UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
DEC,  41986  f);

Superfund Branch  ,  „
               '  |(^

              >9'i
               A  j
                 ,e/1
                                                        OFFICE OF
                                              SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY R£
MEMORANDUM  .
SUBJECT:   Mailing List for the  Manual  State Participation
           in  the Superfund Program ;

FROM:      Sam Morekas, Chief y7 .  /I I ^Vt '.£--&)
           State and Regi ona 1 -'tfo^rdi nat i on Branch
           Hazardous Site Control  Division

TO:        Superfund Branch Chiefs
           RegionsI-X


     Per your request at the recent  Branch Chiefs' meeting in

Headquarters, I am forwarding to  you  a  copy of the individuals

and organizations for your Region  that  are currently  on  our

"purple book" mailing list.  We  are  in  the process of  updating

this list  now;  a copy of our notice to  this effect is  also

attached.   Please review the list  carefully and forward  any

revisions,  deletions, or additions that  may be necessary to me

by December 31, 1986.


Attachments
                         ORDERING INFORMATION

                         GPO Stock No.:  055-000-00-238-0
                         Price:  $11.00
                         Order from:
                             Superintendent of Documents
                             U.S. Government Printing Office
                             Washington, DC, . 20^02
                              (202) 783-3238

-------
                                        (FOLD HERE)
                                       .•rtS-Vrt «-."••••-•• •• .-.-. . •-'. -•ANVrt-
       The manual State Participation in the Suoerfund Program is updated periodically
       as new procedures are developed and revised pages are added to the document.
       The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) within EPA maintains
       a mailing list to ensure that appropriate individuals receive information. This list is
       currently being revised.  Your name appears as shown below:
      To assist OSWER in this effort, please review the address, complete this form and return
     ' it within 10 days to the address on the reverse side. Your name will be automatically
      deleted if you do not return this form by December 31,1986.

                                       (FOLD HERE)

      Please check one of the following boxes:

I   I  My name and address are correct as shown.  Please keep
      my name on the Update Mailing List.
r""1  Please revise my entry on the Update Mailing List as shown.
I   I  Please remove  my name from the Update Mailing List
i   i  Please add my  name to the Update Mailing List.
 NAME

 POSITION

 EMPLOYER

 ADDRESS

-------
                                                            November 1986
                                                            DATE ON LIST
                                 REGION X
Chuck FindleyT Director
Hazardous/rtaste Division  (M/S  529)
U.S. EPJC Region X
1200/^ixth Avenue
Seattle, WA  98101
Robert Coursopr; Chief                                       7/9/84
Superfund B**anch  (M/S 525)
U.S. EPA/Region X
1200 S*xth Avenue
Seattle, WA  98101
Phil Mi11am, Chief
Program Management Section  (M/S 525)
Supe rfundxBranch
U.S. EBif, Region X
1200y^ixth Avenue
Seafttle, WA  98101
Kathryn Davidson
Program Management Section  (M/S 525)
Superfund Branch
U.S. EPA, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA  98101_

Debbie Flood
Program Management Section  (M/S 525)
U.S. EPA, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA  98101_

Jim Everts, Ch>4f
Superfund Brrforcement Section  (M/S 525)
U.S. EPAfRegion X
120QxSixth Avenue
Settle, WA  98101_

"Lori Cohen                                                 10/18/84
Superfund Enforcement Section  (M/S 525)
U.S. EPA, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA  98101_

Carol Thompson                                             5/30/85
Superfund Enforcement Section  (M/S 525)
U.S. EPA, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA  98101
                                     -50-

-------
   Pat  Storm
   Superfund Enforcement Section (M/S 525)
   U.S.  EPA/Region X
   1200 Sjxth Avenue
   Seattle,  WA  98101
  Neil  Thompsc
  Superfund^Enforcement Section (M/S 525)
  U.S.^EPA,  Region X
  LJtft)  Sixth Avenue
Xieattle, WA   98101
  Norma  Lewis
               Eorcement  Section (M/S 525)
          ',  Region X
Superfund
U.S.
   Seattle
  Wayne Gr
     Sixth Avenue
        , WA  98101
   Supe
           leer
        id Enforcement  Section  (M/S  525)
     EPA, Region X
'1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA  98101
                                                            November 1986
                                                            DATE ON LIST

                                                            5/30/85
                                                            5/30/85
                                                            5/30/85
5/30/85
   Dave Heinecx
   Office oP^Regional Counsel  (M/S  613)
   U.S. Jsk,  Region X
   120JrSixth Avenue
   Seattle, WA   98101
                                                            5/30/85

Grants Administration  (M/S 321)
U.S. EPA, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA  98101_

-Mildrod L. Mai Liu  iToe A/'«ul£)iW-
U.S. EPA, Region X (M/S 313)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA  98101_

Julienne Sears
U.S. EPA Library
U.S. EPA, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA  98101_

Lynn McKee, Director
Idaho Operations Office
U.S. EPA
422 West Washington Street
Boise, ID  83702
                                                              9/13/85
                                                              7/9/84
                                        -51-

-------
                                                           November 1986
                                                           DATE ON LIST
Mike Gear-hard                                              5/30/85
Oregon Operations Office
U.S. EPA
Yeon Building, 2nd Floor
522 S.W. Fifth Avenue
Portland, OR  97007_

Steve Torok
Air/Waste Team Leader
Alaska Operations Office
U.S. EPA
3200 Hospital Drive, Suite 101
Juneau, AK  99801_

Al Ewing                                                   5/30/85
Alaska Operations Office
U.S. EPA
Federal Building, Room E556
701 C Street, Box 19
Anchorage, AK  99513_
 <%>
                                     -52-

-------
                                                            November 1986
                                                            DATE ON LIST
                                REGION X

Alaska

Dave DiTraglia, Manager                                    5/30/85
Hazardous Waste Program
Alaska Department of
  Environmental Conservation
Pouch 0
Juneau, AK  99811_

Glenn Miller                                               6/12/84
Alaska Department of
  Environmental Conservation
Pouch 0
Juneau, AK  99811_

Carl Reller                                                5/31/86
Alaska Department of
  Environmental Conservation
P.O. Box 0
Juneau, AK  99811-1800
Idaho

Jk-adlej ILui  ^Lk^l -KoSku^-                           7/17/84
Division of Environment
Idaho Department of Health
  and Welfare
450 West State
Boise, ID  83720
Oregon

Mi he Dotma /4/ ^txr/HIA^V—                                5/30/85
Oregon Department of
  Environmental Quality
                ill  '
Portland, OR  97207
              97

Washington

John Littler                                               5/30/85
Washington State
  Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, WA  98504_
                                     -87-

-------
                                                           November  1986
                                                           DATE ON LIST
Jerry Jewett, Chief                                         5/30/85
Remedial Action Hazardous Waste Planning
  and Program Development Section
Washington State Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, WA  98504_

Bob Goodman                                                 5/30/85
Washington State
  Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, WA  98504_

Rick Hall                                                   5/30/85
Washington State
  Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, WA  98504_

Fred Gardner                                         ._      5/30/85
Washington State
  Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, WA  98504_

Marsha Beery                                                5/30/85
Washington State
  Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, WA  98504_

Megan White                                                 5/30/85
Washington State
  Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, WA  98504_

Daniel Swenson                                             5/30/85
Washington State
  Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, WA  98504_

Jim Krull                                                   5/30/85
Washington State
  Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, WA  98504_
                                     -88-

-------
                                                           November 1986
                                                           DATE ON LIST
Alex Coleman                                               5/30/85
Washington State
  Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, WA  98504_

David D. Rountry                                           9/30/86
Washington State
  Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, WA  98504-8711
                                    -89-

-------
           United States
           Environmental Protection       4°1 M St« s-w-
           Agency              Washington. D.C. 20460       February 1984

           Emergency and Remedial Response                         '
<>EPA    STATE PARTICIPATION
            IN THE SUPERFUND
            REMEDIAL PROGRAM

-------
           UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                                       OFFICE OF
                                              SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
      STATE PARTICIPATION IN THE SUPERFUND REMEDIAL PROGRAM


     This document provides information on how to implement approved
remedial response activities at National Priorities List sites in
accordance with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency
Plan.  Its scope includes cooperative agreements, Superfund State
Contracts and credit claims.

     Further, this document incorporates several new Superfund
initiatives EPA has taken in the past year to facilitate remedial
response and to make it easier for States to join EPA in addressing
problems at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.  One is to allow
EPA to share in operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for up to
one year, rather than the six months limit heretofore in effect.
A second is an option of management assistance cooperative agreements
to fund State costs at EPA-lead sites.  A third is the option of
multi-site cooperative agreements, a concept which has always been
permissible but has not been previously developed.  The document
is intended to serve as a manual for State and EPA staff who are
implementing the Superfund remedial program, consistent with the
delegations of authority we plan to issue in the coming months.
Until these delegations are approved, cooperative agreements,
Superfund State Contracts and audit responses will be processed in
Headquarters in accordance with current practice.

     The document is the result of many months of hard work and
reflects the input of a number of key people, including represen-
tatives of EPA's Regional Offices, State agency personnel working
through the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials (ASTSWMO), representatives of citizens
organizations, and other offices in EPA headquarters, especially
the Office of General Counsel.

     Some of the procedures described in the document are presented
as suggested models for Regions and States.   We expect Regions and
States to tailor their internal procedures in their own situations
as appropriate.

-------
                                 -2-


     It should be  noted  that we will be updating  the  document as
needed and major updates will be distributed in draft for comment
before final  issuance.   Therefore, it is important  that  the actual
user of each  copy  of  the document return the Update Mailing List
form in the front  of  the volume.

     A limited number of additional copies are available at no cost
to Federal and State  governmental officials and may be obtained by
contacting: Chief, State and Regional Coordination  Branch .(WH-548E),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20460,  (202)  382-2443.  The document may also  be purchased by
persons outside  of government through the Government  Printing Office
(GPO) or  the  National Technical Information Service (NTIS).
                                             Lee M.  Thomas
                                       Assistant Administrator
                For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
                            Washington. D.C. 20402
                                 11

-------
                                                             3/5/86
                                                            9375.1-p
Date/
Addendum #
b/22/84 fl   Site Closeout
9/12/84 #2
9/28/84 #3
             Minority and
             Women's Business
             Reporting

             Changes to IG
             Audit
Quality Assurance
Project Plan

Revised Letter of
Credit Procedures
Provision
                                  CHANGES TO DATL
                        Instruction

                         New pages

                         New page
                         New pages
                         New page
Change
"... which must
oe sent within
120 days." to
11... which
must be sent
within 90 days."

Add, as the
second sentence
in the para-
graph, "In
addition, the
Award Official
will send the
State a copy of
the final audit
report within 15
days of its
receipt."

Change "The re-
sponse must be
dispatched with-
in 120 days..."
to "The response
must be dis-
patched within
90 days..."

New pages
Replacement pages
                        Location/Page

                      Appendix F, Pages F-22
                      and 23
                      Appendix H, Page H-23
                      Appendix P, Pages
                      P-37-P-47

                      Appendix F, Page F-24
                                               Appendix C, Page C-12,
                                               first complete paragraph
                                                            Appendix C, Page C-12
                                                            first complete paragraph
                                                            Appendix C,  Page C-12
                                                            footnote
Appendix L, formerly
reserved

Appendix F, Pages F-3
through F-6
                                        111

-------
                                                                3/5/86
                                                              9375.1-p
                            CJiANGfcSi TO GATE  (Continued)
Date/
Addendum #
12/10/84 *4  vmlti-Site Coop-
             erative Agreements
Instruction

 Replacement
 pages
 Replacement
 pages
 Replacement
 pages
 Replacement
 pages
 New pages

 Replacement
 page
 New pages
                                       Replacement
                                       pages
                                       New pages

                                       Replacement
                                       page
                                       New page
                                       Replacement
                                       pages
                                       New page
                                       Change "...at
                                       quarterly inter-
                                       vals commencing
                                       at the start of
                                       the project." to
                                       "...within 30
                                       days of the end
                                       of the Federal
                                       fiscal quarter."
                                       New pages

                                       Replacement
                                       pages
                                       New pages

                                       Replacement
                                       pages
                                       Replacement
                                       pages
                                       New pages
  Location/Page

Table of Contents, Pages
xiii tnrough xvii
List or Exhibits, Pages
xvii and xix
List of Acronyms, Pages
a - through e
Chapter II, Pages II-1
through b
Chapter II, Page II-7
and Exhibit II-2
Chapter III, Page 111-17

Chapter III, Pages
111-18 through 27 and
Exhibits 111-10 and
III-ll
Chapter IV, Pages
IV-5 through IV-7
Chapter IV, Pages IV-8
through IV-11
Chapter V, Page V-7 and
V-8
Chapter V, Page V-9
Appendix E, Pages E-l
through E-22
Appendix E, Page'E-23
Appendix F, Page F-16,
Section K, indented
paragraph
                       Appendix  F, Pages F-25
                       and F-26
                       Appendix  J, Pages J-l,
                       J-2,  and  J-7
                       Appendix  J, Pages J-8
                       and J-9
                       Appendix  N, Pages N-l
                       through N-6
                       Appendix  P, Pages P-l,
                       P-2,  and  P-47
                       Appendix  P, Pages P-48
                       through P-51
                                          IV

-------
                                                               3/5/86
                                                              9375.1-p
Date/
Addendum #
    Topic
1/4/85  45   Advance Match
1/11/B5 ft6


8/2/85 #7



9/17/85 #8
Site Safety Plan
Guidance
Obtaining Equipment
Under a CERCLA
Cooperative Agreement

Intergovernmental
Review Procedures
.TlAl-iGhiS  "CC  DATh  (Continueo)


        Instruction

         New pages


         New pages


         New pages
             State Cooperative
             Agreements for Pre-
             Remedial Activities

12/18/85 #9  Action Memorandum
             Guidance
12/20/85 110 Model Statement of
             Work for a Remedial
             Investigation/
             Feasibility Study

12/20/85 111 Site Safety Plan
             Guidance
 1/31/86 #12 Quality Assurance
             Project Plan
 3/5/86  113   Superfund
               Supplemental
               Guidance
         Replacenent page

         Replacement pages
                         New pages
                         Replacement pages
                         Replacement pages
                      .   Replacement pages
                      .   Replacement pages

                      .   Replacement pages


                      .   Replacement pages



                      *   New pages
  Location/Page

New Appendix S, Pages
S-l througn S-<>

Appenuix K, formerly
reserved

New Appendix T, Pages
T-l through T-15
Table of Contents, Pages
xiii through xix
List of Exhibits, Pages
xx and xxi
Appendix D, Pages D-l
through D-28

Appendix A, formerly
reserved
                               Table of Contents, Pages
                               xiii through xix
                               Appendix B,  Pages
                               B-l through  B-9

                               Table of Contents, Pages
                               xiii through xix
                               Appendix E,  Pages
                               E-l through  E-21

                            ,   Table of Contents, Pages
                               xiii through xix
                               Appendix M,  Pages M-l
                               through M-28

                               Table of Contents, Pages
                               xiii through xix
                               Appendix L,  Pages L-l
                               through L-12

                             Table of  contents,  pages
                             x111 new Appendlx  P,
                             xv111 pages  p-1  -  p-16
                                        iva

-------
                         FOREWORD

    The Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, issued the Guidance on Cooperative Agreements
and Contracts with States under the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation/ and Liability Act of 1980
(P.L. 96-510) in March 1982.  Drafts of this document had
been distributed during the previous year for comment and
provisional use.

    During the remainder of 1982,  regulations and policies
evolved which had a substantial impact on the remedial
response program.  Examples include publication of the
National Priorities List (NPL), promulgation of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
(NCP) and a new regulation for Procurement under Assis-
tance Agreements (40 CFR 33), and development of a policy
on "Payment of State Enforcement Costs under Superfund."
Consequently, we decided to prepare and issue a revised
document.

    On January 31, 1983, a revised draft was distributed
for comment to all EPA Regions, participating Headquarters
offices, and three major State associations.  The Regions
were asked to distribute the draft to their States.  Com-
ments were requested by February 25; comments received
after that date were also reviewed and considered.

    Five Regions, four States, one State association, and
ten Headquarters offices responded.  Major comments are
summarized below.

General Comments

    A number of commenters found the draft revised docu-
ment very helpful.   However, some  comments reflected per-
ceived shortcomings in the document.  These comments can
be divided into four categories:

    1.   Many commenters found that the draft did not suf-
         ficiently emphasize the program's flexibility.
         This was primarily due to verb choice.   Prefer-
         ences and requirements have been more clearly
         differentiated in the final document.

    2.   Some commenters felt that the State role in
         decision-making on remedial response was too
         limited.  It was our intent to indicate that the
         State is a full partner,  involved in all stages
         of the program.   We believe this has been stated
         more explicitly in the final document.

-------
    3.   Some commenters felt that exhibits would be help-
         ful.  For this reason, a number of exhibits have
         been included in the final document.

    4.   Many commenters recommended revisions to increase
         the general clarity of the document, many of
         which have been incorporated throughout.  Some of
         these are specifically listed below.

More Specific Comments

    Many commenters objected to requiring States to pro-
vide quality assurance (QA), site safety, and community
relations plans  (CRP) with their applications for assis-
tance.  There were two major grounds of objection:  1)
these requirements would delay projects, and 2)  States
would incur substantial costs before a Cooperative Agree-
ment providing EPA assistance was in place.  The final
document emphasizes that a State need not provide QA and
site safety plans with its application; development of
these plans should instead be included as tasks in the
proposed statement of work.  EPA may, at no cost to the
State> prepare the CRP to be included in the application
package.  The State is subsequently responsible for updat-
ing the CRP as part of the project covered by the Coopera-
tive Agreement.

    A number of commenters felt that Remedial Action
Master Plans (RAMPs) have not in the past served as ade-
quate planning documents.  RAMPs are no longer being
initiated by EPA.  EPA will fund preliminary planning
activities on a site-specific basis, but will no longer
require a particular format for outputs of such activities.

    Several commenters raised questions about the section
of the draft outlining factors for State consideration in
making the lead management decision.  In addition to rais-
ing questions about appropriate factors, some commenters
found the draft to imply that EPA was establishing rigid
criteria for State-lead projects.  This implication was
unintended.  To correct it, we have eliminated this
section from the final document.

    Several commenters raised questions about the descrip-
tion of the clearinghouse review process.  This process
has now been replaced by 40 CFR Part 29, "Intergovernmental
Review of the Environmental Protection Agency Programs and
Activities."  The requirements of this regulation are
summarized in the final document.
                            vi

-------
    Some conunenters felt that States should not be  expected
to begin procurement activities before award of a Coopera-
tive Agreement.  The major reason for this is  that  any
costs incurred would not be reimbursed, and prospective
contractors might be reluctant to prepare a proposal or
bid before funding was assured.  The document merely
suggested that States use this approach for expediting
procurement; it is not a requirement.  Some States  have
already used such procedures with good results.  Where the
proposed remedial activities have been authorized through
an Action Memorandum or inclusion in a Remedial Accom-
plishments Plan, EPA has indicated its intent to award a
Cooperative Agreement.  This should serve to alleviate
some contractor concern.  As an additional guide to State
programs, EPA has, since the draft was released, issued a
guidance memorandum concerning methods for expediting
procurement.  The appropriate section of the final  docu-
ment has been revised to reflect the contents of that
memorandum.

    A number of conunenters found the discussion of  the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)  functional equiv-
alency requirements to be inadequate.  This discussion has
been revised in the final document.

    Several conunenters felt that the description of
requirements for selection of an off-site facility  was
inadequate.  We have revised this discussion in the final
document to emphasize that an acceptable facility need not
be in the same State as the site in question, and that
facility designation may occur during the procurement
process.  Specific criteria for selection of an acceptable
off-site facility have also been included.

    Some conunenters found the discussion of the verifica-
tion of CERCLA credit period claims to be inadequate.   A
formal delineation of the procedures was in preparation at
the time the draft was distributed.   These procedures  are
detailed in Appendix C of this document.

    Several questions were raised about the required level
of detail in Cooperative Agreement application budget
breakdowns and the need for making letter of credit draw-
downs under a Cooperative Agreement by remedial activity-
One commenter expressed the impression that EPA was
requiring a separate Financial Status Report (FSR)  each
quarter for each activity.   The budget breakdown require-
ments reflected in this document are those generally
required for obtaining any cooperative agreement and were
not originated by the Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (OERR).  In any case, accounting by activity  is

-------
not unduly complex.  A single FSR may cover all activities
funded under a Cooperative Agreement and it need not be
provided each quarter.  Some clarifications have been made
in the budget section and the accounting code system has
been simplified.  An appendix explaining the accounting
requirements has also been added to the document.

    Several commenters felt that the discussion of changes
in the Cooperative Agreement or Superfund State Contract
(SSC) which require a formal amendment was unclear.  The
latitude for making adjustments to the work plan and other
minor changes not requiring a formal amendment is high-
lighted in the final document.

    Several commenters felt that the requirements for SSC
payment terms were too rigid.  The draft did not suffi-
ciently reflect the actual flexibility EPA demonstrates in
payment term negotiation.  This section has been revised
in the final document to emphasize this flexibility.

    Several commenters felt that the site access and
permit terms in the SSC, as stated in the document, were
too rigid.  This section has been revised accordingly in
the final document.

    Some commenters felt that the role of the U.S.  Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) was not made sufficiently clear
and that the State's requirement to share in COE costs
should be stated more explicitly.  This section has been
revised in the final document and the cost-sharing require-
ment explained more fully.

    One commenter requested that EPA state its policy on
calculating the State's cost-sharing requirements for
remedial projects at publicly-owned sites.  Since the
draft was issued, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response  (OSWER) has issued a policy memorandum on this
subject.  This policy has been cited in the final document
and the memorandum is included in Appendix P-

    One commenter felt that the document should contain a
list of abbreviations and acronyms.  This has been included
in the final document.

New Initiatives

    Since the January 1983 draft was issued, EPA has been
re-examining Superfund policies and procedures to determine
ways to expedite remedial response.  As a result of this
review, EPA has decided to implement several new initia-
tives which are incorporated into this document.  These
                           Vlll

-------
 include:  delegating to the Regions authority  for  negoti-
 ating and signing Cooperative Agreements and SSCs; provid-
 ing  the option of using site planning Cooperative  Agree-
 ments; and providing for greater EPA participation in
 operation and maintenance costs, where appropriate.  In
 addition, EPA's legal interpretation is that cost-sharing
 at privately-owned sites is necessary only for remedial
 implementation.

     We have also emphasized in the document methods by
 which States may reduce their administrative burdens.  One
 of these is to provide one letter certifying a State
 agency's authority to enter into CERCLA remedial response
 agreements rather than submitting a separate letter for
 each agreement.  Another is the option of including
 remedial investigation/feasibility study subactivities at
 more than one site in the same remedial response agreement.

     Some revisions to the draft have also been made to
 ensure consistency with 40 CFR Part 29, "Intergovernmental
 Review of Environmental Protection Agency Programs and
 Activities," and revisions to 40 CFR Part 30,  "General
 Regulation for Assistance Programs."

 Second Draft

    Because of the extensive revisions necessary to incor-
 porate the new initiatives, on July 5, 1983, we distrib-
 uted a second draft for comment to all EPA Regions, four
 State and citizens' associations, and involved Headquarters
 offices.  Comments were requested by July 22; comments
 received after that date were also reviewed and considered.

    Four Regions, two States, one citizens' group, and
 five Headquarters offices provided comments.  Commenters
 generally felt that the second draft was a substantial
 improvement over the first, and favored the new policies
 reflected in it.  Most comments pointed to very few prob-
 lems in the draft.

    However, a number of comments indicated the need  to
 further clarify some of the initiatives.  We have, there-
 fore, provided more detailed explanations.   The section
 concerning site planning Cooperative Agreements (now
 called management assistance Cooperative Agreements)  was
 the section that commenters most frequently indicated as
needing clarification.   We have revised this section, but
 recognize that additional guidance may prove helpful.
After the concept has been put into practice, we will
provide additional information on management assistance
Cooperative Agreements  as an update to this document.
                            IX

-------
    Some commenters felt that the Introduction needed to
be made more helpful to readers unfamiliar with the Super-
fund program.  We have revised the Introduction accord-
ingly.

    Several commenters questioned the requirement that
State cost-sharing be provided during remedial planning
for publicly-owned sites.  The final document has been
revised to reflect the language of CERCLA, requiring the
State's cost-sharing obligation to be provided when a
CERCLA-funded remedial action is to be implemented at the
site.  SSCs will not be required for remedial planning
activities, a need that concerned some commenters.

    One commenter objected to the requirement of perform-
ing an environmental assessment during remedial planning.
This requirement is a fundamental EPA policy based upon
statutory and. regulatory mandates.  Therefore, the final
document continues to reflect this requirement.

    One commenter, concerned about the State's role in
determining the appropriate alternative for a site, ques-
tioned the requirement that the Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and Emergency Response select the remedy.
We have revised this section of the document to emphasize
the State's involvement in choosing an appropriate remedy.

    One commenter expressed the concern that EPA might not
take full account of operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
in selecting a cost-effective remedy.  The final document
makes clear that cost-effectiveness determinations are
based on total life cycle costs, not on the costs of the
remedial action alone.

    One commenter requested that more specific references
be made to the applicability of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act  (RCRA) standards to facility selection
under CERCLA.  Although Agency review of this subject con-
tinues, we have included some additional language in this
area.

    One commenter suggested that a reference to public
availability of State and EPA remedial site files should
be added to Section D of Chapter VII.  Such a reference
has been added in the final document.

    One commenter expressed the opinion that we should
specify that a quality assurance  (QA) plan is needed for
each site, not simply for each Cooperative Agreement, and
                            x

-------
 that  the QA project plan must be approved before sampling
 may be  initiated.  The final document includes  these
 concepts both in the body of the document and in the
 sample  provisions in Appendix F.

    One commenter suggested that we identify the types of
 documents concerning remedial projects which Regions
 should  forward for inclusion in Headquarters files.  The
 final document contains more details in this area.

    One commenter felt that the document should provide
 more  information on estimating remedial action costs.
 This  is done in the final document.

    Many comments received were essentially editorial in
 nature, including the need for consistency throughout the
 document, the need to clarify some points, and the correc-
 tion of typographical errors.  Many changes have been made
 in the final document as a result of these comments.

 Additional Revisions

    In addition to changes made in response to comments, a
 number of revisions have been made in the document to
 reflect policy and procedural refinements made by EPA since
 the second draft was issued for comment.  Many of the
 policy and procedural changes were in development at the
 time of issuance of the last draft.  The final document
 is, therefore, more accurate and more complete than the
 previous drafts.

    One major change has been in EPA's policy concerning
 the period of time that the Agency will share in the costs
 of O&M.  During most of the history of the Super fund
 remedial program, it was EPA's policy to provide O&M cost-
 sharing for up to six months after completion of a remedial
 action to ensure that the remedial action was functional
 and operational and to allow the State to put a  mechanism
 in place to assume full responsibility for all aspects  of
 O&M.   As part of the Agency's recent effort to expedite
 remedial response,  EPA evaluated the six-month O&M cost-
 sharing period and considered extending it to two years.
This  proposed two-year period was reflected in the July 5,
 1983  draft of this document.

    Superfund has since instituted procedures to plan
remedial response activities, as projected by Regional
personnel, throughout the life of the program.   EPA is
 therefore better able to predict future demands  on the
 Fund  and to weigh the requirements for  expenditures for
                           XI

-------
all phases of remedial response/ including remedial plan-
ning, remedial actions, and O&M activities.  In this light,
the Agency has re-examined the O&M cost-sharing issue and
has decided, from the best Fund-balancing information
available, that it is prudent at this time to extend the
cost-sharing period from six months to one year through
the end of the currently-authorized program.

Subsequent Changes

    The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response in-
tends from time to time to issue changes to this document
in the form of revised pages.  These will include the "Re-
served" parts of the document as presently published.  The
contact for suggesting changes and receiving copies of
revisions is:  Chief, State and Regional Coordination
Branch, Hazardous Site Control Division  (WH-548E),  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.   20460;
telephone (202) 382-2443.  To be certain of receiving all
updates, readers are requested to return the form for this
purpose which has been included in the front of this docu-
ment.
                           xii

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                               9375.1-4

                                                         PAGE

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS                          a

   I.  INTRODUCTION                                       1-1

       A.  Purpose of the Manual                           1-2

       B.  Background — Key Terms                        1-3

           B.I  Remedial Response                          1-4
           B.2  Remedial Response  Agreements               1-4
           B.3  State Assurances                           1-5
                B.3.a   Cost-Sharing                       1-5
                B.3.b   Off-Site Treatment,  Storage,       1-6
                        or Disposal
                B.3.C   Operation  and Maintenance (O&M)   1-7
           B.4  State Credits                             1-7

       C.  Overview of the Manual                          1-7

  II.  CONCURRENT ADMINISTRATIVE EVENTS                  II-l

       A.  Initiation of Enforcement  Activities          II-2

       B.  Initiation of Forward Planning                II-2

       C.  Development of Site-Specific Schedules        II-5

       D.  Development of the Remedial                   II-5
           Accomplishments Plan (RAP)

       E.  Development of the Action  Memorandum          II-5

       F.  Identification and Review  of State            II-6
           Credit Submissions

       G.  Intergovernmental Review                       II-7

 III.  DEVELOPMENT OF COOPERATIVE  AGREEMENT             III-l
       APPLICATION PACKAGES

       A.  Completion of the Cooperative Agreement      III-2
           Application Form
 DATE
12/10/84
12/10/84
                                  Xlll

-------
                                        9375.1-4
    A.I  Part IV - Project Narrative
         Statement

    A.2  Part III - Project Budget
                                                  PAGE   DATE
III-2
III-3
         A.2.a   Allowable Costs                 III-4
         A.2.b   Enforcement Costs               III-5
         A.2.c   Calculation of State Cost Share III-5

B.  Development of Cooperative Agreement         III-6
    Provisions

    B.I  General Assistance Requirements         III-6
    B.2  Superfund Program Requirements          III-7

         B.2.a   Provision of CERCLA             III-8
                 Section 104(c)(3) Assurances
         B.2.b   The National Environmental      III-9
                 Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
         B.2.C   Quality Assurance/Quality      111-10
                 Control (QA/QC)
         B.2.d   Site Safety Plan               III-ll
         B.2.e   Expedited Procurement          111-12

C.  Completion of the Procurement System        111-12
    Certification Form

D.  Other Submissions                           111-13

    D.I  Community Relations Plan (CRP)         111-13
         D.I.a   Draft Community Relations      111-13
                 Plan
         D.l.b   Complete Community             111-14
                 Relations Plan
    D.2  Certification Letter                   111-15
    D.3  Intergovernmental Review Comments      111-15

E.  Deviation Requests to Permit the            111-15
    Allowability of Pre-Award Costs

F.  Multi-Site Cooperative Agreements           111-17

    F.I  Activities That May Be Included        111-18
         in Multi-Site Cooperative
         Agreements
    F.2  Intergovernmental Review               111-19
    F.3  Contents of a Multi-Site Cooperative   111-20
         Agreement
        12/10/84
                            xiv

-------
                                             9375.1-4
              F.3.a    Cooperative Agreement
                      Application Form
              F.3.b    Multi-Site Cooperative
                      Agreement Application
                      Provisions
              F.3.C    Procurement System
                      Certification Form
              F.3.d    Certification and
                      Enforcement Letters
         F.4   Accounting  for Multi-Site
              Cooperative Agreements
         F.5   Administration of Multi-Site
              Cooperative Agreements
              F.S.a    Project Management
              F.S.b    Project/Budget  Periods
              F.S.c    Quarterly Reports

IV.   DEVELOPMENT  OF  EPA-LEAD REMEDIAL PLANNING
     AGREEMENTS
      *

     A.   The  Scope of  Work  for Remedial Planning

     B.   Documentation of Terms and
         Responsibilities

         B.I   EPA Responsibilities
         B.2   State  Responsibilities
         B.3   General  Terms

     C.   Other Submissions

         C.I   Community Relations Plan  (CRP)
         C.2   Intergovernmental Review Comments

     D.   Management  Assistance Cooperative
         Agreements

 V.   DEVELOPMENT  OF  SUPERFUND STATE CONTRACTS

     A.   Development of the Statement of Work  (SOW)

     B.   Development of State Cost-Sharing Terms

         B.I   Calculation of the State's Cost  Share
         B.2   Negotiation of Payment  Terms

     C.   Documentation of Other Terms and
         Responsibilities
  PAGE   DATE

111-20

111-23


111-23

111-23

111-24

111-26

111-26
111-26
111-27

  IV-1


  IV-3

  IV-3
  IV-3
  IV-4
  IV-4

  IV-5

  IV-5
  IV-6

  IV-6  12/10/84
   V-l

   V-2

   V-2

   V-2
   V-3

   V-4
                                 xv

-------
                                              9375.1-4
    C.I  EPA Responsibilities
    C.2  State Responsibilities
    C.3  General Terms

D.  Other Submissions

    D.I  Community Relations Plan (CRP)
    D.2  Certification Letter
    D.3  Intergovernmental Review Comments

E.  Multi-Site Superfund State Contracts
                                                        PAGE    DATE

                                                         V-4
                                                         V-5
                                                         V-6

                                                         V-7

                                                         V-7
                                                         V-8
                                                         V-8

                                                         V-8   12/10/84
 VI.   EXECUTION OF REMEDIAL AGREEMENTS                  VI-1

      A.   Review of the Draft Agreement                 VI-1

          A.I  Review of the Draft Cooperative          VI-2
               Agreement Application Package

          A.2  Review of the Draft EPA-Lead             VI-2
               Submission

      B.   Final Regional Review and Preparation         VI-2
          of the Concurrence Package

      C.   Approval and Execution                        VI-4

VII.   ADMINISTRATION OF REMEDIAL AGREEMENTS            VII-1

      A.   Monitoring Financial Commitments             VII-1

          A.I  State Drawdowns Under a Cooperative     VII-2
               Agreement

          A.2  State Payment of Cost Share Under       VII-3
               a Superfund State Contract

      B.   Monitoring Technical Commitments             VII-3

          B.I  Monitoring Site Activities              VII-4
          B.2  Monitoring State Assurances and         VII-5
               Compliance with Special Conditions

      C.   Coordinating EPA-Lead Remedial Agreements    VII-5
          with Performance Agreements

      D.   Documenting Remedial Activity                VII-6
                                  xvi

-------
                                                9375.1-4
       E.
D.I  Regional Files
D.2  EPA Headquarters Files
D.3  State Files

Documenting Completion of Remedial
Implementation [RESERVED]
                                                         PAGE   DATE

                                                        VII-6
                                                        VII-6
                                                        VII-7
VIII.  AGREEMENT MODIFICATIONS

       A.  Project Adjustments

           A.I  Adjustments to State-Lead Projects
           A.2  Adjustments to EPA-Lead Projects

       B.  Initiation of Remedial Design and
           Remedial Action

           B.1  Records of Decision (RODs)
           B.2  Incorporating Remedial Design and
                Remedial Action into an
                Agreement Between EPA and the State

       C.  Initiation of Operation and Maintenance

:IX.  AUDITS OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS

       A.  Types of Audits

           A.I  Interim Audits
           A.2  Final Audits
           A.3  CERCLA Credit Audits

       B.  Scheduling the Audit and Preliminary
           Activities

           B.I  Scheduling the Audit
           B.2  Regional Preparation for the Audit
           B.3  State Preparation for the Audit

       C.  Procedures for the Audit

           C.I  Entrance Conference
           C.2  Audit Standards and Tasks
           C.3  Draft Audit Report
           C.4  Exit Conference
           C.5  Final Audit Report
           C.6  Findings and Recommendations Related
                to EPA Administration
                                            VIII-1

                                            VIII-1

                                            VIII-1
                                            VIII-2

                                            VIII-3
                                            VIII-3
                                            VIII-6
                                            VIII-7

                                              IX-1  3/20/86

                                              IX-3

                                              IX-3
                                              IX-6
                                              IX-7


                                              IX-7

                                              IX-8
                                              IX-8
                                             IX-10

                                             IX-11

                                             IX-11
                                             IX-13
                                             IX-15
                                             IX-18
                                             IX-19

                                             IX-19
                                  xv 11

-------
                                                9375.1-4
       D.   Resolution of  Audit  Findings  and Follow-up
           Actions

           D.I  Review of Final Audit Report and
                Resolution of  State Disagreements
           D.2  Resolution of  DIGA Disagreements
                and Disputes
           D.3  Issuance  of the Final Determination
                Letter
           D.4  Review for Adequacy

       E.   Implementation of Corrective  Actions

APPENDICES

Introduction to the Appendices

Appendix A -    PA/SI Guidance

                Action Memorandum Guidance
                                                         PAGE    DATE


                                                        IX-20


                                                        IX-20

                                                        IX-21

                                                        IX-22
                                                        IX-23

                                                        IX-23
Appendix B -

Appendix C -


Appendix D -


Appendix E -



Appendix F -


Appendix G -


Appendix H -



Appendix I -

Appendix J -
                Documenting CERCLA State Credits and
                Advance Match
A-l

B-l

C-l
                Procedures for Implementing Intergovern-  D-l
                mental Review

                Model Statement of Work for State-lead    E-l
                Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
                Projects

                Sample Cooperative Agreement Application  F-l
                Provisions

                Sample Cooperative Agreement Application  G-l
                Package

                Sample Articles for Superfund State       H-l
                Contracts and Other EPA-Lead Remedial
                Agreements

                Sample Superfund State Contract           1-1

                Sample Certification Letters              J-l
9/17/85

12/20/85

5/2/86


9/17/85


12/20/85



7/22/86
      12/10/84
                                  xvi 11

-------
                                               9375.1-4
Appendix K -


Appendix L -


Appendix M -

Appendix N -


Appendix 0 -


Appendix P -

Appendix Q -

Appendix R -

Appendix S -

Appendix T -


 appendix U -
Sample Community Relations Plan Format
and Sample Plan (CRP)
K-l  3/24/86
Sample Quality Assurance/Quality Control  L-l
Plan             *'
Sample Site Safety Plan

How to Obligate CERCLA Funds for State-
and Federal-lead Response

Record of Decision (ROD)/Enforcement
Decision Document (EDD) Guidance

Superfund Supplement Guidance

Glossary of Terms

List of References

Advance Match Procedures

Obtaining Equipment for Use Under
a CERCLA Cooperative Agreement

Cost Documentation Requirements for
Superfund Cooperative Agreements
M-l

N-l



0-1



P-l


Q-l

R-l

S-l

T-l
1/31/86


12/20/85

8/22/86


1/17/86


3/5/86
1/4/85

8/9/85
U-l  9/11/86
                                  xix

-------
                                               9375.1-4

                            LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit
Number                  TITLE
                                 j
1-1        Site Chronology

1-2        Document Outline

II-l       Concurrent Administrative Events

II-2       Sample SOW for State-Lead Forward Planning
           Activities

III-l      Development of Cooperative Agreement Application
           Packages

III-2      Cooperative Agreement Application Package
           Checklist

111-17     Figures for Use in Estimating Total State-Lead
           Remedial Action Costs

III-4      Object Class Categories for Use in Completing
           the Cooperative Agreement Application

III-5      Itemization of Object Class Categories:
           Appropriate Level of Detail

III-6      State Cost-Share Calculations

III-7      Summary of Requirements for Procurement Under
           Assistance Agreements (40 CFR 1717)

III-8      Summary of Superfund Program Provisions for
           Cooperative Agreement Applications

II1-9      Methods for Expediting Procurement

111-10     Examples of Options for Awarding and Managing
           Multi-Site Cooperative Agreements

III-ll     Sample MSCA Obligation Document

IV-l       Development of Memoranda of Understanding

V-l       Development of Superfund State Contracts
                                   xx

-------
                                               9375.1-4

                            LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit
Number                  TITLE
                                 j
V-2        Figures for Use in Estimating Total EPA-Lead
           Remedial Action Costs

V-17       State Cost-Share Calculations

VI-1       Execution of Remedial Agreements

VI-2       Agreement Review and Approval Process

VI-17      Suggested Format for the Decision Memorandum

VII-1      Administration of Remedial Agreements

VIII-1     Agreement Modifications

IX-1       Audits of Cooperative Agreements

TX-2       Listing of Offices of the Divisional Inspectors
           General for Audits

I  3       Cooperative Agreement Audit Process

IX-4       Sample Cost Exhibit for Draft Audit Report

A-l        Pre-Remedial Screening Process

A-2        CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS)

A-17       Application For Federal Assistance, Part III

Table 1    Sample Format for Pre-Remedial Program Report

Table 2    Sample Format for Work Hours Per Site (Pre-Remedial)

Table 17   Sample Format for Expense Report (Pre-Remedial)

Table 4    Sample Format for Site Additions and Substitutions
           (Pre-Remedial)

Table 5    Revised Schedule of Pre-Remedial Accomplishments

C-l        Application of Credit on Cooperative Agreement Application
           Budget Sheets:  Part III/ Sections A and B Schedule A
                                  xxi

-------
                                               9375.1-4
                            LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit
Number                  TITLE

C-2        Application of Credit on Cooperative Agreement Application
           Budget Sheets:  Part III, Section B Schedule B

C-3        Application of Credit on Cooperative Agreement Application
           Budget Sheets:  Part III, Sections C, D, E and F

C-4        Application of Advance Match on Cooperative Agreement
           Application Budget Sheets:  Part III, Sections A and B
           Schedule B

C-5        Application of Advance Match on Cooperative Agreement
           Application Budget Sheets:  Part III, Section B Schedule B

N-l        Superfund Accounting Example

N-2        Single-Site Award

N-3        MSCA Award

N-4        Single-site Transfer

N-5        MSCA Transfer

N-6        Advance'Match Award

N-7        State Credit Award

T-l        Sample Usage Charge Calculation

T-2        Accounting Example

U-l        Summary of Cost Documentation Requirements

U-2        Account Requirements for Personnel, Travel, Equipment,
           Supply, and Indirect Costs

U-3        General EPA Accounting Requirements/Procedures Applicable to
           Superfund

U-4        Procedures for Documenting Purchase and Use of CERCLA-funded
           Equipment

U-5        Financial Tracking and Recordkeeping Requirements for
           State-lead Superfund Activities

                                  xxii

-------
                                                  12/10/84

             LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS


     A number of acronyms and abbreviations are used
 throughout the text;  each is identified in the text and,
 where possible, in the introduction to each appendix in
 which the abbreviation or acronym occurs.   To assist the
 reader in understanding any acronym or abbreviation that
 may not be explained,  and to provide a quick reference, a
 list of acronyms and  abbreviations is included here.  Most
 of the abbreviations  shown are from the remedial  program.
 However, because of the close interaction  and coordination
 required with other aspects of Superfund,  some terms used
 primarily by the removal program have also been included.

 AA         Assistant Administrator

 ACE        U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers (more
            appropriately referred  to as COE)

 AM         Action  Memorandum

 C/A        Cooperative Agreement

 CERCLA     Comprehensive Environmental  Response,
            Compensation,  and  Liability  Act  of  1980
            (PL  96-510)

 CFR        Code  of  Federal Regulations

 CLP        Contract Laboratory Program

 COE        U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers

 CRA        Community Relations Assessment

 CRP        Community Relations Plan

 CTS         Credit Tracking System

 CWA        Clean Water Act

 EPA        Environmental Protection Agency

 ERD        Emergency Response Division, OERR (Superfund
           removals)

 ERT        Emergency Response Team (Superfund removals)

FCC        Fiscal Control Center, OERR
                          -a -

-------
                                                 12/10/84
FEMA          Federal Emergency Management Agency
FMD           Financial Management Division (EPA)
FMS           Financial Management System
FR            Federal Register
FS            Feasibility Study
FSR           Financial Status Report
FY            Fiscal Year
GAD           Grants Administration Division (EPA)
GOB           Grants Operations Branch, GAD
HQ            EPA Headquarters
HRS           Hazard Ranking System
HSCD          Hazardous Site Control Division,  OERR
IAG           Interagency Agreement
IFB           Invitation for Bids
IG            EPA Inspector General
IRM           Initial Remedial Measure
LOG           Letter of Credit
MBE           Minority Business Enterprise
MOU           Memorandum of Understanding
MSCA          Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement
NCP           National Oil and Hazardous Substances
              Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300)
NEIC          National Enforcement Information  Center
NEPA          National Environmental Policy Act of  1969
              (PL 91-190)
                           - b -

-------
                                                  12/10/84
NPL

NRC

OECM



OERR

OGC

DIG

O&M

OMB

ORC

OSC

OSHA

OSW

OSWER



OWPE

PA

PCS

PCMD



PCS

PMM



PR

PRP

PTS

QA
National Priorities List

National Response Center

Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring  (EPA)

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response

Office of General Counsel (EPA)

Office of the Inspector General  (EPA)

Operation and Maintenance

Office of Management and Budget

Office of Regional Counsel  (EPA)

On-Scene Coordinator (Superfund removals)

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Office of Solid Waste (EPA)

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(EPA)

Office of Waste Programs Enforcement  (EPA)

Preliminary Assessment

Polychlorinated Biphenyl

Procurement and Contracts Management
Division (EPA)

Program Control System

Program Management Module (part of the
Project Tracking System)

Procurement Request

Potential Responsible Party

Project Tracking System

Quality Assurance
                          - c -

-------
QAPP

QC

RA

RAB
RACE

RAMP

RAP
RCRA


RD

REAP

REM/FIT

RFP

RI

RI/FS

ROD

RRT

RS

RSCRC


RSPO

SBE
                                   12/10/84

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Quality Control

Remedial Action or Regional Administrator

Remedial Analysis Branch, OERR  (references
in original issuance of the manual are to
the former Remedial Action Branch and now
generally apply to RACE)

Remedial Action and Contracts Branch, OERR

Remedial Action Master Plan

Remedial Accomplishments Plan  (as of
October 1, 1984 this has been superceded by
the Remedial Program Plan, a portion of the
SCAP)

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976  (PL 94-580)

Remedial Design

Regional Enforcement Accomplishments Plan

Remedial Planning/Field Investigation Team

Request for Proposals

Remedial Investigation

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

Record of Decision

Regional Response Team  (Superfund removals)

Responsiveness Summary

Regional Superfund Community Relations
Coordinator

Regional Site Project Officer

Small Business Enterprise
                           - d -

-------
                                                 12/10/84
SCAP          Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan
SCRC          State Community Relations Coordinator
SF            Standard Form
SI            Site Inspection
SIf           Site Inspection Follow-up
SMP           Site Management Plan
SOP           Standard Operating Procedure
SOW           Statement of Work
SPMS          Strategic Planning and Management System
SPO           State Project Officer
SRCB          State and Regional Coordination Branch, OERR
SSC           Superfund State Contract
USGS          U.S. Geological Survey
WBE           Women's Business Enterprise
ZM            Zone Manager
                          - e -

-------
I.   INTRODUCTION

-------
                      I.   INTRODUCTION
     In  March  1982,  the  Office  of Emergency  and  Remedial
 Response  (OERR)  in  the  U.S. Environmental Protection
 Agency  (EPA)  published  Guidance for Cooperative Agreements
 and  Contracts with  States  Under the Comprehensive Environ-
 mental  Response, Compensation, and Liability  Act of 1980
 (PL  96-510).  The document was intended  to  provide
 instructions  to EPA Regional offices  on  the development
 and  use of  Cooperative  Agreements and  Super fund State  Con-
 tracts  (SSCs) for remedial actions taken under  CERCLA.

     This manual, State  Participation  in  the Superfund
 Remedial Program, supersedes the March 1982 document.   It
 has  been developed  to assist both EPA  staff and State
 officials in  implementing  EPA policies and  procedures
 related to  State participation in the  Superfund remedial
 program.  Procedures outlined herein pertain  to all
 agreements  covering approved remedial  projects.

     Remedial  responses* may be managed by either the State
 or EPA.  If the State manages the response, a Cooperative
 Agreement must be entered  into for all phases of the
 remedial work.  If, conversely, EPA manages the response,
EPA  and the State must  enter into an SSC prior  to initiat-
 ing  a remedial action.  To cover EPA-lead remedial plan-
 ning, at the  discretion of the EPA Regional Administrator,
 the  State and EPA may either enter into a formal Memoran-
 dum  of Understanding  (MOU), or the State may submit a
 letter to the Regional  Administrator,  requesting EPA to
 undertake such activities.  All O&M activities  for which
EPA  provides  a share of costs must be  implemented through
 a Cooperative Agreement since State responsibility for  O&M
 is a statutory requirement.
    Remedial response is a series of activities taken at a
    hazardous waste site to effect a permanent remedy; it
    usually involves the following two activities:
    remedial planning (defined in CERCLA section 101[23])
    and remedial implementation.  Remedial planning
    includes the subactivities of remedial investigation/
    feasibility study and remedial design.  Remedial
    implementation includes the subactivities of remedial
    action, initial remedial measures, and operation and
    maintenance.  Remedial action is defined as that phase
    of remedial response during which a selected remedy is
    actually implemented; it includes both source control
    and off-site actions.  (See Appendix Q for more
    detailed definitions.)

                            1-1

-------
    The type and components of the agreement negotiated
will vary, depending upon the demands of the site work and
the requirements of Regional and State officials.  Exhibit
1-1, on the following page, graphically depicts the flow
of administrative and remedial events that typically
occurs after a site is determined to be appropriate for
remedial response.  The exhibit also shows the types of
remedial response agreements used for both remedial
planning and remedial implementation projects at EPA- and
State-lead sites.

    The authority for entering into Cooperative Agreements
and SSCs is provided in CERCLA sections 104 (d) (1) and
104 (c) (3).  The power to approve general remedial agree-
ments  is given by section 104 (d) (1), which states in part:

    "Where the President determines that a State or
    political subdivision thereof has the capability to
    carry out any or all of the actions authorized in this
    section, the President may,  in his discretion, enter
    into a contract or cooperative agreement with such
    State or political subdivision..."

Authority for entering into agreements for remedial
actions is given by section 104 (c) (3), as follows:

    "The President shall not provide any remedial actions
    pursuant to this section unless the State in which the
    release occurs first enters  into a contract or cooper-
    ative agreement with the President..."

By Executive Order No. 12316, dated August 14, 1981, the
President delegated this authority to several Federal
departments and agencies, including EPA.

A.  PURPOSE OF THE MANUAL

    Because the users' levels of experience and familiarity
with  the program will vary, a balance has been sought in
both  the scope and level of detail for this document.  Of
necessity, this document must accomplish several objectives
simultaneously.  To do so requires that the document:

         Present information that amplifies and clarifies
         existing program policy on EPA- and State-lead
         remedial response
                            1-2

-------
                    EXHIBIT   1-1
               SITE   CHRONOLOGY
                      SfTE ENTERED ON
                         NATIONAL
                      PRIORITIES UST
 INITIATION OF
 ENFORCEMENT
  ACT (V (TIES
INrriATON OF
PRELIMINARY
 PLANNING
STATE CREDIT
 SUBMISSION
 AND AUDIT
                   DEVELOPMENT OF SfTE
                    SPECIFIC SCHEDULE
                       INCLUSION IN
                         REMEDIAL
                     ACCOMPLISHMENTS
                         PLAN (RAP!
         STATELEAD
                                       EPA-LEAD
COOPERATIVE
 AGREEMENT
                   MEMORANDUM OF
                    UNDERSTANDING
                    OH STATE LETTER
                      OF REQUEST
  REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
  FEASIBILITY
   STUDY
 RECORD OF
  DECISION
                         PUBLIC
                       COMMENT
                         PERIOD
                       REMEDIAL
                     NVESTIGATCN;
                      FEASIBIUTY
                        STUDY
                                               PUBLIC
                                             COMMENT
                                               PERIOD
                      RECORD OF
                       DECISION
   AMEND
COOPERATIVE
 AGREEMENT
                   AMEND'NEGOTIATE
                   MEMORANDUM OF
                    UNDERSTANDING
  REMEDIAL
   DESIGN
                       REMEDIAL
                        DESIGN
   AMEND
 COOPERATIVE
 AGREEMENT
                      NEGOTIATE
                      SUPERFUND
                        STATE
                      CONTRACT
  REMEDIAL
   ACTON
                       REMEDIAL
                        ACTON
 OPERATON &
MAINTENANCE

-------
          Describe  documents  to  be  prepared  and  administra-
          tive  events  that  occur  at sites  either  before  a
          remedial  response can  be  initiated or  concurrently
          with  a  remedial response

          Identify  key roles  and  responsibilities of
          program staff who plan, administer, and manage
          remedial  response

          Specify procedural  steps  to be followed at all
          levels  (i.e., States, Regions, Headquarters) to
          ensure  that policy  is carried out  expeditiously
          and well.

This document  is designed  to be  used as a manual for
implementation of  existing policy, rather than as a
policy-making document.

    This  document  has been developed primarily for the use
of:

          EPA Regional Site Project Officers  (RSPOs), who
          oversee and participate in the planning and
          administration of remedial response activities

          State Officials, especially State Project Officers
          (SPOs), who are responsible for work performed at
          priority  remedial sites

          EPA Headquarters  Zone Managers, who coordinate
          Headquarters participation in and monitoring of
          remedial  response activities.

Detailed  discussion of the roles and responsibilities of
each group is contained in each chapter.

B.  BACKGROUND --  KEY TERMS

    Several terms  used in the Superfund remedial program
are central to understanding  the information presented in
this document.   These terms -- remedial response, Coopera-
tive Agreements, MOUs, SSCs,  State assurances,  and State
credits -- appear  throughout  this document and  are de-
scribed here.  Definitions can also be found in references
cited throughout the text and appendices of this document.
Readers who are familiar with the CERCLA legislation and
the Superfund program may wish to proceed directly to
Section C of this chapter.
                           1-3

-------
B.I  Remedial Response

    CERCLA defines two types of responses that may be
taken in the event of a release or threatened release of a
hazardous substance into the environment:  removals and
remedial response.  The scope of this document is limited
to remedial response activities and events preparatory to
undertaking them.

    A remedial response is a series of activities and
subactivities, consistent with a permanent remedy, that
prevents or mitigates the migration or release of a
hazardous substance into the environment.  Each remedial
response may involve the following two activities:
remedial planning  (comprised of the subactivities of
remedial investigation/feasibility study and remedial
design) and remedial implementation  (comprised of remedial
actions, initial remedial measures [IRMs], and operation
and maintenance).  Section 300.68 of the NCP identifies
three types of remedial actions that can be taken at a
site:  IRMs, source control remedial actions, and off-site
remedial actions  (see Appendix Q for definitions).  Some
type of remedial planning -- at least a feasibility study
and a remedial design -- must be completed before a source
control or off-site remedial action can be selected and
implemented.*

B.2  Remedial Response Agreements

    Sections 104(c)(3) and 104(d).(l) of CERCLA authorize
the use of either  a Cooperative Agreement or a Contract as
the instrument for delineating EPA and State responsibili-
ties for remedial  actions at a site, for obtaining required
State assurances,  and for committing the necessary funds.
For remedial planning, EPA requires the use of a Coopera-
tive Agreement for State-lead projects, and a State letter
of request or an MOU for EPA-lead projects.  The appro-
priate choice of  instrument depends upon whether the State
or EPA assumes lead responsibility, the types of activities
or subactivities undertaken, and the needs of EPA and State
officials .
     In  order  to expedite approval and  implementation of
     simple  IRMs,  remedial  investigation/feasibility study
     and remedial  design for  the  IRM may be limited in
     scope.
                            1-4

-------
    When  a  State  assumes management responsibility for any
 remedial  activities at a site/ a Cooperative Agreement is
 used,  as  prescribed by CERCLA.  Under the Federal Grant
 and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, when a Federal
 agency provides assistance  (for example, transferring
 money  or  services) to a State or political subdivision and
 substantial Federal involvement is anticipated, a Coopera-
 tive Agreement is the appropriate instrument for providing
 that assistance.  A Cooperative Agreement for remedial
 implementation under CERCLA also documents EPA and State
 responsibilities  and serves as an instrument for obtaining
 any required CERCLA section 104(c)(3)  assurances.

    If, conversely, EPA has the lead for any remedial
 activities at a site, the appropriate instrument can be a
 State  letter of request, an MOU, or an SSC.   When initiat-
 ing remedial planning, the instrument used may be either a
 letter from the State requesting that the activities be
 undertaken or an MOU.  An SSC is appropriate for remedial
 action.

    The complexity of and requirements for EPA-lead
 agreements vary considerably.  The letter of request is a
 written statement verifying that State officials are aware
 of the requirements of the proposed remedial activities,
 in a generic sense, and requesting that EPA undertake the
 project.  An MOU  is a joint agreement between EPA and a
 State defining the scope of work for the project and the
 responsibilities of the respective parties.   An SSC serves
 the same  functions as an MOU and also acts as the vehicle
 for obtaining necessary State assurances under section
 104(c)  (3)  of CERCLA.   It is a bilateral contract that is
 legally binding on both EPA and the concerned State.
While a Cooperative Agreement obligates money for a
project, EPA-lead funds must be obligated through a
procurement contract (REM/FIT)  or  an Interagency Agreement.

B.3  State Assurances

    Before the Federal government  funds remedial implemen-
 tation, section 104 (c) (3)  of CERCLA requires a State  to
provide assurances relating to cost-sharing,  off-site
 treatment, storage, or disposal,  and operation and mainte-
nance.   These assurances are provided  in a Cooperative
Agreement or an SSC.   However,  they need not be provided
during  remedial planning.

B.3.a  Cost-Sharing

    In  accordance with CERCLA section  104 (c) (3) (C), a
State is required to  share  in the  costs  of the remedial
actions performed at  a site.   The  percentage of a State's
                           1-5

-------
cost share depends upon the ownership of the site at the
time of disposal of the hazardous substances.  At
privately-owned sites, the State is required to pay 10
percent of remedial implementation costs (remedial action,
IRMs, operation and maintenance).  At publicly-owned sites
(owned by the State or a political subdivision thereof),
the State is required to pay at least 50 percent of all
costs for removals, remedial planning, and remedial
implementation as part of the agreement covering remedial
action at that site.  No cost-sharing is required during
remedial planning at any site.  However, the State must
provide its share of costs for remedial planning at a
publicly-owned site if a CERCLA-funded remedial action is
undertaken there.

    Under a Cooperative Agreement, the State can furnish
its share of remedial costs by supplying services and/or
cash equivalent to its cost share.  Under an SSC, these
costs must be provided in the form of cash payments.  For
both types of agreements, the State may also reduce the
amount of State-funded services or cash to be provided by
authorizing a drawdown of any available State credit (see
Section II.F and Appendix C of this document).  Procedures
for calculating and contributing a State's cost share are
discussed in Chapters III (Cooperative Agreements) and V
(SSCs).

    Allowable, approved cost-sharing which States have
already paid for remedial planning activities at a
privately-owned site under past EPA policy may be applied
toward the State's share of costs for remedial implementa-
tion at that site  (see "Waiver of 10 Percent Cost Share
for Remedial Planning at Privately-Owned Sites," OSWER,
May 13, 1983, shown in Appendix P).

B.3.b  Off-Site Treatment, Storage, or Disposal

    At sites where off-site treatment, storage, or disposal
of hazardous wastes is necessary to implement a selected
remedial action  (including an IRM), the State is required
to assure the availability of a hazardous waste treatment,
storage, or disposal facility that satisfies three condi-
tions
 l_ J. VJIIO .

    First, the facility must have an applicable permit or
 have  been granted interim status in accordance with the
 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act  (RCRA).  Such
 permits or authorization may be issued by EPA or an
 authorized State.  Second, it must have a RCRA Part B
 permit or have had a RCRA compliance inspection within 12
                            1-6

-------
months prior  to  its use  for  treatment, storage, or disposal
of site wastes and must  have been found  to comply with  the
RCRA  regulations.  Third,  it must have sufficient capacity
to handle wastes from the  site.  In addition, EPA must
find  off-site treatment, storage, or disposal to be cost-
effective in comparison  to other remedial actions that
would provide adequate protection of public health,
welfare, or the environment.  The facility need not be
located in the same State as the site in question.  (See
"Requirements for Selecting an Off-Site Option in a Super-
fund  Response Action," OERR, February 28, 1983, in Ap-
pendix P.)  Further discussion is provided in Section
III.B for Cooperative Agreements and in Section V.C for
SSCs.

B.3.C  Operation and Maintenance (Q&M)

    The third assurance  required by CERCLA is that a State
will assume responsibility for all future O&M for the
expected life of each remedial action as determined by EPA
and the State.  In accordance with current policy, EPA
may. for a period not to exceed one year after completion
of remedial response activities, share  in the costs of any
required O&M.  These costs will be shared on the same
percentage basis as costs for other remedial implementation
subactivities.  EPA's procedures for obtaining this
assurance and additional details of EPA's current policy
are discussed in Section III.B for  Cooperative Agreements
and in Section V.C for SSCs.

B. 4  State Credits

    A final concept that is critical to understanding this
document is that of State credits.   Section 104 (c) (3) (C)
of CERCLA provides that a State may receive credit for
direct, out-of-pocket, non-Federal  funds expended or  obli-
gated by the State or a political subdivision thereof  for
cost-eligible response actions at sites between January 1,
1978, and December 11, 1980.  As described above,  these
credits can be used to meet State cost-sharing requirements
at that site.  Procedures for developing and submitting an
accounting of these costs can be found  in Section II.F and
Appendix C of this document.

C.  OVERVIEW OF THE MANUAL

    This document has been organized to reflect the general
sequence of events that occurs prior to and during the
development and implementation of agreements for  remedial
response.   Exhibit 1-2,  on the next  page, presents a  flow
                           1-7

-------
                                                       EXHIBIT   1-2
                                               DOCUMENT   OUTLINE
                                                                               CHAPTER
                                                                             AND SECTION
                           INTRODUCTION

                         CONCURRENT EVENTS
                        ENFORCEMENT
                        PRELIMINARY PLANNING
                        SfTE SPECIFIC SCHEDULES
                        RAP
                        ACTION MEMORANDUM
                        STATE CREDITS
                        INTERGOVTAL REVIEW

  DEVELOPMENT OF C'As"
• APPLICATION FORM
• PROVISIONS
« PROCUREMENT CHECKLIST
• OTHER SUBMISSIONS
. DEVIATION REQUEST -;:
   I
  I-A
  IB
  t-C
   II

  II-A
  II-B
  II-C
  B-D
  II-E
  H-F
  II-G
                      DEVELOPMENT OF EPA-LEAD
                       PLANNING AGREEMENTS
                     SCOPE OF WORK
                     PROVISIONS
                     COMMUNfTY RELATIONS PLANS
                     MANAGEMENT ASST. CAs
 III-A
 111-8
 IILC
 ni-D
 III-E
  IV
 IV-A
 IV B
 IVC
 IV-D
                                  DEVELOPMENT OF SSCs
                                  1 STATEMENT OF WORK
                                   COST SHARING TERMS
                                   PROVISIONS
                                   OTHER SUBMISSIONS
 V-A
 VB
 V-C
 V-D
                      EXECUTION OF AGREEMENTS
                      ' DRAFT REVIEW
                      ' FINAL REVIEW AND
                       CONCURRENCE PACKAGE
                       APPROVAL AND EXECUTION
 VI

 VI-A
 WB

 VI-C
 PAGE

  1-1
  12
  1-3
  1-7
 B-1

 11-2
 B-2
 Ik3
 H-3
 11-4
 11-4
 ItS
 IIM

 111-2
 Ilk6
 111-12
 111-13
 111-15
                                    IV1
 IV-3
 IV-3
 IVS
 IV-6
 V-1

 V2
 V2
 V-4
 V7
VH

VH
v^2

VM
                          ADMINISTRATION
                     • MONFTORING FINANOAL
                      COMMfTMENTS
                     • MONfrORING TECHNICAL
                      COMMfTMENTS
                     • COORDINATING WfTH
                      PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS
                     • DOCUMENTING ACTIVrTY
                     • DOCUMENTING COMPLETION

                           MODIFICATIONS
                        PROJECT ADJUSTMENTS
                        INITIATION OF RDBC
                        INfTIATION OF O&M
 VII
VII-A

vn-B

VlkC

vn-o
VII-E


VIII
V1H

VII- 1

vn-3

VII-5
                                                                                                                   VII-7
                                                                                                                   VIII- 1
VIII-A  	  	vm-i
VIII-B  	vm-3
VlltC  	VIII-7

-------
diagram illustrating the organization of this document.
Each chapter is represented by a frame of the diagram and
is shown in relation to other chapters.  Within each frame,
key activities are identified and reference is made to the
location in the document where the activity is discussed.

    Whenever possible, information common to both State and
EPA-lead remedial response has been consolidated in one
chapter.  This has been done in chapters concerning con-
current administrative events, and execution, administra-
tion, and modification of agreements.  Information pertain-
ing to the actual development of agreements is presented
separately to emphasize the different procedures involved
in the preparation of each instrument type.

    To assist the reader, each chapter in this document is
briefly outlined below:

         Chapter I - Introduction describes the context,
         purpose, organization, and scope of this document

         Chapter II - Concurrent Administrative Events
    .;    discusses administrative events that precede, or
         occur simultaneously with, the development of an
         agreement and also identifies the significance of
         these activities for developing and implementing
         the agreement instrument

         Chapter III - Development of Cooperative Agreement
         Application Packages describes key steps in the
         development of Cooperative Agreement application
         packages

         Chapter IV - Development of EPA-Lead Remedial
         Planning Agreements generally discusses the types
         of agreements that are appropriate and describes
         in detail key steps in the development of MOUs,
         which are the more complex of the EPA-lead
         planning agreements

         Chapter V - Development of Super fund State
         Contracts describes key steps in the development
         of SSCs

         Chapter VI - Execution of Remedial Agreements
         identifies procedures for reviewing and approving
         remedial response agreements
                            1-8

-------
         Chapter VII - Administration of Remedial Agree-
         ments identifies procedures for monitoring/
         coordinating, and documenting implementation of
         remedial response agreements

         Chapter VIII - Agreement Modifications discusses
         the purpose of, and identifies procedures for,
         project adjustments and new activity initiatives.

Appendices to the document contain examples, supplementary
information, EPA guidance memoranda, a glossary of terms,
and a list of references to documents and publications
providing additional detailed information.

    To assist EPA and State staff, charts summarizing indi-
vidual responsibilities for each administrative activity
described in this document can be found at  the beginning
of each chapter.  When appropriate, the charts also display
a list of work products and/or references to additional
sources of information.  These exhibits can serve as
"checklists" for EPA and State officials as they implement
the steps outlined in this document.
    The remainder of this document describes the develop-
ment and use of CERCLA remedial response agreements.   The
following chapter provides a brief description of events
that are usually initiated prior to or  concurrently with
the development of a remedial response  agreement, and
describes their significance to the development and imple-
mentation of agreement instruments.
                           1-9

-------
II.  CONCURRENT  ADMINISTRATIVE EVENTS

-------
                                  12/10/84
                                  Replacement Page II-1
           II.   CONCURRENT ADMINISTRATIVE EVENTS

   'While the focus of this document is on the development
of remedial response agreements, this process is more
fully understood in the context of a number of other
events likely to occur once a site is placed on the
National Priorities List  (NPL).  The following may be
among these:

         Initiation of enforcement activities to ensure
         that the proper groundwork is laid for potential
         future enforcement and cost recovery actions

         Initiation of forward planning activities to
         assess the need for removal and remedial
         responses, and to define an approach for
         enforcement activities

         Development of a site-specific schedule to
         tentatively schedule removal, remedial, and
         enforcement activities at the site

         Inclusion of remedial response activities at the
         site in the Remedial Accomplishments Plan (RAP)
         to tentatively schedule obligation of funds

         Development of the Action Memorandum for the site
         to document Regional Administrator approval of
         the first phase of the remedial response

         Identification and review of State credit
         submission to enable a State to apply its credit
         against its share of remedial costs

         Initiation of intergovernmental review procedures
         for applications for Federal assistance.

These activities have a significant bearing on the
development of remedial response agreements and thus are
the subject of this chapter.

    Concurrently with the events listed above, EPA and the
State need to consider and ultimately decide who will
assume lead management responsibility for directing the
remedial response activities at the site.  EPA and the
State should also.initiate community relations activities
and should' involve the Regional Superfund Community
                           II-l

-------
                                       12/10/84
                                       Replacement Page II-2
Relations Coordinator  (RSCRC)  in  their discussions
concerning  the  site.   More  detailed  information on
community relations activities  is provided in Community
Relations in  Superfund;  A  Handbook,  (interim version),
OERR,  September 1983.

    Responsibilities of  the SPO,  the  RSPO, and the Zone
Manager  for each event shown will be  discussed throughout
this chapter.   Exhibit Il-lr on the  following pages,
summarizes  these responsibilities and provides a list  of
additional  guidance cited in the  text.  The remainder  of
this chapter  discusses each of  the activities noted above.

A.  INITIATION  OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

    The  enforcement process begins immediately upon
inclusion of  a  site on the  NPL  through attempts to
identify potentially responsible  parties.  During these
preliminary stages, it is important  that the SPO, RSPO,
and Zone Manager:

         Share  information  about  responsible parties with
         State  and EPA enforcement staff to determine  the
         viability of  an enforcement  action

         Establish site  files and document all steps taken
         in the development of  a  remedial response
         agreement to  support any future cost recovery
         actions.

Subsequent to these initital efforts, remedial response at
the site should continue to be  coordinated with
enforcement staff.  This is crucial not only for cost
recovery purposes, but also to  ensure that any information
discovered during the  course of remedial activities, which
may enhance the potential for enforcement or voluntary
response, is shared with appropriate  State and EPA staff.

    Additional  information  on the importance of
documentation and the  establishment and maintenance of
site files is provided in Section VII.D of this document.
Detailed guidance on the enforcement  process is available
in Cost  Recovery Actions Under  CERCLA, Office of
Enforcement Counsel (OEC) and Office  of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER), August 26, 1983.

B.  INITIATION  OF FORWARD PLANNING

    In the past, EPA undertook  forward planning at a site
where remedial  activities were  contemplated, as soon as

                            II-2

-------
                                                       EXHIBIT II-l
                                             CONCURRENT ADMINISTRATIVE EVENTS
       ACTIVITY
           RESPONSIBILITIES
                                                                                              ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE
1.  Initiation of Enforcement
    Activities
2. Initiation of Preliminary
   Planning Activities
3. Development of the
   Site-Specific Schedule
4. Development of the
   Remedial Accomplish-
   ments Plan (RAP)
5.  Development of the
   Action Memorandum
SPO, RSPO, .    Assists in initiation of
and             enforcement process, as
ZONE MGR:       appropriate
                Coordinates with enforcement staff
                throughout response
                Maintains documentation files
                for future cost recovery

SPO:       .    Acts as chief point of contact
                in State
                Reviews output of planning, as
                needed

RSPO:      .    Initiates preliminary planning on
                as-needed basis
                Manages (through REM/FIT contractor)
                development of planning output
                Reviews/coordinates review of
                planning output
ZONE MGR:  .    Provides assistance, as necessary

SPO, RSPO, .    Individual responsibilities will be
and             defined after specific procedures are
ZONE MGR:       are developed.

SPO:       .    Provides input on site require-
                ments, as necessary

RSPO:      .    Identifies potential obligations
                in area of responsibility
                Drafts descriptions of proposed
                projects

ZONE MGR:  .    Coordinates HQ review and approval

SPO:       .    Provides information/assistance,
                as necessary

RSPO:      .    Develops Action Memo with SPO input

ZONE MGR:  .    Provides assistance, as necessary
Cost Recovery Actions Under
CERCLA, OEC and OSWER, August 26,
T9TF3
Community Relations in Super fund:
A Handbook (interim version),
OERR, September 1983 (Chapter 6)
REM/FIT Zone Contract Management
Procedures;  An Illustrated
Guide, HSCD, April 1983
Appendix B:
Guidance
Action Memorandum

-------
                                                 RXHTBIT II-l (Continued)
                                             CONCURRENT ADMINISTRATIVE EVENTS
       ACTIVITY
           RESPONSIBILITIES
                                                                                              ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE
   Proparation  and  Review of
   State  Credit Submissions
7.  Intergovernmental Review
S po:

R.SPO:


ZONE MGR:




SPO:
                                 RSPO
Submits credit claim to EPA

Reviews State credit claim
Makes formal submission to MQ

Coordinates recording of unverified
and verified credit accounts
with CERCLA Credit Coordinator

Initiates review of projects
(State-lead)
Includes review comments in
application package,
as appropriate (State-lead)
                Reviews application package for
                necessary comments (State-Lead)
                Includes review comments in fund-
                ing package,  as appropriate (EPA-
                Lead)  coordenates EPA response
                to review recommendation and/or
                comment, as appropriate
Appendix C:  Procedures  for
Processing CERCLA State  Credit
Claims
Executive Order 12372, Inter-
governmental Review of Federal
Programs, 47 FR 30959, July 14,
1982
Intergovernmental Review of EPA
Programs and Activities, 48
FR 29288, June 24, 1983 (40 CFR
29)
Appendix D: Procedures for Imple-
menting Integrovernmental Review
Notice of Supplemental Procedures
for Establishing Start Dates of
Comment Period for Activities
Subject to Executive Order 12372
(48 FR 54692)

-------
                                       12/10/84
                                       Replacement  Page  II-3
 feasible  after  the  site appeared  on  the NPL.  A  Remedial
 Action Master Plan  (RAMP) was used to present data
 compiled.  This document served as a preliminary planning
 tool that outlined  existing site  data and described
 proposed  remedial response and community relations
 activities.  RAMPs  also included  a detailed statement of
 work (SOW) for  the  first phase of remedial response at  the
 site.  This SOW, often with minimal revisions, could be
 used in the remedial response agreement covering that
 phase of  site activity.

    The Office of Emergency and Remedial Response  (OERR)
 has revised its forward planning  approach to enhance
 efficiency and flexibility.  This will usually result in
 less elaborate and  less expensive forward planning than
 did the RAMP approach.  The purposes of forward  planning
 activities are threefold:  1)  to develop
 technical/financial information to support requests for
 funds for subsequent remedial activities; 2)  to  evaluate
 the extent and utility of available data and to  identify
 additional data needs; and 3)  to identify administrative
 or procedural problems that may affect project
 implementation.  Forward planning may be tailored to
 respond to the specific needs or problems of the site in
 question, the State, and the Region.   In keeping with this
 emphasis on flexibility, the Superfund program now funds
 forward planning on a site-specific basis.   Funding for
 forward planning must be requested on the Region's
 Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP).

    Forward planning will generally be limited to sites  on
 the final or proposed NPL.   In rare circumstances,  forward
planning may be allowed at candidate NPL sites which have
 a quality assured Hazard Ranking System sccre above the
NPL cut-off (currently 28.5).   In addition,  at least one
of the  following criteria must be met:

         The State and EPA have initiated response
         activities at all NPL sites  in the  State and the
         State proposes forward planning at  sites
         scheduled for the next NPL update  (candidate NPL
         sites).  EPA will consider this only after the
         submission of documentation  describing the
         response activity at  each existing  NPL site and
         the date the activity either started or will
         start.
                           II-3

-------
                                      12/10/84
                                      Replacement Page II-4


         Forward planning  is needed at candidate NPL sites
         due to special situations, such as an existing
         public health threat.  In such situations, it is
         necessary  to prepare a written explanation
         describing why the activity is needed before
         adding the site(s) to the NPL.  This explanation
         must  indicate why remedial response is a more
         appropriate course of action than an immediate
         removal or enforcement.

A justification to  support funding forward planning at a
candidate NPL  site  must be submitted to the Director,
OERR, for review and approval.

    States can request funding for such activities at
State-lead sites by using  either of the following
procedures:

         Request EPA to task one of its remedial
         contractors to conduct the forward planning.  The
         RSPO  should prepare the SOW for these
         activities.  The  SOW should contain only those
         specific activities necessary prior to the
         implementation of a remedial
         investigation/feasibility study project.

         Prepare a  multi-site Cooperative Agreement
         application to fund State-managed forward
         planning activities (see Chapter III for
         additional guidance on multi-site Cooperative
         Agreements).  Exhibit II-2, on the following
         pages, contains an example of an SOW and budget
         breakdowns for State-lead forward planning
         activities.  This exhibit shows typical forward
         planning activities? specific applications may
         include activities that are in addition to or
         less  than  those presented in the exhibit.

    In either  case, Regional program office personnel will
be responsible for  initiating (where appropriate),
reviewing, and securing approval of the planning outputs
according to internal procedures established in each
Region.  In carrying out these responsibilities, however.
Regional program staff should coordinate closely with
contractor personnel and Regional and State enforcement,
legal, and community relations staffs as well as the SPO,
where one has  been  designated.
                           II-4

-------
                                                               12/10/84
                               EXHIBIT  II-2                  New Exhibit

           Sample SOV7 for  State-Lead Forward  Planning Activities

Statement of Work

Work to be carried out under this  cooperative agreement will Include Forward
Flaming for three sites on the  Superfund 11st.  These sites Include Peterson
Sand and Gravel (WS score 44.16),  Page! 's Pit  (HRS score 40.99), and
Sheff1el.d/U.S. Ecology (HRS score  34.22).

Forward planning for these State lead  Superfund sites will Include several
activities that need to be carried  out before Implementation of the RI/FS.
Work to be carried out will Include  the following activities.

1.  Review Data

    Data available at and near the  site of concern will be reviewed to develop
    an understanding of the extent  and nature of contamination problems at  the
    site.  This review of data will  Include an evaluation of the utility of
    available data and a determination of additional data needs.

2.  Pre-RI/FS Community Relations Activities

    Community relations activities will be carried out during the period
    between signing the MSCA  and the Initiation of the RI/FS.  Work activities
    will  Include responding to inquiries from the news media, adjacent
    property owners,  and elected officials and preparing news releases.
    Preliminary file searches and site visits will be necessary to carry out
    these activities.   A copy of all publically released materials will be
    sent to the RPO (Regional Project Officer).

3.  Develop Community  Relations Plan

    This  plan will  outline opportunities for public information and
    participation  during the  remedial investigation/feasibility study.   These
    activities to  develop the plan are summarized below.

    A.    Identify  constituency.  State community relations personnel  will
         survey the area to identify interest and potentially affected
         parties.   This group may include residents, local public officials,
         and other concerned  citizens.  This work effort will require travel
         to the site of concern.

    B.    Analyze level  of concern.  The level  of concern will be analyzed
         using methods  Including noting the attendance at and the response  to
         public meetings and workshops.  The level  of concern will be
         re-evaluated  as new  project phases are Initiated.

    C.    Schedule  of activities.  A schedule of activities will  be developed
         for Implementing the community relations plan.

    D.    File Search.   Files  at both IEPA Springfield headquarters and the
         appropriate field office will be Inspected.  This activity will be
         the first step in  developing the plan and provide a large part of  the
         first section  of the plan entitled "Background and Key Issues".

-------
                                                                 12/10/84
                                 EXHIBIT II-2  (Continued)    New
    E.   Interviews.  Interviews will be conducted with  adjacent property
         owners, •unldpal officials, local  health officials, and other
         Interested parties.  Key Issues will  be  Identified  during  these
         Interviews.

    F.   Site Inspection.  The site and surrounding  area will be visited prior
         to drafting the objectives of the plan.   The map  used  1n the plan
         will be prepared during this visit.

    G.   Mailing List.  Although the mailing 11st will change throughout the
         cleanup process, the bulk of the 11st will  be prepared before the
         first draft of the plan 1s finished.

4.  Develop a Statement of Work

    A Statement of Work will be developed for  each Super fund site Included in
    this MSCA In accordance with available guidance.  These SOWs will describe
    tasks to be carried out in the RI/FS for each site.  The SOWs developed in
    this effort will be used in the MSCA amendments  needed to begin RI/FS work
    activities.  Consultation with IEPA technical  staff  including Groundwater
    Advisor, Industrial Hygienlst, and Quality Assurance Officer will be
    necessary to develop the Statement of Work.   Prior to  expending any money
    budgeted for the RI/FS, this work scope, along with  any necessary budget
    adjustments, will be submitted to the RPO  for approval.  Funds  for
    equipment will be required in the RF/FS budget to purchase necessary
    safety and monitoring equipment.  Examples of equipment that may be needed
    include self-contained breathing apparatus and an organic vapor analyzer.

5.  Development of Request for Proposal

    This work activity will Include preparation of a Request for Proposal,
    review of proposals received, implementation  of  the  selection procedure,
    contract preparation, contract negotiations,  and completion of  contractor
    procurement.  A final selection of a contractor  will not be made until
    either a site specific cooperative agreement  or  an amendment to this
    multi-site agreement has been approved for completing  the remedial
    investigation/feasibility study.

6.  Quarterly Reports

    Quarterly reports will be submitted by the IEPA  to the USEPA reviewing the
    progress of various activities 1n this scope  of  work at  each site.  These
    reports will:

    A.   Review expenditures to date and expenditures since  the previous
         report by object class categories.

    B.   Estimate variance expected at project completion  based on  current
         project.

    C.   Project costs for monthly financial  transactions  for the remainder of
         the project.

    D.   Summarize work completed.

-------
                                                               12/10/84
                                EXHIBIT n-2  (Continued)    New Exhibit


7.  Schedule for Forward Planning Activities

    Forward Planning Activities  for each site will begin during the quarter
    preceding the quarter specified for  Initiating the RI/FS 1n the SCAP.
    (The SCAP Indicates  the  RI/FS will begin during the fourth, the second,
    and'.the second quarter,  1985 for Pagel's Pit,  Peterson  Sand and Gravel and
    Sheffield/U.S.  Ecology,  respectively.)  Forward Planning Activities  for
    each site will  end upon  approval of an amendment to this agreement for th-2
    RI7FS.
OC:ct/1716D,spl-57

-------
                                                      12/10/84
                                                      New Exhibit
                           EXHIBIT II-2 (Continued)
                       PAGEL'S PIT  .-
                     FORWARD PLANNING
PERSONNEL COSTS

Position Title

First Lin* Supervisor
Project Manager
Assistsnt Project Manager
On-Scene Coordinator
Co»»unity Relations Officer
Legal Clerk
Croundwster Advisor
Industrie! Hygienlst
Contract Administrator
Clerical
Quality Assurance Officer
TOTAL
         Annual
         Salary
         •42528.00
         •31056.OO
         •27732.00
         •31056.00
         •31056.00
         •37332.00
         •42526.00
         •31056.00
         •37332.00
         •15912.00
         927732.00
FRINGE BENEFITS

Retirement
Social Security
Insursnce
TOTAL

INDIRECT COSTS
   0.054 •
    O.07 •
•1180.OO •
                       0.7566
TRAVEL
          Origin/Destination
          Springfield/ New Milford
          Springfield/Chicago
Position Title
Project Manager

TOTAL

TOTAL FORWARD PLANNING
         Spf/New
         Spf/Chi
Work
Years
0.006
0.069
0.023
0
0.096
0.005
0.003
0.003
O.003
0.02
0.002
0.23
Cost

•255.17
•2142.86
•637.84
•0.00
•2981.38
•186.66
•127.56
•93.17
•112.00
•316.24
•55.46
•6910.36
          Cost

 •6910.36   S373.1B
 •6910.36   C483.72
     0.23   9271.40
           •1128.28

          Cost

 •8036.64  »6062.04
Cost per Round Trip
  •165.00
  •125.00

No. Trips Cost
        2   »330.00
        1   »125.00
            •455.00
                                           S6910
                                           • 1128
                                           • 6082
                                          S14575

-------
                                                      12/10/84
                                                      New Exhibit
                           EXHIBIT II-2 (Continued)
                 PETERSEN SAND AND GRAVEL
                     FORWARD PLANNING
PERSONNEL COSTS

Position Title

First Lin* Supervisor
Project Manager
Assistant Project Manager
On-Scene Coordinator
Comnunlty Relations Officer
Legal Clerk
Groundweter Advisor
Industrial Hygienlst
Contract Administrator
Clerical
Quality Assurance Officer
TOTAL
Annual
Salary
•42528.00
•31056.00
•27732.00
•31056. OC
•31056. OO
•37332.00
•42528. OO
•31056.00
•37332.00
•15912.00
•27732.00

Work
Years
0.006
0.069
0.023
O
O.O96
0.005
O.OO3
O.O03
O.O03
0.02
0.002
0.23
Cost

•255.17
•2142.86
•637.84
•0.00
•2981.38
•186.66
S127.58
• 93. 17
•112.00
•318.24
•55.46
•6910.36
FRINGE BENEFITS

Retirement
Social Security
Insurance
TOTAL

INDIRECT COSTS
   0.054
    0.07
•1180.00
                       0.7566 •
TRAVEL
          Origin/Destination
          Springfield/LibertyviHi
          Springfield/Chicago
Position Title
Project Manager

TOTAL

TOTAL FORWARD PLANNING
         Spf/Lib
         Spf/CM
          Cost

 •6910.36   «373.16
 •6910.36   «483.72
     0.23   «271.40
           •1123.28

          Cost

 •8038.64  86082.04
Cost per Round Trip
  •179.OO
  •125.00

No. Trips Cost
        2   S35tt.Ou
        1   «125.00
            •483.00
                                           5 1 1
                                           S606.

-------
                                                      12/10/84
                                                      New Exhibit
                           EXHIBIT II-2 (Continued)
                  SHEFFIELD/U. 5. EC8LOGY
                     FORWARD PLANNING
PERSONNEL C05T3

Position Title

First Lin* Supervisor
Project Manager
Assistant Project Manager
On-Scene Coordinator
Coimunity Ralationa Officer
Lagal Clark
Croundwatar Adviaor
Induatrial Hygieniat
Contract Adminlatrator
Clerical
Quality Aaauranca Officar
TOTAL
         Annual
         Salary
         •42528.00
         •31056.00
         •27732.00
         •31056.00
         •31056.OO
         •37332.00
         •42528.00
         •31056.OO
         •37332.00
         •15912.00
         •27732.00
FRINGE BENEFITS

Retirement
Social Sacurity
Inauranca
TOTAL

INDIRECT COSTS
   0.054
    O.O7
•1180.00
                       O.7566 •
TRAVEL
          Origin/Destination
          Springfiald/Shafflaid
          Springflaid/Chicago
Position Titla
Project Manager

TOTAL

TOTAL FORWARD PLANNING
         Spf/Naw
         Spf/Chi
Work
Years
O.01
0.075
0.026
0
0.1
O.O1
O.OOS
0.005
O.OOS
0.02
0.002
0.258
Cost

6425.28
•2329.20
•721.03
•O.OO
•3105. 6O
•373.32
•212.64
•155.28
•186.66
•318.24
•55.46
•7882.72
                                           S7883
          Coat

 •7882.72   «425.67
 •7882.72   •SSI.79
    0.258   C304.44
           •1281.90

          Coat

 •9164.61  C6933.95
Coat par Round Trip
  •138.OO
  •125.00

No. Trips Cost
        2   «276.00
        1   »125.00
            •401.00
                                           • 1282
                                           •6934
                                          S16500

-------
                                       12/10/84
                                       Replacement Page  II-5
C.  DEVELOPMENT  OF  SITE-SPECIFIC  SCHEDULES

    Prior  to  the initiation  of  remedial  activities  at  a
site  on  the NPL,  EPA will, in close coordination  with  the
State, develop a site-specific  schedule  for  the site in
question.  OSWER requires  the development of a schedule
for every  NPL site.  The schedule  is a tool  which will be
used  to  outline  all Superfund activities at  NPL sites  and
show  their scheduling  through completion of  response at
the site.  These activities  include remedial, removal,
enforcement,  and community relations activities.

    Additional guidance and  procedures will  be developed
and issued separately.

D.  DEVELOPMENT  OF THE REMEDIAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN (RAP)

    Another event that takes place prior to  the execution
of a  remedial response agreement is the  inclusion of a
remedial project  in the RAP.  The Regional accomplishments
planning process  consists of an Annual RAP and Quarterly
RAPs.  The Annual RAP  is a Region's master plan for
Superfund  remedial obligations expected to occur  during a
given fiscal  year; Quarterly RAPs provide detailed
schedules  for each of these expected obligations.  After
its RAP has been  approved, a Region may obligate  CERCLA
funds for  the activities,  subactivities, and amendments
included in its  RAP.  RAPs are monitored through  the
Program Control  System (PCS).

    Detailed  guidance for developing and modifying Annual
and Quarterly RAPs can be found in FY84 Regional  Superfund
Accomplishments Plan* OSWER, August 5, 1983, and  Modifying
the Remedial Accomplishments Plan  (RAP) , OSWER,
December 30,  1983.

E.  DEVELOPMENT OF THE ACTION MEMORANDUM

    Preparation of an Action Memorandum is another
important  administrative event which may occur prior to
the execution of  a remedial response agreement.  Action
Memoranda  are documents which Regions can use to  secure
the Regional Administrator's conceptual approval  of the
first remedial project to be implemented at a hazardous
waste site; a single Action Memorandum may also be used to
cover projects at more than one site within a State.
Following  approval of an Action Memorandum, the proposed
project'(s)  will be undertaken using either a Cooperative
                           II-5

-------
                                      12/10/84
                                      Replacement Page II-6


Agreement or an EPA-lead agreement.  Use of Action
Memoranda is discretionary, but is recommended to document
Regional concurrences on, and approval of, remedial
projects.

    Further information on the format of Action Memoranda
and an approved example can be found in Appendix B.

P-  PREPARATION AND REVIEW OF STATE CREDIT SUBMISSIONS

    Another step  taken prior to the development of an
agreement between EPA and the State is State
identification of any potential credits for which it might
be eligible under CERCLA, and subsequent EPA review and
audit of the State's claimed credits.  Such credits have a
direct bearing on the amount of a State's residual
cost-sharing obligation for remedial activities at a given
site.

    Based on the provisions of CERCLA section
104 (c) (3) (C), EPA will grant States a credit against their
share of costs under a Cooperative Agreement or an SSC for
expenditures or obligations that:

         Occured between January 1, 1978, and December 11,
         1980 (the CERCLA credit period)

         Have been properly documented, based on Circular
         A-87 of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

         Represent direct costs, as defined by OMB
         Circular A-87

         Are eligible for payment under CERCLA, as defined
         in CERCLA section 111

         Are site-specific

         Were neither used as required match for other
         Federal programs nor reimbursed by another
         Federal or State agency or by a responsible party.

Costs that meet these criteria may be counted as State
credit,  subject to EPA approval.  The credit will be
site-specific, and may therefore be used only for remedial
activities at the site for which it was accrued.  A State
will not be reimbursed for any credit remaining after
remedial implementation at that site has been completed.
                           II-6

-------
                                       12/10/84
                                       New  Page  II-7
    To  obtain EPA approval on  its claimed credit,  a  State
must prepare a credit claim and submit  it for  review to
the appropriate EPA Region prior to or  early  in  the
development of a Cooperative Agreement  or an  SSC.  Credit
claims  should be written  in letter form and should follow
the procedures detailed in Appendix C.  EPA's  review and
audit procedures are also contained in  Appendix  C.

G.  INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW

    In  accordance with OMB Circular A-95, States/applicants
in the  past submitted applications for  Federal assistance
to designated clearinghouses for review.  This formal
review  process identified potential duplication  of effort
or lack of coordination with other State and Federal
projects.

    On  July 14, 1982, the President signed Executive Order
12372,  "Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs."
The Order directed OMB to revoke A-95 and to  implement a
flexible, elective review system relying on
State-established procedures.   The effective date for
implementing regulations and ending the A-95 review  system
was September 30, 1983.  EPA,  along with other Federal
agencies subject to the Executive Order, published its
final rule and related Federal Register notices on June
24, 1983.  This rule is 40 CFR Part 29, "Intergovernmental
Review  of the Environmental Protection Agency Programs snd
Activities" (48 FR 29288) .

    Detailed procedures to implement the regulations as
they apply to both State and EPA-lead Super fund remedial
agreements can be found in Appendix D.  For the benefit of
concerned individuals, the Appendix defines roles of EPA
and State staff, provides reprints of the regulation and
associated Federal Register notices,  and contains sample
letters to formally initiate review of proposed remedial
projects.
    This chapter has provided information on
administrative events which serve as a foundation for the
procedures described in the remainder of this document.
The next three chapters -- Development of Cooperatiave
Agreement Application Packages (Chapter III), Development
of EPA-Lead Remedial Planning Agreements (Chapter IV), and
Development of Super fund State Contracts (Chapter V) -~
discuss the steps taken while developing draft agreements.
                           II-7

-------
III.   DEVELOPMENT OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
           APPLICATION PACKAGES

-------
        III.  DEVELOPMENT OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
                   APPLICATION PACKAGES
    At sites where the State has opted to assume lead
management responsibility for a remedial project, an
agreement vehicle is needed which can be used to provide
funding assistance to the State as well as to document
responsibilities and obtain State assurances.  A Coopera-
tive Agreement is the appropriate instrument for carrying
out these functions.  Even where remedial action is
managed by EPA, a Cooperative Agreement must be used to
provide any EPA funds for sharing in operation and mainte-
nance (O&M) costs.

    Most Cooperative Agreements negotiated will be site-
specific.  However, a State may choose to develop a
multi-site Cooperative Agreement which covers remedial
investigation/feasibility study projects at more than one
site.  States also have the option of entering into a
single Cooperative Agreement which will cover costs for a
State-lead project as well as costs which the State incurs
for EPA-lead projects.  When the State elects to utilize a
single agreement for both purposes, its Cooperative Agree-
ment application must meet the requirements described in
this chapter as well as those outlined in Section IV.D of
this document.

    This chapter describes the activities necessary to
develop a Cooperative Agreement application package that
will ultimately result in an executed Cooperative Agree-
ment.  These procedures are applicable for both site-
specific and multi-site Cooperative Agreements.

    Exhibit III-l, on the following page, identifies
activities and organizational responsibilities for
developing a Cooperative Agreement application package.
In addition, it shows primary/lead roles for developing a
request for a deviation from EPA's General Regulation for
Assistance Programs (40 CFR 30)  to permit the allowability
of costs incurred by the State prior to award of the
Cooperative Agreement; a deviation request is sometimes
submitted concurrently with the Cooperative Agreement
application package.  As shown in the exhibit, the State
has primary responsibility for developing a Cooperative
Agreement application package.  The State official who
assumes this role -- usually the SPO -- should consult
                           III-l

-------
                                                               .  I1I-1
                                             DEVELOPMENT OF COOPERATIVE AGRF.EMENTS
    ACTIVITY
                                       RESPONSIBILITIES
                                                                              WORK  PRODUCTS
1.   Development  of  the  Cooperative
    Aqreement  application  package
    (includes  development  of  the
    application  form, development
    of  agreement provisions,  com-
    pletion  of procurement system
    certification form,  and
    submission.of other
    documents).!/
SPO:
                                       RSPO:
                                       ZONE
                                            Develops Cooperative
                                            Agreement application  form
                                            Develops Cooperative
                                            Agreement provisions
                                            Submits Procurement       •'
                                            System Certification Form
                                            Submits Community
                                            Relations Plan
                                            Submits certification
                                            letter
                                            Submits intergovernmental
                                            review comments  (where
                                            necessary)

                                            Provides consultation
                                            and  technical assistance
                                            to  the SPO,  as requested

                                            Supports RSPO, as  re-
                                            quested
Completed Application for Federal Assistance
-- State and Local Nonconstruction Programs
(EPA Form 5700-33)
Completed set of provisions as part of
Cooperative Agreement application package
Completed Procurement System Certification Form
for Applicants for EPA Assistance  (EPA  Form
5700-48)
Community Relations Plan
Letter from Governor or Attorney General
certifying the authority of the official
signing the Cooperative Agreement to do so
and to make any necessary CERCLA section
104(C)(3) assurances
Intergovernmental review comments and EPA
response (if appropriate)
2.   Deviation Request to Permit
    the Allowability of Pre-Award
    Costs
                                   SPO:
                                       RSPOs
                                       ZONE
                                       MGR:
         Determines need for deviation
         request to establish the
         allowability of costs
         incurred prior to award
         Develops deviation request
         (where necessary)

         Submits deviation request to
         Regional Administrator for
         concurrence
         Submits approved request to
         EPA HO for approval

         Coordinates IIQ concurrences
         and approval of deviation request
Deviation request
Approved deviation
is activity is comprised of  four  distinct  steps  which  are  addressed  separately  in  the  text.
this chart in an effort to simplify the presentation of  responsibilities.
                                                                                                 They  have  been combined in

-------
closely with EPA's RSPO for that site throughout develop-
ment of the application package.  Additional support is
available through the EPA Headquarters Zone Manager.

    Exhibit III-2, on the following page, summarizes key
requirements of  the Cooperative Agreement application
package and may  be used as a checklist in developing the
application package.  As shown in this exhibit, the
application package consists of the Cooperative Agreement
application form (EPA Form 5700-33) and a number of
attachments.  Each part of the package is discussed in
this chapter.  In addition, an example of a completed
application package is shown in Appendix G.

A.  COMPLETION OF THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT APPLICATION
    FORM

    The State must use an Application for Federal Assis-
tance  - State and Local Nonconstruction Programs (EPA Form
5700-33) when applying for a remedial Cooperative Agree-
ment under CERCLA.  This form consists of five parts:

         Part I  - General Summary Information
         Part II - Project Approval Information
         Part III - Budget information
         Part IV - Project Narrative Statement
         Part V  - Assurances.*

General instructions for completing each part are included
in the application form.

    Additional information on completing Part III - Budget
Information and  Part IV - Project Narrative Statement is
provided in this section.  These parts of the application
form are subject to remedial program-specific require-
ments.  Part IV  is discussed first, since its completion
is necessary prior to fully addressing Part III.  Other
sections are more straightforward and therefore do not
require explanation in this document.

A.1  Part IV - Project Narrative Statement

    A Project Narrative Statement has two important
components:   (1)  a brief explanation of the problems and
history of the site or sites and (2) a statement of work
    These assurances are different from, and in addition
    to, those required under CERCLA section 104 (c) (3)  and
    other program requirements.
                           III-2

-------
                                                          KXIIlofT 111-2

                                      COOPERATIVE  AGREEMENT  APPLICATION  PACKAGE CHECKLIST
COMPONFNT/ELEMFNT
         SUBMISSION
             GUIDANCE
1. Application for Federal Assistance

      Part I-Genetal Summary information

      Part II-Project Approval Information

      Part III-Budqet Information*


      Part IV-Project Narrative Statement*


      Part V-Assurances

2. Cooperative Agreement Provisions

      General Assistance Provisions
      Superfund Program Provisions



 3. Procurement System Certification


 4. Other Submissions

      Community Relations Plan  (CRP)



      Pertification Letter
       Intergovernmental  Review Comments
Part l, completed and signed

Part II, completed

Part III, completed
Detailed budget breakdown

Site background summary
Statement of work

Pact V, completed
Provisions stating intent to comply
with EPA regulations, statutes,
and other general Agency require-
ments

CERCLA section 104(c)(3) assurances
Provisions stating intent to follow
other program requirements

Completed RPA Form 5700-48
Draft CRP included in draft applica-
tion package; final CRP in final
application package

Letter signed by Governor or Attorney
General  (or designee) certifying that
agency entering into the C/A has
author ity to do so and to make the
assurances required by CFRCLA
sect ion  104 (c) (3)

Comments  included, as appropriate
5700-33 Instructions

5700-33 Instructions

5700-33 Instructions
Guidance, Section III.A.2

Guidance, Section III.A.I
Model SOW in Appendix E

5700-33 Instructions
40 CFR 30
40 CFR 33
Guidance, Section III.B.I
Guidance, Appendix F, Section 1

Guidance, Section III.B.2
Guidance, Appendix F, Section 2
5700-48 Instructions
Guidance, Section III.C
Guidance, Section III.0.1
Guidance, Appendix K


Guidance, Section I II.0.2
Guidance, Appendix J
40 CFR 29
Guidance, Section 11.G
Guidance, Section I I I.0.3
  •Kor multi-site Cooperative Agreements, the State should submit  imlivMu.il budget breakdowns  and  project  nairative  statements
   for each project  to be  included under  the Agreement.

-------
 (SOW).  The  exposition  of problems and history will be
 specific  to  each agreement and  is therefore not discussed
 here  in detail; however/ it should include a site chro-
 nology, for  each site covered by the Agreement, which
 highlights past removals and emergency actions taken at
 the site  and outlines any coordination necessary.  Con-
 versely,  the format of  a SOW should be similar for many
 sites and is therefore  discussed below.

    The SOW  describes the purpose and scope of activities
 and tasks to be carried out as a part of the proposed
 project.  When the Cooperative Agreement covers work at
 more  than one site, a separate SOW should be submitted for
 each  site-specific project to be undertaken in addition to
 a SOW for the overall management and coordination activi-
 ties.  For each activity/subactivity, the SOW should
 include a description of necessary subactivities/tasks
 with  estimated start and completion milestones.  Where
 appropriate, the SOW should also identify outputs and may
 contain cost estimates  for each subactivity and task.

    In general, the SOW for a remedial investigation/
 feasibility  study can be obtained from one of three
 sources:

         The RAMP, if one has been prepared

         The REM/FIT contractor, as the output of a
         special task order from Regional program office
         personnel

         The State, which can prepare it through a con-
         tractor or using State staff.

 If State staff prepare the SOW for inclusion in the
Cooperative Agreement application, it can be based on the
model SOW shown in Appendix E.   For remedial design
projects,  the conceptual design requirements contained in
 the feasibility study can serve as the  basis for SOW
development.   The SOW for a remedial  action will normally
be prepared  as part of the remedial design.

A.2  Part III - Project Budget

    Sources of information for  developing the project
budget will vary,  depending on  the type of project in
question.   The proposed budget  for a  remedial investigation/
feasibility study project may be based  upon the cost
estimates  in the RAMP, if available,  upon cost estimates
developed  by the REM/FIT contractor,  or upon modified
                           III-3

-------
standard cost estimates.  If the State uses standard costs
to develop  its project budget, persons in the State or
Region with knowledge about the site in question should be
consulted so that the standard costs can be altered to
reflect site conditions and the project at hand.  For
remedial design and remedial implementation activities,
the proposed project budget is normally developed simul-
taneously with the SOW; the chart in Exhibit III-3, on the
following page, can be used to assist the State in esti-
mating total remedial implementation project costs.  In
any case, the budget should identify total project costs
for all ac_tiy_itjLes, subactiyities, and J^asks to be com-
pleted.  When the Cooperative Agreement is designed to
cover projects at more than one site, individual budget
breakdowns  should be submitted for each project to be
undertaken.

    The project budget should be displayed in the Coopera-
tive Agreement application package both in summary form
and in detail.  Using the budget formats included in Part
III of the  application, Project Budget Information, the
applicant should summarize Federal and State costs for
each proposed activity and subactivity; appropriate
activity codes and their associated subactivities can be
found in Exhibit N-l in Appendix N.  Management costs can
be included in this budget breakdown, but total management
costs, including those associated with the individual
activities  listed, should generally not exceed the guide-
lines of 8-12 percent of project costs.  The applicant
should also identify costs for each activity and sub-
activity in the application by object class category (e.g.
personnel,  travel, contractual, etc.); appropriate object
class categories for use in completing the Cooperative
Agreement application are shown in Exhibit III-4, follow-
ing Exhibit III-3.

    To assist EPA staff in determining whether proposed
costs are reasonable and meet applicable EPA requirements,
the State should attach to the application form a detailed
project budget, showing estimated costs for each proposed
task.  This attachment should also contain detailed
information on elements of object class categories.
Exhibit III-5, following Exhibit III-4, shows the appro-
priate level of detail for each object class category; an
example can be found in Appendix G.

A.2.a  Allowable Costs

    The State should ensure that costs to be included in
the application are allowable for payment under CERCLA.
To be allowable, proposed costs must be consistent with
                           III-4

-------
                                        EXHIBIT III-3
             FIGURES FOR USE  IN ESTIMATING TOTAL STATE-LEAD REMEDIAL ACTION COSTS
       ITEM

Supervision and Administration

Engineering and Design Support
During Construction

Contingencies*
                                  REM. ACTION ESTIMATES
                                  LESS THAN $2.000,000

                                              8%

                                            1.5%


                                             10%
 REM. ACTION ESTIMATES
GREATER THAN $2,000,000

        6%

        1%


        8%
TOTAL**
                                           19.5%
       15%
**
Contingency rates are applied to total project costs,  including overhead and
profit.

Supervision and administration figures shown apply to  costs for State
personnel, travel, etc., not covered by the contractual object class category
(except where the State will let contracts for these functions)j other items
shown will normally be covered by contractual and/or construction categories,
except when conducted in-house.

-------
    CATEGORY
                          KXMFBIT  I I 1-4
        OBJRCT CLASS  CATRGOHIRS  FOR  USE  IN COMPLETING THE
                COOPERATIVE  AGRRRMENT  APPLICATION

                                   CONTENT
Personnel
Fi i ncje Benefits
Travel
F.qu ipment
Materials and Supplies

Contractual Services
Construction
Other Direct Costs
Indirect Costs
The State may include the costs of all wages ;.^id to State employees who are, for example:

     enqaginq in response activities
     directly manaqing State employees engaged in response
     managing subagreements awarded under the Agreement.

These costs can be calculated on either a percentage of time or level of effort basis.

The State may include fringe benefits for State employees, calculated as a fixed percentage of
salary or by some other agreed-upon method.

The State may include costs incurred by State employees for travel necessary for the conduct of
the proposed remedial activities.

The State may include the purchase price of  any necessary equipment that it will furnish, less
its residual value after the completion of the project.  If equipment costs are based on usage
rates, the State must:

     use a standard depreciation usage method
     document initial costs, expected life,  and residual value in accordance with OMB Circular
     A-102, Attachment N.

The State may include the purchase price of any necessary materials and supplies it will  furnish.

The State may include all costs associated with reimbursing contractor services, including
direct and indirect contractor costs and a reasonable profit.  These costs,  to  the extent
possible, should be limited to personal services and nonconstruction contracts  (see 40 CFR  Part
33 and OMB Circular A-87).*

The State may include all costs associated with reimbursing contractor services, including
direct and indirect contractor costs and a reasonable profit.  These costs,  to  the extent
possible, should be limited to construction contracts  (see 40 CFR Part 33 and OMB Circular
A-87) .*

The State may include other direct costs, such as equipment rental, real property purchase,  and
miscellaneous costs.  If the State purchases real property, it must agree to comply with  th_e
property requirements of 40 CFR Part 30.

The State may include indirect costs.
*In accordance with the Prompt Payment Act (PL 97-177), however, Federal funds may not be used  for payment of  interest  penalties
to contractors when bills are paid late.

-------
CATEGORY
             EXHIBIT III-5
ITEMIZATION OF OBJECT CLASS CATEGORIES:
      APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF DETAIL

                  INFORMATION TO BE SHOWN
Personnel
Fringe Benefits
Travel
Equipment
Materials and Supplies
Contractual Services
Construction
                 Positions of staff required
                 Number of hours necessary
                 Salary of staff  (annual or
                 hourly rate)
                 Estimates of personnel costs,
                 by position

                 Basis  (percentage or other)
                 upon which fringe benefits are
                 calculated
                 Estimates of fringe benefit
                 costs, by position

                 Purpose and estimated number of
                 trips
                 Starting point and destination
                 Transportation method
                 Per diem while on travel
                 Number of persons traveling
                 Estimated cost per trip

                 Number and type(s) of equipment
                 to be purchased
                 Price of each piece

                 Type(s) of materials and
                 supplies to be furnished
                 Total prices

                 Estimated number of personal
                 services for nonconstruction
                 contracts to be let
                 Nature of contract services
                 Estimated total costs for each
                 contract*

                 Estimated number of construction
                 contracts to be let
                 Nature of contract services
                 Estimated total costs for each
                 contract*
  *It is recommended that estimates be sufficient to allow
for unforeseen costs and contingencies which may occur during
contract performance.

-------
section 111 of CERCLA and with Federal cost principles
outlined in the OMB Circular A-87, "Cost Principles for
State and Local Governments."  The State may also seek
assistance from the RSPO in determining which costs may be
allowable.  Final determination of the reasonableness of
the cost estimates in the application will be made by the
EPA Award Official.

A.2.b  Enforcement Costs

    Certain enforcement costs attributable to site-specrfic
activities are allowable under CERCLA, according to OSWER
guidance.  Among specific enforcement costs that may be
included in the project budget are those associated with
identification of responsible parties, investigation,
gathering of evidence, and preparation of expert witness
testimony.  Enforcement costs that may not be included in
the project budget are those directly attributable to
litigation and to overall enforcement program management,
including court costs and legal fees.  For background on
EPA's policy in this area, see "Payment of State Enforce-
ment Costs Under Superfund," OSWER, January 21,  1983,
contained in Appendix P of this document.

A.2.C  Calculation of State Cost Share

    To complete the project budget for Part III  of the
Cooperative Agreement application form, the State must
identify both the Federal and non-Federal (if any)  costs
for each activity.  Current EPA policy is to not require
State cost-sharing for remedial planning (remedial investi-
gation/feasibility study and remedial design)  at privately-
owned sites (see "Waiver of 10 Percent Cost Share for
Remedial Planning Activities at Privately-Owned  Sites,"
OSWER, May 13, 1983,  included in Appendix P).  CERCLA
section 104 (c) (3) (C)  requires a State to provide 10
percent of the costs for remedial implementation at
privately-owned sites and at least 50 percent of response
costs (including removals and remedial planning  costs)  at
publicly-owned sites.  However, provision of a State's
cost-sharing obligation is required only in an Agreement
covering CERCLA-funded remedial implementation;  no cost-
sharing is required for a Cooperative Agreement  covering
only remedial planning, regardless of site ownership.

    Once EPA, after consultation with the State, has
determined the appropriate cost-sharing percentage, if
any, the State should multiply the total cost of the
project by this figure to identify the total State share.
(If this is a publicly-owned site and the project involves
                          III-5

-------
remedial implementation, the State should also add its
share of removal and remedial planning costs to arrive at
its total share.)  Then the State should subtract any
available State credit  (see Section II.F and Appendix C of
this guidance for further discussion of State credits) , up
to 100 percent of the State share, to determine its
remaining cost-sharing obligation for the project.  The
Federal share is the difference between total project
costs and the State's share.  The State should identify
these costs and note the use of any credit in the appro-
priate sections of Part III of the application, form --
Project Budget.  For the benefit of State staff, examples
of these calculations are shown in Exhibit III-6, on the
following page.

    Prior to the May 13, 1983 rescission of the 10 percent
cost-sharing policy, States shared in remedial planning
costs at some privately-owned sites.  Under current EPA
policy, any cost shares previously paid by the State
(allowable State services, statutory credit, or cash)  for
these activities may be applied to the State's cost-sharing
obligation during remedial implementation at the site.
Such cost shares may have been included in the Cooperative
Agreement budget under the previous EPA policy.  If the
State provided remedial planning cost share prior to the
May 13 decision, the State may apply this toward its
ultimate cost share during remedial implementation.

B.  DEVELOPMENT OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT PROVISIONS

    Cooperative Agreements for remedial response at sites
under CERCLA are subject to a number of legal and adminis-
trative requirements that affect the implementation of the
project funded.  The State should address each of these
subjects, as appropriate, in provisions included in its
Cooperative Agreement application package.  After the
State has submitted its application, the RSPO should
discuss with the State any requirements not adequately
addressed and should meet them through the addition of
appropriate special conditions to the Cooperative Agree-
ment.  Types of requirements fall into two broad cate-
gories:  general assistance provisions and program provi-
sions, both of which are discussed below.  Specific
examples can be found in Appendix F.

B.I General Assistance Requirements

    Superfund remedial Cooperative Agreements are subject
to certain general Agency requirements which apply to all
applications for financial assistance from EPA.  One of
                           III-6

-------
Example 1
Example 2
                                                            EXHIBIT  III-6
                                                    STATE COST SHARE CALCULATIONS
                                                (for  remedial  implementation projects)
                          Total  remedial  implementation cost  = $550,000
                          State  cost-sharing percentage •=  10  percent  (privately-owned site)
                          State  credit  =  none
                   Total  remedial  implementation cost
                      $550,000
                State cost-sharing percentage
                   10 percent
               State  Cost  Share
               $55,000
                   The  State  is  required  to contribute $55,000  in cash or  services;  EPA  will  provide  the  remaining  $495,000  for  the
                   remedial  implementation.
                           Total  remedial  implementation  cost  -  $550,000
                           State  cost-sharing  percentage  =  10  percent  (privately-owned  site)
                           State  credit  -  $35,000
                    Total  remedial  implementation  cost
                        $550,000

                    State  cost  share
                        $55,000
          x     State cost-sharing percentage
          x        10 percent

                State credit
                   $35,000
               State Cost Share
               $55,000

               State Obligation
               $20.000
                   The  State  is  required  to  contribute  $20,000  in  cash oc  services;  the remainder  of  the State cost share is met by
                   applying  the  State  credit.   EPA will provide $530,000  for  the remedial  implementation.
Example 3
                           Total  remedial  Implementation  cost  *  $550,000
                           State  cost-sharing  percentage  »  50  percent (publicly-owned site)
                           State  cost  share  for  remedial  planning  «  $50,000
                           State  credit  =  $350,000
                   Total  remedial
                     implementation cost
                        $550,000
x   State cost-sharing percentage
x      50 percent
                   Remedial planning cost  share  +  Remedial  implementation cost share
                        $50,000                  +     $275,000
                   Total State cost  share
                        $325,000
- Stafp credit (up to 100 percent
     of Stato cost share)
     $325,000
=  State Cost Share for Remedia; Implementation
*  $275,000

=  Total State Cost Share
*  $325,000

=  State Obligation

=  0
                    EPA  funds  100  p.-tc.-nt  of  all  project  costs under  the Cooperative Agreement.  Of the $350,000 credit, $325,000 has
                    beon  appli»
-------
these is EPA's General Regulation for Assistance Programs
(40 CFR Part 30~This regulation explains the manner in
which a State must manage a project performed under a
Cooperative Agreement and outlines other responsibilities
that the State must assume following award of funds.

    Also among general assistance requirements is Procure-
ment Under Assistance Agreements (40 CFR Part 33), EPA's
regulation for any procurements made under a Cooperative
Agreement; key points of this regulation are summarized in
Exhibit III-7, on the following page.*  In considering
procurement requirements, the State should be sure to
address the provisions of section 33.240, which establish
six affirmative steps that States must take to ensure that
small and disadvantaged businesses are used, when possible,
as sources of supplies, construction, and services.  These
requirements have been reinforced by Executive Order 12432,
Minority Business Enterprise Development, signed by the
President on July 14, 1983.  Executive Order 12432 reiter-
ates the Federal government's commitment to small and dis-
advantaged business by setting forth a program aimed at
developing such enterprises.  Procedures developed under
the Executive Order stipulate that EPA will establish
"Fair Share" objectives for awards to minority (MBE) and
women's (WBE) business enterprises; that the State must
set its own objectives and must advertise them in all
Requests for Proposal and Invitations for Bids; and that
the State must report, on a quarterly basis, on its utili-
zation of MBEs and WBEs.  These requirements apply to all
Superfund Cooperative Agreements, including those awarded
by the remedial program.

    The State should address all general assistance
requirements in its Cooperative Agreement application by
including applicable provisions.  Specific requirements,
additional background information,  and examples of accept-
able provisions can be found in Section 1 of Appendix F.

B.2  Superfund Program Requirements

    In addition to the general EPA assistance and procure-
ment requirements, there are program-specific requirements
for Cooperative Agreements awarded under CERCLA.  Provi-
sions addressing these requirements are necessary to assure
compliance with CERCLA statutory requirements and Superfund
program policy and procedures.  These provisions are sum-
marized in Exhibit III-8, following Exhibit III-7.
    Development of the Procurement System Certification
    Form, one requirement of this regulation, is discussed
    in the following section of this chapter.
                           III-7

-------
      TITLE
                            F.XIIiniT MI-7
            SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS FOR PROCUREMENT UNUER
                  ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS (40  CFR 33)
           	SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENT
                                                                                                                       SECTION
Recipient  Responsibility
Submission of  Information
Limitation  on  Subagreement
  Award

Competition
Profit

Small, Minority, Women's,
  and Labor  Surplus
  Area Businesses

Oocumentat ion
Speci fications

Bonding  and  Insurance

Code of  Conduct


Federal  Cost Principles

Prohibited Types of
  Subaqreements

Cost and Price
  Considerations

Lower Tier Subagreements


Small Purchase

Formal Advertising


Competitive Negotiation

Noncompetitive Negotiation

Requirements for Recipients
  of Remedial Action
  Cooperative Agreements
  under CERCr.A

Subagreement Provisions
System must ensure that contractors perform in accordance with all applicable             33.210
contract requirements

Recipient must inform Award Official of construction Subagreements totalling              33.211
over $10,000 per year

System must consider listed factors in determining contractor responsibility              33.220


System must have procurement transaction procedures which provide maximum open and        33.230
free competition

System procedures must allow only fair and reasonable profits to contractors              33.235

System must award a fair share of sub-agreements to such businesses according to          33.240
six affirmative steps specified


System must require that procurement records and files for purchases over                 33.2SO
$10,000  include items specified

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            33.270
dealing with contractors

System procedures for determining allowable costs must meet the specified principles      33.275

System may not allow cost-plus-percentage-of-cost (multiplier) or                         33.285
percentage-of-construction types of contracts

System procedures must allow for consideration of cost and price, as specified            33.290


System must provide that Subagreements below the first tier comply with all               33.295
provisions specified

System small purchase method must meet specified requirements                             33.305-315

System procedures relating to formal advertising, including those for bidding             33.405-430
documents and contract awards,  must meet the specified requirements

System procedures for competitive negotiation must meet the specified requirements        33.505-535

System procedures For noncompetitive negotiation must meet the specified requirements     33.605

Subpart  requires use of formal  advertising for remedial action construction               Subpart E
procurcmt'itts unless determined  not to be appropriate (not applicable for remedial
planning 01  for engineering services)


Sulipnrt  includes t_he clauses which must he contained in suhagrcements for procurement     Subpart F

.'iuhpai t  ..|i(ili<>s to all  applicants foi  EPA assistance except non-profit organizations      Subpart G

-------
                                                          EXHIBIT  III-8
                         SUMMARY OP -SIIPERFUND PROGRAM PROVISIONS FOR COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT APPLICATIONS
     SUBJECT
                                                                    DESCRIPTION
CEPCI.A Section 104(c)(1)
Assurances

State Ctedit
Fund Balancing
Development of Recommen-
dations According to NCP

Floodplain Requirements
Duties of the RSPO and
SPO

Site Access and Permits

Community Relations Plan

            4
Site Safety Plan

Access to Files

Reporting Requirements

Submission of Documents

Responsible Party
Activities

Conflict of fnterest

Emergency Response

Negation of Agency
Relationship

Notice of Settlement

Cooperation and Coordina-
tion In Cost Recovery
Kffor ts

U.S. District  rourt

I, it ig.it ion Under CFRCI.A
Suction 106 or 107

Shdring in Cost Recovery
Applications proposing remedial action must contain assurances that  State  will  provide all  future
operation and maintenance and an off-site facility, if applicable

If State uses credit to provide some of its cost share, this  is documented;  if  credit  is not
verified, State agrees to EPA adjustment in cost share, if needed  following  verification

Provision that funding future activities at a site is dependent upon the need to  respond at  other
sites and that EPA is not obligated to fund further activities

State agrees to develop feasibility study recommendations in accordance with the  NCP


State agrees to evaluate potential effects of remedial action in the floodplain,  pursuant to
Executive Order 11988 (used when site is located in a floodplain)

State and EPA specify relevant duties of the SPO and RSPO


State agrees to secure site access and permits necessary to conduct  the project

State agrees to allow period for public comment on recommendations of  feasibility study;  State  also
assures  that CRP will be implemented during remedial response

State agrees to submit Site Safety Plan to EPA prior to beginning on-site  activities

State agrees to allow RPA access to its site files and to designate confidential  information

State agrees to submit quarterly reports on site progress to  RSPO  for  review

State agrees to forward site-specific documents to RSPO for review during  progress of  activities

EPA and  State agree  to modify the Agreement if responsible parties will perform or pay for
the performance of activities

State agrees to require potential contractors to submit information on responsibility  for the site

State agrees that remedial activities nay be suspended if emergency  response is required

State agrees that no relationship of agency exists between EPA and State in  response activities


EPA and  State agree  to notify each other before settlement with or action  against responsible party

EPA and  State agree  to coordinate and cooperate in future cost recovery efforts



RPA and  State a or  107 of CKRI.CA
Slate agrees to share recovered costs with KPA  in proportion  to
r espouse under CKHCI.A (used only where the Slate has  filed a  cos
uition to EPA's participation in remedial
                                                                                              t  recovery action)

-------
    The SPO should discuss these Super fund program needs
with the RSPO while developing the Cooperative Agreement
application package to determine which requirements apply
to the proposed activities and site conditions.  Require-
ments should be addressed in the application on a site-
specific basis, as appropriate.  Where the application
package is deficient, OERR needs will be met by the
addition of special conditions to the Cooperative Agree-
ment prior to award.

    Appendix F contains background information on program-
specific requirements and sample language for special
conditions which may be used to address those requirements
The State may adapt this language for use in provisions to
be included in its Cooperative Agreement application, but
salient points must be adequately addressed.  In addition,
the subjects of several of these provisions are discussed
in detail below.                                   •

B.2.a  Provision of CERCLA Section 104 (c) (3) Assurances

    Section 104 (c) (3) of CERCLA requires the State to make
three separate assurances concerning a remedial action:
provision of off-site treatment, storage, or disposal,
responsibility for operation and maintenance (O&M), and
cost-sharing.  These assurances, if necessary for the
project in question, must be documented in the State's
Cooperative Agreement application package.

    When the SOW in the application contains a remedial
action that requires off-site treatment, storage, or
disposal, the State must include an assurance that it will
locate and enter into an agreement with an appropriate
facility for treatment, storage, or disposal of site
wastes.

    When the SOW in the application contains a remedial
action that requires O&M, the State must include an
assurance that it will assume responsibility for all O&M
for the life of the remedy.  In such cases, the SOW should
also include as a task the development of an O&M plan,
which should at least contain 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 responsibility
                           III-8

-------
          Description and duration of O&M activities

          Summary of O&M staffing needs

          Summary of O&M performance standards

          Contingency plan for handling abnormal occurrences

          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.

In addition, the appropriate remedial implementation
subagreement under the Cooperative Agreement must include
a provision that the contractor is responsible for project
startup and for certifying that the designed remedy is
functional and operational.  After this has been done, EPA
may, for  up to one year, provide assistance to the State
for project O&M at the same rate of cost share as for the
remedial  action.  The Cooperative Agreement covering the
remedial  action may be amended to remain in effect until
the end of EPA's O&M support.  After that period, the
State will be expected to assume responsibility for all
project O&M costs.

    States may provide off-site and O&M assurances for
more than one site in the State through a single letter.
A copy of such a letter should be attached to each appro-
priate Cooperative Agreement application.  O&M plans,
however, must be site-specific.

    Where State cost-sharing is required, the State
provides  its cost-sharing assurance by showing its share
of project costs in the project budget sheets.

B.2.b  The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

    NEPA establishes a national policy requiring Federal
agencies to incorporate environmental factors into their
decision-making processes.   Superfund remedial activities
are exempt from the provisions of NEPA because CERCLA and
the NCP require the program to perform the "functional
equivalent" of NEPA requirements.
                          III-9

-------
    To assure  functional equivalency, EPA must assess both
proposed actions and reasonable alternatives in terms of
their environmental effects, and obtain comments on the
alternatives from concerned members of the public.  The
State should consider these requirements in developing its
application.   The first requirement can be fulfilled by
conducting an  environmental assessment during the course
of remedial planning activities, as required by section
300.68(i)(2) of the NCP, while the second can be met
through implementation of a Community Relations Plan that
provides for a minimum three-week comment period for
feasibility studies and for a minimum two-week comment
period for expedited feasibility studies.*  For more
details, see Community Relations in Super fund:  A Handbook,
(interim version), OERR, September 1983, and the sample
CRP in Appendix K.

B.2.c  Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)

    In all environmental sampling and/or analysis conducted
as part of the project, the State must meet Superfund
program QA requirements, among which are the following:

         Data  produced must be able to withstand the
         scrutiny of litigative proceedings; this requires
         appropriate chain-of-custody, document control,
         and QA/QC documentation

         Data  collection must be cost-effective; costs of
         generating the data cannot significantly exceed
         costs associated with similar analyses provided
         by the National Contract Laboratory Program

         Data  turnaround times must meet remedial program
         needs.

In addition, a QA project plan must be developed in
accordance with "Guidelines & Specifications for Preparing
Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAMS-005/80)."  Prepara-
tion of this plan may be a task under the Cooperative
Agreement, performed either by in-house personnel or by a
State contractor.  The QA plan must be reviewed by the EPA
Regional QA officer and the RSPO and approved by the Award
Official before any sampling can begin for the project.  A
sample QA plan is provided in Appendix L.
    Expedited feasibility studies are used only for IRMs
                          111-10

-------
    EPA's existing National Contract Laboratory Program
can be  used  to conduct necessary environmental sampling
and analysis, or  the State may use its own facilities for
these purposes.   in either case, the State should identify
in its  application those laboratory facilities that it
intends to use.   The Users Guide to the EPA Contract
Laboratory Program provides a breakdown of the types of
analytical services provided by the National Contract
Laboratory Program; this manual can be used for purposes
of comparison with the facilities to which the State has
access.

B.2.d   Site  Safety Plan

    Under a  Cooperative Agreement, the State is required
to have a site safety plan providing for the protection of
on-site personnel and area residents.   This plan may
either  be prepared by State personnel  or may be included
in the  SOW as part of the project and  undertaken by a
State contractor.  The safety plan must be consistent with
the following:

         CERCLA sections 104(f)  and lll(c)(6)

         EPA Order 1440.2 - Health and Safety Requirements
         for Employees Engaged in Field Activities

         EPA Order 1440.1 - Respiratory Protection

         EPA Occupational Health and Safety Manual

         EPA Interim Standard Operating Safety Guide
         (September 1982)

         Applicable OSHA standards

         State safety and health statutes

         Site conditions.

This plan must be included in all subagreements awarded
under the Cooperative Agreement  and must be implemented by
both State and contractor  personnel on the site.   A sample
site safety plan  is shown in Appendix  M.

    Whether the safety plan is developed by the State or
its contractor, it should be submitted to the  RSPO for
review.  This may be done simultaneously with  the applica-
tion or after the application has been approved.   Review
assistance is available to the RSPO from EPA-certified
On-Scene Coordinators or  from the National Response Team,
Edison, New Jersey (FTS 340-6745).
                          III-ll

-------
B.2.e  Expedited Procurement

    When undertaking the lead for remedial planning, the
State  is encouraged to expedite necessary procurement.
Under  normal circumstances, procurement actions for
remedial planning may require several months to complete.
Exhibit III-9, on the following page, describes four
suggested alternatives for expediting the initiation of
remedial planning.  These should be considered on a
site-by-site basis, as appropriate.  Additional informa-
tion on expedited procurement is provided in "Guidance for
State  Contracting of Remedial Planning Activities," OSWER,
February 22, 1983, and "Class Deviation From 40 CFR 33.510
and 33.515 for Certain Activities Conducted Under the
Authority of CERCLA," GAD, November 18, 1983, both
included in Appendix P.

C.  COMPLETION OF PROCUREMENT SYSTEM CERTIFICATION FORM

    One requirement of EPA's procurement regulation is
that each application for assistance must be accompanied
by a completed Procurement System Certification Form for
Applicants for EPA Assistance (EPA Form 5700-48).  This
requirement applies to CERCLA remedial Cooperative Agree-
ments.  Therefore, the State must include a signed original
of this form in its application package.

    To complete the Procurement System Certification Form,
the State should determine whether its procurement system
meets  the requirements of EPA's procurement regulation
(40 CFR Part 33) and must certify on the form whether its
procurement system does or does not meet the intent of
this regulation.  If the State is certifying its system
for the first time  (or is not certifying its system), a
responsible official should complete Part B of the form.
If the State does not certify its system, the State must
indicate that its procurement activities will be conducted
in accordance with the requirements of Part 33, with EPA
review and pre-award approval of proposed procurement
actions.  States that provide certification will not
receive this level of procurement oversight by EPA;
however, EPA reserves the right to review any State
procurement action funded wholly or in part by EPA.

    A State must certify its system to EPA only once every
two years.  If the State has previously provided its
required certification, a responsible official should
complete Part A of the Certification Form, indicating the
month and year in which this certification was submitted.
                          111-12

-------
                                                          EXHiniT III-9

                                               METHODS FOR EXPEDITING PROCUREMENT*
             TYPF
                                                                                         SUMMARY
Options Contract for Site Remedial Planning Activities
Pre-Award Procurement
Procurement for Multiple Site Planning
Procurement Using Prequalification
The State includes both remedial planning and remedial action in the
initial Cooperative Agreement.  Following completion of the RI/FS and
selection of a remedy, remedial design and remedial action are funded
by amendment.  The State's request for proposals (or similiar
documents) for engineering services also covers all remedial phases,
but 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.

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 contract 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.

States with numerous sites and available funding for cost-sharing may
issue a level of effort type contract similar to EPA's REM/FIT
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.

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.
*All methods shown must be consistent with EPA's procurement regulation, 40 CFR Part 33.

-------
D.  OTHER SUBMISSIONS

    The remainder of the Cooperative Agreement application
package is made up of the three submissions described
below.

D.I  Community Relations Plan (CRP)

    The CRP is a management and planning tool outlining
the specific community relations activities to be under-
taken during the remedial response,   it is designed to
provide for two-way communication between the affected
community and the agencies responsible for conducting a
response action.  CRPs may be prepared either by EPA or
the State, either in-house or through contract assistance.

    A draft CRP for State-lead remedial activities must be
submitted for review along with the  draft Cooperative
Agreement application.  This draft CRP will form the basis
of the complete CRP which must be submitted with the final
Cooperative Agreement application package covering a
remedial investigation/feasibility study.

D.I.a  Draft Community Relations Plan

    Before developing the CRP, the agency responsible for
the community relations program should conduct informal
discussions with interested citizens and local officials
in the site area.  These on-site discussions are required
to assess the nature and level of citizen concern and
determine how the remedial response  may affect local
citizens.

    Following completion of the on-site discussions and
assessment of citizen concern, a draft CRP is prepared.
The following elements are essential components of a draft
CRP:

         Description of the site's background, including
         an explanation of the nature of the threat to the
         public health, welfare, and the environment and a
         description of any response actions taken to date

         Background and history of community involvement,
         including a description of  past and ongoing
         community activities and media coverage at the
         site, key issues of community concern, and an
         evaluation of the level of  citizen concern
                          111-13

-------
         Description of the site-specific objectives of
         the community relations program during the
         remedial investigation/feasibility study, includ-
         ing a list of the objectives and a preliminary
         description of community relations activities
         considered for the site

         Description of any immediate community relations
         activities recommended prior to approval of the
         complete CRP

         A mailing list of affected and interested groups
         and individuals with their affiliationsy addres-
         ses, and telephone numbers

         The date the draft CRP was prepared and a schedule
         for completing the CRP.

D.l.b  Complete Community Relations Plan

    The complete CRP updates the information in the draft
CRP and specifies the mechanisms for a minimum three-week
public comment period for review of the feasibility study
prior to the selection of the recommended alternative.
For any initial iRMs, the plan must also (1) address how
the community will receive notification prior to any site
action, and  (2) state that a minimum two-week comment
period will be provided,  in addition, the complete CRP
should include the following elements:

         A detailed description of community relations
         activities and techniques to be used in each
         phase of the response to keep the community
         informed and to elicit citizen input

         Charts containing a work plan and implementation
         schedule of activities at the site

         Budget and staffing plan for the community
         relations program

         An appendix containing the names,  telephone
         numbers, and addresses of public officials,
         interested groups, and individuals, contractors,
         Federal, or State staff responsible for the site.

For a more complete description of the CRP  and the com-
munity relations program, refer to Community Relations in
Super fund;   A Handbook, (interim version),  OSWER,
September 1983, and the sample CRP presented in Appendix
                          111-14

-------
K.   In  addition,  the  RSPO, the Regional Superfund Community
Relations Coordinator  (RSCRC), and the OERR Headquarters
Community Relations staff are available to provide infor-
mation  and  assistance,  if required.

D.2  Certification Letter

     The State should submit a letter with the Cooperative
Agreement application package certifying that the State
agency  submitting the application has the authority both
to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with EPA and to make
any  CERCLA  section 104(c)(3)  assurances that are necessary
for  the completion of the project.  This certification
letter may  be from either the State's Governor or Attorney
General.

     Such a  letter need not be site-specific; the State may
prepare one letter applying to all of its NPL sites and
submit a copy with each application (see sample certifica-
tion letters in Appendix J) .   However, if the State chooses
to exercise this option, it has the affirmative obligation
to inform EPA of any changes  in State law or policy that
affect its certification letter and to provide a new certi-
fication letter, where appropriate.  Any specific details
on provision of O&M should be supplied in the State's O&M
plan.

D.3  Intergovernmental Review Comments

    The final component of the Cooperative Agreement
application package is the intergovernmental review
comments.   If the State has developed a review process
which includes Superfund Cooperative Agreement applica-
tions, the SPO should include in the application package
any review comments and EPA's response to them.   EPA will
award a Cooperative Agreement only after  receipt of the
review comments if the program is covered by the process,
unless the State process has  no comments.   If the applica-
tion has not been subjected to formal review,  but affected
local officials have responded to direct  notification, the
SPO may include these comments in the application package,
as appropriate.

E.  DEVIATION REQUESTS TO PERMIT THE ALLOWABILITY OF
    PRE-AWARD COSTS

    In some  situations the State  may need  to incur  costs
included in  the Cooperative Agreement prior  to award of
the actual Agreement.   Under  EPA's general assistance
regulation,  such costs are normally not allowable toward
                          111-15

-------
the State's cost-sharing obligation, nor may they be paid
with Federal  funds.  For these costs to be allowable,  the
State must request, and the EPA Headquarters Grants
Administration Division (GAD) approve, a deviation from
the provisions of 40 CFR 30.308 of the assistance regula-
tion.

    The general assistance regulation stipulates that  a
deviation may be granted only by the Director, GAD.  GAD
will not consider a deviation request unless it has been
referred, with recommendations, by the Regional Adminis-
trator  (or his/her designee) and has received the concur-
rence of the  Director, OERR.  Regional staff should review
a deviation request only after a Cooperative Agreement
application has been filed and an allocation made by the
AA, SWER through approval of the RAP.

    To obtain a deviation, the State should prepare a
formal written request.  This request should be addressed
to the EPA Regional Administrator, through the RSPO, and
should include the following information:

         The  name of the State program, assistance agree-
         ment identification number, date of award, and
         dollar value of application or award

         The  section of the regulation from which the
         deviation is requested (30.308 if the deviation
         is for pre-award costs)

         A complete description of the purpose of the
         deviation and the circumstances which make it
         necessary

         A statement whether the same or a similar devia-
         tion has been previously requested and, if such a
         request has been made, an explanation of the
         purpose and outcome of the previous request.

The deviation request may be submitted concurrently with,
or subsequent to, the Cooperative Agreement application
package.

    The RSPO, upon receipt of the request, should coordi-
nate a Regional review and transmit necessary concurrences
to the Regional Administrator.  If the Regional Adminis-
trator (RA)  concurs on the deviation request, it will be
sent to the Headquarters Zone Manager to obtain the
concurrence of the Director, OERR.  If the RA does not
concur, a written explanation for non-concurrence should
be sent to the State.
                          111-16

-------
                                    12/10/84
                                    Replacement Page 111-17

    The Zone Manager will coordinate the Headquarters
concurrence process.  If the Director, OERR concurs, the
deviation request will be forwarded to the Director, GAD
for action.  If the Director, OERR does not concur, a
written explanation of non-concurrence will be sent to the
RA.

    Upon review and approval of the request by the
Director, GAD, the State will be notified that it may
incur costs subject to the determination of allowability,
and a special condition documenting the deviation will be
added to the Cooperative Agreement.  The State will be
notified in writing if the request is denied.

F.  MULTI-SITE/MULTI-ACTIVITY COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS

    A multi-site/multi-activity Cooperative Agreement
(MSCA) is an "umbrella" Cooperative Agreement that may,
under one funding document, include several response
activities at one or more sites within a State.  EPA has
developed the MSCA concept to provide States with the
flexibility to select from a range of options in
developing Cooperative Agreements covering State-lead
projects and/or State participation in EPA-lead projects.
States may choose to include in MSCA applications one or
more pre-NPL, remedial, or allowable enforcement remedial
investigation/feasibility study* activities at one or more
sites.  This approach will enable States to negotiate a
variety of agreements ranging from one type of response
activity at one or two sites, to including all fundable
activities at numerous sites within a State.  Remedial and
allowable enforcement activities for any site for which
there is a completed Site Management Plan (SMP) may be
included in an MSCA.

    An MSCA may be developed either as a new Cooperative
Agreement or by adding several sites/activities to an
existing Cooperative Agreement.   After their initial
award, MSCAs can be amended at any time to include funds
for additional sites and/or activities.  Two or more
    For information on allowable and unallowable State
    enforcement costs, see "Payment of State Enforcement
    Costs Under Superfund," OERR and OWPE,  December 15,
    1982, (approved by OSWER January 21,  1983)  and
    "Authority to Use CERCLA to Provide Enforcement
    Funding Assistance to States," OGC, July 20, 1984,
    both produced in Appendix P.
                          111-17

-------
                                            12/10/84
                                            New Page 111-18

existing single-site Cooperative Agreements can be
combined into one MSCA only by converting one of the
existing single-site Cooperative Agreements into an MSCA
and closing out the other agreements; closeout should
occur only at the conclusion of a remedial activity.

    Using MSCAs, a State can tailor the number and content
of its State-lead agreements to correspond to the
individual strengths and weaknesses of that State's
remedial response program.  One important attribute of
MSCAs is the ease with which obligated funds may be
transferred among activities and/or sites covered within
the same MSCA, although, as under single-site Cooperative
Agreements, all costs must be accounted for on a
site-specific basis.  MSCA obligation documents will
normally contain account numbers for each NPL site and
activity included in the MSCA.

    In general, requirements for MSCAs are similar to
those for single-site Cooperative Agreements described in
the preceding sections of this chapter.  This section
outlines specific changes to existing procedures that are
necessary for the negotiation and execution of MSCAs and
highlights the activities that may be included in an
MSCA.  Therefore, the information presented in this
section applies to all MSCAs.  Additional requirements for
any Cooperative Agreement that includes preliminary
assessments, site inspections, and site inspection
followups are discussed in Appendix A.  Because of the
potential complexities of MSCAs and for the benefit of
State and EPA staff, examples of options for awarding and
managing MSCAs are outlined in Exhibit 111-10, on the
following pages.

F.I  Activities That May Be Included in MSCAs

    A single MSCA may be used to fund most activities —
from the inception of the pre-NPL phase through the end of
the O&M cost-sharing period -- that may be undertaken at
hazardous waste sites.  The following is a list of
activities that are eligible for funding under a CERCLA
MSCA:

         Preliminary assessments (PAs)

         Site inspections (Sis)

         Site inspection follow-up (SIf)

         Management assistance for EPA-lead PA, SI, SIf,
         and Hazard Ranking System scoring

                          111-18

-------
                                                                                                   12/10/84

                                                  EXHIBIT 111-10
                             EXAMPLES OF OPTIONS FOR AWARDING AND MANAGING MULTI-SITE
                                          COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS (MSCAs)


CASE 1;  The State negotiates one MSCA  application  to cover  all Super fund activities to be conducted by the State,

                                                                           Budgeted Funds
                              Sites        Activities           "              ($X1000)
Original
CERCLA CA



Amendment 1

150 Sites
15 Sites
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site A
Site D
PA
SI
RI/FS
State-lead enforcement RI/FS
Management ass't RD/RA
RI/FS
IRM
240
90
350
300
10
-350*
420
         Amendment 2
Site C
O&M
85
CASE 2;  The State amends an existing single-site Cooperative Agreement to include additional remedial activities
         at other sites, thus creating an MSCA.

                                                                           Budgeted Funds
Original CA
Amendment 1
Amendment 2
Sites
Site E
Site F
Site E
Site G
50 Sites
Activities
RI/FS
Management ass't RI/FS
RD
State-lead enf. RI/FS
PA
($X1000)
375
8**
250
320
80
 * In this example, after the Cooperative Agreement  was  awarded,  potential  responsible parties  agreed  to conduct
   the RI/FS.  The State, with the RSPO's approval and via a  formal Cooperative Agreement  amendment, shifted
   funds from the RI/FS to an IRM already on the approved SCAP.

** The Cooperative Agreement is now an MSCA.

-------
                                                                                                   12/10/84
                                            EXHIBIT 111-10 (Continued)
                             EXAMPLES OF OPTIONS FOR AWARDING AND MANAGING MULTI-SITE
                                          COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS (MSCAs)
CASE 3;  The State develops separate MSCAs for pre-remedial, remedial planning, and remedial implementation
         activities,*
                              Sites
Activities
Budgeted Funds
  ($X1000)
Original CAll
Amendment to CAll
Original CAI2
Amendment to CAI2
Amendment to CAI2
Original CAI3
Amendment to CAI3
Amendment to CAl 3
100 Sites
10 Sites
30 Sites
Site H
Site J
Site K
Site H
Site H
Site J
Site H
Site H
Site J
Site J
PA
SI
PA
RI/FS
RI/FS
State-lead enf. RI/FS
RI/FS
RD
RO
RA
OiM
RA
OfcM
160
60
48
290
345
315
-30**
350
280
800
115
750
100
 * Some States have indicated that they do not want to combine PA/SI activities with other activities in the same
   agreement and/or that they want to keep cost-shared and non-cost-shared activities in separate Cooperative
   Agreements.  This is an example of such a situation.

** The State has $30,000 obligated funds remaining at the completion of the RI/FS at site H.   In accordance with
   Federal assistance regulations and program requirements, the State can shift these funds,  via a formal
   Cooperative Agreement amendment, to the RD for the same site, simultaneously requesting $320,000 in additional
   funds.  (The RO must be on the approved SCAP.)

-------
                                            12/10/84
                                            New Page 111-19
         Forward planning
         State-lead remedial investigation/feasibility
         study  (RI/FS) projects  (program and enforcement)

         Management assistance for EPA-lead RI/FS projects
         (program and enforcement)

         State-lead IRMs

         Management assistance for EPA-lead IRMs

         State-lead remedial design/remedial action
         (RD/RA) projects

         Management assistance for EPA-lead RD/RA projects

         O&M  (for up to one year).

The State may choose which activities and sites to include
in an MSCA.

    To be considered for funding under an MSCA, each
activity at each site, with the funding amount, must be on
the Region's approved Superfund Comprehensive Accomplish-
ments Plan (SCAP)*.  Regions and States should begin dis-
cussions concerning which SCAP sites and activities -- if
any -- will be included in an MSCA during negotiations for
the next fiscal year's SCAP.

F.2  Intergovernmental Review

    All funding for RI/FSs, IRMs, and RD/RAs must undergo
intergovernmental review in accordance with 40 CFR Part 29
(see Section II.G and Appendix D of this document).
Notification requirements, however, differ for each of
these activities.
    The SCAP is the annual plan that projects for each
    Region those remedial, enforcement, and removal
    activities for which funds will be obligated during a
    fiscal year.  The Remedial Program Plan portion of the
    SCAP is the direct successor to the former Remedial
    Accomplishments Plan (RAP).  All references to the RAP
    made elsewhere in this document now apply to the SCAP
    Remedial Program Plan; references will be made con-
    sistent at a later date.
                          111-19

-------
                                            12/10/84
                                            New Page 111-20

    For several RI/FS projects covered by an MSCA, a
single notification letter can be sent to the State
process to initiate review (the model RI/FS notification
letter in Appendix D can be modified for this purpose).
This letter should note that RI/FSs will be conducted at
several sites and should include the site names, loca-
tions, and an individual summary of the problems at each
site.  If appropriate, the letter may contain a general
description of proposed remedial and community relations
activities; other portions of this letter may also be
general or site-specific, depending upon the project in
question.  A State process form for intergovernmental
review of Superfund projects may be used instead of a
letter where a State has developed such a form based on
the requirements detailed in Appendix D.  Each RD/RA
project must undergo an individual intergovernmental
review (see Appendix D for details) .

F.3  Contents of a Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement

    The major components of a Cooperative Agreement
application package, as described in Sections A through D
of this chapter, are generally the same regardless of
whether the agreement covers one or more sites.  Whereas
some of these components, such as SOWs for planning
activities or application provisions, may be sufficiently
general to cover several or even all of the projects/sites
included in an MSCA application, other components must be
project/site-specific.  Because requirements for each
component differ, specific requirements are addressed
separately below.  For the convenience of manual users,
the discussion here has been organized to reflect the
order of discussions concerning Cooperative Agreement
components found in earlier sections of this chapter.

F.3.a  Cooperative Agreement Application Form

    As with single-site Cooperative Agreements, the State
must use EPA Form 5700-33, a five-part, multi-page form
providing general and specific project information, when
applying for an MSCA.  The following is a general summary
of each part of the application form and its completion
requirements for MSCA submittals:

         Part I;  General Summary Information - One copy
         of Part I, the application cover sheet, is
         sufficient for each MSCA application or proposed
         major amendment for additional activities or
         sites.
                          111-20

-------
                                            12/10/84
                                            New Page 111-21

         Part II;  Project Approval Information - One copy
         of Part II is sufficient for each MSCA
         application or proposed major amendment.  If any
         sites included in the MSCA application are
         located in a designated flood hazard area, item
         11 should be marked "YES" and the site name(s)
         and FEMA number(s) attached; other exceptions
         should also be noted and an explanation(s)
         attached.  (See Appendix A for requirements for
         pre-NPL activities.)

         Part III;  Budget Information - Separate budget
         sheets must be prepared and submitted for each
         NPL site included in each original application
         and in each amendment adding activities and/or
         sites.  (See Appendix A for requirements for
         pre-NPL activities.)

         PartIV;  Project Narrative Statement -
         Requirements for the different types of
         activities are described in Section F.S.a.l below.

         Part V;  Assurances - One copy of Part V is
         sufficient for each MSCA application or proposed
         major amendment.

Because of the complexity of Parts III and IV of the MSCA
application form, additional information on their
completion is provided below.  As in Section A of this
chapter, Part IV is discussed first, since it must be
completed before Part III can be fully addressed.

F.B.a.l  PartIV - Project Narrative Statement

    The Project Narrative Statement is made up of two
components:  the site history/bacK9round section and the
project SOW.  Each section of this part of an MSCA
application has specific requirements.

    The State should develop and submit individual site
history/background statements for each NPL site included
in the MSCA.  See Appendix A for discussion on the content
of the history/background section for PA/SI activities.

    Requirements for project SOWS are more complex.  Work
performed under some activities included in an MSCA is
generally recognized to be consistent from site to site;
in such cases,  the State need submit only one generic SOW
                          111-21

-------
                                            12/10/84
                                            New Page 111-22

for all projects.  The scope of other activities, however,
must be tailored to the needs of individual sites, thus
requiring the State to submit a separate SOW for each
project of this kind.  Except for pre-NPL activities, the
State must submit a separate site-specific schedule for
each activity to be initiated under the MSCA.  Specific
SOW requirements for each activity are summarized below:

         PA/SI/SIf:  See Appendix A for SOW requirements.

         State review of EPA-lead Hazard Ranking System
         scoring and site inspection reports:  See
         Appendix A for SOW requirements.

         Forward planning:  One generic SOW is sufficient
         if the scope of forward planning to be conducted
         at each site is the same.

         State-lead RI/FS (program and enforcement):  One
         generic SOW is sufficient for all sites in the
         MSCA unless EPA determines that existing site
         conditions require a specific SOW.  The model
         RI/FS SOW in Appendix E can be used in developing
         RI/FS SOWs.  When developing State-lead
         enforcement SOWs, States should be sure to
         address the specific enforcement requirements
         highlighted in that appendix.  Detailed work
         plans for both types of RI/FS projects should be
         developed after award of the MSCA and submitted
         for RSPO review and concurrence before field work
         is begun.

         Management assistance for EPA-lead RI/FS  (program
         and enforcement):  One SOW is sufficient if the
         State plans to perform the same activities at all
         sites (see Section IV.D of this manual for an
         explanation of eligible activities).

         State-lead IRMs, RD, and RA:  A site-specific SOW
         must be submitted for each activity at each site.

         Management assistance for EPA-lead IRMs, RD, and
         RA:  One SOW is sufficient for each activity if
         the State plans to conduct the same work for all
         sites at which that activity is proposed.

         O&M:  A site-specific SOW must be submitted for
         O&M for each completed remedial action.
                          111-22

-------
                                            12/10/84
                                            New Page 111-23
F.3.a.2  Part III - Budget Information
    The general requirements for Part III of an MSCA
application form have been summarized earlier.
Instructions for completing these sheets are the same as
for single-site Cooperative Agreements and may therefore
be found in Section A of this chapter.  In addition to
preparing separate budget sheets for each NPL site in an
MSCA, a State should also submit, as an attachment to its
application, an itemized budget breakdown for each site
(explained on page III-4; example on pages G-22 and
G-23).  This breakdown should present, in more detail than
the application form budget sheets, the costs for each
activity and subactivity to be initiated under the MSCA.
(See Appendix A for a sample budget breakdown for pre-NPL
activities.)

F.S.b  Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement Application
       Provisions

    In general, provisions included in single-site
Cooperative Agreements are equally applicable to MSCAs.
Appendix F contains provisions that are standard for all
remedial Cooperative Agreements and those that must be
used in Cooperative Agreements covering State-lead
enforcement RI/FS projects.  Provisions specific to any
Cooperative Agreement covering pre-NPL activities can be
found in Appendix A.  In addition to these standard
provisions, the RSPO may add special conditions to MSCAs
to address any other concerns not adequately covered in
the application.

F.3.c  Procurement System Certification Form

    As under single-site Cooperative Agreements, each
State is required to submit EPA Form 5700-48 to certify
whether or not its procurement system meets the
requirements of 40 CFR Part 33.  One signed copy of this
form is sufficient for each original MSCA application
package.  It is not required for amendments unless the
State's procurement system has been substantially revised.

F.3.d  Certification and Enforcement Letters

    When applying for a Cooperative Agreement, the State
is required to submit a letter certifying the State
agency's authority to enter into the agreement and to make
any necessary CERCLA section 104(c) (3) assurances.  In
many cases, States submit, with each Cooperative Agreement
                          111-23

-------
                                            12/10/84
                                            New Page 111-24

application, a copy of a generic letter certifying a State
agency for all remedial activities at all sites.  State
agencies that do not submit a generic letter must provide
a letter specifically certifying that agency for each site
and activity included in the Cooperative Agreement.  Each
State agency that applies for a Cooperative Agreement with
EPA must be covered by a certification letter.

    For a Cooperative Agreement covering one or more
State-lead enforcement RI/FS, the State must include in
the certification or in a separate enforcement letter, a
commitment to pursue site enforcement activities at the
completion of each enforcement RI/FS funded.  This letter
should be signed by the State's Governor or Attorney
General.  Both certification of the State agency and
commitment to pursue enforcement activities are required
for all applications including one or more State-lead
enforcement RI/FS.  Sample certification letters and
information on the content of certification and
enforcement letters are contained in Appendix J.

F.4  Accounting for Multi-Site Cooperative Agreements

    Funds cannot be shifted between Cooperative Agreements
without undergoing a formal deobligation/reobligation
process.  It is particularly difficult if the shift occurs
in a fiscal year later than the one in which the original
obligation was made.  In such a case, the funds are
classified as "carryover" and must be recertified to the
allowance holder before they can be reobligated.  With
single-site Cooperative Agreements, this had made it
difficult to move funds from a site where actual costs
were less than projected to another where additional funds
are required.

    MSCAs, however, allow much easier shifting of funds
among sites and activities.  EPA does not require formal
deobligation of funds for accounting changes under an MSCA
if the activity or site to which funds are being moved is
clearly encompassed by the scope of the MSCA.  This is
because the use of the funds is still considered to be for
the purpose of the initial obligation.  Therefore, with
EPA approval, funds within an MSCA may be transferred from:

         One site to another site in the MSCA.

         One activity at a site to another activity at
         that site if the second activity is included in
         the MSCA.
                          111-24

-------
                                            12/10/84
                                            New Page 111-25

States need not receive funding for all sites/activities
at initial MSCA award for those sites/activities to be
within the scope of the MSCA and, therefore, to qualify
for potential transfer of funds.

    Transfer of funds between sites or activities within
an MSCA must be accomplished through the Cooperative
Agreement amendment process, since funds are obligated on
a site-specific (except for pre-NPL activities) and
activity-specific basis.  While this will result in a
financial transaction that appears to be a
deobligation/reobligation, it will not be reported as such
and will not require recertification of funds to the
allowance holder.  When a transfer is needed, the State
should send a letter to the RSPO requesting and justifying
the transfer.  If the request is approved, the RSPO will
forward it to the Regional grants office which will
develop the amendment for signature by the RA and
thereafter send it to the State for signature.  EPA will
then adjust the accounting information in the Agency's
Financial Management System (FMS)  to reflect the transfer
of funds from one account to another.

    Care should be taken to ensure that amounts proposed
for transfer have not been drawn down or expended.  A
different Document Control Number (DCN)  must be assigned
to each amendment to ensure that the date of the amendment
is recorded in the EPA FMS thus allowing site activities
to be tracked.  Activity cddes (eighth digit)  and/or site
identifiers (ninth and tenth digits)  in the accounting
data can thus be changed, but the remainder of the account
number cited for funding should be unaltered.  Funds may
not be transferred to an RD unless a Record of Decision
(ROD) for the site has been approved.

    Fund transfers must be consistent with the Region's
SCAP.  Should a transfer require SCAP adjustments or
amendments, these must be made before the necessary MSCA
amendment is executed.

    All cost-sharing is site-specific.  State costs      I
incurred at one site may not be used to meet the State's!
cost-sharing obligation at any other site.             —J

    An example of an MSCA obligation document, showing how
the accounting information is detailed, is contained in
Exhibit III-ll, on the following pages.
                          111-25

-------
                                            12/10/84
                                            New Page 111-26

F.5  Administration of Multi-Site Cooperative Agreements

    While MSCAs should facilitate paperwork, accounting,
and other Cooperative Agreement procedures, they should
not substantially change individual site management
procedures.  Use of MSCAs will require both States and EPA
to use effective, well coordinated agreement management
procedures.  Information and some suggested procedures to
assist in MSCA management are discussed below.

F.5.a  Project Management

    The MSCA should specify one EPA contact and one State
contact with overall responsibility for the MSCA.  The
overall contacts will usually be supervisors in the normal
concurrence chain for approving and amending such
documents.  The EPA contact should be entered on the award
as "EPA Project Officer" and the State contact should be
entered as "Project Manager."  In addition to these
contacts, Regions and States will usually designate staff
members with day-to-day responsibility for specific sites
or activities (e.g., PA/SI) within an MSCA.  These staff
members may perform most of the RSPO and SPO functions
described elsewhere in this chapter.  Regions and States
may include in the MSCA a list of these personnel and the
site/activities for which they are responsible.

F.S.b  Project/Budget Periods

    Under a single-site Cooperative Agreement, the project
and budget periods for each activity are specified.  Since
an MSCA can be negotiated to cover various activities at
several sites and thereafter can be amended numerous
times, the project and budget period procedures used for
single-site agreements are not sufficient.  Regions will
therefore find it necessary to develop a formal mechanism
for establishing agreed-upon end dates for each site and
activity.  Two options are discussed below.

    One method is to fund activities on a yearly basis,
thereby establishing several one-year budget periods.  The
MSCA could have a three to five-year project period and
would be amended annually to add new funds, activities,
and sites.  For any one-year budget period, the MSCA would
provide only the funding that the State planned to use
during that period, which would not necessarily include
sufficient money to complete each activity for which
funding was provided.  Therefore, activities that could
not be completed within a one-year budget period would be
incrementally funded, although a full SOW and complete
                          111-26

-------
                                       12/10/34
                                       New Exhibit
EXHIBIT III-ll (Continued)
PART II-APPROVED BUDGET ASSISTANCE IOENTI -ATIOH NO. V005794-01
TABLE A - OBJECT CLASS CATEGORY
(Non-con»lniclion)
1. PERSONNEL
t. FRINGE BENEFITS
1. TRAVEL
4 EQUIPMENT
1 SUPPLIES
* CONTRACTUAL
7. CONSTRUCTION
* OTHER
(. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES
10. INDIRECT COSTS NATE 35.1 XBASE SF
1 1. TOTAL (Sb»rt: B—iri~-i, *>- F.*.,,t 100 »rj
12. TOTAL APPROVED ASSISTANCE AMOUNT (See Attachment 1)
TABLE • - PROGRAM ELEMENT CLASSIFICATION
(Non— centime lion)
1.
Z.
1.
«.
»
f.
7.
t.
1
10.
11.
11. TOTAL (Shun Xidpitni % F»d*r»l 	 7^)
11. TOTAL APPROVED ASSISTANCE AMOUNT
TABLE C - PROGRAM CLEMENT CLASSIFICATION
(Contituclion)
\. AOMINISTNATION CXPCNSE
2. PRELIMIIIAMV EXPENSE
3. LAND STRUCTURES. SIGHT-OF-W4Y
4. ARCMITECTURAL EHCIMCERING 3ASIC FEES
S. OTMCM ARCHITECTURAL ENC'MCERINC FEES
«. PROJECT INSPECTION FEES
7. LAND DEVELOPMENT
». RELOCATION EXPENSES
1. RELOCATION PAYMENTS TO INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES
10. DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL
II. CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECT IMPROVEMENT
12. EQUIPMENT.
11. MISCELLANEOUS
14. TOTAL ftto** 1 Itou IS)
U. ESTIMATED INCOME (11 fe»f'«*»'«j
K. NET PROJECT AMOUMT O.** 14 »!IUM II)
IT LEU: INELIGIBLE IXCLUSIONS
'«. ADC: CONTINGENCIES
• •'TOTAL rtterv: J?»c
-------
                                     EXHIBIT  III-ll
                          SAMPLE MSCA OBLIGATION  DOCUMENT
                                                                                   12/10/84
                                                                                   New- Exhibit
              U.( tNVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
            EPA ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT/AMENDMENT
            fART I • ASSISTANCE NOTIFICATION INFORMATION
                                                           1. ASSlk . oNCi 1C NO.
                                                            V005794-01
                                                           9 OAT I O» AWARD
                                                           SFP  2
                                                                               2. LOG NUMBER
                                                                             4 MAILING DATE .
                                                                              OCTOo 1984
I AGREEMENT TYPE
                                 • PAYMENT METHOD

                                   O A0v*nt*    O
                                                                 GD 11.- .1 e..,.  68-13-0502
                                                                   7. TYPE O» ACTION
                                                                    New Award
S. RECIPIENT
  Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
  1935 West County  Road, B-2   '
  Rosevllle, Minnesota  55113
titTNoT"' ~~"——————•!
   41-6007162	I
                              Statewide
                                                 • PAYEE

                                                   Same as Block 8
                                               10. RECIPIENT TYPE
                                                  State
  11. PROJECT MANAGE M AND Ti LE'MONf NO.
    Gary Pulford    (612) 296-7290
    Site Response Section
    Same Address as  Block 8
                                                 13. CONSULTANT IWWT Comtntttlon C'ViU O*hl
                                                  N/A
  19. tUUIHC Of »ICl
     Chicago, Illinois
                                                14 IPArMOJlCT/STATi O»»lCt« ANDTCLEFMONt NO
                                                  Cindy Wakat
                                                  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
                                                  230 South Dearborn  Street
                                                  Chicago, Illinois   60604
                                                  (312) 886-0394
  It I?A CONONtSSlONAL LIAISON » TEL. NO.
     P.  Gasklns   (202)  382-5184
                                      STATE APFL IO
                                                           IT. FIELD OF SClf MCE

                                                                 99
                                                                            is
                                                                                 N/A
 It. STATUTORY AUTHORITY

   P.L.  96-510
                                  20. REGULATORY AUTHORITY
                                    40  CFR Parts 29, 30,
                                    32, 33 and 35
                                                          II STEf » « 3 A STE» 3
                                                                                       O«l>(
                                                                                         N/A
22. PROJECT TITLE ANO DESCRIPTION
  Multi-Site, Multi-Activity Cooperative  Agreement for CERCLA funded activities to  include:
  Management assistance and community  relations coordinative lead  activities for EPA  lead
  RI/FS's at 3 sites  and State-lead  RI/FS's at 3 sites.
                                   H PROJECT LOCATION M«r«
                                                              »r frmfrrli
  Statewide
                                                                SUM
                                                                   rfj
                                                                             Statewide
J4 ASSISTANCE PROORAM/C^CA

   66. BO? Sunerfund
                                4 Til*.
                                    2S. PROJECT PERIOD

                                      10/1/84 - 1/31/86
                                                              M. BUDGET PERIOD

                                                                 10/1/84 - 1/31/86
31. COMMUNITY POPULATION <**T CC

          N/A	
                             >S. TOTAL BUDGET PERIOD COST
                                     $656.740
                                                              M. TOTAL PROJECT PERIOD COST
                                                              	    $656,740
          FUNDS
SO. IPA Am»ntn TM* ActM>«
                             FORMER AWARD
                                                       THIS ACTION
                                                                               AMENDED TOTAL
31 IPA
           Prl*t Y«*f
          *«<2I Mwuen o>**ioui
                                 •mor
                                                                                178.630

-------
                     Breakdown of Object Class Categories
                  Attadoentl
Hgt. Assist. RI/FS & Coira. Rel. Coord. Lead
State Lead RI/F5


Object Class Categories
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
9-
h.
1.
j.
k.
Personnel
Fringe Benefits
Travel
Ecuipnent
Supplies
Contractual
Construction
Other
Total Direct Charges
Indirect Charges
Totals
1
Arrowhead
13.050.00
2.350.00
1.510.00
0.00
160.00
0.00
0.00
170.00
17,240.00
5,100.00
$22,340.00

LeHillicr
13,110.00
2.360.00
1.070.03
0.00
160.00
0.00
0.00
180.00
16,830.00
5,120.03
$22,000.00
1
South Andover
12,400.03
2,230.00
610.00
0.03
160.00
0.00
0.00
180.00
15,580.00
4,840.00
$20,420.00
I
Kimner
17,910.00
3,220.00
2,230.00
4.500.00
240.09
200.000.03
0.00
270.00
228.370.00
6.990.00
$235,360.00

Long Prairie
16,560.00
2.930.00
1,520.00
0.00
220.00
150.000.00
0.00
240.00
171.520.00
6,470.00
$177,990.00

Uhittaker
17,590.00
3,170.00
. 505.00
0.00
240.00
150.000.00
0.00
260.00
171.760.00
6.870.00
$178,630.00
1
Total 1
$00.620.00
$16.310.00
$7.440.00
S4.50D.OO
$1.180.00
*
$500.000.00
$0.00
$1.303.00
$621,350.03
$35.390.03
$656.740.00
EXHIB]
i i
t-3
H
H
1
^
(Continued)


                                                                                                                   W o
                                                                                                                   X  \
                                                                                                                   D" oo
                                                                                                                   H- *>.
                                                                                                                   tr

-------
                                                                                   12/10/84
                                                                                   New  Exhibit
                             EXHIBIT  III-ll  (Continued)
                                     PART III-AVAXD CONDITIONS

 ..  GENERAL CONDITIONS
    The recipient covenants and agrees that it will expedifiously initiate and timely complete the project work for
    which assistance has been awarded under this agreement, in accordance with all applicable provisions of 40 CFR
    Chapter I, Subpart B. The recipient warrants, represents, and agrees that it, and its contractors, subcontractors,
    employees and representatives, will comply with:  (1) all applicable provisions of 40 CFR Chapter I, Sybchapter B,
    INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO the provisions of Appendix A to 40 CFP Part 30, wd K'2) any special
    conditions set forth in this assistance agreement or any assistance amendment pursuant to 40 CFR 30.425.

 t.  SPECIAL CONDITIONS
    (For cooperarrve fgr cements include identification or twnmarization ot EPA responsibilitiet th*t reflect or
    contribute to tub*tanti»I involvement.)

      1.  EPA awards this  Cooperative  Agreement In accordance  with the Federal  Grant
          and Cooperative  Agreement Act of 1977.  This Agreement  Is subject to all
          applicable EPA assistance regulations.

      2.  This Agreement 1s subject to the procurement standards  of Title 40 of the
          Code of  Federal  Regulations  Part 33  (copy enclosed).

      3.  Assurance number 16  1n the  State's application  Is hereby deleted and
          replaced by  the  following condition:

          In accepting  this Cooperative Agreement, the recipient  agrees to the
          following conditions for the letter  of credit method of financing:

               a)  Cash  drawdowns will  occur only when needed  for
                   disbursements;

               b)  Timely reporting of  cash disbursements  and
                   balances will be provided as required by the EPA
                   Letter of Credit Users Manual;

               c) The  same standards  of timing and reporting  will
                  be imposed on secondary  recipients, if  any;

               d) When  a drawdown under the letter of credit
                  occurs,  the  recipient will  show on the  back  of
                  the voucher  (Form TFS-5401)  the cooperative
                  agreement number, the appropriate EPA account
                  number,  and  the drawdown amount applicable  to
                  each  activity/account  (see attached "Instructions
                  for Using the Superfund  Account Number  Under
                  Cooperative Agreements").  The eighth digit  of
                  the account number  (see  item 39, page 1 of  the
                  cooperative agreement) is  the code to the
                  appropriate activity.assignment:

                  L - Remedial Planning, consisting of the
                      following subactivities:

                    - Remedial Investigation/Feasibility  Study

                    • Remedial Design
CPA r«n> 1700-10* (I*.. S-7»)                                                                »AOC 1 or 4

-------
                                                                                        12/10/84
                                                                                        New  Exhibit
                              EXHIBIT  III-ll  (Continued)
                                                    ASSISTANCE
                                                                            MO   V005794-01
  ». »»CCIAL CONDITIONS (CMIf
      Special  Conditions (Continued)

                    R  - Remedial  Implementation,  consisting of
                        the following  subactlvltles:

                      - Remedial  Action

                      • Operation and  Maintenance

                      - Initial  Remedial  Measure

                e)  When funds  for a specific activity have been
                    exhausted but the  work under  the activity has not
                    been completed, the  recipient may not  draw down
                    from another activity or site account  without
                    written permission from the EPA Project Officer
                    and Award Official;


      (NOTE:  Additional  special conditions omitted from this  exhibit.)
                                                PART iv
 NOTE: The Agreement must be completed in duplicate and the Original returned to the Grants Administration
   Division for Headquarter* awards and to the appropriate Grants Administrations Office for State and local
   •vards within 3 calendar weeks after raceipt or within any extension of time as Bay be (ranted by EPA.

   Receipt of a written refusal or failure to return the properly executed document within the prescribed time, may
   result  in the withdrawal of the offer by the Agency. Any change to the Agreement by the recipient subsequent
   to the  document being signed by the  EPA Award Official which the Award Official determines to materially
   •her the Agreement shall void the Agreement.
                                         OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE
 The United States of America, actint by and through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), hereby offers

 ac»>«t«nce/amendment to the     Minnesota Pollution Control Agency      _
 *"    inny of all approved costs incurred up to and not exceeding I fi5fit7AQ
 'for the support of approved budget period effort described in application (including mil mpplicatioo modifications)

                Cooperative Agreement                                    included herein by reference.
                              F* TE » *»C T T |
                                        LkJL
         ISSUING OP riCC (Grtnlt AOminiHrtlion Oil let)
                                                                  AVARO APPROVAL or net
ORGANIZATION/ADDRESS
 Grants  Management Section  (5FMB)
 U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
 230 South Dearborn Street
 Chicago, Illinois  60604
                                                    ORGANIZATION/AOORCSS
                                                    Waste Management Division  (5HR)
                                                    U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency
                                                    230 South  Dearborn  Street
                                                    Chicago, Illinois   60604
                TMC UNITCO ITATgt Of AMERICA »Y THE U.». ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SlGNATUftt Of AWARD OFFICIAL
                                  TYPED NANE AND TITLE
                                   Valdas V.  Adamkus.  Regional  Administrator
DATE
This Agreement is subject to applicable U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tiatutory provisions and assistance
regulations. In accenting this award or amendment and any payments made pursuant thereto. (1) the undersigned
represents that he it duly authorised to act on behalf of the recipient organisation, and (2, the recipient agrees
(a) that the award is subject to the applicable provisions of 40 CFR Chapter I. Ssbchaptet B and of the provisions
of this agreement (Parts 1 thru IV),and (b) that acceptance of any payments constitutes an agreement by the payee
that the amounts, if any found by EPA to have been overpaid will be refunded or oedited in full to £PA.
                        •Y AMD OM BEHALF OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT ORCAMIIATlOM
SIGNATURE
                                  TYPED NAMC AND TITLE
                                                                                    DATE
(FA
        STM-lftA (R... l-7»)
                                                                                             PAOt 4 OP

-------
                                            12/10/84
                                            New Page 111-27

budget estimates would be included in the application  in
which initial funding for each activity is proposed.

    During annual SCAP negotiations, the Region and State
would discuss the status of ongoing or incrementally
funded activities as well as new sites and activities.
Available SCAP funds would be allocated first to these
ongoing activities and then to new activities.  Such an
approach would spread funding for such projects over more
than one fiscal year, thus enabling Regions and States to
begin a large number of activities since obligated money
would not be tied up where it was not immediately
required.  In addition, setting one-year budget periods
would allow fine tuning of activity funding estimates.

    A second option is to specify the performance period
for each activity at the time that it is added to the
MSCA.  Under this approach, a special condition listing
the site name, activity, and the activity performance
period is added to the MSCA when funds are obligated for
that activity.  As in a single-site Cooperative Agreement,
any change to the activity completion date must be made
through a formal MSCA amendment.

F.S.c  Quarterly Reports

    Quarterly reports are a useful management tool for
overseeing the implementation of on-site activities.
Because numerous projects will be occurring simultaneously
under MSCAs, it is vital that States and Regions ensure
that quarterly reports are produced and submitted on
schedule.  Quarterly reports for all sites and activities
are due 30 days after the end of the Federal fiscal
quarter.  For most activities performed under an MSCA, the
State may submit one overall report containing separate
sections addressing the progress of work on each activity
at each site.  (Additional guidance on preparation of PA
and SI quarterly reports is included in Appendix A.)
    After carrying out the steps identified in this
chapter, the SPO should have a completed Cooperative
Agreement application package that is ready to be
submitted to the EPA Region for draft review.  The
checklist provided as Exhibit III-2 should be helpful in
assembling the draft application package.  For procedures
on submitting the application package for review and
obtaining, necessary approvals, see Chapter VI.
                          111-27

-------
Iv»  DEVELOPMENT OF EPA-LEAP REMEDIAL PLANNING AGREEMENTS

-------
 IV.  DEVELOPMENT OF E PA-LEAD REMEDIAL PLANNING AGREEMENTS


    When EPA has  lead responsibility  for remedial response
at  a site and CERCLA section 104(c)(3) assurances are not
required  (i.e., for remedial planning), two options are
available for initiating the project:  the State may
submit a letter requesting that EPA undertake remedial
activities at the site, or EPA and the State may enter
into a Memorandum of Understanding  (MOU).  It is left to
the discretion of Regional and State  staff to select the
appropriate vehicle for the project at the site in
question.  Factors which may influence this decision
include the complexity and cost of the project, character-
istics of the site, the need for rapid initiation of the
project, and requirements of both State and EPA Regional
officials.  Either type of agreement  may be used at both
publicly-owned and privately-owned sites.

    The less complex of these options is the State letter
of  request.  This letter should be addressed from the
director of the State agency responsible for hazardous
waste sites to the Regional Administrator, requesting that
EPA initiate remedial planning at the site.  It should
refer to and approve the anticipated  remedial project and
should stipulate that:

         The State will participate in community relations
         activities associated with the project

         The State will secure site access and any required
         permits

         Representatives of the State will meet with EPA
         Regional personnel to discuss progress of the
         project and, if required, exchange site informa-
         tion

         In the case of a publicly-owned site, the State
         will pay 50 percent of all response costs at the
         time CERCLA-funded remedial  implementation is
         undertaken at the site.

The State's letter should also designate an SPO for the
project.
                           IV-1

-------
    An MOU, on the other hand, is a joint agreement
defining the project to be undertaken and both SPA and
State responsibilities for performing that work.  It is a
less elaborate form of agreement than an SSC, and will
normally cover a remedial investigation/feasibility study
and a remedial design.  The MOU may be used when remedial
planning activities require more formal arrangements than
can be made using a State letter of request.

    A State may choose to negotiate an MOU which covers
remedial planning activities at more than one site.
However, an MOU may not be used for remedial implementation
projects.  For these, a formal Superfund State Contract
(SSC) must be used to obtain the State contribution and
any necessary assurances  (see Chapter V of this document).
An SCC must also be used if the State chooses to provide
advance match funds during remedial planning.

    A completed MOU will usually consist of the memorandum
itself, a SOW, a Community Relations Plan (CRP), and
intergovernmental review comments.  However, contents may
vary depending upon the needs of the site and the require-
ments of EPA and State officials.  Sample articles which
may be suitable for use in a MOU can be found in Appendix H,

    Because of the relative complexity of an MOU, this
chapter provides detailed guidance on the development of
this type of remedial planning agreement.  The State and
EPA may, however, utilize the letter of request if it is
mutually found to be more appropriate for a particular
project.  This chapter also discusses the concept of
management assistance Cooperative Agreements, which States
may use to cover costs they incur in performing management
and oversight tasks associated with EPA-lead remedial
projects (see Section IV.D,  below).

    Major steps in the development of an MOU are displayed
in Exhibit IV-1, on the following page;  also shown is the
development of a management assistance Cooperative Agree-
ment.  As can be seen in the exhibit, primary responsi-
bility for developing the MOU rests with the RSPO.  In
doing so, the RSPO should work closely with the SPO,
involving other State and Regional personnel, especially
the Office of Regional Counsel and other enforcement staff
as appropriate.  Additional support is available to the
RSPO from the EPA Zone Manager, whom the RSPO should
regularly inform of progress while developing the MOU.
                           IV-2

-------
                                                           EXHIBIT  IV-1
                                            DEVELOPMENT OF MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING
     ACTIVITY
                                                RESPONSIBILITIES
                                                             WORK PRODUCTS
1.  Development of the MOU
   package (includes:  the scope
   of work,  documentation of
   terms and responsibilities,
   submission of other
   documents)!/
SPO:
                                   RSPO:
                                   ZONE
                                   MGR:
Acts as chief point of contact
for State in developing MOU
Negotiates terms of MOU with RSPO
Reviews terms of MOU during
development
Reviews Community Relations Plan

Negotiates terms of MOU with RSPO
Develops MOU
Obtains Regional Counsel and other
necessary Regional concurrences
Submits Community Relations Plan
Includes intergovernmental review
comments

Supports RSPO, as requested
Completed set of articles comprising the
body of the MOU
Scope of work
Community Relations Plan
Integovernmental review comments
2.  Development of the
    management assistance
    Cooperative Agreement
                                   SPO:
                                   RSPO:
                                   ZONE
                                   MGR:
        Develops management assistance
        Cooperative Agreement application
        Develops management assistance
        Cooperative Agreement provisions
        Submits Procurement System Certifi-
        cation Form, Certification Letter,
        and other package components, as
        applicable

        Provides consultation and technical
        assistance, as requested

        Supports RSPO, as requested
                                          Completed management assistance
                                          Cooperative Agreement application
                                          (for appropriate contents, see
                                          Exhibit III-2)
I/This activity is comprised of three distinct steps which are addressed separately in the  text.   They have been combined
   in this exhibit in an effort to simplify presentation of responsibilities.

-------
A.  SCOPE OF WORK FOR REMEDIAL PLANNING

    A key purpose of the MOU is to document agreement
between EPA and the State on the project in question.
This occurs through mutual agreement on the scope of work
for the project. The scope of work provides a general
outline of the major tasks to be performed during the
remedial planning project and the project's objectives.
It differs from a statement of work (SOW)  in that a SOW
contains more detailed information on the  project's
subactivities, tasks, and subtasks, usually identifying a
schedule for their completion, their anticipated outputs,
and tentative cost estimates.  A scope of  work should be
attached to the MOU and incorporated into  the MOU by
reference; the detailed SOW will be developed as the first
task to be completed during the project.

    The scope of work for an EPA-lead remedial
investigation/feasibility study project may be taken from
the RAMP, if one has been developed for the site, may be
developed as a separate task order to the  REM/FIT contrac-
tor, or may be prepared by EPA staff.   If  remedial design
is later incorporated into the MOU, a detailed SOW must be
added to document the additional tasks and subtasks
required to complete that subactivity.  This can be based
on the conceptual design requirements contained in the
completed feasibility study.

B.  DOCUMENTATION OF TERMS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

    The MOU may also document EPA and State responsibili-
ties and contain general terms governing the agreement.
In many cases, the sample SSC articles found in Appendix H
can be used directly or modified for this  purpose.
However, several of the terms required in  an SSC are not
appropriate for an MOU.  This section describes the most
common responsibilities and terms reflected in MOUs;
additional ones may be used as the situation warrants.

B.1  EPA Responsibilities

    In addition to those detailed in the SOW, EPA has
other responsibilities that may be addressed in an MOU.
These include:

         Designation of an RSPO - EPA is responsible for
         designating a RSPO who will manage activities  at
         the site.  Limitations and prerogatives of the
         RSPO for effecting minor agreement changes should
         be discussed with the State and included in the
         MOU
                           IV-3

-------
         Communication with the State - Communication will
         usually be achieved through regular status
         reports provided by the RSPO to the SPO

         Community Relations Plan - EPA is responsible for
         implementing the CRP;  the State may participate
         in the community relations program and provide
         support to EPAr  as specified in the CRP

         Site Safety Plan'- EPA is responsible for ensuring
         that a safety plan will be prepared prior to
         initiation of any on-site work and that it will
         be implemented during the project.

Other EPA responsibilities, as appropriate for the specific
site, may also be discussed and documented in the MOU.

B.2  State Responsibilities

    State responsibilities that may be addressed in an
MOU, in addition to those identified in the SOW, include
the following:

         Designation of an SPO - The State is responsible
         for identifying an SPO to monitor site activities.
         Limitations and prerogatives of the SPO for
         effecting minor project changes should also be
         included in the MOU

         Site access and permits - The State is responsi-
         ble, to the extent of its statutory authority,
         for securing site access and obtaining, or
         assisting EPA in obtaining, any permits necessary
         for remedial activities at the site, should EPA
         reauest it to do so

         Assistance in obtaining site data - This assis-
         tance includes carrying out necessarv coordination
         with State and local agencies and using the
         State's authority to obtain available information

         Community Relations Plan - The State is responsi-
         ble for assisting EPA in implementing the CRP, as
         specified in the Plan.

Other State responsibilities, as appropriate to the
specific conditions at the site, may also be documented in
the MOU.
                           IV-4

-------
B.3  General Terms

    Finally, paragraphs that define the general terms
governing the MOU may be developed.  Topics that might be
addressed include:

         Emergency response actions - A paragraph speci-
         fying that remedial activities defined in the SOW
         may be suspended or modified if an emergency
         response is necessary at the site

         Third parties - A paragraph excluding third-party
         benefits under the MOU;  it should also exempt EPA
         and the State/ to the extent possible/ from
         third-party liability

         Coordination of enforcement and cost recovery -
         One or more paragraphs providing that these
         activities will be coordinated through Regional
         and State attorneys and address relevant enforce-
         ment subjects

         Responsible parties - A statement that performance
         of remedial activity at the site by a responsible
         party could change the scope of the MOU

         Modifications to the agreement - A paragraph
         identifying that there may be a need to alter the
         MOU to reflect changes in the agreement between
         EPA and the State

         Termination of the agreement - A provision that
         the MOU can be terminated upon agreement by both
         parties.

C.  OTHER SUBMISSIONS

    The MOU will usually include two additional
attachments:

         Community Relations Plan
         Intergovernmental review comments.

These are discussed in detail below.

C.I Community Relations Plan (CRP)

    The CRP is a management and planning tool outlining
the specific community relations activities to be under-
taken during the course of the remedial response.  It is
                           IV-5

-------
                                     12/10/84
                                     Replacement Page IV-6

designed to provide for two-way communication between the
affected community and the agencies responsible for
conducting the response action.

    The CRP for EPA-lead activities must be included with
the MOU  (if used) or must be developed prior to the
initiation of remedial planning subactivities, whichever
occurs first.  For more details on the contents of CRPs,
see Section III.D.I of this document and also refer to
Community Relations in Superfund;  A Handbook, (Interim
version), OSWER, September 1983.

C.2  Intergovernmental Review Comments

    The final component of the MOU package is the
intergovernmental review comments.  If the State has
developed a review process that includes Superfund MOUs,
the RSPO should include in the agreement package any
review comments and EPA's response to them.  EPA will
execute an MOU only after receipt of the review comments
if the program is covered by the process, unless the State
process has no comments.  If the MOU has not been
subjected to formal review but affected local officials
have responded to direct notification, the RSPO may
include these comments in the MOU package, as appropriate.

D.  MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS

    EPA coordinates all Federal-lead remedial activities
with the concerned States.  To monitor progress and
consult meaningfully with EPA about these activities,
States may review significant documents produced as part
of a project, attend important meetings about site
programs, and make site visits.  Such site-specific
activities performed by a State are collectively called
"management assistance."

    Management assistance applies to enforcement-lead
remedial investigation/feasibility study projects as well
as to program-lead remedial activities; State management
assistance activities are essentially the same for both
types of projects.  Enforcement costs are subject to the
limitations defined in "Payment of State Enforcement
Costs," OERR and OWPE, December 15, 1982, and "Authority
to Use CERCLA to Provide Enforcement Funding Assistance to
States," OGC, July 20, 1984, both reproduced in Appendix P
of this manual.
                           IV-6

-------
                                      12/10/84
                                      Replacement Page  IV-7

    Management assistance costs vary  from project to
project, but should generally range between  2  and
4 percent of EPA costs during remedial planning  and less
during remedial implementation.  Such costs  are  allowable
under Superfund Cooperative Agreements.  The Federal share
of these costs (either 100, 90, or 50 percent, as
explained on pages 1-5 and 1-6 of this manual) may be
included in an agreement funding only management
assistance at one or more Federal-lead sites or  may be
included in a multi-site Cooperative Agreement that also
funds State-lead projects.  In either case,  the
Cooperative Agreement providing funds for management
assistance should reference the applicable Federal-lead
response agreement (State letter of request, MOU, or
Superfund State Contract (SSC)), as appropriate.

    Allowable management assistance costs may generally
include the following:

         Personnel costs for professional staff  involved
         in reviewing documents and monitoring the
         progress of the project, in addition to  costs for
         necessary support staff.

         Travel costs for State personnel to visit the
         site and to attend key meetings concerning the
         project.

         Incidental costs,  such as telephone usage,
         postage,  copying,  etc.,  associated with  the above
         activities.

         Indirect costs in  accordance  with the State
         agency's  approved  indirect cost rate.

    The State role in management  assistance  varies,
depending upon the remedial activity being undertaken.
During an EPA-lead remedial investigation/feasibility
study the State may:

         Assist EPA contractors  in  obtaining information
         from State files

         Review preliminary planning outputs
                           IV-7

-------
                                     12/10/84
                                     New Page IV-8

         Review SOWS and workplans

         Review remedial investigation reports

         Provide information about applicable State
         environmental standards and requirements

         Review the draft feasibility study

         Participate in public meetings and briefings for
         local officials and legislators

         Review public comments on the draft feasibility
         study

         Assist EPA during preparation of the Record of
         Decision (ROD) and provide a State recommendation
         on remedial action alternatives

         Participate in environmental review of the design
         bid package

         Review community relations fact sheets.

During an EPA-lead remedial design, the State may:

         Participate in technical transfer briefings for
         remedial design initiation

         Participate in public meetings and briefings held
         for local officials and legislators

         Assist EPA in reviewing major design changes
         which may affect the selected remedy approved in
         the ROD

         Review the Value Engineering screening submittal

         Assist EPA in reviewing key contractor bid
         documents,  particularly in areas related to
         conflict of interest and compliance of off-site
         facilities with RCRA requirements, where necessary

         Review community relations fact sheets
                           IV-8

-------
                                      12/10/84
                                      New  Page  IV-9

         Develop administrative portions  of  the O&M plan

         Review O&M Plan developed by the remedial  design
         contractor.

During EPA-lead remedial implementation,  the State  may:

         Participate in public meetings and briefings held
         for local officials and legislators

         Obtain access to the site and adjoining properties

         Review proposed change orders and claims which
         may affect State cost share  and/or the ROD

         Participate in pre-construction  and pre-final
         construction conferences and implementation
         activities

         Review O&M manuals or workplans  developed  by the
         remedial action contractor

         Be present at trial runs/shakedowns of major
         equipment

         Participate in periodic and final inspections and
         project acceptance

         Review pre-final and final inspection reports

         Review progress reports and NPL  deletion documents

         Coordinate with Federal agencies and remedial
         action contractors to provide for smooth State
         assumption of O&M.

EPA will provide funding only for activities which are
specifically identified in the State's Cooperative
Agreement application and which are reasonable and
necessary for the State to fulfill its role in the
EPA-lead project.  EPA will not usually fund contractual
costs for State management assistance during an EPA-lead
project, nor will the Agency fund the full-time,  on-site
presence of a State representative.  The amount of time
that State personnel will spend on-site will be negotiated
                           IV-9

-------
                                     12/10/84
                                     New Page IV-10

between EPA and the State on a site-by-site basis.  The
period agreed upon should be adequate to keep the State
fully informed on the progress of work at the site, but  it
should not allow the State to duplicate EPA or U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) efforts.

    States should understand that EPA funding for State
management assistance will not change the contractual
relationship between EPA or the COE and the remedial
response contractor.  States may not direct the work of
the EPA or COE contractor or its subcontractors.  Any
changes that the State feels are needed in contractor
activities should be brought to the attention of the RSPO.

    In addition to fulfilling a management assistance role
at some EPA-lead sites, States may take the lead for
coordinating community relations in lieu of EPA or its
contractors.  In cases where EPA and the State agree that
it is appropriate, the State may also take the lead in
other tasks, such as air monitoring, reviewing
applications for State and local permits and licenses, and
issuing State permits and licenses.  These tasks, however,
must be delineated in a Cooperative Agreement application
in the same manner as for State-lead projects and should
not be considered as management assistance activities.

    A State may prefer to use its expenditures at a
Federal-lead site as advance match, rather than to have
the Federal share of these costs paid under a Cooperative
Agreement.  In such cases, the State may include these
costs in an existing Cooperative Agreement for one or more
sites; the costs must then be shown on the application
budget sheets as State-funded.  Where there is not an
appropriate Cooperative Agreement to use as a vehicle, the
State may document its advance match expenditures in an
SSC.  Information on advance match at Federal-lead sites
is included in Section V.B.3 of this manual.

    Preparation, review and approval procedures, and
documentation and reporting requirements for management
assistance Cooperative Agreements are generally the same
as those for any Superfund remedial Cooperative
Agreement.  These are described in Chapters III and VI of
this manual.
                           IV-10

-------
                                     12/10/84
                                     New Page IV-11
    Upon completion of each of the steps identified in
this chapter, the RSPO should have an MOU submission
package ready for review by the State and EPA Region.
Review and approval procedures for MOUs are described in
Chapter VI.
                          IV-11

-------
V.  DEVELOPMENT OF SUPERFUND STATE CONTRACTS

-------
       V.   DEVELOPMENT  OF  SUPERFUND STATE CONTRACTS
    A Superfund  State Contract  (SSC)  is  the  type  of
contractual agreement entered  into  by EPA and  the State
when EPA has  lead  responsibility  for  remedial  implementa-
tion.   It  is  not a procurement  contract,  as  defined by  the
Federal Grant and  Cooperative Agreement  Act.   Rather,  the
SSC is  a joint,  legally binding agreement that provides
the medium for obtaining any required State  cost  share  and
assurances and also documents responsibilities for  remedial
implementation at  a site.  An SSC is  not  needed for
remedial planning  subactivities, since no cost-sharing  or
other CERCLA section 104(c)(3)  assurances are  required.
In addition, an SSC may not be  used to cover Operation  ana
Maintenance (O&M); the State must take the lead for  O&M
through use of a Cooperative Agreement  (see  Chapter  III).

    In  the case of a remedial action  at a publicly-owned
site, the SSC must also be used to  obtain the  State's
cost-share for remedial planning.   Remedial  planning at
such sites may be covered by either an MOU or  State  letter
of request (see Chapter IV).  However, EPA does not
require the State to provide its statutory cost share for
remedial planning until such time as  a remedial action  is
implemented at the site.  Under the remedial implementation
SSC, the State is obliged to provide  its  required cost
share for removals, completed remedial planning,  and the
remedial implementation subactivities to  be  initiated.

    Major steps in the development of an  SSC are  presented
in Exhibit V-l, on the following page.  As shown  in  the
exhibit, primary responsibility for developing  the draft
SSC rests with the RSPO.  The RSPO should work  closely
with the SPO throughout the development of the  SSC,
involving other State and Regional staff, especially the
Office of Regional Counsel and other  enforcement  personnel,
as appropriate.  Support is available to  the RSPO from  the
EPA Zone Manager, whom the RSPO should regularly  inform of
progress while developing the SSC.

    A completed SSC will consist of the terms of  the
agreement between EPA and the State and attachments that
include the following elements:

         Statement of work
         Revised Community Relations Plan
         Governor or  Attorney General certification letter
         (if required)
         Intergovernmental review comments.
                            V-l

-------
                                                           EXHIBIT V-l
                                             DEVELOPMENT OF SUPERFUND STATE CONTRACTS
     ACTIVITY
                                                RESPONSIBILITIES
                                                                                                WORK PRODUCTS
   Dpvelopment of the SSC
   package (includes;
   development of statement
   of work, development of
   cost-.-shar inq terms, docu-
   mentation of other terms
   and responsibilities, sub-
   mission of other documents)^/
SPO:
                                   RSPO:
                                   ZONE
                                   MGR:
Acts as chief point of contact
in developing SSC for State
Negotiates terms of SSC with RSPO
Reviews terms of SSC during
development
Reviews Revised Community Relations
Plan
Submits certification letter (when
necessary)
Includes intergovernmental review
comments
Negotiates terms of SSC with SPO
Develops SSC
Submits Revised Community Relations
Plan

Supports RSPO, as requested
Statement of work
Cost-sharing terms and schedule, if required
Completed set of articles comprising the l.oily
of the SSC
Revised Community Relations Plan
Letter from Attorney General or Governor
(or designee), certifying the authority of
the agency to enter into the SSC and, if
necessary for completion of the project, to
the assurances required by CERCLA section
make 104 (c) (3) (if the Attorney General has
not signed the SSC)
Intergovernmental review comments
I/This activity is comprised of four distinct steps which are addressed separately in the text.  They have been combined in this
  exhibit in an effort to simplify the presentation of responsibilities.

-------
This chapter provides guidance on developing each of  these
SSC components.  A sample SSC for remedial implementation
at a privately-owned site can be found in Appendix  I.

A.  DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATEMENT OF WORK  (SOW)

    The SOW is the basis for all responsibilities defined
in the SSC.  It describes the activities/ subactivities,
and tasks that EPA, through its contractors or through
other Federal agencies/ will carry out at the site  and  is
used in estimating costs for these activities.  It  should
be attached to the SSC and incorporated into the SSC  by
reference.

    As with other types of remedial response agreements,
activities identified in the SSC SOW should be consistent
with the remedial response framework of the National
Contingency Plan (NCP), section 300.68.  The scope  of the
SOW will usually include only remedial implementation
(i.e./ remedial actions and IRMs).  A SOW for a remedial
action/ however/ will usually be prepared as part of  the
remedial design.

B.  DEVELOPMENT OF STATE COST-SHARING TERMS

    Based on cost estimates derived from work contained in
the SOW, the State's cost share should be determined  and
payment terms negotiated.  Terms negotiated between EPA
and the State should be included as an article in the
SSC.  The remainder of this section provides guidance for
calculating the State's cost share, negotiating payment
terms, and documenting both in the SSC.

B.I  Calculation of the State's Cost Share

    There are three factors that determine the amount of a
State's cost-sharing obligation:

         Estimated total project costs as defined by  the
         government estimate contained in the SOW.
         Remedial action project cost estimates must be
         adjusted to cover Army Corps of Engineers  over-
         sight costs plus various contingencies.  The
         chart in Exhibit V-2, on the fo-llowing page, can
         be used to estimate total remedial actions costs;
         to minimize the need for future amendments, SSCs
         should be negotiated to cover the total remedial
         action costs.
                           V-2

-------
                                         EXHIBIT V-2
              FIGURES FOR USE  IN ESTIMATING TOTAL EPA-LEAD REMEDIAL ACTION COSTS
       ITEM

Supervision and Administration
(ACE) On-Site Costs

Bid Contingency*

Engineering and Design Support

During Construction Contin-
gency Construction Change-
Orders and Claims Contingency
REM. ACTION ESTIMATES
LESS THAN $2,000,000

            8%
           25%

          1.5%



           10%
 REM. ACTION ESTIMATES
GREATER THAN $2,000,000

            6%
           25%

            1%



            8%
TOTAL
           44%
           40%
    Bid contingency is included to allow the Army Corps of Engineers (COE)  to award
    a contract to the low responsive, responsible bidder; the Corps is required to
    have funds available for 25% more than the estimated cost of a project before
    it may issue Invitations for Bids.   For State-lead projects, EPA maintains a
    contingency fund under the RAP process which may be used to cover bids in
    excess of project cost estimates.

-------
         The State's cost-sharing  percentage  --  either  10
         percent of remedial  implementation costs  or  at
         least 50 percent of  all response  costs  (including
         removals and remedial planning)  -- as required by
         CERCLA section  104(c) (3) (C).

         The amount of site-specific credit,  if  any,
         available to the State under  the  provisions  of
         section 104 (c) (3) (C) of CERCLA  (see  Section  II.F
         of this document and Appendix C for  more  details).

Each of these factors should be documented in an SSC
article defining State cost-sharing terms.

    Calculation of the State's cost-sharing obligation  is
a two-step process.  The first step is to  identify  the
State's total cost share for  the site.  This  is determined
by multiplying the total cost of activities included  in
the SSC SOW which require cost-sharing by  the appropriate
State cost-sharing percentage.  If the site is publicly-
owned, the State's share of any removal and remedial  plan-
ning costs must also be added.

    The second step is to calculate the State's total
obligation by applying State credit.  Available credit, up
to 100 percent of the State's cost share,  is subtracted
from the State's cost share to determine the State's  total
obligation.  (Where there is no credit, the State's total
obligation will equal the State's cost share.)  This cor-
rected amount represents the total contribution the State
must provide to EPA.   For examples of this calculation,
see Exhibit V-3, on the following page.

B.2  Negotiation of Payment Terms

    If there is insufficient credit to cover its cost-
sharing obligation, the State must contribute the differ-
ence in cash payments.  The State may use either of two
alternative methods:   lump-sum or installment payments.
When the State elects to use the lump-sum payment method,
EPA prefers to receive the money within 30 days of execu-
tion of the SSC.

    When the State uses the installment approach, EPA and
the State will negotiate a payment schedule which is docu-
mented in the SSC,  along with payment amounts.  Where
possible, the SSC should identify specific payment due
dates.  EPA prefers one payment to be scheduled within 30
days of SSC execution and one at the completion of site
activities; other payments can either be made on a regular
                            V-3

-------
Example 1
Example 2
                                                            EXHIBIT V-3
                                                   STATE COST SHARE CALCULATIONS
                                               (for  remedial  implementation  projects)
                        Total  remedial  implementation cost = $550,000
                        State  cost-sharing  percentage = 10 percent  (privately-owned  site)
                        State  credit  =  none
                   Total  remedial  implementation cost     x
                     $550,000                             x
             State cost-sharing percentage
                10 percent
             State Cost Share
             $55,000
                   The State  is  required  to  contribute  $55,000  in cash or  services;  EPA will  provide the remaining $495,000 for the
                   remedial  implementation.
                        Total  remedial  implementation cost  =  $550,000
                        State  cost-sharing  percentage =  10  percent  (privately-owned  site)
                        State  credit  =  $35,000
                   Total  remedial  implementation cost
                      $550,000

                   State  cost  share
                      $55,000
       x     State cost-sharing percentage
       x        10 percent

             State credit
                $35,000
             State Cost Share
             $55,000

             State Obligation
             $20,000
                   The State is  required  to  contribute  $20,000  in  cash;  the  remainder  of the State cost share is met by applying the
                   State  credit.   EPA will provide  $530,000  for  the  remedial implementation.
Example 3
                        Total  remedial  implementation  cost  -  $550,000
                        State  cost-sharing  percentage  =  50  percent  (publicly-owned site)
                        State  cost  share  for  remedial  planning  =  $50,000
                        State  credit  =  $350,000
                   Total  remedial
                    implementation  cost
                      $550,000

                   Remedial  planning  cost  share
                      $50,000

                   Total  State  cost share

                      $325,000
x   State cost-sharing percentage
x      50 percent

4 Remedial implementation cost
+ share   $275,000

- State credit (up to 100 percent
       of State cost share)
       $325,000
State Cost Share for Remedial Implementation
$275,000

Total State Cost Share
$325,000

State Obligation

0
                   F.PA funds  100  percent  of  all  project  costs  under  the Superfund State Contract.  Of the $350,000 credit, $325,000
                   has been  applied,  leaving $25,000  available for  future cost-sharing of the site.  The State will not be
                   reimbursed for  th<>  remaining  $25,000.

-------
billing schedule or tied to the completion dates of site
activities.  Although the schedule is flexible, EPA prefers
that the State's payments match EPA disbursements as
closely as possible (e.g., 50 percent of the State cost
share received by the time 50 percen-t of project costs
have been incurred) .

    Under both of these payment methods, the SSC should
contain a provision for reconciling estimated and actual
total project costs and adjusting the State's cost-sharing
terms accordingly.  Where the State has provided its esti-
mated cost share in a lump sum, EPA will refund any excess
payment or will request additional payment if there is a
difference between actual and estimated costs.  If the
State provides its payments in installments, EPA will
adjust the payment due at completion of the project, as
appropriate, for any difference.

    Prior to the May 13, 1983 recision of the 10 percent
cost-sharing for remedial planning, States shared in such
costs at some privately-owned sites.  Under EPA's current
legal determination, any cost shares previously paid by
the State (allowable State services, statutory credit, or
cash) for these activities may be applied to the State's
cost-sharing obligation during remedial implementation at
the site.  Such cost shares may have been included in the
SSC under the previous EPA policy.  If the State did pro-
vide a remedial cost share prior to the May 13 decision,
EPA may apply this money toward the State's ultimate cost
share during remedial implementation.

C.  DOCUMENTATION OF OTHER TERMS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

    The body of the SSC also contains articles that docu-
ment other EPA and State responsibilities and general terms
governing the agreement.  Each of these responsibilities
and terms should be discussed and incorporated into the
SSC as appropriate.  Appendix H provides examples of arti-
cles usually found in the SSC as well as additional back-
ground information.  This section briefly describes the
responsibilities and terms most commonly defined in a Con-
tract.

C.I  EPA Responsibilities

    In addition to responsibilities described in the pro-
ject SOW, EPA has other responsibilities that should be
addressed in SSC articles.  These responsibilities include:
                            V-4

-------
         Designation of an RSPO - EPA is responsible for
         designating an RSPO who will manage implementation
         at the site.  Limitations and prerogatives of the
         RSPO for effecting minor SSC changes should be
         discussed with the State and included in the SSC

         Completion of site activities - EPA will retain
         this responsibility even though the actual
         remedial implementation is performed by REM/FIT
         Zone Contractors or under the direction of another
         Federal agency; this responsibility should be
         confirmed in the SSC

         Communication with the State - Communication will
         usually be achieved through regular status reports
         that the RSPO will provide to the SPO; EPA is
         also responsible for seeking State input on any
         key decision points in the process

    .    Community Relations Plan - EPA is responsible for
         implementing the CRP;the State may participate
         in the community relations program and provide
         support to EPA as specified in the CRP

         Site Safety Plan - EPA is responsible for ensuring
         that a safety plan will be prepared prior to the
         initiation of on-site activities and will be
         implemented during the project.

Other EPA responsibilities, as appropriate for the specific
site, may also be discussed and documented in the SSC.

C.2  State Responsibilities

    State responsibilities that should be discussed in  the
SSC, in addition to those identified in the SOW,  include
the following:

         Designation of an SPQ - The State is responsible
         for identifying an SPO who will  monitor  site
         activities.   Limitations  and prerogatives of the
         SPO for effecting minor project  changes  should
         also be included in the SSC

         Assistance in obtaining site data - This assis-
         tance includes carrying out necessary coordination
         with State and local agencies and using  the
         State's authority to obtain available information
                           V-5

-------
         Provision of operation and maintenance (O&M) (if
         necessary) - CERCLA 104 (c) (3) (A)  requires the
         State to assure O&M of the selected remedy.  Where
         this is necessary, the State is responsible for
         undertaking all future O&M for the life of the
         project,  (the O&M must be covered under a Cooper-
         ative Agreement)*

         Provision of off-site facility (if necessary) -
         CERCLA 104 (c) (3) (B) requires the State to assure
         availability of adequate off-site storage, treat-
         ment, or disposal when necessary for completion
         of the project.  To meet this  assurance,  the State
         is required to provide an acceptable off-site
         facility, should EPA request the State to do so**

         Obtaining site access - To the extent of  its legal
         ability, the State is responsible for obtaining
         site access

         Obtaining necessary permits -  The State is respon-
         sible for obtaining, or assisting EPA in
         obtaining, permits necessary for the completion
         of proposed activities

         Community Relations Plan - The State is responsi-
         ble for assisting SPA in the implementation of
         the community relations program as specified in
         the CRP.

Other State responsibilities, as appropriate to the spe-
cific conditions at the site, may also  be discussed and
documented in the SSC.

C.3  General Terms

    The RSPO, in consultation with the  SPO, should develop
articles that define the general terms  governing the SSC.
Specific articles that should be discussed and drafted
include the following:
*   Where O&M is necessary for the remedial action chosen,
    the State must also provide EPA with an O&M plan;
    Section III.B.2.a of this document defines contents of
    such a plan.

**  Section I.B.3 of this document defines conditions  that
    the facility must meet to be considered adequate.
                           V-6

-------
         Emergency response actions - An article specifying
         that remedial activities defined in the SOW may
         be suspended or modified if an emergency response
         is necessary at the site

         Third parties - An article excluding third-party
         benefits under the SSC; it also, to the extent
         possible/ exempts EPA and the State from third-
         party liability

         Coordination of enforcement and cost recovery -
         One or more articles addressing relevant enforce-
         ment and cost recovery subjects and providing for
         the coordination of these activities through
         Regional and State attorneys

         Actions by responsible parties - A statement that
         remedial response activities by a responsible
         party could reduce the scope of the SSC

         Amendments to the agreement - An article identi-
         fying that there may be a need to amend the SSC
         to reflect changes in the agreement between EPA
         and the State

         Termination of the Contract - A provision that
         the SSC can be terminated upon joint agreement by
         both parties

         Failure to comply with Contract - A provision
         that if either party fails to comply with the
         terms of the SSC, the other party may seek to
         enforce the contract.

D.  OTHER SUBMISSIONS

    The SSC will usually include three additional attach-
ments:

         Revised Community Relations Plan
         Certification letter
         Intergovernmental review comments.

    These are discussed in detail below.

D.I  Community Relations Plan (CRP)

    The CRP is a management and planning tool outlining
the specific community relations activities  to be under-
taken during the course of the remedial response.  It is
designed to provide for two-way communication between the
affected community and the agencies responsible for  con-
ducting the response action.
                           V-7

-------
                                                   12/10/84
                                       Replacement Page V-8
    If Fund-financed remedial planning has been
implemented at the site, a CRP has already been
developed.  This CRP must be revised prior to the
implementation of a remedial action at the site.  The
revised version of the site CRP must be included with the
final SSC when it is submitted for EPA approval.  For more
details on preparing CRPs, refer to Section III.D.I of
this document.

D.2.  Certification Letter

    The State should provide, as an appendix to its SSC, a
letter certifying that the State official who signs the
SSC has the authority to enter into an agreement with EPA
and, if necessary for the completion of the project, to
make the assurances required by section 104 (c) (3)  of
CERCLA.  The certification letter may be from either the
State's Governor or Attorney General.

    Such a letter need not be site-specific;  the State may
prepare one letter applying to all of its NPL sites and
submit a copy with each SSC.  Examples of this
certification letter are provided in Appendix J.  More
detailed information concerning assumption of O&M will be
contained in the State's O&M plan, the requirements of
which are outlined in Section III.B.2 of this document.

    Certification of authority is not required if the
State Attorney General signs the SSC.

D.3  Intergovernmental Review Comments

    The final component of the SSC package is the
intergovernmental review comments.  If the State has.
developed a review process that includes SSCs, the RSPO
should include in the SSC package any review comments and
EPA's response to them.  EPA will execute an SSC only
after receipt of the review comments if the program is
covered by the process, unless the State process has no
comments.  If the SSC has not been subjected to formal
review but affected local officials have responded to
direct notification, the RSPO may include these comments
in the SSC package, as appropriate.

E.  MULTI-SITE SUPERFUND STATE CONTRACTS

    Just as EPA offers States the opportunity to develop
multi-site Cooperative Agreements to fund numerous
State-lead remedial response activities, a State may
                           V-8

-------
                                                  12/10/84
                                             New  Page  V-9

include in a single SSC all Federal-lead remedial actions
and IRMs to be conducted within that State.  These
agreements are called multi-site SSCs.

    Using multi-site SSCs, a State can tailor the number
and content of its Federal-lead remedial response
agreements to best meet its resource and personnel needs.
EPA and the State may jointly develop a multi-site SSC
either as a new agreement or by amending an existing
single-site SSC to add new sites and/or activities.  After
development, a multi-site SSC may be amended numerous
times to add any new remedial implementation projects
already on the Region's approved Superfund Comprehensive
Accomplishments Plan (SCAP).

    In general, requirements for a multi-site SSC are the
same as those outlined in preceding sections of this
chapter.  However, two important additional considerations
must be kept in mind when negotiating multi-site SSCs.
First, a separate, site-specific SOW must be prepared for
each remedial implementation project covered by the SSC.
This SOW must include the scope of the remedial activities
to be undertaken, the schedule for these activities, and
their estimated costs.   Second, cost-sharing terms must be
negotiated individually for  each project and must be
recorded separately in the body of the SSC.  All
cost-sharing is site-specific; State costs incurred for
work at one site cannot be used to meet the State's
cost-sharing obligations at  any other site.

    Additional information on general requirements for
multi-site remedial response agreements -- such as
intergovernmental review --  can be found in the MSCA
procedures,  provided in Section III.F.  of this document.
    Upon completing each of the steps outlined in this
chapter, the RSPO should have an SSC submission package
ready for review by the State and the EPA Region.  Review
and approval procedures are described in the next chapter.
                           V-9

-------
VI.  EXECUTION OF REMEDIAL AGREEMENTS

-------
           VI.   EXECUTION OF REMEDIAL AGREEMENTS
    The review and approval process is similar  for Cooper-
ative Agreements, MOUs, and SSCs,* and usually  consists of
three major steps:

         Review of the draft agreement
         Final Regional review
         Approval and execution.

The three sections in this chapter describe these steps
and the respective responsibilities of State and EPA
officials respective responsibilities.  A summary of these
responsibilities is provided in Exhibit VI-1, on the
following page.  Regions may, at their discretion, insti-
tute less elaborate procedures for MOU approval than those
described in this chapter.

    Exhibit VI-2, following Exhibit VI-1, summarizes key
events within each of the steps listed above.  As can be
seen from Exhibit VI~-2, the execution process is similar
for Cooperative Agreements, MOUs, and SSCs.  Because of
these similarities, the execution processes for the three
types of agreements are, for the most part, discussed
simultaneously in this chapter.  An exception is made for
the first step in the process -- review of the draft
agreement -- where separate discussions are included for
Cooperative Agreements and EPA-lead submissions.

A.  REVIEW OF THE DRAFT AGREEMENT

    As the first step in the execution process, a completed
draft agreement should undergo an initial review by
officials in the State and in the EPA Regional program
office to ensure that it is complete,,  technically sound,
and consistent with State and Federal statutes, regula-
tions, and policies.   This draft review provides an oppor-
tunity to identify and resolve any major  issues prior to
the formal submission of the agreement for approval.
    State letters requesting initiation of EPA-lead
    remedial planning are not required to undergo the
    process described in this chapter.  Necessary review,
    concurrences, and approvals of these projects should
    have been secured upon their inclusion in the Remedial
    Accomplishments Plan (RAP).
                           VI-1

-------
                                                             EXHIBIT VI-1
                                                   EXECUTION OF REMEDIAL AGREEMENTS
     ACTIVITY
                          RESPONSIBILITIES
                                                                               WORK  PRODUCTS
                                                                     STATE-LEAD            EPA-LEAD
1. Draft Review   SPO:
                  RSPO:
                  ZONE
                  MGR:

   Final Regional SPO:
   Review and
   Preparation of
   Concurrence    RSPO:
   Package

                  ZONE
                  MGR:
      . Coordinates State review
      . Develops dcaft application package and submits to RSPO
        (C/A only)
      . Renegotiates MOU or SSC provisions, as necessary (ERA-lead only)

      . Coordinates Regional review
      . Assists SPO with revisions, as necessary  (C/A only)
      . Develops draft MOU or SSC  (EPA-lead only)
      . Renegotiates provisions, as necessary            ,

      . Provides liaison between EPA Region and Headquarters
      . Assists RSPO, as necessary

      . Acts as chief point of communication for State
      . Obtains required State concurrences

      . Coordinates Regional review process
      . Prepares concurrence package

      . Provides liaison between EPA Region and Headquarters
      . Assists RSPO, as necessary
3.  Approval  and
   Execution of
   the Agreement
SPO:
                  RSPO:
                  ZONE
                  MGR:
Acts as chief point of communication for State
Discusses required changes with RSPO, as necessary

Reviews any revisions made to agreement
Communicates all EPA comments to SPO
Discusses required changes with SPO, as necessary

Provides liaison between EPA Region and Headquarters
Assists RSPO, as necessary
                                                                   Draft Cooperative
                                                                   Agreement
                                                                   application
                                                                   package
                      . Draft MOU or  SSC
Concurrence Package:
- Cooperative
  Agreement appli-
  cation package
- Decision Memo
- Grant Funding
  Order (EPA Form
  5700-14)
- Commitment Notice
  (EPA Form 2550-9)
- Draft press
  release
- Congressional
  notification plan

Offer of Award
(Form 5700-20A)
                                                                                          Concurrence  Package:
                                                                                          - MOU  or  SSC
                                                                                          - Decision Memo
                                                                                          - Draft  press
                                                                                            release
                                                                                          - Congressional
                                                                                            notification plan
                                                                                                  Executed MOU or
                                                                                                  SSC

-------
              EXHIBIT VI-2
AGREEMENT REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS
             DRAFT REVIEW

  • STATE SUBMISSION TO RSPO (C/A ONLY)
  • REGIONAL REVIEW
  • STATE REVIEW
  • REVISION (AS APPROPRIATE) .
                 i
             FINAL REVIEW
 • STATE SUBMISSION TO RSPO (C/A ONLY)
 • FINAL REGIONAL REVIEW
 • DEVELOPMENT OF CONCURRENCE PACKAGE
                 i
        APPROVAL AND EXECUTION
   • REGIONAL CONCURRENCES
   • REGIONAL ADMINSISTRATOR APPROVAL
   • OBLIGATION OF FUNDS (C/A ONLY)
   • STATE ACCEPTANCE
   • EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
   • OBLIGATION OF FUNDS (EPA-LEAD ONLY)

-------
Because procedures differ slightly at this initial stage,
reviews of the draft Cooperative Agreement application
package and the draft EPA-lead submission are discussed  '
separately below.

A.I  Review of the Draft Cooperative Agreement Application
     Package

    Once the SPO and the RSPO agree upon the content of
the draft Cooperative Agreement application package, it
should be reviewed concurrently by staff in the State and
EPA Region.  The SPO should initiate this review by.dis-
tributing copies of the draft to State officials and to
the RSPO.  In turn, the RSPO should distribute the draft
application package to appropriate Regional officials.
Participants in the State and Regional reviews will vary,
depending on the requirements of the site, but should at
least include the Office of Regional Counsel and enforce-
ment and technical staff members.  Based on EPA and State
comments, the SPO and RSPO should jointly resolve issues
and revise the draft Cooperative Agreement application
package, as appropriate, to produce a final application.

A.2  Review of the Draft EPA-Lead Submission

    Unlike the Cooperative Agreement, where the SPO is
responsible for initiating the review and approval process,
initiation of this process for an MOU or SSC is the respon-
sibility of the RSPO.  Once the RSPO and the SPO have
developed a draft submission, the RSPO should distribute
copies to Regional staff, thus initiating EPA Regional
draft review, and to the SPO.  Regional review should
involve participation by technical and enforcement staff
members, as well as representatives from the Office of
Regional Counsel.  The SPO should distribute the draft
submission to State officials for review.  Comments should
be incorporated into the final document as appropriate.

B.  FINAL REGIONAL REVIEW AND PREPARATION OF THE
    CONCURRENCE PACKAGE

    The second step in the review process is the final
Regional review of the Cooperative Agreement application
package or EPA-lead submission, and preparation of a
concurrence package.  Final Regional review should ensure
that all previous comments have been appropriately address-
ed and that any issues which could delay approval are
resolved.  This step is similar for both Cooperative
Agreement application packages and EPA-lead submissions.
                           VI-2

-------
    The RSPO is responsible for coordinating  final  Regional
review and obtaining necessary concurrences.  As  in the
draft review, participants may vary, but should at  least
include technical staff members and representatives from
the Office of Regional Counsel.

    Once the final review has been completed  and  necessary
concurrences obtained, the RSPO should prepare a  concur-
rence package for the agreement.  A concurrence package
for Cooperative Agreements and EPA-lead submissions  should
include:

         A Decision Memorandum recommending approval of
         the agreement and highlighting potential issues
         associated with the project (see Exhibit VI-3 on
         the following page which, for the benefit  of
         Regional staff, outlines the suggested format and
         contents of a Decision Memorandum);  this will be
         issued from the Recommending Official through the
         Regional Administrator (RA)*

         The Cooperative Agreement application package or
         EPA-lead submission (including intergovernmental
         review comments)

         A draft press release for announcing execution of
         the agreement

         A Congressional notification plan for informing
         concerned Federal and State officials of the
         agreement.

Concurrence packages for Cooperative Agreements shall also
contain a Grant Funding Order  (EPA Form 5700-14) , with
special conditions attached if the application has not
adequately addressed all EPA requirements,  and a Commit-
ment Notice (EPA Form 2550-9).
    The approval process for a Cooperative Agreement
    involves a Recommending Official, a Decision Official,
    and an Award Official.  Although the Super fund Division
    Director (DD) functions as both the Recommending
    Official and the Decision Official, it is possible for
    the DD to delegate recommending authority to another
    official, usually the Regional Superfund Coordinator.
    When the DD has delegated this authority, the Decision
    Memo will be from the Recommending Official _to the RA
    (Award Official)  through the DD (Decision Official).
    When the delegation has not been made, and for all
    EPA-lead submissions, the Decision Memo will be from
    the DD to the RA.
                           VI-3

-------
                                        EXHIBIT VI-3
                        SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR THE DECISION MEMORANDUM
       SUBJECT
Objective
Relationship of the Project to
the Program's Mission
Explanation of Any Apparent
Duplication of Effort
Enforcement
Community Relations
Recommendations
Reviews
Project Officer
Deviation Request
                       CONTENT

Brief summary of the purpose of the project and
how the proposed remedial activities satisfy it.

Explanation of how the proposed project fulfills the
CERCLA objectives of mitigating or minimizing
potential damage to public health, welfare, or the
environment.

Statement that the proposed project will not duplicate
any previous site activities and explanation of how it
will be coordinated with any past remedial and removal
activities at the site.

Short statement of past and prospective enforcement
actions, including concurrence from the Office of
Regional Counsel that funding the project is
appropriate in light of the status of enforcement
activity.

Statement that describes the purpose and scope of the
community relations program for the site.

Recommendations that the project be approved.  For
Cooperative Agreement applications, this should also
include determination of the State's ability to manage
the project.

Outline of the State and Regional review mechanisms to
ensure that conduct of the project will conform to
program requirements.

Designation of the RSPO, including an address and
telephone number.

If the State has made such a request at the time of
application submission, section containing necessary
Regional concurrences on and recommendations for RA
concurrence on the request.

-------
C.  APPROVAL AND EXECUTION

    The third and final step in the review and approval
process for Cooperative Agreements and EPA-lead submissions
is their approval and execution.  Because of the similari-
ties in carrying out this step for both types of agree-
ments, they are discussed together in this section.
Particular attention is given to procedures for review,
concurrence, and execution.

    The RSPO should distribute the completed concurrence
package to the Regional offices that participated in the
draft review.  After necessary concurrences have been
obtained, the package should be submitted to the RA for
signature.  Procedures followed after the RA's receipt of
the package differ to some extent, depending on the type
of agreement in question.

    The RA, upon signature of the EPA-lead agreement,
executes the agreement for EPA.  Thereafter, two signed
copies are sent to the State for execution.  To accomplish
this, an authorized State official must sign both copies
of the agreement and return one to the RSPO for retention
in EPA files.

    For a Cooperative Agreement, however, the process is
somewhat different.  If the package is acceptable to the
RA, it is sent to the Regional grants office for prepara-
tion of the offer of award (EPA Form 5700-20A).  This is
returned to the RA -- the Award Official -- for signature.
Two signed copies of the Cooperative Agreement, accompanied
by a cover letter making the offer of award, are then sent
to the State for acceptance.  Upon signature of the offer
of award, the State should return one copy to the Region
to complete the execution process; the second copy is for
retention in the State's files.

    Where a Cooperative Agreement has been executed,
remedial activities at the site may commence immediately
because the Cooperative Agreement obligates necessary
funds.  Execution of an EPA-lead agreement however is only
one step in funding Federal-lead remedial activities.
Money for activities under an EPA-lead agreement must be
obligated either in work assignment packages under one of
EPA's REM/FIT contracts or through an Interagency Agreement
(IAG) with the Army Corps of Engineers or other Federal
agency.  The REM/FIT contract manuals, Management Plan and
Operating Procedures;  Remedial Planning/Field Investiga-
tion Team Zone Contracts and REM/FIT Zone Contract Manage-
ment Procedures:  An Illustrated Guide contain details and
                           VI-4

-------
procedures necessary for preparing suck documents.  These
submissions should be developed concurrently with the
preparation, review, and approval of the EPA-lead
agreement to avoid any delay in obligation of the funds.
    This chapter has provided guidance for approving and
executing Cooperative Agreements and those EPA-lead agree-
ments which require review, concurrence, and approval.
Following execution, all remedial response agreements must
be implemented.  Procedures established for the adminis-
tration of Cooperative Agreements, SSCs, and other EPA-
lead agreements are the subject of Chapter VII.
                          VI-5

-------
VII.  ADMINISTRATION OF REMEDIAL AGREEMENTS

-------
        VII.   ADMINISTRATION OF REMEDIAL AGREEMENTS
    A number of administrative activities are required to
ensure that an executed remedial response agreement is
implemented successfully.  These activities include:

         Monitoring financial commitments made in the
         agreement, if any

         Monitoring technical commitments made in the
         agreement

         Coordinating terms of the EPA-lead agreements
         with performance agreements entered into with the
         REM/FIT contractor or the U.S. Army Corps of
         Engineers

         Maintaining adequate documentation of site
         remedial response

         Documenting the completion of a remedial action.

The above activities and responsibilities for completing
them are discussed in this chapter.  They are also summar-
ized in Exhibit VII-1, on the following page-

    Discussion in this chapter focuses on responsibilities
of EPA staff.  State roles in carrying out similar activi-
ties will depend upon administrative systems unique to
each State.  in addition, this chapter covers only those
administrative activities necessary to manage remedial
response agreements.  Similar procedures for administering
task orders under the REM/FIT Zone Contracts or  agreements
with the Corps of Engineers are not discussed below but
can be found in REM/FIT Zone Contract Management Proce-
%:
dures;  An Illustrated Guide/ HSCD, April 1983.

A.  MONITORING FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS

    RSPOs and Zone Managers are responsible for  ensuring
that the State carries out the financial commitments made
in its Cooperative Agreement or SSC.  Two types  of finan-
cial commitments are discussed below,  along with the
RSPOs1 and Zone Managers'  oversight roles and responsibili-
ties.
                          VII-1

-------
                                                            EXHIBIT VII-1
                                                ADMINISTRATION OF REMEDIAL AGREEMENTS
  ACTIVITY
                                                  RESPONSIBILITIES
                             STATE-LEAD
                                                                               EPA-LEAD
                                                                                                       ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE
1. Monitoring
   Financial
   Commitments
2. Monitoring
   Technical
   Commitments
               SPO:  . Coordinates with RSPO
                       to transfer funds to
                       new activity  (if necessary)
               RSPO: . Reviews State drawdown          RSPO:
                       activity
                     . Coordinates State transfer
                       of funds to different
                       activity (if necessary)
                     . Notifies OERR-FCC of changes
                       in accounts
                     . Resolves problems with State

               ZONE  • Monitors State expenditures     ZONE
               MGR:  . Supports RSPO problem           MGR:
                       resolution efforts
               SPOs  . Coordinates with RSPO as
                       necessary

               RSPO: . Initiates and maintains         RSPO:
                       site data in PTS
                     . Monitors technical activities
                       at site
                     . Tracks State CERCLA section
                       104(c)(3) assurances
                     . Monitors compliance with
                       special conditions
                     . Resolves problems with state
                     . Works with Regional Superfund
                       Community Relations Coordi-
                       nator  (RSCRC) in monitoring
                       community relations activities
                                                                  Follows  up; and  resolves
                                                                  delinquent payments (SSC only)
                                             Letter  of Credit Users Manual,
                                             EPA Division of Financial
                                             Management
                                             Guidance, Appendix N
                                                                  Provides information on
                                                                  payment  schedule  to  OERR-FMC
                                                                  (SSC only)
                                                                  Supports RSPO problem
                                                                  resolution  efforts  (SSC only)
                                                                  Initiates  new activities
                                                                  and  updates  PTS  information,
                                                                  as appropriate
                                                                  Manages  technical  activities
                                                                  at site
                                                                  Tracks State CERCLA section
                                                                  104(c) (3)  assurances (SSC only)
                                                                  Resolves problems  with state
                                                                  Works with RSCRC in monitoring
                                                                  community  relations activities
                                             Project Tracking System;
                                             Procedures Manual/Users
                                             Guide,  OERR,  August 1982.
                                             Community Relations in Super-
                                             fund;   A Handbook,(interim
                                             version), OERR, September 1983
                  ZONE
                  MGR:
3. Coordinating
   the MOU or SSC
   with Perform-
   ance Agree-
   ments
Ooeuniont iru
Ht'incd ial
Act i i.1 i ty
                       Monitors site activities
                       Supports RSPO problem
                       resolution efforts
                          Ma i 111 a i n
                          M.I iii La ins site file
                          Ensures nocesr.ary
                          in formal ion maintained  in
                          Regional ijr.vits off iiio
                          Forward:-. iK?<-i?!5sac y rloeuitiont
                          to '/.l)IU' M.lll.lMfl
ZONE  . Monitors site activities
MGR:  . Supports RSPO problem
        resolution efforts

RSPO: . Ensures consistency between
        SOW and EPA-lead agreement terms
      . Monitors remedial progress
        for impact on State cost
        share or payments  (SSC  only)

znt-in  . Monitors MOUS, SSCs, REM/FIT
 M'Mf:   woi k ortl'MS, and I Ail?
                                                              Maintains  situ tilt'
                                                              Forwards necessary documents
                                                              to  Zone Manager
Management Plan and  Operating
Procedures;  Remedial  Plan-
ning/Field Investigation  Team
Zone Contracts, HSCD,
October 20, 1982
REM/FIT Zone Contract  Management
Procedures;  An Illustrated
Guide, MSCD, i\|>iil  1983

Oust Recovery A< '.ionu  Under
'.'EHCLA, OFC aiid  >r,wrR~
KiMjuKt 26, !<»fn

-------
A.I  State Drawdowns Under a Cooperative Agreement

    The preferred method for transferring funds to a State
under a Cooperative Agreement is through a Letter of
Credit.  Using this method, EPA establishes at a Federal
Reserve bank of the State's choosing a credit account for
remedial planning and/or one for remedial implementation,
if applicable, for each signed Agreement.  The State then
"draws down" funds from the appropriate credit account to
cover EPA's share of immediate cash needs for each activity
approved in the Cooperative Agreement.  When the Coopera-
tive Agreement is site-specific, the State must draw down
funds by the appropriate activity code.  When the Agreement
covers more than one site, the State should be careful to
make drawdowns using the correct site and activity codes.
In either case, State drawdowns should reflect provision
of the State's cost share on a current basis (i.e., the
State should not draw down all of EPA's share before pro-
viding its share of costs).  Total drawdowns may not exceed
the amount obligated for each activity and site in the
Cooperative Agreement.

    The RSPO should review State drawdowns on a monthly
basis, using drawdown information available from the
Regional financial management office.  Key documents for
this review include the Financial Management System (FMS)
Outlay Report and the State's quarterly progress report,
required under the terms of each Cooperative Agreement.
In the review, the RSPO should first determine that State
drawdowns correspond to technical progress at the site and
that they are only large enough to cover immediate (usually
one month) cash needs.  The RSPO should also determine
whether the State is following the account structure estab-
lished in the Cooperative Agreement.  Under the terms of
the Cooperative Agreement, the State may draw down funds
from an account only for work performed under activities
funded by that account (for example, only remedial planning
work may be paid with funds drawn down from the correspond-
ing account established for remedial planning).  The
account from which drawdowns were made, identified in the
FMS Outlay Report or State quarterly report, must match
the activities being undertaken.

    Upon completion of remedial planning at a site, any
funds remaining in the site remedial planning account may
be used to fund an approved remedial implementation project
or may be used for activities at another site covered by
the same Cooperative Agreement.  Such funds, however, must
be officially transferred to the appropriate account.  To
effect this transfer, the State should submit a written
                          VII-2

-------
 request  to  the  RSPO  (see  Appendix  N for  details).   Trans-
 fers  also require  that  the  RSPO coordinate with OERR's
 FCC.   If the  FCC authorizes the transfer,  the RSPO will
 request  that  the Cooperative Agreement be  formally amended
 to move  the funds  to  the  designated account (see Chapter
 VIII  of  this  document).   Funds  remaining in a credit
 account  at  the  completion of the corresponding activity
 will  be  deobligated by EPA  and  returned  to the Fund if the
 State does  not  submit a transfer request or  if the State's
 request  is  denied.

    Zone Managers  are responsible  for monitoring the rate
 of State expenditures against the  percentage  of tasks
 completed for all  sites in  their individual  areas  of
 responsibility.  Necessary  information can be  obtained
 from  the Project Tracking System (PTS) (discussed  in
 greater  detail  in  Section VII.B below).  For  more  informa-
 tion  on  drawdown procedures, see Appendix  N  and EPA's
 Letter of Credit Users Manual,  published by  the Financial
 Management  Division(FMD).

 A.2   State  Payment of Cost  Share Under a Superfund  State
      Contract

    Unlike  a Cooperative  Agreement, an SSC does not  provide
 funding  to  the  State.  Instead,  to  cover its  share of
 remedial costs  under an SSC, the State may be  required  to
 provide  cash payments to EPA.   If  cash is  to be provided,
 the RSPO and  Zone Manager should ensure  that FMD receives
 information necessary to  track  accounts  receivable and
 delinquent  payments.

    Following execution of the  SSC, the  Zone Manager
 should forward a copy of  the executed SSC, containing  a
 payment  schedule, to FMD  to establish the account(s)
 receivable.   FMD will automatically send invoices to the
 State before the due dates indicated in  the payment
 schedule.   If the State is late  in  making payment,  FMD
 will  provide the RSPO with a delinquency report and will
 forward a copy to the Zone Manager.  The RSPO  is respon-
 sible for contacting the  State  to resolve any problems;
 those that cannot be resolved by the RSPO should be
 referred to  the Zone Manager.

B.  MONITORING TECHNICAL COMMITMENTS

    In addition to  financial commitments, EPA must also
monitor technical commitments concerning  site activities
as well as State assurances and special conditions  in the
remedial response agreement.  These activities and respon-
 sibilities are discussed below.
                          VII-3

-------
B.I  Monitoring Site Activities

    The RSPO should provide an on-going review of technical
progress at remedial sites to ensure that the State carries
out commitments detailed in the SOW for the remedial
response agreement.  The level of review required is
dependent upon whether the State or EPA has lead management
responsibility for the project.  As with financial commit-
ments, Zone Managers are responsible for monitoring the
progress of remedial response at sites within their geo-
graphical areas and for addressing problems that cannot be
resolved between the RSPO and the State.

    PTS is one tool used by EPA to track the conduct of
work at remedial response sites.  The system uses informa-
tion from the detailed work plan in the Cooperative Agree-
ment and from the REM/FIT contractor task order work plan
(based on the SOW in the EPA-lead agreement) to chart
estimated start and completion dates.  The RSPO should
provide information from the work plan to the PTS system
following execution of the Cooperative Agreement or EPA-
lead remedial agreement.

    For additional detailed information on responsibilities
and for descriptions of input forms and reports available
through PTS, see Project Tracking System;  Procedures
Manual/Users Guide, OERR, August 1982.

    The RSPO should also review progress through other
methods to supplement information available from PTS.
Some other information sources include site inspections,
informal telephone calls (where appropriate), and, for
State-lead activities, review of information included in
the State's quarterly report.

B.2  Monitoring State Assurances and Compliance with
     Special Conditions

    The RSPO is also responsible for monitoring State
implementation of CERCLA section 104 (c) (3), assurances and
compliance with Cooperative Agreement special conditions.
In addition to any financial commitments necessary for its
cost-sharing assurance (see Section I.B.3 of this docu-
ment) , a State may be required to carry out specific
actions to implement its off-site facility and O&M assur-
ances; these will be specified in the Cooperative Agreement
or SSC.  Cooperative Agreement special conditions may also
identify specific actions,  such as the provision of site
safety plans, to which the  State has committed itself.
                          VII-4

-------
     To  ensure  that  such  commitments  are  carried  out,  the
 RSPO should  track and  review  specific  dates  on which  State
 actions  are  to be taken,  if these are  available.   For
 State-lead activities, the RSPO may  use  the  State's
 quarterly report to track these dates.

 C.   COORDINATING EPA-LEAD REMEDIAL AGREEMENTS WITH
     PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS

     After an EPA-lead remedial agreement is  executed, EPA
 initiates remedial activities by entering into an  agreement
 with  its REM/FIT Zone Contractor or  with other Federal
 agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  (COE).
 It is important that the terms of such performance agree-
ments be consistent with those of the SOW for the  remedial
 agreement reached with the State.

    The RSPO is responsible for ensuring that both types
of agreements are consistent during  their initial  develop-
ment.  Any SOW changes negotiated between EPA and  the
 State during development of an EPA-lead agreement must be
consistent with the SOW in the performance agreement
 signed with the contractor or another agency.  In  the same
manner, any project changes made in performance agreements
with  the Zone Contractor or the agency must be negotiated
with  the State and reflected in the remedial response
agreement.  Since State payment terms under the SSC may be
dependent upon the SOW, the RSPO should also ensure that
these terms are consistent with time and cost estimates
resulting from any changes made to the SOW.

    It is also important to ensure that there is coordina-
tion between the agreements during conduct of the remedial
response.  Any modifications to EPA's performance agree-
ments with its Zone Contractor or other agency that are
 inconsistent with the terms of the EPA-lead remedial
response agreement must be reviewed by the State and
reflected in the remedial agreement.   The Zone Manager is
responsible for ensuring that any necessary changes are
made.

    In addition, the RSPO should monitor  financial and
technical progress at the site to determine whether they
will affect any State payment terms identified in the
SSC.   Changes may be required at sites where progress is
significantly delayed or  where actual costs are signifi-
cantly different from estimated costs.  The RSPO should
discuss differences  in progress with  the  SPO and where
necessary, adjust payment terms by amending the SSC.
                          VII-5

-------
D.  DOCUMENTING REMEDIAL ACTIVITY

    Another administrative responsibility for EPA staff is
the documentation of site activities through development
and maintenance of records and files.  The State is also
responsible for maintaining files for State-lead remedial
response activities; therefore, State files are also
discussed below.  With the exception of certain policy,
deliberative, and enforcement documents which may be held
confidential, EPA and State files will be available to the
public.  For additional details on record maintenance in
the Superfund program, see "Suggested Regional File Struc-
ture, Superfund Priority Sites and Priority Site Candi-
dates," OSWER, May 1982, and Appendix E of Cost Recovery
Actions Under CBRCLA, OEC and OSWER, August 26, 1983.

D.I  Regional Files

    Site files for documenting all activities carried out
at each site should be developed and maintained in Regional
offices.  Information in these files is critical to EPA's
enforcement and cost recovery actions.

    Tn general, Regional files should document and support
all actions taken at the site.  Documentation should be
sufficient to identify the source(s) and circumstances of
site problems and potentially responsible parties, provide
an accurate account of Federal costs incurred, and demon-
strate actual and potential impacts to public health and
welfare or to the environment.  Files should include the
following documents:

         A signed copy of the final remedial response
         agreement and concurrences from reviewing offices

         A signed copy of the Decision Memorandum

         A copy of the final draft agreement (if different
         from the approved version of that agreement).

Other communications, memoranda, and relevant documents
may also be included in the file, as appropriate.

D.2  EPA Headquarters Files

    Zone Managers are responsible for maintaining OERR
program files that are adequate to monitor progress under
remedial response agreements.  Zone Managers in both the
State and Regional Coordination Branch (SRCB) and in the
Remedial Action Branch (RAB)  are responsible for keeping
                           VII-6

-------
 records and documents  pertaining  to EPA and  State-lead
 agreements, including  many  of  the documents  in  the site
 files maintained  in  the  Regions.   RSPOs should  provide
 copies of necessary  documents,  such as  those items identi-
 fied above, State letters of request, reports,  and letters
 concerning the agreement, to the  Zone Managers  for reten-
 tion in their files.

    In addition,  Zone  Managers  are responsible  for main-
 taining OERR records related to obligations  under  EPA-lead
 agreements.  Contents  of these  files should  be  similar to
 the Regional site files.  Zone  Managers should  also  provide
 necessary information  to the following  Divisions:

         Grants Administration  Division, for  Interagency
         Agreements  (lAGs)

         Procurement and Contracts Management Division,
         for REM/FIT contracts.

 The above offices are  those responsible  for  making obliga-
 tions for these agreements and  will maintain  the official
 files.

 D.3  State Files

    In accordance with EPA's assistance  regulation, a
 State entering into a Cooperative Agreement 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,  methods
 of equipment usage, and depreciation.    Records must be
 maintained intact for  three years after  the 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.  Contents of State
 files for EPA-lead projects are at the discretion  of the
 State.

E.  DOCUMENTING COMPLETION OF REMEDIAL IMPLEMENTATION
                        [RESERVED]
                          VII-7

-------
    The activities and responsibilities described in this
chapter will continue throughout the agreement period;
remedial agreements will remain in effect until the end of
EPA's participation in O&M costs.  At any time during the
project, however, an occasion may arise when it is neces-
sary to adjust the terms of an executed agreement.  Proce-
dures for making these adjustments, as well as for initiat-
ing new activities upon completion of the project identi-
fied in an existing agreement, are described in the next
chapter.
                          VII-8

-------
VIII.  AGREEMENT MODIFICATIONS

-------
               VIII.  AGREEMENT MODIFICATIONS
    After an agreement has been  implemented,  it  sometimes
becomes necessary to modify  the  vehicle  in  some  manner  or
to negotiate a new agreement.  Three  types  of modifica-
tions may be pertinent:   (1) adjustments  to existing  pro-
jects,  (2) initiation of a remedial design  and/or  remedial
implementation at the completion of the already-funded
remedial planning project, or  (3) initiation  of  operation
and maintenance.  This chapter presents procedures  and
identifies responsibilities  for  effecting modifications
and implementing new activities.  As  such,  the chapter  has
three parts, corresponding to  the three categories  of
adjustments.

    The SPO and RSPO are responsible  for  initiating and
processing agreement modifications; specific  responsibili-
ties of these personnel are  summarized in Exhibit VIII-1,
on the following pages.

A.  PROJECT ADJUSTMENTS

    Project adjustments consist of alterations in the
amount, terms, conditions, project period,  or some other
administrative, technical, or  financial aspect of the
agreement.  Depending upon the significance of the change,
adjustments can be made either through formal amendments
or in writing between the RSPO and the SPO.   (Some
agreement adjustments will require prior changes in the
RAP.)

    Criteria for determining the type of adjustment
required and the responsibilities of the RSPO and SPO in
effecting these adjustments are discussed below for both
State- and EPA-lead projects.  They are also presented
graphically in Exhibit VIII-2,  following Exhibit VIII-1.

A.I  Adjustments to State-Lead Projects

    Significant changes occur when:

         Objectives and/or scope  of the project,  as funded,
         are altered

         Funds obligated under  one remedial accounting
         code will be used for  a  different remedial
         activity or a different  site

         There is any increase  or a substantial  decrease
         in the project period  or budget

                          VIII-1

-------
                                                            EXHIBIT VIII-1
                                                       AGREEMENT MODIFICATIONS
                                          RESPONSIBILITIES
     ACTIVITY
                               STATE-LEAD
                                                               EPA-LBAD
                                                                                             WORK  PRODUCTS
                                                                                                                 ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE
1. Project
   Adjustments
2.A Initiation
    of Remedial
    Design and
    Remedial
    Action -
    Record of
    Decision
SPOi   .  identifies changes to      BPOi
         be made to Cooperative
         Agreement
       .  Negotiates minor and
         administrative changes
         with RSPO
       .  Initiates amendment
         request, if required

RSPOi  .  Approves minor changes     RSPOi
         and concurs on admin-
         istrative changes, with
         necessary approvals
       .  Forwards State amendment
         request to Regional
         Award Official
ZONE   . Coordinates with OERR-
MGRi    FCC on transfer of
        funds

SPOi   . Coordinates with RSPO      SPO:
        to prepare ROD
       . Acts as chief point
        of contact for State
        in ROD preparation
       . Renegotiates agreement
        with RSPO, if required

RSPO:  . Prepares ROD, transmittal  RSPO:
        memo, and compiles
        documenting information
       . Coordinates Regional
        review and concurrence
       . Submits ROD to appropriate
        personnel in HQ
       . Renegotiates agreement
        with State,  if required
       . Hakes change in RAP to approve
        new activity

ZONE   . tOorJinates HQ             ZONE
MGRi    review, concurrence, and   MGR:
        approval of ROD
Negotiates changes to
BPA-lead agreements with RSPO
Effects minor changes to
EPA-lead agreements in
writing
                                                             Identifies changes that must
                                                             be made to State-lead agreement
                                                             Determines whether
                                                             changes require amendment
                                                             Negotiates and effects minor
                                                             changes in writing with SPO
                                                             Initiates amendment request,
                                                             If required
Sane as State-lead
Letters between SPO
and RSPO making
changes
Amendment request
Formal amendment
40 CFR Part
30.700-705
                                 Record of Decision
                                 Supporting
                                 documentation
                                 Tranamlttal memo
                      Record of Dec la ton
                      Guidance, OSWER,
                      August 25, 1982,
                      Appendix O, Sample
                      Record of Decision
                                                            Same as State-lead
                                                            Same as State-lead

-------
                                                           EXHIBIT VIII-1
                                                       AGREEMENT MODIFICATIONS
                                         RESPONSIBILITIES
     ACTIVITY
                              STATE-LEAD
                                                              EPA-LEAD
                                                                                             WORK PRODUCTS
                                                                                                                 ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE
2.B Initiation
    of Remedial
    Deslqn and
    Remedial
    Action -
    Incorporating
    RD/RA Into an
    Agreement
              SPOi
                  RSPOt
3.
Initiation
of Operation
and Mainten-
ance
                  ZONE
                  MGRt

                  SPOi
                  RSPO:
                  ZONE
                  MGRi
Develops C/A application/
amendment
Develops C/A provisions
Submits Revised CRP,
certification letter.
Procurement Check-list
i ntergovernmental
review comments
                       Provides consultation
                       and  technical  assist-
                       ance,  as requested
                       Coordinates  approval of
                       agreement/amendment
 Supports RSPO, as
 requested

 Develops C/A appll-
 cat ion/amendment
 Develops C/A provisions
 Submits revised CRP,
 certification letter,
 Procurement Checklist,
 Intergovernment review
 comments

 Provides consultation and
 technical assistance, as
 requested
 Coordinates approval of
 agreement/amendment

 Supports RSPO, as
 requested
SPOi  . Acts as chief point
        of State contact in
        modifying MOD or
        negotiating SSC
      . Submits new State
        letter of request (if
        applicable)
      . Negotiates agreement
        terms with RSPO and
        reviews agreement
        during development
      . Reviews CRP
      . Submits certification
        letter, as necessary

RSPO i . Negotiates agreement
        terms with RSPO
      . Develops MOU modifi-
        catlons/SSC
      . Submits CRP
      . Coordinates EPA approval
        of MOU amendment or SSC

ZONE  .  Supports RSPO, as
MGRi     requested    '
Agreement amend-
ment or new
remedial agree-
ment
Guidance, Chapters
3-5
                                                                                             Cooperative
                                                                                             Agreement or
                                                                                             amendment
                                                                 Guidance, Chapter
                                                                 3

-------
                                      EXHIb..  VIII-2
                   PROJECT  ADJUSTMENTS  APPROVAL  PROCESS
  COOPERATIVE
  AGREEMENTS
     ONLY
   BOTH TYPES OF AGREEMENTS
EPALEAD REMEDIAL
AGREEMENTS ONLY
SPO NOTIFIES RSPO
  OF NEED FOR
  ADJUSTMENT
 NATURE AND SCOPE OF ADJUST
MENTS NEGOTIATED BETWEEN RSPO
         AND SPO
RSPO NOTIFIES SPO
  OF NEED FOR
  ADJUSTMENT
                         CHANGE
                      AUTHORIZED IN
                     LETTER TO STATE
                           !
                         RSPO COORDINATES
                            DOCUMENT
                             REVIEW
                          COPY
                        RETAINED IN
                         SITE FILE
                                                            REGIONAL ADMINt
                                                            STRATOR REVIEWS
                                                             AND APPROVES
                                                            AMENDMENT SENT
                                                             TO STATE FOR
                                                             ACCEPTANCE

-------
         A rebudgeting of funds occurs, involving either a
         transfer between construction and another object
         class category or a change in the amount of in-
         direct costs.

A formal amendment must be issued by the Award Official in
the event that a significant change occurs; one is also
required to make any changes in special conditions.

    In contrast, formal amendments are not required for
minor project changes which are consistent with the pro-
ject's remedial objectives -- such as small budget shifts
between object class categories (except as indicated above)
and adjustments to the work plan within the scope and
objectives of the funded project -- or for administrative
changes -- such as the designation of a new RSPO.  Such
changes should be approved in writing by the RSPO or the
Award Official, as appropriate.  If approval of the Award
Official is required -- usually for administrative alter-
ations -- the RSPO should transmit the State's request and
draft a memorandum indicating RSPO approval to the Award
Official for issuance of written confirmation.

    Responsibility for requesting and obtaining approval
of adjustments to the Cooperative Agreement rests with the
SPO and RSPO.  The SPO identifies the need for an adjust-
ment and initiates the approval process by submitting a
request to the Region.  The RSPO then determines whether a
formal amendment is needed, and if so, transmits the
request to the Award Official.  If the Award Official signs
the amendment, it is sent to the State for acceptance and
is executed upon signature by an authorized State official.

A.2  Adjustments to EPA-Lead Projects

    Significant changes that may merit a formal amendment
to a MOU or SSC include:

         Changes in objectives or scope of the project

         Changes to other terms of the agreement

         Changes in total project costs such that total
         costs will exceed the ceiling limit set in the
         payment terms.

In the case of minor project changes, the agreement usually
gives the RSPO and SPO the authority to make modifications
which do not increase the project scope or total costs.
                          VIII-2

-------
     Responsibility  for  identifying  the  necessity  of  and
obtaining  approval  for  changes  to an EPA-lead  project  lies
with the RSPO and the SPO.  The  RSPO should  determine  when
the  agreement requires  modification, whereupon the RSPO
should negotiate these  with the  SPO.  Such changes can be
implemented  in written  correspondence between  the project
officers.

     A formal amendment  to  the SSC should  be  negotiated
between the RSPO and the SPO.  When agreement  has been
reached on the terms of the amendment,  the RSPO should
prepare an amending document and forward  it  to the Regional
Administrator (RA)  for  approval.  After the  document has
been signed by the  RA,  it  should be transmitted to the SPO
to obtain  the signature of an authorized  State official.
Upon signature, the amendment is executed.

B.   INITIATION OF REMEDIAL DESIGN AND REMEDIAL ACTION

     Following completion of a feasibility study,  it  is
necessary  to negotiate  a new agreement  or modify  the exist-
ing  one to cover remedial design and allow the initiation
of remedial implementation; this is the second type  of
agreement modification.  The new activities  must  also
appear in a final,  approved RAP.  Prior to either  of these,
however, the selected remedy must be formally  approved by
the  AA, SWER.  Approval is documented through  use  of a
Record of Decision  (ROD).  The remainder of  this  section
provides a general description of the approval  process for
a remedy as well as the incorporation of remedial  design
and/or.remedial implementation into an agreement  between
EPA  and the State.

B.I  Records of Decision (RQDs)

     Pursuant to section 104 (c) (4) of CERCLA  and subsequent
delegations of authority, the AA, SWER is required to  spe-
cifically select any remedial action prior to  its  initia-
tion.  Although Cooperative Agreements and EPA-lead reme-
dial  response agreements will be negotiated  and executed
in the Regions,  the AA,  SWER in EPA Headquarters will
retain authority for selecting a remedy.  Initial  remedial
measures (IRMs), however, may be selected by the RA;  the
selected IRM must also meet NCP requirements.*
    Selection of IRMs not involving off-site storage,
    treatment, or disposal may not require completed ROD
    packages as outlined in this section; however, approval
    should be incorporated into a modified ROD, an Action
    Memorandum, or some other document signed by the RA.
    Selection of IRMs involving off-site storage, treat-
    ment, or disposal must be documented in a ROD.

                          VIII-3

-------
    The ROD is an approval and briefing document developed
for obtaining and officially recording the AA's selection
of a specific remedy.  It is sent from the RA to the AA,
recommending either a remedial option or the "no action"
alternative for the site, and should contain the following
information:

         Background data on the site

         References to analyses and reports reviewed in
         determining the appropriateness of the remedy

         Declarations that the State has been consulted in
         the determination of the appropriate remedy; that
         the selected option is cost-effective and appro-
         priate when balanced against use of the Fund to
         respond to other sites; and that the option
         effectively mitigates or minimizes danger to, and
         provides adequate protection of, public health,
         welfare, or the environment

         For actions involving off-site disposal, declara-
         tions that the action is more cost-effective than
       .  other remedial actions; will create new capacity
         to manage hazardous substances; or is necessary
         to safeguard public health, welfare, or the envi-
         ronment

         A summary of the selected remedial options and
         their costs.

    The ROD should also include a section to document the
approved period and extent of EPA cost-sharing for O&M
activities.  This section should contain the following
information:

         Identification of O&M necessary for the selected
         remedy, including on-site monitoring

         Length of time O&M will be required

         Total estimated O&M costs

         Identification of the State agency which will be
         responsible for O&M

         The RA's recommendation of the period of time (up
         to a maximum of one year) during which EPA will
         share in the costs of O&M.
                          VIII-4

-------
 When recommending  the  period of time for EPA O&M cost-
 sharing,  the  RA should consider the individual circumstan-
 ces  of both the site and  the State  involved.   Factors  whicn
 may  be taken  into  account include the type  and cost of the
 O&M,  financial  capability of the State,  and the importance
 of the O&M activities  to  the effectiveness  of the remedy.
 Data  contained  in  the  O&M section will be a factor  in  the
 AA's  selection  of  remedy;  the cost-effectiveness of an
 alternative can therefore be judged on total  life cycle
 costs,  including those for O&M, rather than solely  upon
 costs  of  the  remedial  action itself.   Active  involvement
 of legal  staff  in  preparing  the O&M section is important
 since  cost recovery efforts  will include  O&M  costs.

    Attachments  to the ROD should provide sufficient
 information to  justify the recommended remedy.   These
 should  include  the following components:

          A summary sheet, which can be used to brief the
          AA on  the proposed  remedy  and site requirements

          A more detailed  narrative  summary  describing  the
          site,  its enforcement status, and  the  rationale
          for  recommending an  action

          Other  supporting documentation, such  as  the
          feasibility study report,  analysis of  the  recom-
          mended alternative  in terms of RCRA  requirements,
          and  a  responsiveness summary  which contains a
          review of public inquiries and comments, the
          issues and concerns  raised, arid how EPA  or  the
          State responded  (see Community Relations Policy,"
          May  9, 1983,  in Appendix P).

The ROD package should also highlight  any potential prob-
lems or policy  issues affecting the AA's decision and
should demonstrate close coordination  among EPA,  the
State, and the local community-

    The RSPO,  with assistance from the SPO and the Regional
Superfund Community Relations Coordinator (RSCRC),  is
responsible for developing both the ROD and a memorandum
from the RA,  and transmitting the ROD  to EPA Headquarters.
The transmittal memorandum contains  the RA's recommenda-
tions to  the  AA and the estimated costs of  the recommended
remedy, including State and EPA O&M costs.  Representatives
of the State  as well as EPA and State legal and enforcement
staff should  be actively involved in preparing the ROD
package.
                          VIII-5

-------
    The ROD package, containing the ROD, ROD attachments,
and the transmittal memorandum, should be sent to  the
Hazardous Site Control Division (HSCD) for Headquarters
review and concurrence.  Following this review,  the package
will be forwarded to the AA, SWER for approval and sig-
nature.  The AA is not obligated to authorize an entire
remedial implementation project.  It  is possible that, for
purposes of Fund-balancing, the AA may approve an  obliga-
tion only for one operable unit or activity  (such  as
remedial design) or may delay funding for O&M until a later
time.

    For a more detailed description of the ROD and proce-
dures for its development and approval, refer to Record of
Decision Guidance, OSWER, August 25,  1982.  A sample ROD
with supporting documentation is also provided in Appen-
dix 0.

B.2 Incorporating Remedial Design and Remedial Action Into
    an Agreement Between EPA and the  State

    Once the ROD has been approved and the project
included in the Region's final RAP, development of a new
agreement or an amendment to an existing agreement between
EPA and the State can begin.  When there is an existing
Cooperative Agreement or SSC for the  site, initiation of
remedial design and/or remedial implementation will
normally be accomplished through an amendment to the
existing agreement.

    The amendment negotiation process generally follows
the steps identified in Chapters III-V of this document.
When an MOU or State letter of request is used to cover
remedial planning at the site, the State may amend the MOU
or may submit a new request letter for the remedial design.
However, a Cooperative Agreement or an SSC must be negoti-
ated before remedial implementation can be undertaken.

    In any case, EPA and the State must agree upon a pro-
ject SOW, develop budgets (for a Cooperative Agreement),
negotiate State cost-sharing terms (for an SSC), address
EPA general and programmatic requirements, and review and
approve the resulting agreement in the manner described
earlier in this document.  Refer to the appropriate chap-
ters of this guidance for detailed procedures for complet-
ing these steps.

    If, however, the AA selects the "no action" alternative
presented in the ROD for the site, any existing agreement
is terminated.
                          VI11- 6

-------
C.   INITIATION OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

     Following completion of a remedial action,  the State
must assume responsibility for any O&M requirements
associated with the remedy.  This will begin with the
period during which EPA shares in the costs of  O&M  (for a
period not to exceed one year) as formally approved by the
AA,  SWER.

     The State is required by CERCLA section 104 (c) (3) (A)
to assure that it will assume responsibility for all O&M
activities.  In keeping with this provision, it is EPA
policy that all O&M activities for which the Agency pro-
vides a cost share will be State-lead.  Any EPA cost-
sharing approved by the AA, SWER in the ROD must therefore
be provided through a Cooperative Agreement.  If the reme-
dial action has occurred under a Cooperative Agreement,
that Agreement will normally be amended to cover O&M cost-
sharing.  EPA's share of O&M costs may be obligated at the
same time as Federal funds for the remedial action,  if the
remedial action is of relatively short duration, or  they
may  be obligated when that action is nearly completed.  In
either case, the SOW for the O&M portion of remedial imple-
mentation may be approved at the time that the remedial
action is funded.

     If a remedial action occurs through an SSC,  the  State
must enter into a Cooperative Agreement with EPA to  obtain
any  approved O&M cost-sharing.  Procedures for developing
a Cooperative Agreement can be found in Chapter  III  of
this document.
                          VIII-7

-------