xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9242.2-10
EPA-540/R-94/057
PB94-963415
August 1994
Superfund
SUPERFUND DELEGATIONS
WORK GROUP
FINAL REPORT
AUGUST 1994
-------
SUPERFUND DELEGATIONS
WORK GROUP
FINAL REPORT
AUGUST 1994
Superfund Revitalization Office (5104)
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12tn rloor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
NOTICE
The policies, procedures and conclusions described in this document are intended
solely for informational purposes. They are not intended, and may not be relied upon, to
create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party in litigation with the
United States. The Agency reserves the right to act at variance with these policies and
procedures and to change them at any time without public notice.
Additional copies of this document may be obtained from the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS) at:
NTIS
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4650
Please refer to the following document numbers when requesting additional copies of
this document:
OSWER 9242.2-10
PB94-963415
EPA540/R-94/057
-11 -
-------
SUPERFUND DELEGATIONS WORK GROUP REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
I. INTRODUCTION 3
H. GOAL OF WORK GROUP AND SCOPE OF REVIEW 3
m. WORK GROUP PROCESS 4
A. Members of Work Group 4
B. Information Gathering Process 5
1. Preferred Redelegation Lists and Master List 5
2. Delegation Matrix 5
3. Review Process 6
IV. ITEMS NOT COVERED BY WORK GROUP 7
A. Executive Order 12580 7
B. Contract Management 7
C. Oil Pollution Act 7
V. CURRENT DELEGATION STATUS 8
A. Composite Regional Delegations Matrix - Current Status 8
B. Composite Headquarters Delegations Matrix - Current Status 9
C. Department of Justice Internal Delegations 10
VI. DELEGATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11
Delegation 14-1-A 12
Selection and Performance of Removal Actions Costing Up to $2,000,000
Delegation 14-2-A 13
Removal Actions Initially Expected to Cost Over $2,000,000 and Continued
Removal Actions After Obligations of $2,000,000 (Pursuant to the Emergency
Waiver)
-111 -
-------
SUPERFUND DELEGATIONS WORK GROUP REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Delegation 14-2-B 14
Removal Actions Initially Expected to Cost Over $2,000,000 and Continued
Removal Actions After Obligations of $2,000,000 (Pursuant to the Consistency
Waiver)
Delegation 14-5 15
Selection of Remedial Actions
Delegation 14-9-A 16
Preauthorization of Response Actions
Delegation 14-9-B 17
Response Claims Asserted Against the Fund
Delegation 14-9-C 18
The Review Officer - 40 CFR Part 305
Delegation 14-14-A 19
Determinations of Imminent and Substantial Endangerment
Delegation 14-14-C 19
Administrative Actions Through Consent Orders
Delegation 14-18-B 20
Hazardous Substance Research
Delegation 14-21-A 21
[Federal Facility] Consultations and Reviews
VH. CONCLUSION 22
Appendix A Recommended Delegation Revisions as Approved by the Administrator
Appendix B November 4, 1993 Memorandum From the Acting Regional
Administrator for Region 8 to the Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Enforcement
Appendix C Enforcement Recommendations Forwarded to the Office of
Enforcement
- iv -
-------
SUPERFUND DELEGATIONS WORK GROUP REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix D Authorities Delegated to the Attorney General
Under Executive Order 12580
Appendix E November 8, 1993 Letter From the Work Group Chairman to the
Department of Justice Requesting Department of Justice Analyses of
Certain Issues Raised by Superfund Delegations Work Group
Appendix F Composite Regional Delegations Matrix
Appendix G Composite Headquarters Delegations Matrix
Appendix H Memorandum From the Department of Justice Stating Delegation
Efforts of the Department
- v -
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Superfund Delegations Work Group was established on August 10, 1993 by
Deputy Administrator Sussman as part of the Superfund Administrative Improvements
Task Force. The Work Group examined current delegations of authority (both formal
and informal) to assure that Superfund decisions are being made at the most efficient
and effective level. The Work Group reviewed the 55 formal Superfund delegations and
other policy directives and developed recommendations for 17 Superfund delegations and
two directives. Of these, eleven delegations have been accepted for implementation by
the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER). Enforcement related recommendations have been forwarded to the recently
formed Office of Enforcement (OE) Enforcement Delegations Work Group for further
action consistent with the reorganization of OE to the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA).
The eleven delegations accepted by the Assistant Administrator for OSWER are
as follows:
Regional Administrators will be able to redelegate to the Qn-Scene
Coordinators the authority to initiate emergency removals costing up to
$200.000. (Delegation 14-1-A; ceiling was $50,000.)
Regional Administrators will be able to invoke the emergency waivers (i.e.,
to spend more than $2,000,000 for removals) at sites costing up to
$6.000.000 in removal funds subject to Regional allowance ceiling; will be
able to redelegate to Division Directors. (Delegation 14-2-A)
Regional Administrators will be able to redelegate to Division Directors
the authority to invoke the consistency waiver (i.e., to spend more than
$2,000,000 for removals at proposed and final NPL sites). (Delegation 14-
2-B provides that Regional Administrators may not redelegate.)
The Remedy Delegation Report will be eliminated from the delegation.
However, necessary Headquarters remedy consultations would be managed
through OSWER directives. Also, Regional Administrators will be able to
redelegate Record of Decision (ROD) signature to Division Directors.
(Delegation 14-5; current redelegation was limited to Deputy Regional
Administrators.)
Authorize Regional Administrators to obligate the Fund to pay CERCLA
claims for reimbursement, including preauthorizing mixed funding
settlements, through the use of a "Claims Delegation Report" issued by the
Assistant Administrator for OSWER. (Replaces Delegation 14-9 with
three delegations, namely: Delegation 14-9-A, Preauthorization of
Response Actions, Delegation 14-9-B, Response Claims Asserted Against
the Fund, and Delegation 14-9-C, The Review Officer - 40 CFR Part 305.)
-------
Eliminate the requirement of Headquarters consultation when making
imminent and substantial endangennent determinations; Regional
Administrators will be able to redelegate to Regional Branch Chief level.
(Delegation 14-14-A)
Eliminate the requirement of Headquarters consultation when Regions
enter into administrative orders on consent; Regional Administrators will
be able to redelegate to Regional Branch Chief level. (Delegation 14-14-
C.) [Note: Does not apply to non-judicial cost recovery agreements (14-14-
D) and de minimis administrative orders (14-14-E).]
Will authorize the Assistant Administrator for OSWER to carry out the
hazardous substance research program in addition to the Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Research and Development (ORD).
(Delegation 14-18-B.)
For Federal facility RODs, eliminate the Remedy Delegation Report:
maintain ROD signature at Regional Division Director level; lower
redelegation floor from Regional Division Directors to Regional Branch
Chief level for interagency consultations and reviews of Federal facility
documents (e.g., RI/FS). (Delegation 14-21-A)
With the exception of Superfund delegation 14-18-B which OSWER withdrew
from further Agency action based on comments from the Office of Research and
Development, on April 15, 1994 these recommended delegation revisions were approved
for implementation by the Administrator. (See Appendix A for redlined copy of these
delegations.)
While it is difficult to provide exact figures of the savings to the Agency of
implementing the Work Group's recommendations, changes which reduce the level and
number of reviews and required Headquarters consultations/concurrences will, by
necessity, reduce the amount of effort required to complete a particular Agency action.
Certainly, the implementation of these recommendations will streamline the Agency
decision-making process and empower those who actually are the closest to the action
being addressed by such exercise of authority.
The recommendations of the Work Group try to balance the need for national
consistency and accountability in the implementation of the Superfund program with the
need to increase program efficiency and speed. Accordingly, these recommendations and
their implementation are consistent with the Agency's Superfund Administrative
Improvement efforts and Vice President Gore's National Performance Review.
-2-
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
On June 23, 1993, EPA issued a final report entitled, Superfund Administrative
Improvements - Final Report, which discusses nine new administrative initiatives which
will improve and streamline the Superfund program. The improvements included in that
report can be achieved without changing the Superfund statute. In the Agency's
continuing efforts to explore additional initiatives for making administrative
improvements to Superfund, the area of delegations of authority appeared a likely
candidate to review and make recommendations concerning the Agency's decision-
making process.
Accordingly, on August 10, 1993, Deputy Administrator Robert M. Sussman
established the Superfund Delegations Work Group to examine current Superfund
delegations of authority to assure that decisions are being made at the most appropriate
level. Redelegation of authority to lower levels can save time and resources, thus
increasing program efficiency. The Work Group is part of the Administrative
Improvements Task Force and its scope includes the review of both formal and informal
delegations from Headquarters to the Regions, from the Department of Justice to
Headquarters, and within respective organizational units (i.e., Regions and Headquarters
Divisions).1
II. GOAL OF WORK GROUP AND SCOPE OF REVIFAV
The goal of the Work Group is to examine current Superfund delegations of
authority for areas where such authority can be redelegated to a lower level so as to
increase the efficiency of the Superfund process while, at the same time, maintaining
appropriate accountability. The Work Group was to make recommendations concerning
such redelegations. As part of this goal, the Work Group sought to identify and clarify
delegations which did not reflect changes made by subsequent policy memoranda which
directly affect a particular delegation.2 In addition, the Work Group sought
1 The Superfund program is managed by two Assistant Administrator Offices: the
Office of Enforcement (recently reorganized as the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance) and the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
Generally speaking, enforcement functions are located in the Office of Enforcement
while technical functions, such as setting cleanup standards, making response decisions,
and undertaking related actions, are located in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response.
2 A number of delegations provide for implementation by issuance of memoranda
which may waive or modify conditions or limitations expressly placed in the delegation.
These conditions or limitations, unless so waived or modified, must be met before the
delegated authority is exercised.
-3-
-------
commitments from the various affected offices in order to begin implementing these
recommendations. Consequently, the Work Group sought and received commitments
from the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
to implement the recommendations which affect that Office.
While originally the Work Group sought commitments from the Assistant
Administrator for OE for Work Group recommendations which primarily affect OE, due
to the recent OE reorganization and the establishment by OE of an Enforcement
Delegations Work Group, the recommendations were not presented by the Work Group
to the Assistant Administrator for OE. However, these enforcement recommendations
were forwarded to the Enforcement Delegations Work Group for their consideration.3
These recommendations are contained in Appendix C of this report.
The Work Group's scope of review included the 55 formal Superfund delegations,
(i.e., delegations which have gone through the Agency's Green Border review process)4
and informal delegations, such as guidance and memoranda that affect decision levels.
III. WORK GROUP PROCESS
A. Members of Work Group
Members on the Work Group included the Superfund Revitalization Office, all
OSWER Superfund Divisions, Office of Administration and Resources Management
(OARM), OE-Superfund, Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of Research and
Development (ORD), Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement (OFFE), all ten Regions
and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Since active and full participation by each
Region was critical to the success of this project, each Region was represented by two
Regional representatives, one from the Superfund program and the other from the Office
of Regional Counsel.
3 The Regions are fully supportive of these enforcement recommendations as
evidenced by the November 4, 1993 memorandum from the Acting Regional
Administrator for Region 8 to the Assistant Administrator of OE, asking for OE's full
support of the Superfund Delegations Work Group's recommendations. A copy is
included as Appendix B.
4 The Green Border review process is the formal mechanism by which the
Administrator of EPA delegates statutory and regulatory authorities to other officials
within the Agency. The steps include: (1) developing the proposal, (2) presenting a
formal request to the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Administration and
Resources Management, (3) undergoing an Agency-wide review and comment period, (4)
resolving comments, (5) recommending Administrator approval, (6) approval by the
Administrator, and (7) distributing the approved delegations.
-4-
-------
B. Information Gathering Process
1. Preferred Redelegation Lists and Master List
On August 19, 1993, the Work Group held its first meeting to discuss various ways
to gather delegation information. The Work Group decided to hold weekly meetings
with the Regions participating by teleconference. As part of its information gathering
efforts, the Work Group also decided that an important first step in this project was to
collect each Region's and each office's list of preferred redelegations as quickly as
possible. This list of preferred redelegations consists of any delegations from
Headquarters or the Department of Justice which a particular organizational unit
believes would have a significant impact on such unit to improve the efficiency of the
Superfund program. Also, all preferred redelegations within Headquarters offices or
within Regions were to be listed. Each list was to clearly explain the current delegation
and the rationale for the suggested redelegation.
All ten Regions submitted their preferred lists of redelegations. To assist the
Work Group's efforts, the information from these lists was compiled into a master list
which contained 31 Superfund delegations to be considered for some sort of
redelegation. The four delegations which drew the most interest included removal
actions over $2 million under the emergency and consistency waivers (Superfund
delegations 14-2-A and 14-2-B), selection of remedial actions (Superfund delegation 14-
5), and agency concurrence in judicial settlements (Superfund delegation 14-13-B). In
addition, the list identified other areas which have an impact on the Superfund program,
but are not part of the 55 formal Superfund delegations. These included EPA/DOJ
interaction issues (e.g., EPA/DOJ Memorandum of Understanding and Executive Order
12580), Oil Pollution Act delegations, and certain redelegations which affect the
Agency's contract management delegations.
2. Delegation Matrix
The Regional and Headquarters offices were also asked to review a delegation
matrix. The delegation matrix lists current delegations, the delegation authority, the
redelegation authority, and to whom redelegated. The Regional and Headquarters
offices reviewed this delegation matrix and indicated to what level each authority had
actually been redelegated and how far the authority could be redelegated pursuant to
current policy.
The delegation matrix consists of 55 Superfund delegations which have gone
through the formal Green Border review process. The 55 Superfund delegations may be
broadly characterized as affecting response, enforcement, or related actions. In most
cases, the authority is delegated to the Assistant Administrator or Regional
Administrator level and may be redelegated, usually with certain limitations. Actual
redelegations do not proceed through the Green Border review process, but are
contained in memoranda and other policy documents. While not listed in the delegation
-5-
-------
matrix, there are other guidance and policy documents, such as OSWER directives,
which require some kind of interaction between Headquarters and the Regions, such as
consultation, before the Regions should act.
3. Review Process
As noted above, a master list of preferred redelegations was created to assist in
the delegation review process. Delegations were listed by delegation number, where
applicable, the suggested delegation change and the organizational unit suggesting such
change. The Work Group discussed each Superfund delegation on the master list, and
gathered information as to the significance of the suggested change.
To further focus on the delegations of most significance to the Superfund
program, each member cast votes for the delegations using 20-8 voting (i.e., each
organizational unit had 20 votes out of which 8 could be cast for any one delegation or
other issue). As discussed in Section IV, infra, certain items were excluded from the
voting such as Executive Order 12580, Oil Pollution Act, and contract management
delegations. These votes were tallied and showed that of the 31 Superfund delegations
identified on the master list only 18 received any votes. Of those, only one, Superfund
delegation 14-5, Selection of Remedial Actions, received votes from all ten Regions and
four of the participating eight Headquarters offices. Of the remaining delegations, four
received the votes of seven or more Regions. These include authority for removal
actions costing over $2 million under the emergency and consistency waivers (14-2-A and
14-2-B); inspections, sampling, and information gathering (14-6); and concurrence in
judicial settlements (14-13-B). In addition, one Superfund policy concerning remedial
design/remedial action procedures, and the EPA/DOJ Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) were also identified as having significant impacts on the Superfund process.
The Work Group further discussed these delegations, policy, and MOU and
selected 17 Superfund delegations and two directives for consideration for briefing to the
appropriate Office Directors for their decision. On October 12, 1993, the Work Group
presented its recommendations for redelegation to the Office Directors of the Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), the Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement (OWPE), OFFE, and OE for their approval. Thereafter, on October 19,
1993, the recommendations of the Work Group and the Office Directors' responses
thereto were presented at the Regional Waste Division Directors meeting in Tampa,
Florida. As is more fully discussed in Section VI, DELEGATIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, on November 29, 1993, the Work Group presented 13
Superfund delegations to the Assistant Administrator for OSWER for his consideration
and acceptance, and eleven were accepted.5
5 For the two delegations that were not accepted, the Assistant Administrator for
OSWER decided to maintain the status quo of his Office in submitting proposed and
final National Priorities List site listings to the Federal Register (Superfund delegation
14-17-A; Work Group proposed delegating this to Regional Administrators), and,
-6-
-------
IV. ITEMS NOT COVERED BY WORK GROUP
A. Executive Order 12580
A number of delegation issues concerning delegations of authority from DOJ to
EPA are, in the opinion of DOJ, controlled by Executive Order 12580, under which the
President delegated his Superfund authority to various agencies. These authorities
include the requirement that the Attorney General concur on the use of CERCLA
Section 104(e)(5)(A) and 106(a) authority to seek information or response actions from
executive departments and agencies and that the Attorney General represent the United
States in judicial proceedings. A complete list of the authorities delegated by this
Executive Order to the Attorney General is included as Appendix D. Since such powers
are beyond the authority of the Administrator, and thus of EPA's delegation process, the
Work Group decided to defer action on such issues.6
B. Contract Management
One area that was identified by the Work Group as having significant impacts on
the Superfund program involves the Agency-wide contract management delegations. In
order to address these contract issues a special work group was established. This special
work group is reviewing these contract management delegations to determine if any
should be modified so that redelegations can be made lower in the organizational chain.
It is anticipated that they will report their recommendations in a separate report.
C. Oil Pollution Act
Region 9 raised a number of issues concerning non-Superfund delegations under
the Oil Pollution Act (OPA). Since these fall outside the scope of the Work Group, the
OPA delegation issues were referred to the Emergency Response Division (ERD) of
OSWER, for their consideration.
because of the pending reorganization of OE, deferred action on the Work Group's
recommendation to transfer the authority delegated by Superfund delegation 14-27,
Petitions for Reimbursement, from OSWER to the Environmental Appeals Board
(EAB). However, as part of the reorganization of OE to OECA the authority of
Superfund delegation 14-27 was transferred from OSWER to EAB.
6 In addition, there were some EPA/DOJ relationship issues not governed by
Executive Order 12580 which the Work Group initially sought to explore. However, due
to the unavailability of certain data and analyses, the Work Group was unable to form
consensus recommendations concerning these relationship issues. See Appendix E for
information request.
-7-
-------
V. CURRENT DELEGATION STATUS (AS OF 1/1/94)
A. Composite Regional Delegations Matrix - Current Status
Each Region was asked to complete a delegations matrix which lists all 55
Superfund delegations, 42 of which are delegated to the Regions, and indicate at what
level the authority has been redelegated in the Region. (See Appendix F for a complete
compilation.) Of these, 37 delegations may currently be redelegated. Eighteen of these
delegations presently do not contain any "floor" on the level of redelegation. A review of
the Composite Regional Delegations Matrix shows some interesting Regional trends
concerning the level of redelegation, with Region 1 the least likely to redelegate while
Region 10 is the most likely to do so. Where the Regional Administrator has
redelegated an authority, that redelegation has been most commonly to the Division
Director level.
Some Regions have redelegated certain authorities further down the
organizational chain than others. For example, the authority to issue CERCLA 104(e)
information requests (Superfund delegation 14-6), has been redelegated to Section Chiefs
in Region 3, Branch Chiefs in Regions 5, 8, 9, and 10, and Division Directors in Regions
1, 2, 4, 6, and 7. Similarly, all the Regions with the exception of Region 1 have
redelegated the initiation of removal actions where costs do not exceed $50,000 to On-
Scene Coordinators (Superfund delegation 14-1-A). However, Region 6 limits this
authority to Senior On-Scene Coordinators. This $50,000 limit for On-Scene
Coordinators is a very important authority which allows rapid response by the Agency to
address relatively small removal actions and allows the Agency to start an action while
seeking the decision to commit more resources, as needed.
Concerning Superfund delegation 14-5, the selection of remedial actions, only
Regions 4, 9, and 10 have redelegated this authority to the Deputy Regional
Administrator, as authorized by the redelegation. On the other hand, no Region has
redelegated the authority to institute civil judicial enforcement actions (Superfund
delegation 14-12), although authorized to do so, to the Regional Counsel level. As for
the authority to settle civil judicial actions (Superfund delegation 14-13-B), six Regions
(1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8) have not redelegated this authority from the Regional Administrator
to a lower level, while the four remaining Regions have redelegated this authority to the
Division Director level. Interestingly, only three Regions (5, 9, and 10) authorize On-
Scene Coordinators to request the Attorney General seek emergency temporary
restraining orders (Superfund delegation 14-13-C). As for the authority to issue
unilateral administrative orders (Superfund delegation 14-14-B), four Regions (1, 2, 3,
and 7) have not redelegated this authority from the Regional Administrators to lower
levels. These same Regions also have not redelegated the authority to enter into .de
minimis settlements (Superfund delegation 14-14-E), while the other Regions have
redelegated to the Division Director level.
-8-
-------
A review of the Composite Regional Delegations Matrix also shows that certain
Regions are more likely to redelegate than others. For example, of the 36 Superfund
delegations which can be redelegated by all the Regions, Region 1 has redelegated only
four, while Region 10 has redelegated 33 authorities. The rest of the Regions fall within
these two points, redelegating 6 for Region 2, 9 for Region 3, 26 for both Regions 4 and
5, 30 for Region 6, 6 for Region 7, 17 for Region 8, and 32 authorities for Region 9.
What the matrix data suggest is that many of the authorities exercised by the
Regional Administrators can be effectively exercised by others at a lower level in the
organization. The Work Group has confirmed that this streamlines the decision-making
process and increases the efficiency of the Superfund program.7
B. Composite Headquarters Delegations Matrix - Current Status
Each participating EPA Headquarters office was asked to complete a delegations
matrix which lists all 55 Superfund delegations, 33 of which are delegated at least in part
to Headquarters, and indicate at what level the authority has been redelegated in the
Headquarters office. (See Appendix G for a complete compilation.) Of these, 31
delegations may currently be redelegated, and twelve of these delegations currently do
not limit the level of redelegation. Of these 31 delegations, 16 have been redelegated to
lower levels in the Headquarters offices. In virtually all instances, the redelegations have
been to the Office Director level.
A review of the Composite Headquarters Delegations Matrix shows that certain
Headquarters offices are more likely to redelegate than others. For example, of the 31
Superfund delegations which may be redelegated by at least one Headquarters office, 21
of these may be redelegated by OSWER and eleven by OE. Of the 21 that may be
redelegated by OSWER, 15 have been redelegated to lower levels, while OE has only
redelegated one.
A number of delegations have not been redelegated from the Assistant
Administrator level, although authorized to do so. These include such Superfund
delegations as: 14-13-C, Emergency Temporary Restraining Orders (AA for OE); 14-21-
B, Agreements with Other Federal Agencies (AA for OE); 14-28, Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket (AA for OE); and 14-35, List of Hazardous
Substances and Toxicological Profiles (AA for OPPTS).
7 The Regional members of the Work Group were tasked with asking their
respective managements whether redelegating to lower levels in their Regions would
streamline the decision-making process and increase the efficiency of the Superfund
program. All reporting Regions answered this question in the affirmative.
-9-
-------
C. Department of Justice Internal Delegations8
In 1991, the Department of Justice began to explore a number of possible
delegations affecting environmental enforcement. Those efforts resulted in a series of
delegations within the Department and the institution of internal "streamlining"
procedures that have resulted in improved and expedited approval process for Superfund
litigation.
Specifically, on February 26, 1991, Attorney General Thornburgh approved an
increase in the settlement and compromise authority delegated to the Assistant Attorneys
General (AAGs) of the Department's litigating Divisions. Under that delegation, the
AAGs are authorized to accept offers in compromise of claims on behalf of the United
States in cases in which the difference between the gross amount of the original claim
and the proposed settlement does not exceed $2 million or 15 percent of the original
claim, whichever is greater (See 28 C.F.R. 0.160). The prior settlement authority figures
were $750,000 or 10 percent.
Thereafter, on March 4, 1991, Attorney General Barr issued a Directive providing
that certain partial settlements under CERCLA should be exempt from Deputy Attorney
General review and approval under 28 C.F.R. 0.160. Under that Directive, the following
partial CERCLA settlements do not require Deputy review and approval:
De minimis settlements;
Settlements with parties whose liability can be apportioned with
exactness; and
Settlements in which the settling parties will pay at least their pro-
rata share of liability and the shortfall can be recovered from other
viable defendants.
Additional delegations in civil CERCLA litigation were approved by Assistant
Attorney General Stewart in December 1990. Those delegations authorize the Section
Chief of the Environmental Enforcement Section to approve the filing and compromise
of CERCLA cost recovery cases where the costs do not exceed $1 million and, in the
case of a settlement, where the difference between the United States' claim and the
proposed settlement does not exceed $500,000. In addition, the Section Chief is
authorized to approve all case filing and settlements under CERCLA Section 104(e)
(information gathering and access).
8 The discussion concerning DOJ internal delegations is based exclusively on the
September 16, 1993 DOJ memorandum from Bradley M. Campbell to the Superfund
Delegations Work Group, a copy of which is included in Appendix H
-10-
-------
Finally, in October 1992, in an effort to improve the Remedial Design/Remedial
Action (RD/RA) consent decree approval process, the Environmental Enforcement
Section developed new procedures for expediting the processing of those decrees. In
brief, those new procedures include an expedited, short-form approval process for
"routine" decrees that do not raise any novel or difficult issues and follow the Model
RD/RA Consent Decree, and DOJ management review and approval concurrent with
EPA review.
DOJ believes that these delegations and streamlined approval processes have
greatly improved and expedited DOJ's review and approval of Superfund settlements.
DOJ does not expect to institute any new delegations beyond those listed above.
VI. DELEGATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As an initial matter, in the process of assembling the information for this report,
the importance of a usable, up to date tracking system for redelegations became self
evident. While there are a number of ways to maintain such tracking systems, there are
certain requirements which the Agency's Delegation Manual places on the original
delegatees. That Manual provides that original delegatees must keep a written record of
all redelegations of authority within their organizations.
Currently, each program and Regional office maintains its own system for
redelegating and tracking its authorities. Cabinet level legislation and a current OMB
initiative to streamline management systems may result in overall redelegation tracking
requirements for all offices to follow.9 Until these requirements are imposed, offices
may wish to implement measures such as those described below, which will make it
easier to implement the standardized approach in the future.
Maintain a central tracking system for delegations.
Designate someone to manage the delegations manual.
Place the original delegation in the manual with all redelegations and
policy issuances specific to that delegation filed behind it.
Remove from the manual old issuances which no longer apply, and place
9 Presently, OARM's Management and Office Division (M&O) is developing the
On-Line Directives System (OLDS) which will provide PC on-line access to EPA's
Directives System, which currently consists of 56 EPA manuals and 88 orders and
includes Agency delegation manuals. However, OLDS does not track authority
redelegations. OLDS is currently undergoing pilot testing within M&O with the goal of
expanding the testing to a wider audience within the year and having the system
accessible Agency-wide over the next several years.
- 11-
-------
them in an archive. (Archiving is necessary to maintain a legal record of
who had what authority at what time.)
Keep delegations and redelegations separate from all non-germane policies
and actions.
Copy the relevant sections of documents which would not normally appear
in the delegations manual but which impact a delegation, and place the
copies in the manual along with a reference to the original document.
While these measures are not the only way to maintain a redelegation tracking
system, following these guidelines will make it easier to trace delegated lines of
authority.
As noted earlier, the recommendations of the Work Group were presented to the
various Office Directors for their consideration and acceptance. Thereafter, the Work
Group intended to brief the Assistant Administrators for OSWER and OE on these
recommendations for their action. However, because of the reorganization of OE, and
the establishment of an OE Enforcement Delegations Work Group, these
recommendations were not presented to the Assistant Administrator for OE. However,
the enforcement recommendations were forwarded to the Enforcement Delegations
Work Group for their consideration and are contained in Appendix C of this report.
On November 29, 1993, the Assistant Administrator for OSWER was briefed on
the Work Group's recommendations which primarily affect OSWER. He accepted
eleven of the thirteen recommendations, and on December 23, 1993, requested that the
Management and Organization Division of the Office of Administration and Resources
Management start the Green Border review process for the accepted Superfund
delegations. With the exception of Superfund delegation 14-18-B which OSWER
withdrew from further Agency action based on comments from the Office of Research
and Development, on April 15, 1994 these delegations were approved for
implementation by the Administrator. These Superfund delegations are as follows:
DELEGATION 14-1-A Selection and Performance of Removal Actions
Costing UP to $2.000.000
Current Status10
Superfund delegation 14-1-A provides the authority for the selection and
performance of removal actions costing up to $2,000,000 where the action is expected to
last up to one year. This authority is delegated to Regional Administrators and allows
10 "Current Status" refers to the delegation version in effect prior to the April 15,
1994 approval action of the Administrator.
- 12-
-------
for redelegation to the Division Director level. The delegation also allows Division
Directors to redelegate their authority to On-Scene Coordinators for obligations not to
exceed $50,000 for initiating removal actions.
Recommended Change
It is recommended that the obligation authority for initiating removal actions,
which can be redelegated down to the On-Scene Coordinator level, be increased to a
maximum of $200,000 where site conditions constitute an emergency. If site conditions
do not constitute an emergency, it is recommended that this initial obligation authority
remain at the current $50,000 level.
Benefits of Change
Of course, it is incumbent upon each EPA Regional office to decide to what level
they wish to redelegate this authority. However, it is anticipated that such a redelegation
would provide the removal program additional flexibility in addressing emergency
conditions. In many emergency situations the $50,000 limitation is no longer sufficient to
initiate a proper removal action, as this limitation has not kept pace with inflationary
increases over the years. The problem is exacerbated where an emergency arises over a
weekend or holiday and additional obligation authority is difficult to obtain. This
proposed modification should have an immediate impact upon the removal program as
EPA's impact analysis indicates that 71% of emergency removals are less than $200,000.
DELEGATION 14-2-A Removal Actions Initially Expected to Cost Over $2.000.000
and Continued Removal Actions After Obligations of
$2.000.000 (Pursuant to the Emergency Waiver)
Current Status
CERCLA imposes a $2,000,000 limit on EPA removal actions. CERCLA Section
104(c)(l) provides, however, an exemption from the statutory limit where: continued
response actions are immediately required to prevent, limit, or mitigate an emergency;
there is an immediate risk to public health or welfare or the environment; and such
assistance will not otherwise be provided on a timely basis. This exemption is commonly
known as the emergency waiver. Pursuant to Superfund delegation 14-2-A, the authority
to invoke the statutory waiver is delegated to the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response. The delegation allows for redelegation to the Office Director,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
- 13-
-------
Recommended Change
It is recommended that Regional Administrators be delegated the authority to
invoke the emergency waivers at sites where continued removal activity will not exceed
$6,000,000. It is also recommended that Regional Administrators be allowed to
redelegate their authority to their Division Directors.
Benefits of Change
Allowing EPA's Regional offices to invoke the waiver will save substantial time in
obtaining approval for continued action, time which may be of critical importance in
emergency situations. EPA Regional offices are the most knowledgeable about site
conditions and about the necessity of having to invoke this waiver. During fiscal years
1990-1992, EPA has had to invoke the emergency waiver on 22 occasions. If these
modifications are effectuated, it should have an immediate impact upon EPA's removal
program, since the vast majority of removals (80%) cost less than $6,000,000.
DELEGATION 14-2-B Removal Actions Initially Expected to Cost Over $2.000.000
and Continued Removal Actions After Obligations of
$2.000.000 (Pursuant to the Consistency Waiver)
Current Status
In addition to the emergency waiver, CERCLA provides for an additional
exemption to the statutory $2,000,000 limit. CERCLA Section 104(c)(l) allows for
continued removal actions beyond $2,000,000 if a finding is made that the "continued
response action is otherwise appropriate and consistent with the remedial action to be
taken." This exemption is commonly known as the consistency waiver. Superfund
delegation 14-2-B delegates this authority to the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response and to Regional Administrators. Regional Administrators,
however, can only exercise their authority at sites within their Regions as specified by the
Assistant Administrator for OSWER and are prohibited by the delegation from
redelegating the authority. Pursuant to OSWER Directive 9360.2-04, Regional
Administrators may only exercise their authority at proposed and final NPL sites within
their Regions.
Recommended Change
It is recommended Regional Administrators be allowed to redelegate their
authority to the Division Director level.
- 14-
-------
Benefits of Change
The use of the consistency waiver has increased over the years (Fiscal Year 1990,
three waivers invoked; Fiscal Year 1991, two waivers invoked; Fiscal Year 1992, eight
waivers invoked) and should continue to increase in the foreseeable future as EPA more
fully implements its Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM). Regions,
particularly Regional Division Directors, have developed sufficient expertise and
sophistication on the use of this waiver. Such redelegation of this authority will allow
more rapid implementation of cleanup activities without any appreciable risk that the
waiver has been invoked improperly. Moreover, EPA Headquarters has already
provided EPA Regions with guidance concerning the use of this waiver (OSWER
Directive Nos. 9360.0-12A and 9360.3-01).
DELEGATION 14-5 Selection of Remedial Actions
Current Status
The current authority to determine the necessity of, to select, and to perform the
appropriate remedial actions has been delegated to the Assistant Administrator for
OSWER, who is authorized to redelegate to the Office Director level, and to the
Regional Administrators, who may redelegate only to their Deputy Regional
Administrators. This delegation limits the exercise of this authority by the Regional
Administrators to sites within their Regions listed in the Remedy Delegation Report,
currently issued annually. Virtually all the limitations placed on the Regions are
contained in the Remedy Delegation Report, which is not subject to the formal Green
Border review process. This Report provides a mechanism that allows Headquarters to
identify remedial issues of national significance that require implementation of a national
strategy.
Recommended Change
It is recommended to fully delegate the authority to determine the necessity of, to
select, and to perform the appropriate remedial actions to the Regional Administrators
without any limitations, i.e., forego the use of the Remedy Delegation Report. However,
necessary Headquarters remedy consultations would be managed through OSWER
directives. In addition, to allow the Regional Administrators to further redelegate this
authority to the Division Directors and the Associate Director for the Office of
Superfund Programs in Region 3, the Associate Director for the Office of Superfund and
Emergency Response in Region 4, the Associate Division Director for the Office of
Superfund in Region 5, and the Deputy Director for Superfund Programs in Region 9.
(The difference in the redelegation authority for Regions 3, 4, 5, and 9 from the rest of
the Regions is due to their different organizational structures.)
- 15-
-------
Benefits of Change
The benefits of fully delegating this authority to the Regions are:
Decentralizes national decision-making which is the goal of the National
Performance Review.
Saves resources required for the preparation of the Remedy Delegation
Report.
Reduces or eliminates duplication of reviews.
Expedites ROD review, remedy selection, and cleanup.
Headquarters can continue to track RODs and can continue to be the
central national clearinghouse for the public.
The benefits of allowing the Regional Administrators the ability to further
redelegate this authority to the Division Directors and other designated officials in
Regions 3, 4, 5, and 9 as noted above are:
Streamlines the ROD approval process and requires less resources.
Provides flexibility to the Regional Administrators to further redelegate, as
they determine is appropriate.
DELEGATION 14-9-A Preauthorization of Response Actions
Current Status
Superfund delegation 14-9 confers all preauthorization authority on the Assistant
Administrator for OSWER. The authority was redelegated to the Office Director,
OERR and is further redelegable to the Division Director level.
Recommended Change
It is recommended that the Administrator: (1) divide the authorities under this
delegation into the authority to (a) grant access to the Fund, (b) pay claims against the
Fund, and (c) review or refer disputed claims; and (2) authorize the Assistant
Administrator for OSWER to retain all preauthorization authority with the exception of
such authority as he/she may confer on the Regional Administrators. The proposed
delegation would create the "Claims Delegation Report" as the means to transfer
authorities. Such Reports would specify the authorities delegated to any Region,
whether such authorities are site-specific or Region-wide, and any limitations on the
-16-
-------
authority to obligate funds. Prior to issuance of the Claims Delegation Report, the
delegation would require the Assistant Administrator for OSWER to confer with the
Regional Administrators on terms for that proposed Report.
The delegation would also require exercise of the authority contained therein in
accordance with Superfund delegations 14-13-B, Concurrence in Settlement of Civil
Judicial Actions, and 14-14-C, Administrative Actions Through Consent Orders. This
would assure naked funding settlements consistent with OE settlement policies. The
authority of both the Assistant Administrator for OSWER and of the Regional
Administrators would be redelegable to the Division Director level.
Benefits of Change
The proposed delegation would (1) expedite the decision-making process through
decentralization, (2) streamline the approval process by eliminating OSWER (other than
for funds availability) from the approval process, and (3) provide the authority to
approve access to the Fund to the official authorized to refer the settlement to DOJ. In
addition, this approach is reasonable in view of the fact OSWER lacks the resources to
engage in case-specific analysis of preauthorization applications should the Agency
increase its use of preauthorization mixed funding. Finally, the approach is flexible and
therefore able to meet the needs of a dynamic Superfund program, respond to
uncertainties identified by the Regions and accommodate the evolving enforcement roles
and responsibilities between Headquarters and the Regions.
DELEGATION 14-9-B Response Claims Asserted Against the Fund
Current Status
Superfund delegation 14-9 presently confers all claims authority on the Assistant
Administrator for OSWER. The authority was redelegated to the Office Director,
OERR and is further redelegable to the Division Director level.
Recommended Change
As stated under Superfund delegation 14-9-A, this delegation would authorize the
activities and decisions specific to the payment of claims against the Fund. It is
recommended that the Assistant Administrator for OSWER retain all claims authority
with the exception of such authority as he/she may confer on the Regional
Administrators by means of the Claims Delegation Report. The Assistant Administrator
for OSWER is granted specific authority in the delegation to periodically issue the
Claims Delegation Report. That Report would specify the authorities delegated to any
Region, whether such authorities are site-specific or Region-wide, and any limitations on
the authority to obligate funds. Prior to issuance of the Claims Delegation Report, the
delegation would require the Assistant Administrator for OSWER to confer with the
Regional Administrators on terms for that proposed Report. The authority of both the
-17-
-------
Assistant Administrator for OSWER and of the Regional Administrators would be
redelegable to the Division Director level.
Benefits of Change
Pursuant to the Agency's claims payment guidance, three-quarters of the
responsibility for review and resolution of site-specific claims rests with the Regions.
These procedures require that (1) the site attorney certify that the claimant is in
compliance with the consent decree or order, (2) the Remedial Project Manager (RPM)
certify that the work was satisfactorily completed, and (3) the claims adjuster
(representative from the Office of Inspector General (OIG)) certify that costs are
eligible and well documented. The final role, claims coordination, is Headquarters'
responsibility under the current delegation.
The proposed delegation (with sufficient guidance, training and technical
assistance from the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response) would enable the
consolidation and streamlining of this function within the Regions. Limiting the role of
Headquarters to training and technical assistance would reduce Headquarters staff and
travel resources currently devoted to site-specific claims. Expanding the Regions
responsibilities for claims should advance the Agency goal of increased use of mixed
funding by placing decision-making authorities in the field.
DELEGATION 14-9-C The Review Officer - 40 CFR Part 305
Current Status
Superfund delegation 14-9 presently confers all claims authority on the Assistant
Administrator for OSWER. The authority was redelegated to the Office Director,
OERR and is further redelegable to the Division Director level. The current delegation
does not address the Review Officer function subsequently promulgated in 40 CFR Part
305.
Recommended Change
This delegation would implement the newly promulgated rule, 40 CFR Part 305,
and would authorize the Assistant Administrator for OSWER to pay disputed claims,
negotiate a settlement, or refer the dispute to an Administrative Law Judge. The
Assistant Administrator for OSWER would serve as Review Officer when claims disputes
arise from Regional decisions or claims decided by the Director, OERR. Redelegation
to the Division Director level is proposed.
Benefits of Change
The proposed delegation would implement the newly promulgated rule, i.e., 40
CFR Part 305, may reduce the number of disputes referred for a formal hearing (and
-18-
-------
therefore EPA's administrative costs), and may therefore reduce court litigation, and the
associated costs, to resolve claims. Further, the delegation would: (1) provide a review
to ensure national consistency in the handling of disputed claims; and (2) promote
settlement of disputes where the costs of a hearing far exceed the disputed amount.
DELEGATION 14-14-A Determinations of Imminent and Substantial Endangerment
Current Status
This Superfund delegation authorizes Regional Administrators to make
determinations of imminent and substantial endangerment. These determinations
establish the basis for pursuing legal relief when there is an actual or threatened release
of a hazardous substance. As currently written, this authority can only be exercised after
consultation with the Assistant Administrator for OSWER or his/her designee. Two
subsequent OSWER Directives clarified this consultation requirement to include basing
endangerment determinations on appropriate Superfund policy or guidance, or on
collaboration with a trained risk assessor, and citing the source used in the appropriate
Agency document. Redelegation of this authority by Regional Administrators is not
limited.
Recommended Change
To conform this delegation with present practice, it is recommended that the
OSWER consultation limitation be deleted. Since all recently revised delegations must
contain a redelegation floor (i.e., a specific title of the lowest level person that may be
authorized to exercise the redelegated authority), it is further recommended that the
redelegation floor be set at the Regional Branch Chief level.
Benefits of Change
As to eliminating the delegation's consultation requirement, the benefits of this
recommendation are primarily to clarify the present practice and to avoid confusion as to
the requisite OSWER "consultation" that must occur before the exercise of this authority.
In addition, placing the redelegation floor at the Regional Branch Chief level allows
placement of this authority at a level which presently is very much involved in the
exercise of this important authority.
DELEGATION 14-14-C Administrative Actions Through Consent Orders
Current Status
This delegation authorizes Regional Administrators to take administrative action
under CERCLA Sections 104, 106, and 122 by issuing consent orders as may be
necessary to protect public health and welfare and the environment. As currently
written, Regional Administrators must obtain the advance concurrence of the Assistant
19-
-------
Administrator for OSWER before exercising this authority, however, this limitation may
be waived by memorandum. By memorandum dated March 16, 1987, (and an earlier
memorandum) concurrence was waived for 104/122 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Studies (RI/FS), 106 RI/FS, and removal orders. A subsequent OSWER memorandum
dated April 4, 1990, further provides that this consultation requirement has been met for
all administrative orders on consent for removal actions issued prior to the April 4, 1990
date, and is waived for all future issuance of administrative orders on consent.
Redelegation of this authority is not limited.
Recommended Change
To conform this delegation with present practice, it is recommended that the
OSWER concurrence limitation be deleted. Since all recently revised delegations must
contain a redelegation floor (i.e., a specific title of the lowest level person that may be
authorized to exercise the redelegated authority), it is further recommended that the
redelegation floor be set at the Regional Branch Chief level.
Benefits of Change
As to eliminating the delegation's concurrence requirement, the benefits of this
recommendation are primarily to clarify the present practice and to avoid confusion as to
the requisite OSWER "concurrence" that must occur before the exercise of this authority.
In addition, placing the redelegation floor at the Regional Branch Chief level allows
placement of this authority at a level which presently is very much involved in the
exercise of this authority.
DELEGATION 14-18-B Hazardous Substance Research"
Current Status
This delegation, in pertinent part, authorizes the Assistant Administrator for
ORD, in consultation with the Assistant Administrator for OSWER, to carry out a
program of hazardous substance research as provided by CERCLA Section 311(c).
11 During the Green Border review process, the Office of Research and
Development nonconcurred with the proposed revision of this delegation on the grounds
that research is a function of ORD and not other EPA offices. Subsequently, OSWER
met with ORD and discussed a nondelegation mechanism (i.e., a memorandum of
understanding) which would meet OSWER's immediate needs concerning delegation 14-
18-B. Consequently, OSWER requested that the proposed revision to delegation 14-18-B
be withdrawn from this Green Border package and placed on a separate review track.
-20-
-------
Recommended Change
It is recommended that this authority be delegated to the Assistant Administrator
for OSWER and maintain the present authority of the Assistant Administrator for ORD.
Benefits of Change
In the past, OSWER has used this delegation to fund ORD to manage certain
types of applied research. Presently, ORD is unable to supply this assistance due to
increased administrative burdens resulting from contract and grant audits. Adding the
authority for the Assistant Administrator for OSWER to exercise this authority will allow
this research to continue.
DELEGATION 14-21-A [Federal Facility! Consultations and Reviews
Current Status
This delegation authorizes the Assistant Administrator for OSWER and Regional
Administrators to review the plans for and results of investigations and studies of Federal
facilities under CERCLA Section 120(e)(2). However, Regional Administrators must
consult with OSWER as required by the periodically issued Remedy Delegation Report.
In addition, this delegation forms the basis for the Agency to select remedial actions for
Federal facilities as required under CERCLA Section 120(e)(4). This authority may be
redelegated to the Division Director level.
Recommended Change
It is recommended that the consultation limitation of the Remedy Delegation
Report on the exercise of this authority by Regional Administrators be deleted, and that,
for review of plans and results, the redelegation floor be lowered to Branch Chief level.
In addition, clarify the delegation to authorize Agency selection of remedial actions at
Federal facilities under CERCLA Section 120(e)(4).
Benefits of Change
The benefits of fully delegating this authority to the Regions are:
Decentralizes national decision-making which is the goal of the National
Performance Review.
Saves resources in the preparation of the Remedy Delegation Report.
Reduces or eliminates duplication of reviews.
-21 -
-------
Expedites ROD review, remedy selection, and cleanup.
Conforms this delegation with the Remedy Delegation Report
recommendation of Superfund delegation 14-5 which governs remedy
selection at non-Federal facility sites.
Headquarters can continue to track RODs and can continue to be the
central national clearinghouse for the public.
The benefits of lowering redelegation floor for Agency review of investigations
and studies to the Branch Chief level are:
Provides flexibility to the Assistant Administrator for OSWER and
Regional Administrators to further redelegate, as they determine is
appropriate.
Conforms to present practice in a number of Regions to have Branch
Chiefs actively involved in reviewing investigations and studies.
VII. CONCLUSION
While it is difficult to provide exact figures of the savings to the Agency of
implementing the Work Group's recommendations, changes which reduce the levels of
reviews and required Headquarters consultations/concurrences will, by necessity, reduce
the amount of effort required to complete a particular Agency function. Certainly, the
implementation of these recommendations will streamline the Agency decision-making
process and empower those who actually are the closest to the situation being addressed
by such exercise of authority.
The recommendations of the Work Group try to balance the need for national
consistency and accountability in the implementation of the Superfund program with the
need to increase program efficiency. Accordingly, these recommendations and their
implementation are consistent with the Agency's Superfund Administrative Improvement
efforts and Vice President Gore's National Performance Review.
-22-
-------
Appendix A
Recommended Delegation Revisions as Approved by the Administrator
-------
DELEGATIONS MANUAL 1200 TN 168
0/13/07
THE COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATIONS AND
LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA)
14-1-A. Selection and Performance of Removal Actions
Costing Up to $2,000.000
1. AUTHORITY. Pursuant to the eComprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, to
determine the necessity of and to select and perform removal
actions costing up to $2,000,000 where the actions is expected to
last up to one year.
2. TO WHOM DELEGATED. Regional Administrators.
3. LIMITATIONS.
a. Removal actions will not continue after $2,000,000 has
been obligated, unless authorized to continue under Delegation 14-
2-A, "Removal Actions Initially Expected to Cost Over $2,000,000
and Continued Removal Actions After Obligations of $2,000,OOQ
;(pursuattti to the Emergency Waiver)" or Delegation 14-2-B, MRemoval
CoatingOver$2, 000/000at NFLandProposed-NFLSites Actions
initially: Expected to cost Over $2,000,000 arid Continued Removal
Actions. iAfter Obligations of : $2,000,000; (Pursuant to the
Consistetiby Waiver)."
b. The Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response or his/her designee must concur prior to the initiation of
a removal action at non-NPL sites where the proposed actions ins on
the List of Nationally Significant or Precedent-Setting Removal
Action Categories.
4. REDELEGATION AUTHORITY. This authority may be redelegated to
the Division Directors and/or the Associate Director for the Office
Of .;SU£er£\imd Programs in Region 3, the Associate Director for the
pffice:. of Super fund and Emergency Response in Region 4, the
AssociaterDivision Director for the office of superfund in Region
5.,-,:: and:: the Deputy'Director for Superfund Programs in Region 9,
who may then redelegated to On-Scene Coordinators, -fOn-Scene
Coordinators may exercise this authority only for obligations not
to exceed $50,000 200,000 for initiating removal actions-)- where
site conditions constitute an emergency. Where site conditions do
not constitute an emergency, Qn-Scene Coordinators tnay exercise.
this authority only for obligations not to exceed $50!, 000 for
initiating removal actions*
-------
DELEGATIONS MANUAL 1200 TN 168
0/13/07
THE COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE. COMPENSATIONS AND
LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA)
14-1-A. Selection and Performance of Removal Actions
Costing Up to $2.000.000 (Cont'd)
5. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES.
a. Sections 104, 121(d), and 121(e) of CERCLA.
b. National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300.
c. Superfund Removal directives.
d. The $2,000,000 limit includes all extramural costs and
Headquarters and Regional intramural costs, except for Section
104(b) studies and all enforcement costs.
e. List of Nationally Significant or Precedent-Setting
Removal Categories.
-------
DELEGATIONS MANUAL 1200 TN 168
0/13/07
THE COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE. COMPENSATIONS AND
LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA)
14-2-A. Removal Actions Initially Expected to Cost Over
$2.000.000 and Continued Removal Actions After
Obligations of $2,000,000 (Pursuant to the
Emergency Waiver)
1. AUTHORITY. Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, to
determine the necessity of and to select and perform removal
actions to continue beyond $2,000,000 when all of the following
circumstances exist:
a. Where continued response actions are immediately required
to prevent, limit, or mitigate an emergency; and
b. Where there is an immediate risk to public health or
welfare or the environment; and
c. Where such assistance will not otherwise be provided on a
timely basis.
2. TO WHOM DELEGATED. Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response and Regional Administrators.
3, LIMITATIONS.
a* : ! The Regional Administrators may; only:/''''exeraise''\:|his;
authority: at sites within their Regions until totaT removal"costs
exceed $61,000,000,
b',: This authprlty shall be exercised subject/ ±0 the
Administrator's Management Accountability System: and "=approved
funding1 levels.
9:4.. REDELEGATION AUTHORITY. Thig authority may be rcdclcgatcd The
Assistant Adtoinistratbr for Solid. Waste and. Bmergency:.::Respons.^ way
rf|lei^g^te this authority to the Office Director, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response. RegionaJf- J^i|iIs
re^elegate this authority to the Division J0ire;qtpr\%|iv6
Associate;Director for the Office of Superfund "Programs' iii
3, the Associate Director for the Office of Superftmd and;Eraer^en<2y:
Response ;in Region 4, the Associate Division;^irectpr^ fbrx, the
Office :: ofi super fund in Region 5, and the iDeputy Director ;;for
SuperfundiPrograms in Region 9,
-------
DELEGATIONS MANUAL 1200 TN 168
D/13/07
THE COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE. COMPENSATION AND
LIABILITY ACT CCERCLA)
14-2-A. Removal Actions Initially Expected to Cost Over
$2.OOP,OOP and Continued Removal Actions After
Obligations of $2,000.000 (Pursuant to the
Emergency Waiver) (Cont'd)
4S. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES.
a. Sections 104, 121(d), and 121(e) of CERCLA.
b. National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300.
c. Superfund Removal directives.
-------
DELEGATIONS MANUAL 1200 TN 168
0/13/07
THE COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE. COMPENSATIONS AND
LIABILITY ACT fCERCLA)
14-2-B. Removal Actions Initially Expected to Cost Over
$2.000.000 and Continued Removal Actions After
Obligations of $2,OOP.OOP (Pursuant to the
Consistency Waiver)
1. AUTHORITY. Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, to
determine the necessity of and to select and perform removal
actions to continue beyond $2,000,000 when the continued response
actions is otherwise appropriate and consistent with the remedial
actions to be taken.
2. TO WHOM DELEGATED. Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response and Regional Administrators.
3. LIMITATIONS.
aJ The Regional Administrators may only exercise this
authority at pj^opo^ed^and^ finlT-*Nj?|i sites within their Regions
specifiedbythe AssistantAdministratorfor SolidWasteand
Emergency Response. The Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response may waive this limitation by memorandum*
b* This authority shall be exercised subject to the
Administrator's Management Accountability System and approved
funding levels>
4. REDELEGATION AUTHORITY. The Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response may redelegate this authority to the
Office Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
Regional Administrators may net redelegate this authority to the
Division Director level and/or the Associate Director for the
Office of Superfund Programs in Region 3, the Associate Director
for .the Office of Superfund and Emergency Response in Region 4» the
Associate Division Director for the Office of Superfund; in Region
5, and the Deputy Director for Superfund programs in Region 9.
5. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES.
a. Sections 104, 121(d), and 121(e) of CERCLA.
b. National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300.
c. Superfund Removal directives.
-------
DELEGATIONS MANUAL 1200 TN 168
0/13/07
THE COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE. COMPENSATIONS AND
LIABILITY ACT fCERCLA)
14-5. Selection of Remedial Actions
1. AUTHORITY. Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, to
determine the necessity of, to select, and to perform the
appropriate remedial action.
2. TO WHOM DELEGATED. Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response and Regional Administrators.
3. LIMITATIONS. Regional Administrators or their delegatees may
exercise this authority for sites or particular operable units at
a oite located within their respective Regions listed in the Remedy
Delegation Report issued periodically fey the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
4. REDELEGATION AUTHORITY. The Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response may redelegate this authority to the
Office Director level. Regional Administrators may redelegate this
authority to the Deputy Regional Administrator Division plr'eetor.
level and/or the Associate Director for the Of f ice of: Super fund;
Programs ift Region 3, the Associate Director for the; Office- of
Superfund and Emergency Response in Region 4, the = Associate
Division Director for the office of superfund in Region ;5, and the
Deputy Director for Superfund Programs in Region 9.
5. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES.
a. Sections 101(24) and 104, 116, 118, 120, 121 and 126(b) of
CERCLA.
b. Section 118(m) of the Superfund Amendments and
r-Reauthorization Act (SARA) .
c. Guidance on Delegation of Selection of Remedy Authority.
d. National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300.
e. Acquisition of property is covered in Delegation 14-30.
-------
?HE^CQMPREHENSIVErENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE.: COMPENS|fl6N ANJ3
LIABILITV ACT (CERCLA1
l'4r9~A /H. Preauthorization of Response Actions
If- !fT 'AUTHORITY « .'.fa^suant to the : comprehensive '
CoiSpensatij^n, and Liability Act (CERCLA';, as ^i
.A.,'.... To- provide EiPA's prior approval or preawthor|zai;j,on:: tB
submit a olaim;:fa:9'ains:t the Hazardous substance supe^fujid;; :|the
Fund) for nece^fary' 'response ''costs'' incurred 'as'-::a :'r|su|:t:':"q|"
carrying out tn^. National oil and Hazardous sv&staicei| '.Pollution
Contingency Plan"
-------
BB.LEOA2KMS MANUAL
COMPREHE^COMPENilkTiON^ AND
'"
14-9-&.
jfc C! £&4** J**-^ ^'ttttt "tl^^Jtt^^'Ji l^ll^tti *1 *1 O1 ii'rtr^
«S-* jps^vvJoJILcy A4-A\cl/ v*-/ ^ 4-A4-^tS/ ^ *!.£.&{ cLIlU,
CERCTA,
b« National Contingency>1 an, (40 CPR 3Q0.700(dj|j(y.
o» CERCLA Response Claims Procedures (40 CPR P^rt: :3.07|
d« Delegations 14-13-B (Concurrence in
judicial Actions) and 14-14-c
Conpent Orders)»
e« OSWER Directive 9012 »1Q~A, Revision .ofi
judicial settlement Authorities; onder
14-14-E, June
f* Regional .Guidance Manual':':'f|gpt^
(TO """"""""" ..... """""'" '"""" """ """ """" ""
-------
DELEGATIONS MANUAL 1200 TN 168
Q/13/07
THE COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE. COMPENSATION AND
LIABILITY ACT fCERCLA)
14-9§B. ResponsJ Claims Asserted Against the Fund
1. AUTHORITY . Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) , as amended I
receive, evaluate, |||| make determinations and
preauthorige r^ardling claims asserted against the Ha z ar dous
Substance Guper "f urid Fund . This Sii^ authority is to *|PJ||; include
determining the amount of any award, authorizing payment, and
making all other determinations necessary to process such claims 1|
b«. To periodically issue : the claims Delegation Report
shall specify the authorities delegate'^ to any Region, whether such
authorities are site-specific or .RegiBh-wide/ and any limitations
on the authority to obligate funds*
2. TO WHOM DELEGATED. The authorities in l,a and l*b are
delegated tO::;:|the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response The authority in i.a Is delegated to the
Regional Administrators .
3. LIMITATIONS.
Administrators lay e^erc.ise. the|a;uthprity;;;;:in
|C a"::::8l;|y.,..as ""specified in:Vthes:'f:Claims . Delegation :\Rejpo;rti issiibd
iMj^y/: by> the Assistant ; Administrator for solid ;iwaste:: and
..;:|£i exercising the; \authorityli; in, i«b,L the '&
for? Solidt;:waste and Emergency Response shall consult
with:#,ariy 'Regional-: Administrator to whom^this authority \would ;be
delegated prior to "issuing the;claims Delegation Report.
3-4. REDELEGATION AUTHORITY. This authority may be redelegated to
the Division Director level.
4£. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES.
a. Sections lll(a)(2), lll(e), 112, and 122(b)(i} of CERCLA.
b. National Contingency Plan, 40 CGR 300 (40 CFR 300,700(d)).
CERCLA Response Claims Procedures' {40 CFR Part 307),:
, Regional guidance Manu:al for the Response Claims Process
(To::Be issued : 1994);*
-------
iHENSiE ' EWrRONHENT W REJf ONSE COMPENSATION
14-9-C. The, Rev lew... df f icer;, ~,, JP
l. AUTHORITY. pursuant to the comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCIA) and 40 CFR
part 305, the authority of the Review officer to 1} receive
requests for hearings? 2) attempt to promote settlements; 3} make
dedisions of the Agency on claims asserted against the Hazardous
Substance "Superfund (the Fund) f 4} refer requests for a hearing
to the Chief Administrative i,aw ^udge when necessary; and 5) "'"
extend the time limits for final 'orders in hearings for a period
not to exceed so days.
2,. TO WHOM DELEGATED. The Assistant Admiiaistrator foir::solid
Waste and Emergency Response.
3. MMXTA'ftONS^ The Assistant Administrator If or : Solid Waste
and Emergency:, Response may exerdise this authoifity only! at sites
where a perspn. other than the Assistant Admin istra tor for $olid
Waste ^nd^Ej^ergency Response is ^the: Decisipni;:;:off|cial.:ptitrsuant to
Delegation' :i4~9-B/:frResponse Claims Asserteji Against the Fund."
4, REPELEGATION At^THORITY . This author ity- may be redeiegated
to the Division Director level.
5.:. '"".'" ADDfflONAL . REFERENCES >
$%. "^Sections ll;l{a) (2) , lllfe)^ 112; >^nd I22(b}(l} of
"
b.:j:Wationai Contingency Plan <40 CFR 300,700(d) ) .
c! :j CERCi^ Hearing Procedures for Claims Against the
super funjs (40 CFR Part 305) .
=:CEFCLA Response Claims ; Procedures (40 CFR Part 307).
^' i Regional guidance Manual f or the §sponse clf Process
(OSWER Directive XXXXX, To Be Issued 19^4) -t
-------
DELEGATIONS MANUAL 1200 TN 97
4/16/04
THE COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE. COMPENSATION AND
LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA)
14-14-A. Determinations of Imminent and Substantial
Endangerment
1. AUTHORITY. Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environe»tft§|i>1i;al
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), tomake
determinations that there may be an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public1 health or welfare or the environment.
2. TO WHOM DELEGATED. Regional Administrators.
3-; LIMITATIONS. This authority shall be exercised subject to
directives issued by the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.Regional Administrators must consult with
the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
or his/her dcoignee when exercising this authority.
I*. REDELEGATIpN AUTHORITY. This authority may be redelegated £b
ie::8rar>dh: Chief
4-5. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES. Section 106 (a) of CERCLA.
-------
DELEGATIONS MANUAL 1200 TN 168
Q/13/07
THE COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE. COMPENSATION AND
LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA)
14-14-C. Administrative Actions Through Consent Orders
1. AUTHORITY . After giving notice to the affected State, to take
administrative action pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environeffifcnmerital Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) , as amended, including, but not limited to, issuing such
orders on consent as may be necessary to protect public health and
welfare and the environment.
2. TO WHOM DELEGATED. Regional Administrators.
3. LIMITATIONS.
an - Regional Administrators or their delegatees must obtain
the advance concurrence of the Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response or his/her designee before exercising
any of the above authorities.
te-= - The Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response &F his/her deaignee may waive advance concurrence
requirements by memorandum.
This authority does not include recovery of response costs
under CERCLA Section 122 (h) or settlements with de minimis parties
under CERCLA Section 122 (g) .
4. REDELEGATION AUTHORITY. This authority may be redelegated to
the Branch Chief level.
5. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES.
a. Section 104, 106, and 122 of CERCLA.
b. Applicable Agency guidance and directives.
c. Authority to enter into or exercise Agency concurrence
authority for non- judicial cost recovery agreements or
administrative orders under CERCLA Sectioh 122 (h) is delegated in
14-14-D, "Cost Recovery Non-Judicial Agreements and Administrative
Consent Orders."
d. Authority to enter into or exercise Agency concurrence
authority in de minimtds settlements under CERCLA Section 122 (g) is
delegated in Delegation 14-14-E, "De Minimis Settlements."
-------
DELEGATIONS MANUAL 1200 TN 332
0/16/03
THE COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE. COMPENSATION. AND
LIABILITY ACT f CERCLA)
14-21-A. Consultations t a«d Reviews; arid Select; iort oi::::Riiaedii:l
1. AUTHORITY . Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA) : to
consult with agencies, departments, and instrumentalities regarding
investigations and studies of federal facilities conducted under
section 120 (e) (1); and to review the plans for and results of such
investigations and studies under section 120 (e) (2); ah*J :;fcx* ..sifeot:
reiiedifll : actions under sectioritlSQite) <4) .
2. TO WHOM DELEGATED. Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response and Regional Administrators.
3-: - LIMITATIONS. When reviewing the plans £ea? and results e£
investigations and studies under section 120(e) (2) , Regional
Administrators or their delegatees must consult with the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response or delcgatee
only where the Remedy Delegation Report, issued periodically by the
Assistant Administrator f-ea? Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
docs not authorize remedy selection by the Regional Administrator.
4§. REDELEGATION AUTHORITY . Thia authority may be rcdclcgatcd to
the Division Director level.
a,; The authority to select remedial actions may: : fee
redelegated to the Division Director level and/or the :.Assbci?i:it:e
Director for the Office of Superfund Programs in Region :.3V tSe
Associate Director; for the Office of Superfund and ; /= Emerg^noy
Response in Region 4, and the Associate Division Director for5 the
Office bf superfund in Region 5, and the Director of the Federal.
Facilities Cleanup Office in Region 9,
All other authorities under this delegation mayi : i?§
d to the Branch chief level.
54. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES. Section 120 of CERCLA.
-------
Appendix B
November 4, 1993 Memorandum From the Acting Regional Administrator
for Region 8 to the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIII
999 18th STREET - SUITE 500
DENVER. COLORADO 80202-2466
NOV4 1933
Ref: 8HWM-SR
SUBJECT: /S\iperfund Administrative Improvements -
'sdelyejgations of Superfund Authority
FROM:
Acting Regional Administrator
TO: [/Steven A. Herman
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement .
As you may know, Deputy Administrator Robert M. Sussman
issued his August 10, 1993, memorandum to establish a Delegations
workgroup to examine current Superfund delegations. The goal of
this improvements initiative is to determine whether or not
further delegations are appropriate in order to save time and
resources. Further, Vice-President Gore's recent National
Performance Review report includes two complementary objectives:
decentralize authority and empower staff. The workgroup
presented its initial recommendations to the Superfund Office
Directors or designee (which included OWPE, OERR, Superfund OE,
SRO, and OFFE) on October 12.
We are writing to ask for your full support in carefully
weighing the workgroup's recommendations with an eye to further
delegation of all authorities. This is the same presumption that
the workgroup embraced: delegate to the fullest extent in order
to expedite Superfund work and to save resources.
During their recent National Conference, the Waste
Management Division Directors responded very favorably to the
recommendations and asked that I write and express their support
for full delegation. This is particularly important because
personnel from both the Superfund Office of Enforcement and
Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement expressed strong
preference for delegation with HQ concurrence and consultation
requirements and in one case recommended more concurrence
requirements (Federal Facility lAGs). We understand the concern
expressed by your offices and propose that the Regions and HQ
work together as partners to develop other mechanisms to address
them, such as rr.cdel orders, better training and guidance, etc.
The Waste Management Division Directors and I, as the Lead Region
executive, ask that you strongly consider full delegation, that
is delegation without concurrence or consultation requirements,
particularly on the following authorities:
Printed on Recycled Papor
-------
14-6 Inspections, Sampling, Information Gathering and
Entry Orders and Subpoenas
14-14E De Minimis Settlements
14-14B Administrative Actions Through Unilateral Orders
14-14D Cost Recovery Administrative Orders
14-21B Federal Facility Agreements (lAGs)
14-13B Judicial Consent Orders
We hope this will assist in your consideration of this
critical streamlining and Administrative Improvements initiative.
We understand you will receive a full briefing by representatives
of the workgroup in the near future. As schedules allow, we
would plan to send a Lead Region representative as well as other
Regional participants. Please don't hesitate to call me at (303)
293-1616 to further discuss this matter.
-------
Appendix C
Enforcement Recommendations Forwarded to the
Office of Enforcement
-------
SUMMARY OF 8UPERFUND DELEGATIONS WORK GROUP'S ENFORCEMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS AND OFFICE DIRECTORS' RESPONSES (10/12/93)
1. DELEGATION 14-6 Inspections, Sampling, Information
Gathering, Subpoenas, and Entry for
Response.
Issue 1; Should the Regional Administrators be required to
consult with OE prior to issuing compliance orders regarding
information gathering, compliance orders for entry and
inspection, or subpoenas, pursuant to Sections 104(e), 109(a),
and 122(e)?
Recommendation; Eliminate all. consultation requirements for
exercise of the authority delegated to the Regional
Administrators.
Office Directors' Position; There was a concern with agreeing
to recommendation; however, expressed willingness to discuss it
further.
Issue 2; Assuming that the consultation limitation to the
authority delegated to the Regional Administrators is eliminated,
what should be the "floor" for redelegation?
Recommendation; Floor varies depending on redelegated authority;
see position paper.
Office Directors' Position; Not discussed.
2. DELEGATION 14-13-B Concurrence in Settlement of Civil
Judicial Actions
Issue; To what extent should EPA authorities to concur on civil
judicial settlements and to request amendments of consent decrees
be delegated to the Regions?
Background: This delegation gives the Regional Administrators
authority on behalf of EPA for settlement of certain civil
judicial enforcement actions. The original delegation required
that Regional Administrators obtain the concurrence of OE and
OSWER for most settlements. Subsequent directives have waived
some of these concurrence requirements. Concurrence is still
required for many settlements, including 106 and 107 settlements
where total past and future costs exceed $60 million, 106(b)(1)
penalty actions and punitive damages, administrative order non-
compliance matters under 107(c)(3), settlements with prospective
purchasers of contaminated property, etc. Consultation is also
required for other settlements. (See June 17, 1988 Adams/Porter
memo.)
-------
Begommandation: Delete All Concurrence/consultation
Requirements; set floor for redelegation at Regional Division
Director level.
Comment; OWPE and OE, in a separate work effort, have been
working on this delegation for a number of months and submitted a
proposal to the Regions for comment. At the request of the
Delegations Work Group, Region 8, as the lead Region, coordinated
and consolidated the Regional comments to that proposal.
However, those comments were not incorporated into the Work
Group's recommendation because the Work Group's recommendation
was finalized before the submittal of the proposal by OWPE and
OE. Consequently, the Regional comments to that proposal
probably better reflect the present position of the Regions'
concerning delegation 14-13-B..
3. DELEGATION 14-14-B Administrative Actions Though Unilateral
Orders
Issue: Should Regional officials issue unilateral administrative
orders without HQ consultation?
Recommendation: Delete all consultation requirements; set
redelegation floor at regional Branch Chief level.
Office Directors' Position; Agreed to lower redelegation floor
to Regional Branch Chief. OWPE supported deleting all
consultation requirements. OE wanted consultation requirement
with ORC for decisions not to issue order.
4. DELEGATION 14-14-D Cost Recovery Non-Judicial Agreements
and Administrative consent Orders
Issue: To what extent should EPA authorities to enter into
administrative orders on consent for cost recovery be delegated
to the Regions?
Recommendation: Delete all consultation requirements and retain
redelegation floor at Branch Chief level in Regions.
Office Directors' Position: OE was willing to remove
consultation requirements once model administrative orders are
available to the Regions. OWPE preferred deleting all
consultation requirements now and then develop models.
- 2 -
-------
5. DELEGATION 14-14-E fie Minimis Settlements
Issue: To what extent should EPA authority to enter into
Minimis settlements be delegated to the Regions?
Recommendation: Eliminate consultation requirement.
Office Directors' Position; OWPE supported the recommendation
as written. OE was willing to eliminate consultation provided it
has models.
6. DELEGATION 14-21-B Agreements with Other Federal Agencies
(Agreements with Head of Federal
Facility, e.g., lAGs)
Issue; To what extent should EPA authorities to enter into an
agreement with the head of the department, agency or
instrumentality for all necessary remedial actions at the Federal
facility under Section 120(e)(2) be delegated to the Regions?
Recommendation; Delete consultation/concurrence requirement;
allow floor to Division Director.
Office Directors' Position; OFFE was not in favor of deleting
consultation/concurrence requirement/ however, would consider
lowering redelegation floor to Regional Division Director level.
Also, if delete Remedy Delegation Report, OFFE would require
concurrence on all lAGs.)
7. OSWER 9835.4 Interim Guidance Streamlining the CERCLA
Settlement Decision Process (2/12/87)
Issue; Should the Regions have the authority to grant the second
thirty day extension for Section 122(e) RD/RA negotiations?
Recommendation; Allow Regional Administrator to grant a second
thirty day extension.
Office Directors' Position; OE and OWPE were not in favor of
this recommendation, however, they were willing to revisit the
issue after collecting more data.
8. OSWER Directive No. 9891.1-NN-2, "Pre-referral Negotiation
Procedures for Superfund Enforcement cases" Oct. 12, 1990.
Issue: Whether Regions continue to submit for DOJ and HQ
approval a Pre-Referral Litigation Report (PRN) prior to
initiation of RD/RA negotiations with liable parties.
- 3 -
-------
Appendix D
Authorities Delegated to the Attorney General
Under Executive Order 12580
-------
LIST OF AUTHORITIES DELEGATED TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 12580
Sec. 2(j)(l) The functions vested in the President by Section
104(e)(5)(A) are delegated to the heads of Executive departments
and agencies, with respect to releases or threatened releases
where either the release is on or the sole source of the release
is from any facility or vessel under the jurisdiction, custody or
control of those departments and agencies, to be exercised with
the concurrence of the Attorney General.
Sec. 4. Enforcement, (a) The functions vested in the President by
Sections 109(d) and 122(e)(3)(A) of the Act, relating to
development of regulations and guidelines, are delegated to the
Administrator, to be exercised in consultation with the Attorney
General.
Sec. 4(b)(l) Subject to subsection (a) of this Section, the
functions vested in the President by Section 122 (except
subsection (b)(l)) are delegated to the heads of Executive
departments and agencies, with respect to releases or threatened
releases not on the NPL where either the release is on or the
sole source of the release is from any facility under the
jurisdiction, custody or control of those Executive departments
and agencies. These functions may be exercised only with the
concurrence of the Attorney General.
Sec. 4(b)(2) Subject to subsection (a) of this Section, the
functions vested in the President by Section 109 of the Act,
relating to violations of Section 122 of the Act, are delegated
to the heads of Executive departments and agencies, with respect
to releases or threatened releases not on the NPL where either
the release is on or the sole source of the release is from any
facility under the jurisdiction, custody or control of those
Executive departments and agencies. These functions may be
exercised only with the concurrence of the Attorney General.
Sec. 4(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Order, the
authority under Sections 104(e)(5)(A) and 106(a) of the Act to
seek information, entry, inspection, samples, or response actions
from Executive departments and agencies may be exercised only
with the concurrence of the Attorney General.
Sec. 6. Litigation, (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Order, any representation pursuant to or under this Order in
any judicial proceedings shall be by or through the Attorney
General. The conduct and control of all litigation arising under
the Act shall be the responsibility of the Attorney General.
Sec. 6(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Order, the
authority under the Act to require the Attorney General to
commence litigation is retained by the President.
-------
Sec. 9(g) The functions vested in the President by Section 117(e)
of the Act are delegated to the Administrator, to be exercised in
consultation with the Attorney General.
-------
Appendix E
November 8, 1993 Letter From the Work Group Chairman to the
Department of Justice Requesting Department of Justice Analyses of
Certain Issues Raised by Superfund Delegations Work Group
-------
T>
o UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
NOV-8B93
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
VIA FAX AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Mr. Brad Campbell
United States Department of Justice
10th and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Re: Superfund Delegations Work Group
Dear Brad:
As Chairman, I consider the Department of Justice's
participation on the Superfund Delegations Work Group very
important. As you may recall, the Work Group was established in
August 1993 by EPA Deputy Administrator Sussman and meets every
week to discuss various Superfund delegations of authority and
policy issues. Its goal is to make the Superfund program, under
the present law, more efficient and effective by assuring that
decisions are made at the most appropriate level.
A number of issues have been identified which require active
DOJ participation in the Work Group so that we may explore
possible ways to enhance the EPA/DOJ Superfund working
relationship. These include DOJ internal redelegations,
Executive Order 12580, the EPA/DOJ MOU and several Work Group
questions/suggestions on redelegating. In fact, a couple of
months ago, you agreed to provide written analyses of these
issues. However, with the exception of your paper on internal
DOJ redelegations, DOJ analyses have not been forthcoming. I
know we are all very busy, but is there something I can do as
Chairman of the Work Group to assist you in this endeavor?
Your analyses and participation are now critically needed
because the Work Group has entered the final phase of the
project. However, we have had to delay full discussions of the
EPA/DOJ issues while awaiting your analyses. Consequently, in
the Work Group's briefing of the Office Directors for OERR, OWPE,
OE, SRO, and OFFE on October 12, 1993, and the subsequent EPA
Regional Waste Division Directors meeting of October 19, 1993,
EPA/DOJ matters were not discussed. We are now in the process of
scheduling decision briefings for the Assistant Administrators
for OSWER and OE for the week of November 15, 1993, and
anticipate EPA/DOJ issues will be raised. Accordingly, I would
like to discuss these issues at our next Work Group meeting which
is tentatively set for November 10, 1993, from 11:00 to 12:30
(call in number is 202-260-4266).
Pnnte Recycled Paper
-------
- 2 -
Please call me at 260-2447 as soon as possible and let me
know when we can expect to see the above analyses. Also, can you
be prepared to discuss these EPA/DOJ issues at our November 10
Work Group meeting? I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Timothy D. Mott
cc: Bruce Gelber, DOJ
Tim Fields, SRO
-------
Appendix F
Composite Regional Delegations Matrix
-------
COMPOSITE REGIONAL DELEGATIONS MATRIX - CURRENT STATUS (1/1/94)
DELEGATION #
14-1-A
14-1-B
14-2-A
TITLE
Selection and
Performance of Removal
Actions Costing up to
$2,000,000
Superfund State
Contracts and
Cooperative Agreements
for Removal Actions
Removal Actions Initially
Expected to Cost Over
$2 million and Continued
Removal Actions After
Obligations of $2 million
(Pursuant to the
Emergency Waiver)
DELEGATION
AUTHORITY
RAs**
RAs**
AAOSWER
REDELEGATION
AUTHORITY
May be redel. to Div. Dir.
who may redel. to OSC for
obligations not to exceed
$50K for initiating
removals
Division Director
Office Director for OERR
TO WHOM
CURRENTLY
REDELEGATED
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 RA S250K and up; Div. Dir. less than $250K; OSC $50K.
R3 Div. Dir.; OSC $50K
R4 Div. Dir.; OSC $50K
R5 Div. Dir. & Assoc. Div. Dir. WMD S250K max; Branch & Section
Chiefs, Emerg. Response, $50K; OSC $50K
R6 ESD Dir.; Senior OSC $50K
R7 OSC $50K
R8 HWM Div. Dir.; OSC $50K
R9 HWM Div. Dir. $1 million max; OSC $50K
RIO HW Div. Dir.; OSC S50K
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 Div. Dir.
RS Not Redelegated
R6 ESD Dir.
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 HWM Div. Dir.
R9 HWM Div. Dir.
RIO HW Div. Dir.
** See limitations in delegation
F-l
-------
COMPOSITE REGIONAL DELEGATIONS MATRIX - CURRENT STATUS (1/1/94)
DELEGATION #
14-2-B
14-3
14-4-A
14-4-B
TITLE
Removal Actions Initially
Expected to Cost Over
$2 million and Continued
Removal Actions After
Obligations of $2 million
(Pursuant to the
Consistency Waiver)
Selection and
Performance of Removal
Actions Lasting More
Than One Year
State-Lead Studies and
Investigations Related to
Remedial Actions
Selection of Initial
Remedial Measures
DELEGATION
AUTHORITY
AA OSWER,
RAs**
RAs
RAs**
RAs**
REDELEGATION
AUTHORITY
AA may redel. to OD
OERR; RAs may NOT
redelegate
Division Director
Division Director
May NOT be redelegated
TO WHOM
CURRENTLY
REDELEGATED
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Div. Dir.
R4 Not Redelegated
R5 WM Div. Dir.
R6 ESD Dir.
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 HWM Div. Dir.
R9 Not Redelegated
RIO HW Div. Dir.
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 Not Redelegated
RS Not Redelegated
R6 HWM Div. Dir.
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 HWM Div. Dir. & ARA Div. Dir.
R9 HWM Div. Dir.
RIO HW Div. Dir.
**
See limitations in delegation
F-2
-------
COMPOSITE REGIONAL DELEGATIONS MATRIX - CURRENT STATUS (1/1/94)
DELEGATION #
14-4-C
14-5
TITLE
Superfund State
Contracts and
Cooperative Agreements
to Implement and
Perform Remedial
Actions
Selection of Remedial
Actions
DELEGATION
AUTHORITY
RAs**
AA OSWER,
RAs**
REDELEGATION
AUTHORITY
Division Director
AA may redel. to OD; RA
may redel. to DRA
TO WHOM
CURRENTLY
REDELEGATED
Rl Dir. Administrative Services Div.
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 Not Redelegated
RS Not Redelegated
R6 HWM Div. Dir.
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 HWM Div. Dir. & ARA Div. Dir.
R9 HWM Div. Dir.
RIO HW Div. Dir.
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 Deputy Regional Administrator
RS Not Redelegated
R6 Not Redelegated
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 Not Redelegated
R9 Deputy Regional Administrator
RIO Deputy Regional Administrator
**
See limitations in delegation
F-3
-------
)SITE REGIONAL DELEGATIONS MATRIX - CU
DELEGATION #
14-6
14-7
TITLE
Inspections, Sampling,
Information Gathering,
Subpoenas, and Entry for
Response
Combination of
Noncontiguous Facilities
for Response Purposes
DELEGATION
AUTHORITY
RAs, AA for
OSWERand
OE**
AA OSWER,
RAs
REDELEGATION
AUTHORITY
May be redelegated
May be redelegated
TO WHOM
CURRENTLY
REDELEGATED
Rl BSD, WMD Div. Dirs. except for orders
R2 ERRD Div. Dir. and ESD Div. Dir.
R3 Section Chief (104(e) information requests and entry, sampling, and
inspections); Branch Chief (subpoenas, compliance orders for
information, warrants, designating representatives); RA retained
compliance orders for entry and inspection
R4 WM Div. Dir. with limitations
R5 Div. & Associate Div. Dir. and others with limitations (e.g., Branch
Chiefs for 104(e) information requests)
R6 ESD & HWM Div. Dirs.
R7 Compliance orders for information gathering, entry and inspection, and
subpoenas redelegated to Div. Directors of WMD, ESD, Air and Toxics
Division; warrants redelegated to RC
R8 SRB & Montana Branch Chiefs
R9 Dir. of Office of Health and Emergency Planning & Branch Chiefs
RIO Branch Chief
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 WM Div. Dir.
RS Associate Div. Dir. & Branch Chiefs
R6 HWM Div. Dir.
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 Not Redelegated
R9 Branch Chiefs
RIO HW Div. Dir.
**
See limitations in delegation
F-4
-------
COMPOSITE REGIONAL DELEGATIONS MATRIX - CURRENT STATUS (1/1/94)
DELEGATION #
14-8-A
14-8-B
14-9
TITLE
Federal-Lead Studies and
Investigations Related to
Response Actions
Studies and
Investigations Related to
Cost Recovery and
Enforcement Decisions;
Special Notice
Claims Asserted Against
the Fund
DELEGATION
AUTHORITY
AA OSWER,
RAs**
RAs, AA for
OSWER and OE
AA OSWER
REDELEGATION
AUTHORITY
Division Director
May be redelegated
Division Director
TO WHOM
CURRENTLY
REDELEGATED
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 ERRD Div. Dir.
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 WM Div. Dir.
R5 WM Div. Dir.
R6 Not Redelegated
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 HWM Div. Dir.
R9 HWM Div. Dir.
RIO HW Div. Dir.
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 ERRD Div. Dir. and Regional Counsel
R3 Div. Dir. and Assoc. Dir. Off. Superfund Program (ORC concurrence)
R4 WM Div. Dir.
R5 Associate Div. Dir.; Branch Chiefs (only for 122(e) Special Notice)
R6 HWM Div. Dir.
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 HWM Div. Dir.
R9 Branch Chiefs
RIO Branch Chief
**
See limitations in delegation
F-5
-------
COMPOSITE REGIONAL DELEGATIONS MATRIX - CURRENT STATUS (1/1/94)
DELEGATION #
14-10-A
14-10-B
14-11
TITLE
State Technical
Assistance
State Legal Assistance
Credit for State
Expenditures
DELEGATION
AUTHORITY
AA OSWER,
RAs**
AAOE**
RAs
REDELEGATION
AUTHORITY
May be redelegated
May be redelegated
Division Director
TO WHOM
CURRENTLY
REDELEGATED
Rl WMD Div. Dir.
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 WM Div. Dir.
R5 WM Div. Dir.
R6 HWM Div. Dir.
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 HWM Div. Dir.
R9 Branch Chiefs
RIO HW Div. Dir.
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 WM Div. Dir.
R5 Not Redelegated
R6 HWM Div. Dir.
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 HWM Div. Dir.
R9 HWM Div. Dir.
RIO HW Div. Dir.
**
See limitations in delegation
F-6
-------
COMPOSITE REGIONAL DELI
fS MATRIX - CURRENT STATUS (1/1/94)
DELEGATION #
14-12
14- 13- A
14-13-B
TITLE
Civil Judicial
Enforcement Actions
Criminal Enforcement
Actions
Concurrence in
Settlement of Civil
Judicial Actions
DELEGATION
AUTHORITY
RAs, AA OE,
Gen. Counsel**
AAOE
RAs**
REDELEGATION
AUTHORITY
AA OE & Gen. Counsel
may red el. to Div. Dir.;
RAs may redel. to Reg.
Counsel
To refer cases may be
redel. to Dir. Office of
Criminal Enforcement who
may redel. to Div. Dir.; to
authorize payment of
awards may be redel. to
Dir. Office of Criminal
Enforcement
To request the A.G. to
amend a CD issued under
CERCLA may be redel. to
Div. Dir.; other authorities
cited in 14-13-B may be
redel.
TO WHOM
CURRENTLY
REDELEGATED
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 Not Redelegated
R5 Not Redelegated
R6 Not Redelegated
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 Not Redelegated
R9 Not Redelegated
RIO Not Redelegated
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 Not Redelegated
R5 WM Div. Dir. (with RC Concurrence)
R6 HWM Div. Dir.
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 Not Redelegated
R9 HWM Div. Dir.
RIO HW Div. Dir.
** See limitations in delegation
F-7
-------
COMPOSITE REGIONAL DELEGATIONS MATRIX - CURRENT STATUS a/1/94)
DELEGATION #
14-13-C
14-14-A
14-14-B
TITLE
Emergency TROs
Determinations of
Imminent and Substantial
Endangerment
Administrative Actions
Through Unilateral
Orders
DELEGATION
AUTHORITY
RAs, AA OE**
RAs**
RAs**
REDELEGATION
AUTHORITY
AA OE may redel.; RA
may redel. to OSC
May be redelegated
May be redelegated
TO WHOM
CURRENTLY
REDELEGATED
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 WM Div. Dir.
R5 Associate Div. Dir. & OSC (with RC concurrence)
R6 Not Redelegated
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 Not Redelegated
R9 OSC
RIO OSC
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Div. Dir. and Assoc. Dir. Off. Superfund Prog.
R4 WM Div. Dir.
RS Associate Div. Dir.
R6 BSD & HWM Div. Dirs.
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 HWM Div. Dir.
R9 HWM Div. Dir.
RIO HW Div. Dir. & Branch Chief
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 WM Div. Dir.
R5 WM Div. Dir. (with RC concurrence)
R6 HWM Div. Dir.
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 HWM Div. Dir.
R9 HWM Div. Dir.
RIO HW Div. Dir.
**
See limitations in delegation
F-8
-------
COMPOSITE REGIONAL DELEGATIONS MATRIX - CURRENT STATUS (1/1/94)
DELEGATION #
14-14-C
14-14-D
14-14-E
TITLE
Administrative Actions
Through Consent Orders
Cost Recovery Non-
Judicial Agreements and
Administrative Consent
Orders
De Minimis Settlements
DELEGATION
AUTHORITY
RAs**
RAs**
RAs**
REDELEGATION
AUTHORITY
May be redelegated
Branch Chief
May be redelegated
TO WHOM
CURRENTLY
REDELEGATED
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 WM Div. Dir.
RS Associate Div. Dir. (with RC concurrence)
R6 HWM Div. Dir.
R7 WMD Div. Dir. (with RC concurrence)
R8 HWM Div. Dir.
R9 HWM Div. Dir.
RIO SF Branch Chief
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 WM Div. Dir.; Branch Chief of Waste Programs
R5 Associate Div. Dir. (with RC concurrence)
R6 HWM Div. Dir.
R7 WMD Div. Dir. (with RC concurrence)
R8 HWM Div. Dir.
R9 HWMD Deputy Dir. for Superfund
RIO HW Div. Dir.
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 WM Div. Dir.
R5 WM Div. Dir. (with RC concurrence)
R6 HWM Div. Dir.
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 HWM Dir. Dir.
R9 HWM Div. Dir.
RIO HW Div. Dir.
**
See limitations in delegation
F-9
-------
COMPOSITE REGIONAL DELEGATIONS MATRIX - CURRENT STATUS (1/1/94)
DELEGATION #
14-14-F
14-15
14-16
14-17-A
TITLE
Cost Recovery
Arbitration
Guidelines for Use of
Imminent Hazard,
Enforcement and
Emergency Authorities
Demand Letters
National Priorities List:
Federal Register
Submission of Proposed
and Final Additions and
Deletions
DELEGATION
AUTHORITY
RAs**
AAOE**
RAs, AAs for
OSWER and OE
AA OSWER,
RAs**
REDELEGATION
AUTHORITY
Division Director**;
Staff Attorney**
May be redelegated
May be redelegated
See language in delegation
for OSWER; RAs may not
redelegate
TO WHOM
CURRENTLY
REDELEGATED
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 Not Redelegated
R5 Not Redelegated
R6 Not Redelegated
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 Not Redelegated
R9 Not Redelegated
RIO Not Redelegated
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Div. Dir. and Associate Dir. Off. Superfund Prog.
R4 WM Div. Dir.
R5 Associate Div. Dir.; Deputy Div. Dir. & Branch Chiefs (with RC
concurrence)
R6 HWM Div. Dir.
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 HWM Div. Dir.
R9 Branch Chiefs
RIO Branch Chief
**
See limitations in delegation
F-10
-------
COMPOSITE REGIONAL DELEGATIONS MATRIX - CURRENT STATUS (1/1/94)
DELEGATION #
14-17-B
14-18-A
14-18-B
14-19
14-20-A
TITLE
National Priorities List:
Restoring Sites, Petitions
to Assess, Evaluation of
Serious Threats,
Deletions
Alternative Treatment
Technology Research,
Development,
Demonstration, and
Training
Hazardous Substance
Research
Contractor
Indemnification
Love Canal Cooperative
Agreement for
Maintenance of
Properties
DELEGATION
AUTHORITY
AA OSWER,
RAs**
AAORD**
AAORD**
AA OSWER
RA for Region 2
REDELEGATION
AUTHORITY
AA OSWER may not
redeleg; RA may redelegate
Division Director
To administer programs
under Sec 311(c) may be
redel. to Div. Dir.; to
administer programs under
Sec 31 l(d) may be redel to
Office Director
Office Director
May NOT be redelegated
TO WHOM
CURRENTLY
REDELEGATED
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 Not Redelegated
R5 Associate Div. Dir.
R6 HWM Div. Dir.
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 Not Redelegated
R9 Branch Chiefs
RIO HW Div. Dir.
Only applies to Region 2 and may not be redelegated
**
See limitations in delegation
F-ll
-------
)MPQSITE REGIONAL DELEGATIONS MATRIX - CURRENT STATUS (1/1/94)
DELEGATION #
14-20-B
14-21-A
14-2 1-B
TITLE
Love Canal Cooperative
Agreements and Giants
Consultation and
Reviews Concerning
Federal Facilities
Agreements with other
Federal Agencies
DELEGATION
AUTHORITY
RA for Region 2
AA OSWER,
RAs**
AAOE,
RAs**
REDELEGATION
AUTHORITY
May NOT be redelegated
Division Director
AA may redel. to Office
Dir.; RAs may redel. to
DRA
TO WHOM
CURRENTLY
REDELEGATED
Only applies to Region 2 and may not be redelegated
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 WM Div. Dir.
R5 WM Div. Dir.
R6 HWM Div. Dir.
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 Not Redelegated
R9 Deputy RA; HWM Div. Dir.
RIO Deputy RA; HW Div. Dir.
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 Deputy RA
R5 Deputy RA
R6 Not Redelegated
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 Not Redelegated
R9 Deputy RA
RIO Deputy RA
** See limitations in delegation
F-12
-------
COMPOSITE REGIONAL DELEGATIONS MATRIX - CURRENT STATUS (1/1/941
DELEGATION #
14-22
14-23
14-24
TITTLE
Response Action
Administrative Record
Public Participation
Grants for Technical
Assistance
DELEGATION
AUTHORITY
RAs
RAs
RAs**
REDELEGATION
AUTHORITY
May be redelegated
May be redelegated
Division Director
TO WHOM
CURRENTLY
REDELEGATED
Rl ESD/WMD Div. Dirs; certifying admin, records redelegated on case-by-
case basis
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 WM Div. Dir.
RS Assoc Div. Dir. for Superfund
R6 BSD Dir. for removals; HWM Div. Dir. for remedials
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 Not Redelegated
R9 Section Chiefs
RIO HWM Div. Dir.
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 WM Div. Dir.
RS Assoc. Div. Dir. for Superfund
R6 ESD Dir. for removals; HWM Div. Dir. for remedials
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 HWM Div. Dir.
R9 Section Chiefs
RIO HW Div. Dir.
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 Assistant RA for Policy and Management
RS Not Redelegated
R6 HWM Div. Dir.
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 Not Redelegated
R9 HWM Div. Dir.
RIO HW Div. Dir.
**
See limitations in delegation
F-13
-------
COMPOSITE REGIONAL DELEGATIONS MATRIX - CURRENT STATUS tt/1/94)
DELEGATION #
14-25
14-26
14-27
14-28
TITLE
Notification of Trustees
Federal Lien
Petitions for Reimburse-
ment
Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket
DELEGATION
AUTHORITY
AA OSWER,
RAs
RAs**
AA OSWER
AAOE
REDELEGATION
AUTHORITY
May be redelegated
May be redelegated
Division Director
Dir., Office of Federal
Facilities Enforcement
TO WHOM
CURRENTLY
REDELEGATED
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 WM Div. Dir.
RS Assoc. Div. Dir. for Superfund; Remedial Response Branch Chiefs;
Emergency Response Branch Chief
R6 ESD Dir. for removals; HWM Div. Dir. for remedials
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 Not Redelegated
R9 Branch Chiefs
RIO HW Div. Dir.
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Regional Counsel
R3 Regional Counsel
R4 WM Div. Dir.
RS Assoc. Div. Dir for Superfund (ORC concurrence)
R6 HWM Div. Dir. to assert lien; Regional Counsel to file lien
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 Not Redelegated
R9 Branch Chiefs (ORC concurrence)
RIO HW Div. Dir.; Regional Counsel
**
See limitations in delegation
F-14
-------
COMPOSITE REGIONAL DELEGATIONS MATRIX - CURRENT STATUS fl/1/94)
DELEGATION #
14-29
14-30
14-31
TITLE
Investigations and
Evaluations of
Employment Shifts and
Loss
Acquisition of Property
Administrative Penalty
Actions
DELEGATION
AUTHORITY
RAs, AAs for
OSWER and
OE**
AA OSWER,
RAs**
RAs**
REDELEGATION
AUTHORITY
Division Director
Division Director
May be redelegated
TO WHOM
CURRENTLY
REDELEGATED
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 WM Div. Dir.
R5 WM Div. Dir.; Water Div. Dir.; Assoc. Div. Dir. for RCRA
R6 HWM Div. Dir.
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 Not Redelegated
R9 HWM Div. Dir.
RIO HW Div. Dir.
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 WM Div. Dir.
R5 Not Redelegated
R6 ESD Dir. for removals; HWM Div. Dir. for remedials
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 Not Redelegated
R9 HWM Div. Dir.
RIO HW Div. Dir.
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 ERRD Div. Dir.
R3 Division Director
R4 Not Redelegated
R5 Assoc. Div. Dir. for Superfund (WM Div. Dir. concurrence and ORC
concurrence on some actions)
R6 ESD & HWM Div. Dirs. with limitations
R7 Air and Toxics Div. Dir.
R8 Not Redelegated
R9 HWM Div. Dir.
RIO HW Div. Dir.
**
See limitations in delegation
F-15
-------
COMPOSITE REGIONAL DELEGATIONS MATRIX - CURRENT STATUS (1/1/94)
DELEGATION/
14-32
14-33
14-34
14-35
TITLE
Administrative
Enforcement: Agency
Representation at
Hearings
Administrative
Enforcement: Issuance
of Final Orders
Waiver of Permit
Requirements in the State
of Illinois
List of Hazardous
Substances and
Toxicological Profiles
DELEGATION
AUTHORITY
RAs**
Env. Appeals
Board
AA OSWER,
RA for Reg. 5**
AA OPPTS**
REDELEGATION
AUTHORITY
May be redelegated
May NOT be redelegated
May be redelegated
May be redelegated
TO WHOM
CURRENTLY
REDELEGATED
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Division Director
R4 WM Div. Dir.
R5 Assoc. Div. Dir. for Superfund (WM Div. Dir. and ORC concurrence)
R6 Regional Counsel
R7 Regional Counsel
R8 Not Redelegated
R9 Section Chiefs with ORC concurrence; HWM Div. Dir. represents EPA
for final settlements
RIO HW Div. Dir.
Only applies to Region 5; Not Redelegated
** See limitations in delegation
F-16
-------
SGIONAL DELEGATIONS MATRIX -
STATUS (1/1/94^
DELEGATION #
14-36
14-37
14-38
TITLE
Lead Contaminated Soil
Reimbursement to Local
Governments
EPA Role in Department
of Defense
Environmental
Restoration Program
DELEGATION
AUTHORITY
AA OSWER,
RAs**
AA OSWER**
RAs, AAs for
OSWER, ORD,
OW**
REDELEGATION
AUTHORITY
See language in delegation
Division Director
May be redelegated
tO WHOM
CURRENTLY
KbllE/UlAjrA I KM
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 Not Redelegated
RS Not Redelegated
R6 ESD Dir. for removals; HWM Div. Dir. for remedials
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 Not Redelegated
R9 Not Redelegated
RIO HW Div. Dir.
Rl Not Redelegated
R2 Not Redelegated
R3 Not Redelegated
R4 Not Redelegated
R5 Assoc. Div. Directors for Superfund and RCRA
R6 HWM Div. Dir.
R7 Not Redelegated
R8 Not Redelegated
R9 Branch Chiefs
RIO Not Redelegated
**
See limitations in delegation
F-17
-------
Appendix G
Composite Headquarters Delegations Matrix
-------
COMPOSITE HEADQUARTERS DELEGATIONS MATRIX - CURRENT STATUS (1/1/94)
DELEGATION #
14-1-A
14-1-B
14-2-A
14-2-B
14-3
14-4-A
TITLE
Selection and Performance of Removal
Actions Costing up to $2,000,000
Superfund State Contracts and Cooperative
Agreements for Removal Actions
Removal Actions Initially Expected to Cost
over $2,000,000 and Continued Removal
Actions after Obligations of $2,000,000
(Pursuant to the Emergency Waiver)
Removal Actions Initially Expected to Cost
over $2,000,000 and Continued Removal
Actions after Obligations of $2,000,000
(Pursuant to the Consistency Waiver)
Selection and Performance of Removal
Actions Lasting More Than One Year
State-Lead Studies and Investigations
Related to Remedial Actions
DELEGATION
AUTHORITY
RAs**
RAs**
AA OSWER
AA OSWER,
RAs**
RAs
RAs**
REDELEGATION
AUTHORITY
May be icdel. to Div. Dir. who
may redel. to OSC; OSC only
for obligations not to exceed
$50,000 for initiating removal
actions
Division Director
OD for OERR
AA may redel. to OD OERR;
RA may not redel.
Division Director
Division Director
TO WHOM
CURRENTLY
REDELEGATED
Not Redelegated
Not Redelegated
**
see limitations in delegation
G-l
-------
COMPOSITE HEADQUARTERS DELEGATIONS MATRIX - CURRENT STATUS (1/1/94)
DELEGATION #
14-4-B
14-4-C
14-5
14-6
14-7
14-8-A
14-8-B
TITLE
Selection of Initial Remedial Measures
Superfund State Contracts and Cooperative
Agreements Implement and Perform
Remedial Actions
Select of Remedial Actions
Inspections, Sampling, Information
Gathering, Subpoenas, and Entry for
Response
Combination of Noncontiguous Facilities for
Response Purposes
Federal-Lead Studies and Investigations
Related to Response Actions
Studies and Investigations Related to Cost
Recovery and Enforcement Decisions;
Special Notice
DELEGATION
AUTHORITY
RAs**
RAs**
AA OSWER,
RAs**
RAs, AAs for
OSWER and
OE**
AA OSWER,
RAs
AA OSWER,
RAs**
RAs, AAs for
OSWER and OE
REDELEGATION
AUTHORITY
May NOT be
redelegated
Division Director
AA may redel. to OD; RA
may redel. to DRA
May be redelegated
May be redelegated
Division Director
May be redelegated
TO WHOM
CURRENTLY
REDELEGATED
Not Redelegated
Dir. OWPE
Dir. OERR
For OE, not
redelegated but
staff level
authorized to
consult
Dir. OWPE
Dir. OERR
Dir. OWPE
Dir. OERR
Dir. OWPE
Dir. OERR
For OE, not
redelegated
**
see limitations in delegation/redelegation
G-2
-------
COMPOSITE HEADQUARTERS DELEGATIONS MATRIX - CURRENT STATUS (1/1/941
DELEGATION #
14-9
14-10-A
14-10-B
14-11
14-12
14-13-A
14-13-B
TITLE
Claims Asserted Against the Fund
State Technical Assistance
State Legal Assistance
Credit for State Expenditures
Civil Judicial Enforcement Actions
Criminal Enforcement Actions
Concurrence in Settlement of Civil Judicial
Actions
DELEGATION
AUTHORITY
AA OSWER
AA OSWER,
RAs**
AA OE**
RAs
RAs, AA OE,
General
Counsel**
AAOE
RAs**
REDELEGATION
AUTHORITY
Div. Dir.
May be redelegated
May be redelegated
Div. Dir.
AA OE & Gen. Counsel may
redel. to Div. Dir.; RAs may
redel. to Reg. Counsel
To refer cases may be redel. to
Dir. Office of Criminal
Enforcement who may redel.
to Div. Dir.; to authorize
payment of awards may be
redel. to Dir. Office of
Criminal Enforcement
To request the Attorney
General to amend a consent
decree issued under CERCLA
may be redel. to the Div. Dir.;
other authorities cited in PI
may be redel.
TO WHOM
CURRENTLY
REDELEGATED
Dir. OERR
Dir. OWPE
Dir. OERR
Not Redelegated
Not Redelegated
Div. Dir.
Criminal
Investigations
Division
** see limitations in delegation
G-3
-------
COMPOSITE HEADQUARTERS DELEGATIONS MATRIX - CURRENT STATUS (1/1/94)
DELEGATION #
14-13-C
14-14-A
14-14-B
14-14-C
14-14-D
14-14-E
14-14-F
14-15
TITLE
Emergency TROs
Determinations of Imminent and Substantial
Endangerment
Administrative Actions Through Unilateral
Orders
Administrative Actions Through Consent
Orders
Cost Recovery Non-Judicial Agreements and
Administrative Consent Orders
De Minimis Settlements
Cost Recovery Arbitration
Guidelines for Use of Imminent Hazard,
Enforcement and Emergency Response
Authorities
DELEGATION
AUTHORITY
RAs, AA OE**
RAs**
RAs**
RAs**
RAs**
RAs**
RAs**
AA OE**
REDELEGATION
AUTHORITY
AA OE may redel.; RA may
redel. to OSC
May be redelegated
May be redelegated
May be redelegated
Branch Chief
May be redelegated
To refer cost recov. claims for
resolution by arbitration may
be redel. to Div. Dir.; to
represent EPA at arbitration
hearings, conferences, &
negotiations may be redel. to
staff attorney
May be redelegated
TO WHOM
CURRENTLY
REDELEGATED
Not Redelegated
Not Redelegated
** see limitations in delegation
G-4
-------
COMPOSITE HEADQUARTERS DELEGATIONS MATRIX - CURRENT STATUSJl/1/94)
DELEGATION #
14-16
14-17-A
14-17-B
14-18-A
14-18-B
14-19
14-20-A
14-20-B
TITLE
Demand Letters
National Priorities List: Federal Register
Submission of Proposed and Final Additions
and Deletions
National Priorities List: Restoring Sites,
Petitions to Assess, Evaluation of Serious
Threats, Deletions
Alternative Treatment Technology Research,
Development, Demonstration, and Training
Hazardous Substance Research
Contractor Indemnification
Love Canal Cooperative Agreement for
Maintenance of Properties
Love Canal Cooperative Agreements and
Grants
DELEGATION
AUTHORITY
RAs, AAs for
OSWER and OE
AA OSWER,
RAs**
AA OSWER,
RAs**
AA ORD**
AAORD**
AA OSWER
RA for Region 2
RA for Region 2
REDELEGATION
AUTHORITY
May be redelegated
see language in
delegation
AA OSWER may not redel.;
RA may redelegate
Division Director
To administer programs under
Sec 31 l(c) may be redel. to
Div. Dir.; to administer
programs under Sec 311(d)
may be redel to OD
Office Dir.
May NOT be
redelegated
May NOT be
redelegated
TO WHOM
CURRENTLY
REDELEGATED
Dir. OWPE
For OE, Not
Redelegated
Not Redelegated
Not Redelegated
Not Redelegated
Dir. OWPE
Dir. OERR
**
see limitations in delegation/redelegation
G-5
-------
COMPOSITE HEADQUARTERS DELEGATIONS MATRIX -
IT STATUS (1/1/94)
DELEGATION #
14-21 -A
14-21-B
14-22
14-23
14-24
14-25
14-26
14-27
14-28
14-29
14-30
TITLE
Consultations and Reviews of Federal
Facility Plans
Agreements with other Federal Agencies
Response Action Administrative Record
Public Participation
Grants for Technical Assistance
Notification of Trustees
Federal Lien
Petitions for Reimbursement
Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket
Investigations and Evaluations of
Employment Shifts and Loss
Acquisition of Property
DELEGATION
AUTHORITY
AA OSWER,
RAs**
AA OE, RAs**
RAs
RAs
RAs**
AA OSWER,
RAs
RAs**
AA OSWER
AAOE
RAs, AAs for
OSWER and
OE**
AA OSWER, RAs**
REDELEGATION
AUTHORITY
Division Director
See language in
delegation
May be redelegated
May be redelegated
Div. Dir.
May be redelegated
May be redelegated
Div. Dir.
Dir., Office of Federal
Facilities Enforcement
Division Director
Division Director
TO WHOM
CURRENTLY
REDELEGATED
Dir. OWPE
Not Redelegated
Dir. OWPE
Dir. OERR
Dir. OWPE
Not Redelegated
Not Redelegated
Dir. OERR
** see limitations in delegation/redelegation
G-6
-------
COMPOSITE HEADQUARTERS DELEGATIONS MATRIX - CURRENT STATUS (1/1/94)
DELEGATION #
14-31
14-32
14-33
14-34
14-35
14-36
14-37
14-38
TITLE
Administrative Penalty Actions
Administrative Enforcement: Agency
Representation at Hearings
Administrative Enforcement: Issuance of
Final Orders
Waiver of Permit Requirements in the State
of Illinois
List of Hazardous Substances and
Toxicological Profiles
Lead Contaminated Soil
Reimbursement to Local Governments
EPA Role in Department of Defense
Environmental Restoration Program
DELEGATION
AUTHORITY
RAs**
RAs**
Env. Appeals
Board
AA OSWER, RA
for Reg. 5**
AA OPPTS**
AA OSWER,
RAs**
AA OSWER**
RAs, AAs for
OSWER, ORD,
ow**
REDELEGATION
AUTHORITY
May be redelegated
May be redelegated
May NOT be
redelegated
May be redelegated
May be redelegated
See language in
delegation
Division Director
May be redelegated
TO WHOM
CURRENTLY
REDELEGATED
Not Redelegated
Not Redelegated
Dir. OERR
Dir. OERR;
redelegated to
Dir. ERD
Dir. OWPE
For OW and
ORD, not
redelegated
**
see limitations in delegation/redelegation
G-7
-------
Appendix H
Memorandum From the Department of Justice Stating Delegation Efforts of
the Department
-------
US. Department of Justice
Environment and Natural Resources Division
Policy, Legislation & Special Litigation Washington, D.C. 20530
September 16, 1993
Memorandum
To: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Delegations Workgroup, Superfund
Administrative Improvements Initiative.
From: Bradley M. Campbell
Re: Changes in Department of Justice (DOJ1 Delegations
In 1991, the Department began to explore a number of
possible delegations affecting environmental enforcement. Those
efforts resulted in a series of delegations within the Department
and the institution of internal "streamlining* procedures that
have resulted in improved and expedited approval processes for
Superfund litigation.
Specifically, on February 26, 1991, Attorney General
Thornburgh approved an increase in the settlement and compromise
authority delegated to the Assistant Attorneys General of the
Department's litigating Divisions. Under that delegation, the
AAGs are authorized to accept offers in compromise of claims on
behalf of the United States in cases in which the difference
between the gross amount of the original claim and the proposed
settlement does not exceed $2 million or 15 percent of the
original claim, whichever is greater (See 28 C.F.R. § 0.160).
The prior settlement authority figures were $750,000 or 10
percent.
Thereafter, on March 4, 1991, Attorney General Barr issued a
Directive providing that certain partial settlements under CERCLA
should be exempt from Deputy Attorney General review and approval
under 28 CFR 0.160.. Under that Directive, the following partial
-------
CERCLA settlements do not require Deputy review and approval:
1. De roinimis settlements;
2. Settlements with parties whose liability can be
apportioned with exactness; and
3. Settlements in which the settling parties will pay
at least their pro-rata share of liability and the
shortfall can be recovered from other viable
defendants.
Additional delegations in civil CERCLA litigation were
approved by Assistant Attorney General Stewart in December 1990.
Those delegations authorize the Section Chief of the
Environmental Enforcement Section to approve the filing and
compromise of CERCLA cost recovery cases where the costs do not
exceed $1 million and, in the case of a settlement, where the
difference between the United States' claim and the proposed
settlement does not exceed $500,000. In addition, the Section
Chief is authorized to approve all case filings and settlements
under Section 104(e).
Finally, in October 1992, in an effort to improve the RD/RA
consent decree approval process, the Environmental Enforcement
Section developed new procedures for expediting the processing of
those decrees. In brief, those new procedures include an
expedited, short-form approval process for "routine" decrees that
do not raise any novel or difficult issues and follow the Model
RD/RA Consent Decree, and DOJ management review and approval
concurrent with EPA review.
We believe that these delegations and streamlined approval
processes have greatly improved and expedited DOJ's review and
approval of Superfund settlements. We do not expect to institute
any new delegations beyond those listed above.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
------- |