•sij^Sis^
Ss^JS
•' ^^^SJS^SWBS^BiSStJ^ajS^S&ylJSS.^rSr-
•'^s^r^^^ig^?i^i5s*^r®:;is1i;:V3f-
•^TITLE^tUSI^.TrustxJuna:-' Cooperative' Agreemeir^pjM'
ORIGINATING
4^;ij&^^i£&^^-^^^^^ iCwvV" /'nTTCT^'^^^*^
^or-?:tv-.i.«<-jv^./Kt^^ji^^firf^y^;!^ivi;_.jv. otorage i.anKS •^v./uoj. j:~*z*~-.*:*-ta.*?--
Fcl PI N AI='i^---"^ii>iiTr"-:i>^'i"S?£ti''A.-!.;:K.iJ.A. -f^-..::-.':-.-v.>-.«;:<• ~-.--v>vxv::. >-fa'i,'^S-i:;,^^;;L
{other documents)
-------
* —^ * UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
? WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
8 1989
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: LUST Trust Fund Cooperative Agreement Consolidated
Guidelines.; /-
/ , //..,£>
<—-v . / : - ^^i>
FROM: J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
ATTN: Waste Management Division Directors,
Regions I-III, V-IX
Water Management Division Directors,
Regions IV, X
Attached are consolidated cooperative agreement guidelines
for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund.
These guidelines reflect a consolidation, reorganization, and
updating of the following previously issued Trust Fund guidance:
- Guidelines for UST Trust Fund Cooperative Agreements; OSWER
Directive 9650.6; April 2, 1987;
Supplemental Requirements for LUST Trust Fund Cooperative
Agreements; OSWER Directive 9650.6-1; 'August 10, 1987;
- Supplemental Guidelines for FY 89 LUST Trust Fund
Cooperative Agreements; OSWER Directive 9650.7; April 7,
1988; and
LUST Cooperative Agreement Issues; memorandum from Howard
Corcoran and Joe Retzer to Regional Counsel LUST contacts;
August 26, 1987.
The purpose of this consolidated guidelines package is to
provide a single, up-to-date document that provides information
for EPA Regional offices and States to use in negotiating,
awarding, and overseeing cooperative agreements containing LUST
Trust Fund monies. These guidelines replace the previously
issued Trust Fund guidance, referenced above, when awarding new
cooperative agreements. In addition, provisions that result
from EPA's new grant regulations, 40 CFR Part 31, should be
incorporated into any cooperative agreements containing awards of
FY 89 Trust Fund monies.
-------
-2-
The guidelines have also been revised to incorporate policy
decisions that have been made since issuance of the April 1988
Trust Fund guidelines, to reflect changes brought about as a
result of EPA's new grant regulations for States, 40 CFR Part 31,
and to update the guidelines as a result of promulgation of the
final UST regulations, in addition, the LUST Trust Fund cost
recovery policy, OSWER Directive 9610.10, is officially included
in the guidelines, as Appendix A. This includes new special
conditions (as of October 7, 1988) that replace those previously
issued.
Attachment
cc: Regional UST Program Managers
Howard Corcoran, OGC
Bruce Feldman, GAD
Mike Feldman, OC
Lisa Fiely, FMD
-------
United Slates
Environmental Protection
Agency
OM.ce ol
Solid Waste and
Emergency flesoonse
&EPA
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9650.10
TITLE: LUST Trust Fund Cooperative Agreement
Guidelines
APPROVAL DATE:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
February 8, 1989
February 8, 1989
ORIGINATING OFFICE: Office of Underground
Storage Tanks (OUST)
S FINAL
Z DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents):
Guidelines for UST Trust Fund Cooperative
Agreements; OSWER Dir. 9650.6; April 2, 1987.
Supplemental Requirements for LUST Trust Fund
Cooperative Agreements; OSWER Dir. 9650.6-1;
August 10, 1987.
Supplemental Guidelines for FY89 LUST Trust: Fund
Cooperative Agreements; OSWER Dir. 9650.7;
April 7, 1988.
Cost Recovery Policy for the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Trust Fund; OSWER Dir. 9610.10;
October 7, 1988
OSWER OSWER OSWER
'E DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE L
-------
xvEPA
, o
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
LUST TRUST FUND
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT GUIDELINES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
\
fl
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ISSUE . SECTION
OVERVIEW OF THE LUST TRUST FUND I
APPLICABILITY OF 40 CFR PART 31 GRANT REGULATIONS II
STATE COST SHARE REQUIREMENTS .., Ill
/
ALLOWABLE COSTS IV
TRUST FUND USE AT GOVERNMENT FACILITIES V
SOLVENCY OF OWNERS AND OPERATORS VI
STATE PROGRAM APPROVAL AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS VII
A. Linking of Trust Fund with State Program
Approval Process
B. Relationship of the Trust Fund to EPA's
Transition Strategy
STATEDUST PROGRAMS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS VIII
A. State Capabilities
B. State Certification of Authority
C. State Program Work^ Plan
D. Federal Oversight - Program Appraisal Strategy
Exhibit 1: FY 89 Activities Reporting Requirements
for U.S. EPA Office of Underground
Storage Tanks
. ii
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
ISSUE SECTION
CORRECTIVE ACTION IX
A. Compliance with Corrective Action Regulations
B. Guidance for Conducting Federal-Lead Underground
. Storage Tank Corrective Actions
C. State's Priority System for Addressing UST Releases
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION X
STATE'S QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM XI
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR A STATE COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT APPLICATION XII
COST RECOVERY POLICY FOR THE LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE
TANK TRUST FUND (OSWER DIRECTIVE 9610.10) APPENDIX A
ill
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
I. OVERVIEW OF THE LUST TRUST FUND
In October 1986, Congress amended Subtitle I of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to provide EPA, and states
with Cooperative Agreements, new enforcement and corrective
action authorities to respond to actual or suspected releases
from petroleum USTs. Under the amendments, EPA, or States with
Cooperative Agreements, may undertake any of the following
actions, or direct tank owners and operators to do so:
o Test tanks for leaks when a leak is
suspected ;
o Investigate a site to evaluate the source and
extent of petroleum contamination;
o Assess how many individuals may have been
exposed to petroleum contaminants and the
seriousness of exposure, and estimate
^. :^ng health risks;
o Clean up contaminated soil and water;
o Provide safe drinking water to residents at
the site of a tank leak; and
o Provide for temporary or permanent relocation
of residents.
The 1986 amendments to RCRA also provide a Federal Trust Fund
to finance the cleanup of petroleum releases from underground
storage tanks (USTs) . This Trust Fund, financed through an
excise tax of 1/10 of one cent per gallon on motor fuels, is
expected to raise $500 million over a five year period. However,
there are some guidelines that a State must follow before using
Trust Fund dollars. When a leak or spill is discovered, the
States should first seek to identify the tank's owner or operator
and direct him to perform the cleanup at his expense. A State
should only rely on Trust Fund dollars to clean up a site when
they cannot identify a responsible tank owner or operator who
will undertake corrective' action properly and promptly. Even
when the Trust Fund is used, tank owners or operators are liable
to the State for costs incurred, and are subject to cost recovery
actions.
1-1
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
II. APPLICABILITY OF 40 CFR PART 31 GRANT REGULATIONS
In a joint effort with other Federal agencies, EPA has
recently revised and published common grant regulations that
provide consistency in the administration of grants and
Cooperative Agreements. The revised regulations, promulgated on
March 11, 1988, have an effective date of October 1, 1988.
The common rule, 40 CFR Part 31, published in the Federal
Register on March 11, 1988, supercedes certain EPA general
assistance regulations currently contained in 40 CFR Parts 30 and
33. Specifically, Part 31 is applicable to State and local
governments and Federally recognized Indian tribal governments
and supercedes all regulations pertaining to these entities in 40
CFR Parts 30 and 33. Parts 30 and 33 have been revised to
consist of requirements applicable to grantees other than State
and local governments.
Part 31 is intended to further Federalism principles by
reducing Federal "controls" over State governments. Part 31 will
diminish the Federal role/presence in the States' conduct of
certain LUST Trust Fund related activities because it allows
States to use their own procedures in such areas as procurement
and financial management.
Awards involving FY .89 Trust Fund monies will need to
reference and adhere to the revised grant regulations. EPA's
Grants Administration Division has established the following
general policy regarding the applicability of Part 31:
o. Part 31 applies to all Cooperative Agreements
whose budget or project periods began on or
after October 1, 1988;
c^ Part 31 applies to all amendments of existing
agreements in which all of the activities in
the amendment's scope of work will be
performed after October 1, 1988; and
o Parts 30 and 33 apply to all Cooperative
Agreements and amendments whose budget or
project periods- began before October 1, 1988.
II-l
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
III. STATE COST SHARE REQUIREMENTS
Policy
i
In order to comply with Section 9003(h)(7)(B) of Subtitle I,
.new or amended Cooperative Agreements that utilize FY 89 Trust
Fund monies must incorporate a minimum 10 percent State cost
share requirement for work done under the Cooperative Agreement.
The cost share requirement applies to FY 89 monies that are
awarded after January 24, 1989 (the effective date of the
"Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements for
Owners and Operators of Underground Storage Tanks — Subpart H,
Financial Responsibility"). Awards of Trust Fund Monies prior to
January 24, 1989 are not required to incorporate the cost share
provisions.
Guidance
The State cost share requirement begins with any award of FY
89 Trust Fund monies after January 24, 1989, the effective date
(not the "compliance" date) of the "Technical Standards and
Corrective Action Requirements for Owners and Operators of
Underground Storage Tanks — Subpart H, Financial
Responsibility." The date of the award is the date on which the
Regional Administrator makes a Cooperative Agreement offer to the
State. The cost share requirement does not apply to unspent FY
88 monies which the State may expend after January 24, 1989.
The State cost share percentage should be applied to the
total allowable cost (see Section IV, Allowable Costs) of the
program covered by the State's Cooperative Agreement. State
Cooperative Agreement work plans should reflect ? -otal prograr.
budget, a minimum 10 percent of which will be contributed by the
State. All expenditures under the Cooperative Agreement are
presumed to be shared on the -iame percentage basis as the overall
ratio* of Federal to State monies under the Cooperative Agreement.
The manner in which States provide their cost share is to be
negotiated with the Region and must be in compliance with the
grant requirements of 40 CFR Part 31. Acceptable methods for
cos- sharing include:
o contributions, e.g., staff and equipment; and
o direct, non-Federal funds expended or obligated by the
State, or a political subdivision of the State, for
cost-allowable activities.
III-l
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
Trust Fund expenditures that the State recovers from
responsible parties may also be used to satisfy the State's cost
share requirements. See Appendix A, Cost Recovery Policy for the
LUST Trust Fund, for more information on use of recovered funds.
The amount of the State's contribution should be negotiated
in advance and specified in the State's Cooperative Agreement.
If the State intends to use LUST Trust Fund cost recoveries to
assist in meeting its cost share requirement, it must be
specifically allowed for in the Cooperative Agreement. Use of
cost recovered funds in this way does not change the dollar
amount that the State agrees to provide as its cost share.
Regardless of the source of funds the State uses to satisfy it
cost share requirement, the State's contributions must be
verifiable from its records, in accordance with applicable grant
regulations. • . /
III-2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
IV. ALLOWABLE COSTS
Policy
Section 9003(h) of RCRA provides that Trust Fund monies may
be used for the following general categories of activities, both
before and after the promulgation of EPA's regulations for
underground storage tanks:
o corrective action;
o enforcement;
o cost recovery;
o exposure assessment;
o provision of temporary and permanent alternate water
supplies; and
o relocation of residents.
These general categories include the following specific
allowable activities:
o emergency response and initial site hazard
mitigation;
o investigation of suspected leaks and source
identification up to the time that a leak is
determined to come from an unregulated
source;
or exposure assessments to determine potential
health effects of a leak and the
establishment of corrective action
priorities;
o development, issuance, and oversight of
enforcement actions directed to responsible
owners/operators;
o cleanup of releases;
o long-term operation and maintenance of
corrective action measures;
o purchase and/or lease of equipment;
IV-1
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
o recovery of costs from liable tank owners and
operators; and
o reasonable and necessary administrative and
planning expenses directly related to these
activities.
The Trust Fund may only be used for addressing actual or
suspected petroleum releases from underground storage tank
systems subject to Subtitle I jurisdiction. This includes tanks
that EPA has exempted or deferred from regulation until a later
date in accordance with 40 CFR Part 280. The Trust Fund may not
be used to address releases from tanks that are statutorily
exempt from Subtitle I jurisdiction, although it may be used to
investigate suspected releases up to the time that a leak is
determined to come from a statutorily exempt source.
Allowable activities are limited to actions in response to an
existing or suspected release of petroleum from an UST. Thus, an
inspection ar.i nvestigation to assess the site of a ported
leak would be an allowable activity, but an inspectiua conducted.
as part of a routine or random inspection scheme would not be
allowable.
In addition, as noted in the Conference Report to the 1986
Subtitle I Amendments, staff or activities that enhance the
general technical or legal capabilities of a State and that are
not directly related to leaking petroleum USTs are not allowable.
Furthermore, Trust Fund money cannot be used to lobby the State
legislature to pass LUST legislation.
Costs incurred by States prior to the award of the
Cooperative Agreement with EPA will not be covered by the Trust
Fund and are net eligible for reimbursement.'
r»
Guidance
Alternative Water Supplies:
Temporary or permanent provision of water to protect human
health while waiting for corrective action measures to take
effect is clearly an allowable cost. It is conceivable that, in
some cases, the provision of a permanent alternative water supply
by the State will be necessary, and more cost-effective than
corrective action, relocation, or even extended "temporary"
provision of bottled or trucked-in water.' Allowable costs for
permanent water supplies are limited to the initial capital
costs, and do not include operation and maintenance costs of the
system.
IV-2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
As part of their decision-making process, States should
evaluate the cost-effectiveness of providing a permanent water
supply in comparison to other corrective action and clean-up
alternatives. When considering the cost of providing permanent
alternative water supplies the State should consider both the
total cost per site as well as the cost per affected household.
Relatively high total costs may be reasonable if large numbers of
households are affected.
Relocation of Residents:
Temporary relocation of residents is an allowable cost where
it is necessary to protect human health or where corrective
action activities cannot be undertaken safely while residents
remain in their homes. States should evaluate the cost
effectiveness of this measure versus other measures, such as a
temporary water supply or in-house air filtration or venting
units.
Permanent relocation should be considered an allowable cost
only under extreme circumstances in which permanent relocation is
the only available option for protecting human health or is the
most cost-effective option. If permanent relocation must be
undertaken, States must comply with the Uniform Relocation Act
(4-2 U.S.C. 4610 et. seq.) regarding property acquisition and
relocation of residents.
:Operation and Maintenance:
Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for corrective action
measures, other than permanent water supplies, are allowable
costs under the Trust Fund. States will use discretion in
deciding whether to fund O&M costs out of the Trust Fund or
through other means (e.g., responsible party contributions and
State^or local funds).
States will be responsible for setting priorities between
initiating cleanups at new sites or continuing O&M at old sites.
EPA's commitment is limited to providing money only for the work
identified in the Cooperative Agreement, and not to fully fund
sites where the State may choose to continue O&M. Further, EPA
cannot commit monies to States beyond the budget period.
IV-3
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
Purchase or Lease of Equipment:
Trust Fund monies may be used to purchase equipment if the
equipment is necessary for LUST Trust Fund corrective action or
enforcement activities. EPA generally approves equipment
purchases through the award of Cooperative Agreements. Planned
purchases of equipment should be included in the State's proposed
work plan, negotiated and agreed to by EPA and the State, and
reflected in the "Equipment" budget item under the Cooperative
Agreement. Thus, EPA does not anticipate the need for routine
approval by EPA of individual equipment purchases made by the
State that are reflected in the Cooperative Agreement budget.
However, any purchases of equipment that represent a substantial
change from the approved budget or work plan in the Cooperative
Agreement require prior approval from EPA.
Where corrective action equipment is purchased for use at a
single site, its cost should be attributed only to that site.
Equipment may be used at multiple sites, however. Where this
occurs, the costs of equipment that is over $10,000 should be
allocated among sites where the equipment is used for corrective.
action. An exception to this rule may be made for equipment used
at a large number of sites (e.g., response vehicles, field test
equipment) for which it would be impractical to allocate costs to
individual sites.
States should consult EPA's grant regulations for guidance in-
final disposition of equipment and supplies purchased with Trust
Fund monies.
IV-4
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
V. TRUST FUND USE AT GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
Policy
The Trust Fund ordinarily will not be used to address
petroleum UST releases from government facilities. Governmental
entities should be expected to meet their own obligations of
addressing environmental hazards for which they are the source.
The Trust Fund may be used if necessary, however, at Federal,
State, or local government UST facilities (subject to Subtitle I
jurisdiction) in the following limited situations:
o emergencies, including the mitigation of imminent
hazards, and
f
o site investigations, enforcement actions, and oversight
of responsible party (RP)-lead cleanups.
The Trust Fund may not be used for cleanups at Federal or State
UST facilities. The Trust Fund may, however, be used for
cleanups at local government facilities, if the State determines •
that the local entity is incapable of carrying out corrective
action properly. This policy does not convey additional
authorities to the State with regard to access to governmental
facilities nor is it intended to alter State policies with regard
to intergovernmental relations.
Guidance
Use of the Trust Fund for emergencies and mitigation of
imminent hazards is allowable because human health and the
environment should not be endangered if actions can be taken to
minimize it. The State, however, should pursue recovery of such
expenditures from the responsible government entity.
f -
As with other RPs, use of the Trust Fund for site
investigations, enforcement, and oversight of government entity-
lead cleanups results in desirable leveraging of Trust Fund
monies. Cost recovery of these expenditures should be consistent
with the cost recovery policy contained in Appendix A of these
guidelines.
V-l
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
The .Trust Fund may not be used for cleanups at Federal or
State UST facilities. EPA considers these entities (by
definition) to have the requisite financial strength to cover the
costs of taking corrective action and compensating third parties
in the event "of a release. The State should require these
entities to undertake and pay for the cost of cleanup, and should
take enforcement action if necessary.
The Trust Fund may be used for cleanups at local government
facilities, if the State determines they are incapable of
carrying out corrective action properly, and if the State decides
they are high priorities compared to other eligible sites. The
State should treat these entities as they would other responsible
parties. The State should first try to have the government
entity undertake and pay for the cleanup, and expect the entity
to have the required level of financial assurance. If the Trust
Fund is used, cost recovery should follow.
V-2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
VI. SOLVENCY OF OWNERS AND OPERATORS
Policy
Solvent responsible parties (RPs) are expected to undertake
and pay for corrective action, either voluntarily or in response
to corrective action orders. The level of financial
responsibility required to be maintained by owners and operators
is not a limitation of their liability. When a release is
discovered, States should first seek to identify the tank's owner
or operator and direct him to perform the cleanup at his expense.
Where time and circumstances permit, States should pursue RP
cleanups through enforcement mechanisms. States may rely on the
Trust Fund for cleanups when they cannot identify an RP who will
undertake action properly and promptly.
Solvency becomes a consideration when undertaking cost
recovery. With regard to the financial condition of responsible
parties, solvency is defined as the ability to pay financial
obligations as chey become due, including the costs c; corrective
action and cost recovery. In cost recovery situations, States
should view solvency in terms of how much an RP can afford to pay
without becoming insolvent. In pursuing cost recovery, States
should not impair the -ability of RPs to continue in business if
the RP complied with financial responsibility requirements and
there was no negligence or misconduct by the responsible party.
Guidance
Although.Congress intended that solvent owners and operators
take responsibility for releases from their tanks, if the State
determines that an RP is incapable "... of carrying out such
corrective action properly," it may use Trust Fund monies to take
corrective action. Several conditions may give rise to this
determination. For example, an RP may refuse to comply with a
request or order to take corrective action, or the RP may claim
he cannot afford the cost of cleanup. Another example is when
the costs of corrective action to be provided by the RP exceed
the required level of financial responsibility and the State
determines that expenditures from the Trust Fund are necessary to
assure an effective corrective action. If such sites are among
the State's priorities, the Trust Fund may be used for cleanup,
with a more detailed analysis of the RP's ability to pay
performed later, as part of the cost recovery process.
VI-1
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
For cost recovery, when a State is deciding whether and for
what dollar amount to pursue the RP, more scrutiny should be
given to solvency. In these cases, the State should view
solvency in terms of how much an RP can afford to pay without
becoming insolvent. (Pursuant to RCRA Section 9003 (h)(11),
however, States may not consider the RP's solvency, and are
directed by the statute to seek full cost recovery if the RP has
not complied with applicable financial responsibility
requirements.) The State may view the RP's ability to pay in
terms of a lump sum payment or on an installment basis, depending
on State preference.
The rationale for not forcing RP's to become insolvent is
found in the Congressional Conference Report for the Trust Fund
legislation:
"A full cost recovery is not intended where the owner or
operator has maintained financial responsibility as
required. . . and the financial resources of the owner or
operator (including the insurance or other methods of
financial responsibility which was maintained) are not
adequate to pay for the costs of a response without
significantly impairing the ability of the owner or operator
to continue in business."
This provision is not a legal defense for RPs against further
cost recovery where deemed appropriate, but it provides an
indication of Congressional intent, particularly when small
businesses are concerned.
See Appendix A, the LUST Trust Fund cost recovery policy, for
additional information.
VI-2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650:10
VII. STATE PROGRAM APPROVAL AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
A. Linking of Trust Fund with State Program Approval Process
Policy
States are expected to make reasonable progress during FY 89
toward submitting a completed application to EPA for approval of
their UST prevention, corrective action, and financial
responsibility programs under Section 9004 of RCRA. A State's
success in making reasonable progress toward submitting a
complete application may be grounds for increasing State access
to the Trust Fund in FY 90. .
Guidance
The long-term objectives of the Trust Fund clean-up and the
UST regulatory programs are to protect human'health and the
environment from releases caused by leaking USTs. Cleaning up
releases using the Trust Fund is an immediate need, but by itself
is a short-term and temporary solution. The long-term solution
is for States to develop prevention programs which, over time,
will result in fewer leaking tanks. States must also develop
financial assurance requirements or programs that will provide
funds for future cleanups.
Regions are encouraged to use the Trust Fund as an incentive
for States to develop prevention programs and apply for State
program approval. Regions should develop criteria to measure and
evaluate State progress. They shou'ld consider the degree of
progress in allocating Trust Fund monies to Stat.- - -n FY 90.
VII-1
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
VII. STATE PROGRAM APPROVAL AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
B. Relationship of the Trust Fund to EPA's Transition Strategy
Policy
Following promulgation of EPA's corrective action regulations
for underground storage tanks, States with Cooperative Agreements
will be asked to carry out activities to implement the Federal
regulations during the transition period prior to State program
approval. There are no plans for EPA to conduct corrective
action activities for petroleum UST releases in these States,
except in emergency situations where a State requests EPA
involvement in accordance with Section IX.B., Guidance for
Conducting Federal-Lead Underground Storage Tank Corrective
Actions.
Guidance
EPA has developed a Transition Strategy (OSWER Directive
9610.5, FY 1989-1990 Transition Strategy for the Underground
Storage Tank Program^ and Transition Tasks List (Draft OSWER
Directive 9610.5-1) that identify roles for EPA and the States
during the period of time between the effective date of the
Federal UST regulations 'and the dates State programs are
authorized by EPA to operate in lieu of the Federal program.
This strategy emphasizes program implementation by State and
local programs, with Federal resources in a supporting role. The
transition period will be characterized by the continued
development of State and local programs.
Activities that States carry out under their Trust Fund
Cooperative Agreements will provide implementation of the Federal
corrective action regulations during the transition period. The
minimum site-specific activities necessary to implement the
Federal corrective action program for petroleum USTs, as
specified in 40 CFR Parts 280.60-280.67, are allowable costs for
States to incur using the Trust Fund. It should be noted,
however, that conduct of these transition period tasks in no way
implies that a State's own program meets the "no less stringent"
or "adequate enforcement"•requirements of the State program
approval process under Section 9004 of RCRA.
VII-2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
VIII. STATE UST PROGRAMS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
A. State Capabilities
Policy
The legislation establishing the UST Trust Fund requires that
in order for States to participate in the program, EPA must
determine that they have "the capabilities to carry out effective
corrective action and enforcement activities" to protect human
health and the environment (Section 9003(h)(7)(A)(i)).
The State must have or obtain both the authority and
capability to carry out effective corrective action and
enforcement activities. The State must also establish corrective
action and enforcement policies and procedures that can be
applied to known or suspected releases from regulated underground
storage tanks.
Guidance
EPA Regions will evaluate State capabilities as part of the
Cooperative Agreement negotiating process. EPA's intent is to be
flexible in its determination of capability, states must certify
that they have the authority to carry out enforcement activities,
corrective actions, and cost recovery or provide a schedule and
plans for obtaining the necessary authority. However, a State
does not have to have authority to conduct all the activities of
the LUST Trust Fund Program in order to receive a Cooperative
Agreement. A State can receive a Cooperative Agreement if it
certifies that it has authority to conduct the activities
committed to in the work plan.
The Regions will evaluate the States' existing or potential
capabilities in these and other relevant areas. Given the widely
varying level of development of State UST cleanup programs, the
capabilities that will be expected immediately versus those that
can be developed over time will vary from State to State.
Enforcement:
To demonstrate its enforcement capabilities, the State should
describe its ex-.rting capabilities in this area, or a plan for
obtaining such capabilities in the Cooperative Agreement. The
description should include, at a minimum, identification of
existing or potential staff capabilities;, technical as well as
legal, to pursue enforcement activities, iand that staff's
previous experience in UST-related enforcement activities, as
well as ownership of or access to necessary equipment or
facilities.
VlII-l
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
The State should have a set of clearly defined enforcement
policies and procedures for addressing releases from petroleum
USTs, or a plan for developing such policies and procedures. The
policy and procedures should reflect the underlying philosophy of
the Trust Fund to first seek corrective action by the
responsible party, unless there is an imminent and substantial
endangerment of human health and the environment. EPA will
consider items such as proper identification of releases and
responsible parties, proper documentation of enforcement actions,
and timely and appropriate enforcement activity, in evaluating
the State's enforcement policy and procedures.
The State may use its best professional judgment and
enforcement discretion as long as they result in an effective
enforcement program.
Corrective Act Jon:
The State ^-. juld describe its existing corrective action
capabilities, or a plan for establishing such capabilities. The
description should include, at a minimum, the identification of
existing or potential staff capabilities, and ownership of or
access to necessary equipment or facilities. The description
may include capabilities such as':
o Emergency response and hazard mitigation;
• '
o Investigation of suspected leaks and identification of
the source;
o Comprehensive site investigations;
o Expos -are assessments to determine 'potential health
effec-cs;
9*
o Provision of alternative water supplies;
o Temporary or permanent relocation of residents;
o Development of corrective action plans; and
«
o Site cleanup, including removal, treatment, and
disposal of surface and subsurface contamination.
\
VIII-2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
Corrective actions are.often carried out by contractors, at
the direction of the State. As part of its capability
discussion, where applicable, the State should describe its plan
for securing the services of such contracting firms. This plan
should include types of activities, estimated funding, and time
frame for obtaining contractor services.
The State should describe its corrective action policies and
procedures, or plans, with milestones, for developing such
policies and procedures. This may include such items as a
generic response plan or decision-making framework for
corrective action, criteria for provision of alternative water
supplies or relocation of residents, exposure assessment
procedures, procedures for evaluation and selection of remedies,
and any cleanup standards that the State may wish to impose. The
State's corrective action policy should consider the
relationship between corrective actions that may be taken and the
need to protect human health and the environment.
Cost Recovery:
See Appendix A — Cost Recovery Policy for the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.
VIII-3
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
VIII. STATE UST PROGRAMS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
B. State Certification of Authority
Policy
There are three ways that a State can certify that it has
legal authority to carry out the activities committed to in the
work plan. First, the State can certify that it has specific
authorities similar to Section 9003(h) of RCRA. Secondly, the
State can certify that it has general state law authority
sufficient to carry out the work plan activities, (e.g..
authority to protect public health, to protect the environment,
or to protect any State interest). Thirdly, the State can
certify that it will use the authorities in RCRA Section 9003 (h)
to perform and require corrective action and Section
9003(h)(6) (A) to perform cost recovery. In making this type of
certification, the State must assure that use of the RCRA
authorities will not conflict with State law.
Guidance
In view of the State's expertise in interpreting State law,
EPA's role in review of the certification is not to "second
guess" a State interpretation of State law but rather only to
assure that major legal issues have not been overlooked.
The attorney general, or someone designated by the attorney
general, should either sign or concur in the certification*,
preferably before the Cooperative Agreement is awarded. If a
signature or'concurrence would significantly delay the awardir-.
of the Cooperative Agreement (i.e. . there are re " -.er issues
holding up the award), it is acceptable for someone other than
the AG/designee to sign the certification. • In this case, the
agreement must contain a special condition requiring submission
of thfe AG/designee's concurrence to EPA within a reasonable time,
not to exceed 120 days after the award of the agreement. The
person who signs at the time of award could be: 1) the head or
general counsel of the State environmental agency; 2) the head of
the division within the environmental agency that has direct
responsibility for administering the program; 3) the head of any
separate entity that may be responsible for administering the
program, such as the director of the State water control board.
* The assumption is that the Attorney General is the ultimate
interpreter of State law in the executive branch of the State.
In at least one State, however, the Attorney General is primarily
responsible for litigation, while there is also a General Counsel
to the Governor, who has responsibility for advising all
executive branch agencies on the scope of their authority. In
this situation, the State General Counsel could substitute for
the Attorney General.
VIII-4
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
If the concurrence of the AG/designee is not obtained within
the time specified in the Cooperative Agreement, payments of
Trust Fund money may be withheld, consistent with the
requirements of 40 CFR Part 31.
A State should notify EPA promptly of any reduction in its
authorities (e.g., successful challenge to its State statutory
authority) that may significantly inhibit its ability to ca.-ry
out the activities committed to in the Cooperative Agreement.
Amendment of the Cooperative Agreement or recertification may be
necessary in such circumstances.
VIII-5
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
VIII. STATE UST PROGRAMS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
C. State Program Work Plan
States are to submit a program work plan to EPA, which is
commensurate with the level of development of the State's
corrective action program for petroleum USTs. The work plan
shall include a budget and a description of proposed activities
and outputs to be accomplished with Trust Fund monies during the
State's Cooperative Agreement period. The budget should include
a breakdown of associated costs of each planned activity and
output. A proposed schedule for accomplishing each activity
should be included. Activities may include, but are not limited
to those mentioned in the following sections.
1. Core Program
Where certain basic program items do not currently exist, the
Cooperative Agreement may provide for their development.
Examples include:
o Develop a system for assigning priorities to sites;
o Establish enforcement policies and procedures;
o Secure contractor services to perform corrective
action;
o Establish cost recovery policies and procedures;
o Establish a site-by-site tracking system for
activities, decisions, and site-specific costs;
o Develop public participation procedures; and
Of Develop quality assurance practices.
2. Site-Specific Activities
The Cooperative Agreement should include a description of and
associated budget for those activities that States plan to
undertake at sites. It may include an estimate of ths number of
sites at which uhe State intends to undertake the various
specific activities, and/or identification of individual sites at
which specific work is contemplated. Examples of site-specific
activities include: . . "
o Emergency response;
VIII-6
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
o Source identification;
o Site investigation;
o Exposure Assessment;
o Soil and ground-water remediation;
o Provision of alternate water supplies;
o Resident relocation (temporary or permanent);
o Treatment, storage, and/or disposal of .wastes and
recovered materials; and
o Oversight of cleanups, including those performed by
responsible parties.
VIII-7
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
VIII. STATE UST PROGRAMS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
D. Federal Oversight - Program Appraisal Strategy
Federal Oversight
EPA will oversee State programs, both formally and
informally, in order to:
o Ensure adequate environmental protection through sound
administration and use of the Trust Fund;
o Enhance State capabilities through effective
communication, evaluation, and support; and
o Describe and analyze the progress of programs on a
regional and national scale.
EPA's Regional staff will have the primary responsibility for
oversight of State programs. Regions and States should maintain
a continuous dialogue so that States can communicate problems
encountered in meeting their commitments and Regions can be
responsive to State needs.
The Regions will formally review State programs at least once
a year. They will rely on required reports, State records, and
visits to the States to identify the successes and problems
encountered in State programs. Formal program reviews should
focus on overall performance rather than individual actions. To
the greatest'possible extent, reviews should be based on
objective measures, standards, and expectations that are agreed.
to in advance in the Cooperative Agreement.
Effective oversight entails the joint analysis of identified
problems to determine their nature, causes, and appropriate
solutions. It also requires that the Regions identify and
facilitate the transfer of successful approaches to other States
and Regions. Finally, information and insights gathered in
oversight activities should be used to refine subsequent
Cooperative Agreements.
VIII-8
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
Program Appraisal Strategy
In FY 89, EPA will begin to implement a formal program
appraisal system. The program appraisals will focus on balancing
oversight of State UST programs with service to the State's
needs. Guidance on the appraisal process is contained in the
OSWER directive 9610.6, The OUST Program Appraisal Strategy. The
types of reports that will continue to be part of EPA's appraisal
process are summarized below.
1) Quarterly Progress Reports, including:
a) Exception Reports;
b) Trust Fund Usage Forecasts; and
c) Financial Reports.
In quarterly progress reports for State Cooperative
Agreements, EPA is requesting that each State submit data
on activities that are supported by Trust Fund monies as
well as comparable information on the accomplishments of
the State's program as a whole. Exhibit 1 lists the
data elements that are contained in the FY 89 quarterly
progress reports. The required forms and instruction for
the quarterly progress reports are issued separately from
these guidelines, and will be updated arid revised as
necessary in the future.
All States should report in a timely and accurate fashion the
data needed for the quarterly activities report and the
Strategic Planning and Management System (SPMS) report for
the EPA UST program. Regions w'ij.1 need to relay this data ~ -
OUST/HQ within 10 working days of the end of •-'-. -h Federal
fiscal quarter. Regions and States may develop reporting
schedules that allow them to meet these'deadlines.
2fJ Financial Status Report SF 269 or 269A (year end) , and
Federal Cash Transactions Report SF 272 (quarterly).
The Office of the Comptroller is responsible for issuing
Agency financial policies and procedures for tracking the
LJST Trust Fund in the Agency's Financial Management System
(FMS). State UST Programs will be required to comply with
the Comptroller's interim financial policies and directives
for the LUST Trust Fund (where they do not conflict with
these guidelines), until such time as the State and EPA agree
to implement the provisions of the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Trust Fund State Financial Management Handbook,
scheduled for publication in January 1989. OUST will be
coordinating its program appraisals with the Comptroller's
fiscal review procedures as they are developed for FY 89.
VIII-9
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
Exhibit 1
FY 89 ACTIVITIES REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR U.S. EPA OFFICE OF
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
1. Number of Site Investigations Completed
2. Number of Emergency Responses Taken
3. Number of Sites Where Enforcement Actions Taken to Compel
Cleanup
4. Number of Sites Where Cost Recovery Initiated
5. Site Cleanups for Petroleum Releases—Initiated
a. Responsible Party-lead
' b. State-lead with Trust Fund money
c. State-lead with no Trust Fund money
6. Sites With Petroleum Releases—Under Control
a. Responsible Party-lead
b. State-lead with Trust Fund money
c. State-lead with no Trust Fund money
7. Site Cleanups for Petroleum Releases—Completed
a. Responsible Party-lead
b. State-lead with Trust Fund money
c. State-lead with no Trust Fund money
8. Exceptions Report (Identify by site where:)
aT State plans to use innovative or experimental
technology at the site
b. State plans to provide permanent alternative water
supply
c. State plans to permanently relocate residents
9. Forecasting Trust Fund Use;
Number of Sites with Confirmed Releases Where:
a. Owner/Operator has been identified
b. Owner/Operator is insolvent/incapable of conducting
timely clean-up f
c. Responsible Party search not completed
d. Search for Responsible Party unsuccessful
VIII-10
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
EXHIBIT 1 (cont'd)
FY 89 ACTIVITIES REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR U.S. EPA OFFICE OF
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
10. Financial Report
a. State plans to spend over $100,000 of Trust Fund money
at site; include amount
b. State has obligated over $100,000 of Trust Fund money
at a site; include amount
c. State actually spent over $100,000 of Trust Fund money
at a site; include amount
d. For any site, State reached a cost recovery settlement;
include amount
e. For any site, cumulative cost recovery payments
received; include amount
f. Optional: Aggregate State dollars outlayed for site
responses
VIII-11
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
IX. CORRECTIVE ACTION
A. Compliance with Corrective Action Regulations
Policy
Corrective actions taken after the effective date of the
Federal corrective action regulations (40 CFR Parts 280.60-
280.67) must be performed in a manner that is consistent with the
substantive requirements of the Federal regulations.
Guidance
This policy pertains to the actual performance of UST
cleanups. It is not intended to supplant the State program
approval process for corrective action. For example, States need
not have, at time of award, their own statutes and regulations in
place that are no less stringent than the Federal regulations.
Rather, States naed to assure that the actual cleanups performed,
either by RPs ^r the State, reflect the substantive requirements
of the Federal corrective action regulations, until approval of .
the State's program to operate in lieu of the Federal program.
IX-1
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
IX. CORRECTIVE ACTION
B. Guidance for Conducting Federal-Lead Underground Storage Tank
Corrective Actions
Policy
It is EPA's policy that, except in rare circumstances, Fund-
financed responses at underground storage tank petroleum releases
will be conducted by "States under Cooperative Agreement with EPA.
Most States will have broad programmatic Cooperative Agreements
to address emergency response and perform cleanups. In the
absence of such agreements, the Region and State should develop
site-specific Cooperative Agreements under which the State will
conduct corrective actions at individual sites. EPA will
undertake a corrective action only in instances where:
o there is a major public health or environmental
emergency;
o the State is unable to respond; and
o no responsible party is able or willing to provide an
adequate and timely response.
Federal-lead corrective action will be limited to stabilization
of the immediate situation, with the expectation that further
cleanup will be conducted by the State under an appropriate
Cooperative Agreement.
In addition to the criteria presented above, Federal-lead
response should also depend on the existence of one or more of
the following conditions indicative of a major public health or
environmental emergency:
o*' The release poses an immediate and substantial threat
of direct human, animal, or food chain exposure to
petroleum;
o The release poses an immediate threat of fire or
explosion;
o The release poses an immediate and substantial threat
to public drinking water supplies; or
o The release immediately threatens a significant
population or substantial amounts, of property, or poses
substantial threats to natural resources.
IX-2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
Obtaining Approval For Federal Response:
As specified in the OSWER Directive 9360.0-16A, Guidance for
Conducting Federals-Lead Underground Storage Tank Corrective
Actions. Federal UST corrective actions that initially cost over
$250,000, and ceiling increases that bring the cost of an action
over $250,000, require approval of the Assistant Administrator
(AA), Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). The
Office Director (OD) of the Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (OERR) will approve actions that initially cost up to
$250,000 and ceiling increases that bring the cost of an action
up to $250,000, with concurrence from the OD, Office of
Underground Storage Tanks (OUST). In addition, Regional
Administrators (RAs) may approve actions costing up to $50,000 in
acute, imminently life-threatening situations where response must
be initiated before Headquarters can be contacted. This
authority may be redelegated to Division Directors and On-Scene
Coordinators (OSCs).
Depending upon the nature of the emergency that exists,
response time requirements, and other relevant circumstances,
either a formal written approval process or an oral process (with
written follow-up) should be implemented. Headquarters approval
must be obtained prior to initiating corrective action whenever
possible. No-Federal-lead corrective action will be approved
unless an appropriate request is received from the State.
IX-3
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
IX. CORRECTIVE ACTION
C. State's Priority System for Addressing UST Releases
Policy
The State will ensure that a priority system for addressing
UST petroleum release sites is established and maintained vhich
incorporates the two priorities set forth in Section 9003(h) of
RCRA. These priorities are:
o releases which pose the greatest threat to human health
and the environment; and
o sites where the State cannot identify a solvent owner
or operator of the tank who will undertake action
properly.
The Cooperative Agreement will include a description of this
system or a schedule, with milestones, for developing one.
Guidance
The purpose of the State priority system requirement is to
ensure that sites addressed with Trust Fund monies provide the
greatest impact on protection of human health and the environment
and respond where private sector resources are inadequate. The
system does not have to be extensive, complex or numerical in
nature. Instead, it can use readily available information to
establish broad, general classes of priority. States may address
the "threat to human health and environment" criteria by
considering factors such as total population exposed, proportion
of the population affected in a community, number of drinking
water wells contaminated, proximity to a major aquifer, and
impact on sensitive populations or environmental areas. States
also Should develop methods for establishing capability and
solvency of owner/operators.
This requirement does not necessarily presume the need to
rank all UST releases in the State. Rather, it is a priority
system or scheme that should be used as a screening device to
assure that sites considered to be addressed with Trust Fund
monies are within the higher priority classes established by the
State.
IX-4
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
X. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Policy
Section 7004(b)(1) of RCRA requires that public participation
be provided for and encouraged by the States. In accordance with
this requirement, the State will take lead responsibility for
public notices, public meetings, and other public participation
activities that are related to State actions funded by the LUST
Trust Fund. Further, where corrective action is undertaken,
public participation activities must reflect the public
participation requirements of the Federal corrective action
regulations, 40 CFR Part 280.67.
The State also will have or will develop a public
participation policy for the State's LUST Trust Fund program.
The Cooperative Agreement will include a statement of this policy
or a schedule for developing one.
Guidance
The purpose of the requirement for public participation is to
promote two-way communication between the implementing agency and
the affected public by:
o Facilitating public understanding of State response
procedures and actions; and
o Encouraging public input into State response decisions
and schedules.
It is EPA policy that public participation activities be
appropriate to the circumstances of a release.
Th,e States may address the public participation requirement
by developing a policy for public involvement that recognizes the
nature of the Trust Fund program, that is, relatively numerous,
short-term and small-scale responses. This is in contrast to
programs involving far more complex facilities and decision
making such as the RCRA Subtitle C permitting program for
hazardous waste facilities, or the Superfund remedial action
program. Also, the State-should consider the public's
willingness to "]low emergency actions without prior
consultation, but understand that the public may.demand
information on and input into long-term responses to health
threats. Thus, a State's public participation policy should be
based on the severity of the threat to human- health and the
environment posed by a release, the scale and duration of the
response, and the level of public interest:
X-l
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
At a minimum, the State's public participation policy must
reflect the requirements of 40 CFR Part 280.67. For each
confirmed release that requires a Corrective Action Plan (as
directed by the State), the State must notify the public and
provide access to site release information. The State must also
provide public notice if implementation of the Corrective Action
Plan does not achieve the established cleanup levels and the
State is considering terminating the plan.
X-2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
XI. STATE'S QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
Policy
The State will develop and implement quality assurance
practices in accordance with EPA's Uniform Administrative
Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements, 40 CFR Part
31.45. The regulation requires the development and
implementation of quality assurance practices that will "produce
data of quality adequate to meet project objectives and to
minimize loss of data due to out-of-control conditions or
malfunctions."
Guidance
The purpose of a quality assurance (QA) program is to ensure
that procedures for data collection and analysis are appropriate
for the uses of that data, and, in particular, for
environmentally related measurements, to provide data that are
scientifically valid, defensible, and of adequate and known
precision and accuracy.
Because the underground storage tank program deals with a
known substance (petroleum), quality assurance procedures and
methodologies normally should not have to be as extensive or as
complex as those for a program where the pollutants can be of
many types, often initially unknown. In the vast majority of
situations, as opposed to the Superfund remedial action program,
UST cleanups will deal with known petroleum materials and •
established procedures for corrective action. Accordingly, the
details of the State's QA procedures should be appropriate to the
circumstances of the releases for which the QA procedures will be
.applied, "and should be designed to meet State program objectives.
For States desiring additional information, guidance on
quality-assurance is provided in EPA document QAMS-004/80;
"Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing Quality Assurance
Program Plans" (EPA 600/8-83-024). This is available from the
National Technical Information Service, NTIS Publication No.
PB 83-219667.
XI-1
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
XII. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
APPLICATION
This section summarizes the basic administrative requirements
for a State Cooperative Agreement application. The regulations
discussed in this section are:
A. Nondiscrimination in EPA Assistance Programs - 40 CFR
Part 7;
B. Intergovernmental Review - 40 CFR Part 29;
C. . Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and
Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments -
40 CFR Part 31; and
D. Debarment and Suspension under EPA Assistance Program -
40 CFR Part 32.
The discussion that follows provides a brief description of the
requirements contained in each of the above regulations that are-
most pertinent to Trust Fund Cooperative Agreements. For
additional guidance and a comprehensive review of EPA's
administrative requirements for assistance under a Cooperative
Agreement, refer to EPA's Assistance Administration Manual
(available through the EPA Grants Administration Division).
A. NONDISCRIMINATION IN EPA ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS - 40 CFR PART 7
Prohibits discrimination based on race, color, sex, or
handicap. Requires applicants to submit an assurance of non-
discrimination (compliance with Part 7) with a Cr ..rarative
Agreement application. The current Part 7 has incorporated the
requirements previously under .Par^ 12 (The Clean Water Act).
B* INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - 40 CFR PART 29
Gives States the option of setting up a State process to
review and comment upon applications for Federal assistance. May
involve comment by State, area-wide, or local governmental units.
EPA must respond to comments. Requires 60 day comment period
before award. Part 29 implements Executive Order 12372.
C. UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTS AND
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Provides numerous basic requirements'concerning application
for award and management of assistance agreements. The most
relevant of these, at this stage of program development are:
XII-1
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
31.20 Provides that States expend and account for grant funds
in accordance with State laws and procedures for
expending and accounting for its own funds;
31.21 Discusses methods of making payments to recipients;
31.22' Discusses applicable cost principles and limitations on
use of Federal funds;
31.23 Discusses period of allowability of funds;
31.24 Discusses State match and cost sharing provisions;
31.25 Discusses use of program income (this section is
particularly relevant to cost recoveries of Trust Fund
expenditures);
31.32 Specifies that a State will use, manage, and dispose of
equipment in accordance with State laws and procedures;
31.36 Specifies that for procurement, a State will follow the
same policies and procedures it uses for procurements
from its non-Federal funds;
31.40 Details grantees responsibility to monitor grant and
subgrant supported activities and report program
performance;
31.41 Provides basic requirements for financial reports.
Reports may be required no more frequently than
quarterly, per OMB Circular. Standard forms for
Financial Status Reports (SF-269 or SF-269A) must be
submitted to EPA within 90 days after the end of the
budget period. Final reports are'due 90 days after the
expiration or termination of the Cooperative Agreement;
* and
31.45 Discusses Quality Assurance requirements.
D. DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION UNDER EPA ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS -
40 CFR PART 32
Provides rules for suspension and debarment of contractors
from utilization under EPA assistance programs (also direct
procurement). If a contractor is suspended or debarred, he may
not participate in an EPA assistance program. EPA's Grants
Administration Division maintains a list of such contractors.
XII-2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.10
LUST TRUST FUND
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT GUIDELINES
APPENDIX A
Cost Recovery Policy for
the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
(OSWER Directive 9610.10)
A-l
------- |