United States Solid Waste And Directive 9200.3-01 D
Environmental Protection Emergency, Response June 1990
Agency (OS-110)
feEPA Superfund Program
Management Manual
Fiscal Year 1991
Volume 1 — Final
• Executive Summary
• Program Goals and Expectations
• SCAP Procedures
• National Information Needs
• SCAP/STARS Targets and Measures
• Program Planning and Reporting Requirements
• Financial Management
• Program Assessment
• Workload Models
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
SUPERFUND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT MANUAL
FY91
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
OVERVIEW ES-1
PROGRAM GOALS ES-1
ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITY SETTING ES-4
NATIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS ES-6
SUPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN ES-8
INTEGRATED PLANNING ES-8
FOCUS OF THE SCAP PROCESS THROUGH THE YEAR ES-9
ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORTING ES-10
OUTYEAR PLANNING ES-11
THE BUDGET PROCESS ES-11
FY91 RESPONSE BUDGET ES-12
FY91 ENFORCEMENT BUDGET ES-12
SCAP FINANCIAL PLANNING AND THE
REGIONAL ADVICE OF ALLOWANCE ES-12
WORKLOAD MODELS ES-13
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ASSESSMENT ES-14
USES OF THE MANUAL ES-14
STRUCTURE OF THE MANUAL ES-16
CHAPTER I - PROGRAM GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS 1-1
OVERVIEW 1-1
INTEGRATED PROGRAM PRIORITIES 1-3
REMEDIAL GOALS 1-6
ENFORCEMENT GOALS 1-7
ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITY SETTING INITIATIVE 1-8
RA Environmental Priority Setting 1-9
RI/FS Priority Setting Process 1-14
SITE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM GOALS ,...1-17
REMOVAL PROGRAM GOALS 1-18
FEDERAL FACILITIES PROGRAM GOALS 1-18
CHEMICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 1-19
Earthquake and National Security Emergency
Preparedness Programs $-19
STRATEGIC PLANNING .1.1-20
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-0ID
CHAPTER H - SUPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE
ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN PROCEDURES Il l
INTRODUCTION IM
BACKGROUND IM
SCAP AND CERCLIS/WASTELAN RELATIONSHIP II-2
SCAP ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES II-3
OVERVIEW OF THE SCAP PROCESS II-5
SCAP CHANGE CONTROL PROCEDURES II-5
PROCEDURES FOR ANNUAL TARGET SETTING II-6
SCAP PLANNING .... II-9
Semi-Annual Planning Process II-10
CERCLIS Reports for SCAP PlanningAarget Setting 11-10
SCAP ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORTING 11-12
CERCLIS Reports for Accomplishment Reporting 11-12
SCAP /STARS ADJUSTMENTS AND AMENDMENTS II-13
MAINTAINING THE TARGETS AND
ACCOMPLISHMENTS FILE II-16
CHAPTER III - NATIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS III-l
NA TIONAL IN FORM A TION in-1
Superfund Progress Report III-l
Superfund Management Reports III-2
Monthly Reports III-2
Quarterly Reports III-2
Enforcement Reports III-4
Adminstrative requirements III-4
NPL BOOK III-5
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS III-6
REMEDIAL ACTION INFORMATION III-8
Planning and Accomplishment Data IIT-9
RA Cost Estimate III-9
CORA Model Estimate Ill-11
ROD Estimate Ill-11
RD Estimate Ill-11
RA Contract Award Ill-11
Total RA Cost Ill-11
Technical Information Ill-12
ROD Technical Information Ill-12
RD Technical Information Ill-12
RA Technical Information 111-12
CERCLIS DATA QUALITY Ill-16
CHAPTER IV - TARGETS AND MEASURES IV-1
ROLE OF SCAP IV-1
SCAP/STARS TARGETS AND MEASURES IV-1
ii
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CHAPTER V - PROGRAM PLANNING REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES V-l
INTEGRATED PLANNING V-l
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES V-2
SITE ASSESSMENT PLANNING AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS V-4
Preliminary Assessments/Screening Site Inspections V-4
Listing Site Inspection V-4
REMOVAL PLANNING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS V-4
REMEDIAL RESPONSE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS V-5
PRP Search Outcome/Site Classification V-5
Project/Event Lead Codes ; V-5
Takeovers V-7
Probability of PRP Takeover V-8
Operable Units in Remedial and Enforcement Programs V-9
First and Subsequent Starts and Completions V-12
TBD Sites V-13
Integrated Timeline for Site Management V-14
Records of Decision V-19
Five Year Remedy Review/Deletion of New Sites from the NPL V-20
Planning for Response Mega Sites V-20
Treatability Study Planning V-20
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program V-21
Project Support Activities V-22
Technical Assistance Grants V-23
Assignment of Remedial Response and Oversight Work V-23
In-house RI/FS V-24
ARCS Coding V-24
ENFORCEMENT PLANNING REQUIREMENTS V-26
Mixed Funding Settlements and Cashouts V-26
Planning for Enforcement Mega-Sites/Projects V-26
PRP Removal V-27
Pre-RI/FS Enforcement Activity (PRP Search/Negotiations) V-28
RI/FS Settlement and Oversight V-29
Pre-RD/RA Enforcement Activity — RD/RA
Negotiations and Oversight V-30
Section 106 Judicial and Administrative Activity V-31
Cost Recovery V-31
State Enforcement V-33
FEDERAL FACILITIES V-33
CHAPTER VI - FINANCIAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT VI-1
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FY91 NATIONAL BUDGET VI-1
Response Budget VI-1
Enforcement Budget VI-2
iii
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
SCAP'S RELATIONSHIP TO ANNUAL REGIONAL BUDGET VI-2
Site Assessment Annual Regional Budget VI-3
Remedial Annual Regional Budget VI-3
Removal Annual Regional Budget VI-5
Enforcement Case Budget — Annual Regional Budget VI-5
ADVICE OF ALLOWANCE PROCEDURES AND FINANCIAL
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS VI-6
Regional Allowances VI-6
The AOA Process VI-6
AOA Flexibility VI-7
RA Allowance VI-7
Non-site Specific Funding Flexibility VI-9
AOA Change Request Procedures VI-10
Congressional Reporting Requirements VI-13
SCAP'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE AOA VI-13
Remedial Financial Planning for AOA VI-15
Removal Financial Planning for AOA VI-19
Enforcement Financial Planning for AOA VI-19
OWPE CASE BUDGET PROCESS VI-19
Preliminary Case Budget Allocation and Distribution VI-20
Regional Planning Against Preliminary Budget VI-22
Final Budget Distribution VI-24
Budget Execution VI-24
TES Contract Obligations VI-24
Program Management Obligations VI-24
Generic Obligations to Cover TES Tasking VI-24
Buy-in Obligations VI-24
Obligations for Other Financial Vehicles VI-25
TES WA Tasking Against Generic Obligations VI-26
TES WA Tasking for Buy-ins VI-26
AOA Utilization VI-26
Budget Utilization VI-27
Disbursements VI-28
HQ/Regional Adjustment VI-28
Responsibilities VI-28
Enforcement Financial Reports VI-28
Contract Management VI-31
Contract Management Delegation VI-31
Interagency Agreements VI-31
Department of Justice VI-31
8(a) Contracts VI-32
MANAGEMENT OF CASHOUTS VI-32
SUPERFUND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT VI-35
Regional Financial Management Responsibilities VI-35
iv
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
Regional Administrator VI-35
Regional Program Office VI-36
Regional Management Division VI-38
HQ Financial Management Responsibilities VI-39
FMDIOC VI-39
Resources Management Section (RMS)/OERR VI-39
Contracts Management Section(CMS)/OWPE VI-40
PCMD/Offtce of Administration VI-40
Grants Administration Division(GAD)/
Office of Administration VI-40
Budget Division/OC VI-40
FMC-Ci VI-40
Research Triangle Park(RTP)lOffice of Administration VI-41
Financial Management Tools and Systems VI-41
IFMS VI-41
AN VI-41
DCN VI-41
DCR VI-42
SIS IDs VI-42
Financial Management and Funding Processes VI-42
Approvals VI-44
Commitments VI-45
Obligations VI-45
Payments VI-45
Deobligations VI-46
Financial Management Funding Mechanisms VI-46
Contracts VI-46
I AGs VI-50
CAs VI-53
SSCs VI-55
Cost Recovery/Cost Documentation VI-56
HANDLING FINANCIAL DATA IN THE
CERCLIS ENVIRONMENT VI-57
Entering Remedial/Removal Data into CERCLIS VI-57
Entering Enforcement Case Budget Data into CERCLIS VI-57
IFMS to CERCLIS Financial Data Transfer VI-58
Correcting Financial Data VI-58
CHAPTER VH - PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ASSESSMENT VII-1
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES VII-1
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION VII-2
Quarterly Reviews VII-2
Mid-Year Assessment VII-4
End-of-Year Assessment VII-4
v
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
OSWER REGIONAL REVIEWS:
FY91 - TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT APPROACH VII-5
Objectives VII-5
Process VII-5
Selection of Program Issues VII-5
TQM Evaluation VII-6
On-Site Visit VII-6
Products and Follow-up VII-6
EVALUATION AND AUDIT FOLLOW-UP VII-6
CHAPTER Vni - WORKLOAD MODELS VIII-1
OVERVIEW vm-i
HAZARDOUS SPILL AND SITE RESPONSE MODEL VIII-1
General Model Description VIII-1
Mainframe Application Concepts VIII-2
PC Application Concepts V1II-7
TECHNICAL ENFORCEMENT MODEL VIII-8
Program Resource Assumptions VIII-8
ACRONYMS I
ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement V
Office of Program Management VIII
Emergency Response Division IX
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response VII
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division X
Hazardous Site Control Division XI
CERCLA Enforcement Division VI
U.S. EPA REGIONS MAP XII
vi
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT PAGE NUMBER
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-1 Priority Setting Matrix ES-2
ES-2 Priority Setting Categories ES-5
ES-3 Environmental Indicators ES-7
ES-4 Integrated Planning Responsibilities ES-9
ES-5 SCAP Planning Year ES-10
ES-6 Accomplishment Reporting Phase Regional Responsibilities ES-11
ES-7 Superfund Management and Assessment Strategy ES-14
ES-8 Implementation Responsibilities ES-15
CHAPTER I
1-1 Schedule for Achievement of SARA Goals 1-1
1-2 Qualitative Legislative and Regulatory Goals 1-2
1-3 Priority Setting Matrix 1-4
1-4 Priority Setting Categories I-10
I-5 CERCLIS Implementation of RA Priority Setting 1-14
CHAPTER II
II-1 SCAP Planning Year II-6
II-2 Examples of Activity/Event Planning Status
and Priority Funding Status II-9
II-3 SCAP Planning/Target Setting CERCLIS Reports II-11
II-4 Program Evaluation CERCLIS Reports 11-13
II-5 Amendments and Adjustments 11-14
II-6 SCAP Amendment Process 11-15
CHAPTER III
III-1 Road Map to Indicators III-7
III-2 RA Cost Estimating Coding Ill-10
III-3 Coding Guidance - Remedial Technology Types 111-13
1II-4 Remedial Action Technology Type Codes 111-14
vii
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3 -01D
CHAPTER IV
J.V-1 Key Budget Output Summary - FY91 IV-3
IV-2 SCAP/STARS Targets IV-4
IV-3 SCAP/STARS Measures IV-6
IV-4 CEPP SCAP/STARS Measures IV-8
CHAPTER V
V-l Flexibility Scale for Budgeting/Planning V-3
V-2 Project/Event Lead Codes in CERCLIS in FY91 V-6
V-3 Event or Activity Takeover at Workplan Stage V-8
V-4 Event Takeover V-8
V-5 PRP Probabilites V-9
V-6 Operable Unit Groundrules V-10
V-7 Examples of Operable Units V-10
V-8 Operable Units and First and Subsequent Start
and Completions Coding V-l 1
V-9 First and Subsequent Start and Completions V-12
V-10 Impossible FSS and FSC Code Combinations V-12
V-ll Pseudo State Codes V-13
V-12 Integrated Timeline V-15
V-13 Standard Timeframes V-16
V-l4 Site Program Coding V-21
V-15 ARCS Contractor Codes V-25
CHAPTER VI
VI-1 Criteria for Proposed Regional Response
Budget Development VI-4
VI-2 The Advice of Allowance Process VI-8
VI-3 Change Request Required VI-11
VI-4 AOA Change Process VI-12
VI-5 Site vs. Non-site Specific Planned Obligations VI-14
VI-6 Budget Source Codes VI-15
VI-7 Who Pays for What VI-16
VI-8 FY91 Case Budget Funded Activities Required
to Achieve Program Outputs VI-23
viii
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
VI-9 Case Budget Responsibilities VI-29
VI-10 Regional/HQ Case Budget Reponsibilities VI-30
VI-11 Handling Financial Data in the CERCLIS Environment VI-43
VI-12 EPA Forms Commonly Used for Superfund Procurements VI-47
VI-13 Removal and Remedial Financial Data to
be Transferred from EFMS VI-58
VI-14 Corrections to Financial Information in EFMS VI-59
CHAPTER VII
VII-1 Evaluation Responsibilities VII-1
VII-2 The Quarterly Review Process VII-3
CHAPTER VIII
Vin-1 Workload Model Operations Remedial
Pipeline Information VIH-3
Vin-2 Workload Model Operations Remedial
Pipeline Processing VIII-4
ix
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS
QUARTER 3 (FY90)
Remedial Action (RA) Priority Fact Sheets for FY91 RAs submitted to HQ
QUARTER 4 (FY90)
Fourth quarter Advice of Allowance (AOA) approved by the Assistant
Administrator Solid Waste and Emergency Response (AA SWER) and Office of
the Comptroller (OC)
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS*
and provided for:
]) Entry into Office of Pollution Prevention (OPP) Strategic Targeted Activities
for Results System (STARS);
2) Superfund Progess Report (SPR);
3) Special program reports; and
4) AA report.
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of Remedial Design (RD) and RA projects
Data pulled from CERCLIS to support negotiation of:
1) Final Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP)/STARS
FY91 targets;
2) First quarter FY91 removals; and
3) Final FY91 operating plan.
OPP STARS data verified (third quarter accomplishments)
OPP STARS system closes (third quarter accomplishments)
FY91 RA priority setting panel meeting
June 9
JULY
5
9
9
9-13
13
17
AUGUST
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for:
1) SPR; and
2) Special program reports.
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA projects
Negotiations on final FY91 SCAP/STARS targets and budget
Memorandum to Regions on final FY91 budgets, targets and measures
* ¦1 "" 1 1'111 "11 'WM' W 1 %
7
13-24
30
*CERCLIS includes data in CERCLIS and CERHELP
x
-------
OSWER Dircclivc 9200.3-01 E
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (Cont'd)
SEPTEMBER
CERCLIS revised to reflect final FY91 budgets, targets and measures
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA projects
Data pulled from CERCLIS for first quarter AOA
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS and provided for:
1) SPR; and
2) Special program reports.
Final FY91 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) distribution
FY91 first quarter AOA request submitted to the AA SWER
and placed in CERHELP
Regional conference call on final RA appropriation
Regions input AOA to Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS)
10
10
10
10
24
17
27**
28
** Dependent on approval of final appropriations
WmMMM
XI
-------
OSWGR
Direciive 9200.3-01D
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS
QUARTER 1 (FY91)
First quarter AOA approved by the AA SWER
and OC
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA schedules
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for:
1) A A report;
2) Special program reports;
3) End-of-year assessment for FY90;
4) SPR; and
5) Final FY90 STARS accomplishments.
OCTOBER
3
5
19
NOYEMPER
FY91 final targets, including open season changes, set in CERHELP
Data pull from CERCLIS for review of RD and R A schedules
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for;
1) SPR; and
2) Special program reports.
OPP STARS verified (fourth quarter FY90)
OPP STARS system closes (fourth quarter FY90)
Draft FY92 Operating Guidance and STARS measures sent to
Regions for review
Pull of CERCLIS data for:
1) Second quarter AOA; and
2) FY92 Congressional Budget.
Data pull from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA schedules
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for:
1) SPR; and
2) Special program reports.
Second quarter AOA request submitted to AA SWER
and placed in CERHELP
Regions input AOA to IFMS
7
7
7
12-16
16
DECEMBER
3
7
7
7
14
28
Xll
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (Cont'd)
JANUARY
4-18
18
22-24
FEBRUARY
QUARTER 2
Second quarter AOA approved by the AA SWER and OC
Pull data from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA schedules
HQ pulls SCAP data from CERCLIS and baseline FY92 targets and
measures are developed using SCAP Methodologies
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for:
1) Entry into OPP STARS system for first quarter review;
2) SPR;
3) Special program reports; and
4) AA report.
Preliminary run of workload model based on methodologies
OPP STARS data verified
OPP STARS system closes
Call memorandum containing schedules for semi-annual negotiations
and baseline targets and measures sent to Regions
Regional comments on FY92 Operating Plan due
Program Management meeting (SCAP/Workload Model)
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for:
1) SPR; and
2) Special program reports.
Data pulled from CERCLIS to support negotiation of:
1) FY91 RA schedules.
2) Preliminary SCAP/STARS FY92 targets;
3) Preliminary FY92 annual regional budget; and
4) Budget projections for FY93 projects.
Begin FY92 HQ/regional negotiation of:
1) FY91 third and fourth quarter targets and budget;
2) FY92 SCAP/STARS targets and annual regional budget; and
3) FY93 outyear budget.
xiii
-------
OSWRR Directive 9200.3-01 D
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (Cont'd)
MARCH
Final FY92 Operating Guidance issued 1
Complete preliminary FY92 HQ/regional negotiations 1
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLfS 7
and provided for:
1) SPR; and
2) Special program reports.
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA schedules 15
Data pulled from CERCLIS for mid-year assessment 15
Pull CERCLIS data for third quarter AOA 15
CERCLIS revised to reflect negotiated FY92 preliminary targets and measures 15
Run workload model for preliminary FY92 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) distribution 18
Third quarter AOA request submitted to the AA SWER 22
and placed in CERHELP
Memorandum to Regions on preliminary targets and FTEs 26
Draft FY92 Superfund Program Management Manual distributed for review 29
Regions input AOA to IFMS 29
QUARTER 3 APRIL
Issue Addendum for FY92 Operating Plan 1
Third quarter AOA approved by the AA SWER and OC 3
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of RD and R A schedules 5
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS and provide for: 5
1) Entry into OPP system for second quarter review;
2) SPR;
3) AA report; and
4) Special program reports.
OPP STARS data verified (second quarter accomplishments) 8-12
OPP STARS system closes (second quarter accomplishments) 12
Mid-year RA priority setting panel meeting 23
Program Management meeting (Budget/Pricing Factor) 24-25
XIV
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (Cont'd)
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCL1S
and provided for:
1) SPR; and
2) Special program reports.
Pull SCAP planning data for outycar budget
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA schedules
Regional comments on FY92 Superfund Program Management Manual due
Pull of CERCLIS data for fourth quarter AOA
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA schedules
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for:
1) SPR; and
2) Special program reports.
Complete negotiations on RD/RA, removal, and enforcement fourth quarter
AOAs
Final FY92 Superfund Program Management Manual
Call memorandum and FY92 proposed regional budget sent to the Regions
for semi-annual negotiations
Fourth quarter AOA request submitted to the AA SWER
and placed in CERHELP
RA fact sheets for FY92 RAs submitted to HQ
Regions input AOA to 1FMS
QUARTER 4
Fourth quarter AOA approved by the AA SWER and OC
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for:
1) Entry into OPP STARS;
2) SPR;
3) Special progam reports; and
4) AA report.
MM.
1
1
1
1°
TUNE
7
7
7
14
14
14
21
21
28
IIILY
3
8
m
XV
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (Cont'd)
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA projects
Data pulled from CERCLIS to support negotiation of:
1) Final SCAP/STARS FY92 targets;
2) First quarter FY92 removals; and
3) Final FY92 operating plan.
OPP STARS data verified (third quarter accomplishments)
OPP STARS system closes (third quarter accomplishments)
FY92 RA priority setting panel meeting
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for:
1) SPR; and
2) Special program reports.
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA projects
Conduct negotiations on final FY92 SCAP/STARS targets and budget
Memorandum to Regions on final budgets, targets and measures
CERCLIS revised to reflect final budgets, targets and measures
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA projects
Data pulled from CERCLIS for first quarter AOA
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS and provided for:
1) SPR; and
2) Special program reports.
Final FY92 FTE distribution
FY92 first quarter AOA request submitted to the AA SWER
and placed in CERHELP
Regional conference call on final RA appropriation
Regions input AOA to IFMS
jijly
8
8
8-12
12
23
AUGUST
7
12-23
30
SEPTEMBER
6
9
9
9
16
20**
26
30
Dependent on approval of final appropriations
xvi
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
MANAGER'S SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (Cont'd)
QUARTER 1 (FV92)
First quarter AOA approved by the AA SWER and OC
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA schedules
Accomplishment data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for:
1) SPR;
2) Special program reports;
3) AA report;
4) Entry into OPP system for FY91 STARS end-of-year; and
5) FY91 end-of-year assessment.
Accomplishment data pulled from CERCLIS
and provided for:
1) SPR; and
2) Special program reports.
Data pulled from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA schedules
FY92 final targets, including open season changes, set in CERHELP
OPP STARS verified (fourth quarter FY91)
OPP STARS system closes (fourth quarter FY91)
Draft FY93 Operating Guidance and STARS Measures sent to Regions for review
Pull of CERCLIS data for:
1) Second quarter AOA; and
2) FY93 Congressional budget.
Data pull from CERCLIS for review of RD and RA schedules
Accomplishments data pulled from CERCLIS and provided for:
1) SPR; and
2) Special program reports.
Second quarter AOA request submitted to AA SWER and placed in CERHELP
Regions input AOA to IFMS
OCTOBER
3
7
18
NOVEMBER
7
7
7
18-22
22
DECEMBER
2
6
6
6
13
30
XVII
-------
SUPERFUND STATE PROGRAM MANAGER'S SCHEDULE
JULY 1990 = DEC. 1991
————
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
SCAP Planning Data
9
7
10
5
7
7
8
7
15
5
7
7
8
7
9
7
7
6
Accomplishment Reporting
9
7
10
19
7
7
8
7
7
5
7
7
8
7
9
18
7
6
X
<
E:
Superfund Progress Report
*
/A
*
/A
*
/A
*
/A
*
/A
*
/A
*
/A
*
/A
*
/A
*
/A
*
/A
*
/A
*
/A
*
/A
*
/A
*
/A
*
/A
*
/A
FY90 SCAP/STARS
Targets & Measures
*
/A
*
/A
FY91 SCAP/STARS
Taraets & Measures
*
/A
*P/A
*
/A
*
/A
*
/A
FY91 Budget
*
P/A
*
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
Advice of Allowance
©
*
P-«
-©
*
P-»
•0
*
P-»
-©
*
P—•
~©
*
P-H
*
P
RA Priority Setting
PA
*
P/A
P
Mld-Year/End-of-Year
Assessment
*
A
*
PI A
*
A
FY92 SCAP/STARS
Taraets & Measures
*
*
IP
PA
*
*
p-*
'©
FY92 Budget
*
IP
*
p
*
*
p -»
'©
FY93 Budget
*
p
P
P
Agency Operating Plan
*
/s\
O
*
FY92 Superfund Program
Management Manual
fwmwwwa
©
*
©
"A" INDICATES ACCOMPLISHMENT DATA ARE PULLED FROM CERCLIS INDICATES THAT DURING THE MONTH THE STATE MAY CONTACT THE REGION
TO PROVIDE INPUT ON THE SPECIFIC PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TOOL
"P" INDICATES PLANNING DATA ARE PULLED FROM CERCLIS
(#) INDICATES KEY DATES FOR HQ
p m (T) INDICATES PLANNING DATA PULLED ONE MONTH ARE USED BY *
EPA ON THE DAY IN THE CIRCLE /*\ INDICATES KEY DATES FOR THE REGION
-------
EPA PROGRAM MANAGER'S SCHEDULE
.mi v ioon - npr iqqi
V W M ¦ ¦ VVV V V ¦ ¦ V w ¦
—¦ 5^"
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
SCAP Planning Data
9
7
10
5
7
7
8
7
15
5
7
7
8
7
9
7
7
6
Accomplishment Reporting
9
7
10
19
7
7
8
7
7
5
7
7
8
7
9
18
7
6 |
!
FY91 Budget
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
FY92 Budget
P
©
P-»
7^
FY93 Budget
P
P
P
P |
Workload Model
p
@
P
P
(j>
p
©
FY90 SCAP/STARS
Targets & Measures
A
A
FY91 SCAP/STARS
Targets & Measures
A
P/A
/vVS
A
A
A
FY92 SCAP/STARS
Targets & Measures
P©
Pa
Cl 7v
©
P-»
A
A
Superiund Progress Report
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A I
Monthly Management Reports
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A |
Advice of Allowance
©
/&?
~(?)
"©
A*
~0
Al
RA Priority Setting
A
A
P/A
P
RA Project Status
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A
P/A |
Mid-Year/End-of-Year
Assessment
A
P/A
A
"P" INDICATES PLANNING (#) INDICATES KEY HQ DATES
"A" INDICATES ACCOMPLISHMENTS /#\ INDICATES KEY DATES FOR THE REGIONS
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
The Fiscal Year (FY) 1991 Superfund Program Management Manual illustrates the rela-
tionships among the major Superfund management tools. This includes identifying program
goals and priorities, translating priorities into targets and measures that are planned and tracked
through the Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP), allocating resources
through targets and measures, and evaluating SCAP to determine whether program goals are
being met.
Regions are responsible for developing solutions to site management problems as they
occur and should strive for a balanced approach to site work, encouraging both Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs) and states to assume responsibility for response actions. Regions
should coordinate with both the states and the Office of Regional Counsel (ORC) during the
SCAP planning process.
PROGRAM GOALS
The focus of the Superfund program is to maximize the protection of human health and
the environment through fast and effective cleanup of priority hazardous waste sites and releases.
Resources for site and release activities should be provided by the PRPs and the states whenever
possible. The Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE), the Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (OERR), and the Regions collaborated on the development of a matrix de-
signed to identify and place in rough priority order the Superfund program goals for FY91 and
the activities which support achievement of those objectives.
The matrix is designed to 1) identify relative program priorities; 2) list major program
activities for which resources are provided; and 3) provide a framework to estimate the funding
levels needed to support the activities.
The overall goals identified in the matrix (Exhibit ES-1) are to:
• Mitigate immediate threats;
• Maintain ongoing projects and move sites into cleanup using PRP resources as a
first resort; and
• Maintain a baseline of supporting activities.
The matrix will be used by Headquarters (HQ) and the Regions in making trade-off deci-
sions during:
• Budget formulation;
• Operating plan development, initial and final target setting; and
• Mid-year adjustment.
ES-1
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHIBIT FS-1
Priority Setting Matrix
PROGRAM PRIORITY
ACTIVITIES
I. Mitigate Immediate Threat
Classic Emergencies (Removal and
Remedial, Fund and Enforcement)
National Priorities List (NPL) Removals (Fund and
Enforcement)
Administrative Orders (AOs) for NPL Removals
Move Sites to Cleanup
A. Support Ongoing Work to Com-
pletion of Current Phase (Oper-
able Unit (OU))
Support Ongoing Remedial Design (RD)
Ongoing Remedial Action (RA) - (Fund and PRP)
Ongoing RD/RA Negotiations
Ongoing Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) - (Fund and PRP)
Ongoing 107 Statute of Limitations (SOL)
Litigation
Ongoing 106 Litigation for Remedy
Ongoing 104 Access
Ongoing Compliance Enforcement
B. Take Enforcement Actions to En-
sure a Strong Enforcement Pre-
sence and Maximize Likelihood
of PRP Takeover
RD/RA Negotiations (New)
PRP RD/RA Starts
106 Settlement Referrals
106 Unilateral Administrative Orders
(UAOs) for RD/RA
107 SOL Referrals
106 Litigation for Remedy
Mixed Funding RD and RA
C. Fund RD and RA Starts Where
Enforcement Action is not
Appropriate
RD Start (Fund)
RA Start (Fund)
D. Federal Facilities
Negotiate Interagency Agreements (lAGs)
Oversee lAGs
1 >'<>i>>rm>j'
'A' = ALL and 'B' = BASELINE
* "A" and "B" are designed to indicate degree of importance, not an absolute rule
with regard to funding. As used in this column "B" indicates a level of activities consistent with
prior year activity. "A" means all those activities available to be done.
** Provided that timely special notice, special notice waiver or general notice with timelines has
been issued and extensions have been requested/approved consistent with Agency policy.
*** Consistent with cost recovery strategy.
(Note: All activities identified in the matrix are to be funded at least at a minimum baseline level.)
ES-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHIBIT ES-1
Priority Setting Matrix (Cont.)
PROGRAM PRIORITY
ACTIVITIES
FUNDING I
LEVEL*
II. Move Sites to Cleanup (continued)
E. Maximize Cost Recovery
Non-SOL RA Referrals
B |
F. Initiate RI/FS and Other Activities
to Keep Pipeline Balanced
PRP RI/FS
Fund RI/FS
Listing Sites
State Enforcement RI/FS
B I
B 1
B 1
B |
G. Site Assessment, Removal,
Enforcement and State Support
Activities to Support Long Term
Goals
Non-NPL Time Critical Removals
AOs for Non-NPL Time Crit. Removal
Site Assessment
107 Non-SOL Pre-RA Referrals
Technical Assistance Grants (TAG)
Federal Facilities Site Assessment
Non-NPL PRP Search
Core Program Cooperative
Agreements (CPCA)
107 Administrative Settlements
B
B I
B 1
B"* |
B 1
B 1
B
B
B 1
B
III. New Initiatives
IV. Essential Program Management
Elements
A. Critical Path Support Activities
PRP Searches
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)
Removal Support
Remedial Project Support
Community Relations
Fund at |
Level to
Support
Program |
Integrity
B. Core Program Support
CERCLIS Data Base Management
Contract Management
Records Management including
Administrative Records
Program Management
State Program Support
Fund at
Level to
Support
Program
Integrity
•A' = ALL and 'B1 = BASELINE
* "A" and "B" are designed to indicate degree of importance, not an absolute rule
with regard to funding. As used in this column "B" indicates a level of activities
consistent with prior year activity. "A" means all those activities available to be
done.
Consistent with cost recovery strategy
(Note: All activities identified in the matrix are to be funded at least at a minimum baseline level.)
ES-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITY SETTING
The Superfund Management Review established an Agency policy of addressing the
worst problems first by scheduling incremental steps to cleanup sites and expending scarce re-
sources first on problems posing the most serious risk. The Office of Solid Waste and Emer-
gency Response (OSWER) Strategic Plan also made this policy a key objective for cleanup.
The Superfund budget is resource constrained in a number of ways, but especially in
terms of funding for Remedial Action (RA) projects and resources for oversight of Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) projects. A 1989 analysis showed that, despite the
increase in PRP funded actions, the budget would not support the scheduled FY90 Fund-financed
RA projects. Moreover, this situation was expected to continue. To ensure that limited re-
sources would be directed to the worst problems, an RA environmental priority setting process
was developed and implemented. The process was refined at mid-year FY90 and will remain
constant for the FY91 RA projects.
RA Environmental Priority Setting
The RA priority setting process identifies three categories into which each RA project is
assigned by the Region. The affected state shall be consulted prior to assigning an RA project to
a category. (Regions are encouraged to involve affected states in completing project fact sheets.)
Only projects where documentation has been submitted will be considered for ranking. The sig-
nificance of these categories is that RA projects are compared and ranked only with other proj-
ects in the same category; all projects of a given priority category are funded prior to funding
projects in the next lower priority category. Exhibit ES-2 contains the priority setting categories.
RA projects are ranked within each category . The ranking criteria and the priority cate-
gories attempt to address the relative stability, nature and concentration of contaminants at the
site, the proximity of the hazardous materials to population areas, and the threat to environmen-
tally sensitive areas and/or endangered species. An additional criterion was designed to reflect
programmatic factors.
Prior to ranking a project, it is required that enforcement issues be resolved. Once a proj-
ect is ranked, it will be funded in order of relative priority until funds are exhausted. There is a
subset of RA projects that are not evaluated under the priority setting process. These projects are
automatically placed in the funding queue and guaranteed funds. These are:
PRP RA projects;
Small dollar RA projects ($2.0 million or less);
Ongoing RAs that have been phased or incrementally funded; and
• Mixed funding response actions and cashouts.
Each year a funding queue is developed consisting of ranked projects and projects that
meet the criteria discussed above. After providing the dollars to support the projects that are
guaranteed funding, all Priority 1 projects will be funded. Then, based on the final FY91 RA
budget, a "funding line" will be identified in either the Priority 2 or 3 category. RA projects
above the line that stay on schedule through the first three quarters of the FY are assured fund-
ing. At mid-year and throughout the third and fourth quarters, all projects will be reviewed and
adjustments may be made to reflect schedule changes, projects that have been funded through
other means, or changes in the RA budget and funding line.
ES-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
The ranking of RA projects is conducted by a panel composed of senior HQ and regional
managers.
EXHIBIT ES-2
PRIORITY SETTING CATEGORIES
PRIORITY 1
PRIORITY 2
PRIORITY 3
IMMEDIATE AND/OR IMMINENT THREAT
Immediate and/or imminent threat to human health as determined
by EPA or by a Public Health Advisory from the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL EXPOSURES UNDER CURRENT
CONDITIONS*
Exposure pathway is contaminated above an accepted human
health standard or risk range and under current conditions
pathway is complete to human intake.
Exposure pathway is contaminated above an environmental
standard and under current conditions pathway is complete to a
significant environment.
Exposure pathway is contaminated above an accepted human
health standard or risk range and not complete to human intake
but under current conditions pathway could become complete.
Exposure pathway is contaminated above an environmental
standard and not complete to a significant environment but under
current conditions pathway could become complete.
POTENTIAL EXPOSURE UNDER FUTURE CONDITIONS**
Exposure pathway may become contaminated above an accepted
human health standard or risk range, and under future conditions
pathway will be complete to human intake.
Exposure pathway may become contaminated above an
environmental standard and under future conditions pathway will
be complete to a significant environment.
* Current condition is defined as what is actually occurring or in place, or occurs periodically on a regular
basis at the time the project is being ranked. Current conditions can apply to land use (land which is
currently zoned for a specific use but not presently being utilized for that use is not a current condition);
or to existing resource use (i.e., ground water for drinking water); or to use of a body of water; or the
migratory pattern of wildlife; or to other circumstances that are actually occurring.
** Future condition is defined as any land use or other condition which is not actually occurring at the
time the project is ranked, but is reasonably expected in the future
ES-5
-------
OSWER Directive9200.3-0ID
RI/FS Priority Setting Process
With over 700 ongoing RI/FS projects, the Agency has had to severely limit the number
of RI/FS starts in FY91. Although regional offices have always prioritized their RI/FS starts,
new RI/FS often continue for several years. Given the RI/FS budget constraints and the pro-
jected growth in the number of sites awaiting RI/FS starts, a more systematic approach to making
program management decisions early in the remedial pipeline will be implemented in FY91.
The FY91 strategy contains three components:
• Assessment of ongoing Fund RI/FS projects to 1) identify opportunties for early
action; and 2) decide if resources devoted to ongoing projects could be reallocated
to other projects;
• Evaluate and prioritize all (Fund and PRP, first and subsequent) RI/FS start
candidates; and
Regional flexibility to initiate additional RI/FS starts with the resources saved
from the assessment of ongoing projects.
Regions will use standard criteria to assess ongoing RI/FS projects and rank RI/FS start
candidates. The assessment/ranking process will be conducted independently by each Region.
All Regions will receive a minimum number of RI/FS starts based on the national budget.
NATIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS
The uses of the data in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS) continue to evolve and, in FY91, the Agency will take
major steps to expand CERCLIS so it can be used as a comprehensive environmental data base.
CERCLIS will continue to be used to support SCAP/Strategic Targeted Activities for Results
System (STARS), national information needs on Superfund planning and progress, and other in-
formational and administrative data needs. However, it will also provide data on environmental
indicators and RAs. [Note: Throughout this Manual, the term CERCLIS is used to refer to the
entire information system, including CERCLIS, CERHELP, and WasteLAN.]
NPL Book and Environmental Indicators
One of the recommendations in the Superfund Management Review was to better com-
municate the ongoing efforts of the Superfund program and the progress that is being made in
site cleanup activities. Toward this goal, the Agency has developed the "National Priorities List
(NPL) Book" and implemented a new Superfund Environmental Indicators program.
The NPL book is a concise, readable compendium of site descriptions and the status of
cleanup for all proposed, final and deleted NPL sites. Maintenance of the NPL Book data base
will be the responsibility of the Region, and HQ will publish annual update editions.
To date, the environmental indicators project has focused on the development and report-
ing of new indicators that would accurately report environmentally based cleanup progress. Ex-
hibit ES-3 contains the indicators for which data have been collected in FY90. Beginning in
FY91, Regions will be responsible for updating and reporting environmental indicators in CER-
CLIS for RA projects, NPL removals and non-NPL removals where the costs exceed $200,000.
ES-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHIBIT ES-3
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
Indicator A Progress toward and achievement of human
health and ecological goals for a medium
Indicator B Reduction or elimination of human health
threats
Indicator C Volume of waste treated, removed, and
contained
The goal of the environmental indicators is to more directly report the environmental results of
Superfund cleanup actions. A key objective of this initiative in FY91 is to merge the collection
and reporting of indicators with the existing management of the Superfund program. The envi-
ronmental indicator data will be used for reporting the new STARS measure, S/C-7 Type of
Media Addressed.
RA Information
As the Agency approaches reauthorization and measures the progress made toward meet-
ing the requirements of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA),
information on RA activities is required. The RA information that will be recorded in CERCL1S
by the Regions includes:
* • Planned and actual start and completion dates for Remedial Design (RD), RA and
RA related events;
* RA cost estimates at different times during the remedial pipeline; and
* Technical information on the selected remedy.
Regions will not receive funds for a Fund-financed RA in their Advice of Allowance
(AOA) unless the remedy technology type is in CERCLIS. Similarly, Regions will not
receive credit for a PRP or Fund RA start unless the remedy technology type is in
CERCLIS.
ES-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
SUPER FUND COMPREHENSIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN
The SCAP is the central mechanism for planning, tracking and evaluating Superfund
program activities. Because of its program-wide importance, SCAP has a dynamic, interdepend-
ent relationship with other Agency planning and management systems, including:
• Agency Operating Guidance;
• Superfund budget;
Agency Operating Plan;
• STARS, formerly Strategic Planning and Management System (SPMS); and
Superfund workload models.
Priority activities (see Exhibit ES-1) and programmatic guidance are used to guide the
development of the SCAP. Planning reflects current goals under the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by SARA,
the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), and the
FY91 Agency Operating Guidance.
STARS is used by EPA to set and monitor the environmental objectives identified in the
Agency's Operating Guidance. National and regional STARS goals for Superfund are estab-
lished and tracked through SCAP. STARS targets are a subset of those contained in SCAP.
INTEGRATED PLANNING
Integrated response/enforcement planning is the responsibility of HQ, regional program
offices, the states, and the ORC. In order to provide adequate resources for priority actions at
Superfund sites, HQ allocates resources within and between the response and enforcement
budgets. Regions are responsible for providing data on the level of resources needed to accom-
plish these priority actions and negotiating commitments consistent with realistic site planning.
Flexibility to adjust resources in response to changing program conditions decreases as
the operating year nears. This is especially true of the number of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)
which are to remain constant from FY90 to FY91. The budget is most flexible while being de-
veloped 12 to 18 months prior to the operating year and has little flexibility once the operating
year starts. Once the operating budget is established, in most cases, additional resources can
only be shifted to a Region at the expense of another.
After SCAP/STARS targets have been finalized and funding levels developed, the SCAP
process provides the flexibility to modify plans during the year. Modifications are termed either
adjustments or amendments. Amendments require HQ concurrence and approval. Adjustments
do not require HQ approval, however, they may require HQ notification.
Exhibit ES-4 illustrates the HQ and regional responsibilities in the integrated planning
process.
ES-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
EXHIBIT ES-4
INTEGRATED PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES
REGIONS
Involve the state in the planning
process
Manage projects to integrate
enforcement and response milestones
and to ensure that schedules and
timelines are met
Provide accurate, complete
and timely project planning data in
CERCLIS and SCAP
Follow established planning
procedures and requirements
Recognize that missed
commitments in the operating year
severely affect resource availability
in future years
Involve ORC in planning process
Negotiate and assess the status of
mega-site funding
m
Establishment of program priorities
Review of operating plans and site
commitments
Work with regional managers to adjust
resources to meet program priorities
Negotiate and assess the status of
mega-site funding
Timely communication with the Regions
on changes/additions to SCAP schedules
Reprogram regional resources to
support priority activities
Provide funding and FTE for negotiated
targets
Involve Regions in preliminary
resource requests
Develop policy and guidance in response
to Congressional or Agency initiatives
Involve Office of Enforcement (OE) in
process
%
FOCUS OF THE SCAP PROCESS THROUGH THE YEA R
Current fiscal year planning information must be updated regularly (at least monthly) by
the Regions through CERCLIS. Routine changes in planning information, i.e., those that do not
require a target or budget change, can be made by the Region without HQ involvement. In
recognition of this, HQ and the Regions will conduct formal SCAP negotiations twice a year.
During these formal negotiation time periods, current year issues and problems will be discussed,
as well as schedules and budgets for future fiscal years. It is essential that states and the ORC be
consulted prior to negotiations to ensure a coordinated effort. The focus of regional responsibili-
ties during the formal SCAP update/negotiation periods is outlined in Exhibit ES-5.
ES-9
i
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHIBIT ES.5
SCAP PLANNING YEAR
SECOND QUARTER (.IANIJARY/FEBRIIARY/MARCH 1991)
• Regional program office consults with states and ORC on plans and schedules
for the upcoming year
• Revise FY91 annual budget ceilings to reflect first and second quarter
performance and revised plans for the remainder of the year
• Update and negotiate planning information in CERCLIS for the third and fourth
quarter FY91
• Negotiate third and fourth quarter enforcement AOA (FY91)
• Review slippage in FY91 targets for development of action strategies
• Assess the status of RAs
• Negotiate preliminary FY92 SCAP/STARS targets and measures
• Negotiate preliminary annual regional budgets for FY92
• Provide complete site schedules including planned RA obligations to
allow HQ to project the outyear budget (FY93)
FOURTH QUARTER QULY/AUGUST 1991)
• Establish final SCAP/STARS commitments for FY92
• Establish FY92 annual regional budget
I
m
r"
The mid-year SCAP update is used to realign resources in the current FY and establish
preliminary resource and target levels for the upcoming FY. Changes in current year cost and
project schedules may result in shifts within program areas and revised annual funding levels.
The fourth quarter SCAP update during July and August is also an important planning
event. This update will yield final STARS targets and will set each Region's annual budget for
the upcoming year.
ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORTING
It is strongly recommended that planning and accomplishment data for events and activi-
ties be entered into CERCLIS on a real time basis. At a minimum, accomplishments should be
recorded within 5 days.
Data on accomplishments will be pulled from CERCLIS by HQ on the fifth working day
of each month. Monthly data will be used in reports to the Assistant Administrator for the Offict
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (AA SWER), senior Superfund managers, Congress,
the public, etc., on the progress of the Superfund program. Formal accomplishment reporting foi
STARS and SCAP purposes will be pulled on the fifth working day of each quarter. End of year
accomplishments will be pulled the third week of October. This information will be used to
evaluate regional progress toward meeting SCAP and STARS targets and submitted to the Office
of Pollution Prevention (OPP) for reporting STARS accomplishments.
ES-10
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-0ID
The major regional responsibilities during the accomplishment reporting phase are shown
in Exhibit ES-6.
EXHIBIT ES-6
ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORTING PHASE
REGIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Reconcile financial data in CERCLIS with data
transferred from Integrated Financial Management
System (IFMS)
Ensure accomplishment information in CERCLIS
is current
Review SCAP and STARS data in CERCLIS
Review STARS data in OPP system
OUTYEAR PLANNING
When a site is proposed as a candidate for an RI/FS start, Regions must project and
record in CERCLIS a schedule for core remedial and enforcement activities such as RI/FS nego-
tiations, RI/FS, Record of Decision (ROD), RD/RA negotiations, RD, RA and cost recovery.
Where better data are n£>£ available, Regions should use the integrated timeline for site manage-
ment provided in Chapter V of the Manual. As better information on project schedules and
RA costs becomes available, Regions must update their SCAP data in CERCLIS. Keeping
the data current in CERCLIS is a continuous process that is particularly important for outyear
budget planning, the workload model, regional evaluation, and SCAP/STARS target setting.
THE BUDGET PROCESS
The budget planning process begins a year and a half prior to the start of the fiscal year.
In February 1991, Regions will begin planning for major remedial dollar expenditures, as well as
expenditures for key enforcement actions in FY93. To project the FY93 budget, Regions must
review core activity schedules for projects expected to begin in FY93. Since Fund-financed RAs
play a major role in the Superfund budget, it is crucial that these projects are identified and
reasonable cost estimates derived using the draft Feasibility Study (FS), the ROD or Cost of
Remedial Action (CORA) Model estimates.
ES-11
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
FY91 RESPONSE BUDGET
The response budget is limited for FY91. As a result, the following activities will be sup-
ported to the greatest extent possible:
• Preliminary Assessment (PA)/Screening Site Inspection (SSI) activities;
• New RI/FS starts;
• Listing new sites on the NPL; and
• Support activities.
Regional requests for funds must be within the final negotiated budget levels. The
regional AOA will not be issued unless the approved planned obligations, open commit-
ments and actual obligations are within the annual budget. Regions will not receive their
third quarter AOA for a specific response category unless the commitment/obligation rate
is 50 percent or greater in that category.
FY91 ENFORCEMENT BUDGET
Extramural funding in FY91 for regional enforcement activities is approximately $63
million. FTE resources are being held constant. The enforcement budget provides support for
PRP removals, PRP RI/FS starts and oversight, Consent Decree (CD) referrals, negotiations for
PRP responses, and judicial and administrative cost recovery actions. Consequently, regional
managers must consider the effects across the program when making a decision to focus on one
part of the program as opposed to another. The order of priority is on maintaining ongoing
project oversight and compliance enforcement, maintaining ongoing litigation for response and
cost recovery, referring Statute of Limitation (SOL) cost recovery cases and negotiating PRP
RD/RA response actions.
Beginning in FY91, funds for Federal Facility activities will be obtained from the Office
of Enforcement (OE) budget. Funding needs should continue to be requested through CERCLIS.
Enforcement mega-site funding requests will be reviewed by a HQ/regional workgroup
during the third and fourth quarters of FY90. The workgroup will make decisions on the alloca-
tion of mega-site funding.
Regional extramural budgets should equal their annual AOA. Quarterly AOA will not be
issued unless approved, planned obligations are within the budget ceiling. A Region's annual
budget may be revised at mid-year depending on regional performance, their budget execution
and other Region's needs. Site specific spending plans for the third and fourth quarter are re-
quired if the Region's unused enforcement allowance is greater than 30 percent at the beginning
of the third quarter.
SCAP FINANCIAL PIANNING AND THE REGIONAL AOA
The SCAP financial planning process is the mechanism which drives the quarterly AOA
approved by the AA SWER and the Office of the Comptroller (OC). The process for issuing the
AOA begins four weeks prior to the start of each quarter when planned site and non-site specific
ES-12
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
obligation data are pulled from CERCLIS and reviewed by HQ. Two weeks prior to the end of
the quarter HQ puts the approved AOAs for the upcoming quarter into the CERHELP Budget
Control/AOA system. Regions must put the AOA amounts found in this system into the Inte-
grated Financial Management System (EFMS) before the end of the current quarter. The AA
SWER and the OC will review the amounts in IFMS and approve or disapprove the AOA at the
beginning of each quarter.
The OC will issue the following allowances to the Regions in FY91:
• RA (site specific);
• RD (non-site specific);
RI/FS;
• Other Response;
• Removal; and
• Enforcement.
The other response allowance contains funds for site assessments, removal and remedial
project support, response program support and oversight of PRP RDs and/or RAs.
Regions are required to operate within their quarterly AOA and annual budget. Regions
are also responsible for managing the funds issued in their AOA, and for operating within budget
ceilings, floors and other restrictions. Consistent with the flexible funding criteria, Regions can:
• Shift funds between projects in the other response, RI/FS, RD, removal or en-
forcement allowances. HQ approval is not required;
Shift existing funds between allowances. HQ approval of a change request is
required; and
• Move future planned obligations to the current quarter. HQ approval of a change
request/SCAP amendment is required.
Any changes to the AOA after it is issued requires a change request. In some situations,
a change in the SCAP will require processing a change request. HQ will not approve change
requests/SCAP amendments unless CERCLIS is revised to reflect the change.
WORKLOAD MODELS
Regional FTE allocations are made through the Hazardous Spill and Site Response model
and the Technical Enforcement model. Resources for the site assessment, remedial, and removal
programs are contained in the Response model. Enforcement resources are in the Technical
Enforcement model.
The workload models are designed to reflect priorities and policies contained in the
budget request. For the most part, the workload models are a straightforward application of FTE
pricing factors from the national budget to Region-specific SCAP/STARS targets and ongoing
activities in the remedial pipeline. No FTEs are given to projects that are incorrectly coded in
CERCLIS.
ES-13
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
In FY91, each Region's FTE will be frozen at the FY90 level. Resources will remain
frozen for a period of two years. While the freeze ensures that total regional Superfund re-
sources will not be affected, shifting of resources among the different program areas may occur.
All shifts will be based on the FY91 national budget and the Priority Setting Matrix.
During SCAP/STARS target negotiations, Regions may increase/decrease targets to
match the total regional Superfund FTE level. The increase/decrease should be in accordance
with the Integrated Priorities Matrix.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ASSESSMENT
The Superfund program management and assessment strategy has four components as
shown in Exhibit ES-7.
Together, these components give program managers regular opportunities to recognize
high performance, focus resources in Regions that demonstrate success, and provide training and
technical assistance to those Regions that are experiencing difficulties. Regional performance is
a factor when establishing targets and issuing AOAs.
Regional and HQ responsibilities for implementing and conducting the program evalu-
ation strategy process are shown in Exhibit ES-8.
USES OF THE MANUAL
The FY91 Superfund Program Management Manual includes information and guidelines
for regional staff on Superfund program goals and priorities, the development of planning data,
the application of planning data to the workload model process, Superfund financial manage-
ment, the tracking of accomplishments and the evaluation of regional progress toward meeting
program goals. The FY91 SCAP planning and evaluation process is supported by the informa-
tion contained in this Manual. Users of the Manual must also refer to the CERCLIS and Waste-
LAN User Reference Notebooks for specific guidance on SCAP data coding, entry, maintenance
and generation of SCAP reports.
EXHIBIT ES-7
SUPERFUND MANAGEMENT AND
ASSESSMENT STRATEGY
OSWER Total Quality Management
(TQM) regional reviews
Internal evaluation and audit follow-up
Monthly and quarterly performance
evaluation with CERCLIS data
ES-14
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHIBIT ES-8
EVALUATION RESPONSIBILITIES
REGIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES
Meet quarterly SCAP and STARS
targets and solve performance
problems when they arise
Provide quarterly SCAP and STARS
data to HQ through CERCLIS
Maintain CERCLIS data quality at high
levels for Superfund program and
project management
Participate in OSWER TQM reviews
Participate in workgroups to evaluate
specific program area issues
Negotiate performance standards that
provide individual accountability for
quarterly targets
Develop action strategy to recoup
slipping targets
HEADQUARTERS
RESPONSIBILITIES
Provide guidance to the Regions for the
quarterly review, the mid-year assessment, the
year-end assessment, and the OSWER
TQM review
Identify priority issues and participate in
OSWER TQM approach to regional reviews
Implement and report on follow-up action items
from the OSWER TQM review and Superfund
mid-year assessment
Review monthly performance data reported by
the Regions and negotiate plans with Regions
for meeting targets
Continually assess program performance and
analyze timeliness and quality of work
Recommend resource re-allocation based on
performance
Assure that all staff are informed of the
results of performance reporting and
OSWER TQM reviews
Identify and undertake high priority special
studies that result from the Federal Managers
Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) documentation
Track audits, audit response activities and
internal reviews
mMmmM
¦fPJl11
ES-15
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
STRUCTURE OF THE MANUAL
The FY91 Superfund Program Management Manual consists of two volumes. The re-
mainder of Volume I contains information on:
Program goals and expectations;
SCAP procedures;
• National information needs;
• SCAP targets and measures;
• Program planning requirements and procedures;
Financial planning and management;
Evaluations; and
Workload models.
Volume II includes the following Appendices:
• Appendix A presents the methodologies used to derive the FY92 preliminary
targets and measures;
Appendix B discusses the applicability of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
to SCAP;
• Appendix C will provide guidance on coding requirements. Appendix C will be
available at the beginning of FY91;
Appendix D is divided into two sections - Section 1 provides technical definitions
for the SCAP/STARS targets and measures and Section 2 provides definitions for
other planning activities. A brief description of the planning processes associated
with each definition is included;
Appendix E contains CERCLIS coding instructions for SCAP planning and
accomplishment reporting;
• Appendix F contains the planning requirements and definitions for the Chemical
Emergency Preparedness Program (CEPP);
Appendix G provides the CERCLIS coding instructions and activity pricing
factors for Enforcement extramural funds or Case Budget;
• Appendix H provides information on the NPL Book;
• Appendix I discusses the Environmental Indicators program; and
• Appendix J contains information on the RA priority setting criteria.
In summary, the FY91 Manual encompasses many new or revised program management
policies, processes and procedures. In order to acquire a more in-depth understanding, the
Manual itself should be read.
ES-16
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CHAPTER I
PROGRAM GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CHAPTER I - PROGRAM GOALS
AND EXPECTATIONS
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Following are the actions regional managers must take to comply with
the requirements described in this Chapter. In order to acquire a more
in-depth understanding of these requirements, the Chapter itself should
be read.
Evaluate Remedial Action (RA) projects for funding in a given year
against the latest RA environmental priority setting criteria, and
submit documentation by June 1990 and June 1991 for RA projects
scheduled to begin in FY91 and FY92, respectively.
In order for an RA project to be ranked, enforcement milestones must
be met.
Only RA projects where documentation has been submitted will be
ranked.
In order to be placed in the funding queue and receive an Advice of
Allowance (AOA), a project must be ranked (or meet the criteria for
guaranteed funding); Remedial Design (RD) must be 95% complete;
a Superfund State Contract (SSC) must be signed (Federal-lead
projects); and site access secured.
The RA funding decisions will be re-evaluated at mid-year and
throughout the third and fourth quarters, therefore keep RDs on
schedule.
Regions must evaluate ongoing Fund-financed Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) projects where the Record of
Decision (ROD) is not near completion by December 31, 1990.
Regions must evaluate and present a tiered listing of all RI/FS start
candidates by mid-year FY91 (March 31,1991).
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
CHAPTER I - PROGRAM GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS
OVERVIEW
Fiscal Year (FY) 1991 is a vital year for the Superfund program as the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) enters the final year of the five year Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and looks toward the future. Exhibits 1-1 and 1-2 outline
major SARA goals. An analysis of the Agency's success in meeting the SARA goals reveals the
following:
• The Preliminary Assessment (PA) goal was met;
• The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) goal was met; and
• The 1989 goal for initiation of 175 Remedial Actions (RAs) was met.
There are two remaining SARA goals to be accomplished in FY91:
• The Site Inspection (SI) goal to be achieved by the end of FY91; and
• The commencement of an additional 200 RAs by October 16, 1991.
EXHIBIT 1-1
SCHEDULE FOR ACHIEVEMENT OF SARA GOALS
SECTION
GOAL
DATE
SARA 116(a)(1)
To the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP), EPA shall have
conducted PAs at all sites in the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) at the time of enactment of SARA.
1/1/88
SARA 116(a)(2)
To the MEP, EPA shall have performed Sis where PAs have
shown they were warranted.
1/1/89
SARA 116(d)(1)
EPA will commence at least 275 RI/FS projects.
OR
10/89
EPA will commence 450 RI/FS projects
and an additional 200 RI/FS projects.
10/90
10/91
SARA 116(e)(1)
EPA will commence 175 RAs.
10/89
SARA 116 (e)(2)
EPA will commence 200 additional RAs.
10/91
1-1
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
EXHIBIT 1-2
QUALITATIVE LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY GOALS
SECTION
GOAL
SARA 121(a)
To the extent practicable, RAs shall be in accordance with the National
Contingency Plan (NCP) and shall be cost effective remedies.
SARA 121 (b)
A preference shall be given to remedies that include, as their principal
element, treatment that permanently and significantly reduces the volume,
toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants.
RAs should be protective of human health and environment, cost effective,
and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or
resource recovery technologies to the MEP.
SARA 121 (d)
Applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal standards and more
stringent state standards must be attained in Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) cleanups.
SARA 118
High priority for RA shall be given to sites at which the drinking
water supply has been contaminated.
CERCLA 104 (a)
Primary attention in response actions should be given to public health threats. :
NCP 300.61 (c)
In determining the need for and in planning or undertaking Fund financed
action, the lead agency shall engage in prompt response, encourage state
participation in response actions, conserve Fund monies by encouraging
private party cleanups, be sensitive to local community concerns, rely on
established technology, but also consider alternative technology, involve
the Regional Response Team (RRT) at appropriate stages, encourage
involvement by industry and other experts, and encourage involvement of
organizations to coordinate responsible party actions, foster site cleanup,
and provide technical advice to the public.
Meeting the SARA goal of starting 200 RAs by October of 1991 will be difficult due to
budget constraints imposed on the program. Therefore, the strategy for FY91 will focus on com-
pletion of Remedial Designs (RDs). This will ensure that a pool of RA candidate sites is ready
to begin as funds become available.
Funding has become more constrained and Regions need to increase their use of settle-
ment authorities provided by SARA to compel the use of Potentially Responsible Party (PRP)
resources for RD and RA. Where this cannot be achieved, Regions should issue Unilateral
Administrative Orders (UAOs) to liable and viable PRPs and/or refer Section 106/107 cases.
Cost recovery actions should be initiated to address cost recovery and Statute of Limitation
(SOL) cases. High priority should be given to instances where viable non-settlers exist and there
has been a partial settlement. The President's Management By Objectives (MBO) requires
Regions to recover $300 million per year by FY93.
1-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Removals will need to be undertaken for "classic emergencies" first, and then for time
critical removals at National Priorities List (NPL) sites. Given constraints on the RI/FS budget,
there will be increased pressure to initiate removal actions at unaddressed NPL sites.
Effective pursuit of the SARA statutory goals, as well as achieving the goal of cleaning
up sites, requires constant attention to the proper balance among enforcement and Fund-financed
options.
INTEGRATED PROGRAM PRIORITIES
In FY89, the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE) and the Office of Emer-
gency and Remedial Response (OERR) worked with the Regions to develop the integrated
Priority Setting Matrix (Exhibit 1-3).
The matrix is designed to provide the following:
• Identification of the most significant categories of program priorities, arranged in
order of importance where possible;
• Listing of all the program activities that receive resources, grouped according to
their contribution to a program priority; and
Estimation of the funding level needed to support that activity.
The matrix provides a framework for establishing, testing and adjusting resource levels.
This matrix will be used by Headquarters (HQ) and the Regions in making trade off decisions
during:
• Budget formulation;
• Operating plan development and initial target setting and negotiation; and
• Mid-year adjustment.
The overall organization of the matrix is governed by the following concepts:
• After dealing with any emergency situations that may arise, the highest priority
for the Superfund program is to maintain ongoing projects. The next highest
priority is to move sites quickly into construction while insuring that PRPs are
always the first option for financing cleanup actions;
• All of the activities listed in the matrix contribute in a significant manner to
Superfund program success. Therefore, priority setting must be couched in terms
of maintenance of an essential minimum baseline of activity across the board; and
• A baseline of supporting activities must be maintained to ensure that a constant
flow of projects is maintained across the remedial and removal pipelines, and that
the entire program maintains its operating integrity.
Use of the matrix is constrained by the following assumptions:
• Although baseline levels may be adjusted, there is a minimum level of activity
that will be supported, even if all of the high priority activities that fall under
1-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHIBIT 1-3
PRIORITY SETTING MATRIX
PROGRAM PRIORITY
ACTIVITIES
FUNDING
LEVEL*
1
1. Mitigate Immediate Threat
Classic Emergencies (Removal and
Remedial, Fund and Enforcement)
NPL Removals (Fund and
Enforcement)
Administrative Orders (AOs) for NPL
Removals
A
B
B
II. Move Sites to Cleanup
A. Support Ongoing Work to Com-
pletion of Current Phase (Oper-
able Unit (OU))
Support Ongoing RD
Ongoing RA (Fund and PRP)
Ongoing RD/RA Negotiations
Ongoing RI/FS (Fund and PRP)
Ongoing 107 SOL Litigation
Ongoing 106 Litigation for Remedy
Ongoing 104 Access
Ongoing Compliance Enforcement
A
A
A"
A
A
A
A
A
H
1
I
1
B. Take Enforcement Actions to En-
sure a Strong Enforcement Pre-
sence and to Maximize Likelihood
of prp Takeover
RD/RA Negotiations (New)
PRP RD/RA Starts
106 Settlement Referrals
106 UAOs for RD/RA
107 SOL Referrals
106 Litigation for Remedy
Mixed Funding RD and RA
A**
A
A
A
A"*
A
A
§1
$5?
C. Fund RD and RA Starts Where
Enforcement Action is not
Appropriate
RD Start (Fund)
RA Start (Fund)
A
B
ijf
1
D. Federal Facilities
Negotiate Interagency Agreements
(lAGs)
Oversee lAGs
A
A
1
yiilliliiix: :K -"I:-::"¦ . =:SEiiYitill*?::.
1
1
'M
$5$
'A' = ALL and 'B' = BASELINE
* "A" arid "B" are designed to indicate degree of importance, not an absolute rule
with regard to funding. As used in this column "B" indicates a level of activities consistent with prior year
activity. "A" means all those activities available to be done.
" Provided that timely special notice, special notice waiver or general notice with timelines has been
issued and extensions have been requested/approved consistent with Agency policy.
~** Consistent with cost recovery strategy.
(Note. All activities identified in the matrix are to be funded at least at a minimum baseline level.)
1-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3 -01D
EXHIBIT 1-3
PRIORITY SETTING MATRIX (Cont.)
PROGRAM PRIORITY
ACTIVITIES
FUNDING |
LEVEL*
II. Move Sites to Cleanup (continued)
E. Maximize Cost Recovery
Non-SOL RA Referrals
B
F. Initiate RI/FS and Other
Activities to Keep Pipeline
Balanced
PRP RI/FS
Fund RI/FS
Listing Sites
State Enforcement RI/FS
CD CD CD CD
G. Site Assessment, Removal,
Enforcement and State Support
Activities to Support Long Term
Goals
Non-NPL Time Critical Removals
AOs for Non-NPL Time Crit. Removal
Site Assessment (PA/SI)
107 Non-SOL Pre-RA Referrals
Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs)
Federal Facilities Site Assessment
Non-NPL PRP Search
Core Program Cooperative
Agreements (CPCA)
107 Administrative Settlements
B
B
B
B"*
B
B
B
B
B |
III. New Initiatives
5
IV. Essential Program Management
Elements
A. Critical Path Support Activities
PRP Searches
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)
Removal Support
Remedial Project Support
Community Relations
Fund at
Level to
Support
Program
Integrity
B. Core Program Support
CERCLIS Data Base Management
Contract Management
Records Management including
Administrative Records
Program Management
State Program Support
Fund at
Level to
Support |
Program
Integrity
'A' = ALL and 'B' = BASELINE
* "A" and "B" are designed to indicate degree of importance, not an absolute rule
with regard to funding. As used in this column "B" indicates a level of activities
consistent with prior year activity. "A" means all those activities available to be done.
*** Consistent with cost recovery strategy
(Note: All activities identified in the matrix are to be funded at least at a minimum baseline level.)
1-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
funding level "A" are not funded. A regional/HQ workgroup has been formed to
define baseline levels for different activities. The results of the workgroup's
efforts will be documented in an addendum to the Manual.
Proposed shifts in funding among activities during the course of an operating
budget year will be carefully scrutinized to assure their possibility of implementa-
tion;
The ordering of the Matrix may change from year to year in response to Congres-
sional or Agency initiatives; and
Shortfalls in priority activities that may lead to a requested reprogramming are
evaluated at a national level.
REMEDIAL GOALS
The remedial program will retain the priority of moving sites toward cleanup resulting in
the following programmatic objectives:
• Issue special notice, where appropriate, at all sites where a Record of Decision
(ROD) has been signed. Make early decisions as to whether a good faith offer has
been made and terminate negotiations that do not appear to be leading to setde-
ment. Use appropriate settlement tools (e.g., mixed funding and minimis).
Also use the judicial and administrative authorities under Section 106 (such as
UAOs for RD/RA) to bring about a settlement or compel a PRP response.
Implement the RD completion strategy — The program should continue to work
toward the mandates set forth in SARA by moving sites through the remedial
pipeline in a timely and cost effective manner. The number of PRP-lead RDs and
RAs must be maximized. For those sites where PRPs are not viable or available,
the Regions will use the environmental priority setting scheme (discussed later in
this Chapter) to determine which projects to fund and which to place on tempo-
rary hold. The funding outlook for the future looks the same as FY89 and FY90,
and decisions on fund balancing and the use of alternative technologies in order to
control outyear construction costs will have to be made.
• Alternative technologies — Greater emphasis will be placed on the evaluation and
selection of alternative technologies and the employment of the technologies on-
site. Treatability studies will be an important part of the RI/FS ensuring that
adequate data exist to effectively evaluate each technology prior to remedy selec-
tion.
Make effective use of other agency expertise — It is important that EPA make
full use of construction management expertise available from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (US ACE) and the Bureau of Reclamation (BUREC), and that
EPA staff avoid duplicative oversight of projects assigned to these agencies. The
USACE has a mission assignment from EPA to provide technical assistance,
review RI/FS projects, oversee PRP RDs and RAs, and conduct RDs and RAs
depending on their estimated cost.
1-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
Implementation of a weli managed program by continuing the strategy of fully
funding all RI/FS projects. The program has set the goal of reducing RI/FS costs
to a national average of $750,000 per Operable Unit (OU) and $1,100,000 per site
(exclusive of treatability studies). Every effort should be made to ensure that the
trend of RI/FS costs is toward the overall national goal. Both the OU and site
goals are important. The OU goal primarily affects year-to-year funding limita-
tions. The site goal is needed for long term cost management and to eliminate the
incentive a Region may have to break sites into OUs to increase its annual budget.
Note, however, that Regions are strongly encouraged to focus RI/FS projects on
principal threats, even if this does require additional OU(s) to complete site reme-
diation. A Region's RI/FS budget is developed based on the full funding strategy.
"Mega-sites" are excluded from the OU and site level cost reduction goals de-
scribed above. Mega-sites are defined as sites where RI/FS work at the site ex-
ceeds $3 million. However, Regions will be required to develop, and submit to
the Hazardous Site Control Division (HSCD), a Mega-site Management Plan that
characterizes site problems and management options.
Building public confidence — Through the implementation of the Environmental
Indicators program and the NPL Book, the Agency has taken a big step in im-
proving the communication of the ongoing efforts of the Superfund program and
the progress being made in site cleanup. Better communication of this type of
information to Congress and the public will help build confidence in the Agency
and the Superfund program.
ENFORCEMENT GOALS
The goals of the Enforcement program are to maximize efficient use of PRP resources, to
maximize cost recovery to the Trust Fund and to send a clear message to the PRP community that
recalcitrance is costly. To reach these goals, the following priorities have been identified for FY91:
• Aggressively seek settlement for PRP response - In order to promote PRP partici-
pation in the response program, and to assure cost recovery, PRP searches should
be comprehensive and completed early. Special Notice Letters (SNL) should be
issued in a timely manner after completion of the ROD. Regions are encouraged
to use site management plans to lay out negotiation responsibilities among the
parties involved and timeframes for deliverables. Well planned negotiations need
to be initiated and completed within the special notice moratoriums or schedules
presented in general notice letter. Regional Administrator or Assistant Adminis-
trator (AA) extensions should be used only where settlement appears likely. The
settlement incentives/disincentives concepts are to be applied at multiparty sites.
Effective use of the settlement authorities under SARA (e.g., mixed funding and
de minimus') should be applied where appropriate.
• PRP search/compliance enforcement— A high-caliber PRP search is the founda-
tion of EPA's enforcement process. It must focus on obtaining the necessasry
evidence of liability and financial viability for Section 106 and 107 litigation for
all PRPs. Regions should continue to focus on thorough PRP searches with the
assistance of civil investigators. Also, Regions are encouraged to use administra-
tive authorities in cases of non-compliance with information requests issued under
Section 104(e), and if necessary, use litigation to enforce compliance.
• Section 106 orders and litigation- Regions should be prepared to issue a UAO
promptly after the negotiation moratorium deadlines if there are viable PRPs and
1-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3 -01D
a settlement has not been reached. UAOs with delayed effective dates should also
be considered in order to encourage the successful conclusion of negotiations. If
PRPs fail to comply, consideration should be given to referring a Section 106
judicial action to enforce compliance, especially if the site is queued for RA
funding in FY91. If a Fund-financed response is initiated, all steps should be
taken to seek treble damages against recalcitrant PRPs during cost recovery.
PRP oversight and compliance enforcement-- Following settlement or professed
intent by a PRP to comply with a UAO, the Region must ensure PRP compliance
with the terms of the settlement. EPA must ensure that PRP responses are timely,
thorough, and do not compromise environmental goals. Regions should assess
penalties in situations where PRPs clearly have not submitted major deliverables
of acceptable quality by the dates specified in the Administrative Order (AO),
Consent Decree (CD) or UAO. Particular attention should be given to PRP RI/FS
projects. Regions should be wary of taking over a PRP project because of inade-
quate performance.
Cost recovery— Cost recovery actions serve to recover revenues to the Fund and
encourage voluntary PRP cleanup action by eliminating incentives for PRPs to
allow the government to conduct the response action. The president has set a goal
of recovering $300 million per year by FY93 in his MBO system. Issuing de-
mand letters in a timely manner and addressing SOL sites are two ways to reach
the President's goal. Regions must also pursue viable non-settlers where a partial
settlement was reached. Such actions will reinforce the notion that recalcitrance
is costly.
Removal enforcement— Regions should work to maintain or increase the percent-
age of removals conducted by PRPs, particularly time-critical and non-time-
critical removals. In this effort, Regions should commence PRP searches early to
assess whether there are viable and liable PRPs. Where this is the case and an
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) can not be negotiated, Regions should
issue UAOs and, in cases of non-compliance, pursue cost recovery.
State participation— States continue to play an important role in the Superfund
enforcement process. Regions are encouraged to enter into Cooperative Agree-
ments (CAs), Superfund Memorandum of Agreements (SMOA), or other manage-
ment assistance agreements when the state expects to play a significant role. State
roles in the RD/RA negotiation process should be clearly defined prior to the
negotiations. Use of site management plans will ensure that all parties are aware
of their roles, the timeframe for negotiations, and the strategy that will be em-
ployed.
ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITY SETTING INITIATIVE
The Superfund Management Review established an Agency policy of addressing the worst
problems first; "Superfund will schedule incremental steps to clean up sites over time, expending
scarce resources first on problems posing the most serious risks to public health." The Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Strategic Plan made this a key objective for cleanup;
"Through FY1995, (EPA will) increasingly address worst sites first in Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) response and remediation work."
The Superfund budget is resource constrained in a number of ways, but especially in terms of funding
for RA projects and resources for oversight of RI/FS projects. Establishing priorities for response
and enforcement actions at sites will allow the limited resources to be used efficiently, and focus on
quicker reduction of risk.
1-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
The number of sites reaching the construction end of the pipeline has increased dramatically
in the post SARA timeframe. A 1989 analysis showed that, despite the increase in PRP funded
actions, the budget would not support the scheduled FY90 Fund-financed RA projects. Moreover,
this situation was expected to continue as the pace of the program increased, while operating in an
environment of budget constraints. To ensure that the limited funds would be directed to the worst
problems first, an RA priority setting process was implemented. It is important to remember that all
NPL sites that require action after the RI/FS are, by definition/priority sites. The issue is their relative
priority. The RA priority setting process attempts to determine the relative priority of RA projects
based on environmental concerns.
Criteria for the priority setting process were developed and implemented in FY89. Although
the process provided a means to compare and rank RA projects based on environmental concerns,
areas that needed refinement were identified. This resulted in revisions to the priority setting criteria
and categories that were implemented at mid-year FY90. This updated priority setting process will
remain constant for the FY91 RA list.
RA Environmental Priority Setting Process
The process identifies three priority categories into which each RA project is assigned. The
significance of these categories is that R A projects are compared and ranked only with other projects
in the same category. The priority setting categories contained in Exhibit 1-4 were developed based
on the following principles:
• Protection of human health from immediate threats is the highest priority;
• Threats to human health or to a significant environment under current conditions
follow in relative priority; and
• Potential threats based upon future site conditions are of a lower priority.
Within priority categories 2 and 3 projects will be ranked using the following criteria:
• Risk of contaminant - concentration, toxicity, and volume;
• Stability - mobility of contaminant, site structure, and effectiveness of any
institutional or physical controls;
• Human population exposed;
• Threat to endangered species or environmentally sensitive area; and
• Program management considerations.
These ranking criteria and priority categories attempt to address the relative stability, nature
and concentration of contaminants at the site; the proximity of the hazardous materials to population
areas; and the threat to environmentally sensitive areas and/or endangered species. An additional
criteria was designed to address programmatic factors.
Application ofRA Priority Setting Criteria
Environmental factors are the primary consideration in determining which RA projects are
funded. All current year R A starts will be considered for ranking. There are a subset of RA
1-9
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHIBIT 1-4
PRIORITY SETTING CATEGORIES
PRIORITY 1
PRIORITY 2
PRIORITY 3
IMMEDIATE AND/OR IMMINENT THREAT
Immediate and/or imminent threat to human health as determined
by EPA or by a Public Health Advisory from the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL EXPOSURES UNDER CURRENT
CONDITIONS*
Exposure pathway is contaminated above an accepted human
health standard or risk range and under current conditions
pathway is complete to human intake.
Exposure pathway is contaminated above an environmental
standard and under current conditions pathway is complete to a
significant environment.
Exposure pathway is contaminated above an accepted human
health standard or risk range and not complete to human intake
but under current conditions pathway could become complete.
Exposure pathway is contaminated above an environmental
standard and not complete to a significant environment but under
current conditions pathway could become complete.
POTENTIAL EXPOSURE UNDER FUTURE CONDITIONS**
Exposure pathway may become contaminated above an accepted
human health standard or risk range, and under future conditions
pathway will be complete to human intake.
Exposure pathway may become contaminated above an
environmental standard and under future conditions pathway will
be complete to a significant environment.
* Current condition is defined as what is actually occurring or in place, or occurs periodically on a regular
basis at the time the project is being ranked. Current conditions can apply to land use (land which is
currently zoned for a specific use but not presently being utilized for that use is not a current condition);
or to existing resource use (i.e., ground water for drinking water); or to use of a body of water; or the
migratory pattern of wildlife; or to other circumstances that are actually occurring.
** Future condition is defined as any land use or other condition which is not actually occurring at the
time the project is ranked, but is reasonably expected in the future.
MO
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
projects that are not evaluated under the priority setting process, but are automatically placed
in the funding queue and guaranteed funds. These are:
• PRP RA projects;
• Small dollar fund RA projects ($2.0 million or less), as long as they do not
cumulatively exceed the small dollar project set aside ($10 million range,
dependant on available budget);
• Ongoing RAs that have been phased or incrementally funded;
• Mixed funding (preauthorization) response actions;
Cashouts resulting from settlement agreements (depending on the cost of
the RA and the funds received from the PRPs); and
Long Term Remedial Action (LTRA) and other ongoing RA projects that
require small amounts of additional funding to complete.
Ranking takes place only after project documentation has been submitted and certain en-
forcement milestones have been addressed. The enforcement milestones include:
PRP search;
• Special notice letters;
RD/RA negotiations; and
UAO issued.
HQ will maintain an enforcement reserve of RA funds specifically for projects that had a
high probability for PRP lead (75% or better), where negotiations failed and the project
will now be funded. These sites are placed in the funding queue and will be funded out
of the enforcement reserve.
Each year a funding queue is developed. It consists of RA projects that are ready for
funding. In order for projects to be placed in the funding queue, the following activities
must be conducted by the Region;
• Project must be ranked or meet the criteria discussed previously for projects
that are not evaluated under the priority setting process;
• Large scale projects have been evaluated to determine whether aspects of
the project can be funded in phases or segmented consistent with a well
engineered approach to the site without increasing cost or risk to health or
the environment;
• RD must be 95% complete (CERCLIS subevent code under development);
Ml
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
• Slate match must be available through a signed Superfund State Contract
(SSC) for Federal-lead projects (C3101 = "SS"); and
• Site access for RA has been secured (C3101 = "RE").
A special report will be designed in FY91 that will pull these completion dates from
CERCLIS. The AOA for a site will not be issued until these subevents are
completed.
Developing and Managing the Funding Queue
Once a funding queue is established, RAs will be funded in order of relative priority until
funds are exhausted. All Priority 1 projects will be funded first. Funding for Priority 2
projects will precede funding of Priority 3 projects. Based on the final FY91 RA budget,
a "funding line" will be identified in either the Priority 2 or 3 category. Once an RA
project has gone through the ranking process and is ranked above the funding line, fund-
ing is assured for those priority projects that stay on schedule through the first three
quarters of the FY.
At mid-year, the priority list and the funding line will be reviewed and adjusted to reflect
any schedule changes, projects which have been funded through other means or changes
in the RA budget. Funds will be held in reserve for the mid-year assessment/adjustment.
Since some priority projects could block other projects that are of a lower priority, but are
ready for funding, it is vitally important that up-to-date information on the readiness of
projects and the funding needs be maintained in the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS).
Documentation
The initial assignment of an RA project to one of the three priority categories is per-
formed by the Region. All RA projects within a Region that are scheduled to begin in a
given year are examined. The affected state shall be consulted when the Region prepares
the RA priority setting documentation. The Region should complete their evaluation of
RA projects by preparing the RA Fact Sheet and submitting it to HQ. (A copy of the RA
Fact Sheet can be found in Appendix J.) Only projects where documentation has been
submitted will be considered for ranking.
Fact sheets for FY91 RA projects were submitted to HQ in June of 1990 in order for the
ranking to be completed by negotiations in August 1990. Fact sheets for FY92 RA
projects are due to HQ in June 1991.
If the status of a project changes during the FY, for example, an anticipated settlement
falls through, an RD is completed ahead of schedule, or a potential threat becomes an
actual threat, new or revised RA Fact Sheets should be sent to HQ.
It is not necessary for a Region to submit a new RA Fact Sheet if the schedule of a ranked
RA project slips to the next FY, unless the facts associated with the project have changed.
If the project has not changed, it will be placed in the funding queue based on the score it
previously received. If circumstances have changed, it will be ranked again.
1-12
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-0ID
The Decision Making Process
The ranking of RA projects will be conducted by a panel composed of senior HQ and
regional managers. The following procedures are planned:
• The RA priority setting panel will convene at least twice a year. The mid-
year (April) panel meeting will review the status of projects that were
ranked previously, rank fourth quarter projects and rerank projects that
were below the funding line. The July panel meeting will rank sites
scheduled to begin in the first three quarters of the upcoming FY. The RA
panel will also conduct quarterly conference calls to rank new projects or
revise the ranking for projects where conditions have changed.
• During the RA panel meeting, each Region will make a brief presentation
of its projects.
• Panel members evaluate the merits of each project based on the priority
setting criteria discussed earlier. A composite ranking score is computed
for each project, resulting in a listing of RA projects in rank order by
environmental priority.
• During the FY, HQ will pull RD, RA, and the subevent data from
CERCLIS monthly to determine the latest schedule and funding needs.
HQ will conduct conference calls with each Region at least once a quarter,
more often if necessary, to discuss the status of the planned RA projects.
Regions will also be contacted regularly during the fourth quarter.
CERCLIS Implementation
Given the vital importance of accurate and timely information, it is essential that
CERCLIS information be kept up-to-date. Regions should regularly generate and review
the Target/Negotiation Report (SCAF-16) to ensure that all queued projects are accu-
rately coded.
During the FY, Regions must maintain:
• RD and RA planned start and completion dates;
• Completion dates for the SSC (C3101 = "SS"), acquisition of site access
(C3101 = "RE"), and RD 95% complete (subevent code under develop-
ment);
• RA funding needs;
• Activity/Event Planning Status (C2110) associated with the RA; and
• Funding Priority Status (C3225) associated with the RA planned obliga-
tions.
1-13
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
Failure to maintain this information in CERCLIS could cause delays in funding.
Exhibit 1-5 contains the CERCLIS coding instructions for all RAs. If a project has been
queued and the planned start date has passed without funds, the planned start date should
be moved to the next quarter.
EXHIBIT 1-5
CERCLIS IMPLEMENTATION OF RA PRIORITY SETTING
RA Project Criteria
Projects that have not been ranked
Projects in the queue without being
ranked; funds available
Projects to be ranked
Ranked projects above funding line
Ranked projects below funding line
n
Activity/Event Planning
Status (C2110)
A (Alternate)
P (Primary)
Q (Queued)
Q
Q
Funding Priority Status
(C3225)
ALT (Alternate)
APR (Approved)
ALT
APR
ALT
RI/FS Priority Setting Process
The RA environmental priority setting process responded to the severe funding con-
straints on Fund-financed RA projects. Yet the remainder of the remedial pipeline also has
significant resource constraints. With over 700 on-going RI/FS projects that demand a substan-
tial number of Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) to maintain and support, the program has had to se-
verely constrain RI/FS starts in FY91 for both first and subsequent starts, and Fund-financed and
Responsible Party (RP) lead projects.
Although regional offices have always prioritized their RI/FS projects, new RI/FS starts
often continue for several years. In the past, most RI/FS projects have been scoped to accom-
plish a great deal at a site, in many cases addressing the entire site. Give RI/FS budget con-
straints and the projected growth in the number of sites awaiting RI/FS starts, a more systematic
approach to making program management decisions early in the remedial pipeline will be imple-
mented in FY91.
The objective of the strategy outlined below is to present a series of incentives and
management initiatives to ensure that the worst problems at the worst sites in the Superfund
program move forward most quickly to RA. This process should also assure the public that the
Agency is taking seriously its pledge to address worst problems first. At the same time, the
process outlined below attempts to maintain regional flexibility to make decisions to move for-
ward based on a variety of factors, and to ensure that the "worst problems first" initiative will not
be disruptive of the Superfund program.
1-14
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
Worst Problems First RI/FS Strategy
The FY91 strategy for addressing worst problems first in the RI/FS stage of remediation
contains three components:
• Evaluation of ongoing RI/FS projects -- The purpose of this component is two-
fold:
- To identify opportunities to take earlv actions that may lead to a permanent
treatment or stabilization of the principal threat of a site (as appropriate);
and
- To decide if some or all of the resources devoted to an ongoing RI/FS
could be reallocated to other RI/FS projects (first or subsequent projects at
other sites) within the Region that may be of a higher environmental pri-
ority.
• RI/FS Starts — The purpose of this component is to establish the relative priority
of all sites where choices must be made as to whether or not to initiate a first or
subsequent RI/FS, so that appropriate decisions can be made as to which studies
are of highest priority for funding. The objectives are to develop a tiered listing
of RI/FS start candidates, first and subsequent, Fund and Enforcement.
• Flexible RI/FS funding proposal — The purpose of this component is to provide
Regions with the flexibility to initiate additional RI/FS starts (beyond their budget
target) if resource savings result from the reassessment of ongoing projects. As
long as all projects (new and ongoing) are fully funded, to the best of the Region's
knowledge, flexibility would be provided for initiating additional (untargeted) RI/
FS projects.
Rf/FS Priority Assessment
• Projects to be Evaluated ~ All RI/FS start candidates must be prioritized and a
subset of ongoing Fund-lead RI/FS projects must be assessed.
- Ongoing RI/FS Projects - The universe to be assessed will be established as
follows:
• Those not to be assessed:
- Ongoing RP-lead RI/FS (federal and state oversight);
- Planned FY90 RODs, and Quarter 1/Quarter 2 FY91 RODs; and
- Fund-lead RI/FS with strong potential for RP-lead RD/RA.
• Those that will be assessed:
- Recently started, Fund-lead RI/FS projects where the ROD is not near
completion; and
- Long duration RI/FS projects wiih ROD not near completion.
1-15
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
• The universe of potential projects are then assessed further, based on the
following criteria:
- State/community concerns and factors;
- Insignificant savings (exclude, perhaps based on an established thresh-
old);
- Likelihood of RA funding (Priority 1 and 2 projects); and
- Significantly higher cost to return to site if RI/FS stopped.
• Evaluation Process
- Evaluation Criteria — All Fund-lead and RP-lead Rl/FS start candidates (first
and subsequent) will be evaluated for their relative priority based on environ-
mental criteria. Additionally, as is done in ranking RA projects, various
program management considerations (including the relation to other site
work) may elevate the relative priority of a project above that based solely on
the above environmental criteria.
- Potential RP-lead Exemptions — Depending on overall resources available for
RI/FS starts, a certain number of RP-lead RI/FS projects may be started
independent of the environmental priority of the problem(s) addressed.* The
"very willing/able" PRPs identified by affirmative responses to the following
questions would be the cases where exemptions from the RI/FS start priority
process may be most appropriate.
Specific environmental criteria and the definition of "very willing/able" PRPs
will be provided in other guidance. This manual may be updated at that time.
Ground Rules for Priority Setting
• RI/FS priority process informs, but does not decide which RI/FS projects are
started/continued. Regional funding decisions would be based on a variety of
criteria. Depending on the importance of other factors, projects at the lower end
of the Region's environmental priority list could be funded ahead of projects
higher on the listing.
• RI/FS priority process is based on environmental and public health criteria.
While various program management factors may be considered, political factors
are specifically excluded.
• The subset of ongoing Fund-lead RI/FS projects are assessed using standard
criteria. Regions will be required to report their findings and actions at a sum-
mary level.
• RI/FS start candidates are to be more formally ranked using standard criteria.
• All Regions will receive at least a minimum number of RI/FS starts based on the
national target. Additional RI/FS starts may be allocated based on the Region's
assessment of the Rl/FS priorities.
* There are 35 RI/FS starts targetec for FY91 and any exclusions will need to be carefully considered.
1-16
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Management Process
The RI/FS priority process will be conducted independently by each Region with mini-
mal HQ involvement by HQ. Each Region will define its universe from CERCLIS (with
supplemental analysis to eliminate some projects, as noted above). HQ's role will be to
ensure consistency between the Regions in establishing the priorities.
SITE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM GOALS
At the end of FY90, the SI completion goal imposed by SARA is expected to be met in
five Regions. During FY91, resources will be placed into the remaining five Regions such that
the SI backlog is eliminated to the greatest extent possible prior to reauthorization.
The third SARA site assessment goal requires all sites in CERCLIS as of the date of en-
actment to be evaluated for inclusion on the NPL by October 1990. The transition to the revised
HRS will be achieved in FY91 and the program will concentrate on using the revised HRS to
score sites. Regions should continue to evaluate the NPL potential of all sites. Priority should
be given to the pre-SARA sites whenever possible such that the SARA goal may be met as soon
as possible.
As the Regions continue to evaluate the inventory of identified CERCLIS sites, concerns
have been raised that there is a universe of potentially hazardous sites that are not being ad-
dressed. In FY90, HQ initiated a pilot to evaluate various discovery strategies. One focus of the
FY90 effort was aimed primarily at identifying the "types" of facilities that may be candidates
for the site assessment program. Three major categories of sites were identified:
• municipal landfills;
• large quantity hazardous waste generators; and
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D industrial landfills.
A concentrated regional effort to find sites in these categories could potentially add 30-40
thousand new sites to CERCLIS. Other pilot discovery efforts were initiated in some Regions
and this program is expected to continue and be expanded in FY91.
The regional objectives of the site assessment program are as follows:
• Continue EPA's policy of conducting PAs within one year of CERCLIS listing in
order to prevent the build-up of a PA backlog;
• State, Field Investigation Teams (FIT) and EPA staff conducting PAs, site recon-
naissance and Sis, should consider the need for removal activities at all sites
evaluated. Removal personnel must be notified in all instances where evidence of
potential fire, explosion or direct exposure hazards exist or where removal activi-
ties may substantially improve a hazardous situation;
• Complete all Sis in the pre-SARA universe;
Review all completed Sis and develop HRS listing packages, as appropriate on
the basis of SI data;
1-17
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-0ID
Determine which sites cannot be listed without the installation of monitoring
wells and perform Listing Site Inspections (LSI) at those sites;
Continue to implement the Environmental Priorities Initiatives (EPI);
Enter all site assessment decisions/priority recommendations at each step of the
evaluation process and all appropriate identifiers (RCRA, Federal Facilities,
Indian lands, etc.) into CERCLIS as rapidly as possible to facilitate overall pro-
gram planning and to expedite response to Congressional and public inquiries;
and
Continue to list sites on the NPL at historical rates.
REMOVAL PROGRAM GOALS
In FY91, as in the past, the key goal of the removal program is to ensure that resources
are available for time critical removals and not diverted to less critical removal actions. Regions
should prioritize time critical removals in the following order;
* Classic emergencies;
* Removals at NPL sites; and
* Time critical removals at non-NPL sites posing major environmental and public
health threats that can not be addressed by other authorities.
Ensuring that NPL sites do not pose an immediate threat remains a high priority. Starting
in FY91, Regions have the responsibility of reviewing half their NPL sites each year to ensure no
immediate threats have arisen. If necessary, response actions should be promptly scheduled and
conducted.
Non-time critical removals should be undertaken only as resources allow. Non-time
critical removals at NPL sites should be planned and budgeted site specifically. For all non-time
critical removals, Regions should involve states and PRPs to the maximum extent practicable.
In classic emergencies, PRPs should be notified orally and given up to 24 hours to respond,
depending on the situation. Oral notification should be followed up in writing. For time critical
removals, enforcement activities (PRP searches, negotiations and issuance of an order) should be
initiated as soon as the site is identified, and scheduled for completion based on the timing of the
removal start.
FEDERAL FACILITIES PROGRAM GOALS
A Federal Facility is defined based on the RCRA definition of facility (47 Federal Regis-
ter (FR) 32288-9 (1982) and 50 FR 28712 (1985)). This property based definition encompasses
all contiguous land that is owned by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United
States. The definition includes all individual waste release areas or units on the owner's prop-
erty, including Government-owned, contractor operated areas.
The Federal Facility Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket contains the primary universe
of Federal Facilities that are being assessed for inclusion on the NPL. The bulk of the facilities
1-18
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
on the Docket that have been or will be placed on the NPL are facilities owned by the Depart-
ment of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy (DOE). Over time, facilities and lands
owned by the Bureau of Land Mangement (BLM) within the Department of the Interior (DOI)
will probably score high enough for inclusion on the NPL. To date, the Docket does not contain
facilities that fall within the "formerly-owned" category. HQ is currently analyzing these facili-
ties relative to the requirements of CERCLA Section 120.
The primary program focus is directed to overseeing response activities at Federal Facili-
ties currently on or proposed to the NPL. Regions should issue notice letters and conduct 90 day
negotiations to execute three party Section 120 Interagency Agreements (IAG) with these facili-
ties for RI/FS through RD/RA activities. The first priority for FY91 is to continue to oversee
work at facilities with signed §120 IAGs. The second priority is to complete §120 IAG negotia-
tions at facilities which were targeted in FY90 but slipped to FY91, and the third priority is to
enter into §120 IAGs at all facilities where one does not currently exist. All proposed and final
Federal Facilities should have signed §120 IAGs by the end of FY91.
Many of the Federal Facilities will have significant RCRA/CERCLA integration issues.
Regions, in conjunction with states, need to address these issues relative to the scope of the IAG
early in the negotiations process. Both RCRA and CERCLA program staff, as well as HQ and
the Office of Regional Counsel (ORC), need to be involved in these discussions.
CHEMICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAM
The main goal of the Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Program
(CEPP) is to prevent and prepare for chemical accidents. The program's authorities are CER-
CLA and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, also know as
Title III of SARA. CEPP's FY91 Strategic Targeted Activities for Results System (STARS)
measures focus on key activities to meet the above goal, specifically, technical assistance and
training activities, simulations, after incident evaluations, chemical safety audits, and the Acci-
dental Release Information Program (ARIP) measure aimed at gathering and analyzing informa-
tion on accidental releases and prevention methods. Enforcement measures are also included.
The SCAP measures for CEPP complement and supplement the STARS measures and include
outreach activities, reporting on the status of Title III implementation nationwide, participation in
Regional Response Team (RRT) activities, and earthquake preparedness and national security
emergency preparedness activities. Because the deadline for completion of initial Local Emer-
gency Planning Committee (LEPC) emergency response plans occurred in FY89, review, exer-
cise, revision, and improvement of plans will be emphasized in FY91. Plans must be reviewed,
revised, and updated at least annually. RRTs may also review plans.
CEPP STARS information does not need to be entered into CERCLIS. The reporting
mechanism is outside the CERCLIS system.
Earthquake and National Security Emergency Preparedness Programs
The plan for Federal response to a catastrophic earthquake was mandated by the Earth-
quake Hazards Reduction Act. The plan, which is being developed by 25 Federal departments
and agencies and is coordinated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), is an
effort to improve Federal, state, and local preparedness and response to a catastrophic earth-
quake. EPA's responsibility in plan development is to act as the primary agency for Emergency
Support Function (ESF) #10 — "Hazardous Materials", and as a support agency to other ESFs.
Each EPA Region that has a high-risk, high population area for a catastrophic earthquake within
its boundaries must develop a risk-area specific, hazardous materials annex to the multi-agency
1-19
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
regional response plan. This annex operationally identifies how the agency and its support agen-
cies would respond to multiple hazardous material incidents, including radiological incidents,
during a catastrophic earthquake. In Regions containing more than one catastrophic risk area,
risk-area specific sub-plans are necessitated.
The purpose of the National Security Emergency Preparedness Program (NSEPP) is to
ensure the performance of essential functions of the Agency in the event of a national security
emergency. EPA's responsibilities are outlined in Executive Order 12656 and related directives.
Each Region is required to establish and maintain a designated team of personnel for such
events; participate in EPA, FEMA or other agency sponsored planning sessions, workshops,
training and exercises; and assist in preparing program support materials.
STRA TEGIC PLA NNINC,
In late March 1989, the Administrator instructed the Agency's four program offices (Air
and Radiation, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Water, and Solid Waste and Emergency Re-
sponse) to develop four year strategic plans to "...guide the Agency toward more direct implem-
entation of its original and principal purpose: to reduce risk to human health and the environ-
ment." The strategic plans were designed to cover the period FY92 to FY95.
The strategic plan of OSWER has four basic parts: the mission statement, goals, objec-
tives, and activities. OSWER's mission is to protect human health and environment from unac-
ceptable risks posed by solid and hazardous wastes and by releases of oil and hazardous sub-
stances into the environment. To fulfill this mission, OSWER has established the following four
goals:
• Minimize the generation of wastes;
Ensure proper management of solid and hazardous wastes;
Prevent releases of oil and hazardous substances into the environment; and
• Prepare for and respond to releases of oil and hazardous substances when they
occur.
Objectives are actions that must be accomplished in order to achieve a goal. The
OSWER objectives are measurable, time specific, and stated in risk reduction terms as much as
possible. All the objectives that have been developed may not be accomplished fully within the
four years of the strategic plan. To address this possibility, OSWER ranked the objectives using
the following criteria:
Risk;
Court-ordered or statutory deadlines;
Public or political expectations (credibility);
Risk reduction potential (technical and economic feasibility, cost effectiveness,
and administrative considerations); and
Leveraging potential.
1-20
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
The ranking indicates which objectives should be completed and which might be partly deferred.
Included with each objective are the activities that OSWER's programs must complete in
order to fulfill the objective. The list of activities is short and general.
To fulfill OSWER's mission, the following principles will be followed:
• Assure an effective and open dialogue and exchange of information with all
entities that have a stake in OSWER's mission;
Foster a special relationship with states and Indian Tribes in sharing responsibility
for implementing OSWER's programs;
• Exhibit leadership in developing programs based on enhancing public and private
capabilities;
• Anticipate problems and seek creative solutions and approaches using the
flexibility available under the law;
• Continuously improve all aspects of OSWER's activities;
• Recognize that information is a valuable resource, vital to the success of
OSWER's programs, to be planned and managed appropriately;
• Implement a broad spectrum of incentives, including enforcement, to enhance
program effectiveness; and
• Recognize that OSWER's employees are its most valuable resource and that they
need a positive working environment, and manage all activities accordingly.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CHAPTER n
SIJPERFUNT) COMPREHENSIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN PROCEDURES
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CHAPTER II - SUPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE
ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN PROCEDURES
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Following are the actions regional managers must take to comply with the
requirements described in this Chapter. In order to acquire a more
in-depth understanding of these requirements, the Chapter itself should be
read.
1
|
1
1
• Most of the Superfund Budget is based on the SCAP.
**
• HQ will not recognize a Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments
Plan (SCAP)/Strategic Targeted Activities for Results System (STARS)
accomplishment unless it is recorded in the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System (CERCLIS) by the specified pull date.
Regions have complete responsibility for maintaining CERCLIS,
WasteLAN, and selected portions of the CERHELP data base.
• The preliminary and final SCAP/STARS targets are established in
March and August, respectively.
• During negotiations, Regions may propose changes in targets to
match the total regional Superfund resource level.
¦
• Response and enforcement funding needs identified in January form
the basis for the annual regional budgets.
• RA cost estimates for outyear budget should be derived using the
draft FS, the ROD or Cost of Remedial Action (CORA) model.
Final "approved" funding requests must be within the annual
regional budget proposed by HQ.
*
On the fifth working day of February and July, HQ pulls SCAP data
from CERCLIS for negotiations.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
CHAPTER H - SUPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE
ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN PROCEDURES (Cont'd)
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
On the fifth working day of each month, HQ pulls planning and
accomplishment data from CERCLIS to support a variety of official
reporting requirements.
SCAP/STARS amendments require HQ concurrence and approval.
Changes to STARS should not be made simply because a target
cannot be met.
STARS amendments should be submitted from the Regional
Administrator to the AA SWER by April 15.
Amendment requests will not be approved unless they are in CERCLIS.
Planning and accomplishment data should be updated at least monthly.
MM 1 —MM
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CHAPTER n - SUPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
PLAN PROCEDURES
INTRODUCTION
The Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP) process is used by the
Superfund program to plan, budget, track, and evaluate progress toward Superfund site cleanup.
The SCAP planning process is a dynamic, ongoing effort that has a significant impact on Super-
fund resource allocation and program evaluation. Planned obligations and STARS targets and
measures are generated through SCAP and influence the Superfund budget and evaluation
process. SCAP planning is a day-to-day responsibility of the Regions. A semi-annual process
has been established through which HQ and Regions formally negotiate plans for the future.
CERCLIS serves as the conduit for the SCAP process. CERCLIS provides both HQ and Re-
gions with direct access to the same data. Reports can be produced allowing for daily, interac-
tive updates of planning and site cleanup progress information.
BACKGROUND
The SCAP process is crucial to Superfund program planning, tracking, and evaluation.
As the Superfund program's central planning mechanism, it is interrelated with all Agency and
Superfund program specific planning and management systems, such as the Agency Operating
Guidance, the Superfund budget, Agency Operating Plan, STARS, and the Superfund workload
models. The Agency Operating Guidance defines Superfund goals for the upcoming year.
SCAP targets/measures are designed to reflect the Agency Operating Guidance. In some cases,
new SCAP categories are developed, or the projections for SCAP activities are adjusted to match
the Agency's goals.
Most of the Superfund program's budget is based on the SCAP. The operating year's
budget is developed 18 months prior to its beginning. For example, the SCAP existing in the
third quarter of FY91 will be used to formulate the FY93 budget. The site schedules reflected in
the SCAP serve as the foundation for determining outyear budget priorities, such as the dollar
levels to be requested in the budget and the total level of FTEs to be made available for distribu-
tion through the workload model. Because dollars for Fund-financed RAs and RDs dominate
Superfund's overall budget, it is critical that the SCAP identify RD and RA candidates and
projected funding needs. RA cost estimates should be derived using the draft FS, ROD or Cost
of Remedial Action (CORA) Model estimates.
The Superfund budget provides the basis for the Agency Operating Plan. The Operating
Plan, which is finalized prior to the FY, establishes the funds available to the Regions for per-
forming Superfund work.
STARS, formerly the Strategic Planning and Management System (SPMS), is used by
EPA to set and monitor the environmental objectives identified in the Agency's Operating
Guidance for a FY. National and regional STARS goals for Superfund are established and
tracked through SCAP. STARS targets are a subset of those contained in SCAP. STARS targets
and measures are reported quarterly by HQ and the Regions to the Office of Pollution Prevention
(OPP). OPP tracks regional progress toward STARS goals on a quarterly basis as part of the
overall Agency performance evaluation process. With the exception of CEPP, HQ will not
recognize a STARS accomplishment unless it is correctly recorded in CERCLIS.
II-1
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
The Superfund workload models distribute FTEs for each program and Region. There
are two Superfund program models, the Hazardous Site and Spill Response model, which distrib-
utes resources for the site assessment, remedial and removal programs, and the Technical En-
forcement model which distributes enforcement FTEs. SCAP plans form the basis of the work-
load models. In FY91, each Region's FTE will be frozen at the FY90 levels. Resources will re-
main frozen for a period of two years provided that the national budget does not increase or de-
crease by ten percent. While the freeze ensures that total regional Superfund resources will not
be affected, shifting of resources within the Region among the different program areas many
occur. This includes shifts between the response and enforcement programs. All shifts will be
based on the FY91 national budget and the integrated Priority Setting Matrix.
SCAP AND CERCLIS/WAST EI AN RELATIONSHIP
CERCLIS is the data base used by HQ and regional personnel for Superfund site, pro-
gram and project management. CERCLIS contains the official inventory of CERCLA sites and
supports current site planning and tracking functions. In CERCLIS, financial data are integrated
with data from the site assessment, remedial, removal and enforcement programs. Site assess-
ment, remedial and removal activities are called "events" in CERCLIS. Enforcement actions are
labeled "activities". SCAP information is a subset of the site data collected through CERCLIS.
Data entry responsibilities and report retrieval abilities exist at the regional level so that regional
managers and users play a central role in maintaining and using the data base. HQ relies on
CERCLIS as the sole repository of information on plans and accomplishments and uses the data
base to generate national reports.
CERCLIS consists of two data bases: a site specific data base, CERCLIS, and a non-site
specific data base, CERHELP. The site specific data base contains site, OU, event, enforcement
activity, technical and financial information. Each week financial data from the agency-wide
Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) are transferred into CERCLIS. The data
transferred include such information as commitments, decommitments, obligations, deobliga-
tions, outlays, credits, transaction date, obligating document number and funding vehicle.
CERHELP contains information such as SCAP/STARS targets and accomplishments,
Advice of Allowance (AOA), budget, and information on non-site/incident activities. The CER-
HELP data base consists of the following separate files:
• The Targets and Accomplishments System is the data file used for setting and
tracking SCAP/STARS targets. Preliminary and final regional SCAP/STARS
commitments are entered into the system by the HQ SCAP Coordinator. Target
data are updated by the Region to reflect SCAP adjustments and by HQ to reflect
approved amendments. Regional reporting of non-site/incident accomplishments
is also performed through this system. Data from this system are used in all
official SCAP targets and accomplishment reports and are the baseline for re-
gional evaluation.
• The Budget Control/Advice of Allowance (BC/AOA) file is used by HQ for
SCAP budget development and control and for tracking and reporting the AOA
process.
• Planning and tracking of non-site/incident activities and financial data are accom-
plished through the Non-Site/Incident Activity system. Regions are responsible
for entering and maintaining SCAP non-site specific information.
II-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Using CERHELP, Regions will be able to track planning data and reconcile the site
specific planning in CERCLIS with the AOA and SCAP/STARS targets. It serves as an impor-
I tant management tool for Regions and HQ.
WasteLAN is a personal computer (PC)-based regional extension of CERCLIS that
provides an alternative to direct data entry into the main frame CERCLIS data base. WasteLAN
maintains the regional CERCLIS data base on a local area network (LAN) in the Region and
regularly uploads the data to the CERCLIS data base.
WasteLAN is designed to meet three objectives:
• Support regional program management — Regional program management needs
are supported by the use of an integrated data base that provides information for
program evaluation and management reporting of STARS/SCAP plans and
accomplishments.
• Provide key informatin to main frame CERCLIS — Key information is entered
into WasteLAN. The system has the capability to electronically transfer a copy of
the data in the regional PC data base to the CERCLIS main frame data base.
• Support site project management — Site project management needs are supported
by the detailed site and contract level data for site planning and project manage-
ment purposes.
In this Manual, CERCLIS will be used as a generic term that will encompass CERCLIS,
CERHELP, and WasteLAN.
i
Additional information, including regional responsibilities for CERCLIS, CERHELP,
and WasteLAN can be found in the CERCLIS Users Reference Manual or the WasteLAN Users
Reference Manual.
SCAP ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
HQ responsibilities for maintaining the SCAP in CERCLIS include:
• Entering negotiated preliminary and final SCAP/STARS targets and measures and
site back-up in the CERHELP Targets and Accomplishments data file;
• Updating the numbers and site back-up in the Targets and Accomplishments data
file to reflect approved amendments to the SCAP throughout the year;
• Entering preliminary and final budget data in the CERHELP BC/AOA system;
Determining the AOA based on SCAP planned activities in CERCLIS;
• Entering and maintaining AOA data in the CERHELP BC/AOA system; and
Responding to regional requests for changes in plans through the amendment and
change request process.
II-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Regions have complete responsibility for maintaining CERCLIS/WasteLAN, SCAP and
selected portions of the CERHELP data base. At a minimum this requires:
• For sites which are beginning the RI/FS in the current or next FY, planning and
scheduling all pipeline remedial events and enforcement activities through the
NPL deletion process. These data are to be entered into CERCLIS in the month/
day/year (MM/DD/YY) format;
• Keeping SCAP planning data current, including updating site schedules estab-
lished at the RI/FS stage and RA cost estimates when better planning data become
available;
• Updating the site back-up in the Targets and Accomplishments data file to reflect
adjustments to the SCAP throughout the year;
• Reporting accomplishments as they occur;
• Reconciling CERCLIS financial data with IFMS;
Entering and maintaining quarterly planning, budget and accomplishments report-
ing in CERHELP for non-site specific activities;
Preparing SCAP amendments and change requests; and
• Tracking and record Technical Enforcement Support (TES) work assignments
(tasking).
The regional Information Management Coordinator (IMC) is a senior position which
serves as regional lead for all Superfund program and systems management activities. The
following lead responsibilities for regional program planning and management rest with the
IMC:
Coordinate SCAP/STARS planning, development and reporting;
Ensure regional accomplishments are accurately reflected in CERCLIS;
• Reconcile IFMS data transferred into CERCLIS;
• Provide liaison to HQ on SCAP/STARS and program evaluation issues;
• Coordinate regional evaluations by HQ; and
• Ensure that the quality of CERCLIS data are such that accomplishments and
planning data can be accurately retrieved from the system.
II-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
OVERVIEW OF THE SCAP PROCESS
The SCAP process generates data that fulfill the following functions:
• Tracking of accomplishments against targets/measures;
• Updating planning (schedules and funds) for the current FY;
* Developing planning data for the upcoming FY; and
* Providing data for outyear budget planning purposes.
It is essential that SCAP data remain current and up-to-date and that accomplishments be
reported as soon as they occur. Planning information should be reviewed and updated as neces-
sary.
The SCAP formal negotiation cycle is a semi-annual process. The focus of the two
formal negotiations is slightly different. Exhibit II-1 indicates the significant differences be-
tween the February and August negotiating sessions.
The fourth quarter SCAP planning cycle is important because of its direct impact on the
upcoming FY's budget. Regions are required to manage their funds and operate within the
annual non-RA budgets established during the fourth quarter update. Funds within the Region's
non-RA budget must be reprogrammed to meet unexpected contingencies.
During the second quarter negotiations, and throughout the third and fourth quarters, the
RAs that are scheduled for funding based on the environmental priority setting criteria will be
carefully assessed to identify schedule slippage. If it appears that planned RAs with approved
funding will not be ready to proceed in FY91, other priority RAs will be funded instead. Fund-
ing will be provided for approved RAs that remain on schedule through the first three quarters of
the FY. Once an RA project is ranked and placed above the funding line, Regions have the flexi-
bilty to modify the budget to accomodate the RA project funding needs.
SCAP CHANGE CONTROL PROCEDURES
Stability in the SCAP process through the year is essential to the success of SCAP plan-
ning and accomplishment reporting/evaluation procedures. The following procedures are used to
control changes to the SCAP:
• Changes (including additions or deletions) to SCAP targets, measures, definitions,
methodologies, planning processes, accomplishment reporting, financial manage-
ment or any other processes described in this Manual must be presented by the
Office Director for the program office proposing the change and have the concur-
rence of both OWPE and OERR;
All proposed changes must be sent to the Regions and all other program offices
for review and comment prior to implementation; and
• The decision on whether to proceed with the proposed change must be docu-
mented in writing. If the proposed change will be implemented, an addendum to
the Superfund Program Management Manual will be issued.
II-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Exmpun-i
SCAP PLANNING YEAR
SECOND QUARTER (1ANUARY/FEBRUARY/MARCH 1991)
Regional program office consults with states and ORC on plans and schedules
for the upcoming year
Revise FY91 annual budget ceilings to reflect first and second quarter
performance and revised plans for the remainder of the year
• Update and negotiate planning information in CERCLIS for the third and fourth
quarter FY91 |f
Negotiate third and fourth quarter enforcement AOA(s)
• Review slippage in FY91 targets for development of action strategies
Assess the status of RAs
• Negotiate preliminary FY92 SCAP/STARS targets and measures
Negotiate preliminary annual regional budgets for FY92 p
Provide complete site schedules including planned RA obligations to
allow HQ to project the outyear budget (FY93) ^
FOURTH QUARTER (IDLY/AUGUST 1991)
Establish final SCAP/STARS commitments for FY92
Establish FY92 annual regional budget
PROCEDURES FOR ANNUAL TARGET SETTING
The process for the development of a FY's SCAP and STARS targets/measures begins
with the SCAP developed during the second quarter of the previous FY. Preliminary targets/
measures for the upcoming FY are set by early March. All targets/measures are negotiated and
numbers are established only after discussions between OERR, OWPE, and the Regions. In the
Regions, a joint review of commitments should be undertaken by the program office and ORC.
Final SCAP and STARS targets are negotiated in the fourth quarter (August). Final targets/
measures also involve HQ/regional negotiations. The dates for pulling CERCLIS information
that will be used for negotiations can be found in the Manager's Schedule of Significant Events
found at the beginning of this Manual.
The negotiation of preliminary and final SCAP/STARS targets and measures has become
complicated as a result of the freeze in regional FTE. During negotiations, Regions may propose
changes in targets to match the total regional Superfund resource level. The changes in targets
must be made in accordance with the integrated Priority Setting Matrix and the overall budget.
HQ will work to ensure that the cumulative regional targets meet national budget commitments.
The procedures for target setting for the upcoming FY are as follows:
• At the beginning of the second quarter (January) HQ sends to the Regions initial
targets and planning estimates based on the SCAP/STARS Methodologies and the
budget for the upcoming FY. SCAP/STARS Methodologies for FY92 are pre-
sented in Appendix A.
II-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Regions will respond to proposed SCAP/STARS targets/measures through CER-
CLIS within the timeframes established for the second quarter SCAP negotia-
tions. To adequately plan for the year, a Region must make decisions on the
status of projects. States and ORC should be consulted prior to making these de-
cisions. Remedial and enforcement projects (except RAs) should be identified as
either "Primary" (P) or "Alternate" (A) in the Activity/Event Planning Status field
(C2110 and C1725) in CERCLIS. Primary projects represent those that have the
greatest likelihood of meeting the schedules in CERCLIS. Alternates represent
sites that can be substituted for primary targets. The negotiated number of pri-
mary projects will be used to determine preliminary SCAP/STARS commitments.
A sufficient number of alternate projects should be maintained to replace primary
projects which experience slippage or are deferred because of revised project
priorities. A Region should identify alternate projects to ensure that it can main-
tain a steady pipeline of remedial activity. (See Exhibit II-2 for an example of the
use of the activity/event planning status field.)
At this time, the schedules for queued RA projects should be reevaluated. Proj-
ects experiencing slippage that lead to a planned start date in the upcoming FY are
placed in the new funding queue based on their existing score. The correct Activ-
ity/Event Planning Status field codes for different RA projects are presented in
Chapter I Exhibit 1-5.
Fourth quarter FY91 RA projects that will not be funded because of budget
constraints should be coded with an Activity/Event Planning Status flag of "Q"
(queued). During fourth quarter negotiations, the planned start date for these
projects should be changed to FY92.
The regional response to non-site/incident targets or planning estimates should be
reported in the Targets and Accomplishments file in CERHELP. The regional
target or planning estimate must be entered into CERHELP with the appropriate
activity code and a "Proposed" (P) in the Version data field in CERHELP. Ap-
pendix D identifies the targets and measures which are planned on a site specific
vs. non-site/incident basis.
Regions must also identify FY92 remedial and enforcement funding needs in
CERCLIS. States should be consulted to ensure that state-lead activities and state
funding needs are accurately reflected in SCAP. At this time, the Region only
needs to provide the planned quarter of obligation, the budget source, amount, and
contract vehicle for response funding needs. RA funding needs should also be
identified as "Approved" (APR) or "Alternate" (ALT). Chapter I Exhibit 1-5
presents the rules for identifying "ALT" and "APR" RA projects.
Appendix G contains the CERCLIS coding instructions for requesting Case
Budget funds.
HQ/regional negotiations and FTE reconciliation occur during the second quarter.
A negotiation schedule is sent to the Regions. Action strategies developed for
current year performance problems are a factor in the negotiation of targets and
measures.
Preliminary targets/measures are set after completion of the negotiations in early
March. Regional RA start targets will be established after the RA priority setting
panel meeting in July.
II-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Based on the fourth quarter SCAP reflected in CERCLIS, a second round of
negotiations and FTE reconciliation is held to finalize the targets and planning es-
timates and the regional budget. At this time, only minor changes to targets and
measures developed during the second quarter should occur. These negotiations
are conducted in August and final targets, measures, and associated budgets are in
place by early September.
In preparation for the fourth quarter SCAP negotiations, final proposed regional
budget ceilings for removal, remedial, and enforcement programs will be sent to
the Regions. RA funds are not included in the budget ceiling. However, the
Funding Priority Status field for all RA projects should be reviewed and updated
if necessary. Those remedial events or enforcement activities which have the
greatest likelihood of requiring funding during the FY that are within the Region's
budget allocation should be identified by placing "Approved" (APR) in the
Funding Priority Status field (C3225 and C2909) in CERCLIS. The total of all
approved funding must not exceed the budget ceilings or HQ will not initiate
negotiations.
For all events (RI/FS, RD, RA) scheduled to begin during the FY, the "APR"
funding status can only be placed on funds for sites which are coded with "P"
Activity/Event Planning Status. For example, only RI/FS starts that are primary
SCAP/STARS targets will be used by HQ to establish the RI/FS budget. Projects
with a Funding Priority Status (C3225 and C2909) of "Alternate" (ALT) are mov-
ing toward the point of obligation. As with primary and alternate SCAP/STARS
targets and measures, projects with alternate funds may be substituted for ap-
proved projects which experience slippage or are deferred due to changing priori-
ties. Activities/projects identified as alternate will also form the basis for any
requests for supplemental funding.
Projects may also be identified with a Funding Priority Status (C3225 and C2909)
of "CON" (Planned Contingency Funds). This code allows Regions to indicate
funding needs for projects that have a medium or high potential for the PRP
assuming lead responsibility. (See Chapter V for additional information on
coding PRP probabilities.) The financial amounts associated with event/activity
that has the greatest likelihood of requiring funding would be coded as "APR".
The financial amounts associated with event/activity that has the least likelihood
of requiring funding would be coded as "CON". (See Exhibit II-2 for an example
of the use of the Funding Priority Status field.)
The Activity/Event Planning Status should also be updated prior to fourth quarter
negotiations.
Any site scheduling or target changes that result from the negotiation of prelimi-
nary or final targets/measures must be entered into CERCLIS by the Regions. At
this point, Regions should also reflect the RA priority setting funding decisions in
CERCLIS.
Written concurrence of final negotiated targets and budget levels will be obtained
at the close of negotiating sessions between HQ and each Region.
II-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHIBIT n-2
EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITY/EVENT PLANNING STATUS AND
PRIORITY FUNDING STATUS
ORIGINAL PLAN
Site
Activitv/Event
Plan
Actual
Funding
Budeet
Finan
Name
ou
Event
M
Planning Status
Start
Start
Oual
Status
Source
Amount
(C104)
(C1101)
(C2101)
(C2117)
(C2110)
(C2132)
(C2140) (C2103)
(C3225)
(C3229)
(C3230)
X
01
C01
F
P
91/2
L
APR
R
750,000
Y
01
C01
F
P
91/4
M
APR
R
500,000
CON
E
25,000
Z
01
C01
F
A
91/2
H
ALT
R
750,000
CON
E
75,000
ALTERED PLAN
Site
Activitv/Event
Plan
Actual
Funding
Budget
Finan
Name
OU
Event
Ld
Planning Status
Start
Start
Oual
Status
Source
Amount
(C104)
(C1101)
(C2101)
(C2117)
(C2110)
(C2132)
(C2140)
(C2103)
(C3225)
(C3229)
(C3230)
X
01
C01
F
A
91/4
L
ALT
R
750,000
Y
01
C01
F
P
91/2
2/16/91
APR
R
500,000
Z
01
C01
RP
P
91/2
3/20/91
APR
E
75,000
• HQ will enter preliminary and final commitments including the site specific back-
up where appropriate into the Targets and Accomplishments file in the CERHELP
data base.
• Targets and measures, site back-up, and the regional budget are sent to the A A for
approval in early September. They are then submitted to the OPP as final STARS
targets.
SCAP PLANNING
Regions are required to keep the SCAP data in CERCLIS up-to-date and accurate.
Changes in planning information (schedules and funds) should be entered into CERCLIS within
five days. If changes affect a SCAP or STARS target or measure or the approved funding level
for a site, the Activity/Event Planning Status and Funding Priority Status fields in CERCLIS
must also be updated.
II-9
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Semi-Annnal Planning Process
As a final check to ensure that SCAP data are up-to-date, Regions should generate SCAP
and Audit reports periodically, especially those Regions which have delegated responsibility for
the database to Remedial Project Managers (RPM) and On-Scene Coordinators (OSC). At a
minimum, reports should be generated for the major updates in January and June for internal
review of the planning data in CERCLIS. These planning data should reflect any adjustments or
approved amendments made to the annual plan. Regions should note that changes made in
CERCLIS to site schedules and other planning data will not automatically result in changes to
SCAP/STARS targets. Although Regions have the flexibility to alter plans, they are still ac-
countable for meeting the targets negotiated at the beginning of the FY. (See the section on
SCAP/STARS Adjustments and Amendments).
On the fifth working day of February and July, HQ pulls the proposed regional SCAP
update which serves as the basis for HQ/regional mid-year and final negotiations. HQ will
perform all negotiations based on the information in CERCLIS on these pull dates. To ensure
consistency in the negotiation phase, the CERCLIS data bases are frozen prior to pulling the
reports used for negotiations. As a result, all parties (HQ and the Regions) will have identical
data for use during the negotiation process.
CERCLIS data quality problems that affect the SCAP update shall be resolved prior to
negotiations. These problems are to be resolved on a Region-specific basis through telephone
calls between HQ and the IMC or program manager.
CERCLIS Reports for SCAP Planning/Target Setting
Exhibit H-3 presents the CERCLIS reports used by HQ and the Regions in the develop-
ment and negotiation of regional targets/measures. Following is a discussion of these reports:
• The SCAP/STARS Targets and Accomplishments Summary Report (SCAP-14)
displays current year aggregate quarterly target and accomplishment totals and
site back-up by SCAP activity.
• The Event/Activity Summary Report for NPL Sites (SCAP-27) provides planned
obligations, first and subsequent start and completion codes, and budget source
for events and activities at sites on the NPL. It is similar to the SCAP-2 except
for the addition of these codes and the deletion of the SCAP note field.
The Non-NPL Site Summary Report (SCAP-1) displays major planned, ongoing
and completed activities for sites that are not on the current NPL. Information on
PRP searches, non-NPL removals, non-NPL removal AOs, etc. are found on this
report. A site must have planned or ongoing work to show on this report.
The NPL Site Summary Report (SCAP-2) contains major planned and actual data
for events and enforcement activities at sites that are on the NPL, including
deleted and removal sites.
• The SCAP Financial Report (SCAP-4) aggregates dollars by program area and
provide both site specific backup from CERCLIS and non-site specific backup
from CERHELP. These reports should be used to compare the funding requests
contained in CERCLIS and CERHELP against the regional budget. Regions are
prompted for "APR", "ALT", "CON" and "TOTAL".
11-10
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHIBIT II-3
SCAP PLANNING/TARGET SETTING CERCLIS REPORTS
SCAP-1: Non-NPL Site Summary Report
SCAP-2: NPL Site Summary Report
SCAP-4: Financial Report
SCAP-23: SCAP I STARS Measures Negotiations Report
SCAP-14: SCAP/STARS Targets and Accomplishments
Summary Report
SCAP-16: Target/Negotiation Report
SCAP-21: Budget Control Report
SCAP-27: Event/Activity Summary Report for NPL Sites
ENFR-4: SOL Management Report
ENFR-46: Cost Recovery Category Report (CRCR)
ENFR-47: FY91 Case Budget Request for New and Ongoing
Activities!Events: Approvals and Alternate Dollars
ENFR-48: FY91 Case Budget Request for Activities! Events
with only Alternate Dollars
ENFR-49: Case Budget Modeling Audit Report for FY91
AUDIT-26: Underlying Data and Error Types Report
*
The Budget Control Report (SCAP 21) is similar to the Financial Report. It
provides quarterly and annual regional budget ceilings and shows the difference
between the ceilings and the total annual regional budget.
The Underlying Data and Error Types Report (AUDIT-26) is an edit report used
to check data quality.
The Target/Negotiation Report (SCAP-16) is similar to the SCAP/STARS Tar-
gets and Accomplishments Report (SCAP-14) and is used for target negotiations
for the upcoming FY. The activity/event planning flags and other coding require-
ments needed to identify a given event/activity as a planned start or completion is
included in the report. A similar report, SCAP/STARS Measures Negotiations
Report (SCAP-13) will be used for negotiation of SCAP measures and used for
budget and FTE allocations.
The SOL Management Report (ENFR-4) identifies planned and actual completion
dates and obligations for response activities.
The Cost Recovery Category Report (CRCR) (ENFR-46) is used to negotiate cost
recovery targets and track cost recovery actions at sites. It divides sites into a
number of categories based on SOL considerations and planned or actual cost
recovery enforcement activity.
The Case Budget Reports (ENFR -47, 48 and 49) are used for Case Budget
financial management.
11-11
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
SCAP ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORTING
Accomplishments data are recorded on Site Information Forms (SIF) or Integrated SIFs
(ISIFs) and CERHELP Non-Site Incident Activity Maintenance Forms, or other regional data
entry forms, and entered into CERCLIS by the IMC or designee. Data on accomplishments
should be entered into CERCLIS within five working days of the event or activity. Only accom-
plishments correctly reported in CERCLIS will be recognized by HQ. If a Region feels
that it has correctly recorded an accomplishment that is not showing in the SCAP/STARS
Targets and Accomplishments Summary Report (SCAP-14), please contact the appropriate
HQ office.
Prior to the fifth day of each month, Regions should generate SCAP reports for internal
review. Regions should perform data quality checks and make adjustments to CERCLIS if the
data bases do not reflect actual accomplishments.
On the fifth working day of each month, HQ will pull data from CERCLIS on a selected
number of key indicators of progress in the Superfund program (i.e., removals, RI/FS starts,
RODs, RDs, RA starts, RD/RA Consent Decrees (CDs), Section 120 IAGs, cost recovery refer-
rals). These numbers will be the official numbers used for the Superfund Progress Report (SPR)
and any reports of progress given to the Administrator, AA, Congress and the news media.
On the fifth working day of each quarter, HQ pulls SCAP reports from CERCLIS. These
reports are reviewed by HQ to evaluate regional progress toward SCAP targets and are submitted
to OPP for reporting STARS accomplishments. It is important to note that in addition to report-
ing accomplishments in CERCLIS, Regions must verify the accuracy of the STARS data entered
by HQ into the OPP STARS system. If a Region identifies a discrepancy in the accomplish-
ments reported by HQ, they should note it in the system and contact the relevant HQ program
office. Discrepancies must be resolved, generally by the 15th working day of a quarter.
End of the year accomplishments will be pulled during the third week of October and
reported to OPP in November. This allows the Regions ample opportunity to review end-of-year
financial data and record accomplishments in CERCLIS.
CERCLIS Reports for Accomplishment Reporting
Exhibit II-4 presents CERCLIS reports HQ uses to evaluate regional accomplishments.
All are used for reporting and crediting SCAP/STARS targets and accomplishments. Following
is a discussion of diese reports:
• The SCAP/STARS Measures Accomplishments Report (SCAP-131. SCAP/
STARS Targets and Accomplishments (SCAP-14) and Event/Activitv Report for
NPL Sites (SCAP-27) reports are used by the site assessment, removal, remedial
and enforcement programs to provide planned and actual information for events
and activities.
Financial information and the status of obligations are provided by the SCAP
Financial Report (SCAP- 4) and the SCAP Budget Control Report (SCAP-21).
11-12
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
EXHIBIT II-4
SCAP-4:
SCAP-13:
SCAP-14:
SCAP-21:
SCAP-27:
SCAP/STARS AD JUSTMENTS AND AMENDMENTS
After targets have been finalized and funding levels developed, the SCAP process pro-
vides the flexibility to modify plans during the year. Modifications to planned targets are termed
either adjustments or amendments. Amendments require HQ concurrence and approval.
Adjustments do not require HQ approval, but may require HQ notification. Amendments and
adjustments should be reflected in CERCLIS by updating the site specific data base and the
CERHELP Targets and Accomplishments data file on an ongoing basis. Exhibit II-5 lists the
major Superfund amendments and adjustments. Exhibit II-6 describes the procedures that must
be followed when processing amendments.
SCAP amendments should contain the following information:
• Site name and Site/Spill Identification number (S/S ID);
• Event/activity affected;
• Justification/purpose;
Funding amount (if the amendment requests an increase in the annual budget
or is a change request);
• Allowance that is being increased and/or allowance that is being decreased, if a
change request is required; and
Program element (TGB-enforcement or TFA-response), if the
amendment is also a change request.
Amendments or adjustments that modify the Region's AOA require a change request. In
these situations, the SCAP amendment becomes the change request. Chapter VI outlines the
change request procedures.
ROGRAM RVAMJATTON CERCMS REPORTS
SCAP Financial Report
SCAP/STARS Measures Accomplishments Report
SCAP/STARS Targets and Accomplishments
Summary Report
Budget Control Report
Event/Activity Report for NPL Sites
1
i
M
11-13
-------
EXHIBIT 11-5
AMENDMENTS AND ADJUSTMENTS
SITUATION
AMENDMENT
OR
ADJUSTMENT
CHANGE
REQUEST
REQUIRED
PROCEDURES
¦
INCREASE ANNUAL BUDGET
AMENDMENT
YES, IF APPROVED
SEE EXHIBIT D-6 OR CHAPTER VI,
EXHIBIT VI-4
DECREASE ANNUAL BUDGET
ADJUSTMENT
NO
REVISE CERCLIS; NOTIFY PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT AND BUDGET STAFF
(PDBS)
|
INCREASE TOTAL (OWPE AND OERR) AOA AFTER ISSUANCE
W/IN annual budget
AMENDMENT
YES
SEE EXHIBIT fl-6 OR CHAPTER VI,
EXHIBIT VI-4
Si
DECREASE TOTAL (OWPE AND OERR) AOA AFTER ISSUANCE
ADJUSTMENT
YES
SEE CHAPTER VI, EXHIBIT VI-4
I
INCREASE/DECREASE RA FUNDING BEFORE AOA ISSUED
ADJUSTMENT
NO
REVISE CERCLIS
1
DECREASE RA FUNDING AFTER AOA ISSUED
ADJUSTMENT
YES
SEE CHAPTER VI, EXHIBIT VI-4
§
i
INCREASE RA FUNDING AFTER AOA ISSUED
AMENDMENT
YES
SEE CHAPTER VI, EXHIBIT D-6 OR
EXHIBIT VI-4
1
SHIFT EXISTING FUNDS W/IN ALLOWANCE
ADJUSTMENT
NO
REVISE CERCLIS
1
1
SHIFT EXISTING FUNDS BETWEEN ALLOWANCES
ADJUSTMENT
YES
SEE CHAPTER VI, EXHIBIT VI-4
CHANGE ANNUAL SCAP TARGET
AMENDMENT
NO
SEE EXHIBIT U-6
1
CHANGE STARS QUARTERLY OR ANNUAL TARGETS
AMENDMENT
NO
SEE EXHIBIT U-6
1
TARGET SITE SUBSTITUTIONS
ADJUSTMENT
NO
REVISE CERCLIS
j
if
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHIBIT II-6
SCAP AMENDMENT PROCESS
AMENDMENTS
CAnnual SCAP |
Target J
Quarterly or
Annualy
TARS Targets.
Increase
Annual Budget
CERCLIS is
updated
CERCLIS is
updated
CERCLIS is
updated
Regional finance
office updates IFMS J I office updates IFMS.,
Regional finance
HQ OC approves
revised AOA in
IFMS.
HQ OC approves
revised AOA in
IFMS.
r Increase Total ^
AOA or Increase
RA Funding After
V AOA Issued J
E-mail from regional
Branch Chief to
Director, PDBS
explaining reason for
change.
AA SWER reviews
request and, if
approved, sends
E-mail to regional
program and finance
offices and HQ
Office of the
Comptroller (OC).
AA SWER
approves SCAP
amendment/change
request and sends
E-mail to regional
program and
finance offices and
HQ OC.
E-mail from
regional Branch
Chief to Director,
PDBS. Copy sent to
the regional finance
office and PDBS
staff.
E-mail from IMC
to HQ PDBS staff.
Copy sent to AA
SWER and
regional finance
office.
Memorandum from
Regional
Administrator to
AA SWER
explaining reason
for the change.
11-15
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
The Office of Program Management (OPM) coordinates requests from the program
offices in OERR. OPM and the CERCLA Enforcement Division of OWPE provides input on
SCAP amendment approval decisions.
Changes to STARS commitments should not be made simply because targets will not be
met. However, in some cases, amendments to targets may be necessary and may be changed
under the following conditions:
• Major, unforeseen contingencies arise that alter established priorities (i.e., Con-
gressional action, natural disasters);
• Major contingencies arise to alter established regional commitments (i.e., state
legislative action); or
• Measure or definition in system is creating an unanticipated negative impact.
OSWER requires that all STARS amendments be submitted to HQ by April 15 in order
to meet the April 30 deadline for changing targets imposed by OPP. STARS amendments must
be approved by AA SWER. The OPM and program offices in OERR and the CERCLA Enforce-
ment Division in OWPE provide input on STARS amendment approval decisions.
All amendments should be recorded in the CERCLIS site specific data base as an "ap-
proved" action after the Region issues the change request or memorandum to OSWER. Regions
should not initiate any obligation against change requests until the Office of the Comptroller
(OC) and AA SWER approve the revised AOA in IFMS. The site back-up in the CERHELP
Targets and Accomplishments and BC/AOA data files will be revised by HQ if the amendment
is approved. If the amendment is not approved, HQ will notify the Region and the "approved"
record in CERCLIS will have to be revised.
MAINTAINING THE TARGETS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS FILE
HQ is responsible for entering the preliminary and final negotiated SCAP/STARS targets
and site back-up in the Targets and Accomplishments file in CERHELP. During the FY, HQ
will also be responsible for changing the targets and site back-up if amendments are approved.
Regions are responsible for updating the Targets and Accomplishments file to reflect SCAP/
STARS adjustments. Appendix D contains tables which show which targets and measures
require site specific backup in CERHELP.
Following are guidelines for regional maintenance of the Targets and Accomplishments
file. Additional detailed instructions on CERHELP can be found in the CERCLIS Users Refer-
ence Manual.
• Regions will be allowed to add to or delete sites from the Targets and Accom-
plishments file only in the case of site substitutions. However, the site specific
CERCLIS records should be updated at the time a SCAP or STARS amendment
is requested.
• The number of approved sites named in the Targets and Accomplishments file
must be at least equal to the numerical target. If a Region has a target of eight
RDs, for example, eight approved sites must be named in the Targets and Accom-
plishments site back-up.
11-16
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
• If "To Be Determined" (TBD) sites are used instead of real sites in the Targets
and Accomplishments file, there must be enough candidate sites in CERCLIS that
can be used to replace the TBD sites as soon as possible.
• A site and its associated events/activities that are planned site specifically must be
in CERCLIS before they can be in the CERHELP Targets and Accomplishments
file. FTE distributions use site data in CERHELP. Regions may lose FTE if ap-
propriate site backup is not in CERHELP.
• It is essential that the list of sites that support the targets be kept up-to-date and
current. Regional SCAP adjustments must be reflected in CERHELP. This
includes site substitutions and changes in schedules that do not affect STARS or
SCAP targets.
Following are the procedures for making changes to the CERHELP target site data:
• Each time a change to site data in CERCLIS results in a SCAP adjustment, run
the CERHELP Target Maintenance Report (Report #4 on the CERCLIS Site
Reports Menu).
• Locate the Target Activity Code page on the report (report is sequenced alphabeti-
cally by Target Activity Code).
• Scan target site data to locate site no longer being targeted and delete the EPA ID,
OU and Event or Enforcement Activity Code.
• Record corresponding codes for the replacement site.
• Access Non-Site/Incident Screen #27 — CERHELP Target/Accomplishment
Data Maintenance Screen:
- Enter Action Code C=Change and Record Type S=Site;
- To access record to be changed, enter required field data (Region, FY, activity
type, lead, quarter and sequence number codes) directly from report;
- Enter replacement site data (EPA ID, OU and Event or Enforcement Activity
Codes); and
- Run Target Maintenance Report to verify changes. File report for use in mak-
ing subsequent changes.
• The HQ SCAP Coordinator and interested program offices will run National
Target Maintenance Reports as needed to review changes.
II-17
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
CHAPTER Ml
NATIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CHAPTER III - NATIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Following are the actions regional managers must take to comply with
the requirements described in this Chapter. In order to acquire a more
in-depth understanding of these requirements, the Chapter itself should
be read.
• CERCLIS data should be updated at least monthly.
• On the fifth working day of each month, HQ pulls planning and
accomplishment data from CERCLIS to support a variety of
official reporting requirements including Superfund
Monthly/Quarterly Management Reports, Superfund Progress
Report, and SCAP/STARS quarterly reporting.
• No accomplishments are reported that are not accurately recorded
in CERCLIS by the pull date.
• Environmental Indicator data is required to be reported in
CERCLIS for completed removals and RAs and semi-annually
for ongoing RAs.
• Regions must keep the National Priorities List (NPL) Book site
fact sheets up to date.
• Estimates of RA costs must be entered into CERCLIS at various
points along the remedial pipeline.
• Regions will not receive credit for an RA start unless the
remedial technology type is in CERCLIS.
• Regions will not receive funds for an RA in their AOA unless the
remedial technology type is in CERCLIS.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CHAPTER ni - NATIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS
In the past, CERCLIS was primarily used to support STARS (previously SPMS) and
SCAP planning and accomplishment reporting requirements. Prior to FY89, Regions were only
required to assure that data were up-to-date before the quarterly planning and accomplishment
data pulls. In FY89, CERCLIS data became the basis for major periodic reports that served
national information needs (other than SCAP/STARS) on Superfund planning and progress.
These reports provided historic, current, and future information on Superfund sites at the na-
tional, regional and state level. The data for these reports were pulled from CERCLIS on a
monthly basis. As a result, CERCLIS data had to be updated at least monthly by the fifth work-
ing day. In addition, CERCLIS provided valuable information for other administrative require-
ments such as responding to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, ad hoc requests from
Congress, and as a link to other data bases.
The uses of the data in CERCLIS continues to evolve and, in FY91, the Agency will take
major steps to expand CERCLIS so it can be used as a comprehensive environmental data base.
CERCLIS will continue to support SCAP/STARS, the major national information needs, and ad-
ministrative requirements. In addition, it will provide data on environmental indicators and RAs.
This chapter will provide additional information on the data that will be obtained through CER-
CLIS (other than SCAP/STARS which are fully discussed in other parts of this Manual) and
associated regional CERCLIS data entry and data quality requirements. It will also discuss other
major national information initiatives that will be handled outside the CERCLIS environment.
NATIONAL INFORMATION
Periodically, reports are pulled from CERCLIS that provide national information on
Superfund planning and progress. These reports must be consistent with the SCAP/STARS data.
It is essential that end-of-month CERCLIS data be up-to-date as of the fifth working day of
each month. (Specific dates are listed in the Manager's Schedule of Significant Events found at
the beginning of this Manual.) This is the day that data will be pulled from CERCLIS to satisfy
monthly reporting requirements. It is strongly recommended that planning and accomplishment
data be entered on a real time basis as events, activities, and slippage occur.
The following sections provide a brief description of the reports used for Superfund
program management.
Superfund Progress Report
The SPR is a monthly report of year-to-date and program inception-to-date national ac-
complishments of the Superfund program. No planning data are included in the SPR. The report
records site-level (as opposed to OU, event and activity) accomplishments at all NPL and non-
NPL sites. It is essentially derived from the SCAP/STARS event and activity data. The SPR is
distributed widely to the press, public and Congress and is the official source for many of the
statistics used to measure the progress of the Superfund program.
Recently (February 1990) OERR briefed the OSWER Deputy AA on options for continu-
ation of the SPR. An OERR/OWPE workgroup will propose a new look for the SPR which will
incorporate graphics and new information to portray national progress in implementing the
Superfund program.
III-l
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
Superfund Management Reports
The improvement of CERCLIS data quality and the establishment of a solid data base led
to the development of a series of senior management reports. The management reports are de-
signed to supplement conventional quarterly SCAP/STARS accomplishment reporting by pro-
viding a more frequent and detailed examination of program activity. The format and content of
the report has evolved over time to address project needs. Basic data and graphics are updated
monthly, and more detailed analysis is provided quarterly in the December, March, June and
September (end-of-year) reports. The reports are completed approximately 30 days following
the end-of-the-month/quarter.
The format and contents of the Superfund senior management reports are summarized below:
Monthly Reports
The monthly reports contain project status information and regional comparisons in a
graphic format. The monthly management reports and formats change from time to time.
Following is the current format:
Section 1 — Summary of SCAP/STARS accomplishments and targets for
the site assessment, remedial and enforcement programs;
• Section 2 — Summaries of regional commitments and obligations; and
• Section 3 — Summaries of program implementation progress.
Quarterly Reports
The Superfund Quarterly Management Reports depict the progress being made by the
Agency in moving projects through the remedial pipeline and in increasing PRP involve-
ment. The quarterly management reports contain the information that is available in the
monthly reports supplemented with detailed graphic displays, as well as a section on the
duration of events and trend analysis of PRP involvement.
• Section 1 - Targets and Accomplishments
Site Assessment and Remedial Program Performance - displays the
percent of target achieved in the major program areas;
SCAP/STARS Targets and Accomplishments - displays quarterly
and annual target and accumulated accomplishment totals by
SCAP/STARS activity for each Region;
Proactive Report - shows the planned events and activities for the
current quarter and the number of sites slipping to upcoming
quarters or the next FY; and
Graphs on SCAP/STARS Accomplishments - these bar charts
graphically present program accomplishments and targets for each
Region.
III-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Section II - Regional Commitments and Obligations - these graphs display
the percentage of allocated funds committed or obligated by Regions for
the removal and remedial programs.
Section III - Summary of Program Implementation
Inventory Assessment - pie chart showing status of sites in CER-
CLIS inventory;
Site Inventory and Progress Toward SARA Goals - table, by Re-
gion, of sites in site assessment stage;
Work at NPL Sites - pie chart showing status of NPL sites;
Superfund Numbers Matrix - this event based report displays
project start and completion accomplishment totals since program
inception, pre-SARA and post-SARA;
Ongoing Work at NPL Sites - the report provides statistics, broken
out by lead, for major ongoing remedial activities at NPL sites;
Pipeline of Ongoing Major Remedial Events - this report displays
the number of carry overs from previous years, starts, completions,
and ongoing projects by year for RI/FS, RD, and RA first starts;
Removal Starts and Completions - provides a summary of all NPL
and non-NPL removal starts and completions since program
inception and includes information on duration of ongoing remov-
als; and
Completion/Deletions Site Listing - lists the sites that have been
deleted from the NPL, sites noticed for deletion, sites with com-
pleted Superfund Site Close Out Reports awaiting publication of
deletion notice, long term response actions, and sites with com-
pleted final action but Superfund Site Close Out Report not final.
Section IV - Analysis of Program Implementation
Cost and Duration of Events - these charts show the duration of
selected events and between events by Region, and by lead, and a
table shows the cost and duration of events;
Trend Analysis - PRP Involvement in Superfund - these charts
depict current PRP involvement in various events and for the NPL
universe, and show increasing PRP involvement by year; and
Additional Analysis - by design, Section IV will evolve over time.
As new analytical displays are developed to assess selected aspects
of program implementation, they will be incoiporated into Section
IV.
III-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
Enforcement Reports
The following CERCLIS reports along with the Superfund Monthly Reports are used by
Enforcement management in order to monitor accomplishments vs. targets, planned
activities, or any activities that might require immediate action:
• CRCR (ENFR-46) - this report lists every removal completed, every RA
started, and some pre-RA activities that are candidates for cost recovery.
Sites/projects are divided into one of four universes and seven categories
of cost recovery response;
• SOL Management Report - this report lists planned and actual completion
dates for removal, RI/FS, and remedial activities for all quarters. Planned
and actual obligations for each type of activity are also included (These
activities are linked with cost recovery actions);
• Master 1 - Event Report - this report lists all events started/completed
program-to-date. It summarizes the data by Region, FY, lead, event start,
event completion, and first vs. subsequent;
• Master 2 - Negotiations - this report lists all negotiations program-to-date.
Data are divided by negotiation category and summarized by FY, Region,
milestones, completed negotiations, and ongoing negotiations;
• Program-to-date Superfund Settlements - this report lists all settlements
with financial type of "R", or where PRP work is to be performed;
ENFR 25, 32, 33 - list of settlements and orders for cost recovery.
• ENFR 27, 28, 34 - list of all Section 106, 106/107, and 107 referrals with-
out settlement summarized by pre-RA and RA and other categories.
Administrative Requirements
In addition to the previously mentioned reporting requirements, CERCLIS provides
valuable information to a broad range of users. For example, FOIA provides public access to
CERCLIS data that have not been designated as confidential. These data are provided to private
citizens, public and private interest groups, and industry (see Appendix B for FOIA information).
Site name, description, location, NPL status, and current site activity are of particular interest to
some of these groups, while not always being critical to internal management reporting require-
ments.
Ad hoc requests from Congress can also be answered, in many cases, by data contained
in the CERCLIS data base. The more up-to-date and complete Superfund site data are, the better
outside requests can be satisfied by queries of the CERCLIS data base, and less time will have to
be spent by the Regions in searching through files.
There are also data elements in CERCLIS that are used as a link to other data bases. The
Zip Code is used by the Geograph data base to provide system generated data to CERCLIS with
site latitude, longitude, hydrogeologic unit, standard metropolitan statistical area, county name,
county code, and congressional district. The EPA ID is supplied by the Facility Index System
III-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
(FINDS) and is used in data bases throughout EPA and other Federal agencies, which relate to
Superfund sites. The Superfund account number is used in CERCLIS and IFMS and links
CERCLIS and IFMS financial data. While some of these elements are not critical to SCAP,
STARS, or SPR, they are nonetheless of great importance to the efficient running of the CER-
CLIS data base and other related programs.
NPLBOOK
Although deletion of a site from the NPL is not the only measure of Superfund progress,
it is the measure that has received the greatest focus, often resulting in Congressional and public
criticism of the program's perceived lack of success. The NPL deletion process takes several
years and often represents multiple investigations, evaluations, removals and RAs. One of the
recommendations in the Superfund Management Review was to better communicate the ongoing
efforts of the Superfund program and the progress that is being made in site cleanup activities.
Toward this goal, the Agency developed the NPL Book. This book is a concise, readable
compendium of site descriptions and the status of cleanup for all proposed, final, and deleted
NPL sites. It describes the site history and location, major contaminants and human health
threats, NPL listing information, removal and RAs accomplished, environmental progress, and
plans for the future.
The NPL Book is published by state. Each book has a short state summary and the
individual site summaries. Appendix H contains a sample site fact sheet in final publishing
form. A companion book contains a national summary of the NPL sites. It also includes:
definitions; key to symbols; list of NPL sites by state; summary status of NPL sites; summary of
how NPL sites have been addressed, and environmental progress statements.
The initial efforts to develop and publish (June/July 1990) the NPL Book were concen-
trated in HQ. Editions will be published annually. The responsibility for updating the NPL data
base/site summaries will belong to regional staff. HQ will retain responsibility for publication.
The data base for the NPL Book is site specific, stored in word processing format and can
be accessed by regional staff through WasteLAN. Regions will be required to update the data in
the NPL Book at least annually. A new edition of the Book will published in the April/May
timeframe. However, since the site summaries will be available for other regional uses, Regions
are encouraged to update data as changes (progress or plans) occur. At sites where no significant
changes have occurred, regional staff will annually certify that present information is still current
and applicable.
FY90 HQ data collection was completed for sites on the NPL through Update 10. In
FY91 Regions will need to provide the information required to prepare NPL Book data summa-
ries for newly listed sites aM update information for all others. The process and timeframe for
regional update of the NPL data is currently under development. Initial discussions were held
with the Regions in a May workgroup meeting and Regions will be involved in determining the
final procedures for updating the NPL Book data in FY91.
III-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
An emerging means the Agency is using to communicate progress and accomplishments
in the Superfund program is environmental indicators. The first phase of the Environmental
Indicator program involved the development of indicators that would accurately report environ-
mentally based cleanup progress. A pilot study was conducted in FY88-89 that evaluated the ef-
fectiveness of eight specific indicators in reporting Superfund progress.
In FY89, the focus of the Environmental Indicator program shifted toward implementa-
tion. Data was collected on completed RAs, ongoing RAs, NPL removals, and non-NPL remov-
als with costs in excess of $200,000. Exhibit III-1 on page III-7 summarizes how various types
of Superfund clean-ups should be reported via three indicators. The three indicators are as fol-
lows:
Progress Toward and Achievement of Human Health and Ecological Goals for a
Medium - This indicator involves determining where and when the media specific
cleanup goals have been met. Progress under this indicator is classified as fully-
achieved, partially achieved and underway.
• Reduction or Elimination of Human Health Threats - This indicator reveals suc-
cess in closing off exposure pathways through interim or temporary removal or
RAs such as on-site containment or stabilization, physical barriers, alternate water
supply, relocation of residents, or elimination of fire and explosion potential.
This indicator will report progress made in protecting human health as a result of
these actions. Where affected population is not readily available, the pathway of
exposure eliminated and site-wide population will be measured.
• Volumes of Waste Treated. Removed and Contained - This indicator involves
reporting the weight or volume of contaminated material treated (on or off-site),
removed or contained on-site. This includes surface and ground water, soil, and
solid or liquid waste.
Appendix I contains a set of decision flowcharts that determine how to report environmental
indicator data. The appendix also contains a summary of the data elements that support reporting on
Superfund environmental indicators.
HQ performed the initial data collection and published an initial summary report in
FY90. Beginning in FY91, Regions will be responsible for updating and reporting environ-
mental indicator data directly to CERCLIS. This will include reporting on:
RA Projects and NPL Removals: The following environmental indicator data is
to be reported for all completed RAs and NPL removals. Additionally, environ-
mental indicator data is to be reported semi-annually for all ongoing RA projects.
Measure A: Progress toward and achievement of health or ecological
goals for a medium - Regions will be required to report the following data for
ongoing and completed RA projects, and for completed NPL removal actions with
permanent remedies:
Goal achievement: fully achieved, partially achieved or final
cleanup underway;
III-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
• Medium addressed:
- Surface contaminants (soils, sediments, solid and liquid wastes);
- Groundwater; or
- Surface water.
• Site Population: specific guidance will follow.
Measure B: Reduction or elimination of health threats - Regions will be
required to report the following data for interim RAs or removal actions that
result in reduced or eliminated exposures, without achieving a final remedy for
the affected medium:
• Type action: interim RAs (including alternative water supply,
fencing, and population relocation) and non-permanent removal
actions;
• Medium addressed:
- Surface contaminants (soils, sediments, solid and liquid wastes);
- Groundwater; or
- Surface water.
• Population affected: for alternative water supply and population
relocated only.
EXHIBIT III-l
ROAD MAP TO INDICATORS
Indicator
Fully Achieved
Cleanup
Complete for Media
Partially Achieved
Progress Toward Final
Cleanup; Cleanup Partially
Complete for Media
Cleanup Underway
¦
1
1
*8
A: Achievement of
Health or Ecological
Media Goals
1) Completed RAs that meet
ROD goals for media.
2) Completed NPL removal
actions that meet ROD goals
for media (e.g., No Action
ROD).
1) Completed RAs, using
permanent remedies, where
additional media work remains
to be done.
2) Completed NPL removals
that take waste off site, or use
permanent treatment
technology (e.g., completed
removals of liquid or solid
waste).
1) All RAs where
implementation of final
cleanup actions are
underway.
i
$
I
II
p
11
1
>5X
B: Reduction of Health
or Ecological Threats
1) Interim RAs.
2)All removal actions not
reported under measure A
(e.g., non- permanent
removals and all non-NPL
removals).
C: Amount ot Waste
Addressed
Amounts of material handled in completed and ongoing cleanup actions (amounts
are associated with projects reported under A & B above).
III-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
Measure C: Amount of waste treated, removed and contained - Regions
will be required to report the following data which details the actions
taken to achieve final goals (Measure A) or reduce/eliminate risks
(Measure B):
• Medium addressed;
• Technology employed (already required for new RA projects);
• Amount of materials handled; and
• Units being reported.
• Non-NPL Removal Projects: To the maximum extent possible, Regions should
also report environmental indicator data for non-NPL removals completed follow-
ing the FY90 HQ data collection. At a minimum, environmental indicator data
will be required for non-NPL removals where costs exceed $200,000. However,
data under Measure A will never be reported for these sites, since EPA has not
conducted the detailed studies that establish final site cleanup goals.
A key FY91 objective of the environmental indicator initiative is to merge the collection
and reporting of indicators with the existing management of the Superfund program. There is a
strong desire by the Agency's management to supplement, and perhaps in time replace some of
the traditional administrative measures of progress with environmental indicators. National sum-
maries of environmental indicator data reported by the Regions are expected to be incorporated
into the following:
• Superfund Annual Report to Congress;
• STARS briefings - the new STARS measure (S/C-7, Type of Media Addressed)
will report achievement of site media goals. Other indicator information will be
summarized and presented in the quarterly STARS briefing; and
• NPL Book - the annual NPL Book will contain site level environmental indicator
information.
REMEDIAL ACTION INFORMATION
As the Agency approaches reauthorization and measures the progress made toward
meeting the requirements of SARA, additional and more accurate information is required for RA
activities. This information will be used to:
• Support and justify the response RA budget;
• Facilitate priority setting for Fund-financed RAs;
• Provide RA cost tracking information; and
• Provide the capability of characterizing RA projects and their associated costs.
III-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
The RA information that will be recorded in CERCLIS by the Regions includes:
Planned and actual start and completion dates for RD, RA, and RA related events;
• RA cost estimates at different times during the remedial pipeline; and
Technical information on the selected remedy.
Each of these will be discussed in greater detail in the following sections.
Planning and Accomplishment Data
Planned start and completion dates for RD, RA, and award of RA contract are entered
into CERCLIS when a site is beginning the RI/FS. These dates represent the best estimate on
when the activities are scheduled to begin. The schedules are updated regularly as better infor-
mation becomes available. The scheduled start for RA on-site construction is placed in CER-
CLIS when the RA contract is awarded. The schedules for these activities are used for many
different purposes, including:
• Projects planned to start or complete during a given FY become regional SCAP/
STARS targets or measures;
RA priority setting^and tracking the status of the queue;
Indicating progress in site cleanup and movement of sites to the advanced phases
of the remedial pipeline; and
Analyzing standard durations and timeframes.
Beginning in FY91, planned schedules will be entered into CERCLIS in the MM/DD/YY
format. The FY/Q data will be system generated. This process currently exists in WasteLAN.
These dates will be tracked closely and true planned dates should be entered, not the last day of
the quarter. This information must be updated until the start or completion is actually accom-
plished.
RA Cost Estimate
There are five types of RA cost estimating/projections that need to be reported to HQ:
• CORA Model cost estimate for Fund and PRP RI/FS projects;
Fund and PRP ROD RA cost estimate;
• Fund RD 90% complete RA cost estimate;
• Fund RA contract award RA cost estimate; and
• Total planned Fund RA cost estimate.
The SCAP-25 RA Cost Estimate Information Report contains the information in CER-
CLIS on RA cost estimates/projections. Exhibit III-2 provides examples for coding RA
cost estimates.
III-9
-------
EXHIBIT III-2
RA COST ESTIMATING CODING
QU
EVENT
LEAD
PLAN
ACTUAL
PLAN
ACTUAL
FINAN
FiNAN
FINAN
FUND
BUDGET
FINAN
i
START
START
COMP
COMP
TYPE
FY/Q
DATA
STATUS
SOURCE
AMOUNT
1
FY/Q
FY/Q
1
C1101
C2101
C2117
C2132
C2140
C2133
C2141
C3202
C3218
C3220
C3225
C3229
C3230
INSTRUCTIONS
1
I
01
C01
F
87/2
3/15/87
89/2
3/30/89
E
10,000,000
CORA MODEL ESTIMATE = $10,000,000
SEND CORA DISK TO PDBS
1
1
01
R01
F
89/2
3/30/89
E
12,000,000
ROD ESTIMATE = $12,000,000 (CAPITAL COST)
ENTERED WHEN ROD IS SIGNED
I
1
01
RDI
F
am
9/19/89
90/4
8/2/90
E
13,500,000
RD 90% ESTIMATE = $13,500,000
ENTERED WHEN RD IS 90% COMPLETE
I
I
01
RA!
F
90/4
9/30/90
92/2
A
A
P
90/4
91/2
92/2
9/30/90
2/20/91
APR
APR
APR
R
R
R
13,500,000 .
1,500.000
300,000
TOTAL PLANNED RA COST
ORIGINALLY ENTERED 88/2, UPDATED AS
BETTER INFORMATION BECAME AVAILABLE
I
E
1/17/91
13,225,000
RA CONTRACT AWARD = $13,225,000
6
ENTERED WHEN CONTRACT IS AWARDED
1
1
E
4/2/91
14,000,000
RA CONTRACT AWARD = $14,000,000
I
ENTERED WHEN CONTRACT IS MODIFIED
1
I
izlmm
&
t
|
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
CORA Model Estimate
Prior to a ROD being signed, Regions may estimate the RA cost using the CORA model.
This RA estimate is entered into CERCLIS against the RI/FS or FS event with a Finan-
cial Type (C3202) of "E" (RA Cost Estimate). A copy of the CORA model disk must be
sent to the HQ Program Development and Budget Staff (PDBS).
ROD Estimate
When the ROD is signed, the capital cost of the remedy must be entered into CERCLIS
against the ROD event with a Financial Type (C3202) of "E" (RA Cost Estimate).
If the ROD is amended, an alternative technology is chosen over the original. The new
ROD capital cost should be entered against the new ROD event with a Financial Type
(C3202) of "E". When a significant change is made that alters the scope, performance, or
cost of a component of the remedy, it is documented in an Explanation of Significant
Differences (ESD). The new cost estimate is entered against the original ROD with a
Financial Type (C3202) of "E", the date of the ESD in the Financial Date (C3220), and
"ESD" in the Financial Note Field (C3242). In both situations, the original RA cost
estimate remains in CERCLIS. See Chapter V for additional information on changes to
RODs.
RD Estimate
When the RD reaches the 90% completion point, the Region will enter the total RA cost
estimate in CERCLIS based on the information gathered during the design. This estimate
should be entered against the RD event with Financial Type (C3202) of "E" (RA Cost
Estimate).
RA Contract Award
When the RA contract is awarded to the construction contractor, Regions enter the
construction contract award amount into CERCLIS against the RA event with a Financial
Type of "E" (RA Cost Estimate). The date of the contract award should be entered into
Financial Date (C3220). If the contract is later increased, a second entry must be made
for the new total contract amount. The Financial Date field (C3220) should be used to
enter the date of the modification.
Total RA Cost
Regions estimate and report the total RA cost estimate by entering planned obligations,
actual obligations and open commitments into CERCLIS. This includes planned obliga-
tions for the current year and upcoming FY as well as any incremental funding needs
during the duration of the project. This total RA cost estimate constitutes the total re-
gional funding request for an RA. The RA cost estimate for RAs scheduled to begin in
FY92 must be in CERCLIS prior to mid-year negotiations. Regions should update the
RA cost estimate on a continuous basis as better information becomes available.
111-11
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
Technical Information
Regions will not receive funds for an RA in their AO A unless the remedial technol-
ogy type is in CERCLIS. Similarly, Regions will not receive credit for a RA start unless the
remedial technology type is in CERCLIS. Exhibit ni-3 contains coding guidance for the
remedial technology types. Exhibit IH-4 contains the CERCLIS RA technology type codes.
SCAP-24, RA Technology and Pipeline Tracking Report, displays the events and the remedial
technology types.
ROD Technical Information
When a ROD is signed, an Explanation of Signifigant Differences (ESD) to a component
of the ROD is issued, or a ROD amended, the Region must enter the remedy technology
type into CERCLIS against the ROD events. This is done by entering Remedial Technol-
ogy (C3401 = "RT") with the specific technology type(s) entered into the Technical In-
formation Qualifier fields (C3402-C3411). The first ten treatment types are coded with a
"1" in the Technical Information Type Suffix (C3415). When more than ten technology
types are chosen, the Region should adjoin the types to the ROD event by entering the
appropriate sequence number (C3415) in CERCLIS. If the remedy selected is "no ac-
tion", the Regions should code the remedial technology against the ROD with the "NA"
(no action) technical qualifier. The "NA" event (no action ROD) should not be used.
Additional information on ESDs and ROD amendments can be found in Chapter V.
RD Technical Information
When a RD is started, the Region must enter the technology type into CERCLIS. Like
the ROD, this is done by entering the Remedial Technology (C3401="RT") against the
RD with the specific technology type(s) entered into the Technical Information Qualifier
(C3402-C3411).
If the ROD is amended after the RD has started, the Region must determine if a new RD is
necessary. If a new RD is required, the original RD event should be discontinued and a new
RD event entered. The First and Subsequent Completion (FSC) code (C2116) for the original
RD should be "E" (Event Anomaly). The completion date for the old RD and the start date
for the new RD should be the same. The First and Subsequent Start (FSS) code for the new
RD should be "E" (Event Anomaly). If the ROD is amended and a new RD is not necessary,
the Technical Information Qualifier field should be updated.
If the design is split into multiple operable units from the ROD, the remedial technology
and technical information qualifiers should be attached to the appropriate RD.
RA Technical Information
When requesting RA funds or recording a RA start, the Region must enter remedial
technology (C3401) and the remedial technology types (C3402-C3411) against the RA
event.
If the RA is split into multiple OUs from the ROD or RD, the remedial technology and
technical information qualifiers should be attached to the appropriate RA.
m-12
-------
EXHIBIT III-3
CODING GUIDANCE - REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY TYPES
ou
C1101
EVENT
C2101
LEAD
C2117
PUN
START
FY/Q
C2132
ACTUAL
START
C2140
PLAN
COMP
FY/Q
C2133
ACTUAL
COMP
C2141
RATECH
TYPE
C3401
RATECH
TYPE
SEQ
C3415
TECH
QUAL-1
C3402
TECH
QUAL-2
C3403
TECH
QUAL-3
mm
01
01
01
01
C01
ROI
RD1
RD2
RA1
RA2
87/2
3/15/87
90/2
90/4
91/2
9/19/89
1/15/90
89/2
89/2
90/4
91/1
92/2
92/2
3/30/89
3/30/89
RT
RT
RT
RT
RT
BO
RO
BO
RO
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHIBIT III-4
REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGY TYPE CODES
Code
Definition
Technology
RI
Incineration/Thermal Destruction
On-site
Off-site
SO
Solidification/Stabilization
Fixation
Neutralization
VX
Vacuum Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction
VS
Volatilization/Soil Aeration
Aeration
Flaring
WF
Soil Washing/Flushing
Metals Precipitation
Ion Exchange
BO
Biodegradation/Land Application
In-Situ Biodegradation
Biodentrification
Activated Sludge
OT
Other Treatment Technologies
Decontamination
Dewatering
Off-site RCRA Treatment and Recycling
In-Situ Flaming
Dechlorinization (APEG/KPEG)
ON
On-site Containment
Soil Cover
Asphalt Cap
RCRA Cap
Levees
Slurry Wall
On-site RCRA Landfill (Above/Below Grade)
Deep Well Injection
Excavation
Sediment Excavation and Dredging
Pumping Contained Wastes
Debris Removal
Groundwater Extraction/Injection (Hydraulic Containment)
Active Landfill Gas Collection
RO
Off-site Containment
Soil Excavation
Sediment Excavation and Dredging
Pumping Contained Wastes
Debris Removal
Groundwater Extraction/Injection (Hydraulic Containment)
Active Landfill Gas Collection
Off-site RCRA Landfill
Off-site Solid Waste Landfill
III-14
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
EXHIBIT III-4
REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGY TYPE CODES (Cont.)
Code
Definition
Technology
OS
Other Source Control Remedies
On-site/Off-site Residual
PT
Pump and Treatment
Air Stripping
Carbon Absorption
Electrochemical Reduction
Extraction
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Oil/Water Separator
Precipitation
Wellhead Treatment
Activated Carbon Units - Residential
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
Coagulation
Flocculation
Activated Sludge
RH
Alternate Water Supply
Municipal Distribution System
OH
Other
Monitoring
Plume Management
Natural Atenuation
Subsurface Water Diversion/Collection
Slope Stabilization
Demolition
Relocation
Institutional Controls
LT
Leachate Collection/Treatment
NA
No Action
TS
Temporary Storage
On-site
Off-site
111-15
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
CERCLIS DATA QUALITY
HQ will work with the Regions to improve data quality in CERCLIS. Inconsistencies
continue to be a problem particularly for historical data and long-term projects. Wherever pos-
sible, HQ will implement ways to improve the quality of data necessary for project administra-
tion by establishing reasonable standards and developing appropriate data quality reports. The
Audit-26 Underlying Data and Error Types report has been operational since the start of FY90
and has proven to be a useful tool in enhanced CERCLIS data quality . The CERCLIS reports
librarian has compiled the select logic for key CERCLIS/SCAP reports in The Standard Select
Logic document.
When analyzing (or in particular comparing) annual data, it is important to recognize that
selection criteria or definitions may have changed over the years to accommodate program
needs. It may be useful to review definitions before making comparisons.
Ill-16
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CHAPTER IV
TARGETS AND MEASURES
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
CHAPTER IV - TARGETS AND MEASURES
Following are the actions HQ has taken in STARS targeting and reporting.
In order to acquire a more in-depth understanding of the SCAP/STARS
targeting and reporting requirements, the Chapter itself should be read.
Beginning in FY90, OSWER initiated a process to eliminate STARS
measures that are difficult to predict or closely related in time and retain
or develop STARS measures that provide information on progress and
support environmentally significant program priorities.
The new FY91 STARS measures generally focus on the
communication of progress being made in the advanced stages of the
remedial pipeline.
FY91 new STARS measures:
- RD Completions (target);
- Award of RA Contract (target);
- RA Completions (target);
- RD/RA Negotiations Completed (target);
- Section 106 or 106/107 Referrals for RD/RA (target);
- Unilateral Orders Issued for RD/RA (target);
- Type of Media Addressed (reporting); and
- Administrative Orders (AO) Issued for RI/FS, RD, Removal
or Cost Recovery.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CHAPTER IV - TARGETS AND MEASURES (Cont'd)
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
FY90 STARS measures eliminated in FY91:
- RD Starts;
- RA Starts;
- NPL Sites Where All Remedial/Removal Implementation
Completed;
- Section 106 RD/RA Referrals/Orders;
- AO Issued for Removals; and
- Section 106/107 Referrals With or Without Settlement.
The majority of the FY90 STARS measures that were eliminated are
now SCAP targets or SCAP reporting measures.
n
"l"jy
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CHAPTER TV - TARGETS AND MEASURES
ROLE OF SCAP
SCAP and STARS targets are the key device by which program goals are translated into
quantifiable program achievements. They identify performance expectations for the Regions and
should not be seen as only a method for allocating resources. Specific targets are negotiated by
HQ and the Regions. The Regions are expected to concentrate their resources on achieving these
targets.
STARS is used by the Administrator to set and monitor the progress each program is
making toward meeting its environmental goals. STARS targets and measures are reported
quarterly by HQ and the Regions to the OPP through the OPP STARS computer system. SCAP
is used by the AA SWER and senior Superfund managers to monitor the progress each Region is
making toward achieving its Superfund goals. SCAP targets and measures are reported monthly
by the Regions through CERCLIS. As discussed in Chapter I, the CEPP does not use CERCLIS
for reporting SCAP accomplishments. The reports used by the CEPP in recording quarterly
accomplishments can be found in Volume II, Appendix F.
National and regional STARS goals are established and tracked through SCAP. STARS
targets are a subset of those contained in SCAP.
SCAP/STARS TARGETS AND MEASURES
A SCAP or STARS target (either quarterly or annual) is a pre-determined numerical goal
that is established prior to the FY the designated activities will take place. STARS targets and
measures track the priorities set forth in the Superfund Management Review. All STARS targets
are SCAP targets. An example of a SCAP and STARS targeted activity is a RI/FS completion
(ROD). Annual budgets are allocated based on STARS and SCAP targets. In addition, Regions
aire evaluated on a quarterly basis according to their completion of activities with established
targets.
A SCAP or STARS measure, on the other hand, is used to track an activity that is impor-
tant in monitoring overall program progress. The three types of measures are SCAP planning
estimates, STARS reporting, and SCAP reporting measures. Planning estimates result in nu-
merical goals being established prior to the FY which are used in setting annual budgets. Regions
report progress against the planning estimates. SCAP/STARS reporting measures have no asso-
ciated quantitative goals; only actual accomplishments are tracked (i.e., media addressed).
Following are the changes to the SCAP/STARS targets and measures from FY90 to
FY91:
• PA completions is a SCAP measure instead of SCAP target;
• A STARS target for RD completions has replaced the STARS RD starts target.
RD starts remains a SCAP target;
• RD/RA negotiations completed is now a STARS and SCAP target;
IV-1
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
• A STARS target for RA completions has replaced the FY90 STARS target for
sites where all remedial/removal activity has been completed. Sites where all
remedial/removal activity has been completed is a SCAP measure in FY91;
• NPL deletion initiated is a SCAP measure in FY91 instead of a SCAP target;
• A new STARS reporting measure, S/C-7a Type of Media Addressed, has been
added;
• Sites nominated for the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
program is a new SCAP measure;
• AOs issued (both unilateral and consent) for removal, RI/FS, RD and/or RA have
replaced the STARS reporting measure of AOs issued for removal; and
• Unilateral orders issued for RD/RA regardless of compliance status are a new
STARS target.
• The FY91 STARS target for Section 106 or 106/107 RD/RA referrals has re-
placed the FY90 STARS target for Section 106 RD/RA referrals/orders;
• Section 106/107 referrals with or without settlement is a STARS target and a
SCAP measure;
The start and completion of removal negotiations and compliance enforcement are
no longer SCAP measures; and
• Enforcement added three new SCAP reporting measures - State CD for RD/RA
Issued; State Order for RI/FS Issued; and Dg minimis Settlements Achieved.
Exhibit IV-1 contains a summary of the key outputs from the FY91 national budget.
These outputs will be translated into regional SCAP/STARS targets.
Exhibits IV-2 and IV-3 contain the SCAP/STARS Targets and Measures. Definitions
and planning requirements for the Site Assessment, Remedial, Removal, Enforcement, Federal
Facility and Oil Spill activities are in Volume II, Appendix D. SCAP/STARS Targets and
Measures for the CEPP are found in Exhibit IV-4. CEPP definitions and requirements can be
found in Appendix F.
IV-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHIBIT IV-1
KEY BUDGET OUTPUT SUMMARY - FY91 *
ACTIVITY
NUMBER
ACTIVITY
NUMBER |
Remedial
Enforcement
RI/FS start (total)
Fund
PRP
35
15
20
106 RD/RA referrals
w/wo settlement
96
RD start (total)
154
107 (Remedial)
35 |
Fund
PRP
71
83
107 (Removal/Site Assessment))
56
RA start (total)
Fund
PRP
75
20
55
RP Removals
63
Site Assessment
PA
2000
SI
1550
LSI
30
NPL addition
100
Removal
Classic emergencies (incl. NPL)
110
Non-NPL
80
* Data source - FY91 President's Budget
IV-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHTBTTIV-2
SCAP/STARS TARGETS
ACTIVITIES
STARS
TARGET
SCAP
TARGET
QUARTERLY
TARGET
ANNUAL
TARGET I
Site Assessment
I
Screening Site Inspection (SSI) Completions
X
X
X
x I
(S/F-l)
Remedial
RI/FS
- First RI/FS Starts
X
X
X I
- Subsequent RI/FS Starts
X
X
X !
- RI/FS To Public
X
X
X |
RI/FS Completions (ROD) (S/C-3)
X*
X
x i
- First RI/FS Completions (ROD)
X
X
X
- Subsequent RI/FS Completion (ROD)
X
X
X 1
RD Starts
i;
- First RD Start
X
X
x \
- Subsequent RD Starts
X
X
X
j:
RD Completion (S/C-5)
X*
X
X
- First RD Completions
X
X
X
- Subsequent RD Completions
X
X
X
RA Start
- First RA Start
X
X
x 1
- Subsequent RA Start
X
X
x 1
- Fund
X
X
x i
-PRP
X
X
X I
Award of RA Contract (S/C-6)
X*
X
x i
- First RA Contract Award
X
X
X !
- Subsequent RA Contract Award
X
X
X
RA Completions (S/C-7)
X*
X
. X
- First RA Completion
X
X
X
- Subsequent RA Completion
X
X
X 1
- Final RA Completion
X
X
X
Removal
NPL Removal Start
X
x !
Non-NPL Removal Start
X
X
NPL Site Completion thru Removal
X
X
x I
* The STARS target combines first and subsequent, if appropriate, as a single target. Includes
projects with the following leads: Federal (F), State (S), PRP actions under state order/decree
(PS), In-house RDs (EP), Responsible Party under Federal order/decree (RP), Mixed funding
(MR) and Federal Facility (FF).
IV-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHIBIT IV-2 (continued)
SCAP/STARS
TARGETS
ACTIVITIES
STARS
TARGET
SCAP
TARGET
QUARTERLY
TARGET
Remedial/Removal
NPL Sites Addressed Through Removal
Action or RI/FS Start (S/C-2)
RD/RA Negotiation Starts
RD/RA Negotiation Completions (S/C-4)
Section 107 Referrals/Settlements (<$200,000)
Administrative Cost Recovery Settlements
Section 106 or 106/107 Referrals for RD/RA
(S/E-4)
- With Settlement
- Without Settlement
Unilateral Orders issued for RD/RA (S/E-lc)
Section 107 Referral /Settlements (>$200,000)
(S/E-2)
- Pre-RA
- RA and Other pre-RA Events
Signed IAGs at Federal Facilities (S/E-5)
RI/FS Start
- First RI/FS Start
- Subsequent RI/FS Start
RD Start
- First RD Start
- Subsequent RD Start
RA Start
- First RA Start
- Subsequent RA Start
X**
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
The STARS target combines first and subsequent, if appropriate, as a single target.
Includes projects with the following leads: F, S, PS, EP, RP, MR, and FF.
Includes projects with the following leads: Federal (F), State (S), PRP actions under state
order/decree (PS), In-house (EP), Responsible Party under Federal order/decree (RP), Mixed
funding (MR) and Federal Facility (FF).
' Federal Facility STARS targets are included under the Remedial section.
IV-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHIBITIV-3
SCAP/STARS MEASURES
ACTIVITIES
STARS
REPORTING
SCAP
PLAN/REPORT
QTRLV
¦ ¦ kg
ANNUAL 1
Site Assessment
PA Completions
X
X
% SSI Candidates Requiring Further
Action (S/F-la)
X
X
FIT-PA/SI Completions
X
X
State-PA/SI Completions
X
x
LSI Starts
X
X
mm
Remedial/Removal
mm
Percent of NPL Sites Addressed
i
(S/C-2a)
X
X
NPL Sites Where All Remedial/
m^m.
Removal Activity Completed
X
X
x 1
Remedial
i
1
RA On-Site Construction
X
X
x
Treatability Studies
X
X
X
¦>
Type of Media Addressed (S/C-7a)
X
X
X 1
Sites Nominated for the SITE
i
Program
X
x i
§
NPL Deletion Initiated
X
X
x
Removal
Removal Investigations Completed
i
at NPL Sites
X
X i
«
Removal Completions
X
X 1
1
Oil SDill Activities
I
Spill Prevention Control and
I
Countermeasure (SPCC)
1
Inspections/Reviews
X
x
Clean Water Act (CWA)Funded Oil
1
Spills Cleaned Up by EPA
X
X 1
On-Scene Monitoring of Oil Spill
1
Responses
X
x 1
1
'fa
IV-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
EXHIBIT IV-3 (continued)
SCAP/STARS MEASURES
ACTIVITIES
STARS
SCAP
%
REPORTING
PLAN/REPORT
QTRLY
ANNUAL |
Enforcement
NPL PRP Search Start
X
X
X 1
Non-NPL PRP Search Start
X
X
X 1
NPL PRP Search Completions
X
X
X 1
Non-NPL PRP Search Completions
X
X
X 1
Issuance of General Notice Letters (GNL)
X
X
X I
Issuance of Special Notice Letters (SNL)
X
X
X I
AOs Issued (S/E-l)
- On Consent for Removal, RI/FS, RD or
Cost Recovery
X
X
X
X
- Unilateral for Removals and RI/FS
X
X
X
X
RI/FS Negotiations Start
X
X
X 1
RI/FS Negotiations Complete
X
X
X
Section 106/107 Referrals with or w/o
Settlement (Cost Recovery >$200,000)
- Pre-RA
X
X
X
- RA and Other Pre-RA Events
X
X
X
Section 106, 106/107 Case Resolution
X
X
X
Section 107 Case Resolution
X
X
X j
Cost Recovery Amounts Referred and
Settled (S/C-3)
- Value of Cases Referred to Department
of Justice (DOJ)
X
X
X f
- Value of Settlements
X
X
X
104(e) Letters Issued
X
X
X
104(e) Referrals
X
X
X
Demand Letters Issued
X
X
X
Cost Recovery Close-out Memo
X
X
X
Administrative Record Compilation
Completed (Removal and Remedial)
X
X
X
State CD for RD/RA Issued
X
X
X 1
State Order for RI/FS Issued
X
X
X 1
De minimis Settlement Achieved
X
X
X 1
IV-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHIBIT IV-4
CEPP SCAP/STARS MEASURES
ACTIVITIES
STAR/SCAP
TARGET
STARS
REPORTING
SCAP
REPORTING
QTRLY
ANNUAL \
CEPP
Technical assistance and training
activities conducted, sponsored,
developed, assisted in developing,
participated in or presented by EPA
(CEP-1)
X
X
X
X |
State or local exercises or after
incident evaluations EPA conducted,
sponsored, assisted in developing or
participated in (CEP-2)
X
X
X
X
ARIP questional res sent to and
returned by facilities having releases
(CEP-3)
X
x +
I
x+
Chemical safety audits conducted
(CEP-4)
X
X
X
X I
Investigations of possible violations
of CERCLA 103 and Title III 304
(C/E-la)
X
X
X*
X
Facility compliance investigations
for Tide III 302, 303, 311, and 312
(C/E-lb)
X
X
X*
X |
Violations of Title III 304 and
CERCLA 103 identified (C/E-2a)
X
X* +
X +
Violations of Tide III 302, 303, 311
and 312 identified (C/E-2b)
X
x*+
X+ i
EPA complaints, AOs and judicial
referrals issued (C/E-3a)
X
X
x*
X I
State orders issued (C/E-3b)
X
x*+
x+ !
Status of Title III implementation in
each state
X
X**
X
Outreach activities EPA conducted,
sponsored, assisted in developing or
participated in
X
x +
x+
Participation in RRT activities
X
x +
x+
* Report of EPA activities in each state
** Biannually
Report accomplishments on a quarterly and annual basis
IV-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
EXHIBIT IV-4 (continued^
CEPP SCAP/STARS MEASURES
ACTIVITIES
STAR/SCAP
TARGET
STARS
REPORTING
SCAP
REPORTING
QTRLY
ANNUAL
EARTHOIJAKE PREPAREDNESS
Development and completion of the
Hazardous Materials Supplement
(ESF #10) to the Multi-agency "Plan
for Federal Response to a
Catastrophic Earthquake"
X**
X
X
X
Planning support provided to other
Regions
X**
X
X
X
Planning activity developments in
other ESFs for which EPA provides
support
X**
X
X
X
Participation and dissemination of
information to other Regions and HQ
on earthquake preparedness activities
X**
X
X
X
NATIONAL SECURITY
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
(NSEP)
Participation in NSEP activities
X**
X
X
X
** SCAP target only
IV-9
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
CHAPTER V
PROGRAM PLANNING REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CHAPTER V - PROGRAM PLANNING
REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Following are the actions regional managers must take to comply with
the requirements described in this Chapter. In order to acquire a more
in-depth understanding of these requirements, the Chapter itself should
be read.
Site-Assessment
In order to receive credit for Preliminary Assessment (PA)
and Site Inspection (SI) completions, the completion date
and a decision on further activities must be entered into
CERCLIS.
• Removal
Enter planning data on removal actions into CERCLIS as
soon as a site is identified or the quarter before a removal
will begin.
Response
CERCLIS must identify lead for all response events and
enforcement activities.
If a PRP takes over an RI/FS after Fund dollars have been
obligated, the Region should retain the funds needed for
oversight during the current FY and deobligate the
remainder.
If a PRP takes over an RD/RA after Fund dollars have been
obligated, the Region should retain the funds needed for
oversight of the entire project, and deobligate the remainder.
The probability of PRPs assuming responsibility for
response activities must be entered into CERCLIS.
Prepare site management plans shortly after a site is
proposed for the NPL.
For outyear budget purposes, provide schedules for all core
remedial events and enforcement activities when identifying
sites for RI/FS starts.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CHAPTER V - PROGRAM PLANNING
REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Response (Cont'd)
Standard durations should only be used if more acurate
time frames for response events and enforcement activities
are not available. When better planning data and schedules
are developed, CERCLIS must be revised.
A response mega-site management plan must be submitted
to the Hazardous Site Control Division (HSCD) for all sites
where the total site RI/FS work exceeds S3 million.
Send copies of RODs and ROD amendments to HSCD.
Request funds for treatability studies separate from the
RI/FS. Record actual start and completion dates for
treatability studies in CERCLIS.
The nomination and acceptance of a project to the
Superfund Innovation Technology Evaluation program are
to be entered into CERCLIS.
Negotiate reimbursement of Technical Assistance Grants
(TAG) at Federal Facilities during Interagency Agreement
(IAG) negotiations.
Assess the capacity and the capabilities of the various
entities available to perform response and oversight work
prior to assignment of Superfund work.
An in-house RI/FS should be planned in each Region
where sites/projects are available.
• Enforcement
Mixed funding settlements must be planned. Funds are
part of the Region's budget.
Enforcement mega-sites (sites or projects that require more
than twice the average pricing factor) management plans
must be submitted to Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement (OWPE).
i
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CHAPTER V - PROGRAM PLANNING
REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Enforcement ('Cont'd')
- Send notice letters to Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs),
conduct negotiations and issue AOs at every removal, time
permitting.
Issue notice letters for RI/FS at least 90 days prior to the
planned RI/FS start
Funds expended for oversight of PRP activities must be
tracked and billed to the PRPs. Collection of oversight funds
should be tracked and recorded in CERCLIS.
Special notice letter for RD/RA should be issued about the
time of ROD signature.
The PRP compliance status code must be maintained for all
orders and Consent Decrees (CD).
Send copies of CDs to the OWPE Compliance Branch.
State Enforcement
Report state orders or CDs for RI/FS and state CDs for
RD/RA in CERCLIS.
Federal Facilities
Schedules for ongoing or planned Federal Facility IAG
negotiations should be forwarded to HQ two weeks prior to
each quarter.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CHAPTER V . PROGRAM PLANNING REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES
INTEGRATED PLANNING
Planning in the Superfund program is accomplished through the budget, operating guid-
ance, SCAP and performance evaluation process. Successful planning requires the reflection of
program priorities in the budget and operating guidance, accurate costing of these priorities in
the budget, workload model and SCAP, and translation of the priorities and resource require-
ments into specific output commitments in SCAP and STARS. Candid evaluation of perform-
ance against these commitments is essential to the assessment of the viability of program priori-
ties, resource requirements and overall effectiveness.
Integrated planning is the responsibility of HQ, regional program offices, the states and
ORC. In order to provide adequate resources for priority actions at Superfund sites, HQ allo-
cates resources within and between response and enforcement. Regions are responsible for
providing data on the level of resources needed to accomplish those priority activities and negoti-
ate commitments consistent with realistic site planning. Regions should not accept targets that
require completion of activities which cannot be funded or staffed within the resources provided.
Flexibility to adjust resources in response to changing program conditions decreases as
the operating year approaches, especially since the total number of FTEs remain constant from
FY90 to FY91. The budget is most flexible while being developed, 12 to 18 months prior to the
FY and becomes less flexible once the operating year starts. Exhibit V-l summarizes levels of
flexibility as the operating year is entered. Major phases in the decision making continuum
include:
• Formulation of the outyear budget 12 to 18 months prior to the FY. Development
of the budget includes identification of major program issues, analysis of program
costs, and alignment of resources among competing priorities. These activities
receive resource allocations that were established by the Administrator and AA
SWER. These allocations balance the needs of the Superfund program with the
needs of other Agency programs.
• Development of the initial operating plan occurs six months prior to the FY and is
finalized before the start of the FY. The operating plan and associated SCAP/
STARS output commitments are the vehicle by which OSWER translates national
budget commitments into Region specific targets. OSWER provides resources to
support targets through the AOA and workload process. Regions are expected to
work within the annual regional budgets established at the start of the year until
the mid-year SCAP update. Regions have substantial flexibility within the gen-
eral budget and AOA structure to shift funds as needed to meet priority activities.
Once the initial operating plan is established at the start of the year, generally
additional resources can be shifted to a Region only at the expense of resources
for other Regions.
• The mid-year SCAP update is used to realign resources in the current FY and
establish preliminary resource and target levels for the upcoming FY. Current
year resource adjustments focus on changes needed due to cost and project sched-
ule modifications. Changes may result in shifts within program areas and
revised annual funding levels. Estimates developed for the upcoming FY repre-
sent the first formal opportunity for changing resources among program areas at a
national level. The revised resource estimates also serve as a "baseline" for
examining program needs in the budget year.
V-l
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3 -01D
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
This section describes the information flow and HQ/regional responsibilities associated
with integrated planning.
HQ responsibilities in the integrated planning process include:
Establish a combined Fund and Enforcement hierarchy of program priorities in
consultation with the Regions to be used in negotiations and adjustments of tar-
gets;
Review integrated operating plans and site commitments proposed by the Regions
prior to negotiations;
• Involve the Office of Enforcement (OE) in the planning process;
• Work with regional managers to determine how resources should be adjusted to
meet program priorities;
• Negotiate and assess the status of response and enforcement mega-sites;
• Communicate in a timely manner with the Regions on changes/additions to
SCAP schedules;
• Shift regional resources if needed to support priority activities;
• Provide the funding and FTE at levels consistent with established pricing factors
for negotiated targets and measures;
• Increase participation of regional managers in the formulation of preliminary
resource requests; and
• Develop policy and guidance in response to Congressional or Agency initiatives.
Effective operation of integrated priority setting depends heavily on regional willingness
to do the following:
• Manage projects to integrate enforcement and Fund milestones and to ensure
schedules and timeliness are met;
Negotiate and assess the status of response and enforcement mega-sites;
Involve the state and ORC in the planning process;
• Provide accurate, complete and timely project planning data in CERCLIS and
SCAP;
• Follow established planning procedures and requirements so that HQ has a com-
mon basis to evaluate regional proposals; and
• Recognize that missed commitments severely impact resource availability (for
example, FTE and dollars budgeted for negotiations and/or RD in a FY cannot be
used if the ROD slips past the FY. The FTE cannot be replaced and the funds do
not automatically roll over into the next FY.)
V- 2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHIBIT V-l
FLEXIBILITY SCALE FOR BUDGETING/PLANNING
MINIMUM MAXIMUM ~
ins
:$¦
&£
1
1
OPERATING YEAR BUDGET
(FY91)
OPERATING YEAR BUDGET
(FY92)
OPERATING YEAR BUDGET
(FY93)
1. Operating Plan Establishes
Funding Ceiling (90/4)
1. Development of Operating
Plan Begins 6 Months Prior
to FY (Begins 91/2)
1. Formulation Begins 12-18
Months Prior to FY;
Largely Dependent on Reg.
Planning Data in CERCLIS
(Begins 91/2)
2. Quarter Specific Targets are
Set-
¦ STARS targets can be
changed only through
formal Regional
Administrator request
- Sites can be substituted
to meet commitments
2. Initial SCAP/STARS Targets
Set in March; Finalized in
August
2. No Targets Set but Sche-
dules and Estimated RA
Cost Help to Drive Budget
Request
3. Pricing Factors are Set -
Cannot Change Pricing on
Events/Activities
3. Pricing Factors can be
changed through Regional/
HQ Consensus
3. Pricing Factors are Subject
to Review
4. Additional Funds/FTEs can
only be Obtained through
Special Requests
4. The Budget is Set but There
is More Leeway to Make Ad-
justments Based on Proven
Need
4. Budget is Constrained
Based on Resource Cap
Imposed by AA and Admin-
istrator Unless Exception
can be Justified
5. Regions have Flexibility
within General Budget and
AO A Structure to
Shift Funds to Meet Priority
Activities
5. Maximum Flexibility to
Design Budget to Optimize
Cross-Program Priorities
6. Mid-Year SCAP Update Used
to Realign Resources
5. Mid-Year SCAP Update Sets
Preliminary Resource Levels
7. Flexibility on Dollars much
Greater than FTEs through
Reg. Reprogramming
6. Flexibility on Dollars and FTE
may be Constrained by
President's Budget and
Freeze
V-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
SITE ASSESSMENT PLANNING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Preliminary Assessments/Screening Site Inspections (SSD
Regions can only be given credit for PA and SSI completions if the completion date and a
decision on further activities at the site are entered into the appropriate CERCLIS site record.
There are three decisions on further activities that must be made at the completion of the
PA:
High priority for an SSI;
Medium priority for an SSI;
• No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP); and
• Deferred to another authority.
There are four decisions on future activities that must be made at the completion of the
SSI:
• High/medium decision for scoring;
• Recommendation for an LSI;
NFRAP; and
• Deferred to another authority.
Listing Site Inspection
LSIs are reserved for sites that require installation of monitoring wells to support a
groundwater HRs pathway. LSIs are not RI/FS substitutes and, consequently, the expenditures
must be efficient and focused. Two important goals are to limit technical hours for each LSI and
to minimize subcontracting expenditures. LSIs to meet SCAP planning estimates must be
identified on a site specific basis.
REMOVAL PLANNING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The nature of removal activities is to respond to emergency, time critical and non-time
critical situations at NPL and non-NPL sites. Each Region should recognize that it probably
does not have sufficient funds to address all actual or threatened releases that meet the removal
criteria in the National Contingency Plan (NCP). Responsible management means having to
make some tough decisions such as defering funding time critical actions in order to maintain a
sufficient contingency for classic emergencies. Additionally, Regions have to depend more upon
state and local authorities to address the real, but smaller threats that Regions now occasionally
handle.
The increased use of enforcement authorities becomes essential as the funds for removal
actions remain the same and responses get more expensive. PRP searches should be initiated as
V-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
soon as a candidate site has been identified. Oral notice, followed by written notice, should be
given to PRPs in emergency situations. For time critical situations, written notice should be
given to identified PRPs, negotiations should be conducted and AOs issued to the extent possible
where there are viable parties and the work can be properly scoped and implemented. PRP
searches may continue after the removal has started to further identify PRPs for takeover of
actions or cost recovery. Non-time critical removals with viable PRPs are prime candidates for
PRP actions.
Since so much of the removal work cannot be anticipated, Regions are only required to
do site specific planning one quarter in advance. Each quarter, a plan for the upcoming quarter is
prepared. A Region begins this planning period by identifying sites in CERCLIS which are
candidates for removal work in the upcoming quarter, designating the expected lead, identifying
the funding each action will require and the category of each removal. Valid removal categories
(C2118) are:
TC -Time Critical;
• NT - Non-Time Critical; and
• EM - Emergency.
Oversight dollars for PRP removals will be provided through the Case Budget. In order
for funds to be available for classic emergencies or for sites that cannot be identified during the
planning process, a removal contingency amount is placed in the non-site/incident activity
section of the CERHELP data base by the Region.
The process for determining quarterly AOA for the removal program is described in
Chapter VI.
REMEDIAL RESPONSE PIANNING REQUIREMENTS
PRP Search Outcome/Site Classification
Beginning in FY90, Regions were no longer required to enter or maintain the site classifi-
cation. However, upon completion of the first phase of a NPL or non-NPL PRP search, Regions
are required to record the outcome in CERCLIS (C1719). Valid outcome codes are:
• NV - Search complete, no viable PRPs, orphan site;
• VC - Viable PRP; cannot do work; and
• VP - Search complete, viable PRPs.
See the Enforcement Planning Requirements section titled Pre-RI/FS Enforcement Activity of
this Chapter for additional information.
Proiect/Event Lead Codes
Project/event lead codes identify the entity performing the work at the site. Exhibit V-2
shows the valid project/event lead codes.
V- 5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHIBIT V-2
PROJECT/EVENT LEAD CODES IN CERCLIS IN FY91
Lead
F
Definition
Federally financed response actions performed by Fund/EPA
(applies to response events)
RP
PRP financed response actions performed by the PRP under a
federal order/CD (applies to response events)
S
Federally financed response actions performed by a state -
Money provided through a CA (applies to response events)
PS
PRP financed response actions performed by PRP under a state
order/CD with PRP oversight paid for or conducted by EPA
through an EPA CA with the state or, if oversight is not funded
by EPA, a SMOA or other formal document between EPA and
the state exists which allows EPA review of PRP deliverables
(applies to response events)
SN
State financed (no Fund dollars) response actions performed by
the state (applies to response events)
SR
PRP response under a state order/CD and no EPA oversight
support or money provided through a CA and no other formal
agreement exists between EPA and the state (applies to response
events)
CG
Work performed by the Coast Guard - Limited to removals
(applies to response events)
MR
Preauthorization Mixed Funding work performed by PRP under
a federal decree with an agreement that the Fund will provide
reimbursement to the PRP (applies to response events)
SE
Enforcement activities performed by a State - Money provided
through a CA or if not funded by EPA, a comparable
enforcement document exists (Also applies to ROD events at
PS-lead response events)
FE
Enforcement activities perfomed by Fund/EPA or work done by
enforcement program (Also applies to ROD events at RP-lead
response events). Historically (Pre-FY89) applied to RI/FS and
RD response events
EP
Response activities performed by EPA using in-house resources
FF
Work performed by the Federal Facility with oversight
provided by EPA and/or the state at sites designated as Federal
Facilities on the NPL; also applies to RODs at Federal Facilities
I
V- 6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
A lead code must be placed in CERCLIS for all response events and enforcement activi-
ties. The lead code for a project support activity is the same as the lead code for the activity
being supported. For example, management assistance funds to a state in support of a PRP RI/
FS should be coded as RP-lead. All enforcement actions (i.e., orders, decrees, PRP searches,
etc.) performed by EPA and all RODs resulting from RP-lead RI/FS projects should have a lead
of "FE". All enforcement actions conducted by the state should have a lead of "SE". RODs at
PS-lead RI/FS projects should have a lead of "SE" or "FE" depending on the entity preparing the
ROD. RODs at Federal Facilities have a lead code of "FF". CERCLIS should not contain
planned obligations for projects with "SR" or "SN" leads. No funds will be provided for activi-
ties with these leads.
The Agency acknowledges that states can and have assumed the lead role in reaching an
agreement with the PRPs for response activities at NPL sites without negotiating a cooperative
agreement or other formal agreement with EPA (SR lead). However, the NCP has determined
that in the absence of a formal agreement the state will not be officially recognized as the "lead
agency" for the project and EPA will not concur on the remedy selected.
Takeovers
A takeover means a change in entity performing an event after the event has started and
credit given. Typically, this occurs where a settlement with the PRP has been reached after the
event has been started. It may also occur where the Fund assumes a RP-lead project because of
non-compliance.
For each remedial or removal event takeover, a new CERCLIS record must be created
and FSS and FSC codes (C2115 and C2116) revised. A takeover does not create a new OU. The
original CERCLIS event must be updated to show the completion date as the date of the take-
over. The start date for the new CERCLIS event is also the date of the takeover.
The CERCLIS Event Takeover Flag (C2114) is manually maintained. A "T" is used in
this field to flag the original event which has the change in lead. The new event has an event
code followed by a sequence number to indicate the original event that was taken over.
When the takeover of a response event occurs and work has not proceeded past the
workplan stage, credit will be given to the program taking over the lead for both a start and
completion. For example, assume a settlement is reached for a PRP to conduct a RI/FS for which
funds have been obligated but no work has been approved. The PRPs, in picking up the project
at this stage, will get a RI/FS start. Had the work plan been approved, the Fund would have
received credit for the RI/FS start. In order to assure credit is given to the proper program, the
FSS and FSC codes should be placed with the event which was taken over. (See Exhibit V-3 for
an example of the takeover coding.) However, if a takeover occurs after the workplan stage then
the new lead will only receive credit for a completion; the previous lead retains credit for the
start. Exhibit V-4 shows the proper placement of the FSS and FSC codes under these circum-
stances.
When there is a takeover of a removal action, credit is given to the program with the
original start and the completion is credited to the program that completes the work.
V-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHIBIT V>3
EVENT TAKEOVER AT WORKPLAN STAGE
mi
takeover
ACTUAL
PLAN
ACTUAL
EVENT
LEAD
FLAG
START
COMP.
COMP.
FSS
FSC
COMMENTS
01
COl
F
T
7/29/88
11/30/88
11/30/88
E
E
SITE WIDE
01
COl
RP
COl
11/30/88
12/15/90
A
A
SITE WIDE
f",""-!
JQU EVENT LEAD
01 COl F
01 C02 RP
TAKEOVER
FLAG
T
COl
EXHIBIT V-4
EVENT TAKEOVER
ACTUAL
START
11/15/87
4/30/89
PLAN
CQMP,
4/30/90
2/20/90
ACTUAL
CQMP,
4/30/89
m EL
A E
E A
COMMENTS
SITE WIDE
SITE WIDE
If a PRP takes over an RI/FS after response dollars have been obligated, the Region
should retain the funds needed for PRP oversight for the remainder of the FY and deobligate the
rest. Additional funds for oversight in future years should be obtained from the Case Budget. If
the PRPs take over the RD or RA after response funds have been obligated, the Region can retain
the funds needed to provide oversight of the entire PRP RD or RA activities. The remainder
should be deobligated. RD funds that are deobligated may be replaced in the Region's AOA and
used in accordance with the flexible funding priorities outlined in Chapter VI. Deobligated RA
funds must be returned to HQ for funding of other priority RA projects.
When the Fund originally obligated dollars for response activities and a takeover occurs,
Regions will have to request a change in account number through their regional Financial Man-
agement Office (FMO). The activity code within the account number changes if the Agency is
acting in an oversight role as opposed to performing the response action.
Funds to support PRP negotiations, including the development of workplans, should be
funded by the Case Budget.
PRP projects that are deficient may be addressed by the response program. If the project
requires substantial Fund involvement to correct, it should be coded as a Fund take over in CER-
CLIS.
Probability of PRP Funded Response Actions
During the development of budget planning information, Regions should pay particular
attention to the probability of a PRP assuming responsibility for RD or RA or the potential for a
mixed funding response. Historically, twenty to twenty five percent of each Region's Fund-lead
RI/FS projects result in PRP lead RDs and RAs. Regions should examine the scheduled RD and/
or RA starts in FY91 through FY93, ascertain PRP viability and the strength of the enforcement
V- 8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
case, the relative environmental priority of the project, and the likelihood of a PRP assuming the
lead. The likelihood of the PRPs assuming lead responsibility should be recorded in CERCLIS
in the event qualifier data element (C2103) with the event(s) that are scheduled to begin. (See
Exhibit V-5 for an example of coding PRP probabilities.) As better information is received on
the probability of the PRPs assuming responsibility, the qualifier in CERCLIS should be up-
dated.
Valid probabilities are:
H - High, estimated 75% or better chance of PRP takeover;
M - Medium, estimated 25%-74% chance of PRP takeover, and
L - Low, estimated 24% or less chance of PRP takeover.
EXHIBIT V-5
PRP PROBABILITIES
OU
(C1101)
EVENT
(C2101)
TAKE
LD OVER
(C2117) (C2114)
PLAN
START
(C2130)
ACTUAL
START
(C2140)
PLAN
COMP
(C2131)
ACTUAL
COMP QUAL
(C2141) (C2103)
01
C01
F
3/30/88
9/30/90
01
R01
F
9/30/90
01
RD1
F
1/10/91
5/3/91
M
01
RA1
F
8/5/91
7/1/92
M
:
¦¦ "¦ •" * " ^ " •" "VSS^S/s
Operable Units in Remedial and Enforcement Programs
One of the driving mechanisms for Superfund's budgeting and planning process is the
OU concept. Confusion over the definition of OU has led to conflicting planning and tracking
methodologies among Regions. Outlined below is a standard methodology that each Region
should implement for tracking OUs on an event-specific level.
The NCP defines an OU as "discrete actions that comprise incremental steps toward the
final remedy." This means that any specific area or response may be considered an OU. Exhibit
V-6 provides the ground rules for OUs and Exhibit V-7 provides examples of OUs for the differ-
ent remedial phases. (See the Federal Facilities section of this Chapter for OU issues specific to
Federal Facilities.)
RA projects that are being phased or segmented and incrementally funded in accordance
with the RA priority setting criteria are n^I new OUs. They should be coded as another RA at
the same OU.
V- 9
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
EXHIBIT V-6
EXHIBIT V-7
EXAMPLES OF OPERABLE UNITS
RI/FS
- Source Control
- Groundwater Cleanup
- Permanent Relocation
RD and RA
- Pump and Treat System
- Pilot Testing
- Incineration
- Cap
- Waterline Installation
- Soil Removal
OPERABLE UNIT GROUNDRULES
• Each OU at the RI/FS stage must result
in a ROD; subsequent RODs must
address an aspect of the remedy not
developed in the initial ROD.
¦ Each OU at the RD stage must result in
separate plans and specifications.
Each OU at the RA stage must be based
on a separate bid package.
¦ PRP, state or EPA takeovers do not
result in separate OUs.
The OU field in CERCLIS does not reflect the definitions or ground rules for OUs as
defined in the NCP. In CERCLIS, an OU is defined by the combination of OU number, event
sequence number, and FSS/FSC codes. Past the ROD stage the OU number field in CERCLIS is
used to tie the RD and RA back to a particular ROD. For example, if you have only one ROD,
no matter how many separate plans and specifications or separate bid packages are developed,
the OU number in CERCLIS will remain "01". In this situation, the sequence number and FSS/
FSC codes would be used to delineate that, by definition, there is more than one OU.
Many enforcement activities are conducted on an OU basis, e.g., negotiations, AOs, or
CDs. A CERCLIS change request is currently being implemented that will allow enforcement
activities to be linked to other enforcement activities and/or events. This change request is ex-
pected to be implemented in summer FY90. Additional guidance and training will be issued at
that time.
There are several OU structures, as shown in Exhibit V-8 including:
• One occurrence of each event;
Multiple events (RDs, RAs) from a single ROD; and
• Multiple events from multiple RODs.
If a site has multiple like-events (e.g., RDs) within a single OU, CERCLIS automatically
generates a sequence number for each event. The sequence number is dependent on the order the
event is entered into the system. If a single OU has multiple RDs and RAs, the only way to tie
an RD with its corresponding RA is through the system-generated sequence number. Therefore,
Regions must be certain that the planning information for the RD and its RA are entered into
CERCLIS at the same time.
V- 10
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHIBIT V-8
OPERABLE UNITS AND
FIRST AND SUBSEQUENT START AND COMPLETIONS CODING
ONE OCCURRENCE OF EACH EVENT/ACTIVITY
PLAN
ACTUAL
PLAN
ACTUAL
211
EVENT
START
START
CQMP,
CQMP,
FSS
FSC
COMMENT
FN01
5/25/87
5/25/87
10/20/87
10/20/87
01
C01
11/15/87
11/15/87
9/29/89
A
A
SITE WIDE
01
R01
9/29/89
A
SITE WIDE
AN01
9/29/89
1/30/90
01
RD1
2/13/90
3/12/91
A
A
SITE WIDE
01
RA1
3/30/91
3/20/93
A
A
SITE WIDE
MULTIPLE EVENTS/ACTIVITIES FROM A SINGLE ROD
PLAN
ACTUAL
PLAN
ACTUAL
211
EVENT
START
START
COMP.
COMP.
FSS
FSC
COMMENT
FN01
5/25/87
5/25/87
10/20/87 10/20/87
01
C01
11/15/87
11/15/87
9/29/89
A
A
SITE WIDE
01
R01
9/29/89
A
SITE WIDE
AN01
9/29/89
1/30/90
01
RD1
2/13/90
3/12/91
B
B
SOURCE
01
RA1
3/30/91
3/20/93
B
B
SOURCE
01
RD2
2/14/90
3/20/92
D
D
GROUNDWATER
01
RA2
4/10/92
4/10/97
D
D
GROUNDWATER
MULTIPLE EVENTS/ACTIVITIES WITH MULTIPLE RODS
PLAN
ACTUAL
PLAN
ACTUAL
m
EVENT
START
START
CQMP,
COMP.
FSS
FSC
COMMENT
FN01
5/25/87
5/25/87
10/20/87
10/20/87
01
RI1
11/15/87
11/15/87
12/23/88
12/23/88
B
WATERLINE
01
FS1
12/23/88
12/23/88
12/29/89
C
WATERLINE
01
FS2
1/5/89
1/5/89
3/30/90
D
WATERLINE
01
R01
3/30/90
D
WATERLINE
AN01
3/30/90
7/30/90
WATERLINE
01
RD1
8/20/90
3/13/91
C
B
WATERLINE A
01
RD2
3/30/91
12/15/91
D
C
WATERLINE B
01
RA1
3/30/91
9/19/93
B
C
WATERLINE A
01
RA2
12/30/91
4/13/92
C
B
WATERLINE B
FN02
9/25/87
9/25/87
3/22/88
3/22/88
02
C01
2/5/88
2/5/88
12/30/89
D
B
GROUNDWATER
02
R01
12/30/89
B
GROUNDWATER
AN02
12/30/89
4/30/90
GROUNDWATER
02
RD1
6/10/90
6/20/91
B
C
GROUNDWATER A
02
RD2
7/15/90
6/14/93
C
D
GROUNDWATER B
02
RA1
6/30/90
12/10/94
C
C
GROUNDWATER A
02
RA2
6/30/90
12/22/94
D
D
GROUNDWATER B
V-11
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
First and Subsequent Starts and Completions
FSS and FSC codes (C2115 and C2116, respectively) are used to identify and character-
ize the sequencing of events and OUs. They are not used for enforcement activities. If an event
does not have actual dates, the FSS and FSC codes are determined by the planned dates. One of
the codes shown in Exhibit V-9 must be assigned to each remedial event as it is entered into
CERCLIS.
EXHIBIT V-9
FIRST AND SUBSEQUENT START AND COMPLETIONS
A = First and only event at a site
B
= First of two or more events
C
= Subsequent, but not final event
D
= Final of two or more events
E
Anomaly
i
The FSS/FSC codes are based on event start and completion dates, not the system gener-
ated sequence number. Thus the first start of an event, for example an RD, at a site is coded "A".
If a second RD is started, the "A" code for the first RD start must be changed to a "B" and the
second RD is assigned a "D" code. If a third RD is started, the first RD remains a "B", the
second RD must be changed from a "D" to "C" and the third RD is assigned a "D" code. Event
completions use the same methodology. If there is one occurrence of each event, all FSS/FSC
codes are "A".
A FSS/FSC code value of "E" is used to identify anomaly events that do not receive
credit for a SCAP/STARS start or completion. For example, where there is a takeover a new
event is entered, the FSS code (C2115) for the new event would be "E".
Exhibit V-8 illustrates the use of the FSS/FSC codes. Since the FSS and FSC codes are
manually maintained, it is necessary to update these codes each time an event is added. Exhibit
V-10 indicates combinations of FSS/FSC codes that are inconsistent with the coding procedures.
EXHIBIT V-10
IMPOSSIBLE FSS AND FSC CODE COMBINATIONS
m
$$
• More than one A, B, or D
• An A and B
• An A and D
::-x:
• An A and C
:-x5
'v.V
• C without a D and B
B and C without a D
• C and D without a B
1
s-y§
V- 12
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
TBD Sites
Under certain circumstances, Regions may not be able to identify all the sites necessary
to meet SCAP targets. This may occur for the following activities:
• UAOs for RD/RA.
In such cases, Regions may enter planning data into TBD site records. CERCLIS pro-
vides the capability, through the use of a pseudo-EPA identification number, to set up temporary
site records as TBDs until the actual site is identified. Following are procedures for handling
SCAP TBD sites and associated planning data in CERCLIS.
The key data field for all CERCLIS site and related records is the EPA Identification
Number (EPA ID). This number is twelve characters in length with the first two characters iden-
tifying the state in which the site is located. The third position identifies it as a permanent or
temporary Dun & Bradstreet number, and the remaining nine digits are unique to a site within
the state. The method of handling TBD sites in CERCLIS must be consistent with guidance for
assigning EPA IDs to valid Superfund sites.
The procedure for assigning pseudo numbers is as follows. Each SCAP TBD site to be
entered into CERCLIS will be assigned a unique 12-character EPA ID which is constructed from
regionally assigned state codes and numbers. The pseudo state codes shown in Exhibit V-l 1 for
each Region would be used in the first two positions of the pseudo ID.
Removals;
First RI/FS starts;
Administrative cost recovery settlements;
Small case cost recovery referrals;
Section 106 RD/RA referrals without settlement; and
EXHIBIT V-l I
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PSEUDO STATE CODES
Pseudo State Code
ZA
ZB
ZC
ZD
ZE
ZF
ZG
ZH
ZJ
7K
V-13
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
The third position of the code will always be "T" which further identifies the site as being
a "TBD" site. The remaining nine digits will be selected from the 1000 numbers purchased from
Dun & Bradstreet by HQ and allocated to each Region.
An example of the use of the code is as follows. Region I has three TBD sites for RI/FS
starts to be entered into CERCLIS. EPA IDs to be used for the three sites are as follows:
TBD site #1 - ZAT982565053
TBD site #2 - ZAT982565061
TBD site #3 - ZAT982565079
At the time a real site is determined for TBD site #1, the site and associated data for EPA
ID ZAT982565053 are deleted from the CERCLIS data base. Subsequently, the appropriate
planning data are added to the real site in the CERCLIS data base. The pseudo number,
ZAT982565053, is then recycled for future use.
Regions may not use TBDs in planning subsequent RI/FS starts. When multiple OUs at a
site are involved, Regions should schedule the subsequent starts and associated core activities
when planning the first RI/FS start at the site to the maximum extent possible. Subsequent starts
should be scheduled even if they are not planned to begin in FY91. Even though TBDs are being
used for target setting purposes, Regions must have real sites in CERCLIS which can be substi-
tuted at a later date for the pseudo sites.
Integrated Timeline for Site Management
The Agency has developed a timeline that identifies critical decision-making points and
timeframes for each step in the Superfund site cleanup process. The timeline shows the interface
between response and enforcement activities at a site. The Integrated Timeline (Exhibit V-12) is
a ten step site management process that spans a maximum of 24 quarters.
Regions are strongly urged to use a site management plan to ensure that proper funding,
enforcement activities and management responsibilities are laid out for a site. A site manage-
ment plan should be put together for a site shortly after proposal for the NPL. The plan should
lay out important enforcement activities that are essential to happen at the site (proper PRP
searches, issuance of RI/FS special notice, issuance of RD/RA special notice, RJD/RA negotia-
tions, development and finalization of CD, issuance of UAO). These enforcement activities
should be integrated with Fund-financed or PRP response events at the site or OU. The plan can
be used to ensure that funding is requested for the activities and that the proper people in all
affected offices have been brought into the process at the appropriate points.
V- 14
-------
EXHIBIT V-12
INTEGRATED TIMELINE
PHASES OF
ACTIVITY
RP Search and
Notification
R1/FS
Negotiation
Process
Ri/FS
Settlement
Process
Rl/FS
Implementation
Process
RO/RA
Negotiation
Process
RD/RA
Settlement/
Referral
Process
£LAPSE*)i:TIM £ IH QU A RT E R$ :
RD
Implementation
RA
Implementation
Community
Relations
Cost
Recovery
WW
*4 FO REQUEST
NPl LISTING
\
SPEQAtNOtKE
ISSUED
GENERAL NOTICE
ISSUED
AOC or UAO
ISSUED
Pfopowd Plan
and
Rnal Draft H/FS
OmttFS
Draft ft
ROO SIGNATURE
IRDNP
Rl/FS
SUPPLEMENTAL
GENERAL NOTICE
ISSUED
SPECS AL NOTICE ISSUED
GOOD FATTH OFFER
RDNP RDNP
; CO flttarnl
UiOfC
CD SIGNED
UAO ISSUES
m:U*Q
UAOE or RDF
Public Ma«s«r*}
RPRO* CM
Faj^wit/PijMc Mmttng
F*ct»h«©t/PubMc Mo®flna. I
I I T\ I
22
24
LEGEND
-UAO/AOC Preparation
-CD Lodging/Entering
-CD Preparation
-CD Referral
-Compliance Monitoring
-CRP Preparation
-CRP Revision
-General Notice Preparation
-Public Comment Period
-RA Implementation
-RD Funded
-RD/RA Negotiation
-RD Negotiation Prep.
-Ri/FS Activities
-Ri/FS Negotiation
-Ri/FS Neg, Preparation
-ROD Preparation
-RP Remedial Design
-Responsible Party Search
-Special Notice Preparation
-UAO Response Period
-UAO Enforcement
•Opan ftte lor Cost
|£ Documentation
.££L
/Update Documentation
' I on Put Coat*
Rta Rr«t Claim tor v
Owitghl Cm* \
in
>
Fll« Claim for Fund
Financed RA
I I 1
I I I I I
i—r
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
When identifying sites for RI/FS starts, Regions must provide schedules for the remedial
and enforcement activities contained in the Integrated Timeline. The timeframes should only
be used if more accurate estimates are not available. When better planning data and
schedules are developed, CERCLIS must be revised to reflect these schedules. Beginning in
FY91 planned start and completion dates must be entered into CERCLIS in the MM/DD/YY
format. The FY/Q will be system generated. Exhibit V-13 provides a summary of the timefra-
mes for the steps in the Integrated Timeline plus other critical activities. Following is a descrip-
tion of the Integrated Timeline phases:
• RP Search and Notification - With an expected duration of 13 quarters, the PRP
search and notification process involves the following activities:
- Development of PRP search report;
Distribution of 104(e) information requests;
Distribution of general notice;
Initial determination of PRP viability and liability
Distribution of special notice or waiver of special notice; and
Decision whether to pursue 104(e) enforcement activities.
The PRP search may be extended up to the point of RD special notice.
EXHIBIT V-13
STANDARD TIMEFRAMES
DURATIONS
ACTIVITY
(In Ouarters)
Removal PRP Searches
1-2
Removal Negotiations
1
Removals
1-2
NPL PRP Searches*
13 (maximum)
RI/FS Negotiations*
3 (maximum)
Federal Facility Negotiations
1-2
Fund RI/FS or FF/PRP RI/FS Oversight*
8
(FS to Public)
(6)
(ROD)
(2)
RD/RA Negotiations (post ROD)*
2 (maximum)
Case Development (ends in referral)
2
Sec. 106 or 106/107 RD/RA Referrals without
14
Settlement or Cost Recovery Referrals
(ongoing cases referred to DOJ until
conclusion)
CD Referral, Lodging & Entry
2
Fund RD or FF/PRP RD Oversight*
4
Fund RA or FF/PRP RA Oversight*
6
RA Contract Award
2 (post RA start)
"Core Activities/Events
V- 16
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3 01D
RI/FS Negotiation Process - The RI/FS negotiation process will be conducted a
maximum of 3 quarters and generally begins with the issuance of general notice.
Important milestones include:
Two quarters for negotiation preparation concurrent with the preparation
of special notice; and
Formal negotiations, which begin with the issuance of special notice and
last a maximum of 90 days (60 days if a good faith offer is not received).
RI/FS Settlement Process - The one quarter settlement process is conducted
concurrent with the last quarter of the RI/FS negotiation process. At the end of
the settlement process, the Region will issue either an AOC or a UAO. At this
point a decision is made whether to proceed with a Fund-financed RI/FS.
RI/FS Implementation - Commencing after the issuance of the AOC/UAO or the
obligation of funds for the action, the RI/FS has a estimated duration of 8 quarters
and concludes with the signature of the ROD. Important milestones include:
Draft RI report after 4 quarters;
Draft FS report after the fifth quarter;
Final draft RI/FS report and proposed plan after 6 quarters;
ROD preparation which should take no more than 2 quarters; and
ROD signature.
RD/RA Negotiation Process - The RD/RA negotiation process formally begins
after completion of the final draft RI/FS report and proposed plan, though
planning the pre-referral strategy may be conducted earlier. Special notice
preparation is performed concurrent with ROD preparation. RD/RA negotiations
have a maximum duration of 2 quarters and formally begin with issuance of
SNLs. If the site has no viable or liable PRPs, a Fund-financed RD should be
scheduled to begin the quarter after the ROD is signed. Important milestones
include:
- Draft of CD to go with SNL;
Issuance of special notice or waiver of special notice concurrent with
ROD signature;
Formal RD/RA negotiations which commence with the issuance of special
notice and extend a maximum of 120 days if a good faith offer is received;
Termination of RD/RA negotiations if a good faith offer is not received
within 60 days after issuance of special notice. The Region will issue the
UAO and decide whether to fund the RD or litigate.
Signature of the CD marking the conclusion of RD/RA negotiations; and
V-17
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
A 30 day response period if a UAO is issued. During this time, the
Region will decide whether to enforce the UAO or fund the RD.
RD Implementation - RD implementation includes funded RD activities, RP-lead
RD activities and compliance monitoring. Actual work on the RD will begin with
the issuance of a UAO, the notice to the PRP contractors to proceed with the RD,
or funding of the action. The average duration of the RD is 4 quarters.
RA Implementation - The RA begins after the completion of the RD. It includes
funded RA activities, RP-lead RA activities and compliance monitoring. The
average duration of the RA is 6 quarters.
Community Relations (CR) - CR activities begin after the decision is made on
lead responsibilities for the RI/FS and continue throughout the RI/FS and RD/RA.
Major components of the CR program include:
Preparation of a CR Plan concurrent with the preparation of the RI/FS
workplan;
Preparing a minimum of two fact sheets and conducting three public
meetings. The final public meeting will occur during the public comment
period on the proposed plan; and
Revisions to the CR Plan after the conclusion of RD/RA negotiations.
Cost Recovery - Cost recovery activities begin with the initiation of the PRP
search and continue throughout the RI/FS and RD/RA. Important milestones
include:
Opening the cost documentation file concurrent with the issue of general
notice;
Update documentation on past costs after completion of RI/FS;
Update documentation on past costs after completion of RD;
File first claim for past costs at completion of RD; and
File a claim for Fund-financed RA costs at completion of RA activities.
Identifying core activities and providing planned obligation estimates are important due
to the impacts these projects, especially RAs, have on outyear budgets for the program areas.
The cost of RA projects makes it imperative that scheduled start dates and planned obligations
are known well in advance of the beginning of the FY. In essence, dollars associated with RA
project starts are locked in during budget formulation eighteen months prior to the beginning of
the FY. As a result, as better information becomes available on project costs, dollar estimates,
and project schedules, the core activity plans should be updated and kept current in CERCLIS.
V- 18
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Record of Decisions
The ROD is the document prepared after completion of the public comment period on the
RI/FS which identifies the Agency's selected remedy for a site or OU. After a ROD is signed,
new information may be generated that could affect the remedy selected. Three types of changes
could occur:
• A non-significant or minor change;
• A significant change to a component of the remedy; or
• A fundamental change to the overall remedy.
Each of these catagories is discussed below.
Non-Sipnificant Changes
Non-significant changes fall within the normal scope of changes occurring during the
RD/RA. These changes typically result from value engineering conducted during the RD
and RA. This may result in minor changes to the type/cost of materials, equipment,
facilities, services, and supplies. When such changes do not significantly affect the
scope, performance, or cost of the remedy, they are considered minor or non-significant.
Minor changes should be documented in the post-ROD files. The documentation should
not be part of the administrative record file for the ROD.
Significant Changes to a Component of a Remedy
Significant changes to a component of a remedy generally are incremental changes to the
hazardous waste approach selected for the site (i.e., a change in timing, cost, or implem-
entation). These changes do not fundamentally alter the overall approach intended by a
remedy. When significant changes are made to a component of a remedy, an Explanation
of Significant Differences (ESD) should be prepared.
The ESD is made available to the public and placed in the administrative record. A
formal public comment period, public meeting and responsiveness summary are not
required. While the ESD is being prepared and made available to the public, response
activities should continue. An ESD is not a new ROD and should not be coded as such
in CERCLIS.
Fundamental Chances to the ROD
When the hazardous waste management approach selected in the ROD is reconsidered, it
is a fundamental change. For example, the innovative technology originally selected in
the ROD did not perform satisfactorily during the RD pilot scale testing and a decision is
made to switch to another remedy. This would represent a fundamental change. If, as a
result of PRP negotiations, the remedy in the ROD is changed from incineration to biore-
mediation, this also represents a fundamental change. When such fundamental changes
are made to a remedy, the ROD process (revised proposed plan, public comment period,
public meeting, responsiveness summary, and amended ROD) should be repeated. The
amended ROD must be placed in the administrative record. A fundamental change to the
ROD should be recorded as a new ROD in CERCLIS.
V-19
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
An HQ/regional workgroup is being developed to determine how ROD changes should
be recorded in CERCLIS. Additional guidance will be prepared and addenda to the Manual may
be issued. Further information on ROD changes can be found in "Interim Final Guidance on
Preparing Superfund Decision Documents", OSWER Directive 9355.302. Copies of all RODs
and amended RODs should be sent to HSCD.
Five Year Remedy Review/Deletion of New Sites from the NPL
SARA requires EPA review those remedial actions that result "...in any hazardous sub-
stances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site..." no less often than every five years
after implementaion. The proposed NCP states that EPA will review remedies that result in
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site "...above levels that allow
for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure..." In the Superfund Management Review, the
Administrator has determined that EPA will not delete from the NPL sites that require SARA
reviews until at least one review has been completed. Taken together, the Superfund program is
required to evaluate deletion candidate sites very carefully concerning five year reviews in order
to ensure the appropriateness of deletion before publishing the deletion notice.
Pending a determination on which sites require a five year review before deletion, EPA
will suspend deletion of any sites from the NPL. Regions will be notified when the decisions
regarding the five year review have been made and the deletion of sites from the NPL may be
resumed. Beginning in FY90, each ROD should attempt to identify criteria to be considered and
the activities to be conducted in a five year review based on the nature of the remedy.
Planning for Response Mega-Sites
FY91 regional requests in CERCLIS for RI/FS starts should be limited to an average of
$750,000 per project and all ongoing fund and PRP RI/FS should be fully funded. The $750,000
limit and full funding requirement do not pertain to response mega-sites (sites with total RI/FS
projects in excess of or expected to exceed $3 million). For response mega-sites, a mega-site
management plan characterizing site problems and management options must be submitted to
HSCD. Mega-site management plans require joint development by response and enforcement
personnel including ORC. The purpose of the plan is to document the Region's approach for
managing the site, to identify coordination options, and to project total resource requirements for
the site. Mega-site management plans are to be completed by June 1991, so funding issues can
be resolved prior to the development of the operating plan for FY92. Examples of mega-site
management plans for large sites can be obtained from Region I (New Bedford site), Region VIII
(Clark Fork site) and Region IX (San Gabriel). Technical assistance can be obtained from
HSCD Site Policy and Guidance Branch.
Treatability Study Planning
The performance of treatability studies during the RI/FS is a priority for the remedial and
enforcement programs. Separate identification of this work allows the program to determine and
explain the impact of treatability studies on RI/FS and RD costs and schedules. Since funds for
treatability studies are not included in the $750,000 per OU and $1.1 million per site RI/FS cost
or the $25,000 per quarter for enforcement oversight costs, it is necessary to establish treatability
studies as a separate event code ("TS") in CERCLIS. Funds should be planned site specifically
and planned and actual start and completion dates are required.
V- 20
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program
The purpose of the SITE program is to assess new technologies for the treatment of
hazardous waste in order to develop permanent technologies. The SITE demonstration program
sponsors pilot and full scale treatability studies at Superfund sites. The participating developers
mobilize and operate their equipment during the test period. The EPA Office of Research and
Development (ORD) develops the test plan, provides for site preparation, funds sampling and
analysis, and prepares the documentation.
Technologies enter the program through an annual solicitation. Proposals are reviewed
for their technical merit and applicability to Superfund problems. Approximately 37 developers
are currently in the program and approximately 10 new developers are added each year. Once
new technologies are accepted, it is necessary to find demonstration sites. A memorandum is
sent to the regional Division Directors requesting the nomination of potential locations for
testing the technologies. All projects should be considered regardless of the entity performing
response activities at the site. Special consideration is given to selecting sites where the data will
provide useful information for the ROD or RD.
As a result of a recent OIG audit of the SITE program, a new SCAP reporting measure
was added — Sites nominated for the SITE program. When a site is nominated by the Region for
a SITE technology, the Region should enter an EP-lead (in-house) treatability study (TS) with an
"A" (alternative) Activity/Event Planning Status (C2110) into CERCLIS. The date of the memo-
randum nominating the site for the program should be recorded in the plan start data field
(C2130). When the site is accepted by HQ and matched with a technology, the actual start date
should be entered and the Activity/Event Planning Status (C2110) should be changed to a"P"
(primary). (See Exhibit V-14 for an example of the coding of sites.) The definition of the start
and completion of this measure has been added to Appendix D. IMCs should work with the
SITE coordinators in the Regions to determine when information needs to be added to CER-
CLIS.
EXHIBIT V-14
SITE PROGRAM CODING
Site Nominated
OU EVENT
(CI 101) (C2101)
EVENT
PLANNING
LD STATUS
(C2117) (C2110)
PLAN
START
(C2130)
ACTUAL
START
(C2140)
PLAN
COMPLETE
(C2131)
ACTUAL
COMPLETE
(C2141)
01 TS
EP A
7/25/90
Site Matched with Technology
OU EVENT
(C1101) (C2101)
EVENT
PLANNING
LD STATUS
(C2117) (C2110)
PLAN
START
(C2130)
ACTUAL
START
(C2140)
PLAN
COMPLETE
(C2131)
ACTUAL
COMPLETE
(C2141)
01 TS
EP P
7/25/90
10/13/90
5/20/91
V- ^ 1
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
Project Support Activities
Regions are not required to plan or report the start or completion of project support
activities (CR, technical assistance, support agency management assistance, etc.). Because of
workload model impacts, this change does not apply to treatability studies, operation and mainte-
nance (O&M) or LTRA. During the development of the budget, funding needs can be planned
site specifically or non-site specifically by event type in CERJiELP. During the operating year,
activities needing funds in the upcoming quarter must either be planned site specifically in CER-
CLIS prior to generation of the CERCLIS AOA report or a quarterly breakout (by activity) of the
annual funding need must be provided in CERHELP.
If the regional project support budget is established non-site specifically then, regardless
of whether the quarterly planning is site or non-site specific, the total annual project support
budget must be reduced by the quarterly funding needs prior to HQ placement of the AOA in
CERHELP. If a Region plans project support activities non-site specifically, the planned fund-
ing amount in CERHELP must be reduced as the site specific funding documents are processed
(See Chapter VI on handling financial data in CERCLIS). Failure to make these adjustments
could cause the Region to exceed its annual budget and result in approval of their AOA being
withheld.
Regions should also plan the conduct of aerial surveys and topographical mapping by the
Environmental Management System Laboratories (EMSL) in CERCLIS. Prior to the August
FY91 target and budget negotiations, EMSL contacted each Region to determine regional needs
for aerial surveys and topographical mapping. Based on regional response, HQ and EMSL
generated a list of sites and funding needs. This information was forwarded to the Regions in the
June 1990 call memorandum. Regions should review the sites and funding requirements in the
call memorandum and verify their accuracy by recording site specific topographic mapping
(C2101="TO") and/or aerial surveys (C2101="AS"), the FY/Q planned obligation and funding
amount in CERCLIS. A funding status (C3225) of "APR" (approved) and a HQ budget source
code (C3229="D") should be used for the funds needed at the sites identified in the memoran-
dum. HQ will set aside a budget for EMSL, off the top of the national budget, based on the
funding needs identified for these sites. If a Region has a need for EMSL's services at sites that
were not on the list, it should identify the need in CERCLIS. However, these sites/needs must be
funded from the Region's annual budget.
Funds from the regional allowance can be obligated through a procurement request trans-
ferred to EMSL or through the change request procedures. The change request would keep the
funds under TFAY9A and show the Allowance Holder as 60. The purpose should be shown as
Aerial Surveillance. Regions must be sure to change the budget source in CERCLIS to a HQ
account after the change request is processed. (See Chapter VI for additional information on
budget source codes and change request procedures.) If a change request is used or the services
were funded from the HQ account, Regions should follow up with a letter to EMSL detailing the
site names and/or specific instructions.
A Region may also request technical assistance from another entity within EPA (i.e.,
ORD). To the maximum extent, the necessary funding should be planned in CERCLIS prior to
the FY. Funds may be transferred to the other entity through a procurement request or an AOA
change request. The AOA change request is the preferred method. In either situation, a scope of
work should be prepared before the paperwork is processed. The scope of work should clearly
identify the tasks that will be performed, any deliverables that are required, the timeframes for
performance, and the funds that will be transferred.
The lead code for project support activities must match the lead code for the project/event
being supported. For example, the lead for CR at an RP lead RI/FS should be RP.
V- 22
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Technical Assistance Grants
The Region should budget technical assistance grant (TAG) funds at Fund or PRP sites
based on their knowledge of which communities may request such grants. Since many commu-
nities may not be eligible or may decline to apply for various reasons, the Region should not
assume that every NPL site will require a TAG. Funds for all TAGs, including TAGs at Federal
Facilities, are in the response budget. Regions should negotiate reimbursement of TAG costs at
the Federal Facility during IAG discussions. The Regions are to administer the TAGs at Federal
Facilities.
Assignment of Remedial Response and Oversight Work
Nationally there are five primary entities available for assignment of Fund-financed
remedial activities. They are the state, ARCS contractors, remedial contractors (REM), USACE,
and BUREC. Each of these entities has the capacity to do a certain amount of Superfund work.
It is essential that the assignment of work be balanced with the capabilities of the various enti-
ties.
If EPA and the state decide that EPA will take the lead for remedial activities, the follow-
ing must be considered when making a decision on who will perform the work:
• ARCS contractors should receive a significant number of new projects in FY91;
• USACE should conduct the RD and RA for all projects with an estimated RA cost
of over $15 million.
• USACE should conduct the RA projcts with an estimated RA cost between $5
and $15 million, USACE or ARCS contractors can perform the RD. If an ARCS
contractor is selected to do the RD, the USACE should provide technical
assistance review of the RD to assure its quality;
• RAs with a construction value of less than $5 million may be performed by
USACE or the ARCS contractors;
• USACE may be tasked to review RI/FS projects;
• USACE may also be tasked to review PRP RDs and provide oversight of PRP
RAs. Assignments to USACE for oversight of PRP RD or RA projects should be
accompanied by a start up period of training and regional orientation; and
• USACE should always receive PRP oversight assignments where USACE
performed the RD and the PRP took over the RA.
As a reminder, when RD and RA assignments are planned for different entities, a smooth
transition is necessary. This can be easily achieved by giving a technical assistance assignment
to the entity that will be performing the RA during the RD. The purpose of the assignment
would be to review the plans and specifications for biddability, constructability, operability, and
claims prevention. The entity that performed the RD should also be retained during the RA in a
technical assistance role for design clarification, change order review, etc.
V- 23
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
In-house RI/FS
The Superfund Manager's Report recommended all Regions initiate in-house RI/FS proj-
ects. The objectives of the in-house RI/FS are to:
~ Increase the RPMs awareness of available in-house resources;
~ Enhance the RPM's project management skills;
~ Reduce RI/FS costs by reducing contractor involvement; and
~ Improve the training of junior RPMs
Two approaches are being used for the in-house RI/FS process:
~ A seasoned RPM manages the project and performs many of the tasks that, for
other RI/FS projects, are routinely performed by contractors; or
~ For each RI/FS, an RPM team is established to perform most of the required
tasks. The team consists of a seasoned RPM (group leader and mentor) and junior
RPMs. Matching new and experienced RPMs provides the new RPMs with the
needed experience at the same time that it ensures reasonable cost control and
quality of the project.
The general theme for either approach is the same, use non-contractor resources to
accomplish most, if not all, of the standard RI/FS tasks. (Non-contractor resources include EPA
regional staff and personnel from other EPA offices or other Federal agencies.) Initial project
planning should assume that the RPM team will be directly involved in every task. As planning
progresses, the Region is responsible for determinng the mix of contractor and non-contractor
resources most appropriate for a particular task. However, if the team approach is used, the
group leader/mentor should ensure that each team member is exposed to as many RI/FS tasks as
possible.
All Regions were requested to undertake an in-house RI/FS in FY90 and the program is
expected to continue in FY91. Each in-house RI/FS will receive 150% of the normal FTE and as
much as $400,000, primarily for contractor drilling support or tasks that cannot be performed in-
house. The decision to perform an in-house RI/FS is the Region's and is dependent on the sites
or projects in the Region where the RI/FS has not started. Selecting an appropriate site for an in-
house RI/FS will increase the probability of successfully completing a project and meeting the
objectives of the in-house RI/FS initiative. As a general rule, smaller, less complex sites should
be chosen. At the same time, sites should be complex enough that a wide assortment of RI/FS
tasks/skills will be required. A second important consideration is the proximity of the site to the
regional office. Lastly, selecting sites for which the Region has previous experience may allow
for a more streamlined and focused study.
ARCS Coding
The ARCS was developed in response to the need for additional competition and the
desire for more contractors in the remedial contracting program. The strategy builds on the
concept of rewarding good performance on the part of the contractors by assigning more work to
good performers.
V- 24
-------
OSWER Directive9200.3-0ID
Each Region or group of Regions has a set of contractors to which remedial planning,
design, and construction management work may be assigned. Each contract will have a small
base quantity of work and many options for additional work. With ARCS, Regions will have
complete responsibility for contract management.
It is essential to the integrity of the ARCS concept that the work be distributed evenly to
all contractors during start up. This will ensure a sound basis for evaluation and decisions regard-
ing future assignment of work. It is also important for Regions to establish systems for monitor-
ing, analyzing and projecting program management costs which will become part of the SCAP
negotiations.
In order to convey ARCS contract information to HQ, the five character Financial Ve-
hicle data element in CERCLIS (C3239) will be used to identify the type of contract, the Region,
and the name of the ARCS contractor. If an entity other than the ARCS contractor will perform
the work, the first three positions of the five character Financial Vehicle element is used to
identify the type of contract and the last two characters should be blank. For example, if the
activity is assigned to the USAGE, the Financial Vehicle entered should be "COE" ("BUR" for
Bureau of Reclamation projects). If the activity is assigned to ARCS, the first three characters of
the Financial Vehicle data element should be "ARC." The fourth and fifth characters identify
the particular ARCS contractor. Exhibit V-15 contains the codes to be placed in characters four
and five based on the existing ARCS contractors. As new contractors are awarded contracts, the
Region should contact HQ and a new code will be reserved for that contractor. During event/
activity planning stages, work that will be assigned to the ARCS contractors should be identified
by placing "ARC" in the Financial Vehicle. The name of the ARCS contractor should be placed
in CERCLIS when inputting the actual obligation data. Funds needed for ARCS program man-
agement should be placed in the CERHELP data base by contractor.
If Regions are planning to use ARCS contractors and pay for them through the Case
B udget, the same codes should be used.
EXHIBIT V-15
ARCS CONTRACTOR CODES
CONTRACTOR
CODE
Arthur D. Little
oo
Bechtel
01
Black & Veatch
02
CDM
03
CH2M Hill
04
Donohue & Associates
05
EBASCO
06
Ecology & Environment
07
Fluor Daniel
08
ICF
09
Jacobs Engineering
io
Malcolm-Pirnle
11
Met calf & Eddy
12
Morrison & Knudson
13
NUS Corporation
14
PRC Environmental
15
Sverdrup
16
TAMS Consultants
17
Tetra-Tech
18
TRC Environmental
19
URS Corp
20
Roy F. Weston
21
WW Engineering
22
V- 25
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
ENFORCEMENT PLANNING REQUIREMENTS
Mixed Funding Settlements and Cashouts
The term "mixed funding" is used generically to refer to three types of settlements:
• Pre-authorization ("MR" lead);
• Mixed work (two or more OUs or phases, "RP" and "F" or "S" lead); and
Cashouts ("F\ "S", MR, or RP lead).
Preauthorization occurs where PRPs reach a settlement with EPA whereby they agree to
perform a share of the response actions, and the Agency agrees to reimburse some part of their
expenses. These are coded in CERCLIS as "MR" lead events. Mixed work occurs where PRPs
dnd EPA agree to jointly work on a project or where work may be divided between the parties.
No reimbursement to the PRPs occurs. Mixed work should be shown as separate OUs or phases
in CERCLIS. OUs or phases where the PRPs are performing the work should have "RP" lead
events. The lead for events at the OUs or phases where Fund-financed activities are being per-
formed should be "F" or "S".
Cashouts are funds are received by EPA, a state, or another PRP under the terms of a
settlement agreement that includes in whole or in part the future costs for a response action that
is or may be implemented at a specific Superfund site. EPA strongly prefers that PRPs agree to
perform the response action. The two primary circumstances when cashouts may be acceptable
are de minimis settlements and settlements with PRPs (i.e., owners/operators )that lack resources
to perform the response. In other very limited circumstances, cashouts with major parties may
be acdeptable. (See "Evaluating Mixed Funding Settlements Under CERCLA", OSWER Direc-
tive 9834.9, March 14, 1988.)
The terms and conditions of the cashout settlement should be documented in an AO or
CD. The AO or CD must address the disposition of the monies. The two major considerations
are 1) whether all or part of the funds are for future expenses or past costs, and 2) whether it is
expected that other PRPs or EPA will perform the work. It may also include future cost provi-
sions for any portion of the cost for the expected remediation efforts at the site and premium
payments.
The response work at these sites may be performed by EPA, the state or other PRPs using
cashout funds. In situations where EPA or the state will be performing the work, response events
in CERCLIS should be coded "F" or "S". In a mixed funding situation, where the Fund and
PRPs contribute to the cleanup but the PRPs conduct the work, an "MR" lead should be assigned.
If the PRPs, both de minimis and non-de minimis, assure funding and oversight responsibility for
the site, response events should have a lead of "RP". Chapter VI contains information on the
financial aspects of a cashout settlement.
Planning for Enforcement Mega-Si tes/Proiects
An enforcement mega site is a Superfund site or enforcement activity that contains
unusual characteristics that separate it from a typical site or project. These sites or projects
require more than twice the average level of extramural resources to be managed. The character-
istics of the sites or projects include, but are not limited to:
• Large geographic area defining a site (for example, Clark Fork);
V- 26
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
• Sites that are part of an area wide problem (for example, San Gabriel);
• Sites that have an unusual level of community involvement requiring an above
average level of attention (for example, Love Canal);
• Sites with a large number of PRPs that refuse to form a coalition, thereby making
the negotiation and settlement process difficult (for example, Maxey Flats);
• Sites receiving national attention (for example, Times Beach/Ellisville); and
• Complex litigation issues (for example, Hardage).
Regions should be aware that the response definition for mega-sites is sites where the
total RI/FS costs exceed $3 million. Instructions for planning response mega sites are found
earlier in this Chapter in the section titled Planning for Response Mega-Sites.
Resources are set aside in the Case Budget to address enforcement mega-sites. The
methodology for the distribution of resources for enforcement mega sites is defined in the Case
Budget section of Chapter VI.
PRP Removal
For non-NPL sites, PRP searches should be initiated as soon as a removal candidate has
been identified. Before most time critical and non-time critical removals Jire initiated, the
baseline phase of the search should be completed and the follow up phase started. This allows
for timely negotiations for AOs (unilateral or on consent) to begin before the start of the re-
moval. PRP searches also support possible cost recovery actions. Regions are required to
report:
• NPL indicators;
• PRP search (start and completion dates, and outcome);
• AO completion date (compliance status in CERCLIS, removal remedy, value of
removal);
• Removal start and completion dates, and lead; and
• Other technical data required by the removal program.
Notice letters to owners, operators and other identified PRPs should be sent and negotia-
tions conducted before the removal is initiated, time permitting. Oral notice, followed by written
notice, should be given in emergency situations. For certain non-time critical removals that are
major response actions, the special notice procedures of Section 122(e) should be employed.
Where special notice is not employed, written notice under Section 122(a) must be given.
Regions should issue AOs (unilateral or consent) at every removal action where viable
PRPs have been identified. Unless time is a factor, an AOC is sent to the PRPs before a UAO is
issued. UAO issuance is an effective tool and should be used when time and resources do not
permit negotiations. Factors which may justify Fund financing without an order include techni-
cal difficulty in defining the steps to be taken; unique technical complexity; inappropriateness of
V- 27
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
allowing a particular PRP to do the work; and insofar as resources are constrained, very low cost
of remedy. In some cases, a UAO can be converted to an AOC, but this should be done without
delaying PRP response. Oversight costs should be taken into account in negotiations, particu-
larly for large removals.
Action memoranda should be issued at all sites where PRPs are performing removals, to
provide for sufficient documentation and guard against subsequent 106(b) petitions for reim-
bursement. This is especially critical at sites where a UAO is issued.
Once RP-lead removals have begun, EPA will have an active oversight role, including
on-scene presence. Contractor assistance is available if needed. Where PRPs are not complying
with the order, they should be notified in writing what the deficiencies are and when they ocur-
red. In this situation, Regions should be prepared to quickly move forward with a Fund-financed
response. If this happens, the Region should seek treble damages and penalties during cost re-
covery actions as appropriate. Due to the time-critical nature of the removal program, Regions
should use judicial action to seek preliminary relief only in exceptional circumstances.
Regions should be prepared to enforce the terms of the order via stipulated penalties,
statutory penalties, or other sanctions when the PRPs have violated some terms of the order but
are in compliance with other terms. When UAOs are issued and the PRPs are out of compliance
and not performing the response action, treble damages should be sought during cost recovery
where possible (unless there was a viable reason for PRPs not to conduct the work). Regions
should track the PRP's compliance status in CERCLIS. Regions must also develop administra-
tive records to accompany their actions at removal sites. The date the administrative record is
compiled and available at the local repository must be recorded in CERCLIS. In addition, a "V"
must be recorded in the Event Qualifier field (C2103) to indicate that the Record is for a removal
activity.
Pre-RI/FS Enforcement Activity (PRP Search/Negotiations)
For sites likly to be added to the NPL, PRP searches should start concurrent with the LSI
or, at the latest, the initiation of the listing process. The PRP search should be managed — in-
cluding follow up, civil investigator assistance, and ORC review — to assure that: (1) PRPs,
particularly generators, are identified early, (2) general notice is issued well before RI/FS special
notice to enable PRPs to organize, (3) information related to PRPs is obtained months before the
RI/FS special notice, and (4) special notice is issued over 90 days before the planned RI/FS
obligation date. Information requests should be followed up to assure they are as comprehensive
as possible. To the extent available, information required for special notice should be presented
to PRPs before the actual special notice is issued. Regions are required to record dates associ-
ated with general notices, SNLs, and information request letters in CERCLIS. Copies of notice
letters should be sent to Program Management Support Office (PMSO) in OWPE so information
can be recorded in Superfund Enforcement Tracking System (SETS).
PRP searches should be completed prior to negotiations when possible and should be
planned in advance to avoid delaying a scheduled RI/FS start date. Upon completion of the the
first phase of the PRP search Regions are required to record the outcome in CERCLIS. Valid
outcome codes (C1719) are:
• NW - Search complete, no viable PRPs, orphan site;
VC - Viable PRPs cannot do the work; and
V- 28
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
• VP - Search complete, viable PRPs.
Regions should be prepared to move quickly through the negotiation process. This can
be accomplished through:
• Developing a site management plan and negotiation strategy in conjuction with
the state and ORC;
• Using a model order;
• Scoping of the RI/FS;
• Providing a draft of the model order and statement of work for the RI/FS with the
special notice; and
• Establishing interim milestones to judge whether real progress is being made.
Milestones should be shared with the negotiating parties.
The Regions have the option of starting discussions with PRPs before, as well as during
the initial 60-day moratorium period. In addition, costs for ongoing or completed response
actions, such as removals should be documented in advance and included for cost recovery in RI/
FS negotiations.
The PRPs who receive special notice have 60 days to submit a proposal to undertake or
finance the RI/FS. During this 60 day period, EPA may not initiate the RI/FS. Additional
studies or investigations authorized under Section 104 may be initiated and nothing precludes
EPA's authority to undertake response or enforcement activities regarding a significant threat to
public health or the environment. The Regions may initiate a scope of work or a negotiations
support document which should be funded by Case Budget. These activities are to be funded
under RI/FS negotiations. The scope of work or negotiations support document should be
provided to the PRPs when notice is given so they can prepare an adequate proposal.
RI/FS Settlement and Oversight
Settlements with PRPs for RI/FS are typically accomplished through an AOC or in rare
circumstances by CD or UAO. AOCs are preferred. In any case, the settlement document
should include either a workplan prepared by EPA using Case Budget funds or a detailed state-
ment of work with a workplan to be developed according to EPA guidance manuals. A well-
defined schedule that lists deliverables and milestones should also be included. If a Region
settles through a CD, a copy of the CD should be sent to the Chief of Compliance Branch in
OWPE.
EPA is required to use third party assistance in oversight of RP-lead RI/FS through the
TES contract, ARCS, other Federal agencies (e.g., USACE) or states. Oversight resources are
obtained through the Case Budget. At the time of settlement a detailed oversight plan should be
developed identifying intramural and extramural resource needs. Oversight should include
aci:ive field oversight as well as desktop review of engineering reports and other deliverables.
Oversight must be tracked and billed to PRPs. Collection of oversight Funds should be
tracked. In addition, Regions must ensure compliance with the cleanup standards in Section 121
for ongoing and new RP-lead RI/FS. RPMs must keep up with the progress of RP-lead RI/FS as
V- 29
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
if it were an EPA contractor performing the work. Where delays or inadequacies are noted,
prompt action, including issuance of penalties, should be taken. Regions must maintain the PRP
compliance status code (C1725) in CERCLIS.
Pre-RD/RA Enforcement Activity — RD/RA Negotiations and Oversight
Prior to completion of the draft FS, Regions should undertake considerable planning,
including: (1) developing an enforcement strategy that includes activities, responsibilities and
dates; (2) reviewing PRP search information for completeness; (3) considering settlement op-
tions, mixed funding and ds minimis and discussions with PRPs before the special notice; (4)
documenting past costs (e.g., RI/FS) to include in RD/RA negotiations; (5) preparing SNL and
accompanying draft CD.
SNLs for RD/RA should be planned and issued about the time of ROD signature. PRPs
will have 60 days in which to submit a good faith offer after receiving notices. If a good faith
offer is submitted in that timeframe, another 60-day period follows for negotiations. If a good
faith offer is not submitted, negotiations should be terminated. RD/RA negotiations should not
last longer than two quarters post ROD signature. The moratoriums established in the special
notice should be honored. Negotiations should be completed and settlement reached within the
timeframes or a UAO should be issued to viable and liable PRPs. Negotiations are completed
when the CD or referral without settlement is sent to HQ or Department of Justice (DOJ), a UAO
is issued or the RD is funded. During the moratorium, EPA may not initiate RA. However, addi-
tional studies authorized under Section 104, may be initiated during the negotiation period.
Initiation of RD during the moratorium period will only occur in exceptional circumstances and
must have advance concurrence from HQ.
In order to proceed through negotiations expeditiously, a coordinated team effort involv-
ing the program, ORC, DOJ, the states, and HQ is required. This begins with the drafting of a
site management plan and development of a negotiation strategy. The negotiation team should
identify potential settlement issues up-front and be prepared to address them. Regions are urged
to use UAOs when negotiations are protracted. In addition, where the negotiations do not pro-
duce agreement and there are viable and clearly liable PRPs, UAOs should be considered to
obtain treble damages or as a step prior to referral. Every attempt should be made to complete
negotiations within 120 days. However, in accordance with the streamlined settlement guidance,
Regional Administrators may extend the negotiation period for up to 30 days. Further extensions
require the approval of the OWPE Office Director.
All negotiated settlements for RD/RA, under SARA, must be in the form of CDs. Re-
gions should consider including a provision in the CD allowing PRPs to begin the RD prior to
lodging. AOCs for RA are iM permitted. Regions should send a copy of the CD to the Chief of
Compliance Branch in OWPE.
Oversight of PRP lead RD/RA is performed primarily through ARCS, although some
TES oversight capacity exists. Regions should seek payment of oversight costs in all settle-
ments, as well as past costs of RI/FS and other removal response costs. Where a partial settle-
ment occurs, Regions should pursue non-settlers. The status of the PRP's compliance with the
AO or CD must be updated monthly in CERCLIS.
V- 30
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Section 106 Judicial and Administrative Activity
Referrals for Section 106 enforcement action for RD/RA without settlement are an
integral part of the Superfund Enforcement program. At the end of negotiations, if the decision
is made to proceed with a Fund-financed RD, monies may be available. However, funds for RAs
are constrained. The decisions made on which sites to fund and which to queue will be based on
the environmental priority setting factors (see Chapter I). If RA funds are not available, Regions
should reconsider issuing a UAO or pursuing Section 106 litigation if there are viable PRPs at
the site.
The administrative authority under Section 106 should be used at all sites that meet the
criteria outlined in OWPE guidance ("Guidance on CERCLA 106(a) Unilateral Administrative
Orders for Remedial Design and Remedial Actions", OSWER Directive 9833.0-1(a), March 7,
1990), to bring PRP negotiations to a close or compel PRP response at the site. A UAO should
be issued if a good faith offer is not submitted within the negotiation timeframes identified or a
settlement is not reached at the end of the moratorium.
In most cases, unless there is a settlement or compliance with a UAO, regions should
plan that RP-lead RI/FS projects will be candidates for referral as Section 106/107 judicial ac-
tions. Regions should plan that Fund-lead RI/FS projects without a settlement, funding, or com-
pliance with a UAO will be candidates for referral as Section 106/107 judicial actions. Section
106/107 actions are expected to become easier, given review of remedial decisions on the admin-
istrative record, and the general success in motions for summary judgments on liability.
CERCLIS needs to be updated monthly with actual dates of referrals or orders issued,
response remedy obtained, compliance status, milestones, dollars sought (in case of a cost 106/
107 referral), value of RP work to be performed, and dollars recovered.
Cost Recovery
Cost recovery actions are one of the highest Enforcement program priorities in FY91.
Consistent with the priorities matrix, Section 107 SOL referrals are the highest priority, followed
by non-SOL RA and non-SOL pre-RA referrals, respectively. Sites ripe for cost recovery in-
clude sites with completed removal, completed RI/FS, and each RA where on-site construction
has started. Regions should have a completed PRP search and information about the liability and
viability of the PRPs; totals for funds obligated/expended; removal, RI/FS and RD completion
dates; RA and RA on site construction start dates; and SOL dates. The following is a list of cost
recovery programmatic strategies:
• Where there are viable PRPs, costs should be documented and a demand letter
sent prior to or concurrent with cost recovery actions. The date the demand letter
is issued should be recorded in CERCLIS;
• Where there is a partial settlement, an action against viable non-settlers should be
pursued promptly (before the response begins) and treble damages should be
pursued if a UAO was issued;
• Treble damages should be sought in the referral where UAOs are violated;
V- 31
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
• Each Region should issue demand letters and pursue administrative settlement for
response activities less than $200,000. EPA will refer some cases where the
PRPs did not respond to the demand letter; and
• Close Out memorandums should be initiated for all cases when a decision not to
pursue some or all costs has been made. Prior to making this decision, particu-
larly for large RAs, the PRP search is to be reviewed by a civil investigator and
supplemented as necessary (PRP search follow-up phase). As soon as a prelimi-
nary decision is reached, the date of the Close Out memorandum and the funds
thai will not be recovered should be entered into CERCLIS. If the decision is pre-
liminary, a planned date should be entered into CERCLIS for the final decision
document.
The following is a list of possible SOL issues and methods for recording data in CERCLIS:
• Referrals for all removals greater than $200,000 must be planned in order to be
filed in court within one year of completion of the removal, if resources are
available. In no event should the referral be later than three years from the date of
completion of the removal, unless there was a Section 104(c)(1)(C) waiver or
there clearly will be physical initiation of on-site construction of the RA within
three years. It generally takes three to six months from referrral to filing, but may
take longer for complex sites;
• Referrals for RI/FS and RD should be planned to be filed within two years from
completion of the RI/FS or RD unless there is physical on-site construction of the
RA within three years;
• If an RA on-site construction is started within 3 years of a removal completion,
RI/FS completion or RD completion, the SOL date for that component is 6 years
from the on-site construction date;
• Referrals for remedial activities should be planned within a year of the RA start, if
resources are available. If a RI/FS referral was conducted separately or there are
no unreimbursed past costs, a referral should be initiated when RA funds have
been expended unless special circumstances exist (i.e., non-settlers); and
• For cost recovery referrals and administrative settlements, CERCLIS data require-
ments are the following:
- Plan/actual start and completions;
- Value of referral/settlement;
- Remedy; and
- Full or partial settlement flag.
Negotiation of IAGs or other Federal agency compliance agreements should include a
provision for recovery of past Fund expenditures, including EPA oversight costs.
V- 32
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
As part of cost recovery management and preparation for civil referrals, Regions should
plan supplementing PRP searches, assembly of administrative records, cost documentation, and
demand letters. In addition, planning for RI/FS and RD/RA negotiations should include cost
documentation of past removal and RI/FS costs. Finally, oversight cost recovery and accounts
receivable must be managed.
State Enforcement
Regions are required to report progress on State Enforcement lead sites as they would any
other site. This universe includes work financed by the PRP under a state order or state CD with
PRP oversight paid for or conducted by EPA (PS-lead) and work financed by the PRP under a
state order or state CD and no EPA oversight support or money is provided (SR). Whil this
information is sometimes difficult to obtain, Regions should make reasonable efforts to get and
report these data in CERCLIS. HQ will be tracking state ordsers and CDs through the new
SCAP reporting measures - state CDs for RD/RA issued and state orders for RI/FS issued.
SR-lead activities/events should have no planned obligations. Funds for state oversight
are awarded through CAs. Funds for oversight of PS-lead RI/FS projects are provided by the
Case Budget. Funds for RD/RA oversight are provided by the response budget.
FEDERAL FACILITIES
Each Federal Facility, as defined in Chapter I is one discrete entry in the Federal Facility
Docket. Most Federal Facility NPL listings address the entire facility. In a few limited cases,
the "site" listed on the NPL only addresses a portion of the facility. This partial listing is not en-
couraged. However, in CERCLIS a complex Federal Facility may be broken up into two or
more sites/incidents. Within CERCLIS, an OU at a Federal Facility will generally address a
grouping of waste release areas that have similar characteristics or that are in close proximity.
Specific guidance for coding events and enforcement activities at Federal Facilities will be
developed and distributed under separate cover.
The Federal Facilities HQ office was moved from OWPE to OE in April 1990. However,
the primary program focus remains directed toward overseeing response activities at Federal Fa-
cilities currently on or proposed to the NPL and entering into Section 120 IAGs with these facili-
ties. The first priority for FY91 is to continue to oversee work at facilities with signed §120
(AGs. The second priority is to complete §120 IAG negotiations at facilities which were tar-
geted but slipped and the third priority is to enter into §120 IAGs at all facilities where one does
not currently exist. All proposed and final Federal Facilities, should have signed §120 IAGs by
the end ofFY91.
Many of the Federal Facility sites will have significant RCRA/CERCLA integration
issues. Regions, in conjunction with states, need to address these issues relative to the scope of
the IAG early in the negotiations process. Both RCRA and CERCLA program staff, as well as
the ORC, need to be involved in these discussions.
EPA's policy is to enter into §120 IAGs with all Federal Facilities proposed to or on the
NPL. The scope of these IAGs includes the RI/FS phase as well as the RD/RA phase. Where
appropriate, and in conjunction with the RCRA program offices, these IAGs can be used to
satisfy RCRA corrective action requirements. The concept is to use CERCLA to satisfy RCRA
so that only one set of requirements is applied to avoid redundant and duplicative efforts. In
V- 33
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
some cases, however, a combined RCRA/CERCLA permit/IAG approach may be taken when
the situation warrants such an approach, e.g., at DOE weapons complex facilities, or when the
state or EPA RCRA program has compelling interests at units on a facility. Pre-planning, coor-
dination among appropriate offices, and definitive "scoping" of a Federal Facility are necessary
factors for successful IAG execution and site remediation.
Regions should follow the Federal Facility negotiation policy for addressing Federal
Facilities. In essence, the policy is as follows:
• Establish 90 day IAG negotiation periods based on the quarterly SCAP/STARS
IAG targets. Schedules for all ongoing or planned negotiations are to be for-
warded to HQ two weeks prior to each quarter;
Address the RCRA/CERCLA issues prior to the negotiation period in conjunction
with the state and RCRA program offices;
• Issue a Federal Facility notice letter to the facility establishing the negotiation
time frame;
• Conduct three-party negotiations. The 90 day period may be extended 30 days if
settlement is close; and
• If issues still remain after the 90/120 day period, the IAG is to be elevated to HQ
for dispute resolution. Along with the elevation, the Region should recommend
either a Section 106 AO or two-party agreement in the event that the HQ resolu-
tion fails. If a settlement is not reached, either the Section 106 AO will be re-
ferred to DOJ or the Region will enter into a two-party agreement, depending on
which is appropriate.
In situations where a Federal agency is a PRP at a private site, the agency is to be treated
the same as a private party. Cashouts with premiums with the Federal agency may expedite RI/
FS and RD/RA negotiations. Similarly, at formerly-owned sites with multiple PRPs, the Federal
agency is to be treated the same as a private party. At formerly-owned sites where the Federal
agency is taking sole responsibility for the RI/FS and RD/RA, the Regions may use a §120 IAG
approach.
V- 34
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CHAPTER VI
FINANCIAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CHAPTER VI- FINANCIAL PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Following are the actions regional managers must take to comply with
the requirements described in this Chapter. In order to acquire a more
in-depth understanding of these requirements, the Chapter itself should
be read.
Regions are required to plan their obligations within the program
specific budget allocations given to the Regions prior to the July
update.
Funding needs within the budget allocation should have a funding
priority status of "Approved". Funding needs above the budget
allocation should have a funding priority status of "Alternate".
HQ will not initiate negotiations with a Region until the "Approved"
funds requested are within the budget allocations.
Regions are required to operate within their final negotiated annual
operating budget and quarterly Advice of Allowance (AOA).
RA funding decisions will be made based on the RA environmental
priority setting process. These decisions will be re-evaluated at
mid-year and throughout the third and fourth quarters.
RI/FS costs should be reduced to a national average of $750,000 per
operable unit and $1.1 million per site with the exception of
mega-sites. RI/FS budgets will be developed based on these
averages.
No monies will be issued to the Region through the AOA process
unless the appropriate project specific obligation and commitment
data are reflected in CERCLIS.
Regions must pull an AOA/Budget Control report from CERHELP
and enter the AOA amounts for the upcoming quarter found in that
report into the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS)
before the end of each quarter.
TT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CHAPTER VI- FINANCIAL PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT (Cont'd)
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
Planned and actual obligations and open commitments in
CERCLIS cannot exceed the annual regional budgets or the AOA
will not be approved.
HQ approval is not required to shift funds between projects in the
other response, RI/FS, RD, removal or enforcement AOA.
CERCLIS must be revised to reflect change requests/SCAP
amendments. HQ will not approve a SCAP amendment request or
a change request until CERCLIS reflects the proposed revisions.
Regions will not receive funds for an RA in their AOA unless the
RA remedy technology type has been entered into CERCLIS.
Regions will not receive funds for an RA unless the project has
been placed in the funding queue either automatically or through
the RA priority setting process, and ranks above the funding line.
A Region will not receive funds above its annual regional budget
unless CERCLIS is revised and a SCAP amendment/change
request has been approved by HQ.
A regional contingency account can "hold" remedial response
funds (except RAs) made available as a result of PRP takeovers,
RD bids coming in under projected amounts or when actual
obligations were less than planned obligations.
The contingency account must be reduced when the Region
identifies uses for these funds.
In the event of a funding shortfall, the regional contingency
account will be tapped as a first source of additional monies.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CHAPTER VI- FINANCIAL PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT (Cont'd)
m
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
>X$j
{|
If a Region receives funds in their AOA which were not obligated ^ \
during the quarter, the relevant planned obligation data in -1
CERCLIS must be revised or the amount placed in the
contingency account. Failure to make this change in CERCLIS N
may cause a reduction in the next quarter AOA.
v.<4
Regions will receive their percentage of the annual removal
budget if they have updated quarterly plans for those amounts in
CERCLIS by the AOA pull date.
• Regions will not receive their third quarter AOA for a specific
response category unless the commitment/obligation rate is 50%
or greater in that AOA category.
• Enforcement mega-site and litigation contingency funding needs
must be coded in CERCLIS and formally requested from HQ.
• Case Budget funding requests should be limited to only the
amount needed during the current FY.
• The enforcement AOA is issued based on the planned obligation
in CERCLIS.
Technical Enforcement Support (TES) work assignments are
entered into CERCLIS.
• Site specific spending plans for the third and fourth quarters are
required if the Region's unused enforcement allowance is greater
than 30% at the beginning of the third quarter.
Review the financial status of all contracts, IAGs and cooperative
agreements regularly. If the required activities have been
completed and there are funds outstanding, the outstanding funds
should be deobligated immediately. Copies of deobligation
documentation should be sent to the HQ Resources Management
Section.
When a funding document has been processed by the Region, the
planned finanical data in CERCLIS must be replaced by the
commitment or obligation data. Failure to make this change may
cause a reduction or withholding of the AOA for subsequesnt
quarters.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CHAPTER VT ¦ FINANCIAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
This chapter discusses the impact of the SCAP process on the regional operating budget
and AOA and outlines Superfund financial management responsibilities.
In FY89, the Agency began implementation of the new EFMS. IFMS is still in the devel-
opmental stages. As a result, many of the financial management systems decisions have not
been made and the information in this Chapter may need to be revised. Addenda to the Manual
may be issued later in the FY.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FY91 NATIONAL BUDGET
In FY91 there are insufficient resources for all ongoing activities plus the activities the
Regions planned to begin. As a result, resource decisions were made based on the following
program priorities and consistent with the integrated Priority Setting Matrix:
• Handle classic emergencies first;
• Support ongoing work to completion;
• Use enforcement to encourage PRP action;
• Fund response actions if enforcement cannot be used;
• Maximize cost recovery;
• Move sites to cleanup;
• Initiate new work to keep pipeline full;
Support long term goals via site assessment, removal, enforcement and state
programs; and
Maintain essential program management elements within the limited budgets.
Using these criteria, the response and enforcement programs made specific budget deci-
sions. The budgets for these programs and the decisions that were made are discussed in the
following sections.
Response Budget
The response budget, at approximately $1.25 billion, is nearly 75 percent of the total
$1.74 billion Superfund budget. This is $61 million less than what the Agency requested.
Within the response budget, the Agency was given a budget ceiling for removals and RAs. In
addition, the response budget supports over $300 million in contracts and the Contract Labora-
tory Program (CLP). In light of this, resources will be provided for:
• Removals at historical rates and within the budget constraints;
• Oversight of all RP-lead RD and RA projects;
VI-1
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
• Ongoing RI/FS projects started as part of the "full funding strategy";
• All RD starts; and
• The most threatening sites within the constraints of the RA budget.
To the greatest extent possible the following activities will be supported:
• PA and SI activities to meet the SARA goals and RCRA EPI commitments;
• New first and subsequent RI/FS projects;
• Listing of new sites on the NPL; and
• Support activities, such as the laboratory support resources.
Enforcement Budget
The enforcement budget for FY91 is approximately $63 million. However, at the writing
of this Manual there appears to be a substantial carryover of prior year funds into FY91 that will
alleviate some of the potential constraints. The budget provides support for PRP removals, RI/
FS starts, response negotiations, referrals, administrative and judicial cost recovery actions and
project support activities. As with the response budget, decisions on which activities will be
funded are based on the integrated Priority Setting Matrix. Within the matrix, the following ac-
tivities are priorities:
Maintaining ongoing PRP oversight and compliance enforcement;
Maintaining ongoing litigation for response and cost recovery;
• Referring SOL removal and remedial cost recovery cases; and
• Negotiating PRP RD/RA response.
Beginning in FY91 funds for Federal Facility activities will be obtained from the OE
budget.
SCAP'S RELATIONSHIP TO ANNUAL REGIONAL BUDGET
The SCAP process is the planning mechanism used by the Superfund program to identify
site assessment, remedial, removal and enforcement funding needs for the FY. The planned obli-
gations included in the second quarter SCAP update (February) form the basis for the regional
budgets for the next FY. The final annual regional operating plan, and the associated budget, are
a result of the August HQ and regional negotiations on the proposed outputs and program budg-
ets. Though Regions are required to operate within their final negotiated annual operating
budget (except for RAs), adjustments within this budget can be made during the FY.
The actual allocation of funds is done through the Agency's Phase III Operating Plan.
This plan is submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) prior to the start of the
FY for apportionment of funds. After OMB review and concurrence, the Operating Plan is sub-
mitted to the Congress for approval of significant reprogramming of funds. At this time, Con-
VI-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
gress may also modify the Operating Plan based on Gramm-Rudman requirements, shifts in em-
phasis among different environmental programs, etc. Changes made by Congress may affect the
regional budget negotiated in August.
Prior to the beginning of the FY, each Region will be given a proposed budget allocation
for the site assessment, remedial, removal and enforcement programs. The budget allocations
are developed using the program/activity specific criteria discussed later in this section. Regions
are required to plan their obligations within the program specific allocations, they are not re-
quired to plan obligations within the activity specific criteria. Final budgets will be developed
upon completion of the fourth quarter negotiations between HQ and the Regions. Planned obli-
gations for regional activities (except RA) must fall within the total identified budget levels, and
should be shown by entering "approved" in the Funding Priority Status data field. Funding
needs above the HQ proposed total budget level must be designated as "alternate". This will
allow HQ to see the regional funding priorities, what activities will not be performed as a result
of lack of funds, and provide the information needed for any supplemental funding requests. HQ
will not initiate negotiations with a Region until the "approved" funds requested (except RA) are
within the proposed total budget levels. Planned obligations for RAs should be shown in CER-
CLIS using the criteria in Chapter I, Exhibit 1-5. Fourth quarter FY90 RA projects that will not
be funded because of budget constraints should also be coded with an Event Planning flag of "Q"
(queued) and a Funding Priority Status of "ALT' (Alternate). During fourth quarter negotia-
tions, the planned start date for these projects should be changed to FY91.
Following is an explanation of the criteria used to develop the regional budgets.
Site Assessment Annual Regional Budget
The budget for the site assessment program is almost $7 million less than the funds
available in FY90. The budget reduction, along with the commitment to eliminate the pre-SARA
SSIs and maintain the historical NPL listing rate, caused a reduction in the resource levels for
other site assessment activities. The proposed regional site assessment budgets were established
based on the number of FIT and State-lead PA/SI completions, LSIs, NPL package development,
Federal Facility SI reviews and Federal Facility NPL package development targeted in the March
negotiations. PAs are priced at $6,000 and Sis are priced at $25,000 each. Management assis-
tance or other forms of state assistance should be funded as project support or Core Program Co-
operative Agreement (CPCA) funds.
Remedial Annual Regional Budget
In FY90, a number of Fund-financed RA project starts were not funded and there are not
enough funds for the RAs scheduled to begin in FY91. Funding for RAs will be distributed to
the Regions based on the RA environmental priority setting approach presented in Chapter I.
Once a project is ranked, it will be funded in order of relative priority until funds are exhausted.
Based on the final RA budget, a "funding line" will be established. Once an RA project has been
placed in the finding queue and is above the "funding line", the funds necessary will be provided.
Regions have the flexibility to modify their RA budgets to accomodate the project funding
needs. Funding decision will be reevaluated at mid-year and throughout the third and fourth
quarters.
The criteria used to develop the other major portions of the regional remedial budgets are
shown in Exhibit VI-1 on the following page.
VI-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHIBIT VI-1
CRITERIA FOR PROPOSED REGIONAL
RESPONSE BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RD
RA
PROJECT SUPPORT
TREATABILITY STUDIES
TAG
CPCA
PRP RD/RA
OVERSIGHT
ARCS
MANAGEMENT
CRITERIA
• Negotiate mega-sites.
• $750,000 per new start.
• Other ongoing RI/FS based on number of
projects and funds obligated in previous
FYs.
• $700,000 for each Fund-financed RD start
targeted in the March negotiations.
• Based on dollars and schedules in CERCLIS
in accordance with the RA environmental
priority setting criteria.
• Based on each Region's share of remedial
targets negotiated in March.
• Funds were allocated in proportion to each
Region's Fund-financed RI/FS starts.
• Based on the number of NPL sites with
remedial work ongoing in FY91.
• Based on actual and planned CPCA
obligations in FY90.
• Based on the Region's PRP RD and RA
projects priced at $37,500 per quarter.
• Based on the number of ARCS contracts in
each Region multiplied by pricing factors
for new or ongoing contracts. Funds are
allocated to Regions that have ARCS project
officers.
I
VI-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Fund-Financed. RI/FS Funding Strategy
Successful implementation of the Fund-financed RI/FS full funding strategy requires
meeting the RI/FS cost reduction goals initiated in FY89. This requires that RI/FS costs
be reduced to a national average of $750,000 per OU and $1.1 million per site. Both the
OU and site goals are important. The OU goal primarily affects year-to-year funding
limits. The site goal is needed for long term cost management and to eliminate the
incentive a Region may have to break sites into OUs to increase its annual budget. A
Region's RI/FS budget is developed based on the full funding strategy.
Treatability studies are not included in the cost goals. These activities are funded as a
separate event.
Removal Annual Regional Budget (Fund-Financed')
The removal annual regional budget consists of removal actions and removal support
dollars. The FY91 removal action regional budget allocations will be based on 90% of the FY90
initial regional budget allocation. The balance of the FY91 removal budget will be held in
reserve at HQ.
FY91 removal support dollars will be the sum of the program management costs in each
Region's Emergency Response Cleanup Services (ERCS) contracts.
Enforcement Case Budget - Annual Regional Budget
The Case Budget refers to the extramural financial resources necessary to pay for the en-
forcement support provided by contractors, other Federal agencies, and the states. The majority
of the Case Budget is used to pay for contractor support. Following are the Case Budget funded
categories:
• Removal program (enforcement);
• PRP searches and RI/FS negotiations;
PRP RI/FS oversight;
• Litigation support;
• State enforcement; and
Program implementation.
Additional information on the allocation of the Case Budget can be found later in this
Chapter in the OWPE Case Budget section.
VI-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
ADVICE OF ALLOWANCE PROCEDURES AND FINANCIAL
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The planned obligations identified through the SCAP process are the basis for the AOA
approved by the OC and AA SWER. No monies will be issued to the Regions through the
AOA process unless the appropriate project specific obligation and open commitment data
are reflected in CERCLIS.
Regional Allowances
In FY91, the OC will issue six allowances to the Regions. They are:
• RA (site specific "site" allowance);
• RD (non-site specific "site" allowance);
• RI/FS (non-site specific "site" allowance);
• Removal (non-site specific "site" allowance);
• Other response (non-site specific "regular" allowance); and
• Enforcement (non-site specific "regular" allowance).
The "site" allowance is an event specific allowance. It includes funding for removal ac-
tions, RI/FS, RD, and RA projects and is issued on a site or non-site specific basis. The "regu-
lar" allowance includes site and non-site specific events or activities and is issued non-site
specifically. The other response allowance contains funds for site assessments, removal and
remedial project support, response program support, and oversight of RP-lead RDs and/or RAs.
The following sections explain how these allowances are developed and the flexibility available
in the AOA structure.
The AOA Process
The AOA is based on the Phase III Operating Plan which identifies projected obligations
for each quarter of the FY. The Phase III Operating Plan for FY91 is based on the final SCAP
plans developed in the fourth quarter of FY90. Funds available for obligation, however, are
limited to projected needs for the upcoming quarter. The AOA process was revised with the
implementation of IFMS. Regions enter the quarterly AOA into fFMS. The AA SWER and the
OC review the funding levels entered by the Region and compare them to the AOA amounts
generated by the HQ program offices. If the two agree, within three working days after the start
of the quarter, the HQ OC Budget Division and the AA SWER approve the AOA in IFMS and
the funds are available for obligation.
Four weeks before the end of the quarter, HQ will generate an AOA report which reflects
the approved planned obligations in CERCLIS. HQ will enter the AOAs into the CERHELP
BC/AOA system two weeks before the end of the quarter. Regions must pull the report from
CERHELP and enter these amounts into IFMS. If the planned and actual obligations and com-
mitments in CERCLIS exceed the regional budget, the Region will be contacted, the AOA will
VI-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
not be entered into CERHELP and the AOA in IFMS will not be approved until CERCLIS is
revised. If the AOA entered by the Regions does not agree with the AOA in CERHELP, IFMS
will not be approved and the Automated Document Control Register (ADCR) will not work.
Only projects planned in CERCLIS can be funded by the AOA. Exhibit VI-2 illustrates the
AOA process. Regional IMCs should work closely with their regional finance office on the
entry of the correct AOA into IFMS.
The HQ OC Budget Division monitors obligations against the AOA weekly. If a Region
exceeds any of the allowances, or a site specific RA allocation, the HQ OC Budget Division will
notify the Region and request resolution of the overcommitment/overobligation. The Region
then has until the end of the current month to rectify the overcommitment/overobligation or shut
down procedures will be initiated. If the Region does not submit a change request, decommit or
deobligate funds, or effect corrections in IFMS as necessary, the HQ Budget Division will
initiate reprogramming from the Region's regular allowance. Repeated violations for site or
allowance allocations may result in partial or total withdrawal of the Region's site allowance.
As is standard Agency policy, if a Region exceeds either the regular or site allowance, the
HQ OC Budget Division will withdraw obligation authority in accordance with existing proce-
dures. During the last quarter of the year, the HQ OC Budget Division will work with the Re-
gions and OSWER as necessary to ensure that all allowances and obligations are aligned prior to
year-end closing.
In the past, the AOA obligation rate through the first two quarters of the FY has been
low. As a result, Regions will not receive their third quarter AOA for a specific response
category unless the commitment/obligation rate is 50% or greater in that AOA category. If
the commitment/obligation rate for one response allowance (i.e., RDs) is 35% while the rate for
another (i.e., removals) is 65%, the third quarter removal AOA would be issued but the RD AOA
would not be issued. For those Regions that continue to have a low rate of commitment/obliga-
tion, OSWER will renegotiate the Regions' operating plan for the remainder of the year during
June.
The Enforcement program has also developed rules for utilization of Case Budget funds.
See the HQ/Regional Adjustment sub-section of the OWPE Case Budget section later in this
Chapter.
AOA Flexibility
Flexibility exists within the AOA structure to shift funds both within and between allow-
ances. Shifting funds between projects within the other response, RI/FS, RD, removal or en-
forcement allowance is a SCAP adjustment. It does not require HQ approval or a change re-
quest. CERCLIS must be revised to reflect the shift. Shifts between allowances is also a SCAP
adjustment, however, a change request is required. The change must be reflected in CERCLIS
prior to HQ approval. Based on regional priorities, funds may also be reprogrammed between
response and enforcement. These shifts require a change request and Congressional notification
if the funds proposed for reprogramming exceed $500,000.
RA Allowance
The shortage of RA funds and the implementation of the RA priority setting criteria will
reduce the Regions' ability to redirect RA funds. Approval from the AA for Administra-
tion and Resources Management (ARM) and AA SWER is required for the redirection of
VI-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-0ID
EXHIBIT VI-2
THE ADVICE OF ALLOWANCE PROCESS
4 Weeks
before the
quarter ends
Regions pull AOA data
from CERHELP
OC and AA SWER compares AOA in IFMS
to AOA data provided by OERR and OWPE
within 3 working days after quarter begins
Regions obligate funds to
projects planned in SCAP as
reflected in CERCLIS
HQ reviews approved obligation data
and compares them to the annual
regional program budgets
Approved planned obligation
data are pulled from
CERCLIS
If IFMS and OC/AA SWER AOA
data agree, OC and
AA SWER approve AOA in IFMS
Regions enter AOA data from
CERHELP into IFMS before the end
of the quarter
If the planned and actual obligations and commitments do not
exceed the annual regional budgets, OWPE and OERR enter AOA
data into CERHELP and provide AOA to OC and AA SWER two
weeks before the quarter ends
I
$
1
1
VI-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
RA funds to other program areas. Given the constraints in RA funding, HQ approval is
highly unlikely. Funding for ongoing projects, mixed funding settlements, LTRA, and
operation and maintenance, however, may be reprogrammed by the Regions. RA funds
made available as a result of bids coming in below expected amounts will be returned to
HQ for funding of other priority RA projects. In some cases, HQ may recommend that
the Region retain the funds to support unanticipated RA cost escalations. In situations
where the PRPs settle after the AOA is issued, Regions may retain the funds needed for
oversight. The remaining funds in the AOA must be sent back to HQ through a change
request. If the PRPs takeover the RA after funds are obligated, Regions should retain the
funds needed for oversight and deobligate the rest. The RA funds that are deobligated
will be returned to HQ.
Non-site Specific Funding Flexibility
Regions may redirect funds in the other response, removal, RI/FS, RD, and enforcement
allowances, to meet site or activity priorities. It is important to note that, generally, funds
cannot be shifted out of the removal allowance because Congress has specifically added
resources to this area. Regions may shift funds more easily into the removal allowance
from other non-site specific allowances.
Funds saved within the RI/FS and RD accounts as a result of a settlement or where actual
costs are lower than estimated will generally stay within the Region. These funds may be
used within the allowance for other RI/FS or RD projects, respectively. In most cases,
funding for RI/FS may not exceed the Fund ceiling for each Region. The ceiling may be
increased in some instances to augment PRP contribution(s) or to fulfill citizen requests
for further technical work. In addition, Regions may retain and redirect non-RA response
funds made available as a result of the following actions:
• PRP takeovers or settlements;
• RI/FS or RD bids that are less than planned amounts; and
Actual obligations less than planned obligations.
HQ approval will generally be given for the redirection of unused funds to the following
priorities:
• Classic emergencies;
Removal actions to make NPL sites safe;
• Ongoing RA projects; and
Funds necessary to oversee PRP activities.
Regions may redirect RD funds when a CD is referred to HQ or DOJ for lodging or when
PRPs indicate they will comply with a UAO.
A change request must be approved before funds can be redirected to activities outside
the allowance.
VI-9
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Special non-site contingency accounts have been created in the CERHELP data base to
provide each Region with a means to "hold" and track the amount of funds made avail-
able through the actions described above. As Regions identify uses for these funds, the
contingency account should be reduced. If the funds will be used for an activity sup-
ported by a different allowance, a change request must be approved prior to obligation.
Response funds may be used to address deficient PRP projects. Regions are allowed to
redirect funds to accommodate this need. Funds for PRP projects that will require sub-
stantial Fund involvement should be transferred to the appropriate response AOA cate-
gory. For projects requiring limited Fund involvement, funds should be transferred to the
enforcement AOA. Again, a change request will be necessary for transfers between
AOA categories.
AOA Change Request Procedures
Regions are required to operate within their quarterly AOA and their annual regional
budget (except RA). They are also responsible for managing the funds issued in the AOA and
for operating within budget ceilings, floors and other restrictions. Consistent with the flexible
funding initiatives discussed earlier in this chapter, Regions may:
Shift existing funds between allowances. HQ approval of a change request is
required; and
• Move future planned obligations to the current quarter (increase total allowance
after issuance within the annual budget). HQ approval of a change request/SCAP
amendment is required.
In some situations, a change request is required as a result of changes in the SCAP.
Chapter II identifies SCAP amendments and adjustments and when a change request is needed.
Exhibit VI-3 discusses the flexible funding and other situations where an AOA change request is
required. Exhibit VI-4 describes the procedures to be followed in each of these situations. HQ
will not approve a change request unless CERCLIS is revised to reflect the change.
Under EFMS, change requests are electronically transferred to HQ. The following infor-
mation should be provided for a change request:
Purpose/justification;
• Amount;
• Site name and Site/Spill ID (S/S ID) if allowance is issued site specifically;
• Program element(s) (TGB - enforcement or TFA - response); and
• Allowance that is being increased and/or allowance that is being decreased.
If the change request is a reprogramming of funds between allowances, the net change
should equal zero. The change request must be transmitted by authorized personnel in the
Region's financial office. The site specific record in CERCLIS should be revised at the time the
change request is transmitted. Regions should not initiate any obligations against the change
until the OC and AA SWER approves the revised AOA.
VI-10
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-0ID
EXHIBIT VI-3
CHANGE REQUEST REQUIRED
CHANGE REQUEST SITUATION
PROCEDURES IN EXHIBIT VI-4 TO
BE FOLLOWED:
ALLOCATION TRANSFER IAGs
DECREASE ALLOWANCE AFTER
ISSUANCE
TRANSFER FUNDS TO EMSL OR
OTHER ENTITY WITHIN EPA
DECREASE ALLOWANCE AFTER
ISSUANCE
SHIFTING EXISTING FUNDS
BETWEEN ALLOWANCES
SHIFTING EXISTING FUNDS BETWEEN
ALLOWANCES
INCREASE TOTAL QUARTERLY
ALLOWANCE AFTER ISSUANCE
(WITHIN ANNUAL BUDGET)
INCREASE TOTAL ALLOWANCE
AFTER ISSUANCE WITHIN ANNUAL
BUDGET
DECREASE TOTAL QUARTERLY
ALLOWANCE
DECREASE ALLOWANCE AFTER
ISSUANCE
INCREASE RA FUNDING AFTER
ALLOWANCE IS ISSUED
INCREASE TOTAL ALLOWANCE
AFTER ISSUANCE WITHIN ANNUAL
BUDGET
DECREASE RA FUNDING AFTER
ALLOWANCE IS ISSUED
DECREASE ALLOWANCE AFTER
ISSUANCE
DECREASE RA FUNDING AS A
RESULT OF PRP TAKEOVER
DECREASE ALLOWANCE AFTER
ISSUANCE
I \
VI-11
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHIBIT VI-4
AOA CHANGE PROCESS
AOA CHANGES
Decrease Allowance
After Issuance
IMC sends E-mail
change request to the
regional finance office,
with copies to HQ
PDBS staff
I
Revise CERCLIS
I
Change request is electronically
transmitted to HQ through IFMS
AOA in IFMS is revised to
reflect the change
Increase Total Allowance
After Issuance Within Annual
Budget
Shifting Existing Funds
Between Allowances
I
IMC sends E-mail change
request to HQ PDBS staff,
with copies to AA SWER
and regional finance office
IMC sends E-mail
change request to the
regional finance office,
with copies to HQ PDBS stafT
and AA SWER
r
Revise CERCLIS
)(
Revise CERCLIS J
AA SWER sends E-mail
approval memorandum to
regional program and
finance offices and
HQ OC
1
The change request is electronically transmitted to HQ through IFMS
AOA in IFMS is revised to reflect the change
OSWER and the OC review the request
Revised AOA in IFMS is approved in IFMS by the HQ OC and AA SWER
VI-12
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Since the AOA is updated daily, change requests transmitted to HQ can be processed and
a revised allowance approved immediately.
Congressional Reporting Requirements
In 1989, Congress imposed new reporting requirements on the response program ele-
ment. The agreement originally stated that the Agency would budget and report financial infor-
mation in the following eight categories:
• Pre-Remedial;
RI/FS;
RD;
RA;
• Removal actions;
• Response support;
• Remedial support; and
• Removal support.
After further discussion, Congress determined that the response program must report on
four of these categories:
RI/FS;
RD;
• RA; and
• Removal actions.
The Agency will report the status of the current operating plan compared to the original
operating plan within 30 days following the end of the quarter. Immediate Congressional notifi-
cation is required if the cumulative changes in a single category exceed any of the funding levels
by $2 million or more. The RA threshold is $10 million. Since the reporting requirements are
after the fact they will have no impact on the flexible funding policy. The OC will monitor the
Congressional reporting requirement through the AOA. The Financial Summary Report (SCAP-
4) will be used to manage the monitoring and reporting requirements.
SCAP'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE AOA
Within the SCAP process, obligations are planned either site, project and OU specifically
or non-site specifically. That is, some planned obligations are associated with specific site
activities while other planned obligations are estimates of total funding required for an activity
within a Region. The CERCLIS data bases have been designed to accommodate site and non-
site specific planning. Exhibit VI-5 lists the events and enforcement activities for which obliga-
tions are planned on a site, OU and project vs. non-site basis.
VI-13
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3 01D
EXHIBIT VI-5
SITE VS. NON-SITE SPECIFIC PLANNED OBLIGATIONS
SHe Specific
Admin. Cost Recovery
Administrative Record**
CR**
Design Assistance**
Endangerment Assessment
Federal Facility Oversight
Forward Planning
Litigation Support
LTRA
Management Assistance**
Negotiations:
-- Removal**
- IAG
- RD/RA**
- RI/FS**
- Cost Recovery
Non-Binding Allocation of
Responsibility NBAR)**
O&M**
Other**
Oversight of PRP:
- RI/FS**
~ RD
-- RA
- O&M; LTRA
- Removals**
Prepare Cost Document
PRP Search
-- NPL**
- Non-NPL**
RA
RD
RI/FS
Referrals
- 104(e)
-106 & 106/107**
-107**
Removals
Technical Assistance**
TAGs**
Treatability Study
Non-Site Specific*
ARCS Contractor Management
Aerial Surveys**
Contract Program Management
CPCA
ERCS Management
Geophysical Support/
Topographical Mapping**
Information Management
Multi-site CA
PA/SI
Preliminary Natural Resource
Surveys
Records Management
State Enforcement Management
Assistance
Training
* For these activities, Regions
must enter the number of sites
involved and the contract
vehicle,
** These activites may be
planned site specifically or
non-site specifically.
.
VI-14
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CERCLIS tracks only extramural funding needs. Therefore, Regions should be certain
all their extramural funding needs are reflected in CERCLIS such that there is a crosswalk
between the CERCLIS planned financial data and the regional AOA.
In addition to the site and non-site specific planning, obligations are also planned and
budgets developed on a program specific basis. The Budget Source field (C3229 and C2918) in
CERCLIS identifies which program pays for the planned events/activities. Exhibit VI-6 presents
the budget source codes associated with each program. It is important that Regions accurately
identify the budget source since each program develops an annual budget and each program has
a separate AOA process. It is also important that the Regions maintain this budget source code
to eliminate potential impacts on the regional AOA.
EXHIBIT VI-6
BUDGET SOURCE CODES
E
= Enforcement
M =
HQ Removal
V
= Removal
D
HQ Remedial
R
= Remedial
L =
Federal Facility
Exhibit VI-7 identifies the major events/activities and the appropriate budget source
codes, depending on the project/event lead, for planned obligations. The budget source code for
Federal Facility ("L") will be available in August 1990. Until that time, the enforcement ("E")
code should be used. Funds for temporary or permanent relocations conducted by FEMA should
be given a budget source of "M" or "D" after the IAG is signed and funds are transferred to HQ
through the change request procedures. Funds for aerial surveys or topographical mapping at
sites on the HQ/EMSL list should be given a budget source of "M". Funds for aerial surveys and
topographical mapping at sites not on the HQ/EMSL list and other intra-agency assistance are al-
located in the regional budget. Once the change request transferring the funds to the other entity
is processed, the budget source code in CERCLIS should be changed to an HQ budget source
code. Funds for some project support activities (i.e., aerial surveys, topographical mapping, geo-
physical support, etc.) at RP-lead RI/FS projects should be included in the RI/FS oversight
request.
The obligation authorities for mixed funding rests in the Regions. Funds needed for these
agreements are to be planned in advance and become part of the Region's budget.
Remedial Financial Planning for AOA
The AOA for the remedial program is issued by the OC on a site and non-site specific
basis and is broken down into the following categories:
RI/FS;
RD;
VI-15
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
EXHIBIT VI-7
WHO PAYS FOR WHAT
EVENT/ACTIVITY
EVENT/ACTIVITY CODES
CERCLIS
LEAD
BUDGET
SOURCE
CERCL1S
CERHELP
ARCS Management
AC, PM*
-
R
Administrative Cost Recovery
AV
FE
E
CPCA
SC
-
R,V
ERA*
ER
F
R
ERA Oversight*
ER
ER
RP
E
FF
L
ERCS Management
Zone
KZ
-
V
Regional
RE
-
V
Litigation Referrals and Ongoing Support
Section 106
SX
SX
FE
E
Section 107
SV
SV
FE
E
Section 106/107
CL
CL
FE
E
Section 104(e)
SF
FE
E
LSI
ES
S,F
R
LTRA
LR
F,S,EP,MR
R
LTRA Oversight
LR
RP.PS.MR
R
Negotiations (including development
of site woikplans)
Removal
RN
RN
FE
E
RI/FS
FN
FN
FE, SE
E
RD/RA
AN
AN
FE, SE
E
Cost Recovery
NE
FE
E
IAG
IN
FE
L
Non-Binding Allocation of Responsibility (NBAR)
NB
NB
FE
E
PA/SI
PA
-
R
PRP Searches
NPL
NS
PS
FE
E
Non-NPL
RP
RP
FE
E
Prepare Cost Documentation Package
PC
FE
E
Remedial/Enforcement Project Support:**
Aerial Surveys
AS
AS
ALL***
R.D
Administrative Record
AR
AR
F, S, EP
R
RP, FE
E
FF
L
Contract Program Management
-
PM
-
R,E
CR
CR
CR
F, S, EP,
R
RP, PS, SE, FE, MR
E
Design Assistance
DA
DA
ALL
R
Endangerment Assessment
ED
F.S, EP, ,SE
R
RP, PS, MR
E
Federal Facility Docket
FD
L
* - Designates Historical Ongoing Only *** - ALL = F S EP FE* SE RP PS
* * - Guidance on assigning leads for project support activities is found in Chapter V.
VI-16
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
EXHIBIT ¥1-7
WHO PAYS FOR WHAT (CONT.)
EVENT/ACTIVITY
EVENT/ACTIVITY CODES
CERCLIS
LEAD
BUDGET
SOURCE
CERCLIS
CERHELP
Remedial/Enforcement Project Support
(continued):
Forward Planning/Mgmnt. Asst
FP
ALL
R
Geophysical Support
GS
HG
ALL
R
Information Management
IM
-
B.L
Management Assistance
MA
MA
F, S, EP,
R
RP, PS, SE, MR
E
FF
L
MuW-Siie Cooperative Agreement
-
MS
-
R,B
O&M
OM
OM
ALL
R,
Other (Specify)
OH
OH
—
E,L
Preliminary Natural Resource Survey
PN
-
E,L
Records Management
RM
—
R,E,L
State Enforcement Management Assistance
EM
PS.SE
E
FF
L
Technical Assistance
TA
TA
F, S. EP, SE, MR
R
PS, RP, FE
E
FF
L
TAGs
TG
CT
ALL
R
Treatability Studies
TS
P,S,EP
R
TS
RS.PS.MR
E
Topographical Mapping
TO
TO
ALL
R.D
Training
-
E
Removal Actions:
Removal
RV,UR*,IR* J*R*
RC
F
V
FF
L
Removal Contingency
—
NP
—
V
NFL
—
NA
—
V
Non-NPL
-
RC
—
V
Oversight of PRP Removal
RV,UR*,IR*J>R»
RP, MR
E
Removal Support:
Administrative Record
AR
AR
ALL
V •
Aerial Survey
AU
—
V
Evacuation
ev
..
F
V
Investigations
--
RS
F
V
Removal Community Relations
RC
-
F
V
RC
..
RP, PS, MR
E
FF
L
Temporary Relocation
TR
F
V
RI/FS
Rl.FS.CO
F, S, EP
R
RI/FS Oversight
RI.FS.CO
RI
RP, MR, PS
E
FF
L
RD
RD
RD
F, S, EP, MR
R
RD Oversight
RD
RD
RP. PS, MR
R
RD
RD
FF
L
RA
RA
RA
F, S, EP, MR
R
RA Oversight
RA
RA
RP, PS, MR
R
RA
RA
FF
L
¦ '
* - Designates Historical Ongoing Only
** - Guidance on assigning leads for project support activities is found in Chapter V.
• ALL = F, S, EP, FE*. SIS", RP. PS
VI-17
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
• RA (site specific); and
• Other response.
Site specific planned obligations are entered directly into CERCLIS in the appropriate
event record for the site. At this time, the planned obligation date, amount, contract vehicle,
budget source and priority funding status are to be entered. Those remedial events that have the
greatest likelihood of requiring funding during the FY that are within the Region's budget alloca-
tion should be identified by placing "APR" (approved) in the Funding Priority Status field
(C3225 and C2909) in CERCLIS. The RI/FS, RD and other response AOAs are the total of the
approved site specific or non-site specific planned obligations in CERCLIS with a budget source
code of "R". CERCLIS financial reports provide a total for the site specific and non-site specific
planned obligations for the purpose of developing and issuing the AOA.
The AOA for RAs is pulled directly from the approved site specific planned obligations
in CERCLIS and is issued by site name, S/S ED and dollar amount. Regions must be sure the
planned obligation date, contractor vehicle, budget source, priority funding status and remedy
technology type (Technology Information Qualifier (C3402)) are entered into CERCLIS. Re-
gions will not receive RA funds in their AOA unless the remedy technology type has been
entered into CERCLIS. In addition, in order to be approved for funding, the RA project
must be placed in the funding queue, either automatically or through the RA priority
setting process, and rank above the RA "funding line." (See Chapter I for additional infor-
mation.)
A Region will not receive funds above its annual regional budget unless a SCAP amend-
ment and change request have been approved by HQ. Each quarter the actual and approved
planned obligations and actual commitments must be less than or equal to the annual
regional budget or the AOA will not be approved.
In FY90, HQ established a non-site specific remedial contingency account in CERHELP.
The remedial contingency account cannot be used for developing regional budgets. It can only
be used during the operating year for "holding" remedial response funds (except RAs) made
available; 1) as a result of PRP takeovers; 2) RD bids coming in under projected amounts; or 3)
in situations where the actual obligations were less than planned obligations.
As Regions identify uses for these funds, the contingency account must be reduced and
the site specific planned/actual obligations entered into CERCLIS. The funds in the contingency
account will be reviewed by HQ at mid-year and throughout the third and fourth quarters. If a
Region has a funding request during the year that was unplanned, the following approach should
be followed in identifying funding sources:
• As a first step, Regions should determine if funds are available in the contingency
accounts that can be redirected within or between allowances to perform the
action;
• If no contingency funds are available, funds planned for obligation in future
quarters (within the Region's annual budget) that will not be used as originally
planned should be tapped;
• After mid-year, funds made available within the annual regional budget as a result
of the mid-year or third/fourth quarter adjustment process should be used; and
VI-18
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
• If necessary, Regions may request an increase in their annual budget through the
redirection of funds made available as a result of mid-year or third/fourth quarter
adjustments in other Regions.
If a Region receives funds in their AOA which were not obligated during the quarter
received, the relevant planned obligation data in CERCLIS must be changed or the amount
placed in the contingency account. At the end of each quarter HQ will review the AOA funds
remaining, commitments and obligations made, the contingency account, and planned obligation
data. If AOA funds were not committed or obligated and the planned obligation data were not
changed, HQ will take the following actions:
• Reduce the next quarter's AOA for other response, RI/FS or RD funds by the
amount that was not committed or obligated; or
• Request that Regions follow the OC's change request procedures to return RA
funds to HQ.
The Financial Summary Report (SCAP-4) and the Budget Control Report (SCAP-2I)
will be used to evaluate the status of the RI/FS, other response, RD, RA and removal allowances.
To the maximum extent possible, Regions should plan for mixed funding requirements
prior to the development of the annual regional budget. However, if a request for preauthoriza-
tion is received and funds are required during the current FY, Regions must identify the source
of the requested funds from within their annual budget.
Removal Financial Planning for AOA
Each Region's removal annual budget will be established in August. Regions will get
30% of their annual budget in the first quarter, 20% in the second quarter and 30% in the third
quarter, as long as they have updated quarterly plans for those amounts in CERCLIS by the
specified pull dates. These plans may be adjusted, as needed, anytime after the pull date. HQ
and the Regions will negotiate the fourth quarter allocation in order to help ensure that all re-
moval funds are being used to the best advantage. As is currently the procedure, if at any time a
Region needs additional funding, CERCLIS should be updated to show the proposed spending
plan with a funding priority status of "Alternate" and a request for a change should be made to
the Response Operation Branch. When the change has been approved, the funding priority status
code in CERCLIS should be revised.
Enforcement Financial Planning for AOA
In FY91, the Case Budget AOA allocation will be displayed by contract mechanism, and
OWPE distribution model categories. For additional information see the Final Budget Distribu-
tion section of the OWPE Case Budget Process.
OWPE CASE BUDGET PROCESS
This section provides an overview of the Case Budget process, including a discussion of
SCAP targeted and non-targeted activities needing Case Budget funding, financial planning and
tracking requirements and responsibilities, budget allocation and AOA distribution, contract
VI-19
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
mechanisms, activities and their pricing factors, and CERCLIS Case Budget reports. In addition,
a brief summary of regional/HQ responsibilities during the Case Budget process is included.
There are five basic components to the Case Budget process. These are 1) preliminary
Case Budget allocation and distribution; 2) regional planning against the preliminary budget; 3)
HQ/regional negotiations; 4) final Case Budget distribution; and 5) budget execution. Each of
these five steps is fully detailed in the following sections.
Preliminary Case Budget Allocation and Distribution
A Region's Case Budget allocation contains the Region's share of available extramural
resources used to support enforcement activities. This includes the following:
• Removal program (enforcement);
PRP searches and RI/FS negotiations;
• PRP RI/FS oversight;
• Litigation support;
• State enforcement; and
• Program implementation.
Beginning in FY91, funds for Federal Facility activities will be obtained from the OE
budget. However, Regions should continue to identify funding needs through CERCLIS.
To allow Regions to make one request for litigation, the three budget categories of RD/
RA referral and negotiations, cost recovery, and ongoing litigation support have been collapsed
into the general category of litigation support. One request, therefore, may be made for both the
quarter in which the litigation is referred and for the subsequent ongoing quarters.
The Case Budget will be distributed as follows:
• Three percent (3%) of the total budget will be held back for mega-sites. Requests
for mega-sites are made in July with distribution occurring in the first quarter;
• $1 million from the litigation support category will be held at HQ for litigation
contingency funding. (Regional holdback will be based proportionally on each
Regions share of nationally available funds.) To request litigation contingency
funding, Regions should code requests into CERCLIS with an "ALT" funding
status and notify HQ of the funding requirement. Funds will be distributed on an
as needed basis periodically throughout the FY; and
The remainder of the Case Budget will be allocated and distributed to the Regions
as quarterly AOAs.
Enforcement Me^a-Sites
For FY91 approximately $1.9 million will be set aside for mega-sites. To distribute the
resources for mega-sites, Regions should employ the following methodology:
VJ-20
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
1) Determine the Case Budget financial needs at typical projects and code them as
"Approved" (APR) in the financial status field. This will be a combination of
estimates and standard pricing factors;
2) Determine the Case Budget non-site specific needs;
3) Determine financial needs for mega-sites/projects;
4) Total the dollars in steps 1-3. If this amount is greater than the Region's Case
Budget, adjust the dollar values between "APR" and "ALT" status to meet the
Region's allocation. "ALT" dollars should be applied to the mega-site activities.
The Region should then submit to HQ a formal request for mega-site funding.
5) If the total amount of steps 1-3 is less than or equal to the Region's Case Budget
allocation, all dollars should be "Approved". There is no need for the Region to
submit a formal request for mega-site funding.
Mega-site requests will be reviewed by a HQ/regional workgroup during the third and
fourth quarter FY90. Allocations will be made by the workgroup.
Litigation Sunnort
To request litigation support contingency funding, the Region should send a letter to the
Division Director of CED addressing the following points:
• What the funds will be used for,
• Why it can not be handled out of the current budget;
• If it is a first minimis settlement;
• Any extraordinary circumstances surrounding the case;
• Viability of PRPs;
• Type of settlement; and
• National precedence issues.
In FY91 CERHELP will be modified to allow the AOA to be shown on a quarterly basis
and also according to OWPE distribution model categories. A field will also be added to allow
entry of the prior year TES obligated and untasked funds (i.e., carryover funds).
Quarterly AOAs will be issued based on regional quarterly plans recorded in CERCLIS
and identified on Report ENFR-47. This is a change from the FY90 allocation strategy. All
"APR" requests will be funded in the planned quarter as long as a Region's total approved
planned obligations plus past TES tasking and non-TES obligations are within the annual re-
gional budget. The purpose of this allocation strategy is to allow more accurate planning of
resources and ensure the availability of resources when they are needed. As budget utilization
(TES tasking and non-TES commitments and obligations) will be measured against quarterly
plans, Regions should request Case Budget funds the quarter in which they will be utilized.
VI-21
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
Regional Planning Against Preliminary Budget
The goal of the FY91 Case Budget process is to increase effectiveness, allow greater
flexibility and provide financial accountability through CERCLIS. Regions should plan their
budget site specifically or use a combination of site specific and non-site specific planning where
actual sites are undetermined prior to the start of the fiscal quarter. Non-site specific plans
should be replaced with site-specific plans when sites are identified.
Regions should indicate their FY91 Case Budget plans in CERCLIS by the July 8 pull
date. (Details on how to code Case Budget plans in CERCLIS are presented in Appendix G.) It
is important that Regions plan their Case Budget needs and requests against specific sites where
possible. This will enable both the Regions and HQ to identify regional priorities and budget
needs that exceed the proposed allocation. Such detail is crucial to any attempt by HQ to seek
supplemental funding. Without site specific justification, HQ will not consider requests in
excess of the proposed allocation. In addition, throughout the FY Regions should ensure that
CERCLIS plans are updated to accurately reflect funding requirements against the available
budget.
Because the Case Budget is FY specific, all funding requests should be limited to only the
amount needed during FY91 except in rare circumstances. In the case of annually priced activi-
ties, it is expected that the funding provided in one FY will support the activity through comple-
tion and that additional funds will not be requested in subsequent FYs. Unless there are extraor-
dinary circumstances, which should be discussed with HQ, Regions should only plan for the
amount needed to fund the activity or event through the end of the FY.
Exhibit VI-8 displays all the activities and events eligible for funding in FY91 within
specific budget categories. Case Budget dollars planned against other activities will not be
accommodated. It is important to note that any activity or event not listed in Exhibit VI-8 will
not be included on the standard reports (ENFR 47 and ENFR 48). The Case Budget no longer
pays for many supporting activities (e.g. O&M, design assistance, geophysical support, etc.).
These activities are funded through the Response budget. Regions should reference Exhibit VI-7
for a complete listing of which budget supports specific activities and events.
Since the Case Budget is to be managed at the overall or bottom line level, Regions must
consider both their actual allocation and funding priorities when planning their budgets. In
addition, average pricing factors and budget categories should be considered when determining
site and regional funding requirements. For example, if a Region's total request is within the
allocated budget, requests for PRP RI/FS oversight do not have to match the proposed allocation
for the PRP RI/FS oversight budget category. Therefore, Regions are not required to request
dollars within budget category pricing.
It is recognized that Regions may have to shift funds among budget categories in order to
fund priority activities or events. The Funding Status field should be used to indicate both
requests within and above regional allocations. This status should be reviewed and monitored on
a regular basis to ensure the availability of funds and identification of supplemental needs.
To determine the proper funding status code, the activity/event must be identified as a pri-
mary or alternate target/project. If it is an alternate target/project, the entire funding request
should be coded as "ALT". To determine the funding status for primary targets/projects, the total
of all the requests must be considered. If the total request does not exceed the available budget
the funding status codes may be "APR". If, however, the budget is exceeded, two financial
records must be created for the activity/event and the amount above the budget should be coded
VI-22
-------
EXfflPIT YI-8
FY91 CASE BUDGET FUNDED ACTIVITIES REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE PROGRAM OUTPUTS
OWPE DISTRIBUTION
ASSOCIATED CASE BUDGET
VALID LEADS
SKAVG.
AVG.
MODEL
FUNDED ACTIVITIES
CERCLIS CODES
CERHELP
FOR
r-ITT" cDPrtcir
PRICING FACTOR
DURATION
YXJ
TOTAL
CATEGORIES
(Target = »)
CODES
SI 1 borttlHt
PLANS
ANNUAL
QRTRLY
UN
QUARTERS
AVG. COST
-Non-NPL PRP Search
RP
RP
FE
15.0
1
15.0
REMOVAL
- Removal Negotiation Starts
RN
RN
FE
PROGRAM
- RP Oversight (PRP removals starts)*
RV
RC.NA.NP
RP, MR
50.0
1
50.0 !
PRP SEARCHES AND
- NPL PRP Search (Phase I)
NS
PS
FE
25.0
4
25.0
RI/FS NEGOTIATIONS
- NPL PRP Search (Phase 11)
NS
PS
FE
6.0
12
72.0 I
• RI/FS Negotiation Starts
FN
FN
FE, SE
50.0
50.0
PRP RI/FS
- PRP RI/FS Oversight*
RI, FS, CO
RI
RP, MR
25.0
10
250.0 S
i Rr ivi/r i3
OVERSIGHT
-Treatabilility Study Oversight
TS
RP.MR
20.0
2
20.0 j
-Endangerment Assessment Oversight
ED
RP.MR
20.0
2
20.0 |
- Cost Recovery Negotiation
NE
FE
- Prepare Cost Documentation Pkg.
PC
FE
- Administrative Cost Recovery
AV
FE
7.0
1
7.0
- RD/RA Negotiation Starts*
AN
AN
FE.SE
24.0
3
24.0
- NBAR
NB
NB
FE
LITIGATION
- Referral Development*
SUPPORT
Section 106, 106/107
SX.CL
SX.CL
FE
15.0
3
15.0
Section 107 Removal
SV
SV
FE
14.0
2
14.0
Section 107 Remedial
SV
SV
FE
21.0
3
21.0
Section 104 (e)
SF
FE
10.0
1
10.0 |
- Ongoing Support
Section 106, 106/107
SX.CL
SX.CL
FE
20.0
Section 107
SV
SV
FE
10.0
STATE
150.0 I
ENFORCEMENT
- PS RI/FS Oversight*
RI, FS, CO
RI
PS
15.0
10
- TES 5+ Program Management
PM
- Administrative Record
AR
AR
RP.FE
- Records Management
RM
- CRs
CR.RC
CR
RP,PS,SEJFE,MR
- State Enforcement
PROGRAM
Management Assistance
EM
IMPLEMENTATION
- Information Management
IM
- ERA Oversight (ongoing)
ER
RP
- Management Assistance
MA
MA
RP,PS,SEJFE,MR
- Preliminary Natural Resource Surveys
PN
- Technical Assistance
TA
TA
PS.RP.FE
- Multi-site CA
MS
- Training
TR
¦ Other
OH
OH
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
as "ALT". Alternate records, that have a corresponding approved record for the same site, OU,
and activity or event, will identify supplemental funding requirements for primary targets/
projects. The approved plans must n£t exceed regional allocations. AOAs will not be distrib-
uted to Regions with approved planned dollars totalling more than the available budget.
A new funding status code for contingency funding, "CON", has been added. Regions
should code potential funding requirements, such as potential PRP takeovers, with "CON" as the
funding status. ENFR 47 will be modified to indicate these requests.
Final Budget Distribution
Approximately fifteen days prior to the beginning of the quarter, HQ will indicate the
approved quarterly budget levels in CERHELP. AOAs will be displayed as approved amounts
for each distribution model output category. HQ will not send out a memorandum containing the
approved amounts, however, it will send notification that the approved budget has been recorded
in CERHELP. A Region's "APR" planned obligations must not exceed their approved budget
for the upcoming quarter. In order to receive its allowance, a Region must have updated quar-
terly planned obligations for those amounts in CERCLIS by the specified pull date.
Budget Execution
The goal in modifying the Case Budget planning and allocation processes is to facilitate
accurate planning of Case Budget resources. Ensuring the availability of funds when they are
needed is crucial to the success of the Enforcement program. While it is understood that the
volatility of the program may inhibit the planning process, Regions should use Case Budget
funds in the quarters in which they are planned.
To offer a credible argument for supplemental funds, it is imperative that the Regions
show adequate utilization of available resources. Close monitoring and management of the Case
Budget is, therefore, essential. Outlined below are the major steps of the budget execution proc-
esses that must be followed to manage Case Budget resources.
TES Contract Obligations
Once quarterly AOAs are received by the Region at the beginning of the fiscal quarter,
the contract obligations may be intiated. Obligations are made to contracts when Procurement
Requests (PR) are sent to the Contracting Officer (CO) and contracts are modified to include the
new funds. Regional Project Officers (RPOs) make sure that the PRs are committed by their fi-
nancial management offices before sending them to the CO.
RPOs will submit the following three types of obligations for the TES 5 - 12 contracts:
• Program management obligations;
• Generic obligations to cover TES tasking; and
• Buy-in obligations.
Detailed instructions for coding all types of obligations are included in Appendix G.
VI-24
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Program Management Obligations
A program management obligation represents the amount of the regional management
Work Assignment (WA). RPOs will send PRs to the COs to obligate funds to cover the
regional management WAs. The RPOs will provide copies of the PRs, and CERCLIS
coding forms to the IMCs. The IMCs, or their designees, will enter the PR commitment
amounts in CERHELP as "Contract Program Management" using the coding reference
guide and data entry instructions included in Appendix G.
Generic Obligations to Cover TES Tasking
The generic PR or obligation is actual funding to the contract to cover the value of En-
forcement program WAs. This type of obligation, however, is not activity or site spe-
cific. The obligated dollars are used to fund anticipated WAs not initiated or approved
for the contract. Obligations must precede approved WAs and, therefore, any actual
work in the Region. These PRs create non-site specific obligations that will be
charged to the site specific WAs when the contractors' invoices are processed by
EPA. RPOs must ensure that enough money is obligated to cover the total value of
the WAs outstanding at any given time in each FY. Again, RPOs should provide
copies of PRs with coding forms to the IMCs for the commitments/obligations to be
recorded in CERHELP as 'OH' for other.
Buy-in Obligations
The third type of obligation is for TES WAs that are submitted with their own funding
PRs. These WAs are generally referred to as buy-ins. The most common form of a buy-
in is when "TEA" funds (remedial or removal funds) are used to support a TES contractor
to perform non-enforcement work at the site. To properly account for these funds RPOs
must record the PR Acount Number (AN) in the Technical Enforcement Support Work
Assignment Tracking System (TESWATS) in the "funding account" field. Additionally,
Superfund site specific buy-ins will have to be properly coded in CERCLIS using the
EPA site identification number, OU number, event or enforcement activity type, funding
AN, and Document Control Number (DCN). RPOs should provide copies of PRs, prop-
erly coded WA forms, or CERCLIS coding forms to the IMCs for the information to be
entered in the appropriate site records.
Obligations for Other Financial Vehicles
Regions may utilize other financial vehicles (ARCS, REM, IAGs or CAs) to perform
enforcement related work. To access the ARCS or REM contracts, the Region must write a PR
commiting funds to the contract. The commitment initiates the process of obligating funds. The
PR is written for a specific activity or event to be performed at the site and upon approval of the
CO, the contractor may begin the proposed work. Case Budget funds ("TGB") obligated to one
of the non-TES contracts represents an enforcement buy-in to a non-TES contract vehicle.
If the state or another Federal agency will be performing the work, a CA or IAG, respec-
tively, is required. Like the PR, the IAG or CA is written for a specific activity or event to be
performed at the site. A CA requires the preparation of a Commitment Notice (CN) and the CA
funding document. Funds are obligated and available for use by the state when the CA is signed
by the Regional Administrator or his/her designee. An IAG requires the preparation of a CN and
the IAG funding document which is signed by the decision official (Regional Administrator or
his/her designee) in the regional office. The funds are commited when the IAG is signed by the
regional decision official and obligated when signed by the other agency.
VI-25
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
TES WA Tasking Against Generic Obligations
Once the TES generic commitment/obligation is initiated, the process of approving
WAs, also referred to as tasking, may begin. WAs are initiated in the Region and sent to the CO
in the Procurement and Contracts Management Division (PCMD). When the CO approves and
signs the WA, the value of the assignment represents the amount tasked against the generic obli-
gation. Tasking amounts are not obligations but they do show how the AOA is going to be used
to support site activities or events.
TES WA amounts need to go into CERCLIS to show the actual costs of tasking the con-
tractors when planned activities have started. RPOs need to make sure that every TES 5 -12
WA and amendment has an accurate CERCLIS event or enforcement activity. The event
or activity codes will relate to the appropriate site targets being supported, including the relevant
sequence numbers. If a TES WA is for multiple events, activities, or operable units, the funding
split must be shown in the comment field.
It is critical that RPOs put accurate CERCLIS codes for EPA ID number (CI01), OU
number (CI 101), and either Enforcement Activity Type (C1701), Event Type (C2101), or Non-
Site Incident (C402) in TESWATS. RPOs can obtain this CERCLIS information from the
RPMs, Enforcement Program Managers, or IMCs since they routinely use it to prepare site
specific plans. IMCs should provide RPOs with CERCLIS reports showing planned funding, by
site, for the current year (ENFR-47, for example) so that RPOs will know what WAs have an
approved funding plan when RPMs request contract work. CERCLIS planning reports also show
the CERCLIS data that RPOs need to enter into TESWATS. HQ will make available the TES-
WATS transaction report that RPOs can use to review tasking data prior to entry into CERCLIS.
IMCs should ensure that data from TES WAs are entered correctly into CERCLIS. Once
the COs approve a WA or an amendment to an existing WA, the amount can be entered with the
financial type (C2602 or C3202) of "H", (TES WA Amount (tasking)). Reductions in WA
amounts (detasking) can be entered with the code "W". RPOs should provide copies of properly
coded WA forms or CERCLIS SIFs to the IMCs for the amounts to be recorded in the appropri-
ate site records.
TES WA Tasking for Bnv-Tns
TES buy-ins (generally using "TFA" funds) require a separate commitment/obligation as
well as a WA. Two financial records must, therefore, be created in CERCLIS. The first finan-
cial record indicates the commitment/obligation of funds into the contract. Instructions for
entering this record are listed above. The second type of financial record that is required is the
tasked amount. The procedures for entering these data are identical to other tasking data with the
exception that the budget source code should indicate "R" for Remedial, "V" for Removal, or
"L" for Federal Facilities.
AQA Utilization
The intial measure of AOA utilization is the commitment/obligation of funds into the
TES and non-TES financial vehicles. The total of the TES and non-TES commitments/obliga-
tions represents the amount of the AOA which has been put into the contracts to fund work to be
performed at the site. The total of commitments and obligations, therefore, should not exceed
the AOA issued to date. Regions should review planned contract usage and apportion funds to
the contracts accordingly.
VI-26
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Budget Utilization
I To examine overall budget utilization a more detailed analysis of TES contract usage is
required. The value of WAs approved by the CO further indicates TES contract usage. It is
important, therefore, that once commitments/obligations are made to the TES 5+ contracts, that
WA tasking occurs as planned. For the non-TES financial vehicles, commitments/obligations
will be used as the measure of utilization as no corresponding tasking exists for these vehicles.
The sum total of tasked amounts in the TES contracts and commitments/obligations in the non-
TES financial vehicles indicates the level of budget utilization.
In FY91, CERCLIS will be used to track and measure AOA and budget utilization.
Regions are responsible, therefore, for entering the following data into CERCLIS:
"APR", "ALT", and "CON" plans;
• Non-TES ("TGB") commitments/decommitments and obligations/deobligations;
• TES generic obligations/deobligations;
• Program management commitments/decommitments and obligations/
deobligations; and
• TES tasked and de-tasked amounts.
Distinct codes now exist for obligations and WA amounts to separately portray progress
made on obligating funds and tasking assignments to the TES 5-12 contracts. The separation of
obligations and tasking amounts will accurately reflect budget and AOA utilization and prevent
| double counting WA amounts as obligations. CERCLIS reports, such as the SCAP-4 and 21,
will be revised to indicate TES contract generic obligations, TES tasked amounts, non-TES
commitments/obligations, and "APR" planned amounts. Actual TES WA tasking amounts
(rather than commitments and obligations) will be compared to TES planned amounts to show
the balance of funds available for remaining TES plans. Case Budget management through
CERCLIS will enable both the Regions and HQ to readily determine the status of the following:
• Contract obligations;
TES tasked amounts against generic obligations;
• Plans vs. tasked amounts;
• Total level of AOA and budget utilization; and
• Carryover funds from previous fiscal quarters (obligated, untasked funds)
Regions, as the allowance holders, are responsible for fully managing Case Budget data
in CERCLIS. The strategy to accomplish this requires close monitoring of planning, obligation,
and tasking data. "Approved" (APR) planned obligations in present or future quarters will
indicate requests not yet used (tasked in TES or committed/obligated in non-TES). For past
quarters, only TES tasking or non-TES commitments/obligations will be shown on a modified
SCAP-4 to include Enforcement data. Regions, therefore, must closely monitor planning data
and actual usage. If planned obligations are not "used" by the end of the quarter, they
should be moved to a subsequent quarter for the same or different site. If funds are "used"
VI-27
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
the planning record qe the "APR" flag may be deleted. Either of these options will prevent
current quarter tasked or committed funds from showing on standard reports. Regions should,
however, be consistent in either deleting the planned record or the "APR" flag.
Disbursements
Although TES tasked amounts and non-TES commitments/obligations will be used to
measure budget utilization, disbursements will also be reviewed as a further measure of budget
utilization. It is important that contractor invoices are received and processed in a timely man-
ner. The current disbursement tracking procedures for the TES and non-TES financial vehicles
are different in IFMS. Non-TES disbursements are directly linked to the site and work being
performed and may be compared with the planned amounts or requests. TES disbursements are
linked to the contract but are not directly linked to the specific WA for which the contractor is
being paid. When a TES disbursement is made, the amount is deobligated from the generic
contract obligation. After this deobligation, a site specific obligation (not WA specific) and
outlay occurs. At present, there are plans to request the Financial Management Division (FMD)
track TES disbursements at the WA level, however, the earliest this will occur is late FY91.
HQ/Regional Adjustment
Throughout the FY, Regions must show adequate utilization of their Case Budget. Re-
gions should, therefore, examine their entire AOA, their utilization and ascertain whether funds
are available from other budget categories prior to requesting additional funds. HQ must know
that the Region is fully using its AOA before it can entertain additional Case Budget requests.
Consequently, it is imperative that CERCLIS consistently reflect obligations and work assign-
ment tasked amounts. Additional requests for HQ held contingency funding will be reviewed on
the basis of need, other Regions' needs, and the amount of dollars available.
In FY91 there will be a Case Budget review during the mid-year SCAP negotiations.
There will also be a round of negotiations in June for the fourth quarter AOA. A Region may
carry unused funds in its AOA to subsequent quarters, however, Regions that have not been
using their allowance, risk the loss of their entire third and fourth quarter AOA. If a Region has
an excessive unused allowance (greater than thirty percent) at the beginning of the third quarter,
it will be required to produce a site specific spending plan in CERCLIS for both the third and
fourth quarters by mid-May in order to retain its entire fourth quarter AOA.
Responsibilities
To manage the Case Budget it is essential that regional IMCs and TES RPOs re-
sponsibilities are well coordinated. RPOs must incorporate CERCLIS information in TES-
WATS and report enforcement obligations and work assignments to the IMCs. IMCs, in turn,
must provide Case Budget planning reports to RPOs and ensure accurate data entry into CER-
CLIS. CERCLIS will be the only place where AOA funding, obligations, and work assignment
tasking amounts will be shown together. A more detailed description of the interrelated roles
and responsibilities is described in Appendix G. Exhibit VI-9 summarizes RPO and IMC re-
sponsibilities, while Exhibit VI-10 describes general regional and HQ responsibilities.
Enforcement Financial Reports
Enforcement activities requiring Case Budget funds must be coded accurately. To en-
hance financial planning data quality, several Enforcement financial reports have been developed
for both regional and HQ use.
VI-28
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHIBIT VI-9
CASE BUDGET RESPONSIBILITIES
REGIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES
HQ
RESPONSIBILITIES
JANUARY
MID-YEAR SCAP NEGOTIATIONS
FEBRUARY
MID-YEAR SCAP NEGOTIATIONS
NEGOTIATED
ACTIVITIES
MARCH/
APRIL
CONFERENCE WITH HQ
TO DISCUSS REQUESTS
(ONGOING)
CONFERENCE WITH REGIONS
TO DISCUSS REQUESTS
(ONGOING)
DETERMINATION ON
SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST
AUGUST
AUGUST SCAP NEGOTIATIONS
AUGUST SCAP NEGOTIATIONS
SEPTEMBER
REPORTS
REPORTS
DIRECT ENTRY OF
TES OBLIGATIONS
DIRECT ENTRY OF
TES TASKING
REVISE REQUESTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SCAP
NEGOTIATIONS
NOTIFICATION TO
REGIONS OF FINAL CASE
BUDGET ALLOCATION
DIRECT ENTRY OF
NON-TES OBLIGATIONS
(CAs, IAGs, PRs)
NOTIFICATION TO REGIONS OF
PRELIMINARY CASE BUDGET
ALLOCATION
INDICATE CASE BUDGET
NEEDS WITHIN
ALLOCATION (APR) AND
ABOVE ALLOCATION (ALT)
ADJUSTMENT OF CASE
BUDGET PLANS BASED
ON BUDGET EXECUTION
(AT LEAST QUARTERLY)
PLAN SCAP ACTIVITIES,
IDENTIFY TARGETED AND
NON-TARGETED FUNDING
NEEDS.
REVIEW REGIONAL
OBLIGATIONS, TASKING
AND REVISED PLANS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH
GUIDANCE AND
CHANGING PROGRAM
PRIORITIES
REVIEW REGIONAL
REQUESTS, APPLY
PRICING FACTORS,
TO BASELINE
TARGETS TO
CALCULATE
PRELIMINARY
ALLOCATIONS TO
REGIONS, POSSIBLE
ADJUSTMENTS TO
DOLLARS AND/OR
CONTRACT
MECHANISM
VI-29
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHIBIT VI-10
REGIONAL/HQ CASE BUDGET RESPONSIBILITIES
REGIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
HQ RESPONSIBILITIES
<
a
>*
o
z
>—<
z
z
<
J
Negotiate activity targets with HQ at the
mid-year SCAP negotiations in
February.
Submit Case Budget requests (through
CERCLIS) in response to regional
allocations calculated by HQ by
mid-March. Identify approved,
alternate, and mega-site ftmding needs.
Negotiate revisions to targeted activities,
Case Budget dollars, and mega-site
ftmding at August SCAP negotiations.
Calculate regional allocations for
activities planned by the Regions
following the mid-year SCAP
negotiations in February. Allocations are
made for:
- targeted enforcement activities
(based on pricing factors); and
- non-targeted enforcement activities
(based on a combination of pricing
factors and priorities identified by
the Regions during negotiations).
Review regional Case Budget requests
submitted through CERCLIS in response
to allocations (March through June).
Assess mega-site issues and initial need
for supplemental funding request. Confer
with Region as necessary. Proceed, if
necessary, with supplemental funding
request.
Determine final allocations at August
SCAP negotiations.
fe
H
Z
a
PS
Pi
U
Receive Case Budget AO As.
Manage Case Budget within the
approved bottom-line allocation.
Enter contract obligations and work
assignment tasking amounts into
CERCLIS as they occur.
Negotiate mid-year adjustments.
Distribute AOA to the Regions. AO As
consist of dollars for non-TES financial
vehicles and TES 5+ contractors.
Negotiate mid-year adjustments.
Review regional budget execution
against allocations. Generate CERCLIS
reports in response to Case Budget
management needs.
VI-30
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
On the main CERCLIS menu, under "ENFR" for the Enforcement menu, are three En-
forcement financial planning reports. The user is prompted for a Region, sort criteria, and FY
when selecting one of these reports. Following is a description of ENFR reports:
• ENFR-47 indicates all "APR" and "ALT" requests for primary targets and proj-
ects and will be the sole source of data in determining regional quarterly AOA al-
locations.
• ENFR-48 shows only "ALT" requests without corresponding "APR" requests for
the same site, OU, and activity.
• ENFR-49 shows all records that contain data quality errors. The report isolates
the key Case Budget field which is either inaccurate or nonexistant.
Several additional reports are currently being programmed and/or modified to allow for
Case Budget management in CERCLIS.
Contract Management
Contract Management Delegation
In FY91 eight TES contracts are available for Regions to support their Enforcement
programs. These contracts are referred to collectively as TES 5+. Both the Regions and
HQ have management responsibilities for these contracts. RPOs provide programmatic
oversight and technical direction for contractor performance from a regional perspective.
HQ Zone Project Officers (ZPOs) provide guidance and technical assistance to the RPO
for contract management.
Interagency A greements
Regions have responsibility for developing regional IAGs in FY91 with the following
agencies: DOI, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), USACE,
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). HQ will
maintain the national IAG with the DOJ in FY91. OSWER Directive 9295.0-01 "Re-
gional Interagency Agreements Handbook" provides detailed procedures for initiating and
obtaining the assistance needed from these Federal agencies. Technical assistance from
another Federal agency must be planned site specifically in CERCLIS. The contract
vehicle (C2608/C3239) must be coded "IAG".
Department of Justice
EPA HQ maintains the national IAG with the DOJ/Environment and Natural Resources
Division (ENRD) to provide legal representation and associated support services on
behalf of EPA for all matters arising from or related to CERCLA and SARA. Support
services are defined as expert witness and automated litigation support. DOJ/ENRD
maintains a base level budget for legal representation services. The DOJ IAG allows the
Regions and DOJ to establish a case strategy/management plan. This management plan
encourages forward planning between the DOJ attorney, ORC and a regional program
person. Case management plans will be prepared by DOJ/ENRD for each case by the
date of filing of the complaint and updated quarterly. This forward planning process
allows DOJ and the Regions to efficiently utilize the IAG resources and to accommodate
case needs or unforseen changing priorities that may arise.
VI-31
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
DOJ will provide expert witness support for referred cases. The Regions may also obtain
expert witnesses through the TES 5+ contracts. The Regions will coordinate the planning
for expert witnesses with the ORC and DOJ/ENRD. The Region should plan for the ex-
perts under the appropriate enforcement activity (i.e., Section 106, Section 107). The
funding vehicle would be IAG, "EW" must be posted in the financial notes field.
8(a) Contracts
Regions are encouraged to use 8(a) minority contractors whenever alternatives to TES or
non-TES financial support is needed. Under the TES 5+ contracts each prime contractor
submitted plans to the PCMD for utilizing 8(a) minority contractors for a certain percent-
age of the TES 5+ work. Historically, 8(a) contractors have been used primarily for PRP
searches. They can, however, be used for oversight support, records management, sam-
pling and other activities and be procured through TES 5+. Use of 8(a) contractors is not
limited to any particular type of activity.
Funding for 8(a) requests will be included in the regional AOA. Requests for 8(a)
contract dollars should be made through the usual SCAP process; i.e., they should be
entered into CERCLIS site specifically using 8(a) contract spending, though requests
should fall within the appropriate activity pricing factors.
MANAGEMENT OF CASHOUTS
Cashouts are the funds received by EPA, a state or another PRP from PRPs in a mixed
funding agreement or as part of a sis minimis settlement, and that are intended to pay in whole or
in part for future work at a specific Superfund site. Draft guidance on managing cashouts was
issued April 4, 1990, by OWPE and OERR (OSWER Directive 9832.16). This section contains
the cashout funding management policies and procedures that are outlined in the draft guidance.
If the procedures are revised, changes may be made in this Manual.
In order to maintain accountability for cashout funds deposited for credit to the Super-
fund program, the Agency will establish and maintain "special accounts" for each cashout within
a dedicated program element. It is critical that the case management team carefully evaluate the
circumstances at the site before deciding that a "special account" is the best management proce-
dure for handling a cashout. Other management procedures include:
• When short term fund accessibility is not necessary, the dollars should be depos-
ited for credit to the Trust Fund for later appropriation to the Agency. These
funds are interest bearing. However, neither the principal or the interest is avail-
able for site work without a Congressional appropriation.
• At state-lead sites, the dollars can be deposited to a state managed escrow account
or trust fund, where safeguards exist that ensure that the money will be used for
the specific site response.
• When a global settlement is expected, the dollars may be temporarily deposited to
a court managed escrow account for future distribution to major settlers. Court
managed accounts should not be utilized for long term funds management.
• When global settlements are reached and non-de minimis parties receive cashout
dollars directly from minimis parties, the dollars can be deposited to a PRP es-
tablished and managed trust fund or escrow account that is approved by EPA.
VI-32
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
When EPA will be responsible for implementing the response action or will be transfer-
ring funds to other settlers and short term fund accessibility is essential, the dollars should be
deposited in the Treasury for credit to the Superfund program's appropriation and be managed as
a "special account". These funds do not accrue interest but are available to the Agency without
Congressional appropriation. OMB apportionment is required. The OC will issue an AOA to
the Region for the use of the funds.
Cashout deposits to the Treasury will be credited to the Superfund program and line item
managed by the OC as site specific "special accounts" in program element RUBY9H. These
accounts provide EPA with immediate access to monies received from cashouts and serve to
assure the settler(s) that the funds will be used for the purposes established in the settlement
document. Once a reimbursable allowance is issued for these funds, the allowance holder may
use the funds for site response in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
During each budget submission, EPA will request an appropriation equivalent to the
interest that would have accrued had the unexpended funds been invested in the Trust Fund.
Appropriated interest will be allocated to the "special account" to be used to implement the
response action. In addition, OSWER will request reimbursable FTE to manage the implementa-
tion of the response action being funded by the "special account" for the site. When entering into
settlement agreements that include cashouts, it is important to take into consideration the fact
that Congress may choose not to appropriate the interest.
Cashout monies can be used according to any implementation plan EPA may have for the
site. These funds can be used to fund EPA's intramural and extramural costs associated with the
site. Unless otherwise specified in the settlement document, unused funds (including premium
payments) will be transferred from the "special account" to the Trust Fund and treated as cost
recovery to be used at other sites after being appropriated by Congress.
Following are the procedures the program and resources management staff must follow in
processing cashout monies:
• The settlement agreement must contain directions to the PRP on the remittance of
funds to EPA. It also must be made clear to the PRPs that the settlement
agreement is not valid until the cashout monies have been received. The Agency
is not required to seek remittance by issuing a demand (invoice) for payment.
The agreement must instruct the PRP to send the funds to the appropriate "lock-
box" bank for the regional office. The PRP must make the check payable to the
"EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund". The PRP must also transmit a letter or
other document along with the check that clearly identifies the site to which the
funds apply.
• A copy of the settlement agreement must be sent to the Region's Servicing Fi-
nance Office (SFO) with a memorandum to the Financial Management Office
(FMO) that clearly summarizes the terms and conditions of the settlement. The
memorandum must be forwarded to the finance office within 10 working days of
the date of the settlement. Mandatory information to be included in the transmit-
tal memo are:
Name and address of settling PRPs;
Site name;
VI-33
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
S/S ID;
The exact amounts of the past cost component including interest (where
appropriate);
Amount of the future cost component;
Amount of any premium payment;
Information concerning the OU and response activities;
If the settlement is minimis and whether payment to major settlers is
anticipated; and
The RPM and attorney assigned to the site, including telephone numbers
and addresses.
The SFO will establish a suspense file on the cashout. When the check arrives,
the finance staff will match the check with the agreement and promptly notify the
program staff or attorneys that payment has been received.
Upon receipt of the PRP's check, the regional FMO will record the funds in
IFMS. Any portion intended to reimburse the Agency for past costs (cost recov-
ery) will be deposited to the Trust Fund. The balance will be credited to a re-
gional suspense account to be transferred prompdy to the EPA Financial Manage-
ment Center in Cincinnati (FMC-Ci). The regional office will also send FMC-Ci
a copy of the settlement agreement. FMC-Ci is EPA's SFO for "reimbursable"
agreements, of which cashouts are one type. FMC-Ci will account for the cashout
portion of the funds as an "advance" to the Agency's Superfund appropriation and
will manage the funds on a site specific basis. These funds cannot be used for
work at the site until an AOA for use of the funds is issued.
The regional OC is responsible for sending a copy of the settlement agreement,
deposit ticket and check to the HQ OC Budget Division with a request for a "re-
imbursable allowance". The reimbursable allowance would typically be enough
for the estimated current year use of these funds. The remainder would remain
controlled in IFMS in a site specific advance account for later work at the site.
FMC-Ci has primary responsibility to account for these funds within IFMS,
including liquidation of the funds as they are used.
The regional OC is responsible for notifying the regional program office that the
AOA has been issued for use at the site. The regional OC will request the FMC-
Ci set up a site specific reimbursable account in IFMS against which the program
can charge contractual services, salaries or whatever other costs are appropriate
under the agreement.
If work at the site is being supplemented with Fund monies, the program office
will be responsible for determining the funding source(s) for any particular seg-
ment of the work. The program office must also be sure that invoices or other
payment documents clearly indicate what account is to be charged. The financial
activity codes for response work being charged to "special accounts" are the same
as those used by all Superfund programs. As EPA makes payments against the
cashout balances, the IFMS reimbursable accounts will be reduced accordingly.
VI-34
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
• The OC and OSWER Resource Management staff will monitor the "special ac-
count" balances and balances of cashouts deposited for investment in the Trust
Fund. The items that will be monitored include:
Amount of initial deposit;
Principal balance;
Interest deposited to the account based on amounts appropriated by Con-
gress; and
Amount disbursed.
• After notification from the program office that a project has been closed out, and
after all payments have been made, the FMC-Ci office will credit any remaining
cashout balances to the Trust Fund as a cost recovery.
SUPERFUND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
The purpose of the following section is to assist regional program offices in carrying out
their financial management responsibilities.
Regional Financial Management Responsibilities
Due to the complexity of the Superfund program, numerous organizational units within
the regional EPA offices have responsibility for Superfund financial management. These organi-
zations and their responsibilities are detailed below.
Regional Administrator
Regional Administrators have the authority to:
• Approve removal actions up to $2 million per site;
• Award CAs;
• Award IAGs;
• Enter into SSCs;
• Initiate remedial planning activities;
• Grant states credit against their cost share; and
• Award TAGs.
All of these authorities may be re-delegated with the exception of 1) removal actions
deemed to be "nationally significant" and 2) TAGs.
VI-35
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Regional Program Office
Regional program office financial responsibilities include:
Providing technical support to the CO in contracts management;
• Reviewing vouchers and/or financial reports;
• Managing CA and IAGs;
• Preparing CN and PRs;
• Developing SSCs;
• Negotiating CAs with states, political subdivisions and Indian Tribal govern-
ments;
• Either issuing S/S ID or requesting that they be issued by the regional Manage-
ment Division;
• Managing the Region's allowances;
Approving Requests for Proposals or Bids and contracts developed by the states;
and
• Participating in pre-award financial management system reviews.
Within the regional program offices, the following staff have specific Superfund financial
management responsibilities:
OSC — The regional OSC is an employee of EPA or of the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG). This employee reacts to hazardous substances spills and releases, or
threats of release, by initiating and managing the removal process. The OSC's
financial management responsibilities include preparing site budgets and contract
action requests; completing Action Memoranda; preparing delivery orders and
PRs for contracts; establishing and maintaining official removal site files; review-
ing and approving the removal cleanup contractors' charges on a daily basis;
tracking site costs against the established site ceiling; and approving removal
contractors' invoices. The OSC must be aware of, in control of, and responsible
for all removal site charges and for ensuring that costs are reasonable and neces-
sary.
• Ordering Officer - All Ordering Officers must have a written "Delegation of
Procurement Authority" signed by a Senior Procurement Manager prior to per-
forming their duties. The Ordering Officer, who typically is an OSC, may ini-
tially obligate up to a maximum of $250,000 for removals at a specific site by
issuing a Delivery Order under an existing contract. This person also develops
the statement of work and cost ceiling for removals.
• RPM - The RPM, in coordination with state program personnel, is responsible
for managing remedial and enforcement costs and activities on a site specific
basis, for reviewing remedial contractor invoices and financial reports, and for
VI-36
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
establishing and maintaining the official site files. Like the OSC, the RPM must
be aware of, in control of, and responsible for remedial site charges and for
ensuring that costs are reasonable and necessary,
• RPO/Deputv Project Officer (DPO) - The RPO is responsible for overall reme-
dial and enforcement contract management functions, including identification of
regional and site specific contract requirements, reviewing invoices, and financial
monitoring of the contract. The DPO is responsible for overall removal and
general site support contract management functions. The RPO/DPO evaluate and
designate contractor award fees; monitor contractors' activities; and review
monthly contractor reports and site specific attachments.
The RPM or the RPO may initiate WAs, CAs, IAGs and contracts, and approve site
specific IAG invoices.
• Administrative Support Unit fASLH - ASUs may be established in each regional
program office. The purpose of these ASUs is to assist the OSC/RPM in perform-
ing their administrative duties, thus allowing the OSC/RPM to concentrate their
efforts on their technical site management activities. These units are designed to
perform at least four important functions:
— Provide administrative support to the OSC/RPM on site;
— Provide the OSC/RPM with administrative support in the regional pro-
gram offices;
— Provide liaison between the OSC/RPM and other groups involved in ad-
ministrative matters; and
— Provide support to the regional remedial and removal program manage-
ment.
Specific examples of the kind of administrative and financial management support
the ASUs may provide to the OSC/RPM are as follows:
— Assist in developing removal site budgets and preparing Action Memo-
randa;
— Assist in daily cost monitoring via daily contractor reports;
— Maintain the Removal Cost Management System;
— Set up and maintain active remedial and removal site files;
— Complete PRs and CNs; and
— Request and review reports generated by REPORTER for purposes of
monitoring site costs. REPORTER is the report writer package that will
replace the Software Package for Unique Reports (SPUR) of the IFMS.
VI-37
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
The ASUs may be staffed with EPA staff or the non-government functions may
be contracted out. Additional information on the model of an ASU is found in the
Report of the Workgroup on Management Support for Superfund's On-Scene
Coordinators, dated March 1987.
Regional Management Division
For the purposes of this document, the regional Management Division is the organization
in which financial management, budgetary, accounting, planning, and assistance agree-
ments administration functions are carried out. The regional SFO and CO for ARCS and
regional ERCS are considered to be a part of this division. In most Regions, the regional
Management Division:
Assigns AN and DCN to all regional commitment and obligating documents;
Controls the regional allowance, maintains the Document Control Register
(DCR), and reconciles transactions;
• Generally issues S/S IDs for non-Coast Guard-lead sites;
• Sets up regional account numbers in IFMS (new obligational authority only);
Processes all PRs for national contracts and enters commitments into the EFMS;
Processes CNs for IAGs and enters commitments into IFMS;
• Processes CAs, assigns CA identification numbers, enters CA commitments,
obligations and drawdowns into IFMS;
• Assists the regional program office in the negotiation or pre-application phases of
the CA development;
• Processes all Letter of Credit (LOC) increases and monitors drawdowns;
Receives and reviews financial reports required by the CAs;
• Maintains Superfund original and site specific document files on all regional costs
and supports the regional program offices in preparing cost summaries and docu-
mentation for cost recovery purposes;
• Maintains accounts receivable for cost recovery cashouts, and SSC cost share, and
maintains billing and collection system;
Provides regional program office with financial data;
• Obligates contracts and modifications for the ARCS and regional ERCS contracts;
and
• Reviews invoices and monthly financial reports for the ARCS and regional ERCS
contracts.
VI-38
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
HO Financial Management Responsibilities
Selected Superfund financial management responsibilities which the regional program
office may come in contact are highlighted below.
FMDIOC
This Office, which monitors the financial aspects of the Superfund program through four
of its branches, performs many Superfund-related functions, including the following:
• Collects HQ's Superfund cost documentation for cost recovery;
• Oversees annual site specific reporting processes;
• Issues financial policies and procedures;
• Provides general accounting support;
• Records transfer allocations;
• Notifies Trust Fund to invest cost recoveries, fines and penalties; and
• Establishes Superfund account numbers in IFMS.
Resources Management Section (RMS)IOERR
RMS provides financial management and accounting support and guidance to OERR and
the regional program offices. As one of HQ's Superfund allowance holders, RMS'
responsibilities include:
• Maintains the OERR DCR and controls the HQ allowances;
• Commits funds for HQ OERR contracts and IAGs;
• Assigns accounting data to monthly site specific invoices; and
• Processes and monitors HQ OERR IAGs.
RMS' responsibilities in relation to the regional program office are as follows:
• Maintains the central S/S ID system and assigns S/S IDs to Coast Guard-
lead removal sites;
• Approves regional allowances and processes change requests;
• Provides liaison with regional program offices regarding OERR financial
issues; and
• Provides financial policies to regional program offices.
VI-39
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Contracts Management Section (CMSVOWPE
Like RMS, the CMS provides financial management and accounting support and guid-
ance to OWPE and the regional program offices. Responsibilities include:
• Initiates the procurement of the TES contracts;
• Processes and monitors WAs in TESWATS;
• Processes and monitors OWPE IAGs;
• Processes invoices for TES contracts;
• Coordinates issuance of regional allowances and initiates change requests;
• Provides liaison with regional program offices on OWPE financial issues;
and
• Provides OWPE financial policies to regional program offices.
P CMP!Office of Administration
PCMD conducts the Superfund contracting program. This involves negotiating, award-
ing, monitoring, modifying, and terminating contracts and providing technical guidance
on contract administration. PCMD also provides cost and price analysis for Superfund
contracts.
Grants Administration Division (GAD)IOffice of Administration
This division issues policy, regulations and guidance for the processing, award and
administrative management of financial assistance agreements and IAGs; issues identifi-
cation numbers for all IAGs; and processes and awards HQ IAGs.
Budget Division/OC
This division allocates the Superfund allowances among the HQ and regional offices;
approves regional allowances; monitors obligations against regular and site allowances
on a weekly basis; processes transfer allocations; processes change requests, and repro-
grams allowances,.as necessary.
FMC-Ci
The SFO in Cincinnati is responsible for providing accounting support for all Superfund
IAGs. The SFO processes disbursement requests from other agencies, processes the
billing for reimbursable activities and enters IAG obligations and disbursements into
IFMS.
VI-40
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Research Triangle Park (RTP)I Office of Administration
This SFO is responsible for providing accounting support for all Superfund contracts.
The SFO enters contract award data and obligations into IFMS, processes contractor in-
voices, and enters payments into IFMS via the Contract Payment System.
Financial Management Tools and Systems
IFMS
The IFMS is the Agency's official automated accounting, funds control and monitoring
system. It encompasses all of the Agency's financial systems for planning, budget
formulation and execution; program and administrative accounting; and audit. IFMS is
maintained by the Administrative Systems Division of the Office of Information Re-
sources Management. The Financial Systems Branch of the Financial Management
Division, OC, provides IFMS user support. IFMS is new to EPA and not all the changes
which will result from the implementation of IFMS are currently known. Addenda to this
Manual may be issued during the year as more information is received.
REPORTER - Through IFMS's REPORTER, formerly SPUR, an IFMS user will
be able to run specialized reports from IFMS, showing only the information se-
lected. REPORTER will be able to select any data elements maintained in IFMS,
arrange those elements in any desired format, and print a report. The regional
program office staff will be able to request REPORTER reports from the regional
SFO. These reports are especially useful for determining the status of commit-
ments, obligations and payments for a given site.
Regional IFMS Responsibility — Though each Region is organized somewhat
differently, in most Regions the SFO enters commitments into IFMS for contracts
and IAGs. For CAs, the SFO enters not only commitments, but obligations and
drawdowns as well. At the request of the regional program office, the SFO sets
up regional account numbers in IFMS. Since the Agency does not officially
recognize commitments or obligations until they appear in IFMS, it is imperative
that the regional program office forward all commitment and obligating docu-
ments to the SFO as expeditiously as possible for entry into IFMS. The regional
finance office is also responsible for entering the quarterly AOA into IFMS.
AN
To manage the Superfund Program effectively, and to recover cleanup costs, EPA must
carefully document and record its direct and indirect costs for each cleanup action and
track the costs through IFMS. The new EFMS account structure is still under develop-
ment. An addendum to this Manual may be issued when it is finalized.
DCN
The DCN is a six digit number assigned by the regional SFO to PRs and CNs as a control
number. This same number is carried over from the PR or CN to the obligating docu-
ment.
VI-41
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
D£R
The DCR is the allowance holder's mechanism for maintaining a running balance of all
funds available to the allowance holder. The DCR can be manual or automated (Auto-
mated DCR, or ADCR) and is generally maintained in the SFO.
Checking the DCR's balance is part of the Funds Certifying Officer's (FCO) certification
of funds availability. Once the FCO certifies that funds are available and that the appro-
priate funds are being used, the FCO assigns a DCN to the action and records it in the
DCR. This number uniquely identifies the spending action in the Agency's IFMS, just as
a check number identifies a check.
SIS IDs
S/S IDs are used to identify costs associated with a specific site. In IFMS, the S/S ID has
been expanded to three digits. The position of S/S IDs has not been defined in the IFMS
implementation.
S/S IDs are established by the regional offices, with the exception of USCG responses
which are provided through the OERR RMS. Each regional office has one or more
persons responsible for assigning S/S IDs and communicating updated S/S ID informa-
tion to HQ. This is usually done by calling or sending an updated copy of the regional S/
S ID list to the S/S ID contact in HQ.
Before assigning an S/S ID, an EPA ID must exist in the CERCLIS data base. The EPA
ID is a 12-character unique identifier which is used to identify a hazardous waste site or
removal in the CERCLIS inventory. This ID is based on FINDS. An EPA ID must be
established prior to assignment of an S/S ID. Each site should have a single EPA ID. In
addition, there can only be one S/S ID for each EPA ID.
Before establishing a new S/S ID, a thorough check should be made to ensure that the site
is not already listed under another name. Removal sites should receive identifiers as soon
as it appears that more than approximately $5,000 will be spent on removal work at the
site. Remedial sites should receive identifiers when the HRS score for the site indicates it
will be proposed for the NPL and an account number is needed for the obligation of
funds. Dioxin sites do not have to be on the NPL in order to establish an LD. Enforce-
ment sites receive identifiers when costs for an enforcement activity are expected to
exceed 24 workhours per pay period, and when a cost recovery action is likely.
Instructions for the assignment of three-digit S/S IDs will be forthcoming.
Financial Management and Funding Processes
Regional financial authority consists of three distinct, but interrelated, parts: approval,
commitment and obligation. Exhibit VI-11 indicates the process by which the Regions commit
and obligate funds. These funding processes are outlined below.
VI-42
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
EXHIBIT YI-11
HANDLING FINANCIAL DATA IN THE CERCLIS ENVIRONMENT
Funding Document prepared
by Program Office in appropriate
area (Site Assessment, Remedial, Removal,
Enforcement)
c
Approval of Funding Document
J
FMO reviews the Funding
Document, assigns a unique
AN/DCN pair and enters
information into IFMS.
c
i
Funds are now committed
Contracts signed
by CO
Regional IMC or designee
enters the commitment
data into CERCLIS
1
i
CAs signed by
Regional Administrator
IAGs signed by
Participating Parties
c
(^^Funds are now obligated
I ^
Regions enter obligation data into CERCLIS. Regions
or HQ enter obligation data into IFMS
J
——¦ — ¦¦ ¦ —
"IjllM'I'U'M'f ;
VI-43
A
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Approvals
Authority to approve site asessment, removal, remedial and enforcement activities is con-
tained in the Superfund delegations package. An approval by the AA SWER or Regional
Administrator or official designee, as appropriate, is an authorization to undertake a
CERCLA-funded response action. Examples of these approvals include Removal Action
Memoranda and SCAP submissions. A site/activity must be approved before any com-
mitments can be made.
The following paragraphs highlight the Region's financial management authority and
responsibility in the Removal program:
• Approval Authority - In accordance with Delegation 14-1-A, the Regional Ad-
ministrator has the authority to approve removal actions costing up to $2,000,000
at NPL sites or non-NPL sites and may grant exemptions to the twelve-month
statutory limit. In addition, Regional Administrators may re-delegate to the OSCs
the authority to approve actions costing up to $50,000 in emergency situations
where an expeditious response is required.
• Action Memorandum - Except in emergency situations, before a removal action
can begin, an Action Memorandum must be approved. The Action Memorandum
must document that the release meets the criteria of CERCLA, as amended, and
the NCP. In addition to the technical data, the Action Memorandum must in-
clude, to the extent practicable, an estimated total project ceiling. The OSC uses
the estimate of the duration and cost of the removal actions in order to determine
the proper approval authority. The OSCs or other Ordering Officers are respon-
sible for obtaining all necessary regional office approvals and signatures.
Generally, the Action Memorandum is prepared prior to initiating response
activities. In extreme emergencies, however, the OSC may initiate activities
under his/her $50,000 authority without preparing the necessary documentation in
advance. In these circumstances OSCs must document their decision within 24
hours of initiating response.
The following paragraphs highlight the Region's financial management authority and
responsibility in the Remedial and Enforcement programs:
• Financial Approval Mechanism - Planning of remedial and enforcement program
activities is accomplished by means of the SCAP. Funds cannot be committed or
obligated for a remedial or enforcement activity unless it is included in the SCAP.
• Obligations made at events which are planned on an OU basis must be planned
and executed on an OU basis. Outlays resulting from the obligations should also
be attributed to the appropriate OU.
• ROD - A ROD is required for all RD and RA activities. The ROD, signed by
either the Regional Administrator/Deputy Regional Administrator or the AA
SWER, documents the Agency's remedial alternative decision-making process
and demonstrates that the requirements of CERCLA, as amended, and the NCP
have been met. The ROD also provides the basis for future cost recovery actions
that may be taken.
VI-44
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Commitments
Once the regional FCO certifies the availability of funds, a spending action becomes a
commitment, which is a reservation of funds but not a legal promise to pay a supplier.
Commitments which have not yet been processed are called open commitments until they
become obligations.
There are two types of commitment documents: the PR and the CN. The PR is used to
commit funds for contracts; the CN is used to commit funds for CAs and reimbursable
IAGs.
Obligations
Unlike a commitment, an obligation legally binds the government to pay a supplier for
delivery of goods or services. Thus, once funds are obligated, the Region may no longer
release the funds for another purpose.
A contractor, another Federal agency or state cannot start work until funds have been ob-
ligated. In addition funds may only be used for the purpose for which they were obli-
gated under the contract, IAG or CA, and may not be transferred to another activity and/
or site within the contract, IAG or CA without first being de-obligated.
Obligating documents must be processed in accordance with guidance issued by the
PCMD, the GAD, and the FMD. The majority of the contracts are currently awarded by
PCMD and entered into IFMS by the SFO/RTP. Certain contracting functions, particu-
larly those related to regional contracts, have been decentralized to the Regions. Obliga-
tions for CAs are entered into IFMS by the Regions; for IAGs, by the CFMC.
Recently some Regions have grouped several smaller sites into a new, larger pseudo site.
The purpose of these pseudo sites is to establish a mechanism for funding area-wide
studies of environmental issues. This practice has caused problems for cost recovery
because costs cannot be assigned directly to a given site. Additionally, by creating a new
site, it is difficult to reference the older sites. These problems may be alleviated by
following a simple procedure. Funds for area-wide studies can be awarded in one PR,
IAG or CA. However, they must be obligated to each of the sites involved by using
separate account and document control numbers. Obligations must be identified for each
OU; particularly when PRPs exist.
Payments
Each contractor/supplier submits an invoice to the proper SFO for payment. Before the
SFO may pay the contractor/supplier, it must have an obligating document and a receiv-
ing report (sent by the originating office) to verify that the work was completed or the
goods were received satisfactorily. Unpaid obligations are not removed from IFMS at the
end of the FY. Rather, they remain in the system until paid or until the allowance holder
or obligating official notifies the SFO that no further payments will be made against the
obligation.
VI-45
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
DeQbligatms
The deobligation of funds is handled similarly to the obligation of funds. The same
commitment and obligation documents and procedures are used, except that the dollar
amount indicated is a reduction rather than an addition. Copies of deobligations should
be sent to RMS. The availability of funds after deobligation depends on when the funds
initially had been obligated. Current FY funds are available for reuse within the AOA as
soon as the deobligation is effective. (See the Flexible Funding discussion earlier in this
Chapter on the use of deobligated funds.) Prior FY funds that are deobligated revert back
to HQ for redistribution. In order to reuse the prior year funds, allowance holders must
request a recertification of the funds to their allowance from the OC in coordination with
OSWER.
Regions should review the financial status of all contracts, lAGs and CAs regularly. If
all activities requested have been completed, and there are funds outstanding, the Region
should follow the procedures outlined above to deobligate these funds immediately to
make them available for other activities.
RMS has established a HQ/regional task force to assist the Regions in the deobligation of
funds from contracts, IAG and CAs where work has been completed, bids have come in
iower than expected or PRPs have taken over the lead for site activities. In addition, the
Superfund Unliquidated Obligations Task Force encourages and tracks any intramural
deobligations that can be processed. The Task Force has established a reward system for
Regions that are active in processing deobligations. A Region may receive an increase in
their annual budget of 10% of the funds they deobligate, up to $250,000. In order to
receive credit, deobligation documentation must be sent to RMS.
Financial Management Funding Mechanisms
EPA uses a variety of funding mechanisms to carry out CERCLA-funded response
actions. Included in these are the following:
Contracts
Superfund contracts are awarded through standard procurement procedures (see the OC's
Resources Management Directives Systems 2550C Chapter 2 and the EPA Contracts
Management Manual, or refer directly to the directives prepared for each contract).
Exhibit VI-12 contains information on the procurement forms used for most Superfund
contracts. The unique aspect of Superfund contract processing and financial tracking
stems primarily from the need to associate contractor costs incurred with specific Super-
fund sites and OUs in order to assist in the cost recovery process. Cost recovery negotia-
tions with PRPs or court actions require careful documentation of Federal costs incurred
at each site/spill. The following paragraphs describe key financial management processes
for each of the primary categories of Superfund contracts.
• Site Specific Removal Contracts. Site specific removal contracts are obligated
and tracked on a site specific basis in the Agency's IFMS. Removal cleanup
contracts may be awarded on a zone, Region or site specific basis.
VI-46
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
EXHIBIT VI-12
EPA FORMS COMMONLY USED FOR SUPERFUND PROCUREMENTS
EPAFORM
NUMBER
FORM NAME
PURPOSE
COMMENTS
1900-8
Procurement Request/
Purchase Order
The Agency's basic form for requesting
a procurement of any goods or services
to commit funds before obligating funds
on any of these documents. Must be
certified by FCO.
This form is the basis foT entering a
commitment in IFMS. The FMO
enters an obligation only upon
receiving a contract document or
purchase order.
1900-48
Order for Services -
Emergency Response
to Hazardous Substance
Release
Used by OSCs to obligate funds and
contract for services (up to $2,500) from
commercial firms or a state or local
government (if site not owned by state or
subdivision at time wastes were disposed
of) to respond to a release.
Results in a firm, fixed-price
contract. No price adjustment may
be made for work stated in contract.
Contractor may submit only one
invoice. FMO will process contract
as an obligation.
1900-49
Notice to Proceed with
Emergency Response to
Hazardous Substance
Release
Used by OSC to authorize a contractor to
begin work on an emergency response
(up to $10,000 per incident). Negotiation
of definitive contract and any modifications
performed by CO.
A preliminary contractual instrument
that must be made final by a
designated CO. FMO will process
notice as an obligation.
1900-56
Letter contract for State,
Indian Tribal
Governments,
or Local Government
Response
to Emergency Hazardous
Substances Release
Used by OSC to procure services from a
state, local or Indian Tribal government to
begin work on an emergency response
(up to $10,000 per incident) if site was
not owned by state or subdivision at time
of hazardous waste disposal. Negotiation
of definitive contract and any modifications
performed by CO.
Results in a cost reimbursement type
agreement with a state, local or
Indian Tribal government It is a
preliminary contractual instrument
that must be made final by a
CO. The appropriate FMO will
process a letter contract as an
obligation.
1900-59
Delivery Order for
Emergency
Response Cleanup
Services
Used by OSCs to order services (up to
$250,000) from the ERCS contractor to
respond to a release. All modifications
and obligations over $250,000 will be
processed by the CO.
Has time and material provisions,
but uses fixed rates negotiated in
ERCS contract. Order must be made
final by a designated CO. FMO will
process orders as an obligation.
>\A- &,
VI-47
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
— Commitment of Funds - The PR is used to commit funds for contracts.
OSCs or other Ordering Officers prepare the PR for the site portion of the
contract and obtain all necessary regional office approvals and signatures.
They send the document to the SFO for certification of funds and addition
of accounting information (AN, appropriation number and DCN). The
SFO must also check that the action has been approved. The regional SFO
enters the commitment into the ADCR and IFMS.
— Obligation of Funds - Site specific removal cleanup contracts are obli-
gated by the regional Ordering Officer (generally the OSC), the regional
ERGS CO or at HQ. Obligational authority is determined by the type and
amount of the contract. Although a PR is generally prepared in advance of
the obligating document for removals, these documents may be processed
simultaneously or out of sequence, due to the urgent nature of removals.
OSCs have the contractual authority to obligate up to $250,000 via a
Delivery Order under an existing contract; however, Regions have limited
this authority to $50,000. For contract amounts over this authority, the
OSC forwards the obligating document to the Regional Administrator for
approval and to PCMD or the regional ERCS CO for obligation and proc-
essing. The SFO/RTP enters the obligation into IFMS for all contracts.
— Invoice Processing - The OSC or DPO reviews the site portion of con-
tractor invoices and signs a statement indicating that the services for
which the contractor is invoicing have been provided. The OSC forwards
the certified copy of the invoice within five days to the SFO/RTP for
processing and payment.
If the OSC disallows any charges, copies of the invoice should be sent to
the CO, along with an explanation for disallowing the costs. When a
disputed charge cannot be settled with the contractor, the OSC prepares a
memo/letter with a copy of the voucher and sends them to the CO. The
OSC sends the original voucher with a copy of the letter to RTP. Addi-
tional guidance for processing site specific contractor invoices are in-
cluded in the "Removal Cost Management Manual", "Superfund Removal
Procedures" manual and the "ERCS Users Manual."
Site Specific Remedial Contracts - Site specific remedial contracts refer to those
which are obligated site specifically. Remedial contractors provide site specific
support for RI/FS, RD and RA projects at individual NPL sites, as well as general
management support to EPA HQ and Regions. Both large, national contracts as
well as smaller, region specific contracts, e.g. ARCS contracts are in place. Site
specific remedial contracts are obligated and tracked on a site specific basis in the
Agency's IFMS.
— Commitment of Funds - To commit funds, the regional program office
prepares the PR for site specific activities, obtains all necessary regional
program office approvals and signatures, and forwards the approved
document to the regional SFO for certification of funds availability and
the addition of accounting information (AN and DCN). The regional SFO
enters the commitment into IFMS. For Region specific contracts, e.g.,
ARCS contracts, the basic contract is prepared in HQ and contract modifi-
cations are processed in the Regions.
VI-48
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
— Obligation of Funds - Site specific remedial contracts are obligated by
PCMD in HQ or the ARCS CO in the Regions. These obligations repre-
sent contract modifications which must be processed in accordance with
guidance issued by PCMD. PCMD or the ARCS CO distributes the
processed obligating document, and the SFO/RTP enters the obligation
into IFMS.
— Invoice Processing — Site specific remedial contractors will provide
copies of their monthly invoice or voucher for payment to the CO and the
Regions for review. RPMs have five days to review the invoice. If the
invoice accurately reflects contractor activities, the RPM will inform the
Project Officer (PO) that the voucher is consistent with the service pro-
vided. If the RPM identifies a problem, it should be reported to the appro-
priate PO for resolution. The PO will resolve any problems, certify that
the voucher is consistent with the services provided, and forward the
invoice to the SFO/RTP for processing and payment.
General Site Support Contracts — This category includes contracts which are not
obligated on a site specific basis. These contracts create a pool of contract labor
capable of providing broad technical and planning support to any removal, site
assessment, remedial or enforcement site on an "as needed" basis. Examples of
this type of contract include, but are not limited to: the FIT, Technical Assistance
Team (TAT), CLP, and the Environmental Services Assistance Team (ESAT).
Because these types of contracts are administered by HQ, they will not be dis-
cussed in detail in this document.
General site support contractors must submit with each invoice a site specific
attachment, which details the costs incurred at each site with an EPA S/S ID. The
site specific attachment must include the invoiced costs for each of the following
categories:
— Each site with an EPA S/S ID;
— All other sites, i.e., those without an EPA S/S ID, on one line item per
Region;
— Program management;
— Base and award fees;
— Non-site activities, identified separately, such as training of state person-
nel or coordination of regional activities; and
— Non-Superfund costs, as applicable, on one line item per appropriation.
The contractors submit original invoices to RTP and advance copies to the HQ
PO simultaneously. The PO reviews the invoice and the site specific attachment
for reasonableness of the site specific charges. In some cases, the RPOs and
DPOs will conduct a concurrent review of the invoice.
VI-49
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Enforcement Contracts — The TES contracts are a combination of the general site
support contracts and the site specific removal/remedial contracts. The TES
contracts are not obligated on a site specific basis, however, the Regions issue
work assignments against the contract labor pool on a site specific basis. Site
specific work assignments are not entered into IFMS.
Additional information on Enforcement contracts can be found in the Case
Budget section earlier in this Chapter or Appendix G.
General Program Support Contracts -- This group of contracts provides general
program management support to HQ and regional program offices. These con-
tracts are not for site specific work and are not obligated site specifically. They
are administered totally by HQ and will not be discussed in this document.
lAQl
An IAG is a written agreement between Federal agencies under which goods and services
are provided. The Superfund program uses Disbursement IAGs and Allocation Transfer
IAGs to request Federal agencies assistance with site cleanups and associated activities
and provide ongoing support or services. The IAG specifies the services required and
identifies the method of payment.
• Disbursement IAGs ~ Disbursement IAGs are agreements in which another Fed-
eral agency provides goods or services to EPA. This category of IAG is similar in
concept to obtaining goods or services from a contractor. Superfund program
staff prepare IAGs to pay other agencies for work performed at a specific Super-
fund removal, remedial or enforcement site and for non-site specific activities.
EPA pays the other agency either by advance payment or by payment following
work performance (repayment). The regional program office initiates and man-
ages site specific IAGs. The Administrative Assistance Unit (AAU) in the re-
gional Management Division typically approves and awards site specific IAGs.
The exceptions are USCG-lead removal IAGs and the DOJ IAG, which are nego-
tiated, approved, awarded, and managed at HQ.
— Commitment of Funds ~ The regional program office determines whether
assistance from another Federal agency is needed. The regional SFO
determines the availability of funds, upon request from the regional pro-
gram office. The regional program office then prepares the IAG funding
package, consisting of a CN, a transmittal memorandum, EPA Form
1610-1, which is the IAG itself, and a Decision Memorandum, which
verifies legal authority for the IAG. The Decision Official in the regional
program office reviews and approves the IAG. The staff of the AAU then
conducts an administrative review of the funding package. The SFO adds
accounting data and enters the commitment in the DCR as well as into
IFMS. The regional program office establishes and maintains the official
site file(s). The AAU establishes and maintains the official financial file.
— Oblig-non of Funds - Following pre-validation of the commitment, the
AAU obtains an IAG number from HQ GAD by E-mail. The Action Offi-
cial (the Regional Administrator or his/her designee) signs the IAG. The
AAU then sends the signed IAG to the other agency for signature. An ob-
VI-50
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
ligation is created when the I AG has been signed by both agencies. The
AAU distributes the executed IAG to the regional program office, the
GAD, and the FMC-Ci, where the obligation is recorded in EFMS.
— Payments ~ If the performing agency does not have OMB-approved reim-
bursable authority, the FMC-Ci pays that agency for EPA prior to execu-
tion of the agreement activities. For those agencies that do not require ad-
vances, the regional program office certifies that charges are accurate
following execution of the activities. There are three ways in which EPA
accomplishes exchange of funds for IAGs: the Simplified Interagency
Billings and Collection system (SIBAC), the On-line Payment and Collec-
tions system (OPAC), and check payments. When the OP AC or SIBAC
system is used, funds exchange occurs prior to regional program office
certification; however, the regional program office may request adjust-
ments when necessary. For payment by check, the performing agency
submits vouchers to the FMC-Ci, who forwards them to the regional pro-
gram office. The regional program office reviews and certifies the
voucher and then returns both the voucher and the certification form to
FMC-Ci for processing and payment.
— Closeout — The regional program office is responsible for managing pre-
closeout activity. If all work has been completed, the regional program
office accepts the final report from the other agency and initiates closeout
procedures. The AAU queries the regional program office when the
project period has expired or when there has been no project activity for
two quarters. If the AAU requests a project status determination, the
regional program office determines whether the IAG should remain open/
extended or be closed, and notifies the AAU.
When no further activity will occur under the IAG (e.g. project completed,
funds availability period expired, funds expended, unsatisfactory/incom-
plete work product) and final invoices have been certified, the regional
program office prepares a written closeout request and sends it to the
AAU. The AAU then determines from FMC-Ci that the IAG is finan-
cially closed out and closes out the IAG by sending a closeout letter to the
other agency and notifying the regional program office and GAD. Both
the regional program office and the AAU then remove the appropriate
files from active status and retain them a minimum of six years. Disposal
of the files is subject to regional program office approval.
When applicable, within thirty days of completion of work under the
agreement, the regional program office prepares, or obtains from the other
agency, a final inventory and disposition recommendations for non-
expendable property. The regional program office forwards a copy of this
report to the appropriate property management office in the regional
Management Division.
Allocation Transfer IAGs ~ Allocation Transfer IAGs transfer obligational au-
thority from EPA to the designated agency at the appropriation level. The funds
are transferred to the other agency from an EPA allowance via EPA's Transfer
Allocation account. This IAG mechanism is similar to the OC providing allow-
VI-51
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-0ID
ances to EPA program offices to carry out specific functions; however, transfers
occur at the appropriation level. Obligations and payments are made by the other
agency and are reported monthly to EPA.
IAGs with FEMA for permanent or temporary relocations are Allocation Transfer
IAGs. The regional program office, in conjunction with the AAU in the regional
Management Division, typically initiates, approves, awards, and manages site
specific Allocation Transfer IAGs. Implementation of an Allocation Transfer
IAG must be in accordance with Department of Treasury procedures and can only
be used with prior approval from the OC.
— Initiating the IAG — The regional program office initiates the IAG. After
developing a preliminary cost estimate with the other agency, the regional
program office prepares the funding package which includes EPA Form
1610-1, a transmittal memorandum, and the Decision Memorandum. The
Decision Official in the regional program office reviews and approves the
funding package and submits it to the AAU. The AAU obtains an IAG
number from GAD by E-mail and conducts an administrative review. The
GAD enters IAG data from the E-mail request into the Grants Information
Control Systems (GICS). The Action Official (the Regional Administrator
or his/her designee) conducts a final review and signs the IAG package.
The AAU submits the IAG to the other agency for signature. The AAU
distributes the executed IAG to the regional program office, to the GAD,
and to the OC. Upon initiation of the IAG, the regional program office
submits a change request to the Budget Formulation and Control Branch
in the OC, so that the funds can be set aside in a HQ transfer account. The
appropriate program's allowance is then reduced to reflect the transfer to
the receiving agency.
— Transfer of Funds — The executed IAG serves to transfer obligational
authority to the other agency. Once the IAG is signed, and upon receipt of
a change request from the regional program office, the OC Budget Divi-
sion withdraws funds from the Region's allowance and transfers the funds
to the EPA Transfer Allocation account for future transfer to the desig-
nated agency. The Financial Reports and Analysis Branch executes the
transfer from EPA to the performing agency.
— Financial Monitoring - The performing agency is required to submit: 1)
monthly reports via SF133, "Budget Execution," on obligations and
expenditures during the period to EPA's FMD and 2) periodic status
reports to the regional program office and the HQ Superfund Budget
Branch. The IAG also requires the other agency to maintain records and
documentation by site and submit them to EPA upon request. The re-
gional program office reviews progress reports and acts on them as neces-
sary.
— Closeout - The regional program office closeout procedures for an Allo-
cation Transfer IAG are the same as those for Disbursement IAGs. Since
there are no billing transactions, outstanding invoices or payments are not
a concern; however, to determine that the IAG may be financially closed
out by the OC, the AAU asks the EPA OIG to request the other agency's
OIG to determine the financial status of the IAG. Both the regional
VI-52
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
program office and the AAU then remove the appropriate files for that
IAG from active status and retain them a minimum of six years. Disposal
of the files is subject to regional program office approval.
For further information on regional IAGs, see OSWER Directive 9295.0-01
"Regional Interagency Agreements Handbook".
CAs
A CA is the instrument EPA uses to provide assistance to states, political subdivi-
sions or Indian Tribal governments in conducting site assessment, remedial,
removal, enforcement and program and project support activities. CAs provide
funding assistance to the state, political subdivision, or Indian Tribal government,
documents responsibilities and obtains state assurances. CAs must be approved
by the Regional Administrator or designee. The steps for developing and manag-
ing the financial aspects of a CA in the Region are outlined below.
• Commitments — The regional program office prepares the CN and obtains
all necessary program approvals and signatures to commit funds for the
CA. The regional Management Division certifies the availability of funds,
assigns the accounting data, sets aside the required funds on the DCR and
enters the commitment into the IFMS. The regional AAU assigns the CA
identification number.
• Obligations - The signature of the Regional Administrator, or his/her
designee, obligates CAs. The regional Management Division is respon-
sible for processing obligations in accordance with the guidance issued by
PCMD, GAD and FMD, and for entering the obligations into the DCR and
IFMS.
• LOC — If a state environmental agency, political subdivision or Indian
Tribal government does not have an established consolidated LOC with
EPA, one should be established. The LOC is the preferred method for
providing Superfund payment assistance to states, political subdivisions or
Indian Tribal governments. The CA recipient "draws down" funds from
the appropriate credit account at the Federal Reserve Bank to cover EPA's
share of immediate cash needs for each activity approved in the CA.
The state, political subdivision or Indian Tribal government may only
draw down funds from the LOC for work authorized for specific sites and/
or activities. The total drawdown may not exceed the amount obligated
for each activity and/or site in the CA. Drawdowns must be made propor-
tionally to the amount of work completed, and may only be made for the
EPA share of project costs. If funds obligated for a specific site or activity
have been exhausted, the recipient may not draw down from another
account number within the consolidated LOC.
The regional Management Division reviews drawdowns on a monthly
basis and determines whether the account structure established in the CA
is being followed and that the drawdowns are only large enough to cover
VI-53
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
immediate (usually one month) cash needs. The account from which
drawdowns were made, identified in the IFMS Outlay Report or state
quarterly report, must match the activities being undertaken.
• Financial Monitoring - On a regular basis, the RPM should review the
IFMS Outlay Report and the quarterly progress report prepared by the
state, political subdivision or Indian Tribal government. The review
should determine that drawdowns at the site correspond to technical
progress.
• Deohligations - Deobligations of funds are handled similarly to obliga-
tions of funds. The same commitment and obligation documents and
procedures are used, except that the dollar amount indicated is a reduction
rather than an addition. The availability of funds following deobligation
depends on when the funds were obligated initially. Current FY funds are
available for reuse within the allowance as soon as the deobligation is
effective. (See the Flexible Funding section earlier in this Chapter on the
use of deobligated funds.) Prior FY funds that are deobligated revert to
HQ for redistribution.
In order to reuse prior FY funds:
— The allowance holders must submit a request to recertify the funds
to their allowances;
— OERR will evaluate the request based on the approved SCAP and
will recommend distribution of funds;
— The OC must approve the request; and
— The request must be approved and a reapportionment obtained
from the OMB.
Regions should regularly review the financial status of all CAs. If all activities to
be conducted under the agreement have been completed and there are funds out-
standing, the Region should follow the procedures above to deobligate these funds
or transfer them to another site or response phase. The transfer of funds under a
CA is discussed below.
• Transfer of Funds — Under a multi-site CA funds can be transferred from one site
to another site. This transaction is called a 'transwitch' and requires a formal CA
amendment. The CA amendment must show the transfer of funds from one site to
another by changing the accounting information on the funds being transferred to
reflect the new site. CA funds can also be transferred from one remedial response
phase to another remedial response phase at the same site. Again, a formal CA
amendment is required in order to change the accounting information to reflect
the actual response activity being performed.
For additional information on the financial management of CAs, refer to the Resources
Management Directives Systems 2550D. Chapter 9, and the State Participation in the
Superfund Program guidance, Chapters 7 and 10.
VI-54
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
SSQl
When EPA or a political subdivision has the lead for an RA, the instrument used to de-
scribe the state's role is a SSC. An SSC is a legally binding agreement that provides the
mechanism for obtaining required state cost share and other assurances, outlines the
statement of work for the response action and also documents responsibilities for reme-
dial implementation at a site. When a political subdivision has the lead for an RA, the
SSC is signed by EPA, the state and the political subdivision. The SSC does not obligate
funds; funds for Federal-lead projects must be obligated through an EPA PR with a con-
tractor or an LAG with another agency. Funds for political subdivision response actions
are provided through the CA.
• SSC Requirements ~ An SSC is required to be in place before EPA or the politi-
cal subdivision can begin an RA funded by the Superfund. An SSC must contain
several state assurances. One is that the state will pay its cost share for response
actions. The state cost share is ten percent for privately operated sites. For
publicly operated sites, the state cost share is 50 percent and is required for prior
removal, RI/FS and RD activities as well as the RA. In addition to cost share
assurances, SSCs must contain state program assurances and must also include a
tentative payment schedule.
• SSC Development ~ The SSC is developed by the regional program office. The
RPM/RPO must insure that, in addition to program assurances, the financial cost
share requirements and payment schedule are included in the SSC.
• Accounts Receivable — Like a CA, an SSC requires state cost share. To cover its
share of remedial costs under an SSC, the state may be required to provide cash
payments to EPA. Following execution of the SSC, the RPM/RPO must immedi-
ately forward a copy of the executed SSC to the regional Management Division
for necessary accounts receivable processing. The RPM/RPO is also responsible
for forwarding immediately to the regional Management Division any SSC
modifications that may affect the payment schedule.
• Payment Schedule — The state cost share must be received and recorded in IFMS
before EPA will pay for the work to which the state is contributing funds. There-
fore, state payments should be scheduled approximately two weeks ahead of the
anticipated outlay date to allow for administrative processing. If a RA occurs in
several phases the payments may be spread out accordingly. In this situation, the
SSC will schedule the respective state payments to ensure deposit in the Treasury
and recording in IFMS no later than EPA's obligation of funds for each phase.
• Billing « Thirty days prior to the date on the SSC payment schedule, the regional
Management Division will send to the state a notice of the amount required and
the due date. The SSC, and any invoice to the state requesting payment, must
include the requirement that payments be sent to the regional Superfund lockbox
address. The regional Management Division will reference the SSC, including
the EPA site name and identifier, on the invoice. The Division will also require
the state to include a copy of the invoice with any remittance sent to the regional
Superfund lockbox address.
• Receipt of Payment - If EPA does not receive the requested funds by the date on
the payment schedule, the regional Management Division will notify the RPM/
VI-55
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
RPO immediately. The RPM/RPO is responsible for follow-up with the state and
will keep the regional Management Division advised. No interest will accrue on
the invoiced amount, because the state cost share is not a debt to the Agency, but
rather an advance payment. The Region deposits its cost share in the Trust Fund
and receives in return a reimbursable allowance.
• Closeout - The RPM/RPO is responsible for notifying the regional Management
Division when it is time to close out the specific SSC. The regional Management
Division will reconcile the financial data on the Federal-lead action.
For additional information on financial management responsibilities related to SSCs,
refer to the Resources Management Directives Systems 2550D. Chapter 9 and State
Participation in the Superfund Program guidance, Chapter 7.
Cost Recovery/Cost Documentation
CERCLA, as amended, imposes liability on responsible parties for the cost of responding
to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances from hazardous waste sites or
spills. When these PRPs fail to clean up sites on their own, EPA may perform the
cleanup and later attempt to recover the cleanup costs from the parties. Obtaining reim-
bursement for these costs through judicial action is one of the chief goals of the Super-
fund program.
Cost recovery documentation is performed by a case development team comprised of
representatives from the ORC, the regional program office and the regional SFO. The
involvement and distribution of responsibilities of each of these offices during the cost
recovery process does vary within each Region. The sequence of activities is provided as
a guide. The cost recovery process, which is typically completed within an eight week
timeframe, is briefly described below:
• Initiation of Cost Recovery Process ~ The regional program office prepares and
submits the Cost Recovery Checklist to OWPE through the Regional Cost Recov-
ery Coordinator (RCRC) to initiate the HQ documentation process. The checklist
is also submitted to the regional SFO to begin the documentation process for
regional Superfund site specific costs. Among other things, the checklist pre-
scribes the date through which costs are to be documented and the date documen-
tation is required by the case development team.
The RCRC obtains the cost documentation package from OWPE and the SFO and
prepares a "merged" cost summary (if this is not done by the regional SFO). The
RCRC also requests site specific reports generated by REPORTER (or SPUR),
from the SFO which provide the cost basis for negotiations with PRPs. In FY90,
the HQ resposibilities were delegated to the Regions.
• Cost Documentation and Reconciliation - Cost documentation and reconciliation
involve collecting and reviewing required documentation to ensure that account-
ing and cost information are recorded correctly, that costs are properly charge-
able, that ANs refer to the appropriate site, and that costs on the documents are
reflected accurately in IFMS. The regional SFO documents regional Superfund
site specific costs and prepares the regional office cost summary; computes
VI-56
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
indirect costs; provides expert and factual financial witness testimony; provides
assistance to legal and program staff interpreting financial documents and RE-
PORTER (or SPUR) reports, and provides CA cost documentation.
The ORC reviews the final cost summary and documentation package in prepara-
tion for litigation and takes appropriate actions pursuant to the Privacy Act and
regulations concerning Confidential Business Information to ensure that protected
information is not released.
• Site File Maintenance — Diligent maintenance of the site files is crucial to cost
recovery and is the responsibility of the Regions. Site specific financial files
should be maintained by the FMO until such time as cost recovery action is
initiated or a minimum of six years. Disposal of files is subject to regional pro-
gram office approval. The cost recovery financial documentation case file should
be maintained by the RCRC until this cost documentation is required by the
litigation team.
HANDLING FINANCIAL DATA IN THE CERCLIS ENVIRONMENT
The implementation of EFMS will affect the handling of financial data in CERCLIS. This
process has not been developed yet. The Manual will be updated when procedures have been
completed.
Entering Remedial/Removal Data into CERCLIS
Once the funding document has been processed by the Region, the planned financial data
must be replaced by the commitment or obligation data. The "P" (planned) in the Financial Type
field in CERCLIS (C3202) must be changed to a "C" (commitment) or an "A" (actual obligation)
and the funding amount in CERCLIS and on the funding document must agree. If a Region
wants to retain planned financial data, it must enter the planned obligation into CERCLIS with a
regional Financial Type of "X", "Y", or "Z". In any event, the Financial Type code of "P"
(planned) cannot remain in the system once the funds are committed or obligated. Failure to
replace the "P" (planned) could cause the region to exceed its annual budget which will result in
1) withholding AOA approval or 2) a reduction in next quarter's AOA.
At this time, certain data are optional for entry into CERCLIS by the Region. These
include commitment/decommitment or obligation/deobligation date and amount, financial type
and contractor name. These data are transferred from IFMS. Regions are not required to enter
outlay or credit information into CERCLIS.
Entering Enforcement Case Budget Data into CERCLIS
The Region will be responsible for entering obligations/tasking (WAs issued) into CER-
CLIS. Responsibility for verifying the information in IFMS and CERCLIS for obligations or
deobligations and outlays incurred resides with the Regions.
To ensure that all appropriate financial data are reflected in CERCLIS, the following
information should appear on obligation documents: EPA ID number, S/S ID, CERCLIS Event
or Enforcement activity codes and OU number, WA number, amendment number and amount.
VI-57
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
A crosswalk is provided in Appendix C displaying the relationship between CERCLIS
Enforcement activities, Remedies and Events and their corresponding codes.
ANs must be established for each transaction before commitment and obligation. A CA
is considered obligated when it is signed by the Regional Administrator. An IAG is considered
obligated when it is signed by the other agency. Contracts are considered obligated when the CO
signs the obligating document or, in the case of a TES WA, when the CO signs the WA. Re-
gions are also responsible for reviewing and recommending payment of the invoice/voucher
(outlays) for these mechanisms. Once invoices are paid, these dollars are entered into EFMS. If
the obligation was generic and the invoice is site specific, IFMS shows the funds deobligated
from the generic account and obligated and disbursed from the site specific account.
IFMS to CERCLIS Financial Data Transfer
Each week an automated transfer of selected financial data from IFMS to CERCLIS will
take place. Exhibit VI-13 indicates the removal and remedial financial data to be transferred.
EXHIBIT VI-13
REMOVAL AND REMEDIAL FINANCIAL DATA
TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM IFMS
•
Commitments and decommitments
•
Obligations and deobligations
«
Funding vehicle
«
Outlays and credits (funding type and amount)
«
Obligating document number
•
DCN
r 1
It is important for the Regions to note that they are ultimately responsible for the accu-
racy of the CERCLIS data bases. Regions will have to ensure that both the planned, commit-
ment and obligation data entered as part of the SCAP process and the actual data transferred
from IFMS are accurate and current. Since IFMS is the Agency's official source of financial
data, data transferred from IFMS will override CERCLIS data entered by the Regions. A weekly
exception report is used to aid in identifying errors or differences between IFMS and CERCLIS.
Errors that have been carried over from IFMS must be corrected in both IFMS and CERCLIS.
Correcting Financial Data
The Region's IFMS administrator is the only person authorized to make changes in the
IFMS data base. The IMC or designee should work with the regional FMO on a regular basis to
make sure that all IFMS errors are corrected. The IMC can request, on a regular basis, a report
from the regional financial office which contains all Superfund financial transactions in EFMS.
The information in this report can be compared with the funding documents and CERCLIS.
Upon determining that the data on the source document were correct and were correctly entered
into CERCLIS, the IMC should give the regional FMO a copy of the funding document, and any
other relevant documentation, showing that the IFMS data are in error.
VI-58
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
The OC has issued standard procedures for correcting IFMS data. There are three kinds
of corrections which may be needed on financial information in IFMS as shown in Exhibit VI-
14.
Correcting IFMS data entry errors or changing financial information in IFMS are per-
formed by the FMO. Errors in AN/DCN, or other information on the original funding document
can only be corrected by the same process used to initially create the financial record (by a
contract/PR or by amendment of the IAG or CA).
EXHIBIT VI-14
CORRECTIONS TO FINANCIAL
INFORMATION IN IFMS
Data entry errors in IFMS
Changing account numbers or DCNs that were
initially entered into IFMS
Correcting errors in the source funding
document or making other amendments to
existing commitments or obligations
VI-59
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CHAPTER Vn
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ASSESSMENT
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CHAPTER VII - PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT AND ASSESSMENT
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
1
m
Following are the actions regional managers must take to comply with
the requirements described in this Chapter. In order to acquire a more
in-depth understanding of these requirements, the Chapter itself should
be read.
Report Superfund accomplishments as soon as they
occur or, at a minimum, on a monthly basis through
CERCLIS. HQ management bases its evaluation of
regional performance on these data.
Regions are responsible for CERCLIS data entry and
data quality control.
Regions and HQ will work together at mid-year to
develop strategies for improving performance.
Regions participate in workgroups to perform Total
Quality Management (TQM) evaluations of program
issues. |;|
/
Regions participate in the OSWER TQM review. |H
t—
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CHAPTER Vn ¦ PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ASSESSMENT
This chapter describes the established procedures for assessing the overall performance
of the Superfund program. Specifically, this chapter:
• Outlines the objectives of Superfund's internal evaluation efforts, the
process by which these objectives are met, and the tools that EPA uses in the
evaluation process; and
• Provides Superfund management and staff with a quick-reference guide to
their roles and responsibilities in the evaluation process.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
HQ and the Regions have different roles and responsibilities in Superfund program evalu-
ation and management, as shown in Exhibit VII-1.
EXHIBIT Vn-1
EVALUATION RESPONSIBILITIES
REGIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES
Meet quarterly SCAP and STARS targets and
solve performance problems when they arise
Provide quarterly SCAP and STARS data to HQ
through CERCLIS
Maintain CERCLIS data quality at high levels
for Superfund program and project management
Participate in OSWER TQM reviews
Participate in workgroups to evaluate specific
program area issues
Negotiate performance standards that provide
individual accountability for quarterly targets
Develop plans for meeting targets
im.
RESPONSIBILITIES
Provide guidance to the Regions for the
quarterly review, the mid-year assessment,
the year-end assessment, and the OSWER
Total Quality Management (TQM) review
Identify priority issues and participate in
OSWER TQM reviews
Implement and report on follow-up action
items from the OSWER TQM review and
Superfund mid-year assessment
Review monthly performance data reported
by the Regions and negotiate plans with
Regions for meeting targets
Continually assess program performance and
analyze timeliness and quality of work
Recommend resource reallocation based on
regional needs and performance
Assure that all staff are informed of the
results of performance reporting and
OSWER TQM reviews
Identify and undertake special studies that
result from the Federal Manager's Financial
Integrity Act (FMFIA)
Track audits, audit response activities, and
internal reviews
mmmmmmmm -r"
VIM
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
The Superfund evaluation process provides managers with an opportunity to meet pro-
gram objectives by:
• Examining program accomplishments;
• Analyzing and discussing issues that affect the successful operation of the
Superfund program; and
• Initiating changes in program operations or reallocating resources.
The strategy for assessing the performance of the Superfund program is comprised of the
following parts:
• Monthly and quarterly SCAP/STARS performance evaluation with CERCLIS
data;
• OSWER Total Quality Management (TQM) regional reviews; and
• Internal evaluation and audit follow-up.
This strategy erables management to recognize high performance, concentrate Superfund
resources in those Regions that demonstrate success, and provide training and technical assis-
tance to those Regions that are experiencing difficulties.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
The Regions report their Superfund activities on a monthly basis through CERCLIS.
CERCLIS monthly progress reports indicate program accomplishments for SCAP and STARS
measures on a Region-by-Region basis. Management bases its evaluations of regional program
performance on these data. Each quarter, accomplishment data are used to support formal
SCAP/STARS performance reporting. Detailed management evaluations occur at two points of
the FY: during the second and third quarters (mid-year assessment) and after the fourth quarter
(end-of-year assessment) (see Exhibit VII-2).
The Regions are responsible for data entry and data quality control. Accomplishment data for
SCAP and STARS reports are pulled from CERCLIS at the close of business on the fifth work-
ing day of the month. If a Region has not entered its accomplishments into CERCLIS by that
time, its performance will not be captured in the data pull, nor will its accomplishments be
reported in STARS reports.
Quarterly Reviews
The purpose of the quarterly review is to:
• Track regional progress toward accomplishing quarterly and end-of-year
SCAP and STARS targets;
• Identify and assess problems impacting performance soon after they arise;
and
Work with Regions to develop plans for meeting their targets.
VII-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
The quarterly review process provides HQ with a way to monitor regional progress
toward accomplishing program targets. On a national scale, the review process allows HQ
managers to identify trends in program performance and adjust program management strategies
accordingly.
EXHIBIT VII-2
THE QUARTERLY REVIEW PROCESS
4th QUARTER
END-OF-YEAR
ASSESSMENT
Evaluate Program
Status
Evaluate Annual
Performance and
Produce National
Progress Report
Provide Input into
Next FY Resource
Allocation Process
Report on Progress
of Plans to Meet
Targets
Brief Senior
Management
1ST QUARTER
REVIEW
Evaluate Program
Status
Brief Senior
Management
3RD QUARTER
REVIEW
Report on Progress
of Plans to Meet
Targets
Brief Senior
Management
Evaluate Program
Status
2nd QUARTER
MID-YEAR
ASSESSMENT
Evaluate Program
Status
Develop Plans
to Meet Targets
Brief Senior
Management
:
t'-'' • •
Between 15 and 30 business days following the end of the quarter, after the Regions have
finalized their CERCLIS entries, evaluation staff brief individually the HQ and Regional Divi-
sion Directors, the OERR and OWPE Office Directors, the AA SWER, and the Deputy Adminis-
trator. Quarterly memoranda are sent to Regional Administrators and Deputy Regional Adminis-
trators by the AA SWER. The memoranda contain the most significant issues/activities and
performance highlights from the previous quarter.
VII-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-0ID
Mid-Year Assessment
The focus of second quarter evaluation activities is the mid-year assessment. The pur-
pose of the mid-year assessment is to provide both HQ and the Regions with an opportunity to
assess performance and take appropriate action to enhance progress toward meeting annual
commitments. During the mid-year assessment, management also considers the impact of
regional program performance on the Superfund pipeline. The mid-year assessment begins near
the end of the second quarter, when HQ and the Regions examine progress made during the first
five months of the year. By early March, the Regions should be able to assess the progress that
they have made toward meeting second-quarter SCAP and STARS targets. By that time, they
should also be able to know whether they are likely to achieve their end-of-year targets.
Preliminary performance data for the mid-year assessment are pulled from CERCLIS on
the fifth working day of March and compared to data on missed targets. Based on these compari-
sons, HQ develops a list of Regions that seem to be having trouble meeting their targets. During
the following week, HQ meets with staff of each of these Regions to discuss strategies for im-
proving program performance. If these Regions do not improve their performance, a HQ team
may visit each of them to assist staff in developing strategies for improving performance. HQ
will advise the Regions of the extent to which they should consider additional resources (e.g.,
contractual, personnel, technical assistance) in making their plans.
On the fifth working day of April, second quarter SCAP data are pulled from CERCLIS.
The Regions that CERCLIS data show have resolved performance problems and are projected to
meet annual targets are then dropped from the final list of Regions to visit. The OERR and
OWPE Directors are then briefed on the mid-year assessment strategy. The Regions are notified
of their status by mid-April.
By the mid-year STARS briefing (the second week in May), HQ divisions brief the
OERR and OWPE Directors on the steps taken to ensure the accomplishment of annual targets.
The mid-year assessments result in a series of agreements between HQ and the Regions on ac-
tions that the Regions will take either to achieve or to exceed end-of-year accomplishment
targets. To ensure that these actions are implemented, HQ will: distribute action agreements to
appropriate managers; track follow-up items; reallocate resources; and provide the Regions with
technical assistance. The results of the mid-year assessment can also affect resource allocations
for the next FY. This measure of a Region's ability to meet their targets will be considered in
August, when final FY92 SCAP/STARS commitments and regional budgets are established.
End-of-Year Assessment
After the end of the fourth quarter, in October, HQ conducts an end-of-year assessment.
This assessment is an integrated analysis of program performance activities for the year. The
purpose of the end-of-year assessment is to emphasize pipeline issues. The end-of-year review
also notes progress toward implementing strategies identified in the mid-year assessment and
identifies Regions that might require additional assistance as the new FY begins.
HQ considers the end-of-year assessment in developing the preliminary targets in mid-
December and the mid-year SCAP negotiations that are held in February/March for the FY91
third and fourth quarters. In this way, the results of the end-of-year assessment have a double
impact.
VIM
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
OSWER REGIONAL REVIEWS: FY91 - TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT APPROACH
Obiectives
In developing the OSWER regional review process for FY91, the following was assessed,
the timing of the review cycle, the types of evaluation, oversight and technical assistance incor-
porated, the focus of the issues, and the results of the reviews. A key objective of this cycle of
OSWER reviews is to narrow the focus to key programmatic areas identified in annual guidance.
An ancillary goal is to shorten the review cycle. While each OSWER program office will be
responsible for their own review preparation, a similar process, utilizing the principles of TQM,
will be used to evaluate the issue areas. There will be a concerted effort to tie into evaluations
already underway in each program area. The product of the review will be negotiated plans for
continued improvements.
Process
This approach to the OSWER regional review process has four primary phases and the
following key features:
• Phase 1 - Selection of Program Issues ~ Program offices will select several
specific program areas or issues for review at the beginning of the FY. Each
program office will focus on a few systemic or significant issues from among
those identified in the year's Operating Guidance and program guidance.
• Phase 2 - TOM Evaluations -- In-depth evaluations of the specific program issue
areas by HQ and regional workgroups during the first two quarters. These issues
will be analyzed using a TQM process that will emphasize solutions developed by
the actual HQ and regional participants.
• Phase 3 - On-Site Senior Management Visit -- Conduct on-site visit of all ten
Regions by senior program managers during the third and fourth quarters to
provide a more uniform timeframe for comparisons and program-wide assess-
ments of the programs.
• Phase 4 - Products and Follow-up — The product of the review would be the
negotiated plans for continued improvement developed in the on-site meetings.
Each of these phases are explained in the following sections.
Selection of Program Issues
Before the beginning of the FY, all program offices (i.e., OERR, Office of Solid Waste
(OSW), OWPE, Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) and AA SWER Immediate
Office) identify key program areas and issues in the Agency's Operating Guidance or in individ-
ual program management guidance. From this universe, the program areas and issues selected
by the program offices for regional reviews will be those key issues that HQ program managers
believe to be important to the general success of the program's mission and to be most amenable
to the inter-program nature of the OSWER review. The AA SWER will then notify the Regions
of the specific program areas and issues that HQ will be examining. Regions will comment on
these topics and propose others for consideration.
VII-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
TOM Evaluations
During the first and second quarters of the FY, program offices will organize TQM
workgroups around the specific program areas and issues selected by the program offices. Each
program office will develop a workplan outlining the approach to be used in conducting the in-
depth evaluation for each Region. The approach to the in-depth evaluation will depend on the
program area and issues involved. Information collection may include a review of information
already available; a series of phone calls to the Regions to obtain more information; targeted
visits to some or all the Regions, if needed; or any combination of these approaches. The benefit
of this flexible approach is to allow the most appropriate evaluation techniques and program
personnel in an environment of diverse issues and program areas.
On-Site Visit
After the in-depth evaluation of a particular Region, program office staff will brief
program office managers on their findings. Senior program managers will then conduct an on-
site visit to all ten Regions during the third and fourth quarters of the FY. Each on-site visit will
be tailored to the particular Region, with emphasis on the program areas and issues identified and
examined in the previous phases. However, the on-site visit could also include discussions of
other program areas or issues that the senior management would like to explore. Because only
senior program managers attend the on-site visit and most of the information gathering has
already occurred, senior management participants can focus on negotiating plans for continued
improvement.
Products and Follow-up
The results of the on-site visit will be reviewed and useful regional experiences will be
shared among the Regions. Negotiated workplans will be confirmed in writing. Any outstand-
ing issues will be documented and addressed after the review.
EVALVATION AND A UDIT FOLLOW-UP
The Superfund program has been the subject of intensive review and oversight by both
Congress and private interest groups. More than 33 reports have been published on the program
in the last two years. In addition, HQ and regional offices conduct a number of internal reviews
to satisfy external requirements and for program management and policy purposes. To date,
there has generally been a lack of coordination between HQ and the Regions on the conduct or
the results of these reviews.
In 1988, Congress amended the Inspector General Act, creating new semi-annual audit
reporting and follow-up requirements. In addition, if the OIG identifies a weakness, the funds
that could be saved by resolving that weakness must also be identified. OMB has indicated that
it may use the potential savings associated with an unresolved weakness to reduce program
budgets. Furthermore, OMB guidance for preparation and submission of budget estimates
requires that agencies ensure their budgets reflect a commitment to resolve weaknesses identified
by OIG. Weaknesses and corrective actions must also be reported in the Federal Manager's
Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) annual assurance letter.
These requirements, along with an increased attention to internal controls and audit
follow-up, have resulted in the development of a system to track audits, audit response activities
and internal reviews. The tracking system, called the Superfund Report Information System
VII-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
(SR1S), will be operated by the Planning and Evaluation Section (PES) of the Program Develop-
ment and Budget Staff in OERR. As such, Regions and HQ divisions should inform PES of any
audit with which they are involved or any internal study they conduct that might have implica-
tions for internal controls.
VIT-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
CHAPTER YHt
WORKLOAD MODELS
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
CHAPTER Vin - WORKLOAD MODELS
ONE MINUTE PROGRAM MANAGER RULES
i
Following are the actions regional managers must take to comply with
the requirements described in this Chapter. In order to acquire a more
in-depth understanding of these requirements, the Chapter itself should
be read.
M
• No Full-Time Equivalents (FTE) are given to projects that
are incorrectly coded and scheduled in CERCLIS.
Wi
1
• As a result of the freeze in regional FTE, Regions may
propose changes to targets during negotiations to match the
total regional Superfund resource level.
yss,
• Data quality checks used to identify response projects that
will not receive FTE include:
; >:
. »">
- Missing first and subsequent start and
completion codes;
;-y/i
£
- Missing planned start and completion
dates;
, >
- Missing project leads;
-i
%
- Targets missed in previous years; and
%
- Projects identified as "Alternate"
targets.
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
CHAPTER Vni ¦ WORKLOAD MODELS
OVERVIEW
Regional FTE allocations are made through the Hazardous Spill and Site Response
Model and the Technical Enforcement Model. Resources for the site assessment, remedial and
removal programs are contained in the Spill and Site Response Model. Enforcement resources
are in the Technical Enforcement Model.
The workload models are designed to reflect priorities and policies contained in both the
budget and planning processes. For the most part, the workload models are a straight forward
application of FTE pricing factors from the national budget to Region-specific SCAP/STARS
targets and projections of ongoing activities in the remedial pipeline. No FTE are given to
projects that are incorrectly coded and scheduled in CERCLIS.
Regional FTE allocations usually occur in two stages. An initial allocation is made in
April based on preliminary negotiated SCAP/STARS targets and schedules in CERCLIS. A
final distribution is made in September. This distribution reflects the final SCAP and STARS
targets negotiated in August as reflected in CERCLIS and any adjustments to the budget as a
result of Congressional action.
Beginning in FY91, each Region's FTE will be frozen at the FY90 levels. Resources will
remain frozen for a period of two years provided that the national budget does not increase or
decrease by ten percent or in special circumstances where the Regions and the program managers
agree a change is necesary. While the freeze ensures that total regional Superfund resources will
not be affected, shifting of resources within the Region among the different program areas may
occur. This includes shifts between the response and enforcement programs. All shifts will be
based on the national budget and the integrated Priority Setting Matrix.
During negotiations of preliminary and final SCAP/STARS targets, Regions may propose
changes to the targets to match the total regional Superfund resource level. These proposals
must be made in accordance with the integrated Priority Setting Matrix. HQ will ensure that the
cumulative regional targets meet national budget commitments.
HAZARDOUS SPILL AND SITE RESPONSE MODEL
General Model Description
The Hazardous Spill and Site Response Resource Distribution Model (referred to as the
OERR Resource Distribution Model or Workload Model) system provides information necessary
to determine the total regional response FTE allocation contained in the Congressional Budget
amongst the ten EPA Regions. The workload model reflects priorities and policies contained in
both the budget request and SCAP and STARS planning processes.
Specifically, the workload model is both a mainframe and PC system application utilizing
FTE pricing factors from the national budget (FTE per unit of output) and regional SCAP/
STARS targets and projections as entered into the pricing factors. If regional targets are not
available, FTE allocations are based on algorithms which include related activities and/or a per-
centage share of a given universe.
VIII-1
i
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
The workload model consists of six components: site assessment, remedial pipeline, re-
medial support, analytical services, management support, and contract management. For reme-
dial pipeline events, FTE are allocated site and project specifically on a per quarter basis, using
current site planning data as reflected in CERCLIS and any SCAP/STARS targets negotiated for
the site. The direct use of CERCLIS SCAP/STARS targets and planning data provides solid
accountability for management support, and analytical services. FTE allocations are based on
non-site specific aggregated counts of activities per Region. The model then calibrates the FTE
levels calculated for most of the program areas (site assessment, remedial pipeline, remedial
support, and removal) to the FTE levels identified in the budget request. These calibrations
ensure that budget priorities are reflected in FTE distribution.
In past years, regional FTE workload model allocations occurred in two stages. An initial
allocation was made in March utilizing the preliminary SCAP/STARS targets; this allocation dis-
tributed 95% of the total regional Response FTE contained in the Congressional budget request.
The 95% level represents a baseline for each Region to allow for staff planning prior to the start
of the fiscal year. A final distribution was made in September which reflected final SCAP/
STARS negotiated targets plus Congressional action to date on the budget request. For FY91
and FY92, 100% of the FTE will be distributed in September. The FTE contained in the Con-
gressional budget request will be distributed according to the FY90 distribution level for each
Region. Targets will be reconciled to this level.
This chapter describes in more detail the operations involved in each of the workload
model phases. There are a number of operating steps in each application of the model. Some
operating steps are required and must be executed in order for the model to function properly;
others are optional and the user must determine if these operating steps should be executed.
Additionally, users may experiment with a variety of operating combinations in order to identify
the impact of various "what if' scenarios. Exhibits VIII-1 and VIII-2, on the following pages,
are flowcharts for the remedial pipeline information.
Mainframe Application Concepts
Workload File Creation Process
Data are extracted from the CERCLIS data base on a date negotiated by HQ and the
Regions to ensure that site data accurately reflects current mainframe computer. A
project specific workload file is created which includes RI/FS, RD and RA events. The
project-specific workload file contains every NPL site remedial pipeline project identified
in CERCLIS.
Data Quality Checks Process
Several data quality checks are performed against the project-specific workload file to
identify projects which have data errors. This step ensures that Regions will only receive
resources for projects which are properly planned and coded in CERCLIS. If a problem
exists, each of the fields for which a data quality check is performed have a flag field
equal to "Y" assigned. After all tests are performed, the field "BADFLAG" is updated to
"YES" if any of the individual problem flags is equal to "Y". Any project which has a
VIII-2
-------
EXHIBIT VIII-1
WORKLOAD MODEL OPERATIONS
REMEDIAL PIPELINE INFORMATION
CERCLIS
INFORMATION
RI/FS (RI/FS/CO)
RD
RA
ERA
ALL LEADS
<
a
i
¦ CERHELP
INFORMATION
RI/FS (RI/FS/CO)
ALL LEADS
QA/QC CHECKS
MISSING LEADS
MISSING FSS/FSC
MISSING PLAN DATES
NO FINANCIAL DATA
MISSING FIN VEHICLES
MISSING SPMS FLAG
COMBINATIONS
1. CERCLIS AND TARGET
START ANDCOMPLETION
DATES ARE COMPARED
2. TARGET DATES ARE USED
WHERE DISCREPENCIES
OCCUR
3. DATE INCONSISTENCIES
ARE FLAGGED
4. RECORDS WHICH ARE NOT
IN THE TARGET FILE ARE
FLAGGED
WORKLOAD
INFORMATION
ALL PIPELINE
EVENTS
¦iMMmM&mmmw-:
LEADS
QA/QC FLAGS
MODIFIED DATES
CHANGE FLAGS
THESE STEPS ARE AN
OPTIONAL PROCEDURE
-------
EXHIBIT VIII-2
WORKLOAD MODEL OPERATIONS
REMEDIAL PIPELINE PROCESSING
WORKLOAD
INFORMATION
ALL PIPELINE
EVENTS
LEADS
QA/QC FLAGS
MODIFIED DATES
CHANGEFLAGS
CREATE PLAN DATES
FROM ACTUALS
USE FIN AN VEHICLE
FROM LAST
OBLIGATION
FIX DATA QUALITY
PROBLEMS
1. FTE ALLOCATION
PRIOR YEAR START
OUTYEAR COMP
2. FTE ALLOCATION
PRIOR YEAR START
CURRENT YEAR COMP
3. FTE ALLOCATION
CURRENT YEAR START
OUTYEAR COMP
4. FTE ALLOCATION
CURRENT YEAR START
CURRENT YEAR COMP
WEIGHT FTE
ALLOCATIONS
BASED ON #
OF OVERLAP QTRS
CALIBRATE
FTE ALLOCATIONS
FTF ALLOCATION
USING LEAD SPECIFIC
PRICING FACTORS
ONLY TO PROJECTS WITHOUT
DATA QUALITY PLaCM
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
"BADFLAG" equal to "YES" will not receive FTE. The user has the option to include or
exclude running the edit checks process. The individual data fields for which data quality
) checks are performed include:
• FSS/FSC Codes ~ This check identifies projects which are missing both FSS
(C2115) and FSC (C2116) codes in CERCLIS. It is permissible for a project to
have one or the other (as in the case of a takeover), but a Region will not receive
FTE for a project which has neither.
• Planned FY/O Starts and Completions — This check identifies projects missing
planned start or completion dates. Before this check is executed, a routine is run
to create planned dates from actual dates. Any project not having both a planned
start and completion date will not receive FTE.
• Project Planned Obligations -- This check identifies projects planned to start and
not having planned obligations with approved funding. Only projects with certain
leads (C2117 equal to "F", "S", "EP", "FE", "SE") are subject to this test.
• Activitv/Event Planning Status Codes -- This check identifies projects planned to
start but are marked as alternates by the Activity/Event planning flag (C2110
equal to "A"). Projects containing a blank or "P" are eligible to receive FTE.
• Project Leads ~ This check identifies projects missing a lead (C2117 equal
to " "). Regions will not receive FTE for any project which does not have a lead
because FTE are calculated using lead-specific pricing factors.
I Target Overwrite Process
This process compares the planning data in CERCLIS and SCAP/STARS targeting data
reflected in CERHELP. The user has the option to include or exclude running the target
overwrite process of the workload model. If the user chooses to include the target over-
write process, the following steps are executed:
• Identifying Targeted Projects - The first step identifies specific projects which
are eligible to receive FTE:
- Does the project have an actual start date?
- Is the project a type which is not a SCAP/STARS target?
- Is the project a target in the CERHELP file?
Projects answering no to all of the above questions, are not targeted and are
marked by a "Y" in the "NOTARG" flag field.
• Identifying Model Calculation dates — The second step determines the FY/Q
dates used in the calculation of FTE. The specific "Model Dates" used in calcula-
tions are U2132 and U2133 as opposed to the CERCLIS planned dates (C2132
and C2133).
The start date (U2132) used in calculations is the later of the planned (CERCLIS)
or targeted (CERHELP) start dates.
Vin-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
The completion date (U2133) used is always the targeted (CERHELP) completion
date. This ensures that resources are not provided for any project which has
missed its targeted completion date.
• Identifying Missed Projects ~ The third step identifies projects not receiving FTE
for the following reasons:
- Targeted date in CERHELP is historic;
- Project does not have an actual start date; or
- Planned project has not slipped in CERCLIS.
Note: For projects identified as not receiving FTE in this process, the system
updates the field BADFLAG to equal "YES".
Data Review Process
After edit checks are performed, an edit report may be produced identifying those proj-
ects that are not currently receiving FTE because of data quality problems mentioned
above. This report should be used to correct data problems before the final execution of
the workload model.
Pricing Factors Loading Process
After the data in the workload and pricing factors data files are reviewed, pricing factors
are assigned to each project record. Each project record is matched on lead (C2117) and
event type (C2111) to the appropriate record in the pricing factors file; and the start,
ongoing, and completion pricing factors are loaded.
Pure FTE Calculation Process
The model calculates FTE for each project not having data quality problems. There are
four parts to the pure FTE calculation:
• Prior Year Start - Out Year Completion ~ The FTE for each project is calculated
by multiplying the number of ongoing quarters (four in this case) times the ongo-
ing pricing factor.
• Prior Year Start - Model Year Completion — The FTE for each project is calcu-
lated by multiplying the number of ongoing quarters times the ongoing pricing
factor plus the completion pricing factor if FSC code (C2116) is not equal to
blank; if FSC code is equal to blank, one additional ongoing quarter is added.
• Model Year Start - Out Year Completion ~ The FTE for each project is calculated
by multiplying the number of ongoing quarters times the ongoing pricing factor
plus the start pricing factor if FSS code (C2115) is not equal to blank; if FSS code
is equal to blank, one additional ongoing quarter is added.
Vffl-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
» Model Year Start - Model Year Completion -- The FTE for each project is calcu-
lated by multiplying the number of ongoing quarters times the ongoing pricing
factor; plus the start and completion pricing factors if FSS/FSC codes (C2115/
C2116) are not equal to blank. If FSS code is equal to blank one additional ongo-
ing is added. If FSC code is equal to blank one additional ongoing quarter is
added.
Calibrated FTE Calculation Process
If concurrent projects exist at a site, the model then calibrates the pure FTE assigned for
each project. There are four parts to the calibrated FTE calculations:
• Identify Ongoing Quarters for a Project - Set flags for each of the four quarters
identifying if the project is ongoing during that quarter based on the model dates.
• Identify Concurrent Quarters — Modify flags are a set for each of the four quarters
to identify the existence of overlap quarters by comparing each project to the
other projects at the site.
• Summarize Quarter Information ~ Accumulates the number of ongoing and over
lapping quarters for each project.
• Calculate the Calibrated Kl'h - The FTE for overlapping quarters are reduced by
40% for the second project at a site and by 60% for the third or greater project at a
site. The first project at a site receives full FTE.
PC Application Concepts
Data Loading Process
After the Mainframe processes are completed (including the creation of the nine Lotus
files and the download of those files to the PC), the data loading process is performed.
This automated process loads the nine Lotus files that were downloaded from the main-
frame into the spreadsheet, performs the necessary formatting, and places the data into
the appropriate cell locations. Specifically, the spreadsheet model retrieves the files from
the Remedial Pipeline Workload Model directory using the "Load Macro" function. (The
"Load Macro" function may vary from Region to Region.)
Note: This process will not function if the macro that retrieves the files references the
wrong directory.
Data Maintenance Process
Users may change the spreadsheet constant values to experiment with "what-if' scenar-
ios. However, before changing data, it is recommended that each spreadsheet be saved
under a different file name to enable comparing the results of the different scenarios.
Whenever spreadsheet data is changed, it is necessary to re-execute the model to calcu-
late the latest results.
vm-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
TECHNICAL ENFORCEMENT MODEL
The FY91 Enforcement resource distribution methodology is intended to accomplish the
following significant goals:
• Focus the distribution of resources on a limited number of major activities, pri-
marily those that are STARS or SCAP targets;
• Fold the distribution of resources for functions closely associated with achieving
the major target activities into the distribution of resources associated with the
targets themselves. (For example, the removal start target will determine the
share of resources for all activities attempting to achieve the PRP response, such
as non-NPL search activities, negotiations and all enforcement actions);
• Use preliminary targets as a means of recognizing past regional performance and
the achievement of regional program plans;
• Make preliminary ("FTE and extramural") resource estimates (based on prelimi-
nary targets) available for regional planning prior to negotiation of target commit-
ments;
• Provide support for ongoing (non-targeted) enforcement activities based on
standard pricing factors; and
• Continue to provide resources for support activities not tied to output
commitments at a baseline level for all Regions.
Program Resource Assumptions
The Technical Enforcement model distributes resources using three methods that are
described as follows:
Critical Outputs
• Removals - The budget provides resources for PRP searches at non-NPL sites;
issuance of AOs (unilateral or on consent) for removals; and oversight of PRP
removals. The resources for orders and removal oversight cover both NPL and
non-NPL sites. Resources for PRP searches at NPL sites are included under the
PRP RI/FS starts. The resources are distributed based on targeted PRP removal
starts.
PRP RI/FS Starts - This category combines resources for NPL PRP searches, and
RI/FS negotiations. Although in some cases the PRP search resources will sup-
port RI/FS targets for the current year, most will probably support future RI/FS
starts. It is therefore important that the Regions carefully plan not only support
for current year targets, but that it assess the impact of its searches on future
years. The resources are distributed based on the targeted RI/FS starts.
VIII-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
RD/RA Referrals -- This category combines resources for RD/RA negotiations,
UAOs. de minimus settlements and RD/RA referrals. The assumptions in the
FY91 budget are that RD/RA negotiations will be attempted at all sites with
viable PRPs, beginning the quarter of ROD signature, and that those negotiations
will produce PRP responses, settlement or referral at 60% of the sites. Issuance of
UAOs is a presumed outcome of at least 40% of the Fund RD starts.
These resources support ongoing and new RD/RA negotiations. In many cases
the new negotiations will not result in a referral prior to the following FY.
• Cost Recovery Referrals ~ This category provides resources for Section 107 case
development and referral. The pricing for remedial cost recovery is 0.75 FTE,
pre-RA/removal cost recovery actions are 0.5 FTE, and administrative and other
small cost recovery actions are priced at 0.25/action. Priority is to be placed on
SOL, remedial cases, and large dollar removals.
Ongoing Sunnort
• PRP RI/FS Oversight ~ This category distributes resources only for PRP RI/FS
oversight. Resources are based on projected ongoing RI/FS in CERCLIS in the
fall of 1990 plus projected oversight support for new starts. To the extent this
projection has changed, each Region should carefully review its program profile
to determine if those commitments can be met without causing significant disrup-
tion to the progress of the program.
• Ongoing Case Support— Section 106. 106/107 and 107 -- This category com-
bines resources designated for Section 106 and Section 107 case support. Re-
sources are distributed based on the number of quarters projected for ongoing
Section 106/107 actions plus the number of ongoing quarters projected for new
cases following referral, as reflected in CERCLIS. Small cases such as access,
liens and bankruptcy are not provided separate technical support resources. It is
assumed that most of these cases will generally require only ORC support post-
referral.
PRP/State CPS') Lead Sites - The resources provided assume an average cost of
.75% of federal-lead/PRP site response. The emphasis in this category is on
ongoing activities. Resources are provided for each quarter a RI/FS is ongoing as
projected in CERCLIS.
Enforcement Compliance Monitoring - The resources provided assume approxi-
mately one half the sites with PRP response for design or remediation (at a cost of
approximately one quarter of an FTE and $20,000) will require significant com-
pliance enforcement for such activities as stipulated penalties, oversight cost
recovery activities, dispute resolution and review of compliance schedules. Addi-
tionally, these resources are provided to allow for referrals at those sites where
PRPs have not responded to Section 104(e) information requests.
VIII-9
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
Ongoing PRP Search — These resources are for search activity which continues
following the RI/FS starts. They support all PRP search activity ongoing at Fund
and Enforcement sites. These are not expected to continue beyond 12 quarters.
Support Activities
• Program Implementation — The resources provided are primarily core manage-
ment and non-site specific program implementation activities. The distribution
methodology indicates the specific method used for each item. It should be noted
that non-site specific resources are provided here for state coordination and
enforcement agreements, reportable quantities, and civil investigators.
vin-io
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
ACRONYMS
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
ACRONYMS
AA —
Assistant Administrator
AA SWER —
Assistant Administrator Solid Waste and Emergency Response
AAU —
Administrative Assistance Unit
ADCR —
Automated Document Control Register
ADP —
Automated Data Processing
A/E —
Architect/Engineer
ALS —
Automated Litigation Support
ALT —
Alternate
AN —
Account Number
AO —
Administrative Order
AOA —
Advice of Allowance
AOC —
Administrative Order on Consent
APR —
Approved
AR —
Administrative Record
ARCS —
Alternative Remedial Contracts Strategy
ARIP —
Accidental Release Information Program
ARM—
Administration and Resource Management
ASU —
Administrative Support Unit
ATSDR —
Agency for Toxic Substances and Diseases Registry
BC/AOA —
Budget Control/Advice of Allowance
BLM —
Bureau of Land Management
BUREC—
Bureau of Reclamation
CA —
Cooperative Agreement
CBD —
Commerce Business Daily
CD —
Consent Decree
CEPP —
Chemical Emergency Preparedness Program
CERCLA—
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980
CERCLIS —
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
CERHELP—
CERCLIS non-site specific data base
CLP —
Contract Laboratory Program
CMS —
Contract Management Section
CN —
Commitment Notice
CPCA —
Core Program Cooperative Agreement
CO —
Contracting Officer
CORA —
Cost of Remedial Action
CR —
Community Relations
CRCR —
Cost Recovery Category Report
CWA —
Clean Water Act
DCN —
Document Control Number
DCR —
Document Control Register
DOD —
Department of Defense
DOE —
Department of Energy
DOI —
Department of the Interior
DOJ —
Department of Justice
DPO —
Deputy Project Officer
I
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
EPA —
Environmental Protection Agency
EPI —
Environmental Priorities Initiative
EMSL —
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
ERA —
Expedited Response Action
ERCS —
Emergency Response Cleanup Services
ERD —
Emergency Response Division
ESAT —
Environmental Services Assistance Team
ESF —
Emergency Support Function
EW —
Expert Witness
FCO —
Funds Certifying Officer
FE —
Federal Enforcement
FEMA —
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FINDS —
Facility Index System
FIT —
Field Investigation Team
FMC-Ci—
Financial Management Center - Cincinnati
FMD —
Financial Management Division
FMFIA —
Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act
FMO —
Financial Management Office
FOIA —
Freedom of Information Act
FS —
Feasibility Study
FSS/FSC —
First and Subsequent Start and First and Subsequent Completion
FTE —
Full-time Equivalent
FY —
Fiscal Year
GAD —
Grants Administration Division
GAO —
Government Accounting Office
GICS —
Grants Information Control System
GNL —
General Notice Letter
HQ —
Headquarters
HRS —
Hazard Ranking System
HSCD —
Hazardous Site Control Division
IAG —
Interagency Agreement
IFMS —
Integrated Financial Management System
IMC —
Information Management Coordinator
IRM —
Initial Remedial Measure
ISIF —
Integrated Site Information Form
LEPC —
Local Emergency Planning Committee
LNRD —
Land and Natural Resources Division
LOC —
Letter of Credit
LSI —
Listing Site Inspection
LTRA —
Long Term Remedial Action
MBO —
Management by Objectives
MCP —
Management Control Plan
MEP —
Maximum Extent Practicable
MSCA —
Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement
NFRAP —
No Further Remedial Action Planned
NBAR —
Non-Binding Allocation of Responsibility
NCP —
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan or
National Contingency Plan
NOAA —
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NSEPP—
National Security Emergency Preparedness Program
NPL —
National Priorities List
II
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 D
oc —
Office of the Comptroller
O&M —
Operations and Maintenance
OE —
Office of Enforcement
OERR —
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
OIG —
Office of the Inspector General
OMB —
Office of Management and Budget
OP AC —
On-line Payment and Collections
OPM —
Office of Program Management
OPP —
Office of Pollution Prevention
ORD —
Office of Research and Development
ORC —
Office of Regional Counsel
OSC —
On-Scene Coordinator
OSW —
Office of Solid Waste
OSWER —
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OU —
Operable Unit
OUST —
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
OWPE —
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
PA —
Preliminary Assessment
PCMD —
Procurement and Contracts Management Division
PDBS —
Program Development and Budget Staff
PES —
Planning and Evaluation Staff (OERR)
PMSO —
Program Management Support Office
PNRS —
Preliminary Natural Resource Surveys
PO —
Project Officer
PR —
Procurement Request
PRP —
Potentially Responsible Party
QA/QC —
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
RA —
Remedial Action
RCRA —
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRC —
Regional Cost Recovery Coordinator
RD —
Remedial Design
REM —
Remedial Contractor
RI —
Remedial Investigation
RI/FS —
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
ROD —
Record of Decision
RP —
Responsible Party
RPIO —
Regional Planning and Implementing Officer
FLPM —
Remedial Project Manager
RPO —
Regional Project Officer
RRT —
Regional Response Team
RTP —
Research Triangle Park
RTS —
Removal Tracking System
SARA —
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SCAP —
Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan
SFO —
Servicing Finance Office
SI —
Site Inspection
SIBAC —
Simplified Interagency Billing and Collection
SIF —
Site Information Form
SMOA —
State Memorandum of Agreement
SNL —
Special Notice Letter
SOL —
Statute of Limitations
III
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01D
SPMS —
Strategic Planning and Management System
SPR —
Superfund Progress Report
SPUR —
Software Package for Unique Reports
SRIS —
Superfund Report Information System
SSC —
Superfund State Contracts
SSI —
Screening Site Inspection
S/S ED —
Site/Spill Identification Number
STARS —
Strategic Targeted Activities for Results System
TAG —
Technical Assistance Grants
TAT —
Technical Assistance Team
TBD —
To Be Determined
TESWATS —
Technical Enforcement Support Work Assignment Tracking System
TES —
Technical Enforcement Support
TQM —
Total Quality Management
UAO —
Unilateral Administrative Order
USACE—
United States Army Corps of Engineers
USCG —
United States Coast Guard
USFWS —
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS —
United States Geologial Survey
WA —
Work Assignment
WAM —
Work Assignment Manager
ZPO —
Zone Project Officer
IV
-------
OFFICE OF WASTE
PROGRAMS ENFORCEMENT
DIRECTOR
POLICY
COORDINATOR
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
RCRA
ENFORCEMENT
DIVISION
PROGRAM MNGT.
AND
SUPPORT OFFICE
CERCLA
ENFORCEMENT
DIVISION
COMPLIANCE &
IMPLEMENTATION
BRANCH
GUIDANCE &
EVALUATION
BRANCH
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
SECTION
BUDGET &
ANALYTICAL
SUPPORT
SECTION
GUIDANCE AND
EVALUATION
BRANCH
CONTRACTS
AND PLANNING
BRANCH
REGIONAL
COORDINATION
SECTION
TECHNICAL
IMPLEMENATION
SECTION
ENFORCEMENT
SUPPORT
SECTION
ENFORCEMENT
SUPPORT
SECTION
REGIONAL
PLANNING
SECTION
CONTRACTS
MANAGEMENT
SECTION
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
SECTION
COST
RECOVERY
BRANCH
COMPLIANCE
BRANCH
POUCY
SECTION
SUPPORT
SECTION
REGIONAL
COORDINATORS
SECTION
REGIONAL REGIONAL
COORDINATORS COORDINATORS
SECTION SECTION
^
-------
CERCLA ENFORCEMENT DIVISION
DIVISION DIRECTOR
GUIDANCE AND EVALUATION
BRANCH
CONTRACTS AND PLANNING
BRANCH
ENFORCEMENT
SUPPORT
SECTION
REGIONAL
PLANNING
SECTION
CONTRACTS
MANAGEMENT
SECTION
ENFORCEMENT
SUPPORT
SECTION
ENFORCEMENT ACTION
SECTION
COMPLIANCE BRANCH
COST RECOVERY BRANCH
REGIONAL
COORDINATORS
SECTION
REGIONAL
COORDINATORS
SECTION
REGIONAL
COORDINATORS
SECTION
-------
OFFICE OF i^Mh,KUJ£NUY AJND REMEDIAL RESPONSE
OFFICE OF TI
DIRECTOR
ACTING EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
OFFICE OF PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT
CONTRACT OPERATIONS
REVIEW AND
ASSESSMENT STAFF |
POLICY & ANALYSIS
MANAGEMENT &
SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT STAFF
PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT AND
BUDGET STAFF
HAZARDOUS SITE
EVALUATION
DIVISION
ANALYTICAL OPERATIONS
BRANCH
SITE ASSESSMENT
BRANCH
TOXICS INTEGRATION
BRANCH
I
HAZARDOUS SITE
CONTROL
DIVISION
SPECIAL
PROJECTS AND
SUPPORT STAFF
REMEDIAL OPERATIONS AND
GUIDANCE BRANCH
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT BRANCH
STATE AND LOCAL
COORDINATION BRANCH
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
DIVISION
RESPONSE OPERATIONS
BRANCH
RESPONSE STANDARDS AND
CRITERIA BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE
BRANCH
-------
OFFICE OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
<
HH
1=1
OFFICE OF
PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT
POLICY AND
ANALYSIS STAFF
RCRA polilcy oversight
ARAR compliance policy and
assistance
NCP
Delegations
Annual Report to Congress on
Superfund
Cross-cutting policy issues
Docket, Directives management
Strategic planning
COMPLIANCE WITH
OTHER LAWS
SECTION
REGULATORY &
SPECIAL PROJECTS
SECTION
MANAGEMENT AND
SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT STAFF
CERCLIS management, support and
evaluation
Technical ADP systems development
and support
ADP administration
Administrative services
Records management
Personnel
Training
Directives system
Correspondence
Docket management
HQ contract management
ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT
SECTION
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS
COORDINATION
SECTION
CONTRACT OPERATIONS
REVIEW AND
ASSESSMENT STAFF
Regional contract assessment and assistance
QA/QC
Procurement Strategies and PEB
PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT
AND BUDGET STAFF
Budget formulation/operating plan
development and implementation
Resource allocation
Regional workload model
Cost Control/estimation models
Program forecasting
Accountability measures and tracking
Program evaluation
SCAP planning and negotiations
Regional review
Work assignment manager training
Financial policy, accounting and tracking
PLANNING AND
EVALUATION
SECTION
RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
SECTION
-------
EMERGENCY RESPONSE DIVISION
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
DIVISION
ERT Liaison
RESPONSE STANDARDS
AND CRITERIA
BRANCH
RESPONSE OPERATIONS
BRANCH
TAT Zone I, II
ERCS Zone 1,4 and 4B
Budget/Regional Allowance
SCAP/SPMS/CERCLIS Management
Ovosight
Operations
ERNS
SERA Summary
x
EASTERN SECTION
(REGIONS I - IV)
WESTERN SECTION
(REGIONS V - X)
• State Lead Removal Guidance
• Drinking Water Action Levels
• Land Disposal Restrictions
• Engineering EvaluatiaruCost Analysis
• (EE/CA)
• Removal Procedures Guidance
• CERCLA Hazardous Substance Designations
• Reportable Quantity Adjustments
• Radionuclides/Potential Carcinogens
• Oil Regulations and Guidance
• Continuous Releases
• Federally-Permitted Releases
RESPONSE POLICY
GUIDANCE &
SUPPORT SECTION
RESPONSE
REGULATION
SECTION
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESPONSE BRANCH
• On-Site Cleanup Assistance
• Coordination of Emergency Response
• ERT Training Program
• Radiation Response Capability
• Extent of Contamination Studies
• Groundwater Studies
• Soil Gas Studies
• Bloassessment Studies
• Innovative Technology Demonstration
• Treatability Testing
• Site-Specific Cleanup Standards
• Alternative Technology Feasibility Standards
• SITE Program Coordination
• Support Contract Management
• Administrative Support
• Automated Data Support
• Analytical Support
• QA/QC Activities
• Safely and Health Activities
• "Preparedness Program Support
• Air Monitoring Activities
• Coordination with OSHA
operational
SUPPORT SECTION
contracts and
DATA MANAGEMENT
SECTION
SITE
INVESTIGATION
SECTION
SAFETY AND AIR
SURVEILLANCE
SECTION
ALTERNATIVE
TECHNOLOGY
SECTION
-------
HAZARDOUS SITE EVALUATION DIVISION
SITE
ASSESSMENT
BRANCH
TOXICS
INTEGRATION
BRANCH
ANALYTICAL
OPERATIONS
BRANCH
HAZARDOUS SITE
EVALUATION DIVISION
Provide guidance to implement revised HRS.
Develop and refine NPL eligibility policies.
Develop and finalize NPL updates.
Provide QA on NPL proposals.
Improve quality of Regional NPL submissions.
Phase-in new NPL support contract.
Conduct site assessment background and field
studies.
Manage PA/SI LSI SCAP process.
Develop PA/SI LSI guidance and training.
Manage FIT contract to meet Region's needs and
ensure proper contract oversight
Ensure consistency of analytical methods.
Develop organic and inorganic technical
protocols and new CLP services.
Manage ES AT.
Manage Sample Management Ofice.
Streamline analysis and data review.
Establish national Q/A methods and
procedures.
Maintain analytical data base for sites.
Manage risk assessment QA/QC program.
Provide Regions with immediate expert
health/environmental science responses to
RI/FS issues.
Update Superfund risk data bases and ensure
consistency/utility of other data bases.
Provide TA to Regions on the revised public
health and ecological evaluation manuals.
Coordinate with ATSDR and lead EPA/ATSDR
dispute resolution process/follow-up on
Regional problems.
Evaluate results of Section 111 three-city lead
pilot program for soil clean-up/blood-lead-level
correlation.
-------
Ilrt/jrtlVlJVyUJ Oil Hi V^Ull 1IVWL
1/1 y icjiwn
SPECIAL PROJECTS
AND SUPPORT
STAFF
HAZARDOUS SITE CONTROL
DIVISION
• Conduct special projects on remedial policy and technical
issues
• Remedial Program Strategy for SCAP/SPMS/budget target
setting
• Manage Divsion budgets
• Prepare management reports and analyses of program
performance
• Implement FMFIA requirements
• Provide administrative support for Division
REMEDIAL OPERATIONS
AND GUIDANCE
BRANCH
Provide Regional Coordinator support for RI/FS,
RODs and post-ROD environmental review
Support development of soil and debris land
disposal restriction regulations
Review and finalize NCP and RI/FS, selection
of remedy, and ROD guidance
Direct and evaluate improvements process
Develop technical guidance
implementation of treatability studies
Provide information transfer support
for ROD data and treatability studies
Conduct quarterly and other programmatic
reviews for RI/FS, ROD and post-ROD
activity implementation
DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT BRANCH
Provide regional coordination support for RD/RA
projects and completion/delegations for EPA,
State and PRP projects
Manage MOUs with Corps and BUREC
Provide RD/RA management support, guidance,
training and RD/RA Update
Manage REM contracts
Support implementation and program
management of ARC's contracts
Revise and implement RD/RA guidance
Manage value engineering program
Conduct quarterly and other programmatic
reviews for RD/RA and completion/delegation
STATE AND LOCAL
COORDINATION
BRANCH
«Develop regulations, policy and guidance for
State program development and participation
> Develop policy and guidance for participation
of Indians in remedial program
»Conduct response agreement training
• Provide SSC management control
• Conduct Regional MAP reviews
> Manage and support response claims program
. Manage and support community relations
and technical advisor grant programs
> Manage ASTSWMO grant
> Conduct program evaluations of State
performance
-------
U.S. EPA REGIONS
IX
HW
Boston
RI
New York
Seattle
Chicago
Washington, D.C
San Francisco
IX
KS Kansas
Denver
Atlanta
Dallas
PUERTO RICO
no
f 1 » *
^
VIRGIN ISLANDS
------- |