&EPA
Set* wan* ««>
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9230.1-04
TITUS: Superfund technical Assistance Grant Program -
Regional Quittance Manual
APPROVAL DATE: 6/1988
EFFECTIVE DATE: 6/1988
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
Q FINAL
0 DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (otha? documents)
[ ] A- Pending OMB approval
[ ] 8- Pending AA-OSWER approve!
f J C- For review &/or coament
[ ] D- la development or circulating
headquarter*
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE D
-------
^^ ^^^^^» ^k WIXIGU WIOIC9 kl l»ll W* ii i >w 1101 • iWlWVIUII nUGII^T
G.CDA Washington, DC 20460
v>trM OSWER Directive Initiation Request
1. Directive Number
9230.1-04
2. Originator Information
|Name of Co*ytAa.T IMail Code JOffice
Daphne Gemmill
• ^•••••^^^^^•^^^^•^^^^^^^•^^^^ —
Superfund Technical Assistance Grant Program
Guidance Manual
Telephone Code
_P L ^^ *^ 1 •
Regional
|4. Summary of Directive (include brief statement of purpose)
This manual augments the Citizens Guidance Manual by giving
the Regions additional information necessary to implement the
technical assistance grants program
superfund, CERCLA, SARA,
|6a. Does This Directive Supersede Previous I
b. Does It Supplement Previous Directive(s)?
TAG, community relations/ Regional Guidance
No
No
Yes What directive (number, title)
Yes What directive (number, title)9730 1 _ 0 ?
17. Draft Level
A - Signed by AA/DAA X B - Signed by Office Director
C - For Review & Comment
D.-ln Development
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters?
Yes
x
No
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format Standards.
5. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator
R. C. Hyde
OERR Directives Coordinator
10. Name and Title of Approving Official
Peter Hubbard
OSWER Directives Officer
Date
Date
EPA Form 1315-17 (Rev. 5-87) Previous editions are obsolete.
OSWER OSWER OSWER O
'E DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
-------
EPA REGIONAL GUIDANCE MANUAL
FOR THE
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
GRANT PROGRAM
OSWER Directive 9230.1-04
July 1988
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
NOTICE
Development of this document was funded, wholly or in part, by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-01-7389 to ICF
Incorporated. It has been subjected to the Agency's review process and approved
for publication as an EPA document.
- 111 -
-------
PREFACE
Section 117(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, authorizes the President to make
grants of up to $50,000 available to groups of individuals for the purpose of
obtaining technical assistance to interpret information related to Superfund
cleanups at sites listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) or proposed for
listing where a response action is underway. The authority to implement Section
117(e) in consultation with the Attorney General was delegated to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by Executive Order No. 12580. Thus, EPA
issued on March 24, 1988 an Interim Final Rule (IFR) establishing initial policies
and procedures for this program. Grants may be awarded during the period of
time between the issuance of the IFR and the Final Rule. A Final Rule is
expected to be issued in approximately one year, on or about March 24, 1989.
The purpose of this EPA Regional Guidance Manual for the Technical
Assistance Grant Program (Regional Guidance Manual) is to provide guidance to
EPA Regional Offices for the administration and implementation of the technical
assistance grant program during the period of time between issuance of the IFR
and the Final Rule. This guidance manual:
o outlines the various responsibilities of key EPA staff in
implementing this program;
o outlines the role of States in administering this
program;
o provides an overview of the application solicitation and
receipt processes;
o provides checklists for reviewing and evaluating
applications, and awarding grants;
o outlines the responsibilities and requirements of
technical assistance grant recipients;
o provides guidance for technical assistance grant project
administration and oversight;
o addresses some of the special circumstances involved
with the Technical Assistance Grant Program;
o describes alternative administrative and programmatic
approaches; and
o includes samples of public notification letters required
in the administration process.
- v -
-------
Together with this guidance manual, Agency personnel responsible for
administering the Technical Assistance Grant Program should follow the
procedures outlined in the EPA Assistance Administration Manual (1984 Edition,
EPA Grants Administration Division, Office of Administration) for implementing
the EPA grant and procurement regulations in Volume 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Parts 30 and 33, respectively. The Assistance Administration
Manual provides policies and procedures for managing administrative aspects of all
EPA financial assistance programs. The technical assistance grant program,
however, is unique in many aspects. As a result, procedures specific to this
program have been developed and are outlined in this guidance manual with
references to the appropriate chapters in the Assistance Administration Manual.
Agency personnel also should be familiar with the Citizens' Guidance Manual
for the Technical Assistance Grant Program. The citizens' guidance manual
provides citizens with detailed instructions on how to obtain a grant, hire a
technical advisor, and manage a technical assistance grant project. The citizens'
guidance manual and the grant application package are available, upon request,
from EPA Regional staff. Consequently, EPA staff will need to familiarize
themselves with the information and directions being provided to citizens to
ensure that Regional implementation of the program is consistent with the
instructions, information, and guidance provided to the general public.
In addition, EPA personnel should be familiar with the document, Community
Relations in Suoerfund: A Handbook. The handbook provides requirements,
guidance, and suggestions for conducting community relations activities during the
planning and implementation stages of remedial response actions. The Technical
Assistance Grant Program is a major public involvement effort that complements
community relations activities currently being conducted by EPA as part of the
Superfund program. While Regional staff may conduct community relations
activities for a site-specific technical assistance grant, these activities do not and
cannot substitute for other activities scheduled as part of a site's normal
community relations effort. EPA has an obligation to involve the community as a
whole ~ rather than just a single grant recipient — in the Superfund cleanup
process.
This guidance manual has been designed specifically for use by EPA Regional
staff. While State personnel may find it helpful, individual States probably will
need to develop a State-specific manual. States that choose to administer the
Technical Assistance Grant Program must inform the appropriate EPA Regional
Administrator and enter into a cooperative agreement or other written agreement
with EPA. The role of States in the Technical Assistance Grant Program is
discussed in Chapter 3 of this Regional Guidance Manual.
- vi -
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE v
1. THE SUPERFUND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM. . 1
1.1 Purpose and Objectives 1
1.2 Making Grants Available 2
2. RESPONSIBILITIES OF KEY STAFF. 5
2.1 Suggested Role of the TAG Project Officer 5
2.2 Suggested Roles of Other Staff 7
2.3 Alternative Staffing Approaches, 8
2.4 Regional Procedures 9
3. STATE INVOLVEMENT. 11
3.1 State Administration of the Technical Assistance Grant
Program 11
3.2 State Role Under EPA Administration of the Technical
Assistance Grant Program. 13
4. APPLICATION SOLICITATION AND RECEIPT 17
4.1 Encouraging Consolidation of Groups ".' . 17
4.2 Notification Techniques 17
4.3 Processing Letters of Intent 18
5. THE GRANT APPLICATION REVIEW AND AWARD PROCESS. ... 25
5.1 Application Review and Award 25
5.2 Application Requirements. 29
5.3 Application Scoring System 30
5.4 Ineligible Activities 43
5.5 Matching Requirement 44
5.6 Waivers 46
5.7 Availability of Scores 49
6. GENERAL PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS 51
6.1 Procurement Under Grant Agreements 51
6.2 Subagreements with Technical Advisors 51
7. BUDGET AND FINANCE 55
7.1 Internal Budgeting 55
7.2 Commitment and Obligation of Funds 55
7.3 Payment Procedures 56
7.4 Cost-recovery 57
7.5 Recipient Reporting 57
8. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES 59
8.1 Sites Overlapping More Than One Region Or State 59
8.2 Federal Facilities. 60
8.3 Delisting Sites from the NPL 60
- vn -
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
9. ALTERNATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROGRAMMATIC
APPROACHES 63
9.1 Additional Administrative Resources 63
9.2 Ciba-Geigy: An Alternative to the Technical Assistance
Grant Program 63
APPENDIX A SAMPLE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION LETTERS 67
1. Sample Acknowledgement Letter 69
2. Sample Deferral Letter 70
3. Sample Follow-Up Letter 71
APPENDIX B LIST OF ACRONYMS 73
APPENDIX C GLOSSARY 75
INDEX 81
- vin -
-------
1. THE SUPERFUND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM
1.1 Purpose and Objectives
Section 117(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, states that technical assistance
grants can be made to "... any group of individuals which may be affected by a
release or threatened release at any facility which is listed on the National
Priorities List (NPL)...." Affected groups eligible for technical assistance grants
are those that can demonstrate, among other things, that their members face
actual or potential health, economic, or environmental threats arising from a
release or threatened release at a facility listed on the NPL or proposed for
listing where a response action is underway.
CERCLA, as amended, authorizes a maximum technical assistance grant of up
to $50,000 per site for the duration of site response activities. Citizens' groups
are required to provide matching funds. Only one grant may be awarded for any
eligible NPL site. If more than one group intends to apply for the available grant
at a site, the groups should be encouraged to consolidate and submit one
application, however, they may elect to submit competing applications. In the
event that competing applications are submitted at a site, EPA may select only
one grant recipient from among the competing applications.
Grants will be used for the purpose of obtaining technical assistance to
interpret information related to Superfund response activities at a site. Grants
may be used to fund activities such as the review of documents, site visits by the
technical advisor, dissemination of information, and public information meetings.
The technical advisor will serve essentially as:
1) an interpreter of site-related technical documents;
2) an advisor in the development of citizens' comments on
documents such as the draft feasibility study (FS); and
3) a communicator to the larger community through
information meetings with citizens and the publication
of documents interpreting technical material.
The Technical Assistance Grant Program adds a major new component to
EPA's Superfund community relations program. By providing grants to citizens'
groups to hire technical advisors, the effectiveness of the EPA community
relations effort will be enhanced by promoting greater understanding of the
Superfund cleanup process and allowing for a more informed discussion of site
activities by citizens who are affected by the site.
-------
1.2 Making Grants Available
Groups may apply for a technical assistance grant at any time after a site is
listed on the NPL or proposed for listing where a response action has begun.
The earliest that grant monies will be available for these sites, however, is the
start of the response action.*
This approach should ensure that sufficient time is available for interested
groups to consolidate and apply formally for a grant. This schedule also should
give EPA an opportunity to process the grant application carefully and provide
the grant recipient time to obtain the services of a technical advisor before work
at the site actually begins. If possible, EPA or the State should allow time for
informing the public of the availability of technical assistance grants well in
advance of a response action. This can be accomplished in several ways. First,
to ensure that all eligible groups in a community have an equal opportunity to
apply for a technical assistance grant, community relations activities such as
mailings, meetings, and/or public notices must be undertaken to notify the public
about the availability of grants. Formal notification requirements are discussed in
Chapter 4 of this manual under "Application Solicitation and Receipt."
Second, the initiation of community interviews well in advance of the start
of site response action will enable EPA personnel to identify:
o individuals and groups in a community that desire and
need technical assistance;
o individuals and groups to add to EPA's mailing list for
mailings and meetings; and
o communities that are likely to submit consolidated
applications and those that are likely to submit
competing applications.
In cases where there are competing groups for the single available grant, EPA
staff should strongly encourage groups to consolidate and submit only one
application. Consolidation, however, is not required.
Third, development of a community relations plan by EPA early in the
technical assistance grant process that details projected site activities may help
speed up the application and review process. The community relations plan will
help citizens' groups in the development of their grant applications -- particularly
Part IV of the application, where a group must explain their plan for using a
The phrase "start of response action" is defined in the Interim Final Rule
(IFR) as "the point in time when there is a guarantee or set-aside of funding
either by EPA, other Federal agencies, States, or PRPs in order to begin response
activities at a site. The document which reflects the set-aside of, or formally
guarantees, funding during the coming fiscal year, is EPA's annual Superfund
Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP)."
- 2 -
-------
technical advisor. If there is no established community relations plan to refer to,
applicant groups will have to determine a reasonable schedule for site activities
either on their own or from discussions with the EPA Remedial Project Manager
(RPM).
Every effort should be made to inform site communities of the availability of
technical assistance grants as early as practical. Careful community relations
planning will allow the technical assistance grant program to be implemented
effectively and integrated smoothly into the overall Superfund remedial effort.
- 3 -
-------
2. RESPONSIBILITIES OF KEY STAFF
Successful implementation of the Technical Assistance Grant Program will
require close coordination among Superfund site personnel, such as the Remedial
Project Managers (RPMs) and the Community Relations Coordinators (CRCs), and
EPA staff responsible for administering and overseeing the grants process (i.e.,
contracts specialists and Financial Management Office (FMO), and Assistance
Administration Unit (AAU) personnel).* The organizational units responsible for
implementing the Technical Assistance Grant Program may vary depending on
Regional staffing levels, needs, and priorities. Regions should adopt specific
procedures which best suit their situation. Section 2.4 is reserved for each
Region to include its Regional procedures for implementing this program.
The following sections discuss:
o suggested role for the Technical Assistance Grant (TAG)
Project Officer throughout the grant review, award, and
oversight process;
o suggested roles for other EPA staff who are likely to be
involved in the administration and management of the
Technical Assistance Grant Program;
o two alternative staffing approaches for implementing the
Technical Assistance Grant Program; and
o Regional procedures.
2.1 Suggested Role of the TAG Project Officer
The TAG Project Officer will serve as the team leader throughout the grant
process and as the applicant's main point of contact with EPA. Therefore, it is
important to designate staff for this position as soon as practical. Regions may
wish to assign a TAG Project Officer no later than after receipt of the first
letter of intent advising the Agency that a citizens' group intends to file an
application for a technical assistance grant at a site.
The TAG Project Officer has the basic responsibility for managing and
monitoring all work performed under the terms of the EPA grant agreement. The
TAG Project Officer does not need to be an expert on all aspects of the
administrative, procurement, and financial requirements of the grant process but
must be able to identify situations requiring coordination with other Agency staff
such as the AAU, FMO, and other support units of the Agency which perform the
*AAU is the generic term for grant specialists in EPA Regional Offices and
is used throughout the EPA Assistance Administration Manual (1984 edition, EPA
Grants Administration Division, Office of Administration).
- 5 -
-------
administrative tasks required for evaluating applications, awarding grants, and
monitoring financial and progress reports.
The duties of the TAG Project Officer will vary during the grant application,
review, and oversight process. During the period of the grant application review,
the TAG Project Officer's responsibilities usually will include:
o serving as the grant applicant's primary EPA contact
during the application review and approval process;
o coordinating the administrative, programmatic, and legal
review of the application with the various members of
the review team, which may include the AAU, Office of
Regional Counsel (ORC), and Superfund remedial and
community relations staff, as well as staff from a State
Superfund office;
o participating in the review of the grant application and
the award of the grant; and
o coordinating with the Agency spokesperson during the
announcement of a grant award which involves issuing a
press release to local newspapers.
After a grant award has been made, the TAG Project Officer is the EPA
official directly responsible for the oversight of the technical assistance grant
project. During this stage, the TAG Project Officer's duties may include:
o establishing and maintaining the official technical record
of activities for the technical assistance grant;
o reviewing, when appropriate, subagreements under the
award before the recipient awards them to a technical
advisor;
o approving minor modifications to the Work Plan and/or
the budget;
o reviewing technical financial reports, progress reports,
and other correspondence that have a significant
bearing on the performance of the grant recipient or
the technical advisor;
o working with the FMO and the grant recipient if there
are any problems regarding reimbursement payments; and
o recommending administrative action if the recipient fails
to comply with EPA grant and procurement regulations
and any special conditions of the grant award.
- 6 -
-------
After the technical assistance grant project has been completed, the TAG
Project Officer is responsible for approving or disapproving a group's request to
destroy its records of the technical assistance grant project. No such request can
be approved until at least three years after close-out of the project. The TAG
Project Officer must obtain the consent of the ORC prior to approving this
request. Recipients must obtain EPA's prior written approval before destroying
any of their records after the record retention period and before approving
destruction of contractor records, in accordance with the IFR Section 35.4100.
2.2 Suggested Roles of Other Staff
In addition to the TAG Project Officer, a variety of other staff will
collaborate in the administration and oversight of a technical assistance grant.
The possible roles of various staff are outlined below.
Assistance Administration Unit (AAU): In cooperation with the TAG Project
Officer, the AAU for a Region is likely to be responsible for tracking the
application through the review, selection, and award process. In addition, the
AAU, may provide subsequent administrative and financial oversight of the
technical assistance grant after an award is made.
The AAU performs the initial administrative review of an application and
forwards the application to the grant review team for programmatic review. It is
advisable, however, that a grants specialist be included as a member of the
programmatic review team because of their knowledge of EPA's grants process.
Regional Superfund Office: Superfund staff should play an active role in the
Technical Assistance Grant Program. Effective programmatic review of a grant
application will require knowledge of the site, the site community, and the
schedule for remedial work. The RPM and CRC are likely to be the staff best
able to determine if a particular group is representative of a community and
whether a group's proposal presents a feasible plan for using the services of a
technical advisor at that particular site throughout the Superfund cleanup process.
Once the grant award has been made, the CRC and the RPM will interact
directly with citizens' groups and the technical advisors, as appropriate. Both the
RPM and the CRC should assume responsibility for coordinating with all site
technical and legal staff to provide information to the public on the technical
aspects of the site cleanup process. They also will need to be available to
answer both the technical advisor's and citizens' group's questions regarding sitc"-
related activities and documents. In addition, Superfund staff should ensure that
the TAG Project Officer, citizens' groups, and their technical advisors are kept
apprised of any schedule changes in site work, and that recipients and their
advisors have access to all publicly available documents related to the site.
Regional Financial Management Office (FMO): The FMO is comprised of
financial management specialists in each Region who establish and maintain the
official financial records related to grant agreements (e.g., the Financial
Management File). The FMO usually is responsible for processing financial
transactions related to a grant award including the obligation and disbursement of
- 7 -
-------
funds to grant recipients. The FMO also is responsible for recovering any funds
owed to the government after close-out or termination of a technical assistance
grant project.
Regional Administrator's Office : The Regional Administrator, or his/her
designee, reviews the grant review team's recommendations for waivers of the 35
percent matching share of the $50,000 ceiling for multi-site awards and makes the
final decision for all waivers granted.
Office of Regional Counsel (PRO: The ORC performs the legal review of
each grant application, as needed. In addition, the ORC provides advice, as
needed, on legal matters such as termination for cause, suspension, and debarment
actions. There also may be litigation or other enforcement actions ongoing at a
site. Whenever enforcement activities are anticipated or ongoing, ORC and the
enforcement program staff must be consulted.
Headquarters Grants Information and Analysis Branch (GIAB): The GIAB of
the Grants Administration Division is responsible for notifying the Headquarters
Office of Congressional Liaison of all grant awards prior to the Region notifying
the recipient (see Chapter 5 for details on this process).
Headquarters Office of External Affairs (OEA). Office of Congressional
Liaison (OCL): OEA's Office of Congressional Liaison is responsible for notifying
the appropriate Congressional delegation — prior to recipient notification -- of
each grant award at sites within the relevant district. OCL receives award
notifications from GIAB and delivers them to the appropriate Congressional
delegation. This notification process serves only an informational function and
does not require any response from the Congressional delegation or OCL.
Therefore OCL notification should not delay the award process.
Office of Inspector General (OIG): OIG is responsible, among other things,
for any necessary audits related to grant agreements.
Office of Emergency and. Remedial Response (OERR): OERR's role is to
resolve policy issues, review waiver requests to the $50,000 grant limit, develop
support materials from fact sheets to manuals, and troubleshoot problems if and
when they arise.
2.3 Alternative Staffing Approaches
Two Regions have suggested alternative staffing approaches for administering
the Technical Assistance Grant Program. One Region's approach involves three
distinct stages of project administration with different coordinators for each
implementation stage of the program. Each coordinator manages implementation
of his/her stage of the program without the support of a formally designated
team. Another Region's proposal involves a Region-wide team of staff directed by
a TAG coordinator who oversees all technical assistance grants for the Region.
These approaches are suggestions only; the roles of various staff and the
composition of the team will vary depending on the Region. Regions may adopt
- 8 -
-------
one of the staffing approaches outlined here or develop another staffing plan that
better suits their particular needs as described in Section 2.4.
Rotating Staffing Approach
Under this approach, the CRC serves as the initial administrative coordinator
and the primary contact for grant applicants. The CRC is responsible for
announcing the availability of technical assistance grants to site communities and
providing information about the program. The CRC also is responsible for
fulfilling all notification requirements and for organizing community relations
activities. These activities may include conducting public meetings or workshops,
issuing press releases and preparing public notices or mailings during the
application submission phase of the project.
Once the availability of a technical assistance grant at a site has been
announced and letters of intent or applications have been submitted, the lead
staff role shifts from the CRC to a designated Superfund official. This official is
responsible for the review of applications and the selection of the grant recipient.
The Superfund official also becomes the primary contact for citizens' groups
during this administrative phase of the project.
Once an award has been made, the lead staff role shifts again -- this time
to the AAU in a Region. This office becomes the primary contact for citizens'
groups and is responsible for administering, managing, and monitoring all work
performed under the terms of the EPA grant agreement for the remainder of the
project's life.
Single Contact Approach
This approach designates one staff person as the coordinator for the
Technical Assistance Grant Program in each Region. This TAG coordinator would
oversee a Region-wide team that would include: the RPM, CRC, Removal
Coordinator, a grants specialist from the AAU, FMO staff, and, if appropriate, a
representative from ORC and a representative of the State. Under the direction
of the TAG coordinator, this staff will implement the various aspects of the
Technical Assistance Grant Program such as conducting notification and
community relations activities, reviewing applications and selecting the grant
recipient, and monitoring the recipient's project performance and compliance with
all applicable regulations. The TAG coordinator ultimately will be responsible for
ensuring that all tasks related to the technical assistance program are carried out.
2.4 Regional Procedures (Reserved)
- 9 -
-------
3. STATE INVOLVEMENT
Section 121(f) of CERCLA , as amended, encourages States to assume a
"substantial and meaningful" role in implementing the Superfund program. EPA is
confident that State governments are well able to administer the Technical
Assistance Grant Program. Furthermore, EPA believes that States can best ensure
that broad community interests are represented and can identify citizens' groups
that will most effectively disseminate the technical advisor's conclusions to the
community at large. Therefore, EPA Regions should strongly encourage States to
take a leadership role in the Technical Assistance Grant Program. States,
however, may determine for themselves the level of their involvement in the
Technical Assistance Grant Program.
EPA has determined that States can administer all aspects of the Technical
Assistance Grant Program with two exceptions. The statute requires that EPA
must make decisions regarding waivers of the matching funds requirement and the
$50,000 per site grant limitation.
3.1 State Administration of the Technical Assistance Grant Program
States wishing to become involved in administering the Technical Assistance
Grant Program must inform the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator. If a
State chooses to administer the Technical Assistance Grant Program, the State
must do so in conformance with the IFR. EPA must negotiate a cooperative
agreement with the interested State to allocate both technical assistance funds
and administrative costs to the State. A State will receive $10,000 for
administrative costs for the first technical assistance grant for a site and 8
percent of the grant amount for each subsequent site. For the purpose of
calculating a State's administrative costs of a multi-site grant, each site should be
counted as if it were a separate grant award.
In addition to negotiating a cooperative agreement to allocate funds, Regions
are advised to prepare a State memorandum of agreement (SMOA) to clearly
define both the State's and EPA's roles in administering the program. If there is
an existing Superfund cooperative agreement, SMOA, or other written agreement
between the State and EPA, this agreement can be amended to encompass
administration of the Technical Assistance Grant Program. EPA is responsible for
oversight of State-lead Technical Assistance Grant Programs, as is the case with
other Superfund programs.
Technical assistance grants may be available for non-Fund financed State
response actions at NPL sites where there is no response agreement between EPA
and the State. The State, however, must enter into either a cooperative
agreement, SMOA, or other written agreement with EPA for administration of the
Technical Assistance Grant Program.
At their discretion, States entering into technical assistance grant
^operative agreements with EPA may notify EPA when they receive letters of
- 11 -
-------
intent and applications, and consult with EPA prior to awarding a grant. States
may provide grant assistance to citizens' groups in two ways: (1) award a
subgrant to a recipient group; or (2) actually acquire technical services on behalf
of a recipient group. Under the first option, a State negotiates a subgrant with
the recipient group whereby technical assistance funds are distributed to the
citizens' group through reimbursements for expenditures (IFR Section 35.4075). A
State that elects this option is responsible for monitoring the subgrant to ensure
that the recipient complies with the terms of the subgrant and with all applicable
regulations, including 40 CFR Parts 30 and 33, and the IFR.
Alternatively, if a recipient group agrees, States may acquire the goods and
services for technical assistance on behalf of the recipient group and then provide
those goods and services to the grant recipient in lieu of cash. The State, with
assistance from the recipient, can identify precisely what services are needed at a
site and what contractors are capable of providing those services. The recipient
group may work closely with the State in soliciting proposals, reviewing bids,
recommending the technical advisor, and managing the technical advisor. The
State, however, will make the final selection of the technical advisor. A State
that elects this option becomes directly responsible for awarding the technical
assistance subagreements, submitting financial and progress reports, and for
managing and disbursing all grant funds in compliance with applicable EPA
regulations and requirements.
If a State assumes either of the roles described above, the TAG Project
Officer's responsibilities described in Chapter 2 of this Regional Guidance Manual
may be adopted by the State. Because this guidance manual was written for use
by EPA Regional staff, however, States are encouraged to modify this guidance
for State-specific use.
Disputes Concerning State Actions
Section 35.4095 of the IFR provides that a grant applicant and/or recipient
dissatisfied with an official decision made under a State-administered Technical
Assistance Grant Program may request the State agency to review its original
decision. The State must provide the basis for its final decision in writing --
normally within 45 days of the date it receives the petition. The final decision
must inform the petitioner of his or her right to request EPA review if the
State's final decision remains adverse to the grant applicant/recipient. If the
State fails to comply with these requirements, EPA still may conduct a review.
Grant applicants/recipients requesting EPA review of a State's decision must-
file a request within 30 days of the State's final decision, or within a reasonable
time if the State does not respond in writing to an applicant's/recipient's request
for State review. Requests for EPA review must be sent by registered mail, with
a return receipt requested. They should include:
a) a copy of any written State decision;
b) a statement of the amount in dispute, if any;
- 12 -
-------
c) a description of the issues involved; and
d) a concise statement of objections to the State decision.
The EPA review will be conducted by a dispute decision official (DDO) or,
when EPA finds that the State review was comparable to a DDO's review under
40 CFR Part 30, Subpart L, the Regional Administrator will perform the review.
If dissatisfied with this level of review as well, the grant applicant/recipient may
request review of the Regional Administrator's decision by the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response at EPA Headquarters,
according to 40 CFR Part 30.1225 and Section 35.4095 of the IFR.
3.2 State Role Under EPA Administration of the Technical Assistance Grant
Program
Where EPA remains the lead agency in implementing the Technical Assistance
Grant Program, the State role may vary. As set forth in Section 35.4015(a) of
the IFR, EPA will begin accepting technical assistance grant applications and
awarding grants in consultation with the States at the earliest possible date. At
a minimum, States will have the option of participating in the Technical
Assistance Grant Program through the intergovernmental review process. It is
recommended that Regions encourage States to participate in the program in
addition to their intergovernmental review and program consultation roles. As
stated above, it is Agency policy to encourage State administrative involvement in
the Technical Assistance Grant Program at all eligible sites within its jurisdiction.
When EPA is the lead agency in administering the program, EPA should
notify the States of the availability of technical assistance grants at particular
sites to encourage suggestions from States regarding community groups that
should be alerted to the availability of such a grant in order to ensure broad
community representation among recipient group members. Furthermore, Regions
are encouraged to include a State Superfund program representative on the
application review team for sites where EPA has the lead. Regions are
encouraged to consult with Stares, where practical and feasible, about award
decisions. At a minimum, EPA should inform a State Superf und program
representative of the receipt and award of a technical assistance grant.
Intergovernmental Review
To establish coverage of the Technical Assistance Grant Program under the
intergovernmental review process, States were required to notify EPA by April 25,
1988 as to whether they would review technical assistance grant applications.
EPA will accommodate the review process of those States responding affirmatively
(see Exhibit 3-1). States can opt to include the program in their
intergovernmental review process at a later time, but applications submitted to
EPA prior to the State's notification of EPA are not subject ro review under
Executive Order 12372.
As a courtesy to applicants, TAG Project Officers should include in
acknowledgement letters responding to letters of intent whether or not the
- 13 -
-------
EXHIBIT 3-1
STATES INCLUDING THE Technical Assistance Grant Program
IN THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
(as of May 10, 1988)
Region I
Connecticut
Maine
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region III
Delaware
Pennsylvania
Region V
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Region VIII
Montana
Region X
Oregon
Washington
Region II
New Jersey
Puerto Rico
Region IV
Florida
Mississippi
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region VI
Arkansas
Region IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
- 14 -
-------
applicant's State is participating in the intergovernmental review process.
Otherwise, applicants must contact their State's Single Point of Contact (SPOC)
to learn if their application is subject to the State's review. They then must
complete Section II of their grant application accordingly and comply with the
State's review procedure. The State has 60 days to review each application, at
which time the State must forward its comments on the application to the
Regional Grants Office. EPA must accomodate a State's recommendations or
explain to the SPOC why it has not adopted the State's recommendations before
funding the application.
A State may at any time decide to change its coverage of programs for
intergovernmental review. If a State chooses to discontinue review of technical
assistance grant applications, it must notify the Headquarters Grants
Administration Division.
- 15 -
-------
4. APPLICATION SOLICITATION AND RECEIPT
4.1 Encouraging Consolidation of Groups
Section 117(e)(2) of CERCLA, as amended, states that, "[n]ot more than one
grant may be made under this subsection with respect to a single facility...." As
a result, only one group can receive a technical assistance grant for any one NPL
site, although a variety of groups may apply. While the Agency is not requiring
consolidation, groups should be encouraged to form coalitions whenever possible.
EPA staff should stress to potential applicants that their chances of
receiving a grant will be greatly improved if they involve in their project a broad
range of groups affected by the site. At sites where there are several groups
interested in applying for a grant, the Superfund RPM or CRC may consider
conducting public meetings and arranging for Superfund contractor staff to
provide facilitation services to assist groups in consolidating. EPA, at its
discretion, may provide facilitation services.
Offering such groups the services of a facilitator may assist the groups in
exploring the pros and cons of consolidation. Facilitation may help to bring the
groups together to achieve broader public representation of the affected groups
and/or individuals. One example of the appropriate use of a facilitator is in a
situation where a site affects more than one State or Region. If citizens' groups
from more than one State and/or Region are interested in a grant for the same
site, the existence of a political border between them may dampen their interest
in consolidating applications.
Consolidation may increase the group's chances of receiving a technical
assistance grant since there is only one grant available per site and broad
representation is one criteria by which groups will be evaluated. Consequently,
consolidation may lead to a higher application score. Additionally, consolidation
will help ease EPA's administrative burden by reducing the need to review
multiple applications. Generally, however, it shall be the responsibility of the
groups to form their own coalition and coordinate the completion and submittal of
their application.
4.2 Notification Techniques
To encourage both consolidation and broad community representation,
Superfund community relations staff should utilize a variety of techniques to fully
inform communities about this program. Staff should consult the document,
Community Relations in Supcrfund: A Handbook, for suggested approaches that
could supplement and enhance the techniques discussed below.
At sites where response activities are expected to begin within the coming
fiscal year, formal notice should be provided to the site community as soon as
funding is allocated in the SCAP for site work. At sites where work is already
underway, formal notice must be provided to other interested parties upon the
- 17 -
-------
receipt of the first letter of intent to file an application (letters of intent are
discussed in detail in Section 4.3). Formal notice can be provided through public
notices, mailings, workshops or meetings as outlined below. EPA staff must
implement at least one of the following activities to notify the public that EPA
has received a letter of intent:
o publish a public notice in newspapers of general
circulation in the area surrounding a site;
o send a mailing to all citizens and citizens' groups on
the site mailing list;
o conduct a workshop on the Technical Assistance Grant
Program (this activity may be combined with the RI
work plan kick-off meeting); or
o hold small group meetings to bring together all
interested community groups for the purposes of
consolidation.
A public notice or mailing announcing the availability of technical assistance
grants should indicate: (a) which EPA Region or State is administering the
program; (b) the appropriate contact person within EPA or the State; and (c)
whether EPA or a State has the lead responsibility for technical site work. If
applicable, the public notice or mailing also should provide the name and address
of the contact person for the citizens' group that filed the initial letter of intent.
In addition, the public notice or mailing should state that if other citizens' groups
choose to apply for a grant, they must file letters of intent. (Exhibit 4-1
provides a sample public notice.)
4.3 Processing Letters of Intent
All citizens' groups interested in applying for a technical assistance grant
must first submit a letter of intent to EPA. When EPA receives a letter of
intent for a site that is eligible for a grant, it must begin the formal community
notification process described above. Other potentially interested groups will have
30 days from the date of the publication of the notice, mailing, or workshop to
join with the first group to form a coalition and prepare one application. If no
other groups are interested in forming a coalition, they may submit a grant
application. If the groups are unable to form a coalition, they must submit a
letter of intent to EPA before the 30 day period expires. EPA then will accept
separate applications for an additional 30 day period from all interested groups
who previously filed a letter of intent. EPA should notify all applicants that
other groups intend to file an application and have been given an additional 30
days for the submission of a grant application. EPA may consider written
requests for an extension of the time provided by EPA to file an application.
There may be instances where EPA receives a completed application without
a preceding letter of intent. In these cases, Agency staff will consider an
application to take the place of a letter of intent and should follow the
- 18 -
-------
EXHIBIT 4-1
DRAFT PUBLIC NOTICE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Region I has received a
letter of intent to apply for a technical assistance grant at the Woodtown Landfill
Superfund site from the Woodtown Landfill Coalition. By law, only one grant for
up to $50,000 may be awarded to a citizens' group at any one site on the
National Priorities List. Because of this limitation and in order to ensure that all
community views are represented in recipient groups, EPA encourages all citizens'
groups interested in applying for a technical assistance grant at the Woodtown
Landfill site to consolidate with the Woodtown Landfill Coalition and file a joint
application. Within 30 days from the date of this notice, groups that wish to join
with the Woodtown Landfill Coalition for the purposes of this grant application
must notify:
Ms. Pat Jones, Executive Director
Woodtown Landfill Coalition
Main Street
Woodtown, Connecticut 06798
Groups wishing to file a separate grant application must, within 30 days of
[insent date of notice], submit to EPA a letter of intent to file an application.
All groups then will have an additional 30 days to file an application. If only
one group submits a letter of intent, they may submit a grant application 30 days
from the date of this notice.
All applications must be filed within 60 days of today's date. Groups that
require additional time to draft a letter of intent or to file an application may
submit a written request for an extension to EPA for consideration. Additional
information may be obtained from Ms. Ann Parker, EPA Region I Technical
Assistance Grants Project Officer. Letters of intent to apply for a technical
assistance grant for the Woodtown Landfill site, as well as grant applications,
should be sent to:
Ms. Ann Parker
Technical Assistance Grants Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Phone: (617) XXX-XXXX
- 19 -
-------
appropriate notification procedures outlined below. However, the applicant need
not submit another grant application unless they choose to coalesce with other
citizen's groups as a result of the notification process. If a coalition is formed,
then the initial applicant group should be directed to modify their application and
resubmit it.
In cases where a response action has not begun at the time of submittal of
the initial letter of intent or grant application, Regional staff must respond to
the applicant in writing informing the group that site work has not been
scheduled and the group's application cannot be considered at this time. The
letter also should State that EPA will notify the group at the appropriate time to
determine if the group is still interested and to determine if their original
application requires updating.
The following steps for processing letters of intent are suggested, though
these steps can be modified to meet the specific needs of a Region. Exhibit 4-2
is a flow chart illustrating this process. Each step on the flow chart is numbered
and explained below:
1. Letter of intent to file a grant application is received
and processed by the AAU.
2. TAG Project Officer is assigned if not already
designated.
3. The TAG Project Officer then circulates a copy of the
letter of intent to the RPM, the CRC, or the State and
other interested offices for the site. The RPM notifies
the TAG Project Officer as to whether a response
action is underway at the site is scheduled to begin in
the next fiscal year as indicated by EPA's Annual
Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP).
4. The AAU and the TAG Project Officer each establish
files for the site.
5. If a response action is not underway or scheduled to
begin, the the TAG Project Officer should notify the
applicant, in writing, within 30 days that no grant
award is anticipated in the near future and should
indicate to the applicant, whenever possible, the
approximate timing for submission of an application.
Community relations staff should ensure that the
applicant is added to the site mailing list.
6. If a response action has begun or is scheduled to begin
as indicated by the SCAP, in cooperation with the TAG
Project Officer, the CRC will conduct meetings, issue
mailings, and/or publish public notices announcing the
receipt of the initial letter of intent to file an
- 20 -
-------
Exhibit 4-2
Steps in Processing Letters of Intent
AAU receives
and processes letter
of intent to file
application.
H
TAG Project Officer is|
assigned if not
already designated.
At the close of 30-day
formal notice period,
the single applicant is
assigned TAG Project
Officer and files application.
No
Do
other groups
express interest
in applying for
a grant during
30-day formal
notice
period?^
Yes
An additional 30-day
period is provided for
groups to form coalition
and file one application,
or file separate
applications.
TAG Project Officer
sends copy of
letter of intent to
site RPM and CRC.
RPM notifies TAG
Project Officer about
site status.
TAG Project Officer
acknowledges receipt
of letter of intent. Formal
notice is provided through
mailings, meetings, or
public notices to inform
community about receipt
of letter of intent and
potential award of grant.
AAU and TAG
Project Officer
establish official
files for site.
TAG Project Officer
notifies the applicant
that no grant
award is anticipated
in the near
future and provides
an approximate date,
whenever possible,
for the submission
of an application.
AAU = Assistance Administration Unit
RPM = Regional Project Manager
CRC — Community Relations Coordinator
- 21 -
-------
application for the single technical assistance grant for
that site. The purpose of this community relations
effort is to notify other potential applicants that they
have the opportunity to form a coalition with the first
group or submit a letter of intent to file an application.
(A formal application from a group which has not first
submitted a letter of intent will be considered a letter
of intent for the purposes of this program.)
7. At the close of the 30-day formal notice period, if no
other citizens' groups have signified interest in applying
for a technical assistance grant, the TAG Project
Officer should instruct the sole potential applicant
initially by telephone and then in writing to file an
application with the appropriate Regional contact.
8. If during the 30-day formal notice period, additional
groups express interest in applying for the grant but
cannot form a coalition, EPA will provide an additional
30-day period to allow all groups to file separate
applications.
Request for Application Filing Extensions
Application filing extensions may be requested in writing during the second
30 day period and may be granted at EPA's discretion. All written requests
should justify the need for such an extension. The TAG Project Officer should
consider both the justification and the circumstances surrounding the need for an
extension. Before granting on extension, the TAG Project Officer should consult
with the Grant Review Team. In the event that an extension is approved, the
Agency should grant no more than a 30 day extension. The TAG Project Officer
then should notify other applicants that an application filing extension has been
granted and, consequently, that an award decision will be delayed. However, the
schedule for response activities at a site will not be affected by the technical
assistance grant application process.
Application filing extensions may be justified in situations where:
o consolidation efforts are progressing slowly due to the
involvement of a significant number of affected groups
and individuals with widely divergent perspectives;
o applicants believe that the lead agency, whether EPA or
the State, has not conducted adequate or timely
notification efforts; and
o applicants can substantiate that they were not provided
adequate or timely information by EPA or the State
which is needed to complete the application.
- 22 -
-------
Prioritizing Letters of Intent
There will be a need to prioritize letters of intent within each Region to
ensure that communities with the most immediate need for technical assistance
have access to grant monies as quickly as possible. Every effort should be made
to ensure that grant awards will be made in sufficient time for groups to obtain
an advisor by the start of the RI/FS. Regions should prioritize the processing of
letters of intent in the following order:
1) sites where RI/FS work is well underway, but prior to
the record of decision being issued at the last operable
unit;
2) sites where the RI/FS work plan has been developed
and/or the RI/FS has begun but a record of decision is
at least six months away;
3) sites where an RI/FS is scheduled to begin within the
next six months;
4) sites where an RI/FS is scheduled to begin within the
next fiscal year;
5) sites where the funds for the RI/FS have been obligated
but no work has begun; and
6) sites where design, construction, or operation and
maintenance are underway.
Prioritizing When Funds Are Limited
When funds are limited (e.g., during periods prior to reauthorization),
Regions will need to set priorities among sites where grants will be awarded.
Factors to consider in ranking the sites are:
1) risk to citizens' health or welfare posed by the site;
2) pre-ROD stage in the Superfund cleanup process;
3) history of public involvement at the site; and
4) threat to the environment posed by the site.
Other factors ~ such as financial need ~ also could be considered.
Releasing Names and Addresses of Applicants
Applicant's names and addresses are available under the Freedom of
Information Act. Regions may need to develop a tracking system to respond to
- 23 -
-------
such requests. As for requests from citizens to be placed on a permanent mailing
list for notification of each subsequent application, the Agency-to-date has not
created such a system. Such requests may be denied since no system exists.
- 24 -
-------
5. THE GRANT APPLICATION REVIEW AND AWARD PROCESS
5.1 Application Review and Award
EPA must review all applications for technical assistance to determine the
relevance of the proposal to EPA program objectives. Reviews must be consistent
with applicable regulations and established EPA criteria. The responsible agency
must ensure that any proposed grant agreement meets the requirements of 40 CFR
Part 30 and the regulations for the Technical Assistance Grant Program (40 CFR
Part 35, Subpart M). In addition to the standard procedures outlined in Chapter
12 of the Assistance Administration Manual for review and award of assistance
agreements, reviewers of technical assistance grant applications must determine
that the proposals meet the responsibility requirements and evaluation criteria
established in the IFR for the Technical Assistance Grant Program and further
outlined in the Citizens' Guidance Manual for the Technical Assistance Grant
Program.
Regions should note that Congress, in their 1988 Appropriations Committee
Report, instructed EPA "to act expeditiously" in making technical assistance grant
awards. As a result, Regions should act promptly to inform grant applicants of
any action taken on their application. This action can include making an award;
rejecting an application; or delaying action until a response action is scheduled to
begin or is underway at a site, as outlined in the IFR. A decision to award a
grant cannot be made until an application is complete. Once an application is
complete (to be complete, the application must go through the intergovernmental
review process, if required), an award decision should be made within 30 days.
A Regional grant review team should be designated and convened to review
assess technical assistance grant applications and to make the grant awards. The
composition of the review team will vary, however, depending on Regional staffing
levels and priorities, but is likely to include:
o the TAG Project Officer;
o a grants specialist;
o the RPM for the site, the RPM for Enforcement, or
ORC if legal or enforcement issues are involved;
o the CRC for the site; and
o the On-Scene Coordinator (included only when long-term
removal activities are anticipated at the site).
For those EPA personnel who may be unfamiliar with the standard EPA
grant review and award procedures, the following is a list of steps in the EPA
grant award process with additional steps added specifically for the Technical
Assistance Grant Program. Major steps are discussed in detail in the remaining
- 25 -
-------
sections of this chapter. Exhibit 5-1 presents a flow chart illustrating the overall
process. Each step on the flow chart is numbered and explained below:
1. The application is received by the Regional AAU; an
EPA Assistance Identification Number and program code
number are assigned to the application.
2. The TAG Project Officer is assigned if he/she has not
yet been designated, and official EPA project files are
created if they have not yet been established. (See
Chapter 5 of the Assistance Administration Manual.)*
These files consist of:
o the official administrative file maintained
by the AAU for each application. This
file contains documents providing EPA's
funding or rejection decision, principal
operating activities, and required
reporting through project completion,
close-out, and audit;
o the technical file maintained by the
sponsoring program office/TAG Project
Officer. This file is a record of
activities conducted under the grant,
such as progress reports; and
o the financial management file maintained
by the FMO. The FMO establishes,
maintains, and retires the official
financial records for an assistance
agreement.
3. EPA acknowledges receipt of the application.
4. The AAU enters information into the EPA Grants
Information and Control System (GICS) for tracking the
application throughout the review process in accordance
with the GICS Manual.
5. The AAU then performs an administrative review of the
application, which includes checking that the application
is complete and performing an arithmetic review of the
budget.
*As previously mentioned, it is recommended that these actions be taken
when letters of intent are processed.
- 26 -
-------
Exhibit 5-1
Steps in The Grant Application Review and Award Process
(Duration = 4-9 weeks)
Upon receipt of
AnnliPAtinn PPA
Assistance
Identification
Number assigned.
TAG Project Officer
assigned if not yet
designated.
Official EPA project
files created if
not yet established.
EPA 1
acknowledges receipt!
of application. 1
AAU enters
application tracking
information into
GIGS.
AAU performs
administrative
review of
application; TAG
Review Team
performs program-
matic review.
11
10
Headquarters
OCL receives
award notification
from GIAB and
notifies
appropriate
Congressional
delegation.
AAU sends grant
agreement to the
applicant for
signature.
AAU sends a
copy of the
award document
to the Regional
FMO and
transmits award
notification to
Headquarters
GIAB.
AAU prepares
grant
agreement;
Award Official
signs.
TAG
Review Team
sends a funding
recommendation
to the AAU.
Does
TAG Review
Team approve
application?
TAG Project
Officer sends
rejection letter to
applicant. AAU
notifies GIGS, and
closes out file.
AAU = Assistance Administration Unit
GICS « Grants Information and Control System
GIAB = Grants Information and Analysis Branch
OCL = Office qf Congressional Liaison
FMO — Financial Management Office
- 27 -
-------
6. The Technical Assistance Grant Review Team performs
the programmatic or technical review to select the best
proposal for funding. This review may be done by staff
assigned to the site such as the TAG Project Officer,
RPM, CRC, grants specialists, and other designated
staff. Staff should endeavor to complete this review as
rapidly as possible (e.g., within 30 days). (Section 5.3
of this guidance manual and Chapter 12 of the
Assistance Administration Manual provide further
information on technical or programmatic review
procedures.)
7. If an application is rejected, the TAG Project Officer
sends a rejection letter to the applicant outlining the
reasons for rejection and sends a copy of the letter to
the AAU. The AAU notifies GICS of the rejection and
closes out the official administrative file.
8. If the application is approved, the Review Team sends a
funding recommendation to the AAU. Under no
circumstances do the program staff notify the applicant
of award approval.
9. If the application receives administrative and
programmatic approval for funding, an grant agreement
(EPA Form 5700-20A) is prepared signed by the Award
Official. (See Chapter 15 of the Assistance
Administration Manual for further information on
preparing grant agreements.) Upon signature, the
document becomes an offer from EPA to the applicant
and obligates committed funds. The Award offers are
not mailed to the recipient until five working davs after
the Award Official signs the agreement (this restriction
does not apply to rejection, decrease, or withdrawal
actions). During this five day period, various internal
EPA offices (the Office of Congressional Liaison within
Headquarters Office of External Affairs, Headquarters
Grants Information and Analysis Branch (GIAB), the
Office of Regional Counsel, and the EPA Administrator)
must be notified of the award before any person outside
the Federal government is informed of the decision.
10. As part of the funding recommendation, the Grant
Review Team should prepare a commitment (of funds)
notice. The AAU then forwards a copy of the
commitment notice to the FMO for entry into the
financial management system. The award notification
also is transmitted to Headquarters GIAB.
- 28 -
-------
11. The AAU must provide a copy of page one (SF 424) of
the grant agreement to GIAB within one working day
following signature by the Award Official. The Office
of Congressional Liaison receives award notifications
from GIAB and notifies the appropriate Congressional
delegation prior to notification of the recipient. This
notification process serves only as an informational
function and does not require any response from the
Congressional delegation.
12. At the end of the five-day waiting period, the AAU
notifies the group that they have been awarded a
technical assistance grant. An original and one copy of
the grant agreement is sent to the applicant for
signature. The applicant must either sign and return
the agreement within three calendar weeks of the date
the agreement is postmarked or request an extension;
otherwise the application is void.
5.2 Application Requirements
Chapter 3 and Appendix A of The Citizens' Guidance Manual for the
Technical Assistance Grant Program contains detailed instructions explaining the
proper procedures for filling out an application. EPA personnel should familiarize
themselves with the instructions provided to citizens.
The extent to which EPA personnel assist groups in completing applications
will be left to the discretion of the Regions. EPA staff are advised to provide
the same level of assistance to all groups competing for a single application at a
site. It is important to provide equal support to each competing group to avoid
appearances of favoritism of any one of the groups applying for the grant. For
example, the Region may want to hold a workshop on the grant application
process for all interested groups at the beginning of the second 30 day filing
period. Such a workshop would ensure that all applicants receive the same
information and have an equal chance of successfully completing the application.
Applicants for technical assistance grants must submit the following materials
in accordance with Section 35.4045 of the IFR:
o an original and two copies of EPA Form 5700-33,
"State and Local Nonconstruction Programs." The
primary application must have the original
signature of the citizens' group's authorized
representative;
o a budget showing the proposed expenditure of
funds, and how the funds and other resources,
including the required 35 percent match, will be
used to complete the project (for the purposes of
- 29 -
-------
this program, a budget period will not exceed three
years); and
o Part IV of the grant application, "Applicant
Qualifications," which should contain a narrative
statement showing compliance with the evaluation
criteria in IFR Section 35.4035 and a Scope of
Services.
Part IV of the grant application will be critical for determining a group's
eligibility for receiving a grant and for determining their management capabilities,
and is particularly important in determining an award when there are several
competing applications. The following section provides checklists for reviewers to
use in evaluating Part IV of the application.
5.3 Application Scoring System
Initially, reviewers must determine whether or not applicants are eligible to
receive a grant. Following this assessment, reviewers will evaluate each
application using a two-tiered review system. During the first tier of review,
reviewers must determine that an applicant meets the minimum administrative/
management requirements outlined in Section 35.4020 of the IFR. In the second
tier of review, reviewers will use the evaluation criteria discussed below to score
each application. The second tier is designed to ensure that the applicant meets
the statutory and regulatory requirements for an "affected" group and that the
group can make effective use of a grant. The second tier is particularly
important in selecting one award recipient from among several competing
applications. Both tiers of review should be completed before an application is
approved or rejected.
Assessing an Applicant's Eligibility
The first step in reviewing an application is to determine if an applicant is
ineligible to receive a grant. As stated in Section 35.4030 of the IFR, ineligible
groups include:
o Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs);
o Corporations that are not incorporated for the
specific purpose of representing affected
individuals at the site;
o Academic institutions;
o Political subdivisions (e.g., townships and
municipalities); and
o Groups established and/or sustained by
governmental entities (including emergency
- 30 -
-------
planning committees and some citizen advisory
groups).
Within these categories, there are some exceptions that should be considered.
Citizen advisory groups that are established and funded by government entities
and have elected officials as members are ineligible. However, some citizen
advisory groups that organized themselves and were then later reorganized by a
government entity as a representative body of the community, but are not
supported by that or any other governmental entity should be considered eligible
for a technical assistance grant. Questions regarding the eligibility of innocent
landowners who are classified as PRPs should be directed to the appropriate EPA
Office of Regional Counsel. Under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, as amended,
landowners are subject to liability. However, CERCLA, as amended, provides a
defense for innocent landowners (see Sections 107(b) and 101(35)), and for de
minimus settlements (see Section 122(g)(l)(B)). Determinations are dependent upon
the facts of each case. Additionally, individual members of ineligible groups are
not precluded from participating as a member of an applicant and/or recipient
group while acting solely in their capacity as an "affected" individual.
Tier 1: Responsibility Requirements
Reviewers next must determine whether a grant applicant has the capability
to adequately manage a technical assistance grant as mandated by 40 CFR 35.4020.
This "Responsibility Requirements" section of the IFR states that "an applicant
must meet the minimum administrative and management capability requirements set
forth at 40 CFR 30.301." Additionally, an applicant must be incorporated as a
non-profit organization for the purpose of addressing the Superfund site for which
the grant is provided in order to be eligible to receive a grant.
Administration and Management Capability
An applicant must demonstrate that the group has developed a sound plan
for managing its technical advisor, including establishment of reliable procedures
for recordkeeping and maintaining financial accountability in accordance with 40
CFR 30.301. Grants can only be awarded to groups that have the ability to meet
the following criteria in 40 CFR 30.301:
1. Financial resources, technical qualifications, experience,
organization, and facilities adequate to carry out the project,
or a demonstrated ability to obtain these;
2. Resources to meet the project completion schedule contained
in the assistance agreement;
3. A satisfactory performance record for completion of projects
and subagreements or an organizational structure that
indicates their ability to complete projects and award
subagreements;
- 31 -
-------
4. Accounting and auditing procedures adequate to control
property, funds, and assets, as required in Subpart E of Part
30;
5. Procurement standards that comply with Part 33 of this
subchapter;
6. Property management systems for acquiring, maintaining,
safeguarding, and disposing of property, as required in
Subpart E of Part 30; and
7. Demonstrated compliance or willingness to comply with the
civil rights, equal employment opportunity, labor law, and
other stautory requirements under Subpart F of Part 30.
The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that groups applying for
technical assistance grants have established reliable procedures for managing a
grant and guiding-their technical advisor project. Few, if any, groups will have
had previous experience managing a project of this type or an EPA grant. As a
result, reviewers will need to evaluate a group's ability to manage a technical
assistance grant based on a minimal amount of information.
The grant application requirements detailed in the IFR only require groups to
supply a narrative statement stating their intention to meet the responsibility
requirements. While no supporting documentation is required to be submitted with
the application, TAG Project Officers should remind groups that they must be able
to document any statements that they make in their application in case of an
audit. Chapter 3 and Appendix A of The Citizens' Guidance Manual for the
Technical Assistance Grant Program provide a sample grant application that
outlines what information is expected from a grant applicant with regard to the
responsibility requirements. In addition to the narrative statement, reviewers also
should examine a group's entire grant application within the context of 40 CFR
30.301. The Scope of Services and budget sections of the application, in
particular, can provide indications of a group's management capabilities. A group
that has produced a sound plan for using the technical advisor with clear
objectives and a well-developed budget in their grant application is demonstrating
their capability to manage a project of this type and indicating that they are
likely to responsibly control government grant monies.
Incorporation Requirements
An additional responsibility requirement listed in Section 35.4020 of the IFR
is that all technical assistance grant recipients must be incorporated as a non-
profit organization for the purpose of addressing the Superfund site for which the
grant is provided in order to receive a grant. An applicant may meet this
requirement by stating that the group, if it is not incorporated, has specific plans
for incorporating if it is awarded a grant. Once awarded a grant, the group must
affirm that it has filed the appropriate incorporation documents with the State.
EPA should encourage the group to incorporate during the three week period in
- 32 -
-------
which they can sign the award document. In the event that the group is not
incorporated at the time of the award, a special condition should be added to the
grant. This special condition should state that the recipient will be incorporated
by the time of the first reimbursement request.
On or before the date that the first request for reimbursement is filed, the
recipient must submit documentation (most likely a letter from the State) showing
that the group has been officially incorporated by the State. If such
documentation is absent, EPA will not reimburse the grant recipient for the
requested funds and may annul the grant.
In some situations, the pre-existing incorporated status of a citizens' group
may be sufficient to meet the eligibility requirements of the Technical Assistance
Grant Program. One such case might involve a group that was incorporated as a
non-profit organization and whose membership represents all members of the
applicant group (e.g., a local environmental group formed specifically for the
purpose of overseeing the site cleanup).
In most cases, however, applicant groups will find it necessary or practical
to incorporate specifically for the Technical Assistance Grant Program. The
obvious case includes a situation where individual citizens have consolidated as an
applicant group. Another situation might exist where several pre-existing,
incorporated non-profit groups representing affected individuals at the site
consolidate to form one applicant group. In both cases, it is practical and
necessary for these applicant groups to incorporate specifically for the purposes
of the Technical Assistance Grant Program.
If a recipient has incorporated for the sole purpose of receiving a technical
assistance grant, the necessary and reasonable costs of incorporation will be
considered an eligible pre-award cost and may be charged to the grant or counted
towards the maching funds requirement as outline in Section 35.4070(b) of the
IFR.
Cap on Administrative Costs
Section 35.4085 of the IFR places a 15 percent cap on administrative costs
under the grant. The percentage is calculated based on total project costs. EPA
should encourage the grant recipient to assume all administrative costs as in-kind
contributions so that the grant monies go directly for technical assistance. The
Citizen Guidance Manual for the Technical Assistance Grant Program describes
activities that are considered administrative and those that are not.
Responsibility Requirements Checklist
Figure 5-2 provides a checklist to assist reviewers in assessing a group's
compliance with the responsibility requirements. Each of the criteria in 40 CFR
30.301, with the addition of incorporation, is listed followed by relevant questions
that reviewers might consider while scoring an application to ensure adherence
with the IFR Section 35.4020.
- 33 -
-------
EXHIBIT 5-2
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT APPLICATION SCORING FORM
TIER 1 REVIEW
APPLICANT:
SITE/STATE:
CRITERIA
DOES THE APPLICANT
VEEl THE CRITERIA?
(YES/NO)*
1. Financial resources, technical qualifications,
experience, organization, and facilities
adequate to carry out the project, or a
demonstrated ability to obtain these.
- Does the group have an adequate organizational
structure to carry out the project and provide
the necessary oversight?
- Does the group identify which officers or
members will be responsible for financial
oversight of the grant and for directing the
technical advisor?
2. Resources to meet the project completion schedule
contained in the grant agreement.
- Does the group adequately describe their plans
for raising the matching funds and/or obtaining
in kind contributions?
3. An indication of ability to complete projects
and subagreements.
- Do the schedule and budget outlined in the grant
application appear adequate for satisfactory
completion of the technical assistance project?
4. Accounting and auditing procedures adequate to
control property, funds, and assets, as required
in Subpart E of 40 CR Part 30.
- Has the applicant proposed or established pro-
cedures for recordkeeping or financial account-
ability related to management of the grant?
- Do the costs estimated in the group's proposed
budget appear reasonable in relation to the
tasks proposed?
- Does the applicant identify who will maintain
the group's financial records?
(continued)
-------
EXHIBIT 5-2
TIER 1 REVIEW SCORING FORM
(continued)
CRITERIA
DOES THE APPLICANT
«ET THE CRITERIA?
(YES/NO)*
5. Procurement standards that comply with 40 CFR
Part 33.
- Has the group submitted a procurement
certification form?
6. Property management systems for acquiring,
maintaining, safeguarding, and disposing of
property, as required in Subpart E, 40 CR Part 30.
- If the group proposes to acquire property with
grant monies (unlikely under this grant program),
do they have an adequate property management
system in place?
7. Is the group incorporated or are activities
underway to ensure incorporation of the group
prior to receipt of the grant award?
8. Does the group meet the 15 percent cap on
adninistrative costs?
*To be approved the applicant must satisfy all 8 criteria.
ACTION TAKEN:
Approved
Disapproved
EVALUATED BY:
DATE:
- 35 -
-------
Tier 2: Evaluation Criteria
The second tier of review will determine whether the applicant qualifies as
an "affected" group of individuals who can demonstrate direct ties to the site and
can use the grant effectively. Reviewers will use five evaluation criteria to
measure whether and to what extent an application meets this standard.
Applicants must describe in a short narrative statement in the "Applicant
Qualifications" section of Part IV of the grant application how they meet each of
the five criteria outlined in the Section 35.4035 of the IFR. Applicants are not
required to submit documentation when filing an application, however, they may
be required to supply such documentation at a later time if a pre-award review or
general audit is initiated.
The five criteria to be used in evaluating applications are:
1. The presence of an actual or potential health threat to
group members by the site;
2. The applicant represents groups and individuals affected
by the site;
3. The group plans to use the services of a technical
advisor throughout the Superfund cleanup process;
4. The intention and ability of the applicant to inform
others in the community of the information provided by
the technical advisor; and
5. The presence of an actual or potential economic threat
or other threat to group members such as the impaired
use or enjoyment of the environment caused by the site.
Scoring the Criteria
Each of the five evaluation criteria is assigned a weight to emphasize the
relative importance or significance of an individual criterion. The extent to
which an applicant meets each criterion will be determined by an assigned score
ranging from zero (not addressed or totally deficient) to four (excellent). After
evaluating each individual criterion, the scores will be multiplied by the assigned
weight. Finally, the scores of each criterion will be added to determine the total
score for the application. The maximum score that an application can receive is
400 points (5 criteria which total 100 points x a perfect score of 4 on each
criterion = 400 total points). For example, the maximum score that an application
can receive on the health threat criterion discussed below would be 120 points (4
x 30 points = 120).
In general, each criterion will be evaluated according to the scoring plan
outlined below:
- 36 -
-------
Value Description
0 Not addressed or totally deficient.
1 Poor.
2 Fair.
3 Good.
4 Excellent.
It is important to note that the same scoring system is used regardless of
whether a single application or competing applications are submitted. In the
event that a single application is submitted, reviewers must be particularly
concerned with determining whether or not the group qualifies as an affected
group and can adequately manage a grant for technical assistance. Therefore,
reviewers should score the application to determine if the applicant adequately
satisfies the requirements of the Technical Assistance Grant Program. A single
application that does not meet minimum requirements can be rejected outright or
sent back to the applicant to be revised. The scoring system, however, is
particularly important in the event of competing applications for a single grant
award. In this case, a comparative evaluation of the applications will be a
significant factor in determining the most qualified applicant.
For each criterion listed below, a checklist of questions is provided for
reviewers to use in evaluating the application (see Exhibit 5-3 for a Tier 2
Application Scoring Form). Questions also are provided for comparing competing
applications. In addition, hypothetical examples are provided to assist reviewers
in understanding the comparative factor associated with evaluating competing
applications. The scores used in these examples are provided for illustrative
purposes only and should not be construed as definitive. The weight assigned to
each criterion appears in parentheses.
1. The presence of an actual or potential health threat posed to group
members from the site. (30 points)
To substantiate this information, applicants must include in their applications
a statement of no more than one page describing the actual or potential health
threats posed to group members by the site, the number of group members facing
such threats, and, where appropriate, any past actions taken by group members-to
resolve or make known their health concerns to local, State, or Federal officials.
A group may meet this criterion by establishing that its members are subject to
demonstrable health threats (whether actual or potential), or a health threat that
group members reasonably perceive to be substantial.
The phrase "reasonably believed to be substantial" may be interpreted as any
citizen concern that is rational, logical, credible, or justifiable. Belief or
perception is a subjective quality. Agency staff do not have to agree with the
belief or have proof that the belief is supported by evidence. Not all health
concerns should be assigned equal value. Ordinarily, an applicant claiming the
- 37 -
-------
EXHIBIT 5-3
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT APPLICATION SCORING FORM
TIER 2 REVIEW
APPLICANT:
SITE/STATE:
CRITERIA
1. Presence of an actual or
potential health threat to
group members from the site.
2. Applicant best represents
groups and individuals
affected by the site.
3. Identification of how the
group plans to use the
services of a technical
advisor throughout the
Superfund cleanup process.
4. Demonstrated intention and
ability of the applicant to
inform others in the com-
munity of the information
provided by the technical
advisor.
5. Presence of an actual or
potential economic threat or
threat of impaired use or
enjoyment of the environment
to group members that is
caused by the site.
TOTAL POINTS FOR CRITERIA
(out of a possible 400)
WEIGHT
30
20
20
20
10
X
X
X
X
X
X
RATING
(0-4)*
=
=
=
=
=
=
TOTAL FDR
CRITERION
JUSTIFICATION
ORCOfENTS
ACTION TAKEN:
EVALUATED BY:
DATE:
Approved
Disapproved
* Rating Definitions:
0 = Not Addressed or
totally deficient
1 = Poor
2 = Fair
3 = Good
4 = Excellent
-------
presence of a demonstrable health threat will score higher than one whose claims
are based solely on a potential threat. However, an applicant's inability to
ascribe health problems to the site will not necessarily prevent that applicant
from receiving a grant provided that the group meets the other criteria.
In the face of competing applications, an applicant that can show that the
group faces a demonstrable health effect (for example, all group members are
using bottled water as a result of a contaminated water supply) might receive a
score of three or four. In contrast, a group that perceives a threat (for example,
there are a large number of cancer cases in their neighborhood but no scientific
evidence that shows the cancer has been caused by the site) might receive a
score of two. A single application, based on beliefs or perceptions, would score
higher in this category.
In measuring this criterion, reviewers should consider the following
questions:
a. Does the site pose actual or potential health threats to
the group or do group members reasonably believe that
the site poses a threat? (Actual, documented health
threats would receive a higher score than potential
threats.)
b. What percentage of the group is affected?
c. What past actions have been taken by group members to
resolve or to make known these health concerns (e.g.,
letters to agencies or officials, petitions for health
assessments)?
2. The applicant represents groups and individuals affected bv the site.
(20 points)
The applicant must indicate, in no more than one page, the extent to which
the group represents affected citizens, and an explanation of how they plan to
involve other affected groups and/or individuals in the community who express
interest in joining the coalition after the award of the technical assistance grant.
For example, a group showing a high level of historical involvement and
constituting a coalition of groups might be awarded a score of four. Conversely,
a group of individuals with no historical involvement with the site and no stated
intention to try to involve others might receive a score of one or zero.
In measuring this criterion, reviewers should consider the following
questions:
a. Does the applicant represent a broad range of
concerns expressed by the community related to
the site? In the event of competing applications,
does one applicant represent more "directly
affected" individuals than another applicant?
- 39 -
-------
b. Is the applicant willing to involve other community
groups or individuals who wish to join the coalition
after award of the grant?
c. Do members of the applicant group reside immediately
around the site? In the event of competing
applications, does one group represent more residents
living near the site than another group?
d. Has the applicant had past involvement with the site
(e.g., meetings, letters, hearings)?
e. Does the applicant group provide a statement
substantiating their historical involvement with the site?
3. The identification of how the group plans to use the services of a
technical advisor throughout the Superfund cleanup process. (20 points)
In Part IV of the application, applicants must document in no more than one
page how the group plans to use the technical advisor. Applicants also must
submit a schedule for having the technical advisor complete certain tasks. The
Agency must identify the group that plans to use the technical advisor most
productively. If there are competing applications, reviewers should award a
higher score to the applicant that presents the most complete, effective, and
efficient plan for using technical assistance funds to help citizens understand the
Superfund cleanup process. An applicant that is unable to identify a significant
or substantial need for technical assistance, or presents an incomplete schedule or
poorly thought out plan for using the technical advisor should receive a low
score. In comparison, an applicant who submits a well thought-out plan for using
the technical advisor's services throughout the Superfund process and who shows
how the goals of the project are related to certain tasks, should receive a
relatively high score.
In evaluating an application, the reviewer should try to answer the following
questions:
a. Does the applicant outline what tasks need to be
performed by the technical advisor?
b. Does the applicant have a general understanding of the
Superfund process and when technical assistance will be
required?
c. Does the applicant present clear goals and objectives
for their project?
d. Does the applicant establish that technical assistance
will be needed throughout the Superfund process, from
- 40 -
-------
the current point in the remedial process through the
remedial action at the site?
e. Does the applicant present a schedule that reasonably
apportions hours assigned to the specific tasks in its
Scope of Services for efficiently using the services of
the technical advisor throughout the Superfund cleanup
process? [A model distribution of hours ordinarily
should approximate a bell-shaped curve with the peak of
the curve during the FS].
This criterion may be the most difficult for groups to address, particularly
for groups that are unfamiliar with the Superfund process. The Citizens'
Guidance Manual for the Technical Assistance Grant Program provides a chapter
on the Superfund process highlighting opportunities within the process for
utilizing a technical advisor. Groups having difficulty addressing this criterion
should be advised to refer to this chapter.
4. The demonstrated intention and ability of the applicant to inform
others in the community of the information provided by the technical
advisor. (20 points)
Applicants must include in their application an outline of the activities that
the group plans to use to inform other interested community members about the
site. An application that presents a clear plan for disseminating information
through meetings, publications, or press releases to the broader community should
receive a higher score than one that indicates little ability or willingness to share
information with others outside of the group.
Reviewers should try to answer the following questions when evaluating an
application:
a. Does the group plan to have a newsletter or another
publication for publishing the technical advisor's
findings?
b. Does the group plan to issue mailings?
c. Does the group plan to hold meetings where the
technical advisor will be available to the general public
rather than just members of the group?
5. The presence of an actual or potential economic threat or threat of
impaired use or enjoyment of the environment to group members that is
caused by the site. (10 points)
A group may meet this criterion by establishing that its members are subject
to demonstrable economic threats, either actual or potential, or to a threat that
group members reasonably perceive to be substantial. Ordinarily, applicants
claiming the presence of a demonstrable economic threat that is site-related, such
- 41 -
-------
as reduced market value of their homes as estimated by local real estate agents
or as assessed by their town for tax purposes, will score higher than one whose
claims are based solely on a believed threat (e.g., concerns that the market value
of their homes may drop because of the site). However, an applicant's inability
to provide documentation of economic problems related to the site will not
necessarily prevent that applicant from receiving a grant provided other criteria
are met. If relevant, applicants should include a discussion of how conditions at
a site have adversely affected their use or enjoyment of the surrounding
environment. Applicants must include the number of group members affected and
should outline what actions have been taken by group members to resolve or make
known their concerns.
In measuring this criterion, reviewers should consider the following
questions:
a. Does the group face an actual or potential economic
threat (e.g., loss of property value or economic loss in
use of the property for activities such as agriculture)?
b. Have group members lost the use of recreational
facilities or has their enjoyment of the surrounding
environment been adversely affected by conditions at
the site? (For example, a group can no longer fish or
swim in a river due to contamination from the site.)
c. What percentage of the group is affected?
d. What actions have been taken by the group to resolve
or make known their economic or other concern(s)?
Reviewers must verify that grant applicants sufficiently explain these effects
in Part IV of their applications by including statements of no more than one page
discussing an actual or potential economic threat to group members.
If an application filed for a grant is deficient, Regional staff may wish to
spend more time working closely with the group to develop a viable proposal.
Reviewers should recognize that most citizens' groups will have little experience
in applying for Federal grants and complying with the applicable regulations.
Regions should determine, based on their available resources, how much assistance
to provide to groups in revising deficient applications.
In contrast, if there are several applications for a grant and only one is
deficient, staff may not want to allocate limited resources to help one group. If
all applications filed are deficient, the Region first should determine whether
there are sufficient resources available to assist all groups in upgrading their
applications. If none of the applications for a site's grant are able to meet the
responsibility requirements, all applicants should be given an additional 30 days to
revise their applications, correct any deficiencies, and re-submit the application
for a second review. In all cases, the TAG Project Officer should notify a group,
in writing, if the application review determines that a group cannot meet the
- 42 -
-------
responsibility requirements, and specify the reasons for rejection of the
application. All applicants have the right to appeal EPA's decision.
5.4 Ineligible Activities
In reviewing the Scope of Services in Part IV of the application, reviewers
must verify that all proposed activities for the technical advisor are eligible
according to IFR Section 35.4060. Technical assistance grants are to be used to
obtain assistance in interpreting information with regard to the nature of a
hazard; RI/FS; record of decision; remedial design, selection, and construction of
the remedial action; operation and maintenance; or removal action at an NPL site
or a site proposed for listing where a response action is underway. As outlined
in Section 35.4055 of the IFR, the following activities are ineligible:
o litigation or underwriting legal actions such as
paying for attorney's fees or paying for the time
of the technical advisor to assist an attorney in
preparing a legal action or preparing for and
serving as an expert witness at any legal
proceeding;
o political activity and lobbying in accordance with
40 CFR Part 30.601 which incorporates Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-122
"Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations";
o other activities inconsistent with the cost principles
stated in OMB circular A-122;
o tuition or other expenses for recipient group
members or technical advisors to attend training
seminars or courses;
o any activities or expenditures for recipient group
members' travel related to the project;
o generation of new primary data such as well
drilling and testing, including split sampling; and
o reopening final Agency decisions or entering into
disputes with the Agency.
The TAG Project Officer and other staff responsible for grant oversight
must continue to consider these criteria for ineligible activities and the cost
principles in OMB Circular A-122 whenever reviewing requests for payment and
project progress reports throughout the life of the grant. Grant recipients should
be notified promptly if funding for a proposed activity will be disallowed.
- 43 -
-------
5.5 Matching Requirement
The IFR requires that each grantee contribute at least 35 percent of the
total project costs. A citizens' group wishing to obtain the maximum $50,000
grant from EPA must contribute at least $26,923 in cash or in-kind contributions.
In this case, $50,000 of Federal funds combined with a 35 percent match of
$26,923 would yield $76,923 in project funds. Unless a waiver of the 35 percent
match is granted in this example, the Federal government is limited to providing
65 percent of the project costs up to a maximum of $50,000 per NPL site.
The recipient must meet this matching funds requirement during each budget
period. Grant recipients will have to meet the match requirement when they
submit reimbursement requests for grant-related costs. For each reimbursement
claim, the recipient must show that the matching funds for that period is at least
35 percent. If the recipient raises more than the 35 percent match in a given
reimbursement period, the recipient may carry the excess amount greater than 35
percent to the next reimbursement period. While applicants will not be required
to have matching funds in hand at the beginning of each budget period, they must
have a plan for raising the funds or providing in-kind contributions. The budget
provided in the Scope of Services, as well as all requests for reimbursement
forms, should indicate the matching funds provided by the group.
Without specific statutory authority, technical assistance grant recipients may
not use other Federal funds to meet the matching funds requirement. In addition,
grant recipients may not apply the same funds used to meet the technical
assistance grant match requirement to other Federal program matching
requirements. However, recipients may use funds from a State, municipality, or
PRP to meet the matching funds requirement as long as the funds are given
strictly for this purpose with "no strings attached." Furthermore, except in the
case of incorporation costs, recipients may not be reimbursed for or count the
costs of goods or services purchased prior to the award of the grant toward the
match requirement. Because incorporation is required of all technical assistance
grant recipients before a grant can be awarded, necessary and reasonable costs
associated with incorporation, if incurred for the sole and specific purpose of this
grant program, may be either charged to the grant or count toward the matching
funds requirement. Generally, necessary and reasonable costs for incorporation
should not exceed $500. Groups will have to document for their files how they
arrived at their request.
In-Kind Contributions
In-kind contributions by technical assistance grant recipients may be used to
meet the matching funds requirement, thereby reducing the amount of cash the
group must raise. In-kind contributions are non-cash donations by grant
recipients and non-Federal public or private third parties that are necessary for
project completion. In-kind contributions must be used exclusively for a single
project (40 CFR Section 30.307). Examples include:
o use of facilities (i.e., office space, meeting rooms);
- 44 -
-------
o equipment (i.e., computers or office machines,
audio-visual teaching aids), as long as it was not
originally donated to the recipient by the U.S.
Government or purchased with Federal funds;
o materials (i.e., office supplies, maintenance, and
newspaper copy for advertising for an advisor);
o other direct costs (i.e., telephone calls,
photocopying); and
o services rendered (i.e., accounting, secretarial,
management, or scientific research) — both skilled
and unskilled labor can be counted.
Citizens' groups should be strongly encouraged to meet these types of costs
with in-kind contributions and to use the limited technical assistance grant monies
for procuring technical advisor services. The use of grant monies for equipment
purchases should be especially discouraged. It is unlikely that any large
equipment purchases could be justified as an appropriate use of the limited
technical assistance grant monies. In general, such purchases should be
discouraged, but may be allowed if the recipient has justified the purchases to
EPA's satisfaction and they are specifically authorized in the recipient's assistance
agreement.
In determining whether certain in-kind contributions are allowable, reviewers
should use guidelines provided in the Assistance Administration Manual and OMB
Circular A-122, "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations."
In-kind contributions must be included in an approved budget, and the basis
for deriving their value must be documented in the recipients' records with
receipts, timesheets, and memoranda. Volunteer services can be counted as an in-
kind contribution if such services are integral to technical assistance grant
activities. The value of the work, for matching fund purposes, is the price the
group would pay to have the work done in the private sector in that geographic
area. Volunteers must keep timesheets. Groups that benefit from the services of
both volunteers and paid employees should use the same recordkeeping methods
for both. These costs cannot include profit and overhead.
The -value of nonexpendable personal property (i.e., a slide projector,
computer, etc.) can be counted as an in-kind contribution, but this credit may not
exceed the item's fair market value.* When equipment is loaned to the technical
assistance grant recipient, the amount credited to the matching funds requirement
may not exceed the item's fair rental value. The value must be pro-rated
according to the degree to which it is dedicated to technical assistance grant
activities. For instance, if only half of an office is used full-time by a technical
Non-expendable personal property has a useful life of at least two years
and an acquisition cost of $500 or more.
- 45 -
-------
advisor, a maximum of half of the office's fair rental value may be counted as an
in-kind contribution. If the technical advisor uses half of an office half of the
time for technical assistance activities, then only one fourth of the office's fair
rental value may be counted as an in-kind contribution. All costs must be
necessary, reasonable, allowable, allocable, and directly tied to technical assistance
grant activities in order to be credited toward the matching funds requirement.
5.6 Waivers
Waivers of both the matching funds requirement and the $50,000 per site
limit on grants are allowed, but only under very limited circumstances. The
criteria for granting waivers are outlined below.
Thirty-Five Percent Match Waivers
Because in-kind contributions can be counted toward the matching funds
requirement, thereby reducing the monetary burden on technical assistance grant
recipients, waivers will be granted only in exceptional cases. To determine if a
group qualifies for a full or partial waiver of the matching funds, the officer
reviewing the request must determine whether or not the group satisfies the
following requirements:
o The group must demonstrate, in writing, that providing
a full "match" would be a financial hardship for the
group based on measures such as per capita income,
median household income, or the area's unemployment
rate;
o The group must explain, in writing, how it made a good
faith effort at raising the "match" or obtaining in-kind
services including the steps taken and why these
attempts were unsuccessful; and
o The group must show, in writing, that the waiver is
necessary to facilitate public participation during
selection of the remedial action.
The first step the TAG Project Officer should take is to evaluate the
arguments submitted by the citizens' group in support of its claim of financial
hardship. Financial need may be demonstrated by such measures as below average
per capita income, below average median household income, or a high
unemployment rate in the community from which a citizens' group is applying for
a technical assistance grant. It is important that reviewers examine these
economic indicators for the community (not just for the applicant group) in order
to gain an accurate assessment of the potential difficulty involved with raising
the "match" or obtaining in-kind services from the community.
Next, the TAG Project Officer reviewing a request for a waiver should
ensure that the citizens' group has explained that it has exhausted all other
possibilities for raising their matching funds including the use of in-kind
- 46 -
-------
contributions to raise the "match," and that the results of these efforts are fully
explained. Examples of circumstances which could be used to support the claim
that a group has exhausted all such possibilities include cases in which:
o the group has been unable to locate an accountant or
other persons with needed skills who would be willing
to donate their time and services; or
o there are persons available who are willing to donate
skills, supplies, or meeting space, however, the donation
of these goods and services is not large enough to
constitute 35 percent of total project costs throughout
the life of the project or would exceed the 15 percent
cap on administrative costs (e.g., the community is so
small that the cost of producing and distributing a
newsletter does not constitute a significant in-kind
contribution).
The third criterion for approving a cost-sharing waiver — the necessity of
the waiver for public input during selection of a remedial action ~ is more
difficult to quantify. Reviewers should evaluate the validity of this need by
rating this criterion in two steps:
o Has the waiver been filed prior to or during selection
of a remedial action?
Waivers cannot be granted once the record of decision
has been issued at the last operable unit at the site.
o Is the waiver necessary to facilitate public participation
in site-related activities?
Applicants should state explicitly what impact a waiver
would have on the form or quality of public
participation. Supportive statements should be provided
to substantiate the need for a cost-share waiver. For
example, groups should be encouraged to provide written
statements attesting that community outreach efforts
would be substantially diminished if the waiver were
denied and the Agency reduced its funding in proportion
to the citizens' group's actual contribution.
Once the Region has reviewed the waiver request, reviewers should evaluate how
much the group could contribute. It is EPA's policy not to grant a full waiver
unless it is absolutely necessary. Regional staff, therefore, should try to
encourage groups seeking waivers to obtain ~ at a minimum -- the 15 percent
cap on administrative costs as their in-kind contribution.
In the event that there is more than one technical assistance grant applicant
for a given site, but only one of the applicants requests a matching funds
- 47 -
-------
requirement waiver, reviewers should not use the request for a waiver as a reason
to deny the grant. The most affected applicant should receive priority in
receiving technical assistance grant awards, even if this requires a waiver of the
"match."
Determining the Federal Share
Ordinarily, citizens' groups who seek a waiver should do so in the initial
grant application. If the request is denied during application review, the
applicant must be given the option to revise the Scope of Services and resubmit
the application. Any changes to the original grant agreement resulting from a
waiver requested and approved after an initial award has been made will
constitute a significant change and therefore will require a formal amendment,
according to Section 35.4085(c) of the IFR and 40 CFR Part 30 Subpart G. If the
technical assistance grant recipient cannot meet the "match" and a waiver is not
approved, the Agency must reduce its contribution proportionately since the
Agency cannot award more than 65 percent of the total adjusted project costs if
the matching requirement waiver is denied. As illustrated in the earlier example,
a citizens' group wishing to obtain the maximum $50,000 grant from EPA must
contribute $26,923 in cash or in-kind contributions for a total of $76,923 in
project funds. However, if the citizens' group is unable to raise $26,923 in
matching funds and raises only $5,000, then the EPA funding would drop from
$50,000 to $9,286. This is because $5,000 represents 35 percent of the total
project cost. The EPA figure must be adjusted to represent 65 percent of the
total project cost, which in this example, becomes $14,286.
In the event that a waiver is granted for any portion of the recipient's
"match," EPA must determine whether or not the Federal share of the grant will
be increased. If a matching requirement waiver is granted, EPA is not confined
to a maximum 65 percent contribution — the Federal allocation is only
constrained by a maximum contribution of $50,000, allowed under Section 117(e) of
CERCLA, as amended. Therefore, EPA may elect to increase the Federal
contribution by the amount of the waiver, providing the Federal share would not
exceed the maximum contribution of $50,000.
For example, if EPA received a grant request for $20,000 with a "match" of
$10,769 and EPA granted a waiver of $2,000, the recipient's matching share would
be $8,769. EPA may decide to increase the Federal contribution by $2,000 (from
$20,000 to $22,000) and, in effect, keep the total amount of the project budget
($30,769) unchanged. In this case, the required grant agreement would reduce the
recipient group's matching share by $2,000 (from $10,769 to $8,769) and increase
the Federal contribution by the amount of the waiver. This would be done only
in cases where EPA determines that a reduction in the total project budget would
inhibit the effectiveness of planned technical assistance activities at the site. On
the other hand, EPA may grant a waiver but decide not to increase the amount of
the Federal contribution. In this case, using the example above, the grant
agreement would indicate a $2,000 reduction in the recipient's matching share
with no change in the amount of the Federal contribution.
- 48 -
-------
Waivers of the $50,000 Limit on Grants
Due to the limited funds available to implement the broad mandate of
CERCLA, as amended, EPA has determined that waivers of the $50,000 limit will
be issued only where one grant is being requested for assistance at several NPL
sites in close proximity to one another. Even where such a waiver is granted,
no more than $50,000 may be spent at any one site. The total award may not
exceed the maximum allowable expenditures for all of the sites (e.g., 3 sites x
$50,000 = maximum grant of $150,000).
There may be cases where EPA receives an application from one group for
multiple sites along with another competing application from a second group for
only one of the multiple sites. In this circumstance, reviewers should break out
the portion of the multiple site application that relates to the single site
application for the purposes of comparatively evaluating the single site
application. This would allow the applications relevant to the single site to be
evaluated similarly to when there are two competing applications at the same site.
Approval Officials for Waivers
The Regional Administrators, or their designee (e.g., Division Director), must
approve waivers of the 35 percent match and the $50,000 ceiling for multi-site
applications. All other $50,000 waiver requests must be approved by the Director
of the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. To help Headquarters track
waiver requests for multi-site applications, the Regions should submit to the
Headquarters Technical Assistance Grant Project Manager (WH-548E) biannual
reports of the receipt and award of multi-site applications. These reports should
be submitted on June 30 and December 31 of each year.
5.7 Availability of Scores
The actual scores the group receives and the individual EPA scoring sheets
are part of the internal agency deliberative process (see 5 U.S.C. Section 552,
Subpart B, Subpart 5). Therefore, they are not available to the public under the
Freedom of Information Act. The Region should make every effort to explain to
each applicant why their application was rejected. If no award was made, an
applicant then may rework the application and re-submit it for consideration.
"Close proximity" can mean:
o geographic proximity of sites;
o the sites impact the same aquifer or watershed; or
o the local citizens' groups that coalesce to obtain a
grant have a history of involvement with all the
sites.
- 49 -
-------
6. GENERAL PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS
6.1 Procurement Under Grant Agreements
Recipients of technical assistance grants must abide by the applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Part 33, "Procurement Under Assistance Agreements." In
addition to the procedures outlined in the Assistance Administration Manual. TAG
Project Officers should be familiar with Chapter 4 of The Citizens* Guidance
Manual for the Technical Assistance Grant Program. Additionally, for technical
assistance grant recipients, the small purchase procurement method limitation
(Sections 33.305, 33.310, and 33.315) has been raised to $25,000. This exception
should expedite the procurement of technical advisory services.
6.2 Subagreements with Technical Advisors
Grant recipients will contract with a technical advisor using a subagreement.
Grant recipients are required under Section 35.4090 of the IFR to provide EPA
with an opportunity to review any proposed subagreement with a technical advisor
before the contract is awarded. The purpose of this review is not to approve the
selected technical advisor but to ensure compliance with EPA's procurement
regulations and to avoid potential problems in the future that might otherwise
arise without such a review. If the Agency does not exercise its authority to
review the subagreement, the recipient may award a subagreement without EPA's
formal review.
According to 40 CFR Part 33.1015, all subagreements with technical advisors
must include, at a minimum, the following elements:
o nature, scope, and extent of work to be performed;
o timeframe for performance;
o total cost of the subagreement; and
o payment provisions.
Every subagreement also must contain the clauses specified in Subpart F of
40 CFR Part 33. The subagreement must include the appropriate model clauses
contained in 40 CFR Section 33.1030 or equivalent language covering the following
items:
o Supersession. This clause states that the clauses
required by 40 CFR Part 33.1030 supersede any
conflicting provisions of the subagreement.
o Privity of subagreement. This clause means that EPA is
not a party to the subagreement.
- 51 -
-------
o Termination. This clause states that failure to fulfill
the obligations of the subagreement, or for the
convenience of the grantee, may result in the
termination of the subagreement and specifies the
procedures for how the subagreement would be
terminated.
o Remedies (resolution of claims, disputes, etc.). This
clause means that all disputes which cannot be resolved
will be settled by arbitration, if both parties agree, or
in a court with jurisdiction in the State where the
recipient resides.
o Audit, access to records. This clause should outline the
records that must be maintained and should state that
they are subject to audit.
o Covenant against contingent fees. This clause prohibits
a technical advisor from paying an agency or individual
to solicit or secure the subagreement.
o Contractor gratuities. This clause prohibits a technical
advisor from providing gratuities in return for favorable
consideration or award of the subagreement.
o Final payment. This clause outlines the conditions for
final payment of the technical advisor and what
acceptance of the final payment means.
o Responsibilities of contractor (including a conflict of
interest disclaimer). This clause should specify the
responsibilities of the technical advisor for conduct
under the subagreement.
An effective subagreement will clearly specify: the duties to be performed by the
contractor and the period in which these tasks will be performed; options for
extending or reviewing the subagreement; the method, schedule and conditions of
payment -- including invoicing procedures; and, as related to Section 35.4100 of
the IFR, requirements for retaining and disposing of all records generated under
the subagreement. A sample contract is shown in Appendix A of The Citizens'
Guidance Manual for the Technical Assistance Grant Program.
Labor-Hour Subagreements
The Citizens' Guidance Manual for the Technical Assistance Grant Program
recommends that grant recipients use a labor-hour subagreement whenever possible
because this type of subagreement will be the most appropriate type of
subagreement in most cases. Under labor-hour subagreements, payment is made
on the basis of a specified fixed loaded hourly labor rate. The hourly rate
includes wages, overhead, general and administrative expenses, and profit.
- 52 -
-------
In reviewing this type of subagreement, the TAG Project Officer determines
if the:
1. Scope of Services is consistent with the Scope of
Services in the grant agreement;
2. Rates established for the services to be provided are
reasonable; and
3. The maximum amount to be obligated for the budget
period and spent for the technical advisor has been
established.
Because the labor-hour subagreement lacks any incentive for cost control by the
technical advisor, the grant recipient must maintain constant oversight of the
technical advisor's work.
Other Types of Subagreements
Grant recipients also may use other types of subagreements such as cost
reimbursement, fixed price, or per diem. Chapter 21 of the Assistance
Administration Manual contains guidance for reviewing these types of
subagreements.
Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Requirements
In addition to the conflict of interest provisions in 40 CFR Parts 30 and 33,
the IFR requires technical advisors to disclose all past and anticipated working
relationships (including services related to any proposed or pending litigation)
with PRPs for the subject site, its parent company, subsidiaries, affiliates,
subcontractors, and current clients, attorneys, and agents. In order for technical
advisors to comply with conflict of interest requirements, they will need to obtain
the names of the PRPs at the Superfund site in question. Current EPA policy
requires a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain this information.
The technical advisors will have to present a disclosure statement to the
applicant prior to the signing of any subagreement. The technical advisors must
certify that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, they have disclosed such
information or no information exists. The technical advisors also must submit a
statement that they shall disclose immediately any such information discovered
after submission of its proposal or after award. The grant recipient should supply
a copy of the disclosure statement to the TAG Project Officer.
In an effort to further reduce any conflict of interest problems, Federal or
State contractors and subcontractors will not be eligible to apply for positions as
technical advisors to citizens' groups at the same NPL site where the contractors
are involved in cleanup.
- 53 -
-------
7. BUDGET AND FINANCE
7.1 Internal Budgeting
The SCAP process was developed to facilitate accurate fiscal budgeting for
actions at NPL sites throughout the country. A SCAP proposal is submitted every
June for the following fiscal year and includes individual quarterly estimates of
the level of spending to occur at every NPL site. Each of these quarterly
estimates is categorized by the number of dollars allocated to each phase of a
site project. The SCAP is updated on a quarterly basis during which EPA
Headquarters and Regional staff review the figures to produce an accurate,
workable budget.
The addition of the Technical Assistance Grant Program to EPA's community
relations efforts has a direct impact on the formulation of the annual SCAP
reports. Technical assistance grant funds will constitute an additional budget
category to be included in quarterly expenditure projections. The SCAP
information is available to the public through a FOIA request.
Uncertainty about the number, size, and site location of technical assistance
grant awards complicates this process. Regional Offices should anticipate, as
accurately as possible, the sites in their jurisdictions at which citizens' groups are
likely to request technical assistance grant awards. Based on the complexity and
stage of cleanup at the site, Regional staff must estimate the technical assistance
grant amount most appropriate for a particular site. In general, it is advisable to
assume a $50,000 grant award for the life of a site's remediation project.
Obviously, a lesser award may be appropriate for some sites if work is underway
and nearly complete; thus, the amount of the award should be evaluated on a
site-specific basis.
SCAP requests should include anticipated technical assistance grant funding
for all eligible sites including EPA-lead, State-lead, PRP-lead, and Federal facility
sites. In the event that unanticipated technical assistance grant awards are
needed, additional SCAP requests may be submitted on a quarterly basis.
Although EPA Headquarters will re-evaluate all SCAP requests on a quarterly
basis, it is advisable to realistically plan for such budgeting needs during the first
request of the fiscal year.
Technical assistance grant funds will be requested and allocated on a one-
time basis for the life of the remediation project at a site. Once the grant is
awarded, the grant recipient will draw down funds on a reimbursement basis
against the grant amount in accordance with the grant conditions.
7.2 Commitment and Obligation of Funds
Technical assistance grant funds will be allocated to Regions under the
"Other Remedial" Superfund allowance. Commitment notices are prepared by the
Review Team and forwarded with the funding recommendation to the AAU. The
- 55 -
-------
AAU then forwards the package to the FMO who will assign accounting data and
enter the commitment into the financial management sysem. When assigning
accounting data, activity code "Z" should be used in the account number as well
as the Site/Spill ID. The commitment must be made prior to signature by the
Award Official.
Obligation occurs once the Award Official has signed the grant agreement.
After signature, the AAU forwards the package to the FMO who enters the
obligation into the financial management system. This must be done prior to
sending the grant agreement to the applicant for signature. Once recorded as an
obligation, the money is reserved for outlays to the recipient as required.
7.3 Payment Procedures
Under the Technical Assistance Grant Program, the method of payment will
be reimbursement. Award Officials must specify this form of payment in the
grant award package. Grant recipients will submit a Form SF 270 on at least a
quarterly basis to request payment from the designated Regional FMO or AAU.
This form can be submitted monthly if expenses exceed $500. For the initial
reporting periods, Regions may wish to request submittal of further documentation
of costs to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. Normally, such
documentation must be kept in the grant recipient's file throughout the life of
the project.
The Region will review the request for reimbursement to determine
compliance with the terms of the subagreement (e.g., the 35 percent matching
funds requirement, and the valid budget period). The FMO then will establish an
accounts payable in the financial management system and send the payment
request within two business days of receipt to the TAG Project Officer for review
and concurrence, as outlined in Chapter 33 of the Assistance Administration
Manual.
Following receipt of the payment request, the TAG Project Officer should
certify and approve the request for payment if the project is progressing
satisfactorily. The TAG Project Officer shall determine if:
o the technical advisor is performing the tasks as
outlined in the group's Scope of Services;
o the activities proposed for reimbursement are
eligible according to IFR Section 35.4060; and
o the recipient has adhered to the grant agreement
conditions including all Federal reporting
requirements.
Once the TAG Project Officer approves a payment request, a copy will be
forwarded to the appropriate office in the Region, usually the FMO. The FMO
then will send the payment to the recipient. If the request is not approved, the
- 56 -
-------
TAG Project Officer, with assistance from the AAU will determine the appropriate
action.
The Agency should strive to reimburse the recipient within 10 to 20 days of
receipt and approval of the eligible costs incurred, thus enabling the recipients to
avoid paying any out-of-pocket costs. Normally, this should be possible. States
administering the Technical Assistance Grant Program also should attempt to meet
this timetable.
7.4 Cost-recovery
Cost-recovery is an effort by EPA to recover all costs related to the
cleanup of a Superfund site from any individual(s) or company(ies) (such as
owners, operators, transporters, or generators) potentially responsible for, or
contributing to, contamination problems at the site.
Technical assistance grant funds are a necessary cost of response activities
incurred, that are consistent with the NCP, and therefore fully recoverable
pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, as amended. Generally, EPA staff should
follow the EPA memorandum entitled, "Procedures for Documenting Costs for
CERCLA Section 107 Actions," issued January 30, 1985 by the Director, Office of
Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE). OWPE is revising the procedures manual
and will include more specific information about documenting costs related to
technical assistance grants.
Record Retention
Grant recipients are required to document all costs and expenditures and
make these records available to EPA or States upon request. In addition, all
records must be maintained by the recipient and the technical advisor for three
years, as outlined in Section 35.4100 of the IFR. These records must be retained
for three years from the date of the final Financial Status Report, or until any
audits, litigation, cost-recovery, and/or disputes initiated before the end of the
three-year retention period are settled, whichever is longer. After three years, if
the recipient intends to dispose of the records, EPA must give prior written
approval before any records are destroyed after the conclusion of the record
retention period. The recipient also must require their technical advisor to keep
similar records as detailed in 40 CFR 35.4100(b)(l)(2). After the three-year
record retention period, EPA must give approval before a recipient may give the
technical advisor permission to destroy any records.
7.5 Recipient Reporting
Each grant recipient must submit a quarterly progress report to their TAG
Project Officer 45 days after the end of each calendar quarter. This requirement
must be specified in the grant agreement. Progress reports must describe fully
the progress achieved in relation to the approved schedule and the milestones
- 57 -
-------
provided in the group's Scope of Services. Chapter 37 of the Assistance
Administration Manual and Chapter 5 of The Citizens' Guidance Manual for the
Technical Assistance Grant Program discuss the requirements for progress reports
in detail.
- 58 -
-------
8. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Circumstances may arise that create special challenges in Agency
coordination and management of grants. This chapter discusses several such cases
including:
o situations where NPL sites overlap more than one
Region and/or State;
o Federal facilities; and
o delisting sites from the NPL.
8.1 Sites Overlapping More Than One Region or State
The procedures that a technical assistance grant applicant and Agency
reviewers should follow at NPL sites spanning more than one State and/or EPA
Region parallel the procedures of the technical remediation program at the site.
In this case, the lead Regional or State office is the one in whose jurisdiction
the majority of the site lies.* Citizens' groups should file their technical
assistance grant applications with this office. However, in the event that the
State office is not administering the Technical Assistance Grant Program then
citizens' groups will be directed to file applications with the EPA Regional office.
Multi-jurisdictional sites present more complications than sites that are
located in just one State and Region. It is entirely possible that citizens' groups
from a State or Region other than that of the lead office will view themselves as
being most affected by site contamination, despite the fact that the majority of
the site lies in another jurisdiction. If citizens' groups from more than one State
and/or Region are interested in a grant for the same site, the existence of a
political border between them may lessen their interest in consolidating
applications. As mentioned previously, the Agency may wish to offer such groups
the services of a facilitator to assist the groups in exploring the pros and cons of
consolidation.
Community outreach efforts (i.e., public notices, neighborhood interviews,
etc.) by EPA should be more vigorous than ever to ensure that contact is made
with communities in both States and/or Regions. EPA officials must be extremely
scrupulous when evaluating grant applicants competing for a grant at a multi-
jurisdictional site to avoid any appearance of bias towards applicants residing in
the lead office's jurisdiction.
For the purposes of this particular section, lead office refers to the
Regional or State office that oversees the technical site cleanup.
- 59 -
-------
I
In addition to the expanded community relations efforts described above, lead
office personnel at sites spanning two or more political jurisdictions should keep
personnel of other affected States and Regions informed of technical assistance
grant developments, including but not limited to: receipt of grant applications,
the groups' decision on consolidation, award of the grant, and subagreement
details. Affected Regional and State staff should be invited to all pertinent
meetings. Offices other than the lead office, however, normally will have fewer
resources committed to site activities.
8.2 Federal Facilities
Technical assistance grants may be awarded to groups of eligible individuals
affected by a release or threatened release at a Federal facility. The authority
of Section 117(e) vested in the President to award technical assistance grants was
delegated to EPA by Executive Order 12580. However, that order did not
authorize EPA to re-delegate that authority to any other executive agency or
department without the consent of the President.
Therefore, EPA will select the recipient and administer the technical
assistance grants at Federal facilities. EPA will fund technical assistance grants
at Federal facilities that are listed on the SCAP and will seek reimbursement.
Memoranda of Understanding detailing the reimbursement process will be signed
with each Federal agency.
The Federal facility still has an important role to play. EPA will notify the
Federal facility when it has received a letter of intent. The Federal facility has
two options at this point: (1) provide the Regional Office with site mailing lists,
including local newspapers, as well as information on the various groups in the
community so that EPA can begin the notification process; or (2) conduct the
notification in coordination with EPA. EPA will review reimbursement requests,
financial statements, and progress reports for consistency with the Scope of
Services. The Agency may need to consult with the Federal facility to verify the
information in these reports. As part of its ongoing community relations
activities, the Federal facilities will need to provide site information and
documents to and interact with grant recipients and their technical advisors.
8.3 Delisting Sites from the NPL
Special steps must be taken when a site at which a technical assistance
grant has been awarded is deleted from the NPL. Because sites are only eligible
for technical assistance grant funding if listed on the NPL, the Award Official
must issue a stop-work order under 40 CFR Section 30.901 as soon as delisting is
approved if the technical assistance grant has not expired. Grant recipients may
use the remaining funds only to fulfill outstanding contractual obligations to
technical advisors as specified in subagreements, and must reduce outstanding
commitments if possible. Uncommitted funds must be reported on the final
Financial Status Report.
In issuing stop-work orders, Award Officials should follow procedures
specified in the EPA Assistance Administration Manual. Chapter 39, Section 8.
- 60 -
-------
Concurrently with the issuance of a stop-work order, termination proceedings
must be initiated since stop-work orders are valid for a maximum of only 45 days.
Termination requires a Notice of Intent to Terminate, a Notice of Termination,
and a Termination Settlement.
The TAG Project Officer should communicate the consequences of site
delisting to technical assistance grant recipients at the time of award if delisting
is probable in the near future. Otherwise, groups should be notified well in
advance of delisting so they can prepare for an orderly termination of their
contract and grant. If delisting occurs, the TAG Project Officer should contact
the grantee, in writing, at the earliest possible date to advise the group of
required forms and procedures should a final audit be necessary, as outlined in
Section 35.4100 of the IFR.
- 61 -
-------
9. ALTERNATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROGRAMMATIC APPROACHES
9.1 Additional Administrative Resources
Regional EPA offices are encouraged to take the initiative to identify and
seek additional administrative resources, such as contractor support, for assistance
in implementing the Technical Assistance Grant Program. EPA Headquarters
currently is examining the long-term implications of implementing this program in
view of resources currently available to the Agency. Nine grant or contract
options have been explored as possible mechanisms for obtaining support to
implement the program. Research to date indicates that, of these nine, one
appears to be the most viable option for this purpose: the Senior Environmental
Employees (SEE) Program. This program is described below as a potential option
Regions may wish to consider for assistance in administering the program.
The Senior Environmental Employees (SEE) Program
The SEE Program, operated by the EPA Office of Research and Development
since 1976, supplies labor to EPA's program offices through grants to 64 non-
profit associations of the elderly. The SEE Program depends exclusively on grants
and cooperative agreements, as opposed to contracts. The senior citizens
participating are affiliated with one or more of the 64 associations, including the
Association for the Advancement of Retired People, the National Urban League,
the National Center on Black Aged, the National Council of Senior Citizens, the
National Council on Aging, and the National Association of Hispanic Elderly.
SEE has an established working relationship with EPA and has produced very
satisfying results for the Agency in past projects, such as the Asbestos in Schools
Program and the Solid Waste Land Dumping Project. EPA's continued use of the
SEE program for Superfund activities was recently supported by the Congress. A
September 1987 Senate Committee Report included language pertaining to the SEE
program. The Committee explicitly confirmed its support of the SEE program and
stated that it "strongly urges EPA to make greater use of SEE enrollees for ...
Superfund activities."
To arrange for SEE support, EPA program offices submit requests to the
Office of Research and Development (ORD). ORD normally decides which of the
SEE affiliates to offer the grant to, solicits a budget from the potential grantee,
and forwards all of these documents to the EPA Grants Administration Division at
Headquarters for award approval. After the grant is awarded ORD assumes
responsibility for providing the necessary funds for SEE salaries and travel.
9.2 Ciba-Geigy: An Alternative to the Technical Assistance Grant Program
There is an alternative method of obtaining technical assistance funding for
citizens' groups aside from EPA's Technical Assistance Grant Program. PRPs
occasionally have provided citizens' groups with technical assistance funding,
directly. This direct funding arrangement between PRPs and citizens' groups has
- 63 -
-------
occurred at both the Ciba-Geigy Corporation site in Ocean County, New Jersey
and the Christiana site in Puerto Rico. In addition, negotiations to establish
similar funding arrangements currently are underway at several other NPL sites.
Direct PRP funding to citizens' groups for technical assistance may provide
an alternative to EPA technical assistance grants, where the parties involved can
negotiate mutually agreeable terms. Direct negotiations among PRPs and citizens'
groups regarding technical assistance funding may reduce the administrative
burden for both the Agency and citizens' groups. The Ciba-Geigy site exemplifies
this alternative funding mechanism.
To illustrate how such a funding mechanism might be established, the
following synopsis of the arrangements at the Ciba-Geigy site has been provided.
It should be noted that the Ciba-Geigy agreement specifies that the recipient
group cannot apply for an EPA technical assistance grant to supplement corporate
funding. However, a citizens' group that is not a party to a Ciba-Geigy-type
agreement would be eligible to apply for an EPA technical assistance grant. In
addition, it should be noted that without such an agreement between the PRP and
citizens' groups, the citizens' group would be eligible to apply for an EPA
technical assistance grant.
Because Ciba-Geigy is the sole PRP for the site and the technical assistance
grants will be cost recoverable, the company, in consultation with EPA, agreed to
provide technical assistance funding to the Ocean County Citizens for Clean Water
(OCCCW) without waiting for Federal regulations to be promulgated. OCCCW was
actively involved with the site and planned to continue to participate in site-
related activities.
In July of 1987, Ciba-Geigy's Toms River Plant Manager and the President of
the OCCCW signed a twelve-page agreement in which the Ciba-Geigy Corporation
agreed to deposit a $50,000 grant into a segregated interest-bearing account for
the benefit of OCCCW. OCCCW agreed to manage the grant monies. OCCCW
members were characterized in the agreement as a group of "individuals who may
be affected by a release or threatened release" from the plant. The terms of the
agreement, negotiated under the auspices of EPA Region II during the previous
spring, stated that both the principal and interest of the grant are to be used for
providing technical assistance to OCCCW. The group further agreed that it would
not apply for an EPA technical assistance grant, unless EPA made renewal funds
available to groups that had received the original $50,000 grants. In addition,
Ciba-Gergy and OCCCW agreed on policies for site access, information disclosure,
dispute resolution procedures, qualifications for the technical consultant,
accounting procedures, and specific provisions to be included in the subagreement
with a consultant. OCCCW currently is procuring the services of technical
experts to advise the group on the progress of the Superfund investigation at the
Ciba-Geigy site.
The implementation of this agreement is too recent to evaluate its
effectiveness. However, such direct funding mechanisms for technical assistance
- 64 -
-------
to citizens' groups at Superfund sites appear to hold promise for delivering funds
to a community in a timely manner, with a minimum amount of paperwork and
recordkeeping.
- 65 -
-------
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION LETTERS
1. Sample Acknowledgement Letter
(For first letter of intent when
site work is scheduled to begin or
is underway.)
2. Sample Deferral Letter
(For sites where work is not scheduled
to begin within a year.)
3. Sample Follow-Up Letter
(For sites where a deferral letter has
already been sent by EPA.)
- 67 -
-------
1. SAMPLE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER
For first letter of intent when site work
is scheduled to begin or is underway.
Ms. Pat Jones
Executive Director
Woodtown Landfill Coalition
Main Street
Woodtown, Connecticut 06798
Dear Ms. Jones:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received your letter dated
June 9, 1990 expressing intent to file an application for a technical assistance
grant at the Woodtown Landfill site.
A remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) is scheduled to begin at the
Woodtown Landfill site in approximately six months. As required by Federal
regulations, EPA will publish a public notice in the Woodtown Journal next week
announcing the Woodtown Landfill Coalition's intent to file a formal grant
application for the single, available technical assistance grant for the Woodtown
Landfill site. In addition, EPA is mailing a letter to all individuals on the site
mailing list. A copy of the public notice will be sent to you upon publication.
The public notice and mailing are intended to encourage other interested
community groups to contact your group for the purpose of consolidating and
filing a single, joint application.
You will have 30 days from the date of the public notice to form a coalition
and file a single grant application. If agreement cannot be reached, all interested
applicants will have an additional 30 days to file separate grant applications. EPA
will then review all applications received and choose a single recipient.
If EPA does not receive other letters of intent within 30 days of publication
of the public notice, you will be notified and asked to file a formal grant
application. Please note that your State does require intergovernmental review of
all grant applications under this program.
Enclosed for your information is a grant application package including The
Citizens* Guidance Manual for the Technical Assistance Grant Program. This"
material will help you to understand the process and to file your grant application
at the appropriate time. EPA appreciates your interest in the Technical
Assistance Grant Program. Please contact me at (617) XXX-XXXX if you have
any questions about the technical assistance grant for the Woodtown Landfill site.
Sincerely yours,
Ann Parker
EPA Project Officer
Region I
Enclosure
- 69 -
-------
2. SAMPLE DEFERRAL LETTER
For sites where work is not
scheduled to begin within a year.
Ms. Pat Jones
Executive Director
Woodtown Landfill Coalition
Main Street
Woodtown, Connecticut 06798
Dear Ms. Jones:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received your letter dated
June 9, 1990 expressing intent to file an application for a technical assistance
grant at the Woodtown Landfill site.
At this time, no site work is scheduled to begin at the Woodtown Landfill
site for at least one year. According to Federal Regulations (40 CFR 35.4050), an
award of a technical assistance grant cannot be made until funds to begin
response activities at a site (i.e., a remedial investigation/feasibility study, or
RI/FS) have been set aside. We will contact you when it is the appropriate time
to file a grant application.
Enclosed for your information is a grant application package including The
Citizens' Guidance Manual for the Technical Assistance Grant Program. This
material will help you understand the grant process and help you with filing your
grant application at the appropriate time. If you have any questions about the
Technical Assistance Grant Program or the status of site work, please contact me
or Mr. Walter Smith, the Community Relations Coordinator for the Woodtown
Landfill site at (617) XXX-XXXX.
EPA appreciates your interest in this program. If I can be of further
assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at ( ) XXX-XXXX.
Sincerely yours,
Ann Parker
EPA Project Officer
Region I
Enclosure
- 70 -
-------
3. SAMPLE FOLLOW-UP LETTER
For sites where a deferral letter
has already been sent by EPA.
Ms. Pat Jones
Executive Director
Woodtown Landfill Coalition
Main Street
Woodtown, Connecticut 06798
Dear Ms. Jones:
On June 9, 1990 the Woodtown Landfill Coalition sent a letter of intent
expressing interest in submitting an application for a technical assistance grant at
the Woodtown Landfill site. At the time, a response action was not scheduled to
begin at the site for two years. Site work at the Woodtown Landfill site is now
scheduled to begin in approximately six months.
EPA will publish a public notice in the Woodtown Journal next week
announcing the Woodtown Landfill Coalition's intent to file a formal grant
application for the single, available technical assistance grant for the Woodtown
Landfill site. A copy of the public notice will be sent to you. In addition, EPA
is mailing a letter to all individuals on the site mailing list.
Only one grant can be awarded at each site. EPA believes that it is
beneficial for all groups that may be interested>in receiving technical assistance
at the Woodtown Landfill site to join together to submit a single application.
Therefore, the public notice is intended to encourage other interested community
groups to contact your group to consolidate and file a single, joint application.
If EPA does receive other letters of intent, the other interested applicants
will be instructed to contact your group to consolidate and file a single, joint
application. You will have 30 days from the date of the public notice to form a
coalition with other interested citizens and file a single grant application. If
agreement cannot be reached, your group and other interested applicants will have
an additional 30 days to file separate grant applications. EPA will then review all
applications received and choose a single recipient group.
If EPA does not receive other letters of intent within 30 days of publication
of the public notice, you will be notified and asked to file a formal grant
application. Please note that your State does not require intergovernmental
review of all grant applications under this program.
- 71 -
-------
3. SAMPLE FOLLOW-UP LETTER (continued)
For sites where a deferral letter
has already been sent by EPA.
EPA appreciates your interest in the Technical Assistance Grant Program.
Please contact me at ( ) XXX-XXXX if you have further questions about the
Woodtown Landfill technical assistance grant or about the attached application
package.
Sincerely yours,
Ann Parker
EPA Project Officer
Region I
Enclosure
- 72 -
-------
APPENDIX B
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AAU — Assistance Administration Unit
CERCLA -- Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980
CFR -- Code of Federal Regulations
CRC — Community Relations Coordinator
DDO -- Dispute Decision Official
EPA — U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FMO ~ Financial Management Office
FOIA -- Freedom of Information Act
FS -- Feasibility Study
GIAB — Grants Information and Analysis Branch
GICS — Grants Information Control System
IFR ~ Interim Final Rule
NCP -- National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (National Contingency Plan)
NPL -- National Priorities List
OCL -- Office of Congressional Liaison
OEA -- Office of External Affairs
OIG -- Office of Inspector General
OMB — Office of Management and Budget
ORC -- Office of Regional Council
ORD ~ Office of Research and Development
OWPE -- Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
- 73 -
-------
PRP
RI
RI/FS
RPM
SBA
SCAP
SEE
SPOC
TAG
Potentially Responsible Party
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Remedial Project Manager
Small Business Administration
Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan
Senior Environmental Employees
Single Point of Contact
Technical Assistance Grant
I
- 74 -
-------
APPENDIX C
GLOSSARY
This glossary contains definitions relating to the Technical Assistance Grant
Program and grant administration found in either the Interim Final Rule for the
Technical Assistance Grant Program or the Assistance Administration Manual.
Affected. Threatened by actual or potential health, safety, or
environmental dangers or by an actual or potential decline in property
values, arising from a release or a threatened release at a facility
listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) under the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), or proposed for
listing where a response action is underway. Examples of "affected"
parties include, but shall not be limited to, individuals who live in
areas adjacent to NPL facilities, those who depend on water sources
endangered by releases of hazardous substances at the facility, or
individuals whose economic interests are directly threatened or harmed.
Allocable Costs. Costs that are assignable or chargeable under an grant
agreement to one or more cost objectives in accordance with the
relative benefits received or other equitable relationship. A cost is
allocable to a project if it is incurred specifically for the project;
benefits both that project and other work and can be distributed to
them in reasonable proportion to the benefits received; or, is necessary
to the overall operation of the recipient although a direct relationship
to any particular cost objective cannot be shown.
Allowable Costs. Those project costs that are: eligible, reasonable,
necessary, and allocable to the project; permitted by the appropriate
Federal cost principles; and approved by EPA in the grant agreement.
The primary cost incurred under the Technical Assistance Grant
Program will be for paying technical advisors; other allowable costs
include the grant management activities of the recipient.
Amendment. (See Formal Amendment.)
Applicant. Any group of individuals that files an application for a
technical assistance grant.
Application. A completed formal written request for a technical
assistance grant that is submitted to the Agency on EPA Form 5700-
33, "State and Local Nonconstruction Program," or to a "State on its
appropriate form.
Assistance Agreement. The legal instrument EPA uses to transfer
money, property, services, or anything of value to a recipient to
accomplish a public purpose. It is either a grant, a loan, a grant/loan
- 75 -
-------
I
combination, or a cooperative agreement and will specify: budget and
project periods; the Federal share of eligible project costs; a •.
description of the work to be accomplished; and any special conditions.
(See "Grant Agreement.")
Assistance Amount. The amount of EPA funds obligated by the terms
of an assistance agreement. (Also see "Obligation.")
Award. The technical assistance grant agreement signed by both EPA
and the recipient.
Award Official. The EPA official authorized to sign grant agreements.
Budget. The financial plan for expenditure of all Federal and matching
funds (including in-kind contributions) for a technical assistance grant
project as proposed by the applicant, negotiated, and approved by the
Award Official.
Budget Period. The length of time EPA specifies in a grant agreement
during which the recipient may expend or obligate Federal funds. A
budget period is a maximum of three years for the Technical Assistance
Grant Program. A technical assistance grant may be comprised of
several budget periods.
Cash Contribution. Actual non-Federal dollars (or Federal dollars if
expressly authorized by statute) that a recipient expended for goods
and services and real or personal property used to satisfy match
requirements. ("See In-kind Contribution.")
Closeout. The final EPA or State actions to assure satisfactory
completion of project work and administrative requirements; the
submission of acceptable required final reports; financial settlement; the
resolution of any outstanding issues under an assistance agreement; and
the notification of the recipient.
Completed Agreement. An assistance agreement for which the project
period and final budget period have expired. A completed agreement
remains open until final reports are received and approved and any
other closeout actions are completed.
Contractor. Any party to whom a recipient awards a subagreement.
Cooperative Agreement. An assistance agreement in which substantial
EPA involvement is anticipated during the performance of the project.
Cost Analysis. The review and evaluation of each element of
subagreement cost to determine reasonableness, allocability, and
allowability.
- 76 -
-------
Debarment. An action taken by the Director, Grants Administration
Division, under 40 CFR Part 32 to deny an individual, organization, or
unit of government the opportunity to participate in EPA grant
agreements or to receive subagreements.
Deviation. Authorization in writing from the Director, Grants
Administration Division, granting a recipient an exception from the
requirements of a regulatory provision which is not based on a
requirement of a statute or Executive Order.
Direct Costs. Those costs that can be identified specifically with a
particular objective of the project and are so charged. (Also see
"Indirect costs.")
Disputes Decision Official. The individual designated by the Award
Official to resolve disputes concerning assistance agreements under 40
CFR Section 30.1200.
Eligible Costs. Those costs in which Federal participation is authorized
by applicable statutes. (See "Allowable Costs.")
Expendable Personal Property. Tangible personal property with a useful
life of less than two years and/or an acquisition cost of less than $500.
(Also see "Nonexpendable Personal Property.")
Extension. The addition of time for filing a grant application or to an
approved budget/project period, granted in response to a written and
justified request, and documented by a formal amendment of the
agreement.
Federal Facility. A facility that is owned or operated by any
department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States (including
the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government).
Formal Amendment. A written modification of an assistance agreement
signed by both the Award Official and the authorized representative of
the recipient.
Grant Agreement. The legal document that transfers money, or
anything of value, to a recipient to accomplish the purposes of the
technical assistance grant project. It specifies: budget and project
periods; the Federal and matching shares of eligible project costs; a
description of the work to be accomplished; and any special conditions.
In-kind Contribution. The value of a non-cash contribution used to
meet a recipient's matching funds requirement. An in-kind contribution
may consist of charges for real property and equipment or the value of
goods and services directly benefiting the EPA-funded project. Note
that the grant amount may also include an EPA in-kind contribution.
(See "Cash Contributions.")
- 77 -
-------
Matching Share. The portion of allowable project costs that a recipient
contributes toward completing its project using non-Federal funds or
Federal dollars if expressly authorized by statute. The matching funds
may include in-kind as well as cash contributions. (Sometimes referred
to as "non-Federal share," or "cost-share.")
New Project. A project that EPA is funding for the first time.
Nonexpendable Personal Property. Personal property with a useful life
of at least two years and an acquisition cost of $500 or more (40 CFR
Section 30.200).
Obligation. The act of committing funds for expenditure. Also, the
amount committed.
Obligation (bv EPA). The amount of Federal funds which EPA, by the
execution of an grant agreement or amendment, legally makes available
for obligation and expenditure by a recipient.
Obligation (bv a recipient). The amount of funds which a recipient
legally earmarks for expenditure through orders placed, payrolls,
subagreements awarded, travel authorizations, and other transactions.
Official File. The administrative file for each grant agreement that is
established and maintained by the appropriate EPA Assistance
Administration Unit and/or State office when provided for under a
Cooperative Agreement. (The official technical file and the official
financial management file both complement the official administrative
file.)
Personal Property. Property other than real property. It may be
tangible (having physical existence), such as equipment and supplies, or
intangible (having no physical existence), such as patents, inventions,
and copyrights.
Potentially Responsible Party. Any individual(s) or company(ies) (such
as owners, operators, transporters, or generators) potentially responsible
under Sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA, as amended, for the
contamination problems at a Superfund site.
Profit. The net proceeds obtained by deducting all allowable costs
(direct and indirect) from the price. (Because this definition of profit
is based on applicable Federal cost principles, it may vary from many
firms' definition of profit, and may correspond to those firms'
definition of "fee.")
Project. The activities or tasks EPA identifies in the grant agreement.
- 78 -
-------
Project Costs. All costs the recipient incurs in carrying out the
project. EPA considers all allowable project costs to include the
Federalshare.
Project Period. The length of time EPA specifies in the grant
agreement for completion of all project work. It may be composed of
more than one budget period.
Real Property. Land, including land improvements, and structures and
appurtenances, excluding movable machinery and equipment.
Recipient. Any group of individuals that has been awarded and has
accepted a technical assistance grant.
Recipient's Project Manager. The person legally authorized to obligate
the organization to the terms and conditions of EPA's regulations and
the grant requirements, and designated by the recipient to serve as its
principal contact with the lead agency.
Remedial Response. A long-term action at an NPL site that stops or
substantially reduces a release or threatened release of hazardous substances
that is serious, but that does not pose an immediate threat to human health
and/or the environment.
Removal Action. An immediate action taken over the short-term to address
a release or threatened release of hazardous substances.
Response Action. A CERCLA-authorized action at a Superfund site involving
either a short-term removal action or a long-term remedial response.
Revision. A change to the project nature or scope of work which
results in a funding change (increase or decrease) by formal amendment
of the grant agreement.
Stop Work Order. Written EPA notification advising a recipient to
immediately stop work on activities described in the order and to take
all reasonable steps to minimize costs incurred until the problem that
caused the order is resolved.
Subagreement. A written agreement between a technical assistance
grant recipient and another party (a contractor other than another
public agency) for services, supplies, or construction necessary to
complete the project. Subagreements include contracts and subcontracts
for personal and professional services, agreements with consultants, and
purchase orders.
Supplies. All property, including equipment, materials, printing,
insurances, and leases of real property, but excluding land or a
permanent interest in land.
- 79 -
-------
Suspension. An action taken by the Director, Grants Administration
Division, under 40 CFR Section 32.300 to temporarily disqualify an
individual, organization or unit of government from receiving any EPA
assistance or subagreement.
TAG Project Officer. The EPA official designated in the grant
agreement as EPA's program contact with the recipient.
Termination. The cancellation of a grant agreement, in whole or in
part, before the scheduled project completion date. The recipient is
entitled to be paid the EPA share of allowable costs incurred up to the
date of termination and of allowable costs related to non-cancellable
commitments made prior to termination.
Unexpended Federal Funds. Federal funds obligated but not yet
disbursed. Represents the difference between the amount of EPA funds
awarded to the recipient of a grant agreement and the amount EPA has
paid that recipient.
Unobligated Federal Funds. Federal funds that the recipient has not
spent; the difference between the amount of EPA funds awarded to the
recipient of a grant agreement and the EPA share of the project
obligations that the recipient has incurred under that agreement.
- 80 -
-------
INDEX*
AAU 5-7, 9, 20, 26, 28, 29, 55-57, 73
Amendment 48, 75, 77-79
Applicant Qualifications 30, 36
Assistance Administration Manual vi, 5, 25, 26, 28, 45, 51, 53, 56, 58, 60,
75
Assistance Administration Unit 5, 7, 73, 78
Assistance Agreement 26, 31, 45, 75-77
Award vii, 5-9, 11-13, 20, 22, 25, 28-31, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 44, 48, 49,
51-53, 55, 56, 60, 61, 63, 70, 76, 77
Award Official 28, 29, 56, 60, 76, 77
Budget Period 30, 44, 53, 56, 76, 79
CERCLA v, 1, 11, 17, 31, 48, 49, 57, 73, 78, 79
CFR vi, 12, 13, 25, 31-33, 43, 44, 48, 51, 53, 57, 60, 70, 73, 77, 78, 80
Citizens' Guidance Manual vi, 25, 29, 32, 41, 51, 52, 58, 69, 70
Close-out 7, 8, 26
Coalition 17-20,22,39,40,69-71
Code of Federal Regulations . vi, 73
Conflict of Interest 52, 53
Consolidation vii, 2, 17, 18, 59,60
Contractor 7, 17, 52, 63, 76, 79
Contracts 5, 63, 79
Cooperative Agreement vi, 11, 76, 78
Cost Analysis 76
CRC 7, 9, 17, 20, 25, 28, 73
DDO 13, 73
Debarment 8, 77
Deferral viii, 67, 70-72
Direct Costs 45, 77
Dispute Decision Official 13, 73
Disputes 12, 43, 52, 57, 77
Eligible Groups 2
Enforcement 8, 25, 57, 73
EPA Form 5700-20A 28
EPA Form 5700-33 29, 75
Evaluation Criteria 25, 30, 36
Expendable Personal Property 45, 77
Extension 18, 19, 22, 29, 77
Facilitation 17
Feasibility Study 1, 69, 70, 73, 74
Federal Contribution 48
Federal Facilities 60
Financial Hardship 46
Financial Management Office 5, 7, 73
Financial Records 7, 26
Both the compound term and its acronym are listed in this index to assist
the reader in referencing these terms.
- 81 -
-------
Financial Status Report 57, 60
FMO 5-9, 26, 28, 56, 73
FOIA . , 53,55,73
Freedom of Information Act 23, 49, 53, 73
FS 1, 23, 41, 43, 69, 70, 73, 74
GIAB 8, 28, 29, 73
GICS 26, 28, 73
Grant Agreement 5, 9, 25, 28, 29, 48, 53, 56, 57, 75-80
Grant Review Team 7, 8, 22, 25, 28
Grants Information and Analysis Branch . 8,28,73
Grants Information and Control System 26
IFR v, 2, 7, 11-13, 25, 29-33, 36, 43, 44, 48, 51-53, 56, 57, 61, 73
In-kind Contribution 45-47, 76, 77
Ineligible Activities .43
Intergovernmental Review 13-15, 25, 69, 71
Interim Final Rule v, 2, 73, 75
Labor-hour Subagreement 52, 53
Lead Agency 13, 22, 79
Letter of Intent 5,18-20,22,60,67,69,71
Matching Requirement vii, 44, 48
National Contingency Plan 73
National Priorities List v, 1, 19, 73, 75
NCP '. 57, 73, 75
Non-profit 31-33, 43, 45, 63
Non-profit Organization 31-33
Nonexpendable Personal Property 45, 77, 78
Notification v, vii, viii, 2, 8, 9, 13, 18, 20, 22, 24, 28, 29, 60, 67, 76,
79
NPL v, 1, 2, 11, 17, 43, 44, 49, 53, 55, 59, 60, 64, 73, 75, 79
Obligation vi, vii, 55, 56, 76, 78
OCCCW 64
Ocean County Citizens for Clean Water 64
OCL 8, 73
OEA 8, 73
Office of Congressional Liaison 8, 28, 29, 73
Office of External Affairs 8, 28, 73
Office of Inspector General 8, 73
Office of Management and Budget 43, 73
Office of Regional Counsel 6, 8
Office of Research and Development 63, 73
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement 57, 73
OIG 8, 73
OMB 43, 45, 73
OMB Circular A-122 43, 45
On-Scene Coordinator 25
Operation and Maintenance 23, 43
ORC 6-9, 25, 73
ORD 63, 73
OWPE 57, 73
Part IV 2, 30, 36, 40, 42, 43
- 82 -
-------
Payment vii, 43, 52, 56
Personal Property 45, 76-78
Potentially Responsible Party 74, 78
Procurement vi, vii, 5, 6, 32, 51
Project Costs 33, 44, 47, 48, 75-79
Project Manager 3, 49, 74, 79
Project Officer 5-7, 12, 19, 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 42, 43, 46, 53, 56, 57, 61,
69, 70, 72, 80
PRP 44, 55, 64, 74
Public Notice 18, 19, 69, 71
Record of Decision 23, 43, 47
Recordkeeping 31, 45, 65
Regional Administrator vi, 8, 11, 13
Reimbursement 6, 33, 44, 53, 55, 56, 60
Remedial Action 41, 43, 46, 47
Remedial Design 43
Remedial Investigation 69, 70, 74
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility 69, 70, 74
Remedial Project Manager 3, 74
Reporting Requirements 56
Responsibility Requirements 25, 31-33, 42, 43
RI 18, 23, 43, 69, 70, 74
RI/FS 23, 43, 69, 70, 74
RPM 3, 7, 9, 17, 20, 25, 28, 74
SBA 74
SCAP 2, 17, 20, 55, 60, 74
Scope of Services 30,32,41,43,44,48,53,56,58,60
SEE 8, 13, 26, 28, 31, 37, 49, 63, 74-77
Senior Environmental Employees 63, 74
SF 424 29
Single Point of Contact 15, 74
Small Business Administration 74
Small Purchase Procurement Method 51
SMOA 11
SPOC 15, 74
Start of Response Action 2
State Memorandum of Agreement 11
Stop-Work Order 60, 61
Subagreement 51-53, 56, 60, 64, 76, 79, 80
Superfund v, vi, vii, 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11, 13, 17, 19, 20, 23, 31, 32, 36, 40,
41, 53, 55, 57, 63-65, 74, 78, 79
Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan 2, 20, 74
Superfund Staff 7
Suspension 8, 80
TAG vii, 5-9, 12, 13, 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 32, 42, 43, 46, 51, 53, 56, 57,
61, 74, 80
TAG Project Officer . 5, 6, 7, 12, 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 42, 43, 46, 53, 56, 57,
61, 80
- 83 -
-------
Technical Advisor vi, 1-3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 43, 45, 46,
51-53, 56, 57
Technical Assistance Grant v, vi, vii, 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, 17-19, 22, 25, 28,
29, 31-33, 37, 39, 41, 44-49, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57-61, 63, 64, 69-72,
74-77, 79
Termination 8, 52, 61, 80
Waivers 8, 11, 46, 47, 49
- 84 -
-------
Edge Index
1 THE SUPERFUND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM
2 RESPONSIBILITIES OF KEY STAFF
3 STATE INVOLVEMENT
4 APPLICATION SOLICITATION AND RECEIPT
5 THE GRANT APPLICATION REVIEW AND AWARD PROCESS
6 GENERAL PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS
7 BUDGET AND FINANCE
8 SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
9 ALTERNATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROGRAMMATIC APPROACHES
APPENDIX A SAMPLE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION LETTERS
APPENDIX B LIST OF ACRONYMS
APPENDIX C GLOSSARY
INDEX
------- |