United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
9375.6-11
EPA/540/F-95/002
Superfund
Guidance on Deferral of NPL
Listing Determinations While
States Oversee Response Actions
-------
> UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Mflf - 3 1995 OFF.CE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
9375.6-11
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Transmittal of the "Guidance on Deferral of NFL
Listing Determinations While States Oversee Response
Actions" (OSWER Directive 9375.6-11)
FROM: Stephen D. Luftig, Acting Director
-------
The guidance also includes an appendix, presented in a
"question and answer" format, that responds to several questions
that arose during development of the guidance. A second appendix
provides instructions regarding the use of CERCLIS and other
codes to allow for the tracking of deferral activities and
cooperative agreements.
DISCUSSION
Components
The deferral guidance provides a framework for Regions,
States, and Federally-recognized Tribes to determine the most
appropriate, effective, and efficient means to address more sites
more quickly than EPA otherwise would address them. The Agency
also recognizes that several States already have fully developed
cleanup programs in place, while others are continuing to
strengthen their capabilities. Therefore, EPA expects to
implement the guidance in a flexible manner to account for
differing capabilities of participating States and Tribes. As a
result of site-specific circumstances or differing but equally
effective State or Tribal program practices, Regions may choose
to act at variance from certain provisions of the guidance.
Under the deferral program:
¦ Deferral may be implemented on either an area-wide or site-
specific basis?
¦ Response actions will be conducted under State or Tribal
authority;
¦ Viable and cooperative PRPs will agree to pay for and
conduct response actions—Superfund Trust funds generally
will not be made available for conducting response actions;
¦ Response actions must be protective of human health and the
environment and meet State or Tribal and Federal applicable
requirements;
¦ A site may not be deferred if the affected community has
significant, valid objections;
¦ The level of EPA oversight of States and Tribes will be
negotiated with the Region; and
¦ Once a deferral response is complete, EPA will remove the
site from CERCLIS and will not consider the site for the NPL
unless the Agency receives new information of a release or
potential release that poses a significant threat to human
health or the environment.
2
-------
Changes Based On Comments
In March 1994, a draft guidance was circulated to Regions
and Headquarters Offices for concurrence. Based on comments
received as well as subsequent work group efforts, several
substantive changes were made to the guidance. A final draft of
the guidance was distributed to the States in February 1995, and
a number of additional changes have been made based on new
insights contributed by States and Regions.
¦ The guidance conforms with the Agency's recognition that
pilot projects currently underway are at various stages in
the listing process;
¦ Regions should notify Headquarters before deferring a site
for which an HRS package has been initiated (notification
before deferring any site is not required);
¦ States and Tribes should inform affected communities of a
proposed deferral 30 days prior to requesting deferral from
the Region, seek community affirmation for the deferral, and
document their interactions with communities;
¦ Regions and States or Tribes should agree to a six month
timeframe (with an extension of up to a year) to conduct PRP
negotiations and should agree to schedules for conducting
response actions at each site;
¦ States may use removal resources at deferred sites where
PRPs become recalcitrant or bankrupt.
¦ Deferral sites at which cleanups are successfully completed
will be removed from CERCLIS.
Main Work Group Issues
The changes to the guidance do not reflect work group
consensus; they represent a compromise among different views that
works to maintain the balance between program flexibility and
accountability. Work group members raised concerns about several
aspects of the guidance, the most significant of which are
discussed below.
¦ Comment: The deferral option should be available for final
NPL sites as well as non-NPL sites.
Response: The purpose of the deferral program is to address
sites more quickly than would otherwise be addressed—sites
for which an HRS package has been initiated have already
entered the response process. Under the deferral program,
EPA encourages PRPs to settle earlier to avoid NPL listing,
3
-------
which results in more sites being addressed more quickly.
Final NPL sites must be addressed under the Agency's
deletion policy.
¦ Comment: EPA oversight and reporting requirements may
discourage the participation of states and Tribes who
already have strong cleanup programs and would find these
requirements unnecessary.
Response: The deferral guidance is meant to be flexible to
accommodate a wide range of oversight and reporting
conditions, and still provide a minimal level of information
to maintain accountability. For most States, the negotiated
level of EPA oversight will provide incentive to PRPs to be
cooperative as well as give the PRPs some comfort that EPA
has confidence in State responses.
¦ Comment: States and Tribes will not have an interest in the
deferral program without having access to Superfund
resources to conduct response actions; thus such resources
should be made available.
Response: A fundamental expectation of the deferral program
is that viable and cooperative PRPs will pay for and conduct
response actions, sites that require the use of Superfund
resources to conduct response actions are not appropriate
candidates for this program. However, at deferral sites
where PRPs become recalcitrant or bankrupt, removal
cooperative agreements may be awarded, as appropriate, to
conclude a response action.
¦ Comment: Although community involvement should be an
important factor in deciding to initiate and implement
deferrals, this factor may become an overriding determinant
and impede implementation of the program.
Response: EPA is working continually to strengthen its
commitment to inform and involve the public in decisions
regarding hazardous waste cleanup. Response actions will
not be effective, efficient, or fair if community interests
are not represented. EPA's intention to encourage public
involvement is in no way lessened at sites that are deferred
to States. If an affected community expresses significant,
valid objections to deferral or the deferral process at any
site, EPA will take appropriate action, including rejecting
a deferral proposal or terminating a deferral that is
underway.
Through these and numerous additional comments, work group
members and others have suggested that specific components of the
guidance are overly-prescriptive. However, while this guidance
presents EPA's view of the national program, we reemphasize our
4
-------
intent that a flexible approach be taken in implementing the
deferral program. Consequently, although the Agency has declined
to make certain changes recommended by Regions and States, we
recognize the Regions' need to vary from the guidance, as the
occasion warrants, in order to best serve the public and the
environment.
ACTION
The deferral program is an excellent administrative
mechanism to enable States and Tribes, under their own laws, to
respond at sites that EPA would otherwise not soon address.
Under this program, the Agency anticipates that responses may be
quick and efficient, yet still protective of the environment and
of communities' rights to participate in the decision-making
process. PRPs who are willing to do cleanups also will benefit
from reduced response costs and fewer layers of government
oversight. I encourage you to support and assist the States and
Tribes in your Regions to take opportunities to enter into
deferral agreements with EPA. Furthermore, Regional Decision
Teams and other Regional assessment teams should work together
with States and Tribes to identify these opportunities as part of
the site prioritization process, rather than wait until after
site assessment has commenced.
If you would like further information regarding
implementation of the deferral program, contact Steve Caldwell,
Acting Chief of the Site Assessment Branch, Hazardous Site
Evaluation Division (703-603-8850), or Murray Newton, Chief of
the State and Local Coordination Branch, Hazardous Site Control
Division (703-603-8840).
Attachment
5
-------
OSWER Directive 9375.6-11
EPA/540/F-95/002
PB95-963223
GUIDANCE OH DEFERRAL OF NPL LISTING DETERMINATIONS
WHILE STATES OVERSEE RESPONSE ACTIONS
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
The policies set forth in this directive are intended
solely as guidance* They are not intended, nor can
they: be,relied upon, to create any rights enforceable ;
by any party in litigation with the United States, EPA
officials may decide to follow the guidance provided in
this directive, or to act at variance with the
, directive, on the basis of an analysis of specific
circumstances. The Agency also reserves the right to
change this directive at any time without public
. notice*
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE 1
INTRODUCTION 1
IMPLEMENTATION 2
1. Criteria for a State Deferral Program 2
a. Statutory, Regulatory, or Administrative
Provisions 3
b. Program Capability 3
i. Resources 3
ii. Monitoring and Oversight 3
iii. Community Participation. .... 3
2. Sites Eligible for Deferral 4
a. State interest 4
b. CERCLIS Listing 4
c. NPL Caliber 4
d. Viable and Cooperative PRPs 5
e. Timing 5
f. Community Acceptance 5
g. Sites Involving Tribal Lands 6
h. Federal Facilities 6
i. Complicating Factors 6
3. Cleanup Levels 7
a. Protect iveness 7
b. Standards 7
4. Procedural Requirements 7
a. Roles and Responsibilities 8
b. Schedule for Performance 8
c. Documentation 8
d. Cleanup Level 8
e. Community Participation 8
f. Natural Resource Trustees 8
5. EPA Oversight of States 8
a. Review Deferral Program Criteria 9
b. Report on State-EPA Agreement Conditions 9
c. Annual Review 9
6. Financial Assistance to States 9
a. Core Program and Site-Specific Response Funding. . 10
b. Subpart 0 Requirements 10
7. Community Participation 11
a. Comparability with the NCP 11
b. Information Assistance for Communities 11
iii
-------
8. Completion of State Response Action 11
a. Certification and Confirmation 11
b. Termination of Site Deferral Status. ....... 12
APPENDIX A: Question and Answer Supplement A-l
APPENDIX B: Instructions on Financial Tracking B-l
APPENDIX C: Policy Announcement No. 94-07 C-i
iv
-------
GUIDANCE ON DEFERRAL OF NPL LISTING DETERMINATIONS
WHILE STATES OVERSEE RESPONSE ACTIONS
PURPOSE
This directive provides guidance on the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund State and Tribal deferral
program, under which EPA may defer consideration of certain sites
for listing on the National Priorities List (NPL), while
interested States, Territories, Commonwealths, or Federally-
recognized Indian Tribes compel and oversee response actions
conducted and funded by potentially responsible parties (PRPs)-
Once the necessary response actions at a site are completed
successfully, the site will be removed from the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information
System (CERCLIS), and EPA will have no further interest in
considering the site for listing on the NPL, unless it receives
new information of a release or potential release that poses a
significant threat to human health or the environment.
INTRODUCTION
The "Superfund Administrative Improvements, Final Report" of
June 23, 1993 (OSWER Directive 9200.0-14-2), identified numerous
initiatives to improve the Agency's implementation of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCIiA), as amended. The deferral program, developed under
the initiative to "Enhance State Role," was intended to
"encourage qualified, interested States to address, under State
laws, the large number of sites now in EPA1s listing queue,
thereby accelerating cleanup, minimizing the risk of duplicative
State/Federal efforts, and offering PRPs a measure of confidence
that only one agency will address the site." Although the
primary goal of the deferral program is to accelerate the rate of
response actions by encouraging a greater State or Tribal role,
the priority for increasing this rate must be balanced with two
other crucial Agency priorities: 1) maintaining protective
cleanup levels at sites, and 2) ensuring that the public's right
to participate in the decision-making process is well supported.
This directive is divided into sections that address:
criteria that a state, Territory, Commonwealth, or Federally-
recognized Indian Tribe (hereafter the term "State" also includes
Territories, Commonwealths, and Tribes) should meet to
participate in the program; criteria for determining which sites
are eligible for deferral; procedural requirements; and
provisions for site cleanup levels to be achieved at deferred
sites, oversight, financial assistance, community participation,
and response action completion or termination. Although these
provisions establish a framework for a national deferral program,
1
-------
EPA recognizes that State cleanup programs have differing
capabilities and methods of implementation. To best accommodate
these differences and achieve response actions most quickly and
effectively, the Agency expects to implement the provisions of
the guidance in a flexible manner. Regional implementation of
this guidance may vary based on site-specific circumstances or
the established capabilities and practices of a State program.
This guidance also includes two appendices. Appendix A
responds to several questions that arose during development of
the guidance and is presented in a "question and answer" format.
Appendix B provides specific instructions regarding the use of
CERCLIS and other codes to allow for the tracking of deferral
activities and cooperative agreements. Throughout this guidance
and its appendices, the terms "State deferral" and "deferring to
a State" are defined as EPA's deferring consideration of a site
for NPL listing in favor of State action.
IMPLEHEh'i'ATXON
l. Criteria for a State Deferral Program
A State may participate in the deferral program on an area-
wide or site-specific basis. Under the area-wide program, the
State and Region will agree to certain generic procedural and
other requirements (e.g., roles and responsibilities, cleanup
levels, public participation), and address site-specific concerns
(e.g., site eligibility and selection requirements, response
schedules, EPA oversight) through separate documentation. Under
the site-specific approach, the State and Region will negotiate
separate terms and conditions for the deferral of individual
sites (see below). A State hazardous waste management or
remedial program should meet the following general criteria
regarding statutory and administrative authority and program
capability to participate in the area-wide deferral program.
1 State-Funded Response. Alternatively, the State may
propose to conduct the response actions at a deferred site using
its own funds. In these cases, the State additionally will need
to demonstrate that it has the technical capability and
sufficient resources to conduct and complete the response. If
the state desires to use CERCLA section 107 authority, rather
than its own authorities, to recover response action costs, the
costs incurred, in order to be recoverable, must not be
inconsistent with National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) requirements.
2
-------
a. Statutory, Regulatory/ or Administrative Provisions.
The State program should have statutory, regulatory,
or administrative provisions which ensure that
remedies at deferred sites are protective of human
health and the environment. The program also should
have the statutory authority and administrative
provisions to pursue all necessary enforcement actions
at a site, ranging from mechanisms to identify viable
liable parties, to authority to compel PRPs to conduct
"CERCLA-protective cleanups" (as defined in Section
III). The evaluation of these provisions and
authorities is not limited to comparing the State's
law to CERCLA, but may consider, when relevant, the
State's past and current ability to select protective
remedies, and to enter into and enforce consent
agreements or orders with PRPs.
b. Program Capability, The State program should have
sufficient capabilities, resources, and expertise to
ensure that a CERCLA-protective cleanup is conducted
as well as coordinate with EPA, other interested
agencies, and the public on the various phases of
implementation. Estimates of the State's capability
may consider any significant past response actions the
State has undertaken through the Federal Superfund
program or its own program, the effectiveness of the
State's program to achieve a protective cleanup, and
the State's projected workload. The State should have
the following capabilities.
i. Resources. The State should have adequate, capable
staff, funds, and other resources to conduct
enforcement actions, including PRP searches,
negotiations with PRPs, monitoring, oversight, and
litigation.
ii. Monitoring and Oversight. The State should have
the capability to maintain adequate supervision of
response actions, including, but not limited to:
assuring and controlling the quality of data
sampling and analysis, risk characterizations or
assessments, and design and implementation of
remedies? monitoring project progress; and
communicating with EPA program managers.
iii. Community Participation. The State should be able
to involve affected communities in a manner that
fosters appropriate community participation (as
described in Section VII) in decisions regarding
response actions at deferred sites.
3
-------
To establish a clear understanding between the State and EPA
that the State has the authority and capability to participate in
an area-wide deferral program, the State program director and
Regional Superfund program director should enter into a generic
deferral Memorandum of Agreement certifying these criteria are
met. As reasonable and appropriate, the Region may require the
State to provide specific information to confirm EPA's basis for
entering into the deferral agreement. Upon request, the Region
should provide the basis for any decision declining to defer to
the State.
If a State is interested in deferral and does not meet all
of the criteria for establishing an area-wide deferral program,
the Region and State may, at the Region's discretion, enter into
site-specific deferral agreements, provided that site eligibility
criteria are met. For example, a site at which the State enters
into an enforceable agreement with a PRP to conduct a CERCLA-
protective cleanup, even though the State does not have the
statutory authority to compel response actions, may be
appropriate for deferral. The Region may determine, as needed,
that closer oversight and the application of other conditions are
necessary to ensure a successful response action.
2. Sites Eligible for Deferral
Under the area-wide approach, the Region and State should
mutually determine, generally based on an annual submission of
deferral site candidates proposed by the State, which sites
should be deferred. The Region and State should determine the
eligibility of sites for deferral using the following criteria.
a. State Interest. The State must express interest in
having the site deferred to it. The State and EPA
also should agree that the State will address the
deferred site sooner than, and at least as quickly as,
EPA would expect to respond. (See Appendix A.)
b. CERCLI8 Listing. The site proposed for deferral must
be included in the CERCLIS inventory.
c. NPL Caliber. The deferred site should be "NPL
caliber" as defined in the October 12, 1993, OSWER
Directive, "Additional Guidance on 'Worst Sites* and
'NPL Caliber Sites' to Assist in SACM Implementation"
(OSWER Directive 9320.2-07A) or the December 1992 fact
sheet "Assessing Sites Under SACM—Interim Guidance"
(OSWER Directive 9203.1-051, Vol. 1, No. 4). Sites
that are less than NPL caliber are generally not of
Federal interest and the deferral program requirements
need not apply at these sites. However, such sites
may be deferred, should a State desire this option.
4
-------
d. viable and cooperative PRPs. Under the deferral
program, viable and cooperative PRPs generally must be
available to conduct the response actions at a
deferred site. The PRPs at a deferred site should be
willing to enter into an enforceable agreement with
the State to conduct all response actions (including
providing for operation and maintenance) at the site
and repay any State and Fund-financed response costs
related to the deferral. Except under limited
circuirst nces (i.e., where PRPs become recalcitrant or
bankrup as described in Section VI), a State should
not be i ng Superfund resources to conduct response
actions deferred sites. If the State is a PRP at
the sit- the Region should consider carefully the
implica ns of deferring the site before making a
decisic At sites where no viable PRPs exist, or
where a ate is willing to agree to settle for less
than tb ull cost of the response action, the State
must de: strate that it has adequate resources of its
own or \ ^ble agreements with other parties (e.g.,
prospect e purchasers) to pay the necessary costs for
the resp \se action. (See Appendix A.)
e. Timing. enerally, a site is eligible for deferral
until a ate or contractor has been tasked to develop
a site-sj ecific Hazard Ranking System (HRS) package
for it. f, however, the Region or State has already
issued a cask or work assignment to develop the
package, rhe Region should defer the site only where
the State provides a compelling argument why the
listing process should be halted. In such cases, the
Region should consider carefully the history of the
State's involvement at the site and community
acceptance of the deferral in making the determination
whether to defer the site. In rare instances, sites
proposed for the NPL, or sites for which an HRS
package has been submitted to Headquarters, may be
eligible for deferral. Sites on the final NPL are not
eligible deferral candidates, though the Region may,
through a cooperative agreement, assign to the State
the lead for response at such sites. The Region
should consult with the Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response before deferring any site for which
an HRS package has been initiated. (See Appendix A.)
f. Community Acceptance. Community acceptance of a
deferral to the State is an important site eligibility
criterion, and the State should work to gain and
maintain community acceptance of the site's deferral
to the State. The State should take appropriate steps
to inform the affected community and other affected
parties (e.g., communities downstream from the site,
5
-------
PRPs, Natural Resource Trustees) of the proposed
deferral 30 days prior to requesting that the Region
defer the site and should seek affirmation from the
community of its proposal. As appropriate, the State
also should explain to the community and other parties
any differences between a response under the deferral
program and a response conducted under the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP), including, but not limited to, any
differences in cleanup levels and public involvement.
Additionally, the State should document all of its
interactions with the community and inform the Region
of possible opposition to the deferral.
If, at any time before a site is deferred to the
State, the Region, after consulting with the state,
determines that the community or other parties have
significant, valid objections to the deferral that
cannot be resolved, the Region should not defer the
site. If, at any time after a site is deferred to the
State, the Region determines that the community or
other parties have significant, valid, unresolvable
objections to the deferral, the Region should
terminate the deferral status of the site (described
in Section VIII). The Region should provide
appropriate explanation to the community and other
parties of decisions that do not favor the community's
or other parties' objections. (See Appendix A.)
g. Sites Involving Tribal Lands. A site on or involving
land or other resources under Tribal jurisdiction may
be deferred to a Federally-recognized Tribe if the
appropriate criteria are met. EPA will not defer such
a site to a State unless the affected Tribe(s) agrees
to the deferral through a three-party agreement with
the State and the Region.
h. Federal Facilities. Consistent with EPA's current
listing policy for Federal facilities, such sites are
ineligible for deferral from NPL listing.
i. Complicating Factors. The Region, in consultation
with the State, should consider factors which may
present significant obstacles to successful response
actions at the proposed deferral site. Such factors
include, but are not limited to: complexity and degree
of the environmental threat posed by the
contamination; site history; current or anticipated
Fund-financed activity; the PRPs involved at the site;
and environmental justice and other community
concerns.
6
-------
3. Cleanup Levels
Section 121(b)(1) of CERCLA sets general standards for
remedial actions carried out under CERCLA section 104 or secured
under CERCLA section 106. These standards have been elaborated
further in the NCP. Under section 300.430(f), a remedy conducted
pursuant to the NCP must be protective of human health and the
environment and must comply with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements. Under the deferral program, although
the State will oversee the response action at an NPL caliber site
using its own authorities, the quality of the response action
conducted still should be substantially similar to a response
required under CERCLA, i.e., it should be a "CERCLA-protective
cleanup." The following criteria define a CERCLA-protective
cleanup.
a. Protectiveness. A CERCLA-protective cleanup at a
deferred site should be protective of human health apd
the environment as defined generally by a 10-4 to 10"
risk range and a hazard index of 1 or less.
Generally, the State also should consider giving
preference to solutions that will be reliable over the
long term.
b. Standards. The remedy selected at a deferred site
must comply with all applicable Federal and State
requirements. Additionally, the State should
generally select a remedy which provides a level of
protectiveness comparable to relevant and appropriate
Federal requirements for the site. (See Appendix A.)
4. Procedural Requirements
Procedural requirements for the deferral program should not
be burdensome. Once the State and Region agree on which sites to
defer to the State, the Regional Superfund program director
should identify to the State program director in writing which
sites EPA is deferring to the State. The Region also should
indicate in CERCLIS that a site has been deferred to allow for
appropriate tracking. (See Appendix B.)
The State and the Region should also agree to clarify mutual
expectations for State-EPA interaction and each party's
responsibilities at deferred sites. As mentioned in Section I,
such expectations may be incorporated into a generic deferral
memorandum, with documentation regarding site-specific
information being added to the agreement or provided separately
as appropriate. Minimally, the State and Region should agree to
the following provisions in either an area-wide or a site-
specific agreement.
7
-------
a. Roles and Responsibilities. The Region and State
should agree on the relationship between, and the
roles and responsibilities of, EPA and the State for
all phases of the response action at deferred sites.
At a minimum, the agreement should address the degree
to which EPA will provide oversight, document review
(including review of the selected remedy), and
technical or financial assistance.
b. Schedule for Performance. The State and Region should
agree to a timeframe for commencing and conducting
actions, including negotiating settlements with PRPs
for each site. State negotiations with PRPs generally
should be completed within six months of initiation,
although the Region may allow the State up to six
additional months to conclude its negotiations, as
appropriate. All schedules should identify major
milestones by which EPA can track reasonable progress
at each deferred site.
c. Documentation. The State should agree to make
available risk assessment data, remedy selection
decision documentation, and supporting analyses for
each site to allow for adequate public involvement and
EPA oversight.
d. Cleanup Level. The State should agree to provide for
a CERCLA-protective cleanup (as described in Section
III) at each deferred site.
e. Community Participation. The State should agree to
involve affected communities in decisions regarding
the response action (as described in Section VII) at
each deferred site.
f. Natural Resource Trustees. The State should agree to
notify promptly the appropriate State and Federal
trustees for natural resources of discharges or
releases that are injuring or may injure natural
resources related to a deferred site. The State also
should include the trustees, as appropriate, in
negotiations with PRPs.
5. EPA oversight of States
At all deferred sites, the State has responsibility, with
minimal EPA involvement, to provide for a timely and CERCLA-
protective cleanup and to support the public's right of
participation in the decision-making process. The Region should
work with the State to determine the appropriate level of
oversight that the Region should exercise at each site. The
8
-------
Region may choose to conduct more or less oversight of the State
at any particular site, depending on the State's experience, the
complexity of the site, or other factors. The Region also should
consider its assessment of the progress being made at deferred
sites during any consideration of new proposals for sites to
defer. Finally, the Region and State should consider
incorporating the following practices, as appropriate, in any
agreement between the Region and State regarding oversight.
a. Review Deferral Program Criteria. As needed, the
Region should reconfirm the status of the State's
authority and program capability to ensure the
continuing success of response actions at current and
anticipated deferral sites.
b. Report on State-EPA Agreement Conditions. The State
should report to the Region at least annually on
whether the conditions agreed upon in the State-EPA
agreements are being met. The State also should
report to the Region at least semi-annually any
difficulties it is having meeting agreement conditions
at any deferred sites, including negotiating
settlements with PRPs.
c. Annual Review. The Region should meet at least
annually with the State to discuss the State's
progress at deferred sites, which should include a
review of reports submitted by the State, performance
schedules, attainment of milestones in site-specific
agreements, data quality assurance and control,
cooperativeness of the PRPs, cost recovery of site-
specific funds awarded to the State under cooperative
agreements with EPA, and participation of the affected
community. Any State deferral events that are tracked
in CERCLIS should be coded appropriately. (See
Appendix B.)
6. Financial Assistance to States
As noted above, the State is responsible for acquiring the
resources to conduct all response actions at deferred sites under
the deferral program. A fundamental expectation of the deferral
program is that viable PRPs will reach settlements with the State
to respond at deferred sites; except as described in this
Section, the deferral program generally does not anticipate that
Fund resources will be used to conduct response actions at
9
-------
deferred sites.2 Consequently, PRPs or some other non-Federal
source should provide the resources for site-specific activity,
including enforcement and PRP oversight.
in some cases, the State may need resources to conduct
certain activities, or supplement or strengthen its deferral
program. As described below, the Region may enter into
cooperative agreements with the State to provide funding to the
State for certain purposes. Generally, the State should agree to
seek to recover site-specific funds awarded to it, either from
the PRP through an enforceable agreement or from another
identified source. The State and Region also should agree in
advance on how to allocate recovered costs. If the Region
intends to provide deferral funds to the State, the Region should
identify its resource needs for the deferral program in its
annual budget development process.
a. Core Program and Site-Specific Response Funding. The
Region may award to the State non-site-specific
resources under a Core Program Cooperative Agreement
to develop or enhance its overall deferral program
implementation capability. The Region may also award
funds to the State to conduct enforcement and
oversight/administrative-related activities through a
deferral site-specific enforcement or support agency
cooperative agreement or provide deferral site-
specific funding for site assessment where an
assessment has not been conducted or completed. In
the event that PRPs at a deferred site become
uncooperative or bankrupt, the Region may, as
appropriate, enter into a cooperative agreement with
the State for non-time-critical removal or preremedial
activity until settlements with PRPs are reached, the
response action is completed, or until the deferral
status of the site is terminated. (See Appendix A.)
b. subpart O Requirements. A State receiving funds
through a cooperative agreement must meet all
applicable requirements of 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart 0.
The terms of the cooperative agreement will be subject
to all appropriate Regional oversight. Cooperative
agreement awards for deferred sites should use the
sub-object class number 41.90 and use appropriate
activity codes. (See Appendix B.)
2 If a site's deferral status is terminated, Fund resources
also may be available for use, in accordance with appropriate
regulations and policy.
10
-------
7. community participation
Effective community involvement is a crucial aspect of
response actions at NPL sites and is no less important for
response actions at deferred sites. As described above, the
State should assure that it will involve the affected community
in the decision-making process at a deferred site and that the
affected community does not have significant, valid objections to
deferring the site to the State. The following conditions also
should be met at a deferred site.
a. Comparability with the NCP. The Region should be
confident that the principles of public involvement
embodied in the NCP are maintained at deferred sites.
The State must ensure that the impact of its efforts
to involve the public, especially during the remedy
selection and response action completion phases, will
be substantially similar to the intended effect of
implementing the procedures required by the NCP. (See
Appendix A.)
b. Information Assistance for Communities. EPA does not
have the authority to award Technical Assistance
Grants at sites that are not on or proposed to the
NPL. However, at each NPL caliber site that EPA
defers to the State, the affected community should be
able to acquire assistance to interpret information
with regard to the nature of the hazard,
investigations and studies conducted, and
implementation decisions at the site. As appropriate,
the State should provide resources or direct
assistance to the affected community at the site for
these purposes. If funds are necessary to provide
assistance to the community, the State should seek
such funding from the PRPs at the site if the State
cannot provide funding itself.
8. Completion of State Response Action
a. Certification and Confirmation. Once the State
considers the response action at a deferred site to be
complete, the State should certify to the Region and
the affected community that it has successfully
completed its response and achieved its intended
cleanup levels. As part of the certification, the
State should submit to the Region response action
completion documentation substantially similar to that
described in the June 1992 OSWER Directive "Remedial
Action Report; Documentation for Operable Unit
Completion" (OSWER Directive 9355.0-39FS).
11
-------
Upon receiving the State's certification, the
Region should confirm in writing that the site
response has been completed. Alternatively, within 90
days after receipt of the certification, the Region
may initiate a deferral completion inquiry to validate
the certification. As part of the inquiry, the Region
should work with the State to address any deficiencies
hindering the confirmation and agree to a timeframe
for completion of the inquiry. Upon completing the
inquiry, the Region should either confirm completion
of the response or terminate the deferral status of
the site (described below). If the Region does not
confirm the response completion, terminate the
deferral, or initiate an inquiry within 90 days of its
receipt of the State certification, the status of the
site will be recorded in CERCLIS as a deferral
completion. (See Appendix B.) Once the response at
the site is recorded as complete, the site will be
removed from CERCLIS and will not be evaluated further
for NPL listing or another response unless EPA
receives new information of a release or potential
release at the site that poses a significant threat to
human health or the environment.
Termination of Site Deferral Status. Pending 30 days
notice to the State, the Region should terminate the
deferral status of the site, if, at any time during or
upon completion of a response action, the Region
determines that the response is not CERCLA-protective,
is unreasonably delayed or inappropriate, or does not
adequately address the affected community's concerns.
The Region also should terminate the deferral if
significant PRPs breach their agreements with the
State and the State is unable to enforce compliance or
provide other sources of funding to complete the
response action. In addition, the Region may
terminate the deferral and implement emergency or
time-critical response action without 30 days notice
to the State if the Region determines such action is
necessary. The State may also choose at any time,
after 30 days notice, to terminate the deferral for
any reason.
Upon terminating the deferral status of the site,
the Region should immediately consider taking any
necessary response actions and should initiate
consideration of the site for NPL listing. The Region
and State should coordinate efforts to notify the
community and PRPs of the termination of the deferral.
These actions will assure the public that EPA will
continue to respond at a site where response actions
have begun and will encourage PRPs to forge and
12
-------
fulfill successful agreements with the State. At the
Region's request, the State should provide to the
Region all information in its possession regarding the
site for which the deferral status has been
terminated.
13
-------
APPENDIX A: Question and Answer Supplement
Question and Answer Supplement to the
Guidance on Deferral of NPL Listing Determinations while
States oversee Response Actions
PURPOSE
This appendix supplements the "Guidance on Deferral of NPL
Listing Determinations While States Oversee Response Actions"
(OSWER Directive 9375.6-11). This appendix provides responses to
significant questions that arose during development of the
guidance and is presented in a 11 question and answer" format.
BACKGROUND
Following the June 23, 1993, "Superfund Administrative
Improvements, Final Report," the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) established a work group to develop the Superfund State
deferral guidance. This guidance intends to enable Regions and
States to determine the most appropriate, effective, and
efficient means to address more sites more quickly than the sites
otherwise would be addressed. As the guidance was drafted, work
group members and others raised numerous implementation
questions. While many questions have been resolved in the final
guidance, this appendix provides clarifying responses to
remaining significant questions. The questions are not divided
by category, but roughly follow the outline of the guidance.
Throughout this document, the term "State" also includes
Territories, Commonwealths, and Federally-recognized Indian
Tribes.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
1. How will EPA determine whether a State can address a site
"sooner than, and at least as quickly as," EPA?
The deferral program is intended to enable States to
conduct responses at sites where EPA would not otherwise
respond in the near future. Deferral should not
indefinitely postpone commencement of site response nor
prolong the expected duration of a response; hence, the
guidance states that a State should agree to address
deferred sites sooner than EPA would expect to commence
responding, and at least as quickly as EPA would expect to
implement its response. This objective assures that
deferred sites will be addressed and not merely be shifted
from the Federal queue to a State queue. If a Region
already has developed a schedule for conducting response
A-l
-------
activity at a site, this schedule may serve as a basis for
setting expectations for the State's response. Site-
specific response schedules, including PRP-negotiation
timeframes, should be incorporated into deferral agreements
established between the State and the Region.
What particular factors should the Region consider before
deferring a site at which the State is a potentially
responsible party (PRP)?
Although a State may be best able to conduct a response
at a site at which it is a significant PRP, the Region and
the State need to consider carefully the potential for
conflict of interest, or the appearance of conflict of
interest. Any such appearance could diminish the
credibility of the State program with the public and could
thus threaten its effectiveness. Close coordination with
the affected community at such a site will be critical to
ensure that the public does not perceive any conflict of
interest and agrees that a State response is most
appropriate.
What factors constitute a "compelling argument" to defer a
site for which an Hazard Ranking System (HRS) package has
been developed?
Although a site will generally be ineligible for deferral
after a State or contractor has been tasked to prepare an
HRS package, the Region may defer such a site if the State
provides a compelling argument why the listing process
should be halted. The Region ultimately will determine
whether the State proposal is viable, but any proposal to
defer such a site should be documented and contain the
following information: an explanation of the benefit of the
deferral; an enforceable agreement with the PRPs (or other
non-Fund sources); a time table providing for a response at
least as timely as that proposed by EPA; and assurances that
all costs of the response, including preparation of the HRS
package, will be borne by the PRPs (or other non-Fund
sources).
When and how should a State inform the community of a
proposed deferral? Who should be informed?
Under the deferral program, a State must demonstrate, on
a State-wide basis or on a site-specific basis, that it has
the capability to fully involve affected communities in
decisions regarding response actions at sites both before
and after the sites have been deferred. Furthermore, a
State should notify the affected community 30 days prior to
requesting the Region to defer a site and should seek the
community's affirmation of a deferral proposal.
-------
However, the January 1992 EPA directive, "Community
Relations in Superfund: A Handbook" (OERR Directive 9230.0-
03C), recognizes "there can be no universal approach for
community relations" and that the "issues of importance to
the public, the level of concern, the history of public
involvement, and the social structure of the community will
vary from site to site." Thus, although the deferral
guidance offers some provisions to ensure that communities
at deferral sites are adequately involved, the guidance does
not prescribe a particular means that a State must use to
achieve this end. Rather, the State will generally have the
discretion and the responsibility to determine the most
appropriate means to identify, notify, and continue to
involve communities affected at deferral sites.
How will the Region determine what are significant, valid
community objections that would deny or terminate a
deferral?
Characterizing community concern at a deferred site often
will be a difficult process. Different and changing levels
of community awareness, interest, or comprehension;
differences in the capabilities of various community members
to make themselves heard or wield political influence; even
attempts to precisely define the affected community at a
site will preclude decision-making based on quantitative
analysis. Full community unanimity is rare; and in
virtually every community, dissenting opinions will persist.
Therefore, while community acceptance is a critical aspect
of the deferral program, community consensus is not required
for deferral.
The State and the Region must rely on their best
professional judgment to determine the composition of the
affected community and who represents it, the validity of
the concerns that the community expresses, the opportunity
to accommodate community concerns, and the potential impact
of proceeding without community consensus. However, when
considering who represents the affected community, the State
and Region should take particular care to be cognizant of
populations that may be downwind or downstream of the site,
as well as be aware of environmental justice issues that may
have bearing at the site. If community objections that the
Region determines to be significant and valid cannot be
resolved between the community, State, and EPA, the Region
should reject or terminate the deferral. Also, to assure
that community concerns are addressed fairly, the State,
with EPA involvement as necessary, should document the
response to the community's objections.
-------
6. How might environmental justice considerations affect
response action at a deferred site?
Because sites that are deferred should receive attention
more quickly than they otherwise would, effective deferral
responses may provide a useful mechanism for resolving some
environmental justice concerns. At sites where
environmental justice is an issue, a State must show extra
sensitivity to the special needs of the community by
tailoring its outreach efforts to the community as well as
facilitating access to, and enabling interpretation of,
information. Establishing a positive rapport with the
community at a deferral or any other site should result in
wider acceptance of a proposed response.
Additionally, because the Agency is committed to
addressing environmental justice issues in all its programs,
the State should expect the Region to be especially
interested in sites associated with environmental justice
concerns. The Region should consider playing a greater role
in communicating with the community during consideration of
such a site for deferral, review State interaction with the
community during the response, and coordinate with the State
to respond directly to concerns raised by the community.
7. What must a State do to ensure that the impact of its
community involvement program is "substantially similar" to
the intended effect of implementing the procedures required
by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency plan (NCP)?
The 1992 OERR Directive "Community Relations in
Superfund: A Handbook** (Directive 9230.0-03C) identifies
three overall objectives, or principles, upon which the
implementation of the Superfund community relations program
is founded. These principles are:
¦ Provide the public the opportunity to express comments
on and provide input to technical decisions;
¦ Inform the public of planned or ongoing actions; and
¦ Identify and resolve conflicts.
These principles, though not identified specifically in
the NCP, encompass the community involvement procedures
which the NCP describes. While State adherence to the
specific procedures of the NCP is not required for the
deferral program, a State community relations program should
embrace similar principles and be able to demonstrate its
ability to implement such principles at deferred sites.
A-4
-------
8. Are mixed-ownership (Federal/non-Federal) sites eligible
candidates for deferral?
Federal facilities currently are not eligible for the
deferral program. Sites of mixed Federal and non-Federal
ownership, however, may be eligible deferral candidates
depending on site-specific circumstances. The Region should
consult with the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
in making this determination.
9. Must a risk assessment be performed at every deferred site?
May a State allow PRPs to perform risk assessments?
As appropriate to the circumstances at each deferred
site, the State should characterize the nature of, and
threat posed by,the hazardous substances and materials at
the site and should gather data necessary to support the
analysis and design of potential response actions. In some
instances, the State may prefer to have a PRP conduct this
characterization In either case, the State should have
demonstrated its ability to conduct or oversee risk
characterizations or assessments in accordance with the
capability criteria identified in Section I of the guidance.
10. will EPA assist states in identifying applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements at deferred sites?
Upon request from the State, the Region should provide
assistance to the State in interpreting CERCLA requirements,
including identification of Federal applicable requirements
and Federal relevant and appropriate requirements. The
State retains the responsibility and discretion to identify
and implement State applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements at a deferred site, including those that are
more stringent than Federal standards.
11. Can deferred sites be exempted from obtaining permits for
activities conducted on-site?
The Agency has determined that CERCLA does not authorize
permit exemptions for response actions carried out under the
deferral program. CERCLA section 121(e) exempts on-site
remedial action, which is selected and carried out in
compliance with CERCLA section 121, from Federal, State, and
local permit requirements. Deferral response actions,
however, will be conducted under State authority, and
therefore cannot use the exemption provision.
A-5
-------
12. Can Federal funds pay for State-lead removal actions?
Under the deferral program, PRPs are generally expected
to conduct all appropriate responses at deferred sites. The
Region should not defer sites at which the State anticipates
using Fund resources to conduct removal activities.
However, should PRPs at a deferral site become recalcitrant
or bankrupt, the State may receive a removal cooperative
agreement, provided "a planning period of more than six
months is available" (40 CFR 35.6205), and pursuant to other
40 CFR Part 35, Subpart 0, requirements.
13. Must States document expenditures of Federal funds at
deferred sites?
Any funds that a State receives through a cooperative
agreement with EPA are subject to all applicable
requirements identified in 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O. For
site-specific expenditures incurred by a State under a
cooperative agreement, including any site assessment
activity or HRS scoring that takes place after a site is
deferred, the State is required to track expenses by site,
activity, and operable unit, as applicable, according to
object class. Non-site-specific funds awarded to a State
through a Core Program cooperative agreement also are
subject to the applicable requirements in 40 CFR Part 35,
Subpart 0, but are not expected to be recovered by the
State.
14. Under what conditions would site assessment activities be
performed at a deferred site?
At many sites that will be deferred, a site assessment
will have already taken place, the results of which will
indicate that a site is NPL caliber. In some cases,
however, a Region may agree to defer a site that the State
and Region suspect is NPL caliber even though a site
assessment has not been completed. At such sites, the
Region and State may determine that completing a site
assessment is appropriate. Generally, however, the PRPs at
a deferred site should agree to pay for the site assessment
if one has not already been conducted. (See also Question
16.)
15. Who will recover the costs of site-specific cooperative
agreements that EPA awards to States under the deferral
program? What will happen to recovered funds?
Because the value of cooperative agreements at deferred
sites typically will be very low, EPA will generally not
expect to attempt to recover these costs. However, any
site-specific cooperative agreement for deferral into which
A-6
-------
the Region enters with the State should stipulate that the
State will seek to recover from the PRPs recoverable costs
incurred under the cooperative agreement. Regions also
should make clear to States that EPA does not expect to
award funding indefinitely to States under the deferral
program; rather the Agency expects that sums recovered by
the States will be used to build the State capability to
fully implement deferral programs without EPA funding in the
future.
16. Would a response action be considered complete if waste had
been removed off-site, but a complete cleanup had not been
conducted?
Response actions at deferred sites should be CERCLA-
protective, as described in Section III of the guidance. If
a response action does not meet this criterion, the Region
should terminate the deferral, immediately consider taking
necessary response actions, and initiate consideration of
the site for NPL listing.
EPA expects that partial cleanup of an NPL caliber site
would not reduce the site's HRS score below the threshold
for eligibility for NPL listing. However, if the Region
believes that a partial response could preclude a deferred
site's eligibility for NPL listing where a site assessment
had not been completed, the Region should have a site
assessment conducted before any deferral response is
undertaken. At a terminated deferral site, where a site
inspection was not commenced prior to the response action,
the Region should refer to the September 1993 OERR
Publication "The Revised Hazard Ranking System: Evaluating
Sites After Waste Removals" (OERR Directive 9345.1-03FS) to
evaluate the site's eligibility for NPL listing.
A-7
-------
-------
APPENDIX B: Instructions on Financial Tracking
instructions on CERCLIS/WasteLAN and GICS/IFMS Financial Tracking
for the Guidance on Deferral of NFL Listing Determinations
While States Oversee Response Actions
PURPOSE
This appendix provides instructions on how to use
information management systems to track site progress and
financial management information for NPL caliber sites that have
been deferred to States under the "Guidance on Deferral of NPL
Listing Determinations While States Oversee Response Actions"
(OSWER Directive 9375.6-11).
BACKGROUND
The Superfund State deferral guidance provides direction to
Regions for implementing the State deferral program and includes
criteria for establishing State capabilities, selecting sites,
and entering into agreements with States to compel and implement
PRP response actions. The guidance requires minimal EPA
oversight and provides Regions and States flexibility to
negotiate agreements that reflect State- and site-specific
circumstances. The Agency nevertheless will be expected to be
able to demonstrate the deferral program's accomplishments and to
ensure EPA and State accountability. Consequently, Regions need
to report certain information into CERCLIS/WasteLAN. Regions may
also wish to take advantage of CERCLIS/WasteLAN to conduct their
own tracking of progress at sites.
Also, to ensure that information regarding awards to States
for site- or non-site-specific deferral activity, Regions need to
use appropriate sub-object class codes in awarding cooperative
agreements and track these obligations in CERCLIS or CERHelp, as
appropriate.
IMPLEMENTATION
New CERCLIS lead, event, qualifier, and sub-event
definitions to enable tracking of key information regarding
deferred sites will be included in the FY95 Superfund Program
Management Manual and the CERCLIS data element dictionary.
In addition, a new sub-object class code (41.90) has been
established to track resources awarded to States under site-
specific deferral cooperative agreements. The attached Office of
the Comptroller Policy Announcement No. 94-07 describes this
code.
B-l
-------
New LEAD SD (C2117 and C1707): 8TATE DEFERRAL
Definition: LEAD SD is a PRP- or State-financed response
action at an NPL caliber or proposed NPL site overseen or
conducted by the State pursuant to a deferral agreement with the
Region, as described in OSWER Directive 9375.6-11. With limited
exceptions, Fund-financing for deferral response actions will not
be available.
The LEAD SD will be used in conjunction with the new STATE
DEFERRAL EVENT (C2101 = SD) and associated qualifiers and
subevents (see below) to track start and completion dates of
responses at deferred sites. Other response or enforcement
accomplishments and/or reports may be tracked using the LEAD SD
(C2117 or C1707) and current CERCLIS response event or
enforcement activity codes, as appropriate, at the Region's
discretion.
New EVENT SD (C2101): STATE DEFERRAL
Definition: EVENT SD indicates that the Region has entered
into an agreement with a State to defer from listing on the NPL
an NPL caliber or proposed NPL site, while the State uses its own
authority to compel and oversee PRP response or implements a
response using its own resources. This event is located in the
00 operable unit.
The SD START DATE (C2140) is the signature date of the
document sent from the Regional Superfund program director
to the State program director that defers the site to the
State under the terms established in the deferral guidance.
For sites that were deferred under the deferral pilot
program (prior to the issuance of the guidance), the SD
START DATE will be the date that EPA Headquarters formally
confirmed the pilot status of these sites.
The SD COMPLETION DATE (C2141) is:
¦ The signature date of the formal Regional document that
either confirms that the deferral has been completed
successfully or terminates the status of the deferral.
Qualifiers (see below) must be used to indicate whether
the deferral has been successfully completed (C2103 = S)
or has been terminated (C2103 = T).
OR
¦ The date 90 days after the date EPA receives State
certification that the deferral has been completed (see
SC SUBEVENT below), if the Region neither formally
confirms the deferral completion nor initiates a deferral
inquiry (see SE SUBEVENT below) within 90 days of
B-2
-------
receiving the State certification. The qualifier
indicating that the deferral has been successfully
completed (C2103 = S) must be used (see below).
If, upon agreement with the State, the Region formally
confirms the State's certification after the 90 day period,
the SD COMPLETION DATE may be updated to reflect the date of
the formal confirmation. Figure 1 provides a flowchart for
determining the SD completion date.
MOW QUALIFIERS (C2103 = 8 Or T) FOR EVENT = 8D
Definition: QUALIFIER C2103 = S signifies that the Region
either has confirmed formally that the State deferral has been
completed successfully or that the Region has not responded
within 90 days of receipt of the State's certification that it
has completed the deferral successfully. Sites at which a
deferral has been successfully completed are eligible for removal
from CERCLIS, pursuant to Agency policy for removing sites from
CERCLIS.
Definition: QUALIFIER C2103 = T signifies that the Region
has terminated the status of the deferral. This qualifier is
used when the Region terminates the deferral during the course of
the response or in conjunction with a deferral inquiry (see
SUBEVENT SE below) conducted at the completion of the response
that results in termination of the deferral.
Mew SUBEVEMT SC (C3101): State Completion Certification
Definition: SUBEVENT SC is the date the Region receives the
State's submission of response action completion documentation
certifying that it has completed successfully its selected remedy
at the site and has achieved its intended cleanup levels. Within
90 days of receipt of the documentation, the Region must confirm
successful completion of the deferral formally (SD COMPLETION
DATE) or initiate an inquiry to confirm the certification (see
SUBEVENT SE below). If an inquiry is not initiated within 90
days of the SUBEVENT SC date and the Region has not confirmed the
deferral completion formally, the EVENT SD COMPLETION DATE will
be the date 90 days after the SUBEVENT SC date.
Mew 8UBEVENT 81 (C3101): State Deferral Inquiry
Definition: SUBEVENT SE is the date that the Region
initiates a deferral inquiry to confirm the State's certification
that it has completed its selected remedy successfully. The
inquiry must be initiated within 90 days of EPA's receipt of the
State's certification that the remedy has been completed
(SUBEVENT SC) or the SD COMPLETION DATE will be the date 90 days
after the SUBEVENT SC date. Once the Region completes a deferral
inquiry (which may be after the 90 day period), the Region must
B-3
-------
issue a document which either confirms successful completion of
the deferral or terminates the deferral status of the site. The
SD COMPLETION DATE is the signature date of this document, and
the appropriate qualifiers (C2103 = S or C2103 = T) must be used.
Financial Tracking in CERCLIS/CERHelp
Cooperative agreements may be awarded to States to assist
implementation of the deferral program on a site- or non-site-
specific basis. Site-specific cooperative agreements should be
tracked under the C2101 = SD event, and non-site-specific (Core
Program) cooperative agreements should be tracked in CERHelp
under C304 BA-TYPE = CG.
B-4
-------
SD START DATE
SC DATE
~ SD COMPLETION DATE
2103 = T
(Date of Termination;
Occurs Before Response
Is Completed)
WITHIN 90 DAYS, CONFIRM
COMPLETION, TERMINATE,
INITIATE INQUIRY,
OR TAKE NO ACTION
SD COMPLETION DATE
2103 = C
(Date of Confirmation
or Date 90 Days After SC,
If No Action Is Taken) ~
SE DATE
(Initiate Inquiry)
SD COMPLETION DATE
2103 = T
(Date of Termination)
~
UPON COMPLETION OF INQUIRY,
CONFIRM COMPLETION OR
TERMINATE
SD COMPLETION DATE
2103 = C
(Date of Confirmation)
SD COMPLETION DATE
2103 = T
(Date of Termination)
Figure 1: Flowchart for Determining SD Completion Date
B-5
-------
APPENDIX C: Policy Announcement No. 94-07
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
(Signed) June 08, 1994
OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER
POLICY ANNOUNCEMENT NO. 94*07
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: New Sub-object Class Code for Deferral Program
Cooperative Agreements
FROM: Kathryn S. Schmoll
Comptroller (3301)
TO: Assistant Regional Administrators
Management Division Directors
Regional comptrollers
Senior Budget Officers
Financial Management Officers
PURPOSE
This Policy Announcement (P.A.) establishes a new sub-object
class code for deferral program cooperative agreements.
POLICY
The new sub-object class code to be used for the deferral
program cooperative agreements is described below:
41.90 Deferral Program cooperative Agreements. Awards to
States, Territories, Commonwealths, or Indian
Tribes to conduct site-specific activities at
National Priority List (NPL) caliber sites which
have been deferred from NPL listing consideration
while recipients compel and oversee Potentially
Responsible Party (PRP) response actions. May not
be used to conduct or support Fund-financed
remedial action at a deferred site. Awards are
subject to 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart 0. [Assistance
program code MV" (CFDA number 66.802)]
EFFECTIVE DATE
This new sub-object class code is available for immediate
use. It will be included in the next revision of Resources
Management Directives System 2590, Part IV, Object Class Codes.
C-l
-------
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Should you have any questions on this P.A., please contact
Charles Young of the Superfund Accounting Branch on 202-260-6890.
cc: David J. O'Connor
David Osterman
Elizabeth Craig
FMD Branch Chiefs
C-2
------- |