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: Biri~-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
------- |