SPENDING PLAN RULES FOR PROJECT QUEUING: Remedial Environmental Projects

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE PROGRAM

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

DRAFT

Office of Procurement, Grants, and Administrative Support Construction Staff

March 27, 1997

RULES FOR PROJECT QUEUING (Remedial Environmental Projects)

1. EPA' Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response has issued remedial action priorities and these are to be used for assigning the NOAA local priority numerical score. NOAA's Environmental Compliance Program scores are stated under tab "M"of Framework - 2 in a document called "Internal NOAA Program Policy: Remedial Environmental Project Prioritization Scheme" of September 5, 1995.

2. The oldest projects will be funded first within a priority numerical score. The oldest project has the lowest project number. This means that the initial project queuing within a numerical score is to be done by project number.

3. Flexibility within a numerical score will be available through "trumping factors". Trumping factors can jump ahead in queuing over older projects within a numerical score in situations where sufficient justification is explicitly documented. These trumping factors are the "risk plus other factors" identified in Final Report of the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee of April 1996 at pages 86-87. Trumping factors include:

a) cultural, social, and economic factors, including environmental justice considerations;

b) potential or future use of the facility, its effect on the local communities' economy, vitality, livability, and environmental quality;

c) the ecological impacts of the contamination and the proposed action to address it (in those instances where protection of the environment is not used as a primary basis for establishing cleanup funding priorities);

d) intrinsic and future value of affected resources (e.g., groundwater and fisheries);

e) pragmatic considerations such as availability and continuity of skilled workers, laboratories, cleanup contractors to complete the activity or the feasibility of carrying out the activity in relation to other activities at the facility (i.e., capacity and work flow logic), or both;

f) the overall cost and cost-effectiveness of a proposed activity and especially the relative risk reduction value obtained by the proposed expenditure;

g) making land available for other uses, recognizing that land uses may change over time;

h) the importance of reducing infrastructure costs (e.g., annual costs associated with monitoring, operating and maintenance costs, or other annual re-occurring costs);

i) the availability of new or innovative technologies that might accelerate or improve the ability to achieve a permanent remedy;

j) Native American treaties, statutory rights (e.g., American Indian Religious Freedom Act), and trust responsibilities;

k) regulatory requirements and the acceptability of the proposed action to regulators and other stakeholders;

l) supporting accomplishment of other high priority agency objectives;

m) life-cycle costs; and

n) actual and anticipated funding levels (the congressional budget appropriation, OMB opportionment, allotments of funds to agencies or departments and the facilities, and out year funding targets).

4. Site project consolidation can occur at a site where it makes sense to combine projects so that there will be a cost savings to the Government. Site consolidated projects are assigned the numerical score of the most significant factor of any of the projects at a site.

5. In extremely limited funding situations, Program Managers and Project Managers will take into consideration the "flexible fair share features" identified in Final Report of the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee of April 1996 at pages 94-95. These features are:

a) to the greatest extent possible, rely on the preappropriation priorities established by regulated and regulating agencies in consultation with stakeholders that are often set forth as enforceable milestones in negotiated cleanup agreements;

b) continue to use the "risk plus other factors" approach at the local level when making changes to previously agreed upon priorities;

c) strive to reward performance based on preestablished performance criteria or standards (e.g., reward facilities that use resources efficiently and wisely);

d) be completed in a timely and efficient manner;

e) be conducted in consultation with public stakeholders at the earliest stages possible;

f) strive to reconcile the inherent tension between the "bottom up" and "top down" dimensions of the federal facility funding and priority process;

g) strive to enhance credibility, trust, and productive working relationships;

h) result in equitable and fair allocations (which does not necessarily mean an equal or pro rata allocation); and

i) include documentation of the allocation decisions that were made at each significant organizational level.