation package in preparation for litigation and takes appropriate actions
pursuant to the Privacy Act and regulations concerning Confidential Business
Information to ensure that protected information is not released.
Site File Maintenance . Diligent maintenance of the site files is crucial to cost
recovery and is the responsibility of the regions. Site-specific financial files
should be maintained by the Financial Management Officer until such time as
cost recovery action is initiated or a minimum of six years. The cost recovery
case file should be maintained by the RCRC until this cost documentation is
required by the litigation team.
V1-46
-------
COST RECOVERY DOCUMENTATION PROCESS
OROAN IZAflON
A wrY
Officc of
Regional
Counsel
— I Rcvicw
Project Co
1 m 0
Pa
Supufund
Regional
Program
Office
I Prepare &
the Coat
i
Transmit Ove Cost
Reco ia y
Ofeckliat
L J
Prepare & Transmit
I Collect, Review
Coat Doctmsaitataon
Package & Regional
& Reconcile
Regional Coat
Documentationl I
Cost Summ pare & Transmit Recetve
HQ coat
Cost U & Reconcile L__
I i e view Package it Summary Collection
Docwnnstation Summary foe
] DoCumentatJo 1 fl Contractor
frcinSAfl Coat :1
to Regional Supafisnd 1 1 L
L JI I___
Program Office Purposes
1 i ew r i
Transmit
II Review
& Reconcile HQ Coat II
Regional
Documentation I Package to
LJ 1T
Suem,ary
Ow
Regional
Financial
Management
Office (FMO)
Wutc
Office c
Programs
Enforcement
(OWPE)
S nd
Accounting
Branch (S/tB)
LJ_
Office of
Enforcement
and Compliance
Monitoring
(OEQ4)
li ; ; ; - 1
Overall
[ _________J
su ni rnary 6
1 FMOs and SAB generate SPUR reports through the ‘coats through’ data listed on the checklist. S / tB will generate SPUR reports to those Regional F?’40s who request assistance
SPUR reports save as the basis for the costs to be documented by these offices
OWPE collects documentation to support contractor costs that have not been billed site specific (e g, Contract Lab and TES Contracts)
3 Financial offices will retain original documents in site 5pe ific files The regional FMO Lransmiia the regional cost summary and the completed coat documentation package to
the regional Supcsfund Program Office Copies of the suroniasy are transtrutlcd to SAB and OWPE
Regional Superfund Program Office will either send the enitre documentation package to Regional Counsel or retain the docuznmLauon and send the cost summary only
5 The Overall summary wtU be the basis for the initial liugaticas referral done by Regional Counsel Pnvacy Act, Confidential Businesa lnfonriatios and references to work
performed on other CRECLA altes or RCRA facilities are protected before the documcnis are released during discovery or at trial
6 OECM review is made to deiaimnc if the case should be referred to the Department of Justice for litigation or back to Regional CounseL
0
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3.O1B
HANDLiNG FiNANCIAL DATA IN TILE CERCLIS ENVIRONMENT
Entering Remedial/Removal Data into CERCLIS
A key step in the handling of financial data is the placement of the EPA identification number,
OU, event and event sequence numbers or non-site incident/activity type codes on the funding
document by the IMC or designee. These data are the first step in establishing the fmancial transaction
link between FMS and CERCLIS or CERFIELP. Since placement of this information on the funding
document is such a key step in the CERCLIS process, the regional IMC must be included in the
funding document concurrence process.
Under normal operating conditions, CERCLIS or CERHELP will already contain certain
planning information related to the event(s) or non-site incident/activities listed on the funding
document. During the SCAP process, the region will have identified various events for planned
obligations and entered the EPA ID, OU, event and sequence number or non-site/incident activity type
codes and contract vehicle into CERCLIS or CERHELP. In these instances, the planned financial
information must be replaced by the commitment or obligation financial data. The “P” in the financial
type field in CERCLIS must be changed to a “C” (commitment) or an “A” (actual obligation) and the
ANIDCN entered into CERCLIS. If a region wants to maintain the planned financial data, the “P” in
the financial type field in CERCLIS must be changed to a regional code of “X”, “Y”, or “Z”. In any
event, the “P” must not remain in the system once the funds are committed or obligated.
For some unanticipated events (e.g., emergency removals) or for decommitments or
deobligations, the funding document may be the first notification to the IMC of a pending financial
transaction for a particular event or non-site incident/activity. In these instances, the EPA ID, OU,
event and sequence number or non-site activity type codes will not exist within CERCLIS or
CERHELP. Therefore, these data the AN/DCN must be entered into CERCLIS or CERHELP.
The EPA ID, OU, event and sequence number or non-site incident/activity type codes, the AN
and DCN need to be recorded and entered into CERCLIS or CERI-IELP in order to link FMS financial
data with CERCLIS or CERHELP. The IMC must ensure that each unique pair of AN and DCN
related to a specific event or non-site activity is entered into CERCLIS or CERHELP.
At this time, certain data are optional for entry into CERCLIS or CERHELP by the regions.
These include commitment/decommitment or obligation/deobligation date and amount, financial type
and contractor name. Regions are not required to enter outlay or credit information into CERCLIS.
Entering Enforcement Case Budget Data into CERCLIS
The region will be responsible for entering obligations/tasking (WAs issued) into CERCLIS.
For lAGs that support enforcement activities, regions will have to post the AN/DCN in the financial
notes. For all TES actions, TESWATS will produce a weekly report listing actual WAs issued (CO
sign oft). This information is to be posted into the current year obligation field in the CERCLIS
financial field record. Each transaction for each WA will be entered into CERCLIS as a separate
record. It is expected that TESWATS will provide an automated upload to CERCLIS sometime in
FY89. All regional transactions should be entered on a realtime basis or, at a minimum, by the 7th of
the following month. The regions are responsible for verifying the information in FMS and CERCLIS
for obligations or deobligations and outlays incurred.
To ensure that all appropriate financial data are reflected in CERCLIS, the following
information should appear on obligation documents: EPA ID number, site/spill ID number, CERCLIS
Event or Enforcement activity codes and OU number, WA number, and dollars.
VI-48
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-D1B
A crosswalk is provided in Appendix C displaying the relationship between CERCLIS
Enforcement activities, Remedies and Events and their corresponding codes.
ANs must be established for each transaction before commitment and obligation. A CA is
considered obligated when it is signed by the Regional Administrator. An LAG is considered obligated
when it is signed by the other agency. Contracts are considered obligated when the CO signs the
obligating document or, in the case of a TES WA, when the CO signs the WA. Regions are also
responsible for reviewing and recommending payment of the invoice/voucher (outlays) for these
mechanisms. Once invoices are paid, these dollars are entered into FMS. If the obligation was generic
and the invoice is site specific, EMS shows the funds deobligated from the generic account and
obligated and disbursed from the site specific account. It is expected that a down load of Enforcement
EMS data will occur sometime in FY89 for all obligations except TES and PNRS. In preparation for
the EMS download, each region must post the AN and DCN in the financial notes for the appropriate
enforcement activity. The regions will need to verify that the outlay data are accurate and downloaded
from EMS into the correct place in CERCLIS.
FMS to CERCLIS Financial Data Transfer
On Thursday of each week, an automated transfer of selected financial data from EMS to
CERCLIS and CER}{ELP will take place. Exhibit VI-13 indicates the removal and remedial financial
data to be transferred.
EXHIBIT VI-13
REMOVAL AND REMEDIAL FINANCIAL DATA
TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM FMS
• Commitments and decommitments
• Obligations and deobligations
• Funding vehicle
• Outlays and credits (funding type and amount)
• Obligating document number
• Document control number
During the transfer, an automated matching process will occur linking the FMS ANIDCN with
the identical unique ANIDCN pair in CERCLIS or CERIIELP. If the necessary financial information
has not been entered into CERCLIS, the FMS/CERCLIS link will not be established and the automated
transfer process for that AN/DCN transaction will not occur. In cases where the link cannot be
established, CERCLIS will generate an error report noting the problem areas.
It is important for the regions to note that they are ultimately responsible for the accuracy of the
CERCLIS or CERHELP data bases. Regions will have to ensure that both the planned data entered as
part of the SCAP process and the actual data transferred from EMS are accurate and current. Since
EMS is the Agency’s official source of financial data, data transferred from EMS will override
CERCLIS data entered by the regions. A weekly exception report is used to aid in identifying errors
or differences between FMS and CERCLIS. Errors that have been carried over from FMS must be
corrected in both EMS and CERCLIS.
\‘I-49
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
Correcting Financial Data
The region’s FMS administrator is the only person authorized to make changes in the FMS data
base. The IMC or designee should work with the regional FMO on a regular basis to make sure that
all FMS 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 FMS. The information in this
report can be compared with the funding documents and CERCLIS. Upon determining that the data
on the source document was correct and were correctly entered into CERCLIS, the IMC should give
the regional FMO a copy of the funding document, and any other relevant documentation, showing
that the FMS data are in error.
The Office of the Comptroller has issued standard procedures for correcting FMS data. There
are three kinds of corrections which may be needed on financial information in FMS as shown in
Exhibit VI- 14.
EXHIBIT VI-14
CORRECTIONS TO FINANCIAL INFORMATION
IN FMS
• Data entry errors in FMS.
• Changing account numbers or document control
numbers that were initially entered into FMS.
• Correcting errors in the source funding document
or making other amendments to existing
commitments or obligations.
FMS data entry errors are resolved by the FMO. Errors in AN/DCN, or other information on
the original funding document can only be corrected by the same process used to initially create the
financial record (by a contract/PR or by amendment of the LAG or CA).
V1-50
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-01B
CHAPTER VII - PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ASSESSMENT
This chapter establishes procedures that assess the accomplishments of the Superfund Program
prescribes steps for focusing on slipping targets. The Superfund management and assessment
strategy has the components shown in Exhibit VII- 1, which are defined in detail in this chapter.
EXHIBIT Vu-i
MANAGEMENT/ASSESSMENT
STRATEGY
• Assistant Administrator monthly
progress reviews
• Quarterly reviews with mid-year and
end-of-year assessment and the
development of action strategies for
slipping targets
• OSWER reviews, which include regional
self-evaluations and on-site review
• Special studies
Together these components give management the opportunity to recognize, and to capitalize on,
high performance by moving resources to regions that can assist in meeting national program
priorities; and provide technical assistance to regions that are experiencing difficulties.
110/REGIONAL RESPONSIBiLITIES
Both HQ and the regions have assessment and implementation responsibilities as shown in
Exhibit Vll-2 on the following page.
HOW EVALUATION FITS iN
Superfund goal setting, planning, resource allocation, and evaluation are all intended to work
together to accomplish program goals. The evaluation process gives program managers regular
opportunities, after the formal planning process has ended, to:
• Initiate changes in program operations or reallocate resources to influence program
objectives;
• Examine program accomplishments; and
• Raise issues that have an impact on performance.
Vu-i
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-018
EXHIBIT VII-2
IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES
REGIONAL HEADOUARTERS
RESPONSIBILITIES RESPONSIBILITIES
Meet quarterly SCAP and SPMS targets and Provide guidance to the regions for preparing
solve performance problems when they arise, the quarteriy review, and the OSWER
On-Site Review.
Provide quarterly SCAP and SPMS data to HQ
through CERCLIS. Review regional Self-Evaluation and participate
in OSWER On-Site Reviews.
Maintain CERCLIS data quality at high levels
for Superfund program and project management. Review quarterly data reported by the
regions.
Prepare Self-Evaluations and participate in
OSWER On-Site Reviews. Negotiate action strategies with regions for
recouping slipping targets.
Provide input to the development of qualitative
measures for Seff-Evaluations. Recommend resource re-allocations based on
regional needs and perfonnance.
Negotiate performance standards that provide
individual accountability for quarterly targets. Implement and report on follow-up action
items from the OSWER On-Site Review,
Develop action strategy to recoup slipping Superfund quarterly reviews and mid-year
targets. assessment and track regional implementation.
Assure that all staff are informed of the
results of quarterly reporting and OSWER
reviews.
Evaluation allows program managers to influence program performance by providing
information on regional activities and offering solutions. See Exhibit VH-3 on the following page.
Vll-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-018
EXHIBIT VII-3
QUARTERLY
REVIEW
AND
MID-YEAR
ASSESSMENT
*
*
I
Self-Evaluation
On-Site Review
IN
QUARTERLY REVIEWS
The quarterly review process is intended to:
Track regional progress towards quarterly and end-of-year SCAP and SPMS targets;
Resolve problems; and
Develop strategies to recoup slipping targets.
Quarterly reviews, including the mid-year and end-of-year assessment, provide a vehicle for
monitoring regional progress toward negotiated program output levels (Exhibit VII-4). The quarterly
review process establishes a forum for discussing issues impacting performance as well as innovative
regional techniques for achieving targets. On a national scale, the process allows HQ management to
identify trends in program performance and adjust program management strategies accordingly.
OSWER
REVIEWS
* Generate
Qualitative
Themes
INFLUENCE
PROGRAM
ThROUGH:
* Debriefing
EVALUATION INFLUENCES ON
PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
-0
* Tracking
I
* Performance
Standards
RESULTS IN:
* High
Performance
* Problems
Solved
* National
Goals
Accomplished
* Resource
Reallocation
SPECIAL
STUDIES
* High Priority
Management
Reviews
* Other Studies
* Responses to
GAO/IG Reports
* Headquarters
Assistance
VH-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
EXHIBIT VII-4
THE QUARTERLY REVIEW PROCESS 4th QUARTER
END-OF-YEAR
2nd QUARTER ASSESSMENT
1ST QUARTER MID-YEAR 3RD QUARTER * Evaluate Program
REVIEW ASSESSMENT REVIEW Status
* Evaluate Program * Evaluate Program
Status Status * Evaluate Annual
E I t
va ua ,gra.rn Performance and
Status * Develop Action S Report on Progress Produce National
Strategy to of Action Strategy Progress Report
Brief Senior Meet Slipping to Meet Slipping
Management Targets Targets * Provide Input into
Next FY Resource
* Brief Senior Brief Senior Allocation Process
____________ Management Management
______________ ______________ Report on Proamss
of Strategy to meet
Slipping Targets
* Bnef Senior
Management
Quarterly reviews follow the same schedule for each quarter (Exhibit Vll-5).
EXHIBIT Vu-S
QUARTERLY REVIEW SCHEDULE
The quarterly review schedule begins twelve business days before
the end of a quarter with an OPM memorandum and an OMSE evaluation
schedule sent to the regions. On the fifth working day following the
end of the quarter Headquarters pulls the accomplishment
data from CERCLIS.
Eight to fifteen working days following the end of the quarter the
regions, in conjunction with the appropriate Headquarters program office,
verify the data in the OMSE system. Approximately fifteen business
days after the quarter ends, the SPMS numbers become fmal.
VII-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-OIB
During the quarterly evaluation process, HQ is responsible for reviewing:
• SCAP/SPMS Targets and Accomplishments Report; and
• Additional data from CERCLIS that have been generated either by HQ or by the region.
Regions are responsible for:
• Analyzing preliminary SCAP and SPMS data to assess the likelihood of slippage and
regional potential to meet or exceed annual targets; and
• Implementing action items that result from the review.
It should be stressed that the regions are responsible for data entry and data quality. If data are
not entered into CERCLIS, performance accomplishments will not be captured in the data pull nor will
they be entered into the OMSE SPMS system.
Once the numbers are final, HQ and regional Division Directors, OERR and OWPE Office
Directors, the AA SWER, and the EPA Deputy Administrator are briefed individually on regional
performance. This occurs 15 - 30 business days following the end of the quarter.
The Mid-Year Assessment
During the second quarter, a mid-year assessment is conducted of regional progress toward
annual SCAP and SPMS targets. The mid-year assessment begins in February when the regions begin
examining their progress toward end-of-year targets in preparation for the second quarter negotiations.
If regions feel they can exceed annual targets, they should identify if further progress can be made and
what resources are needed. HQ and regional responsibilities for the mid-year assessment are the same
as those under the regular quarterly review process.
The outcome of the mid-year assessment is a set of agreements between HQ and the regions on
actions taken to recoup slipping targets or exceed end-of-year targets. The results of the mid-year
assessment can influence resource allocations for the next fiscal year. It will be completed at the same
time as preliminary targets and FTE allocations are being developed.
Regions may be visited as part of the mid-year assessment. HQ Division Directors will
recommend regions to visit to the OSWER Office Directors. On-site assessments are expected to last
between two and three days and will be combined with negotiations. HQ participants for the review
will be Section and/or Branch chiefs.
The End-of-Year Assessment
In October and November, after the end of the fourth quarter, there is an end-of-year
assessment. This assessment will produce an integrated analysis of program performance activities for
that year, emphasizing pipeline issues and noting regional variation as appropriate. It will also review
progress toward implementing mid-year action strategies and identify any regions that might require
additional assistance as the fiscal year begins.
The results of the end-of-year assessment will be available prior to development of the next
fiscal year’s workload model in December. The end-of-year assessment will be one of the items
considered by 1-IQ when the “straw” model is developed in mid-December.
Vll-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
OSWER REVIEW
The OSWER review integrates the concerns of OERR, OWPE, OSW, and the AAs staff on a
regional basis. Each region is reviewed once every 18 to 24 months.
The OSWER review serves five basic purposes:
• To assess regional performance;
• To gain regional perspectives on important implementation issues;
• To help solve regional problems by identifying actions to be taken by HQ or the
regions;
• To facilitate technology transfer and communication among regions; and
• To discuss the relationship among OSWER programs.
The OSWER review has five steps (Exhibit Vll-6):
EXHIBIT VII-6
The development of the preliminary agenda begins approximately 12 weeks before an OSWER
review is due to take place. The preliminary agenda is composed of issues related to:
• Specific performance expectations derived from Annual Operating Guidance, major
regulations (e.g., the NCP), and other important guidance documents;
• Region specific issues related to regional performance; and
• Program concerns and priorities.
The preliminary agenda is intended to focus regional Self-Evaluations and ensure that regions
address issues of interest to HQ senior management, individual programs, and program-wide
performance expectations.
THE OSWER REVIEW PROCESS
Preparing the Preliminary Agenda
Vll-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3-OIB
Performance expectations will be identified from the Annual Operating Guidance and other goal
setting documents (e.g., major regulations, policy statements, other guidance). Performance
expectations are intended to focus the region on important program-wide issues and establish a series
of expectations about program activities. Performance expectations will be identified annually and
updated as changes in program goals or priorities occur.
Approximately 12 weeks before each OSWER review, OWPE and OERR management will
identify region and program specific issues. These issues should reflect program concerns about that
region’s performance in the areas related to their responsibility and concerns and priorities related to
the operation and accomplishments of the program as a whole. These issues are then combined,
performance expectations are added, redundancies are eliminated, and the preliminary agenda is sent to
the region. The final product will consist of a small number of focused questions and performance
expectations.
At the same time as the preliminary agenda is developed, HQ will identify potential review
issues and potential team members for the review. Team members should be upper management to
assure knowledge of the program and the authority to commit program resources to specific actions
agreed upon during the review.
Preparing the Self-Evaluation
The regional Self-Evaluation is one of several tools used by the regions and HQ to prepare for
the OSWER review.
Self-Evaluations allow HQ to focus its preparation for an OSWER review on those areas that
the region perceives to be important.
Through the Self-Evaluation, regions:
• Present their perspective on the Superfund program;
• Assess their performance to date, identify problems and propose solutions; and
• Respond directly to qualitative measures provided by HQ.
What Should the Evaluation Cover
The regional Self-Evaluation should be brief and should follow a highly structured format so
that HQ personnel can easily delegate sections to the appropriate programs for review. HQ will issue
guidance to regions to help organize the Self-Evaluations. Generally, Self-Evaluations should focus
on broad program issues that are vital to the long-term effectiveness of the program. Other issues that
could be addressed include:
• Systemic problems that frustrate regional attempts to meet annual targets;
• Problems that the region feels HQ needs to remedy;
• Areas where the region needs technical assistance; and
• Ideas or proposals the region has for improving the success of the program.
Self-Evaluations prepared between April and September 30 should discuss progress made in
implementing the action strategies negotiated during the mid-year assessments and in accomplishing
year-end targets.
V1I-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-O1B
Self-Evaluations should not:
• Discuss SCAP and SPMS targets. The quarterly review process provides sufficient
attention to them. However, general discussion of program performance would be
appropriate; and
• Address day-to-day issues or problems that could be effectively dealt with through
normal HQ-regional channels.
When the Self-Evaluation is returned, the team will review it in the context of the issues raised
in the preliminaly agenda. CERCLIS data will be made available for comparison with other regions
and to explore other dimensions of regional performance. The comments from the team are then given
to the Program Area Team Leader to produce the final program agenda. The final agenda is sent to the
region two weeks prior to the review.
EXHIBIT VII-7
WHEN SHOULD THE
SELF-EVALUATION
BE PREPARED?
Approximately ten weeks prior to the
OSWER Review, HQ sends the region
the preliminary agenda and a sample
Self-Evaluation. The region has
approximately four weeks to prepare
the Self-Evaluation.
In the Region
The review consists of a three- to four- day series of management level discussions in the
region on issues identified in the detailed agenda. After an introductory briefmg, concurrent breakout
sessions are held on individual program or policy areas. A series of subsequent meetings are then held
to discuss issues brought up at these meetings in more detail. If necessary, file reviews may be
performed to verify information.
After each day’s meetings, Review Team Leaders are responsible for documenting the results
of their individual sessions. This information is then incorporated into the Implementation Report.
The visit concludes with a senior management session at which agreement is reached on further steps
to be taken by HQ and the region.
Follow-Up
The final step of the review consists of implementing actions agreed to during the site visit and
monitoring their implementation. Immediately after the visit is completed, the region’s comments on
the implementation review report are submitted to and reviewed by the program offices. Program
office and regional comments are then sent to the AA SWER. After the comments have been
reviewed, and necessary revisions made, the final Implementation Review Report is sent to the region.
VH-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200 3 .O1B
The follow-up action items are put into the OSWER tracking system. Six months after the
OSWER review has occurred, responsible Divisions at HQ and in the regions must report progress on
implementing follow-up items to the Management and Evaluation Section (MES).
EXHIBIT VII-8
PRODUCTS OF THE OSWER ON-SITE REVIEW
BRIEFING POINTS: Briefing points are developed from
individual program sessions. They are a series of bullet
points that summarize the key issues and responses.
They are used to brief the Program Director at the HQ
Team Meeting on the final day of the review.
IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW REPORT: The
implementation review report is prepared On-site
during the review. It includes all of the findings
resulting from the review. A preliminary report
is filed with the region for comment prior to the
departure of the HQ review team.
FOLLOW-UP ACTION iTEMS: The follow-up action
items are actions agreed to by both HQ and the regions
to remedy some of the problems raised during the review.
Each action item is assigned to either a regional or HQ
division. It is that division’s responsibility to implement
the action designated in that action item and to track
regional items.
SPECIAL STUDIES
Each year resources will be set aside for 3-5 high priority management studies. These studies
will satisfy FMFIA requirements as well as the Program’s need for evaluauon information. Divisions
and the regions will be solicited for issues that may be the focus of the high priority studies. A
candidate list of studies will be produced for the OERR and OWPE Directors’ use in selecting final
studies. These studies will be determined by early March to satisfy FMFIA workplan requirements.
COVENRMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1988——617—003/8i ,268
VH-9
------- |