Congress of tfje ttniteb &tate*
. BC 20515
r
•\\
EPA'S SUPERFUND TAG GAME
A Report
on the
Implementation
of the
Superfund Technical Assistancs Grant Program
by th«
U.S. Environmental :3rcSection Agency
MARCH 2, 1939
HEADQUARTERS UBRARY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
The Honorable Edward J. Markey (D-MA)
The Honorable James J. Florio (D-NJ)
U.S. House of Representatives
Jlim-
OWIRONMENTAL PROIECTIOM MBO
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
wmk V101T33T05M JAWMWOfl
f
•f
-------
Summary
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA, or as it is more commonly known,
Superfund), was enacted into law in 1980. In 1956, Congress
reauthorized CERCLA through passage of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, legislation
designed to improve the implementation of the nation's primary
program to clean up hazardous waste sites.
In order to encourage public participation in the
Superfund process, Congress established a program of technical
assistance grants (TAGs) for use at National Priorities List
sites. In accordance with Section 117 (e.> cf SARA, TAGs are to
be made available to "any group of individuals which may be
affected by a release or threatened release" at any National
Priorities List site and may be used "to obtain technical
assistance in interpreting information" with regard to the
site. Although the TAG program is discretionary, Congress
clearly expressed its intent that it "be a regular part of the
Superfund program." (Conference Report 99-962, see Appendix
A) . In keeping with its expressed support fo-- routine use of
the TAG program, Congress gave the President vor his designee)
authority to waive both a suggested 20 percent cost-sharing
requirement and a $50,000 per grant limitation where necessary
to facilitate the goal of increased public participation.
On March 24, 1988, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) issued an Interim Final Rule pursuant to Section
117(e). The final rule was criticized by potentially eligible
TAG recipients, representatives of those groups and members of
Congress, who argued that its heavy paperwork burdens,
administrative complexity, 35 percent cost-sharing requirement
and TAG use limitations would discourage the public from
seeking assistance and severely restrict the number of TAGs
that would actually be awarded. Despite the awarding of the
first four TAG grants on September 30, 1988, concern with the
TAG process has continued.
In an attempt to determine the actual impact of the March
24 Interim Final Rule on the public's perception and use of the
TAG program, we conducted a survey of all groups that had
contacted the EPA to express interest in the program as of
September 30, 1988. Lists of those groups were obtained
directly^ from each of the ten U.S. EPA Regional Offices. The
surveyy(iee Appendix C) asked questions about each group's
experiences with the major steps in the TAG process, including
initial information requests, the letter of intent expressing
interest in the program, preparation of the application, and
the response--to "that application. Because so few grants had
been awarded at the time of the survey, no questions were asked
about post-application experiences.
-------
-------
Findings; Based on the findings of our survey, it is
evident that the complex and cumbersome nature of the
application process established by the EPA is discouraging
affected groups from participating in the TAG process. The
decision to raise the Congressionally-reconmended 20 percent
cost-sharing to 35 percent and to waive that requirement or.lv
in "exceptional circumstances" raises obstacles to
participation that will be insurmountable for many community
groups. The financial and technical burdens created by the
Interim Final Rule will deny to many groups across the nation
their opportunity to partcipate fully in the Superfund process,
an outcome which is clearly inconsistent with Congressional
intent and counter to the goal of increasing the effectiveness
of the Superfund program.
Despite the overwhelming dissatisfaction with EPA's
implementation, it is evident from the survey that there is
strong support for the TAG program, particularly among those
community groups who will have no effective means of
participation without assistance. The strong level of interest
in applying for a grant can be seen from the fact that 92
percent of those groups which requested information ah jut the
program from EPA went on to send a letter of intent, t.ie first
step of the TAG process. It is particularly interesting that
such a nigh percentage of groups followed through vvj.th a
letter of intent even though 34 percent reported difficulty in
learning about the program, primarily delays in receiving
information, obtaining draft materials that were later revised,
and the unavailability of necessary materials.
Despite this extremely high level of interest, only half
of^jthose who filed a letter of intent had actually gDrttirrOecl
with the process Tno^-subtirretea" an application at the time of
the "Survey" "the responses show clearly that the reasons for
the vast majority of the decisions not to apply for assistance
relate to the complex and onerous requirements of the
application process. The following reasons were cited as
causes of the decision not to submit an application (groups
were allowed to list more than one cause, so combined
percentages exceed 100 percent).
Complexity and length of process 55%
Administrative requirements 50%
35% cost-share 35%
Procurement process 35%
Told ineligible 25%
Restrictions on fund use 20%
Discouraged by EPA 5%
Another group had applied 5%
Record of*decision already filed 10%
.' *' *-. '"' "3 i -
For those groups which did file a TAG application, these
problems were no less severe. Ninety-one percent experienced
' major problems with the application process and ncre thar 9 -v
r
-------
-------
of 10 (83 percent) reported difficulties with the manual, forms
and administrative requirements. The specific problems
encountered are as follows (again, combined percentages exceed
100 percent since groups were allowed to list more than one
problem):
*•
Complexity of nanual 94%
Complexity of application form 78%
Administrative requirements 83%
Financial expertise needed 83%
Procurement requirements 67%
Incorporation requirement 50%
Difficulty receiving EPA aid 38%
Discrepancy in EPA advice 6%
Inappropriate materials 6% •
Quality of forms 6%
The cumbersome nature of the process is also shown by the
length of time groups spent in completing the application.
Only 6 percent said that it took less than one week to prepare
the application, while 78 percent spent 2 weeks or more to do
so and 28 percent reported spending 6 weeks or more. .Mearly_j:2
ipercejt of those_who applied for jt_TAG relied on the U.S. EPA _
:or assistance Tn~^'irtg-se-7---wh-i-i«~-3£ percent reported
receiving no assistance at all.
Many groups reported continued difficulties with the TAG
process once the application form had been submitted. Khile
the majority of the applications were still pending at EPA at
the time of the survey, 35 percent had already been returned
because of errors (50 percent), insufficient information (34
percent), or problems with incorporation (17 percent). Again,
the commitment to the program by the community groups seeking
grants is revealed by the fact that all but one group had
already resubmitted or planned to resubmit an amended
application form.
Finally, a number of those groups which did apply reported
serious concerns with the 35 percent cost-sharing requirement.
While 33 percent'of the respondents had already applied for a
waiver of the match, 24 percent indicated that they would do so
at a later data and 9.5 percent volunteered that they had been
discouraged froa doing so by EPA staff. Moreover, several of
those respondents who indicated that they would meet the 35
percent-switch through in-kind contributions reported that the
15 percent cap on administrative costs and the restrictions on
what services can be considered as in-kind contributions would
make doing so extremely difficult if not impossible.
.The results of this..survey demonstrate clearly that the
TAG program, as currently, implemented by the U.S. EPA,
discourages public participation.- The administrative and
cost-sharing burdens created by the EPA are roadblocks that
will keep Superfund communities from participating in the
-------
-------
decisions that will affect their lives and their futures. The
very people who Congress sought to involve in the Superfund
process — those familites whose health and well-being hang in
the balance — are being denied the support that the TAG
program,- as envisioned by Congress, had promised. Eligible
groups reported problems no? just with the process itself but
with the EPA's handling of the program. Although some
respondents reported that EPA staff were helpful, many more
commented that they were actively discouraged from applying or
expressed the belief that the Agency could not be interested in
' making grants based on the cumbersome process it had
established. This last point is particularly distrubing since
almost three out of every four TAG applicants rely on EPA for
assistance.
Recommendations: Although it is over two years since
passage of SARA, the EPA has only recently begun implementation
of the TAG program. Therefore, some of the criticisms
reflected by the survey — particularly the delays in obtaining
material — may reflect initial difficulties that will be
resolved as EPA gains experience with the program.
However, the majority of the problems encountered by
interested groups will not disappear over time. They are
obstacles which are incorporated into the Interim Final Rule
itself and not the result of inexperience in implementation of
that rule. Therefore, in order to accomplish the goal of
meaningful, substantive and regular public participation in the
Superfund process, we recommend that:
1) EPA simplify its administrative retirements, at the
same time revising the manual and application form to reduce
paperwork burdens on community groups. While it is important
that TAG applicants display basic managerial and financial
capabilities, it was never the intent of Congress that
applicants be subjected to requirements that one respondent
equated with "a Pentagon contract." Not including the initial
letter of intent, the EPA manual lists a dozen forms that
groups have to prepare during and after the application
process. Working with groups which have already gone through
the application process and with regional EPA staff, EPA should
streamline requirements in order to reduce redtape and
encourage increased participation.
our belief that simplification of the application
process' til critical to the success of the TAG program.
However r it must be recognized that this alone is not a
sufficient cure. Few community groups have any experience in
preparing grant proposals and most will continue to rely on the
EPA for assistance .-in meeting TAG requirements. In
consultation- with community groups and their representatives,
the EPA should establish assistance- procedures that will
provide needed guidance while ensuring that the affected
communities maintain control over the grant.
-------
-------
2) EPA eliminate onerous procurement requirements, by
granting a class deviation from 40 CFR Parts 30 and 33 for the
TAG program, pursuant to 40 CFR Subpart J. The survey results
show clearly that the procurement requirements are a major
disincentive to participation and will substantially delay the ;
ability of communities to begin their activities. EPA itself /
estimates that it will take groups 14 weeks to hire a technical/
adviser under the required procurement process, a projection >•
vhich may be optimistic.
3) EPA lower the 35% cost-sharing requirement to 20%, as;
Congress recommended, and allow waivers whenever necessary to '
facilitate public participation. Additionally, EPA should
expand both the types and dollar amounts of activities which
qualify as in-kind contributions under the match. The
Administration's use of its discretion to increase the cost-
sharing requirement runs counter to the intent of Congress that
this requirement not stand in the way of public participation.
4) EPA remove the prohibition on providing a cost-sharing
waiver after a Record of Decision has been signed on the last
cperable unit at the site. The Agency seeks to justify this
prohibition on the grounds that the public .cannot participate
in the selection of a remedial action after the ROD has been
signed. Not only is this a- narrow and, we believe, erroneous
interpretation of Congressional intent? it ignores EPA's own
statement that "(u)nder certain circumstances, the ROD may be
reopened for public comment." ("The citizens' Guidance Manual
for the Technical Assistance Grant Program," EPA 540/G-88/001,
June 1988, pg. 17) Moreover, RODs may not include selection of
specific cleanup remedies, delaying decisions until a later
date. This means that groups will be unable to receive a
vaiver even though critical decisions may be made after the ROD
is signed. In light of the severity of the cost-sharing
requirement, the inability to obtain a waiver will preclude
some groups from reviewing remedial actions to determine
whether cleanup plans are adequate.
5} EPA permit the use of TAG funds for split sampling
where appropriate and respond to requests by TAG recipients for
additional testing. While the development of new primary data
is a costly undertaking, split sampling is likely to be
affordable and nay well serve to increase public confidence and
participation in the Superfund process. It is also important
to recognize that TAG recipients may disagree on the level and
scope of contamination at the site; in fact, several survey
respondents raised such disagreements in their comments.
Therefore, to preserve limited TAG funds, EPA should develop a
mechanism to respond to community requests for additional
testing. Without a mechanism to ensure that the information
developed by community groups is appropriately considered and
acted upon by the EPA, the TAG program could become little more
than window-dressing. Congress clearly intended that this
-------
-------
program provide affected groups with the wherewithal to obtain
the technical expertise needed to participate in the Superfund
cleanup process. But Congress also intended that the
viewpoints developed with that assistance be taken seriously by
those with program responsibilities and fully incorporated into
the EPA review process.
While we believe that these changes will significantly
improve the implementation of the TAG program, EPA must also
.exgajid_i^s_ out reach activities to encourage., greater _public
participation":—At the~ETme 'of—etir-sirrvey, fewer than ten
percent of the communities living near Superfund sites had
contacted the regional EPA offices for information on the TAG
program. This is an unacceptably low percentage given the
importance of restoring public credibility to the Superfund
program. Although several regional offices have made
particular efforts to publicize the TAG program, it appears
that EPA staff in other regions at best have been inconsistent
in their approach and at worst appear to have actively
discouraged TAG applications. It is incumbent upon the U.S.
EPA to ensure that all regional offices engage in adequate
outreach activities and provide clear and consistent
information to all groups interested in the TAG program.
-------
-------
History
On October 17, 1986, the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) was signed into law (P.L.
99-499) in an effort to improve the cleanup of our nation's
most dangerous toxic waste sites. As a result of Congressional
concern about the dismal history of the early years of the
Superfund program, the 1986 law requires the Environmental
Protection Agency to comply with strict deadlines and standards
in cleaning up the toxic waste sites on the National Priorities
List. Those requirements represent a realization that the
general guidelines provided under the original 1930 Superfund
law were not being followed in a way that produced adequate
cleanups as Superfund had intended. The strict deadlines and
cleanup standards are one component of the improvements to
Superfund that were enacted through the 1986 law.
Vet another and no less important component is the effort
to ensure that those most affected by the cleanup of toxic
waste sites -- the communities surrounding those sites -- are
able to play a meaningful role in the decisions that affect
their lives and their futures. This effort to further public
participation in improving the surrounding environment is
mirrored in a number of key provisions of SARA, including the
Technical Assistance Grants program.
Public participation provisions relating to Superfund
sites are contained in Title I, Section 117 of SARA. Those
provisions require the EPA to notify the public of any
remedial actions proposed for a site, to make publicly
available copies of the proposed plans, to provide the public
with the opportunity to submit oral and written comments, and
to grant a public meeting in the community near each site to
discuss the remedial efforts. Furthermore, these provisions
require the EPA to respond to comments received during the
public participation process and to provide the public with
notification and justification of any subsequent changes to the
original remedial action plans. In this way, those most
affected by the continued contamination of a site in their
community will have access to vital information concerning the
cleanup effort at their site and input into the decisionmaking
process. Congress has made it clear that the time of
"sweetheart deals" between the EPA and polluters is over and
that the cleanup effort is not one to be conducted behind
closed doors. In sun, the community has both a right to know
the specifics of efforts to clean up a site and a right to
participate meaningfully in that effort.
Our report focuses attention on the Technical Assistance
Grant Program (TAG), a critical part of -the public
participation provisions authorized under Section 117(e).
Through this provision, Congress gave the EPA the authority to
establish a grant program to provide funds to any group of
individuals "which may be affected by a release or threatened
-------
-------
release at any facility which is listed on the National
Priorities List." The TAG program recognizes that those most
seriously affected may lack the resources necessary to make
full use of participation opportunities without some level of
assistance. Under Section H7(e), TAGS are made available so
that affected groups can "obtain technical assistance in
interpreting information with regard to the nature of the
hazird, remedial investigation and feasibility study, record of
decision, remedial design, selection and construction of
remedial action, operation and maintenance, or removal action
at such facility." Although the total amount available to each
croup is limited to 550,000, the provision -allows waivers of
that linit where necessary. In addition, Congress suggested
that each group be required to pay a match of 20 percent.
However, waivers are authorized in cases of financial need in
prder to facilitate public participation.
The Technical Assistance Grant program is a recognition
by the Congress of the important role the community can play
in any cleanup effort. In addition, the provision underscores
the.need to ensure that the affected communities are kept
.informed about the cleanup effort. Because the types of data
•and'reports normally generated in the remedial process are of a
'technical nature, Congress provided this tool so that
corv.Tiunities will be able to hire the technical experts that are
needed for them to be able to understand and participate in
the process. If the ccr.r.unity has concerns about a particular
phase of the cleanup, with the help of a technical advisor, the
community will be better able to articulate those concerns to
the EPA and ensure that the cleanup effort is timely, effective
and protective of human health and environment. Similar grants
had been awarded by the EPA under the 1980 Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) to communities surrounding Lipari, New Jersey — the
number one site on the National Priorities List — and
Stringfellow, California. The positive contributions of
technical advisers at these particular sites were a key factor
in Congressional action to extend the availability of such a
program to all NPL communities.
In the conference report accompanying P.L. 99-499,
Congress expressed the sense that the Technical Assistance
Grant program be a regular part of the Superfund -program.
Congress intends that the Superfund TAG program be used not
only to facilitate the flow of information to the affected
community/ but also as a means to ensure that cleanups were
taken in accordance with the requirements of SARA. In
addition', the TAG program is seen by Congress as a useful tool
in the effort to rebuild the credibility of the Superfund
program in the eyes of those directly affected by the cleanup
process. Finally, although the grants are not intended to be
used to underwrite legal actions, any information- developed
through the grant assistance can be used in any legal action
affecting the facility.
-------
-------
On March 24, 1988, after substantial delay, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an Interim Final
Rule pursuant to Section 117(e). The Interim Final Rule (IFR)
includes a number of provisions that have sparked concern in
the communities interested In participating in the TAG program.
These provisions include a requirement that grant recipients
first incorporate as non-profit organizations formed for the
specific purpose of addressing the Superfund site for which a
grant was being requested. The IFR limits the definition of
an eligible group to "individuals who can demonstrate that they
are threatened by the site from a health, economic, or
environmental standpoint," thereby excluding municipalities,
local chapters of state or national organizations, academic
institutions or local government advisory groups or citizen
advisory groups.
The IFR also severely restricts the types of activities
that the TAG-funded technical advisor can engage in: reviewing
site-related documents and meeting with the recipient group to
explain the technical information; providing assistance to the
recipierc group to communicate the group's site-related
concerns; disseminating the advisor's interpretations of the
technicc-1 ir.formation to the community; participating in site
visits vl-.en possible; and traveling to meetings and hearings
direct1.-/ related to the situation at the site. In other words,
the IFR directs that the TAG funding be used to fund public
relations, education and information review activities rather
than to generate sampling data or develop new primary data. In
addition, costs associated with disputes with the EPA or
challenges to final EPA decisions such as the Record of
Decision are not allowed.
with regards to waivers of the 35 percent matching funds
requirement, the IFR states that waivers "will only be granted
in exceptional circumstances," after the group has demonstrated
a good faith effort at raising the funds and it has become
apparent that "providing the 'match' would constitute an
unusual financial hardship." Finally, waivers for the $50,000
cap on the grant will also be granted only "in the most
exceptional circumstances," and only where a single grant is
addressing multiple sites.
Concerns have been expressed about the implementation of
the TAG process by a number of potentially eligible TAG
recipients, representatives of those groups, and members of
Congress who feel that the burdensome administrative
requirements, the 35 percent cost-sharing requirements and
restrictive waiver provisions, as well as TAG use limitations
will not only discourage the public from seeking assistance,
but will also limit the number of TAGs actually be awarded.
The constraints placed on the TAG program are also believed by
many to be detrimental in the effort to foster public
participation in the cleanup process.
r
-------
-------
process and Methodology
In an effort to better assess the implementation of the
TAG program and whether it is fostering Congressional goals,
as well as to understand the experience of potential TAG
applicants, we initiated a survey of all of the groups or
individuals who had contacted the EPA to express interest in
the TAG program or to receive further information. The list of
groups and individuals was obtained from the ten EPA Regional
offices. On October 19, 1988, we sent letters to 72 groups and
individuals and requested that the recipients complete an
enclosed survey describing any positive or negative experiences
associated with the TAG process.
The survey sought to determine how many groups and
individuals pursued the TAG process by filing a letter of
intent with the EPA and later by filing an application. The'
survey also sought to determine the reasons for the decision by
groups not to pursue the application process. For those groups
that did apply for a TAG, the survey sought details on whether
any problems with th- process or the administrative
requirements were encountered. Questions on the survey also
requested information on whether cost-share or funding
limitation waivers h*d been requested or reviewed by the EPA as
well as informa-ior. on the stage of the cleanup process at the
site. Finally, the survey also requested specific
recommendation?.- from the groups on how to improve the TAG
application process and program. A copy of our letter and the
survey questions is included in the Appendix C of this report.
Based on the 56 percent response rate, we have drawn
several important conclusions about the TAG program and the
regulations issued by the EPA to administer the program. In
addition to our findings, we are submitting through this report
a set of recommendations for improvements in order to ensure
that the TAG program fully fosters the public participation
principles set forth in SARA.
-------
-------
Findings
The Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) program was created
by Congress in order to encourage and facilitate community
participation in the Superfund cleanup process. In doing so,
Congress sought to increase- the public's confidence in the
nation's primary program to clean up hazardous waste sites and
to improve the program's effectiveness by helping those most
interested in obtaining quality cleanups participate in the
process. Unfortunately, the results of this survey show that
those goals will not be met without major changes in the TAG
program as it is curren'ly being implemented by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To quote one
respondent:
By no means, as the Program stands today, can it be
looked upon as a citizens' process, although we
recognize that this is the intent of Congress.
Present Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requirements
(i.e.: 35% matching contribution) place considerable
financial hard.'-hip.-, on citizens' groups, discouraging
rather than en<;our'ging their participation in the
Program.
This characterization of the TAG program is borne out by
the fact that, at the time of the survey, half of all
respondents had failed to request funding because of
significant administrative and financial obstacles in the TAG
application process. Nine out of ten of those groups which did
decide to apply reported major difficulties in meeting
application requirements. Among the adjectives most used to
describe the program were "frustrating," "difficult,"
"cumbersome," and "discouraging." The community groups'
experience with the TAG program to date has been far from
satisfactory and, should it continue, we believe that it will
greatly jeopardize the TAG program's ability to meet the goals
set forth by Congress.
Outreach; Before detailing some of the specific findings
of the survey, we must point out that only 70 groups and
individuals (representing less than 7 percent of current
National Priorities List sites) had contacted EPA .to express
interest in the TAG program as of the fall of 1988 — two years
after th« prograra was enacted into law and six months after the
issuance of the interim final rule. We find this deeply
disturbing. Since the majority of respondents indicated that
they first heard about the TAG program through either U.S. EPA
or regional EPA offices, this points out the importance of
outreach in publicizing the availability.of TAGs. While one
.respondent did compliment the EPA on the video put together by
the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, the survey found
that outreach activities varied widely among regions.
r
-------
-------
of intent Stage; Among those groups which had
heard about the program, the survey found strong support for
the TAG process, of those groups which requested information
about the program, 92 percent went on to send a letter of
intent to the EPA indicating that they were interested in
applying for a grant. It is particularly interesting that such
a high percentage followed through with a letter of intent ever.
though 34 percent reported difficulty in getting information
en the program — primarily delays in receiving information,
obtaining draft materials that were later revised, the
unavailability of necessary materials and even the readability
of the forms which were received. Any program is likely to
experience similar problems in Its initial stages; tut it is
disturbing that delays were rep;rted by more than half of those
reporting difficulties (54 percent) . Given the length of the
application process, the inability to obtain materials promptly
could limit participation, particularly at sites where
Superfund cleanup efforts are ongoing and technical assistance
delayed may mean participation opportunities foregone.
Application process: _ Despite the extremely high
percentage of groups which filed letters of intent, only half
had actually submitted an applic.itic-. to EPA by the time of the
survey. As one respondent wrote. "My initial opinion of the
TAG program is that I will be surori-sed if anyone ever makes
their way through the applicator, let alone receive the
grant." While a number of groups did make their way through
the application and a handful have received grants, that
reaction was shared by those groups which did drop out of the
process between the letter of intent and application stages and
sends a clear signal that the application fora itself is
discouraging program participation. The following specific
reasons were given as causes for the decision not to submit an
application (groups were allowed to list more than one cause,
so combined percentages exceed 100 percent) :
Complexity and length of process 55%
Administrative requirements 50%
35% cost-share 35%
Procurement process 35%
Told ineligible 25%
Restrictions on fund use 20%
Record of decision already filed 10%
Discouraged by EPA 5%
Another group had applied 5%
Tho»*> groups which went on to file a TAG application
reported similar problems. Nine out of ten applicants said
that they faced major problems in preparing the application and
33 percent reported difficulties understanding or completing
the manual, forms and administrative requirements. As one
respondent wrote, "I do believe the application is much too
complicated for most small community groups to understand and
complete. It is like a Pentagon contract." Even the one
-------
-------
respondent who found no fault with the application process
indicated that it would present problems for most groups. "I
have worked on many proposals submitted by my company to the
government. Therefore, the application process seemed straight
forward for me when I compare it to some of .those I've seen
from the DOD and other governmental organizations. Had I
polled the rest of our group, who are all quite talented
people, I'm sure the response would have been different."
Unfortunately, the TAG program should not be designed to be
accessible to persons with years of experience with government
contracting procedures. Rather, it should b«j designed for
persons without that experience but who, because they live
next to Superfund sites, need access to technical expertise in
order to protect their families' health and well-being.
Those community groups which did file applications listed
the following specific items as particular problems (again,
combined percentages exceed 100 percent since groups were
allowed to list more than one problem) :
Complexity of r.anual
Complexity of application form
Administrative requirements
Financial expertise needed
Procurement requirements
Incorporation requirement
Difficulty receiving EPA aid
Discrepancy in EPA advice
Inappropriate materials
Quality of forms
"3%
33%
'33%
67%
50%
38%
11%
6%
6%
Another indication of the difficulty presented by the
cumbersome nature of the process is the length of time groups
spent in completing the application. Only 6 percent of the
respondents reported that it took them less than one week to
prepare the application, while 78 percent spent two weeks or
more to do so and 28 percent spent more than six weeks in this
effort. Numerous groups criticized the application form for
requiring detailed budget and programmatic information in
advance of the grant. One respondent pointed to the "Catch-22"
nature of the application: "As we tried to write a narrative
describing technical advisor tasks, we realized that we could
not be aore specific. We needed a technical advisor in order
to satisfy EPA in order to get a technical advisor."
Unfortunately, 39 percent of all respondents reported that
they had received no help in preparing the application. No
group had access to an outside attorney or accountant and only
17 percent indicated expertise was available within their own
membership. On the other hand, 72 percent relied upon EPA
staffed for assistance, again underlining the need for
adequate staffing and outreach as well as consistent advice by
EPA staff.
-------
-------
Post-application. AS one respondent wrote, "I have been
informed that the preparation of the TAG application will be
considered 'a piece of cake' compared to what lies ahead." The
first problem the survey identified related to EPA's
consideration of the application itself. While the majority of
the applications were still pending at the EPA at the time of
the survey, over one-third (35 percent) had been returned
because of errors (50 percent), insufficient information (34
percent), or problems with the incorporation requirement (17
percent). A number of respondents indicated that their
application had been returned even when they had relied upon
EPA staff for advice or that they were required to resubmit
repeatedly because of inconsistent EPA rulings. According to
one respondent, "I experienced 3 different opin:.ons from 3
different EPA Grants Management staff....! was required to
rewrite the TAG 4 (four) times due to misinformation from EPA.
This whole procedure needs to be streamlined." Again, however,
the strong commitment to the program evidenced by the community
groups is revealed by the fact that all but one group had
already resufcmitted or planned to resubmit an amended
application form.
The 35 percent cost-sharing requirement. Ac-art from the
complexities of the application process itself, ^ majority of
respondents criticized certain programmatic requirements of the
TAG program. The most serious concern reported i.'ivolved the 35
percent cost-sharing provision, which requires that community
groups contribute at least 35 percent of grant costs through
cash, in-kind contributions or a combination of the two. Over
one-third (35 percent) of those who did not apply for a grant
cited this requirement as a reason for their decision. Among
those who did apply, 33 percent had already applied for a
waiver of the match, 24 percent indicated that they would apply
at a later date, and 10 percent volunteered that they had
wanted to apply but had been discouraged from doing so by EPA
staff.
Additionally, a number of respondents who indicated that
they would meet the 35 percent match through in-kind
contributions reported that the 15 percent cap on
administrative costs and the restrictions on what services can
be considered as in-kind contributions would greatly inhibit
their ability to comply with this requirement. Commented one
respondent, "The combination of the 35* match requirement and
the 15% liait on administrative costs seems like a deliberate
attempt to make sure that grass roots groups won't be able to
participate in the TAG program." Other respondents pointed to
EPA's decision to ignore Congressional intent — increasing
the recommended cost-share by 75 percent and providing waivers
only in exceptional circumstances instead of whenever needed
"to facilitate public participation" as stated in report
language — as signs- that the Administration is not seriously
interested in making the TAG program work.
-------
-------
Finally, several respondents criticized EPA's decision not
to provide any waiver of the cost-sharing requirement once a
Record of Decision (RODS) has been signed. For 'many groups,
the TAG program represents their only access to technical
expertise. Yet, because of delays in its implementation, the
prohibition on post-RCD waivers will deny assistance at sites
where cleanup activities are already underway. This is
especially true since the EPA acknowledges that RODs can be
reopened and since, in the past, EPA cleanup decisions have
been modified based on new information. Moreover, RODs may not
include selection of specific cleanup remedies, delaying
decisions until a later date. Out of the 70 sites surveyed, 27
were at or past the ROD stage.
In criticizing EPA's 35 percent cost-sharing requirements,
most groups echoed one respondent's comment that it would
"place considerable financial hardships on citizens' groups,
discouraging rather than encouraging their participation in the
Program." But one respondent challenged the policy on grounds
ether than just financial hardship. "An ethical question has
been raised by some of our members: Is it moral to require
r.atching money of people whose homes have been devalued, whc.*e
land has been polluted, whose paychecks don't meet their
r.edical bills? The matching percentage should be eliminated.
Tailing this, an easier waiver mechanism should be desf.gr.3d."
Additional, reauirerents: Three additional provisions in
the EPA's interim final regulations were criticized by the
survey participants: prohibitions on providing TAGs to groups
which were not formed solely for the purpose of monitoring a
particular Superfund site, the granting off a waiver of the
S50,ooo TAG limit only in exceptional circumstances, and
restrictions on the uses for which TAG moneys can be spent.
Fifteen percent of all respondents expressed concerns that
the prohibitions on which groups can receive TAGs are too
restrictive. While recognizing the importance of providing
assistance to affected individuals living near a site, members
of groups which are connected to regional or national business
or environmental organizations felt that they were being unduly
discriminated against. Some of those local chapters, who have
already spent years working on an individual site, argued that
this restriction would prevent those persons with the most
knowledge of the situation from receiving assistance.
One out of four respondents (26%) recommended that the EPA
modify its restrictions on TAG moneys to allow independent
analysis and sampling at the site. As one respondent wrote,
"While it is true that sampling of wells and analyses of
samples is expensive and could take a large chunk of the funds,
it is also true that throughout these years, I have made
contacts and friends with certain Universities and laboratories
where such analyses could be obtained at minimal expense. This
restriction should not be continued in the TAG program....!
-------
-------
also feel that should a Technical Advisor be as uncomfortable
with accepting groundwater data from the owners of the site as
I am, that grant moneys could and should be appropriately used
to finance independent monitoring." Another respondent
requested that funds be allowed to test areas adjacent to
recognized sites. "The specific problem...is that the site
encompassed a much larger area than that which is being
addressed by E.P.A....We want these properties investigated
also. "
Finally, although only one TAG applicant has requested a
waiver of the $50,000 limit, several respondents indicated that
they might request such as waiver at a later date and a number
commented that the funding limits made the entire TAG
application process unappealing. Wrote one respondent, "I have
been lookir.g at this application since June. Our coalition
sorely needs funds for technical review and participation in
the Superfund process. But, I doubt if the amount of
assistance provided through the Federal program is worth the
donation of time required to comply with the guidelines for the
implementation of the award."
-------
-------
Recommendations
Although it is over two years since passage of SARA, the
EPA has only recently begun implementation of the TAG program.
Therefore, some of the criticisms reflected by the survey --
particularly the delays in obtaining material — may reflect
initial difficulties that will be resolved as EPA gains
experience with the program.
However, the majority of the problems encountered by
interested groups will not disappear over time. They are
obstacles which are incorporated into the interim final rule
itself and not the result of inexperience in implementation of
that rule. The overwhelming number of complaints received fror.
community groups which have already dealt with EPA is of
serious concern to us. The comments received through our
survey send a clear warning that unless major changes are made
in the interim final regulations, more and more groups may
avoid the TAG program altogether. As one respondent wrote,
"The whole TAG process is probably more trouble than it is
worth...we will be glad when this is over and pray that we
never have to deal with the EPA again in our lifetimes.
In establishing the TAG program, Congress sought not only
to facilitate community 'participation in the Superfund process
but to restore already-damaged public confidence in EPA's
handling of its cleanup responsibilities. Unfortunately, the
survey results suggest that the public may view the TAG program
as }ust more of the same — a program theoretically designed to
help local communities but which in reality presents more
obstacles than opportunities.
Therefore, in order to accomplish the goal of increased
public participation in the Superfund process, we recommend
that:
1) EPA simplify its administrative requirements, at the
same time revising the manual and application form to reduce
paperwork burdens on community groups. While it is important
that TAG applicants display basic managerial and financial
capabilities, it was never the intent of Congress that
applicants be subjected to requirements that one respondent
equated with "a Pentagon contract." Not including the initial
letter of intent, the EPA manual lists a dozen forms that
groups have to prepare during and after the application
process. Working with groups which have already gone through
the application process and with regional EPA staff, EPA should
streamline requirements in order to reduce redtape and
encourage increased participation.
It is our belief, that simplification of the application
process is. critical .to-the success of the:-Tft€ program.
However, it must be recognized that this alone is not a
sufficient cure. Few community groups have any experience in
-------
-------
preparing grant proposals and most will continue to rely on the
EPA for assistance in meeting TAG requirements. In
consultation with community groups and their representatives,
EPA should establish assistance procedures that will provide
needed guidance while ensuring that the affected communities
caintain control over the grant.
2) EPA eliminate onerous procurement requirements, by
granting a class deviation from 40 CFR Parts 30 and 33 for the
TAG program, pursuant to 40 CFR Subpart J. The survey results
show clearly that the procurement requirements are a major
disincentive to participation and will substantially delay the
ability of communities to begin their activities. EPA itself
estimates that it will take groups 14 weeks to hire a technical
adviser under the required procurement process, a projection
which may be optimistic.
3} EPA lower the 35% cost-sharing requirement to 20%, as
Congress recommended, and allow waivers whenever necessary to
facilitate public participation. Additionally, EPA should
expand both the types and dollar amounts of activities which
qualify as in-kind contributions under the match. The
Administration's use of its discretion to increase the cost-
sharing requirement runs counter to the intent of Congress that
this requirement not stand in the way of public participation.
4) EPA remove the prohibition on providing a cost-sharing
waiver after a Record of Decision has been signed on the last
operable unit at the site. The Agency seeks to justify this
prohibition on the grounds that the public cannot participate
in the selection of a remedial action after the ROD has been
signed. Not only is this a narrow and, we believe, erroneous
interpretation of Congressional intent; it ignores EPA's own
statement that "(u)nder certain circumstances, the ROD may be
reopened for public comment." (Manual, pg. 17) In light of the
severity of the cost-sharing requirement, the inability to
obtain a waiver will preclude some groups from reviewing
remedial actions to determine whether cleanup plans are
adequate.
5) EPA permit the use of TAG funds for split sampling
where appropriate and respond to requests by TAG recipients for
additional testing. While we are sensitive to the Agency's
argument that the development of new primary data is a costly
undertaking, split sampling is likely to be affordable and may
well serve to increase public confidence and participation in
the Superfund process. It is also important to recognize that
TAG recipients may disagree on the level and scope of
contamination at the site; in fact, several survey respondents
raised such disagreements in their comments. Therefore, absent
the ability to use funds for primary data generation, EPA
should develop a mechanism to allow TAG recipients to request
additional testing by the Superfund lead agency. Without a
mechanism to ensure that the information developed by community
-------
-------
groups is appropriately considered and acted upon by the EPA,
the TAG program could become little more than window-dressing.
Congress clearly intended that this program provide affected
groups with the wherewithal to obtain the technical expertise
needed to participate in ths Superfund cleanup process. But
Congress also intended that the viewpoints developed with that
assistance be taken seriously by those with program
responsibilities and fully incorporated into the EPA review
process.
While we believe that these changes will significantly
ir.prove the implementation of the TAG program, EPA must also
expand its outreach activities to encourage greater public
participation. At the time of our survey, fewer than seven
percent of the communities living near Superfund sites had
contacted the regional EPA offices for information on the TAG
program. This is an unacceptably low percentage given the
importance of restoring public credibility to the Superfund
program. Although several regional offices have made
particular efforts to publicize the TAG program, it appears
that E?A staff in other regions have been inconsistent at best
in their approach and at worst appear to have actively
discouraged TAG applications. It is incumbent upon the U.S.
EPA to ensure that all regional offices engage in adequate
outreach activities and provide clear and consistent
information to all groups interested in the TAG program.
r
-------
-------
. newl. r*Kll\.lf>l TI'J''-
" Provide a reasonable opportunity for submission of writ-
ten and oral comments and an opportunity for a public meeting
at or near the facility at issue regarding the proposed plan and
regarding any proposed findings under section iSlidbii 'relat-
ing to cleanup standards'. The President or the State shall keep
a transcript of the meeting and make such transcript available
to the public.
The notice and analysis published under paragraph FISAL PLA.V.—Notice of the final remedial action plan adopt-
ed shall be published and the plan shall be made available to the
public before commencement of any remedial action. Such final
plan shall be accompanied by a discussion of any significant
changes tand the reasons for such changes) in the proposed plan
and a response to each of the significant comments, criticisms, and
new data submitted in written or oral presentations under subsec-
tion i at.
";c> EXPLASATIO.' JF DIFFERENCES.—After adoption of a final re-
medial action plan—
"f]> if any remedial action is taken.
"i'2i if any enforcement action under section 106 is taken, or
"(3> if any settlement or consent decree under section 106 or
section 122 is entered into,
and if such action, settlement, or decree differs in any significant
respects from the final plan, the President or the State shall publish
an explanation of the significant differences and the reasons such
changes were made.
"<'dJ Pi1BUCATtOft.~F'or the purposes of this section, publication
shall include, at a minimum, publication in a major local newspa-
per of general circulation. In addition, each item developed, re-
ceii'ed. published, or made available to the public under this section
shall be available for public inspection and copying at or near the
facility at issue.
'W'GRA.VTS FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—
"(1) AUTHORITY.—Subject to such amounts as are provided in
appropriations Acts and in accordance with rules promulgated
by the President, the President may make grants available to
any group of individuals which may be affected by a release or
threatened release at any facility which is listed on the Nation-
al Priorities List under the National Contingency Plan. Such
grants may be used to obtain technical assistance in interpret-
ing information with regard to the nature of the hazard, reme-
dial investigation and feasibility study, record of decision, re-
medial design* selection and construction of remedial action,
optntion and maintenance, or removal action at such facility.
'W AMOUNT.—The amount of any grant under this subsec-
tion may not exceed 950.000 for a single grant recipient The
Prmident may waive the S50.000 limitation in any case where
tueh UKu'urr is necessary to carry out the purposes of this subsec-
tion. Each grant recipient shall be required, as a condition of
the grant, to contribute at least 20 percent of the total of costs
ofjne technical assistance for which such grant is made. The
President may waive the 20 percent contribution requirement if
the grant recipient demonstrates financial need and such
waiver is necessary to facilitate public participation in the selec-
tion of remedial action at the facility. Not more than one grant
may be made under this subsection with respect to a single fa-
cility, but the grant may be renewed to facilitate public partici-
pation at all stages of remedial action. ".
-------
-------
PARTICIPATION
Senate amendment—The Senate amendment requires that,
before the United States or a State selects a remedial action or
enters into a convenant not to sue or to forbear from suit or other-
wise settle or dispose of a claim under the Act, several procedures
must be followed to allow the public to participate prior to final $*.
lection or entry. The public must be given notice of such proposed
action, opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area, and a
reasonable opportunity to comment. Notice must be accompanied
by a discussion and analysis "Sufficient to provide a reasonable ex-
planation of the proposals considered.
The Senate provision also amends section 11 lie) of CERCLA to
include the costs of technical assistance grants under the purposes
for *hich the President is authorized to use the money in the
Fund. Payment of such costs is subject to amounts as are provided
in appropriations acts and shall be in accordance with rules pro-
mulgated by the President. Such grants may be made to those po-
tentially affected by a release or threatened release at any facility
listed on the National Priorities List, and may not exceed 175,000
per grant. These grants may be used to obtain technical assistance
in interpreting information about the nature of the hazard, remedi-
al investigation and feasibility study, record of decision, remedial
design, selection and construction of remedial action, operation and
maintenance, or removal action at a facility.
House amendment—The House amendment requires either the
Administrator or State, as appropriate, to take steps before adopt-
ing any remedial action plan. The first step is publishing a notice
and brief analysis of the plan and making the plan available to the
publr This :ce and analysis must include sufficient information
nece;: ary to provide a reasonable explanation of the proposed plan.
The ixond step is providing reasonable opportunity for submission
of written and oral comments, and an opportunity for a public
meeting at or near the facility in question, about the proposed plan
?icd any waivers of requirements granted under section 121 of the
House amendments relating to cleanup standards. The Administra-
tor is required to keep a transcript of such a meeting and to make
this transcript available to the public.
House amendment aJso requires that notice of the final remedial
action plan be published and that the plan be made available to
the public before commencing any remedial action. This final plan
must be accompanied by a discussion of any significant changes in
the proposed plan, and the reasons for such changes, as well as a
response to each of the significant comments, criticisms, and new
data submitted in oral or written presentations in accordance with
the requirements described above.
After adoption of a final remedial action plan, if any remedial
action is taken, if any section 106 enforcement action is taken, or if
any settlement or consent decree under section 106 is entered into,
and if such action, settlement or decree differs in any significant
respects from the final plan, the Administrator ia required to pub-
lish an explanation of the significant differences and the reasons
•ucb changes were made.
f .
-------
-------
The t*rm "publication" includes, at a minimum, publication in a
major local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, the
House amendment requires that each item developed, received.
published, or made available to the public pursuant to this amend-
ment must be available for public inspection and copying at or
near the facility in question.
The House amendment authorizes the Administrator, in accord-
anet with rules promulgated by the" Administrator, to make techni-
cal assistance grants available to any group of persons that may be
affected by a release ir threatened release at any facility listed on
the National Priorities List. The purpose of these grants is to
enable the group to obtain technical assistance to review and assess
data and 'nformatjon that has been prepared by the Administrator
and that is reqjir?d tj oe published under the previously described
requirements of this amendment.
These grants may not exceed $25.000 for a single recipient.
unless the Adninistrator waives this limit. The Administrator may
waive this dollar limit in any case where such a waiver is neces-
sary to carry out the purposes of this subsection on grants.
Conference substitute—7he conference substitute adopts the
House amendment's provisions on public participation, with some
modifications. One such modification is the explicit statement that
a State or the President is required to keep a transcript of the
public meeting pursuant to section ll"(aX2) and to publish the ex-
planation of significant differences between the final plan and any
remedial action, settlement, or decree a? required by section ll?(c~>.
In the House avnend-vent. only the Administrator was explicitly
made subject to these equirements.
The confer em.? substitute adopts a combination of the House and
Senate prcvu-iir- publishing a technical assistance grants pro-
gram for use at N-uicnal Priorities List sites. This program is to be
a regular pa: c of the Superfund program, and the President shall
not refuse to fund the technical assistance grants program, or any
specific application for a grant, on the ground that there has be«n
no specific line item appropriation. The conference substitute
adopts the Senate amendment's statement that the grants may be
used for technical assistance in interpreting information with
regard to the nature of the hazard, remedial investigation and fea-
sibility study, record of decision, remedial design, selection, and
construction of remedial action, operation and maintenance, or re-
moval action at such facility. Such grants are not intended to be
used to underwrite legal actions. However, any information devel-
oped through grant assistance may be used in any legal action af-
fecting the facility, including any legal action in a court of law.
The conference substitute states that the grant amount may not
exceed $50,000 for a single grant recipient. As in the House amend-
ment, however, the President may waive this dollar limitation. The
conference substitute states that as a condition of the grant, each
recipient must contribute at least 20 percent of the total costs of
technical assistance for which the grant is made. This condition
may be waived by the President if the grant recipient demonstrates
finaaeiaJ need and that the waiver is necessary to facilitate public
tion in the selection of remedial action at the facility.
-------
-------
r
-------
-------
ft
F1CPIO AND MAPKE: PELEASE SVFEPFVf.'O SV=VEY,
CALL FOR COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE REFORM |
For Release, Thursday, March 2, 1989
Contacts: John Steele (202) 225-6501
Cathy Hurwit (202) 225-2836
Congressman James Florio (D-NJ) and Edward Markey (D-MA) today
released results of a survey showing that a key feature of
Superfund aimed at in-proving" public participation has become a
bureaucratic nightmare. According to the report, EFA's
Surerfund TAG Gane. "the administrative and cost-sharing
burdens created by the Environmental Protection Agency are
roadblocks that will keep Superfund communities from
participating in the decisions that will affect their lives and
their futures. "'
The survey asked community groups around the country about
their experiences with the Technical Assistance Grant (TAG)
program, created by Congress in 1986 to provide assistance to
local residents living around Superfund sites. The TAG program
provides up to $50,000 per Superfund site so that local
cormunit:^s c="> hire technical advisers to assist them in
analyzing cleanup plans.
"The results of the survey confirmed my worst fears," Florio
said. "Plain and simple -- this program isn't working.
Burdensome and unnecessary requirements make it far too
difficult to qualify fot help. Consequently, few Superfund
sites are being cleaned up and peoples'health is endangered."
The survey found that more than 90 percent of the community
groups encountered "major problems" with the application
process. Nine out of ten applicants had difficulty completing
the application and forms and one out of four spent more than
six weeks filling out the application.
Ore of the major criticisms was EPA's requirement that
communities come up with 35 percent of the technical assistance
costs. EPA said it would waive that cost-sharing requirement
only in exceptional circumstances. Congress had recommended
only a 20 percent requirement, with waivers whenever needed to
foster public participation.
"The TAG program was supposed to give families living around
Sueprfund sites a voice in determining how to end the pollution
that threatens them daily," said Markey. "But it is so hard
to penetrate EPA's bureaucracy that you could line a Superfund
site with it and it wouldn't leak. Unless the new
administration changes this program, very, very few communities
will g«t the chance to speak out on their own behalf.'
Among the recommendations Reps. Florio and Markey made to
improv* the TAG program are:
--' Lowering the cost-sharing requirement to 20 percent
and allowing waivers whenever necessary.
Working with community groups to simplify
administrative requirements and ease paperwork
burdens.
Eliminating burdensome procurement requirements that,
according to EPA's own estimates will add at least 14
weeks to the grant process
-------
-------
APFSCIX C — QUESTIONNAIRE AKD RESULTS
October 19, 1983
xx
XX
XX
XX
Dear :
We were pleased to learn of your interest in the Superfund
Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) program. As members of the
House Energy and Commerce Committee which authorized the TAG
program, we are committed to ensuring that it meets the goal of
providing full public participation to residents concerned
about the cleanup of their community's Superfund site.
The TAG program i_. designed to provide funds to community
groups so that th=-y can hire the technical experts needed to
assess the prr-gre: s of the cleanup at their site and take the
necessary steps to make sure that EPA complies with the
standards established in the 1986 Superfund law.
In order to determine whether the TAG program is meeting its
goals, we h?.ve put together the enclosed survey. We believe it
is important to identify any problems with the TAG program as
early as possible so that we can work to make sure that EPA
improves their regulations. Therefore, we would appreciate
your taking 15 minutes to complete the survey and return it to
us in the self-addressed enclosed envelope. The survey
requests information on your group's experience with the TAG
program and any specific problems or strengths you may have
encountered.
Your response will be treated confidentially and will not be
shared with the EPA or any other agency. Instead, we will use
aggregated data to assess how the program is working and to
recommend, any needed improvements.
We would appreciate your completing this survey by November 21.
If you have any questions or concerns, please let us know by
getting in touch with Cathy Hurwit ;*'aikey) at (202) 225-2836
or Stavroula Lambrakopoulos (Florio) at (202) 225-6501.
Thank you for your kind assistance.
Sincerely,
-------
-------
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT (TAG) PROGRAM SURVEY
How did you hear about the TAG program?
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Regional Environmental Protection Agency
State agency
Environmental organization
Trade association
Press
Other (pleases describe)
Did you request infcrmation from (please check as
many as are appropriate)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Regional Environmental Protection Agency
State agency
Environmental organization
Trade association
Other (please describe)
Did you have difficult ' obtaining information?
Yes No
If yes, please d«'s'.••-"ibe briefly the problems you
encountered (i.e , length of time to receive materials,
inappropriate ma :erials sent, difficulty locating
appropriate source of information,.
4. Have you filed a letter of intent with EPA indicating your
interest in applying for a technical assistance grant?
Yes No
If you answered no, please describe your reasons, (i.e.,
the program is inappropriate for your needs, the
application process is too burdensome).
5. Have you submitted an application for a technical
r
-------
-------
6. Why did you decide not to apply for a technical assistance
grant (please check all appropriate answers and skip to
question 413)
Decided did not need assistance
Funds could not be used for desired purpose
Application process too complex and time-consuming
Couldn't meet 351 cost-share requirement
Grant administration requirements too cumbersome
Procurement system tor cumbersome
Unable or unwilling to incorporate
Record of decision had already been filed
Another group had already applied at same site
Told you were ineligiolfc for grant
(Please briefly describe reason for ineligibility)
Other (please describe)"
7. Did you have any specific problems in preparing the TAG
application?
No
Yes (please check appropriate boxes below)
Difficulty obtaining information from EPA
The instruction manual was difficult to understand
The application form was difficult to understand
Difficulty of grant administration requirements
Compl3::ity of procurement requirements
Lack of financial expertise needed to complete budget
requirements
Difficulty with incorporation requirement
Other (please describe)
8. How
long did it take you to prepare the TAG application?
9. what kind of assistance, if any, did you receive in
preparing the TAG application? (i.e., EPA staff, attorney,
accountant, environmental group, trade association)
-------
-------
10. Has your application been returned by EPA?
If so, why?
Ineligibility for the TAG program
Incomplete information
Insufficient budget information
Error in filling out application
Other (please describe)
Yes
Have you resubmitted your application? Yes No
If not, please describe why
EPA requires that a TAG recipient provide 35% of the total
costs of the technical assistance croj^ct in cash and/or
in-kind contributions, although th*t 3~% cost-share can be
waived.
Did you apply for a cost-share wai'^r?
If yes, how has EPA responded?
Approved waiver Denied vaiver
Other
If no, how do you intend to meet the cost-share
requirement?
Cash
In-kind services (please describe)
Combination (please describe)
12. EPA limits technical assistance grants to $50,000, although
this ceiling can be waived in certain circumstances. Did
you apply for a waiver of the ceiling? Yes No
If y*>», how has EPA responded?
___ Approved waiver
___ Denied waiver
Other (please describe)
If yes, please describe why you applied for a waiver (i.e.
size or complexity of site, multiple sites, cost of
experts). _
-------
-------
(For questions 13-16, please continue description on additional
pages if necessary- You nay also want to attach additional
ir. formation such as newsletters or articles which describe your
activities.)
13. Briefly describe your group, including how long you have
been in existence, the history of involvement with the site(s;,
and, if possible, a brief description or your membership.
14. Please describe the resources available to your group
(i.e., annual budget, volunteer help, attorney or accountant on
staff, access to environmental group or trade association
staff) .
15. Please describe the site(s) of interest to your group
(i.e., current stage of cleanup, who has responsibility for
cleanup, any specific health problems).
16. Do you have suggestions to improve the implementation of
the technical assistance grant program?
-------
-------
SUPERFUND TAG SURVEY RESULTS
QUESTIONS
How did you hear about the TAG program?
Environmental Organization
U.S. EPA
Regional EPA
Press
State Agency
Congressional office
Other
University
Trade Association
RESPONSES
29%
13%
8%
5%
5%
3%
0%
Did you request information from?:
Regional EPA '''66%
U.S. EPA ^63*
State Agency 18%
Environmental Organization 16%
Congressional Office 3%
Press 3%
Trade association 7%
Did you have difficulty obtaining
information?
Yes 34%
No
If yes, what problems were encountered?
Delay in receiving information 54%
Information in draft form or changed 54%
Trouble locating information source 31%
Inconsistent information provided 23%
Inappropriate materials sent 15%
Did you file a letter of intent?
Y«S 92%
NO 8%
If no, why not?
Didn't want to hire outside expert 33%
Ineligible 33%
Size and complexity of application 33%
-------
-------
Have you submitted a grant application?
8
NO
No but planning to
May submit at later date
Why did you decide not to apply?
Application process too complex
Administrative requirements
35% cost-share requirement
Procurement requirements
Told ineligible
Restrictions on fund use
Incorporation requirement
ROD already filed
Cost of process
Discouraged by EPA
Another group had already applied
If you applied, did you encounter any
specific problems?
Yes
No
What problems were encountered?
Manual difficult or complex
Administrative requirements
Financial expertise requirement
Difficulty of application form
Procurement requirements
Incorporation requirement
Difficulty obtaining EPA information
Discrepancy in EPA advice
Inappropriate materials sent
Quality of forms
How long did it take to fill out the
application?
50%
42%
8%
6%
55%
50%
351
35%
25%
20%
10%
10%
5%
5%
5%
91%
9%
94%
83%
83%
78%
67%
50%
38%
11%
6%
6%
than 10 hours
40-59 hours
80-9.9 hours
100 hours or more
2-3 weeks
4*5 weeks
6-7 weeks
8 weeks or more
6%
6%
11%
28%
6%
6%
22%
-------
-------
9. What kind of assistance did you
receive in filling out the application?
EPA Staff
. None
Environmental Organization 17%
Internal 17%
State Agency §1
Congressional Office 6%
Attorney/Legal Fund 6%
Grants Writer 6%
10. Was your application returned by EPA?
Yes 35%
No . ^5%"'
If so, why?
Errors 50%
Inconplr-- 34%
Auditing/accounting problems 17%
Incorporation 17%
Have you resubmitted your application?
Yes '67%,
NO TT%
No, but will at a later date 17%
11. Did you apply for a 35% cost-share
waiver?
Yes 33%
No 29%
May at a later date 19%
Told by EPA not to 10%
will but told not to at this time 5%
Undecided about doing so 5%
If yes, how has EPA responded?
No response as yet 86%
Approved 14%
How do you plan to meet the cost-share?
In-kind plus cash 58%
In-kind contribution only 33%
Cash payment only 8%
-------
-------
12. Did you apply for a waiver of the
$50,000 limit?
No
May apply at a later date
Yes
13. Briefly describe your group.
Residential
Mixed coalition
Environmental
Business
Municipality
League of Women Voters
14
15
How many sites does your application
cover?
1 site
Multiple sites
Do you have suggestions to improve
the TAG program?
Ease administrative requirements
Lower 35% cost-share
Improve outreach and assistance
Amend use restrictions
Ease procurement requirements
Make process less burdensome, lengthy
Ease eligibility requirements
Change 15% administrative cap
75%
15%
10%
62%
13%
11%
8%
3%
2%
69%
26%
39%
31%
29%
26%
18%
15%
15%
5%
-------
------- |