UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SIGNED MAY 17, 2000
OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-32P
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Interim Guidance on Implementing the Superfund Administrative Reform on PRP
Oversight
This memorandum provides direction and guidance to Regions on implementation of the
Superfund Reform on the Administration of Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Oversight. The
memorandum directs Regions to focus on efforts to engage in open dialogues with PRPs that have
settlements with EPA as a means to promote appropriate oversight that ensures the development and
implementation of protective cleanups; gives careful consideration to the associated costs being charged
to PRPs; and maximizes EPA recovery of oversight costs. Additionally, this directive provides several
ideas on oversight management and potentially cost-saving practices for RPMs to consider when
planning and conducting oversight of PRP-lead response actions. This guidance supersedes the
OSWER directive (9200.4-15) on "Reducing Federal Oversight at Superfund Sites with Cooperative
and Capable Parties."
FROM:	Stephen D. Luftig, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Barry N. Breen, Director
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
TO:
Superfund Division Directors (Regions I-X)
Regional Counsel (Regions I-X)
PURPOSE
BACKGROUND
In 1995, Administrator Browner announced several new Superfund Reforms including an

-------
initiative to reward capable and cooperative PRPs by reducing oversight where quality work was being
performed. In August 1996, EPA issued guidance on "Reducing Federal Oversight at Superfund Sites
with Cooperative and Capable Parties" that intended to foster improved relationships, or recognize
existing good relationships, with cooperative parties.
Based on EPA experience and input from stakeholders, the Agency has concluded that
developing a "baseline of oversight", against which site-specific oversight cost reductions can be
measured, is not practical. Logical variation in site-specific oversight based on site-characteristics,
already reduced levels of oversight, changing relationships with PRPs and communities, and the
evolving nature of response activities as cleanups progress is to be expected and encouraged.
However, EPA is committed to the goal of reducing Superfund transaction costs where practicable and
thus continues to seek opportunities to provide oversight that ensures the implementation of protective
cleanups and gives careful consideration to cost.
OBJECTIVE
In light of EPA's experience and continuing policy commitment, the Agency has elected to
focus on efforts to engage in open dialogues with PRPs that have settlements with EPA as a means to
promote appropriate oversight that ensures the development and implementation of protective cleanups;
gives careful consideration to the associated costs being charged to PRPs; and maximizes EPA
recovery of oversight costs. EPA intends to work cooperatively with settling PRPs to use limited
Federal and PRP resources even more effectively to achieve timely and protective site cleanups by
tailoring oversight activities to the complexity of the cleanup, the experience level of the performing
parties, and the interests of the community. EPA is committed to informing these PRPs of EPA's
oversight expectations, providing them with opportunities to suggest ways to improve or streamline
oversight, and engaging them in open and meaningful dialogue on oversight efforts to achieve timely and
protective cleanups. We believe that by maintaining good working relationships with settling PRPs
during oversight planning and throughout the work period, EPA can potentially save oversight costs
through more focused planning, reduce the element of surprise some PRPs face when receiving an
oversight bill, and reduce the number of billing disputes without sacrificing the quality of the cleanup. A
secondary benefit is that any resource savings may result in funds being freed up for other response
activities.
At the same time, EPA recognizes that this approach to site cleanups depends on the PRPs'
ability and willingness to comply with settlement agreements and adhere to Agency standards, as
outlined in Agency regulations and policies. In effect, PRPs themselves have a significant degree of
control over the oversight costs that EPA incurs. PRP cooperation, quality work, timeliness, good
contractor management, and overall competence may largely dictate the level of oversight required for a
site. Conversely, the Agency also recognizes that where PRPs are not fulfilling their responsibilities
under a settlement, EPA has the responsibility to continue to assert its enforcement authorities as
2

-------
appropriate.
Successful working relationships depend on regular, clear, and open communications between
parties, shared commitment to reaching common goals, mutual understanding of expectations, flexibility
to changing conditions, and a willingness to listen. We have seen that many RPMs across the Regions
are striving to incorporate good management practices as they work with PRPs to achieve cleanups.
We appreciate the effort of these RPMs to facilitate cooperation between the Agency and PRPs, and
we encourage Regional managers to acclaim their accomplishments as models to others.
IMPLEMENTATION
Through the Superfund reform on PRP oversight, EPA will offer settling PRPs the opportunity
to discuss oversight expectations and to provide suggestions on possibilities for conducting oversight in
an efficient and effective manner while achieving timely and protective cleanups. EPA will continue to
encourage PRPs to perform response work through cooperative settlements (e.g., consent decrees
(CDs) and administrative orders on consent (AOCs)) and view the opportunity to meet and discuss
planned oversight activities as a benefit to PRPs and an incentive to settle. Moreover, where PRPs
have entered into agreements with EPA to pay oversight costs, EPA will strive to issue timely (e.g.,
annual) oversight bills based on known or available costs at the time of billing.
During annual work planning, Regions will identify sites at which PRPs are conducting response
work under CDs, AOCs or other settlement documents in place with EPA that provide for payment of
oversight costs. The annual Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPIM) will contain specific
definitions of eligibility and targeting requirements and measures for reporting accomplishment of the
reform.
As part of this reform, EPA has certain expectations regarding the interaction between EPA
and PRPs as work progresses at a site. Implementation of these expectations will help develop and
maintain effective working relationship practices and should be commonplace components of EPA's
oversight management process for settling PRPs. Such practices include, but are not limited to:
1) Oversight kickoff meetings at which EPA and PRPs discuss performance and oversight
expectations. Such meetings are prescribed in R17FS and RD/RA oversight guidance' and
OSWER, EPA. July 1991. Guidance on Oversight of Potentially Responsible party
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies. Final, Volume 1. OSWER Directive
9835.1(c). PP1-27.
OSWER, EPA. April 1990. Guidance on EPA Oversight of Remedial Designs and
Remedial Actions Performed by Potentially Responsible Parties. Interim Final.
3

-------
should be conducted whenever a major change in the phase of cleanup occurs.
2)	Annual discussions during which EPA and PRPs review the past year's oversight activities and
discuss future work and oversight expectations. The Superfund reform on PRP oversight
specifically requires Regions to offer to discuss oversight expectations with PRPs annually. To
the extent practicable, discussions should include consideration of other stakeholders' interests
and estimates of possible oversight contractor costs to be incurred. (RPMs should take care to
remind PRPs that all cost estimates are preliminary, may represent only a portion of EPA's
oversight costs, are non-binding, and that PRPs will be expected to pay all oversight costs,
including those that exceed estimates.) In some cases, PRPs may not find value in having such
conversations, or their concerns may be fulfilled through other avenues of communication.
Thus, they have the discretion to decline such invitations. However, Regions are expected to
honor PRP requests for such meetings or discussions where there is ongoing PRP response
work pursuant to a settlement.
3)	Regular communication with PRPs on the progress of work and the oversight being conducted.
EPA expects that RPMs will communicate with PRPs or their contractors on the progress of
work at all sites according to the mechanisms of review and approval of deliverables as
specified in each settlement agreement. The frequency of communication will necessarily be
based on site-specific activities, the nature of the deliverables being produced, and the
relationship between the RPM and PRPs. In addition, when appropriate, RPMs are
encouraged to inform PRPs of significant shifts in the level of oversight from those previously
planned. This information can help the PRPs anticipate potential cost increases (or decreases)
that may appear in an upcoming oversight bill, give them opportunity to be responsive to issues
that may concern the RPM, and assist the PRPs when offering suggestions on ways to conduct
oversight more efficiently for the RPM's consideration. This exchange of information should not
affect EPA's ability to use any practices, such as unannounced inspections, that an RPM deems
to be effective oversight tools. Furthermore, such communication between a PRP and RPM
does not limit the RPM's oversight authority nor create additional PRP "rights" to limit the
amount of oversight EPA conducts.
The Role Of States
To varying degrees, States will have interest in cleanup activities that are performed by PRPs
under the oversight of EPA. A State may have a significant technical oversight role in PRP-conducted
cleanups, particularly where the State is conducting the oversight for EPA under a cooperative
agreement and/or is a signatory to an enforcement agreement. A State may also be interested in
performing oversight tasks where community interests or implementation of State standards are of
concern.
OSWER Directive 9355.5-01. P5-6.
4

-------
States that have active interest in oversight may be included in annual discussions with PRPs
about oversight expectations and project progress. Although some overlap may be
unavoidable, RPMs should work with States to facilitate options that prevent unnecessary redundancies
and maximize efficient use of limited State/EPA resources.
Oversight Billing
Timely billing is another important component of maintaining good working relationships with
PRPs that facilitates recovery of EPA costs. Under the Superfund reform on PRP oversight, Regions
are required to issue a timely bill for future response costs (including oversight costs addressed by this
guidance) that, to the extent called for by the underlying settlement agreement, is accompanied by
appropriate cost information or documentation. Alternatively, if a Region will not issue a bill for the full
amount owed (e.g., in cases where site-specilic accounts have been established expressly to pay for
oversight costs), the Region will provide the PRPs an accounting of its oversight costs. In transmitting
the bill to the PRPs, the Region should identify an EPA contact person whom the PRPs may call if they
have questions related to the bill.
Potentially Cost-Saving Oversight Management Techniques
The attachment to this memorandum describes several concepts Headquarters and the Regions
have identified that can potentially improve the effectiveness and efficiency of oversight management at
Superfund sites. This guidance does not prescribe the use of these ideas for any particular site, but
encourages RPMs to consider these tools while planning and conducting oversight. RPMs have
discretion to use any or all of the approaches described and may modify any of the ideas within the
scope of the settlement and existing Agency policy and guidance to suit individual site needs. Finally,
although the Agency broadly advocates the use of these techniques to improve the management of
oversight, facilitate cleanup, and provide an open forum for suggestions, we recognize some techniques
may be inappropriate in site-specific situations.
If you have any questions regarding this Directive, please contact either Alan Youkeles, OERR
(703-603-8784), or Bruce Pumphrey, OSRE (202-564-6076), or a Headquarters or Regional work
group representative listed below.
NOTICE: This document is intended solely to provide information to EPA personnel, the public and to
CERCLA potentially responsible parties regarding the conduct of CERCLA response actions. While
the guidance contained in this document may assist industry, public and federal and state regulators in
applying statutory and regulatory requirements of CERCLA, the guidance is not a substitute for those
legal requirements; nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it does not impose legally-binding requirements on
any party, including EPA, States or potentially responsible parties.
5

-------
National Work Group Representatives:
Region 1
Lany Brill
Region 2
Jeff Josephson, Sharon Kivowitz
Region 3
Peter Schaul, Randy Sturgeon
Region 4
Philip Vorsatz, Ann May weather
Region 5
Thomas Marks
Region 6
Bill Honker
Region 7
Jim Colbert, Steven Kinser
Region 8
Lisa Lloyd
Region 9
Holly Hadlock
Region 10
Peter Contreras
OERR	Paul Nadeau, Alan Youkeles
OSRE	Linda Boornazian, Neilima Senjalia, Sharon Cullen, Bruce Pumphrey,
Patricia Kennedy, David Dowton
OCFO	Bill Cooke, Thomas DeHoff
OGC	Earl Salo, Alex Schmandt
DO J	Bruce Gelber
cc:
Office of Regional Counsel Superfund Branch Chiefs

-------
Attachment: Potentially Cost-Saving Oversight Management Techniques
1.	Conduct sporadic and unscheduled inspections instead of continuous oversight.
Where a PRP's contractors have shown themselves to be reliable and technically competent, the use of
sporadic inspections rather than continuous oversight can result in significant cost savings. RPMs
should realistically examine and plan time to be spent in the field, determining what points in the process
are critical and which are not (for example, the beginning of a particular construction phase or
particularly complex or critical process). Using unscheduled inspections will be most appropriate where
a construction project is fairly routine and/or a particular process is to be repeated multiple times. At
some sites, the addition of unannounced inspections may give RPMs additional confidence in using
sporadic oversight. However, many inspections must be preplanned to coincide with particular activities
and personnel onsite.
2.	Work directly with PRP contractors and encourage information exchanges between EPA oversight
contractors and PRP contractors.
In addition to working with PRPs, EPA can communicate with the PRP contractor if the PRPs are willing.
At sites where EPA and the PRP are working well together and have established some degree of trust
and confidence, oversight cost savings may be realized by this technique. By communicating directly
with the PRP's contractor, EPA can more rapidly and more accurately exchange information and advance
the progress of the project. In some instances the PRP project manager may allow EPA to work directly
with the contractor through all phases of the cleanup. The RPM should get approval from the PRP
before working directly with the PRP's contractor and should clearly establish the nature of the
information exchange that can take place between EPA and the contractor without the presence of the
PRP. EPA should keep the PRPs informed throughout the process.
It is also often beneficial for an EPA oversight contractor and a PRP contractor to exchange information
directly, especially in the field. For example, during design, it may be advantageous for the RPM to
direct the EPA oversight contractor to explain a technical matter directly to the PRP's contractor. In
other situations, such as during field work, the RPM may direct the oversight contractor to bring
concerns directly to the PRP contractor, after confirming that the oversight contractor will bring major
concerns first to the RPM. In all cases, however, all parties should be clear that only authorized EPA
personnel may speak on behalf of EPA with respect to changes to, or acceptance of, work.

-------
3.	Consider using State personnel to conduct oversight instead of, or in coordination with, EPA.
Although a State and EPA may each have unique interests in the specifics of a cleanup, they also
generally have numerous common concerns as well. An option for reducing potential duplication of
oversight efforts by the State and EPA is to consider using State personnel, under a cooperative
agreement with EPA, to conduct oversight of iliscree^ activities instead of, or in coordination with, EPA.
In addition to reducing potential duplications of effort, relying on State personnel may offer other
advantages. First, the cost of using States to conduct oversight may be less than using Federal in-
house or contractor resources. Further, where travel is a large part of the cost of oversight, reliance on
nearby State personnel can sometimes result in considerable savings. Another advantage to having
State personnel conduct oversight is that it may help the State enhance existing capabilities (consistent
with OSWER guidance on enhancing State capabilities).
For this oversight strategy to be successful, it is essential that there be a good working relationship
between the State and federal project managers, substantial agreement about investigation/construction
work to be conducted by the PRP, and agreement on the chain of command for directing work at the site.
For this idea to work the State must have personnel capable to conduct the required oversight and
resources sufficient to conduct the task under the State/EPA cooperative agreement. This arrangement
is not appropriate for sites where the State is a PRP, or may not be appropriate where the public has
expressed a preference for EPA direct oversight.
4.	Consider using interagency agreements with other federal agencies to use government personnel to
conduct timely and effective oversight or review of documents.
Using government personnel from other federal agencies to conduct oversight or document review can,
in certain cases, be an effective management tool, especially when in-house oversight resources are
unavailable. If an RPM decides to use another government agency to conduct oversight, the RPM
should obtain a commitment from the agency for the oversight work to be performed. A partnering
agreement is a useful tool to assure appropriate personnel are provided when needed and that a
successful relationship occurs. The RPM should also evaluate the expertise and the approach the
agency would use to perform the oversight or review.
RPMs can rapidly obtain personnel resource support from other federal agencies, especially where EPA
already has an interagency agreement ( IAG) in place with the government agency being considered.
Several EPA Regions have generic lAGs with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) that enable the
Regions to fill out a short form to initiate work quickly at any site. Once EPA makes a request for work
through one of these generic IAGs, work can often start in about a week Work under other IAGs, such
as site-specific technical assistance IAGs, may take three weeks to six months or longer to put into place.
Certain Regions may also have IAGs with the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) or US Geological
Survey (USGS) that can be accessed for oversight work

-------
5.	Streamline the Agency's approval of PRPs' choice of commercial laboratories, for those laboratories
that are NELAP accredited or currently have a CLP analytical contract.
For Federal fund-lead Superfiind sites, a significant portion of the Superfiind program's analytical work
is performed by commercial laboratories that are participants in the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP).
The CLP represents a set of commercial laboratories that have fixed-price contracts with the Agency.
Laboratories in the CLP rely on prescriptive analytical statements of work (SOWs) and a thorough
Quality Assurance Program to provide analytical data of known and documented quality that are able to
withstand independent review and verification. To be eligible as a CLP laboratory, the laboratory must
have successfully analyzed pre-award Performance Evaluation (PE) Samples and passed an on-site audit.
The National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) has also developed Quality
Assurance requirements that a laboratory must meet before it may be awarded NELAP accreditation
which also includes successfully analyzing PE samples and passing an on-site audit.
Administrative Orders on Consent (AOC) and Consent Decrees generally require the Agency to approve
a PRP's choice of a laboratory. Since laboratories that have NELAP accreditation or a current CLP
contract have already demonstrated their capability to generate quality data, RPMs may quickly approve
the PRP's choice of laboratories based on their NELAP accreditation or CLP contracts. This streamlined
laboratory approval process should avoid repetitive Federal and State assessments of the laboratory's
capability to generate quality data. However, when RPMs approve PRP's choice of laboratories in this
manner, the RPMs should be mindful that these laboratories are under contract to the PRPs and have no
obligation to EPA to conduct analyses pursuant to CLP contract or NELAP certification specifications.
Actual laboratory performance on any given environmental case and the laboratory's demonstrated
capability to generate quality data are separate concepts. Although a laboratory may have the
demonstrated capability to generate quality data, the Region must still review a PRP's analytical data and
verify that the data are of acceptable quality to support site decisions. The CLP program, for example,
requires the submission of electronic and hard copy data packages that are assessed electronically by its
Data Assessment Tool for contract compliance and quality control criteria on a case-by-case basis.
Electronic spreadsheets (e.g., Lotus) are then sent within 24 to 48 hours from the receipt of the
laboratory data to Regional data validators.
6.	Consider alternatives to using standard split sampling methodology.
Depending upon site-specific circumstances, especially with respect to PRPs' capability and the
public's confidence in the PRPs' effort, alternatives to the standard split sampling protocol may reduce
the costs associated with split sampling without sacrificing EPA's independent verification of PRP
activities. One alternative is to allow the PRPs to use a field laboratory for their analysis while EPA
sends split samples to a conventional laboratory or to OERR's Contract Laboratory Program (CLP). For
this option to be effective, EPA would have to ensure that the analytical methods of the laboratories are
the same (comparable methods might also be used but would require additional comparability
evaluations). This process could save the PRPs analytical resources while still providing EPA with
confidence in the sampling results.
Another possibility is for the PRPs, under the oversight of EPA or its contractors, to take their own split
samples and ship them to an EPA laboratory or via the Regional Sample Control Center Coordinators
ship them to the CLP for analysis. This method would save EPA the cost of developing its own Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for sample collection as well as costs of taking, handling, and shipping
the samples. EPA would necessarily still incur the cost of observing the sampling effort but would not
require an entire field team to take samples.
9

-------
7. Provide PRPs with access to models and good examples for work planning documents such as Quality
Assurance Project Plans and Health and Safety Plans.
PRPs that use task-appropriate models can better focus their efforts as well as facilitate EPA review, thus
potentially streamlining PRP and EPA oversight costs. Although models may provide valuable
assistance in producing deliverable documents, models should be tailored to site-specitic circumstances.
RPMs should employ appropriate flexibility when relying on the models to ensure that the documents
produced are commensurate with the work to be performed.
Several Regions have model or sample documents or checklists that they make available to the regulated
community. Numerous guidance and model documents are also available on the Internet. Suggested
links for information on quality assurance documents include:
http://www.epa.gov/region09/qa/index.html
http://es.epa.gov/ncerqa/qa/qa_docs.html

8. When appropriate, consider writing remedial design (RD) and remedial action (RA) Scopes of Work
and Consent Decrees that combine and/or eliminate unnecessary or duplicative RD and RA submittals.
Reducing the number of deliverables that PRPs submit or combining multiple deliverables into single
documents may help streamline and focus PRP work and EPA oversight. For example, depending on the
complexity of a specific design, an RPM may determine that only preliminary and final design submittals
are necessary, or that several plans can be incorporated into one document. In some cases, the RPM
may also decide that working meetings may be adequate replacements for certain interim deliverables.
Where appropriate, Consent Decrees and Scopes of Work should be written to provide such flexibility.
9. Use in-house EPA experts for document review and/or oversight when available, in lieu of contractors.
Using EPA personnel rather than oversight contractors to conduct document review or routine field-
oversight may result in cost savings at certain sites depending on the availability of in-house expertise
for such activities. This is especially true where, even with contractor assistance, much of the RPM's
involvement is still necessary. Alternatively, cost savings may also be achieved by directing EPA
oversight contractors to selectively review components of documents that the RPM does not have the
expertise to review or when no in-house expert is available.
Although direct oversight by EPA personnel may save costs on a site-specific basis, Regional priorities
may require RPMs and other in-house experts to work on several sites at one time. Where in-house
resources are limited, oversight contractor assistance may be necessary to assist RPMs who are
overseeing the activities of several sites simultaneously. RPMs and their managers will need to balance
the potential cost savings associated with RPM's and other technical experts' commitments to any
individual site and the Region's commitments to accomplish work at several other sites.

10. Provide flexibility in developing payment schedules if necessary.
Circumstances may require some flexibility in establishing schedules for payment of EPA's oversight
costs. Where such circumstances exist, EPA may consider a private party's proposal for an alternate
payment arrangement. Proposals should include a justification as to why an alternate payment
arrangement is necessary (e.g., documented inability to pay on the standard or existing schedule). If
EPA elects to adopt an alternate payment arrangement, EPA will ensure that future payments reflect the
present value of money.
10

-------
11.	The use of the facilitator, especially a trained mediator, may help increase the efficiency of meetings
and the project process under certain situations.
A key to successful site work is the development of trust between EPA, the State, the PRPs, and the
community. In certain situations, where conflicting interests among interested parties may threaten to
slow the progress of a project, facilitators may help improve discussions and move the project forward.
A facilitator or mediator can be used at almost any point in the process where the input, or agreement of
the multiple parties, would expedite progress. A facilitator may be especially useful when numerous
parties are involved or where relationships among the PRPs, EPA, and/or the State may be strained.
Facilitators have been used successfully at several sites. For example, a mediator/facilitator has been
successfully used to address tensions among landowners, city officials, and PRPs to resolve land owner
concerns regarding the city's redevelopment plans and the remedial action objectives of the selected
remedy. At another site, a mediator helped the interested parties (State, local government, PRP, and
community groups) understand the uncertainties regarding residual risks associated with various levels
of cleanup and become comfortable with the selected cleanup level of the remedy.
12.	Make use of available Response Action Contracts (RACs) tools to review EPA contractor bills.
Response Action Contracts (RACs) are the long-term cleanup contracting component of EPA's
Superfund Long-Term Contracting Strategy (LTCS), released in September 1990, which defined the
portfolio of Superfund Contracts. Under RACs, the work assignment manager (WAM) has the
responsibility to ensure that contractor work assignments are managed effectively. Standard reporting
requirements have been developed for RACs as cost management tools that the WAM (who is often the
RPM) is to use to assist the review of contractor performance and costs. For example, the Monthly
Progress Report includes a narrative that describes the work done over the given reporting period and a
financial backup that provides documentation of the costs for the reporting period. By carefully
reviewing these reports, the WAM is able to verify that the assigned work was accomplished, was
within the scope of work of the work assignment, and that the costs were reasonable and allowable. The
WAM should use this review to help determine that contractor oversight tasks and costs are
appropriate and can use this tool as a means to control oversight costs.
13. Consider using language in Administrative Orders and Consent Decrees that minimize cleanup down
time.
Regions may consider using Administrative Orders that combine the RI/FS and RD to reduce down time
for PRP contractors who are waiting for RA negotiations and entry of Consent Decrees to be completed.
Another option is to build provisions into Consent Decrees that enable PRPs to start the RD at the point
of Consent Decree lodging. Regions also might consider negotiating for an Administrative Order on
Consent for an RD and then negotiating a Consent Decree for the RA. These techniques can save one
to three years of project down time.
11

-------