United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
&EPA
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
TITLE:
DATE:
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
9610.10a
Cost Recovery Policy For The Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
May 24, 1994
OSWER
OSWER OSWER OSWER
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
Table of Contents
A. Overview 1
B. State and Federal Roles in Cost Recovery 2
C. Recoverable Costs 5
D. Interest Charges 6
E. Priorities For Cost Recovery 7
F. Documentation Of Costs 8
Special Conditions 10
OSWER Directive 9610.lOa
-------
A. Overview
This is EPA's first complete statement of its policies on cost recovery under the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund. It has required a year of coordinated effort by various EPA offices to
develop and to secure necessary approvals within the Agency and from other agencies and officials in the
executive and legislative branches of government. Working with and through States to implement this
policy, EPA expects that it will help cost recovery to become a practical and effective tool that States will
use to both stimulate and fund more cleanups of releases from underground storage tanks.
Objectives of Cost Recovery
The primary purpose of cost recovery under the LUST Trust Fund is to provide incentives for owners and
operators to comply with technical and financial responsibility requirements, and most importantly to
clean up releases from their own tanks. EPA expects that State-lead cleanups followed by cost recovery
will continue to occur in a minority of cases, because the majority of cleanups are conducted by owners
and operators. When cost recovery is necessary, it will generate income for additional cleanups.
Cost recovery as practiced under the LUST Trust Fund will depart significantly from the approaches
taken in other Federal environmental response programs. Consistent with the State-centered design of the
underground storage tank program, States will implement the cost recovery program, have considerable
discretion in operating it, and benefit directly from their successful recoveries.
The two most innovative aspects of EPA's cost recovery policy for the LUST Trust Fund should provide
States with the autonomy and the incentive necessary to pursue recoveries aggressively and efficiently.
First, States with cooperative agreements will litigate and settle recovery claims without the routine
involvement or concurrence of EPA or the Department of Justice. Second, States may retain any Trust
Fund monies they recover for use on additional Fund-eligible cleanups and activities.
Legal Rationale
The legal rationale behind this approach was developed by the Agency in consultation with the
Department of Justice.
Under 28 U.S.C. Section 516, the Department of Justice (DOJ) must conduct any litigation in which the
United States has an interest unless there is an exception authorized by law. EPA interprets section
9003 (h) of Subtitle I to be such an exception, allowing States under cooperative agreements that have the
capabilities to carry out effective corrective actions and enforcement activities to exercise various
program authorities, including the cost recovery authority provided in section 9003 (h)(6). These States
may also settle cost recovery litigation as part of the exercise of enforcement discretion conveyed by
section 9003(h).
Additionally, EPA interprets section 9003 (h) to provide authority for States to administratively settle cost
recovery claims. EPA believes that this authority includes the ability to compromise or terminate Trust
Fund claims based on considerations of equity as described in section 9003(h)(6)(B) (e.g., reducing the
claim to the amount of required financial responsibility).
OSWER Directive 9610.lOa
-------
Finally, EPA has determined that, consistent with the "program income" concept described in OMB
Circular A-102, that States may retain recovered Trust Fund monies to perform additional eligible
activities under their cooperative agreements. Thus, appropriate requirements in 40 C.F.R. Parts 30 and
31 on the documentation and use of program income apply to recoveries of Trust Fund money.
Recovery Procedures
Variations in State recovery procedures can be expected, but generally States will be responsible for all of
the following activities in cases that they deem to be high priorities:
• Determination of a release
• Notification of responsibility to the owner or operator
• Negotiation for corrective action (in non-emergency situations)
• Cleanup (if the owner or operator is incapable or unwilling to clean up)
• Demand for payment
• Negotiation for a settlement of the recovery claim
• Litigation (when demand for payment and efforts to reach an administrative settlement fail)
• Collection and case closure
States are encouraged to tailor the specifics of these procedures to suit their individual programs and to
save program resources. In addition, the detailed policy guidance that follows has been developed to help
ensure that cost recovery resources are used efficiently and stimulate compliance by owners and
operators.
B. State and Federal Roles in Cost Recovery
Policy
Under their cooperative agreements, States are responsible for all legal, programmatic, and administrative
activities necessary to recover their expenditures from the LUST Trust Fund. This includes undertaking
administrative and judicial recovery actions and settling claims. They are responsible for required
reporting and recordkeeping including documenting that their Trust Fund recoveries are used for
additional eligible activities under their cooperative agreements. EPA will provide general policy
guidelines to States and make funding available for recovery programs through the States' cooperative
agreements. EPA will also assess the performance of State cost recovery programs and provide support
and assistance to States where they are needed to improve performance. The Agency will generally be
bound by settlements and judgments reached in States, but reserves the right to pursue recoveries
independently in the extreme case. Also, EPA may pursue recoveries in those rare cases where the
Agency has performed a federal-lead response.
Guidance
States are expected to have adequate legal authorities to undertake cost recovery either by having or
acquiring their own authorities, or certifying that they are able to use federal authorities. States with their
own recovery authorities should also cite Subtitle I in their recovery actions (i.e., demand letters,
OSWER Directive 9610.lOa
-------
administrative orders, and judicial complaints) to establish the liability of owners/operators to the federal
government for Trust Fund expenditures.
EPA is currently formulating policies on a number of issues related to recovery litigation. One major
unresolved issue is whether States should bring judicial recovery actions in State or federal courts. Until
these issues are resolved, States should, within one week, notify EPA's Office of Regional Counsel when
filing judicial recovery actions for sites where they have used Trust Fund money for cleanup or
enforcement. This will give EPA the opportunity to consult with the State, determine whether the action
might affect the scope of the Agency's Subtitle I authorities, and if necessary, provide technical or legal
assistance to the State. However, EPA will not require States to delay recovery litigation while the
Agency reviews complaints submitted by States.
States must maintain accounting and recordkeeping systems that will document all Trust Fund
expenditures, support cost recovery with site-specific records, and demonstrate that recovered funds are
retained and used for additional eligible activities under their cooperative agreements. State
recordkeeping and accounting must conform to requirements in these guidelines and the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund State Financial Management Handbook (March 1989).
States will have considerable discretion in prioritizing cases for cost recovery and determining an
appropriate level of effort to devote to each case. At a minimum, in each case States should make
reasonable efforts to contact owners and operators who are liable for releases, notify them of their liability
for enforcement and corrective action costs, and demand payment. In those rare cases where equitable
factors support compromise or termination1 of the Trust Fund claim, States should ensure that the bases
for any compromise or termination are adequately supported in the records of the State and reflect the
efficient use of Trust Fund resources. States may compromise Trust Fund claims when, for example, an
owner/operator demonstrates that he/she lacks the financial resources to pay the claim; the State
determines that the likelihood of success on litigating the claim as small because of the absence of proof
of liability or unavailability of required witnesses; or costs of judicial collection is disproportionately
high. States should note that their ability to reduce claims based on the equities described in section
9003h(6)(B) is limited to cases where owners/operators have maintained required levels of financial
assurance.
Because they are more cost effective, negotiated settlements are generally preferred over litigation. In
many cases, however, EPA expects that it will be necessary for States to initiate and pursue judicial action
to compel recalcitrant owners and operators to pay cleanup costs. In deciding whether to litigate
individual cases States should consider the solvency of the owner/operator, the costs of cleanup, the
likelihood of recovery, the case's deterrence value and the opportunity costs (the resources necessary to
proceed that could otherwise be used in pursuing other cases or in other parts of the State's Trust Fund
program).
Even where no administrative or judicial settlement is reached, States must formally close out all cases
and document the reasons for deciding not to proceed further. Factors justifying case closure include the
situations where costs of pursuing a case further will approach or exceed the potential recovery,
1 As used here, the term "compromise" means accepting less than the full value of the claim. The term "termination"
means forgoing any cost recovery whatsoever.
OSWER Directive 9610.lOa 3
-------
bankruptcy of the owner/operator, and other reasons. States should not allow the statute of limitation
(SOL) to run and justify closure solely on that basis. States should generally pursue cases promptly and
file actions in a timely manner to enhance the chances for recovery. States should revise their priorities
for individual recovery cases as SOL deadlines approach. Until the issue is resolved by the courts, States
relying solely on Subtitle I cost recovery authorities should be prudent and proceed assuming a three year
limit applies, despite the fact that EPA believes that a six year limit is applicable. This is necessary
because some courts have applied the three year limit to similar cases.
When States make successful recoveries at sites where Trust Fund monies were used, they may retain the
Trust Fund share as program income consistent with OMB Circular A-102 and 40 CFR Parts 30.525 and
31.25. This means that States may use recovered federal Trust Fund monies for additional Fund-eligible
cleanups and activities under their agreements. When States choose to do so, they must inform EPA, and
keep appropriate records of how the recoveries were used. In negotiating their cooperative agreements,
States and Regions should develop contingency plans that will allow States to obligate their recoveries
efficiently. States should calculate the federal Trust Fund share of their recoveries on a site-by-site, pro
rata basis. For example, if a State spends 50 thousand dollars of LUST Trust Fund money at a site, and
the State ultimately recovers 50 percent of all Federal and State money used at the site, it must redirect 25
thousand dollars of "program income" into Fund-eligible activities.
EPA expects States with cooperative agreements to adequately fund and staff recovery efforts to deal with
anticipated case loads. Cost recovery activities are allowable costs under Subtitle I. Where the recovery
program is dependent on the Attorney General's Office, the State should consider the need for formal
funding arrangements (e.g., a memorandum of agreement) to ensure legal staffing for cost recovery
referrals. When the Trust Fund is not used to pay for such legal staffing, States may wish to investigate
the possibility of counting these legal services as "in-kind contributions" toward satisfying their match
requirements under 40 C.F.R. Part 31.24.
EPA's principal responsibilities in cost recovery are to provide funding, policy, guidance, oversight, and
assistance to States. The Agency's operational role in cost recovery will generally be limited to pursuing
recoveries in those cases where EPA responds directly to a release, and in rare cases of overfiling.
EPA intends to make its expectations for the activities and performance of cost recovery programs
reasonable and clear to States in advance. This will occur through policy, guidance, routine
communications, program appraisal and reviews, and the negotiation of cooperative agreements. The
oversight and assistance functions of EPA's program, grants, and financial management offices will
accommodate variations in State procedures and capabilities to the maximum extent possible. The
Agency's goals will be to help build State capabilities, particularly in developing recovery programs and
to improve performance. At present, EPA has no numerical expectations for the performance of State
recovery programs. Early in the recovery program it will focus on States' progress toward putting basic
systems, policies, and procedures in place that will enable them to recover Trust Fund expenditures
efficiently and effectively.
EPA is working with several States on pilot projects to develop realistic expectations for program
performance, and to identify effective recovery procedures. The results will help EPA support State
programs with tools and guidance. They will also help the Agency formulate and communicate more
precise expectations for program performance.
OSWER Directive 9610.lOa
-------
Generally, EPA will be bound by States'judicial actions and settlements. However if EPA finds that a
State is not effectively implementing cost recoveries, the Agency will offer the State necessary assistance
in correcting any problems. The Office of Underground Storage Tanks will be most interested in seeing
that States have adequate accounting and recordkeeping systems in place and that States identify, develop,
and pursue appropriate recovery cases in a timely and sound manner. If problems in these or other areas
persist, the Agency may take appropriate action under regulations governing cooperative agreements. In
extreme cases, EPA may consider filing a recovery action against the owner/operator even though the
State has the authority to initiate an action or has already done so.
C. Recoverable Costs
Policy
Owners and operators are liable for all costs of corrective action and enforcement, including interest,
indirect and "management and support" costs associated with these activities that are paid for by the Trust
Fund. States are not required to pursue Trust Fund expenditures for program management costs incurred
by the U.S. E.P.A.
States will assess and may collect interest on Trust Fund expenditures used for corrective action and
enforcement. Interest charges should provide incentives for responsible parties to settle cost recovery
claims. Procedures for assessing interest charges are described separately in this document.
Owners and operators are also liable for Trust Fund expenditures made by States in overseeing
responsible party cleanups. Generally, the costs of oversight are comparatively low and the number of
cases is very large. Therefore, EPA expects that States will exercise discretion in determining an
appropriate level of effort to devote to pursuing oversight costs.
Guidance
In each case, States will exercise their discretion in determining exactly which costs they will pursue.
EPA is more interested in a State's overall record in cost recovery than in retrospectively examining
decisions to pursue particular costs in hundreds or thousands of cases. Direct costs are most easily
documented and defended in litigation. However, the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
State Financial Management Handbook (March 1989) contains a procedure that States can use to allocate
all non-site Trust Fund costs including "management and support" costs to individual sites. Using this
methodology, States will have available to them the full cost of a particular site cleanup at the time of the
cost recovery action. To the extent that they are legally able, States should allocate all Trust Fund
expenditures to sites for the purpose of cost recovery. States may also develop their own systems for
allocating non-site costs and/or include additional State overhead costs that are beyond the scope of their
cooperative agreements.
EPA expects that the costs of overseeing cleanups by cooperative owners and operators will usually be a
lower priority for recovery because Fund expenditures for oversight of atypical cleanup will be
comparatively small. In addition, States may wish to exercise their discretion and not pursue these costs in
cases where this will provide valuable incentives for owners and operators to clean up releases from their
tanks.
OSWER Directive 9610.lOa
-------
In some cases States will expend significant enforcement resources to compel reluctant owners or
operators to cleanup or to pay cleanup costs (e.g., legal costs associated with cost recovery, protracted
negotiations, issuance of cleanup orders and litigation). These costs are recoverable. Presenting these
costs to liable owners and operators with the direct costs of cleanup will give States additional leverage in
their attempts to reach agreements for responsible party cleanups and recovery of costs.
D. Interest Charges
Policy
Owners and operators are liable for interest charges on Trust Fund expenditures at their sites. States
should assess interest on expenditures from the Fund in the cost recovery process. States are allowed to
retain recovered interest for additional eligible activities.
Guidance
Section 9003(h) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) describes the States' role in
recovering LUST Trust Fund expenditures - but does not specifically address the collection of interest on
those expenditures. However, EPA is entitled under the Debt Collection Act and common law authorities
to collect interest on Trust Fund expenditures. Since States will have responsibility for recovering Trust
Fund expenditures under section 9003(h), the States will also assess and are encouraged to pursue interest
charges. Because States are permitted to retain recoverable Fund expenditures for additional cleanups and
recoveries, they can also retain recovered interest for use on additional eligible activities. The States'
collection of interest will deter responsible parties from resisting payment in order to gain an interest-free
loan on the uncollected expenditures.
Before assessing interest, the State should notify the debtor through a written notice (demand letter
explaining the agency's requirements concerning the debt and the interest). Interest shall accrue from the
date on which notice of the debt and interest requirements is mailed or hand-delivered to the responsible
party.
The minimum recommended rate of interest that States should assess is found in the Yearly Percentage
Bulletin printed every December with the rate for the following fiscal year. The rate is equal to the
average investment rate for the Treasury tax and loan accounts. It represents the current value of funds to
the United States Treasury, and is published by the Treasury's Financial Management Service. EPA will
notify States of the new rates each year.
EPA is examining the possibility of calculating a minimum interest rate that more closely approximates
the yield on Trust Fund investments. The Agency will notify States if and when they are to use this type
of minimum rate.
A State may assess a higher rate of interest if it reasonably determines that this is necessary to protect the
expenditures from the Trust Fund. The rate of interest as initially assessed will remain fixed for the
duration of the indebtedness, except where a debtor has defaulted on a repayment agreement and seeks to
enter into a new agreement. New agreements should reflect the current value of funds to the Treasury at
the time the new agreement is executed.
OSWER Directive 9610.lOa
-------
Interest should not be recovered if the amount due (Trust Fund expenditures) is paid within 30 days after
the date from which the written notice was delivered to the responsible party. However, the State may
decide, on a case-by-case basis, to extend the 30-day period for payment.
As part of their responsibility for settling claims, States may decide not to pursue the collection of interest
on a debt entirely or in part once it has been assessed when they determine it is in the best interest of the
program. States may decide not to pursue interest if the collection of interest puts the responsible party in
financial distress, or the cost of collecting the interest will be more than the amount collected.
E. Priorities For Cost Recovery
Policy
Under their cooperative agreements States should have or should develop systems to set priorities for cost
recovery cases. They should devote greatest efforts to cases where owners or operators are solvent but
recalcitrant, and to cases where they fail to comply with applicable financial responsibility requirements.
Some effort should be devoted to all cases involving Trust Fund cleanups or enforcement actions. This
means, at a minimum, a search for responsible parties (RPs) and a demand for payment if an RP is
located.
Guidance
Where the State expends Trust Fund money for corrective action or enforcement, and "action thresholds"
(see section "F") have triggered site-specific accounting, the State will pursue recovery of costs from
responsible parties. Timely processing of cases (and litigation where necessary) increases the chances of
successful recovery. However, the level of recovery effort that should be devoted to any case should be
based on a weighing of the resources necessary to recover the claim against the amount that may be
recovered and the prospects for recovery. The determination should be based on factors such as: the
solvency of the RP, the cost of cleanup, the likelihood of recovery, the deterrent value of the case, and the
opportunity costs (resources that could be used in pursuing other cases or in other parts of the State's
Trust Fund program).
States will develop their own priority systems based on these and other relevant considerations, but there
are general circumstances where cost recovery should be assigned a high priority, low priority, or is
impracticable because owners or operators cannot be located.
• High priority - Solvent RPs who refuse to comply with corrective action orders or are otherwise
recalcitrant should be pursued aggressively, to serve as a warning to the regulated community and
to stimulate compliance by other RPs.
• High priority - Owners and operators who do not comply with financial responsibility
requirements should be pursued vigorously. Although Section 9003 of RCRA generally allows
consideration of whether pursuit of full cost recovery will significantly impair an RP's ability to
continue in business, States are precluded by statute from considering this factor if the RP has not
complied with financial responsibility requirements in effect at the time.
• Low priority - States should generally commit fewer resources to insolvent or financially
distressed RPs, although selective pursuit within the class should be undertaken where the RP
OSWER Directive 9610.lOa
-------
could afford lesser amounts, is hiding assets, fails to cooperate, or was negligent in allowing the
release to occur. Whenever States perform corrective actions using the Trust Fund, the RP should,
at a minimum, be sent a demand for payment. The level of additional State effort beyond this
point should be based on an evaluation of the factors listed above. Where cooperative owners and
operators perform cleanups, States may wish to make recovery of oversight costs a low priority,
to encourage voluntary cleanups.
• Impracticable - Sites where a liable owner or operator cannot be identified will require
expenditures from the Trust Fund for cleanup. Efforts to recover costs expended at these sites will
rarely result in recovery of funds. However, States should make reasonable efforts to locate a
liable owner or operator before assigning a low priority to cost recovery in these cases.
F. Documentation Of Costs
Policy
States are required to document all Trust Fund expenditures and all corrective action and enforcement
costs on a site-specific basis at each site where they have met any one of the following "action
thresholds": 1) performed an emergency response; 2) begun a detailed site investigation; or 3) determined
that an owner or operator is or is likely to be recalcitrant.
Guidance
States must establish a financial cost accounting system that tracks the costs of cleanup and enforcement
activities on a site-specific basis when any one of the specified "action thresholds" is met. States are
normally not required to begin site-specific accounting until States or their contractors begin a Trust
Fund-financed, detailed site investigation or an emergency response has begun. A detailed site
investigation is an attempt to determine the source, extent and severity of a release. An initial site visit
(e.g., to determine if a release has occurred) should generally not trigger site-specific accounting because
not all sites will be candidates for significant Trust Fund expenditures and cost recovery. If an RP is
clearly recalcitrant, however, site-specific accounting should begin as soon as costs are incurred.
Generally, contractor activity at a site will trigger site-specific accounting.
Site-specific information needed on corrective action activities and costs for sites where Trust Fund
monies are used includes:
• Site location and description
• Results of site investigations (including identification of responsible parties)
• Enforcement actions taken
• Documentation of responses taken and time frames
• Documentation of all costs, identifying Trust Fund monies expended including contractor
invoices
Enforcement costs include all expenditures reasonably related to inducing a recalcitrant RP to comply and
to recovering clean-up expenditures. They include the salaries and other expenses associated with case
development, negotiations, and litigation.
OSWER Directive 9610.lOa
-------
States should establish cost-effective accounting systems to support recovery of Trust Fund monies in
courts. Features of cost documentation that are essential to recovering costs in court include:
• Systems that are adequate for both cost recovery purposes (i.e., will support the State's claim in
administrative or judicial action to recover) and audit purposes. At a minimum, the system should
provide proof that the work or purchase was authorized by the State; the work or purchase was
completed; the State was billed; and the bill was paid.
• In many cases, States may have to respond to arguments that the costs claimed are unreasonable
and unnecessary.
The Financial Management Division of EPA's Office of the Comptroller has developed more detailed
guidance for State accounting and recordkeeping. The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
State Financial Management Handbook was published in March 1989 to help States meet these
accounting requirements.
OSWER Directive 9610.lOa
-------
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION
IN LUST STATE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
1. State agrees to maintain a financial cost accounting system which meets the requirements of 40
CFR 30.510 or 40 CFR 31.20. For this and other requirements on grantees, Part 31 applies to all
cooperative agreements with budget or project periods beginning on or after October 1, 1988. Part
31 also applies to all amendments of existing agreements in which all of the activities in the
amendment's scope of work will be performed after October 1, 1988. Parts 30 and 33 (for
procurement) apply to other cooperative agreements and amendments.
2. State agrees to organize and maintain site-specific information consistent with accounting
thresholds and policies described in the Cost Recovery Policy for the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Trust Fund (OSWER Directive 9610.10A, May 1994), where Trust Fund monies
are used. Prior to making expenditures of Trust Fund monies for corrective and enforcement
actions, a system must be in place to record these types of costs on a site-specific basis. When
site-specific accounting is required, all costs that can be identified to a particular site should be
charged accordingly and State contractors must bill costs on a site-specific basis for corrective
action and enforcement work performed at those sites.
3. The State acknowledges that expenditures from the LUST Trust Fund constitute a liability of the
owner/operator to the United States. The State agrees to retain recoveries of any LUST Trust
Fund expenditures as program income, as described in OMB Directive A-102 and 40 C.F.R. Parts
30.525(a) or 31.25(g)(2), to be used for additional eligible Trust Fund activities.
(CONTINUATION OF SPECIAL CONDITION 3
INSERT 1 OR 2 BELOW)
(INSERT 1, for States which have State authority consistent with those in RCRA Section
9003(h) to recover response expenditures
The State therefore agrees that:
a) It will make reasonable efforts to recover these costs, including interest, from liable
owners/operators. States must send a copy of their complaint to EPA's Office of Regional
Counsel within one week of filing judicial recovery actions for Trust Fund expenditures.
b) It will report on any amounts received from the owner/operator as recovered costs, or agreed
or adjudged to be owed by the owner/operator as settlements for site clean-up, in accordance
with applicable guidance on Trust Fund Financial and Quarterly reporting; and
c) To the extent the State is successful in recovering these costs, it will dedicate and use these
funds for additional Trust-Fund-eligible activities, and maintain appropriate accounting of
recovered funds in order to document the reuse of recovered funds in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR 30.525 or 31.25, as appropriate, and in accordance with applicable
requirements of this Cooperative Agreement.
d) If the State has not yet done so, the State will submit certification of its authorities to EPA
within 120 days after the award of this Cooperative Agreement. The certification will be
OSWER Directive 9610. lOa 10
-------
signed by: (1) the State's Attorney General, (2) someone designated by the Attorney General
to sign such documents, or (3) the State's or Governor's General Counsel or other such
official who is responsible for advising all executive branch agencies on the scope of their
authority.
e) It will notify EPA promptly of any reduction in its authority to recover response expenditures
(e.g., successful challenge to its State statutory authority).
[END OF INSERT 1]
(INSERT 2, for States lacking State authorities consistent with those in Section 9003 (h) of
RCRA to recover response expenditures
The State therefore agrees that to the extent the State lacks the authority or procedure to recover
response expenditures on behalf of the LUST Trust Fund (i.e., the authority to recover such costs
from owners/operators and retain such monies for additional LUST Trust Fund corrective action
and enforcement), the State will delay taking cost recovery action until the State:
a) Obtains legislative authority for cost recovery which is consistent with Section 9003 (h)(6) of
RCRA and provides to EPA certification of such authority from: (1) the State's Attorney
General, (2) someone designated by the Attorney General to sign such certifications, or (3)
the State's or Governor's General Counsel, or other such official who is responsible for
advising all executive branch agencies on the scope of their authority. This certification
should be provided by the end of the next legislative session. (The State understands that if it
has not made a good faith effort to obtain this authority, EPA may decline to enter into
subsequent cooperative agreements.)
OR
Provides EPA with certification from the State officials described above that State law
permits it to exercise the authorities in Sections 9003(h)(6) of RCRA. (The State understands
that if it has not provided this certification to EPA within 120 days after the award of this
Cooperative Agreement EPA may withhold payment of LUST Trust Fund money consistent
with 40 C.F.R 30.902 or 31.43).
Once the State has obtained the legislative authority or made a certification under paragraph
(a) above, the State agrees that:
i) It will make reasonable efforts to recover these costs, including interest, from liable
owners/operators. States must send a copy of their complaint to EPA's Office of
Regional Counsel within one week of filing judicial recovery actions for Trust Fund
expenditures.
ii) It will report any amounts received from the owner/operator as recovered costs, or
agreed or adjudged to be owed by the owner/operator as settlements for site clean-up
in accordance with applicable guidance on Trust Fund Financial and Quarterly
Reporting; and
iii) To the extent the State is successful in recovering these costs, it will dedicate these
funds for additional Trust-Fund-eligible activities, and maintain appropriate
OSWER Directive 9610.lOa 11
-------
accounting of recovered funds in order to document the reuse of recovered funds in
accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 30.525 or 31.25, as appropriate, and in
accordance with applicable requirements of this cooperative agreement.
iv) It will notify EPA promptly of any reduction in its authority to recover response
expenditures (e.g., successful challenge to its State statutory authority).
[END OF INSERT 2]
State agrees to maintain supporting documentation and appropriate records in support of any
future cost recovery efforts. The State shall adhere to the principles of documentation and records
retention specified in the Cost Recovery Policy for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust
Fund (OSWER Directive 9610.10A, May 1994). On topics not addressed by these guidelines, the
State agrees to adhere to the principles of documentation and record retention specified in the
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund State Financial Management Handbook (March
1989). The State agrees to make these records available to the federal government, as needed, on
a case-by-case basis.
State agrees to provide reports as outlined in the LUST Trust Fund Cooperative Agreement
Guidelines (OSWER Directive 9650.10A, May 1994). These reports consist of Quarterly
Progress Reports, Financial Status Reports (SF 269), Federal Cash Transactions Report (SF 272),
and Exception Reports.
State agrees to identify Letter of Credit drawdowns under EPA's three major activity codes. The
three codes are: "7" ~ General Support and Management, "E"~Site Cleanup Actions, and "4" ~
Enforcement.
OSWER Directive 9610. lOa 12
------- |