oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9831.3*.
TITLE: CERCLA Funding of Private Party Search, Notificatioi
Negotiation and Litigation Efforts by States at
National Priorities List Sites
i
APPROVAL DATE: October 1, 1986
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1986
ORIGINATING OFFICE: OWPE
D FINAL
©DRAFT (Interim)
LEVEL OF DRAFT
£2 A — Signed by AA or DAA
D B — Signed by Office Director
DC — Review & Comment
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER OSWER OSWER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
&EPA
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9831.3*.
TITLE: CERCLA Funding of Private Tarty Search, Notificatioi
Negotiation and Litigation . Efforts by States at
National Priorities List Sites
f
APPROVAL DATE: October 1, 1986
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1986
ORIGINATING OFFICE: OWPE
D FINAL
©DRAFT (Interim)
LEVEL OF DRAFT
— Signed by AA or DAA
D B — Signed by Office Director
D C — Review & Comment
REFERENCE (other documents):
S WER OS \NER OS WER
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
xv EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington. DC 20460
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
Interim Directive Number
9831.3c\
Originator information
Name of Contact Person
Tony Diecidue
Mail Code..,
WH-527
Telephone Number
PTS-382-4841
.ead Office
D OERR
D OSW
D OUST
El OWPE
D AA-OSW6R
Approved for Review
Signature of Office Director
Date
Title
CEPCLA Funding of Private Party Search, Notification, Negotiation
and Litigation Efforts by States at National Priorities List Sites
Interim Draft Guidance
Summary of Directive
This directive provides EPA Regional offices and States detailed guidance
on fuunding, under a CERCLA cooperative agreement, State private party
search and notification efforts, negotiation, administrative action and
litigation efforts to encourage or compel hazardous waste site cleanups.
The guidance outlines the conditions States must agree to, types of tasks
allowed for funding under each activity and deliverables required to be
submitted to EPA during,execution of the cooperative agreement.
OERR, OECM and OGC'have reviewed this guidance. Their comments have been
incorporated into this guidance, and serves as concurrence on the document.
Type of Directive /Manual. Policy Directive. Announcement, etc.)
Guidance
Does this Directive Supersede Previous Directive(s)? [ | Yes
If "Yes" to Either Question. What Directive (number, title)
Status
Interim
Draft
3Faft
D Final
Kft New
LJ Revision
No Does It Supplement Previous Directive^)? | | Yas p{ | NO
Review Plan
0 AA-OSWER Q OUST
G3 OERR 0 OWPE
[J OSW G3 Regions
OECM
D
Other (Specify)
ASTSWMO and NAAG
OPPE
•nis Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format
Signature ol Lead Office Directives QMicer
Date
Signature of OSWER Directives Officer
Dam
EPA Form 1 31 5-1 7
-------
!
\
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
- | I986
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
CERCLA Funding of State Enforcement Activities at
National Pr-^Loriti^s List (NPL) Sites - Interim Draft
uidanc
imston For tar
ssistant Administrator
Addressees
On February 13, 1986, the Office of General Counsel expanded
their opinion on State enforcement funding. The Agency can now
fund a broader range of enforcement activities. In response, the
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE) has developed interim
draft guidance for the activities covered under this opinion (OSWER
Directive Number 9831.3). These activities include funding for
potentially responsible party (PRP) searches, issuance of notice
and information request letters, negotiation, administrative action
and litigation at NPL sites.
I have attached this interim guidance for your review and
comment. The guidance explains the conditions to be met and tasks
to be funded for the above mentioned activities. The award of
cooperative agreements (CA) under this guidance for fiscal year
1987, assuming CERCLA reauthorization, will be on a pilot project
basis. When determining which sites to fund as pilot projects,
priority consideration should be given to States that demonstrate
the following:
0 Established, in-house capability to implement the necessary
technical and legal tasks associated with hazardous waste
enforcement;
0 Experience in conducting successful enforcement actions at
hazardous waste sites; and
0 Willingness to closely coordinate with the Agency and provide
opportunities for review and consultation prior to making
major
decisions.
-------
-2-
When reviewing CA applications for these activities during
this time period, the Regional Project Manager (RPM) should work
closely with the Regional grants office and Regional Counsel to
ensure that the application is sufficient and complete. RPMs
should also coordinate closely with their Headquarters Regional
Coordinator in OWPE's Compliance Branch. The Region must submit
draft CA applications to the Director, CERCLA Enforcement Division,
OWPE for review prior to award. Since CAs will initially be awarded
as pilot projects, this is necessary to ensure that implementation
of these new funding activities is consistent nationally, and that
monies available in the future are properly distributed to the
Regions. A more detailed description of the review and award
process is also attached to this memorandum.
There are also a few points to remember when reviewing and
using the interim guidance.
1. The guidance does not include costs or pricing factors for
the fundable activities. Your ideas on how to price out
these activities is appreciated. In the meantime, you should
use Regional experience when reviewing State estimates. The
final guidance will address the pricing of these activities.
2. The guidance does not allow State funding in support of enforce-
ment actions against Federal facilities. We will consider
funding States for management assistance and some aspects of
oversight where a formal agreement is signed between EPA and
a facility.
3. The guidance does not allow funding of State cost recovery
activities (recovery of State or Federal funds). The existing
EPA/State cost recovery policy will be followed for enforcement
activities funded through cooperative agreements. See the
memorandum entitled "Coordination of EPA and State Actions
in CERCLA Cost Recovery Negotiations and Litigation," August
29, 1983 for further information.
4. Appropriate provisions from Appendix F, Sections I-II, of the
manual, State Participation in the Superfund Program must be
incorporated into all cooperative agreements. An attachment
is included in this guidance outlining these provisions, along
with enforcement language to be used by States in meeting the
information and assurance requirements specific to this guidance.
You may already be receiving inquiries from States on funding
these activities. There is little possibility of actually funding
a cooperative agreement prior to CERCLA reauthorization. However,
you should begin to use this guidance in developing applications
for funding when monies become available.
-------
-3-
I would appreciate your comments by COB Friday, October 24, 1986.
Direct your questions and comments on the guidance to Tony Diecidue,
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (WH-527), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M. Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460,
or telephone him at Area Code 202/FTS 382-4841.
Attachment
Addressees:
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
Regional CERCLA Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Regional Counsels, Regions I-X
Regional Assistance Management Contacts, Region I-X
-------
9831.3
CERCLA FUNDING OF PRIVATE PARTY SEARCH,
NOTIFICATION, NEGOTIATION AND LITIGATION EFFORTS
BY STATES AT NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES
PURPOSE
The purpose of this guidance is to assist EPA Regional offices
and States on funding, under a CERCLA cooperative agreement (CA),
of State search and notification, negotiation and litigation
efforts to encourage or compel hazardous waste site cleanups by
potentially responsible parties (PRPs).
BACKGROUND
The Office of General Counsel (OGC) has reconsidered its
earlier view on funding of State enforcement efforts at CERCLA
sites, reflected in a July 20, 1984 opinion. That opinion
limited assistance to identification of PRPs and gathering of
evidence, remedial investigations and feasibility studies (RI/FS)
to support State or Federal enforcement actions, and oversight
of a RI/FS and remedial designs (RD) conducted by PRPs. On
February 12, 1986, OGC broadened their opinion to allow such
activities as oversight of PRP-conducted remedial actions (RA)
and operation and maintenance (OM), reporting to the public on
private party response actions, and negotiation and litigation
to encourage or compel PRPs to initiate response actions at NPL
sites. CERCLA reauthorization also confirms this interpretation.
Subsequent to the opinions, the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
(OWPE) issued various guidance documents covering activities
outlined in these opinions with the exception of initiation of
PRP searches and issuance of notice letters, and negotiation and
litigation.
The intent of funding States for these activities is to
successfully secure the greatest number of private party cleanup
actions possible. Since Federal funds may be provided to achieve
this goal, States will be required to follow the Agency's enforce-
ment policies and regulations to the extent possible under State
law. This requirement is necessary to ensure that site cleanups:
0 Are consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP);
0 Allow EPA to delete the site from the NPL; and
0 Enable EPA to conduct future CERCLA cost recovery actions.
GUIDANCE
CA funding for PRP searches, issuance of notice letters,
negotiation or litigation will only be provided at NPL sites in
which the site has been classified as State-lead enforcement. In
determining lead classification, EPA Regional offices should use
the criteria outlined in the EPA/Association of State and Territor-
ial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) policy memorandum
of October 2, 1984. Prior to accepting a cooperative agreement
-------
-2- 9831.3
application for review and award, the criteria should be applied
to the site. This includes sites currently classified as State-
lead enforcement and sites States are seeking to place in this
classification. Once the classification is made and a State
requests CA funding, the Region should pay particular attention
to the itemized budget submitted along with the application.
The budget should be carefully reviewed to ensure that adequate
resources and staff expertise are devoted to the project. Along
with these considerations, the conditions and requirements outlined
in this guidance must be incorporated into the CA application
prior to award.
This guidance is divided into five sections. Sections I, II
and III explain the conditions for awarding funds and the fundable
tasks for each activity. Section IV briefly explains the procedures
for developing a CA application. Section V briefly explains State
quarterly reporting requirements after award of the CA. This
guidance does not preclude the Regions from including additional
enforcement-related conditions in the application, if warranted.
Furthermore, applicable provisions outlined in Appendix F, State
Participation in the Superfund Program, must be incorporated into
each CA application.
When developing CA applications for these activities, the
Regional Project Manager (RPM) should work closely with the Regional
grants office and Regional Counsel to ensure that the application
is sufficient and complete. RPMs should also coordinate closely
with their Headquarters Regional Coordinator in OWPE. Since this
is new guidance, the Region must submit draft CA applications to
the Director, CERCLA Enforcement Division, OWPE for review prior
to award. Also, since CAs will initially be awarded as pilot
projects, this review is necessary to ensure that implementation
of these new funding activities is consistent nationally, and
that monies available in the future are properly distributed to
the Regions.
I. Funding State PRP Searches and Issuance of Notice Letters at
NPL Sites
If EPA and a State agree to classify sites as State-lead
enforcement, the State should attempt to identify PRPs and issue
notice letters. By identifying PRPs, the State can either have
them correct the site problem or seek reimbursement for their
expense to correct the problem. The notice letters are intended
to inform PRPs of their potential liability for cleanup, requesting
information from PRPs and, under certain conditions, to provide
them with an opportunity to undertake necessary action after
negotiation with the State.
Consistent with current Agency policy on the timing of PRP
searches and issuance of notice letters*, States may request
*G.A. Lucero, Timely Initiation of Responsible Party Searches,
Issuance of Notice Letters, and Release of Information, October 9,
1985.
-------
-3- 9831.3
Candidate sites for funding are those having received a preliminary
Hazard Ranking Score (HRS) of 28.5 or better and planned to be
sent to EPA Headquarters for NPL quality control review.
A. Conditions 'for Funding State PRP Searches and Issuance of
Notice Letters Under a Cooperative Agreement
In order to receive funding from EPA for PRP searches and
issuance of notice letters, the State must agree to include the
following information and assurances in their CA application.
Except where noted, the following information and assurances
must be certified by the State's Governor, Attorney General or
designee. In States where these authorities overlap different
State offices, all applicable signatures will be required.
1. The State must provide a letter outlining the State
enforcement authorities that provide the basis for
initiating enforcement actions against PRPs (e.g.,
administrative action or litigation) which can result
in securing the necessary response. If the CA is for
funding the State Attorney General's office, the letter
must also indicate that this office has the authority
to accept Federal assistance. This letter must he
included with the CA application.
2. The State must designate a lead technical representative
and lead State attorney for the site. Also, if multiple
State offices are funded for a site, one must be desig-
nated as the lead office.
3. To the extent possible under State law, PRP searches
and issuance of notice letters must be consistent with
the following EPA policies and guidance documents, and
the National Contingency Plan (NCP).
0 U.S. EPA, Office of Legal and Enforcement Counsel,
Procedures for Identifying Responsible Parties at
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites - Superfund,
February, 1982.
0 G.A. Lucero, Director, Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement, Procedures for Issuing Notice Letters,
October 12, 1984.
The EPA RPM and/or Office of Regional Counsel (ORC)
representative for the site will be responsible for
sending these documents to the State prior to award of
the CA and assisting the State in resolving questions
and issues on these documents when they arise.
4. The State must immediately notify the RPM if Federal
facilities and/or Federal agencies are identified as
PRPs.
-------
-4- 9831.3
5. The State must agree to submit the deliverables as
described in Section I.E.. The content of each
deliverable may be altered by EPA depending upon the
scope and timing of the CA.
6. The State must retain in a central file all documents
produced, collected, received or issued as part of the
PRP search and issuance of notice letters. These
documents may be reguired for subseguent State or
Federal enforcement action, or future cost recovery
activities.
7. The State must conduct a community relations program
in accordance with applicable EPA guidance.
B. Deliverables to be Submitted to EPA
1. For PRP searches, the State must submit a draft and final
report to EPA which includes the following:
0 Introduction (such as identifying problems at the
site; and describing project approach and how leads
were established);
0 Site history (such as ownership of property through
titles or property sales; operations at the facility;
and compliance or non-compliance with environmental
regulations);
0 Title search and summary of findings;
0 List of names, addresses and phone numbers of PRPs
identified (such as owners, operators, generators
and transporters; description of each PRP showing
types of involvement and years of association with
the site);
0 Corporate history, status and financial assessment
of each PRP;
0 Conclusions and recommendations for pursuing additional
leads or enforcement actions (such as unconfirmed PRPs
that could not be conclusively linked to the site; and
resource and other constraints to pursuing additional
leads).
2. For issuance of notice letters, the State must submit a
draft and final report which includes the following:
0 List of names of PRPs receiving notice letters or
information request letters;
-------
-5- 9831.3
0 Information and data collected as a result of notice
letters or information request letters (waste-in lists;
volumetric rankings; etc.).
All deliverables, portions of deliverables or other documents
provided to EPA meant to be enforcement confidential should be
clearly marked as such.
C• Fundable PRP Search and Notice Letter Tasks
This section outlines specific fundable tasks for conducting
PRP searches and issuing notice letters. These tasks are similar
to those conducted by EPA under current policy and guidance.
Various tasks may be conducted to search for PRPs. Fundable
tasks may include:
0 Identifying site owners or operators during a preliminary
assessment and site inspection.
0 Conducting file searches to examine legal descriptions
of property, titles, government files, reports and court
cases. Also, to examine technical information on the
types of waste disposed of and methods of disposal used.
0 Identifying initial contacts (such as site owners or
operators) to gather names and addresses of other parties
involved.
0 Researching information provided by initial contacts, which
may lead to the discovery of additional PRPs. This infor-
mation may include documents such as customer lists, and
owner or operator records and manifests.
0 Conducting onsite investigations to identify additional
PRPs. These investigations may include an inventory of
drums, review of abandoned records, vehicles, buildings,
etc. and samples of wastes found onsite.
0 Conducting off site investigations to provide new leads and
identify additional PRPs. These investigations may include
interviews with local police, fire and health department
personnel, local residents, Chamber of Commerce staff,
bank personnel and local industry representatives.
0 Conducting community interviews to assess public concerns,
learn about additional information on the site and PRPs
and prepare a community relations plan.
0 Reviewing and retrieving information from various data
bases. Commercial data bases may provide corporate
information about PRPs, technical information on specific
chemicals, ownership of property, operations and employees
of various firms.
-------
-6- 9831.3
0 Verifying and documenting the various types of information
collected during the PRP search process. This effort may
include establishing a data base to maintain this information,
and information collected through notice and information
request letters.
Various tasks may be conducted to notify PRPs. Fundable
tasks may include:
0 Identifying recipients of notice letters by reviewing the
results of PRP searches.
0 Drafting notice letters to be issued to PRPs. This task
may include tailoring the Agency's model notice letter to
the specifics of the case (especially for information
requests) or to request specific responses from various
PRPs.
0 Mailing notice letters. Ensuring that the letters are
received by PRPs and that replies are sent to the State.
0 Receiving and sorting out response letters, and reviewing
and answering questions raised by PRPs.
0 Maintaining copies of notice letters issued and responses
received, and other documents relevant to the site.
0 Releasing the names of notified PRPs, in order for all
notified parties to begin organizing among themselves in
anticipation of negotiations with the State. Releasing
the names of notified PRPs to other interested parties
may be done in accordance with State Freedom of Information
laws and requirements.
0 Providing other relevant information to PRPs (such as a
summary of volumetric contribution) to help in organizing
and preparing for negotiations with the State.
Community relations tasks are also allowable activities under
a CERCLA CA. States should contact appropriate local officials
and community representatives if there is any possibility of
citizen interest or concern about potential State enforcement
actions. Chapter 6 of the guidance entitled Community Relations
in Superfund - A Handbook should be consulted when conducting
such tasks.
II. Funding State Negotiation Activities at NPL Sites
If EPA and a State agree to classify sites as State-lead
enforcement, the State should attempt to secure private party
cleanup of the sites. Therefore, negotiations for PRP conduct
of the RI/FS and/or RD/RA should begin within a reasonable time
after State-lead enforcement sites are proposed on the NPL.
-------
-7- 9831.3
Where this situation occurs, EPA may fund the State for these
negotiations with PRPs.
A. Conditions for Funding State Negotiations Under a
Cooperative Agreement
In order to receive funding from EPA for negotiations with
PRPs, the State must agree to include the following information
and assurances in their CA application. Except where noted, the
following information and assurances must be certified by the
State's Governor, Attorney General or designee. In States where
these authorities overlap different State offices, all applicable
signatures will be required.
1. The State must provide a letter outlining the State
enforcement authorities that provide the basis for
initiating enforcement actions against PRPs (e.g.,
administrative action or litigation) which can result
in securing the necessary response. If funds are
provided to the State Attorney General's office, the
letter must also indicate that this office has the
authority to accept Federal assistance. This letter
must be included with the CA application.
2. The State must designate a lead technical representative
and lead State attorney for the site. Also, if multiple
State offices are funded for a site, one must be desig-
nated as the lead office.
3. The State must certify (1) that it believes a good
enforcement case exists against the PRPs (i.e. finan-
cially able to undertake the remedy or expected cost
of the remedy) and (2) that site conditions meet the
elements of proof required by the State's authority
(e.g. imminent and substantial endangerment).
4. For negotiations with PRPs to conduct a RI/FS, the
State must agree to the following:
0 To the extent possible under State law, negotiations
must be consistent with the following EPA policies
and guidance documents and the NCP:
- L.M. Thomas, AA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response/C.M. Price, AA, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Monitoring, Participation of Potentially
Responsible Parties in Development of Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA,
March 20, 1984.
- U.S. EPA, Guidance on Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA, June, 1985.
-------
-8- 9831.3
The EPA RPM and/or ORC representative for the site
will be responsible for sending these documents to
the State prior to award of the CA and assisting the
State in resolving questions and issues on these
documents when they arise.
0 If a settlement is not reached within 60 days after
initiating negotiations with PRPs, the State must
notify EPA and recommend either continuing with
negotiations or requesting initiation of a State or
Fund-financed RI/FS. (If negotiations have begun
prior to awarding the CA, the State must notify EPA
within 60 days after award.) If EPA and the State
determine that negotiations should not continue, the
State may request that the agreement be amended to
redirect remaining funds toward a Fund-financed
RI/FS (subject to availability of funds). If EPA
and the State determine that negotiations should
continue, the State must provide a revised time
schedule and date for conclusion of negotiations.
For the purposes of this guidance, RI/FS negotiations
begin when the PRP search is completed, notice letters
have been issued, the State has conducted a meeting
to which all PRPs have been invited and the site is
ready for either a State or Fund-financed RI/FS.
5. For negotiations with PRPs to conduct a RD/RA/O&M, the
State must agree to the following:
0 To the extent possible under State law, negotiations
must be consistent with the following EPA policies
and guidance documents and the NCP:
- L.M. Thomas, AA, OSWER/C.M. Price, AA, OECM/F.H.
Habicht, II, Assistant Attorney General, DOJ, Interim
CERCLA Settlement Policy, December 5, 1984.
- J.W. McGraw, OSWER, Preparation of Decision Documents
for Approving Fund-Financed and PRP Remedial Actions
under CERCLA, February 27, 1984.
- U.S. EPA, Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action
Guidance, Revised, June 1986.
The EPA RPM and/or ORC representative for the site
will be responsible for sending these documents to
the State prior to award of the CA and assisting the
State in resolving questions and issues on these
documents when they arise.
-------
-9- 9831.3
0 If a negotiated settlement is not reached within 120
days after initiating negotiations with PRPs, the State
must notify EPA and recommend either continuing with
negotiations or proceeding with other enforcement actions,
(If negotiations have begun prior to awarding the CA,
the State must notify EPA within 120 days after award.)
If EPA and the State determine that negotiations should
not continue, the State may request that the agreement
be amended to redirect remaining funds toward other
administrative enforcement or litigation activities.
If EPA and the State determine that negotiations should
continue, the State must provide a revised time schedule
and date for conclusion of negotiations.
For the purposes of this guidance, RD/RA/O&M negotia-
tions begin at the time a decision is made on the remedy
(i.e. Record of Decision or Enforcement Decision Document
approved).
6. The State must conclude successful negotiations by issuing
an enforceable order, decree or other enforceable document
requiring the PRP to conduct a RI/FS and/or RD/RA/O&M in
accordance with the NCP and applicable EPA policy and
guidance. To the extent possible under State law, the
order must be consistent with the following EPA guidances:
0 For RI/FS orders, the Model Administrative Order on
Consent for PRP Conducted RI/FS, January 31, 1985;
0 For RD/RA/O&M orders or consent decrees, the following
memorandum: C.M. Price, AA, OECM/J.W. McGraw, OSWER,
Drafting Consent Decrees in Hazardous Waste Imminent
Hazard Cases, May 1, 1985.
The EPA RPM and/or ORC representative for the site
will be responsible for sending these documents to the
State prior to award of the CA and assisting the State
in resolving questions and issues on these documents
when they arise.
7. The State must assure that funds will not be used to
initiate enforcement actions against Federal facilities
and/or Federal agencies that may be PRPs at the site.
8. The State must agree to submit the deliverables and abide
by the review and consultation requirements described
in Section II.B.. The content of each deliverable may
be altered by EPA depending upon the scope and timing
of the CA.
9. The State must retain in a central file all documents
produced, collected, received or issued as part of their
negotiations with PRPs. These documents may be required
for subsequent State or Federal enforcement action, or
future cost recovery activities.
-------
-10- 9831.3
10. The State must conduct a community relations program
in accordance with applicable EPA guidance.
B. Deliverables to be Submitted to EPA
1. Prior to initiating negotiations, the State must submit
a report:
0 Describing the problems at the site (such as the site
history, environmental and public health concerns,
and previous response and enforcement activities);
0 Outlining the State's negotiation strategy or goals
and specific response actions sought;
0 Listing the PRPs involved in the negotiations (such
as names, addresses and phone numbers, and other
possible PRPs and reasons they were considered or
rejected ) ;
0 Describing the State resource and budget commitment
(such as the members of the negotiation team and
estimated time they will spend on the case, contract
dollars and expert witnesses needed and other nego-
tiation support costs);
0 Indicating the expected time schedule and date for
conclusion of negotiations (such as first negotiation
session with PRPs, etc.).
The State must also prepare a Community Relations Plan
(CRP) based on community interviews conducted at the
PRP search and notification stage of the enforcement
action.
The State must assure in the CA that it will not expend
funds for actual negotiations until EPA has had the
opportunity to review and consult on the report and CRP
and indicated in writing that this condition was satis-
fied. EPA will provide their review and consultation
within mutually agreed upon time frames or schedules.
2. Prior to concluding negotiations and signing an order
with the PRPs, the State must submit a draft order for
review and consultation. Any documents prepared as
part of the order must also be submitted (e.g., documen-
tation outlining information and rationale used to
select a remedy consistent with the NCP; RI/FS or
RD/RA work plan or schedule; corporate guaranty; etc.).
The State must assure in the CA that it will not sign
an order with the PRPs until EPA has had the opportunity
to review and consult on the order and has indicated in
writing that this condition was satisfied. EPA must also
-------
-11- 9831.3
be given the opportunity to be a signatory to the order.
EPA will provide their review and consultation within
mutually agreed upon timeframes or schedules.
3. At the conclusion of negotiations, a copy of the final
order and accompanying documents must be submitted to EPA.
All deliverables, portions of deliverables or other documents
provided to EPA meant to be enforcement confidential should be
clearly marked as such.
C. Fundable Negotiation Tasks
This section outlines specific fundable tasks for conducting
negotiations with PRPs. These tasks are similar to those conducted
by EPA.
Various tasks may be conducted during negotiations with PRPs.
These tasks can be broken into two broad areas: technical tasks
and legal tasks. Fundable tasks for these areas may include:
Technical Tasks
0 Analyzing information provided by PRPs in response to notice
letters and information requests (such as development of
transactional data bases using waste-in lists, volumetric
rankings, and type of involvement and years of association
with the site).
0 Analyzing relevant and applicable policies and guidance
documents;
0 Analyzing, reviewing and providing comments on work plans,
samples, studies, other scientific and technical data.
0 Assessing site conditions.
0 Defining technical points open for negotiation (such as
number and placement of samples; scope of the investigation;
remedial options to be considered; cleanup standards and
techniques to be met; and operable units to be addressed).
0 Reviewing and responding to PRP proposals and/or counter
proposals.
Legal Tasks
0 Establishing a negotiation team (legal and technical members),
and defining each team member's role, and authority and
responsbilities.
0 Holding meetings to follow up the notification process.
-------
-12- 9831.3
0 Performing legal research (such as applicable laws, need
for precedent, etc.) to support the negotiation effort.
0 Analyzing relevant and applicable policies and guidance
documents.
0 Negotiating with PRPs (including de minimus parties, et al.),
0 Analyzing settlement alternatives.
0 Monitoring strengths and weaknesses of State and PRP
positions, and evidence to be taken to trial should the
negotiations fail.
0 Reviewing and responding to PRP proposals and counter
proposals
0 Preparing a draft order for PRP and public review and
comment.
0 Assessing PRP and public comments on the draft order,
and preparing and issuing the final order.
0 Meeting with EPA and/or expert witnesses to dicuss the
draft order and other aspects of the enforcement action.
0 Developing a payment plan for fines or cash settlements.
Community relations tasks are also allowable activities under
a CERCLA CA. The State is responsible for conducting a community
relations program during negotiations with PRPs. The State should
refer to Chapter 6 of the guidance entitled Community Relations in
Superfund - A Handbook when developing such a program.
III. Funding State Administrative Action or Litigation Activities
at NPL Sites
If EPA and a State agree to classify sites as State-lead
enforcement, and private parties do not agree willingly to clean
up the site, the State may seek administrative action or litigation
against PRPs to compel cleanup (in State or Federal court, as
appropriate). These actions are normally not considered until
completion of a RI/FS, the remedy has been selected and PRPs are
unwilling to initiate RD/RA/O&M after negotiations with the
Agency. Therefore, EPA will not fund these actions unless the
steps outlined above have been completed or pursued. Where this
situation occurs, EPA may fund the State for these actions against
the PRPs. However, the Agency will consider other factors that
justify the need to pursue administrative action or litigation.
The State must outline these factors in the CA application or
they will be added as special conditions.
-------
-13- 9831.3
A. Conditions for Funding State Administrative Action or Litigation
Under a Cooperative Agreement
In order to receive funding from EPA for administrative action
or litigation against PRPs, the State must agree to include the
following information and assurances in their CA application.
Except where noted, the following information and assurances must
be certified by the State's Governor, Attorney General or designee.
In States where these authorities overlap different State offices,
all applicable signatures will be required.
1. The State must provide a letter outlining the State
enforcement authorities that provide the basis for
initiating enforcement actions against PRPs (e.g.,
administrative action or litigation) which can result
in securing the necessary response. If funds are
provided to the State Attorney General's office, the
letter must also indicate that this office has the
authority to accept Federal assistance. This letter
must be included with the CA application.
2. The State must designate a lead technical representative
and lead State attorney for the site. Also, if multiple
State offices are funded for a site, one must be desig-
nated as the lead office.
3. The State must certify (1) that it believes a good
enforcement case exists against the PRPs (i.e. finan-
cially able to undertake the remedy or expected cost
of the remedy) and (2) that site conditions meet the
elements of proof required by the State's authority
(e.g. imminent and substantial endangerment).
4. For administrative action or litigation against PRPs
to conduct a RD/RA/O&M, the State must agree to the
following:
0 To the extent possible under State law, administrative
action or litigation must be consistent with the
following EPA policies and guidance documents:
- L.M. Thomas, AA, OSWER/C.M. Price, AA, OECM/F.H.
Habicht, II, Assistant Attorney General, DOJ, Interim
CERCLA Settlement Policy, December 5, 1984.
- U.S. EPA, RCRA/CERCLA Case Management Handbook,
August, 1984.
The EPA RPM and/or ORC representative for the site
will be responsible for sending these documents to
the State prior to award and assisting the State in
resolving questions and issues on these documents
when they arise. The RPM's review of deliverables
will be based on the State's consistency in following
-------
-14- 9831.3
the procedures and guidelines outlined in these
documents and the NCP.
5. The State must assure that funds will not be used to
initiate enforcement actions against Federal facilities
and/or Federal agencies that may be PRPs at the site.
6. The State must agree to submit the deliverables and abide
by the review and consultation requirements described in
Section III.B.. The content of each deliverable may
be altered by EPA depending upon the scope and timing
of the CA.
7. The State must retain in a central file all documents
produced, collected, received or issued as part of their
administrative action or litigation against PRPs. These
documents may be required for subsequent State or Federal
enforcement action, or future cost recovery activities.
8. The State must conduct a community relations program
in accordance with applicable EPA guidance.
B. Deliverables to be Submitted to EPA
1. Prior to filing a case in court for litigation, the State
must submit a report which describes the following:*
0 Problems at the site (such as the site history,
environmental and health concerns, and response and
enforcement activities preceeding litigation);
0 Objectives of litigation (such as relief and/or monetary
penalties sought);
0 Statutory provisions upon which the case is being
built (such as State and/or Federal statutes).
0 Factors leading to the need for litigation (such as
the legal history of the case and other elements of
the case);
0 Proposed litigants and evidence of use of the site
(such as names, how they are linked to the site, and
other possible litigants and reasons they were con-
sidered or rejected);
0 Potential problems with the litigation (such as any
anticipated defenses, problems with consistency with
NCP, and reasons for urgency in proceeding with
litigation).
*See Chapter III, RCRA/CERCLA Case Management Handbook for
the specific elements included in a referral package.
-------
-15- 9831.3
0 Summary of the contents of the documentary file (such
as technical documents, administrative decisions,
correspondence, pleadings, minutes of negotiations
and other relevant documents).
0 Previous settlement discussions and proposals made
by the State and/or PRPs.
0 State resource and budget commitment (such as the
members of the litigation team and estimated time
they will spend on the case, contract dollars needed
for expert witnesses and other technical support,
and other litigation support costs).
0 Expected time schedule for litigation (such as motion
for first discovery, first summary judgement, first
deposition, etc.).
The State must assure in the CA that it will not expend
funds for actual administrative action or litigation
until EPA has had the opportunity to review and consult
on the report and has indicated in writing that this
condition was satisfied. EPA will provide their review
and consultation within mutually agreed upon time frames
or schedules.
2. Prior to filing a consent decree or other enforceable
document for judicial approval, the State must submit
a copy to EPA for review and consultation. Any documents
prepared as part of the consent decree must also be
submitted (e.g. remedial action plan, corporate guaranty,
etc.).
The State must assure in the CA that it will not sign
the consent decree with the PRPs until EPA has had the
opportunity to review and consult on the decree and has
indicated in writing that this condition was satisfied.
EPA must also be given the opportunity to be a signatory
to the consent decree. EPA will provide their review
and consultation within mutually agreed upon timeframes
or schedules.
3. At the conclusion of the administrative action or
litigation, a copy of the final consent decree and
accompanying documents must be submitted to EPA.
All deliverables, portions of deliverables or other documents
provided to EPA meant to be enforcement confidential should be
clearly marked as such.
C. Fundable Administrative Action and Litigation Tasks
This section outlines specific fundable tasks for adminis-
trative action or litigation against PRPs. These tasks are similar
to those conducted by EPA.
-------
-16- 9831.3
Various tasks may be conducted during an administrative action
or litigation against PRPs. These tasks can be broken into two
broad areas: technical tasks and legal tasks. Fundable tasks
for these areas may include:
Technical Tasks
0 Analyzing information provided by PRPs in response to notice
letters and information requests (such as development of
transactional data bases using waste-in lists, volumetric
rankings, and type of involvement and years of association
with the site).
0 Analyzing relevant and applicable policies and guidance
documents.
0 Analyzing, reviewing and providing comments on work plans,
samples, studies, other scientific and technical data.
0 Analyzing previous negotiations and PRP proposals and/or
counter proposals.
0 Defining technical points to be addressed during litigation
(such as technical and scientific data supporting selection
of a particular remedy, cleanup standard and/or technique
and endangerment, release or other elements of proof under
State law).
0 Compiling and evaluating testimony and depositions. Hiring
expert witnesses.
Legal Tasks
0 Developing a litigation team (legal and technical members),
and defining each team member's role, authority and
responsibility.
0 Organizing all documents collected and generated throughout
the case.
0 Performing legal research (such as legal history and theory
of the case, and statutes upon which to proceed).
0 Analyzing relevant and applicable policies and guidance
documents.
0 Reviewing proceedings of previous negotiations and settle-
ment offers.
0 Conducting discovery and deposition tasks.
0 Preparing pleadings, motions and briefs.
0 Preparing expert witness testimony.
-------
-17- 9831.3
0 Analyzing potential defenses to the case.
0 Assessing settlement alternatives.
0 Preparing pretrial order.
0 Trying the case in court, if a pretrial settlement cannot
be reached.
Community relations tasks are also allowable activities under
a CERCLA CA. The State is responsible for conducting a community
relations program during an administrative action or litigation
against PRPs. The State should refer to Chapter 6 of the guidance
entitled Community Relations in Superfund - A Handbook when devel-
oping such a program.
IV. Cooperative Agreement Application Procedures
States must follow established procedures for developing CA
applications encompassing PRP search, notification, negotiation
or litigation activities. The State has primary responsibility
for developing a CA application package, but should consult with
EPA's RPM for the site throughout the process.
In general, the key elements of a CA application package are:
0 Intergovernmental Review;
0 EPA Form 5700-33, Application For Federal Assistance, and
accompanying support narrative and assurances;
0 EPA Form 5700-48, Procurement System Checklist; and
0 State Certification Letter.
A comprehensive discussion of CA or multi-site CA (MSCA)
applications for Superfund activities is presented in Volume I
of the manual State Participation in the Superfund Program. As
experience is gained in funding State enforcement activities,
procedures for developing CA applications for these particular
activities will be revised in the future.
The project period for these enforcement-related activities
is one year. States can request, in a CERCLA CA application, only
enough money to conduct the necessary activities for twelve months,
If additional funds are needed to continue the activities, the
State should submit to EPA a request for a CA amendment as the
end of this twelve month period approaches.
V. Preparation of State Quarterly Reports
States are required to submit quarterly reports that provide
EPA with information on the progress of the funded activities.
-------
-18- 9831.3
These reports serve many important purposes, including:
0 Providing site-specific tracking data as required under
CERCLA;
0 Providing data for future use during cost recovery; and
0 Providing information to assist the State and EPA in
managing CAs.
States are required to report or document costs associated
with the CA on a site-specific basis. Expenditures must be
tracked and reported by object class category, as required under
the General Assistance regulation for CAs. In addition, personnel
hours must be tracked and reported on a site-specific basis. For
further information on accounting codes and cost documentation, see
the appropriate appendices in Volume I of the manual State Partic-
ipation in the Superfund Program.
States will submit quarterly reports to the RPM within thirty
days of the end of each Federal fiscal quarter. In general, the
quarterly reports must cover the following:
0 Itemization of expenditures by object class;
0 Estimation (percentage) of work completed for each activity
covered in the CA;
0 Summary of personnel hours spent at each site;
0 Disposition of sites where all activities have been completed
and accepted/approved by the RPM; and
0 Explanation of variances from the SOW in estimated costs,
personnel hours and/or tasks being initiated).
A narrative explanation must also be provided discussing
actions initiated or completed, problems or delays encountered
and actions planned during the next reporting period. The State
must also provide explanations for revisions to the original
schedules or time tables established in the CA. As experience
is gained in funding State enforcement activities, reporting
requirements for these particular activities will be revised
in the future.
-------
9831.3
ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS
CERCLA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
PROVISIONS SPECIFIC TO STATE-LEAD ENFORCEMENT
PRP SEARCHES, ISSUANCE OF NOTICE LETTERS, NEGOTIATION,
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AND LITIGATION
State-lead enforcement PRP search, notification, negotiation,
administrative action and litigation Cooperative Agreements should
contain the provisions found in Sections 1 (A-F) and 2 (C, E, G-L,
N-S) of Appendix F, State Participation in the Superfund Program.
In addition, they should also contain the following provisions.
A. State Enforcement Authorities
In providing CERCLA funds for State-lead enforcement PRP
search, notification, negotiation, administrative action, and
litigation, the State has shown it possesses the legal authorities
to pursue administrative or judicial enforcement action to ensure
performance of the response action. EPA asks the State to outline
these authorities in the Cooperative Agreement application.
The State possesses the legal authorities to pursue adminis-
trative or judicial enforcement action to ensure performance
of the private party response action. The State agrees to use
these authorities if private parties are unwilling to implement
the necessary response action. These legal authorities are
outlined in a letter attached to the Cooperative Agreement
application.
B. Authority of State Attorney General Offices to Accept Federal
Assistance
Federal assistance can only be awarded to State offices with
the authority to accept such assistance. State Attorney General
offices without this authority are required to request assistance
through an authorized State office. Therefore, EPA requests that
when a State Attorney General office submits a Cooperative Agreement
application, the office indicate in writing that they possess this
authority.
The [Name of State] Attorney General office has the authority
to accept CERCLA Federal assistance through this Cooperative
Agreement.
C. Designation of Lead Technical Representative and Lead Attorney/
Coordination Amongst Appropriate State Offices
CERCLA enforcement actions are a joint effort, involving
individuals with technical and legal expertise. To this extent,
enforcement actions require close coordination and cooperation
between technical experts and attorneys to ensure successful
results. EPA asks the State to identify State officials who will
represent these expertise and ensure that coordination between
-------
-2- 9831.3
the various State offices involved in the enforcement action are
involved in the development and execution of the Cooperative
Agreement.
The State has designated [name, title, address and phone
number] to serve as lead technical representative for the
[site]. The State has designated [name, title, address and
phone number] to serve as lead attorney for the [site].
All appropriate State offices involved in the execution
of the enforcement action planned for the [site] have been
coordinated with in developing this Cooperative Agreement
application.
D. Ability of PRPs to Undertake or Pay Cost of the Response
Action (Negotiation, Administrative Action or Litigation)
In pursuing [negotiations, administrative action or litigation]
against PRPs to undertake a response action, the State believes
that (1) a good enforcement case exists against the private
parties (i.e. financially able to undertake or pay the cost
of the response action) and (2) site conditions meet the
elements of proof reguired by the State's legal authorities
at the onset of the enforcement action (imminent and substan-
tial endangerment).
E. Federal Facilities and Federal Agencies
States are prohibited from using Federal funds to pursue
administrative or judicial enforcement actions against Federal
facilities and Federal agencies.
The State will immediately notify EPA if Federal facilities
and/or Federal agencies are identified as potentially respon-
sible parties at sites covered under this Cooperative Agreement,
The State will not use funds provided under this Cooperative
Agreement to pursue administrative or judicial enforcement
action against Federal facilities and/or Federal agencies
that may be potentially responsible parties.
F. Consistency with Agency Policy and Guidance
In pursuing enforcement actions against PRPs, the State must
assure that such actions are consistent with the NCP and applicable
EPA guidance.
For PRP Searches and Issuance of Notice Letters:
In conducting PRP searches and notifications funded by this
Cooperative Agreement, the State agrees to ensure that such
activities be consistent with the National Contingency Plan as
published on November 20, 1985 (40 CFR 300) and the following
EPA guidance documents.
-------
-3- 9831.3
0 Procedures for Identifying Responsible Parties at Uncon-
trolled Hazardous Waste Sites - Superfund, OLEC, February,
1982;
0 Procedures for Issuing Notice Letters, OWPE, October 12,
1984; and
For RI/FS Negotiations with PRPs;
In conducting RI/FS negotiations funded by this Cooperative
Agreement, the State agrees to ensure that such activities
be consistent with the National Contingency Plan as published
on November 20, 1985 (40 CFR 300) and the following EPA guid-
ance documents.
0 Participation of Potentially Responsible Parties in Devel-
opment of Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies
under CERCLA, OSWER/OECM, March 20, 1984; and
0 The manuals Guidance on Remedial Investigations Under
CERCLA and Guidance on Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA,
OERR, June, ,1985.
For RD/RA/O&M Negotiations with PRPs;
In conducting RD/RA/O&M negotiations funded by this Cooperative
Agreement, the State agrees to ensure that such activities
be consistent with the National Contingency Plan as published
on November 20, 1985 (40 CFR 300) and the following EPA guid-
ance documents.
0 Interim CERCLA Settlement Policy, OSWER/OECM/DOJ, December
5, 1985;
0 Preparation of Decision Documents for Approving Fund-Financed
and PRP Remedial Actions under CERCLA, OSWER, February 27,
1984; and
0 Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action Guidance,
OERR, Revised, June 1986.
For Administrative Actions and Litigation Against PRPs;
In conducting administrative actions and litigation funded
by this Cooperative Agreement, the State agrees to ensure
that such activities be consistent with the National Contin-
gency Plan as published on November 20, 1985 (40 CFR 300)
and the following EPA guidance documents.
0 Interim CERCLA Settlement Policy, OSWER/OECM/DOJ, December
5, 1985;
0 RCRA/CERCLA Case Management Handbook, U.S. EPA, August, 1984.
-------
-4- 9831.3
G. Timeframe for Negotiations
When conducting negotiations funded under a CERCLA Cooperative
Agreement, the State must attempt to settle with PRPs within a
specified timeframe. EPA asks the State to notify the Agency if
a settlement is not reached within this timeframe and to recommend
whether negotiations should continue with the PRPs.
For RI/FS negotiations;
If a settlement is not reached within 60 days after initiating
negotiations for private party conduct of the RI/FS, the
State agrees to notify EPA and recommend either (1) continuing
with negotiations or (2) requesting initiation of a State or
Fund-financed RI/FS. If negotiations have begun prior to
award of the Cooperative Agreement, the State agrees to notify
EPA within 60 days after award. If EPA and the State determine
that negotiations should not continue, the State may request
that the agreement be amended to redirect remaining funds
toward a Fund-financed RI/FS (subject to availability of
funds). If EPA and the State determine that negotiations
should continue, the State agrees to provide a revised time
schedule and date for conclusion of negotiations.
For RD/RA/O&M negotiations;
If a settlement is not reached within 120 days after initiating
negotiations for private party conduct of the RD/RA/O&M, the
State agrees to notify EPA and recommend either (1) continuing
with negotiations or (2) proceeding with other administrative
action or litigation. If negotiations have begun prior to
award of the Cooperative Agreement, the State agrees to notify
EPA within 120 days after award. If EPA and the State determine
that negotiations should not continue, the State may request
that the agreement be amended to redirect remaining funds
toward other administrative action or litigation. If EPA and
the State determine that negotiations should continue, the
State agrees to provide a revised time schedule and date for
conclusion of negotiations.
H. Formalizing Successful Negotiations, Administrative Actions
and Litigation
In pursuing enforcement actions against PRPs, the State is
required to culminate successful actions by issuing an enforceable
order, decree or other enforceable document requiring the PRP to
conduct the response action in accordance with the NCP and applic-
able EPA guidance.
The State agrees to culminate a successful [type of enforcement
action] by issuing a [type of enforceable document] for the
[name of site] , requiring the private parties to conduct the
the response action in accordance with the NCP and applicable
-------
-5- 9831.3
EPA guidance. The State agrees to ensure that the [type of
enforceable document] is consistent with the [Model Adminis-
trative Order on Consent for PRP Conducted RI/FS, OSWER/OECM
January 31, 1985 (for PRP RI/FS) or memorandum entitled
Drafting Consent Decrees in Hazardous Waste Imminent Hazard
Cases, OSWER/OECM, May 1, 1985 (for PRP RD/RA/O&M)].
I. Deliverables to be Submitted to EPA
EPA must review and consult on appropriate deliverables prior
to and during a State's enforcement action initiated under a
Cooperative Agreement. The State must also agree to submit all
final documents or plans and change orders that substantially
change the scope of work funded under the Cooperative Agreement
to EPA for review and concurrence prior to issuance and implemen-
tation.
For PRP Searches and Issuance of Notice Letters;
The State agrees to submit the deliverables as described in
Section I.B. of the guidance CERCLA Funding of Private Party
Search, Notification, Negotiation and Litigation Efforts by
States at National Priorities List Sites. Final documents or
plans and change orders that substantially change the scope
of work funded under this Agreement will be submitted to EPA
prior to issuance for review and concurrence to ensure
adequacy and compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
For Negotiations with PRPs;
The State agrees to submit the deliverables and abide by the
review and consultation requirements described in Section
II.B of the guidance CERCLA Funding of Private Party Search,
Notification, Negotiation and Litigation Efforts by States
at National Priorities List Sites. Final documents or plans
and change orders that substantially change the scope of work
funded under this Agreement will be submitted to EPA prior
to issuance for review and concurrence to ensure adequacy
and compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
For Administrative Actions and Litigation against PRPs;
The State agrees to submit the deliverables and abide by the
review and consultation requirements described in Section
III.B of the guidance CERCLA Funding of Private Party Search,
Notification, Negotiation and Litigation Efforts by States
at National Priorities List Sites. Final documents or plans
and change orders that substantially change the scope of work
funded under this Agreement will be submitted to EPA prior to
issuance for review and concurrence to ensure adequacy and
compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
-------
-6- 9831.3
Maintaining Enforcement-Related Documents in a Central File
The State agrees to maintain a central file of all documents
produced, collected, received or issued as part of the
enforcement activities funded under this Cooperative Agree-
ment. The State understands that these documents may be
required for for subsequent State or Federal enforcement
action, or future cost recovery activities.
K. Community Relations
The State agrees to prepare and implement a community relations
plan for this site. The State further agrees to comply with
all relevant EPA policy and guidance on community relations
when implementing the community relations plan throughout
the response, especially Chapter 6, Community Relations in
Superfund; A Handbook.
-------
9831.3
PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL
OF ENFORCEMENT-RELATED COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING FUNDS AND REVISING THE CASE MANAGEMENT
BUDGET - DRAFT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT APPLICATION
0 The Region should request cooperative agreement funds during
September for the following fiscal year, represented as SCAP
targets. The SCAP should be revised quarterly, if necessary.
The Region should consult with the State prior to revising
the SCAP.
0 The State Project Officer, assisted by an EPA Regional Office
counterpart, will develop a cooperative agreement application
and submit it to the Enforcement Remedial Project Manager (RPM).
0 The Regional Coordinator (RC) in the Compliance Branch will
review the draft application in coordination with the Contracts
Management Section in the CERCLA Enforcement Division.
0 The RC will send their comments on the application to the RPM.
The Region should give the State combined EPA comments (HQ
and Region). The State will then prepare a final application
for submittal to the Regional Administrator.
2. REGIONAL SUBMITTAL AND HEADQUARTERS SIGN-OFF - FINAL COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT APPLICATION
0 The RC will receive a copy of the final cooperative agreement
application, which will have a commitment notice attached.
The dollar amount for award, cooperative agreement number
and description should already be entered on the commitment
notice.
0 The RC will review the final application and get the commitment
notice signed by the appropriate Headquarters managers. For
CA's of $250K or less, the Director, Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement's signature is required. For CA's of over $250K,
the AA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response's signature
is required.
0 Once signatures have been obtained, the RC will obtain the
proper accounting information from OWPE's Program Management
and Support Office (PMSO).
0 Once signatures are obtained and accounting information has
been entered on the commitment notice, the RC will send only
the commitment notice back to the Region for use in awarding
the CA. Delegation has given CA award authority to the RA.
(The RC will keep the copy of the CA application and a xeroxed
copy of the commitment notice on file for oversight purposes.
The Compliance Branch will maintain files for these CAs.) The
RPM will send a signed copy of the CA document be sent to RC
after award and acceptance by the State.
------- |