3EPA
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9355.2-01
TITLE: STate Lead Remedial Project Manual
N
APPROVAL DATE: 12/1/86
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
Q FINAL
12/1/86
QDRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other document*):
[ } A- Pending OMB approval •'
[ ] B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
[ ] C- For review &/Or comment
[ ] 0- In development or circulating
headquarters
CI DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE L
-------
."•.COA Wasnmgion. OC 20460
otm OSWER Directive Initiation Request
1 ->r*c-jv« Nume«r
9355.2-01
2. Ortqtnaior information
Name of Contact Person .MauCoae jCffice
WSTT1 .TNAN WinP ' OS-? 10 '
Tcieonore Coot
3. Title
State Lead Remedial Project Manual
4. Summary of Directive onciuae onet statement ot purpose)
Assists EPA Remedial Project Managers in managing State-lead remedial
ersponse projects. Describes in detail the responsibilities of the RPM
during thek planning, design, construction, operation, and close-out
of remedial response projects.
5.Keyv,oros SuperfuiTi , COCA. SARA
6a, Does This Directive Supersede Previous Cirecaveis)? I I i i
No . | 1 Yea What diracDve (numoer. me)
b. Does It Supplement Previous Oirecnve(s)? [~~1 f""!
1 [No | [Yes What tfreofye (numeer. Me)
7 Dran Level ^_ ^__^ ^_^
\ A-Sioneo-ByAA^IAA j""j 8 - Signed by 0«ce Orector Hj C - For Revtei* A Comment | [ 0 - In De»aiepment
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters? 1 1 y*> 1 1 No
This Heoueet Me«ta OSWtB Olreetlv«s System Format SUnoaros.
9. Signature of Ueaa Office Directives Coordinator
Richard Hyde
1 0. Name ana Title ol Approving OrTioai <
Henry L. Longest
Date
12/1/86
Date
12/1/86
EPA Form 1315-17 (Haw. S-«7) Previous eoitions are oosoiete.
OSWER OSWER OSWER O
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
United States
Environment' Protection
Agency
Office of Emergencv and
Remedial Response
Washington DC 20460
EPA 540 G-87'002
(OSWER Directive 9355.2-1)
December 1986
Superfund
r/EPA
Superfund
State-Lead
Remedial Project
Management
Handbook
-------
EPA/540/G-87/002
OSWER Directive 9355.2-1
December 1936
SUPERFUND STATE-LEAD
REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT
HANDBOOK
DECEMBER 1986
OSWER DIRECTIVE
9355.2-1
-------
Notice
This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency policy and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
PROJECT COORDINATOR'S PREFACE
The Superfund State-Lead Remedial Project Management Handbook is intended to
serve three general purposes. First, the handbook presents the various actions and
deliverables that comprise the State-lead remedial project, and then it defines the
roles and responsibilities of the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) in accomplishing
those actions and deliverables. Second, the handbook serves as a pathfinder to
guide the RPM to the various resources available for support of the remedial project
management function. Finally, the handbook introduces the RPM to some of the
fundamental concepts of project management to aid the RPM in planning, monitoring,
controlling, and directing projects. The handbook should be useful to both new and
experienced RPMs as well as supervisory personnel, State personnel, and others
involved with Superfund sites.
The handbook presents the various actions and deliverables that comprise
the remedial process from initial project planning through project closeout and
National Priorities List (NPL) deletion. These actions and deliverables are shown in
Exhibit 1-1 in an order that represents their relative sequence in the project.
Presenting project components in this manner allows the RPM to find his/her position
in the project and look ahead to next events. The objective is to promote a proactive
management style of anticipating and resolving problems before they adversely
impact project costs, schedule, or technical quality. The handbook also defines the
roles and responsibilities of the RPM relative to other project participants such as the
State Project Officer (SPO), State contractors, or other EPA program offices.
Project management can be defined as the bringing together of resources
according to a plan in order to achieve an objective (usually specified in terms of
technical quality or cost and schedule performance). The RPM has an array of
resources available to accomplish the project objectives: guidance documents, in-
house personnel, and contractor support. In serving its pathfinder function, the
handbook narrative directs the RPM to more detailed discussions in relevant
guidance documents and references, suggests areas where in-house personnel may
be available for review 'and consultation purposes, and describes the mechanics by
which contractor or other agency resources are accessed.
The handbook discusses in general terms some of the fundamental concepts
of project management that are readily transferrable to hazardous waste site
remedial project management. Three important management functions (planning,
monitoring, and control) are described in some detail. Also discussed are the RPM's
oversight functions (directing, coordinating, and communicating). It is anticipated that
this introduction to the concepts of project management will enhance the
development of RPMs as managers.
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
LIST OF EXHIBITS vii
LIST OF ACRONYMS ix
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Structure of the Handbook 1-2
1.2 RPM Roles and Responsibilities 1-2
2. PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS 2-1
2.1 General Project Management Functions 2-1
2.2 Project Planning, Monitoring, and Control 2-3
2.3 Directing, Coordinating, and Communicating 2-11
3. INITIAL PROJECT PLANNING AND START-UP ACTIVITIES 3-1
\
3.1 Development of Project Plan 3-1
3.2 Planning Activities Required Prior to Starting Remedial Project 3-4
3.3 Remedial Investigation Scoping and Development of 3-12
General Response Objectives
3.4 Development and Execution of Cooperative Agreement 3-14
3.5 Oversight of Cooperative Agreement 3-25
3.6 State Procurement Under Superfund Cooperative Agreements 3-27
3.7 Work Plan Review and Approval 3-35
4. REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY 4-1
4.1 Ongoing Project Management Activities 4-3
4.2 Site Characterization 4-10
4.3 Alternatives Screening and Evaluation 4-13
4.4 Approval of RI/FS Report(s) 4-17
4.5 RI/FS Completion 4-18
5. RECORD OF DECISION AND TRANSITION TO DESIGN 5-1
5.1 Ongoing Project Management Activities 5-3
5.2 ROD Process 5-6
5.3 Transition to Design 5-11
6. REMEDIAL DESIGN 6-1
6.1 Ongoing Project Management Activities 6-1
6.2 Design Initiation 6-5
6.3 Oversight of Design 6-8
-------
PAGE
7. REMEDIAL ACTION 7-1
7.1 Ongoing Project Management Activities 7-1
7.2 Remedial Action Contractor Procurement 7-6
7.3 Remedial Action Oversight 7-7
7.4 RA Completion and Acceptance 7-11
7.5 Transition to Operation and Maintenance 7-12
8. PROJECT CLOSEOUT 8-1
8.1 NPL Deletion 8-1
8.2 Operation and Maintenance 8-3
8.3 Project Closeout 8-6
BIBLIOGRAPHY
VI
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
PAGE
1-1 Remedial Site Chronology 1-3
2-1 Remedial Process 2-2
2-2 Sequence of Performance of Project Management Functions 2-4
2-3 Scheduling Techniques 2-6
3-1 Initial Project Planning and Start-up Activities 3-2
3-2 Initial Activities 3-5
3-3 Development and Execution of a Cooperative Agreement 3-17
3-4 Execution of Cooperative Agreements 3-18
3-5 Cooperative Agreement Application Package Checklist 3-21
3-6 Summary of Requirements for Procurement Under 3-28
Assistance Agreements (40 CFR 33)
3-7 Standard Method for Procurement of Engineering Services 3-29
3-8 Optional Method for Procurement of Engineering Services 3-30
3-9 Methods for Expediting Procurement 3-32
4-1 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) 4-2
5-1 Record of Decision (ROD) and Transition to Design 5-2
5-2 ROD Process ' 5-7
/
5-3 Record of Decision 5-9
6-1 Remedial Design (RD) 6-2
6-2 Suggested Outline for Pre-Design Report 6-6
7-1 Remedial Action 7-2
8-1 NPL Deletion, Operation and Maintenance, and Project Closeout 8-2
VII
-------
9355.2-1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was prepared for EPA's Hazardous Site Control Division,
Russ Wyer, Director, under the direction of Sam Morekas, Chief of the State and
Regional Coordination Branch. Kitty Taimi was the EPA Project Coordinator. We
would like to acknowledge the many EPA Headquarters, EPA Regional and State
personnel who supplied source materials and reviewed drafts of the handbook.
Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland, prepared the handbook
(EPA Contract No. 68-01-6888). The Booz, Allen Project Manager was Robert Kravitz.
William Lamb and Laurie Ziegenfus developed and coordinated the design and
production of the final document. Chapter 2 of the handbook was developed in part
by CH2M Hill.
VIII
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AA/OSWER -Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
A/E -Architectural/Engineering
ARAR -Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Federal or State Standards,
Requirements, Criteria, or Limitations
ATSDR - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
CA -Cooperative Agreement
CERCLA -Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act
CERCLIS -CERCLA Information System
CFR -Code of Federal Regulations
CLP -Contract Laboratory Program
CPM -Critical Path Method
CRP -Community Relations Plan
EA/CA -Engineering Assessment/Cost Analysis
EDO -Enforcement Decision Document
EO -Executive Order
EPA -Environmental Protection Agency
ERA -Expedited Response Action
ERRIS -Emergency and Remedial Response Information System
ERT -Environmental Response Team
ESD -Environmental Services Division
FCC -Fiscal Control Center
FMS -Financial Management System
FS -Feasibility Study
FY -FiscaiYear
GAD -Grants Administration Division
GAO -General Accounting Office
GAB -Grants Administration Branch
HQ -EPA Headquarters
HRS -Hazard Ranking System
HRSD -Hazardous Response Support Division
HSCD -Hazardous Site Control Division
IAG -Interagency Agreement
IFB -Invitation for Bids
K3 -Inspector General
IRM -Initial Remedial Measure
LOE -Level of Effort
MBE -Minority Business Enterprise
MSCA -Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement
NCP -National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (40 CFR 300)
NDD . -Negotiations Decision Document
NEIC -National Enforcement Information Center
NPL -National Priorities List
OECM -Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
OERR -Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
OGC -Office of General Counsel
OLEP -Office of Legal and Enforcement Policy
O&M -Operation and Maintenance
OMB -Office of Management and Budget
ORC -Office of Regional Counsel
OWPE -Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
ix
-------
PA -Preliminary Assessment
PO -Project Officer
PRP -Potentially Responsible Party
QA/QC -Quality Assurance / Quality Control
QAPP -Quality Assurance Project Plan
PTS -Project Tracking System
RA -Remedial Action or Regional Administrator
RC -Regional Coordinator (HSCD)
RCRA -Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD -Remedial Design
REM -Remedial Planning Contractors
RFP -Request for Proposals
RFQ -Request for Qualifications
Rl -Remedial Investigation
RI/FS -Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD -Record of Decision
RPM -Remedial Project Manager
RSCRC -Regional Superfund Community Relations Coordinator
SARA -Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SCAP -Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan
SI -Site Inspection
SOW -Statement of Work
SPO -State Project Officer
SPOC -Single Point of Contact
SRCB -State and Regional Coordination Branch
TAT -Technical Assistance Team
USAGE -U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
US AC E-M R D -USACE Missouri River Division
WBE -Women's Business Enterprise
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
The term, Remedial Project Manager (RPM), is defined in the Federal Register
(November 20, 1985) as "... the Federal official designated by EPA ... tc'coordinate.
monitor, or direct remedial activities or other response under Subpart F..." of the
revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
Previously, an RPM was known as a Regional Site Project Officer (RSPO). The RPM
is vested with the daily responsibilities of managing the overall project. The RPM must
coordinate all the resources available to EPA to ensure that the remedial response is
completed cost effectively.
This handbook describes in detail the roles and responsibilities of the RPM in
planning, initiating, coordinating, and monitoring State-lead* remedial responses at
National Priorities List (NPL) hazardous waste sites. This handbook is intended to
provide the RPM with quick reference information on what actions are needed, in
coordination with the State, during each step of the remedial process. The handbook
does not address pre-remedial activities (preliminary assessments/site inspections).
Information on State-lead pre-remedial activities can be found in Appencix A of State
Participation in the Superfund Program. Much of the information presented in the
handbook is drawn from existing EPA policy and guidance documents, in particular:
State Participation in the Superfund Program, February 1984
Guidance on Remedial Investigations Under CERCLA, June 1385
• Guidance on Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA, June 1985
• Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action Guidance, June 1986
The handbook complements another EPA handbook entitled Superfund Federal-Lead
Remedial Project Management Handbook, December 1986, in which guidance is
provided to RPMs in overseeing Federal-lead remedial response projects.
On October 17, 1986, the President signed the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) amending the current Superfund law and
enacting certain additional provisions. SARA continues the process and program that
was put in place with the revised NCP in November 1985. It contains a number of new
provisions, however, that give statutory emphasis to some aspects of the existing
program, or that add important new considerations.
EPA is developing guidance for providing assistance to political subdivisions of States
conducting remedial response activities at Superfund sites under Cooperative Agreements. This
handbook generally may be used to assist RPMs in managing these responses. • in most places
throughout this handbook, the term "political subdivision" may be substituted for "State" without
further modification.
1-1
-------
This handbook incorporates some of the immediate changes of SARA! Future
revisions to this document and other referenced documents will reflect additional
changes to implement SARA. The reader is encouraged to study the new statute and
to look for a series of memoranda on Reauthorization from Headquarters. The first of
this series, "Implementation Strategy for Reauthorized Superfund: Short Term Priorities
for Action," October 24, 1986 is available in regional offices.
1.1 STRUCTURE OF THE HANDBOOK
Exhibit 1-1 illustrates the remedial response phases, and the specific activities
which occur during the remedial planning and implementation process. The
diagrams flow from left to right; however, relative spacings between events are not
indicative of real time frames. The top one-third of the diagram represents those
activities which are the responsibility of the State contractor, the middle one-third
those which are the responsibility of the State, and the bottom one-third those which
are the responsibility of EPA. The handbook is structured to correspond to each of
these phases and is, therefore, divided into the following chapters:
Chapter 2, Project Management Concepts
Chapter 3, Initial Project Planning and Start-up Activities
Chapter 4, Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
Chapter 5, Record of Decision (ROD) and Transition to Design
Chapter 6, Remedial Design (RD)
Chapter 7, Remedial Action (RA)
Chapter 8, Project Closeout
Within and at the end of each of these chapters, additional EPA guidance documents
are referenced, as appropriate, to direct the RPM to pertinent background and
supplementary information. Management interactions between the RPM and the
State Project Officer (SPO) and other State personnel, and EPA community relations
and enforcement personnel also are carefully noted.
1.2 RPM ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
This handbook emphasizes the need for strong project management
throughout the remedial process. Effective project management of State-lead
remedial projects must be a cooperative RPM and SPO effort. The RPM provides
assistance to the SPO and provides EPA oversight and coordination.
Most EPA Regional Superfund programs have designated RPMs with full
remedial project management responsibilities. In these Regions, each RPM
manages both the technical and administrative aspects of his/her projects. This
designation of responsibilities to one person, who maintains a total overview of each
project, is an effective management method. Assigning one person as the EPA
contact for each State-lead project also optimizes communication and coordination
efforts with the SPO and other State officials involved in each project.
Some large Regions with many remedial projects have determined that
effective project management may be maintained by splitting the technical and
administrative project responsibilities between two individuals. This method of
Regional organization may be useful when individual RPMs are assigned many
complicated technical projects. This organization allows for sharing of project
1-2
-------
responsibilities such that the project administration duties (including financial
management) are not handled by the RPM, but by another individual. This individual
is experienced in Cooperative Agreement administration, assistance and procurement
regulations, and other areas that are critical to successful remedial project
management. This arrangement is beneficial in that it may promote more consistent
Cooperative Agreement management for many projects within one State and/or
among different States within a Region.
This handbook also emphasizes the need for project planning throughout the
remedial process. Project planning is essential for good project management. The
RPM must keep in mind that each activity of the remedial process [Rl, FS, RD, RA,
operation and maintenance (O&M)] is only one part of the total project. While each
activity is important, the RPM should always try to anticipate and plan for the next
steps of the process so that decisions are made in the best interest of the total project.
-------
EXHIBIT 1.1-1
Remedial Site Chronology (State Lead)
PACE 1 OF ]
PROJECT PLANNING
AND INITIATION
(CHAPTER 3)
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION / FEASIBILITY STUDY (Rl / FS)
(CHAPTER 4)
CONTRACTOR
•SPECW.NOTICC
TDPRPtFORR^FS
EPA
ONGOING PROJECT MANAGEMENT. ENFORCEMENT .
AND SUPERFUND COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
ItOBOt
ACTKITV | |
DOCUMENT f \ ~\
-------
EXHIBIT 1.1-1 (CONTINUED)
Remedial Site Chronology (State Lead)
PACE I OF J
RECORD OF DECISION (ROD)
AND TRANSITION TO DESIGN
(CHAPTER S)
CONTRACTOR
U1
EPA
ONGOING PROJECT MANAGEMENT. ENFORCEMENT
ENFOnCCMFNT NEflOTIATIONB
AND ADMIN OHUtllS
TlND SUPERFUND COMMUNITY RELATIONS
REMEDIAL DESIGN (RD)
(CHAPTER 6)
• U3ACE OR REU (OPTIONAU ASSBTANCE
ACTIVITIES
-------
EXHIBIT 1.1-1 (CONTINUED)
Remedial Site Chronology (State Lead)
CONTRACTOR
REMEDIAL ACTION (RA)
(CHAPTER 7)
PAOE 1 OF 1
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (04M)
SITE DELETION
(CHAPTER 8)
PRECONSTUCTION
CONFERENCE
. STATE
. EPA
. CONTRACTORS
FROM RD
(PRECEDINd PAGE)
. STATE
. EPA1
. CONTRACTORS
. STATE
. EPA'
. CONTRACTORS
t
END
STATE
o>
an
BIDDER
RESPONSE!. (T*
DETERMtttTKM
AWARD
CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT
COMMUNITY
RELATIONS
PUBLIC ICETNO
(OPTIONAL)
CONSTRUCTION
WSPECTONS
STATE
.STATE* AC FWM
CONSTRUCTION
OVERSIGHT
OVERSEE
PROCUREMENT
STATE;
STATMAfFWM
C'./
i
CQNSTRUCTDN
MSPECTIONS
CONSTRUCTION
OVERSIGHT •
M
REVIEW
lAlCA.
EPA
USACE OR REM CONTRACTOR
OPTIONAL
TttHWCAL
•• H8POHI
NPL
Da ETON
ONGOING PROJECT MANAGEMENT. ENFORCEMENT
AND Blll'l IMIINII COMMIINITV RD ATIONA ACriVltlrR
-------
2. PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS
Throughout this handbook, roles and responsibilities of the RPM are defined
relative to other participating parties. This chapter provides the PPM-with some
general background in basic project management concepts and begins to relate these
concepts to actual practice as found in the Superfund site remedial process. The
reader should bear in mind that during certain phases of the project, the use of many
of the project management tools discussed here will actually be performed by others
[such as the State Project Officer (SPO)]. Even so, the RPM, in an oversight and
coordination role, must know enough about these project management concepts and
tools to provide input, where appropriate, and use the output, when available.
• The remediation of uncontrolled, hazardous waste sites is a technically
complex process of long duration. The remedial project also is subject to many
technical, economic, policy, and institutional constraints, and a number of
responsibility transfers occur during the course of the project. The activities and
deliverables of a Superfund hazardous site remediation project have been presented
in Exhibit 1-1. Exhibit 2-1 provides an overview of the typical schedule, process
constraints, and primary participants in a Superfund site remedial response. Because
of the complexities, constraints, and numerous parties involvec in a site remediation
project, close project management and oversight are necessary for successful project
completion.
2.1 GENERAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS
Project management is the bringing together of individuals, institutions, firms,
technologies, money, equipment, time and other resources in accordance with a plan,
to achieve a set of objectives. Project management is accomplished most effectively
by placing the responsibility for project success in the hands of a single individual, the
project manager. The project manager is responsible for carrying out the various
project management duties, including two key functions: (1) planning, monitoring, and
control and (2) directing, coordinating, and communicating. The project manager
carries out the management functions using approaches based on experience,
supplemented by techniques such as scheduling, budgeting and reporting systems.
The project manager is held accountable for all aspects of the project but
seldom has the compelling authority or the control over externalities to require that the
project proceed according to plan. Thus, the RPM must develop a strong proactive
approach to project management. The proactive approach is to look ahead, develop
anticipatory actions and work-around strategies and modifications to work plans in
order to accommodate the changes and problems that are certain to occur as the
project progresses. The project manager needs to keep a clear vision of the final
objective -- successful completion of the project on time and \Uhin budget -- without
getting into a crisis-management mode. The successful project manager must be an
organizer and a negotiator, have a knowledge of technologies, possess well-
developed interpersonal skills, and, above all, view problems and setbacks as
challenges to be overcome.
2-1
-------
EXHIBIT 2-1
Remedial Process - Historical Tlmeframes
ro
ro
CUMULATIVE
AVERAGE
SCHEDULE
TYPCAL
SCHEDULE FOR
PHASES
REMEDIAL
PROGRAM
PHASES
PROCESS
CONSTRAINTS
PRP Negotiations
Funding
NPL Rule-Making
Contractor
Procurement
PRIMARY
PARTICIPANTS
(State-Lead)
0 1 2
i
3 4 5
1 YEARS ' ' '
. 3-9 18-22
4 . 3-6
6-9 3-4 6-18 ,
MONTHS
130 Sites/Year ->v
Discovery
or
Notifi-
cation
^.
k.
HRS
&
NPL
•
c
(
1
', U
0
3
)
d
RI/FS
i
(
fe.
\
Remedy
(ROD)
!)
(
^.
> ,
\>
3
. EPA
. STATE
. STATECONTR .
. PUBLIC
c
\
RD
< \
c
)
EPA
STATE
PUBLIC
(
O&M
•fe RA ^ Deletion i fr Morv
k ' itorlng
6
o
*^ . '»
STATE • STATE • EPA . STATE
A/ECONTR • CONST • STATE
PUBLIC CONTR • PUBLIC
• A/E OVERSIGHT
-------
2.2 PROJECT PLANNING, MONITORING, AND CONTROL
Project planning is the process of identifying the scope, schedule, budget, and
resources needed to achieve project objectives effectively. Monitoring and control are
the observation of technical performance, comparing actual performance to that
planned, and taking corrective action as needed. A number of project management
functions are required to plan, monitor, and control project activities. Exhibit 2-2
presents the sequence of these functions which are described in the remainder of this
section.
2.2.1 Planning
The elements of project planning are defined as follows:
• Establishing Scope -- Determining project objectives and identifying
discrete tasks needed to achieve the objectives.
Scheduling -- Identifying time frames for each task and the overall
project.
Budgeting -- Assigning costs to individual tasks and the total project.
Organizing - Arranging personnel and other resources to achieve the
project objectives.
In each of the above elements, consideration must be given to funding/resource
constraints that might affect project implementation.
2.2.1.1 Establishing Scope
The RPM's role in project scope development is to determine the conceptual
approach for the entire project to accomplish the ultimate goal of selecting and
implementing the site remedy. The RPM provides direction to the State in identifying
project objectives and constraints both during negotiations of the Cooperative
Agreement (CA) application statement of work (SOW) and after the CA award, during
development of contract documents. Following preparation of the SOW in the CA
application and also later after the development of the detailed work plan by the
State's contractor, the RPM reviews the defined scope, schedule, and budget to
ensure their conformance with Superfund program requirements and Regional
program goals. Each task in the work plan must be sufficiently detailed to convey an
understanding of project goals to those responsible for performing the work and to
provide the basis for project schedules and budgets.
2.2.1.2 Scheduling
Scheduling is a key component of planning, management, and control since
establishing a realistic project schedule is an integral part of the RPM's responsibility
to complete program targets [e.g., Record of Decision (ROD) approval, site cleanup]
on time. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
impose mandatory schedules for starting new RI/FSs and remedial actions at NPL
sites. Scheduling is necessary to anticipate when project resources such as funding
or analytical support will be needed. It also allows projects to be scheduled to take
advantage of external factors such as construction seasons. Depending on the size
and complexity of the project, a variety of project scheduling systems may be used.
2-3
-------
EXHIBIT 2-2
Sequence of Performance of Project
Management Functions
PLANNING
Schedule
Budget
Organization
Task
Definition
Cost Schedule '
Reports Reports
Direct
Observation
» * *
1
'
1 1 1
Variance Cost
Reports Trends
1
Schedule/Bucket
Milestone
Comparison
^
Schedule
Trends
i t 1
Exceptions
Report
CON! ROLLING
1
1
Anticipatory Work Around
1 Actions Strategy
t J
>
Plan/Policy ^ _^^ Management
Change Action
,
1
Observed
Status
\
Protect
Modificiton
'
'
\
Schedul
Scope/C
Change
e/
Oft
s
2-4
-------
These include milestone checks, bar charts, and critical path method diagrams; 'Each
is discussed below.
Milestone Charts - Milestones are major events in the progress of a
project and can be used as checkpoints to indicate whether the project
is moving forward on schedule. Milestone charts identify the-'iarget
completion date for each major activity. The milestone chart may
include budget information, an indication of the responsible entity, and
a means of comparing actual versus planned schedule results. The
method is best for small, short-duration projects with few participants
and little interrelationship between activities. The shortcoming of this
tool is that it forecasts only completion dates. On complex projects, this
may lead to uncertainty about when an activity should begin.
Bar Charts - This scheduling method is slightly more complex than
milestone charting. The bar chart (often referred to as a Gantt chart)
presents the list of activities along the left side with a sequence of
horizontal bars denoting scheduled start and completion dates for each
activity. The shortcoming of this method as a scheduling tool is that it
does not completely reflect interrelationships among activities, nor does
it indicate which activities are most critical to project completion. The
bar chart is a frequently used scheduling method for the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), Remedial Design (RD) and
Remedial Action (RA) activities.
Critical Path Method fCPfW Diagrams - The critical path scheduling
method overcomes some of the limitations of the bar chart method by
integrating activity interrelationships and schedule. The method
consists of systematically identifying all project task interrelationships
using a task interface diagramming method. The duration of each task
is then defined and the tasks are put in schedule form using either bar
chart or network format. Finally, critical tasks are determined and the
path between them is highlighted in the diagram. Determination of
critical path by manual analysis is feasible on projects with less than
100 tasks. For projects with greater than 100 tasks, microcomputer
CPM software packages are now available. While the major advantage
of this method is the definition of task interrelationships and critical
activities, the main disadvantage is that CPM diagrams are sometimes
hard to read and time-consuming to update. They are, if properly
maintained, a very good method to forecast upcoming tasks and can be
used to make changes in work flow, thus avoiding slippage in the final
completion date. Several RPMs are now using CPM for some sites.
All three of these techniques (or a combination) can be used in the Superfund
remedial response process. Exhibit 2-3 provides an example of how each scheduling
technique may be used. The milestone chart can indicate key events from site
discovery through remedial action. This can provide a status summary of individual
sites or can be combined to show status at a number of sites. The milestone chart can
be used by the RPM and Regional management to indicate where sites are in the
remedial response process at any point in time.
The bar chart generally is used to expand the level of detaH provided by the
milestone chart. For example, the RI/FS and ROD milestones can be expanded to
show the timing and sequence of activities that the RPM must complete or track to
2-5
-------
EXHIBIT 2-3
Scheduling Techniques
o>
MILESTONE CHART
(REMEDIAL RESPONSE)
Initial Discovery
NPL Listing
Rl Complete
FS Complete
ROD
RD Complete
RA Complete
UAH CHAKI
(RI/FS/ROD)
RI/FS Obligation
Rl
Data Validation
PujF'J Moolmg
Draft FS
Public Comment FS
Public Comment
Draft ROD
ROD Briefing
ROD Approval
CPM (Bar Chart Format)
(FS)
Screen Technologies
Develop Alternatives
Initial Screening
Diilillliiil Aimlyiiln
QC Review
Draft FS Report
Draft FS Report Review
Complete FS Report
EPA Review
Public Comment FS Report
FY89
IIIIIIM
•L v. -. f •. ,-•*•*• X-&.-XV-x v-bsff
-------
achieve program targets. This can provide a key scheduling tool for use by the RPM
for management and control functions.
At the most detailed level of project planning, individual contractors may use
CPM networks to schedule and control individual projects with large numbers of tasks.
Contractors will use this technique to manage individual tasks at a greater level of
detail than included in the bar chart. However, the key milestones identified by the
RPM's bar chart should be included in the contractor's CPM. Exhibit 2-3 shows how
the CPM could be applied to an FS project.
Taken together, the three scheduling techniques may result in an integrated
site scheduling approach. The milestone chart sets the program objectives for a site
which then can be incorporated in the increasingly detailed bar chart and CPM
diagram. The level of detail for each technique is tailored to the intended use. RPMs
(and Regions) can combine scheduling techniques to create a flexible scheduling
system which allows the appropriate level of detail needed for efficient project
management.
2.2.1.3 Budgeting
Budgets set the cost of the work outlined in the scope and schedule.
Developing the project budget is a project-specific process that depends on the
nature of the project and the organization executing it. Project budgets can be
prepared by one of the following general methods:
Top-Down Budgeting « In this method, a pre-set total project budget is
broken down into the individual task budgets. Top-down budgeting is
most frequently applied to projects where funding availability is a major
constraint, or the project tasks cannot be well defined prior to
implementation. Estimates can be prepared using generic project costs
or historical averages for similar projects. The advantage is that initial
budgets do not need to include detailed information on all the project
tasks, thus avoiding the need for detailed budget forecasts. This
method is often the basis for cost estimates included in the Superfund
Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP). Disadvantages of this
method are that it makes reliable monitoring and control difficult since
detailed task budgets are not available, and it fails to examine project
objectives to be certain the most effective project approach is being
used.
Task-Based Budgeting ~ This method involves starting from "zero" to
build individual task budgets. These are then summed to obtain the
total project budget. Task-based budgeting is used when a
predetermined budget has not been imposed. This requires a well
defined project scope that can be divided into individual tasks. Two of
the most common task-based budgeting techniques used are unit-price
budgeting and staffing-level budgeting. Unit-price budgeting is
commonly used in construction projects when quantities are reasonably
well defined. A detailed estimate of component quantities is developed
and multiplied by the unit price. Appropriate contingencies are added to
obtain the total project budget. However, the need for detailed
estimates of quantities makes this technique less suited for engineering
studies.
2-7
-------
The staffing-level approach is often appropriate for more labor-intensive
projects such as engineering studies. The approach involves
estimating the labor hours required for each project task and then
applying labor rates, overhead, and contingencies to obtain a total
budget estimate.
The RPM must be familiar with both top-down and task-based budgeting
techniques since they are used at different points in the Superfund program. Top-
down budgeting is used for overall program planning to distribute the annual remedial
response budget to individual RI/FS, RD, and RA projects. This is often accomplished
by using standard budget numbers for the different project types. The actual budget
found in the work plan for the RI/FS, on the other hand, is usually a staffing-level, task-
based budget.
The RPM will need to project funding for future activities at a site. Since the
entire remedial response program spans several years and is made up of numerous
projects, the RPM will be asked to prepare budget estimates for out-year activities
such as RD or RA. These estimates are subject to a number of uncertainties. For
example, inflation rates can change and the actual remedy is often not known when
the initial budget is estimated. The RPM should use historical cost data for ttese
activities. Estimates can be refined as out-year activities approach.
2.2.1.4 Organizing
The method of organizing personnel and other resources to accomplish the
project objectives is highly variable depending upon the type and size of the project
and objectives to be accomplished. In most cases, a pyramidal hierarchy is the
organizational form selected, with the project manager at its apex. This arrangement
holds a single individual accountable for total project execution even though a large
number of individuals may be directly responsible for the execution of specific project
tasks. This requires a project manager who is willing to accomplish goals through
delegation and requires an organizational structure with good channels of
communication.
While many contractor project teams are organized in this traditional way. the
RPM must operate within a different organizational structure. The RPM is the principal
contact between EPA and the State. The RPM's management responsibilities involve
working with a number of organizations within and outside of EPA. The RPM does not
directly manage on-site activities, but must take an active role in site management by
interpreting EPA policy and procedures as they apply to the site and by coordinating
the participation of the numerous involved parties who may not communicate directly
with each other. This role of the RPM as coordinator is defined later in this chapter.
2.2.2 Monitoring
The primary method for monitoring site project activity is the comparison of
actual expenditures and events to the schedule and budget developed in the planning
phase. This can be done by holding progress review meetings in conjunction with
obtaining regular reports on project status so that the actual schedule and
expenditures can be compared to the planned targets. These reports therefore must:
2-8
-------
Provide estimates of progress of each task toward its objective
Estimate or detail project expenditures
Determine the schedule status of each task
Determine the budget status of each task
Determine the overall schedule and budget status
_Assure actual expenditures have been properly reported and-recorded.
Monitoring and reporting of Superfund project schedules can be conducted using bar
chart, milestone, and CPM scheduling techniques. Since State contractors have wide
latitude in the structure and detail of status reports prepared for States, RPMs should
ensure that, at a minimum, the reports reflect key tasks and milestones.
Milestone scheduling is generally more suited for monitoring key remedial
response activities that can be conducted independently of other activities. This
method 'is more useful to monitor performance rather than to identify adverse schedule
impacts as in the case with bar charts and CPM networks. For example, planned
completion dates can be compared to actual dates and variances identified.
Bar charts and/or critical paths can be used when durations of sequential
activities are related and delays in earlier tasks can impact follow-on tasks. The bar
chart and CPM techniques help identify critical dates on related tasks that must be met
in order to complete the overall project on schedule as required in the CA.
The RPM may use scheduling information in the short term to ensure that
critical milestones of the current project are met (e.g., remedy approval). These
techniques also can be used for long-term management by advising upper-level
Regional managers of schedule delays that could affect schedule and budget
decisions in follow-on work (e.g., RD & RA). However, the RPM should not substitute
sceduling information for frequent personal contact with the State.
Monitoring and reporting of the budget status will depend upon the intended
use of the information. The RPM generally will use the State's financial reports for two
purposes: first, to ensure that a particular activity is being accomplished according to
its overall schedule and within its budget ceiling, and second, to identify when budget
variances occur that require additional project funding. This may result in a
modification to the Regional SCAP. Techniques to control schedule and budget
variances are discussed in the following sections.
In addition to the normal process of monitoring schedule and budget, the RPM
must perform a variety of other monitoring functions, depending upon the phase of
activity at a given site. Examples of events to be monitored include:
Performance of the CA SOW; e.g., review of State/State contractor
deliverables to ensure technical quality
The State's design and construction contractor selection process
Review of construction change orders.
This manual describes many of the monitoring and reporting methods by which the
Agency and individual Regions track progress for specific site remedial activities and
provide necessary management support and review of the work. These methods will
not be restated here.
2-9
-------
2.2.3 Control
Trend analysis allows the project manager to gauge the importance of
variances that are identified from the schedule and budget reports obtained through
monitoring activities. Study of schedule and budget trends, in addition to direct
observations of project performance, can be highly informative, particlriarly where
update reports on schedule and budget are available on a regular basis. Changes in
cash flow trends as a function of time, a steady deterioration in schedule status or
deliverable quality, and negative trends in progress toward completion with coincident
higher than planned cash flow are indicators of problems.
Project progress meetings on project deliverables and schedule and budget
reports can identify variances from the plan that are either long-term trends or
immediate events. The process by which the project manager responds to a particular
management issue will vary based on the nature of the problem. Control is bv
definition a proactive, rather than passive process (as is monitoring^. The RPM must
actively deal with factors that mav adversely affect achievement of task or overall
project objectives.
The RPM can avoid or control variances by taking preventive or corrective
actions. The three basic types of actions may be summarized as follows:
Anticipatory Actions - Modify external factors in such a manner that
project variances do not occur
• Work-Around Strategies -- Respond to an existing negative variance,
usually schedule or budget, to accommodate changes, but at no impact
to the overall project plan
Plan Modifications - Accommodate variances by altering project
budget, schedule, or scope.
(Note: Anticipatory actions and work-around strategies are generally
preferred to plan modifications.)
Control measures the RPM may take usually involve one or more of the actions cited
above. The following are a few examples of such measures:
Anticipatory Actions
s
Request remedial planning (REM) contractor or U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE) assistance for review of design documents
prepared by the State's contractor
Limit document reviews to essential parties and maintain strict review
schedules
Closely coordinate analytical needs with Contract Laboratory Program
(CLP) capacity
Increase direct observation of field activity to ensure program
requirements are being met and avoid otherwise unnecessary field
efforts
2-10
-------
Be aware of upcoming project milestones and associated EPA and
community reviews.
Work-Around Strategies
• Use additional laboratory support to ensure timely turn-around' of
sample data
Reduce sampling efforts
Initiate FS analysis using unvalidated data
Delete an operable unit
Streamline requirements for State work products to avoid repetition of
data or other information.
Plan Modifications
Execute CA amendments to adjust budget or schedule resulting from
major work scope changes
Revise the SCAP for subsequent funding
Revise the milestone or bar chart schedule (e.g., delay RD/RA one
construction season)
Revise critical path endpoints or schedule milestones for a specific
project plan.
Exhibit 2-2 shows the relationship of project planning, monitoring, and
controlling functions. As the exhibit illustrates, the functions are interrelated and all
must be employed to achieve effective project management. Each involves
techniques applied at various stages in the project execution. However, the final
areas of RPM responsibility to be discussed -- directing/coordinating/communicating -
continue throughout all project stages.
2.3 DIRECTING/COORDINATING/COMMUNICATING
As a general rule, the larger the project budget, the more important is the
coordinating and communicating function of the project manager. The RPM needs to
coordinate project activities at several levels. It is necessary to coordinate internally
with programs such as Environmental Services Division to provide analytical data
reviews, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Toxic Substance Control
Act to assure compliance with appropriate environmental laws and requirements.
Without this input at the appropriate times, project delays could occur. Close
coordination between the RPM and State/State contractor also is needed to ensure
that project objectives are being met. Such coordination will help the RPM, State, and
State's contractor to identify and correct problems before they adversely impact the
project. Finally, the RPM needs to ensure that the State and State's contractor are
aware of all current program requirements and policies in order to avoid
misunderstandings and delays. By keeping the State fully informed, the RPM can
increase the likelihood of prompt EPA reviews at various project decision points.
-------
Communication among the RPMs within the Agency also is extremely
important. Innovative solutions to complex problems have been developed through
experience at various sites. RPMs should learn from these experiences by
communicating with other RPMs (both within and outside one's Region) and
Headquarters staff to avoid or anticipate similar problems.
Since a large portion of the work is being done by private contractors who are
not always current on all program policies and goals, the coordinating and
communicating skills of the RPM are a major factor in project success.
The unique problems associated with Superfund sites require the RPM to play
a key role in ensuring project quality. The RPM is the single EPA individual
responsible for directing the State in a number of technical and policy areas. The
RPM should be knowledgeable in the following ares in order to ensure the technical
quality of site-related work:
Sampling and analysis of contaminated media
Environmental fate and transport analysis
Risk and exposure assessment
Evaluations of remedial technologies
Environmental impact evaluation
Cost estimation
RD and RA considerations.
In addition to these technical areas, the RPM should be familiar with environmental
regulations and policies that will affect how the technical disciplines are applied to a
particular site. By integrating technical, regulatory,.and policy areas, the RPM can
provide adequate quality assurance review of project activities and can be effective in
their directing, coordinating, and communicating role.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Burstein, David and Frank Stasiowski, Project Management for the Design
Professional. Whitney Library of Design, 1982.
Cleland, David, I. and William R. King, ed., Project Management Handbook Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1983.
Cleland, David, I. and William R. King, Systems Analysis and Project Management
McGraw Hill, New York, 1983.
Drucker, Peter, F., Management Tasks. Responsibilities. Practices. Harper and Row,
New York, 1974.
Hall, P., Great Planning Disasters. Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London, 1980.
Kast, F.E. and J.E. Rosenweig, Organization and Management. A Systems Approach.
McGraw Hill, New York, 1970.
Ruskin, A.M. and W.E. Estes, What Every Engineer Should Know About Project
Management. Marcel Dekker, 1982.
Souder, W.E., Management Decision Methods for Managers of Engineering and
Research. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1980.
Struckenbruck, Linn, C., The Implementation of Project Management. The
Professional's Handbook. Addison Wesley Inc., 1981.
2-12
-------
3. INITIAL PROJECT PLANNING AND START-UP ACTIVITIES
An important focus of this chapter is project planning and its relationship to
monitoring and control. This chapter generally addresses activities to be-performed
prior to and during the early stages of the remedial investigation/feasibility study
(RI/FS). It is divided into seven major .sections:
Development of a Site Management Plan
Planning activities required prior to starting a State-lead remedial
project
Rl scoping and development of general response objectives
Development and execution of a Cooperative Agreement (CA)
Oversight of the CA
State procurement under a Superfund CA
Work plan review and approval.
Exhibit 3-1 illustrates the activities which occur during the project planning and start-
up phase of a remedial response. The top one-third of the diagram represents those
activities which are the responsibility of the remedial contractor; the middle one-third
those that are the responsibility of the State; and the bottom one-third those that are
the responsibility of EPA.
This chapter is intended to highlight specific activities which the RPM must
accomplish or coordinate in order to start up a remedial project. The RPM should
regard each remedial .site assignment as a long-term comprehensive project
management responsibility. The RPM must assume an active planning/management/
oversight role early in the initiation of each project and maintain this role throughout
the multi-year remedial response.
3.1 DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT PLAN
A Site Management or Project Plan should be developed which describes the
activities, schedule, and budget necessary to accomplish the timely and cost-effective
clean-up of the hazardous waste site. Its careful development requires that
appropriate consideration be given to the range of needs and possible problems
which will be encountered in performing remediation. Once prepared, it provides a
means to monitor progress and exert control as clean-up proceeds. Its use can
promote EPA and State efficiency through better projection of resource needs, provide
a baseline by which progress is monitored, and increase RPM and SPO effectiveness
by allowing site managers to focus jointly on accomplishing milestones along the
project's critical path. Regions have been encouraged to develop and use site-
specific Site Management Plans in the past.
3-1
-------
EXHIBIT 3-1
Initial Project planning and Start-up Activities
CONTRACTOR
< DRAFT\
T P*-*N 'AND -
SUPPLEMENTAL
, "WORK PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAt. Pt-ANS
GENERAL
RESPONSE
OBJECTIVES
• SPECIAL NOTICE
TOPRPsFORRI/FS
EPA
DEVELOPMENT OF BASELINE PROJECT PLAN
LEGEND:
ACTMTY
DOCUMENT
BEGIN ONGOING PROJECT MANAGEMENT,
SUPERFUND COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
3-2
-------
A Project Plan generally scopes out the entire remedial process as one project:
RI/FS. design, construction, and operation and maintenance. The Project Plan should
be a management tool which ties the scope, budget, and schedule of all of these
activities together.
The Project Plan should be considered a working document that can be
modified to respond to changing project and program management needs. The Plan
provides an initial baseline against which progress is monitored. Analysis of the
results of project monitoring leads to actions (controls) which can include revision of
the Project Plan. Revisions to the Project Plan should occur often enough to reflect
changed needs and circumstances, but not so frequently so as to cause the Plan to
lose its application as a project baseline. During the execution of site work, a Project
Plan should be updated for any one of the following reasons:
*• Significant new information necessitates a change in the scope,
schedule, or cost of an individual project site
Scope, schedule, or cost vary significantly from the plan
A key milestone is reached in the site project schedule.
Two additional general points should be considered when developing a
Project Plan. First, a Plan is only a means to assist in obtaining two ultimate
objectives: 1) the timely remediation of a hazardous waste site at reasonable cost and
2) successful Regional and national remedial program management. Second, the
simpler the planning tool is to use, the more useful it will be during the project.
Each site has unique objectives and circumstances and a Project Plan should
reflect this. The format of a Project Plan can vary from the completely narrative to a
collection of diagrams and tables, or a mixture of the two. The basic organizational
structure of the project, the project objectives, the delineation of responsibility between
involved parties, and other items might best be put in brief narrative form with
diagrams. These items tend to change less during the course of the project. Items
which change more frequently such as project schedules, milestones, and budget
figures are more appropriately put in a data base format for ease of manipulation. The
data base format should be the same for all remedial projects within a Region in order
to allow the site-specific information to be combined into program planning reports.
The Project Plan should reflect major goals, milestones, and constraints
imposed on the whole site remedial project through operation and maintenance.
When first developed, prior to initiation of the RI/FS, the Plan will be relatively generic.
However, it should be based on the best available estimate of the activities and
resources necessary to complete the site work. Once the baseline Plan is developed,
the routine reporting format should match the plan format so that over time each
significant variance from the Plan can be easily identified and analyzed by the RPM,
SPO and other managers. Management must then conclude one of two things: 1) the
project conditions have changed such that the baseline Project Plan needs to be
modified; or 2) steps can be taken to respond to the factors causing the variance such
that conformance to the baseline Plan can be reestablished in the future.
The baseline Project Plan developed by the RPM, SPO and State contractors
for a State-lead project is an essential planning and management tool. A first cut at
the baseline Project Plan should be developed by the RPM as one of the first
responsibilities of a site manager. This draft Plan should reflect EPA's general
3-3
-------
program goals for planning/scheduling. After the RPM and SPO have established a
working relationship and have discussed the site project more specifically, the draft
baseline Project Plan can be further developed to be consistent with State
planning/scheduling needs. The baseline Project Plan should not be finalized until
the State's contractor has been selected and has had the opportunity for input and
commitment to the Plan. This is necessary if the Project Plan is to be truly useful as a
communication link between the EPA managers, the RPM, SPO and project
contractors. All parties must recognize that the agreed upon baseline Project Plan for
each site will be used by EPA management not only for major project decisions, but
also the Plan will provide input into the Agency's data base used for overall remedial
program planning, scheduling and funding decisions.
The Project Plan should be routinely reviewed, probably no less often than
every three months, to ensure that the most recent data are being used. Major
updates/revisions to the Plan would be necessary as each individual activity nears
completion and a detailed schedule for the next activity is developed. Schedules for
each separate activity must be realistic but should be consistent with the baseline
Plan (schedule) for the entire remedial project. To the extent possible, delays during
individual activities should not be allowed to impact the entire project schedule. The
RPM should make every effort to maintain schedules leading up to the construction
phase, because undue delays during remedial planning activities can easily result in
the loss of an entire construction season. It is equally important to maintain
construction schedules where slippages can result in significant cost overruns.
3.2 PLANNING ACTIVITIES REQUIRED PRIOR TO STARTING A
REMEDIAL PROJECT
Prior to or concurrent with the development of a CA application package for a
RI/FS, there are several preliminary activities in which the RPM may become involved.
These are activities the RPM should initiate as soon as possible after being assigned
to a State-lead remedial project. These activities may vary depending on the remedial
activity to be funded under a CA; they include the following:
Establish a working relationship with State, especially the SPO
Coordinate activities with enforcement/cost recovery staff
Provide input to the Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan
Ensure that the State obtains site access
Provide information to State officials on intergovernmental review
requirements or refer State officials to Regional Grants Office for
assistance
Provide information and assistance to State officials on credit claim
submission requirements
Coordinate with community relations staff.
This section will discuss the RPM's specific responsibilities for each of these initial
activities. Exhibit 3-2, on the following pages, summarizes these responsibilities.
3-4
-------
EXHIBIT 3-2
Initial Activities
ACTIVITY
RPM RESPONSIBILITIES
REFERENCES
cn
Establishment of a working relationship with the
State Project Officer (SPO) and other State personnel
Coordination of activities with enforcement/cost
recovery staff
3. Coordination with community relations staff
4. Rovfow of llm RuporfiinH Comprohonr.lvo
Accomplishments Plan (SCAP)
Meeting with the SPO to discuss the site and
EPA's remedial process
Sharing EPA background Information on the site with State
Assessing the level of RPM Involvement required for
ensuring that the project Is conducted in accor-
dance with all relevant statutes, regulations
and policies
Sharing Information about responsible parties with
State and EPA enforcement staff to determine
tho viability of an enforcomont action. May Include early
identification of responsible parties and Issuance of
special notice to PRPs for negotiations moratorium
Establishing site files and documenting all steps
taken during the remedial response to support any
future cost recovery actions
Working dosely with the State to Inform the SPO
of the provisions regarding enforcement cost
recovery .and responsibilities tor providing
evidence, documentation, and expert witnesses
Assisting the SPO In developing the community
relations plan, if requested
Maintaining documentation on community relations
activities and approvals
Monitoring development of the community relations
plan to ensure its timely preparation
Fnr.urlng Ihnl Iho propor.nd projoct Ir, nccur.ilolv
listed on the SCAP
CERCLA Enforcement
Attorney's M anual, April 1984
"Timely Initiation of Responsible
Party Searches, Issuance of Notice
Letters, and Release of Information."
Octobers, 1985
State Manual, Appendix U
"Procedures for Documenting
Costs for CERCLA §107
Actions," January 20,
1985 *
Community Relations in
Superfund: A Handbook,
September 1983 (under revision)
Son ctirrnnt year SCAP
See end of chapter for additional Enforcement-related references.
-------
EXHIBIT 3-2
Initial Activities (Continued)
ACTIVITY
RPM RESPONSIBILITIES
REFERENCES
5. Obtaining site access and permits
Provision of information to State officials on
Intergovernmental review requirements
CO
6>
Supporting the State In obtaining site access and
permits
Identifying all permits that may be required
(e.g.. drilling permits)
Meeting with State representative to discuss
strategies
Obtaining legal advice from the Office of Roglonal
Counsel
Forseeing project delays and added costs
atrributable to limited site access or permit problems
Ensuring that the SPO initiates the review process
early
Ensuring that the SPO notifies the single point
of contact for the proposed project at least
one quarter prior to anticipated obligation of
funds
Responding to Intergovernmental review comments.
If appropriate
E.O. 12372
State Manual, Appendix D
7. Provision of information and assistance to State
officials on credit claim submission requirements
Making the SPO aware of the criteria by which past
expenditures will be judged as creditable
Assisting the SPO in developing the States's credit
claim submission
Stale Manual. Appendix C.
-------
3.2.1 Establishment of Working Relationships with State Personnel
As soon as possible after being assigned to a State-lead remedial response
site, the RPM should contact the appropriate State officials to discuss the site and
EPA's remedial program processes. The State generally will assign anvSPO who
manages the remedial response conducted under a CA. Usually, the RPM and SPO
hold a meeting to discuss plans of action and to delineate each party's expected roles
and responsibilities. At this time, the RPM should make an initial assessment of the
level of involvement necessary to ensure that the remedial project is conducted in
accordance with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP), November 20, 1985, EPA Superfund policies, and other Federal regulations.
It may be appropriate during early meetings to exchange and review
information on the site. This may include Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection
(PA/SI) and Hazard Ranking System (MRS) reports. If the State is becoming involved
at a later stage in the remedial response sequence, other documents are more
appropriate. The RPM also should arrange to conduct a site visit with the SPO. It is
critical that the RPM meet with the SPO and other State officials to discuss and
describe the RPM's roles and responsibilities during a State-lead response. Early
discussion with State representatives should provide the basis for conducting a long-
term project that is a cooperative, coordinated, mutual State/EPA accomplishment.
The Superfund Amendments provide broad based authority and an extensive
list of requirements for State involvement in every phase of the Superfund program.
EPA will be developing regulations concerning State involvement that will provide for:
Participation in long-term planning for all remedial actions in a State
Reasonable opportunity to review and comment on planning
documents, technical data, engineering designs, or proposed findings
and decisions to waive requirements
Notification of an opportunity for participation in negotiations with
potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
! • Notification of and opportunity for comment on the proposed plan for
remedial action and other plans under consideration
Concurrence on deleting sites from the NPL
3.2.2 Coordination of Activities with Enforcement/Cost Recovery Staff
The RPM is responsible for assisting in the development of enforcement and
cost recovery actions against PRPs. This involves four major activities:
Sharing information about PRPs with State and EPA enforcement staff
to determine the viability of an enforcement action
Issuing special notice to PRPs thereby initiating the 60/90-day RI/FS
negotiations moratorium
3-7
-------
Establishing site files and documenting all steps taken during the
remedial response to support any future cost recovery actions
Working closely with the State to make sure that the SPO is aware of
the provisions concerning enforcement, cost recovery, and.
responsibilities for providing evidence, documentation, and^'expert
witnesses (State personnel may be asked to appear in court or to give
depositions).
The RPM should contact enforcement staff in the Region and in the State as
early as possible in the remedial planning process to offer assistance in identifying
PRPs (preferably during the development of sites for the NPL listing). The RPM
should provide any relevant information on the site which may be of use in
encouraging responsible parties to conduct the RI/FS. The RPM also should be
prepared to provide technical assistance in the issuance of notice letters to PRPs, if
requested by enforcement staff. The RPM should refer to the memoranda entitled
"Procedures for Issuing Notice Letters," OWPE, October 12, 1984, and "Timely Issuance
of Responsible Party Searches, Issuance of Notice Letters, and Release of Information, "
OWPE, October 9, 1985 for detailed explanation of these enforcement requirements.
The Office of Regional Counsel (ORC) should be alerted when funds have been
allocated on the SCAP for a site. At this time the RPM should inform the ORC of any
known issues to ensure the availability of necessary legal advice and judgment
concerning the site.
Under SARA, EPA may issue "special notice" if it determines that negotiations
would facilitate an agreement with PRPs to either undertake or finance an RI/FS. EPA
also must provide notice to the State of negotiations with PRPs and provide an
opportunity for State participation in the negotiations. Upon receipt, PRPs have 60
days to submit a proposal to undertake or finance the RI/FS. During this period, EPA
may not initiate the RI/FS. If PRPs do not submit a good faith proposal within this time,
EPA may proceed with the RI/FS. If PRPs do submit a good faith proposal within 60
days of notice, the moratorium continues until 90 days past the date of notice while
EPA evaluates the proposal. This enforcement negotiations moratorium must be
completed prior to award of a Cooperative Agreement with the State for RI/FS.
The collection and maintenance of proper documentation is critically important
to the development and implementation of a successful enforcement or cost recovery
action. In general, high quality, well-organized site files also are essential for
successful project management. Potential evidence concerning the site and
responsible parties must be noted and documented before the response activity or the
passage of time may obscure or destroy it. Physical evidence essential at trial must
be collected and preserved appropriately. The RPM should make sure that the SPO is
aware of the provisions regarding enforcement, cost recovery, and the State's
responsibilities for providing evidence and documentation.
The RPM should remind the SPO that in accordance with 40 CFR Part 30,
EPA's general assistance regulation, a State entering into a CA must maintain a file
containing all relevant documents and communications pertaining to the development
and implementation of that Agreement. These records should include such site-
specific documentation as ledgers, purchasing and contracting files, receipts,
vouchers, travel authorizations, and equipment costs and usage. Records must be
maintained intact for three years after submission of the final Financial Status Report
(SF-269) or until any litigation, claim, appeal, or audit begun during that three-year
3-8
-------
period has been settled. For further information on documentation requirements, see
Appendix U of the State Manual.
The RPM also should remind the SPO that proper chain-of-custody procedures
must be followed. These procedures are summarized in the following chapter on
RI/FS and are fully described in the National Enforcement Investigation Center (NEIC)
Policies and Procedures Manual, May 1978 (revised 1985). "*'
As EPA develops its enforcement strategy for a site, the RPM should ensure
that sufficient coordination among participants is exercised.
3.2.3 Input to Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan
(SCAP)
The SCAP is an EPA management plan which lists site-specific Superfund
financial allocations for each fiscal year. Prior to the beginning of a fiscal year, each
Region must draft and submit a site-specific list (with the exception of pre-remedial
activities which are not funded site-specifically) of removal, remedial, and enforcement
activities, schedules, and estimated costs; pending final Headquarters review and
approval, these are included in the integrated SCAP for the upcoming fiscal year.
RPMs should become familiar with the current year's SCAP implementation plan and
any related memoranda providing information on SCAP development.
The draft SCAP goes through a series of Regional and Headquarters reviews
and revisions before finally being approved by the Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (AA/OSWER). An important
responsibility of the RPM is providing site-specific activity and financial information
and schedules to the Regional representative who compiles, adjusts, and amends the
SCAP.
It is important for the RPM to make sure the project currently being planned is
consistent with the SCAP. If the SCAP does not reflect project needs, the RPM is
responsible for initiating SCAP adjustments and/or amendments. Adjustments are
modifications to the SCAP which neither alter the number of activities originally set
forth nor exceed the Regional allowance (e.g., replacing one RI/FS with another of
equal magnitude). Amendments are modifications that increase or decrease the "new
starts" targets or exceed the Regional quarterly allowance. Generally, the RPM will
work with the Regional SCAP contact to accomplish SCAP changes.
3.2.4 Obtaining Site Access
Obtaining site access for remedial planning activities is a critical path activity
that should begin as early as possible. The State is responsible for obtaining site
access; however, the RPM should be prepared to assist the State in this effort. The
RPM should encourage the SPO to identify specific site access requirements and to
develop a strategy and a schedule for obtaining access that will not delay field work
start-up for the RI/FS. Access, even when obtained, may be restricted. For example,
access for field work near a highly traveled roadway may be allowed only during non-
peak traffic hours. The RPM and SPO must consider the impact of any access
restrictions on schedules and budgets.
Site access may be difficult to obtain in some cases. The SPO should consult
with State legal officials to determine the appropriate approach or mechanism to
obtain site access. If voluntary access cannot be obtained, the State must use all its
3-9
-------
available legal authorities to obtain site access before EPA will consider taking legal
actions under its authorities. The RPM should coordinate closely with the SPO if
disputes arise regarding site access. The Superfund Amendments generally
strengthen EPA's ability to obtain site access. The RPM should consult with ORC and
the HSCD Regional Coordinator for assistance and current policy guidance on site
access issues.
3.2.5 Provision of Information to State Officials on Intergovernmental
Review Requirements - Executive Order 12372
One of the requirements of any Federally funded project is that the project must
undergo intergovernmental review prior to obligation of funds (in this case award of
the CA or Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement (MSCA)). The regulation that
implements Executive Order (E.O.) 12372 is Intergovernmental Review of EPA
Programs and Activities (40 CFR Part 29). The intent of the E.O. and the supporting
regulation is to increase Federal responsiveness to State and local entities and to
ensure full consideration of their concerns in decision-making on proposed financial
assistance and direct Federal development projects. Appendix 0 of the State Manual
provides information on the specific Superfund requirements for intergovernmental
review.
The E.O. and EPA's regulation allow most EPA assisted projects within a
State's borders to be reviewed by procedures established by that State. The State
may choose to include that activity under its intergovernmental review process or may
choose not to do so. Thus, there are basically two sets of intergovernmental review
procedures that the RPM must follow: one to be followed when the State has
established a formal review process to include the Superfund activity in question, and
one when it has not.
In either case, the RPM must be particularly concerned with the following
elements of intergovernmental review:
Knowing who is the State's single point of contact (SPOC)* and
becoming familiar with State review procedures
Ensuring that the State has formally notified the designated SPOC (if
one has been established) at least one quarter prior to the RI/FS
obligation date identified in the SCAP
Accommodating intergovernmental concerns. This means that EPA
must do one of the following:
Accept the official State process recommendation, or
Reach a mutually agreeable solution, or
Provide the SPOC with a written explanation for not
implementing the recommendation.
A person who will act as a conduit for transmitting review comments and other relevant
information between the State and EPA.
3-10
-------
In the last case, the RPM must prepare a letter for the Regional Administrator's (RA)
signature, informing the SPOC of the reasons for the non-accommodation; a copy of
each non-accommodation should be sent to the Chief, Grants Policy and Procedure
Branch (PM-216), Grants Administration Division, EPA, Washington,, D.C. 20460,
(202) 382-5268. If the situation is controversial, the RPM must consult with this Branch
Chief before taking action. '•
The RPM must include the following materials pertaining to the review in the
CA application package:
A dated copy of the letter notifying the SPOC of a proposed remedial
project.
A copy of the State recommendation (if any), and the RA's response to
the SPOC, if the recommendation differs from EPA's proposed action.
Any other letters commenting on EPA's proposed action including
opinions of reviewers differing from the State's application.
The RPM also is responsible for summarizing the results of the intergovernmental
review in the Decision Memorandum which is prepared as part of the concurrence
package for each CA application.
For several projects funded under a MSCA, a single notification letter will be
sufficient. The letter should include site names, locations, and an individual summary
of the problems at each site.*
3.2.6 Provision of Information and Assistance to State Officials on State
Credit Claims Requirements
Based on the provisions of CERCLA section 104(c)(3)(C), EPA will grant
States a credit against their share of costs under a CA for certain previous State
expenditures made between January 1, 1978, and December 11, 1980. Under SARA,
the State also may be eligible for credit for work performed between December 11,
1980 and October 17, 1986. If the State had an agreement in place with EPA, and
expenses were incurred at an NPL site owned, but not operated by the State, amounts
above the 10 percent cost share may be creditable. The RPM is responsible for
making the SPO aware of the criteria by which past expenditures will be judged as
creditable and may assist the SPO in developing the State's credit claim submission.
The RPM should encourage the State to initiate this process early since the review
and audit procedures may be lengthy. See Appendix C of the State Manual for further
information on credit claim procedures.
This is only true for RI/FS and pre-remedial activities in an MSCA. Separate notifications
are required for each site undergoing remedial design and construction. See Appendix D, of the
State Manual.
3-11
-------
3.2.7 Coordination with Community Relations Staff
A community relations plan (CRP) is developed in order to document planned
community relations activities. The CRP should be developed and submitted with the
State's final CA application. The CRP must be approved prior to the initiation of on-
site Rl activities. This should be done as soon as possible in order to avoid delays in
the start of site work. For State-lead sites, the CRP usually is developed by the State
in coordination with other interested agencies. It is extremely important that the RPM
closely monitor development of the CRP to ensure that it is prepared in a timely
manner; if this is not done, initiation of on-site activities may be delayed unnecessarily.
To ensure that the CRP is timely and adequate, the RPM may assist the SPO in
developing the CRP, if requested, working closely with the Regional Superfund
Community Relations Coordinator (RSCRC). The RPM also should offer the SPO the
option of obtaining EPA contract assistance in developing the CRP. The RPM should
inform the SPO that the State may prepare a generic CRP for all remedial activities to
be carried out by the State under a MSCA application only when similar actions are
comtemplated (e.g., RI/FS at three sites). However, a site secific CRP must be in place
before field work may commence. The RPM may draw from such resources as the
RSCRC, other Regional community relations staff, and the Community Relations in
Superfund: A Handbook, September 1983, in order to assist the State.
Approval of the CRP is the joint responsibility of the RPM and the Regional
community relations staff. The RPM should be sure to include documentation of the
CRP approval in the site file. Field activities at a site may not begin until EPA has
approved the CRP.
3.3 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SCOPING AND DEVELOPMENT OF
GENERAL RESPONSE OBJECTIVES
Prior to developing work plans and conducting the RI/FS there are two crucial
steps that shape the execution of subsequent project planning and RI/FS activities:
Rl Scoping -- involves the collection and analysis of existing site
information; this sets the basis for developing the Rl sampling plan to
address outstanding data needs (such as data required to characterize
the site and corresponding risks or threat of risks; and those needed to
evaluate alternative remedial actions)
General Response Objectives -- or classes of response, should be
identified in order to expedite and focus the scope of the RI/FS.
Each of the activities is discussed in the NCP and described in detail in:
• Guidance on Remedial Investigations Under CERCLA, June 1985
Guidance on Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA, June 1985.
These documents will hereafter be referred to as the Rl Guidance and the FS Guidance,
respectively.
At this time, the RPM should begin to evaluate whether certain activities or
phases of the site response action could be undertaken using either remedial or
removal program resources. Revisions to the NCP redefine the response categories
3-12
-------
of "removal actions" and "remedial actions." Removals now include all activities
formerly called immediate removals, planned removals, and initial remedial measures
(IRMs). Despite the changes in the NCP, most response actions will continue to fall
into discrete programmatic areas. However, some activities or phases, such as IRM-
type removals or certain other removal actions, can be conducted using either
remedial or removal program resources. Early in the planning process, the RPM
should identify site-specific clean-up situations that may overlap traditional program
boundaries. In these situations, Regional program managers must assign program
responsibility on a case-by-case basis. The RPM should raise these situations to the
proper Regional managers so timely management decisions may be made.
Additional information on removal/remedial program integration is given in section 4.2
of this manual.
During Rl scoping, the RPM and SPO jointly should try to identify operable
units (discrete parts of the entire response consistent with a final 'remedy) and the
remedial technologies most likely to be applicable, and should work with the State's
contractor to ensure that the Rl sampling events are sufficient to support evaluation of
these technologies during the FS.
Rl scoping is conducted by the State with assistance by the RPM. The RPM
should ensure that the State receives (or reviews) all relevant site information
available in EPA's files. This may include:
PA/SI data
Technical Assistance Team (TAT) information
Emergency response removal action data
Contractor files
Site files.
The RPM also should inform the SPO of EPA's schedule requirements and the site's
enforcement status, which may affect sample analysis techniques. In addition, the
RPM may want to review Rl scoping outputs such as:
Site description and boundaries
Site history
Chronology of significant events
Site maps. :
The RPM must have an understanding of the site in order to assist the SPO during Rl
scoping.
Based on preliminary site information, the RPM and SPO should identify
general response objectives, or classes of response, without necessarily identifying
specific technologies. Examples of general response objectives include the following:
Source Control
Management of Migration
Removal.
A more extensive list of general response classes is provided in the FS Guidance . The
general response objectives identified will shape the objectives of the Rl site
characterization and the evaluation of remedial alternatives.
3-13
-------
Early in the remedial program, the RI/FS was often planned and executed as a
series of steps — first the development of the site-specific work plan, followed by the
Rl, and then the FS -•- usually with a single sampling event. This approach sometimes
resulted in a Rl that was not sufficient to support the FS, causing delays and poor
project management. As a result, the RI/FS process now is evolving into a closed
loop approach, where the anticipated data needs of the FS are considered in the Rl
scoping. The anticipated FS data requirements may be approximated by an early
screening of alternatives. This approach is further described in the Rl Guidance and
FS Guidance.
EPA is evaluating methods to streamline the RI/FS and to improve its technical
quality. These potential methods include a greater focus on early alternative
screening; initiation of multiple sampling events, each of which will provide feedback
to continuous Rl scoping; and use of additional analytical alternatives, such as field
screening. These modifications are identified as the phased RI/FS approach.
The key elements of a phased RI/FS include:
Rl focus on obtaining only data necessary to fulfill requirements of the
FS and Record of Decision (ROD)
Early screening of remedial alternatives
Field work conducted in phases to prevent extraneous data collection
and evaluation
Use of sample analysis procedures suited to data objectives and closer
control of analytical turnaround times
Planning focus on phased data collection approach
Control of review periods for deliverables.
The phased approach may speed up and improve the RI/FS process.
3.4 DEVELOPMENT AND EXECUTION OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
• As authorized by sections 104(c)(3) and 104(d)(1) of CERCLA, a CA is the
mechanism used to provide funding to States to conduct State-lead remedial
response activities as well as some enforcement-related activities. The CA
documents EPA and State responsibilities for the project. A State must enter into a
CA with EPA prior to incurring costs for remedial response at a site. A CA may cover
activities at a single site or may include response activities at several sites, in which
case it is known as a Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement (MSCA).
The current CERCLA statute does not provide for Superfund program authority
delegation to States. CERCLA instead allows EPA to enter into site-specific CAs to
provide funding to States to carry out certain actions authorized under CERCLA.
EPA, however, maintains the responsibility for ensuring that these actions are
conducted in accordance with CERCLA, the NCP, and Superfund program policies.
As a funding mechanism, a CA differs from a grant because significant Federal
involvement is maintained throughout the project. This involvement is necessary
3-14
-------
because, as explained in the proceeding paragraph, EPA must ensure that actions
taken under a CA are consistent with CERCLA, the NCP, and program policies. The
RPM is EPA's representative responsible for maintaining Agency involvement. These
responsibilities include overseeing and assisting the State and may include other
EPA responsibilities negotiated with a State on site-specific basis (e.g., in a CA, EPA
may agree to provide analytical services through the Contract Laboratory Program).
Before beginning to assist a SPO to develop a CA application, the RPM should
have a basic understanding of the CA process. This process generally progresses in
three phases:
Development of the CA application by the State
EPA reviews
CA execution and award.
These phases are detailed in Vne State Manual.
The CA application, submitted by the State to EPA, consists of a five-part CA
application form (EPA Form 5700-33) and a number of attachments fulfilling
Superfund requirements and providing more detailed project information. The five
parts of the application are:
Part I - General Summary Information
Part II - Project Approval Information
Part III - Project Budget Information
Part IV - Project Narrative Statement, including the statement of work
Part V - Assurances.
Attachments to the application may include the following:
Attorney General's or Governor's letter certifying the authority of the
official signing the CA to enter into the Agreement and make any
CERCLA § 104 (c) (3) assurances
Intergovernmental review comments and approval
The Procurement System Certification Form (EPA Form 5700-48), as
required by 40 CFR Part 33
The Community Relations Plan (unless plan development is to be
funded by the CA)
The Site Safety Plan
The Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).
Detailed instructions for completing the form itself and for developing each of the
attachments are found in the State Manual and associated appendices. The RPM may
also review Regional files for recently completed applications to use as examples or
for general information.
The CA itself (EPA Form 5700-20A) is distinct from the State's CA application;
it is the actual award document prepared by the EPA Regional office for approval and
acceptance by the Regional Administrator (RA) and the responsible State official. The
3-15
-------
CA specifically incorporates by reference the State's CA application and also contains
any special conditions that EPA attaches to the award. The RPM may also want to
review Regional files for recently executed CA awards.
In addition, three major regulations govern the contents and administration of,
and State conduct of, remedial activities under Superfund remedial CAs. These are:
The NCP (40 CFR Part 300)
General Regulation for Assistance Programs (40 CFR Part 30)
• Procurement Under Assistance Agreements (40 CFR Part 33)
Portions of other regulations, such as 40 CFR Part 29 and 40 CFR Part 32, also may
apply.
.Within this framework, then, the CA development process generally will
progress according to the steps outlined in Exhibit 3-3 on the following page; general
responsibilities of the RPM, as well as the SPO and other participating EPA offices
and personnel, for this process are outlined in Exhibit 3-4. The remainder of this
section discusses the actions that the RPM should take to ensure that a CA meets all
applicable requirements and is executed properly.
3.4.1 Provision of Assistance During Development of
Cooperative Agreement Application
The RPM's major responsibility in the development of a CA application is to
assist the SPO in preparing an application package that describes a project that is
approvable for EPA funding. At a minimum, the RPM must know where to obtain
needed information, including existing guidance manuals, and have access to
persons possessing required expertise. In some cases, the RPM may choose to
supply the SPO with a successful application as an example.
The RPM should ensure that every CA application developed addresses the
legal, technical, financial, and administrative requirements for conducting a remedial
response under CERCLA, including community relations concerns. Preparation of
many portions of the CA application is straightforward and may not require RPM
assistance. Recurring problems have arisen with some sections of the application;
these are discussed below. '•
The RPM should emphasize to the SPO that the State must commit itself to the
project schedule included in the application. Enforcement of schedules is a critical
tool for successful Regional and Headquarters management of the Superfund
program.
3-16
-------
EXHIBIT 3-3
Development and Execution of a Cooperative Agreement
RPM
GRANTS ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL
COMMUNITY RELATIONS COORD.
HSCD RC (OPTIONAL)
RPM
GRANTS ADMMSTRAT1ON
OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL
COMMUNITY RELATIONS COORD.
o
APPLtCVt(Of)
•> * WITH v
AtfACHMENTS
EPA FORM 5700-33
STATE ASSURANCES
PROCUREMENT CERTIFICATION
LETTER Of AUTHORITY
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
REVIEW COMMENTS
COMMUNTTY RELATIONS
PLAN,
EPA FORM 5700-33
SIGNED BY
STATE AGENCY
DIRECTOR
CA APPLICATION
W/ATTACHMENTS
GRANT FUNDING ORDER
(EPA FORM 5700-M)
COMMTMENT NOTICE
(EPA FORM 2550-9)
TFtANSMTTALMEMO
DRAFT PRESS RELEASE
CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION
PLAN
EPA FORM S700-20A
SIGNED BY RA (INCLUDES
SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND
ACCOUNTING INFORMATION)
S DAY CONGRESSIONAL
NOTIFICATION BEFORE
MAILING TO STATE
EPA FORM 5700-20 A
SIGNED BY STATE AGENCY
DIRECTOR
STATE HAS 21 DAYS TO
RETURN ONE COPY OF
ACCEPTED CA AWARD
TORA
. GRANTS ADMN (GICS)
. F1N.MGMT(FMS)
. RPM(SCAP)
. HSCDRC
. HOFCC(CERCLJS)
o
(P
2.
o
TJ
3
(D
0)
m
x
(D
O _
c ni
to w
0°
o
o
•o
(D
s
•-••
<'
(D
>
(Q
(D
-------
EXHIBIT 3-4
Execution of Cooperative Agreements
ACTIVITY
RESPONSIBILITIES
1. CA Draft Application SPO:
RPM:
HSCD RC:
2. CA Final Application SPO:
3. Preparation of the
Funding Package*
4. Award of the CA
RPM:
HSCD RC:
RPM:
GRANTS ADMIN:
FINANCIAL MGMT:
REGIONAL
COUNSEL:
RPM:
RA:
GRANTS ADMIN:
5. Execution of the CA SPO:
GRANTS ADMIN:
FINANCIAL MGMT:
RPM:
HSCD RC:
Developing a draft application package and
submitting it to the RPM
Coordinating State review
Coordinating Regional review and providing
comments to the SPO
Modifying the SCAP, as needed
Providing advice and assisting the SPO with
revisions, as necessary
Assisting the RPM, as necessary (for issue
resolution, program consistency, SCAP revisions)
Revising the draft CA application, as necessary
Obtaining required State concurrences
and the Agency Directors signature
Submitting final application
Coordinating Regional review process; sending a
copy of the application to the HSCD RC
Assisting the RPM, as necessary
Reviewing the final CA application, if requested
Coordinating the development of the
Funding Package
Obtaining concurrences on the Funding Package
Developing special conditions
Submitting the Funding Package to the
Regional Administrator (RA)
May assist in preparation of the Grant
Funding Order and Commitment Notice
Concurring on Funding Package
Tracking the Funding Package through
concurrences
Signing the CA (2 copies) as the Award Official
Coordinating with HQ Grants for
Congressional notification
Sending CA (2 copies) to the State
Agency Director
Obtaining the signature of the State
Agency Director on CA (2 copies)
Returning the one copy to the RA
(Regional grants)
Entering the executed CA date in GICS
Sending copies to Financial Mgmt, RPM
Entering financial data into FMS
Distributing copies of CA to HSCD RC
and other Regional offices as necessary
Filing copy of executed CA in SRCB file
* Preparation of the Funding Package is a Region-specific process and may differ from procedures
outlined here.
3-18
-------
3.4.1.1 Statement of Work (SOW)
In general, the SOW to be included in the CA application should contain a
description of all tasks to be performed and a schedule for their completion, as well
as identify tangible outputs. The RPM may be required to assist the SPO in
developing the SOW to ensure that schedules and outputs are consistent with EPA
policies, procedures and priorities.
The RPM should consult \heRI and FS Guidance manuals to identify elements
appropriate for inclusion; actual SOWs should indicate quantitative estimates to
permit evaluation of the reasonableness and the basis for task costs. In addition, the
RPM should determine where major modifications or additional tasks are needed
and should ensure that the schedule developed is accurate. Finally, the RPM should
be aware of special requirements for MSCAs; MSCA applications may contain a
generic'SOW for all RI/FS projects to be performed, but in addition must include an
SOW for overall MSCA management and coordination activities. For further
information on MSCAs the reader should consult the State Manual.
3.4.1.2 Project Budget
Completion of the project budget is an extremely important step in developing
the CA application, but has proven to be an area where many problems have arisen.
The budget should identify estimated costs for each technical and administrative
activity and task in the SOW in both summary form and detail. The budget summary
should be broken down into the following object class categories:
Personnel
Fringe Benefits
Travel
Equipment
Supplies
Contractual
Construction
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs.
The budget summary also should identify the anticipated total project costs and both
the Federal and non-Federal shares for the project. For MSCAs, the State should
prepare and submit seperate budget sheets for each NPL site and activity included in
each original application and each amendment adding activities and/or sites.
The RPM must be particularly concerned with the allowability and
reasonableness of costs listed in the application budget. Certain budget items have
been a common source of confusion; these include:
Direct versus indirect costs
Administrative and supervision costs
Equipment costs
Enforcement costs
State cost share.
3-19
-------
The RPM should consult the State Manual and the Regional Grants Office for details on
these budget items.
3.4.1.3 Cooperative Agreement Provisions
CA provisions are the mechanisms that define the State and EPA roles and
responsibilities during the CERCLA-funded remedial response. The number and
types of provisions necessary will vary, depending on the site-specific activities to be
funded and the issues that may be encountered. The Superfund program has
developed a set of suggested provisions, listed and briefly described in Appendix F of
the State Manual . The RPM should assist the SPO in determining which of these
provisions should be included in the State's application and should ensure that the
States use the most recent recommended text. In addition, the RPM should
recommend any additional assurances that may be necessary for the project and
should assist the SPO in drafting appropriate language. Those not handled in the
application may become special conditions in the CA if appropriate. The RPM also
should consult with EPA attorneys concerning CA provisions; this will avoid delays
due to any last-minute objections.
3.4.2 Review of Draft Cooperative Agreement Application
The RPM's major responsibilities during review of the draft CA application are
to conduct an initial check of the application and to coordinate the Regional
reviewers, including compiling any comments received and returning them to the
SPO. Immediately upon receiving the application, the RPM should ensure that it has
been completed properly and includes the required attachments. Exhibit 3-5, on the
following page, is a checklist that the RPM can use to assist in this review.
After ascertaining that the application is complete (ensure that all necessary
pages are present), the RPM should circulate copies to reviewers to check the
application for program consistency; of course, the RPM also should review the
application. Participants in the review may vary but should include staff members able
to assess the application from technical, financial, administrative, legal, and policy
aspects.
In reviewing the draft application, experience has shown that there are several
items to which reviewers should pay particular attention, namely:
Is the project budget in accordance with the SCAP budget? (If not,
which needs adjustment?)
Is the itemized budget breakdown complete?
Are the cost estimates reasonable?
Are all applicable assurances present?
Are the equipment and supplies listed in the application budget
necessary for the project?
3-20
-------
EXHIBIT 3-5
Cooperative Agreement Application Package Checklist
COMPONENT/ELEMENT
SUBMISSION
1. Application for Federal Assistance
(EPA Form 5700-33)
• Part I - General Summary Information
• Part II - Project Approval Information
• Part III - Budget Information
• Part IV - Project Narrative Statement
• Part V - Assurances
2. Cooperative Agreement Provisions
3. Other Submissions
• Certification Letter
Intergovernmenal Reviews Comments
Procurement System Certification
Community Relations Plan (CRP)
Site Safety Plan
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
Part I, completed and signed
Part II, completed
Part III, completed
Detailed budget breakdown
Site background summary
Statement of Work
Part V, completed
Provisions stating intent to comply with
40 CFR Parts 30 and 33 and other EPA
regulations, statutes, and general
Agency requirements
CERCLA § 104(c)(3) assurances, as
applicable
Provisions stating intent to follow other
program requirements
Letter signed by the Governor or
Attorney General (or designee)
certifying that the State agencys
entering into the CA have the authority
to do so and to make the assurance
required by CERCLA §104(c)(3)
Comments included as appropriate,
and a summary of the State response
EPA Form 5700-48, completed and with
original signature
Draft CRP included in the draft
application package, final CRP in the
final application package (or a special
condition may be added to the CA
guaranteeing sjbmittal and EPA
approval prior :o initiation of site work)
Completed site safety plan or a
provision guaranteeing its
development and implementation
before commencing site work
Completed QAPP or a provision
guaranteeing is development and
implementation before commencing site
work
3-21
-------
Is the SOW complete and appropriate for the site?
Is the proposed schedule reasonable?
Are the activities to be undertaken consistent with the NCP?
The RPM should ensure that all necessary reviewers have sufficient opportunity to
comment on the draft in order to avoid unnecessary delays during the final application
review. The RPM should compile all comments received, return them to the SPO, and
assist in resolving remaining issues.
3.4.3 Review of Final Cooperative Agreement Application
The State should submit its final CA application directly to the Regional
Administrator after having resolved all issues raised during the Region's draft review.
The application will be officially received in the Regional office by the Grants
Administration Branch (GAB) who will forward the application to the RPM for final
review. The RPM is responsible for the final Regional review. The Region must
accomplish final review and award within 90 days. The RPM should ensure that all
issues raised during the draft review have been resolved and also should ensure that
the application conforms to applicable technical, legal, financial, and policy
requirements. As before, participants in this review may vary, but must include ORC.
The RPM will be responsible for assisting EPA personnel in conducting this
review. The RPM should be available to answer any questions on the application
contents, as well as to discuss any outstanding issues. The RPM should compile any
comments returned and, if they require revision in the CA application, should contact
the SPO to make necessary changes. If changes are relatively minor, the RPM may
choose to make the required revisions after negotiating with the SPO and obtaining
State concurrence to do so. At this stage, the RPM also should be available to the
SPO to provide any additional assistance required in revising the CA application. The
RPM is advised to utilize the available expertise of EPA Regional and Headquarters
personnel, when necessary; the Regional Coordinator in HSCD can be especially
helpful in problem resolution and can contact Headquarters staff members with
knowledge in required fields.
3.4.4 Preparation of Funding Package :
Once the final review is complete, the RPM and the Regional GAB should-
jointly prepare a Funding Package to be submitted to the RA for approval and
signature.* The Funding Package generally includes:
A transmittal memorandum to the RA from the Superfund Division
Director recommending approval of the Agreement and highlighting
potential issues associated with the project
The State's CA application package
The process described in this subsection may vary from Region to Region. Guidance
provided is intended to be general in nature.
3-22
-------
The CA (Offer of Award, EPA Form 5700-20A)
A draft press release for announcing award of the agreement (the RPM
should coordinate with the Regional press office)
A Grant Funding Order (EPA Form 5700-14) and Commitment Notice
(EPA Form 2550-9) obtained from the Regional GAB
A Congressional notification plan for informing concerned Federal and
State officials of the Agreement.
An especially important component of the Funding Package is the Special Conditions
section which the RPM is responsible for developing and attaching to the Grant
Funding Order. These conditions address EPA and Superfund program requirements
that are not adequately covered in the CA application. The RPM, through comments
received from EPA reviewers (especially ORC and GAB) and discussions with the
State, is responsible for identifying project specific requirements or omissions and
rectifying them through the addition of appropriate special conditions. The HSCD
Regional Coordinator in EPA Headquarters can also provide assistance. However,
the RPM should inform the SPO of the addition of special conditions; this may help to
eliminate any delays in CA execution.
When the RPM has assembled the Funding Package, it should be circulated
for final concurrence to the EPA personnel (Superfund, ORC, and financial
management) involved in the draft and final CA application reviews. The RPM then is
responsible for ensuring that the package is sent .to the Regional grants office for
addition of necessary financial information and, thereafter, to the RA, as the Award
Official, for signature of the award.
3.4.5 Preparation of Deviation Request
In some site-specific situations, the State may request permission to incur costs
for tasks included irrtlie CA application prior to award of the actual agreement.
Examples of situations that may merit such expenditures include:
Anticipated severe weather conditions that require immediate initiation
of the project
Impending expiration of State funds authorized for the project cost
share
Imminent or high potential hazard caused by delay in project initiation.
Pre-award expenditures are prohibited under section 30.308 of EPA's general
assistance regulation; however, 40 CFR 30.1001 allows EPA to grant "deviations"
from regulations, provided that certain conditions are met.
The State must have submitted its final CA application to EPA in order to
request a deviation to allow pre-award costs to be incurred. The State must submit a
formal, written request to obtain a deviation and must obtain the approval of the
Headquarters Director of the Grants Administration Branch (GAB). The RPM will play
a key role in the deviation process; the RPM's responsibilities include those
summarized below:
3-23
-------
The RPM should provide any assistance requested by the State in the
preparation of the deviation request. This request must be from the
State signatory to the CA application and must be directed to the RA,
through the RPM.
Upon receiving the deviation request from the State, the RPM must
coordinate the Regional review. Such Regional review should be
conducted only for deviation requests where the State has
officially filed a CA application and where the project is included on the
approved SCAP.
The RPM must develop the written Regional deviation recommendation
to Headquarters GAD for signature by the RA. The RPM also should
notify the HSCD Regional Coordinator that a deviation request is being
submitted and should ensure that a copy is sent to this individual upon
RA signature.
The RPM is responsible for coordinating any Regional participation in
the Headquarters review and approval process. The Regional
recommendation, after RA signature, is transmitted to the Headquarters'
GAD. The HSCD Regional Coordinator will be asked to concur in the
GAD review approval. The RPM may be required to assist in resolving
any problems or providing additional justification, if required.
3.4.6 Award and Execution of Cooperative Agreement
After the RA signs (at least) two copies of the CA and the five-day
Congressional Notification period is completed, both copies, accompanied by an
optional cover letter making the offer of award, are sent to the State for acceptance.
The State has three weeks to sign and return the award. After signature by the RA, the
Regional grants office enters the CA information into the Financial Management
System (FMS). The State may begin incurring costs identified in the CA on the date of
the RA's signature (provided this is the beginning of the project period).
Upon signature of the award by the State applicant, one copy of the signed CA
must be returned to the Regional GAB. The Regional GAB is responsible for
distributing the signed copies to the appropriate Regional offices such as financial
management and the Superfund program office (RPM) to complete the execution
process. The RPM should obtain a signed copy and send additional copies to the
HSCD Regional Coordinator. The RPM also should ensure that relevant information,
such as the date of the award, activities funded, schedules, and proposed costs, is
entered into the CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS) data base.
If the State applicant is not satisfied with the offer of award, the State may
choose not to accept the CA. In this case the State should document its concerns in
writing and submit them to the RA. The RPM must coordinate the renegotiation of
unresolved issues in order to execute a CA acceptable to both EPA and the State.
3-24
-------
3.5 OVERSIGHT OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
The RPM's oversight responsibilities are described throughout this manual.
This section provides the RPM with a better understanding of EPA's general
approach to oversight of State projects funded under CAs, and describes corrective
actions and measures for non-compliance that may be taken when EPA determines
that a State is not adhering with the specific terms of a CA, or when it is necessary to
improve a State's performance under a CA. Although the RA, as the Award Official, is
ultimately responsible for the CA, the RPM is the key EPA official responsible for
ensuring that the State has a clear understanding of EPA's expectations for State
performance under the Superfund CA. The RPM also is responsible for evaluating
the State's performance, for identifying appropriate corrective actions, and in some
cases, for making recommendations to the RA for the imposition of measures for non-
compliance to address persistent, serious State performance problems. The RPM
should maintain a written record of the CA oversight process conducted throughout
each Superfund project.
3.5.1 Approach to Oversight
The RPM should seek to maintain a spirit of EPA/State cooperation during the
CA project period. Wherever possible, EPA should acknowledge excellent State
performance and, through corrective action, assist States to solve problems that
impede Superfund program/project progress. Corrective actions should be based on
experience with a given State and may be progressively more demanding. EPA and
State management officials should be alerted promptly to significant problems that
cannot be resolved by the RPM and SPO during project implementation. If
necessary, issues should be raised to upper level managers to make every effort to
negotiate effective corrective action solutions with the State prior to considering EPA
imposition of measures for non-compliance.
3.5.2 Incentives for Successful State Performance
During the oversight process, the RPM may identify project areas in which the
State has significant successes. EPA response to competent State performance
under a CA may include public acknowledgement by the Regional office, as well as
written acknowledgement by the RPM and/or EPA management officials. Recognition
of a State's Superfund achievements is an effective incentive and also provides other
States with models for success. A sustained level of high performance or steady
progress by a State may result in a more flexible oversight posture by EPA, media-
publication of State program successes, and other incentives designed to stimulate
continued State Superfund achievements (e.g., future funding of State-lead projects).
3.5.3 Corrective Actions
When RPM oversight determines that the terms of the CA are not being
satisfied, the RPM should approach corrective actions constructively. The RPM should
discuss proposed corrective actions with Regional Superfund program managers in
order to ensure maintaining a fair and consistent Regional approach to State
oversight of Superfund CAs. When identifying appropriate corrective actions for a
State-lead project, a State's unique history and needs may be considered.
3-25
-------
When a project problem is identified, the RPM and SPO should immediately
initiate discussions designed to identify necessary corrective actions. Corrective
actions may include, but are not limited to, the following:
Provide the SPO with additional guidance to clarify EPA requirements
Conduct periodic EPA/State working sessions to provide technical
and/or administrative assistance
Send "warning" letters to the SPO or State management officials
describing the problem and the desired State response (including a
schedule, if appropriate)
Obtain technical assistance from the USAGE or the REM contractors
Hold formal meetings including middle and/or upper level State and
Regional managers
Expand the level of EPA oversight, including increasing the level of
communications with State officials and by conducting State office visits
Renegotiate the CA to modify the level of EPA involvement in the project
Revert to Federal-lead project.
If a Region is not able to provide a particular type of essential, specialized assistance
to a State, the RPM should contact the appropriate Regional Coordinator to request
Headquarters resource assistance.
3.5.4 Measures for Non-Compliance
EPA's general assistance regulation, 40 CFR Part 30, Subpart .1 details formal
procedures for resolving EPA/State disputes concerning CAs. The RA may impose
measures for non-compliance on a State if unresolved, significant problems
persistently occur during a project funded under a CA. Measures may include:
Issuing a Stop Work Order
Restricting letter of credit drawdowns by the State
Switching to reimbursable method of payment
Suspending or terminating the CA
Debarring of the State agency as an eligible assistance recipient
Taking other administrative or judicial measures available under the RA
authority.
As with corrective actions, a decision to impose measures for non-compliance on a
given State should be based on EPA's experience with that State. If measures for
non-compliance are under consideration for a Superfund project, the RPM will need to
maintain a high degree of coordination with Regional management officials and with
Headquarters. The RPM must be able to document the specific project problems and
3-26
-------
the corrective actions attempted prior to recommending that the RA impose measures
for non-compliance. The RA ultimately is responsible for determining whether a
problem is sufficiently significant to warrant such measures and for determining the
appropriate type of measure.
3.6 STATE PROCUREMENT UNDER SUPERFUND COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENTS
After the execution of a CA, the State may procure one or more contractors to
perform the funded work. In doing so, it must comply with EPA's regulation
Procurement Under Assistance Agreements (40 CFR Part 33). Often, State procurement
requirements meet the intent of the Agency's regulation and a State can "self-certify"
its system pursuant to 40 CFR 33.110. A signed Procurement System Certification
(EPA Form 570048) must be submitted with a CA application whether or not the State
self-certifies. State self-certification normally will reduce or eliminate RPM review of
individual procurement actions that seeks to determine State compliance with the
specific EPA procurement requirements of Part 33. Self-certification, however, does
not eliminate or reduce the RPM's responsibility for reviewing and concurring on the
State's final contract documents, change orders, etc., to determine that the State
complied both with the site-specific requirements and schedule in the CA and with
general Superfund program requirements.
If a State has certified its procurement system under a specific CA, the RPM
should assess the SPO's working knowledge of EPA's procurement requirements. If
the SPO does not fully understand the procurement regulation, the RPM should
ensure that the SPO consults with other procurement specialists in the State agency.
A summary of 40 CFR Part 33 is included in Exhibit 3-6 on the following page.
The RPM should note that the regulation provides two methods for obtaining the
services of an engineering firm for remedial planning activities: the standard method
(40 CFR 33.505-33.520) and the optional method (40 CFR 33.525). These methods
are defined graphically in Exhibits 3-7 and 3-8, respectively. The RPM also should
note that 40 CFR Part 33 Subpart E describes requirements that pertain specifically to
procurement for Superfund remedial action construction activities.
The RPM's role in State procurement is chiefly one of oversight to ensure that
the State complies with applicable statutes, regulations (especially 40 CFR Part 33),
and policies. The RPM should advise the SPO to keep current and complete
procurement files since the RPM may conduct periodic, informal reviews, and EPA
auditors will conduct interim and/or.final audits of the State's conduct of projects under
each CA. The RPM should perform the following activities:
Encourage the use of methods to expedite procurement
Monitor the State procurement process
If the State has not certified its procurement system, review
procurement and subagreement documents, including final requests for
proposals (RFPs), invitations for bids (IFBs), subagreements, and
change orders.
3-27
-------
EXHIBIT 3-6
Summary of Requirements for Procurement Under
Assistance Agreements (40 CFR 33)
TITLE
SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENT
SECTION
Recipient Responsibility
Submission of Information
Limitation on Subagreement
Award
Competition
Profit
Small, Minority, Women's,
and Labor Surplus
Area Businesses
Documentation
Specifications
oj Bonding and Insurance
oo Code of Conduct
Federal Cost Principles
Prohibited Types of
Subagreements
Cost and Price
Considerations
Lower Tier Subagreements
Small Purchase
Formal Advertising
Competitive Negotiation
Noncompetltlve Negotiation
Requirements for Recipients
of Remedial Action
Cooperative Agreements
Subagreement Provisions
Protests
System must ensure that contractors perform In accordance with all applicable Subagreement requirements 33.210
Recipient must Inform Award Official of construction Subagreements totalling over $10,000 per year 33.211
System must consider listed factors In determining contractor responsibility 33.220
System must have procurement transaction procedures which provide maximum open and free competition 33.230
System procedures must allow only fair and reasonable profits to contractors 33.235
System must take the six affirmative steps specified to assure that MBE/WBE/SBE are used when possible 33.240
System must require that procurement records and files for purchases over $10,000 Include Items specified 33.250
System procedures for establishing specifications must meet the requirements listed 33.255
System procurements must meet the specified requirements 33.265
System must have a written code of standards of conduct for State officials In dealing with contractors 33.270
System procedures for determining allowable costs must meet the specified principles 33.275
System may not allow cost-plus-percentage-of-cost (where multiplier Includes profit) or percentaga-of-constructlon 33.285
types of contracts
System must provide for consideration of cost and price, as specified 33.290
System must require that prime contractors comply with all provisions specified 33.295
System small purchase method must meet specified requirements 33.305-315
System procedures relating to formal advertislng.lnduding those for bidding documents and subcontract awards, 33.405-430
must meet the specified requirements
Syctom procedures for competitive negotiation must meat the specified requirements . 33.505-535
System procedures for noncompetitlve negotiation must meet the specified requirements 33.605
Subpart requires use of formal advertising for remedial action construction procurements unless determined Subpart E •
not to be appropriate (not applicable for remedial planning or for engineering services)
Subpart Includes the clauses which must be contained in Subagreements for procurement Subpart F
Subpart describes procedures to request EPA review of receipient's protest determination Subpart G
-------
EXHIBIT 3-7
Standard Method for Procurement of Engineering Services
/ START \
V PROCEDURES /
DEVELOP PROJECT
SCOPE OF WORK.
SCHEDULE, AND
BUDGET
^
ISSUE
REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS (RFPa)
40 CFR 33.510
k-
RECEIVE
AND
EVALUATE
PROPOSALS
40 CFR 33.515
DETERMIC
ACCEP
PROPt
AREVt
COMPfcTIT
40 CFR 3
t
JE WHICH
TABLE
3SALS
/(THIN
VE RANGE
3.520(a)
CO
ro
-------
EXHIBIT 3-8
Optional Method for Procurement of Engineering Services
CO
u
o
OPEN CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS
WITHOfFEFCHOF
NEXT HIGHEST
RANKED PROPOSAL
40 CFR 33.S2S(Q
DETERMINE
BEST
TECHNICAL
PROPOSAL
40 CFR 33.525((l)
BEGIN CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS WITH
CFFEROROF
BEST PROPOSAL
40CFR33.525(<)
SOLICIT COMPREHENSIVE
COST PROPOSAL FROM
OFFEROR UNDER
CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS
40 CFR 33.525 (t)
AND COMPENSATION
40 CFR 33.5251*)
tl'A
REVIEW
OF AWARD
RECOMMENDATION
40CFR33.110(b)(Z)
-------
3.6.1 Expedited Procurement
When the State is undertaking the lead for remedial planning, the RPM should
encourage the SPO to take steps to begin procurement activities as soon as possible
after a CA application has been filed, even before a CA is awarded. This will help
minimize possible delays since under normal circumstances procurement fb'r remedial
planning may require several months to complete. Exhibit 3-9 describes four
suggested alternatives for expediting the initiation of remedial planning. These
should be considered on a site-by-site basis, as appropriate. The RPM also should be
familiar with these methods and be aware of circumstances for which each may be
appropriate. The RPM also should contact the SPO early in the remedial planning
process to recommend the initiation of expedited procurement, if appropriate; in doing
so, the RPM must inform the State that costs incurred for pre-award procurement
activities are not allowable under the CA*. Such costs, however, are usually not large
when compared to costs that will be incurred after CA award. The RPM, therefore,
should encourage the State to begin procurement early in order to expedite the
project.
Generally, the options contract for remedial planning is a very successful
method for expediting transition into the design phase. This is particularly beneficial
because, historically, delays have been encountered during the RI/FS, thus causing
the site project to fall far behind schedule by the completion of the RI/FS. If the State
has included in its initial procurement an option to extend the subagreement covering
the RI/FS to include conduct of the design and construction oversight, it may avoid an
additional procurement action. This often can save from two to four months.
3.6.2 Monitoring of State Procurement Process
The State may request EPA assistance at any stage in obtaining engineering
contractors. The RPM, therefore, must be available to provide assistance as required,
and must be able to contact other EPA staff members in the Region and Headquarters
to lend technical or administrative procurement advice or assistance, as the need
arises. However, the RPM must not bias the State's selection decision.
The RPM will chiefly become involved in the State procurement process by;
exercising oversight responsibility on behalf of EPA. RPM involvement may differ,
depending on the procurement requirements that the State uses. As stated above, in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 33 Subpart A, States are required to certify whether or
not their own procurement process fulfills the intent of the Agency's regulation. This
will aid in determining the level of critical RPM involvement.
If the State has already received a CA for forward planning activities at the site, Federal
funds may be used to develop a scope of work and cost estimates for site planning activities. This
information will simplify the State's efforts to prepare procurement documents and minimize State
costs prior to award of a CA for the RI/FS.
3-31
-------
EXHIBIT 3-9
Methods for Expediting Procurement*
Procurement Using Prequalifications - The State may compile a list of
available contractors by requesting qualifications from firms capable of
performing remedial planning activities. The list of prequalified firms
will then be used to solicit site-specific proposals. However,
prequalification procedures must ensure adequate competition.
Pre-Award Procurement - The State starts procurement activities such
as issuing requests for proposals, negotiations, and selection of a
qualified firm before the award of the Cooperative Agreement. A
procurement subagreement can then be signed immediately after the
award of funds. State personnel costs prior to award are not allowable;
however, these costs should not be significant.
Procurement for Multiple Site Planning - States with numerous sites
and available funding for cost-sharing may issue a level of effort type
subagreement similar to EPA's REM contracts. Once in place, site
planning activities could be started immediately following the award of
an individual Cooperative Agreement, without the need for site-specific
procurement actions.
Options Contract - The State's initial request for proposal (or similar
documents) for engineering services also may cover remedial design
and construction oversight as optional activities. The RFP should
indicate that only RI/FS activities will be funded, with an option to
conduct the design and remedial action engineering services subject
to the availability of funds and performance of the contractor.
All methods shown must be consistent with EPA's procurement regulation, 40 CFR
Part 33. For additional information, see Volume II of the State Manual, "State
Procurement Under Superfund Remedial Cooperative Agreements," March 1986
3-32
-------
If the State does not self certify its procurement system, the RPM may review
the award of all subagreements procured under the CA for compliance with
requirements of 40 CFR Part 33. The RPM's review of such procurement actions
should include:
• Review of the State's recommendation of award for adequate evidence
of the selected engineer's or construction contractor's capability to
perform the work properly
Review of the State's compliance with guidelines for using minority and
women's business enterprises
Obtaining evidence from the State that the public solicitation process
conforms with Federal, State, and local procurement regulations
Obtaining evidence from the State that all solicitation and/or bidding
disputes have been resolved, or obtaining details of any unresolvec
disputes.
The RPM should ensure that Regional assistance is available, as needed, to perform
procurement reviews. At the RPM's discretion, and with advice from the Regional
grants office, the RPM may conduct a detailed review of remedial procurement actons
implemented by self-certified States, if the project is highly complex or the Sta:e is
relatively inexperienced in procurement for Superfund projects.
Even if a State certifies its procurement system, EPA retains the authority to
perform procurement oversight and to review all final procurement documents for
consistency with general Superfund program requirements. The RPM will have pnme
responsibilities in such oversight, and may take any of the following actions:
Review final contracts and change orders
Receive all bid or offer tabulations after award
Advise the Award Official to authorize and approve noncompetitive
awards under 40 CFR Part 33 (in certain circumstances)
• Advise the Award Official to authorize the use of innovative
procurement methods (in certain circumstances)
Assist in resolving bid protest appeals.
If during a project the RPM determines that the State is not following the procurement
procedures that it certified it would follow, the RPM should advise regional managers
that -corrective actions may be necessary. If the State will not voluntarily correct its
procurement procedures to comply with 40 CFR Part 33, EPA must revoke the State's
certification and require it to follow the specific procedures of 40 CFR Par 33,
• including Appendix A. Further, EPA may impose sanctions as detailed in 40 CFR Part
30, including termination of the CA.
3.6.3 Review of Procurement and Subagreement Documents
The RPM should assist the State with procurement by reviewing the
documents necessary to conduct and complete the procurement activity. Such
3-33
-------
documents generally will include the State's RFPs [or requests for qualifications
(RFQs)], IFBs, final subagreement documents, and change orders. The RPM also may
be required to provide the following services:
Review draft and final subagreement documents prepared by the State
to ensure that they present project requirements in a clear,, poherent
manner. These documents must contain:
Provisions that meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 33 and
other Superfund-specific requirements (including cost
documentation)
Technical specifications, including needs for materials, work
products, and services, along with a required schedule
Bonds and insurance requirements
Payment terms, (meeting EPA financial requirements for
progress payments, final payment terms, and documentation
supporting project completion)
Procedures to effect project control, such as progress reporting
An accurate, proposed project schedule and contractor
requirements to regularly revise the schedule, as needed
Requirements for utilizing small, women's and minority
businesses
Change order provisions and claims management procedures
Provisions addressing health and safety requirements, including
the development of a health and safety plan
Project closeout requirements.
Ensure that the State utilizes proper procedures in advertising the
procurement. This should include taking measures to promote
competition, publishing the notice of procurement (RFP or RFQ) in
journals with sufficiently wide circulation, and informing minority and
women's business enterprises of the procurement.
Review the State's method of evaluating proposals (or statements of
qualifications) and bids. The RPM should ensure that the State consults
the most current EPA "Master List of Debarred, Suspended, and
Voluntarily Excluded Persons" (40 CFR 32.400) to exclude from
consideration any prohibited firms. The Master List is updated weekly
and is available from ORC.
The RPM may request assistance on procurement oversight from other Regional
personnel (particularly ORC), the REM contractor or from the USAGE. In addition, the
RPM may be requested to obtain the services of the USACE to assist the State in
conducting specific biddability/implementability reviews. Although more commonly
required for remedial actions, this may be necessary for complex remedial planning
3-34
-------
projects. To obtain USAGE assistance, the RPM must prepare a request under EPA's
technical assistance Interagency Agreement with the USAGE. The RPM should
consider the cost of such assistance and incorporate it into the Region's SCAP
estimates at the beginning of the fiscal year. Additional information on State
procurement for Superfund projects can be found in Volume II of the State Manual:
"State Procurement Under Superfund Remedial Cooperative Agreements, " March
1986.
3.7 WORK PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Following execution of the State's subagreement for the RI/FS, the State's
contractor develops a site-specific work plan based on the SOW in the CA application.
The work plan should describe the available information on the site and the extent of
the problem, the tasks and services to be performed, reporting requirements,
schedules, costs, and required deliverables. Deliverables may include supplemental
plans for quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), health and safety, sampling and
analysis, and final reports. Development of an acceptable QA Project Plan (QAPP)
and Health and Safety Plan has been cited as critical path items which often delay site
progress. It is State's responsibility to ensure that the work plan and supplemental
plans are developed. The RPM is responsible for ensuring nat the plans are
developed in an acceptable and timely manner and for facilitating their review,
approval, and/or concurrence. The remainder of this section will ciscuss in detail the
RPM's responsibilities with respect to this activity.
3.7.1 Oversight of Progress in Development of Work Plan and
Other Supplemental Plans
During development of the work plan and supplemental plans, it is very
important that the RPM make sure that the SPO is in close and frequent contact with
contractor personnel developing these plans. The SPO, and, if necessary, the RPM,
then can provide inputs needed to help contractors in preparing acceptable plans in a
timely manner. It is recommended that the RPM hold meetings with the SPO and
contractor's site manager a few days after the contractor has had an opportunity to
review the CA SOW. At this meeting, any outstanding concerns regarding the SOW
should be discussed and resolved. The SPO and RPM should emphasize to the
contractor their willingness and availability to provide necessary technical assistance
and support in preparing the work plan and supplemental plans. In addition, the RPM
may find it appropriate to conduct a site visit with the contractor anc SPO.
.•
To further ensure that the plans are prepared in a timely manner, the RPM
should be in frequent contact with the SPO to assess the contractor's progress in
developing the plans and to identify any problems. The RPM shcJd advise the SPO
to communicate any problems as soon as they are identified. The RPM then will be
responsible for working with the SPO and the contractor to resolve these problems.
3.7.2 Review of and Concurrence on Contractor Work Plan and
Supplemental Plans
The contractor is responsible for submitting to the State a craft work plan and
the draft supplemental plans cited earlier. The SPO is responsible for reviewing and
approving each of these plans. The RPM is responsible for reviewing the plans and
for concurring with the SPO on final approvals. The RPM may elect to schedule a
joint meeting with the SPO and State contactor to approve site work plans.
3-35
-------
The objective in reviewing the work plan is to obtain a plan by which an
expeditious, least-cost, high-quality RI/FS can be accomplished. In doing so, the RPM
should consult the appropriate guidance documents. These include:
• RI Guidance
• FS Guidance
• Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans
(QAMS-005/80), December 1980
Standard Operating Safety Guides Manual, November 1984.
Most of the tasks in the RI/FS work plan can be examined with regard to
technical quality, budget, and schedule.
Technical considerations during the review include the following:
Purpose, scope, and methodology for each task
• Proposed quantity and distribution of ground water, surface water, soil,
air, and other samples
• Spacing and depth of soil borings and monitoring wells
Types of proposed analyses, taking into account technologies that may
be evaluated for use at the site, and any applicable or relevant and
appropriate Federal or State environmental standards
Use of bench and pilot scale studies
• Use of ground water or other models
• General relationships between pathways and the receptors, the likely
alternatives, and the scope of the RI/FS.
In reviewing the technical aspects of the work plan, the needs of the phased RI/FS
approach that EPA is developing should be kept in mind. (See Chapter 4.) The
phased RI/FS will require additional technical review, such as consideration of the use
of multiple sampling events to provide data necessary for determining further
sampling needs, the increased use of analytical alternatives such as field screening,
and a greater emphasis on early remedial alternatives screening.
When examining the work plan from the standpoint of budget, the overall cost
of the project and consistency with the CA budget, unit costs and quantities of such
items as well footage, the use of equipment and other resources, and the proposed
level of effort for each task should all be considered. Cash flow scheduling, cost
control, and reporting measures specified in the subagreement documents should be
reviewed to anticipate potential cost overruns .
The schedule and organization of the work plan should be reviewed to
determine whether task durations seem reasonable, resource conflicts exist, the
sequence of tasks seems appropriate, and events are scheduled to occur during
appropriate seasons of the year. For instance, field sampling probably should not be
3-36
-------
scheduled for the middle of a New England winter,.nor should high water table
conditions be sought during August. Sampling also may be scheduled to coincide
with seasonal variations in EPA Contract Laboratory Program workload (heaviest
during warm months). It is especially important for the RPM to examine closely those
tasks which are on the project critical path. Finally, the RPM should ensure that the
schedule includes both sufficient periods of time for reviewing deliverables and
milestone review meetings.
The RPM's major role during the work plan review is that of EPA's primary
contact and coordinator. Copies of the draft work plan may be distributed to technical
experts within EPA - such as hydrogeologists, toxicologists, chemists, and biologists
-- for review within their areas of specialty. The actual procedures employed in the
review may vary from Region to Region or from site to site, but a document as
technically diverse as a work plan should always be reviewed by a multi-disciplinary
team. In this way, the RPM draws from a larger pool of knowledge and expertise. In
addition, the RPM must coordinate this review with other involved parties, both internal
and external to EPA. This review may include input from EPA enforcement,
Superfund community relations, air program, laboratory support, legal staff and the
Environmental Response Team (ERT). EPA enforcement and legal staff review of
work plans is critical if negotiations are anticipated for RD/RA. Finally, the USACE
may be brought into the review process at this time; this will be funded through a
technical assistance Interagency Agreement.
An important aspect that the RPM should consider in coordinating this review is
the need to keep the process moving. This may be difficult to accomplish when
participants are not under the RPM's authority or within the Superfund program itself.
To achieve a constantly progressing review, the RPM should establish a reasonable
review schedule and ensure that it is implemented, using a combination of negotiating
skills and, if necessary, upper level managers' involvement.
While involving a number of technical and other experts in this review, the RPM
also may provide direct review of several aspects of the work plan, including project
budgets, schedules, and some technical aspects. One approach to accomplishing
this is to advance the project mentally in time to identify potential problems, based on
personal experience. For less experienced RPMs, a different approach would be to
apply any familarity with project needs gained from work on other RI/FSs.
Comparisons can be made by such exercises as looking at actual durations of similar
tasks and calculating unit quantities, such as soil borings per acre, ground-water
samples per cubic foot of aquifer, dollars per foot of well installed, and so on: In this
way, the RPM can determine appropriate amounts of sampling and those sampling
approaches and methodologies that meet the needs of various site conditions and
circumstances. Some relationships among sample intensity and methodologies and
quality of the RI/FS also may be tentatively drawn from examining RODs developed
for completed RI/FSs. The RPM is cautioned, however, that site uniqueness has a
significant bearing on work plans. For example, rules-of-thumb unit sample quantities
may not work for areas with complex hydrogeology.
Another possible approach to the review of the work plan is to use an ad hoc
group of experienced RPMs, technical specialists, and other staff members
knowledgable in pertinent areas. These individuals could utilize experience and
insights derived from past and current work on RI/FSs. If this approach is used, it is
recommended that at least one member of the group visit the site early in the review
process.
3-37
-------
Finally, for very complex or unique sites, the Region can use a Delphi review
process to supplement normal work plan review procedures. In the Delphi review, a
review panel is specifically selected for the site in question. The Delphi manager - in
this case, most likely the RPM -- circulates copies of the work plan to the reviewers,
who can be either EPA staff members or contractor personnel. Panel members
independently review the document and submit comments to the Delphi manager,
who generates a consensus report. This process, while similar to the normal review
led by the RPM, draws upon a wider range of in-house and external expertise.
All EPA comments on the draft work plan and supplemental plans should be
reviewed with the SPO and, ideally, with the State's contractor. If the RPM disagrees
with the work plan or supplemental plans, the RPM should explain the reasons for the
disagreement and to discuss any modifications that will be necessary to correct the
problems. Once the contractor completes the modifications, the RPM should notify the
SPO in writing that the plans are acceptable and that EPA concurs with State
approval.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION
"CERCLA Pre-Award Costs," OGC, May 10, 1983.
Community Relations in Suoerfund: A Handbook. OERR, September 1983 (under
revision). (OSWER Directive 9230.0-3)
Cost Principles for State and Local Governments. OMB Circular A-87.
Cost Recovery Actions Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response.
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA1. OEC and OSWER,
August 26, 1983.
EPA General Regulation for Assistance Programs (40 CFR Pan 30).
EPA Standard Operating Safety Guides. November 1984.
Executive Order 12372, "Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs" (47 FR
30954), July 16, 1982.
Executive Order 12432, "Development of Minority Business Enterprises,"
July 14, 1983.
Guidance on Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA. OERR and OWPE, June 1985.
(OSWER Directive 9355.0-6B)
Guidance on Remedial Investigations Under CERCLA. OERR and OWPE, June 1985.
(OSWER Directive 9355.0-5C)
Intergovernmental Review of Environmental Protection Agency Programs and Activities,
Final Rule (40 CFR Pan 29).
3-38
-------
Instructions on Budget Execution. OMB Circular A-34.
Letter of Credit Users Manual. EPA, Division of Financial Management.
"Master List of Debarred, Suspended, and Voluntarily Excluded Persons," 40 CFR
32.400, Weekly.
National Enforcement Investigation Center (NEIC) Policies and Procedures Manual.
NEIC, May 1978 (Revised February 1983).
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300),
November 20,1985.
"Notice of Supplemental Procedures for Establishing Start Dates of Comment Period
for Activities Subject to Executive Order 12372," (48 FR 54692), EPA,
December 6, 1983.
"Payment of State Enforcement Costs Under Superfund," OERR and OWPE,
January 21, 1983.
"Procedures for Issuing Notice Letters," OWPE, October 12,1984.
Procurement Under Assistance Agreements (40 CFR Part 33).
"Remedial Financial Management Instructions," AA/OSWER, September 21, 1984.
State Participation in the Superfund Program. OERR, February 1984. (OSWER
Directive 9375.1-2)
"State Procurement Under Superfund Cooperative Agreements, " March 1986,
Volume II of State Participation in the Superfund Program. (OSWER Directive
9375.1-5)
"Suggested Regional File Structure, Superfund Priority Sites and Priority Site
Candidates," OERR, May 1982.
"Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan," AA/OSWER
"Timely Initiation of Responsible Party Searches, Issuance of Notice Letters, and
Release of Information," OWPE, October 9, 1985.
Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants — An Aid to State and Local
Governments. OMB Circular A-102.
3-39
-------
4. REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
The remedial investigation (Rl) and feasibility study (FS) are interdependent
processes. The activities conducted during the Rl and FS generally are performed
concurrently, with each project influencing the execution of the other. The objectives
of the Rl are data collection, data analysis, and site characterization, while the
objectives of the FS are alternatives evaluation and decision-making.
During a State-lead RI/FS project, the State or State's contractors are
responsible for conducting the various activities necessary to characterize the
hazardous waste site and to evaluate alternatives to remedy the situation. The State
Project Officer (SPO) has the direct responsibility of overseeing the contractors,
ensuring that approved work plans are followed. The RPM's general responsibilities
include assuring that all RI/FS activities are conducted in a timely, effective, and
efficient manner in accordance with all relevant EPA policies and regulations. The
RPM must monitor technical and financial progress and performance and also provide
technical assistance where needed. While the previous chapter emphasized the
activities required to plan and initiate a State-lead RI/FS project, this chapter provides
a description of the RPM's duties required to ensure that the project is completed as
specified in the Cooperative Agreement (CA) statement of work (SOW), budget and
approved work plans. This chapter is divided into five major sections dealing with
RPM activities during the RI/FS:
Ongoing project management
Site characterization
Alternatives screening and evaluation
Approval of the RI/FS Report(s)
RI/FS Completion.
Exhibit 4-1 depicts the concurrent activities associated with the Rl and FS
processes. Activities above the heavy line are generally the responsibility of the State
contractor, those in the shaded area are the responsibility of the State, and those
below are the responsibility of the EPA. Additional information on the Rl and FS
processes can be found in three guidance documents:
• Guidance on Remedial Investigations Under CERCLA, June 1985
(hereafter referred to as the Rl Guidance)
Guidance on Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA, June 1985 (hereafter
referred to as the FS Guidance)
• Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual, Draft, December 1985.
Individual site conditions govern the extent of data collection and analysis for each Rl
and FS activity, and review of specific options is beyond the scope of this handbook.
The reader is encouraged to rely heavily on the Rl Guidance and the FS Guidance in
conducting this phase of the remedial response project.
4-1
-------
EXHIBIT 4-1
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
CONTRACTOR
FROM INITIAL
PROJECT
PLANNING
AND
START-UP
ACTIVITIES
EPA
—ONGOING PROJECT MANAGEMENT. ENFORCEMENT —
AKO SUPERFUND COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
LEGEND:
ACTIVTTY J_
DOCUMENT I
4-2
-------
4.1 ONGOING PROJECT MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Oversight and management of a State-lead RI/FS project requires a number of
ongoing project management activities. Many of these activities are common to all
phases of the remedial process; however, within each stage of the remedial response,
specific actions are required. Those for the RI/FS are outlined below. '•'
Throughout the RI/FS process the RPM must coordinate with State officials to
stay apprised of site progress and to provide appropriate input on all aspects of the
RI/FS process. Among the specific management activities an RPM must perform are
the following:
Oversee technical and financial progress
Monitor project schedule
Review and concur on contractor work products
Ensure adequate State reporting
Ensure proper data management, including updating automated
systems and maintaining accurate site files
• Modify the CA, as necessary
Assist in amending the CA
Coordinate with other Regional staff including Regional Superfund
Community Relations
Obtain assistance of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and
technical contractors (optional)
Additionally, as the RI/FS is drawing to a close the RPM should ensure that the State
initiates the intergovernmental review process and prepares to amend any
agreements with EPA for the next phase of the cleanup.
4.1.1 Technical Progress Oversight
Oversight of technical progress is one of the main responsibilities of the RPM
during performance of the RI/FS. The purpose of the oversight is to ensure that RI/FS
activities are conducted in accordance with the CA SOW, approved work plans, and
all applicable EPA policies and regulations. The RPM should actively monitor the
progress of the RI/FS. Early on, the RPM and the SPO should meet and identify key
project milestones and firmly establish lines of communication. The RPM can monitor
the attainment of project milestones in the following ways:
Conduct site visits
Review progress reports, Quarterly Reports (including summaries of
financial drawdowns), and work products
Communicate frequently with the SPO.
4-3
-------
The RPM should anticipate problems, especially those affecting major milestones.
Should problems occur, the RPM should work with the SPO to develop solutions.
Also, the RPM should inform the SPO of changes in EPA policy that impact
performance of the RI/FS. The RPM may request technical oversight assistance under
the Federal remedial planning (REM) contracts or from the USAGE. Additional
technical expertise for review of hydrogeologic data or ground water flow models may
be of critical assistance to the RPM (See Section 4.1.7).
Oversight of financial progress is also a major responsibility of the RPM. The
RPM should carefully review Quarterly Reports and Financial Status Reports
(Standard Form 269) and the approved CA budget to evaluate ongoing project
expenditures. Quarterly Reports usually will be prepared by the SPO and submitted
directly to the RPM as required by the standard CA reporting provision. Financial
Status Reports (FSRs), however, may be prepared by responsible financial
accounting staff within a State agency and instead of the SPO. These reports, which
describe site specific quarterly outlays, usually are submitted to the Regional Financial
Management Division (FMD). The RPM may contact the FMD and request that copies
of FSRs be routinely sent for review as a critical part of project oversight.
Questionable expenditures or concerns regarding the rate of financial outlays
should be brought immediately to the attention of the SPO. The RPM is responsible
for evaluating project costs for reasonableness and allowability under CERCLA (See
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, "Principles for Determining
Costs Applicable to Grants and Contracts with State, Local, and Federally Recognized
Indian Tribal Governments.") The RPM also should encourage the SPO to regularly
submit vouchers for drawdowns so project outlays accurately reflect project progress.
If the RPM is uncertain about the reasonableness of a specific cost item, the RPM
should request assistance from the Grants Administration Branch (GAB), FMD and/or
the Office of Regional Counsel (ORC). The RPM should act quickly to resolve any
questions or concerns regarding project finances and ensure that written cost
justifications or clarifications are added to the site file. This will assist auditors to
properly evaluate the project and will help eliminate many after-the-fact questions
regarding project costs that may arise during an audit. Additionally, the RPM should
review the status of funds under a CA periodically (at least annually) to determine if
funds can be reprogrammed or deobligated rather than remain in an inactive account.
For Multi-site CAs (MSCAs), the project management and accounting functions
are more complex. RPMs and SPOs should consult the State Manual.
4.1.2 Data Reporting and Record Keeping
Throughout the RI/FS the RPM is responsible for maintaining thorough,
accurate records for the purposes of project management and future cost recovery
actions, as well as for interim and final audits. The RPM also must instruct the SPO
concerning which records the State must maintain and which documents should be
forwarded to EPA for its files. In addition, the Superfund Amendments require EPA to
establish an Administrative Record upon which the selection of a response action will
be based. The Record must be available to the public at or near the site.
The RPM must maintain site files, including all relevant documentation that will
support cost recovery actions. Further information on cost recovery is given in Cost
Recovery Actions Under CERCLA, August 1983 and Procedures for Documenting Costs
for CERCLA §107 Actions, January 1985. This manual also includes a suggested file
structure. At the completion of the RI/FS, the RPM may be asked by Regional
4-4
-------
enforcement staff to assist in the preparation of a Cost Recovery Summary. Examples
of documentation relevant to the RI/FS that should be maintained by the RPM, SPO,
and contractors include:
Contractor work plans and progress reports
On-site logs, notes, and manifests
Analytical laboratory reports
Rl reports
Alternatives evaluation reports.
The RPM should consult the data management chapter of the RJ Guidance and
Appendix U of the State Manual for additional information.
A complete file for each CA also may be maintained in GAB. Keeping an
"official" file in the GAB is recommended since it provides another centralized location
for information about CAs which may be used to respond to requests from members of
Congress or upper-level EPA management.
Periodically, the RPM also will become involved with reviewing or updating
information developed for use in EPA's automated data systems. The following are
the major systems of concern, along with relevant RI/FS input/review requirements:
CERCLIS (CERCLA Information System) - This system combines the
Emergency and Remedial Response Information System and the
Project Tracking System and is used to track major accomplishments at
candidate and actual NPL sites. Activity start and completion dates for
RI/FS must be entered. The RI/FS start date is the date the RI/FS funds
are obligated. The FS completion date is when the Record of Decision
is signed.
SCAP (Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan) -- This
system is the official mechanism through which the Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(AA/OSWER) approves funding needs for proposed Superfund
activities. Activities must be on the approved SCAP to receive funding.
The RPM should coordinate with the Regional SCAP contact to ensure
that information on the SCAP is accurate and adequate funding is
budgeted to maintain site progress. Particular attention must be given
to ensure that subsequent RD activities appear on the SCAP so that the
RD start date is not delayed.
FMS (Financial Management System) -- The Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (OERR) Funds Control Center (FCC) is responsible
for preparing monthly and ad hoc financial status reports on the
remedial program. RPMs may be asked to review these reports for
accuracy.
Additional guidance is available for each of the above systems. Regional contacts or
Headquarters staff responsible for each data system can supply these documents and
any other guidance as needed.
4-5
-------
4.1.3 State Reporting Requirements
Although 40 CFR Part 30 does not require the State to submit progress reports
more frequently than once per quarter, more frequent interactions obviously are
beneficial. The RPM and the SPO should agree to more frequent information
exchange and a special condition to this effect can be included in the CA. For
example, the SPO may forward the contractor's monthly technical progress reports to
the RPM for review. This need for information about a project does not indicate a lack
of trust in the SPO but rather a requirement of the RPM as the EPA manager of
Federal funds.
The State's Quarterly Report is a formal progress report required under 40 CFR
Part 30 that should contain (but is not limited to) the following information:
Description of activities, subactivities, and tasks completed to date,
including community relations activities
Itemization of expenditures by object class and by each
task/subactivity/activity in the CA application SOW; including both
expenditures for the quarter and cumulative expenditures to date
Estimates (percentages) of work completed for each activity or
subactivity in the SOW, including a basis for the estimates
Estimated variances (cost and time) expected at project completion.
The RPM and the SPO should reach initial agreement on the contents of, and format
for, the report; the SPO is encouraged to require a similarly formated monthly report
from the State contractor. This eliminates the need for the SPO to reformat the
contractor's reports.
For MSCAs, the State may submit one overall report containing separate
sections that address each specific site's funding and progress.
The RPM should utilize the State's Quarterly Report and other progress reports
to oversee technical and financial progress. These may aid in anticipating the need to
modify the CA, SCAP targets, or other program commitments. Headquarters is
developing additional guidance on State Quarterly Reports.
4.1.4 Modifications to Cooperative Agreement
During the course of the RI/FS it may become necessary to modify the existing
CA. Minor modifications may be approved (in writing) by the RPM. These are
modifications which in general do not alter or violate the:
Total project costs
Specific project budget
Project objectives
Project period of performance
4-6
-------
OMB Circular A-102 transfer rules (e.g.. transferring funds obligated for
indirect costs to personnel costs)
For example, the RPM has the authority to approve minor project schedule
adjustments that do not extend the period of performance. The RPM in this case must
evaluate whether the schedule change is justified and whether the overall project
schedule realistically can be maintained if the modification is allowed. The RPM also
may approve minor modifications to the RI/FS work plan if neither costs nor objectives
are affected.
4.1.5 Cooperative Agreement Amendments
A formal amendment to the CA may be required if, during the RI/FS, any of the
fol.owing conditions arise:
The objectives of the project are to be changed (e.g., from an evaluation
of source control alternatives to an evaluation of management of
migration measures)
The total amount of the project awarded is to be changed
The scope of project is to be substantially changed (e.g., to characterize
a larger site area than originally approved)
It becomes necessary to make changes in special conditions
It becomes necessary to rebudget approved amounts in object class
categories
It becomes necessary to shift funds from one activity to another
It becomes necessary to shift funds from one site to another (MSCA)
If (for State-lead Enforcement RI/FS) the State compels PRPs to
conduct the project.
The RPM should anticipate and plan for formal amendments, since these require a
submission by the State (in most cases), preparation of a CA amendment by EPA and
approval (signature) by the Award Official, and acceptance (signature) by the State.
R?Ms should consult the HSCD Regional Coordinator if there is uncertainty over the
nead for a formal amendment.
Formal amendments often are cited as a cause for delay in State-lead remedial
projects. There are a number of steps the RPM can take, however, to expedite the
amendment process:
Minimize the need for amendments by carefully developing the budget
and period of performance in the original CA application (see Chapter 3
and the State Manual)
Anticipate the need for a formal amendment by closely monitoring site
progress and urge the SPO to initiate the amendment process as early
as possible
4-7
-------
Discuss potential amendments with GAB staff to clarify any
administrative questions.which may arise
Meet with the SPO to discuss the amendment request and assist in
preparing the application as necessary (the State may utilize the CA
amendment short form, EPA Form 5700-31) •'•'
Coordinate and, if possible, streamline amendment application review
and concurrences (by communicating with necessary reviewers)
Ensure that SCAP obligations and/or Regional contingency funds are
consistent with the amendment request
If possible, consolidate project modifications by awarding one
amendment which incorporates all necessary changes.
MSCAs facilitate the transfer of funds between projects; however, these transfers still
require a formal amendment. Fund transfers must also be consistent with the
Region's SCAP. Additional information on CA amendments is provided in the State
Manual.
4.1.6 Coordination with Other Regional Staff
Throughout the course of the RI/FS the RPM should maintain close contact with
enforcement staff (Regional and/or State) and community relations staff (Regional
and/or State). The RPM's role is that of a project manager, advocate, and facilitator.
In coordinating with enforcement staff the RPM may:
Transmit any information discovered during the RI/FS that may help
identify potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
Assist with the preparation of Notice Letters to PRPs
Ensure maintenance of any confidential information obtained during the
RI/FS
Review schedules for PRP negotiations
• Participate in negotiations with PRPs following completion of the RI/FS
Assist with the preparation of a Cost Recovery Summary.
In coordinating with community relations staff during the RI/FS the RPM may:
Review site-specific CRP
Participate in public meetings
Develop fact sheets
Respond to Freedom of Information Act requests
Schedule and coordinate the public comment period following the draft
FS Report completion
4-8
-------
Assist in preparation of the Responsiveness Summary.
The RPM should maintain close coordination with the GAB, ORC, and other
appropriate Regional staff. At sites where a removal action has takerv,.place,
coordination with emergency response personnel is also imperative. Guidance for
situations when a remedial project requires an emergency response is pending.
4.1.7 USAGE and REM Contractor Technical Assistance
During an RI/FS at a State-lead site, the RPM may obtain technical assistance
from the USAGE and/or the REM contractors upon request. Assistance from the
USAGE during RI/FS may serve two purposes:
Assures that the proposed remedial action can be engineered and
constructed
Ensures a smooth transition if,the site is to become a Federal-lead
project.
The REM contractors also may provide their experienced resources, if necessary.
Types of review/assistance activities for which the REM contractor and the USAGE
may be requested include:
Review of work assignments, work plan or subcontracting packages
Participation in project review meetings
Technical review of reports, plans, and specifications.
The USAGE in certain cases also may become involved in a project to a much greater
degree where they can provide specialized technical expertise, such as projects that
involve dredging.
Technical assistance from the USAGE is obtained through an Interagency
Agreement (IAG). Generic lAGs for technical assistance during RI/FS projects should
be executed by the Regions with the USAGE Missouri River Division (MRD). To
obtain technical assistance for a specific RI/FS project the RPM must prepare and
issue a site-specific work assignment to USACE-MRD under the established IAG.
Technical assistance from the REM contractor is provided through the issuance
of a work assignment. For further information on issuing a work assignment consult
the Superfund Federal-Lead Remedial Project Management Handbook, December 1986 .
Technical assistance funds must be in the Region's SCAP.
4.1.8 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Health Assessments
Under the Superfund Amendments, ATSDR has been charged to conduct
health assessments at NPL sites. ATSDR in consultation with EPA must set priorities
for health assessments at NPL sites based on potential risk to human health and
adequacy of existing data, recognizing also EPA's NPL and RI/FS schedules. To the
extent practicable, ATSDR should complete health assessments before RI/FS
4-9
-------
completion. It should be noted, however, that ATSDR health assessments do not
supercede risk assessments and endangerment assessments conducted by EPA
during the RI/FS.
Final details and procedures for integrating ATSDR health assessment
activities into the Superfund remedial process have not been finalized. For State-lead
projects, ATSDR should work directly with their State agency counterparts. The RPM
should be advised of progress on health assessments at State-lead projects.
4.2 SITE CHARACTERIZATION
Site characterization is one of the main functions of the Rl process. The
objective of site characterization is to collect and analyze sufficient information to
determine the need for remedial actions, the appropriate extent of any remedial
actions, the feasibility of potential remedial actions, and to conceptually plan the
action. Site characterization activities provide the data to support the evaluations
made in the concurrent FS. Typically, site characterization involves collecting all
existing data concerning a site (part of the Rl scoping), collecting new data through
field studies, and following up initial field studies with additional studies, if required, to
complete site characterization.
The RPM should oversee site characterization activities to the extent necessary
to feel confident that the State is meeting the objectives of the project and that all
activities are conducted in accordance with approved work plans, EPA policies and
regulations, and specific terms of the CA.
4.2.1 Rl Scoping
This activity involves gathering and reviewing all existing site data to
characterize the site and to determine additional data needs. The data needs
identified are the basis for the Rl field studies. Rl scoping is conducted prior to work
plan development. The RPM's responsibilities during Rl scoping are discussed in
Chapter 3 of this manual.
As discussed in Chapter 3, Rl scoping may result in a Regional management
decision to conduct certain non-emergency removal actions (i.e., former Initial
Remedial Measures [IRMs]) under the remedial program. This usually will be the
case when urgency is not a critical factor and there is a 4 to 6 month lead time which
allows competitive contracting procedures.
For projects which are designated as State-lead and which involve both
removal and remedial activities, Regional management also must decide whether
EPA or the State will assume the lead agency role for the removal action(s). Non-
emergency removals at a State-lead site may be conducted by the REM contractors
under the RPM's direction or by the State under the same CA executed for remedial
activities. Guidance currently is being developed regarding the type of studies and
documentation necessary prior to implementing a non-emergency removal
(Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis). Headquarters also will develop guidance
regarding removal actions implemented by States under CAs.
The RPM also must coordinate closely with the removal program in situations
when emergency removal actions become necessary at a State-lead remedial site.
This type of situation requires On-Scene Coordinator expertise and fast-track
4-10
-------
contractor activation. Headquarters also is developing guidance for the conduct of
emergency removals during remedial projects.
The RPM should be aware of EPA's policy to provide PRPs the opportunity to
perform removal actions pursuant to a CERCLA section 106 Administrative Order on
consent. (See "Guidance Memorandum on Use and Issuance of Administrative Orders
Under CERCLA §106(a),~ September 8, 1983.) Close coordination with Regional
enforcement staff is imperative.
4.2.2 Field Activities
The RPM should take an active role in oversight of field activities. Periodic site
visits should be conducted to observe such activities as well drilling, sample
collection, and sample shipment. Field activities must follow approved work plans,
particularly the quality assurance project plan (QAPP) and site safety plan. It may be
appropriate to enlist the cooperation of other Regional and Headquarters personnel
such as Environmental Services Division (ESD) and Environmental Response Team
(ERT) staff for overseeing these technical activities. The RPM (or other EPA
personnel) does not have the authority to issue directions to State contractors. All
directions must be channeled through the SPO.
Three common problems which cause project delays associated with
this phase of the Rl are:
Inadequate technical performance of contractors or their
subcontractors
Inadequate processing and validation of analyzed samples
Insufficient data to support decisions on remedial action.
These problems are discussed below, along with suggestions for reducing or
alleviating these problems.-
Technical performance of the contractor and subcontractors has in numerous
cases delayed the RI/FS. The RPM should assess the SPO's level of experience in
managing contractor-conducted field activities since this will in part determine the
RPM's role in oversight of field activities. Inexperience with hazardous waste site
investigations - specifically, sampling techniques, sample quality assurance and
chain-of-custody procedures - has resulted in "lost" or unusable samples. Typical
sampling errors include:
Contaminated samples
Non-homogeneous sample matrices
Incorrect sample packaging for transport
Insufficient sample volumes
Insufficiently labeled samples
Incomplete sample traffic reports.
If the RPM has reason to suspect that sampling is being conducted incorrectly, the
RPM immediately should contact ESD staff for support or consultation.
The inexperience of other subcontractors also can be a source of on-site
delay. For example, well drillers who normally install water supply wells or
4-11
-------
geotechnical drillers who perform soil test borings for foundation studies may be
unfamiliar with the special precautions, requirements, and health and safety aspects
of hazardous waste work. The RPM should discuss the need for potential
subcontracts with the SPO to ensure that qualified subcontractors are used at the site.
The second major cause for delay during site characterization is the'analysis of
samples. First, difficulties may be encountered in obtaining an adequate laboratory to
perform the analyses. Second, once submitted for analysis, validated results often are
overdue. If the State chooses to use the EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP), the
RPM can take certain actions to reduce or work around these delays:
Coordinate closely with the Regional Sample Control Center to
schedule lab analyses that avoid allocation shortfalls
•.
. Review sampling plans carefully to eliminate unnecessary samples
and/or sample analyses
• Encourage the use of field screening techniques to limit the number of
samples sent for analyses
Arrange for the State's contractor to receive raw data to allow some
activities to continue while data are being validated (caution -•
resources and time spent on site work based on unvalidated data may
be lost if the data review reveals faults)
Consider a phased sampling approach
Expedite data validation through frequent communications with
involved personnel.
If the State has indicated in its CA application that non-CLP laboratories will be used,
the RPM must take steps to ensure that the analyses will be performed according to
prescribed protocols and with necessary quality assurance/quality control procedures.
The RPM also must ensure that the actual costs for sample analyses will reasonably
reflect the approved cost estimates provided by the State in its CA application.
To ensure that non-CLP laboratories are acceptable for use during a State-
lead RI/FS, the RPM may request that Regional ESD Quality Assurance Staff conduct
an evaluation of proposed laboratories. Trained ESD Quality Assurance staff may
"audit" these laboratories (prior to State initiation of field sampling) through on-site
laboratory evaluations and specific performance audits. A non-CLP laboratory should
not be approved for use under a CA unless it has effectively demonstrated that sample
data packages equivalent to data from the CLP can be provided to the State at
reasonable costs and within the specified time requirements.
Discovering near the end of the FS that the data developed during the Rl are
insufficient to support an evaluation of alternatives can cause significant project
delays. This situation is most likely to occur when a single sampling event is used and
the sample turn-around time is great. This situation can also result when too few
samples are taken during the Rl in an attempt to reduce Rl costs. Not knowing the full
extent of contamination, or finding some last minute surprise, can delay the FS
schedule significantly. For this reason, the phased RI/FS approach is strongly
encouraged. This approach, already mentioned in Chapter 3, can briefly be
described as: (1) early screening of alternatives to help define data needs and the
4-12
-------
scope of the Rl, (2) multiple sampling events, each contributing subsequent definitions
of data needs, and (3) the use of analytical alternatives (such as field screening) to
determine more quickly subsurface conditions.
4.2.3 Supplemental Data Needs
The RPM should meet with the SPO and State contractor to review analytical
data and determine the need for further study at the earliest opportunity. This review
may begin at the sample collection or field analysis stage. The RPM, SPO, and the
State contractor must determine the following:
Are the validated data sufficient to meet the objectives of the Rl?
Are the validated data adequate for purposes of remedial alternatives
evaluation?
Are the validated data sufficient to support enforcement or cost recovery
actions?
If not, the RPM, SPO, and State contractor must develop an approach for collecting
additional data to complete the site characterization with minimal schedule disruption.
It also may be determined that bench studies are necessary to further
characterize a site or to evaluate potential remedies which are under detailed
analysis. (Bench studies also may be conducted as part of the RD.) If bench studies
are required during the RI/FS, the contractor must develop a draft experimental plan
as part of the RI/FS SOW. Objectives of the bench or pilot studies must be clearly
specified. Bench and pilot studies should be limited to alternatives which have
survived the initial screening process. The RPM should coordinate the review of the
experimental plan to ensure that the following are present:
Clearly defined set of objectives
Detailed work plan by task
Schedule of completion
Labor-cost estimate.
The implementation of bench studies also may require an amendment to the CA and
an adjustment to the SCAP.
4.3 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING AND EVALUATION
Alternatives screening and evaluation is the foundation of the feasibility study
portion of the RI/FS. Using site-specific data from pre-RI scoping and Rl field studies,
remedial alternatives within the general response categories are developed and
evaluated in terms of:
Public health impacts
Environmental impacts
Technical feasibility
Institutional impacts
Costs.
4-13
-------
The screening of alternatives is a multi-stage process that begins early during the
course of the Rl. The reader is encouraged to review the more detailed discussions
given in the RI andFS Guidances.
The RPM provides input at several points in the alternatives screening and
evaluation process in order to ensure that a reasonable range of alternatives is
considered. "Reasonable" implies not looking at the whole universe of alternatives to
the detriment of the FS cost and schedule, while at the same time, not examining so
few alternatives that viable options are not considered. Generally, the RPM provides
input to the process during:
The Rl scoping and development of response objectives
The Rl, as data become available
The pre-FS meeting, where the Rl results are reviewed and the FS
' scope is refined
The FS, as alternatives are evaluated in detail.
The RPM needs to develop a sense of what technologies are currently appropriate for
given site conditions while also staying knowledgeable of the emerging technologies
that may be appropriate in the near future. The RPM also must be cognizant of EPA
policy changes that may affect alternatives selection. For example, the Superfund
Amendments place a great emphasis on the long-term protection and reliability of
remedial actions. The Amendments call for remedial actions which utilize permanent
solutions and alternative treatment or resource recovery technologies to the maximum
extent practicable. If a remedy in accordance with the preference for treatment and
permanent solutions is not selected, an explanation must be published.
4.3.1 Technical Oversight During Feasibility Study
The RPM must ensure that all feasible remedial alternatives are given
adequate consideration, are presented in a fashion amenable to decision-making,
and that the SPO and State contractor complete these evaluations within the schedule
agreed upon in the CA. To ensure these accomplishments, it is suggested that the
RPM arrange for periodic meetings with the SPO and the State contractor to discuss
progress, identify appropriate types of alternatives, highlight potential issues, plan the
RI/FS Report review process, and identify any additional data needs, including bench
and pilot studies.
4.3.2 Compliance with Other Environmental Statutes
As a general rule, the Agency's policy is to attain or exceed applicable or
relevant and appropriate environmental and public health standards in CERCLA
response actions unless specific circumstances, enumerated elsewhere, exist. (See
"CERCLA Compliance With Other Environmental Statutes ," October 2, 1985, and section
300.68 of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP),
November 20, 1985).
The Superfund Amendments now require that remedial actions conducted on
site shall meet the "applicable or relevant and appropriate standards, limitations,
criteria, and requirements" (ARAR) of State and Federal environmental laws. The
Superfund Amendments basically build upon EPA's site-specific approach to cleanup
4-14
-------
standards found in the NCP. Of particular importance to the Superfund program are
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulations pertaining to land disposal
bans. The RPM must stay abreast of new developments in this area.
To the extent possible and appropriate, at least one remedial alternative shall
be developed as part of the FS in each of the following categories:
Alternatives for treatment or disposal in an off-site facility, as
appropriate (See "Procedures for Planning and Implementing CERCLA
Delegations for Off-site Response Actions," May 6, 1985).
Alternatives which attain applicable or relevant and appropriate
Federal and State public health or environmental requirements.
As appropriate, alternatives which exceed applicable or relevant and
appropriate Federal and State public health or environmental
requirements.
As appropriate, alternatives which do not attain applicable or relevant
and appropriate public health or environmental requirements but which
will reduce the likelihood of present or future threat from the hazardous
substances and that provide significant protection to public health and
welfare and the environment. This must include an alternative which
closely approaches the level of protection provided by applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements.
A no action alternative.
The RPM is responsible for ensuring that the FS addresses each of the above
alternatives as appropriate. In this regard it is necessary to inform the SPO and State
contractor of applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements. Likewise, the SPO
must advise the RPM and State contractor of any State requirements or standards
which also may be applicable or relevant and appropriate.
During a State-lead FS, it is imperative that the RPM, SPO, and State
contractor communicate frequently. The RPM must keep the SPO (and State
contractor) informed of EPA policy developments. The RPM should routinely review
ROD updates and communicate with the Headquarters Regional Coordinator in order
to know current policies.
In situations where the chosen remedial alternative does not attain or exceed
the applicable or relevant and appropriate standards, the FS, and ultimately the
decision documents, must state the reasons. The RPM must ensure that this
requirement is addressed and may be advised to seek advance concurrence from the
AA/OSWER for a waiver from consistency with other environmental laws.
4.3.3 ROD Delegation
On March 24, 1986, the Administrator set forth current policy for the delegation
of the selection of remedy responsibility to the Regional Administrators (RAs) on a site-
specific basis. All site remedy selections generally will be delegated unless one or
more of the following circumstances exist:
4-15
-------
• Potential Fund Balancing (typically where the total cost of all site
response is expected to exceed $40 million)
Potential public interest exception
Precedent setting or nationally significant circumstances.
When decision making authority is delegated, consultation with the AA/OSWER is
required for sites involving:
Ground water contamination due to multiple sources
Betterment (when State preferred remedy is more expensive than the
cost-effective alternative)
Public interest exception
Precedent setting or nationally significant circumstances.
The RA is responsible for determining whether it is appropriate to be delegated
the remedial alternative selection. The RA must submit a letter to the AA/OSWER
quarterly recommending which selections should be delegated, which require
AA/OSWER consultation, and which should be retained by the AA/OSWER. The letter
should include the criteria for the recommendation. Delegation letters can be
prepared as early as the Rl is complete but before the FS Report goes out for public
comment.
The RPM may be asked to prepare the Delegation Letter and transmit it to the
appropriate Regional personnel, particularly ORC, for review. The letter, signed by the
RA, then is submitted to Headquarters (AA/OSWER with a copy for the HSCD
Regional Coordinator). Upon receipt of a letter of recommendation, OERR will
promptly evaluate RA recommendations and prepare for AA/OSWER signature a ROD
delegation memorandum which lists sites for which remedy selection has been
delegated. The memorandum will be sent to RAs at least one week before the new
quarter begins.
If delegation with consultation is granted, the RPM will forward the ROD
package or summary of the key issues through the RA to the AA/OSWER for
consultation prior to ROD signature by the RA. Consultation may begin with a final
draft FS Report prior to public comment or may occur immediately prior to ROD
signature. Consultation should begin generally between the RPM and the HSCD
Regional Coordinator and end with a final request by the RA and a response by the
AA/OSWER or his designee.
The Delegation Letter, like all documents related to the draft ROD or
Enforcement Decision Document (EDO), should be released only to EPA employees
or contractors. In the case where the Delegation Letter may compromise EPA's
enforcement activities it should be accompanied by a cover letter stating that the
material is confidential and should not be released publicly.
4-16
-------
4.4 APPROVAL OF RI/FS REPORT(S)
The RI/FS Report(s) is the final product of the RI/FS*. It summarizes the
findings of the Rl and clearly presents the alternatives evaluated during the FS. The
report also should include a remedial action recommendation for consideration by the
EPA decision-maker. In some cases, the recommended alternative will"'not be
described at this stage, but after ROD approval. The RPM should ensure that the
report(s) is complete and is presented in its proper format to facilitate the ROD
process. The RPM also must coordinate the review and approval of the report(s). The
RPM should:
Meet with the SPO and State contractor to discuss report format and
contents
Review and provide comments on preliminary draft reports
Coordinate draft report reviews with appropriate EPA personnel
(Regional and Headquarters) including enforcement staff
Coordinate draft report reviews with the USAGE and REM Contractors
as appropriate
Ensure that the State provides for full public (including potentially
responsible party) comment on the draft RI/FS Report [this also may
involve public meeting(s)]. A two-week notice period followed by a
minimum three-week public comment period is held to receive input on
the draft RI/FS Report. The SPO must coordinate the public comment
period with the RPM and the EPA Superfund community relations
coordinator; following this period, the SPO prepares a responsiveness
summary addressing the comments received. The RPM may assist the
SPO in developing the responsiveness summary.
Coordinate with enforcement staff to ensure a timely PRP negotiation
moratorium
Ensure that the SPO initiates intergovernmental review for the RD/RA
project by sending the draft RI/FS Report to the State single point of
contact
Work with the SPO, as needed, to modify the report based on public
comments
Ensure that the appropriate changes appear in the final RI/FS Report
(including the responsiveness summary - see Chapter 5)
• Officially approve the final RI/FS Report in writing.
Information regarding an acceptable RI/FS report format is presented in the RI
Guidance and FS Guidance.
Separate reports for the Rl and FS may be developed depending on the site-
specific situation.
4-17
-------
4.5 RI/FS COMPLETION
Following completion of all of the work described in the CA SOW for RI/FS,
satisfactory corr.oliance with all special conditions, and receipt of EPA written approval
of the final RI/FS Report, the SPO should notify the RPM that the RI/FS activities are
completed. However, the RPM should be aware that final State financial acc6unting
of all RI/FS expenditures may not be completed for some time. The State must make
final payments on all outstanding vouchers and complete all necessary drawdowns
under its letter of credit (RI/FS activity code). A standard special condition in all CAs
requires that the State must submit a Financial Status Report (Standard Form 269)
within 90 days after completion of each activity.
If the State is to maintain the lead for RD and the CA is to be amended, a RI/FS
Progress Report (a narrative summary of final RI/FS technical and administrative
tasks) may be submitted as part of the next routine Quarterly Report. The RI/FS
Progress Report should include the following technical information:
Brief summary of the RI/FS Report
Dates of RI/FS start and completion !
Contractor(s) performing RI/FS work
Significant problems encountered
Recommended remedy
Other information, as appropriate
The Progress Report also should include a summary of total RI/FS expenditures,
explanation of significant cost overruns, and any other pertinent financial information.
If the RD is to be conducted as an EPA-lead project, the RPM should request
that the SPO submit a copy of the State's site file so that all appropriate site
information may be turned over to the Federal-lead project manager. Even if the
project becomes an EPA-lead, the State will be given the opportunity to review and
comment on design documents. EPA will be developing regulations concerning State
involvement, if the State intends to have a management assistance role during the
Federal-lead RD, the RPM should provide assistance to the SPO on preparing an
appropriate CA amendment (see State Manual ). In this case, a final technical and
administrative summary of RI/FS activities conducted under the CA may be included in
the next routine Quarterly Report submitted by the State under the management
assistance CA.
If the State does not have a Fund-financed role during the RD, the CA for the
RI/FS may be closed out. In this case the RPM should consult with GAB to determine
the best method for CA close out (formal CA amendment or a letter signed by the
Regional Administrator and appropriate State official). For information on CA
closeout, refer to Chapter 8 of this manual.
4-18
-------
ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION
"CERCLA Compliance with Other Environmental Statutes," AA/OSWER.
October 2, 1985. (OSWER Directive 9234.0-2)
Field Standard Operating Procedures (FSOP) Manual. (OSWER Directive 9285.2)
Guidance Document for Developing Data Quality Objectives. Draft,
Novembers, 1985. (OSWER Directive 9234.0-3)
Guidance on Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA. OERR and OWPE, June 1985.
(OSWER Directive 9355.0-6B)
Guidance on Remedial Investigations Under CERCLA. OERR and OWPE, June 1985.
(OSWER Directive 9355.0-5C)
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (47 FR 31180),
November 20,1985.
State Participation in the Superfund Program. Volume I, OERR, February 1984.
(OSWER Directive 9375.1-2)
Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual. Draft, January 14, 1986. (OSWER Directive
9285.5-1)
Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual, draft, December 18, 1985. (OSWER
Directive 9285.4-1)
User's Guide to the EPA Contract Laboratory Program. OERR, October 1984. (OSWER
Directive 9240.0-1)
4-19
-------
5. RECORD OF DECISION AND TRANSITION TO DESIGN
Preparation and approval of the Record of Decision (ROD) are crucial steps in
the remedial process. A ROD* is required for all remedial actions financed with
monies from the Trust Fund. The ROD documents the Agency's remedial alternative
decision making process and demonstrates that the requirements of CERCLA and the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), November 20,
1985 have been met. The ROD also provides the basis for future cost recovery
actions that may be taken with regard to site remediation under CERCLA.
The RPM has an extremely important role in the ROD process and transition to
design. The RPM coordinates the entire ROD process and oversees the transition
from RI/FS to remedial design and construction. The activities which take place during
this phase are shown in Exhibit 5-1. This chapter describes the activities of the RPM
and others during the ROD process and transition to design. These include:
Ongoing project management
The ROD process (preparation through approval)
Transition to remedial design (RD).
i
In coordinating the preparation, review and approval of the ROD, the RPM must work
closely with the representative from the Office of Regional Counsel (ORC) assigned to
the project. The project attorney will be responsible for assuring legal sufficiency of
the Regional ROD process, the administrative record, and the ROD document itself,
while the RPM assures program compliance and technical sufficiency.
Many Regions are now using a ROD Project Team concept which has proven
to be successful. The ROD Project Team would consist of the RPM, and
representatives of the following:
RI/FS contractor
State
ORC
Enforcement
Regional Superfund Community Relations Coordinator
Other relevant EPA programs such as the RCRA, Toxics, Air and /or
Water Offices
Headquarters (HSCD) Regional Coordinator (optional).
By including all these members in a team, the ROD process can be greatly expedited
since relevant concerns are uncovered early and hopefully can be resolved quickly.
* For enforcement lead sites, a Negotiation Decision Document (NDD). followed by an
Enforcement Decision Document (EDO), will be prepared (see "Preparation of Decision
Document for Approving Fund-Financed and Potentially Responsible Party Remedial
Actions Under CERCLA," February 27,1984, hereafter referred to as the ROD Guidance).
5-1
-------
EXHIBIT 5-1
Record of Decision (ROD) and Transition to Design
CONTRACTOR
F4NAU
FROM
RI/FS
D
TO
RO
STATE
HO
EPA
TASK CONTRACTOR
ORRNAU2E
PROCUREMENT
ONGOING PROJECT MANAGEMENT, ENFORCEMENT
AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
ENFORCEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
AND ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
5-2
-------
5.1 ONGOING PROJECT MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
During the course of the ROD process there are a number of ongoing project
management activities that are necessary to ensure a smooth process and transition from
RI/FS to Remedial Design (RD). These are outlined below.
5.1.1 Coordination with State
Throughout the ROD process the RPM must coordinate with State officials to
receive their input on all aspects of the ROD process and to ensure a smooth transition to
design. In fact, a State representative should be a member of the ROD project team and,
in many cases, may prepare much of the supporting documentation for the ROD. For
State-lead projects, the ROD process should be a joint EPA/State effort. Specifically, the
RPM should:
Participate in a pre-ROD meeting with the State and State contractor
Invite State officials to participate in EPA's pre-ROD and ROD briefings
Solicit State comments on the draft ROD, Responsiveness Summary, and
supporting documentation (if prepared by EPA)
Assist the SPO to develop the draft Cooperative Agreement (CA)
application for RD
Ensure State (60-day) intergovernmental review for the proposed
RD/RA project (may begin during public comment period on the draft
RI/FS Report).
If a formal intergovernmental review process has not been established within a State the
RPM must ensure that copies of the draft RI/FS are sent to appropriate State and local
officials (see also Appendix-D of the State Manual).
Most importantly, the RPM must obtain the State's official concurrence with the
recommended alternative in a letter from the appropriate State official to the Regional
Administrator. The RPM should remind State officials that the State must make
assurances to provide all future operation and maintenance and that the State must pay
10 percent of remedial implementation costs associated with the selected remedy at a
privately-owned or -operated site. If the site was publicly-operated at the time of
disposal, the State must pay at least 50 percent of all response costs (removal and
remedial). The State cost share is not due until the remedial action is implemented. The
State also must make an assurance of the availability of an off-site disposal facility, if part
of the remedy. The Superfund Amendments add two assurances that the State must
make:
Effective October 17,1989, EPA will not fund any remedial actions
requiring the use of treatment or disposal facilities unless the State enters
into a contract or CA assuring that it has adequate capacity for the
destruction, treatment or secure disposition of all hazardous waste
(including Superfund wastes) expected to be generated in the 20-year
period following the date of the assurance
• If the remedy involves the acquisition of real property by EPA, the State
must make an assurance to accept transfer of the property following
completion of the remedial action.
5-3
-------
Guidance is pending on both of these new assurances.
Concurrent with the ROD Process, the RPM should assist the State Project
Officer (SPO) in developing the application to encompass RD activities'.-- In some
cases RI/FS and RD will be included in one CA application. The RD funds can then
be added to the CA award after approval of the ROD without additional paperwork by
the State. In any case, the RD CA should be executed soon after the ROD is signed,
so as to minimize the RD start-up period. For further discussion of developing and
executing a CA refer to Chapter 3 of this manual or the State Manual.
5.1.2 Data Reporting and Record Keeping
During the ROD process the RPM must maintain full documentation of all site
data with particular concern paid to any confidential information that may, if released,
compromise EPA's ability to negotiate with Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs).
Generally, any information used in selecting the remedy is part of the administrative
record and is discoverable under the Freedom of Information Act. Documents relevant
to this phase of the remedial process include:
ROD Delegation Analysis Summary
Responsiveness Summary
Intergovernmental Review Comments
State Concurrence letter
Final ROD.
These basic documents should be included in the Administrative Record required by
the Superfund Amendments. In addition, all written correspondence regarding the
ROD process should be kept as well as written documentation of any important
conversations.
The RPM must also check the approved Superfund Comprehensive
Accomplishments Plan (SCAP) budget to ensure that funds are available to cover the
costs of RD for the selected remedy. This determination should be made well in
advance of submitting the draft RI/FS for public comment. The RPM should also begin
to consider the timing of the remedial action funding needs as related to the current or
next year's SCAP.
The CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS) data management system must
also be updated to include information relevant to the ROD process. Planned ROD
start dates for all sites with expected remedial design obligations for the upcoming
fiscal year should be entered at the time of the final SCAP submittal (August 31).
Additionally, actual ROD start and completion dates are to be entered. The ROD start
corresponds to the date the FS goes out for public comment, and the ROD completion
date corresponds to the date the ROD is signed by the Regional Administrator (RA) or
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(AA/OSWER). The RPM should ensure that accurate information is transmitted to the
regional contact working with the CERCLIS system.
5.1.3 Coordination with Regional Staff
During the ROD process it is imperative that the RPM coordinate closely with
key regional staff on the planning of the ROD, resolution of issues and the schedule
5-4
-------
for ROD signature. These staff and their roles during the ROD process are described
below:
Enforcement (technical and ORC) may be actively negotiating with
PRPs to conduct the remedial design and remedial action. If EPA
decides to negotiate with PRPs for the RD/RA, the Superfund/
Amendments state that another special notice, apart from the public
notice, must be sent to PRPs, the State, and Federal Resource Trustees.
Notice for RD/RA negotiations should be given as early as possible, but
no later than when EPA and the State have identified a preferred
alternative. Again, as with the RI/FS procedures, the PRPs have 60
days to make a good faith proposal to conduct or finance the RD and
RA. During this time, EPA may not initiate remedial action, but may
initiate design activities. If PRPs do not submit a good faith proposal
within 60 days of notice receipt, EPA may initiate a Fund-financed
remedial action. If a good faith proposal is submitted, the moratorium
continues for 120 days from the date of notice while EPA evaluates the
proposal.
The RPM must maintain close communication with enforcement staff
throughout the ROD process. The RPM may be requested to provide
technical support before or during negotiations with PRP's. In
preparation for negotiations, the RPM should be able to provide
enforcement staff, including ORC, with complete information regarding
the site, the RI/FS and associated costs, and the draft ROD. The RPM is
EPA's "expert" on the remedial project and, as such, must be fully
prepared and willing to assist enforcement staff agency negotiations
with PRPs.
Regional Counsel is responsible for ensuring that all enforcement
sensitive issues are properly presented and that the requirements of
CERCLA, the NCP and other environmental laws have been met. The
ORC must concur on the ROD before it is presented for approval. The
ORC should coordinate the resolution of issues of national significance
with the Office of General Counsel in Headquarters.
RCRA Program staff must review the ROD for an off-site remedial action
involving the treatment, storage, destruction or disposal of hazardous
wastes to ensure consistency with RCRA regulations and technical
standards. The RPM should refer to the recent off-site policy, "Procedure
for Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response Actions," May 6, 1985.
For on-site remedies, the RPM may conduct this review (if familiar with
RCRA standards).
Community Relations staff should verify that all community relations
plan (CRP) activities regarding public comment on the RI/FS are
complete. The RPM should coordinate with community relations staff
when preparing the responsiveness summary and to provide input to
the revised CRP based on the approved ROD.
Other Regional Program staff, from such programs as the Office of
Drinking Water and the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
should verify that the recommended remedy is consistent with other
environmental statutes, regulations, or program activities.
5-5
-------
5.1.4 Coordination with Headquarters and Other Interested Parties
Headquarters' involvement with the ROD process will vary depending on
whether ROD approval authority has been delegated to the RA (see section 4.3.4 in
previous chapter) and on the complexity of technical and policy issues regarding the
site. In either case, an open dialogue and exchange of information'/should be
maintained between the Region and Headquarters. Headquarters offices, at this
point, serve as facilitators. The primary point of contact for the RPM is the State-lead
Regional Coordinator in the Hazardous Site Control Division (HSCD). Similarly,
Regional Counsel must communicate with their Headquarters' counterparts in the
Office of General Counsel and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring.
Depending on the site-specific situation, other Federal agencies such as the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) may become
involved in reviewing appropriate documents and assisting in issue resolution.
5.2 ROD PROCESS
The RPM is responsible for preparing and coordinating the review and
approval of the ROD. The existing ROD process for State-lead sites is illustrated in
Exhibit 5-2. Each of these activities is described below with appropriate guidance for
the RPM.
5.2.1 Pre-ROD Meeting
Prior to submitting the RI/FS Report for public comment, the RPM should
arrange and coordinate a pre-ROD meeting with the State, State contractor, Regional
Counsel, Enforcement, Superfund Community Relations and other appropriate
personnel to discuss the draft RI/FS. Two purposes of this meeting are to identify data
gaps in the RI/FS and develop a schedule for completing the ROD process. Data
gaps should be minimal if the RPM closely monitored the State's preparation of the
RI/FS. A key purpose of this meeting is to identify and resolve remaining issues
related to the alternatives analyses and remedy selection. A pre-ROD briefing for
Headquarters staff, prior to transmittal of the RI/FS Report for public comment, may be
necessary for technically complex sites or when significant policy issues exist. For
example, when the selected remedy does not attain or exceed applicable or relevent
and appropriate environmental standards, a pre-ROD briefing for Headquarters staff
usually is required.
5.2.2 ROD Package
Concurrent with the RI/FS public comment period, the RPM should prepare a
draft ROD. Portions of this responsibility may be taken by the State, but the RPM is
ultimately responsible for final preparation of the ROD as an official EPA decision
document. The content and format for the ROD are described in Exhibit 5-3 (see also
the ROD Guidance). The RPM and SPO should also review previously approved
RODs which focus on similar issues and remedial decisions. EPA supports several
5-6
-------
EXHIBIT 5-2
ROD Process
PRE-ROD
MEETING
(IF NECESSARY)
DRAFT RI/FS
OUT FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT
DRAFT
ROD PACKAGE
PREPARE
RESPONSIVENESS|
SUMMARY
HEADQUARTERS
REVIEW FOR
CONSISTENCY
(REG. DECISION ROD)!
REGIONAL AND
STATE REVIEW
&
CONCURRENCES
SIGNED BY
REG. ADMIN.
ROD
BRIEFING &
APPROVAL
HEADQUARTERS
REVIEW AND
CONCURRENCES
(HQ DECISION ROD)
SIGNED BY
AA/OSWER
ROD
COPIES TO HQ
FOR NAT'L DIST.
5-7
-------
efforts that compile all signed RODs, develop ROD Abstracts, and categorize RODs by
selected remedies. RPMs should contact the HSCD Regional Coordinator for further
information on the availability of ROD Annual Reports, ROD Updates and related
efforts. The RPM must ensure that recommended decisions regarding remedial
actions are consistent with current EPA policies. The ROD Package consists of:
ROD
• Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
Responsiveness Summary.
In order to expedite the ROD process, as much as possible of the ROD
package should be prepared during, or before, the public comment period. An early
draft of the ROD Package will serve to clarify issues that need to be addressed. The
RPM may request the Federal-lead remedial planning (REM) contractor assistance in
preparing the ROD Package. The following three sections describe these ROD
Package elements.
5.2.2.1 ROD
The ROD is a short document (2-5 pages), signed by either the RA or
AA/OSWER, that officially documents the remedy selection. It has three sections:
Documents Reviewed — lists the documents reviewed in selecting
among remedial alternatives; this list would include but is not limited to
the RI/FS Report, the Summary of Remedial Alternatives Selection, and
the Responsiveness Summary
• Description of Selected Remedy — describes the major components of
the remedy and operation and maintenance requirements (if
applicable)
Declarations - documents that the decision is consistent with CERCLA
and the "NCP, that it is cost effective, and provides adequate protection
of public health, welfare and the environment.
The content and format for the ROD are further described in Exhibit 5-3.
5.2.2.2 Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
The Summary provides detailed information on the remedial alternatives
reviewed during the FS and ROD process. The Summary of Remedial Alternative
Selection must discuss:
Consistency with section 121 of the Superfund Amendments
No-action alternative
Extent of remedy and compliance with other environmental statutes
Cost estimates
• Cost-effectiveness evaluation
5-8
-------
EXHIBIT 5-3
Record of Decision
Remedial Alternative Selection
SITE: [Site name, location]
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
I am basing my decision primarily on the following documents describing the analysis of cost-
effectiveness of remedial alternatives for the [site name]:
[Site name] Remedial Investigation
[Site name] Feasibility Study
Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
Responsiveness Summary
I
[Other relevant reports or documentation of the remedy selection process]
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY
, • [List major components of remedy]
• [List operation and maintenance requirements if funding will be requested]
Note: Care must be taken to list all documents used to reach the final decision. Secondary references
included in the listed documents need not be listed here.
DECLARATIONS
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), and the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300), I have determined that the [description of
remedy] at the [site name] is a cost-effective remedy and provides adequate protection of public health,
welfare, and the environment The State of [State name] has been consulted and agrees with the approved
remedy. [Include the following if appropriate.] In addition, the action will require future operation and
maintenance activities to ensure the continued effectiveness of the remedy. These activities will be
considered part o! the approved action and eligible for Trust Fund monies for a period of [insert funding period
not to exceed 1 year].
I have also determined that the action being taken is appropriate when balanced against the
availability of Trust Fund monies for use at other sites. [Include the following sentence if remedy involves off-
site action.] In addition, the off-site transport storage, destruction, treatment or secure disposition [use
appropriate wording based on actual remedy] is more cost-effective than other remedial action, [include the
following if appropriate] and will create new capacity to manage hazardous waste, [include the following if
appropriate] and is necessary to protect public health, welfare or the environment
Note:Language for fund balancing waivers or waivers from other environmental regulations will be worked out
on a site-specific basis.
[Include the following if appropriate.] The State [or EPA] will undertake an additional remedial
investigation/feasibility study to evaluate [describe scope of RI/FS]. If additional remedial actions are
determined to be necessary a Record of Decision will be prepared for approval of the future remedial action.
Date Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and EmergencyResponse
or
Regional Administrator
5-9
-------
Off-site transport, storage, treatment, destruction or disposal of
hazardous wastes (if applicable) and compliance with CERCLA section
101(24)
Responsiveness Summary
Operation and Maintenance (O&M).
Other topics that may be appropriate depending on site-specific conditions should also
be included in the ROD text.
5.2.3 Responsiveness Summary
Following completion of the public comment period, a responsiveness summary
should be prepared as an attachment to the ROD. The responsiveness summary
addresses a!! comments submitted by the public, PRPs, and States. The responsiveness
summary is often prepared by the State or State contractor but ultimately the RPM is
responsible for ensuring its accuracy and completeness. The responsiveness summary
documents for public record:
Coordination with enforcement staff
Comments raised before or during the public comment period on the
draft RI/FS Report
How EPA and the State considered and responded to these comments.
Further information on the format and content of a responsiveness summary is presented
in the ROD Guidance. In preparing the responsiveness summary, the RPM should
coordinate closely with Superfund community relations staff to obtain their input. The
draft ROD and the recommended remedy may need to be revised in response to public
comment.
5.2.4 Draft ROD and Responsiveness Summary Review
The State and appropriate Regional offices should review and concur on the draft
ROD and responsiveness summary. The State's concurrence should be documented in
a letter from the appropriate State official to the Regional Administrator. The Regional
review process should include all concerned offices, but at a minimum should include
ORC and enforcement staff.
The key to a smooth, expeditious review process is the early involvement of the
concerned reviewers. By seeking State, ORC, enforcement, HSCD and other relevant
inputs during the RI/FS, and through effective pre-ROD meetings, the RPM can minimize
the occurrence of last minute issues and concerns. If ROD approval is retained by
Headquarters, or consultation is required, HSCD will review the draft ROD to ensure
consistent decision-making among the Regions and adherence with the latest Agency
policies.
5.2.5 ROD Approval
The last step in the ROD process is the ROD briefing held to obtain the Regional
or Assistant Administrator's approval of the recommended action. The format and
content for ROD briefing materials are presented in the ROD Guidance. The RPM will
5-10
-------
RPM will usually prepare the ROD briefing materials and may be asked to present
them to the Regional Administrator. The RPM should consider attending other ROD
briefings in the Region as a preparatory exercise.
For RODs which must be approved by the AA/OSWER the RPM should prepare
and coordinate the State and Regional review prior to submission to EPA
Headquarters. The official submission should be sent to the AA/OSWER, and should
include a cover memorandum from the Regional Administrator. The memo should
summarize the proposed project and present the State and Region's recommendation
to approve the action. A copy of the complete submission should be sent directly to
the Director, HSCD. The appropriate HSCD Regional Coordinator will be responsible
for reviewing the submission and for preparing the briefing for the AA/OSWER. The
Regional Coordinator may request assistance and/or information from the RPM.
During the briefing to the RA or the AA/OSWER, a number of last-minute
questions or issues may arise. The RPM is responsible for the coordination of last-
minute issue resolution. The RA or AA/OSWER may also request that modifications
be made to the ROD documents before signature. The RPM should make any
necessary changes to the ROD package as quickly as possible and alert the SPO that
changes have been made. Once the RA or AA/OSWER has approved the ROD, the
RPM is responsible for ensuring that copies are sent to all appropriate offices
(Regional Superfund program, ORC, Grants Administration Branch (GAB), HSCD
(through the Regional Coordinator) and the State (through the SPO)).
5.3 TRANSITION TO DESIGN
During the ROD process there are a number of steps the RPM can take to
ensure a smooth transition to the next phase of the remedial process -- RD. If all
activities are coordinated properly, the lag time between ROD approval and RD
initiation can be minimal. To accomplish this transition the RPM must:
Coordinate with enforcement staff
Encourage the State to initiate preliminary design procurement efforts
Draft and finalize the CA for design with the State.
The RPM also should confer with enforcement staff to determine (prior to RD startup)
whether PRPs will conduct both the RD and RA. These activities are discussed in the
next chapter and in Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action Guidance, revised
June, 1986.
5-11
-------
ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION
"CERCLA Compliance with Other Environmental Statutes," AA/OSWER,
October 2, 1985. (OSWER Directive 9234.0-2) .;'••
Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook OSWER, September 1983 (under
revision). (OSWER Directive 9230.0-3)
Guidance on CERCLA Compliance with Other Environmental Statutes fRCRA
Requirements^. Draft, December 10, 1985. (OSWER Directive 9234.0-3)
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300),
November 20,1985.
Preparation of Decision Documents for Approving Fund-Financed and Potentially
Responsible Party Remedial Actions Under CERCLA. OERR, February 2, 1985.
(OSWER Directive 9340.2-1)
"Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response Actions," AA/OSWER,
May 6, 1985. (OSWER Directive 9330.2-1)
Record of Decision Annual Report. OERR
State Participation in trie Superfund Program. OERR, February 1984. (OSWER
Directive 9375.1-2)
"Superfund Records of Decision Update," OERR, Monthly.
Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action Guidance. OERR, June 1986.
(OSWER Directive 9355.0-4)
5-12
-------
6. REMEDIAL DESIGN
The purpose of the remedial design (RD) is to develop detailed plans and
specifications for conducting the remedial action (RA). For State-lead RD, the State is
responsible for procuring an architectural/engineering (A/E) firm to design the remedy
approved in the Record of Decision (ROD) by EPA.*
In order to provide program continuity and expedite the RD activity, States may
retain the same A/E firm for the remedial investigation/ feasibility study (RI/FS), RD and
construction oversight. This option saves considerable time by eliminating the need
for separate State procurements. It also reduces the time required to conduct
subsequent activities because the A/E firm becomes familiar with site conditions and
can develop specific expertise regarding the site and the selected remedy. This
approach is of additional benefit to the State and EPA because.it promotes more
efficient and effective project management and scheduling.
If the State chooses to undertake a separate procurement for an A/E firm to
conduct the RD, the RPM must ensure that the procurement is in accordance with 40
CFR Part 33 and the State Manual, Volume II, "State Procurement Under Superfund
Cooperative Agreements," March 1986.
The Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action Guidance Document, June
1S86, (hereafter referred to as the RD/RA Guidance) contains a detailed description of
the RD/RA process, and will serve as the primary reference document for this and the
following chapter on RA. As in other chapters, Exhibit 6-1 highlights the major
activities that occur during this stage of a remedial response.
6.1 ONGOING PROJECT MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Numerous ongoing project management activities are common to all phases of
remedial design activity. Specific actions required during the remedial design
process are outlined below.
A State may elect not to take lead responsibility for RD, and thus the RPM would conduct
the RD activity phases through an interagency agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE). The RPM should refer to the Superfund Federal-Lead Remedial
Project Management Handbook for such projects.
6-1
-------
EXHIBIT 6-1
Remedial Design (RD)
CONTRACTOR
iHoii
FROM
ROD
STATE |
m?mm.^
spxmm- :?
ifXXKggS .•:;
.V:': ': :-'-::::; :%;:•:' ,::-:
: : - - .;:•:-:-•:;-..:.-.: . ..--
EPA
LEGEND:
ACTIVITY
DOCUMENT
VALUE
ENGINEERING
iKSSSSiA-.:;::*:;:;:^ S lUUY
iMTNftRY"*4! T~~ —
gnp^Rflll]
*'tf '2k'& C ':>S;S&*&::| rf^:oxvX-X':*:-:->:*:-:-:-x*:-x-:-:-:-x*x*:-x^
lilsiii|(ii!iiii||
PLANS & SPECS
H&S PLAN |i&Ł
CWQC PLAN TO
l^IiiliMPi^ilil
^iilWli™ PLANS & SPECS
O&M PLAN
H&S PLAN
IPFNT|FY QAOC PLAN
PERMITS
I iliri ii iiiiiiii vg § | ififi i||iiii:
1 i|i:: -I II llliiiii || 1 1 ill! ilfiliili
liil REVl
a ;*>•;:: . -:mK m?^: -:;m APF
|I:|- SfTE ACCESS ::|0| III':-:, IK
':::l:lv:«>li::lllll I lli:; il 11?
Ill- 1 ill II ill
III IRllilJllJ || |l 11
iSsili:,' :IM:-iiliyi^:-:fpsi;- SllPllllfl;;
"::%;:-::::::;::::\':T::::::-:;.:::X:'::;:-X:-; - • .•jvrWx-^v^T^Xvv^^o:-:".'::
:":::':::":::-:'i''':::::::::'x::::-;:)- •'::••':'" :i:::::::':'::::'-:';::::';':'-'::::::;'>::";-:-'- •••
EWAND 1" ^'-:^WM:'<
ROVAL -i;; .:v|l.Jl«::-
.".-.'• .•.'.:.-'-: ::::' ':: :•:•':•:•>.•' :' ."
•• • ":':V.: •':-.-,-' .••-'••'^ '. ---.":•'.-
""'•:';".•:"'••••'. ": :•:•:• '•'-'•- ::::-:'.:"-.: ". :'•-. ".::". • ":•'•.••'•'•:''.•:•.•'•:'•.••'•:'•:
REVIEW AND
CONCUR*
CONCU
liiiii
TO RA
•• . /ISiSSfS^SfiHffiiS^ilil^-l*^' xfc : :.-':>:'::
• |S:S:tWSMfAS-y-;:S:"JESi6lil;:;::| : '• ::; ' ": : ; : : :;-: • •
'pBPi^^PBS^F--^:
:.:-:.;';•;:.! ::|:i§|iSO^ISRljOG:ii56StS^?K^| ' ?: ?::-::?:-:
REVIEW
••
?Re«ci|d
;i?i:i:i?W'
' USAGE OR REM (OPTIONAL) ASSISTANCE
ONGOING PROJECT MANAGEMENT. ENFORCEMENT ^
' AND SUPERFUND COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
1 1
6-2
-------
6.1.1 Remedial Design Cooperative Agreement Execution
In initiating remedial design activities at a State-lead site, the EPA RPM must
work closely with State officials to process a Cooperative Agreement (CA) or CA
amendment. This should be accomplished concurrent with the ROD prqcess so it may
be executed soon after the ROD is signed. Either an existing CA will be'amended or a
new CA will be developed for RD.
The State is responsible for preparing the statement of work (SOW) for RD
which should clearly describe the project scope and required design documents. The
RPM may work with the State Project Officer (SPO) to develop the SOW. The RPM
should ensure that the SPO uses the RDIRA Guidance while developing the SOW.
The SOW for remedial design will require the State-procured A/E firm to prepare
design documents to accomplish the remedial action as defined in the ROD. An
example SOW for RD is given as an appendix to the RDIRA Guidance.
If the approved ROD includes a remedy that requires post-construction
operation and maintenance (O&M), the SOW in the RD application should include a
task to develop an O&M plan. The plan should contain at least the following elements:
Designation of the organizational unit of the State government
responsible for O&M
• Identification of the availability of State funding mechanisms for O&M
activities
Milestone dates for assuming O&M responsibilities
Description and duration of O&M activities
O&M staffing needs
Operational performance standards
Contingency plan for handling abnormal occurances
Safety requirements for O&M activities
• Equipment and material requirements
• Estimates of annual O&M costs
Description of site use and disposition of facilities following completion
of O&M.
The RPM and State officials should refer to Chapter 3 of this manual and to the
State Manual for specific information for the initiation, execution, and amendment of
CAs. The RPM also must ensure that intergovernmental review for the RD/RA project
is completed prior to award of the RD CA.
6-3
-------
6.1.2 Data Reporting and Record Keeping
The RPM has the responsibility for maintaining thorough, accurate records
during remedial design. The RPM must maintain site files and relevant documentation
that will support project oversight and potential cost recovery actions. -.These may
include:
Quarterly Reports
Correspondence by EPA, State, or contractors
Progress reports
Contractor invoices
Draft and final design reports
The RPM also may be requested to assist enforcement staff in preparing a cost
recovery summary at the completion of remedial design.
The periodic updating of information for EPA's automated data systems is a
continuing responsibility of the RPM. These systems include:
CERCLIS (CERCLA Information System) -- RD start (date RD funds
obligated) and end date (date RA invitation for bid advertised) for
remedial design must be entered.
SCAP (Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan) - The RPM
must coordinate with the Regional SCAP contact to ensure that
accurate information on RD activities appears on the SCAP prior to the
start of remedial design. Funding for technical assistance during RD
must also be shown if the RPM needs this support. The SCAP must be
updated as remedial design progresses so that funding needs for
subsequent construction are identified in a timely fashion.
FMS (Financial Management System) - Monthly and ad hoc financial
status reports on the remedial program must be reviewed for accuracy
by the RPM. The RPM should consult the Letter of Credit Users Manual.
6.1.3 Technical Progress Oversight
The RPM must oversee technical progress during RD. The RPM may obtain
assistance for review of plans and specification from Federal-lead remedial planning
(REM) contractors or the USAGE. The RPM may obtain this assistance through a work
assignment (for the REM contractor) or an Interagency Agreement (for the USAGE).
The RPM should consult the REM-Regional Project Officer for assistance. REM or
USAGE technical assistance is encouraged unless the RPM has specific experience
in design document review.
6.1.4 Coordination with Community Relations
The SPO and RPM must coordinate with the Regional Superfund Community
Relations Coordinator in order to :
Review revised site-specific community relations plan (CRP)
Provide material to local information repositories
Issuance of press releases
Develop fact sheets and information materials.
6-4
-------
This will ensure that the public is involved during RD. The RPM should provide
assistance to the State as required with community relations activities.
Based on input from the above public participation process, the site CRP must
be revised, as necessary, to reflect knowledge of citizen concerns and involvement.
An updated fact sheet and public notice of completion of the engineering design must
be prepared and distributed as part of the on-going community relations process.
6.2 DESIGN INITIATION
Following the selection of a remedy, approval of the ROD, and execution of the
RD CA or amendment, design activities may be initiated. The RPM must provide the
following assistance to the State.
6.2.1 Approved ROD, Final RI/FS Report, and Pre-Design Report
The RPM must provide a copy of the approved ROD to the State as soon as
possible after ROD approval. If the State was not the lead party for the RI/FS, the RPM
should also provide the State with a copy of the final RI/FS Report(s).
If the RI/FS was Federal-lead, the RPM should ensure that a Pre-design Report
is prepared by the REM contractor and transmitted to the State. The Pre-design report
describes the engineering parameters and institutional concerns of the selected
remedy. The report packages together all pertinent project information needed for
transferring the project to the State for remedial design. It is critical that the Pre-
design Report be completed within two weeks following remedy selection (ROD
approval). The cost of the Report should be limited to approximately five percent of
the cost of the feasibility study. Exhibit 6-2 presents a suggested outline for the Pre-
design Report. The State-lead RPM must be prepared to answer any questions the
State may have about the Federal-lead RI/FS.
6.2.2 Remedial Design Procurement
The State is responsible for all contractual and administrative issues
associated with procurements under a CA. The State Manual, Volume II, contains a
detailed description of the procurement process and will serve as a primary reference.
Additionally, Chapter 3 of this manual also offers guidance on State procurement.
The RPM's role during procurement is one of oversight and assistance.
As discussed earlier, States may retain the A/E firm that provided RI/FS
services for the RD activity and for A/E services during the RA. EPA's "Procurement
Under Assistance Agreements" regulation, 40 CFR 33, requires that if the State is to
retain the same A/E firm throughout the remedial process, the original State request
for proposals (RFPs) for the RI/FS must also include RD and RA oversight activities.
The RFP must indicate that the RI/FS activity is the initial activity that will be authorized
and that an option for RD and RA oversight may be executed through a separate
notice to proceed subject to availability of funding and negotiation of an acceptable
cost. The scope of work must be described in sufficient detail to allow preparation of
an acceptable proposal covering both the initial and optional activities. Under 40 CFR
33, the State then may execute a contract for the initial (RI/FS) activities with an option
to extend the scope of the contract to include RD and RA oversight.
6-5
-------
EXHIBIT 6-2
Suggested Outline for Pre-Design Report
1. Site Description
2. Summary of Selected Remedy
Description of remedy & rationale for selection
Performance expectations
Site topographic map & preliminary layouts
Preliminary design criteria & rationale
Preliminary process diagrams
General operation and maintenance (O&M) requirements
Long-term monitoring requirements
3. Summary of Remedial Investigation and Impact on Selected Remedy
• Field studies (Air, surface water, ground water, geology)
Laboratory studies (Bench scale, Pilot scale)
4. Design/Implementation Precautions
Special technical problems
Additional engineering data required
Permits & regulatory requirements
Access, easements, rights-of-way
Health & safety requirements
Community relations activities
5. Cost Estimates & Schedules
Implementation cost estimate (Order of Magnitude, + 50%/-30%)
Preliminary annual O&M cost estimate and duration
Project schedule (design, construction, permits & access)
6. Appendices
Reports, data summaries, etc.
* Many of the elements of the Pre-design Report will have been developed during the
RI/FS. These may be incorporated by reference.
6-6
-------
For those States which awarded initial RI/FS contracts prior to November 18,
1983 without the option to extend to include RD and RA oversight, a class deviation.
from 40 CFR 33.510 and 33.515 has been approved. The class deviation allows
those States to use the A/E firm procured to conduct follow-on A/E activities (RD and
RA oversight) without going through the additional public notice and evaluation
procedures described in 40 CFR 33.510 and 33.515. Those States, however, must
comply with all other requirements of Part 33 when awarding the follow-on contracts
and must have followed all of the requirements of Part 33 (including public notice and
evaluation) for the initial procurement of the A/E. If the State decides to choose a
different firm for the RD, all parts of 40 CFR Part 33 apply to the State's procurement.
As discussed in Chapter 3, the State must assure EPA of its intent to comply
with 40 CFR Part 33 in one of two ways:
Evaluate its procurement system and "self-certify" that the State system
is equivalent to 40 CFR Part 33
Acknowledge, that although the State system is not equivalent to 40
CFR Part 33, it agrees to comply with 40 CFR Part 33.
This certification or acknowledgement is provided as part of the State's CA
application. In either circumstance the RPM has an oversight role during the State's
procurement.
If the State self-certifies, the RPM's review or oversight of procurement is
reduced. However, in either case the CA special conditions specify that the RPM may
review all final contract documents. In order to review contract documents and
interact with the State on procurement matters, the RPM must have adequate
knowledge and understanding of EPA's procurement regulations (40 CFR 33). A
working knowledge of these regulations will provide the RPM with sufficient
information to recognize procurement situations where additional EPA management
guidance and advice are necessary.
The RPM should always review the contract SOW to ensure that the work to be
done is consistent with the CA SOW, the ROD and all relevant EPA policies and
guidance. The RPM should make every effort to review and comment; on State
contracts in a timely manner. Assistance for the RPM on procurement matters may be
obtained from Regional Grants Administration Branch (GAB) and Financial
Management Division (FMD) staff and from Headquarters HSCD Regional
Coordinators and Grants Policy (GAD) staff.
6.2.3 Technical Transfer Briefing
If the RI/FS was Federal-lead, the RPM must oversee a technical transfer
briefing between the REM contractor, the SPO, and the State design contractor. The
briefing must be scheduled and coordinated by the RPM as soon as the State's
contractor is selected in order to facilitate project transfer and resolve any outstanding
issues or questions. The RPM should invite State and local officials and other EPA
staff to participate, as appropriate. If the RI/FS was State-lead, but the RI/FS State
contractor is not retained for RD, then the State should conduct a similar briefing for
the new contractor. In this case, the State-conducted technical transfer briefing should
be included in the CA SOW or added to the CA as a special condition.
6-7
-------
6.2.4 Obtaining Site Access
Obtaining site access for the RD and RA is the State's responsibility. In
addition, obtaining necessary rights-of-way and easements to implement remedial
action, is the responsibility of the State. The RPM must encourage the State to take
action early to obtain site access for both the RD or RA in order to avoid delays in
implementing the remedial action. This is very important to the project schedule.
The SPO should consult State legal staff to determine the appropriate
mechanism for obtaining site access for the RD and RA. If the State encounters
problems with obtaining access, the RPM should consult with ORC and the HSCD
Regional Coordinator for advice and assistance.
. Site access where cleanup actions require short- or long-term use of property
may involve access agreements or negotiation of rights-of-way with property owners.
The same is true of property along proposed pipeline routes. In order to ensure that
remedial construction will not be delayed due to disputes with property owners, it is
essential that negotiations for site access be completed prior to the completion of the
RD. If voluntary access cannot be obtained, and resistance from property owners is
encountered, the State should make efforts, to the extent of its legal authority, to
secure site access. If necessary, EPA may have to exercise its statutory authority
under of CERCLA §104, in which case an appropriate access order for entry may
have to be secured from a court having legal jurisdiction.
The NCP does not require permits for on-site remedial actions. Local or State
non-environmental permits are the responsibility of the RD A/E firm or the construction
contractor.
6.3 OVERSIGHT OF DESIGN
The State has the primary responsibility for the review and approval of the
design plans and specifications prepared by the A/E firm and for submitting the design
documents to the RPM for EPA review and concurrence.
6.3.1 Technical Review of Design Documents
The RPM is responsible for the coordination and EPA review and concurrence
of design documents. Submissions required during the design process include:
Preliminary design (30% complete)
Intermediate design (60% complete - optional)
Prefinal design (90% complete)
Final design package (100% complete)
Compliance with the requirements of other environmental
statutes
Equipment start-up and operator training plans.
6-8
-------
In addition the RPM may be responsible for reviewing and concurring on work plans
for bench and pilot studies during design, and reviewing and concurring on study
results.
As mentioned in section 6.1.3 of this chapter, the RPM may obtain technical
assistance for review of plans and specifications from REM contractors or the-'US ACE.
This assistance for the RPM is encouraged since many RPMs do not have specific
expertise in the review of formal bid documents. However, the RPM must ensure that
proper technical review of the draft and final plans and specifications is conducted for
EPA.
To obtain technical assistance from the USAGE or REM contractors, the RPM
must first have funding approved on the SCAP. If funds are available, a site-specific
IAG with the USAGE may be developed. Assistance from REM contractors is obtained
through normal REM work assignment procedures (See Superfund Federal-lead
Remedial Project Management Handbook for details). Following each review of draft and
final design documents, the RPM is responsible for one of the following: 1) notifying
the SPO in writing that EPA concurs with the documents, or 2) sending the SPO EPA's
written comments on the design documents. Following incorporation of EPA's
comments into the design documents, written EPA approval/concurrence should be
sent to the SPO.
6.3.2 Consistency with Approved ROD
The RPM has the responsibility for ensuring that the design package being
developed by the State and its A/E contractor is consistent with the ROD. If major
design changes are observed that would significantly alter the remedy approved in
the ROD, the RPM should notify the SPO in writing to temporarily halt design activities.
(Examples of major design changes are included in the RDIRA Guidance.) If the
design change is not acceptable to EPA, the SPO should be notified in writing that the
design package must be revised to be consistent with the ROD. However, if the
State's justification for the proposed design changes warrants consideration by EPA,
the RPM should coordinate an expeditious review of the proposed changes. If EPA
review of the design concludes that changes to the ROD are justified, the RPM must
prepare a ROD amendment for signature by the EPA official delegated the ROD
responsibility (Regional Administrator or AA/OSWER). ROD amendment will require
another public comment period. Sufficient written justification must be attached to the
ROD amendment when presented to the Award Official.
Following approval of a ROD amendment, the State's CA design SOW must be
revised to reflect the changes to the original ROD. Depending on the magnitude of the
ROD change and level of detail in the CA SOW, the CA may either be modified by a
formal amendment or by written notification by the RPM.
6.3.3 Value Engineering Review
The RPM should ensure that the State has included value engineering
screening during the design phase for all remedial action projects where a potential
for substantial cost saving exists. Value engineering screening will consist of listing
high cost items that have a potential for cost savings. Value engineering screening is
limited to project refinements which would not significantly change or alter the
approved remedy. The RPM should review and approve the value engineering
screening conducted by the State. (HSCD guidance on value engineering is under
development.)
6-9
-------
Those RA projects which, as a result of the value engineering screening, show
a reasonable promise for significant cost savings will be recommended by the RPM for
approval of formal engineering study by the State. The potential impact on the project
schedule and funding requirements for a formal value engineering study will be
identified by the State and submitted to the RPM for review. If necessary, the RPM
should prepare a CA amendment to provide extra funds to the State for the value
engineering study. The CA amendment also should incorporate necessary project
schedule adjustments.
6.3.4 Design Completion
Following completion of all of the work in the RD CA SOW, satisfactory
compliance with all special conditions and written RPM approval of the final design
documents, the SPO should notify the RPM that the RD activity is completed. Final
State financial accounting may not be completed for a period of time while all
outstanding vouchers are paid and drawdowns on the State's letter of credit are
completed. (The standard special condition on letter of credit requires the State to
submit a Financial Status Report [Standard Form 269] within 90 days of the
completion of each activity.)
As soon as possible after completion of the RD, the SPO should submit a
Design Progress Report (can be included in routine Quarterly Report). As discussed
in section 4.5, the progress report should include a technical and financial summary of
the RD activity.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Letter of Credit Users Manual. EPA, Division of Financial Management.
Procurement Under Assistance Agreements (40 CFR Part 33).
"State Procurement Under Superfund Cooperative Agreements," March 1986,
Volume II of State Participation in the Suoerfund Program. (OSWER Directive
9375.1-5)
Suoerfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action Guidance. OERR, June 1986.
(OSWER Directive 9355.0-4)
6-10
-------
7. REMEDIAL ACTION
Following the completion and approval of the remedial design (RD) package,
the project proceeds to the implementation of the remedial action (RA). Exhibit 7-1
shows graphically the sequence of activities that normally will be undertaken in
implementing a State-lead remedial action.
The purpose of this chapter is to outline the RPM's responsibilities in ensuring
that the remedial action is implemented in accordance with the approved design.
Although primary responsibility for the actual implementation rests with the State, the
RPM must stay involved to participate in and coordinate required inspections, reviews,
and approvals.
This chapter is divided into four major sections:
Ongoing project management activities
RA contractor procurement
RA oversight
Transition to operation and maintenance (O&M).
The Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action Guidance, June 1986 (hereafter
called the RDIRA Guidance), contains more detailed information on the RA activity.
7.1 ONGOING PROJECT MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
As in all stages of remedial response, numerous ongoing projec: management
activities are common to all portions of the remedial action implementation. Specific
activities required during remedial action are outlined below.
7.1.1 Cooperative Agreement Amendment
Generally, the CA amendment for the RA will be made as the RD activity nears
completion. (The State may choose to add the RA activity to an existing multi-site CA.)
This allows the statement of work (SOW) and budget for the RA amendment to be
based on prefinal or final design documents and cost estimates. The cost estimates
associated with the prefinal or final design documents are within a +-.0/-15 percent
range of accuracy. Basing the CA budget on these costs, rather than on the cost
estimates developed in the feasibility study (FS) (+50/-30 percent), improves EPA's
ability to manage expenditures for RA activities. The paperwork necessary to develop
the technical SOW for the RA amendment is also simplified if the final design
specifications are nearly complete. In its application the State may generally describe
the technical tasks to be conducted and simply reference the final design documents
as the specific technical SOW for the CA amendment. Usually, the on.y other major
tasks that must be added to the SOW are the State's administrative tasks and
construction oversight. (The State may receive funds to either extend the RD contract
to include construction oversight or hire another A/E firm to conduct this management
task.) Ongoing community relations activities should be included, as we.' as any other
necessary site-specific tasks.
7-1
-------
EXHIBIT 7-1
Remedial Action (RA)
EPA
• USAGE OPTIONAL
E.O.. COMPLIANCE STATUS
CFRCRAFAaUTY
*•
_ ONGOING PROJECT MANAGEMENT. ENFORCEMENT —
AND SUPERFUND COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
7-2
-------
To ensure that adequate funds are available for potential change orders during
construction, the CA budget should include a construction contingency. This
contingency is usually based on a percentage of the total project costs, and is usually in
the range of eight to ten percent. (For additional guidance on estimating construction
costs and contingencies, refer to the RDIRA Guidance, Chapter 2.) This amount is
included in the construction object class category of the CA budget.
In developing an amended CA for RA activities, the RPM should make certain that
it contains CERCLA Section 104(c)(3) assurances. These assurances apply during
Fund-supported remedial construction activities. If the CA provides funds for a remedial
action, the State is required to provide assurances regarding:
Operation and maintenance (O&M) of remedial actions
Off-site treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances, if
applicable
Cost sharing
Adequate capacity for destruction, treatment, or disposal of all hazardous
wastes expected to be generated in the 20-year period following the
assurance*
Acceptance of any real property acquired as part of the remedy*.
The standard provision for O&M should be included in the CA. This provision
states that the State must assume lead responsibility for any O&M activities required
following remedial construction. In addition, the RA CA should include a prevision that
specifies that the State's construction contractor will be responsible for remedy startup
and for certifying that the remedy is functional and operational as designec. EPA's
policy is to share in the cost (90/10 or 50/50) for a period frne vear or less! to ensure that
the remedy is operational and functional. Chapter 8 of this manual will discuss the O&M
activity in greater detail. -
The State also must agree to ensure the availability of adequate off-site treatment,
storage, or disposal of hazardous wastes from the project, if necessary. The assurance
requires States to comply with EPA's policy memorandum entitled "Proceduresfor
Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response Actions," May 6, 1985. The memorandum
addresses procedures that must be observed when a response action involving off-site
storage, treatment or disposal of hazardous substances is selected under CERCLA. The
policy prohibits use of a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permitted
facility for off-site management of Superfund hazardous substances if it has significant
RCRA violations or other environmental conditions that affect the satisfactory operation of
the facility. The policy strengthens previous CERCLA requirements for selection of an off-
site facility in accordance with the November 1984 amendments to RCRA.
Finally, the State must share in the cost of RA. The State is obligatec to pay at
least 50 percent of all response costs (planning, implementation and removal) if the site
was publicly-operated at the time of disposal. If it was a privately-owned or -operated
site, the State is obligated to pay 10 percent of RA costs only. In either case, tne State is
not obligated to pay its cost share until RA.
These are new assurances under SARA. See page 5-3 for further detail.
7-3
-------
During the development of the CA amendment for RA the RPM should review
all of the special conditions and assurances already in the CA to ensure that these are
up-to-date and sufficiently describe the RPM's role and responsibilities in the remedial
project. By this phase of the remedial project, the State Project Officer (SPO) and
RPM should be working very closely together and the significance of the RPM's
responsibilities during the State-lead project should be apparent to the SPO.
However, if the RPM has encountered difficulties during oversight of the remedial
planning activities, these should be discussed with the SPO during the RA CA
negotiations. During the development of the CA amendment, the RPM may modify
existing special conditions or assurances to better define the RPM's role as EPA's site
project manager or the RPM may add new provisions which clarify the RPM's
responsibilities and authorities.
7.1.2 Data Reporting and Record Keeping
Throughout the remedial action the RPM has the responsibility to maintain
thorough and accurate records. The RPM must maintain site files and relevant
documentation for the purposes of project management, future cost recovery actions,
as well as final audits. The RPM also must ensure that the State and RA contractor
maintain sufficient and accurate records of the project. Periodic visits to the State
office to check project files may be helpful to ensure proper record keeping.
During the construction activity, it is especially important that accurate records
be maintained. The RPM should ensure that the following documents, at a minimum,
are included in the project file:
Copy of the State's CA application for RA and concurrences from
reviewing offices (the complete Funding Package)
Signed copy of the CA award for RA
Copy of EPA's approval of any off-site treatment, storage or disposal
facilities.
Copy of the construction contract(s)
Copies of change orders and other significant contract correspondence
Copies of any additional CA amendments or modifications bf the RA
agreement
Copies of quarterly reports and financial reports
Copies of the prefinal and final inspection reports
Copies of project correspondence.
Other communications, memoranda, and relevant documents also may be included in
the file, as appropriate. Fgrther information on State recordkeeping requirements is
provided in the State Manual, Appendix U.
As discussed earlier in this manual, a State must comply with 40 CFR Part 33
for all procurement under a CA. Several sections of 40 CFR Part 33 describe
requirements which are related to reporting and record keeping. Section 33.211
7-4
-------
describes reporting requirements for construction contracts which have, or are
expected to have an aggregate value over $10,000 within a 12-month period. Section
33.250 describes general documentation requirements for contracts over $10,000.
Again it is emphasized that the RPM be familiar with all of 40 CFR Part 33 prior to
initiation of procurement actions by the State in order to be able to carry out
monitoring and oversight responsibilities. /-•
The RPM should ensure that the SPO is aware of CERCLA reporting and
record keeping requirements and that the State maintains these records intact for
three years after submission of the final Financial Status Report (SF-269) or until any
litigation, claim, appeal, or audit begun during that three-year period has been settled.
.In addition, the RPM may assist enforcement staff in developing a cost documentation
summary following RA.
The periodic updating of information for EPA's automated data systems is a
continuing responsibility of the RPM. These systems include:
CERCLIS (CERCLA Information System) - RA start (date RA funds
obligated) and end dates (date of final acceptance and beneficial
occupancy) for remedial action must be entered.
SCAP (Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan) -- The RPM
should continue to coordinate with the Regional SCAP contact to
ensure that the information on the SCAP is accurate and adequate to
initiate and maintain RA activities.
• FMS (Financial Management System) -- Monthly and ad hoc financial
status report on remedial action must be reviewed by the RPM for
accuracy.
7.1.3 Permits and Site Access
During the RD phase, the RPM should have ensured that all required permits
and site access agreements were identified and obtained for the implementation of
the RA activity. Obtaining site access and access to adjacent properties, as well as for
rights-of-way and easements necessary to implement RA is the responsibility of the
State. However, the RPM should oversee/monitor these tasks to ensure that the
project will not be delayed due to problems with permits and site access. The RPM
should facilitate this process by assisting the SPO as necessary. Further information
on this subject is provided in Chapter 6.
7.1.4 Coordination with Community Relations
The State is responsible for informing the Regional community relations staff of
any changes in RA activities or progress which could affect the level of concern or
information needs of the community. The State must request assistance from the
Regional Superfund Community Relations Coordinator (RSCRC) and the RPM on any
specific community relations activities required during construction; including:
• Participation in public meetings, workshops, and seminars
Development of fact sheets and/or press releases
Site tours.
7-5
-------
The RSCRC also assists the State in evaluating all community relations activities
conducted during the RA and the entire remedial response and preparing a
responsiveness summary following the completed action. The responsiveness
summary should be submitted within one month of completion of the response action
and will become part of the National Priorities List (NPL) deletion package (see
Chapter 8, Project Closeout). For further information on community relations during
construction consult Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook, September 1S83.
7.2 REMEDIAL ACTION CONTRACTOR PROCUREMENT
The State will conduct procurement activities for the RA in accordance with
EPA procurement regulations, 40 CFR Part 33. The RPM's role during procurement
and level of involvement will vary depending on whether or not the States "self-
certifies" its procurement system (see sections 3.6 and 6.2 of this handbook and
Volume II of the State Manual).
7.2.1 Formal Advertising for Construction Services
Under a CA, it is the State's responsibility to procure services for RA activities.
Specific requirements for Superfund RA procurement are described in 40 CFR
33.905-.915 Subpart E . The RPM must be familiar with these sections. The Stare's
required method of procurement for construction services during Superfund remedial
response is formal advertising (40 CFR 33.405-.430). Formal advertising means the
public solicitation of sealed bids and the award of a subagreement based on a fixed
price (lump sum, unit price, or a combination of the two) to the lowest, responsive,
responsible bidder. Under the procurement regulations, formal advertising requires at
a minimum:
A complete, adequate, and realistic specification of what is required
• Two or more responsible bidders which are willing and able to compete
effectively for the State's business
A procurement that lends itself to the award of a fixed-price contract
• That the selection of the successful bidder be made principally on the
basis of price.
The State is required to give adequate public notice of the solicitation, inviting bids
and stating when and how the bidding documents, including the subagreement
documents, may be obtained or examined. The State also must allow adequate time
for bid preparation and submittal.
As the program moves into the use of complex, innovative, and alternative
technologies, a modification of traditional formal advertising may be appropriate. An
accepted method is the "Two Step Formal Advertisement." The two-step method nay
be used when it is possible to prepare a performance-based specification to describe
the requirements of a remedy, but impractical to prepare initially detailed
specifications to support an award based on price. For additional information, see the
memorandum, "Two Step Formal Advertisement," R. Wyer to Regional Superfund
Branch Chiefs and Regional Grants Management contacts, March 26, 1986.
7-6
-------
7.2.2 Contractor Selection
In accordance with 40 CFR 33.430, the State must evaluate all bids in
accordance with the methods and criteria in the bidding documents. The State may
request that the RPM assist in the evaluation of bids. The selection of the contractor
must be made to the lowest, responsive, responsible bidder. This means that the
fixed-price contract must be awarded to the bidder which has submitted the lowest bid
and is (1) responsive to all the requirements of the bidding documents, and (2)
responsible in terms of having the required capabilities and experience to implement
the plans and specifications within schedule, cost and all other contract requirement.
The State may reject all bids only when it has sound, documented business reasons
which are in the best interest of the Superfund program.
. When a remedial action contract includes use of an off-site treatment, storage
or disposal facility, EPA must evaluate and approve such facilities prior to award of
the contract. In accordance with "Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-Site
Response Actions," May 6, 1985. The standard CA provision regarding off-site
treatment, storage and disposal describes this requirement in more detail. The RPM
must coordinate and expedite EPA's determination of acceptable off-site facilities. It is
in EPA's best interest to review and approve proposed facilities quickly because
bidders usually honor their bids for only 30-45 days. If the State is not allowed by EPA
to award the RA contract within the specified bid evaluation time period because of
delays in EPA evaluations of off-site facilities, bidders may refuse to honor their bids.
This would result in schedule delays because the State would have to readvertise the
contract.
At this time, the RPM also should remind the SPO that 40 CFR 33.250
describes important documentation requirements for procurements in excess of
$10,000. The State's file must contain specific procurement records regarding the
selection of the RA contractor. These records will be evaluated in detail by EPA
auditors during interim and/or final project audits.
7.3 REMEDIAL ACTION OVERSIGHT
The State is responsible for assigning a full-time inspector(s) to be on site
during all construction activities. However, the State will generally not use its own
remedial staff for construction oversight because of the lack of experience in
managing major construction contracts. Funds may be provided in a CA for the State
to procure an A/E contractor to oversee construction. States may use the RD A/E firm
for construction oversight.
7.3.1 Construction Inspections
Construction inspections will occur at intervals determined by the RPM and
SPO according to the complexity of the project. The State is responsible for the
inspection of all on-site construction activities to verify compliance with all contractual
and environmental requirements and with health and safety procedures. The State's
full time inspector should carry out inspections. Frequently, the SPO may also inspect
the construction project, and less frequently, the RPM should participate in site
inspections. During inspections, all daily reports and construction activities should be
reviewed. All discrepancies with project requirements should be noted and resolved
quickly. The RPM may assist the SPO to resolve project problems.
7-7
-------
7.3.2 Review of State Quarterly Reports
Detailed progress reports will be required throughout the duration of the
remedial project. As required in the standard CA reporting provision, the State will
prepare and submit progress reports quarterly. The State may agree to submit more
frequent technical progress reports to help the RPM oversee/monitor construction
activities. The RPM will use the reports to monitor the remedial construction activities.
The RPM will review the reports to ensure their adequacy in developing a
chronological record of all site activities. The reports should include the following
elements:
Estimates of the percentage of project completed and the total project
cost to date
Summaries of the following items for the reporting period:
Work performed on the site
Community relations activities
Change orders and claims made on the contract
Problems or potential problems encountered
Status of contingency fund to date
Project work for next reporting period
7.3.3 Change Order/Claims Management
A change order is a written order issued by the State or its designated agent to
its contractor authorizing an addition to, deletion from, or revision of a contract under a
CA for either engineering or construction services. A change order is necessary to
modify, within the scope of the project, the contract cost or scope of work; to interrupt
or terminate the project; to revise the completion date; or, in general, to implement any
deviation from the original contract terms and conditions. Ultimate responsibility for
change order administration rests with the State. Specific information and guidance
regarding change orders under Superfund CA's is provided in Volume II of the State
Manual, Chapter 6.
As discussed in section 7.1.1 of this chapter, funding for construction change
orders is usually included in the CA budget. A special condition requiring quarterly
reporting of drawdowns of contingency funds should be included in all CAs for
remedial construction projects. Quarterly Reports for construction projects should also
include a summary of all change orders and copies of required
technical/administrative analyses.
The RPM is responsible for general oversight of contingency fund
expenditures. The RPM should monitor expenditures to ensure that funds will be
sufficient to complete the project on schedule. If it appears that additional contingency
funds will be needed, a CA amendment may be necessary. The RPM should
anticipate this need and coordinate with the Regional SCAP contact. The RPM may
request assistance from the Regional Grants Office for the evaluations related to 40
CFRPart33
•
The SPO may be delegated the authority to approve any change order which
totals up to 20 percent of the project contingency fund. Any change order that exceeds
7-8
-------
this 20 percent limit requires RPM approval. The SPO may continue to approve such
change orders until 75 percent of the total contingency fund has been depleted
afterwhich the State must obtain EPA approval. Thereafter, the State should request a
CA amendment for additional funds, unless the project is near completion and no
other change orders are anticipated. It should be noted that State approval of a
change order does not obligate EPA to increase the amount of a CA.
Before any change order exceeding $10,000 (40 CFR 30.290) may be
approved by the SPO, the State must conduct a cost or price analysis (see 40 CFR
33.290) as well as a technical/administrative analysis as described in Volume II of the
State Manual.. If the State has self-certified its procurement system, the cost analysis
for change orders approved by the SPO need not be submitted to the RPM but must
be maintained in the State files. Superfund program procedures also require the
State to perform a technical/administrative analysis to determine:
The technical accuracy of the alleged differences in quantities and
technical requirements
The allowability of the proposed amounts
Compliance with contractual and regulatory requirements
Conformance with the approved CA SOW.
Copies of technical/administrative analyses of change orders approved by the SPO
should be included in the State's Quarterly Report to. the RPM.
The RPM must approve in writing all change orders that exceed 20 percent of
the contingency fund and any change order that will cause the cumulative total to
exceed 75 percent of the fund. The RPM should base approval upon an evaluation of
the following information submitted by the SPO:
Description of change
The State's cost analysis
The State's technical/administrative analysis !
Other supporting documentation as appropriate.
*
If a change order request is substantial and within the scope of the project, the
State must request a formal amendment to the CA. Change orders requiring
amendments to the CA include:
Significantly changed site conditions, to the extent that project costs are
significantly affected
Changes substantially increasing or decreasing the funds needed to
complete the project
Significant delay or acceleration of the project schedule.
The RPM should review the proposed project change and determine if fund monies
should be used to support the contract modification. The RPM also will have to
7-9
-------
determine if funding is available from the SCAP. If the change is approvable and
funds are available, a CA amendment should be prepared and executed as quickly as
possible so as not to delay the project. The RPM may determine that funding for the
change is not justified and may inform the State that Federal funds will not be
awarded for the contract modification.
A claim is a written demand or assertion by a contractor seeking, as a matter of
right, changes to the contract (e.g., additional time and/or costs) which the State may
have originally rejected through the change order process. Claims may be
encountered by a State in subagreements for services, supplies or construction.
Claims can often be avoided if a State includes very precise language in its contracts
regarding requirements for administering changes in the SOW. Detailed information
on claims is included in Chapter 7 of Volume II of the State Manual.
When a claim arises under a contract funded through a CA, the RPM should
encourage the State to implement a fair and timely claims negotiation process in order
to avoid lengthy and costly arbitration and/or litigation. The State is responsible for
resolution of contractor claims and must conduct a detailed review of each claim in
order to determine whether the claim is reasonable.
The State may request EPA to amend its CA to fund a portion of the legal,
technical, and administrative costs that the State incurs in analyzing the merits of
contractor claims and the costs associated with negotiating settlements of, or
defending itself against, these claims. For claims management costs to be eligible for
funding under a Superfund CA, the claim must arise from work within the scope of the
CA; there must be significant Federal interest in the claim issues and the cost must not
be for payment to the claiming contractor for preparation of the claim against the State.
The State must request a CA amendment for funding for claims negotiation and
defense prior to expending any money to resolve a claim. The CA amendment
request should include a schedule, budget and SOW required for claims
management.
The RPM must coordinate the review of the amendment request for claims
management funding. If EPA review of the State's submission indicates that the claim
has resulted from factors beyond the control of the State, the RPM may prepare and
process a CA amendment to provide funding to the State for claims negotiation and
defense. (The RPM must ensure that funds for the amendment are available on the
SCAP). However, if the review sufficiently determines that the claim has resulted from
poor project management by the State, EPA may reject the CA amendment request for
funding. In this case, the RPM must notify the State in writing that the CA amendment
is denied.
If the State determines that a contractor's claim is meritorious and a settlement
with a contractor is negotiated, the State may request EPA funding for the settlement.
The CA amendment request submitted by the State should include its claims
settlement proposal. The RPM must coordinate review of the amendment request to
determine the reasonableness of the proposed settlement (or judgment), whether the
costs associated with the claim are allowable, and whether the claim is for work done
within the approved SOW and consistent with the Record of Decision (ROD). EPA
concurrence is not necessary for the State/contractor settlement itself but EPA's
review and concurrence will determine whether funding will be provided to the State
for the settlement.
7-10
-------
The RPM must coordinate the evaluation of the amendment request, if bPA
decides to fund the claims settlement (or judgment), the RPM will process a CA
amendment. Of course, funds must be available on the SCAP in order to award a CA
amendment to the State for additional funds. Claims are funded in the same
percentage of cost share (50/50, 90/10) as the RA itself.
7.4 RA COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE
Three tasks are required as the RA nears completion. These are: 1) the
prefinal conference and inspection; 2) the final inspection; and 3) the RA report.
Additional information on these tasks is provided in the RDIRA Guidance.
.As noted in Section 7.1.1, the State's construction contractor is responsible for
remedy startup and for certifying that the remedy is functional and operational as
designed. The final inspection should not be completed until the State's contractor
has made this certification.
7.4.1 Prefinal Conference and Inspection
As the project nears completion, a prefinal construction conference and
inspection will be conducted. Participants in the prefinal construction conference and
inspection should include the RPM, SPO, the State's A/E firm responsible for
construction oversight, and the construction contractor(s). The conference will be
scheduled and chaired by the SPO. The objective of the conference is to discuss
procedures and requirements for completing the RA. The RPM should attend the
conference.
The prefinal inspection will consist of a walk-through inspection of the entire
project site. The RPM and the State should inspect the completed site work to
determine whether the project is complete and consistent with the contract documents
and the EPA-approved remedy. The RPM and the State should identify and note any
outstanding construction items discovered. The State will prepare a prefinal
inspection report for submission to the RPM. The prefinal inspection report should
include outstanding construction items, actions required to resolve items, completion
dates for these items, and a date for conducting the final inspection.
7.4.2 Final Inspection and Remedial Action Report
*
Upon completion of any outstanding construction items, a final inspection will
be conducted. At this time, the State should obtain certification from the construction
contractor that the remedy is complete. The prefinal inspection report will be used as
a checklist by the RPM and the State, with the inspection focusing on the outstanding
construction items identified in the prefinal inspection. The contractor's demobilization
activities should be completed, except for equipment and materials required to
complete outstanding construction items. The RPM and the State will confirm that all
outstanding items noted in the prefinal inspection report have been resolved. (If any
items are still unresolved, the inspection will be considered a second prefinaf
inspection, requiring another prefinal inspection report.)
Upon satisfactory completion of the final inspection, the State/State contractor
will prepare and submit a RA Report within 60 days after the final inspection (may be
included in State Quarterly Report). The RA Report is used to judge the effectiveness
7-11
-------
of the remedy and to assess whether criteria for deleting the site from the NPL have
been met. The RA Report should include the following items:
Brief description of outstanding construction items from the pre-final
inspection and an indication that the items were resolved
Synopsis of the work defined in the SOW and certification that this work
was performed
Explanation of any changes to work in the SOW and why were needed
Certification that the remedy is operational and functional (include
performance criteria)
Documentation necessary to support NPL deletion
Description of the O&M to be undertaken at the site.
Additional auxiliary reports such as the O&M plan, the O&M manual, the Community
Relations Plan, and equipment /property reports also should be submitted at this time.
The RPM will review the RA Report. If the RPM is satisfied that the remedy is
complete and performing adequately, the Regional Administrator shall provide written
notice of EPA's acceptance of the completed project to the appropriate State Official.
7.5 TRANSITION TO OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
As the RA nears completion, the RPM and SPO must prepare for transition to
O&M. As mentioned previously, the State must assume O&M and EPA may provide
cost sharing for a period not to exceed one year. In order to ensure a smooth
transition to O&M the RPM should meet with the SPO during RA to discuss transition
roles.
Under the Superfund Amendments, in the case of ground or surface water
contamination, treatment or other measures taken to restore water quality is
considered part of the RA. With respect to such measures, the operation of treatment
systems for a period of up to ten years after the construction or installation and start of
operation will be considered part of the RA. Activities required to maintain the
effectiveness of such measures following this period or the completion of the RA,
whichever is earlier, will be considered O&M.
When the RA includes construction of a treatment system other than that
described above, questions may arise regarding whether the facility start-up and
shakedown period is part of the RA action or whether it is O&M. This is particularly
unclear in cases where actual construction is completed, the construction contractor
has demobilized, and facility shakedown is anticipated to last several months.
o
In most cases, the facility shakedown period will be considered to be part of the
RA. Remedy effectiveness must be demonstrated prior to submission of the final
technical report for RA completion. During a several-month facility shakedown period,
a State can:
7-12
-------
Conduct operational testing of the system to ensure treatment
effectiveness
Conduct operator training
Adjust the O&N' manual to reflect actual optimal operating
conditions/parameters
Develop more accurate O&M costs for the CA amendment for O&M.
In situations where the RA is a Federal-lead project the State must assume title
to any facilities constructed as part of the RA. This is necessary in order for the State
to assume full responsibility for all future O&M. A State may be unwilling to assume
title to a Federally-constructed facility until the required treatment effectiveness has
been demonstrated. In some cases, however, the State may be willing to conduct the
start-up and shakedown activities since the State must assume responsibility, for future
O&M. As mentioned above, the shakedown period allows a State the opportunity to
become familiar with a system, conduct operator training, and adjust the O&M manual
prior to beginning the actual O&M activity. j
On a site-specific basis, the RPM may consider having EPA enter into a CA
with the State prior to full completion of the Federal-lead RA. The CA could include
funding for the facility start-up and shakedown period up to one year. The CA should
include a clear description of both the work to be done prior to assumption of title by
the State, and also of the work to be done as O&M tasks. More detailed information
on the O&M activity is included in Chapter 8, Project Closeout.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION
"Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response Actions," AA/OSWER,
May 6, 1985. (OSWER Directive 9330.2-1)
"State Procurement Under Superfund Cooperative Agreements, " March 1986,
Volume II of State Participation in the Superfund Program. (OSWER Directive
9375.1-5)
Superfund Remedial Design s.nd Remedial Action Guidance. OERR, June 1986.
(OSWER Directive 9355.0-4)
"Two Step Formal Advertisement," HSCD, March 26, 1986.
7-13
-------
8. PROJECT CLOSEOUT
This chapter discusses the procedures followed in closing out a Superfund
remedial project and the specific responsibilities of the RPM in assisting with the
implementation of these procedures. It is divided into three major sections:
National Priorities List (NPL) Deletion
Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
Project Closeout.
Exhibit 8-1 illustrates all the activities which occur during NPL deletion, O&M,
and project closeout. The top one-third represents those activities which are the
responsibility of the State's contractor; the middle one-third those which are the
responsibility of the State; and the bottom one-third those which are the responsibility
of EPA.
Much of the information used for preparing this chapter was derived from the
State Manual and an EPA memorandum "Guidance for Deleting Sites from the National
Priorities List," draft. For additional background on any of the subjects discussed in
the chapter, the RPM should review these two documents. [Note: The final
procedures for deleting sites from the NPL currently are being developed; consult with
the Headquarters Hazardous Site Control Division (HSCD) Regional Coordinator for
the latest guidance.]
8.1 NPL DELETION
Section 33.66(c)(7) of the NCP provides that sites may be deleted from, or
recategorized on, the NPL when "no further response is appropriate." To delete a site,
one or more of the following criteria must be met:
EPA, in consultation with the State, has determined that responsible or
other parties have implemented all appropriate response actions
required
All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented and EPA, in consultation with the State, has determined
that no further response is appropriate
Based on a remedial investigation (Rl), EPA, in consultation with the
State, has determined that the release poses no significant threat to
public health or the environment and remedial measures are not
appropriate.
All sites deleted from the NPL are eligible for further Fund-financed remedial response
actions should future conditions warrant such actions.
In order to determine that one or more of the deletion criteria has been met, the
RPM should perform a technical evaluation of the data generated from performance
monitoring and/or confirmatory sampling. These data must demonstrate that the
8-1
-------
EXHIBIT 8-1
NPL Deletion, Operation and Maintenance,
and Project Closeout
CONTRACTOR
FROM
RA
STATE
CONDUCT
O4M
ACTIVITIES
EPA
END
LEGEND:
ACTIVITY
. ONGOING PROJECT MANAGEMENT, ENFORCEMENT .
AND SUPERFUND COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
8-2
-------
remedy has achieved clean-up levels chosen for the site in the Record of Decision
(ROD). If the no action alternative is selected, data must confirm that the site poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment.
The process of deleting a site from the NPL consists of three majorphases:
Region/State joint preparation of a deletion package
Regional/State issuance of local and national Notices of Intent to Delete
Regional/State preparation of responsiveness summaries and
Headquarter's final publication of the Notice Of Deletion in the Federal
Register.
The EPA memorandum entitled 'Guidance for Deleting Sites from the National Priorities
List," (draft) provides a more detailed discussion of site categorization for deletion
and the deletion process.
8.2 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
CERCLA Section 104(c)(3) requires that the State assume responsibility for
any O&M requirements associated with the remedy. Operation and Maintenance
begins on the date certified in the RA Report that the project is complete and the
remedy is operational and functional. The CA, to provide 90 percent of the O&M costs,
should be awarded concurrently with (or before) the date O&M begins.
The RPM must ensure that O&M funds are accurately listed on the current
Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP) and the State must
request a CA amendment to obtain O&M funds. The RPM is responsible for assisting
the SPO in developing the amendment application. This may include assistance in
developing the project statement of work (SOW), the budget anc schedule, and those
assurances and special conditions that may pertain to O&M activities. The SOW and
budget for this amendment will be based on the approved O&M Flan prepared as part
of the final design documents. Refer to the State Manual and Chaster 3 of this manual
for further information on developing and executing a CA amendment.
In addition to assisting the. State to amend the existing CA to include O&M
activities, the RPM is also responsible for overseeing implementation of the technical,
financial, and other provisions of the CA for O&M. The RPM also must continue the
record keeping and reporting activities described in earlier chsoters. The following
sections describe the activities of the RPM in carrying out each of these
responsibilities.
The State may procure a contractor to conduct O&M activities, in which case
the RPM must oversee this procurement to ensure its comciiance with 40 CFR
Part 33. Refer to Volume II of the State Manual, and Chapter 3 a"d 6 of this manual for
further discussion of contractor procurement.
8.2.1 Technical Progress Oversight
While it is the State's responsibility to implement the tasks in the O&M plan, it is
the RPM's responsibility to actively monitor these tasks and their schedules as long as
the CA is open. This should be done through formal and informal information sources
8-3
-------
such as site visits, telephone calls, quarterly reports, and written correspondence with
the SPO. Key elements of the RPM's monitoring strategy may be as follows:
State reporting by exception, as soon as it is noticed that any task in the
O&M plan may not be accomplished as agreed. The RPM should come
to an agreement with the SPO that any deviations or anticipated
deviations from the schedule in the O&M plan and any problems or
anticipated problems which may adversely affect the schedule will be
reported to the RPM immediately. The RPM will then be responsible for
assisting the SPO in correcting the deviations and/or problems.
Periodic telephone discussions between the RPM and the SPO to
assess progress in -accomplishing key tasks and to identify problems
affecting the implementation of these tasks. The RPM is responsible for
working with the SPO to correct any problems identified.
RPM review of State Quarterly Progress Reports to assess progress in
implementing tasks in the O&M plan. The RPM is responsible for
contacting the SPO to discuss and resolve any problems identified in
the progress reports.
Site visits by the RPM on an as-needed basis. The objective is to
assess task progress against schedules in the O&M plan, identify
problems or issues adversely affecting progress and schedules, and to
develop corrective actions to resolve these problems.
8.2.2 Financial Oversight
Once the O&M CA has been executed and O&M is initiated, the RPM, along
with the appropriate Regional financial management personnel, is responsible for
ensuring that the State implements the O&M program within the CA budget.
i
The RPM should review State drawdowns on the letter of credit on a quarterly
basis. The RPM should contact appropriate Regional financial management
personnel to obtain this information. The RPM may request the SPO to submit a copy
of the standard financial report directly to the RPM.
The RPM should determine whether:
Expenditures correspond to technical progress
Expenditures are excessive in terms of project needs
CA account structures are being followed
Complete financial records are maintained by the State for cost
recovery purposes.
Drawdowns should be only for EPA's percentage of funding (e.g.. 90 percent of total
costs). If the RPM and SPO anticipate the need for additional funds, the RPM should
coordinate with the Regional SCAP contact and ensure that funds will be added to the
SCAP. When funds are available, the RPM should assist the SPO to develop a CA
amendment request for additional funding. The RPM then coordinates the processing
of the CA amendment through the Regional office.
8-4
-------
8.2.3 Monitoring Agreement Provisions
The RPM must ensure that all provisions (special conditions and assurances)
in the CA are met by EPA and the State. This includes both general assistance
provisions and Superfund program provisions. The RPM should discuss all
provisions with the SPO to ensure that all requirements of the CA are understood.
8.2.4 Data Reporting and Record Keeping
The RPM must maintain a complete file of all project activities. The RPM must
document all materials that will support project oversight and support cost recovery
actions. For O&M activities these may include:
CA amendment for O&M (and any additional CA amendments)
•• Quarterly Reports
Correspondence by EPA, State, or State contractors.
The RPM also is responsible for updating information for EPA's automated systems.
These systems include:
CERCLIS (CERCLA Information System) - O&M start date (the date the
CA amendment for O&M is executed) and completion date (end of the
O&M cost-share period) must be entered.
SCAP (Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan) - The RPM
must coordinate with the Regional SCAP. contact to ensure that
accurate information on O&M activities appears on the SCAP prior to
the start of O&M.
FMS (Financial Management System) - The RPM must review for
accuracy the monthly and ad hoc financial status reports on the
remedial program issued by FMS.
8.2.5 Operation and Maintenance Report
At the completion of the Fund-financed O&M activities,, the State must prepare
and submit to the RPM an O&M Report. This report should include the following
elements:
Description of O&M activities
Results of site monitoring, indicating that the remedy neets the
performance criteria
Explanation of future additional O&M (including monitoring) to be
undertaken at the site.
The report may be included as part of the State Quarterly Report (within 50 days of
completion of Fund-financed activities).
8-5
-------
8.3 PROJECT CLOSEOUT
Upon the satisfactory completion of the fund-financed response, a site-specific
CA can be closed out. For multi-site CAs, a project may be closed out. The RPM is
responsible for assisting the SPO in closing out the CA (or project):
8.3.1 Preparation for CA Closeout
Closec-t of a single project CA can occur at several different stages of
remedial response:
Following a State-lead Rl or remedial investigation/feasibility study
,RI/FS) when EPA determines that no further action at the site is needed
Following State-lead RI/FS activities which result in the selection of a
remedy, but where a settlement is reached with responsible parties to
conduct RD/RA activities and the State chooses not to participate in
oversight activities
Following completion of a RA when there is no fund-financed O&M
Following completion of Fund-financed O&M.
The CA between EPA and the State should be closed out following completion of all
Superfund activities at the site. All cost recovery actions must be completed and all
contractor claims settled before closeout. If the CA does not accurately reflect all
major changes in the project, it should be amended to do so.
The RPM and SPO should discuss closeout of the CA prior to the last quarter of
funded activities. It is important that this discussion be held well in advance so
that roles and responsibilities of the RPM and SPO can be clarified.
Prior to CA closeout, the RPM should ensure that:
The final State Quarterly Report (and other required reports) has been
reviewed and approved (should include summary of community
relations activities)
The State has fulfilled all CA requirements and assurances
The CA accurately reflects all changes in the project
EPA direction has been given to the SPO for equipment and property
disposition and equipment has been properly disposed of in
accordance with 40 CFR 30.532 and any pertinent special conditions in
the CA (guidance on equipment disposition can be found in Appendix T
of the State Manual)
Any funds remaining after a project completion have been officially
deobligated (or rebudgeted to another site, if a multi-site CA)
EPA and State files are complete and contain all documentation
necessary for cost recovery and audits.
8-6
-------
EPA and State files must be maintained for a minimum of three years or three years
from completion of the audit or litigation. There are exceptions that may lengthen this
period.
The (draft and) Final Technical Report should include a.summary,of final
expenditures and all technical tasks completed under the CA. The State also should
indicate that all requirements of the CA provisions (special conditions and
assurances) have been satisfied. The RPM should review the (draft and) Final
Technical Report carefully, to ensure its completeness and accuracy. If the Report is
nc: satisfactory, the RPM should request that the SPO submit any necessary additional
information prior to RPM approval of the Report.
In accordance with the standard provision on Letter of Credit Procedures, the
Si=te also must submit a final Financial Status Report (Standard Form 269) within 90
days of completion of the O&M cost share period. This form will be submitted to the .
Regional Financial Management Division. The RPM should obtain a copy of the form
and review it for consistency with the final Quarterly Report. Any discrepancies should
be noted and brought to the attention of the SPO. Discrepancies should be resolved
prior to official closeout of the CA.
8.3.2 CA Closeout
If the project has been conducted under a single site CA, the CA should be
officially closed out following satisfactory completion of all fund-financed activities and
EPA approval of all final submission by the State. When unused funds remain in the
CA. the RPM should ensure that Regional grants administration personnel take the
necessary steps to deobligate these funds.
Closeout of CAs might occur during a switch from State to Federal lead during
a response with no State oversight involvement or when work is to be performed by
resoonsible parties. The vehicle for closeout is a formal CA amendment. The RPM
and SPO should develop a mutually acceptable agreement stating the terms for the
clcseout. Based on this agreement, the appropriate reports (financial, technical,
ancillary equipment and invention) will be submitted for closeout.
Under CERCLA Section 104(c)(3), the State must assume all future O&M at a
site. This means that, if O&M is necessary beyond one year, the State must continue
O&M activities using State funds. Following CA closeout for O&M, the RPM's official
dutes are completed. However, if it comes to the RPM's attention that the State is not
complying with its O&M responsibilities, the RPM should notify Regional enforcement
staff. The RPM should discuss the O&M problem with them and assess the severity of
the problem. The enforcement offices, and the RPM, will determine the best method
for correcting the problem.
Following deletion from the NPL and CA closeout for O&M, the site is
technically closed out with respect to the State-lead remedial response that was
undertaken. The RPM and SPO are cautioned to establish, maintain and safeguard
all information collected during the entire remedial response in well-organized site
files. All information pertaining to the site must be carefully documented to support
future legal or cost recovery actions. These actions may occur years after the data
have been gathered. It is crucial that records be sufficiently detailed and protected to
provide an accurate history of the remedial response. In addition, this information will
aid the RPM and SPO in answering inquiries from Congress or responding to
Freedom of Information Act requests from the general public.
8-7
-------
ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION
"Guidance for Deleting Sites from the National Priorities List (NPL)", Draft, OERR.
8-8
------- |