Qz& .
JAN i
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: c uidance on Delegation of Selection
of Reme dyAuthorjty to Regions
t% ,,(//
FROM: 3 c ”W. t .?cGraw
cting Assistant Administrator
TO: Director, Waste Management Division, Regions I and V
Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Region Ii
Director, Hazardous Waste Management DjviSjOfl, Region III
Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Regions IV,
VI, VII, v iii - -
Director, Toxics and Waste Management Division, Region Ix
Director, Air and Waste Division, Region X
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this memorandum is to present our proposed
procedures to implement the partial delegation of selection of
remedy this fiscal year. At October and November Regional/
Headquarters meetings, our staff outlined proposed procedures
for the delegation of Record of Decision (ROD) approval authority
to the Regional Administrators. The procedures also pertain to
the Negotiation Decision Document (NDD) and the Enforcement Decision
Document (EDD) for responsible party cleanups. We plan to delegate
60 percent of the FY 1985 ROD/NDD/EDDs. These procedures do not
affect settlement review and concurrence for administrative and
judicial actions.
The following technical factors will be used to assess whether
remedy selection will be delegated:
1. Liaited threat posed by site requiring no action,
2. Action to remedy waste lagoons and ponds on-site,
3. Action to remedy surface drums and surface tanks,
4. Action to provide alternative water supplies that are
contaminated or threatened, and
5. Remedial action in which the off—site contamination is
ii m i ted.

-------
—2—
F t ctors warrant retaining approval of the remeay by the
AA-OSWERI
1. —wide or extensive off—site contamination,
2. Disposal or removal of dioxin wastes (until the listinc
regulations are developed and implemented),
3. Likely remedies will not comply with other environrnentaj
laws. Possible fund balancing or public interest waivers
will be scrutinized closely, or
4. Likely remedies will require permanent relocation ot
residents.
In addition, nationally significant enforcement cases, e.g.
cases concerning responsible parties involved at multiple sites,
could warrant the AA—OSWER retaining remedy approval authority.
First and Second Quarter ROD/NDD/EDDs
Over the past three weeks, the Hazardous Site Control Division
(HSCD) and CERCLA Enforcement Division (CED) have been working
closely with your staff to identify those..-remedial sites with
operable units which will be appropriate for delegation. The tocus
has been on those sites scheduled for ROD/NDD/EDD completion in
the first and second quarters of the fiscal year (see Attachntent 1).
As a result of this review, it appears that the initial Remecy
Delegation Report (RDR) will contain about 5—7 sites.
We are concerned that with the delegation factors listea
above, it may be difficult to achieve our ROD/NDD/EDD delegation
goal of 60 percent. Therefore, we need to work closely witn tne
Regions to identify sites which fall into the AA—OSWER catei ory
(see Attachment 1) but could be shifted to the Regions if key
issues were resolved prior to the public comment period. In orcer
to identify these sites we will need additional intormation on
each site scheduled for a ROD/NDD/EDD this fiscal year.
Procedure .
w. d appreciate receiving the information describea in
the atta Delegation Analysis Summary (Attachment 2) tor tne
second quarter sites designated as to be determined” tor
the likely selection official (see Attachment 1). This DeleQatlon
Analysis Summary focuses on four major areas:
1. Site background and threat;
2. Key remedial alternatives under consideration;
3. Issues remaining to be resolved; and
4. Evaluation of delegation recommendation.

-------
—3—
The Da egation Analysis Summary is neither a COSt-effective
analysis d ent nor a stand alone document. it identifies issues,
but does necessarily present solutions. As a result of the
submissior this analysis, we should be able to identify sites
for delegation and candidate sites for issue resolution with
subsequent delegation.
Generally, the Delegation Analysis Summary should be Submitted
after completion of the remedial investigation. However, in some
cases the recommendation to delegate could be made before the
remedial investigation If there is sufficient site knowledge and/or
remedial planning activities are being fast tracked. Recorumenastions
should be received by HSCD or CED and acted upon by the AA—OSWER
before the feasibility study is released to the public.
Once a site remedy selection has been delegated to a Region,
a previously unanticipated situation could arise where authority
ordinarily would be retained by the AA—OSWER. Therefore, before
selection of remedy by the Regional Administrator, advance
concurrence of the AA—OSWER is required in the following cases:
(1) When the Regional Administrator is considering Fund—
balancing to initiate action; -
(2) When the Regional Administrator is considering a public
interest circumstance; or
(3) When noncompliance with another environmental law or stand-
ard will occur.
These procedures and how they relate to the existing ROD/NDD/
EDD processes are illustrated in Attachments 3—1 and 3—2.
Schedule
The Agency’s striped border review for this delegation of
authority should begin next week. HSCD and CED will continue
analyzing first and second quarter sites to identify sites that
could be included in the first periodic Remedy Delegation Report
(estimated late February). It is requested that the Regions submit
the Delegation Analysis Summary for third quarter SCAP sites by
February 2*1985.
Third and Fourth Quarter RODS
Upon completion of the analysis of possible second quarter
SCAP delegations, this informal process should be continued tor
third and fourth quarter ROD/NDD/EDDs. Delegation Analysis Sum-
maries should be submitted to HSCD or CED as early in the second
quarter as possible.

-------
—4—
Points Of Contact
If y have any questions Concerning these procedures, please
contact Bill Hanson for remedial (FTS 382—2345) and Bob Mason
for enforcement (FTS 475-8235).
Attachments
cc: Regional Counsel, Regions I—X
Dan Berry, OGC
Fred Stiehi, OECM
Jim Lounsbury, OERR

-------
ROD Status
Likely
ROD Selection
cropj Qu*Tjr DATE Official
I Nyanza, MA 3/85 PA
I (Western Sand, RI) 2/85 AA
II Bridgeport, NJ 12/84 AA
II (Love Canal, NYJ 3/85 AA
III Tysons, PA 12/84 AA
V Byron, IL 2/85 RA
V Chemdyrte, OH 2/85 AA NDD—Consent Order
VI Crystal Chemical, TX 2/85 AA
VII Elljsvjlle, MO 2/85 R.A Sites without dioxin
South Tacoma, WA 9/84 A A NDD already prepared
Likely
Second ROD Selection
REGION Quarter DATE Official Notes
I (Charles George, MA) 3/85 PA
I McKin, ME 5/85 TBD (To be determined)
II [ Burnt Fly Bog, NJ) 3/85 AA
II D’Imperjo, NJ 3/85 TBD
II [ Price, NJ] 3/85 AA Likely to be NDD
II Sinclair, NY 6/86 TBD Not Applicable for
FY’85
III [ Bruin, PAJ 3/85 AA
I II Lackawanna, PA 2/85 TBD
III Tybouts, DE 5/85 TBD
IV NW 58th Street, FL 2/85 TBD
V Cemetary Dump, MI 6/85 TBD
V Charlesvoix, MI 3/85 AA
V Cross Bros, IL 2/85 TBD
V LaSalle, IL 6/85 TBD
V Main St Well Field, IN 2/85 PA Likely to e IRM
VI Motco, TX 2/85 PA
VIII Denver Radium, CO 3/85 TBD
VIII Woodbury, CO 6/85 TBD
X Western Processing, WA 3/85 TBD Likely to e NDD
NDD/EDD Status
Likely
Second NDD/EDD Selection
REGION Quarter DATE Official Notes
IV A.L. Taylor, KY 2 Otr TBD
V A & F Greenup, IL 2 Qtr TBD
VI Harris Farley, TX 2 Qtr TBD
VII Conservation 2 Qtr TBD
Chem., KS

-------
Attachment 2
Delegation Analysis Summary
(Note Items 2—8 may be omitted if RI/FS has been submitted]
Site Name:_____________________
Site Location:__________________
Site Classification:___________
1. Delegation Criteria
Indicate which delegation criteria are applicable to this sLte.
2. Site Decription (include map(s), site plan(s))
Brief description of location, land user(s), surface water
resources, ground water resources.
Current Site Status
3. Hazardous Compounds Present
Brief description of types and amounts of hazardous cornpounos
present in:
— surface drums and tanks
— surface impoundment(s)
— soil.
— ground water
— air
— other natural resources
— threats to water supplies
4. Risk to Receptors via Pathways
Brief description of risk due to exposure trom hazardous
co unds via identified pathways.
5. Operabl Unit(s )
Describe if site activity will be divided into operable units.
6. Remedial Objectives and Criteria
Present remedial objectives and criteria

-------
—2—
7. Alternatives Description
ly describe alternatives remaining after trie ir tiaj
_ ing process (including no—action) in terms o specific
pities, cost, public health considerations, env1ronme aj
considerations, and technical considerations.
8. Recommended Alternative
Describe the proposed recommended alternatives or describe
any alternate remedies which would be deemed acceptable in
an NDD.
9. Consistency with other Environmental Laws
State whether the alternatives attain, exceed, or are below
current regulations (and reason).
10. Enforcement
Description of past, present and expected enforcement
activities, e.g. number and identity o responsible party
negotiations status.
11. Community Relations
Briefly describe public’s involvement anb concerns.
12. Issues to be Resolved
Examples would include:
— Potential for Fund balancing
— RCRA issues, such as need to obtain alternate concentration
limits (ACLs) and application to on—site aisposal
— Acceptability of off—site disposal facilities
— Eligibility for funding of more restrictive State stanoaro
- No action thresholds
13. Schedule
Lis y milestones and dates for project implementation
— lete Remedial Investigation Feasibilty Study
— Prepare ROD or NDD
- Approve Remedial Actió (sign ROD)
14. Future Actions
Describe future remedial activities that are required to
complete site response:
— Additional RI/FS projects
— Second operable unit (i.e., for grouna water migration)
— Long—term o&n to maintain effectiveness of remedy

-------
Attachment 3-1
REMEDY SELECTION PROCESS
FUND- LEAD
PREPARE
DRAFT ROD
V
V
PUBLIC
COMMENT
PERIOD
r
PREPARE
FINAL ROD
& RESPONSIVENESS
SUMMARY
ROD
AA/OSWE R
CONCURRENCE REQUIRED
WHEN WAIVER SOUGHT
I --

-------
REMEDY SELECTION PROCESS
ENFORCEMENT-LEAD
V
CONDUCT
FS
V
V
PREPARE
FINAL NOD &
SUMMARY OF
PUBLIC COMMENTS
V
COMPLETE
NEGOTIATIONS
WITH PRPs
REGION SUBMITS
DELEGATION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
AA-OSWER
APPROVES SITE DELEGATION
V
V
V
NEGOTIATIONS
WITH
PRPs
-u
. I
AA-OSWER
CONCURRENCE REQUIRED
WHEN WAIVER SOUGHT
I < ) I
CONDUCT
RI
PREPARE
DRAFT
NOD
PUBLIC & PRP
COMMENT
PERIOD
V
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
(NO SETTLEMENT)
PREPARE
FINAL EDD
(SETTLEMENT)
V

-------