9 «» \
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Special Report
Congressional Request on
Funding Needs for
Non-Federal Superfund Sites
Report 2004-P-00001
January 7, 2004
-------
Abbreviations
AOA Advice of Allowance
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY Fiscal Year
LTRA Long-Term Response Action
NPL National Priorities List
NTCRA Non-time Critical Removal Action
OIG Office of Inspector General
OU Operable Unit
OSRTI Office of Site Remediation and Technology Innovation
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RA Remedial Action
RPM Remedial Project Manager
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
"?lir
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
INSPECTOR GENERAL
The Honorable Barbara Boxer
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Boxer:
This report responds to your May 23, 2003, request of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) to provide information concerning funding needs for
non-Federal Superfund sites. We are sending identical reports to the cosigners of the letter:
Senator Jeffords, Representative Dingell, and Representative Solis. Your letter requested that we
address the sufficiency of funding for non-Federal sites at all stages of the site cleanup process,
including a more detailed review of a limited number of sites to determine if cleanup actions are
being stretched out over a greater number of years because of inadequate funding.
The body of this report and enclosures 1 through 5 address funding for Fiscal Year (FY) 2003.
The attachment to your letter posed a series of questions relating to our October 25, 2002, letter
on FY 2002 funding needs for non-Federal Superfund sites. Our responses to those questions are
in enclosures 6 through 11. Please note that given the volume of data requested, we are
providing certain requested financial information via the enclosed disk.
In summary, during FY 2003, limited funding prevented EPA from beginning construction at all
sites or providing additional funds needed to address sites in a manner believed necessary by
regional officials, and caused projects to be segmented into phases and/or scaled back to
accommodate available funding. Within this context, regional officials told us that they
considered FY 2003 funding sufficient to address most sites. However, as discussed in the body
of this report and in the enclosures, sufficient funds were not available to address a limited
number of removal, pipeline, and remedial action sites. We estimate that the FY 2003 site-
specific funding shortfall was $174.9 million. Our estimate of shortfall only considers the
regions' use of extramural resources (those resources that are used to fund work by the Army
Corps of Engineers or contractors) applied to site-specific work. This report does not address
intramural resources, or those obligations involving the labor and travel of EPA personnel that
are obligated to specific Superfund sites.
Our October 25, 2002, letter on FY 2002 funding needs was limited to two phases of the cleanup
process for Superfund sites - those sites requiring remedial action and those requiring long-term
-------
response actions (LTRA). Your May 23, 2003, request letter asked us to inquire about all stages
of the process. Accordingly, in addition to discussing funding for remedial action and LTRA
sites, the enclosed information for FY 2003 addresses sites requiring (1) time critical removal
actions, and (2) preconstruction activities (referred to as pipeline activities), such as remedial
investigation/feasibility studies and remedial design work.
The Superfund Funding Process for FY 2003
The Office of Site Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) within the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response provides funds for EPA regions to conduct site cleanup
activities using three Advices of Allowance (AOA):
Removal Funding
The Removal AOA funds emergency and time-critical removal actions at those sites where it is
determined that the contaminants present an immediate threat to human health and the
environment. The regions do not request funds from Headquarters on a site-by-site basis prior to
the start of a fiscal year because the nature of this work requires an immediate response to
unanticipated conditions. Instead, OSRTI provides funds to the regions based on historical
allocations for the emergency removal program.
Pipeline Funding
The Pipeline AOA provides the regions funds for pre-construction activities, such as conducting
remedial investigation/feasibility studies that characterize the nature of the contaminants at a site;
selection of the remedy, which is documented in the Record of Decision; the design of the
construction work to address the contaminants; and non-site-specific work, such as community
involvement activities, records management, and State program development. The regions do
not request funds on a site-specific basis from Headquarters for pipeline activities.
Prior to receiving funds, the regions input information on pipeline activities accomplished in the
prior year and those planned for the current year into the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System CERCLIS), the Superfund
information system. During this process, the regions identify or "target" activities in certain
categories they believe can be initiated with funding amounts from OSRTI. OSRTI then
allocates funds to each region using a formula that considers historical allocations and pipeline
activities accomplished in the prior year and work planned for the current year (i.e., the targeted
activities). The regions then apply pipeline funds to targeted activities for sites or allocate an
amount of money to contracts that will later be used to conduct pipeline activities. The latter
process is known as "bulk funding." Under bulk funding, site-specific obligations are not
recorded in the Agency's financial management system until the contractor is instructed to
perform a pipeline activity for a particular site.
-------
Remedial Funding
The Remedial AOA funds remedial construction, LTRA activities, non-time critical removals,
and five-year reviews. LTRAs involve continuing treatment activities after construction is
complete. Groundwater monitoring is an example of an LTRA. The regions annually request
funds from Headquarters for remedial, non-time critical removal, and LTRAs on a site-specific
basis. Regions input cost estimates into CERCLIS, and complete Project Evaluation forms for
ongoing and new start projects with estimated costs of $600,000 or more. The Project
Evaluation forms enable the regions to provide a desired amount of funding, a minimum amount,
and a description of the known hazards present at the site and the impacts of not providing
funding. New construction starts are evaluated by the National Risk Based Priority Panel, a
group of senior Headquarters and regional officials whose analysis is used by management to
make funding decisions
Once the regional information is available, OSRTI and the regions begin discussions about
regional requests and eventually arrive at an initial allocation of funds for each site. Following a
methodology from FY 2002, projects with estimated costs of less than $5 million were generally
funded at the amount requested by the regions, while the amounts allocated for higher cost sites
represent the amounts mutually agreed to by Headquarters and the region. OSRTI issued its
initial funding memorandum for FY 2003 on October 30, 2002. OSRTI officials indicated to us
that the allocation of funds is a dynamic process that continues throughout the year. (We found
this to be the case. For example, as shown on enclosures 3 and 4, regions reported not needing
funds they initially requested from OSRTI based on various factors such as delays and being able
to use funds from prior year appropriations. On the other hand, some sites required and received
additional funds beyond the amounts estimated for FY 2003.)
In addition to funds provided by OSRTI, the regions obligate funds from two other sources.
Funds are obligated from monies provided by States as matching funds for construction activities
and from "Special Account" monies provided by Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) in
accordance with Consent Decrees.
FY 2003 Emphasis on Ongoing Remedial Actions
For FY 2003, OSRTI transferred $10 million of pipeline funds to remedial construction. In its
October 30, 2002, memorandum discussing initial FY 2003 funding decisions, OSRTI stated that
"Because of the limited resources available for construction, regions have the discretion to
minimize new Fund-financed remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) and remedial
design (RD) work." OSRTI also revised its deobligation policy to direct that 75 percent of
deobligations become part of the national pool for reobligation.
As with FY 2002, OSRTI emphasized funding ongoing construction over new construction
starts. For FY 2003, the National Risk Based Priority Panel considered 35 new start projects and
determined that 9 should receive remedial funds. Of the remaining 26, 15 did not receive
remedial funds, and 11 were, according to an OSRTI official, determined not ready for various
reasons, including enforcement issues, changed site conditions, or design complications. Two of
-------
the sites not receiving remedial funds - Elizabeth Mine in Region 1 and the Washington
Recreation portion of Operable Unit #3 of the Bunker Hill site in Region 10 - did receive
removal and pipeline funds, respectively.
Results of OIG Review
Regional officials told us that they had sufficient funding for the majority of sites for FY 2003.
However, a limited number of removal, pipeline, and remedial action sites did not. When
funding is not sufficient, construction at National Priority List (NPL) sites cannot begin; cleanups
are performed in less than an optimal manner; and/or activities are stretched over longer periods
of time. As a result, total project costs may increase and actions needed to fully address the
human health and environmental risk posed by the contaminants are delayed. We estimate that
the FY 2003 funding shortfall was $174.9 million as summarized in the following table.
Category
FY 2003 new start construction projects not funded
FY 2003 remedial projects not sufficiently funded
FY 2003 removal projects not sufficiently funded
FY 2003 pipeline projects not sufficiently funded
Total (difference due to rounding)
Estimated FY 2003
Funding Shortfall (millions)
$118.5
$40.8
$9.4
$6.1
$174.9
Enclosure
3
3
1
2
In analyzing whether funding was sufficient for a given site, we began by asking regional
Superfund officials/Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) whether they developed their estimate
for FY 2003 without consideration of budget limitations (i.e., whether their estimate was based
on the work that needed to be done from an engineering standpoint to address the site in an
optimal way in FY 2003). In response to our questions about how site cleanup estimates are
developed, some regional officials told us that expected budget limitations were a factor in
developing their estimates for FY 2003. Some regional officials informed us that cleanup work
is conducted differently than it was conducted when full funding was available. Limited funding
forces work at certain sites to be phased and/or scaled back to accommodate available funding.
We then asked regional officials whether the amount obligated was sufficient to proceed in an
optimal way. Their responses are noted in enclosures 1 through 4 under the Sufficient Funding
column.
We also inquired about 15 sites in greater detail. These sites are summarized in enclosure 5.
For these sites, in addition to discussing them with regional Superfund officials, we obtained
information such as the nature and extent of contamination and the status of cleanup from
CERCLIS. OIG engineers assisted in our review of these sites and provided their opinion of
whether EPA's funding decisions were appropriate given the unique nature of each site. We
considered four of the 15 sites to be insufficiently funded for FY 2003.
-------
Removal Funding
Financial information provided by OSRTI indicated that the regions obligated $128.1 million
from the FY 2003 and prior-year appropriations and an additional $32.2 million from State
Superfund contracts and amounts provided by PRPs in response to Consent Decrees for a total of
$160.3 million. Enclosure 1 lists those removal actions that were not fully funded in FY 2003.
Regions generally reported having sufficient funds to address emergency removals. However,
several regions said that because of the amount of removal funds available to them, they made
decisions to modify the type and extent of the removal, or partially fund sites. Examples follow:
Region 1 officials said that friable asbestos in buildings on the Inter Royal site was
not completely dismantled. Further work may be needed in the future as the
buildings degenerate.
Region 3 reported having sufficient funds for removal actions but stated that it had
changed its approach for the removal program because of limited funding over time.
Region 3 now focuses on stabilization of sites (for example, erecting a fence and/or
enclosing leaking drums to control spread of the contaminant) rather than on complete
cleanups.
Region 5 officials reported that three sites requiring removal actions were not
sufficiently funded - Kip Nelson Properties, Hog Hollow, and the Circle Smelting
Site. The Circle Smelting site needs a time critical removal action to mitigate the
threat to public health and the environment from lead contamination at an estimated
cost of $8.3 million. However, the Region was only able to obligate a total of
$1.6 million from appropriated funds and Special Accounts during FY 2003.
Regional officials also told us that they reduced the extent of cleanup in some time-
critical removal cases. For example, a site might be fenced and leaking drums placed
in sealed containers instead of removing the contaminated soil.
Regions 6 and Region 7 reported that they were involved with the Columbia Shuttle
disaster for approximately three months during FY 2003. Interviews with Regions 6
and 7 Removal Team staff indicated that if this had not been the case, they would
have investigated other sites that probably would have needed removal actions.
Region 6 officials told us that addressing other removal actions "... would have
overwhelmed our removal Advice of Allowance."
Pipeline Funding
Financial information provided by OSRTI indicated that the regions obligated a total of $107.6
million from current year appropriations, prior-year appropriations, State Superfund contracts,
and amounts provided by PRPs in response to Consent Decrees to site-specific pipeline activities
in FY 2003. As discussed below, the amounts obligated for a limited number of sites were not
sufficient to conduct pipeline activities in the manner considered necessary by regional officials.
-------
When Regions responded to our questions about the sufficiency of pipeline funding, they
generally said the amounts obligated to specific sites were sufficient for targeted sites for
FY 2003. However, some appeared to base their answers on whether they were able to make
some progress with the funding received. For example, Region 2 considered funding sufficient if
the funding allowed the Region to address the site in a manner the Region described as
"minimally sufficient." Region 4 officials considered funding sufficient because the work can be
phased (divided into segments) to accommodate available funds spread over as many projects as
possible. Region 7 officials told us that they instructed their RPMs to reduce the scope, phase, or
delay planned activities where possible. As a result, for some sites the Region reduced the
number of samples collected, limited the number of contaminants analyzed, and reduced the
number of monitoring wells installed. Region 8 officials indicated that the Region cut all
pipeline activities by 10 percent and incrementally funded cooperative agreements at 50 percent
to free up funds for remedial investigation/feasibility studies and remedial design work for NPL
sites. Thus, some regional officials considered funding sufficient within the constraints imposed
by limited funding.
However, some pipeline activities were not sufficiently funded. Enclosure 2 is a list of non-
Federal Superfund sites with funding shortfalls for pipeline activities during FY 2003 totaling
$6.1 million. Examples of funding concerns for pipeline sites follow:
Region 7 estimated $2.5 million for the Omaha Mining site for FY 2003 but only
obligated $1 million. As a result, fewer residences were sampled for lead
contamination.
The remedial investigation/feasibility study for the Annapolis Mine site in Region 7,
estimated to cost $400,000, was not started.
The RPM for the Libby, Montana site in Region 8 indicated that an additional
$740,000 was needed to take additional samples, analyze the samples taken, and
conduct a study to determine a cost-effective method for quantifying the amount of
asbestos in the soil.
Region 10 officials told us that pipeline operations were significantly cut for the
remedial design for the Bunker Hill site and for various community involvement
projects. For the Bunker Hill site, the Region obligated $3.9 million versus its
estimate of $7.05 million for pipeline activities.
Remedial Funding
Enclosures 3 and 4 list non-Federal Superfund NPL sites for which FY 2003 remedial funding
was requested or obligated. For FY 2003, OSRTI allocated $224.4 million for site-specific
remedial work. Considering amounts obligated from the FY 2003 appropriation, prior-years
appropriations, State Superfund contracts, and amounts provided by PRPs in response to Consent
Decrees. Financial information supplied by OSRTI indicated that the regions obligated a total of
$369.3 million during FY 2003.
-------
To obtain the views of regional officials on the sufficiency of FY 2003 funding, we asked
regional Superfund officials, including RPMs, whether the amount allocated to a site was
sufficient to address that site in an optimal way without consideration of budget limitations.
Generally speaking, the regions reported that there was sufficient funding in FY 2003 for
ongoing remedial construction and LTRA projects. However, some Regions reported their
decision about sufficiency of funds rested on whether funding was sufficient for site work to
continue as planned, even if phased, without additional delays or work stoppage. Regional
officials consider every LTRA site listed in enclosure 4 to be sufficiently funded for FY 2003.
Specific planned site work and funding was the result of a series of discussions between
Headquarters and the regions. During these work planning discussions, a number of factors are
considered, such as what sites are the highest priority for funding, what specific site work could
be achieved with available funds in the fiscal year, and when the funding is needed. Regions
also told us that because of limited funding, they sometimes "phase" and "scale back" work, do
not start new remedial actions, and experience delays. Phasing is the division of a project into
smaller work elements, which, according to OSRTI, allows more projects to get funded.
However, several RPMs told us that phasing work is not as efficient as up-front funding for
remedial actions. For example, as discussed below, at Region 1's Atlas Tack site, remedial
action work was partitioned into three phases because there was not enough money to fully fund
the site:
Phase I was the planned work for FY 2002 - if funding was available, the building on
the site would have been demolished. The cost estimate was $1.8 million, but
funding was not available.
Phase II would have occurred during FY 2003, if Phase I was completed in FY 2002.
Phase II involves cleaning up the site and preparing it for future use. The estimated
cost for this phase is $11.3 million (Region 1 's estimate for FY 2003 was $13.1
million for Phases I and II). However, the site received no funding in FY 2003.
Phase III is being designed at this time and will not be ready for funding until
FY 2005. The current cost estimate is $4.3 million.
A Region 1 official indicated that had sufficient funds been available in FY 2002 the work for
Phases I and II could have been completed in 6 to 9 months.
Scaling back site work is the reduction of the amount and extent of the work. For example, the
RPM for Region 2's Welsbach site stated that this site received the requested funding to excavate
three study areas during FY 2003. However, when digging began at the primary study area, the
contamination was determined to be substantially greater than anticipated. Since additional
funding could not be obtained, work was scaled back at the primary work site and postponed at
the two other areas. The RPM said that construction delays at this site could increase
construction costs, increase the number of days required for road closures, lengthen the time
required before eight displaced families can move back into their homes, and negatively affect
the ability of a private swim club to stay in business. The Region reported that the delayed
cleanup cannot be associated with an increased health risk at this time.
-------
We asked regional officials how site estimates were developed. We were told that RPMs'
requests are generally based on Independent Government Cost Estimates for contractor services
and developed in collaboration with supervisors. Some regional officials told us that they did
consider the limited budget when preparing site estimates. Region 10 told us that estimates were
based on the Headquarters' predicted allocation of the money that would be available during FY
2003. Region 10 officials said that OSRTI informed them in advance that OSRTI would cut
back any requested amounts over $5 million for a particular site due to limited funds. Without
that direction, Region 10 staff we interviewed stated that they would have requested more funds
for the Bunker Hill site.
Our estimate of the remedial funding shortfall for FY 2003 is comprised of sites where
construction could not begin and sites with ongoing construction where the need exceeded
available funds. Following are the sites where construction activities were ready to begin but no
funding was available because the sites were not ranked high enough by the National Priority
Panel:
Region
1 *
1
1 *
1
5*
5
6
6
6
6
10
State
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Vermont
New Hampshire
Indiana
Illinois
Louisiana
New Mexico
Texas
Texas
Oregon
Total
Sites Not Funded in FY 2003
Atlas Tack
Mohawk Tannery
Elizabeth Mine
New Hampshire Plating
Continental Steel
Jennison Wright
Marion Pressure Treating
North Railroad Ave. Plume
Hart Creosoting
Jasper Creosoting
McCormick and Baxter
FY 2003 Site
estimate (millions)
$13.1
6
8
3.5
39.1
12.5
9
6.5
9.9
6.2
4.7
$118.5
*NOTE: site involves multiple operating units
In addition, some sites received less funding than the region requested or, in the view of regional
officials, were not sufficiently funded. Some examples of sites not sufficiently funded are:
The Bunker Hill site in Region 10 - The Region estimated $37.8 million and
obligated $15.0 million. The entire shortfall involves Operable Unit #3. The impact
of reduced funds for the Bunker Hill site is associated with risk to human health,
particularly for young children and pregnant women, from lead contamination in a
residential area. The future costs are expected to increase as work is delayed.
-------
The Roebling Steel site in Region 2 - The Region requested $5 million from OSRTI
to demolish a building with asbestos during FY 2003. When OSRTI did not provide
the funds, the Region looked to other sources and obligated a total of $4.3 million
from prior year deobligations and State Superfund contracts in September 2003.
However, because funding was not available earlier, demolition could not begin in
FY2003.
The Welsbach site in Region 2 - Region 2 obligated a total of $20.5 million but the
RPM told us that the extent of contamination was greater than expected and work was
scaled back at the primary work site and postponed at other areas. The RPM
estimated an additional $7 million were needed for FY 2003.
The Libby Mine site in Region 8 - Region 8 officials discussed the Libby, Montana
site, a non-time critical removal, that poses a cancer health threat to residents in the
towns of Libby and Troy. The region requested funds for operable units involving the
town of Libby, the town of Troy, and the mine itself (Libby Mine). Funding was
obtained for the Libby operable unit, but not for Troy or for the Libby Mine. Region
8 officials indicated that the Region could have used another $3.7 million. The
additional funds would have enabled the Region to analyze more samples to help
characterize the site and to conduct a study to determine how clean the site should be.
The Upper Tenmile Creek site in Region 8 - Region 8 obligated $3.8 million but the
RPM indicated that an additional $1.3 million was needed to clean up two additional
areas and begin installation of an alternate water supply and treatment system.
The request letter also asked that we provide expenditure data by date and the unobligated site
balances at the end of FY 2003. Enclosure 3 contains this information for the two sites in each
region with the highest total obligations in FY 2003. Because of the volume of data involved, we
are providing this information for other sites on the enclosed disk.
High Cost Sites
Enclosure 5 summarizes the work conducted for a limited number of sites with large estimates of
overall costs. We judgmentally selected these sites based on information included in our
October 25, 2002, letter on FY 2002 funding. Our selection was primarily based on sites with
high overall project costs with comparatively low total obligations at the end of FY 2002. We
focused on these sites to inquire in greater depth about how the region arrived at its estimate for
FY 2003 and whether, in our opinion, the amount requested appeared appropriate to address
these site in an optimal way in FY 2003. For these sites, in addition to discussing them with
regional Superfund officials, we obtained information such as the nature and extent of
contamination and the status of cleanup from EPA's Superfund information system, CERCLIS.
OIG engineers assisted in our review of these sites and provided their opinions of whether EPA's
funding decisions were appropriate given the unique nature of each site. In summary, we
-------
identified funding concerns for 4 of the 15 sites reviewed - the Welsbach site in Region 2, the
Upper Tenmile Creek and Libby sites in Region 8, and the Bunker Hill site in Region 10. These
sites are discussed above and in enclosure 5.
In analyzing funding for remedial action sites, we noted that the demands of a limited number of
high-cost, complex sites limit OSRTI's ability to fully fund all ongoing sites and new starts. For
example, approximately half of the FY 2003 Remedial AOA funding for remedial action, non-
time critical removals, and LTRAs went to 8 sites out of a total of 94 sites receiving funding. In
addition, the funding demands for some sites will grow. For example, the RPM for the New
Bedford site in Region 1 indicated that the site will require at least $15 million per year
beginning in FY 2004 but could need as much as $80 million per year for optimal cleanup. The
RPM for the Woolfolk Chemical site in Region 4 indicated that if funding of an estimated
$25 million is not available over the next 2 to 3 years there could be increased risk to human
health and the environment from the continued migration of contaminants to the groundwater.
Such high-cost sites, in addition to sites discussed above such as Continental Steel that did not
receive any funding in FY 2003, will continue to pose significant funding challenges for EPA.
Scope and Methodology
We interviewed OSRTI and regional officials, including RPMs, about the FY 2003 process for
funding Superfund sites and reviewed documentation relating to FY 2003 funding. During the
interviews, we asked regional officials if they prepared cost estimates for sites without
considering budget limitations and whether the funding available to them was sufficient to
address sites in an optimal way for FY 2003. To calculate funding shortfalls, we verified with
regional officials and RPMs those sites they had designated as insufficiently funded and
confirmed with them our estimate of shortfall. We also asked regional officials whether not
obligating funds until late in the fiscal year limited the amount of site cleanup activity.
For the financial information in enclosures 1 through 4, we relied on information supplied by
OSRTI and regional Superfund officials. To obtain the desired financial information by site,
special queries of EPA's Integrated Financial Management System were developed for us by
OSRTI and financial management officials. Prior to giving the information to us, OSRTI
corrected errors and modified certain data to meet our reporting needs. Given time constraints,
we were not able to test whether the queries extracted the data in the manner desired. Further,
because unique queries were developed, we were not able to rely on the transaction testing
conducted during our audit of EPA's financial statements. However, prior to finalizing this
letter, we asked regional officials to confirm the accuracy and completeness of the data provided
for the information appearing in enclosures 1 through 4 which they did.
In addition to the above limitation, we did not test the controls governing certain activities, such
as the work of the National Risk Based Priority Panel, or the process used to deobligate and
reobligate funds. For theses reasons, our work does not represent an audit conducted in
accordance with Government Auditing Standards.
10
-------
Because of OSRTI's emphasis on remedial action funding during FY 2003, enclosures 3 and 4
contain obligation information for all sites with FY 2003 extramural obligations. However,
given the volume of data involved, enclosures 1 (removal) and 2 (pipeline) only list those sites
with an identified funding shortfall for FY 2003. Information on other sites is included on the
enclosed disk.
To answer the questions in the attachment to your request letter, we obtained information from
OSRTI and regional officials in writing and through interviews. This information is provided in
enclosures 6 through 11.
As I'm sure you are aware, the Conference Committee on the FY 2004 Omnibus Appropriations
Act directed the OIG to conduct an evaluation of how to increase cleanups and reduce
administrative costs within the Superfund program. This will provide yet another opportunity for
the OIG to provide the Congress with additional information on the Superfund program. We
plan to begin this work early in 2004.
If you or your staff have any questions, feel free to call me on (202) 566-0847, or Eileen
McMahon, Assistant Inspector General for Congressional and Public Liaison, on
(202) 566-2546.
Sincerely,
._ _
Co-t^Cv-. i<__
Nikki L. Tinsley
Enclosures
11
-------
Listing of Enclosures
1 Non-Federal Facility Sites with Removal Funding Shortfalls for FY 2003
2 Non-Federal Facility Sites with Pipeline Funding Shortfalls for FY 2003
3 Non-Federal Facility Fund-financed Remedial Actions - FY 2003
4 Non-Federal Facility Fund-financed Long-term Response Actions - FY 2003
5 Summary of Sites Selected for Focused Review by OIG
6 OIG Response to Attachment Question 1
7 OIG Response to Attachment Question 2
8 OIG Response to Attachment Question 3
9 OIG Response to Attachment Question 4
10 OIG Response to Attachment Question 5
11 OIG Response to Attachment Question 6
-------
JRE 1 - NON-FEDERAL FACILITY SITES WITH
VAL FUNDING SHORTFALLS FOR FY 2003
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Removal Actions - FY03
Enclosure 1
Page 1 of 1
National
Priorities List FY03 Regional FY03 Obligated Amount
Site (Y/N) Estimate From Removal AOA*
N 150,000
N 8,298,423 500,000
500,000
1 ,000,000
N 243,000 100,000
N 1,172,384 168,000
Total FY03 Amount
Date of Date of Obligated (sum of prior 3 Sufficient
Obligation Special Accounts Obligation columns) Funding (Y/N)
1/14/2003
04/09/03
07/10/03
06/05/03
09/30/03
150,000
550,000 09/05/03
550,000 1,550,000
100,000
168,000
N
N
N
N
Notes
1
2
3
4
iation obligations
included above.
9,713,807
1,418,000
550,000
1,968,000
>cope was limited to fencing the property and removing the bulk of friable
out of the building. With more funds the Region would consider removal
srmanent solution. The impact now is the abandoned building remains a
ould release asbestos to the surrounding area. FY2003 funding shortfall
1,500,000.
iitional funding to continue to mitigate the threat to public health and the environment from lead contamination. FY2003 funding shortfall amount: $6,748,423.
tical removal to mitigate the threat to public health and the environment from contamination. FY2003 funding shortfall amount: $143,000
i started. However, insufficient funding is available to complete the clean up action in a timely fashion. FY2003 funding shortfall amount: $1,004,384.
-------
JRE 2 - NON-FEDERAL FACILITY SITES WITH
NE FUNDING SHORTFALLS FOR FY 2003
-------
Site Name
- Campbell
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Pipeline Operations - FY03
National
Priorities
List Site
(Y/N)
N
Enclosure 2
Page 1 of 3
FY03 Regional
Estimate
400,000
FY03 Obligated
Amount From
Pipeline ADA*
Date of
Obligation
Total FY03 Amount
Obligated (sum of
prior 3 columns)
Sufficient
Funding
(Y/N)
N
Notes
1
50,000
2,500,000
14,000
1,068
1,000,000
12/19/02
07/09/03
07/30/03
N
N
2,950,000
1,015,068
1,015,068
1,015,068
1,015,068
e Party oversight costs are not included above.
ite assessments, remedial investigations/feasibility studies, remedial design, and community involvement.
ipropriation obligations
jnd Remedial Investigation due to Pipeline AOA shortfall for FY 2003. FY2003 funding shortfall amount: $400,000.
work using Regional Employee. FY2003 funding shortfall amount: $50,000.
Duld have started earlier and been more extensive if the full request was received.
d in 5,000-7,000 residential yards not being sampled for lead contamination. FY2003 funding shortfall amount: $ 1,500,000.
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Pipeline Operations - FY03
Enclosure 2
Page 2 of 3
National
Priorities FY03 Obligated
List Site FY03 Regional Amount From
Site Name (Y/N) Estimate Pipeline ADA*
esville Mining District Y 150,000 150,000
os Site Y 4,050,000 250,000
50,000
750,000
30,000
8,000
100,000
(8,000)
8,000
500,000
200,000
19,274
1,200,000
200,000
3,307,274
Total FY03 Amount Sufficient
Date of Obligated (sum of Funding
Obligation prior 3 columns) (Y/N) Notes
~^^^
01/09/03 N 2
03/04/03
03/12/03
04/02/03
04/07/03
05/01/03
05/27/03
05/29/03
06/03/03
07/14/03
07/28/03
08/25/03
09/29/03
3,307,274
4,200,000
3,457,274
3,457,274 N
sight costs are not included above. Pipeline operations include site assessments, Remedial investigations/Feasibility studies,
volverment activities.
ition obligations
ork on this site was scaled back or completion timeframes extended due to the overall pipeline funding shortfall.
nding shortfall amount: $200,000.
ork on this site was scaled back or completion timeframes extended due to the overall pipeline funding shortfall.
jnding shortfall amount: $740,000.
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Pipeline Operations - FY03 Enclosure 2
Page 3 of 3
National FY03 Obligated Total FY03 Amount
Priorities List FY03 Regional Amount From Date of Obligated (sum of prior 3 Sufficient
me Site (Y/N) Estimate Pipeline ADA* Obligation columns) Funding (Y/N) Notes
Metallurgical Y 7,050,000 188
104
99
125
3
156
79,635
1,351
215
234
29,948
631,228
400,000
25,000
960
149,854
200,000
125,000
1,447,448
33,000
175,000
80,000
19,795
518
440
460,000
3,860,301
09-Oct-02 N 1
29-Oct-02
01-Nov-02
20-Nov-02
09-Dec-02
10-Dec-02
23-Dec-02
13-Jan-03
21-Jan-03
05-Feb-03
20-Mar-03
31-Mar-03
14-Apr-03
07-May-03
08-May-OS
13-May-03
15-May-03
19-May-03
29-May-03
19-Jun-03
20-Jun-03
02-Jul-03
24-Jul-03
19-Aug-03
20-Aug-03
17-Sep-03
3,860,301
7,050,000
3,860,301
3,860,301
ght costs are not included above.
nts, Remedial investigations/Feasibility studies, remedial design, and community involverment activities.
ligations
ilanned FY03 obligations for this site in half because of insufficient funding. Consequently, it reduced management and technical assistance funding;
iter remedial design because the state was not going to sign a State Superfund contract to cover the remedial action work; postponed starts of some
cological designs) because it was hearing that the ecological remedial action funding would not be available. FY2003 funding shortfall amount:
-------
JRE 3 - NON-FEDERAL FACILITY FUND-
CED REMEDIAL ACTIONS - FY 2003
IS NON-TIME CRITICAL REMOVAL ACTIONS)
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Remedial Actions - FY03
Total FY03
FY03 Initial Funding Plan Amount Obligated Total FY03
Amount from HQ October FY03 Obligated Amount Date of Date of Date of (sum of prior 3 Expenditures for
2002 Funding Decision From HQ RAAOA* Obligation Special Accounts Obligation State SF Contracts Obligation columns) Remedial Action"
5,000,000 132 01/08/03
5,000,000 03/10/03
7 09/26/03
5,000,139 5,000,139
10,000,000 10,000,000 05/06/03 675,000 05/06/03 1,400,000 05/06/03 18,331
520,700 08/04/03 74,232
325,000 09/26/03 1 ,433,741
9,511
76,077
10,852
2,504,167
327,935
206,634
1 ,671 ,244
177,668
1 ,970,733
3,193
205,823
1 ,399,01 1
26,494
135,657
2,020,213
184,958
2,665,464
146,536
3,061
1 ,989,847
149,215
4,790
1 ,375,634
177,379
3,342
1 ,495,022
188,223
1,585
1 ,246,067
23,099
875,578
227,905
1,585
10,000,000 1,520,700 1,400,000 12,920,700 23,030,806
2,400,000 07/23/03 581
6,400,000 08/21/03
700,000 09/29/03
9,500,000 9,500,000 581
49 05/30/03
249,968 08/27/03
1 1 09/1 7/03
250,028 250,028
1 5,000,000 24,750,1 67 1 ,520,700 1,400,000 27,670,867 23,031 ,387
unts and State SF Contracts.
ords of Decision. Some future costs may be borne by responsible parties.
Date of Estimated Total Costs Total Funds Obligated
Expenditure for Remedial Action*** through 9/30/03
18,600,000
1 0/28/02 1 30,000,000 1 06,499,530
1 0/30/02
11/13/02
11/18/02
1 1/22/02
1 2/1 0/02
1 2/1 7/02
1 2/24/02
1 2/30/02
01/14/03
01/28/03
02/11/03
02/14/03
03/07/03
03/1 3/03
03/21/03
04/04/03
04/1 7/03
05/02/03
05/09/03
05/23/03
06/03/03
06/05/03
06/1 9/03
07/08/03
07/09/03
07/11/03
07/31/03
08/06/03
08/22/03
08/26/03
09/03/03
09/04/03
09/1 8/03
09/22/03
09/30/03
15,400,000
09/1 9/03 8,800,000 9,500,000
15,500,000
188,300,000 115,999,530
Enclosure 3
Page 1 of 24
Total Funds Sufficient
Expended through Unexpended Balance a1 Funding
9/30/03 9/30/03 fY/N) Notes
N 1
Y
N 2
N 3
79,649,785 26,849,745 Y 4
N 5
581 9,499,419 Y 6
7
Y
79,650,367 36,349,164 N
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Remedial Actions - FY03 Enclosure 3
Page 2 of 24
onal Priority Panel. FY2003 funding shortfall amount: $13,100,000.
>r this site. However, this site did receive emergency removal funds to stabilize the site. FY2003 funding shortfall amount: $8,000,000.
onal Priority Panel. FY2003 funding shortfall amount: $6,000,000.
Y03 actions.
onal Priority Panel. FY2003 funding shortfall amount: $3,500,000.
ised on work schedule, however during the year, the Region requested and HQ provided the monies listed.
lization project that will allow the state to take the lead for this site.
spreadsheet that are not included here. They are:
Funding in FY03, $1.2 million from Special Accounts.
-unding.
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Remedial Actions - FY03
^03 Initial Total FY03
unt from HQ FY03 Obligated
ober 2002 Amount From Date of Special
ng Decision HQ RAAOA' Obligation Accounts
300,000
38 07/25/03
5,000,000 09/30/03
5,000,038
1 ,600,000 1 ,1 00,000 07/03/03
500,000 07/18/03
200,000 09/08/03
1 ,800,000
3,000,000 8,000,000 09/25/03
2,320,000 1 ,320,000 07/03/03
20,000,000 1 0,000,000 02/03/03
5,000,000 03/26/03
5,000,000 05/16/03
1,460,000 08/26/03
3,800,000 09/29/03
25,260,000
2,000,000 2,000,000 09/03/03
13 11/26/02 400,000
350,000 925,000 04/02/03
5,000,000 5,000,000 05/08/03
58 06/27/03
88 07/14/03
3,500,000 07/17/03
1,150,000 08/26/03
800,000 09/05/03
174 09/11/03
57 09/30/03
10,450,377
Obligated (sum Total FY03
Date of State SF Date of of prior 3 Expenditures for
Obligation Contracts Obligation columns) Remedial Action"
450,000 06/24/03 450,000
07/17/03 300,000
2,275,304 09/30/03
2,275,304 7,275,342
1 ,800,000
8,000,000
680,000 07/03/03 2,000,000
2,240,000 08/26/03 1 ,855,814
1 ,200,000 09/29/03 3,41 8,159
774
40,662
31 ,660
3,330,836
2,191,116
2,057
2,404,550
97,187
1 ,532,948
2,574,567
2,504,633
1 ,076,535
97,111
1 ,690,932
90,047
107,370
1,153,122
1,153,360
119,844
4,692,227
1,119,819
191,041
1 ,494,200
874,521
150,590
7,397
1 ,738,209
109,213
901 ,444
416,402
3,748
3,440,000 28,700,000 37,172,095
2,000,000
06/06/03 400,013
608,800 06/24/03 608,800
925,000
350,000 05/08/03
500,000 09/25/03
850,000 11,300,377
Enclosure 3
Page 3 of 24
Estimated Total Total Funds Total Funds Unexpended Sufficient
Date of Costs for Remedial Obligated through Expended through Balance at Funding
Expenditure Action"' 9/30/03 9/30/03 9/30/03 (Y/N) Notes
Y 1
Y 2
Y 3
1,600,000 Y 4
Y 5
2,000,000 Y 6
0/1 8/02 77,800,000 1 1 6,51 8,872 84,584,091 31 ,934,781 Y 7
0/21/02
0/24/02
1/05/02
1/06/02
1/19/02
1/26/02
2/04/02
2/1 6/02
01/06/03
01/09/03
01/29/03
01/31/03
02/1 9/03
02/24/03
03/14/03
03/28/03
04/1 6/03
04/28/03
05/1 5/03
05/20/03
06/1 0/03
06/24/03
07/03/03
07/14/03
07/1 5/03
07/23/03
07/31/03
08/22/03
09/03/03
09/1 2/03
09/22/03
09/26/03
5,000,000 Y
Y 8
Y 9
Y
11,300,000 Y 10
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Remedial Actions - FY03
^03 Initial
nding Plan
unt from HQ FY03 Obligated
ober 2002 Amount From Date of Special Date of
ng Decision HQ RAAOA" Obligation Accounts Obligation
800,000 09/30/03
15,659,500 76 12/06/02
10,000,037 05/15/03
57 06/27/03
38 09/1 1/03
5,659,510 09/16/03
69 09/1 7/03
174 09/30/03
15,659,961
5,000,000 105 06/18/03
3,502,799 09/30/03
3,502,904
Total FY03
Amount
Obligated (sum Total FY03
State SF Date of of prior 3 Expenditures for
Contracts Obligation columns) Remedial Action"
800,000
1 ,340,490 03/20/03 1 31 ,845
1 ,500,000 07/22/03 1 ,1 1 0,662
2,020,000 09/25/03 1,868
947,846
201 ,296
336
76
422
216
73,028
336
425
1 ,091 ,939
326,936
976,763
216
410
1,241,212
336
248,508
430
336
1,183,575
158,163
425
591
335
921 ,455
426
735,263
745,808
192
408
37
135,954
504
158
546
716,455
192
368,815
312
57
1 ,227,992
155,505
134,097
266
148,528
1,259,160
281
266
1 ,381 ,568
273
69
532,168
273
4,860,490 20,520,451 16,165,558
772,723 09/15/03
772,723 4,275,627
550,000 06/24/03 550,000
Enclosure 3
Page 4 of 24
Estimated Total Total Funds Total Funds Unexpended Sufficient
Date of Costs for Remedial Obligated through Expended through Balance at Funding
Expenditure Action'" 9/30/03 9/30/03 9/30/03 (Y/N) Notes
Y 11 |
1 0/1 5/02 54,480,000 39,925,1 53 22,407,209 1 7,51 7,944 N 12 j
1 0/28/02
1 1/20/02
1 1/22/02
1 1/25/02
1 1/29/02
1 2/1 0/02
1 2/1 2/02
1 2/1 8/02
01/02/03
01/03/03
01/15/03
01/16/03
01/23/03
01/29/03
01/30/03
02/04/03
02/06/03
02/11/03
02/25/03
03/03/03
03/1 8/03
03/27/03
03/28/03
04/01/03
04/1 5/03
04/22/03
04/23/03
04/28/03
04/29/03
05/05/03
05/06/03
05/1 3/03
05/1 5/03
05/22/03
05/27/03
06/03/03
06/1 0/03
06/1 6/03
06/1 7/03
06/24/03
06/25/03
06/27/03
07/11/03
07/22/03
07/23/03
08/1 3/03
08/1 8/03
08/20/03
08/29/03
09/09/03
09/11/03
09/1 6/03
09/1 7/03
09/22/03
09/29/03
9,000,000 N 13
Y 14 i
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Remedial Actions - FY03
Enclosure 3
Page 5 of 24
unt from HQ FY03 Obligated
ober 2002 Amount From
ng Decision HQ RAAOA"
10,000,000 99
96
478
229
293
167
99
304
92
269
98
204
98
157
386
98
271
98
267
196
98
399
98
72
6,000,000
6,004,666
Obligated (sum Total FY03 Estimated Total Total Funds Total Funds Unexpended Sufficient
Date of Special Date of State SF Date of of prior 3 Expenditures for Date of Costs for Remedial Obligated through Expended through Balance at Funding
Obligation Accounts Obligation Contracts Obligation columns) Remedial Action" Expenditure Action'" 9/30/03 9/30/03 9/30/03 (Y/N) Notes
1 1/06/02 2,000,000 09/1 7/03 32,000,000 Y 1 5
11/18/02
12/05/02
12/20/02
01/06/03
01/07/03
01/30/03
02/20/03
03/1 9/03
03/27/03
03/28/03
04/14/03
04/1 8/03
05/09/03
05/14/03
05/20/03
06/04/03
06/25/03
06/27/03
07/02/03
07/14/03
07/29/03
08/27/03
09/05/03
09/17/03
2,000,000 8,004,663
1 ,469,965 06/24/03 1 ,469,965 Y 1 6
49,452,725 N
unts and State SF Contracts.
;ords of Decision. Somefutu
; costs may be borne by responsible parties.
it expected State Super-fund Contract funds.
it expected Special Account funds.
on is for work to be done the first quarter of FY04.
s.
for a construction claim. The increase is based on the amount settled and the balance of Remedial Action funds remaining on the State grant after construction was completed.
i less than originally anticipated.
he Region diverted some funds from the Vineland site to cover the Region's shortfall.
it expected the Special Account funds.
it above reflects an administrative closing.
therefore additional funding was necessary.
ns in FY02 and FY03. This amount reflects need for first quarter FY04.
n was discovered at the site and funds for planned activities had to be diverted to address this new situation.
nary worksite, and postponed at two other planned areas because sufficient additional funds were not
5 to be insufficiently funded for FY03. FY2003 funding shortfall amount: $7,000,000.
Work was stopped at this site in November 2002 and was not resumed until FY2004 due to the timing of the funding. FY2003 funding shortfall amount: $5,000,000.
it above reflects an administrative closing.
;s that includes multiple monitoring techniques. These techniques reduced costs in FY03.
Dsing.
r02butnotin FY03:
funded in FY02.
'ully funded and will require additional funding only in the event of cost overruns.
'ully funded and will require additional funding only in the event of cost overruns.
'ully funded and will require additional funding only in the event of cost overruns.
'ully funded and will require additional funding only in the event of cost overruns.
illion contingency for new wells later deemed not necessary.
ed but not possible because a timely agreement could not be reached with the State.
ake place because the design required extended testing.
;all for remediation as expected. Funds were not needed.
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Remedial Actions - FY03
Enclosure 3
Page 6 of 24
Funding Plan FY03
Amount from HQ Obligated
October 2002 Amount From Date of Special Date of
Funding Decision HQ RA AOA* Obligation Accounts Obligation
24,000
28,906 07/08/03
200,000 200,000 09/27/03
200,000
50,000 50,000 08/07/03
16,000 18,581 01/14/03
15,000 40,493 01/09/03
21,820 06/20/03
62,313
State SF
Contracts
46,425
44,793
91,218
7,192,257
130,000
3,665
133,665
22,790
881,353
267,270
80,000
347,270
83,416
700,000
700,000
158,911
Total FY03
Amount
Date of Obligated (sum of
Obligation prior 3 columns)
04/04/03
09/12/03
91,218
03/12/03 7,192,257
03/18/03
09/12/03
133,665
28,906
07/24/03 22,790
03/27/03 881 ,353
200,000
200,000
50,000
03/14/03
04/04/03
347,270
09/12/03 101,997
06/18/03
762,313
09/12/03 158,911
Total FY03
Expenditures
for Remedial
Action"
1,171
480
645
545
367
329
385
(645)
539
(9,366)
(1,756)
434
540
3,310
907
(112)
7,125
4,898
21,973
6,111
1,462
5,550
1,936
29,217
557
8,683
39,206
1,535
10,267
152
1,657
226
1,749
114
1,507
131,902
Estimated Total
Costs for Total Funds Total Funds
Date of Remedial Obligated through Expended
Expenditure Action*" 9/30/03 through 9/30/03
10/09/02 1,700,000 2,153,000 990,424
11/05/02
11/07/02
12/05/02
12/12/02
01/03/03
02/07/03
02/24/03
03/05/03
03/07/03
03/10/03
04/03/03
05/09/03
06/06/03
07/08/03
08/11/03
09/29/03
1,140,000
13,883,200
10/17/02 61,468,905 64,774,224 63,082,936
10/30/02
12/04/02
12/24/02
01/27/03
02/24/03
02/26/03
03/28/03
04/10/03
04/29/03
06/09/03
06/13/03
06/27/03
07/08/03
07/22/03
08/21/03
09/03/03
Unexpended Sufficient
Balance at Funding
9/30/03 (Y/N) Notes
Y 1 "
Y 2
Y 3
Y 4
Y 5
Y 6
Y 7
1,162,576 Y 8
Y
Y 9
Y 10
1,691,288 Y 11
Y 12
-------
FY03 Initial
Funding Plan FY03
Amount from HQ Obligated
October 2002 Amount From
Funding Decision HQ RA AOA*
Date of
Obligation
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Remedial Actions - FY03
Special
Accounts
500,000
Date of
Obligation
09/08/03
State SF
Contracts
Total FY03 Total FY03
Amount Expenditures
Date of Obligated (sum of for Remedial
Obligation Pr|2lA£2!i!!Iln£l_ Action"
______
Date of
Expenditure
Estimated Total
Costs for Total Funds
Remedial Obligated through
Action*" 9/30/03
Total Funds
Expended
throughj)/30/03
Enclosure 3
Page 7 of 24
Unexpended Sufficient
Balance at Funding
_9/30/03 < Y/N ) N otes
_____
10,470,680
136,800
h Records of Decision. Some future costs may be borne by responsible parties.
se sites.
unding as it expected State Superfund Contract funds.
;ooperative agreement. However, it was not funded as the state did not submit the application.
unding as it expected State Superfund Contract funds.
unding as it expected State Superfund Contract funds.
Dperative agreement with the state to support agency Remedial Action work.
unding as it expected State Superfund Contract funds.
unding as it expected State Superfund Contract funds.
fiscal year, site activities were not interrupted or delayed.
unding as it expected State Superfund Contract funds.
unding for operation and maintenance of the facility.
Dperative agreement to a state agency allowing them to monitor site activity.
unding as it expected State Superfund Contract funds.
unding as it expected Special Account funds.
i FY03. They are Berkeley Products and Walsh Landfill.
'02 but were funded due to unexpected construction needs.
>n in FY2003. Neither had estimates, nor received funding in FY03.
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Remedial Actions - FY03
Enclosure 3
Page 8 of 24
FY03 Initial
Funding Plan
nountfrom HQ FY03 Obligated
October 2002 Amount From
mding Decision HQ RA ADA*
Date of
Obligation
Date of
Obligation
State SF
Contracts
Date of
Obligation
1,700,000
1,700,000
Total FY03
Amount
Obligated (sum of
prior 3 columns)
1,700,000
Total FY03
Expenditures for
300,000
40,000
160,000
08/22/03
09/19/03
09/27/03
600,000
225,000
200,000
156,561
02/24/03
06/23/03
07/23/03
08/11 /03
08/20/03
4,500,000 03/03/03
5,200,000 03/19/03
5,700,000 05/07/03
3,300,000 08/20/03
2,250,000 09/25/03
Date of
Expenditure
Estimated Total
Costs for Remedia
Action***
21,000,000
13,000,000
38,400,000
22,300,000
574,262
362,024
127,232
230,008
71,629
389,502
38,622
349,531
660
258,789
578,965
370,205
267,455
546,030
56,972
394,486
124,169
345,746
48,819
310,673
207
691,426
294
5,200,000
214,318
47,475
315
608,974
457,533
59,580
3,132,842
386,282
607,073
284,245
795,684
153,308
1,500,000
134,993
686,687
48,715
209,864
306,914
796,666
198,370
514
63,899
184,381
296
1,115,012
10/03/02
10/15/02
10/17/02
10/18/02
10/25/02
11/07/02
11/25/02
11/27/02
12/03/02
12/04/02
12/09/02
12/17/02
12/20/02
01/10/03
01/21/03
01/24/03
01/28/03
02/12/03
02/19/03
02/21/03
03/03/03
03/04/03
03/07/03
03/17/03
03/19/03
03/26/03
04/02/03
04/03/03
04/17/03
04/28/03
04/30/03
05/22/03
06/06/03
06/25/03
06/30/03
07/25/03
07/28/03
07/31/03
08/04/03
08/25/03
08/26/03
08/27/03
09/08/03
09/09/03
09/10/03
09/22/03
09/23/03
09/24/03
09/29/03
Total Funds Total Funds Unexpended Sufficient
Obligated through Expended Balance at Funding
9/30/03 through 9/30/03 9/30/03 (Y/N)
7,300,000
6,400,000
22,400,000
18,700,000
3,000,000 Y 5
60,538,450 53,699,603 6,838,847 Y 6
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Remedial Actions - FY03 Enclosure 3
FY03 Initial
Funding Plan Total FY03 Total FY03
nount from HQ FY03 Obligated Amount Expenditures for
October 2002 Amount From Date of Special Date of State SF Date of Obligated (sum of Remedial
nding Decision HQ RA ADA* Obligation Accounts Obligation Contracts Obligation prior 3 columns) Action"
133,048 03/20/03 133,048
500,000 523,027 05/07/03 523,027
3,071 01/31/03 3,071
31,835 02/20/03 31,835
3,000,000 2,000,000 01/02/03 714,253 03/07/03 72,356
285,747 03/07/03 20,000 08/04/03 1 1 5,745
61 ,400 03/1 1/03 74,000 08/1 1/03 1 ,122
340,000 06/11/03 62,000 09/23/03 130,800
726,000 08/11/03 18,612
1 ,01 8,475 09/29/03 (1 8,61 2)
128,812
508
19,971
(19,971)
770
163,391
344
126,961
23,555
(23,555)
118,949
145,397
23,933
523
244,948
805
152,644
22,962
311,342
384
422,129
22,132
733
(46,065)
822,708
16,238
(15,728)
273,681
416,108
196,410
18,831
365
(18,831)
490
16,825
278,317
(16,825)
216,178
508,360
137,983
(24,016)
560
372,764
719
17,691
(17,691)
356,392
734
4,431 ,622 870,253 5,301 ,875 5,71 9,888
2,100,000 500,000 09/25/03 500,000
Page 9 of 24
Estimated Total Total Funds Total Funds Unexpended Sufficient
Date of Costs for Remedial Obligated through Expended Balance at Funding
Expenditure Action"' 9/30/03 through 9/30/03 9/30/03 (Y/N) Notes
Y 7
28,000,000 Y 8
7,500,000 6,820,000 Y 9
Y 10
10/11/02 10,000,000 8,626,083 6,212,814 2,413,269 Y 11
10/24/02
11/04/02
11/08/02
11/13/02
11/14/02
11/21/02
11/26/02
11/29/02
12/11/02
1 2/1 8/02
1 2/20/02
12/27/02
12/31/02
01/03/03
01/09/03
01/13/03
01/17/03
02/05/03
02/11/03
02/13/03
02/18/03
02/1 9/03
03/06/03
03/07/03
03/18/03
03/20/03
03/26/03
04/03/03
04/07/03
04/25/03
05/02/03
05/1 2/03
05/13/03
05/22/03
06/03/03
06/04/03
06/09/03
06/11/03
06/23/03
06/24/03
06/30/03
07/03/03
07/09/03
07/25/03
08/05/03
08/06/03
08/11/03
08/27/03
08/28/03
09/02/03
09/04/03
09/1 9/03
09/29/03
10,840,000 2,430,000 Y 12
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Remedial Actions - FY03
Enclosure 3
Page 10 of 24
FY03 Initial
Funding Plan
nountfrom HQ
October 2002
nding Decision
700,000
FY03 Obligated
HQ RA ADA*
1,000,000
60,000
1,060,000
Date of Special Date of
Obligation Accounts Obligation
09/25/03
09/29/03
Total FY03
Amount
State SF Date of Obligated (sum of
Contracts Obligation prior 3 columns)
1,060,000
Total FY03
Expenditures for
Remedial
Action"
Estimated Total
Date of Costs for Remedial
Expenditure Action*"
4,800,000
Total Funds
Obligated through
9/30/03
2,375,000
Total Funds
Expended
through 9/30/03
Unexpended
Balance at
9/30/03
Sufficient
Funding
(Y/N) Notes
Y 14
1,300,000
13,050,000 30,744,693
1,300,000
35,543,185 29,051,534
35,000,000 4,750,000
212,200,000 137,584,533 59,912,417 9,252,116 Y
Records of Dei
; sites.
e future costs may be borne by responsible parties.
ed the start of activity. This amount reflects the amount needed to obtain consensus and modify the design.
I or needed at this site. The above funds were used to pay 1996 expenditures at this site that had been previously funded from Trust account monies.
n FY2003. Remedial Design funding was requested to cover the cost of conducting a pilot scale treatability study at the site on technologies to enhance
I Action was completed in 2003.
iding as it expected Special Account and State Superfund Contract funds. The AOA obligation was for an unplanned need at the site.
iding as it expected Special Account funds.
emedial Action is attributable to two causes: a three fold increase in the volume of contaminated soil requiring treatment;
the contractor performing the Remedial Action.
iding as it expected State Superfund Contract funds.
dy has not been completed on this site and the site is not yet ready for Remedial Action.
^ed were for moving the last residents from the site and maintaining the grass cover over the contaminated soil and debris.
consultant geologist from Northwinds Environmental to review and make recommendations for optimizing the groundwater "pump and treat" remedy
ided under LTRA.
Action activity at the site, it was needed to pay 2000 expenditures at this site that had been previously paid from Trust Account monies.
15 month delay of this site. 2003 funding increased
sr which delayed cleanup and maintenance crews required to stay on-site.
il problems with implementing a portion of the remedy.
ie made until late 09/03 because of problems with getting State to sign State Superfund Contract. However, RPM was still not willing to obligate
technical problems are resolved at the site.
ie fact that the location of the new municipal supply well was nearly twice the distance from the water plant than what was originally estimated.
iginally a PRP-lead. The PRP costs are not reflected above
between total estimated remedial action costs and obligations to date columns.
nemical was delayed until 09/30/03 because of problems getting State to sign State Superfund Contract.
idsheet. One was listed on the FY03 LTRA sheet as receiving funding - Elmore Waste Disposal.
is site. This site is still in the Remedial Design phase.
extraction system and treatability study. Funds were not needed in FY03. The State was unwilling to implement additional clean up action in 2003 until the prior study was completed.
ent for FY03 actions as well.
)lacement and debris removal. Funds were not needed in FY03.
-------
FY03 Initial
Funding Plan
\mount from HQ FY03 Obligated
October 2002 Amount From HQ RA
unding Decision AOA*
3,848,000 550,000
272,000
3,500,000
4,322,000
100,000
11,000,000 4,100,000
178,234
3,215,210
3,973,928
155,000
11,622,372
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Remedial Actions - FY03
Total FY03 Total FY03
Amount Expenditures
Date of Special Date of State SF Date of Obligated (sum of for Remedial
Obligation Accounts Obligation Contracts Obligation prior 3 columns) Action"
12/13/02 4,186
04/17/03 5
08/25/03 21,931
6
79,761
237,745
353,323
330,819
407,135
415,650
4,119
193,687
3,082
4,322,000 2,051,449
937,069 04/08/03 937,069
407,452 05/08/03 407,452
12/26/02 3,215,210 05/06/03 1,447
04/16/03 2,032,256
05/30/03 922
07/30/03 702
08/20/03 897
5,340
1,032,130
343,294
366
264,474
406,716
7,421
189,020
2,402
516,665
134
(765)
215,223
130,739
77
64,447
479
99,666
653
1,248
206,346
29,638
94,614
338
28,546
76,543
360
553,575
110,270
129
546
503,766
(6,687)
127,261
(4,165)
1,398,820
237
230,510
3,215,210 14,837,582 8,666,600
Estimated Total Total Funds
Costs for Obligated Total Funds
Date of Remedial through Expended
Expenditure Action*" 9/30/03 through 9/30/03
11/14/02 5,600,000 5,822,000 2,051,438
11/21/02
12/19/02
12/27/02
01/15/03
02/14/03
03/17/03
04/16/03
05/16/03
06/19/03
07/15/03
08/13/03
09/12/03
200,000
10/03/02 60,000,000 46,184,355 33,924,335
10/18/02
10/24/02
11/04/02
11/05/02
11/08/02
11/14/02
11/18/02
11/21/02
12/16/02
12/17/02
01/03/03
01/08/03
01/13/03
01/14/03
01/28/03
01/29/03
02/13/03
03/03/03
03/11/03
03/17/03
03/19/03
03/24/03
03/27/03
04/09/03
04/14/03
05/13/03
05/15/03
06/09/03
06/12/03
06/13/03
07/03/03
07/16/03
07/23/03
07/24/03
08/06/03
08/14/03
08/28/03
09/03/03
09/04/03
09/12/03
09/16/03
09/25/03
Enclosure 3
Page 1 1 of 24
Unexpended Sufficient
Balance at Funding
9/30/03 (Y/N) Notes
3,770,562 Y 1
Y 2
Y 3
Y 4
12,260,020 Y 5
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Remedial Actions - FY03
Enclosure 3
Page 12 of 24
FY03 Initial
Funding Plan
\mountfrom HQ FY03 Obligated
Estimated Total Total Funds
'Ctober 2002 Amount From HQ RA Date of Special Date of
iding Decision AOA* Obligation Accounts Obligation
50,000 19,883 01/13/03
150,000 50,000 05/20/03
90,921
State SF Date of Obligated (sum of for Remedial Date of
Contracts Obligation prior 3 columns) Action" Expenditure
19,883
1,311,030 05/08/03 1,361,030
591,836 05/20/03 591,836
Remedial through Expended Balance at Funding
Action'" 9/30/03 through 9/30/03 9/30/03 (Y/N)
N
N
3,050,000 Y
17,751,950 Y
Y
Y
Notes
6
7
8
9
4
10
11,000 12/13/02
11,000
1,000,000 05/09/03 1,000,000
506,667 05/20/03 506,667
15,238,921
23,994,519 10,718,049
i01,950 52,006,355 35,975,773 16,030,582
4
11
12
i Records of Decision. Some future costs may be borne by responsible parties.
se sites.
iscovered at this site and cleanup costs increased.
,tate. However, EPA decided to repay the state later when LIRA ends.
jrsed to the PRPs performing the remedy. The source of the money is an earlier deminimis settlement with "small" PRPs who are not part of the PRP group performing the remedy.
ntract funding for work which was completed in another year. This site is construction complete.
)ns only allow this amount of dredging.
ioritization Panel. The Region plans to begin a phased funding approach at this site in FY2004.
9. FY2003 funding shortfall amount: $39,100,000.
ioritization Panel. FY2003 funding shortfall amount: $12,500,000.
3wly-discovered contaminated soil was revised because only $19,883 was needed to clean up the soil.
were finalizations for construction and engineering costs. These were not needed. The $50,000 is for contingencies. State Superfund Contract monies are not included in Regional requests.
not needed because no more work was done at the site.
ntract money for work which was completed in another year.
was not needed because the State's contract contained sufficient funding to cover the site's operation.
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Remedial Actions - FY03
Enclosure 3
Page 13 of 24
FY03 Initial
:unding Plan
lountfrom HQ FY03 Obligated
Total FY03 Total FY03 Estimated Total
Amount Obligated Expenditures for Costs for Total Funds Total Funds Unexpended Sufficient
Jctober 2002 Amount From HQ
iding Decision RA AOA*
35,500
7,918
43,418
1,000,000
4,000,000
2,200,000
7,200,000
100,000
726,656
1,031,576
1,758,232
4,000,000
5,220,000 4,200,000
90
54
145
451
4,200,740
750,000
165,794
484,206
341,464
258,414
687,733
2,687,611
4,000,000 3,048,091
357,919
3,406,010
Date of Special Date of State SF
Obligation Accounts Obligation Contracts
12/23/02
01/16/03
07/22/03
08/25/03
09/29/03
06/24/03 302,347
05/19/03
08/25/03
09/03/03
685,575
02/24/03 300,000
02/28/03 300,000
04/02/03
05/01/03
07/28/03
600,000
06/03/03
06/10/03
07/02/03
07/21/03
07/29/03
08/18/03
1,000,000 09/03/03
12/20/02 783,121
09/30/03
783,121
150,000 02/18/03
3,000,000 05/08/03
3,150,000
Date of (sum of prior 3 Remedial
Obligation columns) Action"
43,418
7,200,000
05/13/03 402,347
1,758,232
4,000,000
08/05/03 685,575
02/24/03
08/26/03
4,800,740
2,687,611
1,000,000
06/10/03
4,189,131
3,150,000
Date of Remedial Obligated through Expended Balance at Funding
Expenditure Action'" 9/30/03 through 9/30/03 9/30/03 (Y/N)
Y
9,000,000 7,200,000 0 7,200,000 Y
3,519,124 3,333,333 Y
15,758,232 15,711,999 Y
6,050,000 4,000,000 Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
2,687,611 2,687,611 Y
24,500,000 N
6,500,000 N
N
Y
N
8,478,734 7,831,212 Y
3,150,000 3,150,000 Y
Notes
1 j
I
2 i
I
3 ;
4 |
5 .'
6 :
7 ;
8 :
9 :
10 |
I
11 '
12 :
13 ;
14 :
15 ;
16 ;
17 I
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Remedial Actions - FY03
FY03 Initial
unding Plan Total FY03 Total FY03
ountfrom HQ FY03 Obligated Amount Obligated Expenditures for
ctober 2002 Amount From HQ Date of Special Date of State SF Date of (sum of prior 3 Remedial
iding Decision RA AOA* Obligation Accounts Obligation Contracts Obligation columns) Action"
5,000,000 5,000,000 03/03/03 1,660,042 03/03/03 11,304
1,070,000 07/15/03 1,405
1,232
299,597
333
120
1,826
1,361
790,434
680
14,442
1,866
919
475,941
2,521
1,952
523
673
2,325
2,513
331,709
1,104
2,038
92
91,815
356,383
543
951
1,877
(304)
1,082
45,448
421
657
2,380
1,029
1,230
687
521,999
1,153
466
192
192
682
667
403,077
673
9,330
(27,198)
6,593
1,271
4,187
964
762
1,444
741
648,293
5,108
722
Enclosure 3
Page 14 of 24
Estimated Total
Costs for Total Funds Total Funds Unexpended Sufficient
Date of Remedial Obligated through Expended Balance at Funding
xpenditure Action'" 9/30/03 through 9/30/03 9/30/03 (Y/N) Notes
10/04/02 95,000,000 62,266,290 51,111,627 11,154,663 Y 18
10/07/02
10/16/02
10/18/02
10/25/02
10/29/02
10/31/02
11/04/02
11/14/02
11/21/02
11/26/02
11/29/02
12/13/02
12/16/02
12/24/02
12/31/02
01/02/03
01/07/03
01/10/03
01/16/03
01/17/03
01/22/03
01/27/03
02/06/03
02/10/03
02/13/03
02/14/03
02/18/03
02/19/03
02/21/03
02/24/03
02/26/03
02/27/03
03/06/03
03/07/03
03/11/03
03/17/03
03/18/03
03/21/03
03/24/03
03/25/03
03/27/03
04/01/03
04/02/03
04/15/03
04/17/03
04/21/03
04/24/03
04/28/03
04/29/03
04/30/03
05/01/03
05/05/03
05/06/03
05/09/03
05/14/03
05/19/03
06/03/03
06/04/03
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Remedial Actions - FY03
Enclosure 3
Page 15 of 24
FY03 Initial
unding Plan Total FY03 Total FY03
ountfrom HQ FY03 Obligated Amount Obligated Expenditures for
ctober 2002 Amount From HQ Date of Special Date of State SF Date of (sum of prior 3 Remedial
iding Decision RA AOA* Obligation Accounts Obligation Contracts Obligation columns) Action"
709
1,260
960
407,770
939
1,322
2,263
941
1,423,087
535
1,976
958
86,717
997
1,041,818
1,274
1,284
685
373
1,294
429
281
836
1,458,055
528
1,151
2,047
921
5,000,000 2,730,042 7,730,042 8,473,837
Estimated Total
Costs for Total Funds Total Funds Unexpended Sufficient
Date of Remedial Obligated through Expended Balance at Funding
Expenditure Action'" 9/30/03 through 9/30/03 9/30/03 (Y/N) Notes
06/10/03
06/12/03
06/16/03
06/17/03
06/27/03
06/30/03
07/15/03
07/17/03
07/21/03
07/22/03
07/24/03
08/04/03
08/08/03
08/14/03
08/18/03
08/19/03
08/28/03
09/04/03
09/05/03
09/09/03
09/12/03
09/16/03
09/17/03
09/19/03
09/22/03
09/23/03
09/25/03
09/30/03
ds of Decision. Some future costs may be borne by responsible parties.
d be included with the LIRA Regional request and obligations.
; site had to be updated. Also, the contractor began the bidding process for subcontracts in FY03, but expenses will not be incurred until FY04.
s site to ensure funding into the first quarter of FY04.
i leading to additional waste disposal costs.
n, the amount obligated reflects actual costs for FY03.
>rity Panel. Estimated Total Amount For Remedial Action equals request as this site is a Non-Time Critical Removal. FY2003 funding shortfall amount: $9,880,000.
ng request.
>rity Panel. Estimated Total Amount For Remedial Action equals request as this site is a Non-Time Critical Removal. FY2003 funding shortfall amount: $6,240,000.
was not funded. FY2003 funding shortfall amount: $400,000.
action within one year.
>rity Panel. Also there were design dalays making the site not ready for FY03 RA funding. FY2003 funding shortfall amount: $9,000,000.
>rity Panel. Also there were design dalays making the site not ready for FY03 RA funding. FY2003 funding shortfall amount: $6,500,000.
was not funded. FY2003 funding shortfall amount: $300,000.
Bcial Account funding in FY03.
was not funded. FY2003 funding shortfall amount: $400,000.
3d costs.
Bcial Account funding in FY03.
re obligations will cover operation and maintenance of the facility.
are currently under review.
-------
FY03 Initial
Funding Plan
nountfrom HQ
October 2002
jnding Decision
visbTooo"
FY03 Obligated Amou
From HQ RA ADA*
"
Date of Obligation
-------
550,000 06/03/03
300,000 09/10/03
Date of
Obligation
State SF
Contracts
Date of
72,825
500,000
154,899 07/31/03
69,800 07/31/03
96,062 07/31/03
114,000
75,034
652,167
144
1,636,937
12/27/02
01/23/03
01/28/03
03/20/03
07/22/03
2,478,282
2,478,282
al Actions - F
Total FY03
Amount
Obligated (sum of
prior 3 columns)
1,150,000
154,899
572,825
69,800
96,062
400,000
2,478,282
4,921,868
Y03
Total FY03
Expenditures
for Remedial
Action"
4,334
2,215
3,968
2,147
3,172
470
21,033
15,245
603
12,971
192,052
268
97
18,058
268
276,901
16,233
23,800
21,358
216,033
2,263
168
29,774
4,989
175
144
23,000
1,100
75,034
202,561
4,663
144
18,298
6,859
387
170,493
133,869
334
98,201
8,168
1,058,048
1,334,949
Estimated Total
Costs for Total Funds Total Funds
Date of Remedial Obligated through Expended
Expenditure Action"' 9/30/03 through 9/30/03
12/17/02 -------- 2lt50[oOO -------
01/15/03
02/1 9/03
03/20/03
04/10/03
04/28/03
05/1 5/03
06/1 2/03
06/26/03
07/16/03
08/1 8/03
08/27/03
09/09/03
09/19/03
09/25/03
6.805,437
10/03/02 31,294,125 29,951,212 28,151,818
1 0/04/02
10/07/02
10/25/02
11/18/02
11/26/02
11/27/02
11/29/02
1 2/1 1 /02
01/06/03
01/08/03
01/29/03
02/07/03
02/1 1 /03
03/05/03
03/21/03
04/02/03
04/14/03
04/29/03
05/08/03
06/05/03
06/09/03
07/10/03
09/30/03
40,079,662 32,801,212 28,427,014
Enclosure 3
Page 16 of 24
Unexpended Sufficient
Balance at Funding
9/30/03 (Y/N) Notes
2J574$Q4 Y
Y 1
Y 2
Y 3
Y 4
Y 5
Y 6
1,799,394 Y 7
4,374,198 Y
Records of Decision. Some future costs may be borne by responsible parties.
j sites.
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Remedial Actions - FY03 Enclosure 3
Page 17 of 24
expected State Superfund Contract funds.
ong-Term Remedial Actions. The sum of the Long-Term and the Remedial Action obligations equal the Region's request for FY03.
expected State Superfund Contract funds.
;stigation and site design were not yet complete.
expected State Superfund Contract funds.
changed. The listed obligation was submitted to priority panel during the year, and the site received the obligation to begin the project.
expected Special Account funding.
ar above, Cherokee County received Pipeline Funding in FY03.
-------
FY03 Initial
Funding Plan
mount from HQ
October 2002
unding Decision
2,600,000
2,700,000
5ooo',oocT
475,000
4,100,000
FY03 Obligated
Amount From
HQRAAOA'
2,600,000
25,000
200,000
340
300,000
6,000
531,340
1'^gg'"
3,900,000
3,901,695
7,200,000
306,815
44,000
700,000
684,029
200,000
1,615,971
1,400,000
249,185
100,000
5,300,000
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Remedial Actions - FY03
Total FY03
Amount Obligated Total FY03
Date of Date of State SF Date of (sum of prior 3 Expenditures for
Obligation Special Accounts Obligation Contracts Obligation columns) Remedial Action"
02/19/03 2,600,000
163,672 08/20/03 163,672
12/04/02
03/07/03
08/20/03
09/25/03
09/26/03
531,340
250,000 07/22/03 250,000
65/05/63 279667666 69/22/63 65/149'"
08/21/03 28,012
314,709
28,074
25,385
314,630
24,172
1,430,893
809
24,346
304,583
591,938
30,028
661,816
551 ,641
145,705
38,153
793,258
123,605
885,413
30,720
457,358
440,574
30,542
350
531,318
178,067
413,428
527,536
599,035
41,826
223,532
1,503,343
2,900,000 6,801,695 11,360,248
09/16/03 7,200,000
01/30/03
02/26/03
03/12/03
04/16/03
07/16/03
08/04/03
08/15/03
08/22/03
09/30/03
5,300,000
Estimated Total Total Funds Total Funds
Date of Costs for Remedial Obligated through Expended
Expenditure Action*" 9/30/03 through 9/30/03
5,698,984
10/16/02 45,6667o66 l'l4^64^048 987635,688
10/25/02
11/19/02
11/20/02
12/03/02
12/18/02
12/30/02
01/13/03
01/27/03
01/28/03
01/31/03
02/18/03
02/25/03
03/26/03
03/28/03
04/10/03
04/22/03
05/08/03
05/09/03
05/27/03
05/28/03
06/11/03
06/18/03
06/23/03
07/16/03
07/22/03
07/23/03
07/31/03
08/15/03
08/26/03
08/27/03
09/18/03
09/25/03
62,475,310 $7,200,000
30,578,000
Enclosure 3
Page 18 of 24
Unexpended Sufficient
Balance at Funding
9/30/03 (Y/N) Notes
Y
Y 1
Y 2
Y
15^928560 Y 3
Y 4
7,200,000 Y 5
Y 6
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Remedial Actions - FY03
Enclosure 3
Page 19 of 24
FY03 Initial
Funding Plan
.mount from HQ
October 2002
unding Decision
17,600,000
3,700,000
36,175,000
FY03 Obligated
Amount From
HQRAAOA'
T,ooo','ooo
550,000
600,000
1,000,000
500,000
1,400,000
580,011
2,700,000
2,100,000
2,019,990
419,989
1,600,000
900,000
381,000
3,627,000
19,377,990
450,000
3,250,000
3,700,000
42,611,025
Total FY03
Amount Obligated Total FY03 Estimated Total Total Funds Total Funds
Date of Date of State SF Date of (sum of prior 3 Expenditures for Date of Costs for Remedial Obligated through Expended
Obligation Special Accounts Obligation Contracts Obligation columns) Remedial Action" Expenditure Action*" 9/30/03 through 9/30/03
12/18/02
04/01/03
04/17/03
05/22/03
06/12/03
06/16/03
07/09/03
07/14/03
07/23/03
08/25/03
09/10/03
09/16/03
09/19/03
09/25/03
09/30/03
19,377,990
2,900,000 03/12/03 2,900,000
04/30/03 73,963 06/30/03 24,363,000
05/05/03
73,963 3,773,963
6,123,963 163,672 48,898,660 11,360,248 168,115,294 121,764,048 98,635,088
Unexpended Sufficient
Balance at Funding
9/30/03 (Y/N) Notes
N 7 |
Y 8
N 9
23,128,960 N
, of Decision. Some
for these sites.
ig as it expected State Superfund Contract funds.
sufficiently, and as RA funding was not need forCal Gulch in FY 03. Region 8 obtained authority to redirect the funds to Guilt Edge Mine.
mount received was sufficient to keep the work going at the desired pace.
0 settlement. This was a contingency request.
but received funding late in FY 03. There were no expenditures in FY03.
Remedial Action Obligation, prior funds expended were in the Removal category.
ish between LTRA and RA funding. This site is sufficiently funded as combined funding for the site matches the combined requested amount.
lion in addition to the estimate that was not requested translating into a shortfall of $3.7 million.
5 it expected Special Account funding.
overall delay of the project, and the increased time residents live near contamination. FY2003 funding shortfall amount: $1,300,000.
in the FY03 sheet.
ine funding in FY03.
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Remedial Actions - FY03
Enclosure 3
Page 20 of 24
FY03 Initial
Funding Plan FY03
Amount from HQ Obligated
October 2002 Amount From Date of Special Date of
Funding Decision HQ RA AOA* Obligation Accounts Obligation
500,000 06/09/03
218,400 09/26/03
718,400
135,000 100,000 12/16/03
35,000 06/09/03
135,000
5,000,000 2,000,000 02/18/03
600 03/14/03
2,500,000 09/16/03
Total FY03 Total FY03
Amount Obligated Expenditures for
State SF Date of (sum of prior 3 Remedial
Contracts Obligation columns) Action"
259,468 07/07/03 259,468
718,400
135,000
400,000 05/12/03 377
100,000 09/16/03 440,031
1,544,462
932
1,214,808
295
820,847
13,251
1,595,229
1,577,746
1,040,477
797
917,112
629,464
869
251,307
1,417
996,150
653
796
730
648,298
973
1,525,799
1,399,310
881
235,150
826,804
Date of Estimated Total Costs for
Expenditure Remedial Action*"
140,000,000
10/04/02 990,000,000
10/09/02
10/21/02
10/30/02
11/18/02
12/16/02
12/18/02
01/03/03
01/07/03
01/22/03
02/19/03
02/20/03
03/19/03
04/24/03
04/28/03
04/30/03
05/15/03
05/16/03
05/21/03
06/06/03
06/11/03
06/17/03
07/02/03
07/18/03
08/15/03
08/21/03
09/15/03
09/19/03
Total Funds Total Funds
Obligated through Expended
?/3 0/0:3 throug
Unexpended
Balance at
9/30/03
Sufficient
Funding
(Y/N)
500,000
283,675 07/07/03
5,000,600 15,684,965
283,675
450,275
990,000,000 53,929,693 38,702,208 15,227,485 Y 3
Y 4
Y 5
2,000,000 2,000,000 03/31/03
2,000,000
520,000 520,000 07/08/03
250 06/12/03
21 ,637 03/06/03
50,000 02/18/03
71,887
7,655,000 7,945,887 450,275
2,000,000 604
10,130
235,672
451 ,540
390,954
3,350
355,044
168,435
2,000,000 1,615,729
105,000 07/08/03 625,000
71,887
1,148,143 9,544,305 17,300,694
12/30/02 36,500,000 5,105,000 1,612,378 3,492,622 Y
03/04/03
03/24/03
03/31/03
04/21/03
05/05/03
05/19/03
09/08/03
26,000,000 10,882,569 Y 6
109,000,000 54,172,830 Y 7
1,309,000,000 150,638,270 40,314,586 18,720,107 Y
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Remedial Actions - FY03 Enclosure 3
Page 21 of 24
rds of Decision. Some future costs may be borne by responsible parties.
t for these sites.
3 as it expected State Superfund Contract funds.
le PRP, to pay $129,000,000 for actions at this site; reducing EPA's future participation.
IB PRP, to pay $872,000,000 for actions at this site; reducing EPA's future participation.
g as it expected State Superfund Contract funds.
3 as it expected Special Account funding.
al expenditures of $500,000 for the next 30 years for groundwater monitoring.
ward claim against EPA and fund an ongoing lawsuit with the Principal Responsible Party.
listed on the spreadsheet, San Gabriel Valley
heet.
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Remedial Actions - 1
FY03 Initial Total FY03
Funding Plan Amount Total FY03
mount from HQ FY03 Obligated Obligated (sum Expenditures for
October 2002 Amount From Date of Special Date of State SF Date of of prior 3 Remedial
unding Decision HQ RAAOA* Obligation Accounts Obligation Contracts Obligation columns) Action"
7,250,000 100,000 11/21/02 1,502,703 09/16/03 437,396
100,000 12/13/02 269,978 09/17/03 3,550
100,000 05/07/03 54,497
5,300,000 09/16/03 13,121
7,000,000 09/1 7/03 (1 8,1 1 7}
708,538 09/19/03 3,550
36,441
(56,402)
230,984
(32,793)
141,596
42,714
82,155
(74,930)
35,578
99,654
123,918
903
3,550
7,784
384,521
610
9,133
1,507
16,694
86,219
26,275
3,550
(25,238)
57,662
9,957
545
8,831
143,781
(132,170)
149,745
3,550
190,305
528
660
31 ,952
258
103,033
254
1,260
2,214
345
22,683
352
259
88,461
343,790
103,283
(53,980)
24,859
68,031
(4,882)
106,447
92,805
165,933
81 ,288
(66,658)
1,377
400
137,599
153,033
5,564
69,259
220,954
3,550
144,929
137
590
'Y03 Enclosure 3
Page 22 of 24
Estimated Total
Costs for Total Funds Total Funds Unexpended Sufficient
Date of Remedial Obligated Expended through Balance at Funding
Expenditure Action'" through 9/30/03 9/30/03 9/30/03 (Y/N) Notes
0/04/02 564,324,941 1 53,651 ,234 1 29,298,451 24,352,783 N 1
0/07/02
0/08/02
0/09/02
0/11/02
0/1 6/02
0/1 7/02
0/1 8/02
0/21/02
0/22/02
1/05/02
1/13/02
1/14/02
1/19/02
1/21/02
1/22/02
1/25/02
2/11/02
2/20/02
2/31/02
01/02/03
01/07/03
01/08/03
01/09/03
01/10/03
01/13/03
01/14/03
01/21/03
01/24/03
01/27/03
01/29/03
02/03/03
02/07/03
02/1 0/03
02/1 2/03
02/1 8/03
02/24/03
02/25/03
02/26/03
03/04/03
03/1 0/03
03/11/03
03/1 2/03
03/14/03
03/1 7/03
03/21/03
03/26/03
03/28/03
04/01/03
04/03/03
04/11/03
04/1 5/03
04/25/03
04/30/03
05/02/03
05/1 2/03
05/14/03
05/23/03
06/06/03
06/1 3/03
06/1 6/03
06/1 7/03
06/1 8/03
06/1 9/03
06/26/03
07/08/03
07/14/03
07/1 7/03
07/1 8/03
07/21/03
07/23/03
07/28/03
08/04/03
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Remedial Actions - FY03
Enclosure 3
Page 23 of 24
FY03 Initial Total FY03
Funding Plan Amount Total FY03
mount from HQ FY03 Obligated Obligated (sum Expenditures for
October 2002 Amount From Date of Special Date of State SF Date of of prior 3 Remedial
unding Decision HQ RAAOA' Obligation Accounts Obligation Contracts Obligation columns) Action"
298,767
279,110
197,382
3,066
(6,788)
3,550
470,709
48,964
15,643
131,996
399
585,576
317,633
(1,088)
17,257
333,954
251
188
176,133
226,395
121,411
302
1 3,308,538 1 .772,681 15,081 .21 9 7,142,003
4.000.000 215,743 01/27/03 280,000
124,000 02/03/03 7,555
2,500,000 02/24/03 10,391
3,680,000 05/09/03 215,743
10,567
9,093
36
20,824
145
153,515
36
23,420
108,251
67
321,177
791 ,329
70
6,519,743 6.51 9.743 1 .952.21 9
498,733 225,000 09/29/03 225.000
4,000,000 1 0 1 2/02/02 1 0,000 03/31/03
1 ,650 04/22/03 450,000 06/1 6/03
75 04/24/03
2,126,353 06/16/03
237,368 06/17/03
1 95 08/28/03
59,475 09/08/03
1 06 09/1 7/03
1 23 09/29/03
2,425,355 460,000 2,885,355
5.650,000 06/02/03 5,650,000
10,000 11/21/02 10,000
800,000 02/24/03 500,000 09/1 6/03
15,000 03/31/03
235,000 05/07/03
540,744 06/30/03
1,322,000 09/16/03
2,91 2,744 500,000 3,41 2,744
15,748,733 22,488,636 10,795,425 500,000 33,784,061 9,094,222
Date of
Expenditure
08/06/03
08/07/03
08/11/03
08/1 2/03
08/1 3/03
08/14/03
08/20/03
08/26/03
08/28/03
08/29/03
09/05/03
09/11/03
09/1 2/03
09/1 5/03
09/1 6/03
09/1 7/03
09/1 9/03
09/24/03
09/25/03
09/26/03
09/29/03
09/30/03
1 0/04/02
1 2/1 9/02
01/15/03
01/27/03
02/14/03
03/1 7/03
03/24/03
04/1 6/03
04/1 8/03
05/1 6/03
05/23/03
06/1 9/03
07/1 5/03
07/28/03
08/1 3/03
09/1 2/03
09/29/03
Estimated Total
Costs for Total Funds Total Funds Unexpended Sufficient
Remedial Obligated Expended through Balance at Funding
Action'" through 9/30/03 9/30/03 9/30/03 (Y/N) Notes
7,049,743 7,049,743 1 ,951 ,759 5.097.984 Y 2
30,900,000 14,700,000 N 3
6,103,721 6,103,721 Y 4
Y 5
784,431 784,431 Y 6
125,412,744 52,912,744 Y 7
734,575,580 235,201,873 131,250,210 29,450,768 N
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Remedial Actions - FY03 Enclosure 3
Page 24 of 24
;ords of Decision. Some future costs may be borne by responsible parties.
ufficiently funded. FY2003 funding shortfall amount: $22,729,781.
, the Priority Panel did not issue funding. FY2003 funding shortfall amount: $4,727,300.
;o it was not included in funding requests.
$10,000 was needed to settle a contractor dispute.
g as it expected Special Account and State Superfund Contract funds.
-------
3SURE 4 - NON-FEDERAL FACILITY FUND-
CED LONG-TERM RESPONSE ACTIONS -
)3
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-financed Long-Term Response Actions - FY03
FY03 Initial Funding
FY03 Amount Plan Amount from FY03 Obligated Total FY03 Amount
Initially Requested HQ October 2002 Amount From HQ Date of Date of Date of Obligated (sum of
by Region Funding Decision RAAOA* Obligation Special Accounts Obligation State SF Contracts Obligation prior 3 columns)
x 300,067 01/30/03
350,000 09/29/03
650,067 650,067
310,000 310,000
x 1,200,000 06/25/03 1,200,000
540,000 540,000 540,000 02/25/03 540,000
300,000 300,000 1,062,612 04/24/03 1,062,612
x 350,350 09/09/03 350,350
5,000 5,000 2,120 04/02/03 1,200 04/02/03 3,320
450,000 450,000 500,032 08/27/03 500,032
x 100,000 03/10/03
210,000 06/20/03
310,000 310,000
1,605,000 1,605,000 1,604,732 2,360,382 651,267 4,616,381
Enclosure 4
Pagel of 12
Sufficient
Funding
(Y/N) Notes
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
onal request for these sites.
ite Superfund Contract funding. Though received late in the FY, funds were sufficient to complete FY03 activities.
r reevaluated the contract needs and determined that funds were not needed this year.
ecial Account funding.
ed for an optimization project and a five-year review.
ecial Account funding. Though received late in the FY, funds were sufficient to complete FY03 activities.
ssthan anticipated.
ed for an optimization project.
ecial Account funding.
:hedule.
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Long-Term Response Actions - FY03 Enclosure
Page 2 of 1
FY03 Initial Funding
Plan Amount from Total FY03 Amount Sufficient
-Y03 Amount Initially HQ October 2002 FY03 Obligated Amount Date of Date of Obligated (sum of Funding
Requested by Region Funding Decision FromHQRAAOA* Obligation Special Accounts Date of Obligation State SF Contracts Obligation prior 3 columns) (Y/N) Notes
1,000,000 1,000,000
600,000 600,000
585,000 585,000
1,000,000 1,000,000
450,000 450,000
1,500,000 1,500,000
1,170,000 1,170,000
X
350,000 350,000
450,000 450,000
650,000 650,000
750,000 750,000
4,000,000 4,000,000
12,505,000 12,505,000
200,000
800,000
1,000,000
600,000
585,000
1,000,000
450,000
1,500,000
1,040,000
350,000
450,000
370,000
280,000
650,000
750,000
3,200,000
11,575,000
04/10/03
09/25/03
03/07/03
09/11/03
05/06/03
05/06/03
04/25/03
09/08/03
4,100,000 02/25/03
01/08/03
05/06/03
05/1 6/03
09/17/03
09/04/03
06/04/03
4,100,000
100,000 09/25/03
100,000 1,100,000
600,000
585,000
1,000,000
50,000 05/06/03 500,000
1,500,000
260,000 09/08/03 1,300,000
4,100,000
350,000
50,000 05/06/03 500,000
650,000
750,000
3,200,000
460,000 16,135,000
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
1
1
1
2
1
3
inal request for these sites.
fiscal year, funds were sufficient for FY03 activities.
3 as this site has a $19 million trust fund settlement designated.
s diverted to another site. The movement of funds did not affect FY03 activities as the money had been allocated for pump & treat work scheduled for FY04.
T FY03. They are Ellis Property and American Thermostat.
ontinue activities through FY03.
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed
FY03 Amount FY03 Initial Funding
Initially Plan Amount from FY03 Obligated
Requested by HQ October 2002 Amount From HQ
Region Funding Decision RAAOA*
275,000
200,000
200,000
250,000
250,000
500,000
1, 000^000
260,000
21^000
550,000
3,506,000
275,000
200,000
200,000
250,000
250,000
500,000
1,000,000
260,000
21,000
550,000
3,506,000
150,000
155,700
15,000
188,000
203,000
212,983
47,984
150,000
197,984
240^000
760,000
1,000,000
400,000
413,941
813,941
130,000
130,000
260,000
550,000
3,543,608
Long-Term Response Actions - FY03 Enclosure 4
Page 3 of 12
Total FY03 Amount Sufficient
Date of Special Date of State SF Date of Obligated (sum of Funding
Obligation Accounts Obligation Contracts Obligation prior 3 columns) (Y/N) Notes
09/29/03
07/23/03
11/19/02
09/29/03
09/27/03
02/03/03
07/02/03
02/25/03
09/27/03
12/20/02
04/1 7/03
12/18/02
06/05/03
09/27/03
0
150,000 Y 1
44,300 07/23/03 200,000 Y
Y
203,000
37,017 09/27/03 250,000 Y 2
Y 3
197,984
Y 4 "
1 ,000,000
Y
186,059 04/17/03
186,059 1,000,000
Y
260,000
0 Y 5'"
550,000 Y 6
267,376 3,810,984 Y
i obligations
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Long-Term Response Actions - FY03 Enclosure 4
Page 4 of 12
; required amount during the year when better information regarding actual costs was obtained.
;ceived late in the fiscal year, activities were not delayed or interrupted.
;ceived late in the fiscal year, activities were not delayed or interrupted.
; required amount during the year when better information regarding actual costs was obtained.
dditional monies for unplanned construction.
these planned funds as prior activities have not been completed as yet.
;ceived late in the fiscal year, activities were not delayed or interrupted.
Dove schedule.
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Long-Term Response Actions - FY03
FY03 Initial
Funding Plan
FY03 Amount Amount from HQ FY03 Obligated
Initially Requested October 2002 Amount From HQ
by Region Funding Decision RAAOA*
x 100,000
Date of Special
Obligation Accounts
09/29/03
4,000
Date of
Obligation
03/19/03
State SF
Contracts
Date of
Obligation
Enclosure 4
Page 5 of 12
Total FY03
Amount Obligated Sufficient
(sum of prior 3 Funding
columns) (Y/N)
100,000 Y
500,000
500,000
500,000
09/25/03
4,000
500,000
Notes
1
300,000 02/03/03
300,000 Y
150,000
150,000
650,000 650,000
gations
:egional request for these sites.
150,000
175,000
100,000
425,000
1,025,000
03/28/03
04/17/03
09/30/03
4,000
300,000
Y
425,000
1,329,000 Y
rRA operating funds were requested thus far in 2003 for Benefiled site. However, RA money was requested for installation of additional extraction wells.
jated as LIRA funds, thus they are shown here. Carryover LIRA operating funds were sufficient for 2003 expenses.
\ activities are undertaken by the State on this site under a Fund-Financed State-Lead Cooperative Agreement which currently has sufficient money.
3nt through 2003 for LIRA operation. This $500,000 obligation will ensure adequate funding through 2006.
State Superfund Contract funding.
vas inadvertantly entered into CERCLIS, actual LTRA operating costs are in excess of $325,000 per year.
was made to cover the actual operating cost of the system.
e schedule.
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed
FY03 Initial
FY03 Amount Funding Plan
Initially Amount from HQ
Requested by October 2002
Region Funding Decision
) 80,000 80,000
175,000 175,000
200,000 200,000
1,300,000 1,300,000
675,000 675,000
200,000 200,000
3,000,000 3,000,000
375,000 375,000
500^000 500,000
FY03 Obligated
Amount From HQ RA
ADA*
200,000
75,000
85,000
360,000
245,635
283,365
721,000
300,000
179,000
1,729,000
71,844
575,000
646,844
2,500,000
375,000
200,000
575,000
1 50,000
1,075,000
1,225,000
Long-Term Response Actions - FY03
Date of Special Date of State SF
Obligation Accounts Obligation Contracts
06/19/03
08/20/03
09/26/03
12/26/02
01/22/03
08/07/03
08/20/03
09/26/03
03/24/03
09/26/03
07/30/03
12/13/02
07/31/03
04/04/03
08/20/03
Enclosure 4
Page 6 of 1 2
Total FY03
Amount Obligated Sufficient
Date of (sum of prior 3 Funding
Obligation columns) (Y/N) Notes
Y 1
Y 2
Y 3""
360,000
Y 4
1,729,000
Y
646,844
Y 5
2,500,000 Y 6
Y
7
575,000
Y a
1,225,000
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Long-Term Response Actions - FY03
Enclosure 4
Page 7 of 12
FY03 Amount
Initially
Requested by
Region
300,000
FY03 Initial
Funding Plan
Amount from HQ
October 2002
Funding Decision
300,000
FY03 Obligated
Amount From HQ RA
ADA*
Date of
Obligation
Special
Accounts
Date of
Obligation
State SF
Contracts
Date of
Obligation
Total FY03
Amount Obligated
(sum of prior 3
columns)
Sufficient
Funding
(Y/N)
Y
Notes
g
3d need to address a site drainage problem. Due to local government involvement in the site, FY03 funding was not needed.
as an estimated need to continue the action, however there was sufficient money in the contract to operate the plant through 2003.
:ivities were greater than estimated.
:ivities were greater than estimated.
le state during FY2003 and estimated funding was not needed.
i is the Corps of Engineers (COE). The difference between the request and the obligation occurred because COE had excess funding from the previous year.
:ivities were greater than estimated.
lal request and obligated amount is due to increased cost of construction at the site.
as an early estimate for upgrades to the ground water treatment plant, however the upgrades were not necessary this year.
)2 and not in FY03: Long Prairie Ground Water Contamination. It received multi-year funding in FY 02 that was sufficeint for FY03.
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Long-Term Response Actions - FY03
FY03 Amount
Initially Requested
by Region
715,000
150,000
62,500
137,500
485,000
1,550,000
FY03 Initial Funding
Plan Amount from
HQ October 2002
Funding Decision
715,000
150,000
137,500
1,002,500
FY03 Obligated
Amount From HQ Date of Special Date of State SF
RA AOA* Obligation Accounts Obligation Contracts
41 ,691 04/22/03
422,240 08/25/03
463,931
100,000 09/23/03
62,500 08/21/03
62,500 08/21/03
626,431 62,500
Enclosure 4
Page 8 of 1 2
Total FY03 Amount
Date of Obligated (sum of
Obligation prior 3 columns)
463,931
100,000
62,500
62,500
688,931
Sufficient
Funding
(Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Notes
1 ]
2
3
4
}ligations
"ent contract, funds required for FY03 were reduced.
! State over the remedy. Actual costs for FY03 activities were less than estimated.
ar FY03 was higher than actual costs for FY03 activities.
[he Region determined that FY03 activities could be funded through a previous Cooperative Agreement.
e schedule.
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Long-Term Response Actions - FY03
Enclosure 4
Page 9 of 12
FY03 Initial Funding
Plan Amount from Total FY03 Amount Sufficient
FY03 Amount Initially HQ October 2002 FY03 Obligated Amount From Special State SF Date of Obligated (sum of Funding
Requested by Region Funding Decision HQRAAOA* Date of Obligation Accounts Date of Obligation Contracts Obligation prior 3 columns) (Y/N) Notes
650,000 650,000 Y 1 " "
100,000
1,500,000 927,200
2,250,000
1,577,200
200,000
727,175
927,1.75
927,175
02/25/03
03/28/03
_927,175_
927,175
ations
were funded through Remedial Action funding.
ivious contracts were sufficient to cover FY03 site activities.
unt used and obligated for remedial action. Total FY03 funding for this site was $1,500,000.
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Long-Term Response Actions - FY03
Enclosure 4
Page 10 of 12
FY03 Amount FY03 Initial Funding
Initially Plan Amount from FY03 Obligated Total FY03 Amount Sufficient
Requested by HQ October 2002 Amount From HQ Date of Date of State SF Date of Obligated (sum of Funding
Region Funding Decision RAAOA* Obligation Special Accounts Obligation Contracts Obligation prior 3 columns) (Y/N) Notes
1,100,000
1,100,000
600,000
03/24/03
600,000 Y
250,000 12/09/02
250,000
2,450,000 2,450,000
250,000
400,000
300,000
950,000
12/20/02
02/26/03
06/03/03
950,000
3,550,000 3,550,000
Cations
gional request for these sites.
1,550,000
384,860
315,000
200,000
899,860
1,149,860
04/14/03
06/05/03
09/10/03
899,860
2,699,860
ge Mine with approval from OSTRI. This action was due to an over estimate of what Central City really required in FY 03.
se this site was funded with Special Accounts.
inguish between LTRA and RA funding. This site is sufficiently funded as combined funding for the site matches the combined requested amount.
se this site was funded with Special Accounts.
ichedule.
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Long-Term Response Actions - FY03
Enclosure 4
Page 11 of 12
FY03 Amount FY03 Initial Funding
Initially Plan Amount from FY03 Obligated
Requested by HQ October 2002 Amount From
Date of
Total FY03 Amount Sufficient
Special Date of State SF Date of Obligated (sum of Funding
Region Funding Decision HQRAAOA* Obligation Accounts Obligation Contracts Obligation prior 3 columns) (Y/N)
1,200,000 1,200,000 Y
Notes
1
500,000
500,000
2,200,000
obligations
500,000
500,000
2,200,000
200,000
249,750
449,750
449,750
03/19/03
07/09/03
449,750
449,750
noney from prior year, funding was not needed in FY03.
quested was funded through RAC bulk-funded contract in FY 2003.
and oversight costs were sufficient to fund FY03 activities.
idelling needed for decisionmaking did not progress to the point where
decisions on placement of new extraction wells planned for FY03.
wells are now planned for later in FY 2004.
>003: Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. (CAD95989778). In FY2003, EPA received $178,183.60 in recovered response and oversight costs.
mt "09M6" to fund site-related costs (i.e., oversight)
In FY 2004, EPA anticipates receipt of approximately
ersight costs, which will be placed in the special account "09M6".
-------
Non-Federal Facility Fund-Financed Long-Term Response
FY03 Amount
Initially
Requested by
Region
Tacoma
2,000,000
ting Co. 289,383
150000_
2,439,383
FY03 Initial Funding
Plan Amount from FY03 Obligated
HQ October 2002 Amount From Date of Special
Funding Decision HQ RA AOA* Obligation Accounts
2,000,000 759 03/06/03
289,383
150,000
2,439,383 759
Actions - FY03 Enclosure 4
Page 12 of 12
Total FY03 Amount Sufficient
Date of State SF Date of Obligated (sum of Funding
Obligation Contracts Obligation prior 3 columns) (Y/N)
759 Y
Y
Y
759 Y
Notes
|
1 j
2 |
2 )
Cations
)03 because funding was carried over from FY 2002, $759 was a small award fee.
t schedule and not ready for Long Term Response funding. They both received funding for ongoing remedial actions.
schedule.
-------
Enclosure 5
Page 1 of 6
Summary of Sites Selected for Focused Review by OIG
New Bedford Harbor
Location/Region
Description of Site
FY 2003 Funding Information
OIG Comments on
Adequacy of FY 2003 Funding
New Bedford, Fairhaven, Acushnet, and Dartmouth,
Massachusetts/ Region 1
This site, which was added to the NPL in 1983, encompasses two
major projects. The first is the construction of a 4.5-acre sediment
dewatering and transfer facility. The second project involves the
cleanup of the Acushnet River area north of Wood Street due to
high levels of PCBs.
Region 1 requested $13.5 million in remedial action funds in
FY 2003 and obligated a total of $12.9 million.
The RPM characterized FY 2003 funding as sufficient but cautioned
that site progress will be adversely impacted if the Region's FY
2004 estimate of $1 5 million for dredging is not provided. FY 2003
funding was sufficient.
Vineland Chemical
Location/Region
Description of Site
FY 2003 Funding Information
OIG Comments on
Adequacy of FY 2003 Funding
Vineland, New Jersey / Region 2
Added to the NPL in 1984. This facility manufactured arsenic-based
herbicides. Arsenic contaminated the soils, groundwater, and
nearby river and lake.
Region 2 requested $10 million in remedial action funds for FY 2003
and obligated a total of $8 million.
According to the RPM, actual costs were less than anticipated and
funds were deobligated from this site for use at the Federal
Creosote site. Funding was sufficient for FY 2003.
-------
Enclosure 5
Page 2 of 6
Welsbach & General Gas Mantle
Location/Region
Description of Site
FY2003 Funding Information
OIG Comments on
Adequacy of FY 2003 Funding
Camden and Gloucester City, New Jersey / Region 2
Added to the NPL in 1996. Facilities at this site manufactured gas
mantles using thorin, a radionuclide that emits gamma radiation
during decay.
Region 2 requested $15.7 million in remedial action funds for
FY 2003 and obligated $20.5 million.
Despite obligating more funds than estimated, the RPM stated that
funding for this site was not sufficient. The extent of contamination
was greater than expected. As a result, work was slowed down
during FY 2003 at the primary work site and postponed at other
areas. The RPM estimated an additional $7 million was needed for
FY 2003. Funding was not sufficient for this site.
American Creosote
Location/Region
Description of Site
FY 2003 Funding Information
OIG Comments on
Adequacy of FY 2003 Funding
Pensacola, Florida / Region 4
This wood treating facility was added to the NPL in 1 983. Major
contaminants in the soil, sediment, and groundwater included
Volatile Organic Compounds and dioxin.
Region 4 initially requested $3 million in remedial action funds for
FY 2003 and obligated $300,000.
Community disagreement concerning the site's future use
prevented planned remedial actions from occurring. Region 4
expects to implement remedial action activities in 2004/2005
consistent with the future use of the property. The site was not
impacted by funding concerns in FY 2003. According to the RPM,
the site does not present an immediate danger to human health.
FY 2003 funding was sufficient.
-------
Enclosure 5
Page 3 of 6
Coleman-Evans
Location/Region
Description of Site
FY2003 Funding Information
OIG Comments on
Adequacy of FY 2003 Funding
Whitehouse, Florida / Region 4
This wood preserving facility was added to the NPL in 1 983. Soil,
sediment, and shallow groundwater in the residential area adjacent
to the site was found to be contaminated with dioxin.
Region 4 requested $4.9 million in remedial action funds for
FY 2003 and obligated a total of $21 million.
The RPM indicated that more funds were needed than originally
estimated to address a three-fold increase in the volume of
contaminated soil and for the settlement of a contract dispute
involving $13 million. FY2003 funding was sufficient for this site.
Tower Chemical
Location/Region
Description of Site
FY2003 Funding Information
OIG Comments on
Adequacy of FY 2003 Funding
Lake County, Florida / Region 4
This abandoned pesticide manufacturing facility was added to the
NPL in 1983. The site is located in a mixed agricultural, industrial,
and residential area. High levels of DDT and other contaminants
were found at the main facility. Groundwater plumes of pesticides
and other organic contaminants exist on site.
Region 4 requested and received $400,000 in remedial funds but
the site was not ready for remedial action. Instead, Region 4
obligated $500,800 of pipeline funds during FY 2003.
The RPM indicated that funding was not a concern at this site for
FY 2003. Technical problems and characterization of the
contaminants must be done before the remedial action can
proceed. Work will be funded from State Superfund contract funds.
FY 2003 funding was sufficient.
Woolfolk Chemical
Location/Region
Description of Site
FY2003 Funding Information
OIG Comments on
Adequacy of FY 2003 Funding
Fort Valley, Georgia / Region 4
This facility, which manufactured pesticides, herbicides, and
insecticides, was added to the NPL in 1990.
Region 4 requested and obligated $1 .3 million in FY 2003.
According to the RPM, funds were sufficient to resolve problems
with the groundwater treatment facility and for determining the
extent of the plume to be treated. Delays were due to negotiation
and litigation with PRPs and not to lack of funding. FY 2003 funding
was sufficient.
-------
Enclosure 5
Page 4 of 6
Velsicol
Location/Region
Description of Site
FY 2003 Funding Information
OIG Comments on
Adequacy of FY 2003 Funding
St. Louis, Michigan / Region 5
From 1936 until 1978, the Velsicol Chemical Corporation produced
various chemical compounds. Groundwater, soil, and sediments of
the Pine River are contaminated with various chemicals.
Region 5 requested $11 million and obligated $19 million in
FY 2003.
FY 2003 funding was sufficient for this site.
Sprague Road
Location/Region
Description of Site
FY 2003 Funding Information
OIG Comments on
Adequacy of FY 2003 Funding
Ector County, Texas / Region 6
Site was added to the NPL in 1997. Past chrome plating operations
are potential sources of a groundwater contaminant plume
containing chromium. The groundwater serves as a source of
drinking water.
Region 6 requested $4 million of remedia
and obligated $4.1 million.
action funds for FY 2003
FY 2003 funding was sufficient.
Tar Creek
Location/Region
Description of Site
FY2003 Funding Information
OIG Comments on
Adequacy of FY 2003 Funding
Ottawa County, Oklahoma / Region 6
This site, which represents multiple mining facilities, was added to
the NPL in 1983. The primary pollutants are lead, cadmium, and
zinc.
For FY 2003, Region 6 requested $5 million and obligated
$7.7 million.
FY 2003 funding was sufficient.
-------
Enclosure 5
Page 5 of 6
Upper Ten Mile Creek
Location/Region
Description of Site
FY2003 Funding Information
OIG Comments on
Adequacy of FY 2003 Funding
Helena, Montana / Region 8
A mining area affected by lead and arsenic contamination. The
primary focus of remedial action is the cleanup of waste in close
proximity to the water source.
Region 8 requested $ Smillion and obligated $3.7 million in FY
2003.
The RPM indicated additional funds were needed. The additional
funds could have cleaned up two additional areas, and began the
installation of an alternate water supply and treatment system.
FY 2003 funding was not sufficient. The RPM further indicated that
the Record of Decision, which contains a 10-year time frame for
cleanup, was impacted by limited funding. The RPM stated the
work could be completed sooner if additional funds were available.
Libby
Location/Region
Description of Site
FY2003 Funding Information
OIG Comments on
Adequacy of FY 2003 Funding
Libby, Montana / Region 8
This is a large removal action being funded with remedial funds.
Primary concern at this site is the cancer risk from exposure to
asbestos.
Region 8 obligated $19.4 million during FY 2003.
According to the RPM, funding is not sufficient to address all
operable units and completely characterize site conditions. Work
was "scaled back" at this site. Instead of analyzing all the samples
collected, EPA analyzed the minimum number to gain an
understanding of site conditions. FY 2003 funding was not
sufficient at this site.
Indian Bend
Location/Region
Description of Site
FY2003 Funding Information
OIG Comments on
Adequacy of FY 2003 Funding
Maricopa County, Arizona / Region 9
Site was added to the NPL in 1983. Numerous industrial facilities
disposed of industrial solvents directly onto the ground or in dry
wells contaminating the soil and groundwater
Region 9 requested and obligated $135,000 in FY 2003.
Majority of costs will be borne by the PRP. The PRP has signed a
Consent Decree to pay $129 million of the $140 million estimated
costs. FY 2003 funding was sufficient.
-------
Enclosure 5
Page 6 of 6
Iron Mountain Mine
Location/Region
Description of Site
FY2003 Funding Information
OIG Comments on
Adequacy of FY 2003 Funding
Shasta County, California / Region 9
Site was added to the NPL in 1983. Mine runoff has contaminated
nearby water bodies with heavy metals.
Region 9 requested and obligated $5 million in FY 2003.
PRP has signed Consent Decree to pay $862 million of the total
estimated costs of $880 million. Remedial action work is almost
complete. FY 2003 funding was sufficient.
Bunker Hill
Location/Region
Description of Site
FY 2003 Funding Information
OIG Comments on
Adequacy of FY 2003 Funding
Northern Idaho /Region 10
This abandoned lead zinc mine and smelter in Kellogg, Idaho was
added to the NPL in 1983. Major contaminants in the soil,
sediment, and water include lead, mercury, zinc, antimony, and
arsenic cadmium. The site includes a 21 -square-mile area called
"The Box" and the downstream area called "The Basin."
Requested $42,250,000 in remedial action funds and obligated
$15,081,219.
According to the RPM, funding at a reduced level ($15 million)
delays the cleanup significantly. Compared to full funding, the lower
funding level adds one additional year for cleanup of Box properties,
four additional years for cleanup of Basin properties, seven
additional years for cleanup of recreation areas, and a
postponement of ecological projects until 2007. FY 2003 funding
was not sufficient.
-------
Enclosure 6
Page 1 of 3
OIG Response to Attachment Question 1
Question 1 - According to reports in the trade press, the Superfund program director, Mike
Cook, informed the NACEPT Committee that the shortfall in Superfund funding would exceed
$200 million in FY 2002 and continue to grow in future years. Your October 25, 2002, report
identified seven NPL sites where funding shortfalls totaling $91.8 million prevented cleanups
from beginning and an additional shortfall of $17 million for long-term response actions. The
report also identified four sites that received partial funding but had a shortfall from the needed
amount.
Can you reconcile the difference between Mr. Cook's projection and your findings in the
October 25, 2002, report? Does the fact that some sites received only partial funding for
remedial actions or the fact that your report did not cover funding for remedial design or remedial
investigation and feasibility studies account for some or all of the differential?
OIG Response - According to Mike Cook, Director of the Office of Site Remediation and
Technology Innovation (OSRTI), the difference was due to the universe of projects being
discussed. He described his reference to a "$200 million shortfall" as a "planning estimate"
which included (1) FY 2002 funding needs for the seven sites cited in the OIG's October 25,
2002, letter; (2) FY 2003 and FY 2004 funding needs for those projects where the FY 2002 need
represented only the initial increment of funding; and (3) construction projects at other NPL sites
that were initially considered for funding during FY 2002 but experienced schedule delays and
subsequently were not ready to proceed by the end of FY 2002. Neither Mr. Cook's estimate of
the funding shortfall nor the OIG's October 2002 letter discussed funding shortfalls for remedial
design or remedial investigations and feasibility studies.
An OSRTI official indicated that OSRTI did not prepare detailed support for Mr. Cook's
estimate at the time. In response to our questions, the OSRTI official provided the following
information as a "rough frame of reference" for the estimate. We added information on the
amount obligated during FY 2003 to provide understanding on the extent to which site needs
were addressed in FY 2003.
-------
Enclosure 6
Page 2 of 3
Site Name
(Region/State)
OSRTI Cost
Estimate
(millions)
Amount Obligated
in FY 2003
(millions)
Sites Reported by OIG That Did Not Receive Any FY 2002 Funding
Atlas Tack - Phase 1 (Region 1- Massachusetts)
Elizabeth Mine (Region 1 - Vermont)
Jennison Wright (Region 5 - Illinois)
Continental Steel (Region 5 - Indiana)
Central Wood (Region 6 - Louisiana)
Hart Creosoting (Region 6 - Texas)
Jasper Creosoting (Region 6 - Texas)
$13
15
10
28
9
10
6
$0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.2
0.0
0.0
Sites Needing Additional Funding in FY 2003/2004
Chemical Insecticide (Region 2 - New Jersey)
American Creosote (Region 4 - Florida)
Alaric (Region 4 - Florida)
Solitron (Region 4 - Florida)
Trans Circuits (Region 4 - Florida)
Aircraft Components (Region 5 - Michigan)
Hudson Oil (Region 6 - Oklahoma)
Sprague Road (Region 6 - Texas)
10th Street (Region 7 - Nebraska)
Upper Ten Mile Creek (Region 8 - Montana)
Basin Mining (Region 8 - Montana)
Frontier Hard Chrome (Region 10 -Washington)
$20
3
2
2
1
4
5
4
1
4
3
4
$7.3
0.3
1.7
0.5
1.0
4.3
4.8
4.2
1.2
3.8
2.6
6.5
FY 2002 Sites Not Ready for Construction
Vasquez Boulevard/VB I-70 (Region 8 - Colorado)
Davenport & Flagstaff (Region 8 - Utah)
Roebling Steel (Region 2 - New Jersey)
Eureka Mills (Region 8 - Utah)
Atlas Tack - Phase 2 (Region 1 - Massachusetts)
Total Estimated Needs
$16
9
12
28
5
$214
$0.0*
0.0*
4.3
7.2
0.0
$56.9
' These sites received pipeline funding in FY 2003
-------
Enclosure 6
Page 3 of 3
According to an OSRTI official, the second group of sites above - Sites Needing Additional
Funding in FY 2003/2004 - represent remedial construction projects started in FY 2002 that
required additional funding in subsequent years. The cost estimates reflect the regions' estimate
of need for these projects as reflected in OSRTFs initial FY 2003 funding decision of
October 30, 2002. According to OSRTI, additional funding for the Chemical Insecticide Site is
planned for FY 2004.
Concerning the sites listed in the FY 2002 Sites Not Ready for Construction category, the OSRTI
official indicated that these five sites were reviewed by the National Risk Based Priority Panel.
The regions subsequently determined that these sites were not ready for remedial funds in
FY 2002. For example, our October 25, 2002, letter indicated that a delay in signing the Record
of Decision for the Vasquez Boulevard site delayed construction.
-------
Enclosure 7
OIG Response to Attachment Question 2
Question 2 - Please identify each site in FY 2002 where funds were obligated, the date and the
amount of obligation, and each site where funds were actually expended in FY 2002 and the date
and amount of expenditures. Also indicate for each site the amount of obligated funds which
were not expended in FY 2003. Please indicate if each site is on target with the timeline set forth
in the Record of Decision.
OIG Response - The charts on the following pages show the date and amount of obligations for
non-Federal Remedial Action and Long-term Response Action sites considered for funding in
FY 2002. The charts show the amount obligated and the date for FY 2002 obligations as well as
the total expenditures for FY 2002 and the corresponding year of obligation. The information
provided is only for those sites identified in our October 25, 2002, letter. OSRTI records show
expenditures for other remedial action and LTRA sites that did not have obligations during
FY 2002.
The OIG has not independently verified the FY 2002 obligation and expenditure information
supplied by OSRTI officials. Information on obligated funds not expended at the end of
FY 2003 for certain sites are in enclosures 1 through 4. The remaining data is included on the
enclosed disk. Information on the sufficiency of FY 2003 site-specific funding is presented on
pages 4 through 10 of this letter.
-------
JRE 7 - OBLIGATION AND EXPENDITURE
TION FOR REMEDIAL ACTION AND LTRA
:LUDED IN OIG!S OCTOBER 25,2002 LETTER
-------
ederal NPL Remedial Action Site Funding
FY02 Obligated
Amount from
HQRAAOA**
$6,441,026
100,000
Vlill 5,000,000
iston Steel Drur 1,000,000
2,700,000
4,600,000
0
Enclosure 7
Page 2 of 21
Total FY02
Amount Obligated
Date
09/27/2002
09/27/2002
03/12/2002
01/03/2002
02/12/2002
04/09/2002
Special
Accounts
$396,900
9,796,493
2,563,133
310,659
1,100,000
1,100,000
0
554,005
900,000
900,000
State SF
Date Contracts Date
02/12/2002 $200,000 03/25/2002
03/25/2002
07/03/2002
07/25/2002
09/19/2002
09/27/2002
0
04/09/2002 0
05/15/2002 0
09/17/2002
(sum of prior
3 columns)
7,037,926
9,896,493
2,563,133
310,659
1,100,000
1,100,000
5,000,000
1,554,005
2,700,000
4,600,000
900,000
900,000
TOTALS $19,841,026 $17,621,190
iation obligations
i not relate to the obligation information on the same line.
$200,000
Total FY02
Expenditures ****
Amount Year of Obligation
$9,925,032
5,440,089
$37,662,216 $15,365,121
2000
2002
-------
ederal NPL Remedial Action Site Funding
FY02 Obligated
Amount from Special
HQRAAOA** Date Accounts
de Corp.
.andfill
71 Site
iship Housing Dev.
al Well
ICo., Inc.
Gas Mantle (Camden)
9 Inc.
jstrial Plant
Area Ground Water
$20,111,271
19,092,897
1,150,000
7,600,000
13,400,000
9,970,000
30,000
5,548,872
8,250,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,400,000
1,300,000
3,000,000
3,160,000
9,200,000
7,000,000
2,520,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
0
250,000
1,400,000
330,000
09/30/2002
09/30/2002
09/30/2002
02/12/2002
04/25/2002
09/25/2002
09/27/2002
09/30/2002
09/25/2002
09/30/2002
09/30/2002
04/01/2002
09/30/2002
07/23/2002
09/30/2002
04/10/2002
07/15/2002
09/03/2002
05/06/2002
05/20/2002
09/30/2002
09/30/2002
09/30/2002
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Enclosure 7
Page 3 of 21
Total FY02
Amount Obligated
State SF (sum of prior
Contracts Date 3 columns)
$0
0
0
2,000,000 02/12/2002
774,000 09/25/2002
3,096,000 09/30/2002
1,750,000 09/25/2002
0
0
0
1,840,000 09/30/2002
800,000 04/10/2002
0
480,000 09/03/2002
0
114,000 07/16/2002
0
0
0
$20,111,271
19,092,897
1,150,000
9,600,000
14,174,000
13,066,000
30,000
5,548,872
10,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,400,000
1,300,000
4,840,000
3,160,000
10,000,000
7,000,000
3,000,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
114,000
250,000
1,400,000
330,000
ilyWell 1-1
1,286,800 09/06/2002 0 0
5,600,000 09/23/2002 0 0
TOTALS $129,099,840 $0 $10,854,000
iation obligations
i not relate to the obligation information on the same line.
1,286,800
5,600,000
$139,953,840
Total FY02
Expenditures ****
Amount Year of Obligation
$2,869
7,442
3,621,111
$526,069
12,700,662
21,564,107
2,690,074
3,720,735
2,253,101
2,486,301
1,376,642
111,944
756,195
1,589,706
7,506,080
2,192,190
446,761
268,182
16,624
3,848,683
14,661
9,616
539,777
18,735
16,705
181,002
173,006
3,916
48,533
228,680
467
490
$68,921,066
1990
1991
1990
1999
2000
2001
2002
2000
2000
2001
2002
1997
1998
2000
2001
1999
2000
2001
2000
2001
2000
2000
2002
2000
2001
2000
2001
1998
2000
2001
1990
1991
-------
ederal NPL Remedial Action Site Funding
FY02 Obligated
Amount from
HQ RA ADA**
$257,187
$4,741
23,000
43,169
300,000
80,038
35,000
Enclosure 7
Page 4 of 21
Total FY02
Amount Obligated
Date
03/22/2002
05/03/2002
08/12/2002
09/16/2002
02/15/2002
09/13/2002
03/29/2002
Special
Accounts
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
State SF
Contracts
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(sum of prior
3 columns)
$257,187
$4,741
23,000
43,169
300,000
ERR
35,000
114,550 09/20/2002 0
3TALS $857,685 $0
iation obligations
i not relate to the obligation information on the same line.
$0
114,550
$857,685
Total FY02
Expenditures ****
Amount Year of Obligation
$912,106
219,798
132,028
237,690
1,337,320
19,565
15,805
6,075
318,704
40,359
100
$3,239,550
2001
2000
1999
2000
2001
1995
2000
2002
1996
1999
2000
-------
ederal NPL Remedial Action Site Funding
FY02 Obligated
Amount from Special
HQRAAOA**
dwater
e Works (Pensacola]
food Preserving Co.
lerless Terminal
5
, Inc.
:o.
1 Works
saners
^reserving
nerCo.
posal
$200,000
2,471,708
4,500,000
253,698
50,000
268,227
532,542
100,000
442,846
300,000
300,000
10,000
500,000
1,500,000
2,276,287
300,000
200,000
57,154
1,351
50,000
175,000
2,825,000
Enclosure 7
Page 5 of 21
Total FY02
Amount Obligated
State SF (sum of prior
Date Accounts Date Contracts Date
09/27/2002
09/30/2002
03/19/2002
09/27/2002
02/21/2002
09/30/2002
09/25/2002
09/27/2002
09/27/2002
09/28/2002
09/06/2002
08/27/2002
02/08/2002
02/08/2002
09/30/2002
08/16/2002
08/16/2002
09/30/2002
04/09/2002
05/06/2002
09/04/2002
08/05/2002
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
228,292 09/30/2002
2,246,302 09/27/2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
250,000 09/24/2002
266,559 09/30/2002
0
0
3 columns)
$200,000
2,700,000
6,746,302
253,698
50,000
268,227
532,542
100,000
442,846
300,000
300,000
260,000
766,559
1,500,000
2,276,287
300,000
200,000
57,154
1,351
50,000
175,000
2,825,000
3lant 0
TOTALS $17,313,813
iation obligations
i not relate to the obligation information on the same line.
12,801 09/30/2002 0
$12,801 $2,991,153
12,801
$20,317,767
Total FY02
Expenditures ****
Amount Year of Obligation
7,500
371,852
3,745,448
7,903,395
3,604,888
173,009
40,169
569,086
20,789
238,678
98,498
1,030,512
6,330
1,897,669
1,309,145
1,889,550
273,589
33,441
2,605
243
494,404
8,077
$23,718,877
1997
1999
1999
2000
2001
2001
2002
1996
1998
1999
1994
2001
2002
1997
1999
2001
2000
2001
1999
2000
2001
2002
-------
ederal NPL Remedial Action Site Funding
Corporation
its (D & L Sales)
Corp (Michigan)
INC.
sk Dump
Bell Lumber & Pole d
FY02 Obligated
Amount from
HQRAAOA**
$0
390,921
1,500,000
928,000
3,458,446
3,200,000
5,613,554
338,812
796,326
2,299,305
10,000
147,250
0
24,526
25,000
41,350
20,000
20,850
350,000
50,200
198,050
70,000
Enclosure 7
Page 6 of 21
Total FY02
Amount Obligated
Date
09/17/2002
09/25/2002
12/04/2001
01/02/2002
01/02/2002
05/03/2002
09/27/2002
09/27/2002
09/27/2002
09/27/2002
09/27/2002
08/23/2002
08/23/2002
02/04/2002
09/19/2002
09/17/2002
09/17/2002
06/17/2002
07/17/2002
09/25/2002
Special State SF
Accounts Date Contracts
$0 $0
0 0
0 0
0 0
643,096 05/09/2002 0
170,622 07/01/2002
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
(sum of prior
3 columns) Notes
$0 (1)
390,921
1,500,000
928,000
3,458,446
3,200,000
5,613,554
338,812
796,326
2,299,305
10,000
147,250
643,096
170,622
24,526
25,000
41,350
20,000
20,850
350,000
50,200
198,050
70,000
TOTALS $19,482,590 $813,718
iation obligations
i not relate to the obligation information on the same line.
als:
i $50,000 for site security on 01/07/02.
$20,296,308
Total FY02
Expenditures ****
Amount Year of Obligation
4,511,539
810,536
2,573,082
4,307,294
$14,641,732
1999
2000
2001
2002
91,944
449,005
124,395
10,000
1,566,574
105,425
91,938
1996
2001
1999
1994
1995
2000
2001
-------
ederal NPL Remedial Action Site Funding
FY02 Obligated
e Works, Inc.
i County)
ell No. 2
>und Water Plume
Amount from
HQRAAOA**
$300,000
14,000,000
155,708
3,000,000
5,000,000
2,000,000
12,769
62,231
4,000,000
Date
09/09/2002
09/27/2002
09/18/2002
09/19/2002
09/23/2002
09/24/2002
06/24/2002
09/24/2002
08/27/2002
Special
Accounts
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Enclosure 7
Page 7 of 21
Total FY02
Amount Obligated
State SF
Contracts Date
$0
0
0
0
1,660,042 09/23/2002
0
0
0
(sum of prior
3 columns)
$300,000
14,000,000
155,708
3,000,000
6,660,042
2,000,000
12,769
62,231
4,000,000
Notes
(1)
Total FY02
Expenditures ****
Amount Year of Obligation
TOTALS $28,530,708 $0 $1,660,042 $30,190,750
iation obligations
i not relate to the obligation information on the same line.
als:
eflects updated information received from Region 6. Region 6 made a typographical error on an earlier remedial action table
3. The OIG previously reported in its 10/25/02 letter to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
jated $115,708 for the American Creosote site. The correct figure is $155,708.
$159,104
58,487
3,652
393,847
5,641,085
4,688,079
210
384,582
212,879
10,358
24,994
$11,577,277
2001
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2000
2001
1999
2001
-------
Enclosure 7
Page 8 of 21
ederal NPL Remedial Action Site Funding
FY02 Obligated
Amount from
HQRAAOA** Date
nadway St. Site $0
1,000,000 01/10/2002
2,000,000 04/18/2002
2,200,000 09/18/2002
0
elt 0
1,700,000 09/25/2002
TOTALS $6,900,000
Total FY02
Amount Obligated
Special State SF (sum of prior
Accounts Date Contracts Date 3 columns) Notes
$0 $140,000 06/06/2002
0 482,769 04/18/2002
1,299 02/05/2002 0
245,807 09/27/2002 0
0 0
$247,106 $622,769
$140,000
1,000,000
2,482,769
2,200,000 (1)
1,299
245,807
1,700,000 (2)
$7,769,875
Total FY02
Expenditures ****
Amount Year of Obligation
$388,775
308,845
1,147,344
352,977
145,199
152,629
1,117,259
$3,613,028
2000
2001
2001
1998
1997
1998
1999
iation obligations
i not relate to the obligation information on the same line.
als:
obligated under the TC code (recertified funds) in CERCLIS.
Dbligated under the TC code (recertified funds) in CERCLIS.
-------
Enclosure 7
Page 9 of 21
ederal NPL Remedial Action Site Funding
Total FY02
FY02 Obligated
Amount from
HQRAAOA**
te $5,000,000
$3,000,000
0
1,238,984
30,000
30,000
3ek Mining kree 850,000
50,000
100,000
1,000,000
300,000
200,000
1,375,000
5,400,000
500,000
1,094,802
9,040
Amount Obligated
Special State SF
Date Accounts Contracts Date
02/01/2002 $0 $490,000 09/30/2002
09/20/2002
0 100,000 01/28/2002
07/26/2002 0 0
06/26/2002
07/08/2002
08/23/2002 0 0
08/14/2002
09/26/2002
04/22/2002 0 3,000,000 04/03/2002
07/16/2002
08/12/2002
08/22/2002
04/03/2002
09/25/2002
09/27/2002
09/27/2002
(sum of prior
3 columns) Notes
$5,490,000
$3,000,000
100,000
1,238,984
30,000
30,000
850,000
50,000
100,000
4,000,000 (1)
300,000
200,000
1,375,000
5,400,000
500,000
1,094,802
9,040
TOTALS $20,177,826 $0 $3,590,000 $23,767,826
iation obligations
i not relate to the obligation information on the same line.
als:
dial action activities at the Gilt Edge site above is $9,878,842, which is $10,689 less than the amount EPA OIG reported
;r to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. In the 10/25/02 letter, EPA OIG reported a total of
; Gilt Edge site. Region 8 informed us that they double-counted a transaction. Because of this difference,
d Amount from HQ RA AOA is smaller here than previously reported in EPA OIG's 10/25/02 letter to the Senate
Dublic Works Committee.
Total FY02
Expenditures ****
Amount Year of Obligation
$1,121,605
1,640,450
2,509,021
543,717
22,741
2001
1998
1999
2001
2002
4,362,094
29,407
2001
2002
$10,229,035
-------
i-Federal NPL Remedial Action Site Funding
FY02 Obligated
ash Area
^line
& Drum CO.
iaxterCreosoting Co.
id Water Contamination
illey (Area 1)
Amount from
HQRAAOA**
$100,000
1,500,000
9,854,049
0
1,100,000
305,000
368,000
600,000
600,000
1,200,000
Date
01/17/2002
01/17/2002
09/30/2002
03/27/2002
09/17/2002
07/16/2002
01/17/2002
07/09/2002
09/30/2002
Special
Accounts Date
$0
0
258,539 02/20/2002
0
0
0
Enclosure 7
Page 10 of 21
Total FY02
Amount Obligated Tota
State SF
Contracts
$0
0
0
0
0
0
(sum of prior
3 columns)
$100,000
1,500,000
9,854,049
258,539
1,100,000
305,000
368,000
600,000
600,000
1,200,000
Expend
Amount
$117,124
48
6,985,489
1,256,892
49,843
194,158
382,921
6,685,070
580
Totals
$14,027,049
$258,539
$0
$14,285,588 $15,672,125
ligations
i do not relate to the obligation information on the same line.
2000
1996
2000
2001
1999
2000
2001
2000
2001
-------
i-Federal NPL Remedial Action Site Funding
FY02 Obligated
Amount from
HQ RA ADA**
ig & Metallurgical $2,532
$1,150,000
$39,425
$3,000,000
$4,700,000
$4,350,000
$450,000
xter Creos. Co. (Portland) 4,000,000
rome, Inc. 250,000
280,000
le Harbor 800,000
3,800,000
;ld Ground Water Contamir 826
22,099
1,819
822
96,446
Date
02/27/2002
05/13/2002
04/10/2002
06/21/2002
09/25/2002
09/25/2002
09/27/2002
08/09/2002
09/30/2002
09/30/2002
02/01/2002
05/13/2002
02/01/2002
04/10/2002
08/20/2002
08/20/2002
09/27/2002
Enclosure 7
Page 11 of 21
Total FY02
Amount Obligated
Special State SF (sum of prior
Accounts Contracts 3 columns)
$0 $0 $2,532
$1,150,000
$39,425
$3,000,000
$4,700,000
$4,350,000
$450,000
0 0 4,000,000
0 0 250,000
280,000
0 0 800,000
3,800,000
0 0 826
22,099
1,819
822
96,446
TOTALS $22,943,969
iation obligations
i not relate to the obligation information on the same line.
$22,943,969
Total FY02
Expenditures ****
Amount Year of Obligation
$2,993,234
1,758,803
1,061,290
958,471
2,350
277,133
10,787
149,784
4,773,785
627,801
25,478
87,896
2,205
$12,729,017
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2000
2001
2002
-------
Enclosure 7
Page 12 of 21
eral NPL Sites with Long-Term Response Actions
Total FY02
FY02 Obligated Amount Obligated
Amount from Special State SF (sum of prior
HQRAAOA** Date Accounts Date Contracts Date 3 columns)
lamation Trust Landfill $0 $0 $47,939 08/06/2002 $47,939
200,170 09/27/2002 0 3,500,000 08/19/2002 3,700,170
0 0 400,000 07/01/2002 400,000
srp. 0 600,000 03/25/2002 0 600,000
150,000 07/03/2002 150,000
cal Corporation 340,349 07/26/2002 0 137,423 07/26/2002 477,772
0 0 21,537 09/26/2002 21,537
Total FY02
Expenditures ****
(Year of
Amount Obligation)
46,476 1999
26,106 2000
103,584 1999
1 ,937,000 2000
454,382 2001
147,497 2000
90,619 2001
15,973 1997
102,352 2001
TOTALS $540,519 $750,000
Jon obligations
ot relate to the obligation information on the same line.
$4,106,899
$5,397,418 $2,923,989
-------
Enclosure 7
Page 13 of 21
eral NPL Sites with Long-Term Response Actions
Total FY02
FY02 Obligated Amount Obligated
Amount from Special State SF (sum of prior
HQRAAOA** Date Accounts Date Contracts Date 3 columns)
irs
gCo.
:o., Inc.
(Co.
leal
rial Plant
33 GW Contaminstioi
Well 1-1
TOTALS
:ion obligations
$500,000 09/27/2002 $0 $200,000 09/27/2002
2,699,790 09/30/2002 0 0
450,000 09/26/2002 0 50,000 09/26/2002
900,000 03/26/2002 0 0
0 4,500,000 01/09/2002 0
200,000 01/11/2002
750,000 06/12/2002
450,000 09/26/2002 0 50,000 09/26/2002
4,000,000 04/08/2002 0 0
1,500,000 09/24/2002 0 0
676,000 02/27/2002 0 24,000 02/27/2002
174,000 09/30/2002
390,000 09/27/2002 0 160,000 09/27/2002
580,000 05/13/2002 0 0
420,000 09/30/2002
350,000 09/30/2002 0 0
200,000 01/24/2002 0 0
100,000 09/20/2002
150,000 09/30/2002 0 0
213,200 03/04/2002 0 186,800 03/04/2002
100,000 04/03/2002
$13,852,990 $5,450,000 $670,800
$700,000
2,699,790
500,000
900,000
4,500,000
200,000
750,000
500,000
4,000,000
1,500,000
700,000
174,000
550,000
580,000
420,000
350,000
200,000
100,000
150,000
400,000
100,000
$19,973,790
Total FY02
Expenditures ****
(Year of
Amount Obligation)
147,654 1998
133,757
4,664
385,251
3,512,885
604,357
429,842
3,832
207,055
439,812
301,196
353,355
5,161
15,053
200,000
37,967
236,003
$7,017,844
1997
2001
2001
2001
2000
2000
2002
2001
2001
2002
2001
1997
2000
2001
2002
1999
ot relate to the obligation information on the same line.
-------
Enclosure 7
Page 14 of 21
eral NPL Sites with Long-Term Response Actions
Total FY02
FY02 Obligated
Amount from
HQRAAOA**
$133,903
200,000
200,000
50,000
220,000
jring Co. 60,000
75,000
75,000
150,000
il Co. 350,000
Amount Obligated
Special State SF
Date Accounts Contracts
09/30/2002 $0 $0
08/12/2002 0 0
04/12/2002 0 0
09/25/2002
08/13/2002 0 0
02/26/2002 0 0
04/17/2002
09/24/2002
09/24/2002 0 0
01/14/2002 0 0
(sum of prior
3 columns)
$133,903
200,000
200,000
50,000
220,000
60,000
75,000
75,000
150,000
350,000
Total FY02
Expenditures ****
Amount
17,892
175,473
90,900
80,135
4,804
190,166
21,772
65,029
613,080
25,000
104,210
(Year of
Obligation)
1999
2001
2000
2001
2002
2000
2002
2000
2000
2001
2002
200,000 09/20/2002
TOTALS $1,713,903
:ion obligations
$0
$0
200,000
$1,713,903
237,488 2001
$1,625,949
ot relate to the obligation information on the same line.
-------
Enclosure 7
Page 15 of 21
deral NPL Sites with Long-Term Response Actions
Inc.
osal
(serving
DIALS
FY02 Obligated
Amount from
HQ RA AOA** Date
$0
100,000 05/07/2002
150,000 04/27/2002
36,938 09/17/2002
150,000 05/14/2002
$436,938
Total FY02
Amount Obligated
Special State SF (sum of prior
Accounts Date Contracts 3 columns)
$200,000 09/17/2002 $0 $200,000
0 0 100,000
0 0 150,000
36,938
0 0 150,000
$200,000 $0 $636,938
Total FY02
Expenditures ****
(Year of
Amount Obligation)
3,402 2002
$3,402
ion obligations
ot relate to the obligation information on the same line.
-------
-Federal NPL Sites with Long
Enclosure 7
Page 16 of 21
Term Response Actions
FY02 Obligated
Amount from
HQRAAOA**
/a Chemical Co.
Co.
idry
>undwater Contamination
>s/Bell Lumber & Pole Co.
lectroplating Co., Inc.
:ipal Landfill
)ducts
925,711
258,650
520,000
450,000
500,000
250,000
89,972
18,990
556,000
44,000
103,281
400,000
900,000
852,519
Total FY02
Amount Obligated
Special State SF (sum of prior
Date Accounts Contracts Date 3 columns)
09/25/2002 0 1,574,289 09/25/2002
02/04/2002 0 0
03/26/2002 0 0
06/20/2002 0 0
12/04/2001 0 0
03/29/2002
02/07/2002 0 0
05/24/2002
09/27/2002
09/27/2002
05/24/2002 0 0
01/02/2002 0 0
01/02/2002
09/25/2002
2,500,000
258,650
520,000
450,000
500,000
250,000
89,972
18,990
556,000
44,000
103,281
400,000
900,000
852,519
Total FY02
Expenditures ****
(Year of
Amount Obligation)
1,678,578 2000
770,115 2001
23,080
354,000
542,000
282,393
319,797
236,317
132,010
60,166
473,654
331,052
2001
1999
2001
2002
2000
2001
1997
1998
2001
2002
TOTALS $5,869,123
riation obligations
o not relate to the obligation information on the same line.
$1,574,289
$7,443,412 $5,203,162
-------
Enclosure 7
Page 17 of 21
deral NPL Sites with Long-Term Response Actions
Drp.
ery Co.
doned Refinery
TOTALS
ion obligations
FY02 Obligated
Amount from
HQ RA AOA** Date
$625,000 07/22/2002
$135,649 09/30/2002
150,000 09/23/2002
62,500 09/25/2002
62,500 09/25/2002
$1,035,649
Total FY02
Amount Obligated
Special State SF (sum of prior
Accounts Contracts 3 columns)
$0 $0 $625,000
$135,649
0 0 150,000
0 0 62,500
0 0 62,500
$0 $0 $1,035,649
Total FY02
Expenditures ****
(Year of
Amount Obligation)
114,834 2001
$114,834
ot relate to the obligation information on the same line.
-------
Enclosure 7
Page 18 of 21
Ion-Federal NPL Sites with Long-Term Response Actions
Total FY02 Total FY02
FY02 Obligated Amount Obligated Expenditures ****
Amount from Special State SF (sum of prior (Year of
HQRAAOA** Accounts Contracts 3 columns) Amount Obligation)
»ted any LIRA sites with FY 02 obligations
riation obligations
o not relate to the obligation information on the same line.
-------
eral NPL Sites with Long-Term Response Actions
FY02 Obligated
Amount from Special
HQRAAOA** Date Accounts Date
ee> $1,100,000 04/23/2002 $0
0 800,000 05/06/2002
0 2,100,000 03/08/2002
5,000 05/17/2002
252,300 08/15/2002
19,982 11/28/2001 0
Enclosure 7
Page 19 of 21
Total FY02
Amount Obligated
State SF (sum of prior
Contracts 3 columns)
$0 $1,100,000
0 800,000
0 2,100,000
5,000
252,300
0 19,982
Total FY02
Expenditures ****
(Year of
Amount Obligation)
142,991 2000
3,000 2002
22,646 1999
335,672 2001
192,520 2001
29,651 2002
_S $1,119,982 $3,157,300
ion obligations
ot relate to the obligation information on the same line.
$0
$4,277,282
$726,480
-------
Enclosure 7
Page 20 of 21
;ederal NPL Sites with Long-Term Response Actions
Total FY02
FY02 Obligated Amount Obligated
Amount from Special State SF (sum of prior
HQ RA AOA** Date Accounts Date Contracts Date 3 columns)
iductorCorp.
Water Contaminatioi
o.
$0 $36,975 09/26/2002 $0 $36,975
750,000 06/27/2002 0 0 750,000
603,095 07/22/2002 0 500,000 09/25/2002 1,103,095
Water Contamination
TOTALS $1,353,095 $36,975 $500,000 $1,890,070
riation obligations
o not relate to the obligation information on the same line.
Total FY02
Expenditures ****
(Year of
Amount Obligation)
883,607 2000
1,099 1999
$884,706
-------
Enclosure 7
Page 21 of 21
ederal NPL Sites with Long-Term Response Actions
FY02 Obligated
Amount from
HQRAAOA**
ay, South Tacoma Charms $400,000
$444,031
$59,300
Total FY02
Amount Obligated
Special State SF (sum of prior
Date Accounts Contracts 3 columns)
08/14/2002 $
09/27/2002
09/27/2002
0 $0 $400,000
$444,031
$59,300
Total FY02
Expenditures ****
(Year of
Amount Obligation)
499 1 999
8,806 2000
16,475 2001
TOTALS
$903,331
$0
$903,331
$25,780
ion obligations
ot relate to the obligation information on the same line.
-------
Enclosure 8
OIG Response to Attachment Question 3
Question 3 - In your October 25, 2002, report you reported that the final need was the same as or
equal to the total amount obligated for FY 2002 at many sites where it was significantly less than
the initial requested amount. Please provide any documentation that substantiates the EPA
claims and identify where there were discrepancies between the information you received from
the remedial project managers and Headquarters.
OIG Response - Our October 25, 2002, letter stated that Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response officials (now OSTRI) indicated to us that managing uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites is inherently uncertain in nature, and site funding needs change frequently based on dynamic
site conditions (see page 2 of our letter). In analyzing the financial information obtained in
preparation for our October 2002 letter, we noted that EPA had obligated funds for certain sites
well above the amount requested at the start of FY 2002. In contrast, some sites, for which funds
were originally requested, received no funding at all. For example, Region 1 originally requested
$10,000,000 for the New Bedford site for FY 2002, but by the end of the fiscal year had
obligated $22,008,211, the majority of which came from available funds supplied by PRPs in
accordance with Consent Decrees. Also, Region 6 initially requested $9,880,000 for the Hart
Creosoting site but did not receive any funding for this site. OSRTI officials told us that amounts
the regions request for sites at the beginning of a fiscal year are "planning estimates." Thus, the
question arose for the OIG as to what EPA's "real funding need" was for each of the remedial
and LIRA sites during FY 2002.
To provide some perspective on this issue, at the end of our field work we asked regional
Superfund officials to provide the final FY 2002 need for each site. We asked regional officials
to indicate an amount for "Final Site Need for FY 2002" on our spreadsheets which became part
of our working papers. Given time constraints, we did not request any other supporting
documentation. The information provided by regional officials is reflected in the column
"Final Site Need for FY02" in enclosures 1 and 2 of our October 25, 2002, letter.
During our review, an OSRTI official indicated that he disagreed with Region 5 on the amount
needed for the Continental Steel Corporation site. Region 5 indicated that its final FY 2002 need
was $28.5 million. According to a Region 5 official, this estimate reflected the operating
"ground rules" for the Superfund program that a region receives the full Federal share for new
construction starts. The OSRTI official maintained that the Region did not need all $28.5 million
in FY 2002 given the multi-year nature of this project. That official maintained that the site
could be addressed by allocating approximately $10 million per year over a 3-year period. The
Region 5 official agreed that all $28.5 million would not have been spent in the first year of
construction but did not believe that the "ground rules" had been changed to support an
incremental funding approach. The Region 5 official added that the danger with incremental
funding is that future funding may not be available when needed to complete the project.
-------
Enclosure 9
Page 1 of 5
OIG Response to Attachment Question 4
Question 4 - Please describe the budget formulation and funding process for FY 2003 for
Superfund activities, focusing on remedial investigation, remedial design, remedial construction,
and long-term response actions. Please describe the budget formulation and funding process for
FY 2002 for these same activities. Please describe any changes to the budget and funding
process from FY 2002 to FY 2003. Please provide any background documentation and memos.
OIG Response - OSRTI provided the following information:
EPA manages the allocation of Superfund resources using an AOA structure. For the remedial
program, response resources (exclusive of payroll, travel and working capital fund) from the
Superfund appropriation are placed in two AOAs. The Remedial Action AOA provides
resources for remedial action construction, non-time critical removal construction, LTRAs
(e.g., ground water restoration), and five-year reviews scheduled to be performed during the year.
These actions are taken at sites on the Superfund NPL. The Pipeline Operations AOA provides
resources for a wide variety of program activities including site assessment, remedial
investigation/feasibility study, remedial design, oversight of responsible party cleanups,
community involvement (including technical advisor grants), State involvement, and contracts
management. The budget and funding process varies significantly for each AOA.
FY 2003 Budget and Funding Process
Remedial Action AOA
The resources planning and management process for Superfund cleanup construction projects is
an ongoing effort throughout the fiscal year. Resources for construction projects are provided
from the Remedial Action AOA and from the deobligation of unexpended funds from prior
years. The highest priority for funding is given to "ongoing" projects with resource needs,
including ongoing construction projects with resource needs to maintain progress or achieve
completion, LTRA, and five-year reviews scheduled to be performed during the year. After
ongoing construction needs are met, any remaining resources from the Remedial Action AOA
and deobligations are allocated to sites where new cleanup construction projects are ready to
proceed.
EPA began the Remedial Action funding process for FY 2003 during July/August 2002. A work
planning memorandum was issued to the EPA Regional Offices on June 28, 2002. The
memorandum asked the Regions to identify funding needs for ongoing remedial actions and
LTRAs and for five-year reviews. The memorandum also requested that the regions
-------
Enclosure 9
Page 2 of 5
complete project evaluation forms for each ongoing remedial action project and each LTRA
project (with an estimated annual cost exceeding $600,000) requiring funding during FY 2003.
These forms were intended to provide a brief description of the project and the projected resource
need for the year. Using the project evaluation forms as well as reports pulled from the
Superfund information management system, CERCLIS, initial resource requests for ongoing
construction projects were identified, as well as candidates for new start construction expected to
be ready to begin work during the fiscal year that the Region planned to present to the National
Risk Based Priority Panel (see description below). A conference call was subsequently
scheduled with each Region to review their funding request for each site/project. These
discussions confirmed the resource estimates, the timing (fiscal quarter) when resources were
needed, and whether other sources of funding were potentially available for the site/project (e.g.,
reimbursable resources from State cost share payments or responsible party settlement
resources). A preliminary estimate of potential deobligations also was obtained from each
Region. Most ongoing projects require a relatively small amount of funding and are readily
approved at the amount requested by the Regional Office, while the larger, higher cost projects
undergo a more detailed review. Factors considered in this review include the specific scope,
status, and resource needs of the project, the total resource needs for all cleanup projects, the
available budget for cleanup construction work from the Superfund appropriation, and other
potential sources of funding. The goal of the program is to provide the resources required to
maintain cleanup progress during the year. This allocation may be less than the amount initially
requested by the Regional Office.
Concurrent with the work planning process, senior managers in EPA Headquarters, in
consultation with the Superfund Directors in the Regions, considered options for increasing the
available funding for cleanup construction. After extensive deliberations, a decision was made to
transfer $10 million from the Pipeline Operations AOA to the Remedial Action AOA. In
addition, the Superfund deobligation policy was revised to direct a larger portion of deobligation
resources to the National Deobligation Pool for construction funding. These adjustments were
required to meet the growing need for resources for cleanup construction.
The FY 2003 Remedial Action AOA funding level, the Superfund deobligation policy, and the
initial funding plan for ongoing remedial action needs were issued in a memorandum to the
Regions on October 30, 2002. The Remedial Action AOA was tentatively set at $230 million
(subsequently reduced to $227.8 million based on the final appropriation received from Congress
and the proposed Agency Operating Plan). The deobligation policy was set with 25 percent of
the resources retained by the Regions for regional priorities and 75 percent returned to
Headquarters for national priorities, including funding for remedial action needs. Deobligation
resources returned to Headquarters are placed in a reserve account called the National
Deobligation Pool and remain available through the year until reprogrammed back to a Region
for a specific project. The initial funding plan designated over $220 million from the Remedial
Action AOA for more than 180 projects with ongoing funding needs (including cleanup
construction projects, LTRA's and five-year reviews).
-------
Enclosure 9
Page 3 of 5
Resources were provided to the Regional Offices as funding became available during the
continuing resolution periods and after enactment of the appropriation, largely in accordance
with the funding plan. During the course of the year, the Regional Offices refined their project
needs as cleanup work progressed in the field, and EPA Headquarters adjusted the initial
allocations as needed. A comprehensive review was conducted at mid-year and a revised plan
reflecting the updated regional needs was issued on June 5, 2003. Resources were issued in
accordance with the plan over the remainder of the fiscal year.
Concurrent with the work planning process for ongoing projects, EPA Headquarters asked the
Regional Offices to submit new start construction project candidates for consideration by the
National Risk Based Priorities Panel. EPA established this Panel to review and evaluate
Superfund cleanup construction projects that are expected to be ready to proceed during a fiscal
year. The Panel is comprised of national program experts from each EPA Regional Office and
Headquarters. The panel uses the following factors to evaluate each project:
Risk of human exposure;
Stability of the contaminant;
Characteristics of the contaminant, including concentration and volume;
Ecological risk; and
Program Management considerations, such as whether (1) innovative technologies
can be employed, (2) design is complete, (3) the State's share of cleanup costs is
available; (4) environmental justice concerns are present, and (5) economic
redevelopment may occur.
Each factor receives a score of from 1 to 5 and the project's overall score is arrived at by adding
the raw scores multiplied by the weight of each factor. For FY 2003, 35 projects were reviewed
by the Panel.
New start construction projects are funded depending on the availability of resources. Priorities
are set based on the relative risk posed by the site as determined by the Panel, and the potential
for achieving construction completion. Based on a projection of available resources, largely from
the deobligation of unexpended prior year resources, EPA designated 11 projects to receive
construction funding during FY 2003. (OIG Note: one of the projects received removal funds
and another project received pipeline funds.)
Pipeline Operations AOA
EPA Headquarters and the Regional Offices engage in a work planning process for
Pipeline AOA resources, but the critical difference is that Pipeline resources are not
allocated to the Regions on a site/project-specific basis. For FY 2003, the Pipeline Operations
AOA funding level was initially set at $190 million (after $10 million was shifted to the
Remedial Action AOA to augment the construction budget). Similar to the Remedial Action
-------
Enclosure 9
Page 4 of 5
AOA, Pipeline funding was subsequently reduced to $187 million following enactment of the
Superfund appropriation.
The Pipeline Operations AOA resources are distributed among the Regions based on the Pipeline
Allocation Model. A portion of the allocation is based on historical allocations and the
remaining portion is based on a work-based scoring system. The work-based scoring system
contains such factors as the number of completed actions, ongoing actions, and planned actions.
Weights are assigned to the categories and differ depending on whether (1) the action will be
funded with Federal funds or by the responsible parties, (2) the site is considered a mega site, or
sites with estimated costs of $50 million or more, and (3) the site is on the NPL. The various
weights are used to calculate a work-based amount for each region. For FY 2003, the work
planning memorandum issued to the Regions on August 12, 2002, provided general guidance
regarding OSRTI's projections of the funding that would be available to the Regions through the
Pipeline Operations AOA. Using this information, each Region planned for the use of its budget,
entering its planned obligations and accomplishments for certain actions (e.g., remedial
investigations/feasibility studies, remedial design, and oversight) into CERCLIS/WasteLAN.
Pursuant to work planning discussions conducted during October/November 2002, EPA
Headquarters refined resource allocation projections based on the Pipeline Allocation Model and
Regions finalized their planned accomplishments in CERCLIS/WasteLAN. As a result of
uncertainties due to the appropriation continuing resolutions, delays in obtaining an Agency
Operating Plan, and concerns regarding the availability of funds for construction, Headquarters
finalized its decision for distributing the Pipeline Operation AOA in April 2003.
FY 2002 Budget and Funding Process
The Remedial Action AOA planning and resource allocation process for FY 2002 was largely the
same as described above. The methodology for allocating Pipeline AOA resources in FY 2002
was also substantially similar to that of FY 2003.
Process Changes from FY 2002 to FY 2003
Process changes from FY 2002 to FY 2003 include the following:
The Remedial Action AOA was increased by $10 million for FY 2003 and the Pipeline
Operations AOA reduced by $10 million to address the increased need for cleanup
construction funding. This decision, as well as the decision on the deobligation policy, was
reached after extensive consultation with the regional Superfund Division Directors.
The Superfund deobligation policy was revised for FY 2003 to allocate a higher percentage
of regional deobligations for cleanup construction to the national deobligations pool. This
allocation was increased from 50 percent for FY 2002 to 75 percent for FY 2003.
-------
Enclosure 9
Page 5 of 5
For FY 2003, work planning discussions between OSRTI and the regions for cleanup
construction were done separately from the work planning discussions on all other program
activities. In prior years, construction resource discussions between OSRTI and the regions
took place during the first quarter of the fiscal year as part of the work planning sessions.
Because the construction resource discussions for FY 2003 began in the summer of 2002,
OSRTI and the regions were able to conduct a more thorough review of regional needs.
Because these discussions took place sooner than in prior years, OSRTI was able to issue its
initial funding plan early in the fiscal year - on October 30, 2002.
Although not a change in policy, OSRTI issued a memorandum to the Regions on
September 20, 2002, reinforcing the need to explore all enforcement options prior to
proceeding with a fund-financed cleanup construction project. The memorandum was
released during FY 2002, but had its most practical affect during FY 2003.
The Pipeline Allocation Model was adjusted for FY 2003, including giving greater weight to
the number of pipeline actions completed in the prior year and giving more money to those
regions that met or exceeded 80 percent of their planned starts for the previous fiscal year.
The extended Continuing Resolution periods during FY 2003 resulted in increased control
over the allocation of funds to the Regions from both the Pipeline operations and Remedial
Action AOAs to ensure critical needs could be met within the limited cash flow of
Continuing Resolution funding. Because each Continuing Resolution lasted for a specified
period of time and only allowed a limited amount of funding to be used, OSRTI and the
regions held discussions during each Continuing Resolution to discuss funding needs and
craft a funding plan for that Continuing Resolution.
The FY 2002 Superfund appropriation included a provision that $100 million of the
appropriated amount was not available until September 1, 2002 (referred to as the
$100 million hold-back). The hold-back was allocated $60 million to the Remedial Action
AOA and $40 million to the Pipeline Operations AOA. As a result, these resources were not
provided to the regional offices until after September 1, 2002. Congress did not include this
provision in the FY 2003 appropriation, allowing the Agency more flexibility in allocating
resources and funding projects.
Copies of memoranda relating to FY 2002 and FY 2003 processes are attached.
-------
Enclosure 10
Page 1 of 3
OIG Response to Attachment Question 5
Question 5 - In your October 25, 2002, report you stated that Headquarters staff emphasized that
one of the additional practices that helps conserve Superfund resources was "tightening the
criteria for NPL listing." Please specify these new criteria and indicate which sites may, have
been, or will be affected or had their listing affected by the new criteria.
OIG Response - OSRTI provided the following information:
In considering sites for inclusion in the April 2003 proposed National Priorities List Rule, OSRTI
used a tiering system as an additional component of the internal deliberative process. The tiering
system used risk to human health/environment and urgency for cleanup as the two main factors.
The sites were tiered by OSRTI staff and representatives from EPA's ten Regions.
Generally, the Tiers used were as follows:
Tier A: Current actual human exposure (measurable with appropriate
sampling/analytical data) to resident population, or students at schools/daycare,
and Superfund remedial action is needed near term (e.g., within 10 years).
Tier B: Current actual human exposure to any population residents/students/workers/
trespassers) and Superfund remedial action is needed in the long term (e.g.,
more than 10 years).
Tier C: Human exposure has occurred in the past, but current risk management practices
are adequate for the interim, or potential human exposure above
screening/cleanup levels is a reasonable scenario in the future.
Tier D: No current/past human exposure. Possible future human exposure or
contaminated sensitive environments, or there are known State endangered
species habitats within the target distance limit (TDL).
Tier E: Contaminated ground water, surface water, soils, or air; no projected potential
human exposure or projected exposures below screening/cleanup levels; no
direct threat to sensitive environments.
-------
Enclosure 10
Page 2 of 3
Once the sites potentially eligible for the April 2003 NPL update were identified by EPA regions,
the sites were selected for further evaluation by taking the Tiers into account. In selecting sites
for this rule, EPA considered, in addition to the Tiers:
the need for a strong enforcement program through cleanups conducted or
financed by PRPs;
the level of State, tribal, community, and congressional delegation support;
estimated cleanup costs;
the timing of the costs and cleanup;
environmental justice issues;
prospects for commercial redevelopment; and
geographic balance.
An OSRTI official indicated that cleanup costs and timing were considered in the aggregate (e.g.,
the costs for all Tier A and B sites were presented as an option to management) and were not the
cause for a final decision on any site. The official indicated that while the regions had considered
the factors above for past rulemakings, this was the first time factors other than legal defensibility
had been considered by Headquarters. These considerations resulted in proposing 14 sites (out of
30 sites identified by the regions) to the NPL on April 30, 2003 (68 FR 23094).
The 14 sites proposed were as follows:
Proposed Rule No. 39, General SuperfUnd Section
State Site name City/county
CA AMCO Chemical
CO Captain Jack Mill
MD 68th Street Dump
MO Madison County Mines
MO Newton County Mine Tailings
NC Ram Leather Care
NH Troy Mills Landfill
NJ Rolling Knolls Landfill
NJ Standard Chlorine Chemical Company, Inc.
NJ White Swan/Sun Cleaners GW Contamination
OH Armco Inc., Hamilton Plant
OH Peters Cartridge Factory
TX Conroe Creosoting Company
TX Jones Road Ground Water Plume
Oakland
Ward
Baltimore
Fredericktown
Newton County
Charlotte
Troy
Chatham Township
Kearny
Wall Township
Hamilton
Kings Mills
Conroe
Harris County
(EPA considers the 16 sites not proposed to be deliberative and enforcement-sensitive
information. Seven sites were added to the NPL in April 2003, but these sites related to prior
-------
Enclosure 10
Page 3 of 3
rulemakings and thus were not evaluated using the tiering process described above. Final listing
decisions concerning the 14 sites will occur after the public comment period closes and all
relevant comments are considered and addressed.)
The tiering process only aided in identifying sites that should be a priority for further
evaluation. Sites initially identified as candidates for proposed listing may not ultimately be
proposed for listing for several reasons. Further technical, legal and policy review may indicate
that certain sites are not ready for proposed listing. For example, EPA postponed decisions on
some sites because States requested additional time to negotiate cleanup agreements or,
alternately, EPA plans to negotiate cleanup agreements under the Superfund Alternative Sites
approach. (Under the Superfund Alternative Sites policy, the listing process is suspended while
responsible parties are given an opportunity to enter into an agreement to clean up the site in the
same manner as if the site were listed.) Other EPA policies that may affect the decision to
propose listing a site on the NPL include EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
deferral and State deferral policies. According to OSRTI officials, the Agency will consider all
sites identified by the regions as eligible for listing for future NPL proposed rules. While OSRTI
will obtain information on the factors indicated above for the next proposed rulemaking, it has
not decided how this information will be used.
(OIG note: The U.S. General Accounting Office discussed the tiering process on page 29 of its
July 2003 report, "Superfund Program: Current Status and Future Fiscal Challenges," GAO-03-
850.)
-------
Enclosure 11
Page 1 of 6
OIG Response to Attachment Question 6
Question 6 - The October 25th report indicates that $95 million was de-obligated from prior year
funding and used in FY 2002. Please identify the sites where the funding came from, identify the
work the funding was reserved for, and indicate whether it was replaced or needs to be replaced
in future years. Also, please indicate to what extent the EPA will be able to find significant
amounts of additional prior year funding to de-obligate and use in FY 2003.
OIG Response - OSRTI reported that a total of $85 million of FY 2003 obligations were from
prior-year funds. The enclosed disk contains information each region provided for all
deobligations during FY 2002. The information indicates where the funds were taken from and
the region's comments on whether these activities would require funds to address any remaining
needs. As a general rule, regional officials indicated that they did not have a need to replenish
the funds deobligated from the activities indicated. Since the regions reported all deobligations,
the total for the deobligations will exceed the $95 million obligated to remedial actions in FY
2002. The OIG did not confirm the accuracy of the information provided by the regions. As an
example, we are providing the information submitted by Region 6, the Region with the greatest
total deobligations for FY 2002.
Amount
De-obligated
in FY 2002
$21,430,712.00
47,550.00
150,805.00
1,018.00
8,233.13
47,593.00
103,763.07
61,495.92
181,023.00
30,602.87
1,991,250.68
330,000.00
301,492.00
50,000.00
75,000.00
21,884.00
500,000.00
27,353.00
26,726.08
92,994.54
83,477.39
491,862.00
450,000.00
13.45
13.93
Site from Which
Funds Were De-obligated
Popile
Brio
Southern Shipbuilding
Small Purchase Order for GP
North Railroad Plume
Training
General Support
General Support
PA/SI
Core Program
Madisonville
All Indian Pueblo Council Coop Ag
All Indian Pueblo Council Coop Ag
North Railroad Ave Plume
North Railroad Ave Plume
Lockheed Martin ESAT Contract
DOT Interagency Agreement
RSR
Ecology &Environment (START)
Ecology &Environment (START)
Quinton Smelter
Odesa Chromium I
Ice House Drums
Edmond Strees (S Valley)
Dixie Oil Processors
Activity from Which
Funds Were De-obligated
Remedial Action
Technical Assistance Grant
Remedial Action
Management Assistance
Non Site Specific
Removal
Remedial
Non Site Specific
Non Site Specific
Remedial Action
PA/SI
Core
Management Assistance
MRS Pilot
Data Validation
Emergency Response Support
Management Assistance
Removal Support Assessment
Removal Support Assessment
Removal
Remedial Action
Removal
RI/FS oversight
RI/FS oversight
Note
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
-------
Enclosure 11
Page 2 of 6
Amount
De-obligated
in FY 2002
1.20
2,911.29
722.43
376.19
142.40
21.47
31,677.51
23.26
15,000.00
15,000.00
19,991.03
7,506.22
8,174.48
10,594.14
370.04
36,561.26
12,437.80
26,701.28
301.54
39,707.46
19,873.57
13,664.59
19,597.92
18,517.12
10,286.65
38,494.07
50,040.68
3,563.92
235,465.89
17,661.68
3,203.77
15,000.00
23,715.35
19,690.49
23,970.47
25,514.13
4,155.21
4,470.81
280,716.62
63,236.94
1,000.00
39,792.36
3,817.58
8,107.28
10,908.67
Site from Which
Funds Were De-obligated
Sheridan (cashout)
PA/SI
Brio
RAB Valley
Arkwood
Ag Street
ARCS Contract Management
Integrated Assessment
Site Assessment
Tinker AFB
South 8th Street
ATSF-Alburquerque
Rinchem
Tinker AFB
Remedial Support
4th Street
Bailey Waste
ARCS Contract
Sol Lynn
South Calvacade
Hardage
Alcoa/Lavaca Bay
Koppers
Mosley Road
Petrochem
ATSF-Clovis
PA/SI
Alcoa/Lavaca Bay
06009 Contract
4th Street
South 8th Street
South 8th Street
Integrated Assessment
PetroChem
Double Eagle
Double Eagle
Ag Street
Bayou D'lnde
06009 Contract
4th Street
Sol Lynn
Double Eagle
North Calvacade
Texarkana Wood
Texarkana Wood
Activity from Which
Funds Were De-obligated
RI/FS oversight
Non-site
Oversight
RI/FS
Oversight
Community Involvement
Non-site
Non-site
RD oversight
Oversight
Remedial Analysis
Remedial Analysis
RA oversight
Remedial Action
PRPRA
Non-site
Oversight
Oversight
Oversight
Oversight
Oversight
Oversight
Oversight
Oversight
Non-site
Remedial Analysis
Bulk Funding
RD
RI/FS
RD
Non-site
RD
RA
RD
FS
RI/FS
Program Management
RI/FS
RD
RI/FS
RD
RD
RI/FS
Note
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
-------
Enclosure 11
Page 3 of 6
Amount
De-obligated
in FY 2002
10,325.10
10,196.28
42,252.72
1,770,000.00
2,200,000.00
52,846.00
20,035.00
24,039.00
14,533.00
4,708.00
26,409.00
200,000.00
491,347.00
83,000.00
30,548.99
4,103.00
3,040.00
51,165.00
6,755.00
13,745.00
12,144.00
6,627.00
12,096.00
43,309.00
13,764.00
7,273.00
12,075.00
181,538.52
6,822.70
11,164.56
15,000.00
3,096.93
3,368.20
2,616.74
9,678.59
775.96
579,275.00
15,939.00
494,928.00
6,743.00
395,808.00
9,610,864.00
871,798.00
21,100.00
48,500.00
Site from Which
Funds Were De-obligated
United Creosoting
Bio Ecology
Morrison Knudson
Tar Creek
Agriculture Street Landfill
Brio Refining
Koppers
MOTCO
Petro Chemical
South Cavalcade
Sprague Road
Texarkana Wood
Texarkana Wood
Thermo Labsystems
Metcalf & Eddy TES Contract
Non-site Specific
Non-site Specific
ATSF-Alburquerque
Cal West
Cimarron Mining
Cleveland Mill
ATSF - Clovis
Homestake Mining
Molycorp
South Valley
United Nuclear
Lee Acres
A & B Border Contract
LaCostex Refining
R&H Oil
Tropicana Refinery
J.C. Elliott
Brownsville Drums
Los Ebanos
Gulf Coast Paint
Hazardous Materials Workshop
Many Diversified Interests
Sikes Pits
Odessa Chromium II
Tex-Tin
Jasper Creosoting
Sikes Pits
North Calvacade
Angle Wood
Jasper Creosotinq
Activity from Which
Funds Were De-obligated
RD
RA
Program Management
RI/FS
Non-time Critical Removal
Remedial design
Remedial Analysis
PRP Oversight
Management Assistance
PRP Oversight
Management Assistance
Remedial Action
Remedial Design
Laboratory Support
Non-site Specific Tech. Supp.
CORE Program
PA/SI
RI/FS Oversight
Remedial Action
Management Assistance
Management Assistance
Management Assistance
Management Assistance
Management Assistance
Management Assistance
Management Assistance
Management Assistance
Non-site Technical Support
Technical Assistance
Technical Assistance
Technical Assistance
Technical Assistance
Technical Assistance
Removal Support
Technical Assistance
Training
RI/FS
Remedial Action
Remedial Action
Management Assistance
RI/FS
Remedial Action
Remedial Action
Removal
Removal
Note
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
-------
Enclosure 11
Page 4 of 6
Amount
De-obligated
in FY 2002
129.83
19,546.25
20,000.05
485.65
436.10
80,122.26
57,280.11
316.70
29.40
68,115.46
37,421.59
112.03
20,729.38
9,415.56
39,687.88
3,144.03
787.14
122,707.21
224.18
154,154.10
56,708.55
350.49
88.05
7,030.03
772.70
448.36
448.36
80,050.52
25,434.87
3,342.66
10,410.07
5,031.38
24,000.00
6,110.29
72,750.02
2,950.40
2,095.80
46,207.09
10,516.31
36,504.64
15,613.36
17,284.90
64,604.64
21,944.25
602.00
Site from Which
Funds Were De-obligated
Southern Shipbuilding
Texas Gulf Refining
Sprague Rd GW Plume
Mallard Bay
Delatte Metals
New Orleans Parathion
Stephenson Bennett
Mylar Fire
BPS, Inc.
Hudson Refinery
Rogers Enterprises
Hot Springs Mercury
Dallas Plating
Texarkana Mercury & Neon
Renner Creosoting
Doughty's Treating Plant
Pleasant Hill Pole Plant
Union Creosoting
Piano Mercury
R&H Oil
Tropicana Energy Co
Eri Tire Fire
Limestone Landfill Fire
Malone Service Co
R&P Electroplating
Rockwall Mercury
Arabi Mercury Spill
Gibson Recyling Tire Fire
Little Bit Rad Site
Old Storm Plastics Facility
Southwest Tire Processors
Woods Tank Farm
Red River Aluminum
Coastal Radiation Services
Gulf States Paint
North Louisiana Chemical
Tar Creek E-P Lab Chemicals
Urban Machine
Brownsville Furfural Spill
Dewey Mercury
Sol Lynn Well Plug Removal
Alvin Mercury
ETP
Nonsite Funding for Site Walks
Gulf Coast Vacuum
Activity from Which
Funds Were De-obligated
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Note
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
-------
Enclosure 11
Page 5 of 6
Amount
De-obligated
in FY 2002
119.00
1,789.00
334.00
1,110.00
2,228.00
1,610.00
567.00
588.67
1,175.00
2,891.00
11,613.32
1,376.00
3,169.00
2,137.00
6,300.55
859.00
1,033.00
1,023.00
542.00
8,132.93
944.00
1,023.00
252.00
1,980.00
75,461.88
1,605.00
5,296.52
13,490.96
13,501.21
1,621.00
1,450.00
3,216.00
1,333.00
967.18
2,670.00
826.00
714.00
13,366.16
185.98
3,573.11
364.17
1,063.00
915.00
12,907.59
1,310.93
Site from Which
Funds Were De-obligated
Vertac
Kem Week Control
Ella Warehouse Drums
Service Circuits
Poly Cycle
Malter Internation
Dempco Paint & MFC
Shore Refining
Patterson-Edmonson Construction
Okay Trailer Park
Glenmora Creosoting
Card/Blanc/Carter
Hillsdale Drums
Marco of lota
Hi-Chem. Inc.
Macmillan Ring Free
Lithium of Lubbock
Russell Fare Site
Ann T. King Property
Smith Smelter
Oklahoma Furniture
Hardco of Arkansas
Boeck Drums
Rab Valley
RSROU1 -Phase II RVArea
Johnson Lumber
Hart Creosoting
Central Wood
Tri Container Inc.
Good Latimer
Willie Heard Drum
Hearst Mill
Matagorda Round Up
Waco Drum
Terrell Plating
Reliable Coatings
Clearwater Fluids Recycling
Robin Boulevard
G.P. Drums
Ray Quinn Drum
Voda Petroleum
Cimarron Refining
Jacksonville Landfill
JC Pennco Waste Oil
Archem Company
Activity from Which
Funds Were De-obligated
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Note
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
-------
Amount
De-obligated
in FY 2002
27,079.20
3,219.46
1,199.00
3,041.91
480.00
499.00
1,381.00
1,639.00
274.00
664.00
17,111.27
1,041.00
1,811.00
$46,547,122.77
Site from Which
Funds Were De-obligated
Tar Creek OU2
Safe Tire Fire
Rogers Road Landfill
Agricultural Street Landfill
Oklahoma Refining Company
Oklahoma Refining
Tomlinson Drums
King Sales Company
Baldwin Waste Oil
T/B Gail
CG Empire Tank Barge
Hart Creosoting
Red River Treating
Total
Activity from Which
Funds Were De-obligated
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Removal
Note
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Notes
1 The funds deobligated from these projects, especially the Popile Remedial Action, were no longer needed as
the action was complete. The funds were part of the Pipeline Operations AOA to assist the Region with the
shortfall in that AOA and were not obligated for these same sites for these same activities.
2 The Cooperative Agreement with the All Indian Pueblo Consortium (AIPC) was closed out. Funds in the amount
of $216,355 were obligated to American Creosote for ongoing Remedial Action and Five-Year Review in FY
2002.
3 The funds deobligated from this project were no longer needed as the action was complete. The funds were
part of the Removal Advice of Allowance and obligated on some removal actions and in the START contract for
removal support.
4 Of the total funds recertified to the Region, $6,151,860 was reobligated in FY2002 for the same sites and the
same activities from which the funds were deobligated. These funds were transferred from one funding vehicle
to another type. The remaining $8,170,608 was deobligated from projects that were complete and the funds
were no longer needed. These monies were obligated in FY 2002 for the Tar Creek Remedial Action ($5
million) and three removal actions.
------- |