PB84-208784
State Participation in the
Super fund Remedial Program
(U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Feb 84
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
-------
Unted States
Environmental Protection ^ M St.. S W
Agency Washington. D C. 20460 February
Emergency and Remedial Response
&EPA STATE PARTICIPATION
IN THE SUPERFUND
REMEDIAL PROGRAM
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED
FROM THE BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY
THE SPONSORING AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT
IS RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN PORTIONS
ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RELEASED
IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
-------
15. Supplementary Notes CL
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
i c;
I. REPORT NO.
4. THIe and Subtitle
T. Author
9. Performing Organization Nam« and Address
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
X Recipient't AccMtlon No
208784
&. Report Date
_ f
*. ""
8. Performing Organization Rept. No
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No
11. Contnct(C) or Grint(G) No
(C)
(C)
13. Tyo* of Report & Period Covered
16. Ab«tr»c1 (Limit: 200 word*)
The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (PL 95-Q10)
establishes requirements for State oarticioation in
remedial activities undertaken by the Federal Government.
Specifically, the Act requires States to enter into a
"contract or cooperative agreement" with the President
(EPA, as the responsible agency) prior to undertaking any
remedial action. These required agreements provide a
mechanism for State participation in the remedial action
and are used to obtain the assurances required in the /%_T-
Policies and procedures governing the development,
execution and administration'of these agreements are
explained in this document.
The manual itself has been designed to function as a
handbook for the use of staff who deal with remedial
response agreements. It summarizes, in one central
reference, agency regulations, directives, and procedures
which apply to such aoreements.
17. Document Analysis m. Descriptor*
Li
b. tdentlfiers/Open-Ended
, I ; u.
'
( C *= ft cc A )
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statemen:
Q Po
19. Security Clan (Thl« Raport)
20. Security Clan (Thlt Pa««)
21. No. o< Paget
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See fnif/vcftanc on
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
PB84-208784
State Participation in the Superfund Remedial Program.
Feb 84
PERFORMER: Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
HW-15
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (PL 95-910) establishes requirements
for State participation in remedial activities undertaken by
the Federal government. Specifically, the Act requires
States to enter into a 'contract or cooperative agreement'
with the President (EPA, as the responsible agency) prior to
undertaking any remedial action. These required agreements
provide a mechanism for State participation in the remedial
action and are used to obtain the assurances required in the
Act. Policies and procedures governing the development,
execution and administration of these agreements are
explained in this document. The manual itself has been
designed to function as a handbook for the use of staff who
deal with remedial response agreements. It summarizes, in
one central reference, agency regulations, directives, and
procedures which apply to such agreements.
KEYWORDS: *Hazardous materials, *Handbooks, *Superfund
program.
Available from the National Technical Information Service,
SPRINGFIELD, VA. 22161
PRICE CODE: PC A17/MF A01
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICS OF
SOLID WASTE AMD EMERGENCY RESPONSE
STATE PARTICIPATION IN THE SUPERFUND REMEDIAL PROGRAM
This document provides information on how to implement approved
remedial response activities at National Priorities List sites in
accordance with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency
Plan. Its scope includes cooperative agreements, Superfund State
Contracts and credit claims.
Further, this document incorporates several new Superfund
initiatives EPA has taken in the past year to facilitate remedial
response and to make it easier for States to join EPA in addressing
problems at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. One is to allow
EPA to share in operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for up to
one year, rather than the six months limit heretofore in effect.
A-second is an option of management assistance cooperative agreements
to fund State costs at EPA-lead sites. A third is the option of
multi-site cooperative agreements, a concept which has always been
permissible but has not been previously developed. The document
is intended to serve as a manual for State and EPA staff who are
implementing the Superfund remedial program, consistent with the
delegations of authority we plan to issue in the coming months.
Until these delegations are approved, cooperative agreements,
Superfund State Contracts and audit responses will be processed in
Headquarters in accordance with current practice.
The document is the result of many months of hard work and
reflects the input of a number of key people, including represen-
tatives of EPA's Regional Offices, State agency personnel working
through the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials (ASTSWMO), representatives of citizens
organizations, and other offices in EPA headquarters, especially
the Office of General Counsel.
Some of the procedures described in the document are presented
as suggested models for Regions and States. We expect Regions and
States to tailor their internal procedures in their own situations
as appropriate.
-------
-2-
It should be noted that we will be updating the document as
needed and major updates will be distributed in draft for comment
before final issuance. Therefore, it is important that the actual
user of each copy of the document return the Update Mailing List
form in the front of the volume.
A limited number of additional copies are available at no cost
to Federal and State governmental officials and may be obtained by
contacting: Chief, State and Regional Coordination Branch (WH-548E) ,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20460, (202) 382-2443. The document may also be purchased by
persons outside of government through the Government Printing Office
(GPO) or the National Technical Information Service (NTIS).
Lee M. Thomas
Assistant Administrator
n
-------
(FOLD HERE]
This handbook will be updated periodically as new procedures are developed.
and new replacement pages will be added to the document Receipt of the
replacement pages is necessary to ensure that all concerned staff are operating
in a current and consistent manner. To ensure inclusion on the update mailing
Sst please fill out the form below, fold on the dotted lines as indicated, and
return to the address provided on the reverse side.
(FOLD HERE)
Please place my name on the Update Mailing List for the document
Slate Participation in the Superfund Remedial Program.
NAME
POSITION
EMPLOYER
ADDRESS
ill
-------
Seal here with tape
FOLD #2
Chief. State and Regional Coordination Branch
Hazardous Srte Control Division (WH-548E)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
FOLD#1
-------
FOREWORD
The Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, issued the Guidance on Cooperative Agreements
and Contracts with States under the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(P.L. 96-510) in March 1982. Drafts of this document had
been distributed during the previous year for comment and
provisional use.
During the remainder of 1982, regulations and policies
evolved which had a substantial impact on the remedial
response program. Examples include publication of the
National Priorities List (NPL), promulgation of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
(NCP) and a new regulation for Procurement under Assis-
tance Agreements (40 CFR 33), and development of a policy
on "Payment of State Enforcement Costs under Superfund."
Consequently, we decided to prepare and issue a revised
document.
On January 31, 1983, a revised draft was distributed
for comment to all EPA Regions, participating Headquarters
offices, and three major State associations. The Regions
were asked to distribute the draft to their States. Com-
ments were requested by February 25; comments received
after that date were also reviewed and considered.
Five Regions, four States, one State association, and
ten Headquarters offices responded. Major comments are
summarized below.
General Comments
A number of commenters found the draft revised docu-
ment very helpful. However, some comments reflected per-
ceived shortcomings in the document. These comments can
be divided into four categories:
1. Many commenters found that the draft did not suf-
ficiently emphasize the program's flexibility.
This was primarily due to verb choice. Prefer-
ences and requirements have been more clearly
differentiated in the final document.
2. Some commenters felt that the State role in
decision-making on remedial response was too
limited. It was our intent to indicate that the
State is a full partner, involved in all stages
of the program. We believe this has been stated
more explicitly in the final document.
-------
3. Some commenters felt that exhibits would be help-
ful. For this reason, a number of exhibits have
been included in the final document.
4. Many commenters recommended revisions to increase
the general clarity of the document, many of
which have been incorporated throughout. Some of
these are specifically listed below.
More Specific Comments
Many commenters objected to requiring States to pro-
vide quality assurance (QA), site safety, and community
r.elations plans (CRP) with their applications for assis-
tance. There were two major grounds of objection: 1)
these requirements would delay projects, and 2) States
would incur substantial costs before a Cooperative Agree-
ment providing EPA assistance was in place. The final
document emphasizes that a State need not provide QA and
site safety plans with its application; development of
these plans should instead be included as tasks in the
proposed statement of work. EPA may, at no cost to the
State, prepare the CRP to be included in the application
package. The State is subsequently responsible for updat-
ing the CRP as part of the project covered by the Coopera-
tive Agreement.
A number of commenters felt that Remedial Action
Master Plans (RAMPs) have not in the past served as ade-
quate planning documents. RAMPs are no longer being
initiated by EPA. EPA will fund preliminary planning
activities on a site-specific basis, but will no longer
require a particular format for outputs of such activities.
Several commenters raised questions about the section
of the draft outlining factors for State consideration in
making the lead management decision. In addition to rais-
ing questions about appropriate factors, some commenters
found the draft to imply that EPA was establishing rigid
criteria for State-lead projects. This implication was
unintended. To correct it, we have eliminated this
section from the final document.
Several commenters raised questions about the descrip-
tion of the clearinghouse review process. This process
has now been replaced by 40 CFR Part 29, "Intergovernmental
Review of the Environmental Protection Agency Programs and
Activities." The requirements of this regulation are
summarized in the final document.
VI
-------
Some commentecs felt that States should not be expected
to begin procurement activities before award of a Coopera-
tive Agreement. The major reason for this is that any
costs incurred would not be reimbursed, and prospective
contractors might be reluctant to prepare a proposal or
bid before funding was assured. The document merely
suggested that States use this approach for expediting
procurement; it is not a requirement. Some States have
already used such procedures with good results. Where the
proposed remedial activities have been authorized through
an Action Memorandum or inclusion in a Remedial Accom-
plishments Plan, EPA has indicated its intent to award a
Cooperative Agreement. This should serve to alleviate
some contractor concern. As an additional guide to State
programs, EPA has, since the draft was released, issued a
guidance memorandum concerning methods for expediting
procurement. The appropriate section of the final docu-
ment has been revised to reflect the contents of that
memorandum.
A number of commenters found the discussion of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) functional equiv-
alency requirements to be inadequate. This discussion has
been revised in the final document.
Several commenters felt that the description of
requirements for selection of an off-site facility was
inadequate. We have revised this discussion in the final
document to emphasize that an acceptable facility need not
be in the same State as the site in question, and that
facility designation may occur during the procurement
process. Specific criteria for selection of an acceptable
off-site facility have also been included.
Some commenters found the discussion of the verifica-
tion of CERCLA credit period claims to be inadequate. A
formal delineation of the procedures was in preparation at
the time the draft was distributed. These procedures are
detailed in Appendix C of this document.
Several questions were raised about the required level
of detail in Cooperative Agreement application budget
breakdowns and the need for making letter of credit draw-
downs under a Cooperative Agreement by remedial activity.
One commenter expressed the impression that EPA was
requiring a separate Financial Status Report (FSR) each
quarter for each activity. The budget breakdown require-
ments reflected in this document are those generally
required for obtaining any cooperative agreement and were
not originated by the Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (OERR). In any case, accounting by activity is
Vll
-------
not unduly complex. A single FSR may cover all activities
funded under a Cooperative Agreement and it need not be
provided each quarter. Some clarifications have been made
in the budget section and the accounting code system has
been simplified. An appendix explaining the accounting
requirements has also been added to the document.
Several commenters felt that the discussion of changes
in the Cooperative Agreement or Superfund State Contract
(SSC) which require a formal amendment was unclear. The
latitude for making adjustments to the work plan and other
minor changes not requiring a formal amendment is high-
lighted in the final document.
Several commenters felt that the requirements for SSC
payment terms were too rigid. The draft did not suffi-
ciently reflect the actual flexibility EPA demonstrates in
payment term negotiation. This section has been revised
in the final document to emphasize this flexibility.
Several commenters felt that the site access and
permit terms in the SSC, as stated in the document, were
too rigid. This section has been revised accordingly in
the final document.
Some commenters felt that the role of tne U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) was not made sufficiently clear
and that the State's requirement to share in COE costs
should be stated more explicitly. This section has been
revised in the final document and the cost-sharing require-
ment explained more fully.
One commenter requested that EPA state its policy on
calculating the State's cost-sharing requirements for
remedial projects at publicly-owned sites. Since the
draft was issued, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) has issued a policy memorandum on this
subject. This policy has been cited in the final document
and the memorandum is included in Appendix P.
One commenter felt that the document should contain a
list of abbreviations and acronyms. This has been included
in the final document.
New Initiatives
Since the January 1983 draft was issued, EPA has been
re-examining Superfund policies and procedures to determine
ways to expedite remedial response. As a result of this
review, EPA has decided to implement several new initia-
tives which are incorporated into this document. These
-------
include: delegating to the Regions authority foe negoti-
ating and signing Cooperative Agreements and SSCs; provid-
ing the option of using site planning Cooperative Agree-
ments; and providing for greater EPA participation in
operation and maintenance costs, where appropriate. In
addition, EPA's legal interpretation is that cost-sharing
at privately-owned sites is necessary only for remedial
implementation.
We have also emphasized in the document methods by
which States may reduce their administrative burdens. One
of these is to provide one letter certifying a State
agency's authority to enter into CERCLA remedial response
agreements rather than submitting a separate letter for
each agreement. Another is the option of including
remedial investigation/feasibility study subactivities at
more than one site in the same remedial response agreement.
Some revisions to the draft have also been made no
ensure consistency with 40 CFR Part 29, "Intergovernmental
Review of Environmental Protection Agency Programs and
Activities," and revisions to 40 CFR Part 30, "General
Regulation for Assistance Programs."
Second Draft
Because of the extensive revisions necessary to incor-
porate the new initiatives, on July 5, 1983, we distrib-
uted a second draft for comment to all EPA Regions, four
State and citizens' associations, and involved Headquarters
offices. Comments were requested by July 22; comments
received after that date were also reviewed and considered.
Four Regions, two States, one citizens' group, and
five Headquarters offices provided comments. Commenters
generally felt that the second draft was a substantial
improvement over the first, and favored the new policies
reflected in it. Most comments pointed to very few prob-
lems in the draft.
However, a number of comments indicated the need to
further clarify some of the initiatives. We have, there-
fore, provided more detailed explanations. The section
concerning site planning Cooperative Agreements (now
called management assistance Cooperative Agreements) was
the section that commenters most frequently indicated as
needing clarification. We have revised this section, but
recognize that additional guidance may prove helpful.
After the concept has been put into practice, we will
provide additional information on management assistance
Cooperative Agreements as an update to this document.
IX
-------
Some conunenters felt that the Introduction needed to
be made more helpful to readers unfamiliar with the Super-
fund program. We have revised the Introduction accord-
ingly.
Several commenters questioned the requirement that
State cost-sharing be provided during remedial planning
for publicly-owned sites. The final document has been
revised to reflect the language of CERCLA, requiring the
State's cost-sharing obligation to be provided when a
CERCLA-funded remedial action is to be implemented at the
site. SSCs will not be required for remedial planning
activities, a need that concerned some commenters.
One commenter objected to the requirement of perform-
ing an environmental assessment during remedial planning.
This requirement is a fundamental EPA policy based upon
statutory and regulatory mandates. Therefore, the final
document continues to reflect this requirement.
One commenter, concerned about the State's role in
determining the appropriate alternative for a site, ques-
tioned the requirement that the Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and Emergency Response select the remedy.
We have revised this section of the document to emphasize
the State's involvement in choosing an appropriate remedy.
One commenter expressed the concern that EPA might not
take full account of operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
in selecting a cost-effective remedy. The final document
makes clear that cost-effectiveness determinations are
based on total life cycle costs, not on the costs of the
remedial action alone.
One commenter requested that more specific references
be made to the applicability of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) standards to facility selection
under CERCLA. Although Agency review of this subject con-
tinues, we have included some additional language in this
area.
One commenter suggested that a reference to public
availability of State and EPA remedial site files should
be added to Section D of Chapter VII. Such a reference
has been added in the final document.
One commenter expressed the opinion that we should
specify that a quality assurance (QA) plan is needed for
each site, not simply for each Cooperative Agreement, and
-------
that the QA project plan must be approved before sampling
may be initiated. The final document includes these
concepts both in the body of the document and in the
sample provisions in Appendix F.
One commenter suggested that we identify the types of
documents concerning remedial projects which Regions
should forward for inclusion in Headquarters files. The
final document contains more details in this area.
One commenter felt that the document should provide
more information on estimating remedial action costs.
This is done in the final document.
Many comments received were essentially editorial in
nature, including the need for consistency throughout the
document, the need to clarify some points, and the correc-
tion of typographical errors. Many changes have been maae
in the final document as a result of these comments.
Additional Revisions
In addition to changes made in response to comments, a
number of revisions have been made in the document to
reflect policy and procedural refinements made by EPA since
the second draft was issued for comment. Many of the
policy and procedural changes were in development at the
time of issuance of the last draft. The final document
is, therefore, more accurate and more complete than the
previous drafts.
One major change has been in EPA's policy concerning
the period of time that the Agency will share in the costs
of O&M. During most of the history of the Superfund
remedial program, it was EPA's policy to provide O&M cost-
sharing for up to six months after completion of a remedial
action to ensure that the remedial action was functional
and operational and to allow the State to put a mechanism
in place to assume full responsibility for all aspects of
O&M. As part of the Agency's recent effort to expedite
remedial response, EPA evaluated the six-month O&M cost-
sharing period and considered extending it to two years.
This proposed two-year period was reflected in the July 5,
1983 draft of this document.
Superfund has since instituted procedures to plan
remedial response activities, as projected by Regional
personnel, throughout the life of the program. EPA is
therefore better able to predict future demands on the
Fund and to weigh the requirements for expenditures for
XI
-------
all phases of remedial response, including remedial plan-
ning, remedial actions, and O&M activities. In this light,
the Agency has re-examined the O&M cost-sharing issue and
has decided, from the best Fund-balancing information
available, that it is prudent at this time to extend the
cost-sharing period.from six months to one year through
the end of the currently-authorized program.
Subsequent Changes
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response in-
tends from time to time to issue changes to this document
in the form of revised pages. These will include the "Re-
served" parts of the document as presently published. The
contact for suggesting changes and receiving copies of
revisions is: Chief, State and Regional Coordination
Branch, Hazardous Site Control Division (WH-548E), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460;
telephone (202) 382-2443. To be certain of receiving all
updates, readers are requested to return the form for this
purpose which has been included in the front of this docu-
ment.
x 11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS a
I. INTRODUCTION 1-1
A. Purpose of the Manual 1-2
B. Background -- Key Terms 1-3
B.I Remedial Response 1-4
B.2 Remedial Response Agreements 1-4
B.3 State Assurances 1-5
B.3.a Cost-Sharing 1-5
B.3.5 Off-Site Treatment, Storage,
or Dispdsal 1-6
B.3.C Operation and Maintenance (O&M) 1-7
B. 4 State Credits 1-7
C. Overview of the Manual 1-7
II. CONCURRENT ADMINISTRATIVE EVENTS II-l
A. Initiation of Enforcement Activities II-2
B. Initiation of Preliminary Planning II-2
Activities
C. Development of Site Specific Schedules II-3
D. Development of the Remedial
Accomplishments Plan (RAP) II-3
E. Development of the Action Memorandum II-4
F. Identification and Review of State
Credit Submissions II-4
G. Intergovernmental Review II-5
III. DEVELOPMENT OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
APPLICATION PACKAGES III-l
A. Completion of the Cooperative Agreement
Application Form III-2
DATE
x 111
-------
A.I Part IV - Project Narrative
Statement III-2
A.2 Part III - Project Budget III-3
A. 2.a Allowable Costs III-4
A.2.b Enforcement Costs III-5
A.2.c Calculation of State Cost Share III-5
B. Development of Cooperative Agreement
Provisions III-6
B.I General Assistance Requirements III-6
B.2 Superfund Program Requirements III-7
B.2.a Provision of CERCLA
Section 104 (c) (3) Assurances III-8
B.2.b The National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) III-9
B.2.c Quality Assurance/Quality
Control (QA/QC) III-10
B.2.d Site Safety Plan III-ll
B.2.e Expedited Procurement 111-12
C. Completion of the Procurement System
Certification Form 111-12
D. Other Submissions 111-13
D.I Community Relations Plan (CRP) 111-13
D.I.a Draft Community Relations
Plan 111-13
D.l.b Complete Community
Relations Plan 111-14
D.2 Certification Letter 111-15
D.3 Intergovernmental Review Comments 111-15
E. Deviation Requests to Permit the
Allowability of Pre-Award Costs 111-15
IV. DEVELOPMENT OF E PA-LEAD REMEDIAL PLANNING
AGREEMENTS IV-1
A. The Scope of Work for Remedial Planning IV-3
B. Documentation of Terms and
Responsibilities IV-3
B.I EPA Responsibilities IV-3
B.2 State Responsibilities IV-4
B.3 General Terms IV-4
xiv
-------
C. Other Submissions IV-5
C.I Community Relations Plan (CRP) IV-5
C.2 Intergovernmental Review Comments IV-6
D. Management Assistance Cooperative
Agreements IV-6
V. DEVELOPMENT OF SUPERFUND STATE CONTRACTS V-l
A. Development of the Statement of Work (SOW) V-2
B. Development of State Cost-Sharing Terms V-2
B.I Calculation of the State's Cost Share V-2
B.2 Negotiation of Payment Terms V-3
C. Documentation of Other Terms and
Responsibilities V-4
C.I EPA Responsibilities v-4
C.2 State Responsibilities V-5
C.3 General Terms V-6
D. Other Submissions V-7
D.I Community Relations Plan (CRP) V-7
D.2 Certification Letter v-8
D.3 Intergovernmental Review Comments V-8
VI. EXECUTION OF REMEDIAL AGREEMENTS VI -1
A. Review of the Draft Agreement Vl-1
A.I Review of the Draft Cooperative
Agreement Application Package VI-2
A.2 Review of the Draft EPA-Lead
Submission VI-2
3. Final Regional Review and Preparation
of the Concurrence Package VI-2
C. Approval and Execution VI-4
VII. ADMINISTRATION OF REMEDIAL AGREEMENTS VII-1
A. Monitoring Financial Commitments VII-1
A.I State Drawdowns Under a Cooperative
Agreement VII-2
A.2 State Payment of Cost Share Under
a Superfund State Contract VII-3
xv
-------
B. Monitoring Technical Commitments VII-3
B.I Monitoring Site Activities VII-4
B.2 Monitoring State Assurances and
Compliance with Special Conditions VII-5
C. Coordinating SPA-Lead Remedial Agreements
with Performance Agreements VII-5
D. Documenting Remedial Activity VII-6
D.I Regional Files VII-6
D.2 EPA Headquarters Files VII-6
D.3 State Files VII-7
E. Documenting Completion of Remedial
Implementation [RESERVED]
VIII. AGREEMENT MODIFICATIONS VIII-1
A. Project Adjustments VIII-1
A.I Adjustments to State-Lead Projects VIII-1
A.2 Adjustments to EPA-Lead Projects VIII-2
B. Initiation of Remedial Design and VIII-3
Remedial Action
B.I Records of Decision (RODS) VIII-3
B.2 Incorporating Remedial Design and
Remedial Action into an
Agreement Between EPA and the State VIII-6
C. Initiation of Operation and Maintenance VIII-7
xvi
-------
APPENDICES
Introduction
Appendix A -
Appendix B -
Appendix C -
Appendix D -
Appendix E -
Appendix P -
Appendix G -
Appendix H -
Appendix I -
Appendix J -
Appendix K -
Appendix L -
Appendix M -
Appendix N -
Appendix 0 -
Appendix P -
Appendix Q -
Appendix R -
to the Appendices
(RESERVED]
Action Memorandum Guidance
Model Statement of Work for State-lead
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Projects
3-1
Procedures for Developing and Processing
CERCLA State Credit Claims C-l
Procedures for Implementing Intergovern-
mental Review D-l
E-l
Sample Cooperative Agreement Application
Provisions F-l
Sample Cooperative Agreement Application
Package G-l
Sample Articles for Super fund State
Contracts and Other EPA-Lead Remedial
Agreements H-l
Sample Superfund State Contract 1-1
Sample Certification Letters J-l
Sample Community Relations Plan Format
and Sample Plan (CRP) K-l
Sample Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Plan [RESERVED]
Sample Site Safety Plan [RESERVED]
Instructions for Using Superfund Letter
of Credit Account Numbers Under
Cooperative Agreements N-l
Sample Record of Decision (ROD) 0-1
Selected EPA Policy Papers P-l
Glossary of Terms Q-l
List of References R-l
xvii
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT
NUMBER TITLE
1-1 Site Chronology
1-2 Document Outline
II-l Concurrent Administrative Events
III-l Development of Cooperative Agreement Application
Packages
III-2 Cooperative Agreement Application Package
Checklist
III-3 Figures for Use in Estimating Total State-Lead
Remedial Action Costs
III-4 Object Class Categories for Use in Completing the
Cooperative Agreement Application
III-5 Itemization of Object Class Categories:
Appropriate Level of Detail
III-6 State Cost-Share Calculations
III-7 Summary of Requirements for Procurement Under
Assistance Agreements (40 CFR 33)
III-8 Summary of Superfund Program Provisions for
Cooperative Agreement Applications
III-9 Methods for Expediting Procurement
IV-1 Development of Memoranda of Understanding
V-l Development of Superfund State Contracts
V-2 Figures for Use in Estimating Total EPA-Lead
Remedial Action Costs
V-3 State Cost-Share Calculations
VI-1 Execution of Remedial Agreements
VT-2 Agreement Review and Approval Process
VI-3 Suggested Format for the Decision Memorandum
XVlll
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT
NUMBER TITLE
VII-1 Administration of Remedial Agreements
VIII-1 Agreement Modifications
VIII-2 Project Adjustment Approval Process
C-l Overview of Procedures for Processing State
Credit Claims
N-l Superfund Remedial Activities Code List for
Cooperative Agreements
N-2 Financial Status Report Form and Instructions for
Its Completion
xix
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
A number of acronyms and abbreviations are used
throughout the text; each is identified in the text and,
where possible, in the introduction to each appendix in
which the abbreviation or acronym occurs. To assist the
reader in understanding any acronym or abbreviation that
may not be explained, and to provide a quick reference, a
list of acronyms and abbreviations is included here. Most
of the abbreviations shown are from the remedial program.
However, because of the close interaction and coordination
required with other aspects of Superfund, some terras used
primarily by the removal program have also been included.
AA Assistant Administrator
ACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (more
appropriately referred to as COE)
AM Action Memorandum
C/A Cooperative Agreement
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(PL 96-510)
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CLP Contract Laboratory Program
COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CRA Community Relations Assessment
CRP Community Relations Plan
CWA Clean Water Act
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERD Emergency Response Division, OERR (Superfund
removals)
ERT Emergency Response Team (Superfund removals)
FCC Fiscal Control Center, OERR
FMD Financial Management Division (EPA)
FMS Financial Management System
- a -
-------
PR Federal Register
FS Feasibility Study
FSR Financial Status Report
FY Fiscal Year
GAD Grants Administration Division, OERR
GOB Grants Operations Branch
HQ EPA Headquarters
HRS Hazard Ranking System
HSCD Hazardous Site Control Division, OERR
IAG Interagency Agreement
IFB Invitation for Bids
IG EPA Inspector General
IRM Initial Remedial Measure
LOG Letter of Credit
MBE Minority Business Enterprise
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300)
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(PL 91-190)
NPL National Priorities List
NRC National Response Center
OECM Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring (EPA)
OERR Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
OGC Office of General Counsel (EPA)
OIG Office of the Inspector General
O&M Operation and Maintenance
- b -
-------
OMB
ORC
OSC
OS HA
OSW
OSWER
OWPE
PCMD
PCS
PMM
PR
PTS
QA
QA/QC
RA
RAB
RAMP
RAP
RCRA
RD
REAP
REM/FIT
RFP
RI
Office of Management and Budget
Office of Regional Counsel (EPA)
On-Scene Coordinator (Superfund removals)
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Office of Solid Waste
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Procurement and Contracts Management Division
Program Control System
Program Management Module (part of the
Project Tracking System)
Procurement Request
Project Tracking System
Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Remedial Action o£ Regional Administrator
Remedial Action Branch, OERR
Remedial Action Master Plan
Remedial Accomplishments Plan
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976 (PL 94-580)
Remedial Design
Regional Enforcement Accomplishments Plan
Remedial Planning/Field Investigation Team
Request for Proposals
Remedial Investigation
- c -
-------
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decision
RRT Regional Response Team (Superfund removals)
RS Responsiveness Summary
RSCRC Regional Superfund Community Relations
Coordinator
RSPO Regional Site Project Officer
SBE Small Business Enterprise
SCRC State Community Relations Coordinator
SF Standard Form
SOW Statement of Work
SPMS Strategic Planning and Management System
SPO State Project Officer
SRCB State and Regional Coordination Branch, OERR
SSC Superfund State Contract
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WBE Women's Business Enterprise
ZM Zone Manager
- d -
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
In March 1982, the Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (OERR) in- the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) published Guidance for Cooperative Agreements
and Contracts with States Under the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(PL 96-510). The document was intended to provide
instructions to EPA Regional offices on the development
and use of Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Con-
tracts (SSCs) for remedial actions taken under CERCLA.
This manual/ State Participation in the Superfund
Remedial Program, supersedes the March 1982 document. It
has been developed to assist both EPA staff and State
officials in implementing EPA policies and procedures
related to State participation in the Superfund remedial
program. Procedures outlined herein pertain to all
agreements covering approved remedial projects.
Remedial responses* may be managed by either the State
or EPA. If the State manages the response, a Cooperative
Agreement must be entered into for all phases of the
remedial work. If, conversely, EPA manages the response,
EPA and the State must enter into an SSC prior to initiat-
ing a remedial action. To cover EPA-lead remedial plan-
ning, at the discretion of the EPA Regional Administrator,
the State and EPA may either enter into a formal Memoran-
dum of Understanding (MOU), or the State may submit a
letter to the Regional Administrator, requesting EPA to
undertake such activities. All O&M activities for which
EPA provides a share of costs must be implemented through
a Cooperative Agreement since State responsibility for O&M
is a statutory requirement.
Remedial response is a series of activities taken at a
hazardous waste site to effect a permanent remedy; it
usually involves the following two activities:
remedial planning (defined in CERCLA section 101[23])
and remedial implementation. Remedial planning
includes the subactivities of remedial investigation/
feasibility study and remedial design. Remedial
implementation includes the subactivities of remedial
action, initial remedial measures, and operation and
maintenance. Remedial action is defined as that phase
of remedial response during which a selected remedy is
actually implemented; it includes both source control
and off-site actions. (See Appendix Q for more
detailed definitions.)
1-1
-------
The type and components of the agreement negotiated
will vary, depending upon the demands of the site work and
the requirements of Regional and State officials. Exhibit
1-1, on the following page, graphically depicts the flow
of administrative and remedial events that typically
occurs after a site is determined to be appropriate for
remedial response. The exhibit also shows the types of
remedial response agreements used for both remedial
planning and remedial implementation projects at SPA- and
State-lead sites.
The authority for entering into Cooperative Agreements
and SSCs is provided in CERCLA sections 104(d)(l) and
104 (c) (3). The power to approve general remedial agree-
ments is given by section 104(d)(1), which states in part:
"Where the President determines that a State or
political subdivision thereof has the capability to
carry out any or all of the actions authorized in this
section, the President may, in his discretion, enter
into a contract or cooperative agreement with such
State or political subdivision..."
Authority for entering into agreements for remedial
actions is given by section 104 (c) (3), as follows:
"The President shall not provide any remedial actions
pursuant to this section unless the State in which the
release occurs first enters into a contract or cooper-
ative agreement with the President..."
By Executive Order No. 12316, dated August 14, 1981, the
President delegated this authority to several Federal
departments and agencies, including EPA.
A. PURPOSE OF THE MANUAL
Because the users' levels of experience and familiarity
with the program will vary, a balance has been sought in
both the scope and level of detail for this document. Of
necessity, this document must accomplish several objectives
simultaneously. To do so requires that the document:
Present information that amplifies and clarifies
existing program policy on EPA- and State-lead
remedial response
1-2
-------
EXHIBIT 1-1
SITE CHRONOLOGY
-------
Describe documents to be prepared and administra-
tive events that occur at sites either before a
remedial response can be initiated or concurrently
with a remedial response
Identify key roles and responsibilities of
program staff who plan, administer, and manage
remedial response
Specify procedural steps to be followed at all
levels (i.e., States, Regions, Headquarters) to
ensure that policy is carried out expeditiously
and well.
This document is designed to be used as a manual for
implementation of existing policy/ rather than as a
policy-making document.
This document has been developed primarily for the use
of:
EPA Regional Site Project Officers (RSPOs), who
oversee and participate in the planning and
administration of remedial response activities
State Officials, especially State Project Officers
(SPOs), who are responsible for work performed at
priority remedial sites
EPA Headquarters Zone Managers, who coordinate
Headquarters participation in and monitoring of
remedial response activities.
Detailed discussion of the roles and responsibilities of
each group is contained in each chapter.
B, BACKGROUND -- KEY TERMS
Several terms used in the Superfund remedial program
are central to understanding the information presented in
this document. These terms -- remedial response, Coopera-
tive Agreements, MOUs, SSCs, State assurances, and State
credits -- appear throughout this document and are de-
scribed here. Definitions can also be found in references
cited throughout the text and appendices of this document.
Readers who are familiar with the CERCLA legislation and
the Superfund program may wish to proceed directly to
Section C of this chapter.
1-3
-------
B.1 Remedial Response
CERCLA defines two types of responses that may be
taken in the event of a release or threatened release of a
hazardous substance into the environment: removals and
remedial response. The scope of this document is limited
to remedial response activities and events preparatory to
undertaking them.
A remedial response is a series of activities and
subactivities, consistent with a permanent remedy, that
prevents or mitigates the migration or release of a
hazardous substance into the environment. Each remedial
response may involve the following two activities:
remedial planning (comprised of the subactivities of
remedial investigation/feasibility study and remedial
design) and remedial implementation (comprised of remedial
actions, initial remedial measures [iRMs], and operation
and maintenance). Section 300.68 of the NCP identifies
three types of remedial actions that can be taken at a
site: IRMs, source control remedial actions, and off-site
remedial actions (see Appendix Q for definitions). Some
type of remedial planning -- at least a feasibility study
and a remedial design -- must be completed before a source
control or off-site remedial action can be selected and
implemented.*
B.2 Remedial Response Agreements
Sections 104(c)(3) and 104(d)(l) of CERCLA authorize
the use of either a Cooperative Agreement or a Contract as
the instrument for delineating EPA and State responsibili-
ties for remedial actions at a site, for obtaining required
State assurances, and for committing the necessary funds.
For remedial planning, EPA requires the use of a Coopera-
tive Agreement for State-lead projects, and a State letter
of request or an MOU for EPA-lead projects. The appro-
priate choice of instrument depends upon whether the State
or EPA assumes lead responsibility, the types of activities
or subactivities undertaken, and the needs of EPA and State
officials.
In order to expedite approval and implementation of
simple IRMs, remedial investigation/feasibility study
and remedial design for the IRM may be limited in
scope.
1-4
-------
When a State assumes management responsibility for any
remedial activities at a site, a Cooperative Agreement is
used, as prescribed by CERCLA. Under the Federal Grant
and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, when a Federal
agency provides assistance (for example, transferring
money or services) to a State or political subdivision and
substantial Federal involvement is anticipated, a Coopera-
tive Agreement is the appropriate instrument for providing
that assistance. A Cooperative Agreement for remedial
implementation under CERCLA also documents EPA and State
responsibilities and serves as an instrument for obtaining
any required CERCLA section 104(c}(3) assurances.
If, conversely, EPA has the lead for any remedial
activities at a site, the appropriate instrument can be a
State letter of request, an MOU, or an SSC. When initiat-
ing remedial planning, the instrument used may be either a
letter from the State requesting that the activities be
undertaken or an .MOU. An SSC is appropriate foe remedial
action.
The complexity of and requirements for EPA-lead
agreements vary considerably. The letter of request is a
written statement verifying that State officials are aware
of the requirements of the proposed remedial activities,
in a generic sense, and requesting that EPA undertake the
project. An MOU is a joint agreement between EPA and a
State defining the scope of work for the project and the
responsibilities of the respective parties. An SSC serves
the same functions as an MOU and also acts as the vehicle
for obtaining necessary State assurances under section
104 (c) (3) of CERCLA. It is a bilateral contract that is
legally binding on both EPA and the concerned State.
While a Cooperative Agreement obligates money for a
project, EPA-lead funds must be obligated through a
procurement contract (REM/PIT) or an Interagency Agreement.
B.3 State Assurances
Before the Federal government funds remedial implemen-
tation, section 104(c) (3) of CERCLA requires a State to
provide assurances relating to cost-sharing, off-site
treatment, storage, or disposal, and operation and mainte-
nance. These assurances are provided in a Cooperative
Agreement or an SSC. However, they need not be provided
during remedial planning.
B.3.a Cost-Sharing
In accordance with CERCLA section 104{c) (3) (C), a
State is required to share in the costs of the remedial
actions performed at a site. The percentage of a State's
1-5
-------
cost share depends upon the ownership of the site at the
time of disposal of the hazardous substances. At
privately-owned sitesf the State is required to pay 10
percent of remedial implementation costs (remedial action,
IRMs, operation and maintenance). At publicly-owned sites
(owned by the State or a political subdivision thereof),
the State is required to pay at least 50 percent of all
costs for removals, remedial planning, and remedial
implementation as part of the agreement covering remedial
action at that site. No cost-sharing is required daring
remedial planning at any site. However, the State must
provide its share of costs for remedial planning at a
publicly-owned site if a CERCLA-funded remedial action is
undertaken there.
Under a Cooperative Agreement, the State can furnish
its share of remedial costs by supplying services and/or
cash equivalent to its cost share. Under an SSC, these
costs must be provided in the form of cash payments. For
both types of agreements, the State may also reduce the
amount of State-funded services or cash to be provided by
authorizing a drawdown of any available State credit (see
Section II.P and Appendix C of this document). Procedures
for calculating and contributing a State's cost share are
discussed in Chapters III (Cooperative Agreements) and V
(SSCs).
Allowable, approved cost-sharing which States have
already paid for remedial planning activities at a
privately-owned site under past EPA policy may be applied
toward the State's share of costs for remedial implementa-
tion at that site (see "Waiver of 10 Percent Cost Share
for Remedial Planning at Privately-Owned Sites," OSWER,
May 13, 1983, shown in Appendix P).
B.3.b Off-Site Treatment, Storage, or Disposal
At sites where off-site treatment, storage, or disposal
of hazardous wastes is necessary to implement a selected
remedial action (including an IRM), the State is required
to assure the availability of a hazardous waste treatment,
storage, or disposal facility that satisfies three condi-
tions.
First, the facility must have an applicable permit or
have been granted interim status in accordance with the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Such
permits or authorization may be issued by EPA or an
authorized State. Second, it must have a RCRA Part B
permit or have had a RCRA compliance inspection within 12
1-6
-------
months prior to its use for treatment, storage, or disposal
of site wastes and must have been found to comply with the
RCRA regulations. Third, it must have sufficient capacity
to handle wastes from the site. In addition, EPA must
find off-site treatment, storage, or disposal to oe cost-
effective in comparison to other remedial actions that
would provide adequate protection of public health,
welfare, or the environment. The facility need not be
located in the same State as the site in question. (See
"Requirements for Selecting an Off-Site Option in a Super-
fund Response Action," OERR, February 28, 1983, in Ap-
pendix P.) Further discussion is provided in Section
III.B for Cooperative Agreements and in Section V.C for
SSCs.
B.3.c Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
The third assurance required by CERCLA is that a State
will assume responsibility for all future O&M for the
expected life of each remedial action as determined by EPA
and the State. In accordance with current policy, SPA
may, for a period not to exceed one year after completion
of remedial response activities, share in the costs of any
required O&M. These costs will be shared on the same
percentage basis as costs for other remedial implementation
subactivities. EPA's procedures for obtaining this
assurance and additional details of EPA's current policy
are discussed in Section III.B for Cooperative Agreements
and in Section V.C for SSCs.
B.4 State Credits
A final concept that is critical to understanding this
document is that of State credits. Section 104 (c) (3) (C)
of CERCLA provides that a State may receive credit for
direct, out-of-pocket, non-Federal funds expended or obli-
gated by the State or a political subdivision thereof for
cost-eligible response actions at sites between January 1,
1978, and December 11, 1980. As described above, these
credits can be used to meet State cost-sharing requirements
at that site. Procedures for developing and submitting an
accounting of these costs can be found in Section II.F and
Appendix C of this document.
C. OVERVIEW OF THE MANUAL
This document -has been organized to reflect the general
sequence of events that occurs prior to and during the
development and implementation of agreements for remedial
response. Exhibit 1-2, on the next page, presents a flow
1-7
-------
EXHIBIT 1-2
DOCUMENT OUTLINE
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER
ANO SECTION
I-A
I-B
I-C
PAGE
1-2
13
CONCURRENT EVENTS
' ENFORCE MEW
' PRELIMINARY. PLANNING
1 SfTE SPECIFIC SCHEDULES
. RAP
1 ACTION MEMORANDUM
1 STATE CREDITS
' INTERGOVTAL REVIEW
DEVELOPMENT Of CAs"
APPLICATION FORM
1 PROVISIONS
PROCUREMENT CHECKLIST
OTHER SUBMISSIONS
DEVIATION REQUEST
DEVELOPMENT Of EPA-LEAD
PLANNING AGREEMENTS
SCOPE Of WORK
PROVISIONS
COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLANS
MANAGEMENT ASST C'Aj
DEVELOPMENT OF SSCs
' STATEMENT OF WORK
' COST SHARING TERMS
PROVISIONS
' OTHER SUBMISSIONS
EXECLTTION OF AGREEMENTS
DRAFT REVIEW
FINAL REVIEW AND
CONCURRENCE PACKAGE
APPROVAL AND EXECUTION
II-A
ItB
II-C
II-D
ItE
IIF
II-G
III A
1118
III-C
III-O
IV A
IVB
iv c
(V D
V.A
V-B
vc
VD
VI-A
vi- a
11-2
11-2
11-3
11-3
11-4
11-4
IIH
111-2
111-6
111-12
III- '.2
IIH5
IV-3
IV 3
IV5
IV6
V2
V2
V-7
VM
Vl-2
ADMINISTRATION
MONITORING FINANCIAL
COMMIT MINTS
MONITORING TECHNICAL
COMMfTMENTS
COORDINATING WITH
PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS
DOCUMENTING ACTIVITY
DOCUMENTING COMPLETION
VII
VII-A
VII-B
VII-C
VII-D
V/tE
VII-1
VII-1
VII-3
VII-S
VII-6
VII-7
VWD1F1CATIONS
PROJECT ADJUSTMENTS
INfTlATION OF RD RC
INITIATION OF 06M
VIM
Vllt-A
Vlll-B
VII I-C
VIII-1
VHH
VIII-3
VIII-7
-------
diagram illustrating the organization of this document.
Each chapter is represented by a frame of the diagram and
is shown in relation to other chapters. Within each frame,
key activities are identified and reference is made to the
location in the document where the activity is discussed.
Whenever possible, information common to both State and
EPA-lead remedial response has been consolidated in one
chapter. This has been done in chapters concerning con-
current administrative events, and execution, administra-
tion, and modification of agreements. Information pertain-
ing to the actual development of agreements is presented
separately to emphasize the different procedures involved
in the preparation of each instrument type.
To assist the reader, each chapter in this document is
briefly outlined below:
Chapter I - Introduction describes the context,
purpose, organization, and scope of this document
Chapter II - Concurrent Administrative Events
discusses administrative events that precede, or
occur simultaneously with, the development of an
agreement and also identifies the significance of
these activities for developing and implementing
the agreement instrument
Chapter III - Development of Cooperative Agreement
Application Packages describes key steps in the
development of Cooperative Agreement application
packages
Chapter IV - Development of EPA-Lead Remedial
Planning Agreements generally discusses the types
of agreements that are appropriate and describes
in detail key steps in the development of MOUs,
which are the more complex of the EPA-lead
planning agreements
Chapter V - Development of Superfund State
Contracts describes key steps in the development
of SSCs
Chapter VI - Execution of Remedial Agreements
identifies procedures for reviewing and approving
remedial response agreements
1-8
-------
Chapter VII - Administration of Remedial Agree-
ments identifies proceduresfor monitoring,
coordinating, and documenting implementation of
remedial response agreements
Chapter VIII - Agreement Modifications discusses
the purpose of, and identifies procedures for,
project adjustments and new activity initiatives.
Appendices to the document contain examples, supplementary
information, EPA guidance memoranda, a glossary of terms,
and a list of references to documents and publications
providing additional detailed information.
To assist EPA and State staff, charts summarizing indi-
vidual responsibilities for each administrative activity
described in this document can be found at the beginning
of each chapter. When appropriate, the charts also display
a list of work products and/or references to additional
sources of information. These exhibits can serve as
"checklists" for EPA and State officials as they implement
the steps outlined in this document.
The remainder of this document describes the develop-
ment and use of CERCLA remedial response agreements. The
following chapter provides a brief description of events
that are usually initiated prior to or concurrently with
the development of a remedial response agreement, and
describes their significance to the development and imple-
mentation of agreement instruments.
1-9
-------
II. CONCURRENT ADMINISTRATIVE EVENTS
While the focus of this document is on the development
of remedial response agreements, this process is more fully
understood in the context of a number of other events like-
ly to occur once a site is placed on the National Priori-
ties List (NPL). The following may be among these:
Initiation of enforcement activities to ensure
that the proper groundwork is laid for potential
future enforcement and cost recovery actions
Initiation of preliminary planning activities to
assess the need for removal and remedial respon-
ses, and to define an approach foe enforcement
activities
Development of a site-specific schedule to
tentatively schedule removal,remedial, and
enforcement activities at the site
Inclusion of remedial response activities at the
site in the Remedial Accomplishments Plan (RAP)
to tentatively schedule obligation of funds
Development of the Action Memorandum for the site
to document Regional Administrator approval of
the first phase of the remedial response
Identification and review of State credit submis-
sions to enable a State to apply its credit
against its share of remedial costs
Initiation of intergovernmental review procedures
foe applications for Federal assistance.
These activities have a significant bearing on the devel-
opment of remedial response agreements and thus are the
subject of this chapter.
Concurrently with the events listed above, EPA and the
State need to consider and ultimately decide who will
assume lead management responsibility for directing the
remedial response activities at the site. EPA and the
State should also initiate community relations activities
and should involve the Regional Superfund Community
II-l
-------
Relations Coordinator (RSCRC) in their discussions con-
cerning the site. More detailed information on community
relations activities is provided in Community Relations in
Super fund; A Handbook/ (interim version), OERR, September
1983.
Responsibilities of the SPO, the RSPO, and the Zone
Manager for each event shown will be discussed throughout
this chapter. Exhibit II-1» on the following pages, sum-
marizes these responsibilities and provides a list of addi-
tional guidance cited in the text. The remainder of this
chapter discusses each of the activities noted above.
A. INITIATION OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The enforcement process begins immediately upon inclu-
sion of a site on the NPL through attempts to identify
potentially responsible parties. During these preliminary
stages, it is important that the SPO, RSPO, and Zone
Manager:
Share information about responsible parties with
State and EPA enforcement staff to determine the
viability of an enforcement action
Establish site files and document all steps taken
in the development of a remedial response agree-
ment to support any future cost recovery actions.
Subsequent to these initial efforts, remedial response at
the site should continue to be coordinated with enforcement
staff. This is crucial not only for cost recovery pur-
poses, but also to ensure that any information discovered
during the course of remedial activities, which may enhance
the potential for enforcement or voluntary response, is
shared with appropriate State and EPA staff.
Additional information on the importance of documenta-
tion and the establishment and maintenance of site files
is provided in Section VII.D of this document. Detailed
guidance on the enforcement process is available in Cost
Recovery Actions Under CERCLA, Office of Enforcement
Counsel (OEC) and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER), August 26, 1983.
B. INITIATION OF PRELIMINARY PLANNING
In the past, EPA prepared a Remedial Action Master
Plan (RAMP) for a remedial site as soon as feasible after
the site appeared on the NPL. A RAMP was a preliminary
planning document that outlined existing site data and
II-2
-------
EXHIBIT II-l
CONCURRENT ADMINISTRATIVE EVENTS
ACTIVITY
RESPONSIBILITIES
ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE
1. Initiation o£ Enforcement
Activities
2, Initiation of Preliminary
Planning Activities
3. Development of the
Site-Specific Schedule
4. Development of the
Remedial Accomplish-
ments Plan (RAP)
5. Development of the
Action Memorandum
SPO, RSPO, . Assists in initiation of
and enforcement process, as
ZONE MGR: appropriate
Coordinates with enforcement staff
throughout response
Maintains documentation files
for future cost recovery
SPO: . Acts as chief point of contact
in State
Reviews output o£ planning, as
needed
RSPO: . Initiates preliminary planning on
as-needed basis
Manages (through REM/KIT contractor)
development of planning output
Reviews/coordinates review of
planning output
ZONE MGR: . Provides assistance, as necessary
SPO, RSPO, . Individual responsibilities will be
and defined after specific procedures are
ZONE MGR: are developed.
SPO: . Provides input on site require-
ments, as necessary
RSPO: . Identifies potential obligations
in area of responsibility
Drafts descriptions of proposed
projects
ZONE MGR: . Coordinates IIQ review and approval
SPO: . Provides information/assistance,
as necessary
R!JPO: . Develops Action Memo with SPO input
ZONE MGR: . Provides assistance, as necessary
Cost Recovery Actions Under
CKBCLA, DEC and OSWER, August 26,
~
Community Relations in Superfund:
A Handbook ( i nter im version),
OERR, September 1983 (Chapter 6)
REM/FIT Zone Contract Manatje
Procedures: An Illustrated^
Guide, IISCD, April 1903
Appendix 11: Action Memorandum
-------
EXHIBIT II-l (Continued)
CONCURRENT ADMINISTRATIVE EVENTS
ACTIVITY
RESPONSIBILITIES
ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE
6.
Preparation and Review of
State Credit Submissions
7. Intergovernmental Review
SPO:
RSPO:
ZONE MGR:
SPO:
RSPO
Submits credit claim to EPA
Reviews State credit claim
Makes formal submission to HQ
Coordinates recording of unverified
and verified credit accounts
with CERCLA Credit Coordinator
Initiates review of projects
(State-lead)
Includes review comments in
application package,
as appropriate (State-lead)
Reviews application package for
necessary comments (State-Lead)
Includes review comments in fund-
ing package, as appropriate (EPA-
Lead) coordenates EPA response
to review recommendation and/or
comment, as appropriate
Appendix C: Procedures for
Processing CERCI.A State Credit
Claims
Executive Otdet 12372, Inter-
governmental Review of Federal
Programs, 47 FR J0959, July 14,
1982
Intergovernmental Review of KI'A
Programs and Activities, 48
FR 29288, June 24, 1983 (40 CFR
29)
Appendix D: Procedures for Imple-
menting Integrovernmenta1 Review
Notice of Supplemental p rocpclui >'s
for Establishing Start Dales of
Comment Period for Activities
Subject to Executive Order 1237?
(48 FR 54692)
-------
focused on remedial response and community relations acti-
vities proposed for the site. To this end, RAMPs included
a detailed statement of work (SOW) for the first phase of
remedial response at the site. This SOW, with minimal
revisions, could be used in the remedial response agreement
covering that phase of site activity. Approximately 250
RAMPs were authorized by the Super fund remedial program.
OERR has recently re-evaluated its preliminary planning
process. Revised EPA procedures for planning CERCLA-
financed response activities at NPL sites involve integrat-
ed site preliminary planning that encompasses remedial,
removal, enforcement, and community relations activities.
Preliminary planning as currently envisioned will be flex-
ible; its requirements may be tailored to respond to the
specific needs or problems of the site in question, the
Region, and the State. In keeping with this emphasis on
flexibility, the Superfund program will fund preliminary
planning activities on a site-specific basis and will no
longer require that the resulting report adhere to a rigid
format.
Preliminary planning activities may continue to be
performed by EPA's Remedial Planning/Field Investigation
Team (REM/FIT) contractors. Regional program office per-
sonnel will be responsible for initiating, reviewing, and
securing approval of the planning outputs according to
internal procedures established in each Region. In carry-
ing out these responsibilities, however, Regional program
staff should coordinate closely with contractor personnel
and Regional and State enforcement, legal, and community
relations staffs as well as the SPO, where one has been
designated.
C. DEVELOPMENT OF SITE-SPECIFIC SCHEDULES
Prior to the initiation of remedial activities at a
site on the NPL, EPA will, in close coordination with the
State, develop a site-specific schedule for the site in
question. OSWER requires the development of a schedule
for every NPL site. The schedule is a tool which will be
used to outline all Superfund activities at NPL sites and
show their scheduling through completion of response at
the site. These activities include remedial, removal,
enforcement, and community relations activities.
Additional guidance and procedures will be developed
and issued separately.
D. DEVELOPMENT OF THE REMEDIAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN (RAP)
Another event that takes place prior to the execution
of a remedial response agreement is the inclusion of a
remedial project in the RAP. The Regional accomplishments
II-3
-------
planning process consists of an Annual RAP and Quarterly
RAPs. The Annual RAP is a Region's master plan for Super-
fund remedial obligations expected to occur during a given
fiscal year; Quarterly RAPs provide detailed schedules for
each of these expected obligations. After its RAP has
been approved, a Region may obligate CERCLA funds for the
activities, subactivities, and amendments included in its
RAP. RAPs are monitored through the Program Control System
(PCS).
Detailed guidance for developing and modifying Annual
and Quarterly RAPs can be found in FY84 Regional Superfund
Accomplishments Plan, OSWER, August 5, 1983, and Modifying
the Remedial Accomplishments Plan (RAP) , OSWER, December
30, 1983.
E . DEVELOPMENT OF THE ACTION MEMORANDUM
Preparation of an Action Memorandum is another impor-
tant administrative event which may occur prior to the
execution of a remedial response agreement. Action Memo-
randa are documents which Regions can use to secure the
Regional Administrator's conceptual approval of tne first
remedial project to be implemented at a hazardous waste
site; a single Action Memorandum may also be used to cover
projects at more than one site within a State. Following
approval of an Action Memorandum, the proposed project(sj
will be undertaken using either a Cooperative Agreement or
an EPA-lead agreement. Use of Action Memoranda is discre-
tionary, but is recommended to document Regional concur-
rences on, and approval of, remedial projects.
Further information on the format of Action Memoranda
and an approved example can be found in Appendix B.
F. PREPARATION AND REVIEW OF STATE CREDIT SUBMISSIONS
Another step taken prior to the development of an
agreement between EPA and the State is State identi-
fication of any potential credits for which it might be
eligible under CERCLA, and subsequent EPA review and audit
of the State's claimed credits. Such credits have a direct
bearing on the amount of a State's residual cost-sharing
obligation for remedial activities at a given site.
Based on the provisions of CERCLA section 104 (c) (3) (C),
EPA will grant States a credit against their share of costs
under a Cooperative Agreement or an SSC for expenditures
or obligations that:
Occurred between January 1, 1978, and December 11,
1980 (the CERCLA credit period)
II-4
-------
Have been properly documented, based on Circular
A-87 of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Represent direct costs, as defined by OMB Circular
A-87
Are eligible for payment under CERCLA, as defined
in CERCLA section 111
Are site-specific
Were neither used as required match for other
Federal programs nor reimbursed by another Federal
or State agency or by a responsiole party.
Costs that meet these criteria may be counted as State
credit, subject to EPA approval. The credit will be site-
specific, and may therefore be used only for remedial acti-
vities at the site for which it was accrued. A State will
not be reimbursed for any credit remaining after remedial
implementation at that site has been completed.
To obtain EPA approval on its claimed credit, a State
must prepare a credit claim and submit it for review to
the appropriate EPA Region prior to or early in the deve-
lopment of a Cooperative Agreement or an SSC. Credit
claims should be written in letter form and should follow
the procedures detailed in Appendix C. EPA's review and
audit procedures are also contained in Appendix C.
G. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with OMB Circular A-95, States/applicants
in the past submitted applications for Federal assistance
to designated clearinghouses for review. This formal re-
view process identified potential duplication of effort or
lack of coordination with other State and Federal projects.
On July 14, 1982, the President signed Executive Order
12372, "Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs."
The Order directed OMB to revoke A-95 and to implement a
flexible, elective review system relying on State-estab-
lished procedures. The effective date for implementing
regulations and ending the A-95 review system was
September 30, 1983. EPA, along with other Federal agencies
subject to the Executive Order, published its final rule
and related Federal Register notices on June 24, 1983.
This rule is 40 CFR Part 29, "Intergovernmental Review of
the Environmental Protection Agency Programs and
Activities" (48 FR 29288).
II-5
-------
Detailed procedures to implement the regulations as
they apply to both State and EPA-lead Superfund remedial
agreements can be found in Appendix D. For the benefit of
concerned individuals, the Appendix defines roles of EPA
and State staff, provides reprints of the regulation and
associated Federal Register notices, and contains sample
letters to formally initiate review of proposed remedial
projects.
This chapter has provided information on administra-
tive events which serve as a foundation for the procedures
described in the remainder of this document. The next
three chapters -- Development of Cooperative Agreement
Application Packages (Chapter III) , Development of EPA-
Lead Remedial Planning Agreements (Chapter IV), and
Development of Superfund State Contracts (Chapter V)
discuss the steps taken while developing draft agreements.
II-6
-------
III. DEVELOPMENT OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
APPLICATION PACKAGES
At sites where the State has opted to assume lead
management responsibility for a remedial project, an
agreement vehicle is needed which can be used to provide
funding assistance to the State as well as to document
responsibilities and obtain State assurances. A Coopera-
tive Agreement is the appropriate instrument for carrying
out these functions. Even where remedial action is
managed by EPA, a Cooperative Agreement must be used to
provide any EPA funds for sharing in operation and mainte-
nance (O&M) costs.
Most Cooperative Agreements negotiated will be site-
specific. However, a State may choose to develop a
multi-site Cooperative Agreement which covers remedial
investigation/feasibility study projects at more than one
site. States also have the option of entering into a
single Cooperative Agreement which will cover costs for a
State-lead project as well as costs which the State incurs
for EPA-lead projects. When the State elects to utilize a
single agreement for both purposes, its Cooperative Agree-
ment application must meet the requirements described in
this chapter as well as those outlined in Section IV. D of
this document.
This chapter describes the activities necessary to
develop a Cooperative Agreement application package that
will ultimately result in an executed Cooperative Agree-
ment. These procedures are applicable for both site-
specific and multi-site Cooperative Agreements.
Exhibit III-l, on the following page, identifies
activities and organizational responsibilities for
developing a Cooperative Agreement application package.
In addition, it shows primary/lead roles for developing a
request for a deviation from EPA's General Regulation for
Assistance Programs (40 CFR 30) to permit the allowability
of costs incurred by the State prior to award of the
Cooperative Agreement; a deviation request is sometimes
submitted concurrently with the Cooperative Agreement
application package. As shown in the exhibit, the State
has primary responsibility for developing a Cooperative
Agreement application package. The State official who
assumes this role -- usually the SPO -- should consult
III-l
-------
KXIIIIilT III-J
URVRI.OPMRNT OF COCPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
ACTIVITY
RESPONSIBILITIF.S
WORK PRODUCTS
Development of the Cooperative
Agreement application package
(includes development of the
application form, development
of agreement provisions, com-
pletion of procurement system
certification form, and
submission of other
documents) ^J
Sl'O: . Develops Cooperative
Agreement application form
Develops Cooperative
Agreement provisions
Submits Procurement
System Certification Form
Submits Community
Relations Plan
Submits certification
letter
Submits intergovernmental
review comments (where
necessary)
RSPO: . Provides consultation
and technical assistance
to the SPO, as requested
ZONE . Supports RSPO, as re-
MGR; quested
Completed Application for Federal Assistance
-- State and Local Nonconstruction programs
(EPA form 5700-33)
Completed set of provisions as part of
Cooperative Agreement application package
Completed Procurement System Certification Form
for Applicants for EPA Assistance (EPA Form
5700-48)
Community Relations Plan
Letter from Governor or Attorney General
certifying the authority of the official
signing the Cooperative Agreement to do so
and to make any necessary CERCI.A section
104(C)(3) assurances
Intergovernmental review comments and EPA
response (if appropriate)
2. Deviation Request to Permit
the Allowability of Pre-Award
Costs
SPO: . Determines need for deviation
request to establish the
alienability of costs
Incurred prior to award
Develops deviation request
(where necessary)
RSPO: . Submits deviation request to
Regional Administrator for
concur rence
Submits approved request to
EPA HO for approval
ZONE . Coordinates IIQ concurrences
MGR: and approva1 of deviation request
Deviation request
Approved deviation
I/This activity is comprised of four distinct steps which arc addressed separately
this chart in nn effort to simplify the presentation of responsibilities.
in the toxt. They have been combined in
-------
closely with EPA's RSPO for that site throughout develop-
ment of the application package. Additional support is
available through the EPA Headquarters Zone Manager.
Exhibit III-2, on the following page, summarizes key
requirements of the Cooperative Agreement application
package and may be used as a checklist in developing the
application package. As shown in this exhibit, the
application package consists of the Cooperative Agreement
application form (EPA Form 5700-33) and a number of
attachments. Each part of the package is discussed in
this chapter. In addition, an example of a completed
application package is shown in Appendix G.
A. COMPLETION OF THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT APPLICATION
FORM
The State must use an Application for Federal Assis-
tance - State and Local Nonconstruction Programs (EPA Form
5700-33) when applying for a remedial Cooperative Agree-
ment under CERCLA. This form consists of five parts:
Part I - General Summary Information
Part II - Project Approval Information
Part III - Budget Information
Part IV - Project Narrative Statement
Part V - Assurances.*
General instructions for completing each part are included
in the application form.
Additional information on completing Part III - Budget
Information and Part IV - Project Narrative Statement is
provided in this section. These parts of the application
form are subject to remedial program-specific require-
ments. Part IV is discussed first, since its completion
is necessary prior to fully addressing Part III. Other
sections are more straightforward and therefore do not
require explanation in this document.
A.I Part IV - Project Narrative Statement
A Project Narrative Statement has two important
components: (1) a brief explanation of the problems and
history of the site or sites and (2) a statement of work
These assurances are different from, and in addition
to, those required under CERCLA section 104(c) (3) and
other program requirements.
III-2
-------
KXIIIBIT I 11-2
COOPRRATIVE AGHKEMKNT APPLICATION PACKAGE CHECKLIST
COMPONPNT/ELEMFNT
SUBMISSION
1. Application for Federal Assistance
Part T-General Summary Information
Part Il-Project Approval Information
Part Ill-Budget Information*
Part IV-Project Narrative Statement*
Part V-Assurances
2. Cooperative Agreement Provisions
General Assistance Provisions
Superfund program Provisions
3. Procurement System Certification
4. Other Submissions
Community Relations plan (CRP)
Certification Letter
Intergovernmental Review Comments
Part 1, completed and signed
Part II, completed
Part III, completed
Detailed budget breakdown
Site background summary
Statement of work
Part V, completed
Provisions stating intent to comply
with EPA regulations, statutes,
and other general Agency require-
ments
CERCLA section 104(c)(3) assurances
Provisions stating intent to follow
other program requirements
Completed RPA Form 5700-48
Draft CRP included in draft applica-
tion package; final CRP in final
application package
Letter signed by Governor or Attorney
General (or designee) certifying that
agency entering into the C/A lias
authority to do so and to make the
assurances required by CEHCI.A
sect ion 104 (c) (3)
Comments included, as appropriate
5700-33 Instructions
5700-33 Instructions
5700-33 Instructions
Guidance, Section III.A.2
Guidance, Section III.A.I
Model SOW in Appendix E
5700-33 Instructions
40 CFR 30
40 CFR 33
Guidance, Section III.U.I
Guidance, Appendix F, Section I
Guidance, Section I1I.B.2
Guidance, Appendix F, Section 2
5700-48 Instructions
Guidance, Section III.C
Guidance, Section HI.D.I
Guidance, Appendix K
Guidance, Section I11.O.2
Guidance, Appendix J
40 CKR 29
Guidance, Section I I . (J
Guidance, Section III.0.3
For multl-sito Cooperative Agreements, tht? St.ito should <;ubmit individual budget breakdowns and project narrative statements
for each project to be included under the Ayr
-------
(SOW). The exposition of problems and history will be
specific to each agreement and is therefore not discussed
here in.detail; however, it should include a site chro-
nology, for each site covered by the Agreement, which
highlights past removals and emergency actions taken at
the site and outlines any coordination necessary. Con-
versely, the format of a SOW should be similar for many
sites and is therefore discussed below.
The SOW describes the purpose and scope of activities
and tasks to be carried out as a part of the proposed
project. When the Cooperative Agreement covers work at
more than one site, a separate SOW should be submitted for
each site-specific project to be undertaken in addition to
a SOW for the overall management and coordination activi-
ties. For each activity/subactivity, the SOW should
include a description of necessary subactivities/tasks
with estimated start and completion milestones. Where
appropriate, the SOW should also identify outputs and may
contain cost estimates for each subactivity and task.
In general, the SOW for a remedial investigation/
feasibility study can be obtained from one of three
sources:
The RAMP, if one has been prepared
The REM/FIT contractor, as the output of a
special task order from Regional program office
personnel
The State, which can prepare it through a con-
tractor or using State staff.
If State staff prepare the SOW for inclusion in the
Cooperative Agreement application, it can be based on the
model SOW shown in Appendix E. For remedial design
projects, the conceptual design requirements contained in
the feasibility study can serve as the basis for SOW
development. The SOW for a remedial action will normally
be prepared as part of the remedial design.
A.2 Part III - Project Budget
Sources of information for developing the project
budget will vary, depending on the type of project in
question. The proposed budget for a remedial investigation/
feasibility study project may be based upon the cost
estimates in the RAMP, if available, upon cost estimates
developed by the REM/FIT contractor, or upon modified
III-3
-------
standard cost estimates. If the State uses standard costs
to develop its project budget, persons in the State or
Region with knowledge.about the site in question should be
consulted so that the standard costs can be altered to
reflect site conditions and the project at hand. For
remedial design and remedial implementation activities,
the proposed project budget is normally developed simul-
taneously with the SOW; the chart in Exhibit III-3, on the
following page, can be used to assist the State in esti-
mating total remedial implementation project costs. In
any case, the budget should identify total project costs
for all activities, subactivities, and tasks to be com-
pleted. When the Cooperative Agreement is designed to
cover projects at more than one site, individual budget
breakdowns should be submitted for each project to be
undertaken.
The project budget should be displayed in the Coopera-
tive Agreement application package both in summary form
and in detail. Using the budget formats included in Part
III of the application, Project Budget Information, the
applicant should summarize Federal and State costs for
each proposed activity and subactivity; appropriate
activity codes and their associated subactivities can be
found in Exhibit N-l in Appendix N. Management costs can
be included in this budget breakdown, but total management
costs, including those associated with the individual
activities listed, should generally not exceed the guide-
lines of 8-12 percent of project costs. The applicant
should also identify costs for each activity and sub-
activity in the application by object class category (e.g.
personnel, travel, contractual, etc.); appropriate object
class categories for use in completing the Cooperative
Agreement application are shown in Exhibit III-4, follow-
ing Exhibit III-3.
To assist EPA staff in determining whether proposed
costs are reasonable and meet applicable EPA requirements,
the State should attach to the application form a detailed
project budget, showing estimated costs for each proposed
task. This attachment should also contain detailed
information on elements of object class categories.
Exhibit III-5, following Exhibit III-4, shows the appro-
priate level of detail for each object class category; an
example can be found in Appendix G.
A.2.a Allowable Costs
The State should ensure that costs to be included in
the application are allowable for payment under CERCLA.
To be allowable, proposed costs must be consistent with
III-4
-------
EXHIBIT III-3
FIGURES FOR USE IN ESTIMATING TOTAL STATE-LEAD REMEDIAL ACTION COSTS
ITEM
Supervision and Administration
Engineering and Design Support
During Construction
Contingencies*
REM. ACTION ESTIMATES
LESS THAN $2,000,000
8%
1.5%
10%
REM. ACTION ESTIMATES
GREATER THAN $2,000,000
6%
1%
8%
TOTAL**
19.5%
15%
**
Contingency rates are applied to total project costs, including overhead and
profit.
Supervision and administration figures shown apply to costs for State
personnel, travel, etc., not covered by the contractual object class category
(except where the State will let contracts for these functions); other items
shown will normally be covered by contractual and/or construction categories,
except when conducted in-house.
-------
CATEGORY
EXHIBIT I I 1-4
OBJECT CLASS CATF.GOHIES FOR USE IN COMPLETING THE
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT APPLICATION
CONTENT
Personnel
Fringe Benefits
Travel
Equipment
Materials and Supplies
Contractual Services
Construction
Other Direct Costs
Indirect Costs
The State may include the costs of all wages paid to State employees who are, for example:
engaging in response activities
directly managing State employees engaged in response
managing subagreements awarded under the Agreement.
These costs can be calculated on either a percentage of time or level of effort basis.
The State may include fringe benefits for State employees, calculated as a fixed percentage of
salary or by some other agreed-upon method.
The State may include costs incurred by State employees for travel necessary for the conduct of
the proposed remedial activities.
The State may include the purchase price of any necessary equipment that it will furnish, less
its residual value after the completion of the project. If equipment costs are based on usage
rates, the State must:
use a standard depreciation usage method
document initial costs, expected life, and residual value in accordance with OMB Circular
A-102, Attachment N.
The State may include the purchase price of any necessary materials and supplies it will furnish.
The State may include all costs associated with reimbursing contractor services, including
direct and indirect contractor costs and a reasonable profit. These costs, to the extent
possible, should be limited to personal services and nonconstruction contracts (see 40 CFR Part
33 and OMB Circular A-87).*
The State may Include all costs associated with reimbursing contractor services, including
direct and indirect contractor costs and a reasonable profit. These costs, to the extent
possible, should be limited to construction contracts (see 40 CFR Part 33 and OMB Circular
A-87) .*
The State may include other direct costs, such as equipment rental, real property purchase, and
miscellaneous costs. If the -State purchases real property, it must agree to comply witli the
property requirements of 40 CFR Part 30.
The State may include indirect costs.
*In accordance with the Prompt Payment Act (PI, <*7-177), howover, Federal funds may not be used for payment of interest penalties
to contractors when bills are paid late.
-------
CATEGORY
EXHIBIT III-5
ITEMIZATION OF OBJECT CLASS CATEGORIES:
APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF DETAIL
INFORMATION TO BE SHOWN
Personnel
Fringe Benefits
Travel
Equipment
Materials and Supplies
Contractual Services
Construction
Positions of staff required
Number of hours necessary
Salary of staff (annual or
hourly rate)
Estimates of personnel costs,
by position
Basis (percentage or other)
upon which fringe benefits are
calculated
Estimates of fringe benefit
costs, by position
Purpose and estimated number of
trips
Starting point and destination
Transportation method
Per diem while on travel
Number of persons traveling
Estimated cost per trip
Number and type(s) of equipment
to be purchased
Price of each piece
Type(s) of materials and
supplies to be furnished
Total prices
Estimated number of personal
services for nonconstruction
contracts to be let
Nature of contract services
Estimated total costs for each
contract*
Estimated number of construction
contracts to be let
Nature of contract services
Estimated total costs for each
contract*
*It is recommended that estimates be sufficient to allow
for unforeseen costs and contingencies which may occur during
contract performance.
-------
section 111 of CERCLA and with Federal cost principles
outlined in the OMB Circular A-87, "Cost Principles for
State and Local Governments." The State may also seek
assistance from the RSPO in determining which costs may be
allowable. Final determination of the reasonableness of
the cost estimates in the application will be made by the
EPA Award Official.
A.2.b Enforcement Costs
Certain enforcement costs attributable to site-specific
activities are allowable under CERCLA, according to OSWER
guidance. Among specific enforcement costs that may be
included in the project budget are those associated with
identification of responsible parties, investigation,
gathering of evidence, and preparation of expert witness
testimony. Enforcement costs that may not be included in
the project budget are those directly attributable to
litigation and to overall enforcement program management,
including court costs and legal fees. For background on
EPA's policy in this area, see "Payment of State Enforce-
ment Costs Under Superfund," OSWER, January 21, 1983,
contained in Appendix P of this document.
A.2.C Calculation of State Cost Share
To complete the project budget for Part III of the
Cooperative Agreement application form, the State must
identify both the Federal and non-Federal (if any) costs
for each activity. Current EPA policy is to not require
State cost-sharing for remedial planning (remedial investi-
gation/feasibility study and remedial design) at privately-
owned sites (see "Waiver of 10 Percent Cost Share for
Remedial Planning Activities at Privately-Owned Sites,"
OSWER, May 13, 1983, included in Appendix P). CERCLA
section 104(c)(3)(C) requires a State to provide 10
percent of the costs for remedial implementation at
privately-owned sites and at least 50 percent of response
costs (including removals and remedial planning costs) at
publicly-owned sites. However, provision of a State's
cost-sharing obligation is required only in an Agreement
covering CERCLA-funded remedial implementation; no cost-
sharing is required for a Cooperative Agreement covering
only remedial planning, regardless of site ownership.
Once EPA, after consultation with the State, has
determined the appropriate cost-sharing percentage, if
any, the State should multiply the total cost of the
project by this figure to identify the total State share.
(If this is a publicly-owned site and the project involves
III-5
-------
remedial implementation, the State should also add its
share of removal and remedial planning costs to arrive at
its total share.) Then the State should subtract any
available State credit (see Section II.F and Appendix C of
this guidance for further discussion of State credits), up
to 100 percent of the State share, to determine its
remaining cost-sharing obligation for the project. The
Federal share is the difference between total project
costs and the State's share. The State should identify
these costs and note the use of any credit in the appro-
priate sections of Part III of the application form --
Project Budget. For the benefit of State staff, examples
of these calculations are shown in Exhibit III-6, on the
following page.
Prior to the May 13, 1983 rescission of the 10 percent
cost-sharing policy, States shared in remedial planning
costs at some privately-owned sites. Under current EPA
policy, any cost shares previously paid by the State
(allowable State services, statutory credit, or cash) for
these activities may be applied to the State's cost-sharing
obligation during remedial implementation at the site.
Such cost shares may have been included in the Cooperative
Agreement budget under the previous EPA policy, if the
State provided remedial planning cost share prior to the
May 13 decision, the State may apply this toward its
ultimate cost share during remedial implementation.
B. DEVELOPMENT OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT PROVISIONS
Cooperative Agreements for remedial response at sites
under CERCLA are subject to a number of legal and adminis-
trative requirements that affect the implementation of the
project funded. The State should address each of these
subjects, as appropriate, in provisions included in its
Cooperative Agreement application package. After the
State has submitted its application, the RSPO should
discuss with the State any requirements not adequately
addressed and should meet them through the addition of
appropriate special conditions to the Cooperative Agree-
ment. Types of requirements fall into two broad cate-
gories: general assistance provisions and program provi-
sions, both of which are discussed below. Specific
examples can be found in Appendix F.
B.I General Assistance Requirements
Superfund remedial Cooperative Agreements are subject
to certain general Agency requirements which apply to all
applications for financial assistance from EPA. One of
III-6
-------
Example 1
Fix ample 2
EXHIBIT 111-6
STATE COST SHARE CALCULATIONS
(for remedial implementation projects)
Total remedial implementation cost = $550,000
State cost-sharing percentage = 10 percent (privately-owned site)
State credit = none
Total remedial implementation cost
$550,000
State cost-sharing percentage
10 percent
State Cost Share
$55,000
The State is required to contribute $55,000 in cash or services; EPA will provide the remaining $495,000 for the
remedial implementation.
Total remedial implementation cost = $550,000
State cost-sharing percentage = 10 percent (privately-owned site)
State credit = $35,000
Total remedial
$550,000
implementation cost
State cost share
$55,000
x State cost-sharing percentage
x 10 percent
State credit
$35,000
State Cost Share
$55,000
State Obligation
$20,000
The State is required to contribute $20,000 in cash or services; the remainder of the State cost share is met by
applying the State credit. EPA will provide $530,000 for the remedial implementation.
Example 3
Total remedial implementation cost = $550,000
State cost-sharing percentage = 50 percent (publicly-owned site)
State cost share for remedial planning = $50,000
State credit = $350,000
Total remedial
implementation cost
$550,000
State cost-uharing percentage
50 percent
Remedial planning cost share * Remedial implementation cost share
$50,000 t $275,000
Total State cof?t share
$325,000
- State credit (up to 100 percent
of State cor.t ;;liare)
$325,000
State Cost Share for Remedial Implementation
$275,000
Total State Cost Share
$325,000
Stale Obiiga tion
0
EPA funds 100 percent of all project costs undor the Cooperative Agreement. Of the $350,000 credit, $325,000 has
been applied, leaving $25,000 available for future cost-sharing. The State will not be reimbursed for the $25,000.
-------
these is EPA's General Regulation for Assistance Programs
(40 CFR Part 30~This regulation explains the manner In
which a State must manage a project performed under a
Cooperative Agreement and outlines other responsibilities
that the State must assume following award of funds.
Also among general assistance requirements is Procure-
ment Under Assistance Agreements (40 CFR Part 33), EPA's
regulation for any procurements made under a Cooperative
Agreement; key points of this regulation are summarized in
Exhibit III-7, on the following page.* In considering
procurement requirements, the State should be sure to
address the provisions of section 33.240, which establish
six affirmative steps that States must take to ensure that
small and disadvantaged businesses are used, when possible,
as sources of supplies, construction, and services. These
requirements have been reinforced by Executive Order 12432,
Minority Business Enterprise Development, signed by the
President on July 14, 1983. Executive Order 12432 reiter-
ates the Federal government's commitment to small and dis-
advantaged business by setting forth a program aimed at
developing such enterprises. Procedures developed under
the Executive Order stipulate that EPA will establish
"Fair Share" objectives for awards to minority (MBE) and
women's (WBE) business enterprises; that the State must
set its own objectives and must advertise them in all
Requests for Proposal and Invitations for Bids; and that
the State must report, on a quarterly basis, on its utili-
zation of MBEs and WBEs. These requirements apply to all
Superfund Cooperative Agreements, including those awarded
by the remedial program.
The State should address all general assistance
requirements in its Cooperative Agreement application by
including applicable provisions. Specific requirements,
additional background information, and examples of accept-
able provisions can be found in Section 1 of Appendix F.
B.2 Superfund Program Requirements
In addition to the general EPA assistance and procure-
ment requirements, there are program-specific requirements
for Cooperative Agreements awarded under CERCLA. Provi-
sions addressing these requirements are necessary to assure
compliance with CERCLA statutory requirements and Superfund
program policy and procedures. These provisions are sum-
marized in Exhibit III-8, following Exhibit HT-7.
Development of the Procurement System Certification
Form, one requirement of this regulation, is discussed
in the following section of this chapter.
III-7
-------
TITLE
FXMIDIT III-7
SUMMARY OF RGQUI REMF.NTS FOR PROCUREMENT UNDER
ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS (40 CFR 33)
SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENT
SECTION
Recipient Responsibility
Submission of Information
Limitation on Subagreement
Award
Compet it ion
Profit
Small, Minority, Women's,
and Labor Surplus
Area Businesses
Documentation
Specif ications
Bonding and Insurance
Code of Conduct
Federal Cost Principles
Prohibited Types of
Subaqreements
Cost and Price
Considerations
Lower Tier Subagreements
Small Purchase
Formal Advertising
Competitive Negotiation
Noncompetitive Negotiation
Requirements for Recipients
of Remedial Action
Cooperative Agreements
under CERCLA
Suhagreement Provisions
Protests
System must ensure that contractors perform in accordance with all applicable 33.210
contract requirements
Recipient must inform Award Official of construction subagreements totalling 33.211
over $10,000 per year
System must consider listed factors in determining contractor responsibility 33.220
System must have procurement transaction procedures which provide maximum open and 33.230
free competition
System procedures must allow only fair and reasonable profits to contractors 33.235
System must award a fair share of sub-agreements to such businesses according to 33.240
six affirmative steps specified
System must require that procurement records and files for purchases over 33.250
$10,000 include items specified
System procedures for establishing specifications must meet the requirements listed 33.255
System procurements must meet the specified requirements 33.265
System must have a written code of standards of conduct for State officials in 33.270
dealing with contractors
System procedures for determining allowable costs must meet the specified principles 33.275
System may not allow cost-plus-percentage-of-cost (multiplier) or 33.285
percentage-of-constructIon types of contracts
System procedures must allow for consideration of cost and price, as specified 33.290
System must provide that subagreements 'below the first tier comply with all 33.295
provisions specified
System small purchase method must meet specified requirements 33.305-315
System procedures relating to formal advertising, including those for bidding 33.405-430
documents and contract awards, must meet the specified requirements
System procedures for competitive negotiation must meet the specified requirements 33.505-535
System procedures for noncompetitive negotiation must meet the specified requirements 33.605
Subpart requires use of formal advertising for remedial action construction Subpart !:
procurements unless determined not to be appropriate (not applicable tor remedial
planning or for engineering services)
Snbpart includes the clauses which must be contained in subagreements for procurement Subpart F
Subpart applies to all applicants for' EPA assistance except non-profit organizations Subpart C
-------
EXHIBIT 1 I 1-8
SUMMARY OP SUPERFUNl) PROGRAM PROVISIONS FOR COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT APPLICATIONS
SUR1ECT
DESCRIPTION
CRRCI.A Section 104 (c) (3)
Assurances
State Credit
Fund Balancing
Development of Recommen-
dations According to NCP
Floodplain Requirements
Duties of the RSPO and
SPO
Site Access and Permits
Community Relations Plan
Site Safety plan
Access to Files
Reporting Requirements
Submission of Documents
Responsible Party
Act ivlties
Conflict of Interest
Emergency Response
Negation of Agency
Relationship
Notice of Settlement
Cooperation and Coordina-
tion in Cost Recovery
Rfforts
U.S. District Court
Litigation Under CF.RCI.A
Section 106 or 107
Sharing in Cost Recovery
Applications proposing remedial action must contain assurances that State will provide all future
operation and maintenance and an off-site facility, if applicable
If State uses credit to provide some of its cost share, this is documented; it credit is not
verified. State agrees to EPA adjustment in cost share, if needed following verification
Provision that funding future activities at a site is dependent upon the need to respond at other
sites and that EPA is not obligated to fund further activities
State agrees to develop feasibility study recommendations in accordance with the NCP
State agrees to evaluate potential effects of remedial action in the floodplain, pursuant to
Executive Order 11988 (used when site is located In a floodplain)
State and EPA specify relevant duties of the SPO and RSPO
State agrees to secure site access and permits necessary to conduct the project
State agrees to allow period for public comment on recommendations of feasibility study; State also
Lssures that CRP will be implemented during remedial response
State agrees to submit Site Safety Plan to EPA prior to beginning on-site activities
State agrees to allow EPA access to its site files and to designate confidential information
State agrees to submit quarterly reports on site progress to RSPO for review
State agrees to forward site-specific documents to RSPO for review during progress of activities
EPA and State agree to modify the Agreement if responsible parties will perform or pay for
the performance of activities
State agrees to require potential contractors to submit information on responsibility for the site
State agrees that remedial activities may be suspended if emergency response is required
State agrees that no relationship of agency exists between EPA and State in response activities
EPA and State agree to notify each other before settlement with or action against responsible party
EPA and State agree to coordinate and cooperate in future cost recovery efforts
FPA ami State agree to file future CCRCI.A cost recovery actions in appropriate U.S. Distric-t Court
State agrees that Cooperative Agreement does not prohibit KI'A from filing litigation against
responsible party under section inf> or 107 of CKRI.CA
State agrees to share recovered cor,ts with KPA in proportion to ni'A's participation in remedial
response under c Klin.A (used only where the State has filed a cuat recovery action)
-------
The SPO should discuss these Superfund program needs
with the RSPO while developing the Cooperative Agreement
application package to determine which requirements apply
to the proposed activities and site conditions. Require-
ments should be addressed in the application on a site-
specific basis, as appropriate. Where the application
package is deficient, OERR needs will be met by the
addition of special conditions to the Cooperative Agree-
ment prior to award.
Appendix F contains background information on program-
specific requirements and sample language for special
conditions which may be used to address those requirements.
The State may adapt this language for use in provisions to
be included in its Cooperative Agreement application, but
salient points must be adequately addressed. In addition,
the subjects of several of these provisions are discussed
in detail below.
B.2.a Provision of CERCLA Section 104 (c) (3) Assurances
Section 104(c)(3) of CERCLA requires the State to make
three separate assurances concerning a remedial action:
provision of off-site treatment, storage, or disposal,
responsibility for operation and maintenance (O&M), and
cost-sharing. These assurances, if necessary for the
project in question, must be documented in the State's
Cooperative Agreement application package.
When the SOW in the application contains a remedial
action that requires off-site treatment, storage, or
disposal, the State must include an assurance that it will
locate and enter into an agreement with an appropriate
facility for treatment, storage, or disposal of site
wastes.
When the SOW in the application contains a remedial
action that requires O&M, the State must include an
assurance that it will assume responsibility for all O&M
for the life of the remedy. In such cases, the SOW should
also include as a task the development of an O&M plan,
which should at least contain the following elements:
Designation of the organizational unit of the
State government responsible for O&M
Identification of the availability of State
funding mechanisms for O&M activities
Milestone dates for assuming O&M responsibility
III-8
-------
Description and duration of O&M activities
Summary of O&M staffing needs
Summary of O&M performance standards
Contingency plan for handling abnormal occurrences
Safety requirements for O&M activities
Equipment and material requirements
Estimates of annual O&M costs
Description of site use and disposition of
facilities following completion of O&M.
In addition, the appropriate remedial implementation
subagreement under the Cooperative Agreement must include
a provision that the contractor is responsible for project
startup and for certifying that the designed remedy is
functional and operational. After this has been done, EPA
may, for up to one year, provide assistance to the State
for project O&M at the same rate of cost share as for the
remedial action. The Cooperative Agreement covering the
remedial action may be amended to remain in effect until
the end of EPA's O&M support. After that period, the
State will be expected to assume responsibility for all
project O&M costs.
States may provide off-site and O&M assurances for
more than one site in the State through a single letter.
A copy of such a letter should be attached to each appro-
priate Cooperative Agreement application. O&M plans,
however, must be site-specific.
Where State cost-sharing is required, the State
provides its cost-sharing assurance by showing its share
of project costs in the project budget sheets.
B.2.b The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
NEPA establishes a national policy requiring Federal
agencies to incorporate environmental factors into their
decision-making processes. Superfund remedial activities
are exempt from the provisions of NEPA because CERCLA and
the NCP require the program to perform the "functional
equivalent" of NEPA requirements.
III-9
-------
To assure functional equivalency, EPA must assess both
proposed actions and reasonable alternatives in terms of
their environmental effects, and obtain comments on the
alternatives from concerned members of the public. The
State should consider these requirements in developing its
application. The first requirement can be fulfilled by
conducting an environmental assessment during the course
of remedial planning activities, as required by section
300.68(1)(2) of the NCP, while the second can be met
through implementation of a Community Relations Plan that
provides for a minimum three-week comment period for
feasibility studies and for a minimum two-week comment
period for expedited feasibility studies.* For more
details, see Community Relations in Super fund; A Handbook,
(interim version), OERR, September 1983, and the sample
CRP in Appendix K.
B.2.c Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
In all environmental sampling and/or analysis conducted
as part of the project, the State must meet Superfund
program QA requirements, among which are the following:
Data produced must be able to withstand the
scrutiny of litigative proceedings; this requires
appropriate chain-of-custody, document control,
and QA/QC documentation
Data collection must be cost-effective; costs of
generating the data cannot significantly exceed
costs associated with similar analyses provided
by the National Contract Laboratory Program
Data turnaround times must meet remedial program
needs.
In addition, a QA project plan must be developed in
accordance with "Guidelines & Specifications for Preparing
Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAMS-005/80)." Prepara-
tion of this plan may be a task under the Cooperative
Agreement, performed either by in-house personnel or by a
State contractor. The QA plan must be reviewed by the EPA
Regional QA officer and the RSPO and approved by the Award
Official before any sampling can begin for the project. A
sample QA plan is provided in Appendix L.
Expedited feasibility studies are used only for iRMs.
111-10
-------
EPA's existing National Contract Laboratory Program
can be used to conduct necessary environmental sampling
and analysis, or the State may use its own facilities for
these purposes. In either case, the State should identify
in its application those laboratory facilities that it
intends to use. The Users Guide to the EPA Contract
Laboratory Program provides a breakdown of the types of
analytical services provided by the National Contract
Laboratory Program; this manual can be used for purposes
of comparison with the facilities to which the State has
access.
B.2.d Site Safety Plan
Under a Cooperative Agreement, the State is required
to have a site safety plan providing for the protection of
on-site personnel and area residents. This plan may
either be prepared by State personnel or may be included
in the SOW as part of the project and undertaken by a
State contractor. The safety plan must be consistent with
the following:
CERCLA sections 104(f) and lll(c)(6)
EPA Order 1440.2 - Health and Safety Requirements
for Employees Engaged in Field Activities
EPA Order 1440.1 - Respiratory Protection
EPA Occupational Health and Safety Manual
EPA Interim Standard Operating Safety Guide
(September 1982)
Applicable OSHA standards
State safety and health statutes
Site conditions.
This plan must be included in all subagreements awarded
under the Cooperative Agreement and must be implemented by
both State and contractor personnel on the site. A sample
site safety plan is shown in Appendix M.
Whether the safety plan is developed by the State or
its contractor, it should be submitted to the RSPO for
review. This may be done simultaneously with the applica-
tion or after the application has been approved. Review
assistance is available to the RSPO from EPA-certified
On-Scene Coordinators or from the National Response Team,
Edison, New Jersey (FTS 340-6745) .
III-ll
-------
B.2.e Expedited Procurement
When undertaking the lead for remedial planning, the
State is encouraged to expedite necessary procurement.
Under normal circumstances, procurement actions for
remedial planning may require several months to complete.
Exhibit III-9, on the following page, describes four
suggested alternatives for expediting the. initiation of
remedial planning. These should be considered on a
site-by-site basis, as appropriate. Additional informa-
tion on expedited procurement is provided in "Guidance for
State Contracting of Remedial Planning Activities," OSWER,
February 22, 1983, and "Class Deviation From 40 CFR 33.510
and 33.515 for Certain Activities Conducted Under the
Authority of CERCLA," GAD, November 18, 1983, both
included in Appendix P.
C. COMPLETION OF PROCUREMENT SYSTEM CERTIFICATION FORM
One requirement of EPA's procurement regulation is
that each application for assistance must be accompanied
by a completed Procurement System Certification Form for
Applicants for EPA Assistance (EPA Form 5700-48) . This
requirement applies to CERCLA remedial Cooperative Agree-
ments. Therefore, the State must include a signed original
of this form in its application package.
To complete the Procurement System Certification Form,
the State should determine whether its procurement system
meets the requirements of EPA's procurement regulation
(40 CFR Part 33) and must certify on the form whether its
procurement system does or does not meet the intent of
this regulation. If the State is certifying its system
for the first time (or is not certifying its system), a
responsible official should complete Part B of the form.
If the State does not certify its system, the State must
indicate that its procurement activities will be conducted
in accordance with the requirements of Part 33, with EPA
review and pre-award approval of proposed procurement
actions. States that provide certification will not
receive this level of procurement oversight by EPA;
however, EPA reserves the right to review any State
procurement action funded wholly or in part by EPA.
A State must certify its system to EPA only once every
two years. If the State has previously provided its
required certification, ^ responsible official should
complete Part A of the Certification Form, indicating the
month and year in which this certification was submitted.
111-12
-------
EXHIBIT I I 1-9
METHODS FOR EXPEDITING PROCURKMENT'
TYPE
SUMMARY
Options Contract for Site Remedial Planning Activities
pre-Award Procurement
Procurement for Multiple Site Planning
Procurement Using Prequalification
The State includes both remedial planning and remedial action in the
initial cooperative Agreement. Following completion of the RI/FS and
selection of a remedy, remedial design and remedial action are funded
by amendment. The State's request for proposals (or similiat
documents) for engineering services also covers all remedial phases,
but should indicate that only Rl/FS activities will be funded, with
an option to conduct the design and remedial action engineering
services subject to the availability of funds.
The State starts procurement activities such as issuing requests for
proposals, negotiations, and selection of a qualified firm before the
award of the Cooperative Agreement. A procurement contract can then
be signed immediately after the award of funds. State personnel
costs prior to award are not allowable) however, these costs should
not be significant.
States with numerous sites and available funding for cost-sharing may
issue a level of effort type contract similar to ERA'S REM/FIT
contracts. Once in place, site planning activities could be started
immediately following the award of an individual Cooperative
Agreement, without the need for site-specific procurement actions.
The State may compile a list of available contractors by requesting
qualifications from firms capable of performing remedial planning
activities. The list of prequalified firms will then be used to
solicit site-specific proposals. However, prequalification
procedures must ensure adequate competition.
*A11 methods shown must be consistent with EPA's procurement regulation, 40 CFR Part 33.
-------
D. OTHER SUBMISSIONS
The remainder of the Cooperative Agreement application
package is made up of the three submissions described
below.
D.1 Community Relations Plan (CRP)
The CRP is a management and planning tool outlining
the specific community relations activities to be under-
taken during the remedial response. It is designed to
provide for two-way communication between the affected
community and the agencies responsible for conducting a
response action. CRPs may be prepared either by EPA or
the State, either in-house or through contract assistance.
A draft CRP for State-lead remedial activities must be
submitted for review along with the draft Cooperative
Agreement application. This draft CRP will form the basis
of the complete CRP which must be submitted with the final
Cooperative Agreement application package covering a
remedial investigation/feasibility study.
D.I.a Draft Community Relations Plan
Before developing the CRP, the agency responsible for
the community relations program should conduct informal
discussions with interested citizens and local officials
in the site area. These on-site discussions are required
to assess the nature and level of citizen concern and
determine how the remedial response may affect local
citizens.
Following completion of the on-site discussions and
assessment of citizen concern, a draft CRP is prepared.
The following elements are essential components of a draft
CRP:
Description of the site's background, including
an explanation of the nature of the threat to the
public health, welfare, and the environment and a
description of any response actions taken to date
Background and history of community involvement,
including a description of past and ongoing
community activities and media coverage at the
site, key issues of community concern, and an
evaluation of the level of citizen concern
111-13
-------
Description of the site-specific objectives of
the community relations program during the
remedial investigation/feasibility study, includ-
ing a list of the objectives and a preliminary
description of community relations activities
considered for the site
Description of any immediate community relations
activities recommended prior to approval of the
complete CRP
A mailing list of affected and interested groups
and individuals with their affiliations, addres-
ses, and telephone numbers
The date the draft CRP was prepared and a schedule
for completing the CRP.
D.l.b Complete Community Relations Plan
The complete CRP updates the information in the draft
CRP and specifies the mechanisms for a minimum three-week
public comment period for review of the feasibility study
prior to the selection of the recommended alternative.
For any initial IRMs, the plan must also (1) address how
the community will receive notification prior to any site
action, and (2) state that a minimum two-week comment
period will be provided. In addition, the complete CRP
should include the following elements:
A detailed description of community relations
activities and techniques to be used in each
phase of the response to keep the community
informed and to elicit citizen input
Charts containing a work plan and implementation
schedule of activities at the site
Budget and staffing plan for the community
relations program
An appendix containing the names, telephone
numbers, and addresses of public officials,
interested groups, and individuals, contractors,
Federal, or State staff responsible for the site.
For a more complete description of the CRP and the com-
munity relations program, refer to Community Relations in
Superfund; A Handbook, (interim version), OSWER,
September 1983, and the sample CRP presented in Appendix
111-14
-------
K. In addition, the RSPO, the Regional Superfund Community
Relations Coordinator (RSCRC), and the OERR Headquarters
Community Relations staff are available to provide infor-
mation and assistance, if required.
D.2 Certification Letter
The State should submit a letter with the Cooperative
Agreement application package certifying that the State
agency submitting the application has the authority both
to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with EPA and to make
any CERCLA section 104 (c) (3) assurances that are necessary
for the completion of the project. This certification
letter may be from either the State's Governor or Attorney
General.
Such a letter need not be site-specific; the State may
prepare one letter applying to all of its NPL sites and
submit a copy with each application (see sample certifica-
tion letters in Appendix J). However, if the State chooses
to exercise this option, it has the affirmative obligation
to inform EPA of any changes in State law or policy that
affect its certification letter and to provide a new certi-
fication letter, where appropriate. Any specific details
on provision of O&M should be supplied in the State's O&M
plan.
D.3 Intergovernmental Review Comments
The final component of the Cooperative Agreement
application package is the intergovernmental review
comments. If the State has developed a review process
which includes Superfund Cooperative Agreement applica-
tions, the SPO should include in the application package
any review comments and EPA's response to them. EPA will
award a Cooperative Agreement only after receipt of the
review comments if the program is covered by the process,
unless the State process has no comments. If the applica-
tion has not been subjected to formal review, but affected
local officials have responded to direct notification, the
SPO may include these comments in the application package,
as appropriate.
E. DEVIATION REQUESTS TO PERMIT THE ALLOWABILITY OF
PRE-AWARD COSTS
In some situations the State may need to incur costs
included in the Cooperative Agreement prior to award of
the actual Agreement. Under EPA's general assistance
regulation, such costs are normally not allowable toward
111-15
-------
the State's cost-sharing obligation, nor may they be paid
with Federal funds. For these costs to be allowable, the
State must request, and the EPA Headquarters Grants
Administration Division (GAD) approve, a deviation from
the provisions of 40 CFR 30.308 of the assistance regula-
tion.
The general assistance regulation stipulates that a
deviation may be granted only by the Director, GAD. GAD
will not consider a deviation request unless it has been
referred, with recommendations, by the Regional Adminis-
trator (or his/her designee) and has received the concur-
rence of the Director, OERR. Regional staff should review
a deviation request only after a Cooperative Agreement
application has been filed' and an allocation made by the
AA, SWER through approval of the RAP.
To obtain a deviation, the State should prepare a
formal written request. This request should be addressed
to the EPA Regional Administrator, through the RSPO, and
should include the following information:
The name of the State program, assistance agree-
ment identification-number, date of award, and
dollar value of application or award
The section of the regulation from which the
deviation is requested (30.308 if the deviation
is for pre-award costs)
A complete description of the purpose of the
deviation and the circumstances which make it
necessary
A statement whether the same or a similar devia-
tion has been previously requested and, if such a
request has been made, an explanation of the
purpose and outcome of the previous request.
The deviation request may be submitted concurrently with,
or subsequent to, the Cooperative Agreement application
package.
The RSPO, upon receipt of the request, should coordi-
nate a Regional review and transmit necessary concurrences
to the Regional Administrator. If the Regional Adminis-
trator (RA) concurs on the deviation request, it will be
sent to the Headquarters Zone Manager to obtain the
concurrence of the Director, OERR. If the RA does not
concur, a written explanation for non-concurrence should
be sent to the State.
111-16
-------
The Zone Manager will coordinate the Headquarters
concurrence process. If the Director, OERR concurs, the
deviation request will be forwarded to the Director, GAD
for action. If the Director, OERR does not concur, a
written explanation of non-concurrence will be sent to the
RA.
Upon review and approval of the request by the
Director, GAD, the State will be notified that it may
incur costs subject to the determination of allowability,
and a special condition documenting the deviation will be
added to the Cooperative Agreement. The State will be
notified in writing if the request is denied.
After carrying out the steps identified in this
chapter, the SPO should have a completed Cooperative
Agreement application package that is ready to be submit-
ted to the EPA Region for draft review. The checklist
provided as Exhibit III-2 should be helpful in assembling
the draft application package. For procedures on submit-
ting the application package for review and obtaining
necessary approvals, see Chapter VI.
111-17
-------
IV. DEVELOPMENT OF E PA-LEAD REMEDIAL PLANNING AGREEMENTS
When EPA has lead.responsibility for remedial response
at a site and CERCLA section 104 (c) (3) assurances are not
required (i.e., for remedial planning), two options are
available for initiating the project: the State may
submit a letter requesting that EPA undertake remedial
activities at the site, or EPA and the State may enter
into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). It is left to
the discretion of Regional and State staff to select the
appropriate vehicle for the project at the site in
question. Factors which may influence this decision
include the complexity and cost of the project, character-
istics of the site, the need for rapid initiation of the
project, and requirements of both State and EPA Regional
officials. Either type of agreement may be used at botn
publicly-owned and privately-owned sites.
The less complex of these options is the State letter
of request. This letter should be addressed from the
director of the State agency responsible for hazardous
waste sites to the Regional Administrator, requesting that
EPA initiate remedial planning at the site. It should
refer to and approve the anticipated remedial project and
should stipulate that:
The State will participate in community relations
activities associated with the project
The State will secure site access and any required
permits
Representatives of the State will meet with EPA
Regional personnel to discuss progress of the
project and, if required, exchange site informa-
tion
In the case of a publicly-owned site, the State
will pay 50 percent of all response costs at the
time CERCLA-funded remedial implementation is
undertaken at the site.
The State's letter should also designate an SPO for the
project.
IV-1
-------
An MOU, on the other hand, is a joint agreement
defining the project to be undertaken and both EPA and
State responsibilities for performing that work. It is a
less elaborate form of agreement than an SSC, and will
normally cover a remedial investigation/feasibility study
and a remedial design. The MOU may be used when remedial
planning activities require more formal arrangements than
can be made using a State letter of request.
A State may choose to negotiate an MOU which covers
remedial planning activities at more than one site.
However, an MOU may not be used for remedial implementation
projects. For these, a formal Superfund State Contract
(SSC) must be used to obtain the State contribution and
any necessary assurances (see Chapter V of this document).
An SCC must also be used if the State chooses to provide
advance match funds during remedial planning.
A completed MOU will usually consist of the memorandum
itself, a SOW, a Community Relations Plan (CRP), and
intergovernmental review comments. However, contents may
vary depending upon the needs of the site and the require-
ments of EPA and State officials. Sample articles wnich
may be suitable for use in a MOU can be found in Appendix H.
Because of the relative complexityof an MOU, this
chapter provides detailed guidance on the development of
this type of remedial planning agreement. The State and
EPA may, however, utilize the letter of request if it is
mutually found to be more appropriate for a particular
project. This chapter also discusses the concept of
management assistance Cooperative Agreements, which States
may use to cover costs they incur in performing management
and oversight tasks associated with EPA-lead remedial
projects (see Section IV.D, below).
Major steps in the development of an MOU are displayed
in Exhibit IV-1, on the following page; also shown is the
development of a management assistance Cooperative Agree-
ment. As can be seen in the exhibit, primary responsi-
bility for developing the MOU rests with the RSPO. In
doing so, the RSPO should work closely with the SPO,
involving other State and Regional personnel, especially
the Office of Regional Counsel and other enforcement staff
as appropriate. Additional support is available to the
RSPO from the EPA Zone Manager, whom the RSPO should
regularly inform of progress while developing the MOU.
IV-2
-------
EXHIBIT IV-1
DEVELOPMENT OF MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING
ACTIVITY
RESPONSIBILITIES
WORK PRODUCT:
Development of the MOU
package (includes: the scope
of work, documentation of
terms and responsibilities,
submission of other
documents).!/
SPO:
RSPO:
ZONE
MCR:
Acts as chief point of contact
for State in developing MOU
Negotiates terms of MOU with RSPO
Keviews terms of MOD during
development
Reviews Community Relations Plan
Negotiates terms of MOU with RSPO
Develops MOU
Obtains Regional Counsel and other
necessary Regional concurrences
Submits Community Relations Plan
Includes intergovernmental review
comments
Supports RSPO, as requested
Completed set of articles comprising
body of the MOU
Scope of work
Community Relation.1; Plan
Integovernmunta1 review comments
the
2. Development of the
management assistance
Cooperative Agreement
RSPO:
ZONE
MliR:
Develops management assistance
Cooperative Agreement application
Develops management assistance
Cooperative Agreement provisions
Submits Procurement System Certifi-
cation Form, Certification Letter,
and other package components, as
applicable
Provides consultation and technical
assistance, as requested
Supports RSPO, as requested
Completed management assistance
Cooperative Agreement application
(for appropriate contents, sen
Exhibit I 11-2)
I/This activity is comprised of throe distinct steps which are addressed separately in the text. They have been combined
in this exhibit in an effort to simplify presentation of respons ib i 1 i t i e;;.
-------
A. SCOPE OF WORK FOR REMEDIAL PLANNING
A key purpose of the MOU is to document agreement
between EPA and the State on the project in question.
This occurs through mutual agreement on the scope of work
for the project. The scope of work provides a general
outline of the major tasks to be performed during the
remedial planning project and the project's objectives.
It differs from a statement of work (SOW) in that a SOW
contains more detailed information on the project's
subactivities, tasks, and subtasks, usually identifying a
schedule for their completion, their anticipated outputs,
and tentative cost estimates. A scope of work should be
attached to the MOU and incorporated into the MOU by
reference; the detailed SOW will be developed as the first
task to be completed during the project.
The scope of work for an EPA-lead remedial
investigation/feasibility study project may be taken from
the RAMP, if one has been developed for the site, may be
developed as a separate task order to the REM/FIT contrac-
tor, or may be prepared by EPA staff. If remedial design
is later incorporated into the MOU, a detailed SOW must be
added to document the additional tasks and subtasks
required to complete that subactivity. This can be based
on the conceptual design requirements contained in the
completed feasibility study.
B. DOCUMENTATION OF TERMS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The MOU may also document EPA and State responsibili-
ties and contain general terms governing the agreement.
In many cases, the sample SSC articles found in Appendix H
can be used directly or modified for this purpose.
However, several of the terms required in an SSC are not
appropriate for an MOU. This section describes the most
common responsibilities and terms reflected in MOUs;
additional ones may be used as the situation warrants.
B. 1 EPA Responsibilities
In addition to those detailed in the SOW, EPA has
other responsibilities that may be addressed in an MOU.
These include:
Designation of an RSPO - EPA is responsible for
designating a RSPO who will manage activities at
the site. Limitations and prerogatives of the
RSPO for effecting minor agreement changes should
be discussed with the State and included in the
MOU
IV-3
-------
Communication with the State - Communication will
usually be achieved through regular status
reports provided by the RSPO to the SPO
Community Relations Plan - EPA is responsible for
implementing the CRP; the State may participate
in the community relations program and provide
support to EPA, as specified in the CRP
Site Safety Plan - EPA is responsible for ensuring
that a safety plan will be prepared prior to
initiation of any on-site work and that it will
be implemented during the project.
Other EPA responsibilities, as appropriate for the specific
site, may also be discussed and documented in the MOU.
B. 2 State Responsibilities
State responsibilities that may be addressed in an
MOD, in addition to those identified in the SOW, include
the following:
Designation of an SPO - The State is responsible
for identifying an SPO to monitor site activities.
Limitations and prerogatives of the SPO for
effecting minor project changes should also be
included in the MOU
Site access and permits - The State is responsi-
ble, to the extent of its statutory authority,
for securing site access and obtaining, or
assisting EPA in obtaining, any permits necessary
for remedial activities at the site, should EPA
request it to do so
Assistance in obtaining site data - This assis-
tance includes carrying out necessary coordination
with State and local agencies and using the
State's authority to obtain available information
Community Relations Plan - The State is responsi-
ble for assisting EPA in implementing the CRP, as
specified in the Plan.
Other State responsibilities, as appropriate to the
specific conditions at the site, may also be documented in
the MOU.
IV-4
-------
B.3 General Terms
Finally, paragraphs that define the general terms
governing the MOU may be developed. Topics that might be
addressed include:
Emergency response actions - A paragraph speci-
fying that remedial activities defined in the SOW
may be suspended or modified if an emergency
response is necessary at the site
Third parties - A paragraph excluding third-party
benefits under the MOU; it should also exempt EPA
and the State, to the extent possible, from
third-party liability
Coordination of enforcement and cost recovery -
One or more paragraphs providing that these
activities will be coordinated through Regional
and State attorneys and address relevant enforce--
ment subjects
Responsible parties - A statement that performance
of remedial activity at the site by a responsible
party could change the scope of the MOU
Modifications to the agreement - A paragraph
identifying that there may be a need to alter the
MOU to reflect changes in the agreement between
EPA and the State
Termination of the agreement "- A provision that
the MOU can be terminated upon agreement by both
parties.
C. OTHER SUBMISSIONS
The MOU will usually include two additional
attachments:
Community Relations Plan
Intergovernmental review comments.
These are discussed in detail below.
C.I Community Relations Plan (CRP)
The CRP is a management and planning tool outlining
the specific community relations activities to be under-
taken during the course of the remedial response. It is
IV-5
-------
designed to provide for two-way communication between the
affected community and the agencies responsible for
frtnHiir'l- 1 nn t-ha rocnnnea a/- 4-i CM-I
conducting the response action.
The CRP for EPA-lead activities must be included with
the MOU (if used) or must be developed prior to the
initiation of remedial planning subactivities, whichever
occurs first. For more details on the contents of CRPs,
see Section III.D.I of this document and also refer to
Community Relations in Superfund; A Handbook/ (interim
version), OSWER, September 1983.
C.2 Intergovernmental Review Comments
The final component of the MOU package is the
intergovernmental review comments. If the State has
developed a review process that includes Superfund MOUs,
the RSPO should include in the agreement package any
review comments and EPA's response to them. EPA will
execute an MOO only after receipt of the review comments
if the program is covered by the process, unless the State
process has no comments. If the MOU has not been sub-
jected to formal review but affected local officials have
responded to direct notification, the RSPO may include
these comments in the MOU package, as appropriate.
D. MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
States have in the past been solely responsible for
costs they have incurred during EPA-lead remedial projects.
As a result, some States have found that resource and
staffing constraints have made it difficult for them to
perform tasks assigned under EPA-lead remedial agreements.
In response to this problem, EPA has developed management
assistance Cooperative Agreements.
Management assistance Cooperative Agreements are
designed to cover State costs for Federal-lead projects.
These Agreements may include remedial planning and/or
remedial implementation activities at one or more such
sites within a State's borders; when costs are to be
incurred at more than one site, the Agreement must specify
which sites are covered.
State costs through remedial planning to be included
in the management assistance Cooperative Agreement may not
exceed 3 percent of the estimated total project costs for
all sites covered (e.g., if the management assistance
Cooperative Agreement is to be used during an EPA-lead
remedial planning project totalling $1,500,000 at three
IV-6
-------
sites, the amount of the Agreement should not exceed
$45,000). Specific remedial planning activities which can
be undertaken using agreements of this type include the
following:
Review of work products (such as preliminary
planning outputs, project SOWs, draft remedial
investigation reports, and draft feasibility
study reports)
Visits to the remedial site by State personnel
Participation in commmunity relations activities.
The State may choose to negotiate a single Cooperative
Agreement to cover both State-lead projects and State
costs incurred under EPA-lead projects. When the State
elects to do this, its Agreement must meet both the
requirements listed above and those outlined in Chapter
III of this document.
The scope and contents of individual management
assistance Cooperative Agreements will vary, depending
upon State and Regional requirements. Preparation,
review, and approval procedures should be similar to those
for remedial response Cooperative Agreements, described in
Chapters III and VI of this document. EPA expects to
issue further guidance on management assistance Cooperative
Agreements at a later date. In the meantime, more infor-
mation on this option can be obtained from RSPOs or the
appropriate Zone Managers in EPA Headquarters.
Upon completion of each of the steps identified in
this chapter, the RSPO should have an MOU submission
package ready for review by the State and EPA Region.
Review and approval procedures for MOUs are described in
Chapter VI.
IV-7
-------
V. DEVELOPMENT OF SUPERFUND STATE CONTRACTS
A Superfund State Contract (SSC) is the type of
contractual agreement entered into by EPA and the State
when EPA has lead responsibility for remedial implementa-
tion. It is not a procurement contract, as defined by the
Federal 'Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act. Rather, the
SSC is a joint, legally binding agreement that provides
the medium for obtaining any required State cost share and
assurances and also documents responsibilities for remedial
implementation at a site. An SSC is not needed for
remedial planning subactivities, since no cost-sharing or
other CERCLA section 104(c)(3) assurances are required.
In addition, an SSC may not be used to cover Operation and
Maintenance (O&M); the State must take the lead for O&M
through use of a Cooperative Agreement (see Chapter III).
In the case of a remedial action at a publicly-owned
site, the SSC must also be used to obtain the State's
cost-share for remedial planning. Remedial planning at
such sites may be covered by either an MOU or State letter
of request (see Chapter IV). However, EPA does not
require the State to provide its statutory cost share for
remedial planning until such time as a remedial action is
implemented at the site. Under the remedial implementation
SSC, the State is obliged to provide its required cost
share for removals, completed remedial planning, and the
remedial implementation subactivities to be initiated.
Major steps in the development of an SSC are presented
in Exhibit V-l, on the following page. As shown in the
exhibit, primary responsibility for developing the draft
SSC rests with the RSPO. The RSPO should work closely
with the SPO throughout the development of the SSC,
involving other State and Regional staff, especially the
Office of Regional Counsel and other enforcement personnel,
as appropriate. Support is available to the RSPO from the
EPA Zone Manager, whom the RSPO should regularly inform of
progress while developing the SSC.
A completed SSC will consist of the terms of the
agreement between EPA and the State and attachments that
include the following elements:
Statement of work
Revised Community Relations Plan
Governor or Attorney General certification letter
(if required)
Intergovernmental review comments.
V-l
-------
EXHIBIT V-I
DEVELOPMENT OF SUPKRFUMI) STATIC CONTRACTS
ACTIVITY
RES PONS IB 11,1 TIES
WOKK PRODUCTS
Development of the SSC
package (includes:
development of statement
of work, development of
cost-sharing terms, docu-
mentation of other terms
and responsibilities, r.nb-
mtssion of other documents)^/
Sl>O:
KSPO:
ZONE
MGR:
Acts as chief point of contact
in developing SSC for State
Negotiates terms of SSC with RSPO
Reviews terms of SSC during
development
Reviews Revised Community Relations
Plan
Submits certification letter (when
necessary)
Includes intergovernmental review
comments
Negotiates terms of SSC with SPO
Develops SSC
Submits Revised Community Relations
Plan
Supports RSPO, as requested
Statement of work
Cost-sharing terms and schedule, if rcquit
Completed set of articles comprising the I
of the SSC
Revised Community Relations Plan
Letter from Attorney ceneral or Cove
(or designee), certifying the autlioi
the agency to enter into (.lie SSC dint
e.t
ody
nor
ly ot
if
c-1 , to
the assurances required by CFHCl.A i;e (. ion
make 104(c)(3) (if the Attorney General tu.-;
not signed the SSC)
Intergovernmental review comments
necessary for completion of the pioj
I/This activity
is comprised of four distinct steps which are addressed separately in thi- text. They have been combined in thi:
exhibit in an effort to simplify the presentation of responsibilities.
-------
This chapter provides guidance on developing each of these
SSC components. A sample SSC for remedial implementation
at a privately-owned site can be found in Appendix I.
A. DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW)
The SOW is the basis for all responsibilities defined
in the SSC. It describes the activities, subactivities,
and tasks that EPA, through its contractors or through
other Federal agencies, will carry out at the site and is
used in estimating costs for these activities. It should
be attached to the SSC and incorporated into the SSC by
reference.
As with other types of remedial response agreements,
activities identified in the SSC SOW should be consistent
with the remedial response framework of the National
Contingency Plan (NCP) , section 300.68. The scope of the
SOW will usually include only remedial implementation
(i.e., remedial actions and IRMs). A SOW for a remedial
action, however, will usually be prepared as part of the
remedial design.
B. DEVELOPMENT OF STATE COST-SHARING TERMS
Based on cost estimates derived from work contained in
the SOW, the State's cost share should be determined and
payment terms negotiated. Terms negotiated between EPA
and the State should be included as an article in the
SSC. The remainder of this section provides guidance for
calculating the State's cost share, negotiating payment
terms, and documenting both in the SSC.
B.I Calculation of the State's Cost Share
There are three factors that determine the amount of a
State's cost-sharing obligation:
Estimated total project costs as defined by the
government estimate contained in the SOW.
Remedial action project cost estimates must be
adjusted to cover Army Corps of Engineers over-
sight costs plus various contingencies. The
chart in Exhibit V-2, on the following page, can
be used to estimate total remedial actions costs;
to minimize the need for future amendments, SSCs
should be negotiated to cover the total remedial
action costs.
V-2
-------
EXHIBIT V-2
FIGURES FOR USE IN ESTIMATING TOTAL EPA-LEAD REMEDIAL ACTION COSTS
ITEM
Supervision and Administration
(ACE) On-Site Costs
Did Contingency*
Engineering and Design Support
During Construction Contin-
gency Construction Change-
Orders and Claims Contingency
REM. ACTION ESTIMATES
LESS THAN $2,000,000
8%
25%
1.5%
10%
REM. ACTION ESTIMATES
GREATER THAN $2,000,000
6%
25%
1%
8%
TOTAL
44%
40%
Bid contingency is included to allow the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to award
a contract to the low responsive, responsible bidder; the Corps is required to
have funds available for 25% more than the estimated cost of a project before
it may issue Invitations for Bids. For State-lead projects, EPA maintains a
contingency fund under the RAP process which may be used to cover bids in
excess of project cost estimates.
-------
The State's cost-sharing percentage -- either 10
percent of remedial implementation costs or at
least 50 percent of all response costs (including
removals and remedial planning) -- as required by
CERCLA section 104 (c) (3) (C).
The amount of site-specific credit, if any,
available to the State under the provisions of
section 104(c)(3)(C) of CERCLA (see Section II.F
of this document and Appendix C for more details).
Each of these factors should be documented in an SSC
article defining State cost-sharing terms.
Calculation of the State's cost-sharing obligation is
a two-step process. The first step is to identify the
State's total cost share for the site. This is determined
by multiplying the total cost of activities included in
the SSC SOW which require cost-sharing by the appropriate
State cost-sharing percentage. If the site is publicly-
owned, the State's share of any removal and remedial plan-
ning costs must also be added.
The second step is to calculate the State's total
obligation by applying State credit. Available credit, up
to 100 percent of the State's cost share, is subtracted
from the State's cost share to determine the State's total
obligation. (Where there is no credit, the State's total
obligation will equal the State's cost share.) This cor-
rected amount represents the total contribution the State
must provide to EPA. For examples of this calculation,
see Exhibit V-3, on the following page.
B. 2 Negotiation of Payment Terms
If there is insufficient credit to cover its cost-
sharing obligation, the State must contribute the differ-
ence in cash payments. The State may use either of two
alternative methods: lump-sum or installment payments.
When the State elects to use the lump-sum payment method,
EPA prefers to receive the money within 30 days of execu-
tion of the SSC.
When the State uses the installment approach, EPA and
the State will negotiate a payment schedule which is docu-
mented in the SSC, along with payment amounts. Where
possible, the SSC should identify specific payment due
dates. EPA prefers one payment to be scheduled within 30
days of SSC execution and one at the completion of site
activities; other payments can either be made on a regular
V-3
-------
Example 1
Example 2
FXIIIUIT V-3
STATE COST SHARP. CALCULATIONS
(for remedial implementation projects)
Total remedial implementation cost = $550,000
State cost-sharing percentage = 10 percent (privately-owned site)
State credit - none
Total remedial implementation cost
$550,000
State cost-sharing percentage
10 percent
State Cost Share
$55,000
The State is required to contribute $55,000 in cash or services; EPA will provide the remaining $495,000 for the
remedial implementation.
Total remedial implementation cost = $550,000
State cost-sharing percentage = 10 percent (privately-owned site)
State credit = $35,000
Total remedial implementation cost
$550,000
State cost shere
$55,000
x State cost-sharing percentage
x 10 percent
State credit
$35,000
State Cost Share
$55,000
State Obligation
$20,000
The State is required to contribute $20,000 in cash; the remainder of the State cost share is met by applying the
State credit. EPA will provide $530,000 for the remedial implementation.
Example 3
Total remedial implementation cost = $550,000
State cost-sharing percentage = 50 percent (publicly-owned site)
State cost share for remedial planning = $50,000
State credit = $350,000
Total remedial
implementation cost
$550,000
Remedial planning cost share
$SO,000
Total State cost share
$325,000
State cost-sharing percentage
50 percent
4 Remedial implementation cunt
* share $275,000
- Stale credit (up to 100 percent
of State cost share)
$32r>,onn
State Cost Share for Remedial Implementation
$275,000
Total State Cost Share
$325,000
State Ob)igat ion
0
F.PA funds 100 percent of all project costs niulor the Siipeifuml r>tat«; Contract. Of the $J*>0,000 credit, $525,000
has been appli<><), leaving $7rj,000 available (or future? r:os t - sh.ir i nq of the site. The State will not bo
i
-------
billing schedule or tied to the completion dates of site
activities. Although the schedule is flexible/ EPA prefers
that the State's payments match EPA disbursements as
closely as possible (e.g., 50 percent of the State cost
share received by the time 50 percent of project costs
have been incurred).
Under both of these payment methods, the SSC should
contain a provision for reconciling estimated and actual
total project costs and adjusting the State's cost-sharing
terms accordingly. Where the State has provided its esti-
mated cost share in a lump sum, EPA will refund any excess
payment or will request additional payment if there is a
difference between actual and estimated costs. If the
State provides its payments in installments, EPA will
adjust the payment due at completion of the project, as
appropriate, for any difference.
Prior to the May 13, 1983 recision of the 10 percent
cost-sharing for remedial planning, States shared in such
costs at some privately-owned sites. Under EPA's current
legal determination, any cost shares previously paid by
the State (allowable State services, statutory credit, or
cash) for these activities may be applied to the State's
cost-sharing obligation during remedial implementation at
the site. Such cost shares may have been included in the
SSC under the previous EPA policy. If the State did pro-
vide a remedial cost share prior to the May 13 decision,
EPA may apply this money toward the State's ultimate cost
share during remedial implementation.
C. DOCUMENTATION OF OTHER TERMS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The body of the SSC also contains articles that docu-
ment other EPA and State responsibilities and general terms
governing the agreement. Each of these responsibilities
and terms should be discussed and incorporated into the
SSC as appropriate. Appendix H provides examples of arti-
cles usually found in the SSC as well as additional back-
ground information. This section briefly describes the
responsibilities and terms most commonly defined in a Con-
tract.
C.I EPA Responsibilities
In addition to responsibilities described in the pro-
ject SOW, EPA has other responsibilities that should be
addressed in SSC articles. These responsibilities include:
V-4
-------
Designation of an RSPO - EPA is responsible for
designating an RSPO who will manage implementation
at the site. Limitations and prerogatives of the
RSPO for effecting minor SSC changes should be
discussed with the State and included in the SSC
Completion of site activities - EPA will retain
this responsibility even though the actual
remedial implementation is performed by REM/FIT
Zone Contractors or under the direction of another
Federal agency; this responsibility should be
confirmed in the SSC
Communication with the State - Communication will
usually be achieved through regular status reports
that the RSPO will provide to the SPO; EPA is
also responsible for seeking State input on any
key decision points in the process
Community Relations Plan - EPA is responsible for
implementing the CRP; the State may participate
in the community relations program and provide
support to EPA as specified in the CRP
Site Safety Plan - EPA is responsible for ensuring
that a safety plan will be prepared prior to the
initiation of on-site activities and will be
implemented during the project.
Other EPA responsibilities, as appropriate for the specific
site, may also be discussed and documented in the SSC.
C.2 State Responsibilities
State responsibilities that should be discussed in the
SSC, in addition to those identified in the SOW, include
the following:
Designation of an SPO - The State is responsible
for identifying an SPO who will monitor site
activities. Limitations and prerogatives of the
SPO for effecting minor project changes should
also be included in the SSC
Assistance in obtaining site data - This assis-
tance includes carrying out necessary coordination
with State and local agencies and using the
State's authority to obtain available information
V-5
-------
Provision of operation and maintenance (O&M) (if
necessary) - CERCLA 104(c) (3) (A) requires the
State to assure O&M of the selected remedy. Where
this is necessary, the State is responsible for
undertaking all future O&M for the life of the
project, (the O&M must be covered under a Cooper-
ative Agreement)*
Provision of off-site facility (if necessary) -
CERCLA 104 (c) (3)(B) requires the State to assure
availability of adequate off-site storage, treat-
ment, or disposal when necessary for completion
of the project. To meet this assurance, the State
is required to provide an acceptable off-site
facility, should EPA request the State to do so**
Obtaining site access - To the extent of its legal
ability, the State is responsible for obtaining
site access
Obtaining necessary permits - The State is respon-
sible for obtaining, or assisting EPA in
obtaining, permits necessary for the completion
of proposed activities
Community Relations Plan - The State is responsi-
ble for assisting EPA in the implementation of
the community relations program as specified in
the CRP.
Other State responsibilities, as appropriate to the spe-
cific conditions at the site, may also be discussed and
documented in the SSC.
C.3 General Terms
The RSPO, in consultation with the SPO, should develop
articles that define the general terms governing the SSC.
Specific articles that should be discussed and drafted
include the following:
* Where O&M is necessary for the remedial action chosen,
the State must also provide EPA with an O&M plan;
Section III.B.2.a of this document defines contents of
such a plan.
** Section I.B.3 of this document defines conditions that
the facility must meet to be considered adequate.
V-6
-------
Emergency response actions - An article specifying
that remedial activities defined in the SOW may
be suspended or modified if an emergency response
is necessary at the site
Third parties - An article excluding third-party
benefits under the SSC; it also, to the extent
possible, exempts EPA and the State from third-
party liability
Coordination of enforcement and cost recovery -
One or more articles addressing relevant enforce-
ment and cost recovery subjects and providing for
the coordination of these activities through
Regional and State attorneys
Actions by responsible parties - A statement that
remedial response activities by a responsible
party could reduce the scope of the SSC
Amendments to the agreement - An article identi-
fying that there may be a need to amend the SSC
to reflect changes in the agreement between EPA
and the State
Termination of the Contract - A provision that
the SSC can be terminated upon joint agreement by
both parties
Failure to comply with Contract - A provision
that if either party fails to comply with the
terms of the SSC, the other party may seek to
enforce the contract.
D. OTHER SUBMISSIONS
The SSC will usually include three additional attach-
ments:
Revised Community Relations Plan
Certification letter
Intergovernmental review comments.
These are discussed in detail below.
D.I Community Relations Plan (CRP)
The CRP is a management and planning tool outlining
the specific community relations activities to be under-
taken during the course of the remedial response. It is
designed to provide for two-way communication between the
affected community and the agencies responsible for con-
ducting the response action.
V-7
-------
If Fund-financed remedial planning has been implemented
at the site, a CRP has already been developed. This CRP
must be revised prior to the implementation of a remedial
action at the site. The revised version of the site CRP
must be included with the final SSC when it is submitted
for EPA approval. For more details on preparing CRPs,
refer to Section III.D.I of this document.
D.2. Certification Letter
The State should provide, as an appendix to its SSC, a
letter certifying that the State official who signs the
SSC has the authority to enter into an agreement with SPA
and, if necessary for the completion of the project, to
make the assurances required by section 104(c)(3) of
CERCLA. The certification letter may be from either the
State's Governor or Attorney General.
Such a letter need not be site-specific; the State may
prepare one letter applying to all of its NPL sites and
submit a copy with each SSC. Examples of this certifica-
tion letter are provided in Appendix J. More detailed
information concerning assumption of O&M will be contained
in the State's O&M plan, the requirements of which are
outlined in Section III.B.2 of this document.
Certification of authority is not required if the State
Attorney General signs the SSC.
D.3 Intergovernmental Review Comments
The final component of the SSC package is the
intergovernmental review comments. If the State has
developed a review process that includes SSCs, the RSPO
should include in the SSC package any review comments and
EPA's response to them. EPA will execute an SSC only
after receipt of the review comments if the program is
covered by the process, unless the State process has no
comments. If the SSC has not been subjected to formal
review but affected local officials have responded to
direct notification, the RSPO may include these comments
in the SSC package, as appropriate.
Upon completing each of the steps outlined in this
chapter, the RSPO should have an SSC submission package
ready for review by the State and the EPA Region. Review
and approval procedures are described in the next chapter,
V-8
-------
VI. SXECUTION OF REMEDIAL AGREEMENTS
The review and approval process is similar for Cooper-
ative Agreements, MOUs, and SSCs,* and usually consists of
three major steps:
Review of the draft agreement
Final Regional review
Approval and execution.
The three sections in this chapter describe these steps
and the respective responsibilities of State and EPA
officials respective responsibilities. A summary of these
responsibilities is provided in Exhibit VI-1, on the
following page. Regions may, at their discretion, insti-
tute less elaborate procedures for MOU approval than those
described in this chapter.
Exhibit VT-2, following Exhibit VI-1, summarizes 'Key
events within each of the steps listed above. As can be
seen from Exhibit VI-2, the execution process is similar
for Cooperative Agreements, MOUs, and SSCs. Because of
these similarities/ the execution processes for the three
types of agreements are, for the most part, discussed
simultaneously in this chapter. An exception is made for
the first step in the process review of the draft
agreement -- where separate discussions are included for
Cooperative Agreements and EPA-lead submissions.
A. REVIEW OF THE DRAFT AGREEMENT
As the first step in the execution process, a completed
draft agreement should undergo an initial review by
officials in the State and in the EPA Regional program
office to ensure that it is complete, technically sound,
and consistent with State and Federal statutes, regula-
tions, and policies. This draft review provides an oppor-
tunity to identify and resolve any major issues prior to
the formal submission of the agreement for approval.
State letters requesting initiation of EPA-lead
remedial planning are not required to undergo the
process described in this chapter. Necessary review,
concurrences, and approvals of these projects should
have been secured upon their inclusion in the Remedial
Accomplishments Plan (RAP) .
VI-1
-------
EXHIBIT VI-1
EXECUTION OF REMEDIAL AGREEMENTS
ACTIVITY
RESPONSIBILITIES
WORK PRODUCTS
STATE-LEAD EPA-LEAD
1. Draft Review
SPO:
RSPOr
ZONE
MGR:
2. Final Regional SPO:
Review and
Preparation of
Concurrence RSPO:
Package
ZONE
MGR:
3. Approval and
Execution of
the Agreement
SPO:
RSPO:
ZONE
MGR:
Coordinates state review
Develops draft application package and submits to RSPO
(C/A only)
Renegotiates MOU or SSC provisions, as necessary (EPA-lead only)
Coordinates Regional review
Assists SPO with revisions, as necessary (C/A only)
Develops draft MOU or SSC (F.PA-lead only)
Renegotiates provisions, as necessary
Provides liaison between EPA Region and Headquarters
Assists RSPO, as necessary
Acts as chief point of communication for State
Obtains required State concurrences
Coordinates Regional review process
Prepares concurrence package
Provides liaison between EPA Region and Headquarters
Assists RSPO, as necessary
Acts as chief point of communication for State
Discusses required changes with RSPO, as necessary
Reviews any revisions made to agreement
Communicates all EPA comments to SPO
Discusses required changes with SPO, as necessary
Provides liaison between EPA Region and Headquarters
Assists RSPO, as necessary
Draft Cooperative
Agreement
application
package
. Draft MOU or SSC
Concurrence Package:
- Cooperative
Agreement appli-
cation package
- Decision Memo
- Grant Funding
Order (EPA Form
5700-14)
- Commitment Notice
(EPA Form 2550-9)
- Draft press
release
- Congressional
notification plan
Offer of Award
(Form 5700-20A)
Concurrence Package:
- MOU or SSC
- Decision Memo
- Draft press
release
- Congressional
notification plan
(executed MOU or
SSC
-------
EXHIBIT VI-2
AGREEMENT REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS
DRAFT REVIEW
STATE SUBMISSION TO RSPO (DA ONLY)
REGIONAL REVIEW
STATE REVIEW
REVISION (AS APPROPRIATE
1
r
FINAL REVIEW
STATE SUBMISSION TO RSPO (DA ONLY)
FINAL REGIONAL REVIEW
DEVELOPMENT OF CONCURRENCE PACKAGE
APPROVAL AND EXECUTION
REGIONAL CONCURRENCES
REGIONAL ADMINSISTRATOR APPROVAL
OBLIGATION OF FUNDS (C/A ONLY)
STATE ACCEPTANCE
EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
OBLIGATION OF FUNDS (EPA-LEAD ONLY)
-------
Because procedures differ slightly at this initial stage,
reviews of the draft Cooperative Agreement application
package and the draft EPA-lead submission are discussed
separately below.
A.I Review of the Draft Cooperative Agreement Application
Package
Once the SPO and the RSPO agree upon the content of
the draft Cooperative Agreement application package, it
should be reviewed concurrently by staff in the State and
EPA Region. The SPO should initiate this review by dis-
tributing copies of the draft to State officials and to
the RSPO. In turn, the RSPO should distribute the draft
application package to appropriate Regional officials.
Participants in the State and Regional reviews will vary,
depending on the requirements of the site, but should at
least include the Office of Regional Counsel and enforce-
ment and technical staff members. Based on EPA and State
comments, the SPO and RSPO should jointly resolve issues
and revise the draft Cooperative Agreement application
package, as appropriate, to produce a final application.
A.2 Review of the Draft EPA-Lead Submission
Unlike the Cooperative Agreement, where the SPO is
responsible for initiating the review and approval process,
initiation of this process for an MOU or SSC is the respon-
sibility of the RSPO. Once the RSPO and the SPO have
developed a draft submission, the RSPO should distribute
copies to Regional staff, thus initiating EPA Regional
draft review, and to the SPO. Regional review should
involve participation by technical and enforcement staff
members, as well as representatives from the Office of
Regional Counsel. The SPO should distribute the draft
submission to State officials for review. Comments should
be incorporated into the final document as appropriate.
B. FINAL REGIONAL REVIEW AND PREPARATION OF THE
CONCURRENCE PACKAGE
The second step in the review process is the final
Regional review of the Cooperative Agreement application
package or EPA-lead submission, and preparation of a
concurrence package. Final Regional review should ensure
that all previous comments have been appropriately address-
ed and that any issues which could delay approval are
resolved. This step is similar for both Cooperative
Agreement application packages and EPA-lead submissions.
VI-2
-------
The RSPO is responsible for coordinating final Regional
review and obtaining necessary concurrences. As in the
draft review, participants may vary, but should at least
include technical staff members and representatives from
the Office of Regional Counsel.
Once the final review has been completed and necessary
concurrences obtained, the RSPO should prepare a concur-
rence package for the agreement. A concurrence package
for Cooperative Agreements and EPA-lead submissions should
include:
A Decision Memorandum recommending approval of
the agreement and highlighting potential issues
associated with the project (see Exhibit VI-3 on
the following page which, for the benefit of
Regional staff, outlines the suggested format and
contents of a Decision Memorandum); this will be
issued from the Recommending Official through the
Regional Administrator (RA) *
The Cooperative Agreement application package or
EPA-lead submission (including intergovernmental
review comments)
A draft press release for announcing execution of
the agreement
A Congressional notification plan for informing
concerned Federal and State officials of the
agreement.
Concurrence packages for Cooperative Agreements shall also
contain a Grant Funding Order (EPA Form 5700-14), with
special conditions attached if the application has not
adequately addressed all EPA requirements, and a Commit-
ment Notice (EPA Form 2550-9) .
The approval process for a Cooperative Agreement
involves a Recommending Official, a Decision Official,
and an Award Official. Although the Super fund Division
Director (DD) functions as both the Recommending
Official and the Decision Official, it is possible for
the DD to delegate recommending authority to another
official, usually the Regional Super fund Coordinator.
When the DD has delegated this authority, the Decision
Memo will be from the Recommending Official to the RA
(Award Official) through the DD (Decision Of fflcial) .
When the delegation has not been made, and for all
EPA-lead submissions, the Decision Memo will be from
the DD to the RA.
VI-3
-------
EXHIBIT VI-3
SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR THE DECISION MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT
Objective
Relationship of the Project to
the Program's Mission
Explanation of Any Apparent
Duplication of Effort
Enforcement
Community Relations
Recommendations
Reviews
Project Officer
Deviation Request
CONTENT
Brief summary of the purpose of the project and
how the proposed remedial activities satisfy it.
Explanation of how the proposed project fulfills the
CERCLA objectives of mitigating or minimizing
potential damage to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
Statement that the proposed project will not duplicate
any previous site activities and explanation of how it
will be coordinated with any past remedial and removal
activities at the site.
Short statement of past and prospective enforcement
actions, including concurrence from the Office of
Regional Counsel that funding the project is
appropriate in light of the status of enforcement
activity.
Statement that describes the purpose and scope of the
community relations program for the site.
Recommendations that the project be approved. For
Cooperative Agreement applications, this should also
include determination of the State's ability to manage
the project.
Outline of the State and Regional review mechanisms to
ensure that conduct of the project will conform to
program requirements.
Designation of the RSPO, including an address and
telephone number.
If the State has made such a request at the time of
application submission, section containing necessary
Regional concurrences on and recommendations for RA
concurrence on the request.
-------
C. APPROVAL AND EXECUTION
The third and final step in the review and approval
process for Cooperative Agreements and SPA-lead submissions
is their approval and execution. Because of the similari-
ties in carrying out this step for both types of agree-
ments, they are discussed together in this section.
Particular attention is given to procedures for review,
concurrence, and execution.
The RSPO should distribute the completed concurrence
package to the Regional offices that participated in the
draft review. After necessary concurrences have been
obtained, the package should be submitted to the RA for
signature. Procedures followed after the RA's receipt of
the package differ to some extent, depending on the type
of agreement in question.
The RA, upon signature of the EPA-lead agreement,
executes the agreement for EPA. Thereafter, two signed
copies are sent to the State for execution. To accomplish
this, an authorized State official must sign both copies
of the agreement and return one to the RSPO for retention
in SPA files.
For a Cooperative Agreement, however, the process is
somewhat different. If the package is acceptable to the
RA, it is sent to the Regional grants office for prepara-
tion of the offer of award (EPA Form 5700-20A) . This is
returned to the RA -- the Award Official -- for signature.
Two signed copies of the Cooperative Agreement, accompanied
by a cover letter making the offer of award, are then sent
to the State for acceptance. Upon signature of the offer
of award, the State should return one copy to the Region
to complete the execution process; the second copy is for
retention in the State's files.
Where a Cooperative Agreement has been executed,
remedial activities at the site may commence immediately
because the Cooperative Agreement obligates necessary
funds. Execution of an EPA-lead agreement however is only
one step in funding Federal-lead remedial activities.
Money for activities under an EPA-lead agreement must be
obligated either in work assignment packages under one of
EPA's REM/FIT contracts or through an Interagency Agreement
(IAG) with the Army Corps of Engineers or other Federal
agency. The REM/FIT contract manuals, Management Plan and
Operating Procedures; Remedial Planning/Field Investiga-
tion Team Zone Contracts and REM/FIT Zone Contract Manage-
ment Procedures: An Illustrated Guide contain details and
VI-4
-------
procedures necessary for preparing such documents. These
submissions should be developed concurrently with the
preparation, review, and approval of the EPA-lead
agreement to avoid any delay in obligation of the funds.
This chapter has provided guidance for approving and
executing Cooperative Agreements and those EPA-lead agree-
ments which require review, concurrence, and approval.
Following execution, all remedial response agreements must
be implemented. Procedures established for the adminis-
tration of Cooperative Agreements, SSCs, and other SPA-
lead agreements are the subject of Chapter VII.
VI-5
-------
VII. ADMINISTRATION OF REMEDIAL AGREEMENTS
A number of administrative activities are required to
ensure that an executed remedial response agreement is
implemented successfully. These activities include:
Monitoring financial commitments made in the
agreement, if any
Monitoring technical commitments made in the
agreement
Coordinating terms of the EPA-lead agreements
with performance agreements entered into with the
REM/FIT contractor or the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Maintaining adequate documentation of site
remedial response
Documenting the completion of a remedial action.
The above activities and responsibilities for completing
them are discussed in this chapter. They are also summar-
ized in Exhibit VII-1, on the following page.
Discussion in this chapter focuses on responsibilities
of EPA staff. State roles in carrying out similar activi-
ties will depend upon administrative systems unique to
each State. In addition, this chapter covers only those
administrative activities necessary to manage remedial
response agreements. Similar procedures for administering
task orders under the REM/FIT Zone Contracts or agreements
with the Corps of Engineers are not discussed below but
can be found in REM/FIT Zone Contract Management Proce-
dures; An Illustrated Guide, HSCD, April 1983.
A. MONITORING FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS
RSPOs and Zone Managers are responsible for ensuring
that the State carries out the financial commitments made
in its Cooperative Agreement or SSC. Two types of finan-
cial commitments are discussed below', along with the
RSPOs1 and Zone Managers' oversight roles and responsibili-
ties.
VII-1
-------
EXHHHT VII-1
AOMINISTRATION OF REMEDIAL AGREEMENTS
ACTIVITY
RESPONSIBILITIES
STATE-LE.AD
EPA-LEAD
ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE
1. Monitoring
Financial
Commi tments
2. Monitoring
Technical
Commitments
SPO: . Coordinates with RSPO
to transfer funds to
new activity (if necessary)
RSPO: . Reviews State drawdown RSPO:
act ivity
. Coordinates State transfer
of funds to different
activity (if necessary)
. Notifies OKRR-FCC of changes
in accounts
. Resolves problems with State
ZONE . Monitors State expenditures HONE
MGR: . Supports RSPO problem MGR:
resolution efforts
SPO: . Coordinates with RSPO as
necessary
RSPO: . Initiates and maintains RSPO:
site data in PTS
. Monitors technical activities
at site
. Tracks State CERCLA section
104(c)(3) assurances
. Monitors compliance with
special conditions
. Resolves problems with State
. Works with Regional Super fund
Community Relations Coordi-
nator (RSCRC) in monitor ing
community relations activities
Follows up and resolves
delinquent payments (SSC only)
Provides information on
payment schedule to OERR-FMC
(SSC only)
Supports RSPO problem
resolution efforts (SSC only)
Initiates new activities
and updates PTS information,
as approprlate
Manages technical activities
at site
Tracks State CERCLA section
104(c) (3) assurances (SSC only)
Resolves problems with State
works with RSCRC in monitoring
community relations activities
Letter of Credit Users__Manual,
F.PA Division of financial
Management
Guidance, Appendix N
Project Tracking System:
Procedures Manual/Users
Guide, OERR, August 1982.
Community Relations in Super-
fund:A Handbook
version), OERR,
(inter im
September 1983
ZONE
MGR:
3. Coordinating
the MOU or SSC
with Perform-
ance Agree-
ments
4. Document i utj SCO;
Remedial
Activity HSi'O:
Monitors site activities
Supports RSPO problem
resolution efforts
Ma i I\l r\ i u:' ; i ( t
M<* int. a i ns site f i 1 e
Ensures necessary
information maintained in
Regional grants office
F'orwardr, necessary (locumi-nl ?
tO 7,0110 M.IM,V|CI
ZONE
MGR:
RSPO:
7.1 IMP
Hi:II :
Monitors site activities
Supports RSPO problem
resolution efforts
Ensures consistency between
SOW and EPA-lead agreement terms
Monitors remedial progress
for impact on Srate cost
share or payments (SSC only)
Monitors MOUs, SSCs, RKM/FIT
work or (I'M S , a nri I /.< . ;
Mil I nl<"i IMS sili.: I l I
f-ojwjrils i>in-i)r,nary 'locumoiils
to ZontJ Mana'jtfr
Management Plan and Operating
Procedures: Remedial plan-
ning7FTeTd Investigation Team
Zone Contracts, HSCD,
October 20, T982
HEM/FIT ^£fl£ Contract Management
Pr ocecluTes: Tin"!! I usTFaTeci
On i tie, IISCD, Xi>rTl"T98l
..
'j:i«'i.A, OKC" .in.i
Aii'~jii?;r lh , I MM I
-------
A.I State Drawdowns Under a Cooperative Agreement
The preferred method for transferring funds to a State
under a Cooperative Agreement is through a Letter of
Credit. Using this method, EPA establishes at a Federal
Reserve bank of the State's choosing a credit account for
remedial planning and/or one for remedial implementation,
if applicable, for each signed Agreement. The State then
"draws down" funds from the appropriate credit account to
cover EPA's share of immediate cash needs for each activity
approved in the Cooperative Agreement. When the Coopera-
tive Agreement is site-specific, the State must draw down
funds by the appropriate activity code. When the Agreement
covers more than one site, the State should be careful to
make drawdowns using the correct site and activity codes.
In either case, State drawdowns should reflect provision
of the State's cost share on a current basis (i.e., the
State should not draw down all of EPA's share before pro-
viding its share of costs). Total drawdowns may not exceed
the amount obligated for each activity and site in the
Cooperative Agreement.
The RSPO should review State drawdowns on a monthly
basis, using drawdown information available from the
Regional financial management office. Key documents for
this review include the Financial Management System (FMS)
Outlay Report and the State's quarterly progress report,
required under the terms of each Cooperative Agreement.
In the review, the RSPO should first determine that State
drawdowns correspond to technical progress at the site and
that they are only large enough to cover immediate (usually
one month) cash needs. The RSPO should also determine
whether the State is following the account structure estab-
lished in the Cooperative Agreement. Under the terms of
the Cooperative Agreement, the State may draw down funds
from an account only for work performed under activities
funded by that account (for example, only remedial planning
work may be paid with funds drawn down from the correspond-
ing account established for remedial planning). The
account from which drawdowns were made, identified in the
FMS Outlay Report or State quarterly report, must match
the activities being undertaken.
Upon completion of remedial planning at a site, any
funds remaining in the site remedial planning account may
be used to fund an approved remedial implementation project
or may be used for activities at another site covered by
the same Cooperative Agreement. Such funds, however, must
be officially transferred to the appropriate account. To
effect this transfer, the State should submit a written
VII-2
-------
request to the RSPO (see Appendix N for details). Trans-
fers also require that the RSPO coordinate with OERR's
FCC. If the FCC authorizes the transfer, the RSPO will
request that the Cooperative Agreement be formally amended
to move the funds to the designated account (see Chapter
VIII of this document). Funds remaining in a credit
account at the completion of the corresponding activity
will be deobligated by EPA and returned to the Fund if the
State does not submit a transfer request or if the State's
request is denied.
Zone Managers are responsible for monitoring the rate
of State expenditures against the percentage of tasks
completed for all sites in their individual areas of
responsibility. Necessary information can be obtained
from the Project Tracking System (PTS) (discussed in
greater detail in Section VII.B below). For more informa-
tion on drawdown procedures, see Appendix N and EPA's
Letter of Credit Users Manual/ published by the Financial
Management Division(FMD}.
A. 2 State Payment of Cost Share Under a Super fund State
Contract
Unlike a Cooperative Agreement, an SSC does not provide
funding to the State. Instead, to cover its share of
remedial costs under an SSC, the State may be required to
provide cash payments to EPA. If cash is to be provided,
the RSPO and Zone Manager should ensure that FMD receives
information necessary to track accounts receivable and
delinquent payments.
Following execution of the SSC, the Zone Manager
should forward a copy of the executed SSC, containing a
payment schedule, to FMD to establish the account (s)
receivable. FMD will automatically send invoices to the
State before the due dates indicated in the payment
schedule. If the State is late in making payment, FMD
will provide the RSPO with a delinquency report and will
forward a copy to the Zone Manager. The RSPO is respon-
sible for contacting the State to resolve any problems;
those that cannot be resolved by the RSPO should be
referred to the Zone Manager.
B. MONITORING TECHNICAL COMMITMENTS
In addition to financial commitments, EPA must also
monitor technical commitments concerning site activities
as well as State assurances and special conditions in the
remedial response agreement. These activities and respon-
sibilities are discussed below.
VII-3
-------
B.I Monitoring Site Activities
The RSPO should provide an on-going review of technical
progress at remedial sites to ensure that the State carries
out commitments detailed in the SOW for the remedial
response agreement. The level of review required is
dependent upon whether the State or EPA has lead management
responsibility for the project. As with financial commit-
ments, Zone Managers are responsible for monitoring the
progress of remedial response at sites within their geo-
graphical areas and for addressing problems that cannot be
resolved between the RSPO and the State.
PTS is one tool used by EPA to track the conduct of
work at remedial response sites. The system uses informa-
tion from the detailed work plan in the Cooperative Agree-
ment and from the REM/FIT contractor task order work plan
(based on the SOW in the EPA-lead agreement) to chart
estimated start and completion dates. The RSPO should
provide information from the work plan to the PTS system
following execution of the Cooperative Agreement or EPA-
lead remedial agreement.
For additional detailed information on responsibilities
and for descriptions of input forms and reports available
through PTS, see Project Tracking System; Procedures
Manual/Users Guide, OERR, August 1982.
The RSPO should also review progress through other
methods to supplement information available from PTS.
Some other information sources include site inspections,
informal telephone calls (where appropriate), and, for
State-lead activities, review of information included in
the State's quarterly report.
B.2 Monitoring State Assurances and Compliance with
Special Conditions
The RSPO is also responsible-for monitoring State
implementation of CERCLA section 104(c)(3), assurances and
compliance with Cooperative Agreement special conditions.
In addition to any financial commitments necessary for its
cost-sharing assurance (see Section I.B.3 of this docu-
ment) , a State may be required to carry out specific
actions to implement its off-site facility and O&M assur-
#nces; these will be specified in the Cooperative Agreement
or SSC. Cooperative Agreement special conditions may also
identify specific actions, such as the provision of site
safety plans, to which the State has committed itself.
VII-4
-------
To ensure that such commitments are carried out, the
RSPO should track and review specific dates on which State
actions are to be taken, if these are available. For
State-lead activities, the RSPO may use the State's
quarterly report to track these dates.
C. COORDINATING EPA-LEAD REMEDIAL AGREEMENTS WITH
PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS
After an EPA-lead remedial agreement is executed, EPA.
initiates remedial activities by entering into an agreement
with its REM/FIT Zone Contractor or with other Federal
agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
It is important that the terms of such performance agree-
ments be consistent with those of the SOW for the remedial
agreement reached with the State.
The RSPO is responsible for ensuring that both types
of agreements are consistent during their initial develop-
ment. Any SOW changes negotiated between EPA and the
State during development of an EPA-lead agreement must be
consistent with the SOW in the performance agreement
signed with the contractor or another agency. In the same
manner, any project changes made in performance agreements
with the Zone Contractor or the agency must be negotiated
with the State and reflected in the remedial response
agreement. Since State payment terms under the SSC may be
dependent upon the SOW, the RSPO should also ensure that
these terms are consistent with time and cost estimates
resulting from any changes made to the SOW.
It is also important to ensure that there is coordina-
tion between the agreements during conduct of the remedial
response. Any modifications to EPA's performance agree-
ments with its Zone Contractor or other agency that are
inconsistent with the terms of the EPA-lead remedial
response agreement must be reviewed by the State and
reflected in the remedial agreement. The Zone Manager is
responsible for ensuring that any necessary changes are
made.
In addition, the RSPO should monitor financial and
technical progress at the site to determine whether they
will affect any State payment terms identified in the
SSC. Changes may be required at sites where progress is
significantly delayed or where actual costs are signifi-
cantly different from estimated costs. The RSPO should
discuss differences in progress with the SPO and where
necessary, adjust payment terms by amending the SSC.
VII-5
-------
D. DOCUMENTING REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
Another administrative responsibility for EPA staff is
the documentation of site activities through development
and maintenance of records and files. The State is also
resp.onsible for maintaining files for State-lead remedial
response activities; therefore, State.files are also
discussed below. With the exception of certain policy,
deliberative, and enforcement documents which may be held
confidential, EPA and State files will be available to the
public. For additional details on record maintenance in
the Superfund program, see "Suggested Regional File Struc-
ture, Superfund Priority Sites and Priority Site Candi-
dates," OSWER, May 1982, and Appendix E of Cost Recovery
Actions Under CERCLA, OEC and OSWER, August 26, 1983.
D.I Regional Files
Site files for documenting all activities carried out
at each site should be developed and maintained in Regional
offices. Information in these files is critical to EPA' s
enforcement and cost recovery actions.
In general, Regional files should document and support
all actions taken at the site. Documentation should be
sufficient to identify the source (s) and circumstances of
site problems and potentially responsible parties, provide
an accurate account of Federal costs incurred, and demon-
strate actual and potential impacts to public health and
welfare or to the environment. Files should include the
following documents:
A signed copy of the final remedial response
agreement and concurrences from reviewing offices
A signed copy of the Decision Memorandum
A copy of the final draft agreement (if different
from the approved version of that agreement).
Other communications, memoranda, and relevant documents
may also be included in the file, as appropriate.
D.2 EPA Headquarters Files
Zone Managers are responsible for maintaining OERR
program files that are adequate to monitor progress under
remedial response agreements. Zone Managers in both the
State and Regional Coordination Branch (SRCB) and in the
Remedial Action Branch (RAB) are responsible for keeping
VII-6
-------
records and documents pertaining to EPA and State-lead
agreements, including many of the documents in the site
files maintained in the Regions. RSPOs should provide
copies of necessary documents, such as those items identi-
fied above, State letters of request, reports, and letters
concerning the agreement, to the Zone Managers for reten-
tion in their files.
In addition, Zone Managers are responsible for main-
taining OERR records related to obligations under EPA-lead
agreements. Contents of these files should be similar to
the Regional site files. Zone Managers should also provide
necessary information to the following Divisions:
Grants Administration Division, for Interagency
Agreements (lAGs)
Procurement and Contracts Management Division,
for REM/FIT contracts.
The above offices are those responsible for making obliga-
tions for these agreements and will maintain the official
files.
D.3 State Files
In accordance with EPA's assistance regulation, a
State entering into a Cooperative Agreement must maintain
a file containing all relevant documents and communications
pertaining to the development and implementation of that
Agreement. These records should include such site-specific
documentation as ledgers, purchasing and contracting
files, receipts, vouchers, travel authorizations, methods
of equipment usage, and depreciation. Records must be
maintained intact for three years after the submission of
the final Financial Status Report (SF-269) or until any
litigation, claim, appeal, or audit begun during that
three-year period has been settled. Contents of State
files for EPA-lead projects are at the discretion of the
State.
E. DOCUMENTING COMPLETION OF REMEDIAL IMPLEMENTATION
;RESERVED]
VII-7
-------
The activities and responsibilities described in this
chapter will continue throughout the agreement period;
remedial agreements will remain in effect until the end of
EPA's participation in O&M costs. At any time during the
project, however, an occasion may arise when it is neces-
sary to adjust the terms of an executed agreement. Proce-
dures for making these adjustments, as well as for initiat-
ing new activities upon completion of the project identi-
fied in an existing agreement, are described in the next
chapter.
VII-8
-------
VIII. AGREEMENT MODIFICATIONS
After an agreement has been implemented, it sometimes
becomes necessary to modify the vehicle in some manner or
to negotiate a new agreement. Three types of modifica-
tions may be pertinent: (1) adjustments to existing pro-
jects, (2) initiation of a remedial design and/or remedial
implementation at the completion of the already-funded
remedial planning project, or (3) initiation of operation
and maintenance. This chapter presents procedures and
identifies responsibilities for effecting modifications
and implementing new activities. As such, the chapter has
three parts, corresponding to the three categories of
adjustments.
The SPO and RSPO are responsible for initiating and
processing agreement modifications; specific responsibili-
ties of these personnel are summarized in Exhibit VIII-1,
on the following pages.
A. PROJECT ADJUSTMENTS
Project adjustments consist of alterations in the
amount, terms, conditions, project period, or some other
administrative, technical, or financial aspect of the
agreement. Depending upon the significance of the change,
adjustments can be made either through formal amendments
or in writing between the RSPO and the SPO. (Some
agreement adjustments will require prior changes in the
RAP.)
Criteria for determining the type of adjustment
required and the responsibilities of the RSPO and SPO in
effecting these adjustments are discussed below for both
State- and EPA-lead projects. They are also presented
graphically in Exhibit VIII-2, following Exhibit VIII-1.
A.1 Adjustments to State-Lead Projects
Significant changes occur when:
Objectives and/or scope of the project, as funded,
are altered
Funds obligated under one remedial accounting
code will be used for a different remedial
activity or a different site
There is any increase or a substantial decrease
in the project period or budget
VIII-1
-------
EXHIBIT VII 1-1
AGREEMENT MODIFICATIONS
RESPONSIBILITIES
STATE-LEAK
EPA-LEAD
MORK PRODtKTTS
APUiTIONAL C.UIOAMCR
J. Project
Adjustments
SPO:
ZONE
MGR:
2.A Initiation
of Remedial
Design and
Kerned 1 a 1
Action -
Record of
Dec 1sion
SPO:
changes to
he made to Cooperative
AqT eoment
Neqot 1 ated ml nor and
a rim Inlstrat i ve changes
with RS PO
Initiates amendment
request , I f requi red
Approves minor changes
and concurs on admin-
istrative ohanqea, with
necessary approvals
For wards State amendment
request to Regional
Award Official
Coordinates with OFRR-
FCC on transfer of
funds
Coordinated with RSPO SPO:
to prepare ROD
Acts «a chief point
of contact for State
in ROD preparation
Henegot fates agreement
with HSiO, if requI red
Prepares ROD, transmlttal RSPOi
memo, ond romp 11es
document ing Informal Ion
Coordinates Reglonal
review and concurrence
Submits ROO to appropriate
personne 1 1n HO
P-eneqot I at «>8 agreement
with State, if required
Ma V *»« '.-hanqe i n RAP to approve
nf*w activity
Negotiatea changes to
EPA-lead agreements with HSPO
Effects minor changes to
EPA-lead agreements i n
writing
Ident i fles changes that must
be made to State-lead agreement
Determines whether
changes requlre amendment
Negotiates and effects minor
changes in writing with Si*)
Initiates amendment request,
If required
Same afl State-lead
U?rtern between SrO
and RSPO makIng
changes
Amendment t equeat
Forma 1 amendment
40 CFfl Pait
30,700-70$
Reccud of Oeciaion
Supporting
documentation
Tr ansmltta1 memo
Recoct! ot
Guidance, OSWRR,
August 25, 1982,
. Append 1 x O , Samp 1 e
Record of Her In ion
Same oa State-lead
2ONE
M<;R:
Same a£ State-lead
-------
EXHIBIT VII1-1
AGREEMENT MODIFICATIONS
RESPONSIBILITIES
ACTIVITY
STATE-LEAD
EPA-LEAD
WORK PRODUCTS
ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE
2.B Initiation SPO;
of Remedial
Design and
Remedial
Action -
Incorporating
Rb/RA Into an
Agreement
. Develops C/A application/ SPOi
amendment
. Develops C/A provisions
. Submits Revised COP.
certification letter,
Procurement Check-llet
intergovernmental
review comments
. Acts as chief point . Agreement amend- . Guidance, Chapters
of State Contact In ment or new 3-5
modifying HOD or remedial agree-
negotlattng SSC ment
. Submits n«w State
letter of request (If
applicable)
. Negotiates agreement
terms with RSpO and
reviews agreement
during development
. Reviews CRP
. Submits certification
letter, as necessary
3.
RSPOi . Provides consultation
and technical assist-
ance, as requested
Coordinates approval of
agreement/amendment
ZONE . Supports RSPO, as
MGR: requested
RSPO: . Negotiates agreement
terms with RSPO
. Develops HOU mod If 1-
catlons/SSc
. Submits CRP
. Coordinates EPA approval
of MOD amendment or SSC
ZONE . Supports RSPO, as
MGRi requested
Initiation
of Operation
and Mainten-
ance
. Develops C/A appli-
cation/amendment
. Develops C/A provisions
. Submits revised CRP,
certification letter,
Procurement Checklist,
intergovernment review
comments
RSPO: . Provides consultation and
technical assistance, as
requested
Coordinates approval of
agreement /amendment
7.ONE . Supports RSPO, as
MOD: requested
Cooperative
Agreement or
amendment
Guidance, Chapter
3
-------
EXHIBIT VIII 2
PROJECT ADJUSTMENTS APPROVAL PROCESS
COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENTS
ONLY
BOTH TYPES Of AGREEMENTS
EPA LEAD REMEDIAL
AGREEMENTS ONLY
SPO NOTIFIES RSPO
OF NEED FOR
ADJUSTMENT
NATURE AND SCOPE OF ADJUST
MENTS NEGOTIATED BETWEEN RSPO
AND SPO
CHANGE
AUTHORIZED IN
LETTER TO STATE
nSPO COORDINATES
DOCUMENT
REVIEW
COPY
RETAINED IN
SfTE FILE
REGIONAL ADMINl
STRATOR REVIEWS
AND APPROVES
AMENDMENT SENT
TO STATE FOR
ACCEPTANCE
RSPO NOTIFIES SPO
OF NEED FOR
ADJUSTMENT
-------
A rebudgeting of funds occurs, involving either a
transfer between construction and another object
class category or a change in the amount of in-
direct costs.
A formal amendment must be issued by the Award Official in
the event that a significant change occurs; one is also
required to make any changes in special conditions.
In contrast, formal amendments are not required for
minor project changes which are consistent with the pro-
ject's remedial objectives -- such as small budget shifts
between object class categories (except as indicated above)
and adjustments to the work plan within the scope and
objectives of the funded project -- or for administrative
changes such as the designation of a new RSPO. Such
changes should be approved in writing by the RSPO or the
Award Official, as appropriate. If approval of the Award
Official is required -- usually for administrative alter-
ations the RSPO should transmit the State's request and
draft a memorandum indicating RSPO approval to the Award
Official for issuance of written confirmation.
Responsibility for requesting and obtaining approval
of adjustments to the Cooperative Agreement rests with the
SPO and RSPO. The SPO identifies the need for an adjust-
ment and initiates the approval process by submitting a
request to the Region. The RSPO then determines whether a
formal amendment is needed, and if so, transmits the
request to the Award Official. If the Award Official signs
the amendment, it is sent to the State for acceptance and
is executed upon signature by an authorized State official.
A.2 Adjustments to EPA-Lead Projects
Significant changes that may merit a formal amendment
to a MOU or SSC include:
Changes in objectives or scope of the project
Changes to other terms of the agreement
Changes in total project costs such that total
costs will exceed the ceiling limit set in the
payment terms.
In the case of minor project changes, the agreement usually
gives the RSPO and 'SPO the authority to make modifications
which do not increase the project scope or total costs.
VIII-2
-------
Responsibility for identifying the necessity of and
obtaining approval for changes to an EPA-lead project lies
with the RSPO and the SPO. The RSPO should determine when
the agreement requires modification, whereupon the RSPO
should negotiate these with the SPO. Such changes can be
implemented in written correspondence between the project
officers.
A formal amendment to the SSC should be negotiated
between the RSPO and the SPO. When agreement has been
reached on the terms of the amendment, the RSPO should
prepare an amending document and forward it to the Regional
Administrator (RA) for approval. After the document has
been signed by the RA, it should be transmitted to the SPO
to obtain the signature of an authorized State official.
Upon signature, the amendment is executed.
B. INITIATION OF REMEDIAL DESIGN AND REMEDIAL ACTION
Following completion of a feasibility study, it is
necessary to negotiate a new agreement or modify the exist-
ing one to cover remedial design and allow the initiation
of remedial implementation; this is the second type of
agreement modification. The new activities must also
appear in a final, approved RAP. Prior to either of these,
however, the selected remedy must be formally approved oy
the AA, SWER. Approval is documented through use of a
Record of Decision (ROD). The remainder of this section
provides a general description of the approval process for
a remedy as well as the incorporation of remedial design
and/or remedial implementation into an agreement between
EPA and the State.
B.I Records of Decision (RODs)
Pursuant to section 104(c)(4) of CERCLA and subsequent
delegations of authority, the AA, SWER is required to spe-
cifically select any remedial action prior to its initia-
tion. Although Cooperative Agreements and EPA-lead reme-
dial response agreements will be negotiated and executed
in the Regions, the AA, SWER in EPA Headquarters will
retain authority for selecting a remedy. Initial remedial
measures (IRMs), however, may be selected by the RA; the
selected IRM must also meet NCP requirements.*
Selection o'f IRMs not involving off-site storage,
treatment, or disposal may not require completed ROD
packages as outlined in this section; however, approval
should be incorporated into a modified ROD, an Action
Memorandum, or some other document signed by the RA.
Selection of IRMs involving off-site storage, treat-
ment, or disposal must be documented in a ROD.
VIII-3
-------
The ROD is an approval and briefing document developed
for obtaining and officially recording the AA's selection
of a specific remedy. It is sent from the RA to the AA,
recommending either a remedial option or the "no action"
alternative for the site, and should contain the following
information:
Background data on the site
References to analyses and reports reviewed in
determining the appropriateness of the remedy
Declarations that the State has been consulted in
the determination of the appropriate remedy; that
the selected option is cost-effective and appro-
priate when balanced against use of the Fund to
respond to other sites; and that the option
effectively mitigates or minimizes danger to, and
provides adequate protection of, public health,
welfare, or the environment
For actions involving off-site disposal, declara-
tions that the action is more cost-effective than
other remedial actions; will create new capacity
to manage hazardous substances; or is necessary
to safeguard public health, welfare, or the envi-
ronment
A summary of the selected remedial options and
their costs.
The ROD should also include a section to document the
approved period and extent of EPA cost-sharing for O&M
activities. This section should contain the following
information:
Identification of O&M necessary for the selected
remedy, including on-site monitoring
Length of time O&M will be required
Total estimated O&M costs
Identification of the State agency which will be
responsible for O&M
The RA's recommendation of the period of time (up
to a maximum of one ye'ar) during which EPA will
share in the costs of O&M.
VIII-4
-------
When recommending the period of time for EPA O&M cost-
sharing, the RA should consider the individual circumstan-
ces of both the site and the State involved. Factors which
may be taken into account include the type and cost of the
O&M, financial capability of the State, and the importance
of the O&M activities to the effectiveness of the remedy.
Data contained in the O&M section will be a factor in the
AA's selection of remedy; the cost-effectiveness of an
alternative can therefore be judged on total life cycle
costs, including those for O&M, rather than solely upon
costs of the remedial action itself. Active involvement
of legal staff in preparing the O&M section is important
since cost recovery efforts will include O&M costs.
Attachments to the ROD should provide sufficient
information to justify the recommended remedy. These
should include the following components:
A summary sheet, which can be used to brief the
AA on the proposed remedy and site requirements
A more detailed narrative summary describing the
site, its enforcement status, and the rationale
for recommending an action
Other supporting documentation, such as the
feasibility study report, analysis of the recom-
mended alternative in terms of RCRA requirements,
and a responsiveness summary which contains a
review of public inquiries and comments, the
issues and concerns raised, and how EPA or the
State responded (see Community Relations Policy,"
May 9, 1983, in Appendix P).
The ROD package should also highlight any potential prob-
lems or policy issues affecting the AA's decision and
should demonstrate close coordination among EPA, the
State, and the local community.
The RSPO, with assistance from the SPO and the Regional
Superfund Community Relations Coordinator (RSCRC), is
responsible for developing both the ROD and a memorandum
from the RA, and transmitting the ROD to EPA Headquarters.
The transmittal memorandum contains the RA's recommenda-
tions to the AA and the estimated costs of the recommended
remedy, including State and EPA O&M costs. Representatives
of the State as well as EPA and state legal and enforcement
staff should be actively involved in preparing the ROD
package.
VIII-5
-------
The ROD package, containing the ROD, ROD attachments,
and the transmittal memorandum, should be sent to the
Hazardous Site Control Division (HSCD) for Headquarters
review and concurrence. Following this review, the package
will be forwarded to the AA, SWER for approval and sig-
nature. The AA is not obligated to authorize an entire
remedial implementation project. It is possible that, for
purposes of Fund-balancing, the AA may approve an obliga-
tion only for one operable unit or activity (such as
remedial design) or may delay funding for O&M until a later
time.
For a more detailed description of the ROD and proce-
dures for its development and approval, refer to Record of
Decision Guidance, OSWER, August 25, 1982. A sample ROD
with supporting documentation is also provided in Appen-
dix 0.
B.2 Incorporating Remedial Design and Remedial Action Into
an Agreement Between EPA and the State
Once the ROD has been approved and the project
included in the Region's final RAP, development of a new
agreement or an amendment to an existing agreement between
EPA and the State can begin. When there is an existing
Cooperative Agreement or SSC for the site, initiation of
remedial design and/or remedial implementation will
normally be accomplished through an amendment to the
existing agreement.
The amendment negotiation process generally follows
the steps identified in Chapters III-V of this document.
When an MOU or State letter of request is used to cover
remedial planning at the site, the State may amend the MOU
or may submit a new request letter for the remedial design.
However, a Cooperative Agreement or an SSC must be negoti-
ated before remedial implementation can be undertaken.
In any case, EPA and the State must agree upon a pro-
ject SOW, develop budgets (for a Cooperative Agreement),
negotiate State cost-sharing terms (for an SSC) , address
EPA general and programmatic requirements, and review and
approve the resulting agreement in the manner described
earlier in this document. Refer to the appropriate chap-
ters of this guidance for detailed procedures for complet-
ing these steps.
If, however, the AA selects the "no action" alternative
presented in the ROD for the site, any existing agreement
is terminated.
VIII-6
-------
C. INITIATION OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Following completion of a remedial action, the State
must assume responsibility for any O&M requirements
associated with the remedy. This will begin with the
period during which EPA shares in the costs of O&M {for a
period not to exceed one year) as formally approved by the
AA, SWER.
The State is required by CERCLA section 104(c) (3) (A)
to assure that it will assume responsibility for all O&M
activities. In keeping with this provision, it is EPA
policy that all O&M activities for which the Agency pro-
vides a cost share will be State-lead. Any EPA cost-
sharing approved by the AA, SWER in the ROD must therefore
be provided through a Cooperative Agreement. If the reme-
dial action has occurred under a Cooperative Agreement,
that Agreement will normally be amended to cover O&M cost-
sharing. EPA's share of O&M costs may be obligated at the
same time as Federal funds for the remedial action, if the
remedial action is of relatively short duration, or they
may be obligated when that action is nearly completed. In
either case, the SOW for the O&M portion of remedial imple-
mentation may be approved at the time that the remedial
action is funded.
If a remedial action occurs through an SSC, the State
must enter into a Cooperative Agreement with EPA to ootain
any approved O&M cost-sharing. Procedures for developing
a Cooperative Agreement can be found in Chapter III of
this document.
VIII-7
-------
APPENDICES
-------
INTRODUCTION TO THE APPENDICES
The appendices, following, are presented here to:
Provide detailed instructions for certain events
and activities described in the text
Provide examples of important documents, attach-
ments, provisions, and articles described in the
text
Provide background documents that will aid in
understanding important Superfund program policies
Identify and define key terms used in this docu-
ment
Identify other reference documents that may
assist the reader in selected areas.
These have been developed to be used in conjunction with
the text, providing additional information where needed.
The appendices have been referenced in appropriate
sections of the text and are, as closely as possible,
arranged to reflect the order in which they are referenced.
A standardized format has been used to introduce each of
the appendices. The short introduction included in each
appendix describes:
Purpose of the appendix
Important background information necessary to
understand the appendix
Summary of the appendix contents.
To assist the reader in resolving questions not answered
by the text or individual appendices, the introduction
identifies, where appropriate, the author/originating
office of any document shown in the appendix.
-1-
-------
APPENDIX A
[RESERVED]
-------
APPENDIX B
ACTION MEMORANDUM GUIDANCE
PURPOSE
This appendix has been provided to assist Regional
Site Project Officers (RSPOs) and other Regional staff in
the development of Action Memoranda.
BACKGROUND
An Action Memorandum is an optional EPA Internal docu-
ment in which the Regional Administrator authorizes a
remedial planning project and, in some cases, an initial
remedial measure (IRM), at one or more hazardous waste
sites. It clarifies any site-specific issues and summar-
izes site background information, proposed community rela-
tions and remedial activities, and the status of enforce-
ment actions. In addition, Action Memoranda recommend a
course of action to be followed in conducting remedial
activities at the site(s).
Action Memoranda are developed prior to or simultane-
ously with the negotiation of an agreement to proceed with
remedial activities at one or more sites. Preparation of
the Action Memorandum is usually the responsibility of the
designated RSPO. Necessary information can usually be
obtained from the Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) (if
one has been prepared for the site), community relations
and Regional enforcement staffs, and the State Project
Officer (SPO), if one has been selected. if the Regional
Administrator elects to use an Action Memorandum for a
project, the document should be finalized and approved
prior to the award of a Cooperative Agreement, execution
of an MOU, or EPA action upon a State letter of request.
APPENDIX SUMMARY
For the use of RSPOs, this appendix contains the
following guidance:
An annotated outline of an Action Memorandum
An example of an approved Action Memorandum.
Action Memorandum review and approval procedures will
vary, depending upon the requirements and organization of
individual Regions. However, review by the Office of
Regional Counsel is necessary to satisfy legal
requirements.
B-l
-------
1. SUGGESTED ACTION MEMORANDUM FORMAT
I. HEADING
SUBJECT: Authorization to Proceed with Remedial
Planning Activities at the ABC Site,
City, State
FROM: Director, Regional Waste Management
Division
TO: Regional Administrator
II. PURPOSE
A. Basic Statement of Request; Briefly state
the general subactivities requested --
remedial investigation/feasibility study
and/or an IRM -- and the site location.
B. Lead Management Responsibility; For each
activity and subactivity included in the
Action Memorandum, identify (where the State
has expressed its intentions) whether EPA or
the State will take lead management responsi-
bility. If the State has opted to assume the
lead, identify the State agency that will
manage the remedial response.
III. BACKGROUND
A. Position on Priorities List: In one sen-
tence/ state that the site is on the National
Priorities List and, if possible, what pri-
ority the State has given remedial activities
at that particular site.
B. Physical Location of the Site; Name the
county (or parish), township, or incorporated
unit in which the site is located and give
distances from nearest populated areas and
other points of reference.
C. Surrounding Areas; Describe the areas ad-
jacent to the site, such as population
centers; any areas protected by statute,
such as parks and historic sites; sensitive
ecosystems; distances to sources of drinking
water; etc.
B-2
-------
D. Site Setting/Description:
1. Physical Description of the Site -
Briefly outline the physical character-
istics of the site, such as size,
presence of buildings or containment
areas, waste lagoons, etc.
2. General Character of the Site - Explain
past waste disposal practices at the
site. Indicate whether the (potential)
contamination is due to drums, bulk
liquids, contaminated soils, spills,
etc.
3. Waste Management - Describe any existing
structures or measures that would either
mitigate or accelerate the release of
any on-site materials (e.g., a contain-
ment berm, site security, fencing, and
similar measures).
E. Quantities and Types of Substances Present;
Identify, quantify, and briefly describe any
hazardous substances of critical concern.
To the extent possible, .this, should be done
in terms of waste categories, such as prior-
ity pollutants.
F. Evidence of Release; Note any contaminated
drinking water wells, either private or
municipal, and any evidence of ecosystem
damage. Indicate any releases to environ-
mental media. If any off-site monitoring
has been performed, relate the substances
identified to those found on-site and des-
cribe concentrations of off-site pollutants.
G. Potential Exposure of Public or Sensitive
Ecosystems; Briefly describe any indication
that the surrounding areas and residents may
be exposed to hazardous substances from the
site.
H. Previous Actions to Abate Threat; Describe
any privately or publicly sponsored activi-
ties, the organization that initiated them,
their results, and dates of occurrence.
Outline any monitoring, inspections, or
sampling performed at the site and briefly
summarize the results.
B-3
-------
I. Current Actions to Abate Threat; Describe
any public or private activities that are
currently under way or planned and their
estimated costs and completion dates.
IV. ENFORCEMENT (see attachment)
V. COMMUNITY RELATIONS
A. Level of Citizen Concern; State whether the
level of citizen concern is high or low.
Briefly summarize complaints/allegations by
the general public that the site has had or
is having an adverse impact on health or
economic welfare. Note whether any citizen
groups have expressed concern about the site.
B. Community Involvement; Cite any history of
community involvement with the site, such as
circulating petitions for site action or
staging demonstrations about conditions at
the site.
C. Community Relations Program; Briefly outline
the specific objectives of the community
relations program for the site. Explain the
status of the Community Relations Plan (CRP)
that is, whether a plan has been or is
being prepared -- and state that it will be
included in the agreement package. Highlight
any community relations activities recommen-
ded prior to approval of the final CRP.
VI. IMPORTANT POLICY ISSUES (as necessary and appli-
cable)
A. Response Authority; In some instances,
decisions must be made in order to request
certain activities, such as justification of
off-site disposal of hazardous substances
under CERCLA section 101(24). Briefly
explain any such determination.
B. Cost-Sharing; If the State has not yet
secured funding to meet its cost-sharing
obligation for any IRM to be included in the
project, explain the circumstances and the
manner in which the State plans to obtain
its share of remedial costs.
B-4
-------
C. Other; Describe such policy issues as the
question of division of responsibilities
between Federal and/or State agencies,
unresolved questions regarding agreement
with the State or local agencies over recom-
mended remedial actions, unresolved determi-
nations of public ownership and appropriate
cost share, and similar issues. Make the
description brief and highlight efforts being
taken to resolve these issues.
VII. PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Statement
1. Objectives of the Project - Briefly
describe the proposed project and the
expected results. Explain generic sub-
activities such as a remedial
investigation/feasibility study, etc.
(for example, a remedial investigation
would determine the degree of contami-
nation on the site and would collect
data sufficient to evaluate source
control measures). If an IRM is to be
undertaken, refer to the documenting
information (such as the RAMP, if one
exists) and explain how the measure is
consistent with the IRM criteria listed
in section 300.68 (e) of the National
Contingency Plan.
2. General Description of the Pathways to
be Evaluated - Describe media affecting
public health, such as aquifers, air
emissions, and surface waters.
B. Costs; Present, in budget format, the total
estimated costs for the project as a whole
and for each activity and subactivity, and
show estimated State and Federal cost shares,
if applicable. Estimates will be the "best
estimates" for planning subactivities but
will be more accurate for remedial design
and implementation work associated with any
IRMs. Support cost estimates by citing those
in the RAMP, when available. Include com-
munity relations costs in all cost estimates
shown.
B-5
-------
C. Project Schedule: Identify the estimated
duration of each activity from information
contained in the RAMP, if one has been
developed.
D. State Share; If the project includes an
IRM, identify the percentage of the costs
that the State will be required to provide
and any credit that the State claims.
E. State Assurances; Acknowledge that the
State is aware of any CERCLA section
104(c)(3) assurances required (if the
project is an IRM) and is also aware of its
other responsibilities for the project.
VIII. RECOMMENDATION
Conclude with a statement (from the Division
Director to the Regional Administrator) recommend-
ing approval of the activities requested and
acknowledging that the request has been coordi-
nated with the appropriate Headquarters and
Regional offices. If the project includes an
IRM, also make the following declarations in this
section:
The Region has consulted with the State
in determining the necessity of the IRM
The IRM is both a feasible and cost-
effective action when balanced against
Fund resources and the need to respond
at other sites
The IRM provides protection to public
health, welfare, and the environment.
Make provision for indicating approval of the
request, as follows:
Appr ove
Disapprove
Date
B-6
-------
ACTION MEMORANDUM ATTACHMENT
ABC Site
City, State
ENFORCEMENT - CONFIDENTIAL
Enforcement status information should be included as a
separate attachment to the Action Memorandum. This infor-
mation should be completed by the Office of Regional
Counsel with input from the Headquarters Office of Enforce-
ment and Compliance Monitoring and State attorneys, if
necessary. The attachment should contain the following
information, as appropriate.
A. Potential Responsible Parties; Present a general
description of the number and types of potentially
responsible parties (i.e., generators, transpor-
ters, and owners or operators). If a site has
one or two primary responsible parties, name them.
If a search for potentially responsible parties
has been completed, summarize the results and
estimate the solvency of the major parties identi-
fied.
B. Enforcement Strategy; Summarize the enforcement
strategy for notifying, negotiating, and insti-
tuting litigation against responsible parties.
Include an explanation of whether the State or
Federal enforcement attorneys (1) are not going
to litigate, (2) are actively pursuing
litigation, or (3) have decided to postpone
litigation.
C. Previous Enforcement Actions; Describe any
previous State or Federal enforcement actions,
giving the dates, types of legal actions taken,
and outcomes.
D. Enforcement Authority; If litigation is proceed-
ing or is contemplated, identify the statutory
authority for litigation (e.g., RCRA section 7003,
CERCLA)
E. Probability of Success; Evaluate the probability
of timely remedial actions resulting from litiga-
tion.
F. Status of Negotiations; State whether negotia-
tions with responsible parties are under way. if
so, describe the activities being discussed.
B-7
-------
G. Recommendation; Present the course of action
recommended by the Regional enforcement attorneys,
either exclusively pursuing Federally-funded
remedial activities or simultaneously supporting
remedial and enforcement actions.
B-8
-------
2. SAMPLE ACTION MEMORANDUM
To further illustrate the Action Memorandum format
described above, this appendix also includes an example of
an approved Action Memorandum. The sample Action Memoran-
dum reproduced here provides authorization to proceed with
a remedial investigation/feasibility study at the Geneva
Industries site in Houston, Texas. It is intended to be
used merely as a model to develop Action Memoranda. Con-
tents of individual documents will vary depending upon
individual site characteristics and Regional requirements
and procedures.
B-9
-------
OATS
SUBJECT
FROM-
TO
UNITED ST «.<=$ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION-AGENCY
3 o 1933
Authorization to Proceed with a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study at the Geneva Industries Site, Houston, Texas - ACTION MEMORANDUM
Allyn M. Davis, Director
Air and Waste Management Division (6AW)
Dick Whittington, P.E.
Regional Administrator (6A)
Purpose
This request is for authorization to undertake a remedial investigation
and feasibility study for source control measures at the Geneva Industries
(Furhmann Energy) site in Houston, Texas. The State of Texas has indicated
its intention to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for these activities.
Background
This site was included on the proposed National Priorities List on
September 1, 1983. Geneva Industries is located at 9334 Caniff Road,
Houston, Texas, in a residential/industrial arsa. The 13-acre site is
about one mile east of Houston Hobby International Airport and 1/4 mile
north of the intersection of Interstate Highway 45 and Airport Lane.
The site was the location of a chlorinated biphenyl manufacturing plant
in the early 1970s. The site was subsequently used for petrochemical
production and waste oil recycling until the plant closed in 1980. The
site includes the processing facility, a large.waste lagoon, two smaller
lagoons, a diked tank area, a drum storage area, and a buried metal scrap
landfill. Under the various owners "and at various times, the following
were produced at the site: biphenyls, chlorinated biphenyls, phenoxy
phenol, and non-chlorinated organics such as naptha.
The most immediate problem at the Geneva site is the large quantity of
contaminated soils located both onsite and offsite. The site was the
location of a PCB manufacturing plant in the early 1970s. Texas Department
of Water Resources (TDWR) inspectors noted frequent process spills during
this time. The site was later used for petrochemical production
and waste oil recycling until the plant closed in 1980. The present
owner purchased the plant as a salvage operation. Contaminated soils
were identified in drainage paths outside the plant boundaries, -vhicn
lead to Berry Bayou and the Houston Ship Channel, and finally into the
Gulf of Mexico, These contaminated soils become suspended in runoff
waters, carrying the insoluble PC8s off the site. Data from surface
water samples collected by the Texas Department of Health indicate PC3-
contaminated sediments may have already been carried at least 3 miles
downstream. Some vertical contamination of the soil is also indicated.
B-10
EPA Form 1320.6 (R.». 3.74)
-------
Approximately l.l million gallons of contaminated rainwater have collected
in a large unlined lagoon about 1/4 acre in size, and pits, sumps, and
tanks located on the site. EPA Field Investigation Team (FIT) and TDWR
inspectors have noted wastewater appeared to be seeping through the dike
in one corner of the lagoon. .There was also contaminated rainwater in 3
small lagoons adjacent to the main lagoon, inside the diked tank area,
and in a concrete sump in the process area. Approximately 5 feet of PCS
contaminated sludge are estimated to underlie the main lagoon. Wastewater
and sludge is currently being removed as part of an EPA lead planned removal
Approximately 500 steel drums containing wastes and unused products
are scattered throughout the site. Many of the drums are corroded and
leaking, and some have no lids. About 100 of the drums contain biphenyl
sludges: the rest contain flammable solvents, acids, oxidizers, and solids,
many containing high concentrations of PCS. Some contaminated equipment
is also located onsite. A PCS distillation tower and associated pipes
have not been cleaned since the early 1970s. Most of the other equipment
onsita //as used for storing and reclaiming waste oils. The araa surround-
ing the site is a mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial
zones. Houses are located approximately S3 feet from the boundary of the
site. Census figures show that 1,044 people live within 1/4 mile of the
property line, and 9,156 people live within 1 mile of the center of the
site. Samples from monitor wells indicated levels of toxic organics,
including PCBs, phenol, xylene, and naphthalene, potentially contaminating
the groundwater supply including the major water supply aquifer- for the
city of Houston.
The EPA is currently performing a planned removal action at the
Geneva site. The action began on October 17, 1983, and will last
approximately 10 weeks. The action includes:
1} removal and disposal of offsite contaminated soils containing
grsater than 50 ppm PCBs;
2) removal and disposal offsite of wastewater lagoon sludge;
3) surveillance of onsite soil contamination;
4) installation of PVC, clay, and asphalt caps over onsits soils
containing greater than 50 ppm PC8s;
5) removal and disposal of onsite wastewater: and
6) removal and disposal of drummed waste, waste chemical piles, and
loose asbestos.
Community Relations
The level of concern shown by the residents has generally been high.
The media and elected officials have also shown interest in the site. A
public meeting was held on October 6, 1983, in South Houston, attended by
local residents, media, local, State, and Federal officials. Major
B-ll
-------
concerns expressed at the meeting were the potential contamination of
the city's water supply and potential health effects from the PCS
contamination. The Texas Department of Health reports only one complaint
related to the site involving two children who may have developed chemical
rashes or burns after playing in a drainage ditch near the site. This report
has not been substantiated to date.
The mayor of South Houston has appointad an environmental coordinator
for his staff and is interested in coordinating the monitoring at the
site. This coordinator filed a Freedom of Information request to the
EPA for all data and related documents concerning the Geneva site.
The goals of the community relations plan include educating officials
and the public about the planned activities so that a) they have a clear
understanding of what can be accomplished at the site; and b) they readily
accept the si tuation.
The Community Relations Plan is included as a part of the Cooperative
Agreement application.
Enforcement (See Attached)
Proposed Project
The general objective of this action is to complete a remedial investigation
and feasibility study primarily to evaluate the need for source control
measures and For offsite measures as appropriate. The remedial investigation
will 1) identify target receptors (population at risk, sensitive ecosystems,
threatened resources); 2) fully define the lateral and vertical extent of
contamination in surface waters, groundwaters, sediments, and soils; and
3) assess the potential or actual damage to biota in the area.
The feasibility study will include analysis of alternatives for source
control and offsite remedial actions in accordance with Section 300.63
of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (MCP) if
any further remedial actions are recommended.
Project Cost and Schedule
Tima Estimated Cost
Remedial Investigation 9 months $ 367,000
Feasibility Study 6 months 203,000
Total 15 months $ 570,000
The lead agency for these studies will be the Texas Department of Water
Resources (TDWR).
B-12
-------
Re com en dation
This request has been coordinated with the appropriate Regional and
Headquarters offices and the allocation was made in the Region 5 Remedial
Accomplishments Plan; therefore I request that you fund a total of
$570,000 for the remedial investigation and feasibility study at the
Geneva Industries (Furhmann Energy) site.
Appro
Di sapprove
Date flay. 3o . lc/83
B-13
-------
ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
Geneva Action Memorandum Attachment
Enforcement
Enforcement information has not been reproduced here.
This attachment to the Action Memorandum should be prepared
by Regional and Headquarters enforcement staff according to
the annotated outline, above.
B-14
-------
APPENDIX C
PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPING AND PROCESSING CERCLA STATE
CREDIT CLAIMS
PURPOSE
This appendix has been provided to assist State staff
in developing and EPA personnel in carrying out their
responsibilities for processing CERCLA State credit claims.
It also contains procedures for EPA officials to use when
communicating information about the status of those claims
to State officials.
BACKGROUND
CERCLA section 104 (c) (3) (C) provides that EPA may grant
the State a credit against its share of remedial costs, if
any, for direct out-of-pocket expenditures or obligations
of non-Federal funds by the State or a political sub-
division thereof between January 1, 1978, and December 11,
1980. It is the State's responsibility to identify poten-
tially creditable expenditures or obligations and to
submit to the EPA Region a claim for credit under section
104(c) (3) (CJ.
The State should submit its credit claim, addressed to
the Regional Site Project Officer (RSPO)/ prior to or early
in the development of a Cooperative Agreement application
or a Superfund State Contract (SSC) for activities that
require cost-sharing. The RSPO and the appropriate Zone
Manager in EPA Headquarters are responsible for conducting
an initial review of the submission to ensure that it con-
forms with EPA policy. Once their approval has been given,
the EPA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Internal
Audit Division will schedule an audit of the submission.
Based on the audit findings, EPA will identify to the State
those costs allowed for credit.
APPENDIX SUMMARY
This appendix is organized into three sections. Sec-
tion 1 contains copies of two EPA memoranda pertaining to
credit claims. "CERCLA Credit Period Costs," a memorandum
from the Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, describes the requirements for and content of an
acceptable CERCLA State credit claim. "CERLA Credit, "-a
memorandum from the Acting Assistant General Counsel for
Grants states that funds spent by States under other grant
programs, in excess of the amount required, may be
allowable for CERCLA credit; this finding somewhat
C-l
-------
modifies the criteria outlined in the previous
memorandum. Both of these should be used by States in
developing their individual credit claims.
The second part of this appendix describes actions
that the RSPO, Zone Manager, and CERCLA Credit Coordinator
should take after the State has submitted a credit claim.
Detailed procedures are provided for eight steps:
State submission of the credit claim
EPA Regional and Headquarters review for policy
conformance
Audit by the OIG
State response to the OIG's draft audit report
Development of a final audit report
Formal response to the OIG
Notification of the State
Application of the verified credit to the State's
cost share.
Section 3 supplements the information in the second section
by providing examples of correspondence concerning the
audit report for the Keefe Environmental Services site in
New Hampshire. The letters reproduced here were sent from
Headquarters officials; however, they may be tailored, as
appropriate, by Regional EPA officials and staff who are
responsible for responding to CERCLA credit claims.
NOTE; This appendix contains post-delegation procedures.
Any actions on credit claims prior to delegation will occur
in Headquarters in accordance with past procedures.
C-2
-------
1. PREPARING CERCLA STATE CREDIT CLAIMS
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
DEC 2 3 B62
SO Ll 2 WASTE ANDEVE=C£NCV °£SPCNSE
SFPG-83-2
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CERCLA Credit Period Costs
'"~% (' i_ I I
PROM: William N. Hedeman, Jr., Director A /J. r
-------
-2-
5. Each governmental unit should provide a certification
that the credit period costs have not been reimbursed
or used for matching purposes under any other federal
program or grant. In addition, the governmental
unit's certification should also state it was not
reimbursed for any of its costs by non-Federal sources
(i.e.. potentially responsible parties). This
certification oust be signed by the state's fiscal
manager or the State agency's financial director.
Regions should begin working with States as soon as possible
to ensure that CSRCLA credit claims for National Priority List
sites satisfy these requirements. Requests for verification of
Sr.ass CZSCLA credit claL-as should be sent to the State and
Regional Coordination Branch (SP.C3), Hazardous Site Control
Division (WH-548E), for processing. SRCB will establish a
credit icccur.t by site to ensure proper application of the
credit to a State's required match and schedule an audit with
the IG's office.
your cooperation in implementing this procedure will be
appreciated. Any questions on this policy may be. referred to
Sam Moretcas, Chief, State- and Regional Coordination Branch,
FTS: 381-2443.
cc: Steven A. McNamara, Chief,
Internal Audits Staff (A-109
C-4
-------
-------
-2-
2. Can funds spent by States in excess of the required match
for federally assisted projects be allowed as credit?
States apparently spent funds in excess of the required
State match ("overmatch") on federally assisted hazardous waste
clean-up projects that were undertaken under programs estab-
lished prior to the enactment of CERCLA. These States claim
the overmatch qualifies as credit under section 104(c)(3).
An argument can be made that under the general funding allow-
ability principles in Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Circular A-87 the overmatch does not qualify as credit. Such
an argument would be based on the principle that to be allowable,
costs must "not be allocable to or included as a cost of any
other federally financed program in either the current or a
prior period." §C(1)(f). However, the particular provisions
and requirements of each assistance program must be considered
in applying the general principles in OMB Circular A-87. 'It is
our view that under section 104(c)(3) State overmatch may qualify
as credit.
Section 104(c)(3) requires a State match for certain CERCLA
response actions but directs the President to offset such match
with any documented direct out-of-pocket non-federal funds
spent by the State at the site in the two years prior to the
enactment of CERCLA. Thus, a State's cost share is to be reduced
to the extent that State or local governments can document that
they paid for response actions at a site. The purpose of the
credit was twofold: to avoid penalyzing States that had spent
their own funds on necessary cleanup and to encourage States
not to delay action while the CERCLA legislation was pending.
S. Rep. No. 848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 53, 58 (1980). Congress
recognized that the deliberations concerning the CERCLA legisla-
tion could be lengthy and sought ways to ensure that action on
serious hazardous waste problems was not delayed during those
deliberations. It was apparently anticipated that with CERCLA
pending, the States might be inclined to delay necessary action
requiring the expenditure of their funds if federal funds might
soon be available. The credit was intended to encourage States
to expend their own resources on cleanups before CERCLA became
law.
It is reasonable to assume that Congress did not intend that
the incentive created by the section 104(c)(3) credit be weakened
by disqualifying from the credit State overmatch at cleanup sites
where federal assistance was also available. A contrary reading
of section 104(c)(3) would mean that any federal assistance at
a site would preclude the State from receiving a credit for its
contribution to the site, even where the State's commitment
greatly exceeded the amount of the federal assistance. Therefore,
it is our view that there is support for allowing State overmatch
to be included as credit at a particular site, if the Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response wants to adopt such a policy.
C-6
-------
2. PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING CERCLA STATE CREDIT CLAIMS
CERCLA section 104 (c) (3) provides that EPA may grant
the State a credit against its share of the costs under
a'ny Superfund State Contract or Cooperative Agreement for
direct out-of-pocket expenditures or obligations of non-
Federal funds incurred by the State or a political sub-
division thereof between January 1, 1978, and December 11,
1980. These procedures detail the processing of State
credit claims for sites in the remedial program and the
ensuing audit report of the EPA Office of the Inspector
General (OIG). These procedures do not apply to any other
audits conducted by the OIG (e.g., interim and closeout
audits of Cooperative Agreements and internal program
audits of contracts).
This guidance is intended for all RSPOs and Head-
quarters Zone Managers. The designated CERCLA Credit
Coordinator is in the State and Regional Coordination
Branch (SRCB), phone; FTS 382-2443.
For convenience in use, this guidance is organized as
follows :
References
Overview of the procedure
Detailed procedural steps
Resolution of unresolved issues.
A. REFERENCES
The following references apply:
1. Director, OERR Memorandum of December 23,
1982; Subject: CERCLA Credit Period Costs
[Reproduced in Section 1]
2. Chief, SRCB Memorandum of December 17, 1982;
Subject: Budgeting/Tracking of Funds in
Cooperative Agreements
3. Director, OERR Memorandum of December 15,
1982; Subject: Treatment of State Recoveries
from Responsible Parties
4. Director, OERR and Director, OWPE Memorandum
approved January 21, 1983; Subject: Payment
of State Enforcement Costs under Superfund
5. Acting Assistant General Counsel for Grants
Memorandum of February 16, 1984; Subject:
CERCLA Credit [Reproduced in Section 1].
C-7
-------
B. OVERVIEW OF THE PROCEDURE
procedure for submission, processing, approval,
and application of State credit claims is displayed graphi-
cally in Exhibit. C-I, on the following page, it involves
the following eight steps:
The State will submit a claim for credit.
The Region will review the State credit claim for
conformance with established policy. After con-
formance with policy is confirmed, the Region
will request the OIG Internal Audit Division* to
perform an audit.
The OIG will conduct an audit to verify the credit
and issue draft findings to the State.
The State will normally have 30 days to provide a
written response to the draft audit findings and
may attempt to rejustify items on the claim which
the OIG has proposed to question or set aside.
(If there are CERCLA policy issues raised in the
report, the Region, in conjunction with the
Regional Counsel, will respond to these issues.)
The OIG will issue a final audit report to the
appropriate Action Official** which will identify
costs that, based on available criteria, are
ineligible and/or are not allowable.
The RSPO will coordinate the development of the
program office's formal response to the OIG and
EPA's response to the State.
The State will be notified of the Action
Official's final audit findings.
The verified credit will be applied to the cost
of site activities in the manner agreed upon
between the State and EPA.
* To reach the Divisional Inspector General for Internal
Audits, all requests should be sent to the Headquarters
using mail code A-109.
** The appropriate Action Official will usually be the
Regional Administrator (RA). An exception occurs when
the RA must be recused from participation for a par-
ticular reason.
C-8
-------
EXHIBFT C-1
REVISED CREDfT CLAIMS PROCEDURES
STATE SUBMITS CLAIM TO RSPO
RSPO REVIEWS FOR SUFFICIENCY AND FORWARDS
TO HO. OIG. COPY TO FCC WHO POSTS TO
TRACKING. COPY TO RPO FOR PTS AND TO CCC.
HQ IG SCHEDULES AUDfT OR REFERS TO
DIVISIONAL IG TO SCHEDULE ADOPT.
OIG PRESENTS DRAFT RNDINGS TO STATE
STATE COMMENTS ON DRAFT FINDINGS.
DIVISIONAL IG ISSUES FINAL FINDINGS.
SENDS TO RA AS ACTION OFFICIAL
RA ASSIGNS TO SUPERFUND COORDINATOR
WHO REASSIGNS IAS HE CHOOSES) TO RSPO.
RSPO DRAFTS RESPONSE AND COORDINATES
COMMENTS WfTH REGIONAL COUNSEL. HQ
ZONE MANAGER AND REGIONAL GRANTS
PERSONNEL IF EXISTING CA.
RA SIGNS RESPONSE TO DIVISIONAL IG AND
ISSUES LETTER TO STATE INFORMING THEM
OF FINDINGS.
COPIES PROVIDED TO FCC. FOR POSTING
TO CTS, AND REGIONAL GRANTS PERSONNEL
IF NEEDED. COPY TO RPO FOR POSTING
TO PTS.
APPLICABLE IG OFFICE
ACCEPTS RESPONSE
J_
DIVISIONAL IG DOES NOT
ACCEPT RESPONSE
RA AND DIVISIONAL IG DO
NOT REACH ACCORD.
RA AND IG RESOLVE
DIFFERENCES.
IG PRESENTS CASE TO AUOfT
RESOLUTION BOARD.
RA PRESENTS REBUTTAL
HEAD OF AUDHT RESOLUTION
MAKES FINAL DECISION.
C-9
-------
Appropriate documents and data systems (for example,
the State Credit Tracking System and EPA's Financial
Management System [FMS]) must be updated with the latest
State credit information at each step of the process. A
more detailed description of each step, and the procedures
to be taken where discrepancies or deficiencies occur, may
be found in the remainder of this section; the steps are
also displayed in Exhibit C-l.
C. DETAILED PROCEDURAL STEPS
The State should make a claim for credit at a site as
soon as possible after it appears on the National Priori-
ties List (NPL). This can be done by sending a written
request to the RSPO assigned to the site. Because of the
length of time needed to conduct and review an audit, the
claim should be made long before the State will need to
use the credit. Upon receipt of the claim, the RSPO will
immediately forward a copy of the document to the CERCLA
Credit Coordinator and the appropriate Zone Manager, both
in Headquarters, while retaining a copy for his/her review.
The RSPO will then review the State's submission to ascer-
tain its conformance to the guidance contained in Reference
1 (reproduced in Section 1 of this appendix).
If the credit claim corresponds to the established
criteria, the RSPO will notify the Zone Manager. Both
will then perform a detailed review of the claim to deter-
mine its conformance with established policy. Following
this review, the CERCLA Credit Coordinator will ensure
that the OERR Fiscal Control Center (FCC) posts the claim,
as unverified, to the Credit Tracking System*, and will
send a copy to the OIG Internal Audit Division with a
cover memo requesting that OIG personnel scheduled an
audit. The RSPO will also post the information to the
appropriate funding documents and budget sheets and
incorporate it into the Cooperative Agreement or SSC, as
necessary (see Reference 2).
Conversely, if the credit claim does not conform to
established criteria (in Section 1), the RSPO will develop
a letter, informing the State of the claim's deficiencies,
and will send it to appropriate State personnel. Specifi-
cally, the letter will:
The FCC will issue the Credit Tracking System on a
monthly basis. The CERCLA Credit Coordinator will
circulate copies to Zone Managers to update and verify
credit information. Each Zone Manager will coordinate
updates with the appropriate RSPO(s) and may provide
copies to RSPOs who have sites with pending credit
claims.
010
-------
Define the criteria of Reference 1 (shown above
in Section 1)
Identify the deficient areas of the State's
initial submission
Inquire whether the State wishes the claim to be
applied to the initial remedial action phases of
the Cooperative Agreement or SSC (e.g., as a cost
share for an initial remedial measure)
Advise whether the initial credit submission can
be used until the amended claim is received.
Upon receipt of the State's revised claim, the RSPO will
review it for conformance to the established criteria. If
the revised credit submission is found to be in conformance
with policy, the RSPO will process it as detailed above.
The DIG will then schedule and conduct -- either
through an DIG Divisional Office or through a contractor
retained by Headquarters OIG -- the audit of the State's
credit claim. After the audit has been completed, the OIG
will issue draft findings to the State, offering it the
opportunity to comment and present additional supporting
information. If the OIG's findings raise CERCLA policy
issues, the OIG will also report its findings to the RA.
When this occurs, the RSPO will draft a memorandum to the
OIG responding on these CERCLA issues; this memorandum
must be cleared with the Zone Manager and the Regional
Counsel in consultation with the Office of General Counsel.
Guidance addressing any issues raised concerning previous
audits and the subsequent responses may be provided by the
CERCLA Credit Coordinator, if necessary. The RSPO must
secure concurrences on this memorandum before forwarding
it to the OIG.
Draft audit findings sent to the State should be for-
warded to the appropriate official for response. The State
may either 1} choose not to comment on the preliminary
findings, or 2) attempt to rejustify items questioned and/
or set aside by the OIG by presenting additional documenta-
tion. If the State chooses to respond, it should submit
its response within 30 days to the OIG for consideration
and possible inclusion in the final audit report.
Upon receipt of the State's response (and the RA's, if
appropriate), the OIG will evaluate all comments and
additional data and, if warranted, will amend the draft
audit report. With regard to any individual finding, the
evaluation may result in:
C-ll
-------
Concurrence with the State's (or RA's) response
A change in the draft finding by the IG
An unresolved issue.
The results of this evaluation will be documented in a
final audit report. State comments will normally be
included in this final report, along with the OIG's
response to individual points raised.
Copies of the final audit report will be sent to the
RSPO, via the Action Official, for review and development
of the Action Official's response, which must be sent
within 120 days. It is the RSPO's responsibility to draft
the Action Official's final response to the audit report.
To obtain necessary input, the RSPO will distribute copies
of the final audit report, with a request for comments, to
the Zone Manager and other appropriate reviewers. Comments
will be included in the draft response.
Upon receipt of all comments, the RSPO will complete
the draft response and distribute it -- along with copies
of the final audit report, if not previously provided
for comment and coordination to the Zone Manager, the
Office of Regional Counsel, and the RSPO's supervisor. If
commenters have raised enforcement issues, appropriate
reviewers in the Regional enforcement office should be
asked to participate. The RSPO may also confer with the
CERCLA Credit Coordinator for guidance regarding issues
raised in previous audits and subsequent responses.
After allowing time for review and comment on the draft
response and incorporating comments received, the RSPO
will complete the draft response letter addressed to the
appropriate Divisional Inspector General and a cover
memorandum for forwarding to the RA through the Superfund
Coordinator. Signatures will be obtained from each of the
coordinating offices specified above.
The package (cover memorandum, response letter, and
final audit report) will be forwarded through the Superfund
Coordinator to the Action Official for signature.* (An
example of a response package issued by Headquarters is
reproduced in Section 3 of this appendix). The RSPO should
also provide copies of the final response to the Project
Tracking System (PTS) Regional Project Officer and to the
The response must be dispatched within 120 days of the
issuance of the IG's final audit report unless an
extension is requested and obtained from the IG's
office.
C-12
-------
Headquarters FCC. A copy of the package should also be
forwarded to the Regional Grants office and to the Zone
Manager in EPA Headquarters. The RA is responsible for
providing a response to the*State within 30-45 days of
responding to the DIG.
Following receipt of the final audit response, the FCC
will post the verified credit to the appropriate tracking
systems. Reductions in State credit that affect provision
of the State cost share may require amending the State's
Cooperative Agreement or SSC.
D. SOLUTION OF UNRESOLVED ISSUES
Audit findings are closed-out when the Action Official
notifies the OIG of acceptable actions taken in response
to all recommendations in the audit report. Findings on
specific issues will not be closed-out individually.
During the close-out, the Divisional Inspector. General
may determine that an individual action taken by the Award
Official (such as approving an amount of credit in excess
of the amount recommended by the OIG's final report) is
not acceptable (see Exhibit C-l) . If the issue remains
unresolved after 180 days, the issue may be referred to
the Audit Resolution Board. Proceedings of the board are
governed by EPA Order 2730.2A, Management Follow-up on
Findings in Audit Reports.
C-13
-------
,i0
3 . SAMPLE CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING STATE CREDIT CLAIMS
,
£ UNITED STATE
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
I1 jfc-£ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGtNCY
OCT 7 B83
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDOM
SUBJECT: Report on Audit of Credit Period Costs Claimed by
the New Hampshire Office of the Attorney General for
Keefe Environmental Services Site. Audit Report No.
E5CH3-01-0047-31231
_^ T J\
, \ f\ I I
FROM: William N. Hedeman Jr., DirectorVl
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response'
TO: Lee M. Thomas
Assistant Administrator
Section 104(c)(3) of tlie Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), provides that
a State shall be granted -a credit against the share of costs for
which it is responsible under section 104{c)(3) for direct
out-of-pocket non-Federal funds expended or obligated by the
State or a political subdivision thereof after January 1, 1978,
and before December 11, 1980, for cost-eligible response actions
and claims for damages compensable under section 111, relating
to the specific release in question. The National Contingency
Plan (NCP) describes the types of cost-eligible response activities
that are broadly defined by section 111 of CERCLA.
The State of New Hampshire claimed a credit under section
104(c)(3) of CERCLA of $520,491 for the Keefe Environmental
Services site. The claim represented money spent by several
New Hampshire government entities and the Office of the Attorney
General.
On June 14, 1983, the Inspector General of the Eastern
Division issued Audit Report No. E5cH3-01-0047-31231 for the
State of New Hampshire's credit claim for this site. In the
report, the Inspector Genera,! accepted $65,942 and questioned
$454,549. I am recommending that you accept the Inspector
General's (IG) findings plus an additional $1,275 in expenses,
based on the following explanation.
C-14
-------
-2-
Regarding credit claimed for services and sampling conducted
by the Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission, the auditor
questioned $17,363 of the ?34,379 claimed. The questioned costs
reflect the revision of estimates by the State when documentation
was reviewed to support the costs. The State accepted the auditor's
findings, I, therefore, recommend that you concur with -the auditor's
findings for these costs.
The auditor accepted the costs claimed by the Bureau of Solid
Waste Management of $864.. I., therefore, recommend that you concur
with the auditor's findings.
The Office of the Attorney General claimed $4,460 for
activities related to the site. The Attorney General later
revised the claim downward from $4,460 to $1,275 after review of
the December 15, 1982, policy guidance issued by EPA's Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) concerning the allowability
of enforcement costs. The Attorney General's Office maintained
that the $1,275 was the cost estimated by their office for actual
investigative work for the site. Based on a review of the OERR
enforcement costs guidance, the Attorney General's Office made
the distinction in their revision between investigative work and
work conducted to support litigation.
The auditor questioned tne entire credit claim made by
the Attorney General's Office, He maintained that payment of
attorneys was not allowable under the enforcement costs guidance.
We, however, do not believe the enforcement costs guidance was
ever intended to exclude all attorney's fees. The distinction
was meant to be made between actual litigation and overall
enforcement work, and investigative work. We believe that the
estimate made by the Attorney General's Office of $1,275 of the
original $4,460 claimed as investigative work is reasonable.
We, therefore, recommend that you accept the $1,275 as a verified
credit.
Regarding the costs claimed by the Town of Epping, the
auditor questioned $32,726 and accepted $48,062. The questioned
costs consisted of those paid to a law firm to represent the
Town of Epping for purposes of support in litigation. Based on
the State's reading of the OERR enforcement cost policy, the
State in their response to the draft audit report did not dispute
this finding. The auditor accepted $48,062 claimed by the Town
of Epping for investigatory work, sampling and the provisions of
expert testimony. I, therefore, recommend that you concur with
the auditor's findings regarding expenditures associated with
the Town of Epping during the credit period.
C-15
-------
-3-
The auditor questioned the entire $400,000 credit claim
made by the Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission/Attorney
General for drum removal activities. These activities were
conducted by the responsible parties at no cost to the State,
The State maintained that CERCLA should provide credit for
responsible party cleanup as an incentive to the State to initiate
such actions. Neither CERCLA nor current policy support such an
incentive, however. This credit claim does not meet the criteria
for credit claims under CERCLA section 104(c)(3) nor is it eligible
under section 111 of CERCLA. I., therefore, recommend that you
concur with the auditor's findings-
I recommend that the verified credit for the Keefe
Environmental Services site be determined as $67,217, The
existing cooperative agreement contains a special condition
allowing the State to use only $50,000 of their claimed credit
toward their required 10 percent cost share of the initial remedial
measure. The State was to contribute the balance of their cost
share as Federal funds were expended. The State, therefore,
will have a credit claim balance of $17,217 to use toward their
cost share for future phases of work at the site.
I recommend that you sign the three attached memoranda. The
first memo informs the Inspector General for the Eastern Division
that you concur with his findings. The second memo informs the
Region I Administrator, Michael R. Deland, that New Hampshire's
CERCLA credit has been verified and that the Award Official in
the Grants Operations Branch in EPA Headquarters will notify
the State. The third memo asks Frederick L. Meadows, the Award
Official of the Cooperative Agreement, to notify the State that
the credit has been verified and that, therefore, the special
condition for CERCLA credit in the existing Cooperative Agreement
has been satisfied.
If you have any questions on this matter, I am available to
meet with you.
Attachments
cc: Michael R. Deland, Regional Administrator, Region I
Frederick L. Meadows, GAD (PM-216)
Lisa Karpf, OIG, Internal Audits (A-109C)
Don Kraft/Becky Kennedy, OPPM/OERR
C-16
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460-
2 1983
OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Report on Audit of Credit Period Costs Claimed by
the New Hampshire Office of the Attorney General for
,Keefe Environmental Services Site. Audit Report No.
13(701740047-31231
U^£L£
FROM:
TO:
Assistant Administrator
Sanford Wolfe
Divisional Inspector General for Audits
Eastern Division
Pursuant to EPA Order .2750.2Ar I am responding to the
recommendations made by you in final Audit Report No. E5cH3-01-
0047-31231. The State of New Hampshire claimed a credit under
section 104(c)(3) of CERCLA of $520,491 for the Keefe Environmental
Services site. The claim represented money spent by several
New Hampshire government entities and the Office of the Attorney
General.
On June 14, 1983, you issued the final audit report for the
State of New Hampshire's credit claim for this site. In the
report, you accepted $65,942 and questioned $454,549. I accept
your findings plus an additional $1,275 in expenses, based on the
following explanation.
Regarding credit claimed for services and sampling conducted
by the Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission, you questioned
$17,363 of the $34,379 claimed. The questioned costs reflect
the revision of estimates by the State when documentation was
reviewed to support the costs. The State accepted your findings.
I concur with your findings for these costs.
C-17
-------
-2-
You accepted the costs claimed by the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management of $864. I concur with your findings.
The Office of the Attorney General claimed $4,460 for
activities related to the site. The Attorney General later
revised the claim downward from $4,460 to $1,275 after review
of th« December 15, 1982., policy guidance issued by the EPA's
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) concerning
the alienability of enforcement costs. The Attorney General's
Office maintained that the $1,275 was the cost estimated by
their oifice for actual investigativ-e work for the site,
Based on a review of the OERR enforcement costs guidance, the
Attorney General's Office made the distinction in their revision
between investigative work and work conducted to support litigation.
You questioned the entire credit claim made by the Attorney
General's Office. You maintained that payment of attorneys
was not allowable under the enforcement costs guidance. The
enforcement costs guidance was never intended to exclude all
attorney's fees. The distinction was meant to be made between
actual litigation and overall enforcement work, and investigative
work. I believe that the estimate made by the Attorney General's
Office of $1,275 of the original $4,460 claimed as investigative
work is reasonable. I, therefore, accept the $1,275 as a
verified credit*
Regarding the costs claimed by the Town of Epping, the
auditor questioned $32,726 and accepted $48,062. The questioned
costs consisted of those paid to a law firm to represent the
Town of Epping for purposes of support in litigation. Based on
the State's reading of the OERR enforcement cost policy, the
State in their response to the draft audit report did not dispute
this finding. You accepted $48,062 claimed by the Town of Epping
for investigatory work, sampling and the provisions of expert
testimony. I concur with your findings regarding expenditures
associated with the Town of Epping during the credit period.
You questioned the entire $400,000 credit claim made by the
Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission/Attorney General
for drum removal activities. These activities were conducted by
the responsible parties at no cost to the State. The State
maintained that CERCLA should provide credit for responsible
party cleanup as an incentive to the State to initiate such
actions. Neither CERCLA nor current policy support such an
incentive, however. This credit claim does not meet the criteria
for credit claims under CERCLA section 104(c)(3) nor is it eligible
under section 111 of CERCLA. I concur with your findings.
C-18
-------
-3-
The verified credit for the Keefe Environmental Services
site is, therefore, determined to be $67,217,
Attachments
cc: Michael R. Deland, Regional Administrator Region I
Frederick L. Meadows, GAD (PM-216)
Lisa Karpf, OIG, Internal Audits (A-109C)
Don Kraft/BecJty Kennedy, QPPM/OEBR
C-19
-------
UNITED STATES-EN VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
QCT I 2 1983
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Report on Audit of Credit Period Costs Claimed by
the New Hampshire Office of the Attorney General for
Keefe Environmental Services Site. Audit Report No.
ft E 5£93rtO 1-/0 0 4 7- 31231
FROM: n^ " y
/ Assistant Administrator
TO: Frederick L. Meadows, Chief
Grant Operations Branch
Grants Administration Division
The State of New Hampshire claimed a credit under section
104(c)(3) of CERCLA of $520,491 for the Keefe Environmental
Services site. The claim represented money spent by several
New Hampshire government entities and the Office of the Attorney
General.
On June 14, 1983, the Inspector General of the Eastern
Division issued Audit Report No. E5cH3-01-0047-31231 for the
State of New Hampshire's credit 'claim for this site. In the
report, the Inspector General accepted $65,942 and questioned
$454,549. I accepted the Inspector General's (IG) findings,
plus an additional $1,275 in expenses. The rationale for this
decision appears in the attached memoranda.
I have determined that the verified credit for the Keefe
Environmental Services site should be $67,217. The existing
cooperative agreement contains a special condition allowing
the State to use only $50,000 of their claimed credit toward
their required 10 percent cost share of the initial remedial
measure. The State was to contribute the balance of their
cost share as Federal funds were expended. The State, therefore,
will have a credit claim balance of $17,217 to use toward
their cost share for future phases of work at the site. As
the award official for this cooperative agreement, please
inform the State of this determination.
C-20
-------
-2-
The audit report and other memoranda are attached. If you
have any questions, please call Sam Morekas at 382-2443.
Attachments
cc: Michael R. Deland, Regional Administrator, Region I
Becky Kennedy/Don Kraft, OPPM/OERR
021
-------
APPENDIX D
PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING INTERGOVERNMENTAL
REVIEW FOR THE SUPERFUND REMEDIAL PROGRAM
PURPOSE
This appendix has been provided to inform concerned
State pollution control agency and EPA staff, especially
the State Project Officer (SPO) and the Regional Site
Project Officer (RSPO), of detailed procedures for imple-
menting 40 CFR Part 29, EPA's regulation concerning inter-
governmental review of Federal financial assistance pro-
grams and direct Federal development activities, as it
relates to the Superfund remedial program.
BACKGROUND
On July 14', 1982, the President signed Executive Order
12372, "Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs."
This Order directed the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to revoke OMB Circular A-95 , which had provided that
State and areawide clearinghouses evaluate, review, and
coordinate proposed Federally-assisted programs and pro-
jects, and to instead implement a flexible, elective
process which could be developed by each State. EPA, along
with other Federal agencies subject to the Executive Order,
published its final rule and accompanying notices in the
Federal Register on June 24, 1983. This rule is 40 CFR
Part 29, "Intergovernmental Review of the Environmental
Protection Agency Programs and Activities" and became
effective on October 1, 1983.
As the final rule, 40 CFR Part 29 applies to all reme-
dial projects -- including enforcement-lead remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) projects -- initi-
ated under the authority of CERCLA for which EPA or the
State pollution control agency is taking the lead. Res-
ponsible parties, however, are not subject to 40 CFR Part
29 and their RI/FS and remedial design/remedial action
(RD/RA) activities accordingly are not subject to the
notification procedures described in this guidance. Fur-
ther, enforcement activities other than enforcement-
conducted RI/FS projects (e.g., Administrative Orders,
negotiations, litigation) also are not subject to inter-
governmental review.
The intent of the Executive Order and the supporting
regulation is to increase Federal responsiveness to State
and local entities and to ensure full consideration of
D-l
-------
their concerns in decision-making on proposed financial
assistance and direct Federal development projects. The
State process, which a State may develop under the Execu-
tive Order, is the framework within which affected State
and local officials may conduct review activities to
promote these objectives.*
A State is not obligated to establish a process under
the Executive Order. However, if it does choose to do so,
the Executive Order poses two requirements that each State
review system must meet: 1) the State must consult with
local governments when establishing its process, and 2)
each State must choose the programs and activities to be
included under the process and must provide this informa-
tion to EPA.
While not required by the rule, the preamble to 40 CFR
Part 29 states that a State review process will likely
include the following components:
A designated single point of contact (SPOC) that
will generally act as a conduit for transmitting
review comments and other relevant information
between the State and EPA.
Delegation of review and comment responsibility
to specific State, areawide, regional, or local
entities.
Procedures to coordinate and manage review of and
comment on proposed Federal financial assistance
or direct Federal development and to aid in
reaching a State process recommendation. A State
process recommendation is developed by commenting
State, areawide, regional, and local officials
participating in the State process and transmitted
by the SPOC. The recommendation can be a consen-
sus or views may differ; a State process recommen-
dation which represents a consensus can be trans-
mitted through the SPOC.
The State process is not the State pollution control
agency. To reduce potential confusion, this appendix
will, where possible, specify whether the procedures
described pertain to the State pollution control agency
or to the State review process.
D-2
-------
A means of notifying prospective applicants for
Federal assistance of the manner in which appli-
cations will be managed under the State process.
In addition, procedures implemented under 40 CFR Part
29 contain requirements which govern EPA's role in inter-
governmental review. Salient points are summarized below:
After official notification to the State process
or other review entities, EPA must allow up to 60
days for comment on each proposed State or
Federal-lead remedial project before beginning
work.* This^ comment period must be held whether
or not a State process is in place. Procedures
for initiating and conducting the review of State
or Federal-lead projects will differ in each case
(see Section 1).
When the SPOC transmits to EPA a State process
recommendation on a Superfund remedial project,
EPA must "accommodate or explain." During this
phase of review, EPA must either: 1) accept the
process recommendation, 2) reach a mutually agree-
able solution, or 3) provide the SPOC with a
written explanation for not implementing the State
process recommendation.
If there is no State process, an established State
process does not cover the Superfund remedial
program, or a process recommendation is not
relayed through a SPOC, the directly affected
governmental entities taking part in review can
submit their comments to EPA for consideration,
and "accommodate or explain" procedures will not
be instituted.
The above procedures apply to all EPA programs and activi-
ties which are subject to Executive Order 12372. However,
the Agency determined that more specific procedures for
initiating the comment period for Superfund projects were
If the proposed project changes substantially at any
time after information has been submitted for inter-
governmental review, EPA will provide an additional
period of up to 60 days for review of the official
application.
D-3
-------
needed. Therefore, on December 6, 1983, EPA published in
the Federal Register a "Notice of Supplemental Procedures
for Establishing Start Dates of Comment Period for Activi-
ties Subject to Executive Order 12372" (48 FR 54692).
This notice contains detailed instructions for initiating
review of proposed State and Federal (including enforce-
ment) lead remedial activities undertaken pursuant to
CERCLA.
APPENDIX SUMMARY
This appendix is organized in three sections, as
follows:
Procedures for implementing intergovernmental
review of Superfund programs
Reprints of 40 CFR Part 29 and 48 FR 54692
Model notification letters to formally initiate
intergovernmental review of a proposed remedial
project.
It is designed to provide State pollution control agency
and EPA staff with procedures for conducting review, both
where a process exists to review the Superfund program and
where the State has opted not to develop a process that
applies to Superfund. The appendix also supplies addi-
tional procedural information that is specific to the
Superfund remedial program.
Section 1, below, contains detailed instructions for
initiating intergovernmental review and EPA's role in that
process. Procedures outlined are drawn from both 40 CFR
Part 29 general EPA requirements and 48 FR 54692,
which is specific to CERCLA activities. These documents
have been reproduced in Section 2. Section 3 contains two
model letters -- to be prepared and sent either by the
State pollution control agency or EPA, as the situation
warrants -- to formally initiate intergovernmental review
of a proposed Superfund remedial action. The letters pro-
vided notify an established State process of a proposed
RI/FS or RD/RA project.
D-4
-------
1. PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
A. Where a State Process Exists and Includes the CERCLA
Program and Activity in Question
If the State has opted to develop a review process
that both covers the CERCLA remedial program and includes
a SPOC, responsible staff will use the procedures outlined
below during intergovernmental review. These procedures
are not intended to govern the manner in which the State
process reviews a proposed EPA action; review will be a
concern internal to the State. Rather, these steps deter-
mine how EPA will interact with a State's intergovernmental
review process. Where the State has opted to exclude the
CERCLA remedial program from its review process or has not
established a SPOC, EPA will secure intergovernmental
review for applicable Superfund remedial projects according
to the procedures that apply to States which have not
developed review processes; these are described in Section
l.B of this appendix.
State processes must be formally notified of a proposed
remedial project as soon as possible, but at least one
quarter prior to the quarter in which EPA has targeted an
obligation. For RI/FS projects, the final Remedial Accom-
plishments Plan (RAP) can act as the point at which to
initiate intergovernmental review; for RD/RA projects,
public notification of the feasibility study comment period
can serve this purpose. Because EPA will not award Federal
assistance for remedial response activities until represen-
tatives of the State have had an opportunity to comment on
the proposed action, it is vital to initiate the review
process well in advance of the expected obligation, thus
avoiding unnecessary delays in agreement execution.
Procedures for notifying the State process depend upon
whether the proposed project is State or Federal-lead.
When the project in question is a State-lead RI/FS, the
following procedures must be usedi
The State pollution control agency (usually the
SPO) monitors the RAP to ascertain the quarter in
which obligation has been projected.
As soon as possible, but at least one quarter
prior to the obligation quarter identified in the
RAP, the SPO formally notifies the State process
of a proposed RI/FS project by sending a notifi-
cation letter to the SPOC. This letter must con-
tain the site's name, location, and rank on the
D-5
-------
National Priorities List (NPL); a description of
the nature of the problem at the site and activi-
ties to be implemented under the RI/FS; estimated
project costs; expected start and completion
dates; and the name of the SPO to contact for
additional information (a model letter is provided
in Section 3 of this appendix).
The SPO also sends a copy of the notification
letter to the RSPO.
Similar procedures are used for a State-lead RD/RA. How-
ever, the SPO must formally notify the State process of
the proposed activities at the same time that the public
is officially notified of the feasibility study comment
period. To initiate the official comment period, the SPO
must prepare a transmittal letter and send it to the SPOC
along with a copy of the draft feasibility study report (a
model letter is provided in Section 3 of this appendix).
The State process review and the feasibility study public
comment period will proceed concurrently. As for State-
lead RI/FS projects, the SPO must also send a copy of the
transmittal letter to the RSPO.
When the project in question is a Federal-lead RI/FS,
the following procedures must be used:
The RSPO monitors the RAP to ascertain the quarter
in which EPA has projected obligation
As soon as possible but at least one quarter prior
to the obligation quarter identified in the RAP,
the RSPO formally notifies the State process of
the proposed action by submitting a notification
letter to the SPOC. This letter must be signed
by the Regional Administrator (RA) (or designee)
and be prepared in coordination with the State
pollution control agency. Contents of the letter
should be similar to those outlined above and to
the model provided in Section 3 of this appendix.
Procedures to be followed for a Federal lead RD/RA are
similar. The Region must formally notify the State process
of the proposed activities at the same time that the public
is officially notified of the feasibility study comment
period. To initiate the State process review, the RSPO
must prepare a transmittal letter for the RA's signature
and send it to the SPOC along with a copy of the draft
feasibility study report (the same model letter in
Section 3 of this appendix can be used for State or
D-6
-------
Federal-lead projects). In preparing this letter, the
RSPO should coordinate closely with the State pollution
control agency. The State process review and the feasi-
bility study public comment period will proceed concur-
rently.
After being formally notified of either a proposed
State or Federal-lead project, the State process has up to
60 days to review and comment on the proposed action. The
official comment period begins five days after the notifi-
cation is sent, to allow for entry into the State process.
If after the official comment period there is no
response from the SPOC or the SPOC has transmitted a State
process recommendation that does not differ from the action
proposed by EPA, the Agency may proceed to obligate funds
for the project. If, however, the State process recommen-
dation does not agree with the proposed action, EPA must
"accommodate or explain." This means that EPA must do one
of the following:
Accept the State process recommendation
Reach a mutually agreeable solution
Provide the SPOC with a written explanation for
not implementing the recommendation.
In the latter case, the RSPO must prepare a letter for the
RA's signature, informing the SPOC of the reasons for non-
accommodation; the Region must send a copy of each non-
accommodation to the Chief, Grants Policy and Procedures
Branch (PM-216), Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 382-5268. If the situation
is controversial, the RSPO must consult with this Branch
Chief before taking action. The Regional Superfund Coordi-
nator may also notify the SPOC by telephone of EPA's
decision. The State process will then be given an addi-
tional 10 days for comment on the proposed action. This
10-day review will begin immediately upon oral communica-
tion and explanation of nonaccommodation or, if only writ-
ten notification has been given, five days after such noti-
fication has been sent to the SPOC. If, after the 10-day
review period, EPA still wishes to undertake the proposed
activity, the Agency will obligate money for the remedial
project.
In addition to initiating intergovernmental review,
the responsible official -- either the SPO or RSPO
should include information pertaining to the review in
D-7
-------
each Cooperative Agreement application (SPO) and Federal-
lead agreement package (RSPO). The following materials
are appropriate:
A dated copy of the letternotifying the SPOC of
a proposed remedial project
A copy of the State process recommendation (if
any), and the RA's response to the SPOC, if the
recommendation differs from EPA's proposed action
Any other letters commenting on EPA's proposed
action, including opinions of reviewers differing
from the State process recommendation.
The RSPO is also responsible for summarizing the results
of intergovernmental review in the Decision Memorandum
which is prepared as part of the concurrence package for
each remedial response agreement.
B. Where a State Process Does Not Exist or Does Not
Include the CERCLA Program or Activity Under Consider-
ation
The primary difference between the intergovernmental
review procedures implemented where a State process per-
tains to a CERCLA activity and where one does not is that,
in the latter case, EPA and the State pollution control
agency are responsible for both identifying .and notifying
the appropriate governmental entities. These include the
State Governor's office, directly affected areawide and
regional planning agencies, and officials (usually elected)
of directly affected local governments, such as mayors,
city councilmen, aldermen, etc.
Intergovernmental review must be initiated as soon as
possible, but at least one quarter prior to the quarter
slated for project obligation. This is necessary to avoid
any unnecessary funding delays. Appearance of an RI/FS on
the RAP or public notification of the feasibility study
for an RD/RA may be the point at which responsible
officials should initiate intergovernmental review.
Procedures for initiating review depend upon whether
the proposed project will be State or Federal-lead. When
the proposed project is a State-lead RI/FS, the following
procedures must be used:
The State pollution control agency (usually the
SPO) monitors the RAP to ascertain the quarter in
which EPA has targeted obligation.
D-8
-------
As soon as possible but at least one quarter prior
to the obligation quarter identified in the RAP,
the SPO formally initiates intergovernmental
review by preparing a notification letter contain-
ing the same types of information described in
Section l.A, above (a model letter is provided in
Section 3 of this appendix). The SPO is responsi-
ble for identifying directly affected governmental
entities, in consultation with EPA, and for send-
ing them copies of the notification letter to
initiate the comment period.
The SPO also sends a copy of the notification
letter to the RSPO.
Similar procedures are used for a State-lead RD/RA. How-
ever, the SPO should formally notify directly affected
governmental entities of the proposed activities at the
same time that the public is officially notified of the
feasibility study comment period. To initiate the official
comment period, the SPO must prepare a transmittal letter
and send it to the directly affected governmental entities
along with copies of the draft feasibility study report (a
model letter is provided in Section 3 of this appendix).
The intergovernmental review and the feasibility study
public comment period will proceed concurrently. As in
the procedures described above, the SPO should also send a
copy of the transmittal letter to the RSPO.
When the proposed project is a Federal-lead RI/FS, the
following procedures must be used:
The RSPO monitors the RAP to ascertain the quarter
in which EPA has targeted obligation.
As soon as possible but at least one quarter prior
to the obligation quarter projected in the RAP,
the RSPO formally initiates intergovernmental
review by submitting a notification letter to
directly affected governmental entities. This
letter is for signature by the RA, or the RA's
designee, and is prepared in coordination with
the State pollution control agency. Content of
the letter is similar to that described in Section
l.A, above, and to the model letter provided in
Section 3 of this appendix. The Region, espe-
cially the RSPO, must work closely with State
pollution control agency personnel to determine
appropriate participants in the review and to
ensure that these officials receive formal noti-
fication.
D-9
-------
Procedures to be followed for a Federal-lead RD/RA are
similar. The RSPO should formally notify the directly
affected governmental entities of the proposed activities
at the same time that the public is notified of the feasi-
bility study comment period. To initiate the official
comment period, the RSPO must prepare, in coordination
with the State pollution control agency, a transmittal
letter. The RSPO must send this letter to directly affec-
ted governmental entities under the RA's signature, along
with copies of the draft feasibility study; the RSPO should
work closely with the State pollution control agency in
determining appropriate governmental entities. Inter-
governmental review and the feasibility study public com-
ment period will proceed concurrently.
The procedures described above assume that EPA Regional
and State pollution control agency personnel will be able
to identify areawide and regional planning agencies and
officials of directly affected local governments to par-
ticipate in intergovernmental review. If, however, the
situation is particularly complex, appropriate officials
may be notified and the comment period initiated by other
mechanisms. Possible alternatives may include publication
of notices in the Federal Register or a similar State pub-
lication, placing an announcement in local newspapers,
and/or posting notification in readily accessible locations
in affected areas.
Intergovernmental review entities have 60 days from
receipt of the notification to review and comment on the
proposed Federal action. For purposes of computing the
review period, receipt is presumed to have occurred five
days after all notifications have been mailed. (Certified
mail may be one method to mail notifications.) Directly
affected governmental entities must be allowed the full
period for this review. Upon completing their review,
entities may transmit comments directly to either the SPO
or the RSPO, depending upon which official was responsible
for initiating the intergovernmental review.
EPA must consider any comments received but is not
obligated to "accommodate or explain." Although there is
no need to delay obligation in response to comments, it is
good practice to respond in writing to any comments raising
questions about the project.
In addition to initiating intergovernmental review,
the responsible official -- the RSPO or SPO -- should in-
clude information pertaining to this process in each Coop-
erative Agreement application (SPO) and Federal-lead agree-
ment package (RSPO). The following materials are appro-
priate:
D-10
-------
A dated copy of the letter, Federal Register
notice/ newspaper announcement, etc., used to
notify the directly affected governmental entities
of EPA's proposed action; this must show that at
least 60 days have elapsed since notification was
sent
Copies of any review comments received.
The RSPO should also summarize results of intergovernmental
review, stating when notification was provided to directly
affected governmental entities and how the Region consi-
dered any comments received, in the Decision Memorandum
prepared as part of the concurrence package for all
remedial response agreements.
D-ll
-------
2. REPRINT OF 40 CFR 29 AND PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING START
DATES OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENT PERIOD ON CERCLA
REMEDIAL PROJECTS
D-12
-------
29300
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 123 / Friday, June 24. 19H3 / Roles and Regulations
demonstration projects). The seoarate
notice in today's Federal Register lists
all of the EPA programs and activities
included in the scope of the Order.
Conforming Amendments
In the NPRM, we cited other EPA
regulations that we expecteti to amend
33 part of this Snai rolk Because the
effective date for implementing rulea
under the Order was extended, we do
not need to amend the existing general
grant regulation (40 CFR Part 30) and
construction grant regulation [40 CFR
Part 35 Subparts El and I). EPA is
completing new general assistance and
construction grant regulations which,
reflect the new intergovernmental
review process. They are expected to be
effective by October 1. 1983, as will this
final rale.
Executive Order 12231. Paperwork
Reduction Act. and Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Environmental Protection, Agency
has determined that this is not a major
rule under Executive Order 12291. The
rule will simplify consultation with the
Agency and allow state and local
governments to establish coat effective
consultation procedures. For this reason.
the EPA believes that any economic
impact the regulation has will be
positive. In, any event, it is unlikely that
its economic impact will be significant.
Consequently, the EPA certifies, under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, diat this
rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rale is not subject to
section 3S04(h] of the Paperwork
Reduction Act sines it does not require
the collection or retention of
information.
List of Subjects in:
intergovernmental relations.
40 CFR Part 35
Air pollution.controL
Grant programs environmental
protection.
Indians,
Intergovernmental relations.
Pesticides and pesls.
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Waste treatment and disposal.
Water pollution control
40 CFR Part 4O
Environmental protection.
Grant programs environmental
protection.
TnH»rgmiMmmanfal relations.
Reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements.
Research.
40 CFR Part 51
Administrative practice and
procedure.
Air pollution control.
Intergovernmental relations.
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Ozone.
Sulfur oxides.
Nitrogen dioxide.
Lead.
Particulate matter.
Hydrocarbon.
Carbon monoxide.
40 CFR Part 255
Waste treatment and disposal
Intergovernmental relations.
Dated: June- 17.1363.
William D. PIU-^^I^^-*
Administrator.
1. For the> reasons set out in the
Preamble, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency amenda Title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations, by adding
a new Pan 29. to read as. follows:
PART 29INTERGOVERNMENTAL
REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY PROGRAMS
AND ACTIVITIES
Sec.
29.1 What is the purpose of these
regulations?
23.2 What denninna»appiy la these
regulation*?
23.3 What programs and activities, of the
Environmental Protection Agency are
subject to these regulations?
29.4 What are the Administrator's general
responsibilities under 'Jie Order?
29.S What is tie Administrator's obi/gatjon
with respect to federal mtsrwgeacy
coordination?
29.9 What procedures apply to ihe selection
of programs and activities under these
"filiations?'
29.7 How does the Administrator
communicate with stale and local
..Sciiils- concerning EPA programs and
activities?
29.8 How does IBB Administrator provide
states an oppoitnmty to comment on
propoaed federal financial assistance
and direct, federal development?
29.9 How does the Administrator receive
and respond to comments f
29.10 How does the Administrator make
efforts to accommodate
intergovernmental concerns?
29.11 What are tie Administrator11
obligations in interstate situations?
29.12 How may a state simplify,
consolidate, or substitute federally
required state plans?
29.13 May the Administrator waive any
provision- of these regulations?
Authority: Executive Order 12372 July 14.
1982 (47 FR 309S9J, as amended Apnl 8.1383
(48 FR 15887); Sec. 4O1 of the
Intergovernmental Cooperation ACT of 7968
as amended (31 L'.S.C. 65C6h Sec. :C4 of :he
Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan
Development Acs of 1966. as amended (42
U.S.C. 3334).
f 29.1 Wriat Is th« purpose of these
regulations?
(a) The regulations in this part
implement Executive Order 12372.
-Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs," issued July 14.1932. and
amended, on Apnl 8,1983. These
regulations also imp lament applicable
provisions ot" section 401 of the
Intergovernmental Ccroperanon Act of
1968. as amended and section 204 of the
Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan
Development Act of 1968. as amended.
(b) These regulations are intended
to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened
Federalism by relying on state and local
processes for state and local
government coordination and review of
proposed Federal financial assistance
and direct Fedeal development.
(c) These regulations are intended :o
aid the internal management of aie
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and are not intended :o create any nsht
or benefit enforceable at law by a party
against EPA or its officers.
§ 29.2 What definitions apply to mesa
regulations?
"Administrator" means the
Administrator of ±e U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency or an official or
employee of the Agency acting for the
Administrator under a delegation of
authority.
"Agency" means the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA].
"Order" means Executive Order 1237C.
issued July 14.19B2. and amended Apnl
8. 1983. anc titled "latergovemmenral
Review of Federal Programs."
"States" means any of the 50 stjtes.
the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, ihe
Commonwealth of the Northern Manana
Islands. Guam. American Samoa, the
U.S. Virgin Islands, or the Trust
Territory of- the Pacific Islands.
§ 23J What program* and acttvtti** of m«
Environmental PrtjwcHofl Agency are
sub|«ct to ttm* regulation*?
The Administrator publishes in the
Federal Register a list of the EPA
programs and activities that are subject
to these regulations and identifies which
of these are subjert to'the requirements
of section 204 of the Demonstration
Cities and Metropolitan Development
Act.
D-13
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 4& No. 123 / Friday. June 24. 1933 /' Rules and Regulations
J 29.4 What are tne Administrator'!
responslointJes uridar Hie Ordar?
(a) The Administrator provides
opportunities for consultation by elected
officials of those state and local
governments that would provide the
non-federal funds for. or that would be
directly affected by. proposed federal
financial assistance from, or direct
federal development by, the EPA.
(b) If a state adopts a process under
the Order to review and coordinate
proposed federal financial assistance
and direct federal development the
Administrator to the extent permitted by
law:
(1) Uses the state process to
determine official views of state and
local elected officials:
(2) Communicates with state and local
elected officials as early in a program
planning cycle as is reasonably feasible
to explain specific plans and actions:
(3) Makes efforts to accommodate
state and local elected officials'
concerns with proposed federal
financial assistance and direct federal
development that are communicated
through the state process;
(4) Allows the states to simplify and
consolidate existing federally required
state plan submissions;
(S) Where state planning and
budgeting systems are sufficient and
when permitted by law. encourages the
substitution of state plans for federally
required state plans:
(6) Seeks the coordination of views of
affected state and local elected officials
In one state with those of another state
when proposed federal financial
assistance or direct federal development
has an impact on interstate metropolitan
urban centers or other interstate areas;
,j
(7) Supports state and local
governments by discouraging 'he
reauthohzadon or creation of any
planning organization which is
federally-funded, which has a limited
purpose, and which is not adequately
representative of. or accountable to.
state or local elected officials.
What Is ma Admmia
IT'S
wttti respact to tadaraJ
Intafaoancy coordination?
The Administrator, to the extent
practicable, consults with and seeks
advice from all other substantially
affected federal departments and
agencies in an effort to assure full
coordination between such agencies and
EPA regarding programs and activities
covered under these regulations.
§ 29.8 What proc«dur«s apply to the
salactJon of programs and acttvlttas undar
mass raguiatlons?
(a) A state may select any program or
activity published in the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 29.3 of
this part for intergovernmental review
under these regulations. Each state.
before selecting programs and activities.
shall consult with local elected officials.
(b) Each state that adopts a process
shall notify the Administrator of EPA
programs and activities selected for that
process.
(c) A state may notify the
Administrator of changes in its
selections at any time. For each change.
the state shall submit an assurance to
the Administrator that the state has
consulted with local elected officials
regarding the change. EPA may
establish deadlines by which states are
required to inform the Administrator of
changes in their program selections.
(d] The Administrator uses a state's
process a« soon as feasible, depending
on individual programs and activities.
after the Administrator is notified of its
selections.
J 29.7 How does ths Administrator
communlcata wrth atata and local officials
concerning tha EPA program* and
ctfvttla*?
(a) For those programs and activities
covered by a state process under J 23.9.
the Administrator, to the extent
permitted by law:
(1] Uses the state process to
determine views of state and local
elected officials; and
(2) Communicates with state and local
elected officials, through the state
process, as early in a program planning
cycle asis reasonably feasible to explain
specific plans and actions.
(b) The Administrator provides notice
of proposed federal financial assistance
or direct federal development to directly
affected state, areawide, regional, and
local entities in a state if:
(1) The state has not adopted a
process under the Order or
(2) The assistance or development
involves a program or activity not
selected for the state process.
This notice may be published in the
Federal Register or issued by other
means which EPA. in its discretion
deems appropriate.
§ 294 How doaa tha Administrator
provide Stalaa tn opportunity to comment
art proposad fodaral financial tssistanc*
nd dlract Fadarai daxatepmant?
(a) Except in unusual circumstances.
the Administrator gives state processes
or directly affected state, areawide.
regional and local officials and entities:
n) At least 30 days from the dats
established by the Administrator .:
comment on proposed federal ST.:
assistance in the form of noncorr."
continuation awards: and
(2) At least 80 days from the da. .
established by the Administrate: ;
comment on proposed direct fede.'-i
development or federal financial
assistance, other than noncompetina
continuation awards.
(b) This section also applies to
comments in cases in which the rev.gw.
coordination, and communication w.tb
the Environmental Protection Agency
have been delegated.
(c) Applicants for programs and
activities subject to section 204 of !fte
Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan
Development Act shall allow areawide
agencies a 6O-day opportunity for review
and comment.
i 29J How doaa tna Administrator raenlv*
and raapond to comments?
(a) The Administrator follows the
procedures in 5 29.10 if:
(1) A state office or official :a
designated to act as a single point of
contact between a state process and -a'.
federal agencies, and
(2) That office or official transmits a
state process recommendation for
program selected under { 29.6.
(b) The single point of contact n>
obligated to transmit comments from
state, areawide. regional or local
officials and entities where there is no
state process recommendation.
However, if a state process
recommendation is transmitted by a
single point of contact, all comments
from state, area-wide, regional, and
local officials and entities that differ
from it must also be transmitted.
(cj If a state has not established a
process, or is unabie to submit a state
procctfs recommendation, the state.
areawide. regional and local officials
and entities .nay submit comments
directly either to the applicant or to
EPA.
(d) If a program or activity is not
selected for a state process, the state.
areawide. regional and local officials
and entities may submit comments
either directly to the applicant or to
EPA. In addition, if a state process
recommendation for a nonselected
program or activity is transmitted to
EPA by the single point of contact, the
Administrator follows the procedures of
5 29.10 of this Part
(ej The Administrator considers
comments which do not conaotut
state process recommendation
submitted under these regulations and
for which the Administrator is not
D-14
-------
29302 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 12C / Friday. June 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
required to apply the procedures of
5 29.10 of this part when such
comments are provided by a single point
of contact, by the applicant, or directly
to the Agency by a commenting party.
19.10 How does trie Administrator make
«f?orts to accommodate Intergovernmental
concerns?
(c.) if a state process provides a state
process recommendation to the Agency
through the state's single point of
contact, the Administrator either
(1) Accepts the recommendation:
f2{ reaches a mutually agreeable
solution with the state process: or
(3) Provides the single point of contact
with such written explanation of the
decision, as the Administrator, in hJs or
her discretion, deems appropriate. The
Administrator may also supplement the
written explanation by providing the
explanation to the single point of
contact by telephone, other
telecommunication, or other means.
(b) In any explanation under
paragraph (a](3) of this section, the
Administrator informs the single point of
contact that:
(1) EPA will not implement its
decision for at least ten days after the
single point of contact receives the
explanation: or
(2) The Administrator has reviewed
the decision and determined that
because of unusual circumstances, the
waiting penod of at least ten days is not
feasible.
(c) For purposes of computing the
waiting period under paragraph (b)(l) of
diis section, a single point of contact is
presumed to have received written
notification 5 days after the date of
mailing of such notification.
3 29.11" Wtiat are the Administrator-*
obligations In Interstate situations?
(a) The A.J 'narrator is responsible
for
(1) Identifying proposed federal
financial assistance &_id direct federal
development that have an impact on
interstate areas;
(2) Notifying appropriate officials and
entities in states which have adopted a
process and selected an EPA program or
activity.
(3) Making efforts to identify and
notify the affected state, areawide.
regional and local officials and entities
in those states that do not adopt a
process under the Order or do not select
an EPA program or activity:
(4) Responding in accordance with
§ 29.10 of this part to a recommendation
received from a designated areawide
agency transmitted by a single point of
contact, in cases in which the review.
coordination, and communication
EPA were delegated.
(b) The Administrator uses the
procedures in 5 29.10 if a state process
provides a state process
recommendation to the Agency through
a single point of contact.
§ 29.12 How may a state simplify,
consolidate,. or substitute federally
required stats plans?
[a] As used in this section:
[1) "Simplify" means diat a state may
develop its own format, choose its own
submission date, and select the planning
period for a state plan.
(2) "Consolidate" means that a state
raay meet statutory and regulatory
requirements by combining two or more
plans into one document and that the
state can select the format, submission
date, and planning period for die
consolidated plan.
(3) "Substitute" means that a state
may use a plan or other document that it
has developed for its own purposes to
meet federal requirements.
(b) If not inconsistent with law, a
state may decide to try to simplify,
consolidate, or substitute federally
required state plans without prior
approval by the Administrator.
(c) The Administrator reviews each
state plan that a -state has simplified,
consolidated, or substituted and accepts
the plan only if its contents meet federal
requirements.
5 29. 1 3 May the administrator waive any
provision of these regulations?
In an emergency, tha Administrator
may waive any provision of these
regulations.
2. For the reasons set forth in the
preamble. 40 CFR Parts 35, 40, 51. and
255 are amended as follows:
PART 35 (AMENDED]
Section 35.1620-6 is revised in its
entirety to read aa follows:
§33.1820-4 Intergovernmental
EPA will not award funds under this
subpart without review and consultation
in accordance with die requirements of
Executive Order 12372, aa implemented
in 40 CFR Part 29 of this chapter.
PART 40 {AMENDED]
Section 40.135-1 is amended by
removing 3 40.135-l(b) and
^designating $ 40.135-1 (c) as J 40.135-
l(b); by amending § 40.135-Z to add a
new paragraph (ej to read as follows:
§ 40,135-2 Application requirements.
t t
(e) Jintergove.mme.nta/ review. EPA
will not award funds under this subpart
without review and consultation, if
applicable, in accordance with the
requirements of Executive Order 12372.
as implemented in 40 CFR Part 29 of this
chapter.
PART 51 {AMENDED]
§51.241 [Amended]
Section 51.241(c} is amended by
removing the last sentence. "Attention is
directed to Part [V of the Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-95
(41 FR 20SOJ which encourages the
designation of established, substate
comprehensive planning agencies as the
agencies to carry out Federally assisted
or required areawide planning."
3 51.2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 123 / Friday. Tune 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations 29303
of Attachment A" and adding in their
place. "40 CFR Part 23 of this chapter"
§2S5JO [Amended]
Section 255.20 is amended by
removing the words "the chief
executives of all agencies designated
pursuant to OMB Circular No. A-95. and
with" and adding in their place.
"regional and arsawide planning
agencies."
§355.23 [Am«nd«dl
Section 255.23(a) is amended to
remove the words. "A-95
clearinghouses" and adding, in their
place, "agencies and the state process
under Executive Order 12372"
tra Ooc «M7oa ni»d *-»«! & w «m|
D-16
-------
29304
Federal Poster / Vol. 48. No. 123 / Friday. June 24, 1983 / Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[OA-fflL-2380-2(b)]
Programs and Activities Eligible for
Intergovernmental Review Under 40
CFR Part 29 and Subject to Section
204 of trie Demonstration Cities and
Metropolitan Development Act
The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is publishing this list of programs
and activities in conjunction with its
final rule appearing elsewhere in today's
Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 23,
"Intergovernmental Review of
Environmental Protection Agency
Programs and Activities." This list
identifies EPA's financial assistance
programs and direct development
activitiea-which states may select for
intergovernmental review under a
process established in accordance with
Executive Order 12372. Programs jubject
to the requirements of Section 204 of the
Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan
Development Act are designated with
an asterisk (*).
The effective date for all regulations
implementing the Order is September 30.
1983. Because this is the last day of the
Federal Fiscal Year, the Administrator
determined that it is neither feasible nor
practicable For EPA to apply its new
regulation to any of the awards that the
Agency makes on that date. Therefore.
EPA will implement 40 CFR Part 29
procedures beginning October 1.1983.
for programs and activities that states
select from the following list
Financial Assistance Programs
1. State and Local Assistance
Programs.
CR3A
NO.
TO*
M.001 I Air Potjuoon Coma Program.
j Corwrucnon Gnro far w
e**i«I
««.*i«
M.464
WCMT PoUuttan Cunan KM* md
M.48I
n
M.800
88.700
88.802
Wtnr QUMV Mm^wrwni Pairing.
Staw PUOM Wear Spam Succn
gram Grand.
Slat* UnotrycwW w«or Souc*
Conoucaon UmgviMni Ajmanc*.
Horooui wm Ummjmimt Rnano
me* 10 Snui,
Sttta iii^iarm at Uimuii»u
Won SIM.
EnwrenMnui PiomJmi ConooMuad Smtu
Progian Succon.
Ian Grant*.
tofloatva 3*.
: MVCT uram&
OOLWI ; Ar Pottuoon Control StMircn Grams.
M.S02__, fnaeuM* Comm F>m«*rcn Grama.
saSO4.._j SOM Wuu OoooMi fl«««cn Grants.
" «~. | Wtur Pouuoon o-3-~"
_. __ i Omlonq Wilw
i Ten Grama.
91i07 | Tone SuosoncM "M*arcn Grama.
Direct Development Activitiea
"1. Real Property Acquisition or
Disposition. Including Obtaining Maior
Leases or Easements.
'2. Construction of New EPA Facilities.
*3. EPA Issued Plans and Permits Wh:=h
Do Not Impact Interstate Areas.
Date
-------
54692
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 235 / Tuesday, December 6. 1983 / Notices
(D) Docket Nos, ER04-9-OCO and
ER84-1OOOO are hereby consolidated
for purposes of hearing and decision.
(E) The Commission staff shall serve
top sheets in this proceeding within ten
(10) days of the date of this order.
(F) A presiding administrative law
judge, to be designated by the Chief
Administrative Law Judge, shall
convene a conference in this proceeding
to be held within 'approximately fifteen
(15) days after service of top sheets in a
hearing room of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. 823 North
Capitol Street N^L, Washington. D.C.
20428. The presiding fudge is authorized
to establish-procedural dates and to rule
on all motions (except motions to
dismiss) as provided in the
Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
(G) The Commission hereby orders
initiation of price squeeze procedures
and further orders that this proceeding
be phased so that the price squeeze
procedures begin after issuance of a
Commission opinion establishing the
rate which, but for consideration of
price squeeze, would be just and
reasonable. The presiding judge may
modify this schedule for good cause
shown. The price squeeze portion of this
case shall be governed by the
procedures set forth in section 2.17 of
the Commission's regulations as they
may be modified prior to the initiation of
the price squeeze phase of this
proceeding.
(H) The Secretary shall promptly
publish this order in the Federal
Register.
By the Commission.
Kenaath F. Plumb.
Secretary.
Attachment
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, DOCKET
N08, ER84-9-000 AND ER84-10-000
Bit* SOMOU* Omgrattnt
! Otr.w patty
Compmr-
Tlnrmign -rt I irumi
in fujotwN* Qwtne Com.
M»y. SuoptonMM No. 11
10 n*M SetMOuM FPC Mo.
M (SuMiMdM SuppM.
^Wt No, 10),
121 tifatmtn so. 10 to
"n» Samoa* FPC NO. M
(SuoifwdM SuoOMmont
MO. 9v i
I«CM! I Conomnoo Po»«r Company.
' i 10 Rtra ScMduM FPC gtny (CtrMirjM <* Con-
Mo. 2 (SuOHMOH Suppl»
«« >*x '01 iConeum «
<<) 100V.I
I"* Doe. W-MMJPIM ,mi:
UJHO COM IT17-«1-4i
[Docket No, RP44-26-0001
Sabin* Pipe Une Co^ Proposed
Change tn FERC Gas Tariff
November 30.1983.
Take notice that on November 25.
1963. Sabine Pipe Line Company
(Sabine) tendered for filing proposed
changes in its FERC Gas Tariff. Volume
No. 1. The proposed changes provide for
adoption of an initial Rate Schedule T-3
for general transportation services, to be
performed including transportation
services authorized pursuant to subpart
F of Section 157 of the Commission's
Regulations. Sabine further requests
waiver of the Commission's notice
requirements to permit the proposed
changes to become effective on
December 1.1983.
Copies of the filing are being served
upon the company's jurisdictional
customers, and the Commissioner of
Conservation for the State of Louisiana.
Any person desiring to be heard or to
protest said filing should file a petition
to intervene or protest with the Federal
Energy Regulatory. Commission. 825
North Capitol Street N. E.. Washington.
D.C. 20428. in accordance with Rules 211
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (IS CFR 385.211.
385.214). All such petitions or protests
should be filed on or before December
12.1983. Protests-will be considered by
the Commission in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to
the proceeding. Any person wishing to
become a party, must file a petition to
intervene; Copies of this filing are on file
with the Commission and are available
for public inspection.
K«tiMth F. Wuinb.
Secretary.
im DOS. n-txm FIM W-M* *«s «m|
ujm coot «nr-«v4i
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
iSWH-fBL 2482-7]
Supplemental Procedures for
Establishing Start Oatea of Comment
Period for Activities Subject to
Executive Order 12372
On September 29.1983 (48 FR 44643),
EPA published a notice of procedures to
establish start dates for comment
periods under Executive Order 12372
and 40 CFR Part 29 (Intergovernmental
Review). The Executive Order and
regulation require EPA to notify a State
process or directly affected
governmental entities of activities
proposed for Federal funding in their
jurisdictions. (A State process is the
framework under which State and loc.
officials carry out Intergovernmental
Review activities under the Executive
Order see 48 FR 29288 for other
definitions and background.) The notice
must establish the start date for a 60-
day official comment period and identify
an EPA contact for additional
information.
The EPA has determined that the
documents to be reviewed under the
intergovernmental review process for
activities under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation. and. Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA). will differ from those
reviewed. for other EPA programs. The
Hazardous Substance Response Trust
Fund (CFDA No. 66.302) is the CERCLA
program subject to Executive Order
12372. The major components of this
program are the remedial investigation/
feasibility study, which constitute the
first phase, and remedial design/
remedial action, which constitute the
second phase. This notice explains the
procedures to be followed for the
CERCLA programs.
Procedures
/. Transition From A-95 Review Syste
To E.0. 12372 System
Any proposed funding on which
review was initiated prior to October 1.
1983, .will continue under that process.
//. When a State Process Exists and
Incudes the Cercla Program or Activity
Under Consideration
A. Remedial Invastigatian/Feasibi'Jity
Study (RI/FS). The 80-day comment
period on the proposed funding for a Rl/
FS will begin 5 days after the date that
the appropriate State pollution control
agency or EPA Regional Office sends a
letter to the State process explaining the
proposed action. The letter will give the
name and location of the site, the site's
rank on ihe National Priorities List, the
nature of the problem at the site, a
description of the activities to be
undertaken under the Rl/FS. the
estimated cost of the RI/FS, the date on
which the proposed RI/FS would begin.
an estimate of when the RI/FS is
expected to be completed, and the State
and/or EPA Project Officers to be
contacted for additional information. If.
in this or any of the following sections.
the official application involves any
substantial change from the information
provided for intergovernmental review
then EPA will provide another 60-da;
comment period for intergovernmenti.
review of the official application. When
the State has lead responsibility for the
.D-18
-------
Federal Register / VoL 48. No. 235 / Tuesday, December 5, 1983 / Notices
54693
RI/FS. the appropriate State pollution
control agency will send the letter to the
State process and to the appropriate
EPA Regional Office (see 48 FR 44643.
September 29.1983). When EPA has
lead responsibility for the RI/FS, the
EPA Regional Office will coordinate
with the appropriate State pollution
control agency and will send the letter
to the State-process.
B. Remedial Design/Remedial Action
(RD/RA). The 60-day comment period
on the proposed funding for a RD/RA
will begin 5 days after the date the
appropriate State pollution control
agency or EPA Regional Office sends
the feasibility study containing the
proposed remedy to the State process.
The 60-day comment period for the State
process generally will run concusrwady
with the public's comment period sinfjB
feasibility study and the proposed1
remedy. As in the case of RI/FS, when
the state has the lead responsibility for
the RD/RA. the-State pollution control
agency will send the document to the
State process and will send a copy of
the transmittal letter to EPA. When EPA
has the lead responsibility for the RD/
RA. the EPA Regional Office will
coordinate with the appropriate State
pollution control agency and will send
the document to the State process.
Ill When a State Process Does Not
Exist or Does Not Include the EPA
Program or Activity Under
Consideration
A. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study. The 60-day comment period on
the proposed funding for a RI/FS will
begin 5 days after the date that the
appropriate State pollution control
agency, or EPA Regional Office sends a
letter to officials of directly affected
governmental entities (i.e.. the Governor
of the State, officials of directly affected
araawide and Regional planning
agencies and officials of directly
affected local governments). The latter
will contain the same information-listed
in Section ILA. above. When the state
has the lead responsibility for the RI/FS.
the appropriate State Pollution control
agency will send the letter to the
governmental entities and will send a
copy to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office. When EPA has the lead
responsibility for the RI/FS, the EPA
Regional Office will coordinate with tip
State pollution control agency and will
send the letter to the directly affected
governmental entities.
B. Remedial Design/Remedial Action
(RD/RA). The 80-day comment period
on the proposed funding for a RD/RA
will.begin 5 days after the date that the
appropriate State pollution control
agency or EPA Regional Office sends
the feasibility study containing the
propdsed remedy to the directly affected
governmental entities (see ULA.). The
60-day comment period generally will
run concurrently with the public's
comment period on the feasibility study
and the proposed remedy. As in the
Case of the RI/FS, when the state has
the lead responsibility for the RD/RA.
the State pollution control agency will
send the feasibility study to the
governmental entities and will send a
copy of the-transmittal letter to EPA.
When EPA has the lead responsibility
for the RD/RA. EPA will coordinate
vith the State pollution control agency
and will send the document to the
governmental entities.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
For further information on these
procedures, contact Cristina N. Griffin.
Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW.. Washington.
D.C. 20460. The telephone number is:
(202) 382-2443.
Dated: November 29.1983.
Lou M. Thomas.
Assistant Administrator. Offico of Solid
Waste and Emergency Responsa.
EPA SOPCRFUNO PROCEDURES FOR INITIATINQ
COMMENT PERIOD
RD/RA
Noi
RI/FS
SPCAMMl
SPCAMMl copy
tagm 5 dm Mir
IM
SMf
taMStM
PTOOMI *tt 9fr
EPA Bi^on* OMo*
comma w«i
SPCA«n4MK»
EPA SUPERFUNO PROCEDURES FOR INITIATING
COMMENT PERIODContinued
SUMIMd
EPA laid
SPCA
OS>A«r»«0-0«y
comimn parted
l«lltl»| «*».
EPA Ftaponal Olfic*
corauitj ««n
SPCA tno i*na
in* tauowv study
cortamng m«
proooMd nmtof
to «<
mo 60-
pmod tiutfnt S
a*r» DMT EPA
MM* aw
(FR Oac. B-aar Pllid IM-Ck * ami
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
Agency Report Forms Under OMB
Review
AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission.
ACTION; Requests for comments.
SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 LT.S.C
Chapter 35). agencies are required to
submit proposed information collection
requests to OMB for review and
approval and to publish a notice in the
Federal Register notifying the public that
the agency has made such a submission.
The proposed report form under review
is listed below.
DATE Comments must be received on or
before January 20.1984. If you anticipate
commenting on a report form but find
that time to prepare will prevent you
from submitting comments promptly.
you should advise the OMB Reviewer
and the Agency Liaison Officer of your
intent as early as possible.
ADDRESS: Copies of the proposed report
form, the request for clearance (S.F. 83),
supporting statement, and other
documents submitted to OMB for review
may be obtained from the Agency
Liaison Officer. Comments on the item
listed should be submitted to the Agency
Liaison Officer and the OMB Reviewer.
TOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
EEOC Agency Liaison Officer Gary
G. Papritz, Administrative Management
Services. Room 281. 2401E Street NW..
Washington. D.C. 20507; Telephone (202)
634-6990.
OMB REVIEWER: Joseph Lackey,
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs. Office of Management and
Budget Room 3208. New Executive
Office Building, Washington. D.C. 20503.
Telephone (202) 395-6880.
D-19
Reproduced from
best available
copy.
-------
3. MODEL LETTER TO INITIATE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW FOR
A REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY PROJECT
[This letter can be revised, as necessary, for use
when notifying directly affected governmental entities
where a State process does not cover the activity under
consideration.]
(To Designated Single Point of Contact for State Process)
This letter notifies you of a proposed Superfund pro-
ject to be funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. This project is subject to the State intergovern-
mental review process. The 60-day comment period on this
proposed action will begin five days after the date this
letter is sent. Please address any comments on the pro-
posed action to _. The project is outlined
below.
1. Site Name; (give name as listed on the National
Priorities List)
2. Location of Site; (city and/or county)
3. Site Rank; This site is ranked in Group of the
National Priorities List (40 CFR Part 300, Appendix B)
established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-510).
4. Nature of the Problem; (may use "Conditions at List-
ing" section of NPL Hazardous Waste Site Descriptions
or a similar short description)
5. Description of Proposed Activities; This project will
consist of a remedial investigation and a feasibility
study meeting the requirements of section 300.68 of
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency
Plan (40 CFR Part 300). The project will include
definition of the nature and extent of the problem at
the site, characterization of the hazardous wastes
present, a hydrogeological investigation, a soils and
sediments investigation, a surface water investigation,
an air investigation, the development of remedial
response objectives, the identification of remedial
action alternatives, evaluation of the alternatives,
an environmental assessment of the alternatives, cost
analyses, recommendation of a cost-effective remedial
alternative, and conceptual design of the proposed
alternative. (Vary the description as appropriate for
the site).
D-20
-------
6. Community Relations Activities; Community relations
activities will be conducted as part of this project
to inform and receive input from public officials and
the affected community. These will include preparing
a community relations plan, holding public meetings,
organizing press conferences and workshops, distribu-
ting press releases, speaking to concerned citizens'
groups, preparing fact sheets, and establishing a com-
munity relations repository. (Vary the description as
appropriate for the site.)
7. Estimated Cost" $ , to be 100 percent funded by
the U.S. EPA. (For publicly-owned sites, this section
should also explain that the required State 50 percent
cost share must be provided at the time remedial action
is implemented at the site.)
8. Projected Start Date;
9. Projected Completion Date;
10. State project Officer; (Name, address, telephone
number)
11. EPA Project Officer; (Name, address, telephone number)
As I have indicated above, you will have 60 days after
receipt of this letter to submit your comments. However,
I would very much appreciate hearing from you at the
earliest possible time so that we can proceed with the
project work without any delays. (Name, telephone number)
of my staff is available to assist you in any way during
your review.
Sincerely yours,
D-21
-------
MODEL LETTER TO ACCOMPANY DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY WHEN
INITIATING INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW FOR REMEDIAL DESIGN/
REMEDIAL ACTION PROJECTS
[This letter can be revised, as necessary]
(To Designated Single Point of Contact for State Process)
On , we notified you that a Superfund
project to be funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency was being proposed for the ^_
site in . The first phase of that
project, the remedial investigation/feasibility study, has
now been completed.
For your review and comment, we have attached a copy
of the draft feasibility study, which explains the various
alternatives available and the proposed solution for the
problem. This is the review document for the second phase
of the project, which also is subject to the State inter-
governmental review process. The 60-day comment period on
the proposed action will begin five days after the date
this letter is sent. Please address comments or the State
process recommendation to
Please note that as a result of negotiations or liti-
gation, private parties may undertake the second phase of
the project at this site. Since criminal and civil en-
forcement actions are exempt from intergovernmental review,
any changes made as a result of negotiation or litigation
with responsible parties will not be subject to the 60-day
comment period for intergovernmental review or the other
provisions of Executive Order 12372. However, there will
continue to be a comment period of three weeks for the
public and State and local officials. In addition, all
enforcement activities will be subject to EPA's require-
ments for community relations.
As I have indicated above, you will have 60 days after
receipt of this letter to submit your comments. However,
I would very much appreciate hearing from you at the
earliest possible time so that we can proceed with the
project work without any delays. If you have any specific
questions on this project, please contact the EPA Project
Officer (name, address, telephone number) or the State
Project Officer (name, address, telephone number).
Sincerely yours,
Attachment
D-22
-------
APPENDIX E
MODEL STATEMENT OF WORK FOR A STATE-LEAD
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY PROJECT
PURPOSE
This appendix has been provided to assist Regional Site
Project Officers (RSPOs) and State Project Officers (SPOs) in
developing a statement of work (SOW) for State-lead remedial
investigation/feasibility study projects. The model SOW
included here may be most useful at sites where a Remedial
Action Master Plan (RAMP) has not been completed prior to
development of the agreement between EPA and the State.
BACKGROUND
A SOW describes remedial activities, subactivities, and
tasks -- three of the standard organizational units used by EPA
to track remedial responses conducted under CERCLA -- to be
carried out under the terms of a Cooperative Agreement or EPA-
lead remedial response agreement. The SOW provided in this
appendix defines tasks required to complete a remedial investi-
gation/feasibility study, a remedial planning subactivity
usually undertaken as the first phase of remedial response at a
site. This model SOW has been developed because the basic
requirements for a remedial investigation/feasibility study
project are fairly standard for most sites. Since remedial
design and remedial implementation requirements usually vary
more widely, depending upon the characteristics of each site,
SOWs for those subactivities cannot be standardized in this
manner.
Development of a SOW for remedial activities, subactivi-
ties/ and tasks occurs as one step in the preparation of a
Cooperative Agreement application or an EPA-lead remedial
response agreement. When remedial planning will be done under
an EPA-lead agreement, the SOW will normally be prepared by the
Remedial Planning/Field Investigation Team (REM/FIT) contractor
prior to the initiation of the remedial investigation. The
model SOW presented in this appendix can be used as a guide in
developing a site-specific SOW for a Cooperative Agreement
application. If a RAMP has been developed for a site, the SOW
can be taken directly from the RAMP.
E-l
-------
APPENDIX SUMMARY
This appendix contains an EPA-approved model SOW for a
remedial investigation/feasibility study which is usually the
first remedial subactivity initiated at a site. It can be used
by States, with appropriate modifications, in preparing SOWs to
be included in their Cooperative Agreement application
packages. Also included is a two-page addendum which modifies
the model SOW. It has been appended to the model SOW and is
referenced in the model SOW tasks, when they are affected by
the changes it contains.
The model SOW reproduced here was issued prior to the
current community relations policy (May 1983) and the interim
version of the Superfund Community Relations Handbook (September
1983) . For current guidance on the community relations aspects
of a remedial investigation/feasibility study subactivity, see
Section III.D.I of the text.
E-2
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
SUBJECT: Model Statement of Work for Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies -.
FROM: William N. Hedeman, Jr., [
Office of Emergency and Remedial
TO: Superfund Coordinators
Regions I-X
The attached Model Statement of Work (SOW) has been developed for use
in initiating remedial investigations and feasibility studies (RI/FS). It
was sent to you previously in.draft form for comments. Comments were
received from several regions and were helpful in preparing the final
version. The majority of comments were on the community relations task,
and as a result this section has been rewritten.
This guidance is recommended for use in preparing site specific state-
ments of work for RI/FS projects. The model can be used in preparing
the SOU in Remedial Action Master Plans (RAMPs.) It should also be
encouraged for use in preparing cooperative agreement applications (refer to
draft revised guidance for Remedial Cooperative Agreements and Contracts
with States, January 1983.) The level of detail and technical content
may vary depending on the specific site conditions; however, the format
established by the task descriptions should be used for all cooperative
agreements. The SOW also should be used for State Superfund contracts;
the site specific SOW can be less detailed than when used with cooperative
agreements. It is not necessary to revise cooperative agreements or State
Superfund contracts under preparation. However, the model SOW format .
should be incorporated, if appropriate.
Contact Brint Bixler at 382-2343 for additional information.
Enclosure
E-3
-------
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
MODEL STATEMENT OF WORK
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this remedial investigation is to determine the nature and
extent of the problem at the site and gather all necessary data to support the
feasibility study. The Engineer shall furnish all personnel, materials, and
services necessary for or incidental to performing the remedial investigation
at [specific site], an uncontrolled hazardous waste site.
SCOPE:
The remedial investigation consists of eight tasks:
Task 1 -- Description of Current Situation
Task 2 -- Investigation Support
Task 3 -- Site Investigations
Task 4 -- Preliminary Remedial Technologies
Task 5 - Site Investigations Analysis
Task 6 -- Final Report
Task 7 -- Community Relations
Task 8 -- Additional Requirements
A detailed work plan, including technical approach, budget, personnel
requirements, and schedule shall be submitted by the Engineer for the proposed
remedial investigation.
E-4
-------
Ol
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
MODEL WORK PLAN SCHEDULE
Activity
1. Description of
Current Situation
la. Site Background
1b. Nature and Extent
of Problem
1c. History of Response
Actions
2. Investigation Support
Outpu
Target
Completion
Date
Estimated
Cost
Personnel
Work Hours
ActuaI
Completion
Date
Draft Final
Section
Report
Draft Final Report
Section
2a. Contractor Procurement RFP (or IFB)
2b. Site Visit
2c. Define Boundary
Conditions
2d. Site Map Map
2e. Site Office
3. Site Investigations
3a. Waste Characterization
3b. Hydrogeologlc
Investigation
3c. Soils and Sediments
Invest igat ion
3d. Surface Water
Invest igatIon
3e. Air Investigation
U. Preliminary Remedial
Technologies
*4a. Pre- Invest igat Ion
Evaluation
i)b. Post-Investigation
EvaluatIon
5. Site Investigations
Analysi s
Investigations, Draft
Final Report Section
Draft Final
Section
Report
Draft Final Report
5a.
5b.
6.
7.
8.
Data Analysis
Appl icat ion to
Pre 1 I mi nary
Technologies
Final Report
Community Relations
Addi t iona I
Requi rements
Final Report
Under standard EPA terminology, these should be referred to as Tasks.
-------
TASK 1 -- DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT SITUATION
The Engineer shall describe the background information pertinent to the
site and its problems and outline the purpose and need for remedial
investigation at the site. The data gathered during any previous
investigations or inspections and other relevant data should be used.
[Information from the Remedial Action Master Plan may be substituted for this
task, if available.]
a. Site Background. Prepare a summary of the regional
location, pertinent area boundary features, and general
site physiography, hydrology, and geology. The total
area of the site and the general nature of the problem,
including pertinent history relative to the use of site
for hazardous waste disposal, should be defined.
b. Nature and Extent of Problem. Prepare a summary of
the actual and potential on-site and off-site health
and environmental effects. This may include, but is
not limited to, the type, physical states, and amounts
of the hazardous substances, the existence and
conditions of drums, landfills, and lagoons [substitute
site-specific features -if different], affected media
and pathways of exposure, contaminated releases such as
leachate or runoffs, and any human exposure. Emphasis
should be placed on describing the threat or potential
threat to public health. *
c. History of Response Actions. Prepare a summary of any
previous response actions conducted by either local,
State, Federal or private parties, including the site
inspection, other technical reports, and their
results. This summary should address any enforcement
activities undertaken to identify responsible parties,
compel private cleanup, and recover costs. A list of
reference documents and their location shall be
included. The scope of the RI/FS should be developed
to address the problems and questions that have
resulted from the previous work at the site.
TASK 2 -- INVESTIGATION SUPPORT
The Engineer shall conduct preliminary work necessary to conduct the site
investigations and feasibility study.
a. Contractor Procurement. [Include when SOW is used in
cooperative agreement.] Prepare contractor procurement
documents and award sub-agreement to secure the
services necessary to conduct the remedial
investigation and feasibility study.
*See page E-24 for additional information,
E-6
-------
b. Site Visit. Conduct initial site visits required to
become familiar with site topography, access routes,
and proximity of receptors to possible contamination,
and collect data for preparation of the site safety
plan. The visit should be used to verify the site
information developed in Task 1.
c. Define Boundary Conditions. Establish site boundary
conditions to limit the area of site investigations.
The boundary conditions should be set so that
subsequent investigations will cover the contaminated
media in sufficient detail to support following
activities (e.g., the feasibility study). The boundary
conditions may also be used to identify boundaries for
site access control and site security. [If not in
existence, a fence or other security measures may be
installed as an initial remedial measure.]
d. Site Map. Prepare a site map showing all wetlands,
water features, drainage patterns, tanks, buildings,
utilities, paved areas, easements, right-of-ways, and
other features. The site map and all topographic
surveys shall be of sufficient detail and accuracy to
locate and report all existing and future work
performed at the site. [Permanent baseline monument,
bench marks, and reference grid tied into any existing
reference system (i.e., State or USGS) should be
considered as an option.]
e. Site Office. If agreed to by EPA and the State,
establish a temporary site office to support site work.
TASK 3 -- SITE INVESTIGATIONS
The Engineer shall conduct only those site remedial investigations
necessary to characterize the site and its actual or potential hazard to
public health and the environment. The site investigations should also result
in data of adequate technical content to assess preliminary remedial
alternatives developed in Task 4 and support the detailed evaluation of
alternatives during the feasibility study. [The following categories of
investigations are of necessity described in general terms for use as a
model. The site specific SOW will generally expand upon the type of
investigation that is appropriate for the site, and focus specifically on
source control or off-site actions or a combination of each.]
All sample analyses will be conducted at laboratories following EPA
protocols, or equivalents. Strict chain-of-custody procedures will be
followed and all samples will be located on the site map [and grid system]
established under Task 2.
E-7
-------
a. Waste Characterization. Develop and conduct a
complete sampling and analysis program to characterize
all materials of interest at the site. These
materials could include wastes stored above or below
ground_in tanks, drums, lagoons, piles or other
methods of storage. A sampling plan will be developed
showing the locations, quantity, frequency, numbering,
and constituents for analysis for each sample. The
following parameters are considered the minimum for
analysis based on previous site information: [provide
site-specific list of parameters for analysis].
The sampling plan shall describe the sampling and
analysis techniques appropriate to the site
conditions. These techniques may include tank and
drum opening, sample packing and shipping, and sample
preservation. The number or frequency of sampling to
obtain representative data should also be discussed.
Elements of the safety plan and the QA/QC plan
described in the "Additional Requirements" section
will also apply to sampling.
The sampling plan should discuss potential
incompatability of wastes. Wastes should be analyzed
and grouped in compatability classes. This analysis
should support any subsequent conclusions about
segregating wastes on-site and developing preliminary
remedial alternatives.
b. Hydrogeologic Investigation [generally limited to
investigations for off-site measures]. Develop and
conduct a program to determine the present and
potential extent of ground water contamination [and to
evaluate the suitability of the site for on-site waste
containment]. [Identify specific aquifer to be
studied.] Efforts should begin with a survey of
previous hydrogeologic studies and other existing
data. The survey should address the degree of hazard,
the mobility of pollutants considered (from Waste
Characterization), the soils' attenuation capacity and
mechanisms, discharge/recharge areas, regional flow
direction and quality, and effects of any pumping
alternatives described in Task 4. Such information
may be available from the LJSGS, the Soil Conservation
Service, and local well drillers. Subsequent to the
survey of existing data, a sampling program should be
developed to determine the horizontal and vertical
distribution of contaminants and predict the long-term
disposition of contaminants. The sampling program
should, at a minimum, evaluate factors affecting
E-8
-------
ground water performance, background levels of
contamination, the type of well construction utilized
(must be compatible with type of measurement taken),
the number and location of wells, chain of custody and
record of samples, and the ground water sampling
method. Geophysical techniques should be considered
for use in defining subsurface conditions and design
of the sampling program.
c. Soils and Sediments Investigation. Develop and
conduct a program to determine the location and extent
of contamination of surface and subsurface soils and
sediments [identify specific areas to be studied].
This process may overlap with certain aspects of the
hydrogeologic study (e.g., characteristics of soil
strata are relevant to both the transport of
contaminants by ground water and to the location of
contaminants in the soil; cores from ground
water-monitoring wells may serve as soil samples). A
survey of existing data on soils and sediments may be
useful. A sampling program should be developed and
conducted to determine the horizontal and vertical
extent of contaminated soils and sediments.
Information regarding local background levels, degree
of hazard, location of samples, techniques utilized,
and methods of analysis should be included. The
investigation should identify the locations and
probable quantities of subsurface wastes, such as
buried drums, through the use of appropriate
geophysical methods.
d. Surface Water Investigation. Develop and conduct a
program to determine the extent of contamination of
surface water [identify specific water bodies]. This
process may overlap with the soils and sediments
investigation; data from stream or lake sediments
sampled may be relevant to surface water quality. A
survey of existing data on surface water flow quantity
and quality may be a useful first step. A sampling
program should be developed and conducted, discussing
the degree of hazard, including information on local
background levels, location and frequency of samples,
sampling techniques, and method of analysis.
e. Air Investigation. Develop and conduct a program to
determine the extent of atmospheric contamination.
The program should address the tendency of substances
(identified through Waste Characterization) to enter
the atmosphere, local wind patterns, and the degree of
hazard. A sampling program should be developed and
E-9
-------
conducted, specifying location, timing, and frequency
of samples, sampling techniques, and method of
analysis.
[Note: Other categories of investigations may be needed for specialized
site problems. These could include biological and radiological
investigations.]
TASK 4--PRELIMINARY REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
The Engineer will identify preliminary remedial technologies, providing
detail sufficient to ensure that site investigations will develop a data base
adequate for the evaluation of alternatives during the feasibility study.
a. Pre-Investigation Action. Prior to starting any site
investigations, the Engineer will assess the site
conditions to determine potential categories of source
control [and/or off-site] remedial actions. Examples
of questions to be answered are:
1. Source Control Action
i. What containment techniques appear feasible
to prevent contamination of ground water?
ii. Does incineration or reclamation appear to
be a viable option?
iii. Does on-site treatment appear to be a
viable option, and if so, what category of
treatment should be investigated (e.g.,
biological, physical, chemical, thermal)?
iv. Will substances migrate or continue to
migrate off-site if no action is taken? If
only source control measures are taken?
2. Off-Site Action
i. Does the apparent volume of contaminated
ground water make investigation or
treatment impracticable?
ii. What technologies are available to treat
the identified contaminants at the site?
iii. What technologies exist to effectively
remove off-site contaminated materials
(e.g., river bottom sediments)?
E-10
-------
iv. Will the off-site contamination continue to
pose a threat if no action is taken?
The State and EPA will review and screen the preliminary
technologies so that the site investigations can be
designed to answer these types of questions and support the
feasibility study.
b. Post-Investigation Evaluation. Either during or
following the site investigations the Engineer will
assess the investigation results and recommend
preliminary remedial technologies likely to apply to
the site problem. These technologies should be a
refinement of the options considered in Task 4a. They
will provide the basis for developing detailed
alternatives and the cost-effectiveness analysis
during the feasibility study. The work during the
remedial investigation will generally be limited to
the following:
1. Recommending types of remedial technologies
appropriate to the site conditions.
2. Recommending whether or not to remove some or all
of the waste for off-site treatment, storage, or
disposal.
3. Determining the compatability of groups of wastes
with other wastes and with materials considered
as part of potential remedial action (e.g.,
slurry walls, lagoon liners). Recommending
alternatives for treatment, storage, or disposal
for each category of compatible waste.
TASK 5 -- SITE INVESTIGATIONS ANALYSIS
The Engineer shall prepare a thorough analysis and summary of all site
investigations and their results. The objective of this task will be to
ensure that the investigation data are sufficient in quality and quantity to
support the feasibility study.
The results and data from all site investigations must be organized and
presented logically so that the relationships between site investigations for
each medium are apparent.
a. Data Analysis and Exposure Assessment. See page E-24
for revised task description.
E-ll
-------
b. Application to Preliminary Technologies. Analyze the
results of the site investigations in relation to the
preliminary remedial technologies developed in Task
4. Data supporting, or rejecting, types of remedial
technologies, compatability of wastes and construction
materials, and other conclusions should be presented.
TASK 6 -- FINAL REPORT
The Engineer shall prepare a final report covering the remedial
investigation phase and submit [specify number and distribution] copies to
(specify EPA, the State, as appropriate]. The report shall include the
results of Task 1 through 5, and should include additional Information in an
appendix. The report shall be structured to enable the reader to
cross-reference with ease.
TASK 7 COMMUNITY RELATIONS SUPPORT
[Note: The following paragraph applies when community relations support
is conducted under the work covered by this SOW (e.g., under a cooperative
agreement). The paragraph may be modified to meet specific site or project
conditions.]
The Engineer may be required to furnish the personnel, services, materials
and equipment required to undertake a community relations program. Although
this may be a limited program, community relations must be integrated closely
with all remedial response activities. The objectives of this effort are to
achieve community understanding of the actions taken and to obtain community
input and support prior to selection of the remedial alternative(s).
Community relations support includes but may not be limited to the
following:
Revisions or additions to community relations plans
including definition of community relations program
needs for each remedial activity.
Analysis of community attitudes toward proposed
actions.
Preparation and dissemination of news releases, fact
sheets, slide shows, exhibits, and other audio-visual
materials designed to apprise the community of current
or proposed actions.
E-12
-------
Establishment of a community information center.
Arrangement of briefings, press conferences,
workshops, and public and other informal meetings.
Assessment of the successes and failures of the
community relations program.
Preparation of reports and participation in public
meetings, project review meetings, and other meetings
as necessary to the normal progress of the work.
Solicitation, selection and approval of
subcontractors, if needed.
All community relations support must be consistent with:
Superfund community relations policy, as stated in
the "Guidance for Implementing the Superfund Program".
Community Relations in Superfund A Handbook..
TASK g -- ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
a. Reporting Requirements
[Note: The following paragraph applies when the SOW is
being used in a contract between the State and an
Engineer. Typical requirements are described but may be
modified based on the size and complexity of the specific
project.]
Monthly reports shall be prepared by the Engineer to
describe the technical and financial progress of the
project. These reports should discuss the following items:
1. Identification of site and activity.
2. Status of work at the site and progress to date.
3. Percentage of completion1
4. Difficulties encountered during the reporting period.
5. Actions being taken to rectify problems.
6. Activities planned for the next month.
7. Changes in personnel.
8. Actual expenditures including fee and direct labor
hours expended for this period.l
9. Cumulative expenditures (including fee) and cumulative
direct labor hours.
1Indicates data required for input to EPA's Project Tracking
System/Project Management Module (PTS/PMM).
E-13
-------
10. Projection of expenditures for completing the project,
including an explanation of any significant variation
from the forecasted target.l
11. A graphic representation of proposed versus actual
expenditures (plus fee) and comparison of actual vs.
target direct labor hours. A projection to completion
will be made for both.
The monthly progress report will list target and actual
completion dates for each element of activity including
project completion and provide an explanation of any
deviation from the milestones in the work plan schedule.
[Note: When the SOW is used in a cooperative agreement,
the previous section should be replaced with reporting
requirements consistent with 40 CFR Part 30 and the
Guidance for Cooperative Agreements and Contracts with
States, current version dated March 11, 1982.* These
require that quarterly progress reports and a final report **
be submitted to EPA by the State.]
b. Chain-of-Custody. Any. field sampling collection and
analyses conducted shall be documented in accordance
with chain-of-custody procedures as provided by EPA.
c. Safety Plan. A safety plan will be developed to
protect the health and safety of personnel involved in
the remedial investigation. The plan will be
consistent with: ***
Section lll(c)(6) of CERCLA
EPA Order 1440.1 -- Respiratory Protection
EPA Order 1440.3 Health and Safety
Requirements for Employees Engaged in Field
Activities
EPA Occupational Health and Safety Manual
Other EPA guidance as provided
State safety and health statutes
Site conditions
d. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC). The
Engineer shall prepare and submit as part of the work
plan a Quality Assurance Project Plan for the
sampling, analysis, and data handling aspects of the
*This document, "State Participation in the Superfund Remedial
Program," revises and updates this guidance.
**No longer required.
***It should also be consistent with EPA Interim Standard Opera!
Safety Guide (September 1982) and with applicable OSHA standards.
E-14
-------
remedial investigation. The plan shall be consistent
with the requirements of EPA's Contract Laboratory
Program. The plan shall address the following points:
1. QA Objectives for Measurement Data, in terms of
precision, accuracy, completeness,
representativeness, and comparability.
2. Sampling Procedures.
3. Sample Custody.
4. Calibration Procedures, References, and Frequency.
5. Internal QC Checks and Frequency.
6. QA Performance Audits, System Audits, and
Frequency.
7. QA Reports to Management.
8. Preventive Maintenance Procedures and Schedule.
9. Specific Procedures to be used to routinely
assess data precision, representativeness,
comparability, accuracy, and completeness of
specific measurement parameters involved. This
section will be required for all QA project plans.
10. Corrective Action.
E-15
-------
FEASIBILITY STUDY
MODEL STATEMENT OF WORK
PURPOSE
The purpose of this remedial action feasibility study is to develop and
evaluate remedial alternatives, and to identify the cost-effective remedial
action to be taken at [specific site], an uncontrolled hazardous waste site.
The Engineer shall furnish the necessary personnel, materials, and services
required to prepare the remedial action feasibility study, except as otherwise
specified herein.
SCOPE
The feasibility study consists of eight tasks:
Task 9 - Description of Proposed Response
Task 10 - Development of Alternatives
Task 11 - Initial Screening of Alternatives
Task 12 - Laboratory Studies
Task 13 - Evaluation of the Alternatives
Task 14 - Conceptual Design
Task 15 - Final Report
Task 16 - Additional Requirements
A work plan that includes a detailed technical approach, a budget,
personnel requirements, and schedules shall be submitted for the proposed
feasibility study.
E-16
-------
FEASIBILITY STUDY
MODEL WORK PLAN SCHEDULE
Task No. Activity *
Target
Completion
Date
Est ima ted
Cost
Personnel
Work Hours
ActuaI
CompletIon
Pate
w
I
9 Description of Proposed
Response
10 Development of
Al ternatives
10-a Response Objectives
10-b Identification of
Remedial Alternatives
11 Initial Screening
of Alternatlves
12 Laboratory Studies
(OptlonaI ]
13 Evaluation of Alternatives
13-a Detailed Development of
Remaining Alternatives
13-b Environmental Assessment
13-c Cost Analysis
13-d Evaluation and Recom-
mendation of Cost-
Effective Alternative
13-e Preliminary Report
m Conceptual Design
15 Final Report
16 Additional Requirements
Preliminary Alternatives
Submitted, Draft Final
Report Section
Draft Final
Report Section
Preliminary FinaI
Report
Cnvi ronmentaI
Document
Informal ion
Preliminary Report
Draft Final Report
Section
Final Report
* To correspond to Superfund standard remedial terminology, this column should be entitled
"Task/Subtask Name."
-------
TASK 9DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSED RESPONSE
Information on the site background, the nature and extent of the
problem, and previous response activities presented in the Remedial Action
Master Plan or Task 1 of the remedial investigation may be incorporated by
reference. Any changes to the original project scope described in the RAMP
should be discussed and justified based on results of the remedial investiga-
tion.
Following this summary of the current situation, a site-specific statement
of purpose for the response, based on the results of the remedial
investigation, should be presented. The statement of purpose should be
organized in terms of components amenable to discrete remedial measures (e.g.,
a statement of purpose describing the evaluation of alternatives for treatment
of contaminated ground water).
TASK 10--DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
Based on the results of the remedial investigation and consideration
of preliminary remedial technologies (Task 4), the Engineer shall develop a
limited number of alternatives for source control or off-site remedial
actions, or both, on the basis of objectives established for the response and
the scoping decision.
a. Establishment of Remedial Response Objectives
Establish site-specific objectives for the response. These
objectives shall be based on public health and environmental
concerns, the Remedial Action Master Plan and scoping decision,
information gathered during the remedial investigation, Section
300.68 of the National Contingency Plan (NCP), EPA interim guidance,
and the requirements of any other applicable Federal statutes.
Preliminary cleanup objectives shall be developed in consultation
with EPA and the State.
b. Identification of Remedial Alternatives
Develop alternatives to incorporate remedial technologies (from Task
4b), response objectives, and other appropriate considerations into a
comprehensive, site-specific approach. Alternatives should include
non-cleanup (e.g., alternative water supply, relocation) and
no-action options. The alternatives shall be developed in close
consultation with EPA and the State.
TASK II--INITIAL SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives developed in Task 2 will be screened by the
Engineer, EPA, and the State to eliminate alternatives that are clearly not
feasible or appropriate, prior to undertaking detailed evaluations of the
remaining alternatives.
E-18
-------
Considerations to be Used in Initial Screening
Three broad considerations must be used as a basis for the initial
screening: cost, effects of the alternative, and acceptable engineering
practices. More specifically, the following factors must be considered:
1) Cost. An alternative whose cost far exceeds that of other
alternatives will usually be eliminated. Total cost will
include the cost of implementing the alternative and the cost of
operation and maintenance.
2) Environmental effects. Alternatives posing significant adverse
environmental effects will be excluded.
3) Environmental protection. Only those alternatives that satisfy
the response objectives and contribute substantially to the
protection of public health, welfare, or the environment shall
be considered further. Source control alternatives shall
achieve adequate control of source materials. Off-site
alternatives shall minimize or mitigate the threat of harm to
public health, welfare, or the environment.
4) Implementability and reliability. Alternatives that may prove
extremely difficult to implement, will not achieve the remedial
objectives in a reasonable time period, or rely on unproven
technology will be eliminated.
TASK I2--LABORATORY STUDIES [If Required]
The Engineer shall conduct any necessary laboratory and bench scale
treatability studies required to evaluate the effectiveness of remedial
technologies and establish engineering criteria (e.g., leachate treatment;
ground water treatment; comparability of waste/leachate with site barrier
walls, cover, and other materials proposed for use in the remedy). It is
expected that- the scope of this task will depend on the results of Tasks 10
and 11 and therefore will not be complete at the start of Task 13. The
Engineer will submit a separate work plan for any proposed laboratory studies
for EPA and State approval. This submittal will be made in the timeframe
required to maintain steady progress of the overall feasibility study.
[Additional studies may also be conducted during the design phase if needed to
refine treatability results or develop detailed design criteria.]
TASK ISEVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
The Engineer shall evaluate the alternative remedies that pass
through the initial screening in Task 11 and recommend the most desirable
(cost effective) alternative to EPA and the State.
Alternative evaluation shall be preceded by a detailed development of the
remaining alternatives.
E-19
-------
a. Detailed Development of Remaining Alternatives
The detailed development of the remaining feasible remedial
alternatives shall include as a minimum:
1) Description of appropriate treatment and disposal
technologies.
2) Special engineering considerations required to
implement the alternative (e.g., pilot treatment
facility, additional studies needed to proceed with
final remedial design).
3) Environmental impacts and proposed methods, and costs,
for mitigating any adverse effects.
4) Operation, maintenance, and monitoring requirements of
the remedy.
5) Off-site disposal needs and transportation plans.
6) Temporary storage requirements.
7) Safety requirements for remedial implementation
(including both on-site and off-site health and safety
considerations).
8) A description of how the alternative could be phased
into individual operable units. The description
should include a discussion of how various operable
units of the total remedy could be implemented
individually or in groups, resulting in a significant
improvement to the environment or savings in costs.
9) A description of how the alternative could be
segmented into areas to allow implementation of
differing phases of the alternative.
10) A review of any off-site facilities provided by the
state to ensure compliance with applicable RCRA
requirements, both current and proposed.
b. Environmental Assessment
Perform an Environmental Assessment (EA) for each alternative. The
EA shall include, at a minimum, an evaluation of each alternative's
environmental effects, an analysis of measures to mitigate adverse
effects, physical or legal constraints, and compliance with CERCLA or
other regulatory requirements.
E-20
-------
See pages E-24 and E-25 for revised description,
c. Cost Analysis
Evaluate the cost of each feasible remedial action alternative (and
for each phase or segment of the alternative). The cost will be
presented as a present worth cost and will include the total cost of
implementing the alternative and the annual operating and maintenance
cost. Both monetary costs and associated non-monetary costs will be
included. A distribution of costs over time will be provided.
d. Evaluation and Recommendation of Cost-Effective Alternative
Alternatives shall be evaluated using technical, environmental, and
economic criteria. At a minimum, the following areas will be used to
evaluate alternatives:
1. Reliability. Alternatives that minimize or eliminate
the potential for release of wastes into the environ-
ment will be considered more reliable than other
alternatives. For example, recycling of waste and
off-site incineration would be considered more
reliable than land disposal. Institutional concerns
such as management requirements can also be considered
as reliability factors.
2. Imp1ementabi1ity. The requirements of implementing
the alternatives will be considered, including phasing
alternatives into operable units and segmenting
alternatives into project areas on the site. The
requirements for permits, zoning restrictions, right
of ways and public acceptance are also examples of
factors to be considered.
3. Operation and Maintenance Requirements. Preference
will be given to projects- with lower O&M requirements,
other factors being equai.
4. Environmental Effects. Alternatives posing the least
impact (or greatest improvement) on the environment
will be favored.
E-21
-------
5. Safety Requirements. On-site and off-site safety
requirements during implementation of the alternatives
should be considered. Alternatives with lower safety
impact and cost will be favored.
6. Cost. The remedial alternative with the lowest total
present worth cost will be favored. Total present
worth cost will include capital cost of implementing
the alternative and cost of operations and maintenance
of the proposed alternative.
Recommend the alternative determined to be the most
cost-effective. The recommendation will be justified by
stating the relative advantages over other alternatives
considered. Evaluative considerations shall be applied
uniformly to each alternative. The lowest cost alternative
that is technologically feasible and reliable and that
adequately protects (or mitigates damage to) public health,
welfare, or the environment will be considered the
cost-effective alternative.
e. Preliminary Report
Prepare a preliminary report presenting the results of Tasks 9
through 13 and the recommended remedial alternative. Submit [specify
number and distribution] copies of the preliminary report to EPA and
the State. (Note: EPA and the State will review and select a
remedial alternative).
TASK I4--CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
Prepare a conceptual design of the remedial alternative selected by
EPA and the State. The conceptual design shall include, but is not limited
to, the engineering approach including implementation schedule, special
implementation requirements, institutional requirements, phasing and
segmenting considerations, preliminary design criteria, preliminary site and
facility layouts, budget cost estimate (including operation and maintenance
costs), operating and maintenance requirements and duration, and an outline of
the safety plan including cost impact on implementation. Any additional
information required as the basis for the completion of the final remedial
design will also be included. The Engineer may also be required to revise
portions of the community relations plan to reflect the results of the
conceptual design.
TASK 15FINAL REPORT
Prepare a final report for submission to EPA and the State. The
report shall include the results of Tasks 9 through 14, and should include any
supplemental information in an appendix. Submit [specify number and
distribution of copies] to EPA and the State.
E-22
-------
TASK 16--ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Reporting requirements are described in Task 8 of the remedial
investigation scope of work.
E-23
-------
Changes to Model SOW Task Ib (Nature and Extent of Problem)
1. Add the following prior to the last sentence in para. Ib.
Describe any reports of human or animal related
illnesses that may be related with the site.
Changes to Model SOW Task 5a (Data Analysis)
1. Change title to "Data Analysis and Exposure Assessment"
2. Delete para. 5a and replace with:
Analyze all site investigation data and develop a
summary of the type and extent of contamination at
the site. The summary should describe the quantities
and concentration of a specific chemical at the site
and ambient levels surrounding the site. Prepare an
exposure assessment describing the number and location
and types of nearby populations, activities and path-
ways that may result in an actual or potential threat
to public health, welfare, or the environment, and a
projection of chemical concentrations at the different
points of exposure through each media pathway over
the likely period of exposure.
The analysis should discuss the degree to which
either source control or off-site measures are
required to significantly mitigate the threat to
public health, welfare, or the environment. If the
results of the investigation indicate that no threat
or potential threat exists, a recommendation to stop
the remedial response should be made.
Changes to Model SOW Task 13b (Environmental Assessment)
1. First para, remains as is.
2. Delete second para, and replace with:
In addition, each alternative will be assessed in
terms of the extent to which it mitigates long-term
exposure to any residual contaminations and protects
public health both during and after completion of
the remedial action. The assessment shall describe
the levels and characteristics of contaminants,
potential exposure routes, and potentially affected
population (the exposure assessment prepared in Task
5a should be used for this). The effect of "no
action" should be described in terms of the short
term effects (eg. lagoon failure), the long term
E-24
-------
exposure to hazardous substances, and resulting public
health impacts. Each remedial alternative shall be
evaluated to determine the level of exposure to
contaminants and the reduction over time. The relative
reduction in public health impacts for each alternative
will be compared to the no action level. For off-site
measure the relative reduction in impact will be
determined by comparing residual levels of each
alternative with existing criteria, standards or
guidelines acceptable to EPA. For source control
measures, or when criteria, standards, or guidelines
are not available, the comparison should be made
based on the relative effectiveness.
The relative reduction in public health impacts for
each alternative will be compared by listing
alternatives in increasing level of protection. The
no action alternative will serve as the baseline for
the analysis.
E-25
-------
APPENDIX F
SAMPLE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT APPLICATION PROVISIONS
PURPOSE
This appendix has been provided to assist State Project
Officers (SPOs) and Regional Site Project Officers (RSPOs)
in developing Cooperative Agreement provisions and special
conditions necessary to meet EPA and Super fund program
requirements.
BACKGROUND
Remedial Cooperative Agreements awarded under CERCLA
are subject to a number of terms and conditions. These
terms and conditions must be defined in the Cooperative
Agreement either as provisions, if developed and incorpor-
ated into the application by the State, or as special con-
ditions, if added to the application by EPA. Cooperative
Agreement application provisions and special conditions
are of two types:
Those that are general, necessary to meet EPA
assistance and procurement requirements imposed
on all applications for EPA assistance
Those that are imposed by the Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response (OERR) , necessary to meet
CERCLA and OERR requirements.
Provisions of the latter type address the same kinds of
requirements imposed on EPA-lead agreements; however, the
manner in which EPA obliges the State to fulfill these
requirements under a Cooperative Agreement is in some cases
different from State responsibilities under agreements for
EPA-lead projects. (Sample articles for EPA-lead remedial
response agreements can be found in Appendix H.)
Development of Cooperative Agreement provisions is one
step in compiling the Cooperative Agreement application
package. SPOs are responsible for reviewing all require-
ments for Cooperative Agreements shown below and addressing
all applicable requirements in an attachment to the Cooper-
ative Agreement application form. Requirements not ade-
quately addressed in the State's application will be dis-
cussed in special conditions included in the application
package by EPA prior to award.
F-l
-------
APPENDIX SUMMARY
This appendix contains examples of provisions that
have been used in remedial Cooperative Agreements. It is
organized in two sections to reflect the two different
types of provisions:
General provisions
Super fund program provisions.
Within each section, specific requirements are highlighted
and one or more examples of acceptable Agreement provisions
are shown. Examples are intended to be used only as a
guide for drafting specific provisions and must be tailored
to address individual site conditions.
This appendix contains examples of Cooperative Agree-
ment provisions only. Occasionally, introductory remarks
to a specific provision will mention EPA-lead agreements,
when requirements for such agreements differ from those
for Cooperative Agreements. This is intended to contrast
requirements and contents of the two types of agreement
vehicles for the benefit of State and EPA staff. Sample
articles for inclusion in EPA-lead remedial response agree-
ments can be found in Appendix H.
F-2
-------
1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
General Cooperative Agreement provisions address EPA
requirements applicable to all Superfund applications for
Agency financial assistance. Examples of four types of
articles are included below:
Authority
Procurement Standards
Letter of Credit Procedures
Prompt Payment Act Provisions.
The provisions in this section are taken from the list of
standard assistance agreement special conditions published
by EPA.
A. Authority
EPA awards this Cooperative Agreement in accordance
with the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act
of 1977. This Agreement is subject to all applicable
EPA assistance regulations.
B. Procurement Standards
This Agreement is subject to the procurement standards
of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 33
(copy enclosed).
(If the State has not certified its procurement system in
accordance with EPA's regulation, it should also use the
second Submission of Documents provision, shown on page
F-17. )
C. Letter of Credit Procedures
In accepting this Cooperative Agreement, the recipient
agrees to the following conditions for the letter of
credit method of financing:
a) Cash draw-downs will occur only when needed
for disbursements
b) Timely reporting of cash disbursements
and balances will be provided, as re-
quired by the EPA Letter of Credit Users
Manual
c) The same standards of timing and report-
ing will be imposed on secondary recip-
ients, if any
F-3
-------
d) When a draw-down under the letter of
credit occurs, the recipient will show
on the back of the voucher (Form
TFS-5401) the Cooperative Agreement
number, the appropriate EPA account
number, and the draw-down amount appli-
cable to each account/activity (see
attached "Instructions for Using the
Super fund Account Number Under Coopera-
tive Agreements"). The eighth digit of
the account number (see Item 39, page 1
of the Cooperative Agreement) is the
code to the appropriate activity assign-
ment:
L - Remedial Planning, consisting
of the following subactivi-
ties:
Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study
Remedial Design
R - Remedial Implementation, con-
sisting of the following sub-
activities:
Remedial Action
Operation and Maintenance
Initial Remedial Measure
[A - Support and Management]*
e) When funds for a specific activity have
been exhausted but the work under the
activity has not been completed, the
recipient may not draw down from another
activity or site account without written
permission from the EPA Project Officer
and Award Official
f) Funds remaining in an account after
completion of an activity may either be
returned to EPA or adjusted to another
activity or site, at EPA's discretion
To be included only in Cooperative Agreements covering
more than one site.
F-4
-------
g) When a subactivity is completed, the
recipient will submit a Financial Status
Report (Standard Form 269) within 90 days to
the EPA Project Officer.
Failure on the part of the recipient to comply with
the above conditions may cause the unobligated portions
of the letter of credit to be revoked and the financing
method changed to a reimbursable basis.
D. Prompt Payment Act Provisions
In accordance with section 2(d) of the Prompt Payment
Act (PL 97-177), Federal funds may not be used by the
recipient for the payment of interest penalties to
contractors when bills are paid late, nor may interest
penalties be used to satisfy cost-sharing requirements.
Obligations to pay such interest penalties will not be
obligations of the United States.
F-5
-------
2. SUPERFUND PROGRAM PROVISIONS
Superfund program provisions address requirements im-
posed by CERCLA and OERR policy on projects carried out
under CERCLA remedial Cooperative Agreements. This
section contains provisions that address seventeen such
requirements:
CERCLA Section 104(c)(3) Assurances
Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
Off-Site Treatment, Storage, or Disposal
Cost-Sharing
State Credits
Fund Balancing
National Contingency Plan
Duties of the RSPO and SPO
Site Access and Permits
Community Relations Plan
Site Safety Plan
Ploodplain Requirements
Access to Files
Reporting Requirements
Submission of Documents
Responsible Party Activities
Conflict of Interest
Emergency Response Action
Negation of Agency Relationship
Enforcement and Cost Recovery.
In some cases, more than one example has been provided.
These examples may be used, as appropriate, to develop
provisions of or special conditions to the Cooperative
Agreement application.
A. CERCLA Section 104(c)(3) Assurances
Before EPA funds remedial implementation (including an
initial remedial measure), the State is required by CERCLA
section 104(c)(3) to provide assurances regarding operation
and maintenance (O&M), off-site treatment, storage, or
disposal, and cost-sharing.
Operation and Maintenance
Applications containing remedial actions requiring O&M
should use the following provision or its equivalent:
F-6
-------
Pursuant to CERCLA section 104 (c) (3) (A), the
State shall provide all future operation and
maintenance costs (O&M) of the remedial actions
provided under this Agreement for the expected
life of such actions. The State agrees to submit
an O&M plan and receive EPA approval for that
plan prior to drawing down funds for remedial
implementation.
The requirements for an O&M Plan are outlined in Section
III.B.2 of the text.
Off-Site Treatment, Storage, or Disposal
The State is required by CERCLA section 104 (c) (3) (BJ
to assure the availability of adequate off-site treatment,
storage, or disposal if this is necessary for the remedial
action at a given site. The assurance should be consistent
with the policy memorandum entitled "Requirements for
Selecting an Off-Site Option in a Superfund Response
Action" issued by OSWER on January 28, 1983 (shown in
Appendix P). If the selected facility requires a new
compliance inspection in accordance with the provisions of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the
RSPO should coordinate with Regional RCRA personnel and
may offer REM/FIT assistance, if appropriate (see memoran-
dum for more details).
When a State contractor will provide the necessary
off-site facility, the following provision or its equiva-
lent should be used:
The State and EPA have determined that off-site
treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous sub-
stances is required for the activities funded
under this Agreement. Pursuant to CERCLA section
104 (c) (3) (B), the State is required to assure the
availability of a hazardous waste facility. The
State, in its invitation for bids for the remedial
action, will require respondents to provide ade-
quate capacity for waste disposal at a facility
(or facilities) that at a minimum meets the
requirements of Subtitle C of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (RCRA). If a designated facility
does not have a RCRA Part B permit, or a RCRA
compliance inspection has not been completed at
the designated facility within the 12 month period
before the date of award of this Agreement, a new
inspection will be completed prior to award of a
contract for treatment, storage, or disposal.
F-7
-------
Prior to award of the contract, the EPA Regional
office will review the results of the compliance
inspection and the interim status authority. If
deficiencies exist which may result in unsound
treatment, storage, or disposal practices, or
pose a threat of future releases, the facility
shall not be selected to receive hazardous sub-
stances for the project. State acceptance of a
contractor's bid will constitute the State's
assurance to EPA that CERCLA section 104(c) (3) (B)
requirements have been met.
When the State will identify the off-site facility,
the following or equivalent language should be used:
The State and EPA have determined that off-site
treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous sub-
stances is required for the activities funded
under this Agreement. Pursuant to CERCLA section
104 (c) (3) (B), the State will identify one or more
facilities with adequate capacity for waste
disposal that are acceptable to EPA and at a
minimum are in compliance with Subtitle C of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act (RCRA). If a designated
facility does not have a RCRA Part B permit, or a
RCRA compliance inspection has not been completed
at the designated facility within the 12-month
period before the date of award of this Agreement,
a new inspection will be completed prior to the
award of a contract for treatment, storage, or
disposal. Prior to award of the contract, the
EPA Regional office will review the results of
the compliance inspection and the interim status
authority. If deficiencies exist which may result
in unsound treatment, storage, or disposal prac-
tices, or pose a threat of future releases, the
facility shall not be selected to receive hazar-
dous substances for the project.
State Cost-Sharing
Under an SSC, the State provides cash payments to meet
its cost-sharing obligation; to fulfill its CERCLA section
104(c)(3) cost-sharing assurance, then, the SSC must in-
clude an article which documents State cost-sharing contri-
bution terms (see Appendix H). Under a Cooperative Agree-
ment, however, the State can meet its cost-sharing assur-
ance requirements by completing the project budget sheets
included in the Cooperative Agreement application form
(see Appendix G); no specific provision addressing cost-
sharing is necessary.
F-8
-------
However, under the provisions of CERCLA section
104(C) (3), the State is obligated to pay at least 50 per-
cent of all response costs if the site was publicly-owned
at the time of disposal. All Cooperative Agreement appli-
cations for remedial planning at known publicly-owned sites
or sites about which there is a question of ownership
should contain the provision that the State will retro-
actively provide its 50-percent share of all response
costs at the time of remedial action if the State or a
political subdivision is found to have been responsible
for ownership. The following, or its equivalent, may be
used for this purpose:
If EPA determines that the site was owned by the
State or one (or more) of its political subdivi-
sions at the time of disposal, the State will be
responsible for at least 50 percent of all
response costs at the site. In that event, this
Cooperative Agreement or any other Cooperative
Agreement or Contract to undertake remedial action
at the site shall provide for payment by the State
of at least 50 percent of the costs of any removal
actions, the remedial investigation, the feasi-
bility study, the remedial design, and any
remedial implementation related to the site.
B. State Credits
Under a Cooperative Agreement covering activities
requiring State cost-sharing, the State may provide up to
100 percent of its cost-sharing obligation by autnorizing
draw-down of available, site-specific credit granted pur-
suant to CERCLA section 104(c)(3)(C). When this is the
case, the Cooperative Agreement application must contain a
provision documenting the use of such credit. At sites
where the State has submitted a credit claim for EPA veri-
fication but has not yet received that verification, the
following provision may be used for a remedial implementa-
tion project at a privately-owned site:
CERCLA sections 104(c)(3) and 104{d)(l) require
that the State pay or assure payment of 10 percent
of the costs of the remedial implementation sub-
activities to be undertaken pursuant to this
Cooperative Agreement. CERCLA section
104 (c) (3) (C) provides that EPA will grant the
State a credit against the share of the costs for
which it is responsible under this section for
F-9
-------
any documented direct out-of-pocket non-Federal
funds expended or obligated by the State or a
political subdivision thereof between January 1,
1978, and December ll/ 1980, for eligible response
actions. The State claims a credit of $30,000
[amount of credit claimj for expenditure of funds
for response actions at this site between January
1, 1978, and December 11, 1980. EPA accepts this
estimate at face value pending final verification
of the eligibility and allowability of claimed
costs. At EPA's request, the State shall make
supporting documentation available for audit.
Based on final verification of these costs, the
amount the State will have to provide as its cost
share for remedial implementation conducted under
this Cooperative Agreement will be adjusted to
satisfy the State's cost-sharing responsibilities.
The State will not be reimbursed for any credit
remaining at the conclusion of Federally-funded
response actions at this site, nor may the State
apply remaining credit to the cost of remedial
activities at another site.
When the State has a verified credit, the following
paragraph is appropriate for an agreement covering a
remedial implementation project at a privately-owned site:
CERCLA sections 104(c)(3) and 104(d)(l) require .
that the State pay or assure payment o f 10 percent
of the costs of the remedial implementation sub-
activities to be undertaken pursuant to this
Cooperative Agreement. CERCLA section
104 (c) (3) (C) provides that EPA will grant the
State a credit against the share of the costs for
which it is responsible under this section for
any documented direct out-of-pocket non-Federal
funds expended or obligated by the State or a
political subdivision thereof between January 1,
1978, and December 11, 1980, for eligible response
actions. The State has a verified credit of
$30,000 [amount of verified credit] for expendi-
ture of funds for response actions at this site
between January 1, 1978, and December 11, 1980.
This credit will be applied toward the State's
cost-sharing obligation for remedial implementa-
tion conducted under this Cooperative Agreement.
The State will not be reimbursed for any credit
remaining at the conclusion of Federally-funded
response actions at this site, nor may the State
apply remaining credit to the cost of remedial
activities at another site.
F-10
-------
Under previous EPA policy, some States have been
required to share in the costs of remedial planning activi-
ties at privately-owned sites. The memorandum entitled
"Guidance on Implementing Waiver of 10 Percent Cost-Share
for Remedial Planning," issued by the Director, OERR on
June 1, 1983 (see Appendix P), provided that each such
Cooperative Agreement should be amended to revise the
budget to either provide for 100 percent EPA funding or to
apply these State costs to later cost-sharing obligations
for remedial implementation at the site. If the latter
option is used, the Cooperative Agreement or amendment
funding remedial implementation at the site should document
the use of previously paid State cost-sharing. The follow-
ing provision may be used for this purpose:
The State has shared in the costs of remedial
planning activities at the site described herein
under Cooperative Agreement CX [ ]. In
accordance with Special Condition No. [ ] of
that Agreement, the remedial planning costs
incurred by the State under that Agreement are
being applied toward its cost-sharing obligation
for the remedial implementation subactivities
funded by this Agreement. The State claims reme-
dial planning costs of $50,000 [amount of claimed
expenditures] under that Agreement. EPA accepts
this claim at face value, pending final verifica-
tion of the eligibility and allowability of
claimed costs. At EPA's request, the State shall
make supporting documentation available for audit.
Based on final verification of these costs, the
amount the State will have to provide as its cost
share for remedial implementation under this
Cooperative Agreement will be adjusted to satisfy
the State's cost-sharing responsibilities.
C. Fund-Balancing
The State should acknowledge that applications for
further funding after the initial award will be weighed
against requirements to respond at other sites. The
following provision may be used for this purpose:
CERCLA section 104 (c) (4) requires that CERCLA-
funded actions provide a cost-effective response,
balancing the need for protection of public
health, welfare, and the environment against the
availability of amounts from the Fund to respond
at other sites. If the State requests CERCLA
funding for additional activities at the site,
F-ll
-------
EPA will evaluate the request against available
Fund monies. Award of this Cooperative Agreement
does not commit EPA to future funding for response
actions at the site.
D. National Contingency Plan (NCP)
A Cooperative Agreement will not be awarded unless
proposed activities are scoped according to the NCP. In
addition, the State should guarantee that any future
activities for which it requests Fund monies will also be
developed in accordance with that regulation. The follow-
ing provision may be used for applications containing
remedial planning subactivities:
All activities conducted under this Cooperative
Agreement shall be consistent with the revised
National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR 300, dated
July 16, 1982 (47 Federal Register 31180). Reme-
dial alternatives developed as part of the reme-
dial investigation and feasibility study will be
identified, evaluated, and ultimately categorized
as initial remedial, source control, or off-site
measures based upon the factors established in
section 300.68(e) of the NCP.
E. Duties of the RSPO and SPO
As in EPA-lead remedial response agreements, certain
duties of both the EPA RSPO and the SPO should be specifi-
cally stated in the Cooperative Agreement application.
Duties will vary depending on the conditions and require-
ments of individual sites; assistance can be provided by
the Regional program office to determine which duties
should be enumerated. Two examples are given here:
a. The EPA Project Officer will conduct periodic
reviews and site inspections to evaluate
project activities to assure compliance with
applicable EPA requirements and regulations.
The State Project Officer will assure that
all project schedules and reporting require-
ments are met.
b. The EPA Project Officer will conduct periodic
reviews and visits to evaluate project
activities to assure compliance with appli-
cable EPA requirements and regulations. The
State Project Officer agrees to ensure that
schedules and reporting requirements are
F-12
-------
met. All State-proposed modifications to
schedules or activities will be reported
immediately to the EPA Project Officer for
approval. The EPA Project Officer agrees to
notify the State Project Officer of schedule
changes resulting from EPA enforcement
activities.
F. Site Access and Permits
The State is responsible for acquiring all permits and
approvals necessary to carry out work at the site. The
following provision may be used to document this responsi-
bility:
The State agrees to satisfy all Federal, State,
and local requirements, including permits and
approvals, necessary for implementing activities
addressed in this Cooperative Agreement. The
State will provide access to the site, as well as
all rights-of-way and easements necessary to com-
plete the response actions. The State will pro-
vide access to EPA employees and contractors at
all reasonable times.
G. Community Relations Plan (CRP)
In accordance with EPA policy, a draft CRP is to be
submitted with the draft Cooperative Agreement application
package and a final CRP is to be submitted with the final
application. The CRP will specify whether a State agency
or EPA will have lead responsibility for the community
relations program. In addition to including the CRP as an
attachment, the Cooperative Agreement should include a con-
dition pertaining to the CRP as follows:
The State and EPA agree that the community rela-
tions activities at the site will be conducted in
accordance with the Community Relations Plan,
contained in the State's application dated .
In every application for remedial planning activities,
the State should also address NEPA requirements for public
input by specifically stating that it will allow a period
of public comment on recommended actions. The following
provision may be used for this purpose:
The State agrees that public input will be sought
at the end of the feasibility study and prior to
final selection of remedy in accordance with the
approved Community Relations Plan.
[A sample CRP is provided in Appendix K.]
P-13
-------
H. Site Safety Plan
The State is required to have a site safety plan pro-
viding for the protection of on-site personnel and area
residents. The safety plan must be consistent with the
following:
CERCLA sections 104 (f) and lll(c)(6)
EPA Order 1440.2 - Health and Safety Requirements
fo_r Employees Engaged in Field Activities
EPA Order 1440.1 - Respiratory Protection
EPA Occupational Health and Safety Manual
EPA Interim Standard Operating Safety Guide
(September 1982)
Applicable OSHA standards
State safety and health standards and site condi-
tions.
It may be prepared either by State staff or by a State
contractor but must be in place before the commencement of
field work at a site. Unless the plan is completed and
submitted with the final assistance application, a provi-
sion must be included in the application to acknowledge the
State's awareness of this requirement. The following pro-
vision may be used for this purpose:
A final safety plan shall be prepared for activi-
ties performed pursuant to this Cooperative
Agreement. The plan shall be approved by the EPA
Regional Site Project Officer and shall be con-
sistent with the requirements of CERCLA section
104 (f), EPA's Occupational Health and Safety
Manual, and other applicable EPA safety guidance
provided by the EPA Project Officer. As a condi-
tion to awarding contracts to any person to engage
in response actions, the State shall require con-
tractors and subcontractors to comply with the
developed safety plan and all relevant Federal
health and safety standards. No field work at a
site shall occur until a safety plan for that
site has been approved by EPA.
[A sample site safety plan can be found in Appendix M.]
F-14
-------
I. Floodplains Requirement
The Floodplains Management Executive Order (E.G. 11988)
and EPA implementing regulations (40 CFR Part 6, Appendix
A) require EPA to avoid, to the extent possible, long- and
short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy
and modification of floodplains and, further, to avoid any
support of floodplain development where there are practi-
cable alternatives. They also require a public participa-
tion program. If any remedial response occurs in a flood-
plain, the Agency must minimize potential harm to people,
property, natural and beneficial floodplain values, and
must incorporate floodplain management goals into the
planning and decision-making process. To meet these
requirements, a State applying for a Cooperative Agreement
in or near a floodplain must analyze the impacts of the
proposed activities on the floodplain, consistent with the
Executive Order, and prepare a floodplain assessment as
part of the feasibility study. Such Cooperative Agreement
applications should contain a provision addressing EPA's
floodplains requirements; the following, or its equivalent,
can be used for this purpose:
The State agrees to avoid, to the extent possible,
any action in the floodplain. If there is no
cost-effective alternative to such action, the
State will evaluate the potential effects of these
activities in the floodplain pursuant to Executive
Order 11988 (see 40 CFR Part 6, Appendix A).
This evaluation will be incorporated as part of
the feasibility study report. Any actions taken
in the floodplain will seek to reduce the risk of
flood loss, to minimize potential harm to people
and property, and to restore and preserve the
natural and beneficial values served by the flood-
plain .
J. Access to Files
The State should include in its application a provision
for public access to the site files maintained by EPA and
the State, while at the same time making any necessary
arrangements for confidentiality. In addition, the
Cooperative Agreement application should contain a provi-
sion stating that both EPA and the State will be granted
access to each other's files. Appropriate references to
specific State statutes and requirements are encouraged.
Requirements for confidentiality should be communicated to
appropriate EPA Regional and Headquarters personnel for
assistance in developing appropriate language. Examples
of provisions to address this requirement are provided
below:
F-15
-------
a. The State will allow public access to its
records in accordance with applicable State
law. EPA will allow public access to its
records in accordance with the procedures
established under the Freedom of Information
Act (PL 93-502), regulations promulgated
pursuant thereto, and agency guidance. Both
parties agree to protect each other's claims
for confidentiality, particularly with regard
to documents related to pending or ongoing
enforcement actions, generated by either the
State or EPA.
b. At EPA's request and to the extent allowed
by State law, the State shall make available
to EPA any information in its possession
concerning the site. At the State's request
and to the extent allowed by Federal law,
EPA shall make available to the State any
information in its possession concerning the
site. If any information is provided to EPA
by the State under a claim of confidential-
ity, it will be treated in accordance with
40 CFR 2, if the State has given EPA notice
of the claim of confidentiality. EPA will
not disclose information submitted under a
claim of confidentiality unless EPA is
required .to do so by Federal law and has
given the State advance notice of EPA's in-
tent to release that information. Absent
notice of such claim, EPA may make said
information available to the public without
further notice.
K. Reporting Requirements
Unlike an EPA-lead remedial response agreement, where
EPA reports site progress to the State (see Appendix H)/
under a Cooperative Agreement the State is required to
make quarterly progress reports to EPA. To signify accept-
ance of this requirement, the State should include a pro-
vision in its application addressing contents and timing
of such reports. The following provision may be used:
The State agrees to submit progress reports to
the EPA Project Officer at quarterly intervals
commencing at the start of the project. These
reports shall include itemization of expenditures
by object class and by each task/subactivity/
activity in the SOW (expenditures to date and
F-16
-------
expenditures since the previous report); estimates
(percentages) of work completed for each activity
or subactivity in the SOW, including a description
of the basis for the estimates; and estimated
variances (cost and time) expected at project
completion.
L. Submission of Documents
The State should guarantee in its application that all
documents prepared under the Cooperative Agreement will be
submitted to the RSPO for review, just as under an EPA-lead
agreement, EPA provides that it will submit all such docu-
ments for State review (see Appendix H). The contents of
a provision addressing this will vary depending upon
whether the State's procurement system meets the intent of
EPA's Requirements for Procurement Under Assistance Agree-
ments (40 CFR Part 33). The following provision may be
used when the State has certified its system on the Pro-
curement System Checklist submitted with its Cooperative
Agreement application:
The State agrees to submit all final plans,
reports, specifications, and/or recommendations
to the EPA Project Officer for review and concur-
rence prior to issuance or implementation. Final
contract documents or plans and contract changes
shall be submitted to the EPA Project Officer
prior to issuance for review to ensure technical
adequacy and compliance with the terms of this
Agreement.
If the State has not certified that its procurement
system meets all the requirements of 40 CFR Part 33, the
following provision is appropriate:
The State agrees to submit all final plans,
reports, specifications, and/or recommendations
to the EPA Project Officer for review and concur-
rence prior to issuance or implementation. Final
contract documents or plans and contract changes
shall be submitted to the EPA Project Officer for
review, as provided in 40 CFR 33.110(b) (2) , before
contract award or amendment.
M. Responsible Party Activities
Some applications require the inclusion of an acknowl-
edgement that responsible parties may come forward to per-
form some of the activities defined in the SOW. The pro-
F-17
-------
vision below may be used for sites where litigation is
ongoing and where, in the opinion of State and EPA attor-
neys, settlement may occur:
If, during the period of this Agreement, respon-
sible parties agree to perform, or pay for the
performance of, any activities included in the
SOW, EPA and the State agree to jointly negotiate
any necessary modifications to this Agreement.
If appropriate, this Agreement may be amended to
adjust the State's letter of credit and the pro-
ject SOW accordingly.
N. Conflict of Interest
All Cooperative Agreement applications should contain
a provision regarding contracts with potentially responsi-
ble parties. The following provision may be used for this
purpose:
EPA has determined that participation in a
response action at a site by a potentially
responsible party could create an organizational
conflict of interest (i.e., the contractor would
be placed in a position where its interests as a
potentially responsible party would conflict with
its ability to properly perform the work or would
otherwise adversely affect State or Federal
enforcement action). Therefore, the State shall
require a bidder or offerer on any contract funded
under this Cooperative Agreement to provide, with
its bid or proposal: (1) information on its
status and the status of parent companies, sub-
sidiaries, affiliates and subcontractors as poten-
tially responsible parties at the site; (2) certi-
fication that, to the best of its knowledge and
belief, it has disclosed such information or no
such information exists; (3) a statement that it
shall immediately disclose any such information
discovered after submission of its bid or propo-
sal, or after award. The State shall evaluate
such information and shall exclude any bidder or
offeror who is a potentially responsible party at
the site if the State determines the bidder 's or
offerer's conflict of interest is significant and
cannot be avoided or otherwise resolved.
0. Emergency Response Actions
During the course of conducting the remedial activities
covered by the Cooperative Agreement, it may become neces-
sary to initiate emergency response actions at the site.
F-18
-------
A Cooperative Agreement application should contain a pro-
vision acknowledging this eventuality and addressing the
effect of any such emergency actions upon the remedial
project in progress. The provision below, or its equiva-
lent, may be used in an application for this purpose:
Any emergency response activities conducted pur-
suant to the National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR
section 300.65, shall not be restricted by the
terms of this Agreement. EPA and the State may
jointly suspend or modify the remedial activities
in the SOW of this Agreement during and subsequent
to necessary emergency response actions.
P. Negation of Agency Relationship
It is important to both EPA and the State that a
Cooperative Agreement contains a provision negating the
principle that the State is acting as EPA's agent in the
remedial response activity. This assertion could increase
the potential for exposure to tort liability and could
complicate cost recovery efforts. The following provision,
or its equivalent, should be included in the Cooperative
Agreement to negate this principle:
Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be con-
strued to create, either expressly or by implica-
tion, the relationship of agency between EPA and
the State. Any standards, procedures, or proto-
cols prescribed in this Agreement to be followed
by the State during the performance of its obli-
gations under this Agreement are for assurance of
the quality of the final product of the actions
contemplated by this Agreement, and do not con-
stitute a right to control the actions of the
State. EPA (including its employees and contrac-
tors) is not authorized to represent or act on
behalf of the State in any matter relating to the
subject matter of this Agreement, and the State
(including its employees and contractors) is not
authorized to represent or act on behalf of EPA
in any matter related to the subject matter of
this Agreement. Neither EPA nor the State shall
be liable for the contracts, acts, errors, or
omissions of the agents, employees, or contractors
of the other party entered into, committed or
performed with respect to or in the performance
of, this Agreement.
F-19
-------
Q. Enforcement and Cost Recovery
Under CERCLA, both EPA and affected States can insti-
tute enforcement actions against, and/or negotiations with,
parties responsible for priority waste sites. When this
occurs, a settlement or legal action by either party could
potentially impede or even negate the claims of the other
for recovery of funds expended at the site. Obligations,
rights, and procedures for litigation must be defined as
early as possible in the working relationship between EPA
and the State to avoid this eventuality. Therefore, pro-
visions concerning cost recovery and other enforcement
considerations must be included in a Cooperative Agreement
application. Specific provisions that address different
enforcement conditions are presented below. These provi-
sions should be reviewed, discussed with the RSPO, and in-
cluded in the application, as appropriate.
Notice of Intent to Settle or Initiate Proceedings
EPA and the State agree that, with respect to the
claims that each may be entitled to assert against
any third person (herein referred to as the
"responsible party," whether one or more) for
reimbursement of any services, materials, monies,
or other thing of value expended by EPA or the
State for response activity at the site described
herein, neither EPA nor the State will enter into
a settlement with or initiate a judicial or admin-
istrative proceeding against, a responsible party
for the recovery of such sums except after having
given notice in writing to the other party to
this Agreement not less than thirty (30) days in
advance of the date of the proposed settlement or
commencement of the proposed judicial or admin-
istrative proceedings. Neither party to this
Agreement shall attempt to negotiate for nor col-
lect reimbursement of any response costs on behalf
of the other party, and authority to do so is
hereby expressly negated and denied.
Cooperation and Coordination in Cost Recovery Efforts
EPA and the State agree that they will cooperate
and coordinate in efforts to recover their respec-
tive costs of response actions taken at the site
described herein, including the negotiation of
settlement and the filing and management of any
judicial actions against potential third parties.
This shall include coordination in the use of
P-20
-------
evidence and witnesses available to each in the
preparation and presentation of any cost recovery
action, excepting any documents or information
which may be confidential under the provisions of
any applicable State or Federal law or regulation.
Judicial Action in U.S. District Court
EPA and the State agree that judicial action taken
by either party against a potentially responsible
party pursuant to CERCLA for recovery of any sums
expended in response actions at the site described
herein shall be filed in the United States
District Court for the judicial district in which
the site described in this Agreement is located,
or in such other judicial district of the United
States District Court as may be authorized by
section 113 of CERCLA, and agreed to in writing
by the parties of this Agreement.
Litigation Under CERCLA Sections 106 and 107
The award of this Agreement does not constitute a
waiver of EPA's right to bring an action against
any person or persons for liability under sections
106 or 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), or any other statutory provision or
common law.
Sharing Recovered Funds with EPA
[Note: This provision should be used only when EPA has
determined that the State has obtained all possible cost
recovery or when the State has filed a cost recovery action
that EPA has determined should be pursued rather than dis-
missed. ]
Any recovery achieved by the State pursuant to
settlement, judgment or consent decree or any
action against any of the responsible parties
will be shared with EPA in proportion to EPA's
contribution to the site response activities under
CERCLA.
F-21
-------
APPENDIX G
SAMPLE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT APPLICATION PACKAGE
PURPOSE
This appendix h'as been included to demonstrate the
components of a Cooperative Agreement application package
and to assist the State Project Officer (SPO) in compiling
all of the necessary information for the submission.
BACKGROUND
A Cooperative Agreement application package is the set
of documents that the State submits to the EPA Region as
its formal application for Federal assistance. Applica-
tions may be site-specific or they may cover remedial
planning projects at more than one site located within a
single State. In any case, the package is comprised of
the actual Cooperative Agreement application form (EPA
Form 5700-33) and in addition should include:
A narrative description of the site and remedial
objectives*
A statement of work*
A detailed budget breakdown, presented in more
detail than that in the application budget*
A completed and signed Procurement System Check-
list (EPA Form 5700-48)
Necessary assurances regarding CERCLA section
104 (c) (3), if required for completion of the pro-
ject in question, and provisions addressing other
Superfund program requirements
A letter certifying that the State agency entering
into the Cooperative Agreement has authority to
do so and to make CERCLA section 104 (c) (3) assur-
ances, if any are required for the project
If the Cooperative Agreement application package covers
remedial activities at more than one site, the State
should submit individual project narratives, statements
of work, and budget breakdowns for each proposed
activity.
G-l
-------
A copy of State intergovernmental review comments
A Community Relations Plan.
Together, these documents comprise the Cooperative Agree-
ment application package.
APPENDIX SUMMARY
This appendix provides an example of a Cooperative
Agreement application package for remedial response. The
example shown includes all of the documents cited above,
except for the following:
A statement of work
A Community Relations Plan.
These have not been reproduced here because of space limi-
tations. In addition, because intergovernmental review is
a recent requirement, review comments are not included in
this appendix.
Most of the example reproduced here has been taken
from the Cooperative Agreement package submitted in July
1982 for the Crystal Chemical Company site in Texas. When
submitted to EPA, the Crystal Chemical application
reflected Superfund program requirements (based on earlier
guidance) and was subsequently awarded. Superfund program
policies, procedures, and terminology, however, have con-
tinued to evolve. Therefore, the Crystal Chemical appli-
cation form (EPA Form 5700-33) has been replaced with
examples showing the recent changes reflected in this
guidance document. Provided here are an example of an
original application and a sample amendment application to
demonstrate procedures which should be used when requesting
an increase in funds for existing subactivities and/or
money to implement additional subactivities. Other por-
tions of the Crystal Chemical application, however, repre-
sent current Superfund program requirements, and therefore
can continue to be used as appropriate examples.*
Throughout the elements of the Crystal Chemical appli-
cation package, the proposed subactivities are referred
to as "Site Investigation" and "Feasibility;" these
should instead be referred to as one subactivity
"Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study."
G-2
-------
This Cooperative Agreement package is provided to serve
as a guide only; situations may arise where the require-
ments of or documents included in this sample package are
not applicable to the specific conditions at a site. Rep-
resentatives of the State should discuss with EPA Regional
personnel the specific contents required in each Cooper-
ative Agreement application package prior to submitting
the package for EPA review.
G-3
-------
ORIGINAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT APPLICATION PRH (5700-33)
STATE AND LOCAL NONCOWSTRUCTION PROGRAMS
OW*<*>RN«NO IO-08HO
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
1. TYK
or
ACTION
IHtttff
O
Q
NOTIFICATION OF INTENT (0»t|
HOW OF FtOEMl ACTION
2. AftU-
CANTS
Am).
CATION
. NUMttl
k. OATI
Yrar mont*
3. STATE
CATION
IOENT).
FIER
k. OATI
ASUCMCO
Lnw
Dept. of Health & Environment
Environmental Services Division
Ecology Building, Room 2872
Hespen c*~*r Lincoln
Malasee t.wcw« 00013
W»m»
Hal
7. TTTU AND oesanmoN of AmiCANrs rtoita
Joellen's Waste Disposal Site
Remedial Investigation, Feasibility Study, and
Initial Remedial Measure
10. AXEA OF nOJfCT IMPACT I Nam,, afr,lm.
Sum. tie. I
Hespen, Lincoln County
u.
PtOPOSI0 FUNOW4G
|«485.100
k. A*UCAMT
JIATt
t. IOCA1
. OTMB
TO1A1
3.900
.00
.00
.00
.00
»489,000
II. ESTIMATED NUM.
IE* OF FftSONS
IENEFITING
20,000
U. CONGRESSIONAL DISTMCTS OF.
*. AMUCAMT
16. ftOJECT STAIT
DATE Ytar month
09 01
IS. ESTIMATED DATE TO
IE SUIMITTED TO
FEDERAL AGtNCY » It
17. PROJECT
DURATION
2A
Yrar
5. FEDEKAi EMnOrtR IDENTIFICATK>N NO.
99-9999999
PtO-
GtAM
IFnm
Fnttnl
|6|6|-|8|0|2|
k.TTTU
Hazardous Substance
Response Trust Fund
8. Tm OF APWCAMT/MOWINT
Etltr
«. TYPE OF ASSISTANa
'""W«- I JSl
u» fcfiffff^ [ ! J
12. TYPf OF APPLICATION
A Km C fa.ix. [
Eniri
Itiur \_
13. TYPt OF CHANGE ffc» II c or 12 rl
A IKCCTJX Bi««»i ' ONw (Sfmfyl
l-
Eitler appro-
pnalt Ixilltl
19. EXISTING FEDEtAl IDENTIFICATION NUMWt
20. FCOIRAl AGENCY TO RtCtlVt tEOUCST INtmt. Cay. Stan. Zlf cod,I
U.S. EPA, Region VIII, Denver, CO 80295
n.
TMI
APFUCANT
atrtnts
THAT »
n.
mm-
SENTATTVE
21. (EMAMU ADDED
3r« ON.
k. H
M
H
HI
(II
(31
OMI Oevt«r A-»5 *~ ,
/Ve
See Attachment
D
D
D
D
D
D
*. nttO MAMt AND TTTU
Heidi M. Kleen, Director
k. SICMATUM
24. AGENCY NAME
26. ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT
27. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
39. ADDRESS
31. ACTION TAKEN
D «. AWARDED
O k. REJECTED
O c. KETURNED FOR
AMENDMENT
O * DEFERRED
O . WTTHDRAWN
U.
FEDERAi AGENCY
A-»3 ACTION
32.
FUNDING
. KMIAl
k. AfUJCANT
c. run
d. IOCAI
. OTMII
T01AI
Ytor month dof
33. ACTION DATE «
33. COMTAO FOR ADDITIONAL INFO*MA.
TION tNomt and lrttf*o*f nvmorrl
cttm. «nr ci»m«mi ,!«<
H gii^n f«»«> it dtM uMd«f
Craitoi A-fS. * kM k~- > .1 WMf -»*
1, OMt
c OATt ilCMCD
Ytor month day
,,83 08 04
2S. AP»UCA- Year moMli iff
TION
RECIIVEO l»
. FEOfRAJ. AffUCATION
IOENTIFKATION
30. FEDERAL GRANT
IDENTIFICATION
34. X
STARTING
DATE It
m
-------
PART It
PROJECT APPROVAL INFORMATION
Form Approved
OMB No. 15S-R01JO
lt«m 1.
Does tnis assistance request State, local, regional, or other priority
rating?
Yes
No
Name of Governing 8ody U.S. EPA
Priority Rating Hap.arH Ranking S
.Item 2.
Does this assistance request require State, or local advisory, educa-
tional or health clearances?
Name of Agency or
Board
.Yes X NO (Attach Documentationl
Item 3.
Does this assistance request require clearinghouse review in accord-
ance with OMB Circular A-95?
Yes
.No
I Attach Comments)
Item 4.
Does this assistance request require Sate, local, regional or other
planning approval?
.Yes
.No
Name of Approving Agency.
Date
Item 5.
Is the proposed project covered by an approved comprehensive
plan?
Yes X No
Check one: State D
Local n
Regional D
Location of Plan _____
Item 6.
Will the assistance requested serve a Federal installation?
Yes
No
Name of Federal Installation
Federal Population benefiting from Proiect
Item 7.
Will the.assistance requested be on Federal land or installation?
_Yes X Nn
Name of Federal Installation
Location of Federal Land
Percent of Project
Item 8.
Will the assistance requested have an impact or effect on the
environment?
Yes
No
See instructions for additional information to be provided.
lam 9.
Has the project for which assistance is requested caused, since
January 1. 1971. or will it oause. the displacement of any individual,
family, business, or farm?
Number of:
Individuals.
Families _
Businesses.
Farms
.Yes
.No (check "Yes" if relocations will occur)
Item 10.
Is there other related assistance on this project previous, pending,
or anticipated?
.Yes
.No
See instructions for additional information to be provided.
(Check "Yes" if emergencies, planned
removals, etc. have occurred, or are
expected to occur)
hem 11.
Is project in a Designated F lood Hazard Area?
(If "Yes," include FEMA number for the area)
-Yes
-No
EPA F
-------
rorm Approved
OMB No. 158-R0110
PART HI-BUDGET INFORMATION
SECTION A-BUOGET SUMMARY
GRANT PROGRAM,
FUNCTION OR ACTIVITY
()
Remedial Planning
' (RT/PK^
, Remedial Implementatio
- ' (IRM)
3.
4.
ESTIMATED UNOBLIGATED FUNDS NEW OR REVISED BUDGET
FEDERAL
CATALOG NO.
FEDERAL NON-rEDERAL FEDERAL
(bl Icl (dl (el
66-802 $ $ $ 450,000
1
66-802 35,100
5. TOTALS $ $ $ 485.000
NONFEDERAL TOTAL
(0 (g)
$ -0- $ 450,000
3,900 39,000
$ 3.900 $ 489,000
SECTION B-SCHEDULE A BUDGET CATEGORIES
6. Object Class Categories
a. Personnel
b. Fringe Benefits
c. Travel
d. Equipment
e. Supplies
f. Contractual
g. Construction
h. Other
i. Total Direct Charges
j. Indirect Charges
k. TOTALS 13.1% Of S&W
ogranri Income
GRANT PROGRAM, FUNCTION OR ACTIVITY
Planning
(RI/FS)
$ 32.474
6r495
3,526
250
550
400,000
-0-
1,600
444,895
5,105
$ 450,000
$
Implementation
121 (IRM)
$ 5.000
1, 000
500
-0-
-0-
31,714
-0-
-0-
38, 214
786
$ 39,000
$
(31
$
$
$
(4)
$
$
$
I ,rm 5700-33 (Rev. 10-79)
TOTAL
(5)
$ 37,474
7,495
4,026
250
550
431,114
-0-
1,600
483,109
5,891
$ 489,000
$
PAGF 7
-------
Form Approved
OMB No. 158-R0110
SECTION B - SCHEDULE B - BUDGET CATEGORIES
6. Program Elements
(See subactivities as
defined in Appendix N
for Program Elements)
Remedial Investigation /
a' Feasibility Study
b- Initial Remedial Measure
a
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i. Total Program Elements
). STATE TOTAL
FUNDING
(1) FEDERAL
s 450,000
35,100
$
S 485,100
(2) NON-FEDERAL
S -0-
3,900
$
$ 3,900
(31 TOTAL
S 450,000
35,000
(41
MAN-
YEARS
!
5
$ 489,000
See attached detailed cost breakdown by task.
EPA Fw» 5700-33 (R.v. 10-79)
G-7
PAGE 8 OF 12
-------
fllllll
UMH N» ItitlHOIH)
(a\ GRANT PROGRAM
SECTION C-NON TEDEHAL HESOUMCCS (Leave Blank)
.
n.
9.
to.
11.
12. TOTALS
(b) APPLICANT
$
s
(c) STATL
$
$
(d) Oil II II SOURCES
$
s
(Hi 1 DIALS
$
$
SECTION O-FORECASTED CASH NEEDS
13. Federal
14. Non Federal
IS. TOTALS
TOTAL FOR 1st YEAR
$ 200,000
3,900
$ 203,900
Is) QUARTER
* 59,000
3,900
$ 62,900
2nd QUARTER
$ 47,000
$ 47,000
Jrd QUARTER
$ 47,000
$ 47,000
4lh (JUAUTEH
$ 47,000
$ 47,000
SECTION E-BUDGET ESTIMATES OF FEDERAL FUNDS NEEDED FOR BALANCE OF THE PROJECT
(a) CHANT PROGRAM
16. Remedial Design
17. Remedial Action
18.
19.
20. TOTALS
FUTURE FUNDING PERIODS (YEARSI
-------
APPLICATION FOR COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT (5700-33)
STATE-AND LOCAL NONCON5TRUCTION PROGRAMS
out
«
2
5
U
*
u
i
u
a
SECTION II-CCHTIFICATIOM
1 StCIIOMIII-flDtRAl. AGtWCV ACTION
FEDERAL
OF
ACTION
ASSISTANCE J-AW.-
CANT'S
a MUmiUllOK CATION
.. MUMttl
k. OATI riwirt ^
If
3. STATE «. N<
CATION
(OtMTl. k. 0)
FIER AJ
JMMR
"ScHIg Ynr me-lK 4tf
It
(Mart ap. Q NOTIFICATION OF IKTEN! (OoL) /^^
taST°" G 'EPOKT OF FEDERAl KTION Blank
4. UGAl APPUCANT/REOPIEKT
.. AA..IIC.M NOT. , oept. of Health's Environment
k, OTV^IMIW. LM< , Environmental Services Division
» "-O.U. Ecology Building, Room 2872
*a* ' Hespen <* ' ' Lincoln
'*"" ' Malasee t.npc 00013
k. Cxiuct F«M« tffanv
4 liltpHont Mo.)
7. TITLE AND DESCRIPTION OF APPUCAKTS PROJECT
Joellen's Waste Disposal Site
Remedial Design and Initial Remedial Measure
10. AREA OF PROJECT IMPACT (Ntma tftttM. co*ni,n
Stain, tic.)
Hespen, Lincoln County
11. ESTIMATED NUM.
IER OF PERSONS
IENEFIT1NG
20,000
13. PROPOSED FUNDING U. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF:
.. FeocRAi
k. APPUCANT
t STATI
4. LOCAL
i. OTWIR
1. TOTAL
t304,
500 .00 ".APPUCAHT
500 .« 2
»305,
0, 16. PROJEO START
.00 ,,8? 09 Ol
,, U. ESTIMATED DATE TO
000 °° FEDERAl AGENCY
5
17 PROJEO
DURATION
6 Monlnl
85 07 26
i FEDERAL EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NO.
99-9999999
6.
PtO- . Ht
GRAM k Tn
£"" , He
Fnttral
duiotJ Re
..jin
OMPM
y M«»Trfc»
K OIMF (Sptcrfyt:
ra"l
Enttr app*vpnart Irtur & 1
9 TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
A Uw< O»« 0 lm«i»m
c_ u«i '"" ~ ;"«« /«M»*I' : ! !
13. TYPE OF APPLICATION
A > N.W C tliili»n E 1 xfMliil»««» t .
t- «~-^ o c «~«fM» £/twr afllnpra,, Sau, p !
13. TYPE OF CHANGE (for 11 1 or 1} t)
A lwra«M CMton
C InoB.ia 0 _j ml
E C«K»H«ti»i
^ OffMt (Spfct/yJ:
n
prwit* luitfit) |^_1C L '
19. EXISTING FEDERAL IDENTIFICATION NUMtER
CX 821001-01-0
30. FEDERAl AGENCY TO RECIIVE REQUEST l.\amt. C,ty. Statt. ZIP mt,l
U.S. EPA Region VIII, Denver, CO 80295
n.
THE
APPUCANT
CERTIFIES
THAT fr
33.
CERTIFYING
REPRE-
SENTATIVE
34. AGENCY
«. T. If* km «< m > i lilfi mn4 k^t, k. If mmrW kr OMI Gnvtw A-t) Km .»»lic«*.ii »« H>ta>nW.
r* trv. M^ cwrwl. >*« IMIII( hai ».eh»<-
kwr rt ifc. ~+,Ln< ~* «»'Z,^m I'1 See Attachment
it 1W M4MMMC. 11 Mpl.lld. 13)
.. TYffO KAMI AND TTT12
Heidi M. Kleen, Director
NAME
36. ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT
79. ADDRESS
31. ACTON TAKEN
O «. AW ARC
O b. REJECT1
O c RETURN
AMEND
Q»O 1 IBtv 4.77.'
rrivnM I-* OVB Circular 4-101
Reproduced from
best available copy.
EPA Farm 5700-33 (Rev. 10-79)
1 OF 12
G-9
-------
(This form is not required unless item 9 or 10 is changed, e.g., relocation
or emergency action at site)
Form Approved
PART II OMB No. 153-R01W
PROJECT APPROVAL INFORMATION
Item 1.
Does this assistance request State, local, regional, or other priority
rating?
-Yes
No
Name of Governing Body .
Priority Rating
Item 2.
Does tfiis assistance request require State, or local advisory, educa-
tional or health clearances?
.Yes
Name of Agency or
Board
No (Attach Documentation!
Item 3.
Does this assistance request require clearinghouse review in accord-
ance with OMB Circular A-95?
Yes
.No
(Attach Comments!
Item 4.
Don this assistance request require Sate, local, regional or other
planning approval?
.Yes
.No
Name of Approving Agency.
Date
Item 5.
Is the proposed project covered by an approved comprehensive
plan?
. Yes
. No
Check one: State D
Local D
Regional D
Location or Plan
Item 6.
Will the assistance requested serve a Federal installation?
Yes
Name of Federal Installation
Federal Population benefiting from Project
Item 7.
Will the assistance requested be on Federal land or installation?
_Yes
.No
Name of Federal Installation .
Location of Federal Land
Percent of Project
Item 8.
Will the assistance requested have an impact or effect on the
environment?
-Yes
.No
See instructions for additional information to be provided.
Item 9.
Has the project for which assistance is requested caused, since
January 1. 1971, or will it cause, the displacement of any individual,
family, business, or farm?
.Yes
.No
Number of:
Individuals.
Families _
Businesses.
Farms
Item 10.
Is there other related assistance on this project previous, pending,
or anticipated?
.Yes
.No
See instructions for additional information to be provided.
Item 11.
It protect in a Designated Flood Hazard Area?
-Yes
.No
EPA Form 5700-33 (R«v. 10-79)
PAGE 5 Or 12
G-10
-------
ronn Approved
OMU NI>. tr>n nono
PART HI-BUDGET INFORMATION
GRANT PROGRAM.
FUNCTION OR ACTIVITY
(a)
1 Planning (RI/FS) (Old)
2' Implem. (IRM) (Old)
3. Planning (Design) (New)
4 Implem. (IRM) (New)
5. TOTALS
SECTION A-BUDGET SUMMARY
ESTIMATED UNOBLIGATED FUNDS
FEDERAL
CATALOG NO
FEDERAL NON-FEDERAL
(bl (cl (dl
66-802 $ $
66-802
66-802
66-802
$ $
FEDERAL
(el
N
$ 450,000
35,100
300,000
4,500
$ 789,600
EW OR REVISED BUDGET
NON FEDERAL TOTAL
(fl (gl
$ -0- $ 450,000
3,900 39,000
-0- 300,000
500 5,000
* 4,400 $ 794,000
SECTION B-SCHEDULE A BUDGET CATEGORIES
G. Oltjoct Clnss Cntcgorios
a. Personnel
b. Fringe Benefits
c. Travel
d. Equipment
e. Supplies
f. Contractual
g Construction
h Other
i. Total Direct Charyos
j. lixtirrr:! Clmrrjos
k TOTALS
7 Pioyroin Incoino
E PA Fo,,o 5700-33 (Rov. 10-79)
GRANT PROGRAM. FUNCTION OR ACTIVITY
Planning
(Design)
$ 14,074
2,745
1,264
84
185
278,907
-0-
538
. _2?7i.797__ _
2^203
* 300.000
$
Implementation
(IRM)
S -0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
5,000
-0-
-n-
5.000
-0-
.*.. .5,000 ..
$
(31
$
$
$
I'll
$
$
$
TOTAL
(5)
$ 14,074
2,745
1,264
84
185
283,907
-0-
S3R
302,797
2,203
$ 305,000
$
I ' A r ; t ; o t i ?
-------
Form Approved
OMB No. J58-ROJ70
stui IUN b - auneuuLt b BUDGET CATEGORIES
6. Program Elements
Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (Old)
b Initial Remedial
Measure
c. Remedial Design (New)
d Initial Remedial
Measure (New)
«.
f.
9-
h.
i. Total Program Elements
j. STATE TOTAL
FUNDING
(1) FEDERAL
S 450,000
35,100
300,000
4,500
$
S 789,600
(2) NON-FEDERAL
5 -0-
3,900
-0-
50C
$
s 4,400
13) TOTAL
5 450,000
39,000
300,000
5,000
S
(41
MAN-
YEARS
s 794,000 |
See attached detailed cost breakdown by task.
EPA Fo,m 5700-33 fft.v. 10-79)
G-12
PAGE 8 OF 12
-------
Form Approved
OMB No.
SECTION C-NON FEDERAL RESOURCES (Leave Blank)
.li r.RANT PROGRAM
n
10
II.
12 TOTALS
(U) A
$
$
(C| STATE
) oinr R SOURCES
((!) TOTALS
SECTION D-FORECASTED CASH NEEDS
13.
II.
Frdeiol
Non-Feclurnl
15. TOTALS
TOTAL. FOR Isl YEAH
$ 304,500
500
$ 305,000
Ml QUARTER
S 204,500
500
$ 205,000
?ml QUARTER
$ 100.000
$ 100,000
3rd OUAR M: li
$
$
SECTION E-BUDGET ESTIMATES OF FEDERAL FUNDS NEEDED FOR BALANCE OF THE PROJECT
I
M
u>
(J| GRANT PROr.HAM
1C
17.
Remedial Action
in
I'.).
20.
TOTALS
FUTURE FUNDING PERIODS (YEARS)
| Finsi
2,000.000
$ 2,000,000
(c) SECOND
(d) HIIRO
(r) fOUR III
SECTION F-OTHER BUDGET INFORMATION
(Attach Additional Sheets If Neceisaty)
21. Oicccl Charges:
22. indirect Charges The State of Malasee's indirect cost rate of 13.1% has been negotiated with EPA
(see attached).
23 Remarks:
EPA Fo.m 5700-33 (R.v. 10-79)
PART IV-PROGRAM NARRATIVE (Attach per instruction)
PAGF 9 OF 12
-------
NARRATIVE
CRYSTAL CHEMICAL CO., SITE HISTORY AND INVESTIGATION OBJECTIVES
Background
The Rogerdale Road facilities of the Crystal Chemical Company located near Alief
in Harris County were constructed in 1968. The plant produced arsenic based
herbicides such as monosodium methylarsenate (MSMA) along with a wide spectrum of
phenolic and amine based herbicides. The arsenic based product of MSMA along with
the raw materials required for its production, are the major sources of the
problems at Crystal.
During the plant operations, both raw and finished containerized materials were
stored in the open, on the ground. These materials subsequently spilled/leaked
into the surface soils. In addition, the spread of arsenic materials outside of
the process areas occurred in June, 1976, when rainfall events caused the waste-
water ponds to overflow the plant site.
Although the perimeter dikes initially contained the wastewater on site, sub-
sequent sampling indicated overflows and seepage to the adjacent drainage ditches
which discharged into Brays Bayou. These discharges of arsenic waste water led to
litigation between the State and Crystal Chemical Company. To solve the waste-
water problems the company applied to the Department for an injection well permit
in September 1978. The Department requested proof of subsurface ownership which
Crystal supplied in the summer of 1979. The hearing on the application convene^
March 11, 1980 and closed on July 31, 1981. In October 1981, Crystal declared
bankruptcy under Chapter 7. The site was left flooded with arsenic contaminate
wastewaters.
Present Status
An- urgency action by EPA 1) dewatered the site, 2) filled in the ponds with con-
tai nated toils, 3) temporarily capped most of the plant site with 6 inches of
clay, and 4'j added topsoil and seed. Currently, ground water and surface water
contamination has been recorded at the site. It is anticipated that erosion of
the clay cap could create an air problem of arsenic dust particles.
Investigation/Feasibility Plan Objectives
The objectives of the investigation study are to:
1. Identify target receptors (population at risk, sensitive ecosystem,
threatened resources).
2. Establish rate and direction of migration (if any) of wastes from
site.
3. Determine local geological conditions, hydrology and site suitability.
G-14
-------
4. Establish waste characteristics and volumes in order to determine
possibilities for reuse, treatment or destruction.
The objectives of the feasibility study are to:
1. Develop and evaluate alternative viable remedial measures considering
economic feasibility, technological feasibility, environmental
impacts, regulatory constraints and timeliness of completion.
2. Develop technological feasibility through data review and bench/pilot
testing.
3. Determine operations and maintenance options (including costs) for
the alternative remedial measures considered.
Structure of Program
The remedial investigation activities described in the attached work scope
will be undertaken by the Department directly or by contract. No major devia-
tion from this work plan is expected. However, during the course of the
project, some changes may be required as each activity is completed and more
is learned about the condition of the site. Such changes in the work plan
must be approved by the Department and EPA. Only changes which are considered
to be significant by the Department and EPA Project Officers will require an
Amendment to this Cooperative Agreement. EPA and the Department each agree
not to release any information gathered or decisions made as a result of the
investigation activities carried out pursuant to this Agreement prior to
consultation with the other party.
This program includes extensive review of existing data, followed by identifi-
cation of missing data elements prior to actual data collection and evalua-
tion. Following the submission of the site investigation report, a decision
will be made by EPA in consultation with the State as to the severity of the
problem and the need for further actions at this site. If problems are identi-
fied, the EPA will notify the State to proceed with specific feasibility
studies designed to address said problems.
Authorization to Execute Cooperative Agreements and Contracts
The 67th Texas Legislature enacted Subchapter H into the Texas Water Code,
authorizing the Texas Department of Water Resources (the Department), to enter
into contracts and cooperative agreements with the federal government, to
carry out removal and remedial actions under Sections 104(c)(3) and 104(d)(l)
of CERCLA. Subchapter H also established the Disposal Facility Response Fund,
currently at 5.6 million dollars, to provide for the State's required matching
funding. In addition, Subchapter H also authorizes and requires the Depart-
ment:
G--15
-------
1. To assure future maintenance of the removal and remedial actions
provided for the expected life of those actions as determined by the
federal government;
2. To assure the availability of a hazardous waste disposal facility
acceptable to the federal government that complies with Subtitle C
of the federal Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) for
any necessary off-site storage, destruction, treatment, or secure
disposition of the hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants;
and
3. To assure payment by the State of:
a. 10 percent of the costs of the remedial actions, including future
maintenance; or
b. at least 50 percent or more of the costs as determined appro-
priate by the federal government, taking into account the degree
of responsibility of the State for any amount spent in response
to a release at a disposal facility that was owned by the State
at the time of disposal of hazardous substances at the disposal
facility.
Finally by letter of February 8, 1982, to Dick Whittington, Regional Adminis-
trator, USEPA Region VI, Governor Clements formally designated the Department
as the lead agency authorized to enter into cooperative agreements and con-
tracts under Section 104 of CERCLA. Copies of Subchapter H, the Department's
appropriations relating to the Disposal Facility Response Fund and Governor
Clements' February 8, 1982 letter are enclosed as Attachment I.
Administrative and Managerial Commitments
The Texas Department of Water Resources (the Department) is the designated
State agency responsible for implementing the Cooperative Agreement for the
Crystal Chemical Co. site. The Department is responsible for the execution,
administration and management of the Cooperative Agreement and for the perfor-
mance of the activities as described in the work scope of the Agreement. The
Department will subcontract, in compliance with applicable federal and State
procurement regulations, the performance of the activities as necessary to
accomplish the objectives of the work scope. The Department will comply with
and/or will require contractors and subcontractors to comply with any appli-
cable' general grant regulations (40 CFR 30).
In the site investigation and feasibility work addressed under this Coopera-
tive Agreement the Department will:
1. Conduct the activities of this Cooperative Agreement in a manner
consistent with the existing National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR
Part 300, published Ouly 16, 1982.
G-16
-------
2. Adequately document the costs incurred in undertaking the activities
described in this Agreement and otherwise support EPA's cost recovery
efforts. Except in conjunction with the other party, neither party
to this agreement will initiate a cost recovery action against or
enter compromise negotiations with a responsible entity. If either
party refuses to join in such action or compromise negotiations,
however, the other party may proceed unilaterally 30 days after
giving written notice of its intention to do so to the refusing party.
3. Prior to initiation of work at the site, require a Safety Plan be
developed for the investigation activities to protect the health and
safety of the personnel. This Safety Plan must be consistent with
Section 104(f) of CERCLA, EPA Order 1440.2 and the EPA Occupational
Health and Safety Manual. In awarding contracts to persons to carry
out the tasks in the work plan, the State will require the contrac-
tors and subcontractors to comply with the Safety Plan as a condition
of the contract.
4. Develop and implement a Community Relations Plan consistent with the
Superfund Community Relations Policy and Guidance (November 18,
1981). The Plan, as it pertains to activities through the investiga-
tion phase, will be developed and in place before the investigation
study begins. This Plan will be submitted to the EPA Project Officer
within 30 days of the date of award acceptance.
5. Require that the Department's "Quality Assurance Prograrc Plan" and
"Chain of Custody" procedures (Attachments II and III respectively)
be utilized for all activities performed under this Cooperative
Agreement to assure that data generated by or for the Department
under this Cooperative Agreement will be of sufficient or greater
quality to withstand scientific and legal challenge.
6. Secure any necessary State and federal permits, not limited to those
pertaining to treatment, storage, or disposal of wastes from the
site, provided such permits are available.
7. Arrange access to the site, as well as all rights-of-way and ease-
ments that may be necessary to satisfactorily complete the planned
response actions.
G-17
-------
TIME AND PERSONNEL SCHEDULES
Time and Personnel Schedules
The time schedule presented in this application begins following the execution
of a contract between the Department and the selected subcontractor. It is
estimated that it will take approximately 120 days from the date of award
until a contract is negotiated with the selected subcontractor. In the
interim, the Department will initiate certain chargeable management activities
and work tasks necessary to comply with the Cooperative Agreement.
The Department will provide the following personnel to complete the management
and work tasks needed to sucessfully complete this project.
Unit Head - First line supervisor who supplies technical and administrative
guidance on direction of project as well as on specific problems
involving project.
Project Manager - Engineer or Hydrologist charged with maintaining technical
integrity of project. Prepares technical contract specifi-
cations, reviews technical proposals and will assist project
on-scene coordinator.
Contract Manager - Fisca? specialist charged with ensuring that all applicable
State and federal procurement regulations, as well as the
federal grant regulations are followed by the contractor.
Audits contractor records, insures timeliness and fiscal
accuracy of reports, purchases State equipment, maintains
equipment documentation files and maintains contractor
services documentation files.
Community Relations Officer - Hydrologist responsible for developing and
implementing community relations plans. Keeps
informed as to the progress"of project (tech-
nical and fiscal). Prepares briefings and
status reports for officials, coordinates press
releases with EPA and answers questions from
interested parties.
Legal Clerk - Attorney responsible for determining site ownership and for
coordinating enforcement issues with EPA. Insures procedures
can withstand legal challenge.
Clerical - Administrative Technician/Legal Secretary responsible for clerical
support for reports, work tasks and documentation.
G-18
-------
On Scene Coordinator - Engineer or hydrolegist responsible for day to day
on-site monitoring of contractor performance
with respect to adherence to work plan, safety
plan and quality assurance plan, and prepare
daily reports of contractor activity.
Assistant On Scene Coordinator - Engineer or hydrologist responsible
for assisting the on scene coordinator with
on-site monitoring of contractor
performance.
Each individual will charge the actual time spent working directly on this
project to the grant. The Unit Head will only charge the time spent managing
this specific project.
The administrative aspects of the agency procurement systems, computerized
accounting systems, staff support systems and supervisory levels above the
Unit Head are not included as direct costs.
G-19
-------
STATEMENT OF WORK
The State should use either the model statement of
work presented in Appendix E to develop the SOW in its
Cooperative Agreement application or, for RI/FS applica-
tions, the SOW included in the RAMP {if one has been
developed for the site). Although the level of detail and
contents of the SOW will vary, depending on the require-
ments of the site, the model can serve as a basis from
which to start. The RSPO and other Regional staff are
available to assist the State in determining the content
and scope of its individual SOW.
G-20
-------
ESTIMATED TIME SCHEDL. FOR SITE INVESTIGATION
(TO BE IMPLEMENTED AFTER CONTRACT EXECUTED WITH CONSULTANT)
TASK
1. Access*
2. Safety Plan
^. Site Survey
5 Data Re/lew
, c J 1 C H
7. Surface Water Sampling
8. Geotechnical
-) Investigation
1 _
^ Report
0 1
i
> <
x
J
)
5
7 I
\ 9
1
V
1>
5 1
1 1
WEE
2 1
~*
<
3 1
t 1
> 1
& 1
7 1
8 1
,
9 2
0 2
1 2
2 2
3 2
4 2
5 2
6 2
}
7
Denotes on-site work
ESTIMATED TIME SCHEDULE FOR FEASIBILITY STUDIES
(TO BE IMPLEMENTED AFTER CONTRACT EXECUTED WITH CONSULTANT)
WEEK
TASK 28 <8 49 50 51 52
10. Feasibility Analysis
and Report
4. Community Relations *
s
V
Work initiated prior to execution of consultant contract.
-------
PERSONNEL COSTS
Position Title
Hydrologist IV
Hydrologist/Eng.
Hydrologist/Eng.
Hydrologist/Eng.
Hydrologist/Eng.
Hydrologist/Eng.
Admin. Tech IV
Hydrologist II
Legal Clerk IV.
Admin. Tech I
TRAVEL COSTS
Title
DETAILED BUDGET BREAKDOWN
COST BREAKDOWN - CRYSTAL CHEMICAL CO. SITE
Site Investigation
Management Activities
Annual Salary
Man-Years
HI
III
III
III
I
$30,744 .11
32,844 .23
32,844 .16
32,844 .06
32,844 .06
26,088 .16
25,248 .10
28,800 .18
26,952 .14
14,052 .06
Total Personnel Cost
Fringe Benefits
Indirect Costs
III
III
I
Hydrologist/Eng
Hydrologist IV
Hydrologist/Eng
Hydrologist/Eng
Hydrologist II
Legal Clerk
Admin. Tech IV
Vehicle rental/fuel
EQUIPMENT COSTS
Equipment
Air packs (2)
Containment suits (2)
Ai r sampling kit (1)
Origin/Destination
Austin/Houston
Austin/Houston
Austin/Houston
Austin/Houston
Austin/Houston
Austin/Houston
Austin/Houston
No. Round
Trips
5
2
8
6
5
3
2
Total Travel Costs
Daily Usage Fee
No. Days
S 5 (2) 60
$10 (2) 60
$20 60
Total Equipment Costs
Cost
$ 3,381.84
7,554.12
5,255.04
,970.64
,970.64
1
1
4,174.08
2,524.80
5,184.00
3,773.28
843.12
$36,631.56
9,157.89
17,264.45
Cost
Cost
$ . 600
1 ,200
1,200
$-3,000
G-22
-------
SUPPLIES COST
Postage $ 500
Locks (6) 50
Disposable safety equipment (40 man-days) 3,000
Camera 200
Fire Extenguisher 50
Chemical Manuals (2) TOO
Sampling Equipment: sample jars 25
sample vials -50
teflon liners 50
bailers (6) 300
sample tags 25
packaging 150 600
Total Supplies Costs $4,500
OTHER COST5
Publication/Document Fees $1,000
Reproduction 800
Long Distance Telephone 1,200
Total Other Costs $3,000
CONTRACTUAL COSTS
Facilities (offices, equipment, station) &
Services (water, utilities, etc.) $ 22,600
Worker Safety Plan 6,250
Site Survey 4,600
Determine depth of soils contamination 6,500
Establish Surface Water Quality 5,000
Gee-technical Investigation 168,999
Report Findings 20,000
Total Contractual Costs $233,949
TOTAL COST SITE INVESTIGATION $317,408
G-23
-------
Feasibility
PERSONNEL COSTS
Position Title
Hydrologist IV
Hydro "logist/Eng,
Admin. Tech' I
Admin. Tech IV
III
Position Title
Legal Clerk IV
Legal Secreatry
Hydrologist II
Admin. Tech- I
Total Personnel Cost
Total Fringe Benefit
Total Indirect Costs
TRAVEL COSTS
Management Activities
Annual Salary Man-Years
$32,844
30,744
14,502
25,248
.08
.25
.03
.18
Fringe Benefits (25%)
Indirect Costs (47.13%)
Work Tasks
Annual Salary
$26,952
14,508
28,800
14,052
Man-Years
.05
.01
.10
.04
£0,537.14
$3,134.29
$ 9,679.15
Fringe Benefits (25%)
Indirect Costs (47.13%)
Cost
627.52
686.00
160.16
4,544.64
$16,018.32
4,004.58
7,549.43
Cost
$1,347.60
145.03
2,880.00
146.14
$4,518.82
1,129.71
2,125.72
Title
Hydro/Eng. Ill
Hydro II
Vehicle rental/fuel
EQUIPMENT COSTS
Equipment
Airpacks (2)
Containment suits (2)
Air Sampling kit (1)
Orij i n/Des ti nati on
Austin/Houston
Austin/Houston
No. Trips
3
2
Total Travel Costs
Daily Useage Fee Ng_. Days
$ 5 (2)
$10 (2)
$20 5
Total Equipment Costs
5
5
5
Cost
w/per diem
$ 450.00
300.00
650.00
$1,400.00
Cos.t
$ 50
$100
$100
1250
G-24
-------
SUPPLIES COSTS
Disposable Safety equipment (10 Man-Days)
Postage
OTHER COSTS
Publication/Document Fees
Reproduction
Long Distance telephone
CONTRACTUAL COSTS
Data and Literature Review
Bench/Pilot Testing
Cost Analyses
Report
Total Supplies Costs
Total Other Costs
$750.00
100.00
$850.00
$1,000.00
500.00
700.00
$2,200.00
$ 5,200.00
33,341.52
5,000.00
10,000.00
Total Contractual Costs $53,541.52
TOTAL FEASIBILITY STUDY $93,592.10
G-25
-------
PROCUREMENT SYSTEM CHECKLIST
Form Approved
OMB No. 2000-0453
Expires 4-84
SECTION I - INSTRUCTIONS
his form must accompany each application for EPA Assistance. If the applicant has certified its procurement system to EPA witfc"'- the
ast two years and the system has not been substantially revised, complete Part A in Section II, then sign and date the form. If the n
is not been certified within the past two years, complete Psrt B.
SECTION II - CERTIFICATION
1 affirm mat th« applicant has withm trie oast two years certified its procurement system to EPA at complying with 40
CFR Part 33 ana that the system has not oe«n substantially revised. The date of the applicant's latest certification it:
MONTH/YEAR
i. Based uoo/^my evaluation of theapplicant'j procurement system. I, as authorized representative of the applicant: (Check ona of the
CD 1 CERTIFY that the applicant's procurement system will meet all of the requirements of 40 CFR Part 33 including the attached
tubparts before undertaking any procurement action with EPA assistance.
'lease furnish citations to applicable State or local ordinances and regulations.
X ? 00 NOT CERTIFY The am- : /.-' ' «« ;ii». rufcjucmnnts Ol 40 CFR Part 33 with EPA review and ixnawuni approval ol
proposed procurement at-.or; -.nai wi" uve SPA assistance. /
P£D NAME & TITLE Of r>. icf fc A. «n I i v'fc C'P' 'C
rvey Davis, Executive Director
<^**--
contain
iow is a list of suljparts and section? o' 40 CFR Part 23 which feontam some but not all of the requirements tor procurements under
A assistance. The purpose o' v . .'.::. i-i..-t m the tvaiuanon of the applicant's procurement system to determine if n is certifiable
i rr\e<".<, the basic procurement .<< . n'"b d« articui3:e'.! ^^ Part 33. As soch. this list highlights certain aspects of the regulations which
.- icc.pie'i: shall use m its evaluav..>" pioci^s 3mj is t^ot intended to replace a detailed reading of Pan 33.
PART 33
33.210
SECTION TITLE SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS
SUB AG R E EM E''_.' "*" A Qfv: I TV '_ST R A TI ON System must ensure that contractors perform in accordance with all
applicable cn'tu. ' , :-iL;nefUi.
33.220
LIMITATION QN_RgCIP|£N'T AWAPy System must consider listed factors m determining contractor responsi-
Oility.
33.230
COMPETITION System must have procurement transaction procedures that provide maximum open and free
compem
3A Form 5700-48 (5-82)
Reproduced fromJm G-2 6
best available copy, fU|P
-------
33.235
33.240
33.250
33.255
33.265
33.270
33.275
33.285
33.290
33.295
J.305-310
33.405-435
33.505-535
TJ cnc
JJ.OU5
SUBPARTS
C- G
C
E
-
G
PROFITS- System prc jres must allow only fair and reasonable profi i contractors.
SMALL MINORITY WOMEN'S. AND LABOR SURPLUS AREA BUSINESSES System must provide for use of the'.e
businesses as specified in this section.
DOCUMENTATION System must require that procurement records and files for purchases over $10,000 include uems
specified in this section.
SPECIFICATIONS System procedures for establishing specifications for products or services to be procured must meet
requirements of this section.
BQNDJNG AND INSURANCE System procedures and requirements related to bonding and insurance must meet
requirements of this section.
CODE OF CONDUCT - System must have a written code or standards of conduct meeting the requirements of th.i
section.
FEDERAL COST PRINCIPLES System procedures for determining allowable costs must comply with the COST
principles specified in this section.
PROHIBITED TYPES OF CONTRACTS System may not allow use of cost-plus-percentage-of cost (multiplier) or
pcrccmage-of-construction-cost types of contracts.
COST AND PRICE CONSIDERATIONS System procedure's must allow lor consideration of cost ano unce as n..|ijn.-'i
in this section.
LOWER TIER SU8AGREEMENTS System must provide that suPagi cements DO tow the first tif comply -.vuh ai'
provisions specified m this section.
SMALL PURCHASE Sysrem small puThosr procedures must meet requirements of these sections.
FORMAL ADVERTISING System procedures related to formal advertismg. including those 'or o'dding documents
and contract awards, must meet the rnquuements o( these sections.
COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION System procedures for competitive negotiation must meet the requirements of these
actions
NONCfMPrTITlVF NEGOTIATION Sv^m procedures lor noncoinpetitivc nnqonation must metM the 'eiium-mi-n;-.
ol this ifCciun.
SYSTEM MUST COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS IN THESE SUBPARTS.
CLEAN WATER ACT REQUIREMENTS Suhpart applies to procurement under assistance agreements :>' consructio:-
of treatment works uiider the Clean Woty Act.
REQUIREMENTS FOR IN?T!TIJ nnr;S Pc HIGHER EDUCATION AND OTHER NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
Suboarl describes the proem >"ncii\ requirements lor nonprofit organizations
REQUIREMENTS FOR RECIPIENTS Oc REMEDIAL ACTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS UNDER THE
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE. COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY ACT OF 1980 Suhpart
describes the jcJri.tion.il piOLuitririt-.-i: .t-nuirt.'inents for recipients of these cooperative agreements.
SU8AGREEMENT PROVISIONS Su'-'agreements for procurement under EPA Assistance must contain :he appropr^'r
clauses, or their equivalent, snecif'ec) m this subpart.
PROTESTS Subpart applies to all applicants for EPA assistance except for nonprofit organizations.
EPA form 57<)0-48 15-82) R«««ni>
G-2?
-------
STATE ASSURANCES
Operation and Maintenance *
If, following the site feasibility studies, part or all of the remedy selected
requires operation and maintenance (0 & M), the Department assures the future
0 & M of the selected remedial action(s) implemented at the Crystal Chemical
Company for the expected life of those actions provided.:
1. The Department is consulted during the remedy selection process and
agrees in writing that the selected remedy is technologically and
economically feasible;
2. The EPA notifies the Department in writing as to the expected life
of each remedy considered prior to remedy selection; and
3. The EPA shares in those costs associated with ensuring that the
remedy is functional and operational for a period of six months after
completion of construction. Funding for this six month period will
be specified in the Cooperative Agreement for the Design Phase.
Availability of Off-Site Facilities*
If the State and EPA determine that off-site treatment, storage or disposal
is required, the State will identify in the application for an amendment
authorized hazardous waste disposal facilities that have adequate capacity
and are able and willing to receive the hazardous substances designated for
off-site storage, treatment or disposal. The hazardous waste facilities
selected by the State must be acceptable to EPA and must, at a minimum, be
in compliance with the requirements of Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act.
Cost Share Provisions **
The Department will pay 10 percent of the costs of the activities performed
under this Cooperative Agreement. The State's estimated share will be $30,100
for site investigation and $10,000 for site feasibility studies. The actual
cost will be computed by adding the State's budget for management activities
and work tasks to the negotiated amount for the contractual activities neces-
sary to perform the work scope.
The method of payment for the State's matching share will be cash payment to
the contractors) for satisfactorily completed work products. The actual
payment schedule will be detailed in the contract between the Department and
the subcontractor!s). Documentation of these transactions will be provided
to EPA as proof of payment by the State. In no event will the federal cost
exceed 90% of the final project cost and any remaining unexpended federal
funds will be reported to the EPA so that EPA may:
1. Apply these toward the next budget period's costs, or
2. Deobligate these funds and adjt t the letter of credit accordingly.
* Assurance not required until after completion of feasibility study.
** Cost-sharing no longer required for remedial planning at privately-
owned sites.
G-28
-------
CERTIFICATION LETTER
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS. JR. STATE CAPITOL
GOVERNS* AUSTIN. TEXAS 70711
February 8, 1982
Mr. Dick Whittington, Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Whittington:
In response to your letter concerning the Comprehensive luwironmental
Response, Compensation nnd Liability Act of 1980 (CEKCLA), I want to
take thi» opportunity to formally designate the Texas Department oC
Water Resources as the lend agency authorized to enter into cooperative
agreements and contracts under Section 104 of CERCI.A. Historically, the
Texas Department of Water Resources has been the state agency respon-
sible for monitoring and regulating hazardous waste sites. I have every
confidence that this agency and the Environmental Protection Agency can
continue to maintain tho cooper.it.ivc working relationship that has been
established. Additionally, the Departwent can facilitate any appropriate
communications with other state agencies relative to the Act.
Ag.iin, I appreciate I he opportunity to form;iily designate the Texas
Department of W;iter Resources as Texar.1 lend agency in accordance with
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
of 1980.
If I can be of any further .jssi.stanrc, please let me know.
Sincerely,
William. P. Clements, Jr.
Governor of Texas
^09'P,
£jupn *
cc Mr. Harvey H. Davis, Executive Director £7r/_ ^M,
Texas Department of Water Resources
G-29
Reproduced from
best available copy.
-------
APPENDIX H
SAMPLE ARTICLES FOR
SUPERFUND STATE CONTRACTS AND OTHER EPA-LEAD AGREEMENTS
-------
APPENDIX H
SAMPLE ARTICLES FOR
SUPERFUND STATE CONTRACTS AND OTHER EPA-LEAD AGREEMENTS
PURPOSE
This appendix has been provided to assist Regional
Site Project Officers (RSPOs) and State Project Officers
(SPOs) in developing articles for Superfund State Con-
tracts (SSCs) and other EPA-lead agreements.
BACKGROUND
Remedial response activities may be managed by either
the State or EPA. If the State assumes lead responsibil-
ity for remedial work at a site, EPA and the State will
enter into a Cooperative Agreement for all phases of the
work (see Appendices F and G). Conversely, if EPA retains
lead management responsibility, the type of agreement en-
tered into will depend upon the nature of the activities
to be undertaken and the need for the State to make CERCLA
section 104 (c) (3) assurances.
The SSC is a legally-binding agreement between EPA and
the State which documents both parties' responsibilities
for a remedial project and provides any necessary assur-
ances. An SSC will be used when the project in question
requires the State to provide cost-sharing and/or other
CERCLA section 104 (c) (3) assurances. Projects requiring
SSCs, then, will involve performance of remedial implemen-
tation subactivities, including initial remedial mea-
sures.
EPA-lead remedial planning does not require the use of
a legal agreement vehicle. Rather, a letter from the
State requesting that EPA undertake the subactivities in
question and generically approving planning at the site
will in many cases be sufficient to initiate these reme-
dial subactivities. At the discretion of Regional and
State officials, however, it may be found preferable to
use a more formal agreement vehicle to define the project
and EPA and State responsibilities for its conduct. In
thesqr cases, EPA and the State may enter into a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU). Because recent EPA policy defers
the provision of a State's cost share for remedial plan-
ning at a publicly-owned site until the implementation of
a remedial action at that site, such planning projects may
be covered by MOUs.
H-l
-------
Like the SSC, an MOU documents both parties' responsi-
bilities for the remedial project to be undertaken; it is,
however, not a legally-binding agreement. For this rea-
son, an MOU must only be used for projects which do not
require the State to make the assurances detailed in sec-
tion 104 (c) (3) of CERCLA.
Responsibilities under an SSC are documented in arti-
cles to the agreement; these can be of two types:
General contractual articles that outline the
basic purpose, scope, and administration of the
agreement
Superfund program articles that address Super-
fund-imposed requirements.
Such articles will also be negotiated for an MOU, if they
are found to be appropriate for a remedial planning pro-
ject. Articles of the latter type represent the same re-
quirements that are imposed on remedial Cooperative Agree-
ment applications; however, the terms and conditions
necessary to meet such requirements for an EPA-lead pro-
ject are in some cases different from those imposed on
Cooperative Agreements. (See Appendix F for Cooperative
Agreement application provisions.)
Development of articles to SSCs and other EPA-lead
agreements which are acceptable to both the State and EPA
is the responsibility of the RSPO and the SPO. Each of
the requirements identified here should be reviewed and,
where appropriate, addressed in the agreement being nego-
tiated.
APPENDIX SUMMARY
This appendix contains examples of articles for inclu-
sion in remedial implementation SSCs. It is organized in
two sections:
General agreement articles
Superfund-specific articles.
Within each section, specific requirements have been high-
lighted and one or more examples of SSC articles have been
provided. These examples are intended to be used only as
a guide for drafting acceptable articles for individual
SSCs and must be tailored to address site-specific condi-
tions. Occasionally, the introduction to an article men-
tions Cooperative Agreements, when requirements for State-
lead agreements differ from those for Federal-lead pro-
jects. This has been done to contrast the two types of
agreements for the benefit of EPA and State staff.
H-2
-------
While the examples provided in this appendix have been
written to apply to SSCs, they can also be used to develop
MOU articles, when this type of agreement is found to be
appropriate. Specific requirements for individual MOUs
will vary, depending upon the conditions of the site, the
project under consideration, and the needs of EPA Regional
and State officials. The RSPO and SPO should carefully
review the contents of this Appendix and develop MOU arti-
cles accordingly. However, in two cases, below, the arti-
cles shown are for MOUs only. The introductory remarks
clearly identify those articles.
H-3
-------
1. GENERAL AGREEMENT ARTICLES
This section contains examples of general articles
that both define the purpose and scope of the project to
be undertaken and identify terms that are imposed because
of the instrument used to document the agreement. Ten
types of articles are included:
Authority
Purpose of the Agreement
Parties to the Agreement
Duration of the Agreement
Amendments to the Agreement
Procurement
State Responsibilities
Third Parties
Termination of the Contract
Failure to Comply with the Contract.
The samples provided should be reviewed and modified, as
necessary, for individual site conditions and the type of
agreement negotiated.
A. Authority
Each SSC should contain a brief statement identifying
Federal and State authority for entering into the agree-
ment between EPA and the State. A sample article is pro-
vided below:
This Contract is entered into pursuant to sec-
tions 104(a)(l), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa-
tion and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA"), 42
U.S.C. 9601 et seg, and [cite relevant State law] .
B. Purpose of the Agreement
All SSCs should contain an article that briefly sum-
marizes the project to be implemented at the site. An
appropriate article is as follows:
This Contract is an agreement between the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and the
State of [name of State] (fhe "State") to conduct
[type of project, such as a remedial action] to
be undertaken at(name of site)(the"site").
Attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Appendix [ ] is a description of the site and
the response actions taken to date in connection
with the site. This Contract covers only those
activities described in the Statement of Work
H-4
-------
(the "SOW") attached hereto and incorporated
herein as Appendix [ ] . This Contract may be
amended if the parties agree to undertake addi-
tional remedial activities beyond the scope of
the SOW.
C. Parties to the Agreement
An SSC should include the statement that the State
agency entering into the agreement has the authority to do
so. In addition, EPA may require a letter from the State
Governor or Attorney General certifying that the Agency
has this authority, if the Attorney General is not a sig-
natory for the State. This letter may be generic, kept on
file and used for all State- and EPA-lead agreements.
(See Appendix J for sample certification letters.) SSCs
should also designate the SFO and RSPO for the project in
question. The following article may be used to achieve
both of the above purposes:
This Contract is between EPA and the [name of
State agency entering into the Contract]. The
agency enteringinto it on behalf of the State
has legal authority to do so and to fulfill its
terms. EPA has designated:
[name of RSPO]
[address]
[telephone number]
to serve as Project Officer for this Contract,
The State has designated:
[name of SPQ]
[address]
[telephone number]
to serve as the State Project Officer for this
Contract.
D. Duration of the Agreement
Each SSC should contain a section specifying its per-
iod of performance. The period of performance should
allow time for possible sKppage in the estimated project
schedule and for reconciliation of actual and estimated
costs. A sample article for this purpose is provided
below:
The Contract shall become effective upon execu-
tion by both parties and shall remain in effect
until January 1, 1987, or until completion of the
activities described in the SOW and the assur-
ances, whichever occurs later. The parties may
H-5
-------
agree to extend, by amendment, the duration of
the Contract for the period necessary to imple-
ment any remedial activities that the parties
agree to undertake beyond those defined in the
SOW.
E. Amendments to the Agreement
Each SSC should contain an article providing for im-
plementing changes to the agreement, including the SOW.
Sample language is shown here:
Any change in this Contract must be agreed to, in
writing, by both parties hereto, except as pro-
vided elsewhere in the Contract.
F. Procurement
For EPA-lead projects, EPA is responsible for procur-
ing goods and services necessary to carry out the proposed
activities. This responsibility should be documented in
an article to the SSC. An example follows:
EPA shall arrange for the services of contractors
to do the work described in the SOW and shall
make all payments to the contractors for that
work. EPA shall, at its own cost and expense,
furnish the necessary personnel, materials, ser-
vices, and facilities to perform responsibilities
under this Contract. EPA will consult with tne
State on matters relating to the implementation
of work in the SOW.
G. State Responsibilities
All SSCs should include an article defining general
State responsibilities under the Contract. Such an arti-
cle is provided below:
The State shall furnish the necessary personnel,
materials, services, and facilities to perform
its responsibilities under this Contract. None
of the expenses incurred by the State in perform-
ing such responsibilities will be paid or reim-
bursed from the Hazardous Substance Response
Trust Fund established by section 221 of CERCLA,
except as provided in a separate agreement.
State expenses will not count toward any cost-
sharing requirements under this Contract or any
future Contracts or Cooperative Agreements relat-
ing to the site. Specific responsibilities of
the State are enumerated elsewhere in this Con-
tract.
H-6
-------
[However, some State costs may be paid under management
assistance Cooperative Agreements. See Section IV.D of
the text for more details.]
H. Third Parties
Each SSC should include an article regarding benefit
and harm to third parties. The following language is
appropriate for this purpose:
This Contract is intended to benefit only the
State and EPA. It extends no benefit or right to
any third party not a signatory to this Con-
tract. In addition, EPA does not assume any lia-
bility to third parties with respect to losses
due to bodily injury or property damages that
exceed the limitations contained in the provi-
sions of 28 U.S.C. sections 1346 (b), 2671-2680.
To the extent permitted by State law, the State
does not assume liability to any third parties
with respect to losses due to bodily injury or
property damage.
I. Termination of the Contract
Each SSC should contain an article addressing termina-
tion of the Contract upon the mutual agreement of EPA and
the State. Appropriate language for this type of article
is given below:
This Contract may be terminated before the reme-
dial action described herein is completed if the
parties jointly agree in writing.
J. Failure to Comply with Terms of the Contract
Each SSC should contain a provision dealing with the
eventuality of one party failing to comply with the terms
of the contract as negotiated. Since the methods of re-
course are different depending upon whether EPA or the
State is the party who fails to comply, this article
should contain two parts, as shown here:
1. If the State fails to comply with the terms
of this Contract EPA may profteed under the
provisions of section 104 (d) (2) of CERCLA.
2. If EPA fails to comply with any requirements
of this Contract, the State may, after pro-
viding 60 days notice, seek in the appropri-
ate court of competent jurisdiction, to en-
force the Contract.
H-7
-------
2. SUPERFUND-SPECIFIC ARTICLES
This section contains examples of SSC articles that
address requirements imposed by CERCLA and Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) policy. The
subjects of these articles are the same as those imposed
on remedial Cooperative Agreements between EPA and States,
and in many cases reflect the same or similar requirements.
However, some specific requirements of EPA-lead agreements
are different from those of Cooperative Agreements (e.g.,
cost-sharing terms). The RSPO and the State should there-
fore review the articles below in developing each agree-
ment.
Sample articles contained in this section address each
of the following OERR requirements:
CERCLA Section 104 (c) (3) Assurances
Operation and Maintenance
Off-Site Treatment, Storage, or Disposal
State Cost-Sharing
State Credits
Fund Balancing
National Contingency Plan
Duties of the RSPO and SPO
Site Access and Permits
Community Relations Plan
Site Safety Plan
Access to Files
Reporting Requirements
Submission of Documents
Responsible Party Activities
Emergency Response Action
Negation of Agency Relationship
Enforcement and Cost Recovery.
All are appropriate for SSCs; those appropriate for other
types of EPA-lead agreements, such as MOUs, will vary,
depending upon the individual agreements negotiated.
Where different approaches have commonly been used to
address Superfund requirements, more than one sample arti-
cle has been provided.
A. CERCLA Section 104(c)(3) Assurances
Pursuant to CERCLA section 104(c)(3), the State is
required to make the following assurances before EPA will
provide a remedial action at a hazardous waste site:
Operation and maintenance (O&M)
Off-site treatment, storage, or disposal
Cost-sharing.
H-8
-------
CERCLA requires that these assurances be provided, when
necessary, in either a Cooperative Agreement or a Contract.
The manner in which the State can provide its O&M and
off-site disposal assurances is similar for SSCs and Coop-
erative Agreements. When an SSC is used, however, the
cost-sharing assurance may require the negotiation of pay-
ment terms for the State's contribution for the project in
question. Any payment terms must also be documented in an
article to the SSC. Examples of acceptable articles for
making required CERCLA 104(c)(3) assurances are provided
below.
Operation and Maintenance
The State is required, in accordance with CERCLA sec-
tion 104 (c) (3) (A), to assure all future O&M necessary for
a remedial action project. Unless an initial remedial
measure (IRM) is to be undertaken, the State is not re-
quired to provide this assurance prior to the conclusion
of the feasibility study for the site. When necessary,
the SSC should include an article concerning O&M to meet
this requirement and should provide a plan for assumption
of O&M responsibility. An appropriate SSC article follows:
Pursuant to CERCLA section 104(c)(3)(A), the
State shall provide all future operation and
maintenance (O&M) of the remedial actions provid-
ed under this Contract, for the expected life of
such actions.
[Requirements for the O&M plans can be found in Section
III.B.2 of the text.]
Off-Site Treatment, Storage, or Disposal
SSCs for remedial implementation, including IRMs in-
volving off-site treatment, storage, or disposal, must
provide the assurance mandated by CERCLA section
104 (c) (3) (B). The assurance should be consistent with the
policy memorandum entitled "Requirements for Selecting an
Off-Site Option in a Superfund Response Action," issued by
OSWER on January 28, 1983 (shown in Appendix P). If the
facility selected requires a new RCRA compliance inspec-
tion, the RSPO should coordinate with Regional RCRA
personnel and may offer REM/FIT assistance, if appropriate
(see memorandum for further details). The following or
equivalent language is appropriate for an SSC article:
The State and EPA have determined that off-site
treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous sub-
stances is required for activities funded by this
H-9
-------
Contract. EPA or its representative, in its in-
vitation for bids for remedial action, will re-
quire respondents to provide adequate capacity
for waste disposal at a facility (or facilities)
that, at a minimum, meets the requirements of
Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(RCRA). If a designated facility does not have a
RCRA Part B permit, or if a RCRA compliance in-
spection has not been completed at the facility
within the 12-month period prior to the execution
of this Contract, a new inspection must be com-
pleted prior to award of a contract for treat-
ment, storage, or disposal. Prior to award of
the contract, the EPA Regional office will review
the results of the compliance inspection and the
facility's interim status. If deficiencies are
found at the facility which may result in unsound
treatment, storage, or disposal practices or pose
a threat of future releases, the facility shall
not be selected to receive hazardous substances
for this project. If requested by EPA, the State
shall provide a hazardous substance disposal fa-
cility that meets the requirements of RCRA Sub-
title C and is acceptable to EPA.
State Cost-Sharing
Unlike the procedure for a Cooperative Agreement
application, where the State provides its cost-sharing
assurance by identifying its share of costs in the project
budget, an SSC will include an article documenting any
cost-sharing payment terms; a separate article will au-
thorize any reduction in State credit (see Section B of
this appendix).
An acceptable article for documenting SSC payment
terms contains the following parts:
Identification of the total State obligation
Schedule of State payments
Provisions for submission of payments.
As described in Section V.B of the text, terms for sched-
uling State payments are flexible and should be negotiat-
ed between the RSPO and SPO. An example of an acceptable
cost-sharing assurance article for remedial implementation
at a privately-owned site is provided below:
1. The State will pay 10 percent of the costs
of the remedial implementation subactivities
defined in the SOW, as provided below. The
current estimate of the cost is nine hundred
seventy-five thousand dollars ($975,000).
H-10
-------
The State's share is ninety-seven thousand
five hundred dollars ($97,500). EPA will
pay 90 percent of the costs of the work
defined in the SOW.
2. Payment will be made in the following manner:
Within- 30 days after signature of this
Contract, the State shall submit to EPA
its first payment for one-half of the
State's share for the site activities:
forty-eight thousand seven hundred
fifty dollars ($48,750).
At intervals of 90 days thereafter, the
State shall provide two payments of
twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) each.
At the completion of the work defined
in the SOW, EPA shall provide the State
with copies of all documents pertaining
to financial transactions of the con-
tractor (s) retained by EPA to perform
the work in the SOW. Final reconcili-
ation of costs will be made at that
time. Any additional payment by the
State to EPA, up to a total of $97,500,
or any refund by EPA to the State, will
be made within 90 days after this recon-
ciliation. This Contract may be amended
to arrange for any additional payment in
excess of $97,500.
3. All State payments shall be made payable to
EPA and sent to:
Environmental Protection Agency
Accounting Operations
P.O. Box 2971
Washington, D.C. 20013
Attn: Collection Officer for
Superfund (PM-226)
Room 3419M
If the remedial implementation in the SSC is to occur
at a site that was publicly-owned at the time of dis-
posal, the cost-sharing provisions will be slightly more
complicated. Although CERCLA section 104 (c) (3) (C) stipu-
lates that a State is responsible for at least 50 percent
of all response costs at publicly-owned sites, the State
is required to provide its cost share for removals and
remedial planning retroactively if and when remedial
H-ll
-------
implementation is taken at the site. Therefore, the SSC
cost-sharing provision for remedial implementation at such
sites will reflect provision of the State's contribution
for any past removals or remedial planning. A sample
provision which may be used in such cases follows:
1. The State will pay.50 percent of the costs
of the remedial implementation subactivities
defined in the SOW for this project, attach-
ed hereto and incorporated herein as
Appendix [ ]. The current estimate of the
cost is one million, two hundred fifty thou-
sand dollars ($1,250,000). The State's
share of the remedial implementation costs
is six hundred twenty-five thousand dollars
($625,000) .
2. The State will also pay 50 percent of the
costs of all removal actions and remedial
planning which have been implemented at the
site. A removal action costing fifty-five
thousand dollars ($55,000) has been under-
taken at this site. The total cost of
remedial planning activities for this site
has been four hundred ninety-five thousand
dollars ($495,000). The State's cost share
for the past removal and remedial planning
at the site is two hundred seventy-five
thousand dollars ($275,000).
3. The State's total share for 50 percent of
all site response actions is nine hundred
thousand dollars ($900,000). payment will
be made in the following manner: [terms
shall be negotiated and recorded as in the
article above; payments shall be sent to the
EPA address shown above].
[The Contract will then include either a State payment
schedule or provisions for reduction of CERCLA credit].
B. State Credits
Under an SSC, the State may provide up to 100 percent
of its cost share by authorizing drawdown of available
site-specific credits granted pursuant to CERCLA section
104(c)(3). When the State uses credit, the SSC must con-
tain an article documenting this. At sites for which the
State has submitted a claim (see Appendix C of this docu-
ment) , but the EPA verification process is still in pro-
gress, the following sample article may be used for a pri-
vately-owned site:
H-12
-------
CERCLA sections 104
-------
remedial implementation activities conducted under
this Contract. The State will not be reimbursed
for any credit remaining at the conclusion of
Federally-funded response actions at this site,
nor may the State apply the remaining credit to
the cost of remedial activities at another site.
In addition, an SSC may need to include an article
concerning the use of any credit accrued for past cost-
sharing in remedial planning activities at that site.
Under previous EPA policy, some States were required to
share in the costs of remedial planning activities at pri-
vately-owned sites. EPA's recent legal interpretation,
consistent with CERCLA, however, has eliminated this re-
quirement. The memorandum entitled "Guidance on Imple-
menting Waiver of 10 Percent Cost Share for Remedial Plan-
ning," issued by the Director, OERR on June 1, 1983 (see
Appendix P), has provided that each SSC for such projects
at privately-owned sites may be amended to either (1)
revise the payment terms for the project to 100 percent
EPA funding or (2) apply any State costs incurred for such
activities against future cost-sharing obligations for
remedial implementation at the site. If the latter option
is utilized, the SSC funding remedial implementation at
the site should contain an article documenting the
application of such costs; the following article maybe
used for this purpose:
The State has shared in the costs of past reme-
dial planning activities at the site described
herein under the Contract dated [ ]. States
are no longer required to share in the costs of
remedial planning and costs incurred by the State
for such activities will be applied toward its
cost-sharing obligation for remedial implementa-
tion at the same site. The State has provided
$50,000 [amount paid previously] for remedial
planning cost-sharing under the Contract cited
above. This sum will be counted against the
State's obligation for the remedial implemen-
tation activities defined in the SOW for this
Contract, attached hereto and incorporated herein
as Appendix [ ]. The remainder of the State's
cost-sharing obligation for the remedial imple-
mentation activities defined in this Contract
will be provided in accordance with the terms
described elsewhere in this Contract.
C. Fund-Balancing
All SSCs should contain an article addressing the
Fund-balancing provisions of CERCLA. In accordance with
CERCLA section 104 (c) (4), further funding subsequent to
H-14
-------
the completion of a project will be weighed against re-
quirements to respond at other sites. The following ar-
ticle may be used for inclusion in all Contracts:
CERCLA section 104 (c) (4) requires that
CERCLA-funded actions provide a cost-effective
response/ balancing the need for protection of
public health, welfare and the environment
against the availability of amounts from the Fund
to respond at other sites. If the State requests
additional Fund-financed response at the site,
EPA will evaluate the request against available
Fund monies to determine whether it is appro-
priate. This Contract does not commit EPA to
future funding for response actions at the site.
D. The National Contingency Plan (NCP)
Like a Cooperative Agreement, an SSC will not be exe-
cuted unless proposed activities are scoped according to
the NCP. SSCs should, therefore, contain a provision re-
lating to this; the article presented below may be used
for this purpose:
All activities conducted under this Contract
shall be consistent with the revised National
Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR 300, dated
July 16, 1982 (47 Federal Register 31180).
[FOR MOUs ONLY] If the project to be undertaken in-
volves a remedial investigation/feasibility study, the
article should also include the following sentence:
Remedial alternatives developed as part of the
remedial investigation/feasibility study will be
identified, evaluated, and ultimately categorized
as initial remedial, source control, or off-site
measures based upon the factors established in
section 300.68 (e) of the NCP.
E. Duties of the RSPO and SPO
An article in each SSC should specify certain duties
that the RSPO and the SPO will have during conduct of the
project. This article will vary, depending on the agree-
ment negotiated and the conditions and requirements of the
site. However, it should include a statement of the
RSPO's and SPO's prerogatives to effect minor project
changes. An example is provided below:
The EPA Project Officer and the State Project
Officer have joint authority to make project de-
cisions that do not enlarge the scope of the re-
H-15
-------
sponse actions at the site or the cost of the
project. In addition, the EPA Project Officer
will report modifications to schedules or activi-
ties to the State Project Officer.
F. Site Access and Permits
Each SSC should contain a section concerning access to
the site. Two types of access should be addressed:
Site access and permits necessary to conduct re-
medial activities
Access of State personnel during remedial activi-
ties.
Examples of articles concerning both are provided below.
Access to the Site and Permits
In accordance with OERR's practice of requiring States
either to obtain necessary access and permits, to the
extent of their statutory authorities, or to assist EPA in
obtaining them, each SSC should contain the following
article or its equivalent:
The State agrees, to the extent of its legal
authority, to secure access to the site and ad-
jacent properties, as well as all rights-of-way
and easements necessary to complete the response
actions undertaken pursuant to this Contract. As
requested by EPA, the State shall also obtain or
assist EPA in obtaining any permits that are nec-
essary to satisfactorily complete the activities
described in the SOW.
State Access During Remedial Response
SSCs should contain an article addressing State access
to the site during the course of remedial activities. A
sample article is as follows:
Representatives of the State shall have access to
the site to review work in progress and shall
comply with the site safety plan. EPA shall not
be responsible for any harm to any State repre-
sentative or other person arising out of, or re-
sulting from, any act or omission by the State in
the course of an on-site visit.
G. Community Relations Plan (CRP)
An SSC will not be executed unless a revised CRP has
been prepared for the proposed project. The original CRP
H-16
-------
for the site must have been developed and included with
the MOU or State letter of request under which remedial
planning was conducted. When the SSC is negotiated to
cover remedial implementation, that plan will be revised
by EPA for inclusion in the Contract. It will be imple-
mented by EPA with assistance from the State, as specified
in the CRP. The CRP may be referred to in the SSC as
follows:
The State and EPA agree that community relations
activities at the site will be conducted in
accordance with the approved Community Relations
Plan.
FOR MOUs ONLY; If the agreement covers remedial plan-
ning activities, a statement should be added to provide
for a period of public comment on any actions recommended:
Public input will be sought at the end of the
feasibility study and prior to final selection of
remedy, in accordance with the approved Community
Relations Plan.
[A sample CRP is contained in Appendix K.]
H. Site Safety Plan
Each SSC should include an article stating that EPA
will be responsible for the preparation and implementation
of a safety plan for the site. Normally, the plan will be
prepared by an EPA contractor, but must be consistent with
the following:
CERCLA sections 104(f) and lll(c)(6)
EPA Order 1440.2 - Health and Safety Requirements
for Employees Engaged in Field Activities
EPA Order 1440.1 - Respiratory Protection
EPA Occupational Health and Safety Manual
EPA Interim Standard Operating Safety Guide
Applicable OSHA standards
Appropriate State health and safety regulations
and site conditions.
The following article may be used for this purpose:
H-17
-------
EPA will be responsible for the development and
implementation of the site safety plan for the
project contemplated by this Contract.
[A sample site safety plan is contained in Appendix L.]
I. Access to Files
An article addressing access to files and information
exchange between the State and EPA should also be included
in all SSCs. This article should specify that both EPA
and the State will be granted access to each other's files
and should note any claim of confidentiality is made.
Representatives of the State should communicate confidenti-
ality requirements to EPA Regional personnel so that
language can be developed to adequately address these
needs. Sample language is provided below:
At EPA's request and to the extent allowed by
State law, the State shall make available to EPA
any information in its possession concerning the
site. At the State's request and to the extent
allowed by Federal law, EPA shall make available
to the State any information in its possession
concerning the site. If any information is pro-
vided to EPA by the State under a claim of con-
fidentiality, it will be treated in accordance
with 40 CFR 2, if the State has given EPA notice
of a claim of confidentiality. EPA will not dis-
close information submitted under a claim of con-
fidentiality unless EPA is required to do so by
Federal law and has given the State advance
notice of EPA's intent to release that informa-
tion. Absent notice of such claim, EPA may make
said information available to the public without
further notice.
J. Reporting Requirements
Unlike a Cooperative Agreement, under which the State
is required to make quarterly reports to EPA to inform EPA
officials of the progress of on-site activities, work
under an EPA-lead agreement is performed by EPA or its
representatives. It is therefore EPA's responsibility to
keep the State informed of the progress of remedial re-
sponse activities. To document this, the SSC should con-
tain an article addressing EPA's reporting responsibil-
ity. The example provided below may be used for this pur-
pose:
EPA agrees to submit progress reports to the
State Project Officer at quarterly intervals,
commencing at the start of the project. These
H-18
-------
reports shall include estimates (percentages) of
work completed for each activity in the SOW and
estimates of variances (cost and time) expected
at project completion.
K. Submission of Documents
Under a Cooperative Agreement, it is the State's re-
sponsibility to submit, for EPA review, all documents pre-
pared under the Agreement. Under an EPA-lead agreement,
however, EPA should afford representatives of the State an
opportunity to review project documents. This fact should
be recorded in an article in the SSC. An example of an
article addressing this follows:
EPA will submit all final plans, reports, and/or
recommendations to the State Project Officer for
review prior to issuance or implementation.
L. Responsible Party Activities
If there is the potential for responsible parties to
undertake voluntary remedial response activities at the
site in question, this fact should be recorded in the
SSC. Language for an article concerning this is as
follows:
If EPA reaches an agreement with any of the re-
sponsible parties to undertake all or part of the
remedial activities described in the SOW for this
Contract, the Contract shall be amended to revise
the SOW accordingly.
M. Emergency Response Action
It is possible that an emergency action may have to be
initiated at the site sometime during the remedial activi-
ties defined in the SSC. For this reason, the SSC may
contain an article addressing the effect of any necessary
emergency response actions on the progress of the remedial
activities defined in the SOW. Sample language for such
an article is provided below:
Any emergency response activities conducted pur-
suant to the National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR
section 300.65, shall not be restricted by the
terms of this Contract. EPA, in consultation
with the State, may suspend or modify the reme-
dial activities defined in the SOW for this Con-
tract during and/or subsequent to the emergency
H-19
-------
response actions. If such is the case, the
State's share of responsibility for conducting
response activities may also be revised and the
State's financial obligation may be adjusted
downward.
N. Negation of Agency Relationship
It is important to both EPA and the State that
each SSC contain an article negating the principle
that a rela- tionship of agency exists between EPA
and the State in the conduct of the remedial
implementation activities. This assertion could
increase the potential of exposure to tort liability
and complicate cost recovery efforts. The fol-
lowing provision or its equivalent should be included
in the SSC to negate this principle:
Nothing contained in this Contract shall be con-
strued to create, either expressly or by implica-
tion, the relationship of agency between EPA and
the State. Any standards, procedures or proto-
cols prescribed in this Contract to be followed
by EPA or its contractors during the perform-
ance of its obligations under this Contract are
for assurance of the quality of the final product
of the actions contemplated by the Contract, and
do not constitute a right to control the actions
of EPA. EPA (including its employees, agents,
and contractors) is not authorized to represent
or act on behalf of the State in any matter
relating to the subject matter of this Contract,
and the State (including its employees, agents,
and contractors) is not authorized to represent
or act on behalf of EPA in any matter relating to
the subject matter of this Contract.
0. Enforcement and Cost Recovery
Under CERCLA, both EPA and affected States can insti-
tute enforcement actions against and/or negotiations with
parties responsible for priority waste sites. When this
occurs, a settlement or legal action by either party could
potentially impede or even negate the other's claim for
recovery of funds expended at the site. To avoid this,
obligations, rights, and procedures for litigation must be
defined. Therefore, articles addressing cost recovery and
other enforcement considerations should be included in all
SSCs. Specific articles for different enforcement sub-
jects are presented below and should be included in the
Contract, as appropriate.
H-20
-------
Notice of Intent to Settle or Initiate Proceedings
EPA and the State agree that, with respect to the
claims which each may be entitled to assert
against any third persons (herein referred to as
the "responsible party," whether one or more) for
reimbursement of any services, materials, monies
or other thing of -value expended by EPA or the
State for response activity at the site described
in this Contract, neither EPA nor the State will
enter into a settlement with or initiate a-judi-
cial or administrative proceeding against a re-
sponsible party for the recovery of such sums
except after having given notice in writing to
the other party to this Contract not less than
thirty (30) days in advance of the date of the
proposed settlement or commencement of the pro-
posed judicial or administrative proceedings.
Neither party to this Contract shall attempt to
negotiate for nor collect reimbursement of any
response costs on behalf of the other party, and
authority to do so is hereby expressly negated
and denied.
Cooperation and Coordination in Cost Recovery Efforts
EPA and the State agree that they will cooperate
in and coordinate efforts to recover their re-
spective costs of response actions taken at the
site described herein, including the negotiation
of settlement and the filing and management of
any judicial actions against potentially respon-
sible parties. This shall include coordination
in the use of evidence and witnesses available to
each in the preparation and presentation of any
cost recovery action, excepting any documents or
information which may be confidential under the
provisions of any applicable State or Federal law
or regulation.
Judicial Action
EPA and the State agree that any judicial action
taken by either party pursuant to CERCLA against
a potentially responsible party for recovery of
any sums expended in response actions at the site
described herein shall be filed in the United
States District Court for the judicial district
in which the site described in this Contract is
located, or in such other judicial district of
the United States District Courts as may be au-
thorized by section 113 of CERCLA, and agreed to
in writing by the parties to this Contract.
H-21
-------
Litigation Under CERCLA Section 106 and 107
Signature of this Contract does not constitute a
waiver of EPA's right to bring an action against
any person or persons for liability under section
106 or 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), or any other statutory provision or
common law.
Sharing Recovered Funds with EPA
[NOTE: This article should be used in SSCs only when EPA
has recovered all possible Federal costs of site response
from responsible parties or when the State has filed a
recovery action which EPA has determined should be pursued
rather than dismissed.]
Any recovery achieved by the State pursuant to
settlement, judgment or consent decree or any
action against any of the responsible parties
will be shared with EPA in proportion to EPA's
contribution to the site remedial response acti-
vities under CERCLA.
H-22
-------
APPENDIX I
SAMPLE SUPERFUND STATE CONTRACT
PURPOSE
This appendix has been included to demonstrate the
components of a Superfund State Contract (SSC) submission
package and to assist the Regional Site Project Officer
(RSPO) in compiling the necessary information for the sub-
mission.
BACKGROUND
An SSC submission package is comprised of a number of
documents that both delineate State and EPA responsibili-
ties for a remedial implementation project and provide
additional information about the site and the project.
Usually developed jointly by the RSPO and the State Project
Officer (SPO), the SSC is the key component of the SSC
submission package. Additional components of the package
include:
A statement of work (SOW) for the remedial activi-
ties
A certification letter from a responsible State
official, guaranteeing that the State agency
entering into the Contract has authority to do so
and to make any CERCLA 104 (c) (3) assurances re-
quired for conduct of the project (see Appendix J)
A Community Relations Plan (see Appendix K).
The SSC submission package may also include any documents
which further define the problems encountered at the reme-
dial site.
APPENDIX SUMMARY
This appendix provides a sample SSC submission package
for remedial implementation, involving a remedial action
and operation and maintenance (O&M),* to be undertaken at
* According to current EPA policy, the State and EPA must
now enter into a Cooperative Agreement to provide EPA's
share of O&M costs.
1-1
-------
the Lehigh Electric Engineering site in Pennsylvania. The
example provided originally contained each of the elements
listed above. Because of space considerations, however,
attachments to the SSC were not reproduced here.
In utilizing this SSC, the reader should pay special
attention to the sections dealing with two of the CERCLA
section 104 (c) (3) assurances: Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) and Off-Site Storage, Destruction, Treatment, or
Disposition"! In SSCs covering remedial action, the State
must assure that it will assume responsibility for provid-
ing O&M for the life of the project. The SSC shown con-
tains a provision that the State will confirm the accepta-
bility of the off-site facility selected by EPA's remedial
implementation contractor. Such an article should no
longer be used in SSCs. Rather, in accordance with recent
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) policy,
the State should assure that it will provide an acceptable
off-site facility if requested to do so by EPA (see
Appendix H for appropriate language).
The reader should also note that the article presented
here dealing with site access (Section K of this appendix)
should no longer be used in developing SSCs. Instead,
refer to Part 2 of Appendix H for an acceptable example.
This SSC submission package is intended merely to serve
as an example to be considered during preparation of indi-
vidual SSCs for remedial action. It should be kept in
mind, however, that each SSC package must reflect indivi-
dual site requirements. For this reason, contents and
articles required in specific cases may vary.
1-2
-------
SUPERFUND STATE CONTRACT
FOR REMEDIAL IMPLEMENTATION AT
BRUIN LAGOON
BETWEEN THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
AND THE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
A. Authority
This contract is entered into pursuant to sections
104(a)(1), (b), (c)(2) and (c)(3) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.
B. Purpose
1. This Contract is an agreement between the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Envi-
ronmental Resources (DER) to implement the waste
containment remedy selected by DER and EPA at
Bruin Lagoon (the "site"). The waste containment
remedy consists of removal of liquids and super-
natant, stabilization of sludges and application
of a multilayer cap system, ground water intercep-
tion, and stabilization of the dike. Attached as
Appendix A and incorported herein by reference is
the Community Relations Plan which includes a
description of the site and response actions taken
to date.
2. This Contract covers remedial implementation which
entails both the remedial action phase, as des-
cribed in the Statement of Work (SOW), incorpor-
ated herein as Appendix B, and the operation and
maintenance requirements after the remedial action
phase.
C. Parties
1. This Contract is between the EPA and DER. Upon
signature to this Contract, the State's Attorney
General certifies that the DER has the legal au-
thority to enter into this Contract on behalf of
the State and to fulfill the terms of this Con-
tract.
1-3
-------
2. EPA has designated Ms. Kathryn Hodgkiss, Environ-
mental Scientist, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 6th and Walnut Streets, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19106, (215) 597-9023, to serve as
Regional Site Project Officer for this Contract.
3. DER has designated Mr. Russell Crawford, Depart-
ment of Environmental Resources, Meadville
Regional Office, 1012 Water Street, Meadville,
PA 16335, (814) 724-8526 as Project Coordinator
for this Contract.
4. The Regional Site Project Officer, the Project
Coordinator and the Director of the DER Bureau of
Solid Waste Management or his designee have au-
thority to jointly make project decisions that do
not enlarge the scope of the response actions at
the site or increase the cost.
D. EPA Responsibilities
1. EPA shall procure the services of contractors to
perform the tasks in the SOW. Further, EPA shall,
at its own cost and expense, furnish the necessary
personnel, materials, services, and facilities to
perform responsibilities under this Contract.
2. EPA will consult with DER on matters relating to
the implementation of work in the SOW, including
the review and approval of bid packages and any
amendments thereto.
3. EPA shall provide DER an opportunity to review
the complete bid package 10 business days before
it is published for bids. Bid packages shall
require joint approval of EPA and DER prior to
publication for bidding. If DER does not respond
to EPA within the 10 day period, then publication
will proceed. The requirement for DER approval
shall also apply to any and all amendments to the
bid package.
E. State Responsibilities
DER shrfll at its own cost and expense furnish the necessary
personnel, materials, services, and facilities to perform
its responsibilities under this Contract. None of the
expenses incurred by DER in performing such responsibili-
ties will be paid or reimbursed from the Hazardous Sub-
stance Response Trust Fund established by section 221 of
1-4
-------
CERCLA, nor counted toward any cost-sharing requirements
under this Contract or any future Contracts or Cooperative
Agreements relating to the site. Specific responsibilities
are further described in the following paragraphs: G, H,
I, K, L, M, N, P & R.
F. Emergency Response Action
Any emergency response activities conducted pursuant to
the National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR §300.65, shall not
be restricted by the terms of this Contract. EPA, in con-
sultation with DER, may suspend or modify the response
activities in the SOW for this contract during and subse-
quent to the emergency response actions.
G. Payments
1. DER will pay 10 percent of the costs of the reme-
dial action phase as described in the SOW at the
Bruin Lagoon site as provided in this paragraph
G.I. The current estimate of the cost of the
construction contract to be signed between EPA
and the successful bidder for the remedial action
phase activities is two million, eight hundred
twenty-seven thousand, seven hundred forty dollars
($2,827,740) and the cost of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USAGE) management of the remedial
project is two hundred forty-five thousand dollars
($245,000). The total cost of the remedial action
phase is three million, seventy-two thousand,
seven hundred forty dollars ($3,072,740). DER's
share of the total cost shall not exceed three
hundred seven thousand, two hundred seventy-four
dollars ($307,274). DER declares that $307,274
is available for the purposes of this agreement.
Payments for operation and maintenance are not
included in the 10 percent share of the remedial
action phase activities as described in the SOW.
2. If the lowest responsive, responsible bidder for
the construction contract exceeds the estimate of
two million, eight hundred twenty-seven thousand,
seven hundred forty dollars ($2,827,740), DER or
EPA may reject the bid.
3. DER's payment will be made in the following
manner: Within 30 days after this Superfund State
Contract is executed, the DER shall authorize
payment to EPA for half of the State share for
the construction contract ($141,387) and half of
1-5
-------
the State share for USAGE management expenses
($12,250) thereby totaling one hundred fifty-three
thousand, six hundred thirty-seven dollars
($153,637).
4. No later than 30 days after receipt of a copy of
the signed contract between USAGE and the success-
ful bidder for the.remedial action phase activi-
ties, DER shall authorize its second payment to
bring the cost share balance to 10 percent of the
amount of the construction contract and the cost
of the USAGE management expenses, not to exceed
one hundred fifty-three thousand, six hundred
thirty-seven dollars ($153,637).
5. When the remedial action is complete, a final
cost and audit information required in paragraph S
will be provided to DER.
6. EPA's Fiscal Control Center in the Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response will inform EPA's
Financial Management Division in the Office of
Fiscal and Contracts Management and DER if any
overpayment has been made by DER. Any overpayment
by DER will be refunded within 90 days after
determination of said overpayment.
7. If additional funds are required to meet DER's
financial obligations as set forth in this payment
section, then DER will request adequate funds to
meet the 10 percent share. This Contract may be
amended to arrange for any additional payment.
8. All DER payments to EPA shall be made payable to
EPA and sent to:
EPA
Accounting Operations
P.O. Box 2971
Washington, D.C. 20013
Attn: Collection Officer for Superfund
(PM-226)
Room 3419M
9. EPA will pay 90 percent of the costs for the reme-
dial action phase described in the SOW.
1-6
-------
H. Off-Site Storage/ Destruction/ Treatment or Disposition
DER will be responsible for confirming that the disposal
sites selected by the apparent low responsive, responsible
bidder meet the requirements of the invitation to bid and
are authorized to accept and have adequate capacity to
accept any wastes.* Those facilities accepting hazardous
substances as defined in CERCLA must comply with the
requirements of Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
but need not be located within the State's borders.**
I. Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
The DER shall, within its lawful authority, perform or
assure performance of all future operation and maintenance
(O&M), as provided in this paragraph, for 30 years. The
O&M activities of the waste containment remedy shall
consist of those activities stated in the final design
report prepared by Roy F. Weston and mutually approved by
EPA and DER. EPA will establish cleanup contract perform-
ance specifications which will ensure successful completion
of the remedial action. Upon completion of the remedial
action, EPA will provide technical assistance to DER on
O&M for a period of up to six months.*** With respect to
stability and revegetation, DER's O&M obligation and the
six-month period shall begin after EPA and DER mutually
determine that the site has been stabilized and a permanent
vegetation growth has been established. In no event will
O&M activities include restoration from damages from acts
of war, acts of God or acts solely attributable to third
parties. DER will request adequate funds to perform its
obligation under this Contract in every applicable request
to the legislature. DER will promptly inform EPA if the
legislature fails to appropriate adequate funds to meet
DER's O&M responsibilities.
* Current EPA policy is that the State must assure that
it will provide an acceptable off-site facility, should
EPA request that it do so.
** Additional requirements that the facility must meet
are given on Section I.B.3 of the text and in the
policy memorandum in Appendix P.
*** Current EPA policy is to share in the costs of O&M for
up to one year. EPA and the State must enter into a
Cooperative Agreement to provide EPA's share of O&M
costs.
1-7
-------
J. Personnel Safety
EPA agrees to develop and oversee the implementation of
the site safety plan.
K. Access to the Site
EPA and DER shall attempt, to secure access to the site for
the remedial action phase and the long-term O&M through an
agreement with the site owner. If such an agreement is
not entered into and access is not subsequently obtained
within 180 days of the execution of this Contract, the
Contract is terminated and both parties are released from
all responsibility hereunder.
L. DER Inspection During Remedial Activities
1. Representatives of DER shall have access to the
site to review work in progress.
2. EPA shall not be responsible for any harm to any
DER representative or other person arising out of
or resulting from any act or omission by the State
in the course of an on-site inspection.
M. Information on the Site
1. At EPA's request, DER shall make available any
information in its possession concerning the site,
pursuant to State law. If said information was
submitted by DER under a claim of confidentiality,
said information will be treated in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 2. Absent such a claim, EPA may
make said information available to the public
without further notice.
2. EPA agrees to make available any information and
reports developed as part of its responsibilities
under this Contract. Consistent- with State law,
DER agrees not to release any information to the
public which EPA has marked confidential and/or
which may potentially affect present or planned
enforcement actions unless approved by both EPA's
Region III Office of Regional Counsel and the DER
Project Coordinator.
N. Community Relations Plan
EPA and DER will jointly develop and implement the Commun-
ity Relations Plan. The detailed site-specific plan is
attached as Appendix A.
1-8
-------
0. Third Parties
1. This Contract is intended to benefit only DER and
EPA. It extends no benefit or'right to any third
party not a signatory to this Contract.
2. EPA does not assume any Liability to third persons
with respect to losses due to bodily injury or
property damages that exceed the limitations con-
tained in the provisions of 28 USC Sections
1346(b), 2671-2680. To the extent permitted by
State law, the State does not assume liability to
any third person with respect to losses due to
bodily injury or property damages.
P. Federal Enforcement Action*
EPA and the DER agree that they will cooperate and coordi-
nate in any efforts to recover their respective costs of
response actions taken at the site described herein, in-
cluding the negotiation of settlement and the filing and
management of any judicial actions against potentially
responsible parties. This shall include coordination in
the use of evidence and witnesses available to each in the
preparation and presentation of any cost recovery action,
excepting any documents or information which may be confi-
dential under the provisions of any applicable State or
Federal law or regulation.
Q. Responsible Party Activities
If EPA reaches an agreement with any of the responsible
parties to undertake all or part of the remedial action,
the SOW or DER's share of the response activities as
defined in the SOW, will be revised accordingly and DER's
financial obligation as set forth in Section G may be
adjusted downward.
R. Permits
As appropriate, DER will obtain or assist EPA in obtaining
any permits that are necessary to satisfactorily complete
the response actions.
* Current EPA policy is to include the first four articles
shown in Appendix H, Section 2, Subsection O, Enforcement
and Cost Recovery, in all SSCs.
1-9
-------
S. EPA Audit Records
EPA will provide DER with financial and compliance records
concerning the contractor(s) retained by EPA or the USAGE
to perform the work described in the SOW. EPA will also
provide DER with records concerning the USAGE. Such USAGE
records will be kept on a daily basis and include dates,
names of USAGE personnel, titles, hourly rates, hours
worked, a description of their functions and the signature
of the USAGE project supervisor on the site for that day.
T. Amendments
Any change in this Contract must be agreed to, in writing,
by both parties hereto, except as provided in paragraphs
C.4 and Q.
U. Termination of the Contract
This Contract shall remain in effect for 30 years unless
the parties enter into a termination agreement which will
establish the effective date of termination of this Con-
tract, the basis for settlement of termination costs, which
shall include all project costs incurred as well as any
close-out costs, and the amount and date of any sums due
either party.
1-10
-------
In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this contract in seven
(7) copies, each of which shall be deemed an original.
This contract is effective:
aate
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
O^A
; ~>
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
imenta.- xescuwes
Attest:
, cate
1 /
Attorne^Genera
er; AS^ stant
Oecartnent of E.iv ronme'HjV resources
Sift
Secretar af Sucet &TG -am nx)zration
;ate
jncer -cere:- at :on. fj- !$ - 03 -
Reproduced from ^»3
best available copy, ^m
1-11
-------
APPENDIX J
SAMPLE CERTIFICATION LETTERS
PURPOSE
This appendix has been provided to assist State offi-
cials in certifying the authority of the State pollution
control agency to enter into a remedial response agreement.
BACKGROUND
Section 104 (c) (3) of CERCLA requires that the Federal
government not fund a remedial action unless the State
first enters into a Cooperative Agreement or contract that
provides adequate assurances relating to cost-sharing,
off-site treatment, storage, or disposal, and operation
and maintenance. In addition to providing these assur-
ances, a State must certify that the agency entering into
the agreement on behalf of the State has the authority
both to do so and to provide any CERCLA assurances which
are necessary for completion of the project.
This certification should be in letter format and
should be signed by the State's Governor or Attorney
General. Such a letter may cover more than one site and
may be submitted to EPA with all appropriate agreements.
Detailed information required/ such as on the State assump-
tion of operation and maintenance responsibility, may be
provided elsewhere in the agreement submission.
APPENDIX SUMMARY
This appendix contains sample letters which provide
the required certifications. Letters reproduced here are:
A generic letter from the State of Texas, assuring
that the agency entering into the agreement has
authority to do so on behalf of the State; this
can be used for any hazardous waste site in Texas
A site-specific letter from the State of Arizona,
assuring that the State agency has authority to
enter into a Cooperative Agreement for remedial
response at the Tucson International Airport site.
As can be observed from the samples reproduced here, certi-
fication letters may vary considerably in length and scope.
Those provided are intended to serve as examples, which
States may use in developing such letters for their own
use.
J-l
-------
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
WJLLIAM P. CLEMENTS. JR. STATE CAPITOL
GOVERNOR AUSTIN. TEXAS 70711
February 8, 1982
Mr. Dick Whittington, Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Whittihg-ton:
In response to your letter concerning the Comprehensive linvironmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CE11CLA) , I want to
take thi» opportunity to formally designate the Texas Department of
Water Resources as the lead agency authorized to enter into cooperative
agreements and contracts under Section 104 of CERCLA. Historically, the
Texas Department of Water Resources has been the state agency respon-
sible for monitoring and regulating hazardous waste sites. I have every
confidence that this agency and the Environmental Protection Agency can
continue to maintain the. cooperative working relationship that has been
established. Additionally, the Department can facilitate any appropriate
communications with other state agencies relative to the Ace.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to formally designate the Texas
Department of W.itc-r Resources as Texan1 lead agency In accordance with
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
of 1980.
If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
William P. Clements, .'r.
Governor of Texan
ins
tttcn
CC Mr. Harvey ; . 'i.ivls, l-'.xeculivc Director
Texas Department of W.iter Resources
3-2
-------
Attorney
1275 WEST WASHINGTON
B 5 007
l.QI0rtrin
^-^.'^ Y-^""
"' April 6, 1983
Mr. Lee Thomas
Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
United States Environmental Protection Agency
401 "M" Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Re: Cooperative Agreement
Phase I Investigation
Tucson International Airport Area
Dear Mr. Thomas:
My client, the Arizona Department of Health Services
("ADHS"), has asked the Attorney General to review ADHS' legal
authority to execute a cooperative agreement with the United
States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") for a Phase I
remedial investigative study, which will define the extent and
magnitude of a contaminant plume and identify sources of ground-
water contamination within the proximity of the Tucson Inter-
national Airport.
The remedial investigative study will consist of three
primary activitiesone, the installation of groundwater moni-
toring wells; two, the continued monitoring of existing wells
and monitoring of new wells; three, solufe transport modeling of
the migration of the contaminant plume.
For purposes of this review, it is understood that the
President's authority under Section 104 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of Iy80
("CERCLA") has been delegated to EPA and it is acknowledged that
there has been a release of a hazardous substance into the
environment. My review of relevant federal and state statutes
is as follows.
Section 104(c)(3) of CERCLA provides, in part, that
J-3
-------
Mr . Lee Thomas
April 6, 1983
Page 2
The President shall not provide any remedial
actions pursuant to this ^ecticn unless the State
in which the release occurs first enters into a
contract or cooperative agreement with the Presi-
dent ....
Because ADHS will take the Lead on the investigative
study and because Superfund monies will be transferred to ADHS
by EPA, the particular remedial action will be implemented
through a cooperative agreement rather than through a contract.
In a document captioned "GUIDANCE - COOPERATIVE AGREE-
MENTS AND CONTRACTS WITH STATES UNDER THE' COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRON-
MENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT OF 1980," dated
March, 1982, EPA has taken the position that "remedial actions"
under Section 104 include remedial planning activities. The
investigative study can be categorized as remedial planning and
therefore a "remedial action" which invokes the application of
Section 104(c)(3). I now address the applicable provisions of
Section 104(c)(3).
Section 104(c)(3)(A) provides that a cooperative agree-
ment must contain an assurance that "the State will assure all
future maintenance of the removal and remedial actions provided
for the expected life of such actions as determined by the
President." Because the remedial action (the investigative
study) in this instance requires no future maintenance, this
provision of CERCLA has no application to the cooperative agree-
ment to be executed by EPA and ADHS. If remedial action
maintenance activities become necessary within the scope of the
investigative study, the cooperative agreement can be amended to
provide for such assurances.
Section 104(c)(3)(B) provides that a cooperative agree-
ment must contain an assurance that "the State will assure the
availability of a hazardous waste disposal facility acceptable
to the President and in compliance with the requirements of
subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act for any necessary
off-site storage, destruction, treatment or secure disposition
of hazardous substances." Again, since the remedial action is
strictly limited to an investigative study, this provision of
CERCLA has no application to the cooperative agreement to be
executed by EPA and ADHS. However, if such an assurance should
become applicable during the course of the investigative study,
the cooperative agreement can be amended accordingly.
J-4
-------
Mr. Lee Thomas
April 6, 1983
Page 3
Section 104(c)(3)(C) requires that a cooperative agree-
ment contain an assurance that "the State will pay or assure
payment of (i) 10 per centum of the costs of the remedial action
M
Section 104(c)(3)(C) further provides:
The President shall grant the State a credit
against the share of the costs for which it is
responsible under this paragraph for any docu-
mented direct out-of-pocket non-Federal funds
expended or obligated by the State or political
subdivision thereof after January 1, 1978.
The total cost of the investigative study is estimated
to be $581,280. Of that amount, the State of Arizona (through
ADHS) must assure payment of 10% or $58,128. ADHS, in 1982, was
given specific authority by the Arizona Legislature to meet
CERCLA matching funds requirement.
Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.K.S.") § 36-1852 (Desig-
nation of state agency) provides:
The department of health services ... is desig-
nated as the water pollution control agency for
this state for all purposes of ... the Compre-
hensive Environmental Responses [sic], Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act of 1980 . . . and is
authorized to take all action necessary or appro-
priate to secure to this state the benefits of
such acts ....
Because the "investigative study" is directly related to pollu-
tion or contamination of ground water, ADHS is authorized to
take action to secure the benefits of CERCLA. Because the
receipt of federal Superfund money is a benefit to the State of
Arizona, ADHS has authority to take necessary or appropriate
action to secure the receipt of CERCLA money. One such neces-
sary action is the assurance of a 10% match of CERCLA monies
expended by EPA. Sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes make
it clear that ADHS has the authority to make the required match
money assurances.
Because the Tucson International Airport area is on
EPA's national priority list, WQARF monies are authorized to be
used for necessary match money obligations. A.R.S. § 36-
1854.01.A provides for a water quality assurance revolving fund
(WQARF) which is a fund administered by ADHS and is not subject
to appropriations lapsing.
J-5
-------
Mr. Lee Thomas
April 6, 1983
Page 4
A.R.S. § 36-1854..01 (VJater quality assurance revolving
fund; uses; application), subsection B provides:
Monies from the water quality assurance
revolving fund shall be used for the purpose of
providing state match monies for any ground water
site selected pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Responses [sic], Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 ....
A.R.S. § 3(3-1856.4 authorizes ADHS to
Enter into agreements with the administrator for
receipt of federal Comprehensive Environmental
Responses [sic], Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 . . . monies to be used for the removal
or cleanup of pollution of ground water."
Since the investigative study is specifically related to removal
or cleanup of ground water pollution, ADHS has authority to exe-
cute the cooperative agreement with the EPA Administrator or the
Administrator's delegatee.
Furthermore, A.R.S. § 36-104.7 authorizes ADHS to "make
contracts and incur obligations within the general scope of its
activities and operation subject to the availability of funds."
(Emphasis added.) A.R.S. § 36-1856.6 provides that ADHS has
authority to
Encourage, participate in, or conduct studies,
investigation, research and demonstration relat-
ing to water pollution and causes, minimization,
prevention, control and abatement thereof ....
The substance of the cooperative agreement falls within the pur-
view of § 1856.6, which is "within the general scope" of ADHS'
activities and operation and is therefore within ADHS1 contract-
ing authority.
The only limitation to ADHS' contracting authority,
under § 104.7, is "the availability of funds." This appropria-
tions limitation is alleviated by the application of the afore-
quoted provisions of § 1854.01.
Based upon my review of the applicable provisions of
Section 104(c)(3) of CERCLA and the Arizona Revised Statutes, I
conclude that ADHS is authorized to execute a cooperative agree-
ment with EPA for the Phase I investigative study.
J-6
-------
Mr . Lee Thomas
April 6, 1983
Page 5
255-1650.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (602)
JDVrlfc
Enclosures
cc: Dr. James E. Sarn
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
1677A-7
Sincerely,
ROBERT K. CORBIN
Attorney General
JAMES DONALD VIEREGG
'Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Protection Unit
J-7
-------
APPENDIX K
COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN FORMAT
AND SAMPLE PLAN
PURPOSE
This appendix has been provided to assist Regional
personnel especially Regional Site Project Officers
(RSPOs) and Regional Superfund Community Relations Coordi-
nators (RSCRCs) -- and State staff such as State Pro-
ject Officers (SPOs) and State Community Relations Coordi-
nators (SCRCs) -- in developing Community Relations Plans
(CRPs) for remedial sites.
BACKGROUND
The Superfund community relations program is a two-way
site-specific program for communication and information
exchange which is implemented for every remedial response
initiated under CERCLA. It must involve citizens from the
affected communities and representatives from the Federal
and State agencies taking part in the remedial response.
The program's goal is to keep local citizens informed about
planned and on-going remedial activities while also provid-
ing them an opportunity to comment on and supply informa-
tion about the response.
Community relations activities may be the responsibil-
ity of either EPA or the State, depending upon which agency
is taking the lead for the remedial response activities in
question. For State-lead projects, this responsibility
will be determined during negotiation of the Cooperative
Agreement application covering the project, and may be
assumed by either EPA or the State. For Federal-lead pro-
jects, EPA Regional community relations staff, with the
assistance of RSPOs, will conduct the community relation
program. In either case, a CRP must be developed and im-
plemented for each Superfund remedial project.
A CRP is the planning, management, and budget document
that specifies community relations activities to be under-
taken at a site. As such, it is an essential part of reme-
dial response activities. The CRP, however, must be based
on on-site interviews with interested State and local of-
ficials, community residents, and media representatives.
Only after obtaining a first hand understanding of the
information needs and level of public concern at a site
can a CRP be written to reflect the concerns of the com-
munity in question (see Section 2 of this appendix).
K-l
-------
After completion of on-site community discussions and
careful consideration of the information gathered, respon-
sible staff will have sufficient information to prepare a
draft CRP. The trigger point for preparing the draft CRP
should be the onset of EPA and State negotiation of a reme-
dial response agreement for the first project at the site
in question. A CRP should include the following elements:
A description of the site's background and history
of community involvement at the site, as well as
an outline of the key issues and community con-
cerns
Community relations objectives for the during the
remedial investigation/feasibility study
An explanation of the activities and techniques
that will be used to keep the community informed
of site activities and to elicit citizen input
A provision that the public will be given a mini-
mum three-week comment period to review the fea-
sibility study prior to the selection of the
recommended alternative and an explanation of how
public input will be obtained during this period,
such as a public meeting and/or written comments
A list of affected and interested groups and indi-
viduals, their affiliations, addresses, and tele-
phone numbers
A list of technical and community relations staff
responsible for each site task
The community relations program site budget
A work plan and implementation schedule which is
integrated with the major technical activities to
be undertaken at the site.
A draft plan must be submitted along with the draft agree-
ment covering the first phase of remedial planning --
either a Cooperative Agreement application or a draft Memo-
randum of Understanding (MOU). The plan will form the
basis for the complete CRP, which should be submitted with
the final agreement package. If the project is to be
undertaken in response to a State letter of request, a
complete CRP must be developed and approved prior to the
initiation of remedial activities at the site.
K-2
-------
Before a remedial design or remedial action is imple-
mented at the site/ the responsible agency must revise the
CRP to reflect the changing needs and concerns of the com-
munity and the additional requirements of the new project.
The revised CRP must be submitted with either the Coopera-
tive Agreement application or Superfund State Contract
(SSC) that is negotiated to cover this phase of remedial
response. More specific procedures for preparing the CRP
and background the Superfund community relations program
in general can be found in "Superfund Community Relations
Policy," OERR, May 9, 1983, and Community Relations in
Superfund; A Handbook, (interim version), OERR, September
1983.
APPENDIX SUMMARY
For the use of concerned State and EPA Regional staff,
this appendix contains the following guidance:
On-site discussion guidance document
CRP sample format
Sample CRP.
The activities presented in Section 2, Community Relations
Plan Sample Format, are general guidelines for preparing a
CRP. In practice, however, needs of individual CRPs will
vary. Every site presents special problems and every com-
munity has unique needs and expectations to consider. For
this reason, a sample CRP has been provided in Section 3.
Staff members preparing CRPs should tailor plans to re-
flect the needs of the site and the situation in question.
K-3
-------
1. ON-SITE COMMUNITY RELATIONS DISCUSSION GUIDANCE
COMMUNITY RELATIONS GUIDANCE FOR EVALUATING
CITIZEN CONCERNS AT SUPERFUND SITES
K-4
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
This document provides guidance for planning, conducting, and evaluating
on-site discussions with concerned citizens and local officials at Superfund
sites. These discussions provide the basis for assessing the nature and level
of citizen concern at the site -- a requirement for all non-emergency
Superfund response actions. Tasks described in this guidance may be performed
by EPA regional personnel, state response staff, or EPA-supervised contractors.
Community relations activities must be based upon information derived from
on-site discussions with concerned citizens and local public officials to
ensure that EPA or the state responds to local concerns and major issues.
Results of the on-site discussions should be incorporated into a community
relations plan (CRP) -- the planning, management, and budget cornerstone of
the community relations program for each site. Activities specified in the
CRP are tailored to the level and nature of community concerns at the site.
These on-site discussions are not a survey of citizen opinion. Rather,
they are information meetings conducted to provide community relations staff
with the background information necessary to understand the site's history
from the community's perspective, to identify concerned citizens, officials,
and organized groups, and to evaluate the level and nature of citizen
concern. This information is indispensable in preparing the CRP. The
discussions also serve as the initial public input into response plans.
Concerns identified in these discussions may be taken into account in
developing technical response actions.
Information derived from on-site discussions may also be useful to the
enforcement staff. At sites where enforcement staff are seeking responsible
party cleanup, on-site discussions should be conducted and evaluated by the
time notice letters are sent out, so that enforcement personnel may be
informed of community concerns before entering negotiations with responsible
parties.
Thus, these discussions are of critical importance in designing community
relations programs that are tailored to a particular community. In turn, they
can help in the design and implementation of response actions (including
enforcement actions) that meet the community's special needs. They must,
however, be conducted with care and discretion.
Section 2 of this document describes how to plan and prepare for on-site
discussions. Section 3 offers a set of procedures that may be useful for
conducting the discussions. Finally, Section 4 provides a framework for
assessing the results of the discussions.
K-5
-------
2. PLANNING AND PREPARATION
This section of the guidance discusses the planning and preparation that
should precede discussions with citizens and local officials at the site. The
work effort required for the activities described will vary from site to site,
depending on the level of citizen concern and the site's technical
complexity. On the average, however, planning and preparation for on-site
discussions should require three days of work effort.
Prior to conducting the on-site discussions, the community relations staff
should plan: (1) how to acquire information about the site and identify
interested public officials and members of the local community; (2) how to
contact interested officials, citizens, and organized groups; and (3) how to
elicit information from these individuals and groups. These three phases of
the planning process are discussed separately below.
A. Acquiring Site Information and Identifying Interested Officials,
Community Members, and Groups
To ensure that key individuals are contacted and that site issues are
understood, certain steps should be performed to acquire necessary background
information, including the following:
(1) Meeting with regional EPA and state technical staff to
discuss known or suspected site problems, to identify
interested officials and citizens, and to obtain other
background information;
(2) Reviewing EPA regional office, headquarters and state
files to obtain relevant memos, documents, and
correspondence;
(3) Researching local newpaper articles for the names of
community leaders and for a preliminary indication of
major site issues;
(4) If EPA clearance has been obtained, contacting
Congressional offices in Washington or the state,
either by telephone or in person, to obtain additional
background information, as well as to inform the
offices that EPA or state staff or contractors will
soon visit the site. Congressional staff can identify
the most involved citizens and the major site issues on
the basis of inquiries to their office. It is
essential to obtain EPA clearance, however, before
making such contact. (Staff in the local or district
Congressional office nearest to the site may be
included routinely among those with whom on-site
discussions are held, as noted below.)
K-6
-------
Performing these four steps in the order in which they are presented here
should help maximize the efficiency with which this first phase of the
planning process is carried out.
At most sites, some or all of the following types of individuals and
groups may have concerns about the site or can provide valuable perspective on
site issues. They should, therefore, be included among those to be considered
for on-site discussions:
6 Persons interested in the site, i.e., persons living
in close proximity to the site and nearby property
owners;
State agency staff, such as health, environmental
protection, or natural resources department officials;
Local and state elected officials, such as the mayor,
council members, local state legislators, or attorney
general;
Staff at Congressional or state legislators' district
offices;
County planning and health officials;
Representatives of ad hoc citizen groups organized
because of site issues;
Local business representatives (e.g., from the
Chamber of Commerce);
Local civic groups;
Neighborhood associations;
Local chapters of environmental groups;
Local educators and school administrators; and
Media representatives.
It is important to encourage those members of the community who have been
the most active with respect to the site to raise their concerns in on-site
discussions.
B. Contacting Interested Officials, Citizens, and Groups
Once the background activities of the first phase of the planning process
are completed, community relations staff should draw up a list of persons to
be contacted at the site and make arrangements to meet with them. In phoning
K-7
-------
those persons on the contact list, staff should explain that the purpose of
the discussions is solely to obtain the views of community members on site
problems and to explore the concerns and issues identified by citizens and
local officials. Staff should stress that the discussions will not be used
to provide information to the public about site problems or possible future
site actions, but instead, that the purpose of the discussions is to assess
the level and nature of community concerns, so that community relations
activities appropriate to those concerns can be conducted and so that
community concerns can be taken into account in planning response actions.
The purpose of the discussions will usually be easily understood. Citizens
and officials will generally not object to speaking to government staff who
cannot provide them with findings on possible effects or a firm schedule for
cleanup, although they may be disappointed not to receive such information.
Rather, citizens and local officials are generally appreciative that someone
from the government is willing to meet with them and listen to their views.
They regard the discussions as an opportunity to voice their concerns and,
perhaps, to have some effect on government decisions.
If possible, all meetings should,be scheduled over a period of no more
than five days.
C. Eliciting Information from Individuals and Groups
The final phase of the planning process is to draw up a brief and informal
list of questions to guide the discussions with local officials and citizens.
Such a list may help to ensure that the discussions are efficient yet
comprehensive. These questions may serve as a reminder of the areas that
should be covered in the discussions, the kinds of information that should be
elicited, and any specific points that must be addressed. Because the on-site
discussions should not be conducted as a survey, the questions listed in
advance while planning the discussions need not be asked explicitly during
discussions. Exhibit 1 presents examples of questions that may be useful in
conducting on-site discussions.
In addition to preparing questions, community relations staff should
determine whether there are any special matters that should not be publicly
disclosed (for example, specific findings from enforcement investigations or
preliminary cost estimates for cleanup). Program and enforcement staff should
be consulted on this point before the on-site discussions are held.
K-8
-------
those persons on the contact list, staff should explain that the purpose of
the discussions is solely to obtain the views of community members on site
problems and to explore the concerns and issues identified by citizens and
local officials. Staff should stress that the discussions will not be used
to provide information to the public about site problems or possible future
site actions, but instead, that the purpose of the discussions is to assess
the level and nature of community concerns, so that community relations
activities appropriate to those concerns can be conducted and so that
community concerns can be taken into account in planning response actions.
The purpose of the discussions will usually be easily understood. Citizens
and officials will generally not object to speaking to government staff who
cannot provide them with findings on possible effects or a firm schedule for
cleanup, although they may be disappointed not to receive such information.
Rather, citizens and local officials are generally appreciative that someone
from the government is willing to meet with them and listen to their views.
They regard the discussions as an opportunity to voice their concerns and,
perhaps, to have some effect on government decisions.
If possible, all meetings should be scheduled over a period of no more
than five days.
C. Eliciting Information from Individuals and Groups
The final phase of the planning process is to draw up a brief and informal
list of questions to guide the discussions with local officials and citizens.
Such a list may help to ensure that the discussions are efficient yet
comprehensive. These questions may serve as a reminder of the areas that
should be covered in the discussions, the kinds of information that should be
elicited, and any specific points that must be addressed. Because the on-site
discussions should not be conducted as a survey, the questions listed in
advance while planning the discussions need not be asked explicitly during
discussions. Exhibit 1 presents examples of questions that may be useful in
conducting on-site discussions.
In addition to preparing questions, community relations staff should
determine whether there are any special matters that should not be publicly
disclosed (for example, specific findings from enforcement investigations or
preliminary cost estimates for cleanup). Program and enforcement staff should
be consulted on this point before the on-site discussions are held.
K-9
-------
EXHIBIT 1
EXAMPLES OF QUESTIONS TO ASK IN ON-SITE DISCUSSIONS
(1) When did you first become aware of the release of hazardous substances at
the site?
(2) How would you characterize the problems at the site?
(3) What contacts have you had with local, state, EPA and other officials
about the site?
(4) What are your major concerns related to the site?
(5) What activities have you participated in, sponsored, or organized
concerning the site?
(6) How can EPA or the state best provide you with information concerning
response activities? Would you like to be included on a mailing list?
(7) What kind of information would be most useful to you (e.g., technical
information, status reports on cleanup activities)? How frequently would
you like to receive a progress report or fact sheet?
(8) Is there anything you wish to mention that we have not yet discussed?
(9) Can you suggest other individuals or groups that EPA or the state should
contact for additional information or to identify other types of concerns?
K-10
-------
3. CONDUCTING ON-SITE DISCUSSIONS
This section presents procedures that may be useful to EPA, the state, or
contractor support staff in conducting on-site discussions with citizens and
local officials. If possible, all discussions related to a specific site
should be conducted within a five day period.
Once the discussions have begun, staff should try to:
Make all appointments as scheduled;
Arrange a follow-up conversation if additional time
is needed with any official or citizen;
Assure citizens and officials that all interviews
will be held confidential, and that no specific
statements will be attributed to any person without
prior clearance;
Have two community relations staffers present during
the discussion, when possible, so that one can take
notes while the other leads the discussion.
About 45 minutes to one hour should be allowed for a discussion with an
individual. Less time will usually be required once the community relations
staff have become familiar with the background of community involvement
through previous discussions. If asked, staff should not hesitate to identify
some of the other citizens or officials with whom discussions are being held.
Local reporters may, on occasion, ask to attend discussions between
community relations staff and community leaders or officials. The attendance
of reporters at these discussions should be discouraged, as it might inhibit a
frank and open conversation. Reporters should be asked, instead, to meet
separately with community relations staff. If they do attend discussions with
officials, they should be included in the meeting and asked for their views
and comments, which are valuable.
At the outset of any discussion with reporters, community relations staff
should repeat that the purpose of the discussion is to collect information,
not to answer questions, and that the community relations staff are not in a
position, in any event, to provide new information on site problems or
response plains .
Community relations staff must take special care to avoid making
subjective comments about the site during the discussions and avoid conveying
specific information that may raise citizens' or officials' expectations
about response activities.
K-ll
-------
At the end of each discussion, staff should ask the citizen or official if
he or she is interested in participating in future briefings, workshops, and
meetings, and receiving prior notification of such activities by mail. In
addition, the names of other individuals to contact in the community should be
requested. After each discussion has been concluded, staff should write up a
summary of the discussion as soon as possible.
When all the meetings have been held, staff should prepare a final list of
all interested officials and citizens with pertinent titles and affiliations,
addresses, and phone numbers. This list eventually will be included in the
community relations plan for the site.
K-12
-------
4. EVALUATING DISCUSSIONS
Based upon the discussion summaries and the notes from each meeting,
community relations staff should evaluate the nature and level of citizen
concern at the site. This evaluation will be incorporated into the CRP.
Community relations staff may assess whether community concern is high,
medium, or low by considering the presence or absence of the following six
characteristics, which have been found to be important indicators of community
involvement and concern in past on-site investigations conducted by EPA:
(1) Children's health -- whether families in the community
believe their children's health may be affected by
hazardous substances;
(2) Economic loss -- whether local homeowners or
businesses believe that,the site has caused or will
cause them economic loss;
(3) Agency credibility -- whether the performance and
statements of EPA and the state are viewed by the
public as competent and credible;
(<*) Involvement -- whether an active, vocal group leader
(or leaders) has emerged from the community and whether
the group leader has a substantial local following;
(5) Media -- whether events at the site have received
substantial coverage by local, state, regional, or
national media; and
(6) N'umber affected -- whether more than three or four
households perceive themselves as affected by the site.
Some of these characteristics are more important than others in
determining the level of community concern. For example, a perceived threat
to children's health is a particularly strong indicator of a potentially high
level of citizen concern at a site. If several of the above characteristics
describe the affected community, the community relations staff have grounds
for considering that the level of community concern at the site may be medium
to high or has the potential to become medium to high.
In writing CRPs, following completion of these on-site discussions, it is
important to maintain objectivity. Consideration should be given to the
feelings of any citizens or officials mentioned. These plans will be
circulated among the state and federal agencies involved in the response.
They may also be read by members of the general public in the site community.
Allegations or opinions expressed by those with whom discussions
K-13
-------
were held do not need to be presented in the plans unless they are directly
relevant to the design of a community relations program. Descriptions of the
personal backgrounds or political beliefs of individuals are unnecessary.
Accusations of conflict of interest or of a complete absence of credibility
among certain officials or agencies are serious charges that are not
appropriate subjects for CRPs. Such charges should be directed to the proper
EPA or state staff according to the standard procedures in such cases. In
short, the information gathered in the on-site discussions should be carefully
weighed and presented as objectively as possible. No CRP should become an
issue itself in the community.
By planning, conducting, and evaluating the discussions in accordance with
this guidance, community relations staff should gain a clear understanding of
the level and nature of community concern at a site. Community relations
staff should then be able to prepare an effective CRP and to tailor
communications activities at a site to the needs and concerns of local
citizens and officials.
K-14
-------
2. COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN FORMAT
COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
SAMPLE FORMAT
A. Introduction
The opening paragraph of the CRP identifies the location of the release,
the lead agency in the Superfund cleanup and in the community relations
program, and the period of ci.-ne covered by the plan.
B. Site Background and History of Community Involvement
The background and history section begins with a brief site history and
information on cleanup plans, as well as an enforcement profile, if it is
likely to alter the technical schedule. This section also describes the
history of community involvement, including descriptions of interested groups,
their activities, past public meetings, and other inquiries or displays of
concerns. The section concludes by summarizing the main public concerns and
key issues that may affect the conduct of the cleanup. Concerns and issues
likely to be raised in the future, as well as those raised in the past, are
included.
C. Site-Specific Objectives
All Superfund community relations programs have two major goals:
Provide accurate, timely information about the response to the
community; and
Allow citizens to express their concerns to EPA and the State.
The purpose of this section of the CRP is to list specific objectives
tailored to the technical response timing and the level of citizen concern at
the site. Included in these objectives are the specific points in the
technical response for which community relations activities are essential, and
the specific decisions on which local input is essential.
D. Community Relations Techniques
This section lists the communication activities to be conducted in each
phase of the response. The activities specified should be closely tied to the
specfic events in the technical response schedule (e.g., small group meetings
or briefings could be scheduled at the initiation of the response action and
during the cd!hment period on the feasibility study.) Other examples of
techniques that can be used in the Superfund community relations program are:
Attending meetings and arranging workshops with citizen groups;
Preparing fact sheets, progress reports, news conferences, and
news releases; and
Establishing an information repository.
K-15
-------
-2-
This section muse also specify how the three week comment period will be
implemented for nonexpedited remedial actions. For any initial remedial
measures (IRM), the plan must also (1) address how the community will receive
prior notification of any site action and (2) state that a minimum two week
comment period will be provided for any complex IRM recommended by a limited
feasibility study.
This section should also detail how staff will keep citizens informed of
past site activities and upcoming events on a regular basis. There should be
provision for coordinating the community relations responsibilities of the
federal, state, and local agencies, in addition to EPA, involved in the
response.
E. Workplan and Schedule
The workplan and implementation schedule display technical milestones and
community relations activities along a time line. The time line maybe altered
over the course of the Superfund response because most activities will
correspond to technical milestones, not dates. The community relations
activities should include a period for lead time to draft, circulate, review,
and approve written materials and activity plans before the date of the
activity.
F. Budget and Staffing Plan
The budget and staffing plan details the EPA, other federal, and state
agency staff responsible for each community relations activity. The staffing
list should differentiate preparatory staff -- those who draft materials and
arrange appointments and meeting space -- from primary staff responsibilities,
such as making a presentation, editing and approving a fact sheet, or running
a workshop. The workhours for each person responsible for an aspect of an
activity are included, along with any travel costs, material costs, or
contractor costs, for each activity.
G. Appendix of public officials, interested groups and individuals,
contractors, and EPA, federal, or state staff responsible for the
site
Names of persons contacted during the on-site discussions, as well as
others referred to in the conversations, are listed with their affiliation, if
any, and telephone number. The appendix may be arranged under the headings of
federal, state, and local officials, local groups, and interested individuals.
Attached is a copy of an approved community relations plan. Included with
this plan is a memorandum from th,e Headquarters Superfund Community Relations
Coordinator identifying areas in the plan that are lacking. *
K-16
-------
3- SAMPLE COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
FOR REMEDIAL ACTION
AT THE IMPERIAL SITES
IMPERIAL, MISSOURI
This Stage I community relations plan outlines the activi-
ties to be conducted during a Superfund remedial action at
the Imperial sites in Jefferson County, Missouri. U.S. EPA
Region Villas the lead responsibility for managing the re-
medial action, which consists of initial remedial measures,
a remedial investigation, and a feasibility study. This
plan was prepared in February 1983 and revised in June 1983.
I. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
A. SITE HISTORY
Imperial, Missouri, a suburb of St. Louis, is an unin-
corporated town of about 6,000 middle-income families.
The dioxin sites located in Imperial are nestled in a
hilly, wooded area that is still being developed.
In February 1971, a salvage oil company owned by a
Mr. Russell Bliss began hauling dioxin wastes from the
now defunct Northeastern Pharmaceutical and Chemical
Company (NEPACCO) in Verona, Missouri. The type of
dioxin, scientifically named 2 ,3 , 7 , 8-tetrachlorodi-
benzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) , is an unwanted byproduct re-
sulting from the manufacture of trichlorophenol, which
was produced by NEPACCO as an intermediate in the manu-
facture of hexachlorophene.
The dioxin-contaminated wastes were mixed with waste
oils and used to spray at least three horse arenas for
weed and dust control. One of these arenas was at
Bubbling Springs Ranch in Jefferson County. It was
sprayed with contaminated oil in June and July 1971.
Early in 1972, two horses died, and later in the year
four more died. At the time, the cause of death was
undetermined. As a precaution, however, 850 yards of
arena soil was excavated in March 1973.
The excavated soil from Bubbling Springs Ranch was used
as residential fill at the Minker residence and the
Stout site (named after the contractor who did the exc-
avation and who Downed the property at *the time) . Approxi-
mately 20 truckloads of the soil were used to fill a
steep ravine on the south end of the Minker house. The
property is located on a ridge at the head of the water-
shed, and the fill area has mostly washed out into
Romaine Creek. The Stout property is on the side of a
ridge, and the contaminated soil was used to level off
an area underneath two house trailers.
K-17
-------
EPA first sampled the Imperial sites where the con-
taminated material had been used for residential fill
in May 1982. On August 18, 1982, results from this
limited sampling confirmed dioxin contamination._ A
more comprehensive sampling effort was conducted in
October to determine.the extent of contamination.
In November, results from the October sampling showed
no contamination above 1 ppb from the Country Club sub-
division. Five of the 53 samples taken at the Stout
property had positive results (above 1 ppb); these
ranged from 1.5 ppb to 22.2 ppb, the latter occurring
at a depth of 10 feet.
The highest levels of dioxin contamination in the area
were found in fill material at the Minker residence and
down the slope behind the house. Of the 95 samples, 40
had positive results. The highest concentration found
was 301 ppb.
In Romaine Creek, 78 of the 151 samples showed positive
results. Concentrations of dioxin in sediments were
highest (272 ppb) where drainage from the Minker pro-
perty enters the creek. The concentration decreased to
about 90 ppb 800 feet downstream, 10 ppb 2,000 feet
downstream, and below 1 ppb 6,000 feet downstream.
Samples of dust from vacuum cleaner bags were collected
from five area houses. Dioxin contamination was found
only in the sample from the Minker residence, at 3.6 ppb,
Using these findings, risk assessments were prepared
and were evaluated by EPA, CDC, and the State of Mis-
souri. These three groups determined that six house-
holds with potential daily exposure through contact
with the soil should be relocated. These households
are identified in section I-C of this plan.
At the request of residents, additional sampling from
households adjacent to the six relocatees was conducted
in December 1982. Results are not yet available.
B. COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY
The following community relations activities have been
conducted by EPA to date. Community issues, concernsr
and participants are discussed in sections C and D,
below.
May and June 198^; At the time of the first EPA sam-
pling, engineers~made door-to-door visits to talk with
residents whose property was being sampled.
K-18
-------
October 6 and 7, 1982; EPA staff toured the area and
visited four households near the Minker site (staff
could not contact two other households near the site)
and one household near the Stout site.
October 6, 1982; A phone line to EPA was opened; from
October to the present, approximately 30 residents have
called EPA.
October 14, 1982; A public meeting was held at Mermac
Heights Elementary School. Approximately 150 households
in the vicinity of the sites were invited. About 175 per-
sons attended. There was heavy press coverage and
attendance by local and state officials. A fact sheet
was distributed.
November 5, 1982; Dioxin Update No. 1 (stating the
status of October s'ampling) was sent to approximately
150 households in the vicinity.
December 7, 1982; EPA and CDC made personal visits to
the six households identified for relocation. Dioxin
Update #2 was distributed door-to-door to approximately
150 families. This included October sampling results,
maps of the sites that were sampled, action options,
future plans, and notice of a public inquiry center.
December 8, 1982; A public inquiry center was opened
at a nearby hotel for 5 days, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. A press
conference and news release presented the findings from
the October sampling.
January 20, 1983; A spokesman for concerned citizens
near the Minker site requested a meeting between resi-
dents and responsible officials. Forty-two citizens
attended, as well as representatives from EPA, CDC,
Missouri Division of Health, Missouri Department of
Natural Resources, and a. State of Missouri attorney.
There was no press .attendance. Remedial actions and
citizen concerns were discussed. Handouts included a
fact sheet, dioxin questions and answers, and a summary
sheet of proposed actions.
January 29, 1983; A public hearing was held at Jeffer-
son College in Hillsboro, called by Congressman Robert
Gephardt. This was a general meeting concerning pos-
sible dioxin sites throughout Missouri. Meeting p*ar-
ticipants included: Regional and Headquarters EPA
officials; FEMA; CDC; Missouri DNR and Health Division;
State Senator Harriet Woods; State Representative Bob
Feigenbaum; Dr. Ellen Silbergeld (Environmental Defense
Fund); and representatives from the Minker site, Stout
K-19
-------
site, Country Club Manor, Times Beach, and Warren County,
Media coverage was heavy. Informational handouts were
distributed by EPA. The Coalition for the Environment
(see Section C below) also distributed its February
"Alert Newsletter."
C. KEY PARTICIPANTS
1. At the most general level, there are approximately
-150 households in the vicinity of the sites. They
will be kept informed of major activities and find-
ings. Several families have voluntarily moved out
of the area because of their concerns.
2. Two primary organized groups have been identified.
Personal contact will be maintained with these
groups through their spokespersons.
a. Country Club Manor; Gail Hanks, spokeswoman.
About eight families, well-researched, ac-
tively involved. Chief concern is health
effects from possible runoff from the Stout
site. (See Section D for further discussion
of issues.)
b. West Rock Creek Hill; Mr. Abrahamson and
Mr, Webb, spokesmen. Dennis Lynch is also a
participant who attended the January 29 meet-
ing called by Congressman Gephardt. About
12 families are involved, and have expressed
concerns about health effects and economic
impacts (property values, medical bills).
3. Eight households nearest the Minker site have been
offered relocation:
a. Harold Minker householdtwo'adults, one
child. They have temporarily relocated.
b. John Vickers householdtwo adults, three
children. This is the first household down-
slope from the fill area. They have been
temporarily relocated.
c. George McArthy householdtwo adults. They
are in direct line of fill area drainage,
immediately below the Vickers house.
d. Dennis Lynch householdtwo adults, two chil-
dren.
e. Doug Keane householdthis is a rental
property that is currently vacant.
K-20
-------
f. James Haeger householdtwo adults. Next door
neighbors to Minkers on W. Rock Creek Road.
g. Joseph Korenak householdfirst house south of
Minker residence, on west side of Rock Creek Road.
h. Albert Edwards householdlocated immediately adjacent
to Romaine Creek, approximately 1/3 mile north of
the Minker site.
Personal contact will be maintained with -rrse house-
holds adjacent to the seven identified for relocation:
Crismon
Davis
Abramson
Henderson
Webb
5. Three households near the Stout site have been
offered relocation:
Martin Hutchison (next door to site;
have already temporarily relocated)
James Cisco (2 doors down from site/-
have already, temporarily relocated)
Edward Baczynski (across street; have
already temporarily relocated)
6. Personal contact will be maintained with two house-
holds near the Stout site that have expressed concerns:
Jack Sutton (owns trailer house on Stout
site; is the developerNHI Development
Companyof Country Club Manor subdivi-
sion)
Peter Vogt (owns part of Stout site;
lives further up the road)
7. Other areawide groups that are involved in the
dioxin situation in Missouri are:
Coalition for the Environment (based in
St. Louis; present at January 29 meeting)
Missourians against Hazardous Waste (based
in Excello, Missouri)
Environmental Defense Group (based in
Washington, D.C.; Dr. Ellen Silbergeld
attended January 29 meeting)
K-21
-------
Sharon Rogersattended January 29 meet-
ing as a representative of the people of
Warren County (where Bob's Home Service,
the only licensed hazardous waste land-
fill in Missouri, is located)
Mr. Layne JumperTimes Beach site repre-
sentative who attended the January 29
meeting.
8. The local and national press has been giving exten-
sive coverage to events at these sites.
9. Local, state, and Federal officials: Congressman
Gephardt has been actively involved in this issue,
and has been contacted by a number of residents.
He called the public hearing on January 29, 1983.
State representative Bob Feigenbaum and State Senator
Harriet Woods have also been particularly involved
in dioxin and hazardous waste issues in Missouri.
D. KEY ISSUES AND CONCERNS
1. Health Effects. What tests can be taken? Who
will pay for tests and medical expenses? What are
the effects of exposure?
2. Property Values. How can compensation be received
for lower property values? How are Federal en-
forcement actions related to residents' legal posi-
tion? Can'property taxes be reduced to reflect
lower value? After cleanup, can property deeds
state that the area is clean and safe? What will
be the effects on local developers?
3. Additional Sampling. What are the results of the
December samplings? Some people have requested
that their property should also be sampled. Some
residents believe that wellwater sampling should
be conducted, and that sampling should be done for
PCBs and other possible toxic substances.
4. Relocation. Some residents living downwind from
the sites believe they should be relocated immedi-
ately because they are subject to exposure. Will
relocation of some households be necessary during
cleanup? What are the details of the relocation
and fencing process (insurance, fire-fighting access,
security)?
5. Remedial Action and Cleanup; What is the schedule
for remedial actions and cleanup? what will the
level of cleanup be? How will citizens be involved
in selecting remedial alternatives? Will con-
K-22
-------
taminated soil be contained onsite or removed?
What will the restoration and close-out procedures
be? There is a strong feeling by some people that
containing and securing the site is not an ade-
quate cleanup measure; if this solution is "chosen,
they will insist on being bought out on the basis
of lowered.property values and future health
risks. If soil is removed, will the truck traffic
cause road deterioration? What traffic controls
will be provided? How will equipment used during
the cleanup be decontaminated? How will residents
be protected from dust? Can downwind residents be
relocated during on-site action?
It should be emphasized that people's two main concerns
are health effects and economic loss. It is perhaps
relevant to note that in August 1982, a Federal court
awarded over $58 million in damages to workers whose
health was affected by exposure to dioxin during the
cleanup of a 1979 train derailment in Sturgeon, Mis-
souri. Several residents in the Imperial area have
filed suit for damages, and more litigation is
expected.
Based on the issues, concerns, and citizen participation
and perceptions that have been identified, the level of
community concern at the Imperial sites should be as-
sessed as high.
E. PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTIONS AND SCHEDULE
The activities described below will be conducted pur-
suant to a written contract between EPA and the State
of Missouri. That contract defines the responsibili-
ties of EPA and the State and provides for funding of
the proposed actions. EPA is the lead agency and will
be responsible for performing all activities at the
site other than the relocation of the residents.
Initial Remedial Measures - Temporary relocation
will be offered to affected residents by the State
of Missouri. EPA contractors will post warning
signs around the Minker and Stout residential
areas and along Romaine Creek. Before the posting,
access agreements will be obtained from property
owners and surveys of the area will be conducted.
Remedial Investigations - Additional data will be
collected. Aerial photographs of the area will be
taken to prepare topographic maps. Additional
soil samples from the Stout residential area will
be collected and analyzed to accurately define the
contaminated area. A hydrogeological study of
K-23
-------
Romaine Creek will be conducted'by the U.S. Geo-
logical Survey to provide information about the
geology and groundwater in the area. At this
time, no additional sampling is planned for the
Minker area or Romaine Creek.
Feasibility Study - A preliminary screening of
alternatives will be conducted to arrive at a perma-
nent remedy based on costs, environmental effects,
environmental protection, and engineering feasibil-
ity. A more detailed evaluation will then be made
of those alternatives which appear feasible. A
selection of the most appropriate site-specific
alternative will then be made. Citizen input will
be solicited before the selection of the final
remedy..
II. OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
1. Ensure that local residents and state and local
officials are kept informed of possible actions
under consideration and the reasons for these
actions.
2. Ensure that local residents, state and local
officials, and concerned groups are notified of
major findings, activities, and decisions in a
"timely and effective way. Notify residents and
officials before notice is given to the media.
3. Provide the media with timely, detailed, accurate
information about the initial response, remedial
investigation, and feasibility study.
4. Effectively address citizen inquiries and con-
cerns; ensure that the best possible information
is provided. Provide a central, consistent
source(s) for people to contact.
5. Provide local residents and state and local offi-
cials with the opportunity to comment on remedial
action alternatives identified during the feasi-
bility study, before final selection of a remedy.
6. Use identified public concerns as one criterion
for the evaluation of alternatives during the
feasibility study.
7. Keep aware of changes in community concerns, in-
formation needs, and activities, and modify this
community relations plan as necessary to address
these changes.
K-24
-------
III. TECHNIQUES TO BE USED TO MEET OBJECTIVES
The following community relations techniques fulfill
the objectives listed above. The purpose of each tech-
nique and its application at certain stages of the tech-
nical work are discussed. The workplan and schedule
shown in Section "IV shows these community relations
techniques in relation to technical milestones.
Technique
Objectives
1. Personal contact with
residents
Door-to-door or by telephone. To inform
target residents (relocatees; spokesper-
sons for tvo community groups; closest
neighbors) of major findings, activities,
and decisions. Should occur before fact
sheets or other public information is
released.
2. Briefing of local and
state officials
In person or by telephone. Inform
appropriate officials of plans and
developments on continuing basis. CIGL
will maintain liaison with public officials.
3. Public consultations
Informal discussions with small groups
of concerned citizens (two identified
groups and any others that arise) to re-
view issues and answer questions. Pro-
vide medical experts or other experts as
appropriate. Schedule during the feasi-
bility study to present the alternatives
and solicit input; also schedule upon
request.
K-25
-------
Technique
Objectives
Fact sheets and updates
To be distributed to 150 households in
vicinity as a source of accurate informa-
tion concerning findings, plans, activi-
ties. Also to be distributed at meetings
and consultations, to the media, and to
other appropriate parties (such as active
environmental groups). Ensure that fact
sheets are mailed to residents who have
moved from the area because of the dioxin
situation. Coordinate distribution with
other information releases. Invite
comments and provide further sources of
information where appropriate.
5. Press releases
To announce milestones in activities or
impart necessary information. Will be
concise, timely, and accurate. Dates of
release will be strategically planned so
release doesn't precede appropriate local
notification.
6. Press conferences (op-
tional)
To announce important findings or
actions. High-level state and Federal
officials may participate. Could be
conducted after remedial action plan is
approved and prior to construction.
7. Health advisory number
(Dioxin Program, St. Jos-
eph Hospital, St. Louis-
sponsored by CDC/Missouri
Department of Health)
To gather and provide information about
health concerns of public. Number
should be included in fact sheets -or
otherwise be made known to local resi-
dents and officials.
K-26
-------
Technique
Objectives
8. EPA toll-free telephone
line (Office of Public
Affairs, EPA Region VII.
Kansas City)
(Office To provide a direct line of
communication for inquiries and con-
cerns. Number should be included in
fact sheets or otherwise be made known
to local residents and officials.
9. Onsite inquiry office
(optional)
To provide an onsite source of informa-
tion when controversial findings are re-
leased or when a great deal of public
interest is anticipated.
10. Regional information of-
fice (optional, for St.
Louis region)-
To provide information about this and
other dioxin sites; to provide personal,
easily accessible, and consistent contact
to concerned citizens.
11. Summary of public concerns For use by EPA staff during feasibility
study; public concerns are to be used as
one criterion for the evaluation of
alternatives.
12. Interim report
To provide EPA Headquarters with a sum-
mary of public inquiries and concerns,
the responses provided, and the community
relations activities conducted.
K-27
-------
IV. WORKPLAN AND SCHEDULE*
Technical Milestones
Community Relations Techniques
1. Personal contact with
residents
2. Briefing of local/state
officials
3. Public consultations
4. Fact sheets and updates
5. Press releases
6. Press conferences
7. Health advisory number
8. EPA telephone line
9. Onsite inquiry of 1 ice
10. Regional information
office
11. Summary of public concerns
12. Interim report
Release of
December
Sampling Posting of
Results Sites
Remedial
Investigation
Evaluation of
Feasible
Alternatives
o o
(ongoing)
o Q
o o
^optional, as appropriate)
(ongoing)
(ongoing)
^optional, as appropriate!
(optional, as appropriate)
Selection
of
Remedy
*The schedule presented here is relative to technical milestones; the actual timing can be specified when
°. technical work schedule is made final.
-------
V. BUDGET AND STAFFING PLAN
(To be provided by .EPA)
APPENDIX: NOTIFICATION LIST (Available upon request)
A. Local officials
B. Interested or affected parties and organizations
C. Media
K-29
-------
APPENDIX L
SAMPLE QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PLAN
(RESERVED)
-------
APPENDIX M
SAMPLE SITE SAFETY PLAN
(RESERVED)
-------
APPENDIX N
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING SUPERFUND LETTER OF CREDIT
ACCOUNT NUMBERS UNDER COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
PURPOSE
This appendix has been provided to familiarize EPA
Regional and Headquarters staff and State officials with
the special procedures that have been developed for set-
ting up Letter of Credit accounts, drawing down funds/ and
reporting drawdowns. These instructions supplement general
instructions on the use of Letters of Credit (LOCs) found
in EPA's Letter of Credit User;s Manual.
BACKGROUND
The most frequent method of transferring CERCLA funds
to a State under a remedial Cooperative Agreement is
through an existing EPA Letter of Credit. When this method
is used, EPA credits to the State's LOG sufficient funds
to cover EPA's share of costs under the Cooperative Agree-
ment. In crediting CERCLA money under Cooperative Agree-
ments, EPA establishes separate accounts for each activity
included in the Agreement SOW. The State may then "draw
down" funds from each appropriate LOG account to meet EPA's
share of costs for immediate cash needs for each activity.
At the same time, the State should provide its own share
of costs for the remedial activities.
General guidelines for using LOCs have been developed
and are available in EPA's Letter of Credit Users Manual.
The manual describes both EPA1sresponsibilitiesfores-
tablishing LOG accounts and State drawdown and reporting
procedures. Because of the increased accountability needed
for expenditures under the Superfund program, EPA has also
developed the system described in this appendix.
APPENDIX SUMMARY
This appendix describes procedures to be used by States
in drawing down funds from an LOG account established under
a Superfund remedial Cooperative Agreement. A key compo-
nent is the Superfund account number, which identifies the
general purpose of each expenditure. This appendix ex-
plains how the Superfund account number- is used in:
N-l
-------
Setting up the LOG account
Drawing down funds
Reporting drawdown activity.
State and EPA staff responsible for managing remedial sites
should carefully review the contents of this appendix to
ensure that they implement proper procedures.
N-2
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING SUPERFUKD
LETTER OF CREDIT ACCOUNT NUMBERS UNDER
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
1. BACKGROUND
Hazardous Substance Trust Fund transactions receive
close OMB, Congressional/ and industry scrutiny. The fi-
nancial records from these transactions must allow an ac-
curate determination of the required State cost share and
must support any cost recovery actions. Therefore, man-
agement of Superfund requires a more detailed accounting
structure than is usually developed for other EPA pro-
grams. In response to this need, EPA has designed a system
which ensures that accurate cost records are maintained
for each individual site and that financial aspects of all
Superfund projects are properly monitored and controlled.
Because of the special accounting and control needs of
Superfund, the ten-digit EPA account number has been modi-
fied to indicate specific sites and activities. The number
allows EPA to know the year in which the obligation was
made, the site's identity, the Region in which the site is
located, and the basic type of activity being performed.
Example:
Position: 123456789 10
Position Meaning
1 Fiscal Year Transaction Initiated
(3 = 1983)
2, 3, 4 Program Element (TFA = Superfund)
5, 6 Allowance Holder (72 = Head-
quarters program office)
7 Regional Identifier (e.g., 3 =
Region 3)
8 Activity Codes (e.g., L = Remedial
Planning)
9, 10 Site Identifier (e.g., site number
42)
2. SETTING UP THE LETTER OF CREDIT ACCOUNT
When a Cooperative Agreement is negotiated, the speci-
fic activities and subactivities the State will perform
are identified in the final Agreement. An estimated break-
down of costs by site and activity is included. The appro-
priate subactivities are summed to provide activity totals,
and the activities are summed to provide the award total
(see Exhibit N-l for a list of activities). The dollars
are then obligated separately in the Agency's Financial
N-3
-------
Management System for each activity (the 8th digit will
vary in the account number) included in the Agreement.
LOG accounts established for the recipient must identify
these separate account numbers in the Cooperative Agree-
ment.
3. DRAWING DOWN FUNDS
The recipient may only draw down funds from an LOG
account number for work performed at the corresponding
site and for the corresponding activity. For example,
remedial planning funds can be used only for remedial plan-
ning activities, and so on. When a drawdown occurs, the
recipient must show both the Agreement number and the EPA
account number on the back of the voucher (Form TFS-5401).
This is to indicate the activity and the site against which
a specific dollar amount is being charged. The specific
activities to be performed are identified in the Agreement,
as is the appropriate EPA account number.
When funds under a specific activity have been exhaust-
ed but the activity has not been completed, the recipient
may not draw down from another activity's or another site's
account code without written permission from EPA. Written
permission can be obtained through the following procedure:
1. The recipient writes a letter to the EPA Regional
Site Project Officer requesting and justifying
the change.
2. The Regional Site Project Officer agrees with and
signs this letter.
3. If the Cooperative Agreement has been awarded by
EPA Headquarters and has not been subsequently
transferred to the Region by the EPA Headquarters
Award Official, the letter is forwarded to the
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR)
in EPA Headquarters for approval. If the Agree-
ment has been awarded by or transferred to the
EPA Region, the letter should be submitted to the
Regional Award Official.
a. Changes in Headquarters Cooperative Agree-
ments will be approved in the following man-
ner: OERR approves the letter and sends it
to the Grants Administration Division (GAD)
for processing. GAD sends an assistance
amendment (EPA Form 5700-20B) to the recip-
ient for signature. The recipient signs
N-4
-------
the amendment and then returns it to GAD,
which forwards it to the Financial Management
Division.
b. Changes in Regional Cooperative Agreements
will be approved in the following manner:
Any staff approvals required under the Re-
gion's internal procedures will be obtained.
The letter will then be sent to the Award
Official. Regional grants personnel will
prepare an assistance amendment (EPA Form
5700-20B) and send it to the recipient for
signature. The recipient signs the amendment
and returns it to the Award Official for
processing.
4. Within approximately ten (10) days of receipt of
the signed copy of EPA Form 5700-20B, the recip-
ient may draw down funds.
Within 90 days after completion of a subactivity, the
State is required to complete a Financial Status Report
(Form 269) and submit it to the EPA Regional Site Project
Officer. If money remains in an account after completion
of an activity, the recipient may not use it for work per-
formed under another activity or at another site. Instead,
these funds must be either 1) returned to EPA, or 2) redis-
tributed to another activity or site through the proce-
dures outlined above. In the latter case, however, EPA
may choose to deny the request to switch funds and deobli-
gate the money altogether.
4. REPORTING
The above requirement does not eliminate the need for
quarterly and project completion reporting as specified
elsewhere in the Cooperative Agreement. A financial Status
Report (Form 269), shown in Exhibit N-2, should be submit-
ted at the end of each subactivity. in completing this
report, the preparer should identify each subactivity on
line 10, PROGRAMS/FUNCTIONS/ACTIVITIES (e.g., Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study, Remedial Design and so
on), and show the cost breakdown by each subactivity in
columns lOa through 10m.
N-5
-------
EXHIBIT N-l
SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES
CODE LIST FOR COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
CODE DESCRIPTION
L REMEDIAL PLANNING - Consists of the following
subactivities:
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study -
Investigate extent of problem and provide data to
define and assess the merits of alternative
remedial actions. Evaluate and analyze remedial
alternatives, including initial remedial
measures/ and recommend a cost-effective
approach; perform environmental assessments.
Remedial Design - Develop final plans,
specifications, and documents necessary to
implement the selected remedial action.
R REMEDIAL IMPLEMENTATION - Consists of the following
subactivities:
Remedial Action - The actual implementation,
following design, of a selected source control
and/or off-site remedial measure.
Operation and Maintenance - Operation and
maintenance of the completed remedy, for a period
not to exceed 1 year.
Initial Remedial Measure - includes construction
of fences,stabilization of dike or waste
impoundments, temporary provision of alternative
water supplies and removal or disposal of drums
in situations where no more than minimal
engineering design services are required to
prepare bid packages; may be undertaken at
different stages of the remedial planning process.
A SUPPORT AND MANAGEMENT - This activity is not
site-specific and is not cost-shared during remedial
planning. It may only be used for Cooperative
Agreements covering more than one site. It includes
all non-site-specific management and administrative
support, report writing, contingency planning, and
technical assistance which cannot be directly
attributed to a specific site.
(Note: Superfund accounting codes also cover intramural funds
and other activities.)
N-6
-------
FINANCIAI STATUS REPORT
( Keff*** M«fi MtlioN* an :a« au£*/
. MctnlMI OMAMI1A1 WM IN.~ .-4 >*. ~U..~. toROGRAM$/rilNCIIONS/ACIIVIIIC8 a.
a. Nil oullayt piavloutly laporiad
fr. Tolal oullayt Ihlt lapoil pailod
c. l^ii : Piogiam Incoma ciadMa
t . Nal oullayt Ihlt i.po.1 p«.lod
«. Nat oullayt lo data
(l.iM a plui |IH< d)
1. !.«: Non rxltial thiia oloulltyt
f. Tolal radaral ihaia ol outlay!
(l.\*4 a MUM* lina O
N. .Jal unbqukJalad obti(atlont
1. L*»* : Non f adai al thai a ol unUquldatad
obUftllont tnown on Una N
. r^.,.,.n.,.o,u^uW.,WloU,.,,loB.
k. Total fadtialihtiaol oullayt and
unMquldalMl obligation*
t Total cumuUllv* tmount ol f*d«*l lundt
ulhoiliad
m. Unobflf altd balanca ol fadaral fcindt
f.)
1
I rifMNAi *nrMCV Ann nmrtNt'AtioNAi KIKUINI TO winm nrronr n suvuiiif o
- - - - .-. -.-
rnoM iw«.ii. *w ^«.'i I 10 itf*»u. A**. »^.>ri
w
*
IATUS or niNus
r«)
1
ta. rvrf or «A«t
(FUct "t~ In mffr»pH*l» U«) Q r*xwiiKMUi Q rutocii MIIHU f'J ruwt. l~| into
*~^ '
» "A'« 1 «- *AU I «)' TO1AI AMOUMT 1 a. flOf HA1 *HA»C
»*-|a|
r^>
,
1*. ttmWKAIKWt
1 ctftlly lo Ina batt ol my knowWdja and ba
H«l that IMi laport It cofiacl and comDkla and
that »» outlay* and unNqutdaUd obMfatlont
tia lot th* ourpou* tat lorth In In* axanj
f flfHMAl CHAHI OH OIMIN It^NIIIVINO OMU A|l|Muved I *'A4:< (:*
-""" NO BO "miwi
1 . ""1S
i n
II«OM IM...IA. J««. »*«t|
t
1
1
/
*. imAi Mrom
iiob covtiito « THI« Mn
10 |M..lk. J.
%
SIGNATURE Of . ..JIIOftlHO CERTIFVINO
ormAi
rvpfo on miHUD NAME AND HUE
I **!&
| | CASH | | ACCftUAl
Nl
». |M**I
1OIAI
,
»
UAH RtfORI
SUBMIIltD
ItlfPIIONE (Art*t*4t.
tAHOAAO IONM Mt ir-/()
?l*k
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
tyo» or pnm l«tibiy. Ittms 1. 2. 3. 6. 7. 9. lOd. 10*. TOg, lOi, 101. 11 a. and 12 an s*tf-«cofan*tory.
ructions tor otn*r items arc as follows:
soecific instructions tor otn»r items arc as follows:
Sntrj
Enr*r m* tmoKrrfc xHfrofTcaoon numMr «**ifn*d oy
tn» U.S. int*m»« R*»*nu* Scene* or F1CC (Inummon)
ceo*. >l r*a,uir*d By tn* F*a*rM ioon«ann( a«*ncy.
J Thtt me* i* r***r»*d far an account mjmo*r or otn*r
.d*mifymf immo*r» tnat m*y a* an(n*d Oy tn*
.... My. and )r**r of tn* B«cinnin| md
aranct p*nod. For formula jr»mi cn«t
' on « .-imi«i!t ana. uw» tft* franc
Ent*r tn*
ar* not
sanod.
10
Th» purm* ol .«rBea> column* (a) tnroo«n (f) <« to
pro»*j* flfwneul data for men program, function, and
actmry .onn( ifvney. l> MMMmral coNimm ar« n««a«d. UH u
m*ny «»rtKX>»4 farm* rvcwvvd during tn«t
ponoo. for >«oortB Bf«o*r«d an an accrual
*nt*r tn* amount of incam* <*m*d SMC* ttt*
*j*tinninf of tn* I'tooronc 9*000. *ti«« tn* t*rm* or
condition* ailov orocrajm incom* to o* 10^*0^ to tn*
totM nMra. noum in r*m*rks. aw> Mure*, amount
ana oiipoaoon of tn* incemo.
lOf Cntor tmount agmnlm to tn* non-f«d*r*t sn*r* of
i outtty* inekMM m tn* amount on fin* *.
ion Cnt*r totM amount of unnaiudand oodotien* for ttn*
prenct or jiuyain. indudlnc uniiquidatM oolitation*
to tuotfwitw* and on m acton. unNquMatM oo»«»-
i incumd but not a*i«
Accrued «xpwH«tur*
incurred but
for **Mft an outlay fia* not B**it ncon>*d.
Do not inouo* any amounti tft*t KM* a**n meiud*d
on iln** a mroucn f. On tn* 1n*t rtpoit. Hn* n would
101 Enter m* F*o*nl »n»r* of unilquiaand
snown on tin* n. Th* amount mown on tnt* Un*
a* tn* oiff*r*ne* o*ni«*n tn* amount* on
-------
APPENDIX 0
SAMPLE RECORD OF DECISION
PURPOSE
This appendix has been provided to assist EPA staff in
assembling a Record of Decision (ROD) by summarizing re-
quirements for RODs and illustrating possible ROD compo-
nents.
BACKGROUND
A ROD is the document used to obtain EPA approval for
a remedial action. Pursuant to delegations of CERCLA au-
thority, the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (AA, SWER) selects the remedial action
to be implemented at a site. Although agreements for reme-
dial response activities will be negotiated and executed
in the Regions, the AA retains this authority. Because
the ROD will be used as the basis for selection of a rem-
edy, it should provide sufficient information to define
the remedial alternatives and the site requirements.
Authority to select initial remedial measures (IRMs)
has been delegated to Regional Administrators (RAs). Se-
lection of IRMs not involving off-site transport, storage,
or disposal may not require a full ROD package; however,
it must be incorporated into an Action Memorandum or ocher
document signed by the RA and must meet the requirements
outlined in the National Contingency Plan (NCP). IRMs
that involve off-site transport, storage, or disposal must
be selected using RODs and must also comply with the NCP.
The ROD will be sent from the appropriate RA to the
AA, SWER, recommending either a remedial option or the "no
action" alternative for the site. In either case, the ROD
package should be developed by the Regional Site Project
Officer (RSPO), with assistance from the State Project
Officer (SPO) and the Regional Superfund Community
Relations Coordinator (RSCRC). Subsequent to obtaining
Regional concurrences and approval, RODs should be sent to
the Hazardous Site Control Division in EPA Headquarters
for necessary review, concurrences, and coordination of
final AA approval.
Each ROD should identify supporting documentation re-
viewed in selecting the remedy, define the recommended
remedy, and document necessary declarations and the appro-
val signature of the appropriate official (either the
0-1
-------
AA, SWER or the RA for IRMs). The following declarations
must be made on the ROD cover page:
SPA has consulted with the State before determin-
ing the appropriate remedial action (CERCLA sec-
tion 104[c][2])
The action being taken is a cost-effective solu-
tion and appropriate when balanced against the
need to use Fund money for other sites (CERCLA
section 104 [c] [2]) , and
The proposed remedy mitigates and minimizes dam-
age to and provides adequate protection of public
health, welfare, and the environment.
When off-site disposal is part of the proposed remedial
action or IRM, the declaration required by CERCLA section
101(24) should be included, as appropriate.
The ROD should also contain a section concerning O&M.
This section will briefly outline available information
about O&M needs associated with the selected remedy and
will document approval of EPA's participation in O&M by
containing the following:
Identification of O&M necessary for the selected
remedy, including on-site monitoring
Length of time O&M will be required
Total estimated O&M costs
Identification of the State agency that will be
responsible for O&M.
It should also include the RA's recommendation of the peri-
od of time (up to a maximum of one year) during which EPA
will share in the costs of O&M. In making this recommen-
dation, the RA should consider the individual circumstances
of both the site in question and the State involved. Deci-
sion criteria may include the type and cost of the O&M,
the financial capability of the State, and the importance
of the O&M activities to the effectiveness of the remedy.
Information contained in this section will also be consid-
ered in the AA's selection of remedy, so that the cost-
effectiveness of remedial alternatives can be judged on
total lifecycle costs.
0-2
-------
Additional components of the ROD package may include:
A summary sheet, which can be used to brief the
AA (or RA) on the proposed remedy and site re-
quirements
A detailed narrative summary describing the site,
its enforcement status, and the rationale for
recommending a remedial action
More detailed background information on the site
Other supporting documentation, such as the feasi-
bility study report and a responsiveness summary
that contains a review of public inquiries and
comments, the issues and concerns raised, and how
EPA or the State has responded (see Community
Relations Policy, OSWER, May 9, 1983, reproduced
in Appendix P)
A transmittal memorandum, containing the RA's
recommendations to the AA, and the estimated costs
of the recommended remedy, including EPA's share
of O&M costs for the recommended period.
The package should also highlight any potential problems
or policy issues affecting the AA's decision and should
demonstrate close coordination among EPA, the State, and
the local community.
APPENDIX SUMMARY
This appendix contains portions of the ROD approved
for the Lehigh Electric and Engineering site in
Pennsylvania. The following contents of the ROD package
are provided:
ROD
ROD summary sheet
A narrative summary of the site and possible reme-
dial alternatives
A map, geographically locating the site
Public comments
A breakdown of the capital costs for the remedial
alternatives.
0-3
-------
Because of space limitations, a petition from residents
living near the site and the feasibility study report are
not reproduced here.
The ROD shown here should be used only as an example.
Appropriate contents of a ROD package will vary depending
upon the needs of the site.
0-4
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Site: Lehigh Electric and Engineering Company, Inc. Old Forge,
Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania
Documents Reviewed
I have reviewed the following documents describing the analysis of cost-
effectiveness of remedial alternatives for the Lehigh Electric Site:
Study titled "Remedial Feasibility Report, Lehigh Electric and
Engineering Site, Old Forge, Pennsylvania", November, 1982.
Study titled "Remedial Field Investigation Report, Lehigh
Electric and Engineering Site, Old Forge, Pennsylvania",
September, 1982.
Staff summaries and recommendations
Recommendation by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources.
Declarations
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act of 1980, and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan, I have determined that the excavation of contaminated
soils and debris and their transportation to an EPA approved landfill
for secure burial provides an appropriate level of clean-up. The action
taken 1s a cost-effective remedy, and it effectively and reliably mitigates
and minimizes damage to, and provides adequate protection of public
health, welfare and the environment. I have also determined that the
action taken 1s appropriate when balanced against the need to use Trust
Fund money at other sites. In addition, the chosen remedy complies with
the requirements of Section 101(?4) of CERCLA because off-site disposal
is more cost-effective than potential onsite remedies and necessary
to protect public health and the environment.
Micnael A. Brown
Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
0-5
-------
PEMEDIAL IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
LEHIGH ELECTRIC AND ENGINEERING SITE
OLD FORGE,. LACKAWANNA COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
Record of Decision Summary Sheet
EPA has completed Che following remedial Superfund activities at the Lehigh
Electric Site located in Old Forge, Pennsylvania.
Activity Date Completed^
Phase I Clean-up of Site October, 1982
(equipment removal)
Phase II Site Investigation Report September, 1982
(soil removal)
Phase II Feasibility Study Report November, 1982
Public Meeting January 10, 1983
Region III has reviewed the information in each report and has given careful
consideration to the comments received during the public comment period.
Based on our review, EPA Region III has determined that the following
actions at the site are cos.t-effective and effectively mitigate and minimize
damage to and provide adequate protection of public health, welfare, and the
environment.
Action Estimated Cost
Excavation and Off-Site Disposal $5,761,000
Demolition of Buildings $190,000
Backfilling, Grading, and Vegetating $450,000
of Site
Total $6,401,000
Monitoring and maintenance costs for the site are estimated to be $46,000
(present worth dollars) for a period of thirty years-. ~
Date S Peter N.
^ Regional Administrator
0-6
-------
NARRATIVE SUMMARY
History
The Lehigh Electric and Engineering Company Site, located just east of
the intersection of South Main and Howard Streets, in Old Forge, Pennsylvania
encompassess approximately 6.4 acres of property adjacent to the Lackawanna
River (see Attachment A). The site was initially a portion of a coal
processing facility, but since the early 1960's has been used by Lehigh
Electric as an electrical equipment repair and storage yard. The
hazardous condition existing at the site was created by the indiscriminate
handling and disposal of dielectric fluid containing polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was first notified of the site
in March of 1981 by an anonymous source. The Regional On-Scene Coordinator
found that elevated levels of PCB's were present in the soil (110,000ppm)
and determined that the site must be secured. In April of 1981, a
sixfoot high chain-link fence was erected around the perimeter of the
site. By June of 1981, the OSC had secured and assessed the site, determined
that PCB contamination did indeed exist, and that the contamination did
not migrate off-site to nearby residential areas. At that point, it was
decided that no further emergency activity was needed at the site, and
that remedial clean-up activity under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) should be
pursued.
Funding under CERCLA was authorized in October of 1981. Roy F. Weston,
Inc. was tasked to perform the site engineering work. The strategy was
to perform the clean-up in two phases, since we had to deal not only with
contaminated medium (in this case, soil), but also with the source of the
PCB contamination, the thousands of pieces of electrical equipment on-site.
Phase I of the clean-up (equipment removal) was "fast-tracked". Upon
completion of the Site Investigation/Feasibility Study by Ueston, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, working under an Interagency Agreement,
assisted EPA in the design review and were responsible for assembling a
bid package and procuring the clean-up contractor. In July of 1982,
CECOS International was awarded the contract for Phase I clean-up. Removal
of all surface equipment and debris (except buildings) was completed in
October of 1982.
Current Status
The Phase II Site Investigation was performed by Weston. The objective
was to determine the degree and extent of soil contamination. Generally,
it was found that PCBs are concentrated in the surface soil layers (0 to
2 feet), with concentrations decreasing with depth. Concentrations in
the soil samples ranged from undetectable (less than 0.1 ppm) to 110,000
ppm. In general, most levels were less than 500 ppm and quickly dropped
0-7
-------
-2-
off to less than 50 ppm at increasing depths. The highest contamination
was found in surface soil samples. The deepest levels at which PCS
concentrations of 50 ppm are found are 10 and 15 feet below the surface.
Analytical results of samples taken from the Lackawanna River and wells
drilled on-site indicate that the'site is not measurably impacting the
surface or ground water.
After completion of the site investigation, work on a feasibility study
began. During the initial phase of the feasibility study, remedial
options which could be utilized for the clean-up of contaminated soil at
the Lehigh Electric site were screened, and their implementafaility
determined. The options considered included:
0 Site Management
0 Site Capping
0 On-Site Waste Stabilization (Chemical Destruction)
0 Waste Excavation with Off-Site Disposal
0 On-Site Encapsulation
0 On-Site Waste Incineration
0 On-Site Biodegradation of Waste
Several factors used in screening the options were:
0 Technical Feasibility
0 Cost Effectiveness
0 Environmental Effectiveness
0 Implementation Time Frame
As a result of the screening process, the following options were excluded
from being evaluated further (alone or in combination with other options)
in the feasibility study:
Site Capping Only - Due to the high concentrations of PCBs in the soil
(up to 110,000 ppm), the estimated quantity of PCBs on-site (27.5 tons),
and the incidence of mine subsidence in the area, the long-term integrity
of a cap system is questionable. Therfore, it was determined that site
capping alone is not an adequate remedial measure to protect public health.
Qn-Site Waste Stabilization - Chemical destruction of PCB-contaminated
soil is '! i the experimental stages and Is unproven technology.
On-Site Waste Incineration - There are no mobile incinerators permitted
to operate in Pennsylvania. Operating costs would also be excessive making
this option not cost-effective.
Qn-Site Biodegradation of Waste - Although this method has been shown to
be effective for some types of hazardous waste, it is not a proven
technology for use with PCS contamination at this time.
0-8
-------
-3-
The remaining remedial options were evaluated in detail (alone or in
combination) in the feasibility study and were used to formulate
alternative site clean-up strategies. The feasibility study published
by Weston (Attachment B) identifies alternatives for remedial
action at the Lehigh Electric Site. These alternatives and their
associated costs are presented below:
Alternative
1. No Action
2. Removal to 10 ppm & Site Management
3. Removal to 10 ppm & Site Capping
4. Removal to 50 ppm & Site Management
5. Removal to 50 ppm & Site Capping
6. Removal to 50 ppm & Encapsulation
of 10 to 50 ppm On-Site
7. Removal to 50 ppm with additional
excavation where cost-effective and
site management (Number 4 Modified)
Estimated Capital Cost
$10,000
$7,546,000
$7,725,000
$6,140,000
$6,284,000
$6,448,000
$6,401,000
(O&M costs range from $34K to $54K for all options except "No Action",
which is $135,000.)
Each alternative except "No Action" required as a minimum the removal
from the site of all soil with PCB concentration of 50 ppm or greater.
farther, based'on the resu-lts of a preliminary endangerment assessment,
it is determined that the "No Action" option results in upper limits of
excess cancer risk and measures of reproductive risks which are in the
ranges that generally cause concern. As a result, we have determined
that the "No Action" option is not acceptable.
Public Input
On January 10, 1983, a public meeting and a press briefing were conducted
in Old Forge, Pennsylvania to describe the various alternatives (the
alternatives 1-6 above) and to discuss the Phase II portion of the site
clean-up. During the public comment period which followed the meeting,
we received letters and petitions from the community demanding that we
implement the alternative calling for removal to 10 ppm with capping at
an estimated cost of $7,725,000. They insisted that the lower the concentration
level of PCBs remaining on site, the lower the risk to the community will
be in future years [see Attachment C].
* Alternative 7 was added to the feasibility study after the public
comment period, and in response to the public comments.
0-9
-------
-4-
We believe that implementation of alternative 3 would not be cost-effective.
However, as a result of public comments, we devised a modification to
alternative 4 (Alternative 7, above) which would reduce the concentration
levels of PCBs remaining on site to substantially below 50 ppm for a
fraction of the cost difference between alternatives 3 and 4. The
modification includes additional soil excavation below the 50 ppm
concentration level when it is determined to be cost-effective.
On January 31st we met with citizen leaders of the community (the PCS
Committee) to discuss this modified alternative. They reacted positively,
and we believe that their concerns will be satisfied if this cost-effective
method for site clean-up is implemented.
Recommended Alternative
Section 300.68(j) of.the National Contingency Plan (NCP) [47FR 31180,
July 16, 1982] states that the appropriate extent of remedy shall be
determined by the lead agency's selection of the remedial alternative
which the agency determines is cost-effective (i.e., the lowest cost
alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable) and which
effectively mitigates and-minimizes damage to and provides adequate
protection of public health, welfare, or the environment. Based on our
evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of each of the proposed alternatives,
the comments received from the public, information from the Site
Investigation and Feasibility Study Reports, and information from the
State, we developed Alternative 7 above. This alternative includes:
excavation and off-site disposal of soils with a PCB concentration of 50
ppm or greater; additional soil excavation and removal where cost-effective
(I.e., substantial PCB removal for small incremental cost increase);
demolition of the buildings on-s1te; backfilling, grading, and vegetating
of the site to minimize erosion and to control percolation and run-off.
We have determined that implementation of this alternative will effectively
mitigate damage to and provide adequate protection of public health,
welfare, and the environment.
The methodology for determining whether additonal soil excavation is
cost-effective Involves subdivision of certain grids (based upon data
from the Site Investigation Report) once removal to 50 ppm has been
achieved. Soil samples will be collected In the subgn'ds and analyzed
for PQ8 concentration. The Government's on-site representative (i.e.
Corps of Engineers Inspector) will evaluate the results and decide whether
or not a significant amount of PCB-contaminated soil could be removed
from the site with little additional excavation and cost.
0-10
-------
-5-
The capital cost for this -alternative is estimated to be $6,401,000. The
monitoring and maintenance costs are estimated to be $46,000 (present
worth value) for a period of thirty years. A breakdown of the capital
costs appear in Attachment E.
State Input
After giving careful consideration to the cost-effectiveness of each
alternative and evaluating the public comments EPA had received, the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources recommended that we
implement an alternative (now designated as Alternative 7) calling for
removal of soil with PCS concentrations of 50 ppm or greater with
additional cost-effective excavation and site management. A letter
confirming the State's decision appears as Attachment D.
Proposed Action
We request your approval of the removal to 50 ppm with additional cost-
effective excavation and site management as the remedial implementation
option for the Phase II Lehigh Electric Site clean-up. In addition, we
request an allocation of $6,401,000 for the project. An allocation of
$300,000 for the preparation of the plans and specifications for the
clean-up has already been made.
Tentative Schedule
Initiate Design February 1983
Complete Design May 1983
Initiate Clean-up August 1983
Complete Clean-up December 1983
If you have any questions, please call Anthony S. Bartolomeo at
(FTS)597-9100.
Attachments
o-ll
-------
Reproduced from
best available copy.
-------
ATTACHfHT B
Feasibility Study
In the interest of brevity, Attachment B has been deleted
from this appendix.
0-13
-------
PUBLIC COMMENTS
During the public comment period-of the Feasibility Study Report, letters
were received by EPA from the Mayor and Council men of the Borough of Old
Forge and the Old Forge PCB Committee. A petition was aTsb received" with
approximately two hundred signatures of residents from the Borough of Old
Forge.
Basically, all correspondence addresses the level of PCB concentrations
in the soil which will be left on-site. The alternatives evaluated in
the Feasibility Study were based upon soil with PCB concentrations of
fifty parts per million and ten parts per million. The community insists
that the clean-up alternative selected be one which calls for the removal
from the site of all soils with a PCB concentration of ten parts per
million or greater.
The alternative that the Region is recommending 1s for removal of soils
from the site based on a fifty parts per million or greater PCS concen-
tration, and additional excavation and removal where it is "determined to
be cost-effective.
On Monday, January 31st, a meeting with the Old Forge PCB Committee was
conducted to explain alternative 4 (modified). Based upon their positive
reaction, we believe that this alternative, if chosen to be implemented,
will be acceptable to the PCB Committee and the community.
Copies of the correspondence are included in this attachment.
(Correspondence has been deleted because of limited space.)
ATTACHMENT C
0-14
-------
ATTACHMENT D
State Recommendation
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Post Office Box 2063
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
February 2, 1983
(717) 787-9871
Mr. Anthony S. Bartolomeo
U.5. Environmental Protection Agency
Region HI
Sixth and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Dear Mr. Bartoiomeo:
The Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Solid Waste
Mangement has completed its evaluation of the Phase II remedial action alternative
for the Lehigh Electric site contained in the November, 1982 Remedial Feasibility
Report prepared by Roy F. Weston, Consulting Engineers.
It is our opinion, based upon the documentation contained in the
Feasibility Report and the additional data provided to DER by EPA on January 31,
1983, that the most applicable remedial clean-up option for this site is a
modification of alternative 4. The Bureau believes that the environmental
effectiveness and technical feasibility of this modified alternative, coupled with
the long-term operation "and maintenance responsibilities of the Commonwealth
provide a reliable, practical and impiementable solution for the site.
The removal of the transformers, electrical equipment, and miscellaneous
wood and debris during the first phase of this project disturbed surface soils and
the original grid stakes. Because of this fact and the need to ensure that the
implementation of this clean-up alternative removes the PCB contaminated soils
to a level of 50 ppm or less, we believe alternative 4 should be modified to include
the removal of a minimum of 6" of soil from the entire property (The Hot Area)
currently bounded by the fence. Moreover, consideration should be given to the
removal of extra contaminated soils where it is cost effective, i.e., beyond the
depths specified in alternative 4 and the supporting documentation.
A quality assurance program approved by DER and EPA must be developed
and utili2ed by the selected clean-up contractor at this site to insure that the
ciean-up objective is met. In light of the physical location of this site, t.ie issues
of flooding and mine subsidence must be specifically addressed in the design to be
approved by our agencies to ensure that the integrity of the alternative finally
selected is not compromised.
It should be further understood that once an alternative for the clean-up
of this site is finally selected by our respective agencies, the nature and extent of
operation and maintenance activities will be jointly agreed upon by DER and EPA
for this site.
0-15
-------
Anthony S. Bartolomeo
-2-
February 2, 1983
If you have any questions or comments on the recommended
alternative or other remarks contained in this correspondence, please do not
hesitate" to contact me.
JAMES P. SNYtteR, Assistant Director
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
0-16
-------
Cast istisacs Aisarnativa 4 {.".ocifiaci)
Capital Cost of the Recommended Alternative
ATTACHMENT E
Cescription
1 .
I.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Regulated soil for
secure disposal -
Low lavel soil lor
off-sice disposal'
Low level soil for
on-properv/ burial
Trace soil for an-
property burial
Additional soil for
off-sita disposal
Waatawater
Structure denalision and
Quantity
19
(13
1
I 1
2
( 1
1
( 1
920
,300
,000
500
(400
,500
,000
,100
,400
,800
,200
,000
L.S.
tons
C . '{ . )
tons
C.Y.)
tons
C.Y.)
cons
C.?.)
tona
C.f .)
gal.
unit Cost
S
S
S
$
S
S
170/son
170/ton
6/:on
6/Wn
170/tcn
0.1S/?al.
Total Cost
S 3,281
^7:.;
9
12
306
133
70
,000
X30
,300
,600
,000
,000
,300
placement of rubble and
gravel 3
8. Secure Disposal/
decontamination of
Miscellaneous Con-
crete pads
9. Clean backfill
10. Off-site disposal of wood/
roofing/scael
11. Cleaning, drain hole
installation and sealing
concrete surfaces
12. Site capping area
13. Encapsulation control area
14. Additional excavation/
placement and compaction
of fill required for
encapsulation area
IS. Topsoil/seeding/erosion
control
16.
17T.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Drainage swale
Fencing
Flood controls
Clearing
On-site lab mobilization
and demobilization
Soil testing
Monitoring well new
72 eons S 208/ton
11,800 C.Y. S 12/C.'/.
L.S.
L.S.
23,000 S.y. S 2.50/S.Y.
L..S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
270 samples $ SO/sample
6 wells (backfilled) S 250/well
construction/backfilling
of existing not required wells
23. Soil cover for foundations of Buildings 1 and 3
(includes flow zone)'
Subtotal
Mobilization, demobilization, and sice services (22%)
Subtotal
Insurance, bonds, permits (21)
Overhead and profit (lot)4
Subtotal
Contingency (15%)
Tonal
15,000
?1.-"11
6,000
29,500
57,500
7,400
18,200
12,000
10,000
12,000
13,500
1,500
30.000
s -i; vn. ini
33S.«CO
i5«l:co
913.300
s 6.4Ci,:co
1. If an incineration facility is used for disposal of regulated soils, the following
cost estimate revisions apply: Item 1 Unit Coat - $ 1,470/ton
Item 1 Total Coat « $28,300,000
2. If a solid waste landfill is designated for disposal of low level soils, the following
cost estimate revisions apply: Item 2 Unit Coat « S 30/ton
Item 2 Total Coat » $ 18,000
3. Includes filling two on-sice tunnels.
4. Hot applied to disposal costs for soils (Items 1. 2 and 5).
5. See Appendix for details
0-17
AT7ACH>»PIT ;
Reproduced from
best available copy.
-------
APPENDIX P
SELECTED SPA POLICY PAPERS
PURPOSE
This appendix has been included to provide additional
background information on EPA policies related to
Super fund remedial activities. Copies of ten EPA policy
papers have been provided.
APPENDIX SUMMARY
This appendix contains the following documents:
"Waiver of 10 Percent Cost-Share for Remedial
Planning Activities at Privately-Owned Sites,"
OSWER, May 13, 1983
"Guidance on Implementing Waiver of 10 Percent
Cost-Share for Remedial Planning," OERR, June 1,
1983
"Class Deviation from 40 CFR 30.720(a)," GAD, Way
12, 1983
"Policy on Cost-Sharing at Publicly-Owned Sites,"
OSWER, March 30, 1983
"Payment of State Enforcement Costs under
Super fund," OERR and OWPE, December 15, 1982
(approved by OSWER January 21, 1983)
"Treatment of State Recoveries from Responsible
Parties," OERR, December 15, 1982
"Guidance for State Contracting of Remedial
Planning Activities," OERR, February 22, 1983
"Class Deviation from 40 CFR 33.510 and 33.515
for Certain Activities Conducted under the
Authority of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980," GAD, November 18, 1983
"Requirements for Selecting an Off-Site Option in
a Superfund Response Action," OERR, February 28,
1983
"Superfund Community Relations Policy," OSWER,
May 1983.
P-l
-------
Copies of these documents have been included herein for
the benefit of State and EPA remedial personnel. Other
documents referenced throughout the text may be secured,
as necessary, from the EPA Regional program or Headquarters
Super fund offices.
P-2
-------
g UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\ *\J WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
'*» -?
MAY \ «i ;-JO
OFPiCEOF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Waiver of 10 Percent Cost-Share for Remedial Planning
! Privately -Owned Sites
FROM: ee M. Thomas
Acting Assistant Administrator
TO: Regional Administrators
Regional Superfund Coordinators
On March 11,1982, cost-sharing was imposed on remedial planning
activities (investigation, feasibility study and design) at privately
owned sites. This requirement was adopted to ensure early State involve-
ment in remedial actions. Requiring cost-sharing for planning provides
a mechanism for EPA to encourage States to become more involved in the
planning of a project.
Our experience has shown, however, that the current policy contributes
substantially to program delays and to State financing o-cblems. We
have found that the policy provides only negligible benefits -,n terms of
Fund conservation since planning costs are generally a sir.all component
of toal response costs.
Therefore, I am directing a reversal of current policy to allow the
funding of remedial investigation, feasibi lity study, and remedial design
at privately-owned sites without a State cost-share.
Implementation:
Any cost-shares previously paid by the State (allowable State services,
statutory credit or cash) for remedial investigations, feasibility studies,
and remedial design at privately-owned sites will be applied toward the
State's share of the cost for remedial construction at that site. Additional
guidance on implementing this policy will be forthcoming.
This policy is effective immediately.
If you have any questions on this policy, please contact Doug Cohen
of my staff at FTS 382-2206.
P-3
-------
u
3 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
f WASHINGTON, O.C 20460
JIN I 1983
OFFICE OF
SOUO WASTE ANQ EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance on Implementing Waiver of 10 Percent Cost-Share for
Remedial Planning
FROM: William N. Hedeman, Jr., D
Office of Emergency and Remedial
TO: Regional Administrators
Regional Superfund Coordinators
On May 13, 1983, Lee Thomas, Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, obtained a class deviation.'from 40 CFR 30.720(a)
permitting the waiver of cost-.sharing requirements for remedial planning activ-
ities (remedial investigation, feasibility study, and remedial design) at
privately-owned sites [Attachment 1].
This memo establishes procedures for implementing the May 13, 1983,
policy.
(1) Cooperative Agreements
(a) Active Cooperative Agreements; Cooperative agreements that were
signed by the EPA award official prior to May 13, 1983.
For those active cooperative agreements, where the State was
required to cost-share.(State services, cash or statutory credit)
for remedial planning activities at privately-owned sites., allowable
State cost-shares will be applied toward the State's share of the
costs for remedial action ("construction") at that site.
Allowable State cost-shares which have been incurred or will be
incurred under the agreement may be applied to future remedial action
at that particular site.
This cost-sharing arrangement maybe accomplished through a
cooperative agreement amendment request made by the State to the
Region. The Region will fbrwarcf this amendment request to the appro-
priate zone manager in the Hazardous Site Control Division (HSCD).
EPA will then send the State a formal amendment.
If the State has not yet paid its remedial planning cost-share
and does not want to contribute any share during planning, the
STate must request a cooperative agreement amendment and submit
revised budget to the Region indicating that Federal funds will pay
100 percent of remedial planning costs. The Region should forward
p-4
-------
-2-
this amendment and budget to the appropriate -zone mana-ger in HSCO.
EPA will send the State a formal amendment containing a special
condition pertaining to the change in cost-sharing and the additional
EPA funds to support the cost-share change.
For those agreements where the State has made partial payment
of its cost-share, the State has the option of continuing to pay
its share and apply it towards construction or submitting a revised
budget to reflect 100 percent Federal funding for those parts of the
project remaining after June 15,. 1983. In both situations, the
State must request an amendment to the agreement.
All cost-shares paid by the State may be applied to future
construction at that site.
(b) Cooperative Agreement applications received.in final by EPA
prior to June 15, 1983.
Applications received by EPA prior to June 15, 1983,
need not be returned to the State; however, the Region should
contact the State regarding 100 percent Federal funding. Based
on the State's choice, the cooperative agreement will either
reflect 100 percent funding or reflect the State's desired
contribution to the remedial planning activities. If the State
desires, to contribute during these activities, EPA will permit
allowable State contributions to be used towards the State costr
sharing responsibilities for future remedial action at the site.
This will be stated in a special condition to the cooperative
agreement.
(c) Cooperative Agreement applications received in final by EPA
after June 15. 1983.
Any finaT applications received by EPA after June 15, 1983,
should reflect 100 percent Federal funding for remedial planning
activities.
For those agreements where the State was required to cost-share for
remedial planning activities * and-those cooperative agreement applications
Information" in.HSCD indicates that these are the active cooperative
agreements affected by this policy. Should Regions/States believe that
other cooperative agreements are impacted, please contact the appropriate
zone manager in HSCO.
Region I Keefe, N.H.
Region II Spence Farm, NJ; Goose Farm, NJ; Friedman, NJ; Pijak, NJ and
Syncon Resins, NJ; Love Canal, NY
Region V Berlin and Farro, MI; LDI, MI; Byron Salvage, IL; Cross Brothers,iL;
Reilly Tar, MN
Region VI Old Inger, LA; Highland Acid, TX; Harris, TX; Crystal Chemical, TX
Region VIII Central City, CO; Woodbury, CO; Arsenic Trioxide, NO
Region XConmencement Bay, WA
P-5
-------
-3-
submitted to EPA prior to June 15, 1983, the Regions must determine, as soon
as possible; what the States' decision is on cost-sharing .
(2) Super-fund State Contracts (SSCs)
All existing SSCs where the State is required to cost-share for
remedial planning^ mus't be amended to reflect 100 percent Federal funding.
The State may elect under existing SSCs; however, to contribute to the
'remedial planning activities and apply any allowable contribution to remedial
construction at that site.
Since cost-sharing has*been eliminated, future Federal lead projects
far remedial planning activities will not need an SSC. We require, However,
that the State request EPA action at the site and approve the scope of work.
This should be accomplished by a letter from the State to the Region.
Because Initial Remedial Measures (IRMs) are considered part-of the
"remedial action" phase at a site, cost-sharing will be required and an SSC
must be prepared.
Attachment
Information in HSCD indicates that these are the active SSCs affected
by this policy. Should Regions/States bejieve that other SSCs are impacted,
please contact the appropriate zone manager in HSCD.
Nyanza, MA; Llpari, NJ; Kin-3uc, NJ; Lone Pine, NJ; O'Imperio, NJ;
.Krysowaty, NJ; Bridgeport, NJ; Price Landfill, NJ; Drake, PA;
Tybouts, OE; Enviro-Chem, IN; OHC, IL; Minker-Stout, MO and Globe, AZ
P-6
-------
'* « '* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
t ^\/Z.-f WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
1 2 !QR3
I £ L.30
ADMINISTRATION
MEMORANDUM
TO: William N. Hedeman, Jr., Director
Off,ice of EHrorgency eivj Remedial Response (WH-543)
FROM: Harvey P^ppen, |Jr. ', Director
Grants Administration D^ision (PM-216)
SUBJECT: Class Deviation from 40 CFR 30.720(a)
This responds to your.April 1. 1933. request tor a class
deviation from 40 CFR 30.720(a) of the general grant regulations
for remedial planning activities under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA).
Section 30.720(a) requires EPA assistance recipients to
share project costs; at a minimum, recipients must contribute
five percent of allowable project costs. Ir. addition, your
March 11, 1982, memorandum to Regional Administrators and Regional
Super-f ur.d-wiui i:a LU^is "sTa'ted"" that "... States are now required
to pay 10 percent of remedial -planning ...." This action
implemented a policy decision made by EPA Administrator Anne
Gorsuch. On May' 11, 1983, I received a memorandum from Acting
Deputy Administrator Lee M. Thomas reversing the previous policy
of requiring cost-sharing* for Superfund remedial planning actions.
EPA believes there are several reasons for not requiring
grantees to share the cost of this program. First, States maintain
that the cost-sharing requirement is an unrealistic financial
burden which, given their limited resources, reduces the number of
sites at which they are able to take action. In addition, since
many States do not have existing response funds, remedial planning
activities often are delayed while the State legislature
appropriates funds on a site specific basis. Many of these sites
contain a variety of carcinogenic, mutagenic, and other toxic
chemicals. Thus, imposing a cost-share delays EPA response
actions to threats to public health and the environment.
P-7
Reproduced from
best available copy.
-------
- 2 -
Therefore, I am approving a class deviation from 40 CFR
30.720{a) for remedial planning activities under CERCLA.
This deviation .waives the cost-sharing requirement in EPA's
general grant regulation (40 CFR 30} for this program.
Concur:
Concur:1^'
Date:
_
Zuck \
Assistant /Administrato
nistration (PM-203)
Date:
Le»e M. Tnomas
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Respor.se (WH-562A)
cc: Official DEV 30.720(a)
Reading
Division
A. Zuck (208)
L. Thomas (WH-562A)
PM:216:M.SCHY/GPPB/WSM:RM3317M/05/12/83
C. Mahan (PM-224)
J. Gwynn
M. Schy
Disk 13/5
P-8
-------
10 ST«>,A
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
v*-"'V
v
3 0 '963
OFFICE OF
SOL:O WASTE ANO =M£3GENCV 365PCNSE'
SUBJECT: Policy on Cost-Sharing at Publicly-Owned Sices
FROM: William N. Hedeman, Jr., Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Rerp'onT
TO: Regional Superfund Coordinators
Regions I-X
Background:
Section !04{c)(3)(C)(ii) of CERCLA (The Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980), requires States to pay
50 percent or more of the response costs associated with facilities owned
by States or their political subdivisions ("publicly-owned") at the time
of disposal of any hazardous substances.
The following is EPA policy on section I04(c)(3):
1. States are required to pay 50 percent or more of response
costs for publicly-owned facilities.
OERR's general policy is to require only a 50 percent cost-
share at these facilities. If the Regional Administrator (RA) believes
that a State should pay greater than a 50 percent share, based upon the
degree of responsibility of the State or its political subdivision, the
RA should indicate the suggested share and justification for it. This
recommendation should be included as an attachment to the Actio Memo
package the Region submits to Headquarters.
2. The cost-share for facilities which become publicly-owned after
"acti.e" disposal ceased is 10 percent.
The language of I04(c)(3) indicates that the State share is
50 percent of all response costs if the State or one of its subdivisions
owned the facility "at the time of disposal." Where a State or local
government acquires a site after hazardous substance disposal at the site
has ceased, a 10 percent cost-share is appropriate. Often States took
P-9
-------
-2-
possession in order to provide security, mitigate an emergency, accomplish
a response action or act as : receiver in a bankruptcy proceeding.
Imposition of a 50 percent cost-share would discourage States from taking
possession of a facility in these and similar circumstances and would
make it IWP difficult for States to meet their cost-share.
Therefore, the State is required to pay 1C psrtT* "f remedial
costs at facilities which became publicly-owned after active disposal nas
ceased.
I realize that some site actions hav« b««fl delayed pending resolution
of this issue. Please implement this policy as soon as possible to
alleviate any further delay.
Ff you have any questions on our State cost sharing policy, contact
Doug Cohen of my staff at FTS 382-2206.
P-10
-------
t ^ ^ t
USB;
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
DEC i 5 is::
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE ANlfo EMERGENCY RESPONSE
SFEC-83-2
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Payment of State Enforcement Costs under Superfund
FROM: William N. Hedeman, Jr., Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (WH-548)
Gene Lucero, Acting Director
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (WH-527)
TO: Rita M. Lavelle
Assistant Administrator (WH-562)
ISSUE:
CERCLA authorizes but does not require the Fund to pay for State enforce-
ment costs incurred pursuant to a cooperative agreement. In addition, before
EPA can fund remedial actions, CERCLA requires States to make assurances
that they will pay for their share of the costs of the remedial action.
Enforcement costs incurred by the State during the section 104(c)(3) "credit
period" might be counted toward this cost share. This memo addresses the
following issue: What enforcement costs, if any, should be allowable under
the Fund?
BACKGROUND;
Section 104 of CERCLA authorizes Federal or State response to releases
or substantial threats of releases of hazardous substances or, under certain
circumstances, of pollutants or contaminants. Section 104{b) of the Act
authorizes a broad range of studies and investigations, including:
"...such planning, legal, fiscal, economic, engineering,
architectural, and other studies or investigations as he
[the President] may deem necessary or appropriate to plan
and direct response actions, to recover costs thereof, and
to enforce the provisions of the Act."
Section 111 (a) of the Act makes such activities eligible for payment from the
Fund. In addition, section lll(c)(3) allows the Fund to pay for the costs of
a program to identify, investigate and take enforcement and abatement action
against releases of hazardous substances. The language of section lll(c)(3) is
more general than that contained in section 104(b). It can be interpreted to
authorize not only investigations and studies, but also development of evidence,
legal fees, expert testimony and court costs. EPA's Office of General Counsel
has advised, that:
p-11
-------
-2-
"...the statute contemplates State enforcement action and
permits the use of the Trust Fund to pay the cost of such
actions, but does not require such payment.1
The question, therefore, is whether EPA should allow (1) the Fund to
pay for any enforcement costs to be incurred prospectively by the State under
future cooperative agreements and (2) enforcement costs Incurred by the States
between January 1, 1978 and December 11, 1980, to be counted toward the
States' cost share for future response actions. EPA can exercise considerable
control over future enforcement activities supported by the Fund by defining
such activities with some specificity in the cooperative agreements. Such
control cannot, obviously, be exercised over actions completed and costs
incurred during the "credit period." The options outlined below address both
aspects of the issue future activities and already completed activities.
The primary obstacle to a policy that would preclude payment of State
enforcement costs is that many of these costs are difficult to distinguish
from costs incurred in the course of gathering information for Fund-financed
cleanup. Activities involving the investigation of sites and the
gathering of evidence might be necessary for both Fund-financed cleanup and
enforcement actions. It may not be possible to definitely attribute these
costs to either enforcement or cleanup, even after the State settles on
one approach.
OPTIONS:
1. Allow all State enforcement costs for sites that are on the National
Priorities List (NPL)
2. Allow State enforcement costs related to discovery, investigation, and
development of evidence for sites on the NPL, but exclude costs strictly
related to the State's legal operations.
3. Exclude all State enforcement costs.
Option 1;
In future cooperative agreements, provide for site-specific State
enforcement costs for sites that are on the NPL and allow both direct and
indirect? costs for such defined actions. However, allow only direct enforcement
1 Memorandum from Gerald Yamada, Acttng Associate General Counsel, to William
Sullivan, Deputy Associate Administrator for Enforcement Policy "Superfund
Cost Issues" (September 22, 1981)
2 Direct costs would include those directly and wholly attributable to the
project; indirect costs, on the other hand, would include xeroxing, heating,
lighting, telephones, second line supervisors, etc.
P-12
-------
-3-
costs, and not indirect costs, incurred by the States for the period from
January 1, 1978, to December 11, 1980, to be counted toward the States'
costs share for response actions at such sites.
Advantages;
0 May encourage more responsible party cleanups, with less cost to the
Fund, because additional responsible parties would be identified through
State enforcement actions.
0 May reduce the workload for Federal enforcement.
0 By allowing the States to count already incurred costs against their
required "match", it will be it easier for States to meet their
cost-share requirements, and, therefore, facilitate response action
at more sites.
0 This approach is consistent with the objective of the strategy "to
enhance State capability."
0 Easy to administer
Disadvantages;
' This approach increases demands on the Fund.
Option 2;
Identify in guidance the particular types of enforcement
costs that are allowable. Allow enforcement costs attributable to site-
specific activities, that are difficult to distinguish from response action
costs in general. This would include discovery, investigation, gathering of
evidence, preparation of expert witness testimony and legal advice associated
with those activities . Disallow costs specifically attributable to litigation
and to overall State enforcement program management. Costs that would not
be allowable include court costs and legal fees. Allowable and non-allowable
cost are described in more detail in the attachment.
Advantages;
0 This approach facilitates State management of a coordinated
enforcement/response action approach, because enforcement costs
which are difficult to distinguish from other response action costs
are not disallowed merely because they may ultimately result in an
enforcement action, rather than Fund-financed response action.
0 The demand on the Fund would be curtailed to a certain extent as
States would not receive support from the Fund for activities that
are strictly related to litigation.
P-13
-------
-4-
0 Like Option 1, this approach may reduce the workload for Federal
enforcement and, because certain past costs could be counted toward
the States' match, make it easier for States to meet their cost-shares.
0 This approach also would be consistent with the strategy otjective
to enhance State capability.
Disadvantages:
0 This option may not necessarily provide substantial savings to Fund
expenditures over Option 1, because many expensive enforcement costs
are likely to be allowable.
0 While it should be possible to distinguish between pre and post-
litigation costs for activities that occurred during the credit
period, there may still be problems distinquishing between allowable
and non-allowable costs.
Option 3:
Disallow all State enforcement costs.
Advantages:
0 This approach would, avoid expenditures from the Fund for this purpose.
Disadvantages:
0 This approach would be difficult to administer, because certain
activities such as discovery and investigation might be considered
either enforcement or remedial action.
0 This approach would not be consistent with the strategy "to enhance
State capability."
0 States would have to commit themselves to a particular course of
action at a very early stage to make efficient use of their funds,
thereby eliminating flexibility available to the States under the
present system.
RECOMMENDATION;
The Agency should adopt Option 2, allowing specifically Identified,
site-specific enforcement costs related to investigation and development of
evidence that are difficult to distinguish from other cleanup related costs,
to be included as prospective costs in future cooperative agreements and to
be counted toward the State's cost share if incurred during the credit period.
Costs associated with the public function of law enforcement, such as court
costs and payment of attorneys would not be allowable.
P-14
-------
-5-
Concur:
Attachment
P-15
-------
ENFORCEMENT COSTS UNDER SUPERFUND
A. Allowable Cost
1. Investigation costs, including identification of responsible parties
2. Development of evidence
o Aerial photography
o Sampling and analysis (ground water, surface water, air)
o Expert testimony
- Medical
- Technical
o Notice letter
3. Indirect costs associated with items A. 1-2
B. Non-Allowable Cost
1. Legal Fees
o Legal research in support of litigation
o Court time
o Preparation of briefs, etc.
2. Court costs (filing fees, etc.)
3. Indirect costs associated with items B. 1-2
P-16
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. Z0460
.BO'1"
DEC I 5 1982
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
SFEG-83-1
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Treatment of State Recoveries from Responsible Parties
FROM: William N. Hedeman, Jr., Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (wifi-548
TO: Superfund Coordinators
Regions I-X
BACKGROUND:
I have received inquiries from several Regions regarding the treatment
of monies and services recovered from responsible parties at Superfund
sites prior to Federal involvement at that site. Two types of recoveries
from responsible parties are involved: (1) State induced private party
cleanup (i.e. the situations in which a responsible party agrees to cleanup
as a result of State enforcement efforts); and (2) recovery of cash from
responsible parties.
This memo will address our policy on Superfund treatment of these
types of recoveries. It does not affect efforts by either the State or
EPA to recover any enforcement costs in current or future enforcement actions.
DISCUSSION:
(1 ) State Induced Private Party Cleanup
Some States have proposed that they be permitted to apply the cost
of a responsible party cleanup to the State's cost-share, since the States,
through administrative or judicial proceedings, caused the cleanup to be
undertaken.
CERCLA contemplates two types of action: Fund-financed response
and private party cleanup. The Fund-financed response must be taken in
accordance with EPA policies and regulations. Where the State has induced
private party action, there is no prior EPA approval of the project to
assure that the project conforms to Fund-financed guidelines. It would
be difficult and resource intensive to ascertain which components of
the project met Fund-financed requirements.
P-17
-------
-2-
Further, Section 104(a)(l) authorizes a Fund-financed response
if the response will not be done properly by a responsible party. The
fund is available to finance response activities that remain to be done at
the site, after taking into account the work done by a responsible party.
Therefore, EPA will not allow a State to apply the value of Stat$ induced
actions taken by responsible parties toward the State's cost-share.
(2) Cash Recovery
In order for a site to qualify for Superfund financing, a State
that recovers money from a responsible party mist apply the recovery to
the cost of the remedial action. In those cases where the State has recovered
monies frcm the responsible party prior to February 1, 1983, the State may
first deduct from the recovery its reasonable enforcement costs as allowed
under EPA's Superfund enforcement costs policy (attached). In all recoveries
after that date, the State may deduct reasonable enforcement costs only
when the settlement specifically provides that the recovered amount includes
payment to the State of these previously incurred costs.
After the recovery is deducted frcm the overall cost of the remedial
action, the balance of the cost of remedial action (if any) will be eligible
for Fund-financing on a 90/10 basis (unless the State is required to pay at
least 50 percent of the remedial action due to ownership at the time of
disposal).
Should you have any questions on this policy or its implementation,
please contact Doug Cohen on FTS 382-2206.
Attachment
P-18
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF
SOUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance for State Contracting of Remedial Planning-Activities
FROM: William N. Hedeman, Jr., 01 rector^£!!F:Ufc^)CuO
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (WH-548)
TO: Superfund Coordinators
Region I - X
'PURPOSE;
This memorandum provides guidance to Regional
personnel on State contracting for remedial planning
activities under cooperative agreements. The procedures
recommended here should minimize the time needed for
procurement of these services, and.improve the efficiency
of conducting remedial planning projects. Specifically,
the delay between cooperative agreement award and the
start of projects can be significantly reduced. Secondly,
the time between completion of the feasibility study and
the start of design should be held to a minimum.
BACKGROUND;
The remedial planning process is divided into two
major fundable activities: remedial investigation/
feasibility study (RI/PS) and engineering
design/construction oversight. The RI/FS phase leads to
the recommendation of a cost-effective remedial action.
The action is recommended jointly by the State and EPA
Region following their review and approval of the
feasibility study. The remedy is then reviewed and either
approved or denied by the Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response.*
The National Contingency Plan (NCP) states that
funding for remedial response actions should be provided
in two phases. The remedial investigation and feasibility
Responsibility for approval or denial of initial
remedial measures is held by the Regional
Administrator.
P -19
-------
study will be funded first. After a remedial action is
approved, the design and construction will be funded.
(Note: This two-phased funding applies to source control
and off-site remedial measures. Funding for initial
remedial measures may be provided for all planning and
construction activities 'in one agreement.)
Separate procurement actions are needed when States
choose different firms for the RI/FS and engineering
design/construction oversight. Additional time is
required for the second procurement process and, if not
done concurrently with completion of the previous activity
(i.e. RI/FS), procurement of technical services will
contribute to a delay in the entire remedial action
process.
Our current assessment is that procurement of
engineering services for RI/FS activities now exceeds four
months at most sites. At several sites almost one year
has elapsed between cooperative agreement award and
project start. Use of separate contracts, with the
possibility that different firms will be selected for each
activity compounds the time required for procurement and
may contribute to inefficient implementation of these
projects. The remedial planning activities are actually
phases of a continuous planning process with each
subsequent activity building on the previous -one.
Whenever possible, combining these activities into a
single contract will save time and should improve the
efficiency of remedial responses.
IMPLEMENTATION;
Four alternate methods are described below to expedite
implementation of State remedial planning activities.
These are offered as guidance to be applied on a
case-oy-case basis taking into account State capabilities
and specific site conditions. States should be encouraged
to use one or more of these methods as appropriate.
Options Contract for Site Planning
States may include the RI/FS, engineering design, and
construction oversight in the scope of work for the
initial site cooperative agreement. Following completion
of the RI/FS activity and approval of the remedy,
engineering design and construction oversight would be
funded through an amendment to the cooperative agreement.
Consequently, in order to minimize delays, the State's
request for proposal (or similar document) can be
P-20
-------
developed to include the RI/FS and the engineering design/
construction oversight. In this case, the request for
proposal must indicate that the RI/FS is the initial
activity that will be authorized and that an option for
design and construction oversight may be executed through
a separate notice to proceed, subject to availability of
funding and negotiation of an acceptable cost. The scope
of work must be described in sufficient detail to allow
preparation of an acceptable proposal covering both the
initial and optional activities. The State would have the
option of using the same contractor if the design and
construction projects are funded and the scope is within
the area of the firm's expertise. This approach for
preparation of cooperative agreements and requests for
proposals should result in improved continuity in
technical activities, accelerated project schedules, and
reduced State administrative costs associated with
procurement of technical services.
This approach, however, may not be applicable for
complex sites where a wide range of alternatives are
possible. For example, if both relocation and on-site
waste treatment are viable options, the scope of work
covering design and construction oversight may be
difficult to prepare prior to completion of the
feasibility study. In this situation, a separate
procurement action for the second phase would be needed.
This approach is also inappropriate when a conflict of
interest exists as described below.
Pre-Award Procurement
States should seriously consider starting procurement
activities before award of the cooperative agreement.
Activities such as issuing requests for proposals could be
started during preparation of the cooperative agreement.
Negotiations with qualified firms could be conducted and a
firm selected so that a contract could be signed
immediately following cooperative agreement award. This
would significantly reduce the time required to start
projects and would also indicate that States have the
capacity in-place to carry out the actions covered by the
cooperative agreement, as required by Section 104(d)(l) of
CERCLA. This approach will apply either to combined
procurement for remedial planning, described above, or
when the RI/FS and engineering design/construction
oversight services are covered under separate procurement
actions.
P-21
-------
State personnel costs prior to award are not
allowable, and it is our policy neither to reimburse nor
credit these costs to the State's cost share under a
deviation. However, these costs are not large when
compared to costs incurred by a State after award. The
State should be advised that these pre-award activities
must be consistent with 40 CFR Part 33 or EPA will not
approve the eligibility of the procurements involved.
Procurement for Multiple Site Planning
Another option for States with an active remedial
program is the issuance of a level of effort type contract
similar to EPA's two REM/FIT contracts. After the
contract is awarded, site planning activities could be
started following award of an individual cooperative
agreement without the need for site-specific procurement
actions. This approach should be seriously considered by
States that have numerous sites and available funding for
State cost-sharing. However, procurement prior to award
of a cooperative agreement must be consistent with 40 CFR
Part 33. EPA's experience in this area could be used to
assist States in developing this type of contract.
Procurement Using Prequalification
In some situations States may choose to request
qualifications from firms capable of performing remedial
planning activities at one or more sites. Once a firm is
prequalified, its name will be placed on a list which
would then be used to solicit one or more site-specific
proposals. This approach can be used in conjunction with
one or more of the methods described above to reduce the
time needed to issue and review requests for proposals.
Prequalification procedures must conform with 40 CFR Part
33.230(c) to ensure adequate competition.
Conflict of Interest
EPA's regulations covering State procurement (40 CFR
Part 33) require that all contracting be conducted to
provide maximum free and open competition. The
regulations prohibit practices that unduly restrict
competition, such as noncompetitive practices between
firms and organizational conflicts of interest.
Procurement of all engineering planning activities under a
single contract will not result in an organizational
conflict of interest. However, there is always the
possibility of an organizational conflict of interest
where an engineer performs the RI/FS activities under one
P-22
-------
contract and then competes for the follow-on engineering
design and construction oversight contract. Since the
remedial response program has sufficient safeguards in it
through separate reviews at the State, Regional, and
Headquarters level, we believe such conflicts of interest
can be avoided. Nevertheless, firms conducting RI/FS,
engineering design, and construction oversight activities
will not be allowed to compete for the construction work
since this would almost always constitute a conflict of
interest.
To implement this guidance, Regional staff should
inform State personnel of EPA's preferred procedures and
encourage their use when possible. Your regional contacts
in the Hazardous Site Control Division are available to
assist in implementing this guidance. Specific questions
concerning tnis guidance should be directed to Brint
Bixler (FTS 382-2343) or Jan Wine (FTS 382-2455).
P-23
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C 20460
NOV I 81983
OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I - X.
Chief, GraTits Operations Branch (PM-216)
FROM: Harvey G. Pippen, Jr., Director
Grants Administration Division (PM-216}
SUBJECT: Class Deviation from 40 CFR 33.510 and 33.515 for
Certain Activities Conducted Under the Authority
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) provides financial assistance
for planning and implementation of remedial actions to clean
up uncontrolled hazardous waste sites posing significant
threats to public health and the environment.
Many recipients of Superfund cooperative agreements want
to retain the architectural and engineering (A/E) firm that
provided remedial investigation or feasibility study services
for engineering planning and design activities or engineering
services during the construction phase of remedial actions.
In cases where the initial subagreement did not include the
subsequent A/E services for the construction phase, or where
State policies do not permit procurement for activities where
funding is not guaranteed, EPA's procurement regulations (40
CFR Part 33} require that the recipient readvertise and re-
evaluate subagreement awards. These recipients could only use
the same A/E by following the public notice and evaluation
requirements in 40 CFR 33.510 and 33.515, or by obtaining an
individual deviation from the Director, Grants Administration
Division.
Background
The Superfund remedial action process is made up of four
separate but related activities. These activities are part
of a comprehensive approach required by CERCLA and the National
Oil and Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan (NCP, 40 CFR
Part 300) to mitigate actual or potential threats to public
P-24
-------
- 2 -
health and the environment. These activities are: (1) remedial
investigations (RI) to determine the type and extent of
contamination, (2) feasibility studies (FS) to evaluate
alternative actions and recommend a cost-effective remedy,
(3) design of the remedy; and (4) construction of the remedy.
Each of these activities requires the services of A/E firms
qualified in hazardous waste management.
Continuity from one activity to another is needed to .
allow a timely and cost-effective response at Superfund sites.
This class deviation saves time by eliminating the requirement
for separate procurement actions between the various activities
and provides continuity in A/E services. In addition, the time
required to conduct subsequent activities would be reduced since
the A/E firm would be familiar with the site conditions and will
have had the opportunity to develop any specific expertise re-
quired to deal with the problems.
The Office of Emergency and Remedial Response issued guidance
on February 22, 1983, discussing the need for continuity in pro-
viding A/E services in a particular project. That guidance recom-
mends that States prepare site specific subagreements with firms
to provide A/E services for all four of the activities listed
above. EPA encourages this practice at new Superfund sites and
expects this procedure to minimize future problems. This practice,
however, is allowed by Part 33 only when the subagreement includes
all four activities. Therefore, this class deviation is necessary
to allow Superfund recipients to use the same A/E firm in all four
of the Superfund activities when the original subagreement does not
include all four activities. This class deviation applies in the
following cases:
1. Where States conducted RI and/or FS activities
without EPA assistance and are now requesting funding
for the follow-on activities;
2. Where States conduct RI and/or FS activities with
EPA assistance under a cooperative agreement, but
did not include follow-on activities in the original
RI and/or FS subagreement; and
3. Where EPA conducted RI, FS or design activities and
the State, under a cooperative agreement, assumes
responsibility for the subsequent phases of remedial
responses using EPA's A/E contractors.
We estimate that 100 to 200 procurement actions over the
next three years may fall into the above categories. The
exact number will depend on whether recipients follow the
guidance referenced above and the number of sites where
P-25
-------
- 3 -
the recipient rather than EPA conducts the remedial activities.
We anticipate that this class deviation will save three to
six months on the remedial response at many sites.
This class deviation does not unduly restrict open and
free competition. States will be required to ensure adequate
competition for the initial procurement of A/E firms. EPA
has previously approved this approach in the wastewater treatment
construction grants program under Title II of the Clean Water
Act, where its use has not adversely affected competition.
ACTION
I am approving a deviation to permrt recipients of Superfund
remedial action cooperative agreements to use the A/E procured
to conduct any or all of the remedial investigation (RI), the
feasibility study (FS), or design to perform follow-on RI, FS,
design or engineering activities without going through the public
notice (§33.510) and evaluation procedures (§33.515) in 40 CFR
Part 33. However, the recipient must comply with all other
requirements in Part 33 when awarding the follow-on subacjreements
and must have followed all of the requirements in Part 33
(including the public notice and evaluation required in 40
CFR §33.510 and §33.515) for the initial procurement of the
A/E, or EPA must have conducted the initial procurement.
The class deviation applies in the following cases:
1. Where the recipient conducted the RI and/or FS
activities without EPA assistance but is using EPA
funds for follow-on activities, the recipient may
use the A/E for subsequent work provided the recipient
attests that it:
(a) Complied with the following requirements when
it selected the A/E:
(i) Section 33.230 "Competition," and
(ii) Section 33.250(a)(l) and (a)(2) and (a)(3),
and (b) "Documentation," and
(iii) Sections 33.505 through 33.525 "Competitive
negotiation," and
(b) Complied with the following:
(i) No employee, officer, or agent of the recipient,
any member of their immediate families, or their
partners have financial or other interest in the
firm selected for award; and
P-26
-------
- 4 -
(ii) None of the recipient's officers, employees,
or agents solicited or accepted gratuities,
favors, or anything of monetary value from
contractors or other parties to subagreements.
(c) If the recipient 'uses the' procedures in this
paragraph to retain an architect or engineer,
any EPA funded subagreement between the A/E
and the recipient must meet all of the other
provisions in Part 33.
2. Where the recipient conducted the RI, FS, or design
activities with EPA assistance but the original
subagreement did not include the follow-on activities
and the recipient wishes to use the same A/E for
follow-on Superfund remedial activities, the recipient
does not have to follow the public notice and evaluation
requirements in 33.510 and 33.515, for subsequent
activities provided the recipient follows the rest
of the procedures in 40 CFR Part 33.
3. Where EPA conducted the RI, FS, or design activities
under a direct procurement contract but the recipient
will assume the responsibility for subsequent phases
of remedial response under a cooperative agreement,
the recipient may use, with EPA's approval, EPA's
A/E contractor without further public notice or
evaluation provided the recipient follows the rest
of the Part 33 requirements to award the subagreement.
4. Where the recipient awards a subagreement after the
effective date of this class deviation, the initial
request for proposals or bid solicitations must
clearly state the possibility that the firm or
individual selected could be awarded a subagreement
for follow-on services.
CONCUR:
CONCUR:
Howard (J1. Messner
Assistant Administrator
for Administration and
Resources Management (PM-208)
DATE: /»/i1/13
.
\\\ -r.c- v.->.
Lep M. Thomas \
Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (WH-562A)
DATE: ll-%-33
P-27
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
SUBJECT: Requirements for Selecting an Off-Site Option in a Superfund
Response Action
FROM: William N. Hedeman, Jr., Director (Si«=e*) Zilli-- - ^-:.'.-
Office of Bnergency and Remedial Response (WH-548)
TO: Regional Administrators
Attn: Superfund Coordinators
Regions I-X
PURPOSE
This memorandum addresses the interface between the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Ccmprehansive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1930 (CERCLA, co-nticnly known as Super June)
for off-site treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous substances.
The purpose of this memorandum is two-fold. First, this memorandum establishes
a general Agency policy applicable to both removal and remedial actions.
That general policy is that all hazardous substances transported off-sits
for storage, treatment or disposal should be taken to a hazardous waste
management facility that either has an applicable permit issued by EPA (or
an authorized State) or has applicable interim status under section 3005(e)
of RCRA (or the analogous State provision in an authorized State). Secondly,
this memorandum establishes specific criteria for remedial actions for
determining when hazardous substances may be transported off-site for
treatment, storage, or disposal and for selecting an appropriate off-site
hazardous waste management facility.
LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND FOR REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Section 104(c)(4) requires all remedial actions to be cost-effective.
Further, section 104(c)(3)(B) prohibits Federal remedial action unless
the State will assure the availability of a hazardous waste disposal
facility acceptable to the President and in compliance with the
requirements of subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Ace for
any necessary off-site storage, destruction, treatment:, or secure
disposition of the hazardous substances . . .
P-28
-------
-2-
The President's authority to make this determination has been delegated
to the Administrator of EPA for those sites where EPA is the lead Federal
agency. This authority has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator
of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. *
POLICY
It is EPA's policy that:
1. For both removal and remedial actions; All hazardous substances1
transported off-site for storage, treatment or disposal should be taken to
a hazardous waste management facility that either has an applicable^ RCRA
permit issued by EPA (or an authorized state) or has applicable interim
status under section 3005(e) of RCRA (or the analogous state provision in
an authorized State),
2. For remedial actions; Storage, treatment and disposal of
hazardous substances at off-site hazardous waste management facilities
must be cost-effective in comparison to other response actions that would
also provide adequate protection of public health, welfare and the environment.
3. For remedial actions: A RCRA compliance inspection must be
performed at any hazardous waste management facility before it can receive
hazardous substances from a CSRCLA funded response. The inspection must
demonstrate that there are no significant violations that affect the
satisfactory operation of the facility.
1 It is important to realize that all substances designated as "hazardous"
under CERCLA are not necessarily hazardous "wastes" as defined in RCRA.
Hazardous wastes are a subset of hazardous substances. While all hazardous
substances that are transported off-site should go to a hazardous waste
management facility, hazardous substances which are not hazardous wastes
are not legally subject to RCRA regulations.
2 Both permits and interim status apply to specific wastes and specific
storage, treatment or disposal processes. It must be determined that the
facility has a permit or interim status that includes the wastes that
would be transported to the facility and includes the type of prccess for
which .the wastes are being taken to the facility. Because of these concerns,
it is important that selection of a facility be coordinated with RCRA
Regional personnel.
* Authority has also been redelegated to EPA Regional Administrators
for certain IRMs.
P-29
-------
-3-
IMPLEMEMATION FOR REMEDIAL ACTIONS
1. Cost Effective Cetermination
The determination whether off-site treatment/ storage or disposal is more
cost-effective than on-site options must be made either in the Remedial Action
Master*~?lan (RAMP) or during the feasibility study phase of remedial planning.
The National Contingency Plan discusses three potential types of actions that may
involve off-site facilities: initial remedial measures, source controls and
off-site measures. When initial remedial measures are being considered, the RAMP
should include the evaluations of alternatives necessary to determine that
off-site treatment, storage, or disposal is more cost-effective than on-site
alternatives. When source control or off-sita measures are being considered,
this evaluation will be done in the feasibility study. The analysis must
consider the factors described in sections 300.68(h) and (i) of the National
Contingency Plan, which include cost, technical, and environmental factors.
2. -Choice of Hazardous Waste Management Facility
Any hazardous waste management facility that has an applicable permit or
has applicable interim status may be considered for off-sits storage,
treatment or disposal. However, if a RCRA compliance inspection has not
been completed within the last 12 months, a new inspection must be completed
prior to award of a contract for storage, treatment or disposal. Violations
that can adversely affect the facility's performance must be corrected
before a contract or sub-contract can be awarded.
RCRA compliance inspections must be coordinated between Superfund and
RCRA Regional personnel. Current strategy for the Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement assures that all major treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
and a substantial portion of the remaining facilities will be inspected
during FY '83. When a compliance inspection is not scheduled for a hazardous
waste management facility considered for off-site disposal, REM/FIT personnel
should conduct the inspection under the direction of RCRA Regional personnel.
The inspections checklist included in the RCRA inspection manual (July 24,
1981) should be used during the compliance inspection. In States with
Phase I or II interim authorization or final authorization, the inspection
should be conducted using State regulations and permit conditions. Confer
with RCRA Regional personnel regarding State/EPA agreements as to who is
authorized to conduct such inspections.
If/ in the judgment of the Regional reviewers, the deficiencies at a
facility may result in unsound treatment, storage or disposal practices,
or pose a threat of future releases, the facility should not be selected
for receiving hazardous substances fron CERCLA projects. Cn the other
hand, if deficiences are minor and will not affect its oerformance, the
P-30
-------
-4-
facility may be acceptable.3
Contract documents for remedial actions involving off-sita treatment,
storage, or disposal should describe this requirement and provide a mechanism
for consideration and approval of facilities. Various mechanisms may be
appropriate and should be selected after consultation with State personnel.
A pre-Cualified list of acceptable facilities is the preferred method and
can be prepared on a State-wide or on a project specific basis. Off-site
facilities should be given the opportunity to demonstrate compliance with
this policy prior to award of the cleanup contract. An alternative method
is to require each bidder to provide the documentation as part of their bid
submission. This would be evaluated with the entire bid to determine if
proposed off-site facilities are in compliance with this policy. If required,
RCRA compliance inspections should be scheduled to avoid delaying contract
award. Inspections for potential off-site facilities on Superfund projects
should te given high priority to expedite this process.
This requirement for inspection is not applicable to removal actions
due to time constraints. However, even -for removal actions, Agency policy
encourages transport of hazardous substances to hazardous waste management
facilities that have been inspected and found to be acceptable.
3. Transportation Requirements
If an off-site alternative is chosen, the Lead agency's representative
or designee is responsible for preparing a manifest in compliance with 40
CFR Part 262 or applicable State requirements for transportation of hazardcus
wastes. Furthermore, the lead agency's representative cr designee shculc
ensure that the transporter properly notifies under RCRA §3010.
For additional information on this matter, please contact Bruce Clemens
at 382-2188.
3 The three memos dated July 7, 1981; January 22, 1981; and October 6,
1982; dealing with Guidance on Developing Compliance Orders under §3008 of
RCRA, define the three classes of compliance violations. In general, class
I violations should be considered significant. However, there may be
instances where even class III violations are significant. Special attention
should be given to selecting an interim status facility for land disposal.
Always check the ground water monitoring reports for evidence of leaking.
A facility that is doing only detection monitoring and not finding any
contamination is presumed net to be leaking; a facility engaged in "assessment"
monitoring is presumed to be leaking. The seriousness of the rate and
extent of migration fron the facility should be evaluated before deciding
to transport wastes to a facility doing assessment monitoring.
P-31
-------
SUPERFUND COMMUNITY RELATIONS POLICY
MAY 9, 1983
Community relations must be on integral part of every Superfund-financed
remedial or removal action. This section provides overall policy on the
conduct of community relations in Superfund. Community Relations in
Superfund; A Handbook supplements this section with background material and
more detailed procedural guidance on planning arid implementing effective
community relations programs.
A. Program Objectives
The objectives of the Superfund community relations program are as follows:
To gather information about the community in which a
site or incident is located;
To inform the public of planned or ongoing actions;
To give the public the opportunity to be involved in
decision making;
To focus and resolve controversy.
B. Program Design
In meeting the objectives of the Superfund community relations program,
five general principles must be stressed.
(1) The community relations effort at a particular site
must be tailored to the distinctive and individual
characteristics of'the site and the surrounding
community.
(2) The design of a community ralations program for a site
should take into account both the technical complexity
of the problem and the level of citizen concern. A
more intensive program is required for situations that
either are technically complicated or have generated a
high level of local citizen concern.
(3) Up-front community relations planning is essential to
an effective Superfund response. The key to proper -
planning is a knowledge of community concerns at the
site and the scheduled technical action.
P-32
-------
- 2 -
(4) In most cases, small-scale, informal communication
techniques should be used, rather than large-scale,
formal techniques (such as public hearings).
(5) Adequate opportunity must be given for the public to
comment on proposed remedial cleanup actions prior to
final EPA decisions.
C. Program implementation
Community Relations Plans. EPA regional offices are responsible for
developing community relations plans for Superfund-financed actions. These
plans must be submitted to EPA Headquarters for review. They are submitted
together with the 14-point contractual document, for planned removals, or as
part of the cooperative agreement or state Superfund contract, for remedial
actions, as explained below; plans for immediate removals are submitted
independently. Headquarters may recommend modifications to a plan on the
basis of its review. Approval of the 14-point document, cooperative
agreement, or state contract constitutes approval of the community relations
plan. Funding for an action might be withheld if a plan is unacceptable.
The requirement to submit community relations plans to headquarters for
review may be suspended if an EPA region has demonstrated that it is able to
plan and implement effective community relations programs. The region will
then be entrusted with full responsibility for community relations. At the
request of the region, however, headquarters staff may still assist the region
by reviewing CRPs and other planning documents, offering recommendations, and
otherwise supporting the implementation of community relations programs.
A community relations plan is a management and planning tool which
outlines the specific communications activities to be used during a Superfund
response and the integration of these activities with the technical work at a
site. The plan must include an assessment of community interests and
concerns. This assessment must be based on on-site discussions with local
officials, civic leaders, and community residents in order to gauge their
concerns and to determine the level of community relations effort that will be
necessary during the action. Each plan must contain the following elements:
Background and history of community involvement at
the site:
Site history
Local activity'and interest
Key issues
Specific objectives of the community relations program
Community relations techniques to be used to meet
specific objectives, including progress reports on past
site work and reports on upcoming activities
P-33
-------
- 3 -
Workplan and schedule
Budget and staffing plan
List of affected and interested groups and
individuals and a list of EPA, other federal, and state
technical and community relations officials
Removal Actions. Immediate removals under the National Contingency Plan
are taken to prevent or mitigate immediate and significant risk or harm to
human life or health or to the environment" (40 CFR 300.65(a)). The on-scene
coordinator's principal responsibility is to protect public health and the
environment until the immediate removal is completed. During such an
incident, the primary community relations responsibility is to inform the
community about response actions and their effects on the community.
For those immediate removals requiring headquarters' funding approval, a
brief community relations plan must be prepared and submitted to headquarters
for review. The "short form" community relations plan can be used as a model.
Planned removal actions usually allow more time than immediate removals
for planning and consultation with the local community. The draft action
memorandum requesting approval for a planned removal will include an
assessment of community interest and concerns. A community relations plan,
covering the entire action, oust be prepared and submitted to headquarters for
review along with the "14 point" contractual document.
At the conclusion of the planned removal, a responsiveness summary must be
prepared. This summary should include a list of community relations
activities conducted, an account of the issues that arose, and an explanation
of how citizen concerns were dealt with during the response.
Remedial Actions. A community relations program is a key requirement of
federal and state activities during a remedial action. Community relations
plans must be developed for all Superfund-financed remedial actions.
The following steps must be taken to meet this requirement:
1. The Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) must include an
assessment section which provides background information on
community involvement at the site. The on-site community
relations discussions must provide the basis for this
section of the RAMP. The section should include:
Background and history of community involvement at
the site (site history, local activity and interest,
and key issues).
Specific objectives of the community relations
program.
P-34
-------
4 -
Any immediate community relations activities
recommended prior to submission of the community
relations plan.
List of affected and interested groups and
individuals.
Schedule for completion of community relations plan.
2. A community relations plan must be prepared and submitted
to headquarters as part of the cooperative agreement
application or the state Superfund contract. This plan
includes:
The community relations assessment from the RAMP.
A list of community relations -activities to be
conducted at the site.
Budget estimate.
Tentative implementation schedule and workplan.
3. The community relations plan must be completed by including
a detailed workplan and budget, a staffing plan, and a
schedule. Funding for a remedial action might be withheld
if this complete community relations plan is not acceptable.
4. When the feasibility study is completed, the community
relations plan must be revised to include communications
activities during the design and construction phases.
The public must be given a three week minimum comment period to review the
feasibility study prior to selection of a remedial alternative. In some
cases, components of projects may proceed prior to completion of the full
feasibility study. In such cases, opportunity for public review still must be
provided. In the case of simple remedial measures, such as fencing, storing
drums, site security, etc., the public should be informed through the public
meeting on the RAMP. For components of remedial actions (such as moving drums
off-site), for which expedited feasibility studies are completed prior to the
final feasibility study, the public comment period may be shortened, but the
public still must be given at least two weeks to review this draft feasibility
study. The Regions may extend any comment period if there is a reasonable
request for an extension (e.g., if citizens had insufficient time to review
the feasibility study because of delays in receiving copies), as long as the
extension does not exacerbate threats to public health, welfare, or the
environment at the site.
At the conclusion of any public comment period, a responsiveness summary
will be prepared. This document will include a summary of the public
P-35
-------
5
comments, the Agency's response to those comments, and a list of community
relations activities conducted.
Chapter 3 of the Handbook provides further guidance on community
relations during remedial actions; Chapter 2 discusses removal actions.
D. Administering the Community Relations Program
EPA headquarters is responsible for policy development, review of
community relations plans, and overall program monitoring and evaluation.
Headquarters also provides informational materials on Superfund and overall
contract management.
For federal-lead responses, EPA regional offices are responsible for the
development, implementation, and revision of community relations plans in
confonnance with this policy, supervision of contractors providing regional
community relations support, and coordination with states.
For state-lead responses, the state is responsible for the development,
implementation, and revision of community relations plans in conformance with
this policy and the supervision of contractors providing state community
relations support, and coordination with the EPA regions.
For all remedial responses, EPA regions are generally responsible for
preparing the RAMP community relations assessment.
Contractors can be used to perform the preparatory work needed for
community relations activities. Contractors, however, must never represent
(or appear to represent) EPA before the public.
Refer to;
Community Relations in Superfund; A Handbook, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1983.
P-36
-------
APPENDIX Q
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
This appendix provides definitions of selected terras
used throughout the text. It is not intended to be com-
prehensive in nature; rather, it attempts to highlight
some of the terms commonly used in the Super fund remedial
program. Statutory definitions have been quoted for those
terms defined in CSRCLA, while other definitions have been
taken from appropriate EPA regulations, guidance, and pub-
lications.
Action Memorandum (AM); The internal EPA document whicn
the Region may use to secure the Regional Administrator's
conceptual approval for a proposed remedial planning pro-
ject. For some initial remedial measures, the Action Memo-
randum may also be used to document the official selection
of remedy by the Regional Administrator. Regions are en-
couraged, but not required, to use Action Memoranda.
Activity; A set of tasks and subactivities that together
comprise a segment of the sequence of events undertaken in
determining, planning, and conducting a response to a re-
lease or potential release of a hazardous substance. For
accounting purposes, three activities have been defined:
Remedial Planning, which consists of the sub-
activities of:
Remedial investigation/feasibility study
Remedial design
Remedial Implementation, which consists of the
subactivities of:
Remedial action
Operation and maintenance
Initial remedial measures
Support and Management.
Allowable Costs; Costs that are eligible, reasonable,
necessary, and allocable; are permitted under the appro-
priate Federal cost principles; are in accordance with EPA
policy; and are within the scope of the project authorized
by a Cooperative Agreement. For example, allowable costs
might include costs that States incur for:
Contractual services
Response by State employees
Q-l
-------
Materials and supplies
Equipment
Other direct costs.
Except for the CERCLA credit period, allowable costs may
also include indirect costs incurred in carrying out a
remedial response. Applicable cost principles established
by the Federal government vary, depending upon the nature
of the organization in question (see 40 CFR 30.410 of
EPA's General Regulation for Assistance Programs).
Amendment; A revision to or an expansion of terms included
under a Cooperative Agreement, Memorandum of Understanding,
or Superfund State Contract; other EPA-lead remedial agree-
ments do not require formal amendments. An amendment is
necessary when the scope or dollar amount of an agreement
is significantly changed. The original agreement should
define situations in which amendments must be negotiated.
Award Official; The official who is authorized to execute
an assistance agreement (grant or Cooperative Agreement)
on behalf of the Federal government. This is the Regional
Administrator for Regional Cooperative Agreements; the
Chief, Grants Operations Branch is the Award Official for
Headquarters Cooperative Agreements which have not been
delegated to the Regions.
Comment Period; The period of time provided to local offi-
cials and citizens to review a proposed CERCLA remedial
action. The Community Relations Plan (CRP) must specify
the manner in which the community will have an opportunity
to comment on a feasibility study prior to the selection
of a site remedy. A minimum three-week comment period
must be implemented for remedial actions. For simple ini-
tial remedial measures (IRMs), the CRP must specify that a
public comment period will be held prior to initiation of
the IRM unless public comment has been sought through a
public meeting and/or comment period on an initial plan-
ning document, such as a RAMP. For complex IRMs, the CRP
must also (1) address how the community will receive prior
notification of any site action, and (2) state that a mini-
mum two-week comment period will be provided for any com-
plex IRM recommended by a limited feasibility study.
Commitment; An amount formally reserved to cover an ex-
pected obligation. A commitment reflects the intention to
obligate funds to a specific activity.
Commitment Notice (EPA Form 2550-9); A form used by EPA
to commit funds to cover an expected obligation for State-
lead remedial response agreements. The Commitment Notice
is one part of the Cooperative Agreement concurrence pack-
age.
Q-2
-------
Community Relations Plan (CRP); A plan for addressing
local citizens' and officials' concerns about a hazardous
waste site and for integrating community relations activi-
ties into the technical response at a site. The CRP
should help prevent disruptions and delays in response
actions and partially .fulfill the NEPA requirement for
public notification and participation. Each CRP should
include a description of the background and history of the
site and community concerns about the site; objectives of
the site-specific community relations program; specific
techniques to be used to achieve those objectives; and a
work plan, schedule, budget, and designation of staff who
will be responsible for the program.
Contract; (a) The term used to describe a variety of
agreements or orders to acquire supplies or services for
the direct benefit of EPA; or (b) a written agreement
(such as an SSC), enforceable by law, between two or more
competent parties to perform or refrain from performing an
act authorized by law for legal consideration.
Cooperative Agreement (C/A): An assistance agreement
whereby EPA transfers money, property, services, or any-
thing of value to a State for the accomplishment of cer-
tain remedial activities, subactivities, or tasks, as au-
thorized by CERCLA. It assumes a significant Federal
involvement in the State's performance of these activities.
The remedial Cooperative Agreement provides general infor-
mation about the project, such as the approved budget, and
any specific conditions applicable to the project. It
also documents any required CERCLA section 104(c)(3) as-
surances.
Cost Recovery; The process by which Federal costs of re-
sponse actions and damage to natural resources are recover-
ed from responsible parties.
Decision Memorandum; The document used to transmit a
Superfund remedial response agreement to the Regional Ad-
ministrator for review and approval. It contains a tech-
nical summary of the project, results of the Office of
Regional Counsel review, and a statement that the proposed
project is consistent with the objectives and mandates of
CERCLA. The memorandum also recommends that the project
be funded, highlights the Community Relations Plan, and
assesses the enforcement status of the site.
Deviation Request; An official written request to allow a
deviation fromEPA's General Regulation for Assistance
Programs (40 CFR 30). One example of a situation requir-
ing a deviation request would be the need to incur costs
at a site prior to the execution of a Cooperative Agree-
ment.
Q-3
-------
Disbursement (Net); Checks issued or other payments made,
net of refunds and reimbursements. Also referred to as
"net outlays."
Disposal (statutory definition, RCRA): The discharge,
deposit, injection, dumping-, spilling, leaking, or placing
of any solid waste or hazardous waste into or on any land
or water so that such solid waste or hazardous waste or
any constituent thereof may enter the environment or be
emitted into the air or discharged into any waters, includ-
ing ground waters.
Expenditure/Expense; The incurrence of a liability or a
payment of cash, often used synonymously with "disburse-
ment" or "outlay."
Facility (statutory definition): (A) any building, struc-
ture, installation, equipment, pipe or pipeline (including
any pipe into a sewer or publicly owned treatment works),
well, pit, pond, lagoon, impoundment, ditch, landfill,
storage container, motor vehicle, rolling stock, or
aircraft, or (B) any site or area where a hazardous
substance has been deposited, stored, disposed of, placed,
or otherwise come to be located; [this] does not include
any consumer product in consumer use or any vessel.
Feasibility Study (FS); The portion of a subactivity in
remedial planning involving a study to (a) evaluate
alternative remedial actions from a technical, environ-
mental, and cost-effectiveness perspective; (b) recommend
the most cost-effective remedial action; and (c) prepare a
conceptual design, cost estimates for budgetary purposes,
and a preliminary implementation schedule for that action.
(The entire subactivity is known as a "remedial
investigation/feasibility study.")
Grant Funding Order (EPA Form 5700-14) ; An official EPA
document used to signify program office approval of fund-
ing for a Cooperative Agreement. It breaks down the pro-
ject's approved budget by remedial activity and subactivity
and by object class category. The program conditions to
the Cooperative Agreement are attached to this document.
Hazard Ranking Score; A numeric estimate of the relative
severity of a hazardous substance release or potential
release based on: (a) the relative potential of substances
to cause hazardous situations; (b) the likelihood and rate
at which the substances may affect human and environmental
receptors; and (c) the severity and magnitude of potential
effects. The score is computed using the Hazard Ranking
System (HRS).
Q-4
-------
Hazard Ranking System (H.RS) ; A model developed .and de-
signed to provide an estimate of the relative severity of
a hazardous substance release. The HRS computes a score,
from 1 to 100, for each candidate site which serves as an
input to the decision of whether the site should be includ-
ed on the National Priorities List and, if so, at what
ranking compared to other sites on the List.
Hazardous Substance (statutory definition): Also some-
times referred to as hazardous waste, it is defined as (A)
any substance designated pursuant to section 311(b) (2) (A)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, (B) any ele-
ment, compound, mixture, solution, or substance designated
pursuant to section 102 of [CERCLA], (C) any hazardous
waste having the characteristics identified under or list-
ed pursuant to section 3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act (but not including any waste the regulation of which
under the Solid Waste Disposal Act has been suspended by
Act'of Congress.) , (D) any toxic pollutant listed under
section 307 (a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
(E) any hazardous air pollutant listed under section 112
of the Clean Air Act, and (F) any imminently hazardous
chemical substance or mixture with respect to which the
Administrator [of EPA] has taken action pursuant to sec-
tion 7 of the Toxic Substances Control Act. The term does
not include petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction
thereof which is npt otherwise specifically listed or de-
signated as a hazardous substance under subparagraphs (A)
through (F) of this paragraph, and the term does not in-
clude natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural
gas, or synthetic gas usable for fuel (or mixtures of nat-
ural gas and such synthetic gas).
Initial Remedial Measure (IRM); A remedial implementation
subactivity that may be undertaken during a remedial re-
sponse to limit exposure or threat of exposure to a signi-
ficant health or environmental hazard or to stabilize an
existing situation at a site in order to permit the imple-
mentation of additional actions. Examples of factors used
in determining whether an IRM is appropriate and the asso-
ciated action(s) which may be taken include:
Actual or potential direct contact with hazardous
substances (measures might include fences, site
security)
Substantial threat of fire or explosion or of a
serious public health hazard (measures might
include drum removal)
Q-5
-------
Highly contaminated soils largely at or near the
surface (measures might include temporary capping
or removal of highly contaminated soils from
drainage areas) .
An IRM must be consistent with longterm site response
actions.
Interagency Agreement (IAG); A written agreement, enforce-
able by law, between EPA and another agency (Federal,
State, or local) where goods and/or services are provided,
whether or not in exchange for monetary reimbursement, or
where policy agreements are delineated. lAGs for CERCLA
activities may function both as obligating documents and
as reporting documents necessary for EPA financial and
program management.
Lead Management Responsibility; Direct responsibility for
managing remedial activities/ subactivities, and tasks at
a site. In'the remedial program, where EPA has lead man-
agement responsibility remedial activities at the site are
usually carried out by an EPA contractor, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (or its contractor), or another Federal
agency. Where a State has lead management responsibility
remedial activities are carried out by State personnel or
by a State contractor. In this guidance document the iden-
tification of lead management responsibility determines
the type of agreement negotiated between EPA and a State.
When E'PA assumes lead management responsibility, a Super -
fund State Contract, Memorandum of Understanding, or State
letter of request may be used, as appropriate; when the
State assumes lead management responsibility, a Coopera-
tive Agreement is used.
Letter of Credit (LOG): The method most frequently used
by EPA to provide a State with funds awarded under a Super -
fund remedial Cooperative Agreement. Funds are transfer-
red to the commercial bank designated by the State and the
State draws down funds as required.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU); An agreement between
EPA and another agency (Federal, State, or local) that
sets forth basic policies and procedures governing their
relationship on matters of mutual interest and responsi-
bility. There is no exchange of funds under this type of
agreement. In the context of this document, an MOU usual-
ly refers to one type of agreement which may be negotiated
between EPA and a State to undertake EPA-lead remedial
planning subactivities.
Q-6
-------
National Contingency Plan (NCP); Officially known as the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (40
CFR 300), this regulation outlines responsibilities and
authorities for responding to releases into the environ-
ment of hazardous substances and other pollutants and con-
taminants under the-statutory authority of CERCLA and sec-
tion 311 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
National Priorities List (NPL): A list of the highest
priority releases or potential releases of hazardous sub-
stances, based upon State and EPA Regional submissions of
candidate sites and the criteria and methodology contained
in the Hazard Ranking System (HRS), for the purpose of
allocating funds for remedial response. Published by EPA,
the NPL is updated periodically.
Obligation; The amount of orders placed, contracts award-
ed, services received, and similar transactions during a
given period which will require payments during the same
or a future period. These will include outlays for which
obligations have not been previously recorded and will
reflect adjustments for differences between previously
recorded obligations and actual outlays to liquidate those
obligations (OMB Circular A-34).
Off-Site Disposal; Transport of hazardous substances from
a waste site to an approved facility for storage, treat-
ment, destruction, or secure disposition. Consistent with
section 101(24) of CERCLA, off-site disposal will oe under-
taken only if that action "(A) [is] more cost-effective
than other remedial actions, [or] (B) will create new ca-
pacity to manage, in compliance with subtitle C of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act, hazardous substances in addition
to those located at the affected facility, or (C) [is]
necessary to protect public health or welfare or the en-
vironment from a present or potential risk which may be
created by further exposure to the continued presence of
such substances or materials."
Off-Site Remedial Measure; A class of remedial action
taken as part of remedial response when there is a signi-
ficant threat to public health, welfare, or the environ-
ment from hazardous substances that have migrated beyond
the site or area where they were originally located. An
off-site remedial measure may include provision of per-
manent alternative water supplies, management of a. drink-
ing water aquifer plume, or treatment of drinking water
aquifers.
Q-7
-------
On-Site Community Discussions; Discussions which must be
conducted before developing a Community Relations Plan.
These discussions involve a series of short/ informal dis-
cussions with State and local officials involved with the
site, citizen leaders representing interest groups, and
other concerned citizens. The information obtained from
these discussions can provide valuable data about local
attitudes concerning the site and past government actions
and provide an opportunity for public input to the respon-
se planning process. These discussions also enable com-
munity relations staff to identify the best means to pro-
vide information to the community during the response ac-
tion,
Operable Unit; A component of a cost-effective remedial
response that by itself eliminates or mitigates a release
or threat of release and needs no additional action to
perform its function. Examples include: (a) off-site
transport and disposal of drums; (b) draining surface im-
poundments; (c) construction of drainage controls; (d)
installation of slurry walls (and/or clay caps); (e) pro-
vision of alternative water supplies; and (f) construction
and operation of ground water treatment systems. Typical-
ly, an operable unit would not include: (a) fencing or
other site security; (b) repacking of drums on-site with-
out further actions to treat or dispose of the waste; or
(c) installation of a cap and barrier wall that require
ground water treatment to be effective.
Program Control System (PCS); An EPA management system
aimed at minimizing the delay in initiating remedial re-
sponse projects and obligating the funds required. PCS is
designed to ensure that incomplete prerequisite actions
are identified, the status of open action items is moni-
tored, progress is reported to concerned management/ and
available resources and time are focused on the highest
priority projects, taking into account the program's
overall objectives.
Project; A group of remedial response subactivities at a
site, intended to study and/or remedy a verified or poten-
tial release of a hazardous substance which poses an ac-
tual or potential significant threat to human health, the
environment, or real or personal property. Remedial pro-
jects usually involve groupings of one or more of the fol-
lowing subactivities: remedial investigation/ feasibility
study, remedial design, remedial action, initial remedial
measures, and/or operation and maintenance. A project can
also be a subsite.
Q-8
-------
Project Tracking System (PTS): The automated system de-
veloped by EPA to track and provide information for over-
sight of remedial responses at sites on the National Prior-
ities List.
Regional Site Project Officer (RSPO); The designated EPA
Regional official who coordinates, manages, and monitors
site activities covered in both EPA and State-lead remedi-
al response agreements.
Regional Super fund Community Relations Coordinator
(RSCRC); The RSCRC is the Regional office staff person
responsible for designing and implementing a site-specific
community relations program. The RSCRC works closely with
the site's Regional Site Project Officer to establish a
site specific community relations program.
Release (statutory definition): Any spilling, leaking,
pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, inject-
ing, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing [of a sub-
stance] into the environment.
Remedial Accomplishments Plan (RAP) ; The document which
each Region prepares to designate those activities that it
intends to initiate during a given fiscal year. A RAP is
developed by the RSPOs and submitted to the AA, SWER for
approval. By approving the RAP, the AA allocates funds
for proposed remedial planning subactivities. The RAP is
also used as the basis for transferring funds to the
Regions for obligation at State-lead sites; obligation of
funds should take place only for those projects included
on the RAP.
Remedial Action (RA); A subactivity in remedial response
involving actual implementation, following design, of the
selected source control and/or off-site remedial measure.
Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP); A planning document
that was prepared for sites to identify projects necessary
for restoration of a hazardous waste site. A RAMP includ-
ed a survey and assessment of existing site data, an out-
line of remedial objectives, an assessment of whether ini-
tial remedial measures were needed, the schedule of plan-
ning and implementation activities, a statement of work
for the first recommended phase of remedial activity at
the site, and an estimate of project costs. The Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response no longer initiates RAMPS.
Remedial Design (RD); A subactivity in remedial response
where the selected remedy is clearly defined and/or speci-
fied in accordance with engineering criteria (i.e., a site
Q-9
-------
action plan, a relocation plan, or engineering drawings
and specifications) in a bid package, enabling immediate
implementation of the remedy.
Remedial Implementation;. An activity in remedial response
which begins after remedial planning has been completed.
Implementation covers the range of remedial response from
initiation of the remedy through EPA participation in op-
eration and maintenance, specifically encompassing the
subactivities of remedial action, initial remedial mea-
sure, and operation and maintenance. States are obliged
to share in the costs of all remedial implementation sub-
activities.
Remedial Investigation (RI); The portion of a subactivity
in remedial planning involving an investigation to gather
the data necessary to: (a) determine the nature and ex-
tent of problems at the site; (b) establish remedial re-
sponse criteria for the site; (c) identify preliminary
alternative remedial actions; and (d) support the techni-
cal and cost analyses of the alternatives. (The entire
subactivity is known as "remedial investigation/ feasi-
bility study.")
Remedial Planning; An activity in remedial response ini-
tiated at a site prior to implementing the remedial ac-
tion. Remedial planning encompasses the subactivities of
remedial investigation/feasibility study and remedial de-
sign. States are not required to share in costs of reme-
dial planning at privately-owned sites; at publicly-owned
sites they must share in remedial planning costs only i_f
and when a remedial action is undertaken.
Remedial Response; A series of activities and subactivi-
ties intended to provide permanent resolution of a release
or potential release of a hazardous substance from a site.
Remedial response generally includes the following sequence
of subactivities; remedial investigation/feasibility
study, remedial design, remedial action, and operation and
maintenance.
Remedy (statutory definition): [An action] consistent
with permanent remedy taken ... in the event of a release
or threatened release of a hazardous substance into the
environment/ to prevent or minimize the release of hazar-
dous substances so that they do not migrate to cause sub-
stantial danger to present or future public health or wel-
fare or the environment. The term includes, but is not
limited to, such actions ... as storage, confinement,
perimeter protection using dikes, trenches, or ditches,
clay cover, neutralization, cleanup of released hazardous
Q-10
-------
substances or contaminated materials, recycling or reuse,
diversion, destruction, segregation of reactive wastes,
dredging or excavations, repair or replacement of leaking
containers, collection of leachate and runoff, onsite
treatment or incineration, provision of alternative water
supplies, and any monitoring reasonably required to assure
that such actions protect the public health and welfare
and the environment.
Remove or Removal (statutory definition): [The] cleanup
or removal of released hazardous substances from the en-
vironment, such actions as may be necessary taken in the
event of the threat of release of hazardous substances
into the environment, such actions as may be necessary to
monitor, assess, and evaluate the release or threat of
release of hazardous substances, the disposal of removed
material, or the taking of such other actions as may be
necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate damage to the
public health or welfare or to the environment, which may
otherwise result from a release or threat-of release.
The term includes, in addition, without being limited to,
security fencing or other measures to limit access, pro-
vision of alternative water supplies, temporary evacuation
and housing of threatened individuals not otherwise pro-
vided for, action taken under section 104 (b) [of CERCLA],
and any emergency assistance which may be provided under
the Disaster Relief Act of 1974.
Responsible Party (statutory definition): [includes] (1)
the owner or operator of a vessel (otherwise subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States) or a facility, (2)
any person who at the-time of disposal of any hazardous
substance owned or operated any facility at which such
hazardous substances were disposed of, (3) any person who
by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for disposal
or treatment, or arranged with a transporter for transport
for disposal or treatment,- of hazardous substances owned
or possessed by such person, by any other party or entity,
at any facility owned or operated by another party or en-
tity and containing such hazardous substances, and (4) any
person who accepts or accepted any hazardous substance for
transport to disposal or treatment facilities or sites
selected by such person, from which there is a release, or
a threatened release which causes the incurrence of re-
sponse costs, of a hazardous substance, [the responsible
party] shall be liabre for (A) all costs of removal or
remedial action incurred by the United States Government
or a State not inconsistent with the National Contingency
plan; (B) any other necessary costs of response incurred
by any other person consistent with the National Contin-
gency Plan; and (C) damages for injury to, destruction of,
Q-ll
-------
or loss of natural resources, including the reasonable
costs of assessing such injury/ destruction, or loss re-
sulting from such a release.
Responsiveness Summary (RS).; A report prepared by the
community relations staff at two points during remedial
response: (1) at the conclusion of the feasibility study
and submitted to Headquarters with the draft Record of
Decision, and (2) at the conclusion of the remedial ac-
tion, to be submitted one month after completion of the
remedial action. This report reviews public inquiries,
the issues and concerns raised, and how EPA or the State
has responded to these issues and concerns. The report
may be used to help document for the public record how EPA
or the State has responded to key community concerns and
issues.
Scope of Work; The element of a Federal-lead remedial
planning agreement which generally outlines the subactivi-
ties, tasks, and subtasks to be undertaken at the site.
The scope of work also provides general information on the
objectives of the project.
Scoping; An assessment, using criteria contained in the
National Contingency Plan, of the type of problem presented
by a release and an initial determination of the type or
types of remedial activities and subactivities that may be
appropriate to evaluate and remedy the problem. Scoping
is undertaken during the preliminary planning phase of
remedial response.
Site (also refers to a hazardous substance site or a haz-
ardous waste site): An area or a location at which haz-
ardous substances have been stored, treated, disposed,
placed, or otherwise came to be located. This includes
all contiguous land, structures, other appurtenances, and
improvements on the land used for treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous substances. A site may consist of
several treatment/ storage, or disposal facilities (e.g.,
impoundments, containers, buildings, or equipment).
Source Control Remedial Measure; A type of remedial
action, undertaken at a site if a substantial concentra-
tion of hazardous substances remains at or near the area
where they were originally located and inadequate barriers
exist to retard migration of substances into the environ-
ment. Source control remedial measures may include alter-
natives to contain the hazardous substances where they are
located (e.g., grout curtains, clay caps, leachate collec-
tion and treatment systems) or may eliminate potential
contamination by transporting the hazardous substances to
a new location (e.g., off-site disposal).
Q-12
-------
State Assurances (statutory definition): The commitments
a State must make to EPA prior to authorization of any
Fund- financed remedial actions at a site. CERCLA section
104(c) (3) identifies these as "(A) the State will assure
all future maintenance of the removal and remedial actions
provided for the expected life of such actions as deter-
mined by the President; (B) the State will assure the
availability of a hazardous waste disposal facility accept-
able to the President and in compliance with the require-
ments of subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act for
any necessary offsite storage, destruction, treatment or
secure disposition of the hazardous substances; and (C)
the State will pay or assure payment of (i) 10 per centum
of the costs of the remedial action, including all future
maintenance, or (ii) at least 50 per centum or such greater
amount as the President may determine appropriate, taxing
into account the degree of responsibility of the State or
political subdivision, of any sums expended in response to
a release at a facility that was owned at the time of any
disposal of hazardous substances therein by the State or a
political subdivision thereof."
State Cost Share; The amount of matching funds a State
must provide for remedial activities initiated under
CERCLA, as determined by section 104 (c) (3) (C) of CERCLA.
States must provide 10 percent of the costs of remedial
implementation if the site was privately-owned at the time
of disposal and at least 50 percent of all response costs
if the site was publicly-owned.
State Credit (statutory definition): CERCLA section
104 (c) (3) states that EPA "... shall grant the State a
credit against the share of the costs for which it is
responsible... for any document- ed direct out-of-pocket
non-Federal funds expended or obligated by the State or a
political subdivision thereof after January 1, 1978 and
before [December 11, 1980] for cost-eligible response
actions and claims for damages compensable under section
111" of CERCLA.
State Letter of Request; The letter, sent from the admin-
istrator of the State pollution control agency to an EPA
Regional Administrator, requesting EPA action at a waste
site. A letter of request can initiate only EPA-lead re-
medial planning activities. The Letter must refer to and
generically approve the required remedial subactivities,
agree to participate in implementing the Community Rela-
tions Plan, designate a State Project Officer for the pro-
ject, and state that State officials will meet with SPA
personnel to exchange site and project information.
Q-13
-------
State Project Officer (SPO); The designated State offi-
cial responsible for direct management of the activities
covered in a Cooperative Agreement or for ensuring that
the State carries out responsibilities defined in an EPA-
lead remedial response agreement.
Statement of Work (SOW); The element of a remedial re-
sponse agreement that specifies in detail the subactivi-
ties, tasks, subtasks, and objectives to be performed pur-
suant to that agreement. The SOW should contain salient
points regarding the background of the release or poten-
tial release, problem definition, purpose of the work, and
a description of the services to be performed either by
the State or by an EPA contractor.
Subactivities; Those individual events in remedial re-
sponse which comprise remedial activities. The subactivi-
ties under remedial planning include remedial investigation/
feasibility study and remedial design; remedial implemen-
tation subactivities are remedial action, operation and
maintenance, and initial remedial measures.
Superfund State Contract (SSC) ; A bilateral contract be-
tween EPA and a State that is legally binding on both par-
ties. The SSC is not a procurement contract, but is used
to document EPA and State responsibilities and to obtain
any necessary State assurances for EPA-managed remedial
responses. An SSC is appropriate for any EPA-lead reme-
dial implementation subactivities which require State cost-
sharing.
Task; A discrete piece of work that addresses a single
objective specified by a statement of work for planning,
evaluating, or implementing a response action: e.g.,
hydrogeological study, hazardous waste characterization,
alternative analysis, construction of a fence, or instal-
lation of a leachate control system.
Work Assignment Package: The vehicle used to assign work
to an EPA contractor. It includes the government estimate
of direct labor hours, a statement of work, and the re-
quired period of performance.
Work Plan; The detailed listing of all activities, sub-
activities, tasks, and subtasks to be conducted under a
remedial response agreement. It should also include a
schedule for completion of the work and the outputs antici-
pated.
Q-14
-------
Zone Manager (ZM); An EPA Headquarters official designated
to provide assistance and Headquarters input to State and
Regional personnel involved in developing documents neces-
sary for funding remedial response activities at waste
sites. The Zone Manager also administratively facilitates
review and any necessary approvals of these-documents.
Q-15
-------
APPENDIX R
LIST OF REFERENCES
The following statutes, regulations, forms, and docu-
ments have been referenced throughout the text and appendi-
ces of this document. They should be available upon
request from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington,
D.C., or from the EPA Regional Superfund program offices.
STATUTES
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (PL 96-510)
Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977
(PL 95-224)
Freedom of Information Act (PL 93-502)
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91-190)
Prompt Payment Act (PL 97-177)
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act (PL 91-646)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (PL 94-580)
REGULATIONS
Cost Principles for State and Local Governments, OMB
Circular A-87.
EPA General Regulation for Assistance Programs (40 CFR
Part 30).
EPA Order 1440.1, Respiratory Protection.
EPA Order 1440.2, Health and Safety Requirements for
Employees Engaged in Field Activities.
EPA Order 2750.A, Management Follow-up on Findings in
Audit Reports.
Evaluation, Review, and Coordination of Federal and
Federally-Assisted Programs and Projects, OMB
Circular A-95.
Executive Order 11988, "Floodplains Management".
R-l
-------
Executive Order 12372, "Intergovernmental Review of
Federal Programs" (47 FR 30954), July 16, 1982.
Executive Order 12432, "Development of Minority Business
Enterprises," July 14, 1583.
Implementation of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (40 CFR
Part 4).
Instructions on Budget Execution, OMB Circular A-34.
Intergovernmental Review of Environmental Protection
Agency Programs and Activities, Final Rule (40 CFR
Part 29).
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
(47 FR 31180), July 16, 1982.
National Priorities List, Final Rule and Proposed Update
(40 CFR Part 300 and 48 FR 40658), September 8, 1983.
Procurement Under Assistance Agreements (40 CFR Part 33).
Public Information: Confidentiality of Business
Information (40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B).
Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants -- An Aid
to State and Local Governments, OMB Circular A-102.
FORMS
Application for Federal Assistance: State and Local
Nonconstruction Programs (EPA Form 5700-33)
Assistance Amendment (EPA Form 5700-20B)
Commitment Notice (EPA Form 2550-9)
Cooperative Agreement (EPA Form 5700-20A)
Financial Status Report (Standard Form 269)
Grant Funding Order (EPA Form 5700-14)
Letter of Credit Voucher (TFS-5401)
Minority and Women's Business Utilization Report (EPA Form
4720)
Procurement System Certification Form for Applicants for
EPA Assistance (EPA Form 5700-48)
R-2
-------
DOCUMENTS
"Budgeting/Tracking of Funds in Cooperative Agreements,"
SRCB, December 17, 1982.
"CERCLA Credit Period Costs," OERR, December 23, 1982.
"CERCLA Pre-Award Costs," OGC, May 10, 1983.
"Class Deviation from 40 CFR 30.720(a)," GAD, May 12, 1983.
"Class Deviation from 40 CFR 33.510 and 33.515 for Certain
Activities Conducted Under the Authority of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980," GAD, November 18, 1983.
Community Relations in Superfund; A Handbook (Interim
Version), OERR, September 1983.
Cost Recovery Actions Under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA), OEC and OSWER, August 26, 1983.
EPA Implementation Guidelines for the Federal Grant and
Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977.
EPA Interim Standard Operating Safety Guide, September
1982.
EPA Occupational Health and Safety Manual.
"Guidance for State Contracting of Remedial Planning
Activities," OERR, February 22, 1983.
"Guidance on Cooperative Agreements and Contracts with
States under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (PL 96-510),"
OERR, March 1982.
"Guidance on Implementing Waiver of 10 Percent Cost-Share
for Remedial Planning," OERR, June 1, 1983.
"Guidance on Initial Remedial Measures" (draft), OERR,
June 1983.
"Guidelines and Specifications for Implementing Quality
Assurance Requirements for State and Local Financial
Assistance Involving Environmental Measurements"
(QAMS-003/80/03).
"Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing Quality
Assurance Project Plans" (QAMS-005/80).
R-3
-------
"Intergovernmental Review of EPA Programs and Activities;
Procedures to Establish Comment Period Start Dates for
Programs and Activities Subject to Executive Order 12372"
(48 FR 44643), September 29, 1983.
Letter of Credit Users Manual, EPA, Division of Financial
Management.
Management Plan and Operating Procedures; Remedial
Planning/Field investigation Team Zone Contracts, HSCD,
October 20, 1982.
Model Statement of Work for Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies, OERR, March 1, 1983.
"Notice of Supplemental Procedures for Establishing Start
Dates of Comment Period for Activities Subject to
Executive Order 12372," (48 FR 54692), EPA, December 6,
1983.
"Payment of State Enforcement Costs Under Superfund," OERR
and OWPE, December 15, 1982.
"Policy on Cost-Sharing at Publicly-Owned Sites," OSWER,
March 30, 1983.
Program Control Status Book (PCS Manual), HSCD.
Project Tracking System (PTS); Procedures Manual/Users
Guide, OERR, August 1982.
REM/FIT Zone Contract Management Procedures; An
Illustrated Guide, HSCD, April 1983.
Record of Decision Guidance, OERR, August 25, 1982.
"Requirements for Selecting an Off-Site Option in a
Superfund Response Action," OERR, February 28, 1983.
"Suggested Regional File Structure, Superfund Priority
Sites and Priority Site Candidates," OERR, May 1982.
"Superfund Community Relations Policy," OSWER, May 1983.
"Treatment of State Recoveries From Responsible Parties,"
OERR, December 15, 1982.
Users Guide to the EPA Contract Laboratory Program.
"Waiver of 10 Percent Cost Share for Remedial Planning
Activities at Privately-Owned Sites," OSWER, May 13, 1983.
R-4
------- |