Interim Final Quick Guidance on Preparation of Superfund Memoranda of Agreement (SMOAs)

FILE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9375.0-01
MAY g 1389
MEMORANDUM
C« CE
SOLiO WASTE AND EME
S LJBJECT:

FROM:
Interim Final Guidance on Preparation of Superfund Memoranda of
Agreement (SMOAs)

Henry L. Longest n. Director *7V*WlC~lV.
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Bruce M. Diamond,
Office of Waste Programs Enf
ment
TO:
Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I. IV. V. VH. and VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region n
Director. Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions HI, and VI
Director, Toxic and Waste Management Division
Region DC
Director. Hazardous Waste Division
Region X

Attached is Interim Final Guidance on Preparation of Superfund Memoranda of Agreement
(SMOAs). The Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) and the Office of
Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE) issued a draft of this guidance on October 23,
1987. The draft guidance was revised in September. 1988. The revised draft guidance
adopted a less legalistic tone than the earlier draft guidance, and clearly indicated that the
content of a SMOA may be adapted to the needs of a particular State and the respective EPA
Region. It also explained that EPA and the States may (and in certain situations, must) use
SMOAs to record or establish general program coordination procedures. SMOAs should
not be attached to site-specific or non-site-specific funding transfer mechanisms. The
Interim Final Guidance has incorporated the comments received from the reviewers on the
revised draft guidance.

PURPOSE:

The SMOA is a result of EPA's continuing effort to improve the quality of communication
with States in the conduct of the Superfund Program. SMOAs are currently not required
under either the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986 (SARA), or under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). They will not be required under the proposed NCP except when
States wish to recommend the remedy or to be the lead agency for nonfund-financed
activities at NPL sites. Consequently, the guidance does not describe Superfund operating
procedures, but rather suggests what a SMOA might contain and how it might be
organized.

-------
9375.0-01

The SMOA is a non-site-specific consultation mechanism that has been proposed in the
NCR It should be designed to help EPA and the States avoid contention regarding site-
specific cleanup efforts through prior, mutual agreement on general roles and
responsibilities. While clearly defining these responsibilities, however, the SMOA should
avoid a legalistic tone or style. The SMOA is not a legally enforceable document, and it
cannot transfer Federal monies or authority to a State. A SMOA cannot alter or circumvent
CERCLA statutory requirements or other regulations which impact EPA/State assistance
relationships (i.e., Superfund Cooperative Agreements).

The SMOA's purpose is to facilitate communication, affirming or resulting in a mutual
understanding between EPA and a State of each party's roles and responsibilities during
CERCLA response activities. It may be necessary to detail these roles and responsibilities
in the SMOA if a State has not been heavily involved in remedial response activities prior to
development of the SMOA. EPA should agree to enter SMOA discussions at a State's
request if the State has the capability to undertake lead agency response activities, but EPA
may not impose a SMOA on a State.

BACKGROUND:

SARA expanded the scope of State involvement in all phases of hazardous site response
under CERCLA. This increased emphasis on the EPA/Sate partnership has highlighted the
need for EPA and States to document their operation and interaction procedures to increase
efficiency and minimize duplication of effort in conducting the Superfund program. The
SMOA is one of many mechanisms which should be used by EPA and States to achieve
maximum benefit and flexibility from increased State involvement in the Superfund
Program. EPA's Guidance on Program Analysis for Remedial Decision-Making, currently
being drafted by OERR, will provide a framework within which EPA and a State may
discuss the level of involvement of the Suite in remedial zctivities, allowing them to agree
upon program-building steps the State might take to increase its rote as a lead agency. Core
Program Cooperative Agreements (CPCAs) transfer Superfund money to States to fund
non-site-specific administrative and program support activities. Cooperative Agreements
(CAs), on the other hand transfer Superfund money to State or local governments to
conduct specified site-specific response activities. The relationship of these regulations,
policies and guidances to die SMOA is discussed further in the following paragraphs.

Relationship Between SMQAs and the NCP:

The SMOA articles provided as examples in the draft guidance correspond to the major
points of EPA/State interaction to be set forth in the proposed NCP. A SMOA should
indicate die respective procedures that EPA and the State intend to use in carrying out
provisions of the proposed NCP. A State and EPA may agree, in a SMOA, to alter certain
review periods otherwise prescribed in die proposed NCP in die absence of a SMOA (see
Section 300503 (aX4) and 300 J15 (h)(3) of the proposed NCP). The attached matrix
"Analysis of SMOA Relationship to the Proposed NCP" summarizes those points of
EPA/State kdacction for which die proposed NCP provides greater flexibility when a
SMOA has been signed, ft should be noted that the proposed NCP will be subject to public
review and may change prior to issuance in final form.

While SMOAs completed during the next several months may require revision following
promulgation of a final NCP, this "timing" problem need not detract from the constructive
role SMOAs can play in improving the quality of EPA/State interaction. The value of
establishing or improving channels of communication through the SMOA process should
outweigh die inconvenience of a SMOA revision.
ii

-------
¥375.0-01
Positive changes in State program sophistication and response capabilities are desirable
developments, and more frequent SMOA modifications may be necessary for States whose
programs and capabilities are evolving rapidly. Frequent communication is especially
critical under these circumstances. For States already heavily involved in die EPA/State
partnership under CERCLA, the body of die SMOA may require significant revisions only
when necessitated by changes in State or Federal laws or regulations, or when desired by
the parties.

Relationship Between SMQAs and CPCAs:

EPA and States should consider carefully how SMOAs and non-site-specific CPCAs may
work together as pan of an overall strategy to improve communication and response
capabilities. A SMOA is optional except in those cases mentioned above, and is not a
condition of eligibility for receipt of Core Program funding. Funding for SMOA
development is an allowable expenditure under a CPCA, however, and States may request
CPCA monies before commencing SMOA discussions.

The SMOA and the CPCA are independent documents. The CPCA is a legally binding
assistance agreement that provides funding for non-site-specific Superfund support
activities. The purpose and scope of die CPCA is not coterminous with the SMOA. If
there are agreements between EPA and a State during SMOA discussions relating to the
functional tasks funded in the CPCA. which EPA desires to make binding, these points
may be-addressed in CPCA negotiations, separate from any SMOA agreement.

If EPA and a State agree during SMOA development that the State shall be responsible for
certain non-site-specific activities or tasks, and if such tasks are to be funded through a
CPCA, EPA may request diat die State include these activities in die work plan to be
submitted in its application for CPCA funds.

For example, the State Office of Attorney General (AG) may provide general legal support
critical to a particular State lead agency's involvement in overall CERCLA implementation.
The potential level of involvement of die State lead agency depends, in pan, on the capacity
of the AG to provide adequate and timely general non-site-specific legal support to die
program. EPA and the State lead agency may agree to delineate in a SMOA the nature and
extent of AG involvement in the State's overall Superfund program. To ensure that the AG
has sufficient capacity to provide fftquag support to the State lead agency, EPA or die
State may suggest that those non-site-specific tasks to be performed by the AG. as
explained in the SMOA. be included in the lead agency's CPCA work plan.

In the CPCA work plan, the State lead agency must identify the particular non-site-specific
tasks the AG will perform, and it must indicate the dollar amounts requested for those
tasks. Any CPCA funding subsequently awarded to the State lead agency for these tasks
may then be "passed through" by the State lead agency to the AG. Site-specific funding for
AG activities must be included in, and charged against, a separate Cooperative Agreement
(CA) negotiated for a particular site.

Relationship Between SMOAs and Guidance on Program Analysis for Remedial Decision-
Making:

The scope of the national hazardous waste problem which EPA is mandated to address has
expanded dramatically since die inception of the Superfund Program. EPA has recognized
that despite die increase in size of me Hazardous Substance Superfund, availability of EPA
staff and funding has not kept pace with die demands placed upon these resources. In
in

-------
9375.0-01

addition. CERCLA. as amended, mandatrs that EPA will provide "for substantial and
meaningful involvement by each State in initiation, development, and selection of remedial
actions to be undertaken in that State" (Section 121(f)). The SMOA facilitates greater
involvement by States in remedial activities, and helps to avoid duplication of EPA and
State efforts. EPA must be certain that the quality and consistency of cleanup efforts are
achieved and maintained.

In determining whether a State should accept additional lead agency responsibility, EPA
and the State should examine resource availability nnd legal authorities. To address this
issue, the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) is developing "Draft
Guidance on Program Analysis for Remedial Decision-Making." The guidance will help
EPA and the State allocate lead responsibility for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RJ/FS) and Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA). and possibly for drafting
of the Record of Decision (ROD). The primary purpose of the program analysis process is
to provide a sound basis upon which EPA and a State may make lead agency designations.
EPA and State resources are used less efficiently when a State accepts greater remedial
responsibilities than its resources or expertise will allow or when EPA oversight is greater
than necessary. The secondary purpose of the process is to assist a State in identifying
aspects of its program which may require additional resources or exr irtise if the State
wishes to assume a greater level of responsibility for remediation of sites within its
boundaries.

In addition to assuming lead agency status for RI/FS and RD/RA. a State must have a
SMOA in place to recommend a remedy for EPA concurrence. Through the SMOA. EPA
and a Sate can agree on their respective roles regarding the major points of program
management and interaction, and may establish or improve an ongoing communication
process. In utilizing die program analysis process on an annual basis. EPA and a State
may agree on the optimal level of involvement by a State, and on whether the State seeks or
desires that level of involvement

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Comments on the Revised Draft were received from three Regions. While some reviewers
suggested clarifications and wording changes, the major theme of the comments was
concern regarding implementation of the concurrence concept. This concept is explained in
the Preamble to the Proposed NCP; the Interim Final Guidance incorporates the concept in
a manner consistent with the Proposed NCP. The following comments are representative
of concerns expressed by EPA Regions.

(1) Comment:

".. .why not say that States are not given the blanket "ok" to select the remedy but can, on
a site-specific basis, be designated under a cooperative agreement to have this role?"

Disposition:

We agree, and we have tried to indicate throughout the guidance that lead designations must
be agreed upon by EPA and the State on a site-specific basis as part of the annual planning
process. The SMOA represents general agreement between EPA and a State regarding their
responsibilities when in lead and support agency roles, and their coordination procedures.
usually independent of site-specific lead designations. Indeed, the general terms in a
SMOA may be altered in a site-specific Cooperative Agreement, if necessary. An
attachment to the SMOA may document lead designations, to be updated annually.
IV

-------
9375.0-01

Furthermore, the following language from the Preamble to the Proposed NCP explains that
States are not provided the "blanket ok" to select remedies at NPL sites:

Under tfaia approach (concurrence), a State can recommend a remedy for EPA
concurrence and adoption only when a SMOA is established. Through the
annual planning process, EPA and the States will designate at which State-
lead sites the State will prepare the ROD for EPA concurrence and adoption.

EPA intends to implement selectively the process of State preparation of
RODs for EPA concurrence and adoption at State-lead Fund-financed sites,
since this process is not necessarily applicable to all States, nor for all sites
within a State. Sites will be selected where the circumstances at the particular
site warrant less EPA involvement and the State has demonstrated its
capability to conduct remedial response actions in an effective and responsible
manner. (Preamble, Subpan F, A, #9)

(2) Comment:

"EPA should retain an approval role over selection of remedy regardless of whether it has a
lead or support role."

Disposition:

We agree. However, a distinction must be made in this regard between non-Fund-financed
State-lead enforcement sites and Fund-financed State-lead sites. EPA and a State may
agree that certain sites will be designated non-Fund-financed State-lead enforcement
actions. At such sites, a State may proceed without EPA concurrence, though concurrence
is advisable as an inducement to PRPs to settle with the State, to avoid the need for
additional actions, to expedite the deletion process, etc.

The following language from the Proposed NCP demonstrates the need for EPA approval
of States' recommended remedies for Fund-financed sites:

Unless EPA concurs in writing with a State-prepared ROD, EPA shall not be
deemed to have approved the State decision. A State may not proceed with a
Fund-financed response action unless EPA has first concurred in and adopted
the ROD. [(300J15(eX2)(ii)J

Thus EPA does retain an approval rote when it is acting as support agency and Federal
funds are being used.

We believe mat the Interim Final Guidance is consistent with die NCP in this regard. For
example, concerning review and oversight of response process deu'verables. Pan
300.505(a) (3) of the NCP states the following:

The SMOA may describe general requirements for EPA oversight Oversight
requirements may be more specifically defined in cooperative agreements.

-------
9375.0-01

Furthermore, in Part 300.505(aX4Xi):

The SMOA may describe the general nature of lead and support agency
interaction regarding the review of key documents and/or decision points in
ore-remedial, remedial, and enforcement response. The requirements for
EPA and State review of each other's key documents when each is serving as
the support agency shall be equivalent to the extent practicable.

Attachment 1 of the Guidance simply provides a sample format for support agency review
of deliverables. EPA Regions and States may agree to their own base review levels and
time-frames as appropriate.

(3) Comment::

"Enforcement language (in die Guidance) should specify that States may be designated
enforcement lead roles if EPA determines that they have sufficient authorities."

Disposition:

The Interim Final Guidance indicates that EPA and a State must agree on their respective
enforcement roles and responsibilities. However, if necessary. EPA makes the final
determination with regard to formal site-specific lead status, and die nature of State legal
authorities comprise a significant element in this consideration. As stated in the Guidance
(p.8), This article ("Enforcement") should also reference State enforcement authorities
and the degree of reciprocity between the State and EPA."

(4) Comment:

"U.S. EPA cannot delegate RPM statutory authorities to a State Project Manager.
Therefore, the SMOA should not designate the State Project Manager on a State-lead site as
the RPM."

Disposition:

First, neither SMOAs nor other EPA-State agreements delegate or transfer EPA statutory
authorities under CERLA. Second, in Pan 300.5 of the Proposed NCP. "Remedial Project
Manager" (RPM) is defined as: "... die official designated by the lead agency to
coordinate, monitor, or direct remedial or other response actions under Subpart E of the
NCP.". This new definition makes the terminology for Federal (including EPA and other
agencies and departments) and State project managers consistent, and is a logical outgrowth
of EPA's concurrence concept. Application of the term "RPM" to State personnel does not
convey EPA authorities. Site-specific agreements defining the scope of lead agency
authorities and responsibilities may further define the rotes of, if appropriate.
VI

-------
ANALYSIS OF SMOA RELATIC 4IP TO THE PROPOSED NCP
93750-01
NCP Citation Sublet
$3ooieo
-------
9375.0-01
NCP Citation
§300 505{b)|2)|«) '
§300505(bM2)|i»)
§300SOS*y to ml $hv» and timing ol
ptfjvntnff.

Planning agency rob during EPA bad.
Fund-financed remedM planning activities
may be documented in a SMOA and may
unbse a CA h wvd*d tar support
_^Lj»!_ —
•CHMOM.
Suto ImdvwMrt in RYFS SMOA «• «pwiry consulalion pfonss
nquiring had agMicy to soldi potato!
ARARs and MOMSMV TBCt al tpvcilad
poHs in ttw MMdW planning and laotady
(•faction prooMS.
agancy nspons* to bad agtncy laquasts.
Slaj« iwoKamart in RwnadiaJ Tha bad and support agandas thai
Adiom oondudajoWinspacJiondFurKMnancad
f»mad1a> «nh> conctoion ol comnidion
ol ttw ivnady, pnor to Nw oparational and
hmfeMl phan ol MM ramadiaj action.
iiJJ UJC 1 I'f^ ' »»^» V.J1-U i'
Advantage ol a SMOA

unnMMsarylnttepuipottwtttnaSUOAis
usad.
Note! SSCs an navw naadad tot lamadial
planning.
LangNi ol torn and points ol raquasi lor
idtrMcatonot ARARs and TBCt may IM
MUbishad in a SMOA. SMOA may thortm or
ARAR **t*K*m, and may sotd ARARs
laojuvaajanls.
SMOA oouU ancouraga *Ht ml RA
irtataction.
•^r
Action In Absence ol a SMOA

Slate agency nvowemenl must be
documented on a sie-speahc basis by other
means, i •.. Mlei or CA.
Support agancy must identity ARARs within
thirty (30) tMrtang days at two stages ol the
process: (1) afc* site chaiaderiialion and
(?) after prelimnary screening ol
alternatives.

f300.S15(h)
StatolrwolverMnlinAlMenn
dSMOA
hi tie absMioe ol a SMOA. the tatnmg
requiremenls tor Slate invcrvemenl hi
-------
9375001
ANALYSIS OF SMOA RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROPOSED NCR
NCP Cllallon Subject
Proposed NCR
Advantage ot • SMOA
Action In Absence of • SMOA
§300SI5(h)(l)
EPA/State OMisuftaf ions writ occur, at
toast annual*, lo eslaMsn priorities and
document in writing the toads for
temedul rasponsas in the upcoming
feat.,
H a SMOA is used. EPA and Ihe Stale may
commit lo consul mote often and specify fa
consutahon arrangements and lha lole Stales
may play in establishing pantos.
EPA and the Stale ml consuil at least
anoualy EPA w* direct Ihe consultation
piocess. Ihe basis lor priority selling, and
Slate Jnvorvemed m the piocess.
§300SI5(h)(2)
§3005l5(h)|3)
Support agency that respond lo
requests hi ARARs within tlwly (30)
tniking fays of receipt of me toad
agency* request.
II a SMOA is used. EPA and Ihe Slate may
agree lo a (Wtefert lime km* lor ARAR
identification and communication.
Support agency must communicale ARARs
within thirty (30) working days and at two
ports m the process.
State Hi flaw • minimum of ten ( 1 0) and
a iMiifnwn of M«m fl5/ working days
on EP>l*jd(toois«i documents Star*
vi tw prorated w*n fw (S). tut not
more tftan tan (10) making days to
nwwv and cemmtnt on Proposed Ptani
N a SMOA is used. EPA and Ihe Slate may
agree to different paiamelers tor Ihe review
period.
Stale must review documents within ten (10)
lo twenty (20) working days. No extensions
should be granted. Stale must review and
comment on Proposed Plans within live (S) lo
ten (10) working days. No extensions
alowed.
§3005l5(i)
Aonwmkalwe Record
RequierMnis
When a SMeb fa bad agency tor a
FumJ-toanotd response ilwi be
nsponsMe to oomping and maintaining
Iw Admrtrtralive Record unless otherwise
fjMdadinlwSUOA.
When fa Stale is fa lead agency br a
Fund-inanced response. EPA may compie fa
AdriMMlralive Hecoro
I EPA and fa Slate mutuaty agree to
tiisinfaSMOAar fay may agree to any
other interaction on fa Admnirtrattve Record.
The Stale, as lead agency, must maintain the
Administrative Record
-------
9375.0-01
INTERIM FINAL GUIDANCE ON PREPARATION OF
SUPERFUND MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Interim Final Guidance on Preparation of Superfund Memoranda of Agree-
ment (SMOAs) provides a general framework for SMOAs, while allowing for
considerable flexibility in their preparation. The SMOA articles discussed
correspond to the major points of EPA/State interaction set forth in the pro-
posed National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP). A SMOA should indicate the respective procedures that EPA and the
State intend to use to carry out the proposed NCP.

The SMOA is intended to establish and/or clarify a working partnership
between the lead and support agencies for hazardous substance responses, as
authorized under Section 121 (0(1) of die Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA). It
should clearly define program roles and responsibilities. The SMOA is not a
legally enforceable document, and it cannot transfer money or authority to
either a State or EPA. A SMOA cannot alter or circumvent CERCLA statu-
tory or regulatory requirements, although the State and EPA may agree, in a
SMOA, to modify certain proposed NCP minimum requirements where the
proposed NCP so allows. EPA should agree to enter SMOA discussions if
requested by a State, but EPA may not require a State to negotiate a SMOA.
EPA may also draft SMOAs with Federally-recognized "Indian tribes" [(as
defined in CERCLA Sec. 101 (36)). see OSWER Directive 9375.5-02: "In-
terim Final Guidance on Indian Involvement in the Superfund Program"].
BACKGROUND
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) ex-
panded the scope of State involvement in all phases of hazardous site response
under CERCLA. This increased emphasis on me EPA/State partnership has
highlighted the need for States and EPA to document their operating and
interaction procedures in the Superfund program. The SMOA concept was
developed to enhance communication between EPA and a State, and to
clarify their respective roles and expectations with regard to the CERCLA
response process.
PURPOSE OF
GUIDANCE
The purpose of this guidance is to assist the States and EPA Regions in devel-
oping SMOAs. SMOAs are generally optional and are not currently required
under either the NCP or CERCLA. The following document provides direc-
tion and guidance on preparation of a SMOA, to those States that choose to
draft and sign one. As such, this guidance does not describe Superfund
operating procedures, but rather provides suggestions on what SMOAs may
-1-
-------
9375.0-01
contain and how they should be organized. EPA has developed this guidance
as part of its effort to improve the quality of communication between Federal
and State governments.

A SMOA is a management tool used to clarify the processes and procedures
necessary to implement the Superfund program at both the Federal and State
levels. These procedures are then implemented under, or can serve as the
basis for developing, site-specific cooperative agreements (CAs) or Superfund
State Contracts (SSCs). They can also serve as the basis for developing site-
specific EPA/State enforcement agreements at non fund-financed National
Priorities List (NPL) sites (e.g., State-lead enforcement). The SMOA shall
not be construed to restrict in any way EPA's authority to fulfill its oversight
and enforcement responsibilities under CERCLA, as amended, or under the
NCP or EPA assistance regulations. Unlike CAs and SSCs, however, SMOAs
are not legally binding documents and may not be used to provide CERCLA
assurances or to transfer Superfund monies. Furthermore, the SMOA may not
be used to alter or circumvent CERCLA statutory requirements.

The signatory parties may review the SMOA at least once a year, during the
annual review/planning process. It may be modified, in writing, upon the
request of either of parties. All modifications to the SMOA must be mutually
agreed upon in writing.

If drafted well, the body of a SMOA may not require significant revisions,
except when there are changes in State or Federal laws and regulations. Sor
SMOAs currently under development may require modest modification utter
the NCP is finalized. The prospect of future revisions need not detract from
the constructive role SMOAs can play in improving the quality of EPA/State
interaction.

The following guidance presents a sample approach that States and EPA
Regions may use to develop State-specific SMOAs. The SMOA articles
presented here correspond to the major points of EPA/State interaction set
forth in the proposed NCP. The examples, printed in italics throughout the
document, illustrate one of many possible responses to these articles. The
SMOA should indicate the respective procedures that EPA and the State
intend to use in carrying out proposed NCP and other CERCLA requirement
States and EPA Regions need not replicate this guidance in developing their
SMOAs. The guidance attempts to consider the major issues and points of
EPA/State contact involved in a Superfund program. These topics should be
considered during SMOA development and may be included in State-speutx
SMOAs.
-2
-------
SMOA
CONTENTS
^375.0-ui
A SMOA should contain several major sections including an introduction, a
statement of purpose, an agreement concerning roles and responsibilities,
signatures, and attachments, as necessary. These are described more fully
below.
INTRODUCTION The introduction to the SMOA should include the names of the Federal and
State agencies that are party to the SMOA. and should identify the statutory
and regulatory authorities under which response activities are to be conducted
(e.g., Federal and State statutes and regulations). This paragraph should also
contain a statement emphasizing that the SMOA is not a legally enforceable
document
STATEMENT OF Each SMOA should contain a statement of purpose. This statement delineates
PURPOSE the respective roles and responsibilities of each party as they relate to the
conduct of the Superfund program cleanup at hazardous waste sites in the
State.

SMOAs may serve many purposes; they are primarily intended to do the
following:

• Identify the EPA/State relationship with respect to Superfund pro-
grammatic activities in order to construct and/or maintain a coopera-
tive working relationship that best serves EPA and State interests;

• Define the process to designate the "lead agency" and "support
agency" and the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) and Support
Agency Coordinator (SAC) for each NPL site (these terms are defined
in Subpart A of the proposed NCP);

• Define die process to designate sites for which the lead agency will
request die support agency's concurrence on the recommended rem-
edy;

• Identify procedures for close cooperation and communication between
EPA and the State in planning response activities (annual planning
process) so that the annual planning process will lead to optimal use of
the parties' resources, minimizing conflicts and duplication of effon in
conducting site-specific response activities;

• Identify the base level for review and oversight of site-specific techni-
cal deliverables, reports, studies, or other pertinent materials and
documents;

• Outline die general procedures the Parties will follow when interacting
with Federal facilities; if a particular Federal facility in the state is not
involved, this should be noted.
-3-
-------
9375.0-01
Set the general framework for the EPA/State relationship, so chat site-
specific EPA/State communication is enhanced; and

Help structure interaction between EPA/State to foster response
activities that are conducted in a manner consistent with CERCLA,
proposed NCP, and applicable State laws and regulations.
AGREEMENT
CONCERNING
ROLES AND RE-
SPONSIBTLITIES
The actual agreements identified and explained in the SMOA may be struc-
tured in several different ways. For example, an explanation of the planning
and coordination process might be very lengthy, whereas an article discussing
lead agency designation might be simple and concise. The following subsec-
tions provide suggestions on content for the SMOA articles. These are only
examples and may be adapted to meet your specific needs.
Lead State Agency
Designation
Thu article of the SMOA identifies which State agency is the lead State
agency for Superfund program activities, as required by Subpart B of the pro-
posed NCP. The lead State agency will be the State representative (i.e., the
single point of contact with EPA) for all Superfund hazardous waste site
responses. The article may also identify the other State agencies and parties
that may have a significant role in response and with whom the lead State
agency may coordinate. Examples include the State public health organiza-
tion, the State Attorney General's Office, the Federal and State Natural Re-
source Trustees, Section 104 (b)(20) of CERCLA, as amended.
Site-Specific Des- This article of the SMOA establishes a timeframe and procedure for designat-
ignation of Lead/ ing site-specific lead and support agencies and details a process for reviewing
Support Agency and making appropriate lead/support agency designation changes. The factors
considered when making a lead decision can also be listed.

A sample article is presented below.

If the State applies for the lead agency designation, EPA will, after consul-
tation with the State, make a final decision. Some factors EPA will con-
sider in selecting the lead agency are:, staffing and current workload.
technical expertise, contracting capability, fiscal management, past
performance and legal authorities.
Remedial Project This article of the SMOA specifies a timeframe. process, and method of
Manager/Support documenting RPM/SAC designations pursuant to the proposed NCP.
Agency Coordina-
tor Designations A sample article is provided below.

The lead agency will designate an RPM and the support agency will
-4
-------
9 37 5.0-0 i
designate an SAC (if possible) whenever a site is determined to have a
high potential for listing on the NPL. The agency identifying the potential
for the site's inclusion on the NPL may initiate the RPMlSAC designation
process.
Support Agency
Concurrence
This article of the SMOA specifies the process for identifying and document-
ing those sites for which EPA and the State agree to seek support agency
concurrence on the lead agency's Record of Decision (ROD). Normally, the
concurrence designation should be made during the annual planning process.
Points of Contact
This article of the SMOA specifies the EPA/State internal chain-of-command
used in conducting the Superfund program.

• Overall Program Communication, Coordination, and Planning

This section indicates, for example, that the EPA Branch Chief and State
Superfund Program Manager are responsible for overall program commu-
nication, coordination, and planning; it also outlines the process to be
used. This process outline contains sufficient detail concerning points of
EPA/State interaction, and includes provisions for ensuring that coordina-
tion and communication occur smoothly and expeditiously.

• Remedial Project Manager/Support Agency Coordinator Interaction

This section outlines the general roles, responsibilities, and organizational
authorities (if different from die authorities specified in the proposed
NCP) of both the RPM and the SAC It specifies their responsibilities for
intra- and inter-agency coordination, a process to be followed to ensure
informal and frequent communication, and their administrative/fiscal
tracking responsibilities compared with the responsibilities of other offi-
cials.
Planning/
Coordination
Processes
This article of the SMOA specifies procedures the lead and support agencies
will use to plan and coordinate various tasks under the Superfund program. It
can be especially useful to outline the annual planning and communication
procedures for program coordination.

• Annual Planning Process

This section outlines the procedures that the State and EPA will follow to
conduct annual program planning. It lists the documents that will be
prepared during annual planning, such as the lead/support agency designa-
tions, the Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP). site
enforcement strategies/timeframes, and any others that may be appropri-
-5-
-------
9375.0-01
ate. See the Attachments portion of this document for a list of documents
that EPA and the State may wish to prepare during annual planning. In
addition, the section establishes and describes, in detail, the process that
will be used each year to develop/revise these planning documents.
mechanisms for communication of information and coordination, and
timing.

• Ongoing Program Coordination

This section sets forth the procedures that will be followed to establish and
maintain two-way communication, including the exchange of information
on program status to ensure ongoing, continuous program coordination.

It establishes the mechanism that the EPA Branch Chief and the State
Superfund Program Manager, for example, will use to assemble assigned
staff to discuss site-specific details. The section also establishes both the
method and frequency of exchange of prog^m status data.

Sample sections are provided below.

Communication,

The State and EPA intend that ongoing Superfund program communi-
cation be accomplished in accordance with the following procedures:

I - EPA and State program representatives intend to meet /insert
n[d£f and ffpproximnie frequency of meetings] to inform each other of
ongoing and future activities and to discuss and plan for mutual goals.

2 • EPA and State program representatives intend to engage in tele-
phone conference calls whenever either party decides there is the need
for such a call. These calls will provide opportunities to discuss
ongoing and upcoming activities, to discover and resolve problems
between the two parties, and to maintain two-way communication.

Program Status Data Management/Exchange

The State and EPA recognize and agree upon the need for a simple.
effective system for compiling and maintaining Superfund program
status data.

The parties agree to exchange Superfund program status data by
Iinsert method (i.e.. written or electronic mail)I at least on a /insert
frequency 1 basis.

The parties will work together to identify problems and to recommenc
solutions to the data exchange system as necessary.
-6
-------
9375.0-01
• Non-Site-Specific Documents

This section itemizes the non-site-specific documents, such as guidance
and policy documents, that must be transferred between EPA and the State
and it identifies the EPA and State staff positions responsible for this
exchange.

An example is provided below. .

The EPA (title of position} is responsible for providing the State Ititle
of position! with copies of all non-site-specific EPA guidance, policy,
regulations, and laws that are relevant to Superfund activities.

The State ftitle of oasittnnl is responsible for providing the EPA [tills.
of position I with copies of all non-site-specific State guidance, policy.
regulations, and laws that are-relevant to Superfund activities.

• Community Relations and Technical Assistance Grants

This section of the SMOA specifies the general principles and procedures
the State and EPA will follow in conducting community relations activi-
ties and soliciting public participation. TKis section may also specify the
roles and responsibilities of the parties administering Technical Assistance
Grants.

Examples are provided below.

1 - Numerous government agencies and groups, including county.
city, and local authorities, affected citizens, nearby property owners.
environmental groups, and the media, must be informed and given
meaningful opportunities to participate in the decision-making process
during the site investigation and cleanup.

While recognizing that Federal interests and State interests will not
always be identical, EPA and the State agree not to emphasize or
highlight their disagreements during community relations activities.

2 - The preparation of press releases and contacts with the media an-
normally responsibilities of the lead agency. It is the responsibility • >j
the lead agency's RPM to notify the support agency concerning com •
munity relations activities. To the extent possible, a press release
should be scheduled in advance and issued jointly. The support
agency will be asked to comment prior to release, and copies of the
final document will be provided. Press releases will acknowledge iJu-
suppon agency's role whenever appropriate. Occasionally, the
support agency may need to issue a press release. In these cases, tin:
7-
-------
9375.0-01
support agency will follow similar procedures in notifying the lead
agency of its intent to issue a press release.

3 • The lead agency will chair all public meetings. The support
agency is expected to attend and possibly participate actively in all
public meetings, where practicable, unless the RPM and SAC agree
that it is not necessary or appropriate.
Removal Actions
This article of the SMOA specifies the procedures that will be followed
regarding notification, consultation, and negotiation of State provisions for
post-removal site control.

• Notification

This section specifies that EPA and the State will notify each other of their
intent to conduct removal actions at NPL and non-NPL sites as soon as
possible after either Party determines such action is necessary. This
section also identities the EPA and State representatives responsible for
notifying the other party.

• Consultation Process

This section defines the procedures that will be followed to facilitate EPA7
State consultation on the nature of any EPA-lead removal action before
EPA commences the removal action. The process generally defines the
manner in which EPA will inform the State of the technical nature of the
removal action, the timing for the consultation period, and the manner in
which the State will review and provide its comments. The section also
includes a provision for determining situations (i.e., emergencies) in which
the consultation process could or should be waived.

• Post-Removal Site Control

EPA will obtain the State's commitment to post-removal site control
before the removal action whenever practible. However, the procedure
should be structured to allow negotiation during a removal action when it
is necessary to avoid delay in initiating a removal action.
Enforcement
This article of the SMOA describes enforcement expectations and policy, and
describes the general nature of the EPA and State relationship when pursuing
potentially responsible party (PRP) site cleanup commitments. This article
should also reference State enforcement authorities and the degree of recip-
rocity between the State and EPA.
-8-
-------
9375.0-01
The following article must be included in the SMOA:

This agreement does not limit the ultimate enforcement authority of
EPA or the United States Government under CERCLA.

Samples of additional articles which may be included in a SMOA are pro-
vided below.

1 • EPA and the State agree with the established principle that negotiated
response actions with qualified PRPs are essential to an effective program
for the cleanup ofNPL sites. An effective program depends on a balanced
approach relying on a mix of Fund-financed cleanup, voluntary agree-
ments reached through formal negotiations, and litigation when necessary
and appropriate.

2 • EPA and the State agree thatjesponse action settlements reached with
PRPs will be set forth in enforceable agreements. For the purposes of this
SMOA. an enforceable agreement means issuance of an administrative
order or execution of a consent order or decree [or specify other State-
specific mechanism that is legally enforceable]. Enforcement actions
taken in response to non-compliance with an enforceable agreement will
be timely and pursued to resolution in accordance with applicable State or
Federal laws, applicable policies and guidelines, and the terms of the
particular agreement.

NOTE: Three-parry agreements [EPA/State/PRP] must be embodied in
Federal judicial consent decrees. Moreover, CERCLA requires United
States Department of Justice review of any covenants-not-to-sue agreed to
by EPA.

3 - Two-party (i.e., EPA or State with PRP) negotiation, settlement, and
execution is preferred over three-party (i*., EPA iStatelPRP) negotiation.
settlement, and execution because it is generally more efficient. However.
when EPA is designated as the lead agency, EPA will (a) notify the State
regarding the scope of response actions, and (b) provide the State an
opportunity to be involved in negotiations with PRPs and to be party to
any settlement, pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(fXlMF).

4 • EPA and the State will review and designate the lead agency and the
support agency for enforcement actions at NPL sites subject to relevant
criteria during the annual planning process. The State should get lead
agency designation only upon EPA determination that it has demon-
strated sufficient State authorities and other program capabilities.

5 - The lead agency will provide notice to the support agency as to the
start of negotiations with PRPs.
-9
-------
Federal Facilities
9375.0-01
6 • It is the lead agency's responsibility to identify and notify potentially
responsible ponies of a planned remedial investigation/feasibility study
(RJlFS) and to determine the willingness and ability of the PRP to conduct
the R1IFS. The lead agency will also send a remedial design/remedial
action (RDIRA) notification letter to PRPs at the completion of a RUFS.

7 • The lead agency for a site generally will be responsible for all site
specific communications with PRPs. The support agency will not commu-
nicate with PRPs concerning the site without prior notice to the lead
agency.

This section outlines the process that EPA will use to provide for State in-
volvement in Federal facility remedial actions. Discussion may include
appropriate staff contacts and methods of initial contact concerning state
involvement Pending promulgation of the proposed NCP, as well as Subpart
K - Federal Facilities of the proposed NCP (to be proposed and promulganed
separately). State personnel should consult the:- EPA regional counterparts
concerning current EPA policy on response at Federal facilities.
Other Areas of
Coordination
This article of the SMOA addresses additional processes which require EPA/
State coordination. It is useful to outline the steps in detail, knowing that the
description can be revised as the processes evolve and change.

• Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP)

This section may specify the procedures that each party will follow in
developing the annual SCAP. The SCAP is the central mechanism for
planning, tracking and evaluating Superfund program activities. SCAP
development procedures should include the timing of the initial contact
between the Region and the State, follow-up actions on Headquarters' re-.
quests and steps for revising the SCAP during the year. The section also
identifies the titles of the State and Regional contacts for ongoing SCAP
coordination. This coordination process also should include discussion of
the State's commitments under any similar State planning and tracking
system.

• Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)/To
Be Considered (TBCs)

This section describes the procedures and timeframes for soliciting/
identifying, exchanging, and certifying ARARs/TBCs, taking into consid-
eration the process established in the proposed NCP. It should indicate the
points in the response process at which ARARs/TBCs would normally be
solicited/identified, the points of contact (usually the RPM and SAC) for
solicitation/identification, and steps taken when disagreements arise over
ARARs/TBCs if different from Resolution of Disputes (see page 12 of this
-10-
-------
9375.0-01
guidance). The section may also include a recognition that the agreed-
upon base level procedures may be modified in Cooperative Agreements
or SSCs depending upon site-specific circumstances.

• Administrative Record

This section outlines aspects of the Administrative Record.

- Establishing the Administrative Record

This paragraph specifies that the lead agency is responsible for compil-
ing and maintaining the Administrative Record and cites the office and
staff position responsible for compiling and maintaining site-specific
Administrative Records,

- Support Agency Participation

This paragraph defines the extent of support agency involvement in
establishing the Administrative Record, and may also list site-specific
documents in the file which should be transmitted by the lead agency
to the support agency. This paragraph may also address support
agency review of the Administrative Record for completeness.

• State Takeover of Long-Term Response Actions (LTRA)

This section describes the coordination of State takeover of LTRAs. It
may indicate that EPA and the State agree that, at a site requiring onsite or
offsite actions to restore ground or surface water quality, the State will
take over operation of these activities at the site as soon as possible after
EPA has determined construction is complete. States may assume the lead
for this portion of remedial action through a cooperative agreement.
Consultation,
Agreement, and
Concurrence
Processes
This article of the SMOA specifies processes pertaining to consultation,
agreement, and concurrence. Subpart F of the proposed NCP also contains
procedures to be followed in the absence of a SMOA.

• NFL Listing (Consultation/Deferred Listing)

This section defines procedures and points of contact for EPA/State
consultation concerning sites to be proposed for listing on the NPL.

• Draft FS and Proposed Plan (Agreement)

This section defines procedures, timeframes. and points of contact to
facilitate agreement on or resolution of significant comments regarding a
draft FS and proposed plan for a remedial action.
-11-
-------
9375.0-01
• NPL Deletion (Concurrence)
This section defines the procedures and points of contact for concurrence
on or resolution of outstanding issues concerning deleting sites from th
NPL.

• ROD Concurrence

This section defines the procedures, tixneframes. and points of contact for
concurrence on RODs.
Support Agency
Site-Specific Re-
view/Oversight
Generally, EPA intends for the lead agency to be responsible for developing
technical documents during the RI/FS and the RD/RA at a site. Therefore, this
article of the SMOA establishes the procedures, timeframes, and points-of-
contact for all site-specific technical document review/oversight by the sup-
port agency. Support agency review/oversight of site-specific technical
documents should fall into one of the following three categories:

1 - Review and approve: site work or the next phase of response does not
proceed until the support agency reviews and provides written approval.
•
2 - Review and comment: site work or the next phase may proceed but
the lead agency should attempt to incorporate support agency comments
(if any), as appropriate, into the site work.

3 - Submit for information and maintenance of support agency files: the
lead agency submits a document to the support agency for information and
maintenance of the support agency file. This procedure may also be tied
to the Regional office's participation in the establishment of the Adminis-
trative Record.

These categories may not apply to all State/EPA relationships. The article
lists the site-specific documents and the category into which each document
will fall as a general statement of the degree of support agency review/over-
sight. This article should also recognize that the agreed-upon base level of
support agency review/oversight activity could and should be modified in C.\>
or SSCs for specific sites (see Attachment 1 for an example of how to docu-
ment support agency strategy).
Resolution of
Disputes
This article of the SMOA establishes a State-specific process to resolve
disputes that may arise regarding implementation of the procedures specified
in a SMOA or any site-specific disagreements. Various procedures may be
developed and described; the process explained in the preamble to the pro-
posed NCP is one procedure that may be used as a guide. (Additional guid-
ance is forthcoming from the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPt,
-12-
-------
9375.0-01
concerning the resolution of disputes between EPA and a State when PRPs are
conducting response actions under a Federal consent decree.)
The example provided below is based on the proposed NCP Preamble.

In the event of disputes between EPA and the State concerning the im-
plementation of any procedures specified in this SMOA or any site-specific
response action dispute, the RPM and SAC will attempt to resolve such
disputes promptly. If disputes cannot be resolved at this level, the problem
will be referred to the supervisors of these persons for further EPA/State
consultation. This supervisory referral and resolution process will con-
tinue, if necessary, to the level of Ititle of head of State lead afencvl and
Regional Administrator, EPA, Region f I. If agreement still cannot be
reached, the Region and the State conjointly refer the dispute to the
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response, who
will resolve the dispute.
Exclusion of Third Each SMOA must contain the following article:
Party Benefits
This Agreement is intended to benefit only the State and EPA. It neither
expands nor abridges the rights of any party, including potentially re-
sponsible parties, not signatory to this Agreement.
Negation of
Agency Relation-
ship
Each SMOA must contain the following article regarding the negation of
agency relationship:

Nothing contained in this SMOA shall be construed, either expressly or by
implication, to make EPA or the State the other's agent.
SIGNATURES
Although the SMOA is not a legally binding document, it should be signed by
the participating parties.

A sample format is illustrated below.

For the State of
(Lead State Agency Director) (Date)

For the Environmental Protection Agency
(Regional Administrator)
(Date)
-13
-------
ATTACHMENTS
9375.0-Ul
Attachments to SMOAs generally address site-specific issues related to EPA
and State interactions. They can be drafted separately from the body of the
SMOA, allowing for changes as frequently as necessary. EPA and the State
should mutually decide which of the following topics need to be addressed
further in an attachment.
Support Agency
Site-Specific
Review/Oversight
Strategy
This document establishes the procedure, timeframes. and poims-of-comact
for all site-specific technical review/oversight by the support agency (i.e.,
review and approve, review and comment, and submit for information and
maintenance of support agency files). See Attachment 1 for sample time-
frames.
Enforcement
This document details site enforcement strategies and dmeframes to ensure
Responsible Parties' commitments to cleanuo, and may be used to satisfy the
proposed NCP Section 300.505(b)(3) requirement of supplementing SMOAs
with site-specific enforcement agreements at non-Fund-financed sites where
the State is designated lead agency. See Attachment 2 for a sample format.
Site-Specific
Designation of
Lead/Support
Agency
This document establishes the timeframe, procedure, and form of documenta-
tion for designating site-specific lead and support agencies. It also details a
process for reviewing and making appropriate lead/support agency designa-
tion changes.
Support Agency
Concurrence
Sites for which EPA and the State agree to provide opportunities for support
agency concurrence on the lead agency's ROD should be identified and
documented here.
Processes to be
Defined
This document specifies processes that may be implemented by the State
including:

• Procedures for developing/revising the annual SCAP

• Procedures and Dmeframes for soliciting/identifying, exchanging.
and certifying ARARs/TBCs

• Procedures for establishing Administrative Records and making
them available to the public.
-14-
-------
Processes
9375.0-01

Sites proposed for the NPL
Draft FS and proposed plan for a remedial action
Sites proposed for NPL deletion
RODs.
Status of
Hazardous Waste
Site Problem
This document summarizes the status of the State's hazardous
waste site situation. It may include the number of sites (NPL
and non-NPL), the environmental media potentially affected,
and other information that may help describe the size and
extent of the State's problem.
Status of State's
Superfund _
Program
This document describes the current status of the State's
Superfund program and its anticipated future roles and goals.
It may include descriptions of the current program, the levels of
sophistication/maturity achieved, and types and number of State
actions taken at non-NPL sites leading to site cleanup. Infor-
mation regarding the future role of the State in Superfund
activities, methods of increasing State response capability,
program directions, and action to coordinate the RCRA/
CERCLA programs may also be summarized.
-15-
-------
9375.0-01
ATTACHMENT 1
EXAMPLE OF SUPPORT AGENCY STRATEGY FOR REVIEW/OVERSIGHT OF RE-
SPONSE PROCESS DELIVERABLE^

The SMOA may include, as an attachment, a listing of response process deliverable!, reports, and
documents, together with a designation of the support agency level of review/oversight activity (i.e..
review and approve; review and comment; submit for information and file maintenance). The
attachment also specifies the support agency review/oversight activity turn-around timeframe if it
differs from the proposed NCP or if it is not included in the proposed NCP.

Once rimeframes are negotiated and agreed upon, the attachment represents the base level of under-
standing between a State and EPA concerning support agency review/oversight activity. This base
level can and should be modified as appropriate in cooperative agreements or SSCs, depending upon
site-specific considerations.

Example formats are orovided below. (A sample format for Federal-lead enforcement sites is forth-
coming from OWPE.)
2.

4.
5.

9.
Item Reviewed by
Support A ffnev

PA Reports

SI Reports

HRS Scoring Package

Draft RJfFS Work Plans
FVND.FINANCED SITES

Type of Review/
Oversight Activity

Review/Comment

Review/Consultation

Review/Comment
• RI Work Plans
• Sampling and analysis plans
• Community relations plans
• Health and safety plans

Preliminary site characterization
summaries

Draft ATSDR Health Assessments

Draft FS Phase I and II Reports
(Alternatives development/screening)

Draft Treatability Reports (additional
site characterization information,
bench/pilot studies)

Draft RJ/FS Reports (including
detailed analysis of alternatives)
with statement of proposed plan
Review/Comment

Review/Comment

Review/Comment
Turnaround
Timeframe

10 working days

15 working days

30 days

10 working days
15 working days

15 working days

30 working days
-16-
-------
FUND-FINANCED SITES (continued)
9375.0-01
10.

11.

12.
Final RIIFS Reports
Draft Records of Decision
(RODs)
Executed RODs
Submit for file
maintenance

Review/Concurrence
Submit for file
maintenance
ENFORCEMENT SiTEft. (no Federal funds)
15 working days
Item Reviewed by
Support A ftnei

1. Enforceable Agreements (such
as the Administrative Order or
Consent Decree)

2. Final RIIFS Work Plans

• Rl Work Plans
• Sampling and analysis plans
• Community relations plans
• Health and safety plans
3.

7.
Final site characterization
summaries
Final FS Phase I and II Reports
(Alternatives development/
screening)

Final Treatability Reports
(additional site characterisation
information, bench/pilot studies)

Draft RIIFS Reports (including
detailed analysis of alternatives)
with statement of proposed plan
8. Final RIIFS Reports
9. Draft Records of Decision
(RODs)

10. Executed RODs
Type of Review/
Ovtnifht Activity

Submit for information/
file maintenance
Submit for information/
file maintenance
Turnaround
Tuntframt
Submit for information/
file maintenance
Draft ATSDR Health Assessments Review/Comment
Submit for information/
file maintenance
Submit for information/
file maintenance
Review/Comment
Submit for information/
file maintenance

Review/Concurrence
Submit for information/
file maintenance
20 working days
30 working days
15 working days
-17-
-------
9375.0-01
ATTACHMENT 2

EXAMPLE OF EPA/STATE ENFORCEMENT SITE STRATEGY

The SMOA may include, as an attachment, the details of the State/EPA enforcement site strategy.
sample format is provided below.

Confidential: Exempt From Puff lie Disclosure

Site Name: XYZ Corporation

Lead Agency: State Pollution Control Agency

Response Phase: Remedial Investigation]Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

Objective: Convince for compel) the XYZ Corporation and other potential responsible parries to conduct
a Rl/FS that fullv meets the Nations! Continsencv Plan and g>-"'/ipr"?g requirements in a timely manner
at the site.

Strategy: Subsequent to notice letters from both the State Agency and EPA, negotiate with XYZ
Corporation for a three-phase consent order. Phase I will be for XYZ to prepare a RI work plan
(sampling plan, safety plan, etc.) that is approved bv the State Afencv. Phase 2 is for XYZ to implement
the approved RI work plan, [n. Ph^ff. 3 XYZ Corporation will complete the feasibility study. If XYZ does
not a free to the consent order, the State Agency will immediately seek fundint from EPA to conduct the
RI'FS using CERCLA funds. ; '

Enforcement Action Schedule:

Action Hate

1. Complete PRP search activities August 1,1989
2. Issue Notice Letters • EPA &. State agency September 30,1989
3. Begin formal RI/FS negotiations November 15,1989
4. Execute RJ/fS consent order OL terminate
RI/FS negotiations February 1,1990
5. If no consent order.submit CA application March 30,1990

Authority to be used by lead agency: (Appropriate state statutes).
Conditions for support agency enforcement intervention: Failure of the State Aeencv to substantially
meet the enforcement action schedule nr sionificant violation of a consent order by the PRP.
Signatures:
State Superfund Program Manager date EPA. Superfund Branch Chief date

Note: This agreement will be updated upon 1) delays exceeding schedule, 2) change in lead agency
designation, 3) significant change in objective or strategy.

-18-
-------