United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
oEPA
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9832.22
TITLE: Interim.Cashouf Settlement Procedures
^ ^
.AP PR OVAL DATE:- January 7' 1992
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 7' 1992
ORIGINATING OFFICE: OWPE
(SPINAL
^ ^
D DRAFT .
LEVEL. OF DRAFT
^__ i .
_ LTA Signed4 by AA of QAA
D B Signed by Offic* Director
DC Review & Comment
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER OSWER OSWER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
Unin
-------
j£LCDA Washington. DC 20460
ocrM OSWER Directive Initiation Ri
2. Originator Information
Name of Contact Person Mail Code Office
Frank Biros OS-505 OWE
3. Title
Interim Cashout Settlement Procedures
"^""^ """T^""~ -^"--i ^
1 . Directive Number
equest 9832'22
Telephone Code
308-8645
TM, directive address certain issues related to Superfund cashout settlements.
These interim procedures provide approaches to resolve certain issues which arose
in recent cashout settlements.
5'KCos°ta Recovery, Cashout, Settlements
X No Yes
b. Does It Supplement Previous Qirective(s)?
1 x| No Y«»
7. Draft Level
A - Signed by AA/OAA 8 - Signed by Office Director C-
What directive (number, title)
What directive (number, title)
- For Review & Comment 0 - In Development
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters?
Yes
X
No
Thl* Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format Standards.
9. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator
\S)axU t^ ^3 OLttuMvJ
1 0. Name and Title of Approving Official
Date
sluta-
Date
EPA Form 1315-17 (Rev. 5-«7) Previous edition* are obsolete.
OSWER Of'VER OSWER 0
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
&EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OWPE Directive Initiation Slip
fame of Program Contact Parson:
Frank Biros
Mall Coda:
OS-510W
Office:
OWPE
Telephone:
308-8645
Document Plumber:
OSWER Directive 9832.22
Does document supersede a previous one? No Q Yes Doc. No.
Does document supplement a previous one? (3 No Q Yes Doc. No.
Title:
Interim Cashout Settlement Procedures
Document Abstract:
This directive address certain issues realted to Superfund chasout settlements.
These procedures provide appraches to resolve certain issues which arose in recent
cashout settlements.
Keywords:
Cashout, Settlement, Cost Recovery
Number of document pages (excluding OSWER
Initiation Request sheets):
Target audience(s):
Special requirements:
Planned issue date:
Document Number Assigned (date):
Document Status:
Date on Title Page:
Transmittal Memo signed by:
Final distribution to:
Q Waste Mgt. Div. Dirs. Regs. I-X Q RCRA Branch Chiefs
3 Superfund Branch Chjefs QtRAs, Regions I-X
e§ EDRS: Q Hard copy £) Diskette Q Depository libraries
3 OSWER Directive Coordinator Q Regional paralegals
Q Other OGC. DOJ, FMD, OERR
3NTIS
XDGPO
X3 EPA Library
Q States by HO
Will final document be releasable to the public? Si Yes Q No
If not, cite appropriate FOIA exemption(s):
Will document be publicly available at a later date? Q Yes Q No
If yes, enter approximate time frame:
Comments:
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JAN 7 1992
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OSWER Directive // 9832.22
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Interim Cashout Settlement Procedi
FROM:
TO:
Bruce M. Diamond, Director,
Office of Waste Programs EnTc
demerit
Directors, Waste Management Division,
Regions I, IV, V, and VII
Directors, Hazardous Waste Management Division,
Regions III, VI, VIII, and IX
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division,
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Division,
Region X
The purpose of these Interim Procedures is to address
certain issues related to Superfund cashout settlements. These
Interim Procedures provide approaches to resolve certain issues
which arose in recent cashout settlements, and which may recur in
pending and future cashout settlements. A Comprehensive Cashout
Settlement Guidance, addressing these and other issues in greater
detail, will be completed at a later date. It is our intent to
publish the Comprehensive Cashout Settlement Guidance, which will
include the approaches discussed in these Interim Procedures, as
a Federal Register Notice with opportunity for public comment.
These Interim Procedures, and any related internal office
procedures adopted to facilitate their implementation, are
intended solely'for employees of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. They do not constitute rulemaking by the
Agency and may not be relied upon to create a right or benefit,
substantive or procedural,' enforceable at law or in equity, by
any person. The Agency may take action at variance with these
Interim Procedures.
Printed on Recycled Pape:
-------
OSWER Directive # 9832.22
Background
The Office of Waste Programs Enforcement has convened a
workgroup to develop a Superfund cashout policy and associated
guidance which will address all major issues relating to the
acceptance, management, and use of cashout funds received from
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) pursuant to CERCLA
authority. The workgroup is comprised of representatives from
all Agency offices and DOJ, with responsibility for any aspect of
the cashout settlement program. Issues to be addressed in the
final Cashout Settlement Guidance include: the scope of CERCLA
authority; allocation of cashout settlement funds; options for
using cashout settlement funds; special considerations for O&M;
interest accrual; and, options and their limitations for cashout
settlement funds management. Because several of these issues
require extensive effort to resolve, we are issuing these Interim
Procedures to address critical issues raised in recent Agency
cashout settlements. Issues addressed in these Interim
Procedures include:
o Applicability of CERCLA §122(b)(3);
o State Participation in Cashout Settlements;
o Allocation of Cashout Settlement Funds between Past and
Future Superfund Response Costs;
o Superfund Special Account Management of Cashout
Settlement Funds.
Applicability of CERCLA §122(b)(3)
Cashouts are funds received by EPA from a PRP, under the
terms of a settlement agreement, to be used to defray the costs -
of future response actions, including any applicable premium, at
a Superfund site. A cashout settlement may also include PRP
funds in payment of past costs. EPA's authority to retain and
use these funds is found in CERCLA §122(b)(3) which states: "If,
as part of any agreement, the President will be carrying out any
action and the parties will be paying amounts to the President,
the President may, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
retain and use such amounts for purposes of carrying out the
agreement." When these agreements include PRP payments toward
future response work they are referred to as cashout settlements.
Cashout funds wi,ll generally be received by EPA and used by EPA,
or made available to a state or designated PRP, for the purpose
of implementing the response action in accordance with the
settlement.
This authority provides EPA with a mechanism to collect and
manage settlement funds fr.om PRPs who can make a financial
contribution but will not lead the response at a site. The
payment of cashout funds by PRPs may arise in a variety of
settlement contexts, including those entered into for the conduct
of" response actions, for recovery of past costs, or for de
-------
OSWER Directive // 9832.22
minimis settlements. Pursuant to the terms of §122(b)(3),
retention and use authority for such cashout funds applies to
"any agreement," and "for purposes of carrying out the
agreement." Therefore, we believe the Agency authority derived
from §122(b)(3) for management of cashout funds is applicable to
all settlements under CERCLA. This authority, however, must be
applied in accordance with the terms of the cashout settlement
agreement.
State Participation in Cashout Settlements
Both EPA and the state generally incur recoverable site
related costs prior to the settlement. In addition, unless the
settlement is for the full response cost, both EPA and the state
are likely to incur additional costs after the settlement funds
have been expended. For these reasons, the way EPA and the state
share the proceeds of the cashout is very important to both
parties.
States may participate in cashout settlements between EPA
and PRPs as third-party signatories to the agreement. In these
instances, the cashout settlement agreement should delineate the
allocation of cashout funds to the state in the greatest detail
possible consistent with these Interim Procedures. Where
appropriate, Regions may also elect to execute a separate
allocation agreement with the state to provide additional detail
regarding the allocation of cashout funds to the state consistent
with these Interim Procedures. A separate EPA/state agreement
will be necessary in those instances where a state is not a
third-party signatory but will be allocated cashout funds.
It is highly recommended that EPA Regions develop a standard
approach to sharing cashout proceeds with states. The standard
approach should recognize the past and estimated future costs of
both the state and EPA, and the percent of estimated total
response costs that are being supplied by the settlement.
There are three additional key state issues related to
cashouts which are addressed in these Interim Procedures:
o Determining the state's remedial action cost-share;
o Assuring Operation and Maintenance (O&M); and,
o Using State Cooperative Agreements.
Determining the State's Remedial Action Cost-share
One of the most significant issues that arises in cashout
settlements is determining whether and how the cashout agreement
affects the state's CERCLA §104(c)(3) cost-share for the remedial
action. EPA's interim mixed funding settlement guidance (See,
"Superfund Program: Mixed Funding Settlements," 53 Fed. Reg.
8279 (March 14, 1988), OSWER Directive No. 9834.9) reguires that
-------
OSWER Directive # 9832.22
- 4 -
state "... cost-share will be calculated using the total remedial
action costs rather than the percentage of the Fund share alone".
The mixed funding settlement guidance, however, recognizes
several ways in which the state can pay or assure payment of its
cost-share. For example, the state, EPA, and the PRPs could
enter into an agreement under state law and CERCLA in which the
PRPs pay the cost-share to the state and the state obligates the
money for use at the site in question. The state could also use
its own funds to pay for any cost-share that cannot be paid for
by PRPs. The mixed funding settlement guidance suggests that
cashouts should only be considered when it is reasonably certain
that the state is willing and able to pay for its cost-share.
These Interim Procedures modify the state cost-share
requirement of the mixed funding settlement guidance to simplify
this aspect of cashout settlements. Under these procedures
states will not be required to cost-share for the portion of
remedial action costs provided by PRPs in cashout settlements.
However, when cashout settlements provide only a portion of
remedial action costs, states will be required, at a minimum, to
cost-share in remedial action costs financed by the Superfund
Trust Fund and to provide other assurances consistent with
Section 104(c)(3) of CERCLA.
This approach avoids the need to negotiate state cost-shares
for PRP funded remedial action costs. We believe this approach
is consistent with the general intent of CERCLA regarding state
cost-shares for remedial action costs.
Assuring Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
Section 104(c)(3) requires that the state pay or assure
payment of all future maintenance of the remedial action,
generally referred to as O&M. States may seek separate payment
of their O&M costs from PRPs while cashout settlement
negotiations are underway. Although it i,s preferable that O&M
costs be handled in a separate agreement between .the state and
PRPs, there may be circumstances where PRP payments for O&M costs
are included in a cashout settlement agreement. States should
participate as third-party signatories in cashout settlements in
those cases where"O&M funds are provided to the state.
»»
Where O&M costs are included in the cashout settlement, the
settlement agreement should clearly state that the PRPs, not the
Trust Fund, are the source of O&M funds. The amount intended for
O&M should also be stated,' either as a dollar amount or as a
percentage of an amount to be determined. Since the settlement
allocation may occur well in advance of the start of O&M, it
would be appropriate to base the O&M allocation on the present
value of estimated O&M costs. Including O&M in a cashout
settlement does not relieve the state of its obligation to pay,
-------
OSWER Directive # 9832.22
- 5 -
or assure payment of, O&M costs. Any shortfall in O&M funds will
remain the state's responsibility pursuant to section 104(c)(3).
Under all but the most unusual circumstances (i.e. where no
other funds management mechanism is available) O&M funds should
not be received by EPA or deposited into a Special Account. If
short term deposit is required, a court registry account may be
appropriate until a final allocation occurs. Settlement
arrangements should provide for transfer of O&M funds directly to
the state, either as a separate payment from the PRPs or through
a third-party trustee. Combined with explicit settlement
agreement language, this procedure will avoid any perception that
Trust Fund monies are being used for O&M.
Using State Cooperative Agreements
Section 104(c)(3) and the implementing EPA regulations
require states to enter into State Superfund Contracts (SSCs) or
cooperative agreements with EPA to provide certain assurances
regarding the conduct of remedial actions financed by the Trust
Fund. This requirement also applies to sites where cashout
settlement agreements have been reached. To facilitate the
implementation of response actions at these sites, §122(b)(3)
cashout funds received by EPA may be transferred to states
through a cooperative agreement, or credited to states through an
SSC, to carry out the response at a site which is the subject of
the cashout settlement agreement. States must agree that the
cashout funds will be applied only to the site which is the
subject of the settlement and in accordance with the terms of the
cashout settlement agreement and the SSC or cooperative
agreement.
Transfers through cooperative agreements, or credits through
SSCs, o.f cashout funds to states should be made from Special
Accounts. Since Special Accounts are tracked in the Agency's
Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS), this will ensure
proper Agency accounting of these financial transactions with
states. Interim cashout fund management, however, may occur
through other types of accounts, e.g., a federal district court
registry. This may be appropriate where a time delay occurs
between the cashout settlement and the finalization of an SSC or
cooperative agreement.
Allocation of Cashout Settlement Funds Between Past and Future
Superfund Response Costs
When a cashout settlement is intended to address both past
and future costs, the Region must determine how the funds
received by Superfund will be allocated to past and future
Superfund costs. As a general rule, at a minimum, the allocation
should include a meaningful contribution toward repayment of past
EPA costs at the site. The allocation should be delineated in
-------
OSWER Directive'# 9832.22
- 6 -
the settlement wherever possible. If not, it should be set forth
in the ten-point settlement analysis, the EPA/state allocation
agreement, or another document prepared for this purpose. The
documentation of the allocation is necessary to support
appropriate follow-up enforcement actions, and to facilitate
proper accounting in the Agency's IFMS of past and future costs.
Regions should ensure that appropriate, timely follow-up
action is taken with respect to unrecovered past costs including
administrative or judicial enforcement action against non-
settlers, or close-out of unrecovered past costs. Depending on
the outcome of the negotiations and the terms of settlement, of
course, settling PRPs may remain liable for unrecovered past
costs or response costs in excess of those subject to the
settlement.
Superfund Special Account Management of Cashout Settlement Funds
Regions have used several approaches for the management of
cashout settlement funds. These have included deposit in the
Trust Fund, Superfund Special Accounts, federal district court
registry accounts, and privately managed trust accounts.
Attachment A provides detailed information and procedures for
establishing Superfund Special Accounts with cashout settlement
funds. The Comprehensive Cashout Settlement Guidance will
address other cashout fund management alternatives in some
detail.
While it is desirable to have several options for the
management of cashout funds, deposit in Superfund Special
Accounts has the advantages of Agency control, opportunity for
long term management, and easy accessibility, while maintaining
the site-specific character of the cashout funds. . A major
disadvantage is that these accounts do not earn interest directly
at the present time. However, if Special Accounts are used, our
current intent is to work with the appropriate Region to request
an amount, equal to the amount these funds would have earned, in
the next Superfund budget submission. To the extent the request
is approved, interest will be credited to the site-specific
individual Special Accounts.
Regions may,employ the most appropriate financial management
mechanism for cashout funds in each settlement. In all cases,
however, Regions should ensure reporting of cashout achievements
in CERCLIS in a timely manner for proper accomplishment
reporting. This is especially important in settlements where
cashout funds are managed in accounts outside of the Agency,
e.g., a federal district court registry. Cashout funds deposited
in Superfund or transferred in or out of the Superfund Special
Accounts must, of course, be accounted for in the Agency's IFMS
to ensure proper financial accounting and credit for such
transactions.
-------
OSWER Directive # 9832.22
- 7 -
If there are any questions concerning these Interim
Procedures, please contact Frank Biros, Chief, Cost Recovery
Branch at FTS 678-8635, or Chad Littleton at FTS 678-8644.
Attachment
cc: Regional Counsels, Regions I - X
CERCLA Branch Chiefs, Regions I - X
ORC, Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I - X
Bill White, OE-Superfund
John Cruden, DOJ
Sallyanne Harper, FMD
Richard Brozen, BD
Howard Corcoran, OGC-GCGL
Lisa Friedman, OGC-SWER
Judith Kertcher, OSWER
Henry Longest, OERR
-------
OSWER Directive # 9832.22
Attachment A
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OF SPECIAL ACCOUNTS
I. General Information Concerning Special Accounts
Cashout settlement funds received by EPA pursuant to
§122(b)(3) may be deposited in the Trust Fund or in
reimbursable Special Accounts maintained by the Agency.
Special Account deposits will be site-specific and managed
as individual line items under Program Element RUBY9H, by
the EPA Office of the Comptroller. These site-specific
accounts provide EPA with immediate access to funds received
through cashout settlements and serve to assure states and
settling PRPs that the funds will be used for the purposes
established in the settlement agreement. Once the
headquarters Budget Division issues a reimbursable allowance
for these funds, the Allowance Holder may use the funds for
site response in accordance with the terms of the settlement
agreement.
Funds managed in Special Accounts do not accrue
interest for these accounts, but at the same time no
appropriation is required for their use. As part of each
future budget submission, OSWER in conjunction with the
appropriate Region, will request an amount equivalent to the
interest that would have accrued had the .unexpended funds
been invested in the Trust Fund. To the extent that it is
included in the appropriation, interest will be allocated to
the individual Special Accounts on a pro rata basis. When
entering into settlement agreements that include cashouts to
be managed as "Special Accounts" it is important to
recognize that Congress may choose not to appropriate the
requested interest.
I. EPA Financial Management of Cashout Funds
The following provides detailed steps that the Regional
program and financial management staffs should follow in
processing cashout funds:
A. Instructions in the Settlement Agreement: As with any
settlement requiring PRPs to make payment to Superfund,
the settlement must include the following instructions:
1. The addresg of the "lockbox" bank to which the
funds must be sent;
2. That the check must be payable to the "EPA
Hazardous Substance Superfund";
3. That EPA may seek to enforce the terms of the
settlement agreement if the cashout funds are not
-------
OSWER Directive # 9832.22
- 2 -
received consistent with its payment terms, and
that the Agency is not obligated to seek
remittance by issuing a demand (invoice) for
payment; and,
4. That along with the check, the PRP must include a
letter or other document clearly identifying the
site to which the funds apply. This
identification is needed to ensure that when the
check arrives at the lockbox bank, and the lockbox
bank informs the EPA finance staff of the receipt,
EPA finance staff can promptly notify the program
staff and Office of Regional Counsel of the PRPs
compliance with that portion of the settlement
agreement.
Transmittal of a Copy of the Settlement Agreement to
the Financial Management Office: Once the settlement
agreement is executed, the Regional CERCLA Branch Chief
is responsible for sending a copy of the agreement to
the Financial Management Office (FMO). The settlement
agreement should be accompanied by a summary of the
terms and conditions it contains. Due to the nature of
the technical and legal aspects of the settlement, the
CERCLA program staff and ORC should work closely with
one another to ensure that the summary is complete,
accurate, and concise. The package, including the
memorandum, must be forwarded to the FMO x^ithin ten
(10) working days of the effective date of the
settlement agreement. The following information should
be included in the memorandum:
1. Name and address of the settling PRPs;
2. Site name;
3. EPA Site/Spill Identification number (SSID) and
the DOJ case number;
4. As appropriate:
-% the amount to be applied to past costs,
including interest (the cost recovery
component);
the amount to be deposited into the Special
Account for future response activities; and
the amount of the Special Account deposit
intended for O&M.
5. Amount of any premium payment;
-------
OSWER Directive # 9832.22
6. Where appropriate, information identifying the
operable unit and/or response activity associated
with the cashout funds, and the associated dollar
amounts;
7. Whether or not the settlement is de minimis, and,
if yes, whether future payment to major settlers
is anticipated;
8. Whether or not a contract or cooperative agreement
with the state is either signed or anticipated,
and any related payment to the state that is
anticipated; and
9. The site project manager (RPM) and ORC attorney
assigned to the site, including telephone numbers
and addresses.
(Note: Items 4, 5, and 6 above must be completed for
each PRP. If the PRPs have pooled their settlement
obligations and only one check will be submitted, the
sum of the PRP contribution must equal the amount of
the check.)
C. FMO Suspense Files: The FMO will establish a suspense
file for the cashout. When the incoming check
arrives, the finance staff will match the check with
the agreement in the files and promptly notify the
program staff and ORC attorney that the check has been
received by EPA. As previously indicated, it is the
responsibility of the PRPs to ensure that the funds are
received by EPA. EPA is not obligated to seek
remittance through the issuance of a demand for
payment.
D. Recording Receipt of Funds: Upon receiving the PRPs
check, the FMO will record the receipt of funds in the
Agency's Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS).
Any portion intended to reimburse the Agency for past
costs (cost recovery) as stated in the settlement
agreement will be deposited to the Trust Fund account
20X8146.4. The balance will be credited to a Regional
suspense account to be transferred promptly by
. Interoffice Transfer Voucher (IOTV) to the Financial
Management Center in Cincinnati (FMC-Ci). The FMO will
also send FMC-Ci a copy of the consent decree. FMC-Ci
is EPA's servicing finance office for reimbursable
accounts, which include cashout funds deposited to
Special Accounts. FMC-Ci will account for the cashout
portion of the funds as an advance to the Agency's
Superfurrd appropriation and wil]qjj|anage _the funds on a
site-specific basis as a Special Account.
-------
OSWER Directive # 9832.22
Request for Reimbursable Allowance: The FMO is
responsible for sending a copy of the settlement
agreement, deposit ticket, and check to the
Headquarters Budget Division. In the event that all or
part of the cashout funds are to be used during the
current year, the transmittal should also include a
request for a reimbursable allowance. The remainder
of the cashout would remain controlled (fenced-off) in
IFMS in the site-specific advance account for future
work at the site. FMC-Ci has primary responsibility to
account for these funds within IFMS, including
liquidation of the funds as they are used at the site.
As .site work progresses in subsequent years, the Region
must request the release of these funds through the
Regional Financial Management Office on an as needed
basis. Request should identify the Program Element,
site-specific advance account, and the amount of funds
required.
Issuance of Advice of Allowance to Region for Response
Work: When the Budget Division issues the reimbursable
allowance to the Region, the FMO or resource management
staff in the Regional program office is responsible for
notifying the program manager (CERCLA Branch Chief)
that the allowance has been issued for use at the site.
The FMO will request the FMC-Ci to set up the site-
specific reimbursable account in the IFMS against which
the program can charge contractual services, salaries,
or other costs as appropriate under the settlement
agreement (and state Superfund contract (SSC) or
cooperative agreement) for carrying out the response
action.
Charging Costs to the Reimbursable Allowance (Special
Account): In some instances, work at the site for
which cashout funds were received may be supplemented
with monies from the Superfund appropriation. If so,
the CERCLA Branch Chief will be responsible for
determining the funding source(s) for any particular
portion of the work, and when invoices come in for
payment' must be certain that the Project Officer
Invoice Approval Form (EPA Form 2550D-19) or other
document clearly indicates to the FMO what account is
to be charged. The financial activity codes for
1 EPA receives most of the funds to carry out its programs
through direct Cbtigressiona-l appr&pzi&t±&ns~. tg. the.,..Agency.
However, when EPA receives funds from an outside^source, ' these
funds are termed "reimbursable" (in contrast with "direct" budget'
authority) and are given to the program through a "reimbursable"
allowance.
-------
OSWER Directive 9832.22
response work being charged to Special Accounts in
Program Element RUBY9H are the same as those currently
used by all programs that have authority to charge to
the Superfund appropriation. As EPA makes payments
against a cashout balance, the IFMS reimbursable
account will be reduced accordingly.
H. Monitoring and Reporting Special Account Balances; The
Office of the'Comptroller (Budget Division) will
coordinate with OSWER Resource Management Staff to
monitor Special Account balances. The items that will
be monitored include:
1. Amount of initial deposit;
2. Principal balance;
3. Interest deposited to the Special Account based on
amounts appropriated by Congress; and,
4. Amounts disbursed.
I. Closeout of Special Accounts and Transfer of Excess
Funds or Premium Payments: After notification from the
CERCLA Branch Chief that a project has been closed out,
and after all payments have been made, the FMC-Ci will
credit any remaining Special Account balances to the
Superfund Trust Fund.
III. SCAP Planning and Advice of Allowance
The SCAP and Advice of Allowance planning for cashout
settlements is similar to the planning for most other
Superfund activities. The most significant difference is
that cashout funds which are managed in Special Accounts can
only be obligated for-work at the site specified in, and to
carry out the terms of, the settlement agreement (and SSC or
cooperative agreement). Also, in cases where interest is to
be sought, OSWER in conjunction with the appropriate Region,
will ensure that an amount equal to the interest that the
principal balance would have accrued if it were deposited in
the Trust Fund is requested in the annual budget submission.
There are three types of PRP/Fund financed activities
which require specific codes in CERCLIS.
2 See OARM Directive 2550D and "FY 1990 Superfund Activity
Codes, " memorandum dated September 29, 1989, from Elizabeth
Craig, Acting Director, Resources Management Staff, OSWER. The
OSTVER Activity Code memorandum is updated periodically.
-------
OSWER Directive #9832.22
- 6 -
A. Federal- or state-lead ("F" or "S") designations should
be used when EPA receives settlement funds for all or a
portion of the cleanup and EPA, or the state, performs
the work.
B. A mixed-funding lead ("MR") designation should be used
when the PRP(s) assumes management responsibility and
provides partial funding for the cleanup, with the
Trust Fund also providing some funding.
C. A responsible party lead ("RP") designation should be
used only in cases where the PRPs, through one or more
CERCLA settlements, assume complete funding and
management responsibility for site response work.
Remedial action projects which have received cashout
funding in excess of 30% of estimated cost will be managed
the same as mixed funding settlements and therefore will not
be subject to ranking under the Superfund Remedial Action
Prioritization Guidance.
The Office of the Comptroller's standard Advice of
Allowance procedure will be implemented for cashouts,
however, funds will be tracked and distributed through the
Special Accounts Program Element. If appropriate under the
terms of the settlement, and the Region's plan for complete
site cleanup, any portion of the funding not assumed by the
PRPs may come from the Region's mixed funding, pre-
authorization or other site-specific response allowance.
3 See OSWER Directive No. 9200.3-01C, "Superfund Program
Management Manual," Volume 1, Chapter 5. Lead definitions are
displayed in Exhibit V-2.
4 Ibid., Chapter I.
Ibid., Chapter 6.
------- |