United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
oEPA
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
9831.1
TITLE: CERCLA FUNDING OF STATE OVERSIGHT OF
POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES (PRPs)
APPROVAL DATE: 1/17/86
EFFECTIVE DATE: 1/17/86
ORIGINATING OFFICE: QWPE
S FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER OSWER OSWER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
v>EPA
Unued Slates Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460 '
OSWER Directive Initiation Reauest
Interim Directive Number
I
Originator Information
Title
CERCIA FUNDING OF STATE OVERSIGHT OF POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES (PHPs)
Summary of Directive
The purpose of this guidance is to assist EPA Regional offices on funding, under
a CERCXA cooperative agreement, of State oversight of PRPs conducting Remedial
Investigations, Feasibility Studies and Remedial Designs at sites on the National
Priorities List. -
EPA1 s Office of General Counsel has concluded that CERCIA funding may be provided
to States to support these activities. The rationale is that such activities are
part of the remedial planning process (CERCIA, Section 104 (b)) and consequently
are eligible for CERCIA funding.
The guidance outlines the conditions States must meet in order to receive funding
from EPA and the fundable oversight tasks that may be allowed.
|Type of Directive (Manual. Policy Directive. Announcement, etc.}
'
1 Guidance
Status
D Draft
0 Finai (inter
D New I
to) D Revision
I Does this Directive Supersede Previous Direct ive(s)? I7) Yes
I If "Yes" to Either Question. What Directive (number, title)
No Does It Supplement Previous Directives)? j_J Yes
No
| Review Plan
G9 AA-OSWER D OUST
Q OERR 0 OWPE
LJ OSW LJ Regions
U OECM
cri
CU OGC
r-i
LJ OPPE
U
Other (Specify)
J
his Request Meats OSWER Directives System Format
Oatt
Date
EPA Form 1 315-17 (10-85)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JAN I 7 1986
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CERCLA Funding of State Oversight of Potentially
Responsible .-Barties/ (PRPs)
FROM: J<.~'Winston (Porter'"^—
Assistant Administrator
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
This memorandum sets forth the policy and procedure for '
providing funds to States to support certain enforcement-related
activities in addition to State-conducted remedial investigations
and feasibility studies. These activities are: (1) oversight of
RI/FS and remedial designs prepared by potentially responsible
parties at State-lead enforcement sites; and (2) management assis-
tance for RI/FS and RD conducted by PRPs at EPA-lead enforcement
sites.
In response to specific requests for such funding, we have
drafted the attached guidance. This guidance explains the conditions
to be met and tasks to be funded for the two activities mentioned
above. However, State funding for work related to Federal facility
sites (management assistance and oversight) will currently not
be allowed. There are key issues to be resolved in defining EPA
and State roles in remedial work conducted by Federal Agencies
at Federal facility sites. As we resolve these issues, funding
guidance may be developed in the future.
In a related matter, we are currently formulating additional
guidance for funding States for other types of enforcement activities
as well as those outlined in the attached guidance (e.g. oversight
of PRP remedial construction, negotiation and litigation). When
the specific conditions and tasks and funding levels are determined,
this guidance will be expanded and issued as a draft addendum to
the manual State Participation in the Superfund Remedial Program.
-------
-2-
A draft of this guidance was distributed for comment to the
Regions/ State associations and Headquarters offices on July 15,
1985. A summary of the comments and our responses is attached for
your review.
Due to the current "slowdown" of the CERCLA program, there
is currently no money available in the enforcement budget to fund
these oversight and management assistance activities. In the
event CERCLA reauthorization occurs and monies are provided in
the b'Udget, there may be funds available later in the fiscal year.
When monies become available, the concurrence of the CERCLA
Enforcement Division Director in the Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement must be obtained and the enforcement Superfund
Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan formally amended.
. *
Since funding of State enforcement activities is a new
venture for the CERCLA program, Regional enforcement and program
staff should work closely together on its implementation. I
also encourage close coordination with your Regional Coordinator
in the CERCLA Enforcement Division in OWPE and Hazardous Site
Control Division in OERR. I would like drafts of new cooperatives
agreements or amendments submitted for review to the appropriate
Regional Coordinator in the Compliance Branch in CED. This
review is necessary to ensure that implementation of these new
funding activities is nationally consistent, and that distribution
of monies available in the future is made in an equitable
manner.
If you have any questions on the guidance, you may contact
Tony Diecidue, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (WH-527), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M. Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C., or telephone him at Area Code 202/FTS 382-4841.
Attachments
cc: Directors, Waste Management Divisions, Regions I,IV,V,VII,VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division, Region III
Directors, Air and Waste Management Division, Regions II,VI
Director/ Toxics & Waste Management Division, Region IX
Director/ Hazardous Waste Division, Region X
-------
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE GUIDANCE
CERCLA FUNDING OF STATE OVERSIGHT
OF POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES (PRPs)
0 One conunentor asked for flexibility in decision-making on
whether to have further PRP involvement during RD/RA or
switch to a Fund-financed RD/RA. In response, we have
added appropriate language to the guidance.
0 One commentor suggested that enforcement action referenced
in the background section is not limited to administrative
orders. We agree that States may want to use judicial
action to compel PRPs to perform the RI/FS. We are currently
formulating guidance for these activities and will expand
the background section when this additional guidance is
issued.
0 One commentor recommended that States not select a remedy,
but provide the proposed remedy to EPA for review and
approval. Neither the National Contingency Plan or State
Participation Manual require that EPA select the remedy if
EPA funds the RI/FS. This is only a condition for funding
the RA. However, we agree that more specific language is
needed to ensure that conditions of the agreement are met.
EPA involvement in reviewing key RI/FS work products is
needed to (1) decide whether to be co-signers to administra-
tive orders, consent decrees or other State enforcement
actions and (2) be in the most informed position possible
when determining whether to delist the site from the NPL.
Therefore, the need to be informed and involved is not
just a condition for funding but to ensure consistent and
effective remedies at NPL sites on a national basis. In
light of this, we have revised language in the guidance.
0 One commentor recommended more stringent assurances
that the State make any changes requested by EPA to the
RI work plan and may have their funding withdrawn if EPA
is not satisfied with the plan or the oversight of its
implementation. We feel the current language in the
guidance is sufficient to ensure EPA's review of the work
plan and that funds will not be expended for oversight of
field activities until this condition is satisfied.
0 One commentor recommended that when requesting RD oversight
funds, a State should submit to EPA a remedy consistent with
the NCP and provide support documentation. In response, we
have made the appropriate changes to the guidance.
-------
-2-
0 Two commentors suggested that it may be difficult to
estimate the cost of the RI/FS or RD since the PRP may
not necessarily provide this information to the State.
Therefore, it was recommended that a fixed amount be
established. We believe there is enough experience
available for the State to come up with a reasonable
estimate, and we should not establish a fixed amount.
The Region should also use their experience and work
with the State in developing proper funding amounts.
0 One commentor requested a more specific reference to the
enforcement chapter of the Community Relations Handbook.
In response, we have made this reference in the guidance.
0 One commentor recommended that the State be required to
submit a"Site Management Plan (SMP) and EPA/State Enforcement
Agreement (ESEA) with the cooperative agreement (CA)
application. We feel this requirement goes beyond the
scope of the funding guidance. The role of ESEAs (i.e.
in what situations- should they be prepared and whether
they should be prepared if there is a CA covering the
same activities) has yet to be worked out within the
CERCLA enforcement program. Furthermore, schedules and
commitments outlined in SMPs and ESEAs may duplicate
those outlined in cooperative agreements and RI/FS work
plans.
0 One commentor asked how CAs are to be interrelated with
ESEAs. CAs are mechanisms for passing monies to a State
to conduct certain allowable activities at NPL sites.
ESEAs are documents outlining the roles and responsi-
bilities between the two parties during an enforcement
action at NPL sites. ESEAs are not necessarily required
if a CA for a site has been awarded. The Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement is currently reviewing the applicability
of ESEAs and will be drafting guidance on this matter.
0 One commentor requested that the State be allowed to
conduct an RI/FS "or equivalent," thereby making the
funding guidance consistent with the October 2, 1984
policy on "EPA/State Relationship in Enforcement Actions
for Sites on the NPL." We feel that since Federal funding
is being provided, the State should be consistent with
what the Federal government would perform in lieu of the
State. Therefore, an RI/FS should be prepared when CERCLA
funds are provided to a State.
-------
-3-
0 One conunentor asked why the State should commit to
pursuing enforcement actions, while the October 2, 1984
policy requires that the State only "pursue and ensure
implementation of a remedy." Again, we feel that this
requirement is consistent with what EPA would do under
Federal-lead enforcement in the event PRPs decided not
to perform the RD/RA. The commitment to pursue further
enforcement action is an important factor in whether to
fund State oversight of PRPs.
0 One commentor asked whether a State could use the
CERCLA Technical Enforcement Support (TES) contracts.
We will not allow use of the TES contracts for any
tasks funded under the CA.
0 One commentor asked which Regional staff, enforcement
or remedial, has the lead for monitoring CAs for State
oversight of PRPs. This responsibility lies with the
Regional enforcement staff.
0 Two commentors asked how EPA would quality assure or
assess the State's implementation of PRP oversight
under CAs. This issue is being addressed as part of
the CERCLA enforcement program's development of a PRP
oversight manual.
0 One commentor recommended that State oversight of RI/FS
be funded at a higher percentage (10 to 20 percent)
than allowed in the guidance, while also providing
flexibility to allow even more on a site-by-site basis.
We feel that oversight costs will not be this high
except in rare instances. Also, a State's oversight
may not be as costly as for the Federal government and
we may not have sufficient funds to even entertain this
level of funding. Therefore, we will keep the percentage
at 8 to 10 percent.
0 Two commentors supported early resolution of the Federal
facilities issue, so that funding for Federal facilities
oversight could be provided to the States. One of the
commentors also recommended that a pilot project be
awarded, in order to gain useful information for future
guidance on the issue. We are sensitive to the commentors
concerns that the Federal facilities issue be resolved
in a timely manner. However, until that time it is not
appropriate to fund States for this activity.
-------
-4-
0 One commentor recommended that EPA give advance notice
of this guidance to the States, and be flexible on whether
the State must meet all the conditions outlined in the
guidance for ongoing site actions. We feel that the only
condition suitable for waiver is the requirement that a
State certify it attempted to secure oversight funds from
the PRPs. This requirement will be waived for ongoing
projects in which settlements have already been reached
with PRPs prior to the date of this interim final guidance.
However, the other principles and conditions outlined in
the guidance still apply.
0 One commentor suggested that the requirement for public
comment on consent orders is not mandatory and should be
deleted from the guidance. Please refer to OWPE's August
28, 1985 memorandum entitled "Community Relations Activities
at Superfund Enforcement Sites," which outlines when public
comment on administrative orders is appropriate.
0 One commentor suggested that the level of detail required
for documenting the information and rationale used for
selecting a remedy would pose an administrative burden on
the State. We feel this information is essential to
reviewing and determining whether to fund a State for
oversight of the RD. We encourage the States to establish
a consistent approach to developing adequate documentation.
This will enable EPA to provide timely review and approval
of CAs for State oversight of RD.
0 Two commentors recommended that an official other than the
Governor or Attorney General be allowed to make the required
certifications outlined in the guidance. In response, we
have added language to the guidance.
0 One commentor recommended that EPA agree to provide review
and comment on the RI work plan in the timeframes established
in the administrative order. In response, we have added
language to the guidance.
0 One commentor suggested that the State should be allowed
the lead for oversight after an EPA-lead settlement has
been reached with PRPs. Section (2) of the guidance does
allow an oversight role for States at EPA-lead enforcement
sites. The proper role should be determined by the Region
and State on a site-by-site basis. However, the State
cannot act as EPA's agent to the PRPs and will not be
given the entire lead for the site.
0 Two commentors asked whether funds for oversight of PRP
construction will be provided to States. We are currently
formulating guidance on funding this activity, and will
issue an addendum to this guidance once the conditions
and tasks and funding levels are determined.
-------
-5-
One commentor encouraged better coordination between the
State's environmental office and Attorney General's office.
The commentor recommended that the State Attorney General
outline in writing what legal authorities are available to
the State if enforcement action against the PRPs is necessary
We support and encourage this coordination, and have added
a new condition to accomodate the recommendation.
-------
CERCLA FUNDING OF STATE OVERSIGHT
OF POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES (PRPs)
PURPOSE
The purpose of this guidance is to assist EPA Regional
offices on funding, under a CERCLA cooperative agreement (CA),
of State oversight of Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP)
conducting Remedial Investigations (RI), Feasibility Studies
(FS), and Remedial Designs (RD) at sites on the National
Priorities List (NPL). The guidance also discusses funding of
States during a Federal enforcement response. This is interim
final guidance and Regional staff should contact their appropriate
Headquarters counterpart if questions or problems arise when
proceeding to award a CA for PRP oversight.
BACKGROUND
EPA's Office of General Counsel has concluded that
CERCLA funding may be provided to States to support various
enforcement related activities in addition to State conducted
RI/FS at State-lead enforcement sites.* The rationale is that
such activities are part of the remedial planning process
(CERCLA, Section 104(b)) and consequently are eligible for
CERCLA funding. Subsequent to this opinion, several policy-'
statements have reflected the allowability of such funding.**
Furthermore, several States have indicated their interest in
conducting oversight activities.
The role of States in oversight of PRP conducted RI/FS
and/or RD depends on whether the State or EPA negotiated the
administrative order. If the State negotiated the administra-
tive order, then the State has the lead for oversight of the
PRP's work. If EPA negotiated the administrative order, then
EPA is responsible and generally has the lead for oversight.
However, when EPA has the lead for oversight the State may
receive funding for management assistance and, under certain
circumstances, may undertake a portion of the oversight with
EPA approval.
GUIDANCE
This guidance is divided into two sections:
State oversight of PRPs; and
EPA oversight of PRPs.
*L.A. DeHihns, Authority to Use CERCLA to Provide Enforcement
Funding Assistance to States, July 20, 1984.
**L.M. Thomas and D.A. Lazarchik, EPA/State Relationship in
Enforcement Actions for Sites on the National Priorities List,
October 2, 1984; G.A. Lucero, Funding of State Enforcement-
Related Activities, January 23, 1985.
9831-
-------
-2-
Each section explains the conditions for awarding funds and the
fundable tasks for each situation. This guidance, however, does
not preclude the Regions from including additional conditions
in the application if warranted.
1. Funding State Oversight of PRPs - State Enforcement Response
If a State successfully negotiates to have the PRPs conduct
the RI/FS and/or RD, it will be in the State's interest to oversee
the PRPs1 work. As a general rule, States should attempt to secure
funds f.or this oversight in advance from the PRPs as part of the
settlement. Where this is not possible, EPA may fund the State
for oversight and will seek future CERCLA §107 cost recovery for
those costs.
A.1 Conditions for Funding under a Cooperative Agreement;
Oversight of RI/FS
In order to receive funding from EPA for oversight of a PRP
conducted RI/FS, the State must include the following information
and assurances in their cooperative agreement application:
1. The State must issue or obtain an enforceable order,
decree or equivalent requiring the PRP to prepare a
RI/FS in accordance with the National Contingency Plan
(NCP) and applicable EPA guidance. A copy of the
order must be included in the cooperative agreement
application.
2. The State's Attorney General must provide a letter
outlining the State enforcement authorities that will
be used in the event an enforcement action must take
place against the PRPs. (The letter may be used for
all subsequent oversight funding requests as long as
no changes in State law have occurred.)
3. The State must submit with the CA application a letter
from the Governor, Attorney General or designee certifying
that:
0 The State believes a good enforcement case exists
against the PRPs (i.e. financially able to undertake
the remedy or expected cost of the remedy) at the
onset of the RI/FS.
0 If a good enforcement case continues to exist at the
completion of the RI/FS, the State agrees to pursue
administrative or civil enforcement action to (1)
assure performance of the RD/RA by the PRP or (2)
collect from the PRP the funds necessary to conduct
the RD/RA.
0 The State will select a remedy that is consistent with
the NCP.
9831-
-------
-3-
0 The State attempted to secure funds for oversight of
the RI/FS from the PRP but was either unsuccessful or
lacked authority under State law.
If State law directly gives these authorities to a State
agency, a letter to this effect will be appropriate.*
4. The State must agree to submit all final plans, reports,
specifications, and/or recommendations to EPA for review
and concurrence prior to issuance or implementation.
Final PRP documents or plans and PRP change orders that
substantially change the scope of work must be submitted
to EPA prior to issuance for review to ensure technical
adequacy and compliance with the terms of the CA. The
State must also assure in the CA that it will not expend
funds for oversight of the RI field activities until EPA
has had the opportunity to review and comment on the RI
work plan and has indicated in writing that this condition
was satisfied. EPA will agree to provide their review
within the timeframes or schedules established in the
order.
5. The State must prepare and implement a community relations
plan in accordance with applicable EPA guidance. The plan
must include a provision for public comment on the RI/FS.
A.2 Conditions for Funding under a Cooperative Agreement;
Oversight of RD
In order to receive funding from EPA for oversight of a PRP
conducted RD, the State must include the following information and
assurances in its CA .application:
1. The State must issue or obtain an enforceable order,
decree or equivalent requiring the PRP to prepare a RD
in accordance with applicable EPA guidance. A copy of
the order must be included in the CA.
2. The State's Attorney General must provide a letter outlining
the State enforcement authorities that will be used in the
event an enforcement action must take place against the
PRPs. (The letter may be used for all subsequent oversight
funding requests as long as no changes in State law have
occured.)
3. The State must submit with the CA application its
documentation similar to EPA's Record of Decision (ROD)
or Enforcement Decision Document (EDO), outlining the
information and rationale used to select a remedy
consistent with the NCP.
*Since the State cannot recover any CERCLA funds that EPA has
provided for work at the site, the enforcement and coat recovery
provisions in Appendix F of the manual, State Participation in
the Superfund Remedial Program, still apply.
9831-]
-------
-4-
4. The State's Governor, Attorney General or designee must
certify in the CA application that the State attempted
to secure funds for oversight of the RD from the PRP but
was unsuccessful.
5. The State must agree to submit all final plans, reports,
specifications, and/or recommendations to EPA for review
and concurrence prior to issuance or implementation.
Final PRP documents or plans and PRP change orders that
substantially change the scope of work shall be submitted
to EPA prior to issuance for review to ensure technical
adequacy and compliance with the terms of the CA. The
State may not expend funds for oversight of the RD
activities until EPA has had the opportunity to review
and comment on the RD work plan and has indicated in
writing that this condition was satisfied. EPA will
agree to provide their review within the timeframes or
schedules established in the order.
6. The State must prepare and implement a community relations
plan in accordance with applicable EPA guidance.
The Regional Administrator will review the rationale used to
select the remedy, the enforceable order and the CA application.
Based on this review, the Regional Administrator may decide to:
Fund oversight of the RD (all or some of the tasks in
the application);
Not fund oversight of the RD if the State/PRP
negotiated remedy is unacceptable to EPA; or
- Initiate EPA enforcement actions against the PRP.
In order to avoid delays and problems during EPA's review,
States should work with the EPA Regional Office and keep EPA
informed throughout the remedial planning process, remedy selection
process and negotiations with the PRPs.
B.I Fundable Oversight Tasks; RI/FS
Currently, EPA does not have experience with funding States
to oversee PRPs conducting remedial response tasks. In an effort
to provide States and Regions with some guidelines on costs and
allowable tasks, we reviewed the Federal experience with oversight.
We also reviewed typical State costs for certain specific tasks.
Based on these reviews, we have determined that State costs for
oversight generally should range between 8% to 10% of the cost of
the RI/FS. The rationale is that the PRPs are responsible for
actually managing the work and conducting the RI/FS. States should
not be duplicating work conducted by the PRPs. Therefore, in
most situations, funding within this range should be adequate for
oversight. Since this is a new activity, however, the Regions are
encouraged to review carefully the budgets submitted by States and
to consult with their Headquarters counterpart in OWPE before
awarding CAs for oversight.
9831-1
-------
-5-
In preparing and reviewing the proposed budget, it might be
helpful for States and Regions to think of oversight as consisting
of review tasks, community relations, and field related tasks.
States should try to specify in the administrative order the
roles and responsibilities of the PRP as distinguished from the
roles and responsibilities of the State in each of these major
categories.
Review tasks conducted by the State might include:
Review preliminary planning documents;
Review and comment on scope of work and work plans;
- Review and comment on quality assurance project plans
and site safety plans;
Review and comment on draft RI reports;
Review final RI reports;
Review and discuss FS objectives;
Review and comment on draft FS;
Review final FS;
Review PRP monthly progress reports;
Organize and participate in technical meetings on the
RI/FS with the PRPs, PRP contractors, and/or EPA.
Since the tasks listed above are similar to those described under
Management Assistance in Chapter IV (page IV-6) of the manual
State Participation in the Superfund Remedial Program, it may be
helpful to consult that section for more information.
States must oversee and manage the development and
implementation of community relations tasks. For additional
guidance States should consult Appendix K, "Community Relations
Plan Format and Sample Plan", of the manual State Participation
in the Superfund Remedial Program and the document Community
Relations in Superfund: A Handbook, especially Chapter 6 which
deals with community relations during enforcement actions.
Community relations tasks listed in the Appendix include:
Conduct discussions with the affected community in
the locale of the site;
Prepare community relations plans;
9831-1
-------
-6-
Hold public comment period on the RI/FS;
Brief local and State officials;
Hold public meetings on technical aspects of the site;
Prepare fact sheets and press releases and disseminate
information;
Prepare summaries of public concerns.
In some instances it may be appropriate, at the sole discretion
of the State, for responsible parties to participate in aspects
of the community relations plan jointly with the State.
Finally, during oversight, States probably will want to conduct
some tasks directly related to work in the field.
Field related tasks conducted by the State might include:
Preparing or assisting the PRP to prepare detailed work
plans;
Environmental monitoring (e.g. air, water);
Analyzing split samples;
On-site presence*/inspection.
B.2 Fundable Oversight Tasks; RD
After reviewing our experience with RDs, we have determined
that State costs for oversight generally should not exceed 4% to
6% of the cost of the RD. The rationale is that the PRPs are
•responsible for managing the work and conducting the RD. The
State's oversight of PRP conducted RD primarily will involve review
tasks and community relations. The tasks may include but are not
limited to:
Participate in technical design briefings for RD initiation;
Review design scopes of work;
Technical meetings on the RD with the PRPs, PRP contractors
and/or EPA;
*The amount of on-site presence to be funded by EPA during
oversight of a PRP RI should be negotiated with EPA on a case-by-case
basis» The amount of on-site presence needed varies widely according
to the type and condition of the site, the distance of the site
from the State offices, and other considerations.
9831-1
-------
-7-
Prepare fact sheets and notify public on RD activities
and what the RD is expected to entail;
Continue prior community relations activities as needed;
Assist in reviewing preliminary design documents and
design changes which may affect remedy selection;
Review and comment on value engineering screening
submittals;
Review and comment on quality assurance project plans,
site safety plans and intermediate design documents;
>,
Review and comment on plans for operation and maintenance
developed by PRP;
Review final RD.
Funding State Management Assistance and Oversight of
PRPs - Federal Enforcement Response
If EPA has negotiated the administrative order with the
'RPs, EPA will have the lead for the oversight of PRP activities
md for community relations. In this situation, States may receive
funding for management assistance. Management assistance will
jssentially involve review tasks and is explained in detail in
Chapter IV, page IV-6, of the EPA manual State Participation in
the Superfund Remedial Program.
In some cases, the State and EPA Regional Office may agree
that the State as well as EPA or EPA's contractor should have
an oversight role during a Federal enforcement response. This
means the State would be conducting some community relations
tasks and/or some field related oversight tasks as described in
the oversight section above. For each task, the CA should clearly
explain the roles and responsibilities of the State as distinguished
from the roles and responsibilities of EPA or EPA's contractor.
It should be made clear, however, that the State cannot act as
EPA's agent-.to the PRPs. Where EPA has the lead for oversight,
EPA encouragjft* the State to conduct oversight tasks only if the
State has tfifc inhouse capability to do the work. Generally, EPA
will fund the State to hire a contractor for these tasks only if
the State can show that it is cost-effective to do so. Furthermore,
EPA will not pay States for conducting tasks that duplicate EPA's
oversight efforts.
9831-1
------- |