202-566-0556
['OR GENERAL
Evaluation Report
Some States Cannot Address
Assessment Needs and Face
Limitations in Meeting Future
Superfund Cleanup Requirements
Report No. 2004-P-00027
September 1, 2004
-------
Report Contributors:
Carolyn Copper
Michael Owen
Angela Bennett
Johnny Ross
Steve Textoris
Bryan Holtrop
Jessica Knight
Eileen Collins
Abbreviations
ARARs Applicable, or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FTEs Full-Time Equivalents
GAO General Accounting Office
GSI Ground Water/Surface Water Interface
LTRA Long-term Response Action
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLGs Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
NCP National Contingency Plan
NPL National Priority List
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OIG Office of Inspector General
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
-------
^ts%,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
September 1, 2004
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Evaluation Report
Some States Cannot Address Assessment Needs and Face Limitations in
Meeting Future Superfund Cleanup Requirements
Report No. 2004-P-00027
Carolyn Copper /s/
Director of Program Evaluation: Hazardous Waste Issues
Office of Program Evaluation
Thomas P. Dunne
Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Attached is out report entitled Some States Cannot Address Assessment Needs and Face
Limitations in Meeting Future Superfund Cleanup Requirements. Our review evaluated
the effectiveness of States' hazardous waste site cleanup programs, including those related to
Superfund projects, and their capacity to undertake future actions at sites that are either eligible for or
listed on the National Priorities List. We focused on cleanup programs in five States - New Jersey,
Michigan, Kansas, Pennsylvania, and Washington - and the extent to which they had processes in
place to identify, assess, and prioritize hazardous waste sites and use standard-based cleanup remedies
that provide long-term protection. Because States have a future responsibility to assume operation and
maintenance responsibilities for long-term response actions at National Priorities List sites, we also
evaluated the States' capacity to undertake these actions.
The report contains findings and recommendations that describe problems the Office of Inspector
General (OIG) has identified and the corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents
the opinion of the OIG and the findings contained in this report do not necessarily represent the final
EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in
accordance with established audit resolution procedures.
-------
On July 28,2004, the OIG issued a draft report to Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) and the States for review and comment. We received responses to the draft report from
OSWER and the five States reviewed, and they all generally agreed with the findings and
recommendations.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide this office with a written response
within 90 days of the final report date. The response should address all recommendations. For
corrective actions planned but not completed by the response date, please describe the actions that are
ongoing and provide a timetable for completion. Reference to specific milestones for these actions will
assist in deciding whether to close this report in the assignment tracking system
We have no objection to the further release of this report to the public. Should you or your staffhave
any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (202) 566-0829 or Michael Owen, the
assignment manager, at (206) 553-2542.
-------
Executive Summary
Purpose
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently considering the future direction of the
Superfund program This consideration includes Superfund's relationship to State hazardous
waste site cleanup programs and how the Nation's waste programs can work together in a
more effective and unified fashion. Our review evaluated ihe effectiveness of State hazardous
waste site cleanup programs, including those related to Superfund projects, and their capacity
to undertake future cleanup actions at sites lhat are either eligible for or listed on the National
Priorities List (NPL). We focused on cleanup programs in five States - New Jersey, Michigan,
Kansas, Pennsylvania, and Washington - and the extent to which they had processes in place
to identify, assess, and prioritize hazardous waste sites and use standard-based cleanup
remedies that provide long-term protection. We addressed the following questions:
Have the States established processes that identify, assess, and prioritize cleanups
to ensure that sites with the greatest threats to public health and the environment are
being addressed promptly?
Are cleanup standards and remedies used by the States based on risk and sound
science and do Ihey provide long-term protection for public health and the
environment?
Because States have a future responsibility to assume operation and maintenance (O&M)
responsibilities for long-term response actions (LTRAs) at NPL sites, we also evaluated the
States' capacity to undertake these actions.
This work is intended to assist EPA with decisions concerning whether the States should play a
greater role in the Superfund program.
Results
The five States have established hazardous waste site cleanup programs that address
contaminated sites posing human health and environmental risks ranging from low to high. Over
5,400 hazardous waste sites are being addressed by these programs, including more than 1,700
sites that could be considered NPL-caliber (hazardous waste sites that were not included on
the NPL but appeared to be eligible). However, the States' abilities to meet current and/or
future responsibilities for ihe Superfund program as well as their own cleanup programs are
limited. Specifically, we found that States have backlogs in addressing hazardous waste sites,
use flexible remedy decision processes that are not equivalent to Superfund's process, and
appear to be significantly challenged in Iheir ability to meet their required, and impending
obligations at current Superfund sites.
-------
States Need to Address Backlogs in Site Assessments and Scoring
All five States reviewed have implemented processes for identifying, assessing, investigating,
and prioritizing hazardous waste sites which are similar to EPA's remedial process for the
Superfund program. However, three of the States had a combined backlog of at least 423 sites
that were awaiting site assessment, and one of these States may also have a backlog in scoring
sites. Although one of the remaining two States also appeared to have a backlog, there was
insufficient data for determining whether a backlog exists. According to State officials, the
backlogs were primarily attributable to limitations in Federal and State funding. Until these
backlogs are eliminated, the States cannot assure that sites posing the greatest threat to human
health and the environment are being addressed promptly, and the backlog may limit the States'
capacity to address future hazardous waste sites, including sites on the NPL.
States Apply Remedy Decision Processes That Are More Flexible Than
Superfund's Process
The States have developed cleanup standards that are based on risk and sound science and are
intended to be protective of human health and the environment Additionally, processes used
by the States to characterize contamination, assess risks, and make remedy decisions generally
incorporate sound scientific analysis and are similar, but not equivalent, to EPA's remedy
decision process for Superfund. The States generally use streamlined decision processes that
do not include the Superrund equivalent baseline risk assessments established by EPA.
However, we found that the States' decision processes for NPL-caliber sites generally provide
remedies that are designed to be protective to human health and the environment Therefore, if
EPA wants the States to assume a larger role in addressing NPL sites, it should consider giving
the States greater flexibility in their remedy selection processes.
States May Not Be Able to Support Impending Operation and Maintenance
Responsibilities
We also found that four of the five States reviewed may not have the resources to undertake
their future O&M LTRA obligations because of declining budgets. Further, the States are
concerned that they may be required to assume O&M responsibilities for ineffective and/or
inefficiently performing LTRAs. They are concerned about fee performance of the LTRAs
because EPA may not conduct optimization studies on all of the systems. Consequently, States
may not be able to maintain the integrity of remedies and ensure protection to human health and
the environment, and assuming inadequate LTRAs can result in the States incurring
unanticipated costs.
Recommendations
If EPA desires States to assume greater responsibilities in Superrund remedy decision
processes or actions, we recommend that the Agency work with States to determine the key
-------
reasons for the backlogs in completing site assessments, and consider streamlining the
Superfund remediation process to provide States more flexibility in the application of baseline
risk assessments. We also recommend that EPA work with the States to explore viable funding
and staffing options to support their O&M responsibilities for LTRAs at NPL sites, and
complete guidance on optimization of LTRAs at NPL sites.
Agency and State Comments and OIG Evaluation
OSWER agreed with the findings and recommendations and generally noted that the OIG's
focused recommendations will assist them in enhancing the role of States as co-implementers of
the Superfund program. Additionally, OSWER identified plans to implement the report
recommendations and did not identify any factual inaccuracies in the information presented.
The five States generally agreed with the findings. New Jersey, Michigan, and Kansas also
generally agreed with the recommendations; however, Pennsylvania and Washington did not
comment on them Additionally each of the States provided comments to clarify its respective
portions of the report content, and we have incorporated these comments in the report as
appropriate. Although the States generally agreed with the report, Michigan, Kansas, and
Washington expressed concern over the title of Ihe report Kansas and Washington also
commented that their backlog consisted of lower risk sites. We made a minor revision to the
report's title in response to the States' concerns. With regard to the States' comments on their
backlog, Kansas and Washington made their risk determination based on incomplete site
characterization information. As discussed in Chapter 2 of this report, the States cannot be
assured of the full risk that these sites pose to human health and the environment until the
assessments are completed.
ui
-------
IV
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary i
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
2 States Need to Address Backlogs in Site Assessments and Scoring .... 5
3 States Apply Remedy Decision Processes That Are
More Flexible Than Superfund's Process 13
4 States May Not Be Able to Support Impending
Operation and Maintenance Responsibilities 21
Appendices
A Details on Scope and Methodology 27
B Details on States' Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Programs 29
C Systems Used for Scoring Sites 39
D Memorandum to Region 3 41
E Superfund NPL LTRA Sites Pending State Assumption
Over 10-Year Period (2004-2013) 45
F Agency's Comments to Draft Evaluation Report 47
G New Jersey's Comments to Draft Evaluation Report 53
H Michigan's Comments to Draft Evaluation Report 59
I Pennsylvania's Comments to Draft Evaluation Report 65
J Kansas' Comments to Draft Evaluation Report 69
K Washington's Comments to Draft Evaluation Report 79
L Distribution 85
-------
-------
Chapter 1
introduction
Purpose
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently considering the future
direction of the Superfund program. This consideration includes Superfund's
relationship to State hazardous waste cleanup programs and how the Nation's waste
programs can work together in a more effective and unified fashion. This evaluation
sought to assess the effectiveness of State hazardous waste site cleanup programs,
including those related to Superfund projects, and their capacity to undertake future
cleanup actions at sites that are either eligible for or listed on the National Priorities List
(NPL). All the States currently have their own hazardous waste site cleanup programs
that address sites not on the NPL. However, EPA has not conducted a formal study to
assess how effective State programs have been in remediating sites eligible for the NPL
and their capacity to undertake future cleanup actions for these sites. Therefore, we
addressed the following questions:
Have the States established processes that identify, assess, and prioritize cleanups
1O ensure that sites with the greatest threats to public health and the environment are
being addressed promptly?
Are cleanup standards and remedies used by the States based on risk and sound
science and do they provide long-term protection for public health and the
environment?
Because States have a future responsibility to assume operation and maintenance
(O&M) responsibilities for long-term response actions (LTRAs) at NPL sites, we also
evaluated the States' capacity to undertake these actions.
Background
In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which established EPA's hazardous
release reporting and cleanup program, known as Superfund. As required by section
105 of CERCLA, the National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 Code of Federal
Regulations Part 300, provides the organizational structure and procedures for
preparing for and responding to discharges of oil and hazardous substances, pollutants,
and contaminants. CERCLA and the NCP also authorize States to participate in the
cleanup process.
-------
EPA places the nation's most seriously contaminated sites on its NPL. As shown in
Figure 1-1, there are currently 1,518 hazardous waste sites on the NPL in various
stages.
Figure 1.1. Status of Sites on the NPL
1518 NPL Sites
Pending Study
1.0%
Study or Design
16.0%
Construction Complete.
59.0%
Construction Underway
24.0%
Source: CERCUS Database June 24,2004
States Have Hazardous Waste Cleanup Programs
States are actively involved in EPA's decision making process for NPL sites, although
EPA is overseeing or undertaking remedial actions for the majority of the sites on the
NPL. EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) shows that 28 States have assumed a lead regulatory
role in overseeing or conducting remedial actions at 143 of the 1,258 sites (or
approximately 10 percent) classified as "Construction Underway" or "Construction
Complete." Although the States' remediation activities have been limited, CERCLIS
shows that 47 States have conducted many of the initial site assessment activities for
their respective NPL sites.
In addition to State-lead NPL activities, States have also assumed responsibility for
hazardous waste sites that have been included in CERCLIS but have not been added to
the NPL. Over the years, EPA has informally deferred approximately 1,700 sites
identified in CERCLIS as "Other Cleanup Activity" sites. These sites are considered
by EPA to be high priority sites because they received preliminary Hazard Ranking
System scores of at least 28.5. Although EPA has no further Federal actions planned
for these sites, they remain on EPA's "watch list" pending subsequent action by the
States.
-------
According to studies conducted by the Environmental Law Institute since 1989 under
an EF'A cooperative agreement, all 50 States have hazardous waste site cleanup
programs. These studies provide general descriptions of their statutes, program
organization, staffing, funding, expenditures, cleanup policies, enforcement provisions,
and cleanup activities. However, the studies do not evaluate the effectiveness and
capacities of the cleanup programs. The most recent study -An Analysis of State
Superfand Programs, 50-State Study, 2001 Update - reported that, as of the end of
fiscal 2000, Ihe States had completed cleanups at about 29,000 non-NPL sites since
the start of their programs. The report also disclosed that the States were overseeing
or conducting cleanups at approximately 16,000 sites during fiscal 2000.
Superfund Program Faces Future Challenges
The Superfund program faces significant challenges in paying for the remediation of
current and future sites on Ihe NPL. The taxing authority generating the majority of
revenues for the Superfund Trust Fund expired in 1995, which has resulted in a steady
decrease in appropriations supporting the Superfund program. According to the
General Accounting Office1 (GAO), Superfund program appropriations have
decreased from fiscal 1995 to 2004, in constant 2003 dollars, from approximately $1.5
billion to $1.2 billion (or a reduction of 20 percent), respectively.
As a result of the funding challenges, Congress requested that Resources for the Future
conduct an independent study on the future costs of the Superfund program. The
report on the study2 estimates that costs to implement the Superfund program will be at
least $14 billion for fiscal 2000 through fiscal 2009. The report also includes
recommendations intended to help formulate a clear mission for the program and
improve its effectiveness and efficiency.
EPA developed an action plan to respond to the recommendations in the Resources for
the Future report. As part of the action plan, EPA established a committee of experts -
the Superfund Subcommittee to the National Advisory Council for Environmental
Policy and Technology - that was asked to address: (1) the role and purpose of the
NPL; (2) how to address potentially complex and expensive contaminated sediment
and mining sites; and (3) how to measure Superfund program progress. The
subcommittee's final report was issued to EPA in April 2004.
As a complement to the Superfund Subcommittee's work, EPA initiated an internal
study in November 2003 to identify opportunities to more efficiently deploy Superfund
lSuperfimdProgrom: Updated Appropriations and Expenditure Data, GAO-04-475R, February 18, 2004.
2Probst, Kathcrine N. and Konisky, David M., Superfund's Future: What Will It Cost? A Report to
Congress, Resources for the Future (Washington, D.C.:200I),
-------
program resources within the Agency. An important goal of the study was to identify
how more Superfund resources can be dedicated to the construction of remedial
actions. EPA issued a report on the study results in April 2004, SUPERFUND:
Building on the Past, Looking to the Future. The report concluded that although the
Superfund program has made and continues to make significant progress in remediating
Superfund sites, the program can be further improved. The report also noted that the
States have played a vital role in the Superfund program and have had a major role in
setting cleanup standards for Superfund sites. The report made 102 recommendations
for improving the effectiveness of the Superfund program, including recommendations
to reexamine: (1) existing EPA policies relating to State-lead remedial actions to
determine whether the policy includes areas such as capability, past experience, cost,
and timeliness; and (2) existing State-lead sites to determine whether the remediation is
being conducted timely and cost efficiently.
Scope and Methodology
We began our review April 17, 2003, and completed field work March 10,2004. To
answer our evaluation questions, we judgmentally selected hazardous waste site
cleanup programs for five States: New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Kansas, and
Washington. We based our sample selection on State information reported in the
50-State studies conducted by the Environmental Law Institute from 1989 through
2001 and criteria suggested by the Association of States and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials. The evaluation scope covered site identification, assessment,
prioritization, and remedial processes and activities for NPL caliber-sites, generally for
the period October 2000 through March 2003. We defined NPL-caliber sites as
hazardous waste sites that were not included on the NPL but appeared to be eligible
based on site characterization data. The scope also included long-term response
planning processes and activities for NPL sites scheduled for turnover to the five States
during the 10-year period ending December 2013.
We interviewed officials in EPA's Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation, which is within the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER). We also interviewed officials in the hazardous waste site cleanup programs
for each of the five States. Our evaluation included a review of EPA and State
hazardous waste program records and other evaluation procedures.
This evaluation was performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards,
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Appendix A provides further
details on the scope and methodology.
-------
Chapter 2
States Need to Address Backlogs
in Site Assessments and Scoring
'The five States reviewed - New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Kansas, and
Washington - have all implemented processes for identifying, assessing, investigating,
and prioritizing hazardous waste sites that are similar to EPA's remedial process for the
Superfund program. However, three of the States had a combined backlog of at least
423 sites that were awaiting site assessment, and one of these States may also have a
backlog in scoring sites. Although one of the remaining two States also appeared to
have a backlog, there was insufficient data for determining whether a backlog exists.
According to State officials, the backlogs were primarily attributable to limitations in
Federal and State funding. Until these backlogs are eliminated, the States cannot
assure that sites posing the greatest threat to human health and the environment are
being addressed promptly, and the backlog may limit the States' capacity to address
future hazardous waste sites, including sites on the NPL.
Processes Used by States and Superfund Are Similar
NCP requirements in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 300 set forth the
processes and regulations for conducting Superfund remedial activities. In accordance
with the NCP, EPA has established processes for site discovery, preliminary
assessment, site inspection, and relative risk scoring, to evaluate the potential for a
release of hazardous substances from a site.
New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Kansas, and Washington have all implemented
processes for identifying, assessing, investigating, and prioritizing hazardous waste sites
which are similar to EPA's processes for the Superfund program. These five States are
addressing over 5,400 hazardous waste sites under their State cleanup programs,
including over 1,700 sites that could be considered NPL-caliber sites. Appendix B
provides additional details on the States' cleanup programs.
Identification
All five States reviewed have hazardous waste site identification and response
processes that place priority on addressing sites posing immediate threats to human
health and the environment. Further, a judgmental sample of notifications and response
actions at 14 sites showed that the States were following these procedures and taking
prompt and appropriate response actions. The States generally used NCP
requirements. All Stales maintain a 24-hour telephone hotline for receiving public
-------
notification of hazardous conditions, and have procedures in place for initial response
and evaluation of reported hazardous waste releases, spills, and other issues. In
addition, States identified sites through other means, such as real property transactions;
formal citizen complaints; and referrals from other State and Federal agencies, including
EPA In conjunction with their site identification processes, each of the five States
maintain databases to manage and track sites from notification through disposition.
Assessment and Investigation
In Superfund, the preliminary assessment process is used to determine what steps, if
any, are needed to occur next at a site. For those sites requiring further investigation, a
site inspection is generally performed This involves collection of field data to confirm
or deny the presence of contamination and to further characterize it. All five States
conduct site assessments and investigations to determine the need for further
investigation and remediation. Similar to procedures used by the Superfund program,
the States' procedures generally were designed to identify those sites that posed the
greatest threats, determine the need for removal action, and obtain the necessary data
to prioritize and take further action.
Site assessment and investigation activities conducted by New Jersey, Michigan, and
Washington were partially funded through cooperative agreements with EPA The
majority of their activities, however, were supported by State funding. In contrast, site
assessment and investigation activities conducted by Kansas was supported primarily
by Federal funding, while such activities in Pennsylvania were supported exclusively by
State funding.
We found that the five States conducted site assessments at more than 390 higher
priority State and Federal sites during the period October 2000 to March 2003. Our
evaluation of a judgmental sample for 23 sites, which consisted of a mix of State- and
responsible party-lead sites, showed that the States' procedures were followed and
appropriate decisions were made for further actions.
Prioritization
The Hazardous Ranking System is the primary screening and relative risk scoring
system used by EPA to determine whether to place uncontrolled hazardous waste sites
on Ihe NPL. This system is a numerical-based system that uses information obtained
from the preliminary assessment and site inspection to assess the relative potential of
sites to pose a threat to human health and the environment This approach assigns
numerical values to factors that relate to risk based conditions at the site. One of the
States (Pennsylvania) used EPA's Hazardous Ranking System to prioritize sites for
State-funded remedial actions, and the other four used similar scoring systems that we
-------
considered generally equivalent to EPA's scoring system. Further details on the States'
scoring systems are in Appendix C.
Backlogs Existed in Assessing Sites
Although the States followed their procedures when conducting site assessments and
investigations of new hazardous waste sites, at least three of the States had backlogs in
completing site assessments. Additionally one of these three States may have a backlog
in scoring sites to assist in assigning remediation priorities. There was insufficient data
for determining whether backlogs exist for one other State, although it appeared to have
a backlog. The backlog for the three States we could measure totaled 423 sites, as
shown in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1. State Backlogs for Assessment
State ':'.'. ...
New Jersey
Kansas
Washington
Total
Sites Pending
. .': Assessment
52
92
279
423
Also, Pennsylvania had a backlog in completing site assessments for about 90 sites, but
we could not arrive at a specific figure due to incomplete inventory data. New Jersey
officials indicated the State also had a scoring backlog, but again there were insufficient
data to make a determination.
According to New Jersey, Kansas, and Washington program officials, the backlogs
were primarily attributable to limitations in Federal and State funding. Additional details
on the States' backlogs follow.
New Jersey's backlog of 52 sites has been in the State's hazardous sites inventory
since at least 1999. These sites have been classified as "immediate environmental
concerns," which New Jersey assigns to sites that pose either acute threats to
human health and the environment or threats to drinking water sources. According
to New Jersey officials, these sites have been remediated to eliminate actual
exposure to human health; however, assessments are necessary to identify the
sources of the ground water contamination, hi 1999, the State made a decision to
designate 150 sites from its immediate environmental concerns inventory for
assessment under its cooperative agreement with EPA. The State has since
-------
completed 47 assessments and begun another 51; assessment activities have not
been started on the remaining 52 sites primarily due to limited annual funding by
EPA The cooperative agreement with EPA has decreased from $1.9 million in
fiscal 2000 to less than $1,0 million in fiscal 2003. New Jersey officials said the
State also has a backlog in scoring sites for State-funded remedial actions, due to
funding limitations, as well as plans to develop a new site scoring system, but there
was insufficient data to quantify.
Kansas has a backlog of 92 sites pending assessment. Some of these sites have
been in the State's inventory for more than 5 years. According to State officials,
the State's capacity to conduct assessments is limited by the annual funding of
approximately $517,000 provided by EPA under a cooperative agreement, and
State funding limitations.
Washington has a backlog of 279 sites pending assessment. Some of the sites
have been in the State's inventory since at least 1990. According to program
officials, the overall backlog is due to a combination of factors, including: (i) the
ability of local governments to obtain assessment grants; (ii) higher risk sites taking
priority over the many low risk sites; and (iii) the lack of State funding/staffing to
address non-grant funded local government sites. Since the majority of assessment
activities in Washington, unlike the other States, are performed by county health
departments under State-awarded site assessment grants, the county health
departments' capacity to move sites through the assessment process is contingent
on State funding. Total funding for these site assessment grants has averaged $2.4
million per year since 2000.
Pennsylvania program officials indicated that they have backlogs in completing site
assessments for approximately 90 sites in one of its six regions, but we were unable
to confirm this backlog and arrive at a specific figure statewide because of
incomplete site inventory data
Michigan does not have a backlog in conducting site assessments and scoring.
The scope of our evaluation did not include an analysis of funding, staffing, and
workload for the States' cleanup programs. As a result, we were unable to verify
whether funding limitations are the primary cause for the backlogs. We note that other
potential factors for the backlogs may include non-optimal management of site
assessment processes, diversion of staff resources to other priorities, or non-optimal
management of available funds.
-------
Conclusion
The States have established procedures for identifying, assessing, investigating, and
scoring sites to assist in the prioritization of sites for remediation that are similar to
processes used by the Superfund program. However, at least three States have a
backlog in conducting site assessments and one also may have a backlog in site scoring.
Until these backlogs are eliminated, the States cannot assure that sites posing the
greatest threat to human health and the environment are being addressed promptly, and
the backlog may limit the States' capacity to address future hazardous waste sites,
including sites on the NPL.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response:
2-1. Work with the States to determine the degree to which funding or other
management issues are factors for the backlogs in completing site assessments
and scoring sites for remediation and/or NPL referral.
Agency and State Comments and OIG Evaluation
OSWER's Comments and OIG Evaluation
OSWER agreed with the recommendation and commented that while the five States
reviewed have all implemented processes for identifying, assessing, investigating, and
prioritizing hazardous waste sites that are similar to EPA's remedial process for the
Superfund program, they are concerned with the backlogs in sites requiring assessment
and scoring. Since all five of the States studied have backlogs, OSWER agreed to
work with States to determine the key reasons for the backlogs.
Although OSWER agreed to implement the recommendation, OSWER, in its response
to our final report, needs to provide a milestone for completion of the planned action,
for resolution of the recommendation.
New Jersey's Comments and OIG Evaluation
New Jersey generally agreed with the findings and recommendation. However, the
State provided clarifying comments in regards to its backlog of site assessments and
also commented that it seems far reaching to suggest that the backlog of site assessment
cases may limit the State's ability to address NPL sites. The State also said that if this
limitation to address NPL sites is attributed to a statement by some State official then it
-------
should be attributed to that official. Additionally, New Jersey said that its future ability
to respond at NPL sites is not affected by the cases awaiting site assessments.
We have modified the report to address the State's comments. However, we do not
believe that it is far reaching to conclude that the backlogs may limit the State's future
ability to address NPL sites. In our opinion, the backlogs represent a potential
limitation in the Slate's future capability to address NPL and other hazardous waste
sites. This potential exists because these backlogs may include sites that pose
significant threats to human health and the environment. Therefore, the State's
inventory of sites requiring remediation may increase as the backlog of site assessments
are addressed. This inventory increase may limit the State's capacity to address future
NPL and other hazardous waste sites.
Michigan's Comments
Michigan did not specifically comment on the findings, but agreed with the
recommendation.
Pennsylvania's Comments and OIG Evaluation
Pennsylvania generally agreed with the findings and did not comment on the
recommendation. However, the State requested additional clarification be provided in
the final report in regards to its backlog of approximately 90 sites. The State said that
these sites are part of the Region 3/State work share inventory, which is maintained by
the Region as part of its database, and is not a reflection of State inventory data
We do not agree that the backlog of 90 sites represents sites included in the Region
3/State work share inventory. Rather, the sites represent No Federal Remedial Action
Planned sites, archived in CERCLIS, and returned to the State for further evaluation.
As discussed in the report, we were unable to confirm this backlog because of
incomplete site inventory data provided by the State.
Kansas' Comments and OIG Evaluation
Kansas generally agreed with the findings and recommendation, but commented that the
backlog of site assessments represents sites that are believed to be low priority which
remain on the list of sites to be assessed. Kansas also said that the statement "States
cannot assure sites posing the greatest threat to human health and the environment are
being addressed..." is not accurate. Currently, Kansas believes that all sites with
known human health and environmental risks are being addressed by either the State or
EPA Region 7. However, the State said that this may not be the case in the future if
there is a continual decrease in State and Federal funding.
10
-------
Additionally, Kansas commented that the statement regarding that over 50 percent of
the sites have been in the inventory for more than 5 years is misleading. Sites that nave
been in the system for an extended period of time have been screened and deemed as
low priority, low risk sites will be assessed once higher priority sites have been
assessed. The screening takes into account the geographical location of the site (i.e.,
aquifer, water use, etc.), potential receptors, known contaminant levels, type of
contaminant, etc. These low priority sites do not represent a known risk to human
health and/or the environment. Sites posing the greatest threat to human health and the
environment are being assessed. However, if after assessment a site is determined to
be an orphan site, there may not be enough Federal or State funding to address the
problem.
We acknowledge that Kansas believes that its site assessment backlog represents
lower risk sites. However, this risk determination has been made based on the State's
initial screening process. This initial screening process is designed to assess immediate
threats and determine the need for further investigation. In contrast, the preliminary
assessment and site investigation are the processes where releases or threatened
releases are confirmed or ruled out; contaminants are characterized; exposure
pathways are considered; and the potential threat to human health and the environment
are evaluated. Therefore, until sites are fully assessed, the State cannot be assured of
the full risk to human health and the environment
Washington's Comments and OIG Evaluation
Washington generally agreed with the findings, but did not comment on the
recommendation. The State commented that it is important to recognize that the
backlog of unaddressed sites represents a dynamic process, with new sites being
continually added at the same time other sites are removed due to assessments being
completed. Consequently, there will generally always be a backlog, unless limitations in
funding precludes further "site discovery" to continue to add new sites to the list.
The State also commented that, while it is true these "backlogged" sites have not been
formally ranked, they have been subjected to an "initial investigation." This includes a
records review, site inspection, and, usually, limited sampling. Any imminent risks are
identified and addressed as part of this process, and higher risk sites are prioritized for
ranking. Thus, this backlog represents lower risk sites, and the State does not believe
the backlog impedes its ability to take on higher risk sites if one is identified.
We agree that addressing backlogs is a dynamic process as a result of the continuous
discovery of new sites. We acknowledge that the backlog of sites have had an initial
investigation that includes a review for imminent risks. We also acknowledge that the
State has a response process in place for addressing sites posing imminent risks to
human health and the environment However, the initial investigation is designed to
11
-------
assess immediate threats and determine the need for farther investigation. The State's
site hazard assessment is the process where releases or threatened releases are
confirmed or ruled out and the potential threat to human health and ihe environment are
evaluated. Until the site hazard assessments are completed, the State cannot be
assured of the full risk to human health and the environment
12
-------
Chapter 3
States Apply Remedy Processes That Are More
Flexible Than Super-fund's Process
The five States reviewed have developed cleanup standards that are based on risk and
sound science and are intended to be protective of human health and the environment
Additionally, processes used by the States to characterize contamination, assess risks,
and make remedy decisions generally incorporate sound scientific analysis and are
similar, but not equivalent, to EPA's remedy decision process for Superfund. The
States generally use a streamlined decision process that does not include toe Superfund
equivalent baseline risk assessments established by EPA However, we found that the
States' decision processes for NPL-caliber sites generally provide remedies that are
designed to be protective to human health and the environment Therefore, if EPA
wants the States to assume a larger role in addressing NPL sites, it should consider
giving the States greater flexibility in their remedy selection processes.
Superfund Cleanup Goals and Remedy Selection Process
CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act,
requires that EPA coordinate with the States on remedial actions for contaminated sites
and encourages States to participate in remedial actions. However, the Act does not
establish specific cleanup standards for contaminated soils, ground water, surface
water, and sediments. Instead, CERCLA specifies that cleanup actions must attain
compliance with applicable, or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) to
ensure protection of human health and the environment
In the absence of ARARs, EPA has set remediation goals for both carcinogens and
non-carcinogens. For carcinogens, EPA considers cleanup levels to be protective of
human health when toe final cleanup levels fall within a lifetime cancer risk range of
IxlO'6 (one in a million) to IxlCT* (one in ten thousand) for contaminated site related
exposures. EPA considers cleanup levels for non-carcinogens to be protective of
human health when toe final cleanup levels achieve a Hazard Index of no more than 1.
The Hazard Index is defined as toe ratio of the exposure level to toe referenced,
acceptable daily long-term dose from exposure to contaminants at toe site. Therefore,
a Hazard Index that exceeds 1 increases toe potential for adverse health effects from
non-carcinogens at toe site.
EPA established a remedy selection process for toe Superfund program that includes a
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, a Proposed Plan, and a Record of Decision.
The Remedial Investigation/Feasibiliry Study includes performance of a baseline risk
13
-------
assessment to assess the current and potential future human and ecological risks posed
by the contamination. The Proposed Plan presents the preferred remedy to the public
for comments, and the Record of Decision documents ttie remedy selection decision.
States are not required to follow Superfund's remedy selection process for sites that
are addressed under their own hazardous waste cleanup programs.
Cleanup Standards Protective of Human Health and Being Followed
All five States have developed cleanup standards and/or criteria for NPL-caliber sites
that are based on risk and sound science and are intended to provide long-term
protection to human health and the environment Furthermore, the cleanup levels apply
to soil, ground water, and surface water, and are consistent with CERCLA remediation
goals.
State regulations are the primary source of cleanup criteria and standards for the five
States' cleanup programs for NPL-caliber sites. Many Federal regulations have been
adopted by reference in the States' regulations. Where Federal cleanup standards
have not been established, the States have developed their own cleanup standards
and/or criteria based on statutory requirements and other ARARs. Table 3.1.
summarizes die general criteria used by all States to develop their cleanup standards,
and Appendix B provides additional details by State.
Table 3.1. General Criteria Used by States to Develop Cleanup Standards
Carcinogenic Risk Range Between 10"* to 10"*
Non-Carcinogenic Risk of 1 or <1
Land Use
Background Levels
Chemical Specific Health Based Criteria
Maximum Cleanup Levels/Goals
Aquifer Use
Water Quality Criteria
State and Federal Statutory
Environmental Impact Data
The process for setting cleanup standards and/or criteria varied among the five States.
While Michigan, Kansas, and Pennsylvania used lookup tables and optional baseline
risk assessments for determining cleanup levels, New Jersey and Washington used
lookup tables and generic risk-based formulas. Despite this variation, the States' basis
for developing cleanup levels for soil, ground water, and surface water is largely
derived from EPA toxicological information, exposure pathway models, exposure
assumptions, and human health risk calculations. These processes have resulted in
State cleanup standards and/or criteria that are based on sound scientific analysis and
are consistent with EPA's remediation goals for carcinogens and non-carcinogens, as
well as other standards. Further, each State applies the standards and/or criteria
consistently to their cleanup programs that address NPL-caliber sites.
14
-------
Although EPA has not established national cleanup standards for contaminated
sediments, we found that Washington, New Jersey, and Michigan have proactively
developed their own standards or guidance, Specifically:
Washington has developed sediment management standards. The objective of
these standards is to eliminate adverse effects on biological resources and human
health from contaminated sediments. These standards are established on a site
specific basis using risk-based criteria and apply to marine, low salinity, and
freshwater sediments. According to State officials, the cleanup standards have
been applied to 134 hazardous waste sites with contaminated sediments.
New Jersey has established a formal process for assessing risks posed by
contaminated sediments. This guidance - Guidance for Sediment Quality
Evaluations - is primarily based on EPA ecological risk assessment guidance and
criteria The document includes guidelines for developing sampling plans and
screening values for conducting ecological risk assessments.
Michigan has established guidance that serves as a mechanism for development of
site specific sediment cleanup criteria The objective of the criteria is to provide
protection of aquatic life, wildlife, and human health. A phased approach is used to
determine the potential for contaminated sediments to exceed water quality
standards, and consider appropriate response actions based on use impairments.
The guidance was developed from EPA Ecological Screening Levels and other
EPA guidance documents.
State and Superfund Remedy Processes Not Equivalent
The processes used by the five States to characterize contamination, assess human and
environmental risks, and make remedy decisions are generally based on sound scientific
analysis and are similar, but not equivalent, to EPA's remedy decision process for the
Superfund program. However, the processes generally provide remedies that are
designed to be protective to human health and the environment NCP requirements in
40 CFR Part 300 set forth the process and regulations for conducting Superfund
cleanup actions, and sets forth nine criteria;
Protection to human health and the environment
ARARs
Long-term effectiveness and permanence
Toxicity, mobility, or volume reduction through treatment
Short-term effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
State acceptance
15
-------
Community acceptance
Our review of Slate laws, regulations, and written guidance covering remedy selection,
and interviews of Stale officials, identified that each State's remedy decision process for
NPL-caliber sites are similar to the Superrund process. Their processes generally
include Hie application of scientific methods to characterize Ihe type and extent of
contamination, as well as application of the nine criteria specified by the NCP (although
Pennsylvania and New Jersey, while including long-term effectiveness, did not include
permanence).
Although the Superfund program requires that each site receive a baseline risk
assessment to evaluate the potential threat to human health and the environment, the
States typically do not. State officials expressed concern that the baseline risk
assessments were time-consuming and not needed for the less complex NPL-caliber
sites. Instead, the States generally compare site characterization data with their risk-
based cleanup standards as an alternative to completion of a risk assessment
According to State officials, the benefits received from using risk-based cleanup
standards in place of baseline risk assessments include streamlined decision-making,
consistency in cleanup levels among similar sites, and flexibility in decision making by
providing tabulated risk-based cleanup standards with the opportunity to develop site-
specific goals.
We found that the States' decision processes were generally followed and decisions
were generally based on risk and sound scientific analysis. We reviewed records
supporting decisions made by the five States for 20 judgmentally selected NPL-caliber
sites, which consisted of a mix of State- and responsible party-lead sites. Our review
showed that the States' decision processes were followed and the selected remedies
were designed to protect human health and the environment for all but one of the sites.
The supporting records showed that: (1) contamination was characterized; (2) human
health and environmental risks were assessed; (3) remedial alternatives were identified
and analyzed; (4) public comments on proposed remedies were solicited and
considered; and (5) remedies were selected based on EPA criteria as appropriate.
Also, the review showed that cleanup levels met EPA's remediation goals for
carcinogens and non-carcinogens.
We were unable to verify whether the selected remedy for one of five sites included in
our sample for Pennsylvania was protective to human health and the environment
Contamination at the site was not completely characterized and the decision was not
based on a formal evaluation of remedial alternatives. According to Pennsylvania
program officials, the original remedy selected for the site was modified due to State
budget constraints, which resulted in selection of a more cost effective remedy. The
original remedy is being retained as a contingency. Our evaluation results do not
indicate that a systemic weakness exists in Pennsylvania's remedy decision process.
16
-------
For the one instance, we issued a memorandum to the Region 3 Administrator
describing our concerns and requesting that the Region take corrective action. The
memorandum is included in this report as Appendix D.
Conclusion
All five States reviewed have implemented cleanup programs for NPL-caliber sites that
are generally similar to EPA's Superfund program However, we noted that the States
typically do not require baseline risk assessments as part of their remedy selection
process and instead compare site characterization data with their risk-based cleanup
standards. Providing the States with flexibility in the use of baseline risk assessments is
an important facilitating factor in increasing State-lead remediation activities in the
Superfund program.
Recommendation
If EPA desires States to assume greater responsibilities in Superfund remedy processes
or actions, we recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response:
3-1. Identify ways to streamline the Superfund remediation process and provide
States with flexibility in the application of baseline risk assessments where
possible and as appropriate.
Agency and State Comments and OIG Evaluation
OSWER Comments and OIG Evaluation
OSWER agreed with the recommendation and noted that the observations in the draft
report merit additional evaluation. OSWER will be examining State contributions to the
Federal Superfund program in the coming year, particularly as it relates to State-lead
cleanups, and will refer to the OIG findings as the evaluation is developed. It is the
Agency's intent to share the lessons learned with the States and other interested parties.
OSWER's planned actions appear to meet the intent of the recommendation. However,
in its response to our final report, OSWER will need to provide the specific actions it
plans to take as well as milestones for completing the actions for resolution of the
recommendation.
17
-------
New Jersey's Comments and OIG Evaluation
New Jersey generally agreed wilh Ihe findings and recommendation. However, the
State commented that throughout 1he report, fee use of the phrase "flexible remedy
decision processes.,.." or the word "flexible" is used to describe the State's process.
It is unclear what Ihis means, and the use of the word "flexible" implies that decisions
are not consistently applied. Please consider another word that doesn't imply
inconsistency.
The use of the word "flexible" in describing the remedy decision processes throughout
the report was not intended to imply that the States are not consistently applying their
decisions as indicated by New Jersey. We have used the word to communicate a need
to consider processes outside of the prescriptive bounds of Superfund.
Michigan's Comments and OIG Evaluation
Michigan generally agreed with the findings and provided comments clarifying its
approach to sediment criteria and permanence. Additionally, the State suggested a
stronger recommendation to look at updating the Superfund program to allow a similar
delegation authority similar to those found in the hazardous waste and tank programs.
Michigan supported this suggestion by stating that States have shown that they are
capable of handling sites as large and/or complex as Superfund sites.
We have modified the report to address the State's comments pertaining to sediment
criteria and permanence. However, we have no basis to make the suggested
recommendation because the scope of our review did not address delegation of
Superfund authority to the States.
Pennsylvania's Comments and OIG Evaluation
Pennsylvania generally agreed with the findings. However, the State requested that Ihe
chapter and the memo in Appendix D be revised to include additional language
regarding protectiveness in the discussion of the remedy selection for the ADSCO site.
The State said that the original remedy selected for the site was re-evaluated due to
cost effectiveness brought on by State budget restraints. The re-evaluation resulted in a
modified remedy considering cost effectiveness with additional monitoring to assure
protectiveness of human health and fee environment, wilh the original remedy being
retained as a contingency if the modified remedy proved not to be protective.
Additionally, fee State commented that the public notification process was satisfied
according to State requirements due to the modified remedy being one of the
alternatives considered throughout the remedy selection process.
18
-------
We modified the chapter to disclose that the original remedy was modified because of
State budget restraints. We don't believe that the State satisfied its public notification
requirements. The State presented a remedy to the public for comment that included
the installation of a synthetic cap on the fill areas. Furthermore, the State's Statement of
Decision for 1he site, identified the cap as 1he main component of the selected
alternative. Therefore, the cap is critical to the success of the combined remedial action
alternatives to provide protection of human health and the environment. Although the
remedy was modified to make the cap a contingent component, the modification was
not presented to the public for comment
Kansas' Comments
Kansas did not provide specific comments on the findings and recommendations.
Washington's Comments
Washington did not provide specific comments on the findings and recommendations.
19
-------
20
-------
Chapter 4
States May Not Be Able to Support impending
Operation and Maintenance Responsibilities
Over the next 10 years, States will be assuming additional operation and maintenance
(O&M) responsibilities for long-term response actions (LTRAs) at many NPL sites.
However, four of the five States reviewed may not have the resources to undertake
these future obligations because of declining budgets. Additionally, the States are
concerned lhat they may be required to assume O&M responsibilities for ineffective
and/or inefficiently performing LTRAs. They are concerned about Ihe performance of
the LTRAs because EPA may not conduct optimization studies on alt of Ihe systems.
Consequently, States may not be able to maintain the integrity of remedies and ensure
protection to human health and the environment. Further, inadequate LTRAs can result
in the States incurring unanticipated costs that could impact other cleanup priorities.
States Will Assume O&M Responsibilities
Under the NCP, States are generally required to assume responsibility for 100 percent
of the O&M costs for Federal-funded remedial actions at NPL sites after the remedies
become operational and functional. However, the NCP provides an exception for
LTRAs involving treatment or other measures to restore ground or surface water quality
to a level that ensures protection to human health and the environment. For these
LTRAs, States are not required to assume complete responsibility for O&M until the
remedies have been operational and functional for a period of 10 years. If cleanup
goals have not been achieved after the 10 years, the remedy becomes the sole
responsibility of the State.
EPA contractors have estimated the average annual site operating costs of Federal-
funded LTRAs for contaminated ground water sites at $570,000. This was cited in
prior EPA OIG Report No. 2003-P-000006, Improving Nationwide Effectiveness
of Pump-and-Treat Remedies Required Sustained and Focused Action to Realize
Benefits (most LTRAs are pump-and-treat systems). Many LTRA systems are
estimated to operate for more than 30 years, which could result in significant costs to
the States in the O&M period.
Since 1988, EPA has turned over LTRAs at NPL sites to the States of California, New
York, Arkansas, New Hampshire, and Kentucky for O&M. Over the next 30 years,
these States and others will be assuming O&M responsibility for an additional 82
LTRA sites. Each of the five States in our evaluation will be assuming O&M
responsibilities for one or more LTRA sites over the next 10 years. As shown in Table
21
-------
4.1, the five States in our review will be assuming responsibility for a total of 24 of the
remaining 82 LTRA sites:
Table 4.1. State Assumption of LIRA Sites
Y«r
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
Kew&tsf
1
1
1
1
1
2
7
jr Michigan P
2
1
1
1
5
Wflisjrtvanlf
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
9
i K*B*a$ Wa*ritagteh Total
3
1 3
2
2
1
3
4
1 4
1 2
2 1 24
States May Not Be Prepared to Assume O&M Responsibilities
Tlie five States will realize a substantial increase in funding needs with the assumption of
O&M responsibilities at these LTRA sites. As illustrated in Figure 4.1, the combined
annual O&M costs for the five States' LTRAs are estimated to increase (in current year
dollars) from approximately $520,000 in 2004 to over $15.3 million in 2013. See
Appendix E for listing of sites and their specific costs.
Figure 4.1. O&M Funding Projections for NPL LTRA Sites
Projected State LTRA O&M Costs
(24 Sites)
$20,000
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Fiscal Year
Source: Data Obtained from EPA RSE Region Surveys
22
-------
States may not be prepared to assume additional O&M responsibilities resulting from
the assumption of these LTRA sites. Officials from Pennsylvania, Kansas, Michigan,
and Washington expressed concerns that their States may not have the resources to
undertake these future obligations because of increasing workloads and declining
budgets. Michigan program officials told us that the State has been evaluating future
O&M financial obligations for LTRA sites and intends to continue to work to meet
those obligations. New Jersey program officials said site specific funding for long-term
O&M can be set up through the State's Hazardous Discharge Bond Fund.
Additionally, in 2003, the State increased revenues from the corporate business tax.
According to New Jersey program officials, funding of future O&M obligations seem
secure for planning purposes, based on this increase.
In addition to tfie financial concerns, the five States are concerned that they may be
required to assume O&M responsibilities for ineffective and/or inefficiently performing
LTRAs. These concerns have been confirmed through OSWER's Optimization
Initiative. The first 20 optimization studies identified a variety of deficiencies and
resulted in over 200 recommendations intended to improve the overall efficiency and
effectiveness of the systems. Currently, EPA has completed optimization studies on 8
of the 24 LTRA sites (33 percent) scheduled to be turned over to the five States over
the next 10 years (3 in New Jersey, 2 in Michigan, 2 in Pennsylvania, and 1 in
Washington). However, EPA has not scheduled studies for the remaining 16 (see
Appendix E). Without the benefit of optimization reviews, there is no assurance that
States will take over effective and efficient LTRAs, and the States may be required to
incur unanticipated costs to correct deficiencies.
OSWER is in the process of preparing draft guidance that will provide expectations on
the use of optimization studies, and an action plan that will specify the funding,
timeframes, and priorities for performing additional optimization studies for Superfund
financed LTRAs. However, we were unable to review the new guidance and action
plan because they were still under development during our review.
Conclusion
States have expressed concern over their financial capability to assume O&M
responsibilities for LTRAs. Additionally, States have concerns about the effectiveness
and efficiency of some of the LTRAs scheduled for turnover by EPA If these issues
are not resolved, the capacity of States to effectively perform O&M at LTRA sites and
remediate other hazardous waste sites may be impacted. This could ultimately result in
an increase in site referrals for the NPL, as well as a decrease in State capacity' to
participate in remedial activities at NPL sites. The development of funding and staffing
scenarios to address State O&M obligations at LTRAs could better prepare States and
23
-------
EPA to develop solutions for expected challenges. In part, completion of plans for
conducting optimizations at Superflmd LTRAs will assist in the development of accurate
funding and staffing scenarios for State O&M obligations.
Recommendations
Given that Ihe States are required to assume O&M responsibilities at LTRA sites, we
recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response:
4-1. Work with the States to explore viable funding and staffing options to support
their O&M responsibilities at NPL LTRA sites.
4-2. Complete guidance on optimization of LTRAs at NPL sites to include an action
plan that establishes funding and a schedule.
Agency and State Comments and OIG Evaluation
OSWER Comments and OIG Evaluation
OSWER agreed with Recommendations 4-1 and 4-2. In response to
Recommendation 4-1, OSWER said it will work with the States, through the Regions,
to jointly assess the States' O&M funding strategies and identify possible solutions.
For Recommendation 4-2, OSWER stated it has developed an "Action Plan for
Ground Water Remedy Optimization" that is intended to apply important lessons
learned into the Superfund cleanup process. The plan, which is expected to be finalized
by September 30,2004, provides details on several activities, that will help foster
routine optimization at LTRA sites. These activities include: (i) conducting additional
optimization reviews at high priority, Fund-lead sites (at a rate of 5-8 sites per year); (ii)
providing priority funding for the implementation of recommended changes; (iii)
monitoring implementation progress in the Regions; (iv) developing appropriate
guidance and training tools; (v) coordinating with State counterparts and responsible
parties; and (vi) establishing a network of Regional Optimization Liaisons.
In response to the final report, OSWER needs to provide specific milestones for
actions planned and taken for resolution of Recommendations 4-1 and 4-2.
New Jersey's Comments and OIG Evaluation
New Jersey generally agreed with the findings and recommendations. Additionally, the
State suggested the OIG recommend that EPA support the State's efforts to have the
24
-------
O&M funding changed to a 90/10 ratio for all O&M, New Jersey also commented
that although the State will be able to meet its obligations, it would rather use those
funds for obligations at other sites.
We have no basis for including New Jersey's suggested recommendation because we
did not review the feasibility of making all O&M a 90/10 cost share.
Michigan's Comments and OIG Evaluation
Michigan generally agreed with the findings and recommendations. Michigan
commented that the State has been evaluating the LTRA needs at its respective sites,
and intends to continue to work to meet those obligations. Additionally, Michigan
stated that it fully supports the efforts to conduct optimization studies and urges that ihe
report strongly recommend that these studies be conducted on a priority basis at sites
where transfer of responsibility is imminent, or where project managers have raised
concerns about the effectiveness of the system. The State also said that
Recommendation 4-2 should suggest an aggressive time line for completion of the
guidance optimization of LTRAs.
We have modified the report to include a statement regarding the State's LTRA
evaluation efforts. We did not revise Recommendation 4-2 as suggested by the State
because we have requested that OSWER provide a specific milestone for completing
its action plan.
Pennsylvania's Comments
Pennsylvania did not provide specific comments on the findings and recommendations.
Kansas' Comments and OIG Evaluation
Kansas generally agreed with the findings and recommendations. The State provided
clarification on its number of LTRA sites, and suggested an additional recommendation
for EPA to consider performing a system optimization study during the LTRA, and at a
minimum of: 1) for the 5-year review period, and 2) prior to the 10-year review.
Further, 1he State suggested these studies be performed jointly with the States.
Kansas also suggested that EPA develop training for their project managers to create a
philosophy of continuous system evaluation and optimization. Further, the State said
EPA should seek project managers wilh strong technical backgrounds in site
remediation and empower those managers to perform system evaluations as data is
generated.
25
-------
We have modified the report to include the State's LTRA data However, we did not
include the State's suggestion of an additional recommendation in the report because
implementation of Recommendation 4-2 should ensure optimization studies are
conducted at LTRA sites before the sites are transferred to ihe States for O&M.
Additionally, we note that OSWER's planned corrective actions include the
development of optimization training tools and coordination with the States and
responsible parties on optimization study activities.
Washington's Comments
Washington did not provide specific comments on the findings and recommendations.
26
-------
Appendix A
Details on Scope and Methodology
To address our evaluation questions, we selected a judgmental sample of five States' hazardous waste
site cleanup programs. We selected the cleanup programs for New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania,
Kansas, and Washington. These States were selected because we sought to obtain a mix of States
based on geography, size of program, size of site inventories, and number of cleanup actions.
Additionally, we selected States with and without referrals to the NPL during 1998 through 2001. We
based our selection primarily on State information reported in the 50-State studies conducted by the
Environmental Law Institute from 1989 through 200]. Additionally, we interviewed Association of
States and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials to obtain their views on the States' hazardous
waste site cleanup programs and criteria for selecting States for our evaluation. We also reviewed prior
reports issued by EPA OIG and the GAO, although none were specific to the scope of our evaluation.
The evaluation generally covered management controls from October 2000 through March 2003. We
also reviewed relevant records maintained by these Slales before and after that period.
To gain an understanding of EPA's Superfund processes and procedures, we interviewed officials from
OSWER's Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, and reviewed EPA
regulations and program records applicable to the Superfund program. Additionally, we reviewed data
in EPA's CERCLIS database to determine State-lead activities at NPL sites. We did nol validate any
of the dala obtained from CERCLIS. Because EPA OIG Report No. 2002-P-00016 concluded lhal
over 40 percent of CERCLIS data on site actions reviewed was inaccurate or not adequately
supported, we used die CERCLIS information only to estimate State-lead remedial activities at NPL
sites.
We made site visits to each of the five States to evaluate their hazardous waste cleanup programs. We
conducted interviews with State hazardous waste cleanup program officials; and reviewed and obtained
pertinent data from (he States. We compared and evaluated the States' policies, processes and
procedures against Superfund requirements and procedures. Additionally, we performed file reviews
of selected NPL-caliber and other hazardous waste sites.
To evaluate States' site identification, assessment, and prioritization processes, we:
Obtained listings of hazardous wasle siles at each State, which showed site identifications,
preliminary assessments, investigations, and priority scores.
Selected a judgmental sample for each Stale (minimum of three sites) to review each phase of the
identification and assessment processes. We selected NPL-caliber sites from various Slate cleanup
programs with assessment activities. The availability of site files limited our sample selections for
Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Washington to sites administered by regional offices located within the
vicinity of each State's main office.
27
-------
Evaluated State maintained hazardous waste site files for judgment samples to determine
compliance with State processes and procedures.
Obtained and reviewed hazardous waste site inventories for each State to determine the
remediation status of sites and whether they were assessed, investigated, and scored promptly. For
New Jersey, hazardous waste site inventory data related to scoring was not provided. Our work
for Pennsylvania was based on limited site information because hazardous waste site inventory data
received did not include activity dates and statuses (the State provided alternate data) and
information was not available from the State's official database, E-Facts.
To evaluate States' cleanup standards and remedy selection processes, we:
Obtained listings of NPL-caliber sites with Records of Decision or equivalent documents issued for
each State, generally during the review period.
Selected a judgmental sample of a minimum of three sites for each State. We selected a mix of
State- and responsible party-lead NPL-caliber sites with decision documents completed generally
between October 2000 and March 2003. Additionally, the availability of site files limited our
sample selections for Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Washington to those sites administered by
regional offices, located within the vicinity of each State's main office.
Evaluated State maintained hazardous waste site files for judgment samples. For purposes of tins
evaluation, we denned sound science as a decision process that adheres to conventionally accepted
models and procedures and is based on accurate and reliable data
To evaluate States' planning process for O&M responsibilities for LTRAs at NPL sites, we:
Interviewed State program officials to discuss their programs for conducting and funding O&M
activities at NPL and other hazardous waste sites.
Reviewed EPA policies and guidance associated with O&M for LTRA sites to determine EPA and
State requirements and procedures for managing these sites.
* Interviewed officials and obtained information from OSWER's Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation pertaining to OSWER's Optimization Initiative and Optimization
Studies conducted at LTRA Sites.
Obtained listings of LTRA sites on the NPL from OSWER's Office of Superfund Remediation and
Technology Innovation and the States in order to identify the number of sites scheduled for transfer
to the Stales during the period 2004 through 2013, and also obtained and evaluated O&M funding
projections from the States for that period.
28
-------
Appendix B
Details on States' Hazardous Waste
Site Cleanup Programs
In 1976, New Jersey promulgated the Spill Compensation and Control Act, which was the first
government program to address cleanup of contaminated land. In 1980, Congress designed Superfund
from New Jersey's program. New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for
administering the State's hazardous waste cleanup programs. Hie Site Remediation and Waste
Management Program, regulated by NJAC 7:26E Technical Requirements for Site Remediation, is the
State's primary cleanup program. The program is addressing more than 1,035 hazardous waste sites3
through State- and responsible party-lead actions. Approximately 562 of these sites are higher priority
sites that could be considered NPL-caliber.
The State's Spill Compensation Fund, Hazardous Discharge Bond Fund, and Corporate Business Tax
revenues provide the primary sources of funding for the Site Remediation and Waste Management
Program. These funds provide for a variety of cleanup activities, including: site investigation, CERCLA
match, studies and design, operation and maintenance, removals, remedial actions, program
administration, natural resource restoration, and long-term stewardship. State budget reports for fiscal
2000-2003 indicate overall program funding has decreased (in constant 2003 dollars) from
approximately $90.9 million in fiscal 2000 to $82.2 million in 2003, or approximately 9 percent
Staffing levels have remained relatively constant, with approximately 513 full-time equivalents (FTEs).
Cleanup Standards
New Jersey has developed cleanup standards and/or criteria that are derived from EPA lexicological
information and exposure pathway models using exposure assumptions and risk calculations for soil,
ground water, and surface water. To consider development of risk-based cleanup criteria, New Jersey
includes: land use scenarios, exposure pathways, background levels, maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs), aquifer use, chemical-specific health-based criteria, water quality criteria, State statutory
requirements, soil type, and environmental impact data The criteria are based on a risk level of IxlO"6
for carcinogens and a Hazard Index value of less than or equal to 1 for non-carcinogens, and thus are
coasistent with EPA goals.
According to the 2001 Known Contaminated Sites List, the Program has 12,648 sites (including petioleum sites). Since
our review pertained to Superfund hazardous substances, we focused our review on the Stale's Industrial Site Recovery Act facilities,
and the sites listed ir. the Publically Funded Cleanup Sites Report 2002 This effort yielded a list of 1,035 sites. Working with
Program officials, we estimated that 562 of these sites could he considered NPL-caliber
29
-------
New Jersey uses a lookup table to identify generic remediation standards for soils that are risk-based
goals presented as Soil Cleanup Criteria. The standards are generic chemical-specific health-based
standards, and include as criteria: residential direct contact, nonresidential direct contact, and site-
specific impact to ground water.
The State has developed Ground Water Quality Standards and Surface Water Quality Standards
using Federal guidance. These standards specify cleanup levels and designated uses of water, and
include specific, interim generic and interim specific criteria The specific and interim generic criteria are
chemical specific lookup values. The interim specific criteria are applied where cleanup levels have not
been established and are derived using EPA risk guidance methodologies and associated risk
equations. The State has 13 drinking water standards that are less stringent than Federal ones, but it
applies die more stringent standard when there are both Federal and State standards. Classification
Exception Areas are established to classify ground water according to a combination of natural
characteristics and actual or potential uses where ground water standards have not been met.
New Jersey has also established a formal process for assessing risks posed by contaminated sediments.
The Guidance for Sediment Quality Evaluations forms a framework for determinations of actual or
potential adverse ecological effects from contaminated sediments, and includes guidelines for
developing sampling plans and screening values for conducting ecological risk assessments. These
assessments are based on EPA risk guidance documents.
Remedy Selection Process for NPL-Caliber Sites
The State has established formal remediation decision processes through laws, regulations, and
procedure manuals for hazardous waste sites. New Jersey's remedy selection process requires
scientific analysis, disclosure, and documentation including an ecological risk evaluation, site
investigation report, remedial investigation/feasibility studies, remedial alternatives analyses report,
remedial action selection report, and final decision document In addition, the nine criteria specified by
the NCP are generally included in the decision process. Similar to Superfund, the State also uses
interim remedial actions to mitigate risks posed by sites until a final remedy is selected.
The major difference between the decision process used by the State and Superfund is the evaluation of
risk. Under the Superfund program, a baseline risk assessment is required to be conducted as part of
the decision process. However, a risk assessment is not required under New Jersey's process; instead,
the State considers risk through its soil, ground water, and surface water cleanup criteria
Michigan's Remediation and Redevelopment Division of the Department of Environmental Quality is
responsible for administering the State's hazardous waste cleanup program. The Environmental
Cleanup and Redevelopment Program is the State's primary cleanup program. This program is
addressing approximately 1,700 State- and responsible party-lead hazardous waste sites. According
30
-------
to program officials, 847 of these active sites represent higher priority State-funded sites that could be
considered NPL-caliber.
The Slate's Cleanup and Redevelopment Fund and the Clean Michigan Initiative Bond Fund provide
funding for a variety of cleanup activities under the program, including: site investigation, CERCLA
match, studies & design, O&M, removal actions, remedial actions, and program administration. State
funding proposals for the last four fiscal years indicate funding has decreased (in constant 2003 dollars)
approximately 30 percent, from $23.4 million in fiscal 2000 to $16.3 million in fiscal 2003. Although
staffing levels have remained relatively constant, with approximately 236 FTEs, program duties have
increased since 2002 due to program restructuring, hiring freezes, and more recently, "early out"
retirements.
Cleanup Standards
Part 201 of Michigan's Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act regulates the remediation
of hazardous waste sites. Michigan has established cleanup standards for soil, ground water, and
surface water that are risk-based and reflect the potential for human health risk from exposure to
contaminants based on requirements of Part 201.
The State uses lookup standards for soil and ground water which were established through the
application of generic exposure assumptions and risk assessment formulas using EPA risk assessment
guidance and calculations. In addition, site specific standards may be developed by conducting a risk
assessment that is generally consistent with Superfund's baseline risk assessment process. Michigan
considers land use as a significant factor in establishing cleanup standards, as well as background levels,
water quality criteria, MCLs/MCL goals (MCLGs), chemical specific health-based criteria, State
statutory requirements, and environmental impact data. Calculated cleanup standards are based on a
risk value of 1x105 for carcinogens and a Hazard Index value of 1 for non-carcinogens.
Cleanup standards for soil and ground water are applied at sites based on the three main land use
categories: residential, commercial, and industrial. The residential standards are the most restrictive for
site remediation; the party remediating the site is allowed to select the category of cleanup standard,
provided that the remedial action plan documents that the cleanup criteria category is consistent with
zoning and is subject to State approval. For commercial or industrial sites, it must be demonstrated that
the selected category is appropriate for future land use. The generic cleanup standards for soil are
calculated for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic constituents based on land use associated with
contaminant exposure risks from direct contact, leaching into ground water, and indoor inhalation. The
cleanup standards for ground water are calculated for these constituents based on risks associated with
adverse aesthetic impacts, ingestion for drinking water, human dermal contact, indoor inhalation, and
ground water/surface water interface (GSI).
Michigan's criteria for the GSI is used to evaluate the impact that contaminated ground water may have
on a surface water body which is an ARAR in the Superfund program. The State's cleanup standards
for surface water are modeled from Federal surface water criteria including the National Pollutant
31
-------
Discharge Elimination System The State's cleanup criteria sets minimum water quality requirements
based on designated use. Consistent with Federal requirements, Michigan has separate standards for
protection of human health, aquatic organisms, and wildlife.
Michigan has established guidance that serves as a mechanism for development of site specific sediment
cleanup criteria The objective of the criteria is to provide protection of aquatic life, wildlife, and human
health. A phased approach is used to determine Ihe potential for contaminated sediments to exceed
water quality standards, and consider appropriate response actions based on use impairments. The
guidance was developed from EPA Ecological Screening Levels and other EPA guidance documents.
Remedy Selection Process for NPL-Caliber Sites
Michigan's remedy selection process for NPL-caliber sites is based on risk reduction and is determined
based on land use categories. Once a category has been identified, the remedy decision process is
generally consistent with the Superfund program. The State's decision process includes studies that
characterize Ihe type and extent of contamination and analysis of remedial alternatives. Similar to
Superfund, the State requires decisions to be supported by scientific analysis, public disclosure and
participation, and documentation.
In contrast to the Superfund program, Michigan does not require the use of site-specific baseline risk
assessments. The State generally considers human health and environmental risks through development
and application of its cleanup standards. In addition, interim response actions are designed and
implemented to mitigate risk associated with land use until the final remedy is selected Interim actions
include soil removal/relocation and containment/capping activities. Michigan's risk reduction approach
to remedy selection is generally consistent with the Superfund program. Furthermore, soil remediation
is generally based on the need to protect an aquifer from hazardous substances.
Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Land Recycling and Waste
Management, administers the State's hazardous waste cleanup programs, including the Hazardous Sites
Cleanup Program and the Land Recycling Program. These programs, regulated by the Hazardous Site
Cleanup Act, are addressing approximately 700 hazardous waste sites. The Hazardous Sites Cleanup
Program investigates and remediates contaminated sites through State- and responsible party-lead
actions. The Land Recycling Program oversees the State's voluntary cleanup program, and promotes
the recycling and redevelopment of contaminated industrial sites. As of July 8,2003, there were six
active sites on the State's Priority List that represent NPL-caliber sites.
The State's Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund provides funding for cleanup activities, including: site
investigation, studies & design, O&M, removal actions, remedial actions, grants to local governments,
CERCLA match, emergency response, program administration, and long-term stewardship. Fund
reports indicate funding decreased (in constant 2003 dollars) from approximately $177.9 million in
32
-------
fiscal 2000 to $138.4 million in fiscal 2003, or about 22 percent. Staffing levels have remained
relatively constant, with approximately 299 hits.
Cleanup Standards
Act 2 of the Pennsylvania Land Recycling Program establishes three environmental remediation
standards to provide a uniform framework for establishing cleanup levels: background, generic State-
wide health, and site-specific standards. The standards apply to soil, ground water and surface water.
These standards are derived from water quality standards and criteria, EPA lexicological information,
environmental impact data, exposure pathway models and assumptions, and human health risk
calculations. For the generic State-wide health standards, State regulations mandate use of MCLs and
State-developed health advisory levels. All three standards also consider land use, aquifer use, and
background levels.
The background and generic State-wide health standards were developed using risk-based
methodologies derived from EPA and other scientifically recognized risk assessment guidance and
criteria These standards are based on risk standards of IxlO'5 for carcinogens and a Hazard Index
value of less than or equal to 1 for non-carcinogens. These standards are provided in lookup tables
and establish medium specific cleanup levels based on various land use scenarios and contaminant
exposure pathways.
The site-specific standard represents a risk management approach to establishing cleanup levels.
Under this standard, a remedial investigation is required to determine whether potential exposure
pathways exist In cases where potential for exposure does exist, a site specific risk assessment is
required to establish cleanup levels. The State requires that these risk assessments be conducted using
EPA risk assessment guidance. Additionally, die State has established an acceptable risk level range
for carcinogens of IxlO"4 to 1x10"6, with a limitation that cumulative risk cannot exceed IxlCT4 for risk
assessments. Risk assessments are also required to be based on a Hazard Index of no more than 1 for
non-carcinogens. The background standard may be applied when the contamination is not related to
any onsite release. Applying the standards are generally at the discretion of the party responsible for
addressing the site. The generic State-wide health standard is the most commonly used method for
determining cleanup levels and addresses soil, ground water, and surface water.
Remedy Selection Process for NPL-Caliber Sites
Pennsylvania's remedy selection process for NPL-caliber sites is similar to the decision process used
for the Superfund program. The State's process requires scientific analysis, disclosure, and
documentation that are similar to Superfund Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Proposed Plan,
and Record of Decision processes, and documentation. The State's remedy selection process includes
consideration of the: (1) nature of contamination; (2) potential human and environmental risks; and (3)
time and cost of remediation. In addition, 1he nine criteria specified by the NCP are generally included
in the decision process.
33
-------
Although similar, the State's process is not equivalent to Superfund's process. Superfund requires that
a baseline risk assessment be conducted as part of the Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study.
However, the State does not require a baseline risk assessment unless the site-specific standard is
applied at a site. The generic State-wide health standard is applied at most sites, including NPL-caliber
sites; therefore, baseline risk assessments are not required for most remedy decisions. Similar to
Superfund, interim remedial activities may be conducted to mitigate risk from known contamination
prior to implementation of a final remedy. Interim activities include source removal and containment,
and are intended to support a final remedy.
The Kansas Department of Health and Environments Bureau of Environmental Remediation is
responsible for administering the State's hazardous waste cleanup programs. Kansas has three
programs that may address NPL-caliber sites: State Water Plan Contamination/Remediation Program,
State Cooperative Program, and Dry Cleaning Trust Fund Program. These programs, regulated by
various State Acts, are addressing approximately 361 hazardous waste sites. According to program
officials, 63 of these sites could be considered NPL-caliber.
The State Water Plan Program addresses contaminated sites where the responsible party is either
unknown, unwilling, or unable to conduct the cleanup. The State Cooperative Program provides
oversight of more complex, higher priority responsible party cleanups that are conducted under
administrative or consent orders. The Dry Cleaning Trust Fund Program conducts and oversees the
cleanup of contaminated dry cleaning facilities utilizing revenues generated through taxes on the Dry
Cleaning Industry and certain chemical use.
The State Water Plan-Contamination Remediation Account and the State Environmental Response
Fund provide funding for State and Federal funded cleanups activities, including: site investigation,
studies and design, removals, emergency response, remedial action, CERCLA match, O&M, and
program administration. Budget data provided by the State indicates that funding for the State's
General Fund and Water Plan decreased (in constant 2003 dollars) from approximately $1.8 million in
fiscal 2000 to $ 1.4 million in fiscal 2003, or approximately 17 percent. In addition to the General Fund
and Water Plan, the State maintains a Fee Fund that represents revenue generated from various
programs. The fund, which primarily supports the oversight of responsible parry cleanups, experienced
significant increases in revenues over the 4-year period The most significant increase in revenue was
attributable to the Dry Cleaning Trust Fund, which increased from $523,804 in fiscal 2000 to over $1.6
million in fiscal 2003. Staffing levels have remained relatively constant, with approximately 111 FTEs.
Cleanup Standards
Kansas uses a three-tiered system for defining the applicable cleanup standards for individual sites for
soil and ground water. The State's surface water quality standards are used for cleanup levels for
surface water. The Risk-Based Standards for Kansas Manual establishes the process for determining
34
-------
chemical-specific and site-specific cleanup goals for the system. The cleanup standards for each of the
tiers are based on ARARs; MCL/MCLGs; chemical, physical and toxicological properties of
contaminants; background levels; land use; and other environmental impact data Cleanup levels for
Tiers 1 and 2 are based on risk standards of 1x10"6 and 1x10"5, respectively, for carcinogens, and a
Hazard Index value of 1 for non-carcinogens. Tier 3 standards are developed using site-specific data
in the existing Tier 2 formulas or baseline risk assessments. Kansas generally requires that baseline risk
assessments follow EPA risk assessment guidance. Tier 3 cleanup levels may not exceed a risk
standard of 1x10^ for carcinogens and a Hazard Index of 1 for non-carcinogens.
Kansas applies Tier 1 standards when natural background levels for constituents exceed a risk standard
of Ix IO"6 for carcinogens or a Hazard Index value of 1 for non-carcinogens. Tier 2 standards are the
default standards for hazardous waste sites, including NPL-caliber sites. For ground water sites the
Federal MCL is also used as default standards. Tier 3 standards are applied in instances where
responsible parties desire assurance that remedies are consistent with the NCP. The State determines
cleanup levels for surface waters using Kansas Surface Water Quality Standards, which are derived
from Federal water quality standards and criteria These standards are applied at hazardous waste
sites, where applicable.
Remedy Selection for NPL-Caliber Sites
Kansas' remedy selection process was designed from the Superfund process. Consequently, the
State's process for NPL-caliber sites is generally consistent with EPA's decision process for NPL
sites. For NPL-caliber sites, Kansas requires scientific analysis, disclosure, and documentation that are
similar to Superfund's Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Proposed Plan, and Record of Decision
processes and documentation. The major difference between the Superfund and State's process is the
approach for assessing risk. The Superfund program requires that the decision process include a site
specific baseline risk assessment. The State does not require a risk assessment because Tier 2 cleanup
standards are applied to most NPL-caliber sites. A baseline risk assessment is only required for sites
when the responsible party must follow the NCP for future liability protection. This determination is
generally made by the responsible party. Site-specific risk assessments are only required when Tier 3
standards are applied. Similar to the Superfund process, Kansas uses interim remedial measures to
contribute to the efficient performance of long-term remedial actions.
Washington's Department of Ecology administers the State's hazardous waste cleanup program. The
Toxics Cleanup Program, regulated by the Model Toxics Control Act, is the State's primary cleanup
program. This program is addressing approximately 1,641 State- and responsible party-lead
hazardous waste sites. According to program officials, 304 of these active sites would be considered
NPL-caliber.
35
-------
The Toxics Cleanup Program primarily addresses contaminated sites through the oversight of
responsible party investigative and remedial activities. With the exception of a one-time appropriation
of $9.4 million in fiscal 2002 under the Clean Sites Initiative, funding limitations have precluded the
program from initiating State-funded cleanup actions. The program also oversees the assessment of
sites conducted by county health departments under State site assessment grants, and the remediation
of sites by local governments under State Remedial Action Grants. In fiscal 2003, grants funds totaling
over $17 million were awarded for cleanup activities at 21 sites, and program officials said some would
be considered NPL-caliber sites.
The State Toxics Control Account and Local Toxics Control Account provide funding for site cleanup
activities including: site investigation, emergency response, removal actions, studies and design, remedial
actions, O&M, CERCLA match, long-term stewardship, and program administration. State Budget
and Program Overview reports indicate funding decreased (in constant 2003 dollars) from
approximately $89.6 million in the 1999-2001 biennium to $61.8 million in the 2003-2005 biennium, or
approximately 31 percent. Staffing has remained relatively constant, with approximately 145 FTEs.
Cleanup Standards for NPL-Caliber Sites
The Washington Model Toxics Cleanup Act established three methods for developing cleanup
standards for hazardous waste sites. Cleanup standards are established for each medium at a site and
are developed based on ARARs and other criteria, including: background levels, MCLs/MCLGs,
aquifer use, chemical specific health based criteria, land use, water quality criteria, and other
environmental impact data
Method A specifies cleanup levels for approximately 30 of the most common hazardous substances in
soil and ground water at sites. These cleanup levels are provided in lookup tables. Method A
standards are based on a risk level of IxlO"6 for carcinogens and a Hazard Index of less than 1 for non-
carcinogens. Method B provides two tiers - standard and modified. The standard method uses State
and Federally developed risk formulas and generic default assumptions to calculate cleanup levels. In
contrast, the modified method provides for the use of chemical- or site-specific information to change
selected default assumptions in formulas. Method B may be used at any site, including NPL-caliber
sites, and is the most common method for setting cleanup levels when sites are contaminated with
constituents not listed under Method A A carcinogenic risk level of 1x10"6 is assigned for both
standard and modified Method B levels. Method C also has standard and modified tiers, and is based
on a carcinogenic risk level of IxlO'5 and anon-carcinogenic hazard index of less than 1. Method C is
generally applied at sites where natural background levels for constituents exceed Method A and B
cleanup levels, or when the other methods cannot be achieved because of technology limitations or
other factors.
Washington has also developed cleanup standards for contaminated sediments. The objective of these
standards is to eliminate adverse effects on biological resources and human health from contaminated
sediments. These standards are established on a site-specific basis and developed using risk-based
criteria and apply to marine, low salinity, and freshwater sediments.
36
-------
Remedy Selection Process for NPL-Caliber Sites
Washington's remedy selection process requires scientific analysis, disclosure, and documentation that
are similar to Superfund remedy requirements, with the exception of risk assessments. Washington's
process for NPL-caliber sites requires analysis similar to the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
process. In addition, the State requires development of a proposed plan, solicitation and consideration
of public comments on the proposed remedy, and documentation of the remedy decision. However,
the State does not require that the remedy decision process include a site specific baseline risk
assessment Instead, the State relies on the Washington Model Toxics Cleanup Act methods to
determine cleanup levels for NPL-caliber sites. Although Methods B and C use risk assessment
formulas derived from State and EPA guidance, the cleanup calculations for both tiers are less
comprehensive than a site-specific baseline risk assessment. Washington also uses interim remedial
actions to mitigate threats posed by sites until die final remedy is selected.
37
-------
38
-------
Appendix C
Systems Used for Scoring Sites
Pennsylvania uses EPA's Hazardous Ranking System exclusively to prioritize hazardous waste sites for
State-funded remedial actions. New Jersey, Michigan, Kansas, and Washington have developed
ranking systems similar to EPA's system to assist in prioritizing sites.
New Jersey, Michigan, Kansas, and Washington generally score all sites intended to be addressed with
State funding as part of their assessment process. In contrast, Pennsylvania only scores sites requiring
State funding in excess of $2 millioa Although scoring is an important aspect of tiie assessment and
prioritization process for each of the four States besides Pennsylvania, assigned scores do not establish
absolute priorities or the order in which sites are addressed. Instead, the scores provide a relative
ranking of sites based on estimated risk to human health and the environment These States generally
prioritize sites for remediation using assigned scores, as well as other factors, such as economic
development opportunity, cost, and available funding. The table identifies the system and scoring
ranges for each State.
State
New Jersey
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Kansas
Washington
System
Remedial Priority
System
Site Assessment Model
EPA's Hazardous
Ranking System
Contaminated Sites
Ranking System
Washington Ranking
Model
Score
Range
1 -1000
0-48
1 -100
1 -100
1 -5
Priorlty/NPL-
Caliber Range
350-1000
30-48
28.5-100
N/A4
1-2
New Jersey developed its scoring system to rank contaminated sites awaiting assignment to ensure that
sites are addressed on a "worst first" basis. The system calculates scores using criteria that assess risks
associated with conl3rmed or potential contamination of ground water, surface water, and soil. The
State is currently in the process of developing a new scoring system that is intended to better define the
levels of risk that hazardous substances pose to health and the environment In addition to the remedial
priority system, the State also utilizes HRS and HRS Pre-Score to score sites under its EPA grant.
TCansas does not have a range or specific score in its scoring system to designate a site as an "NPL
caliber" site.
39
-------
Michigan's assessment model calculates site priorities based on evaluations of existing and potential
chemical substances. The model is a structured value assessment based upon perceived risk of actual
and potential affected resources. Trie State is currently in the process of rescoring sites based on a
change in the assessment model that was necessitated by the inclusion of the State's cleanup standards
into the scoring model. In setting funding priorities, Michigan places emphasis on those sites that
present the most significant risks to public health and the environment, as well as those sites with
redevelopment potential.
Kansas' ranking system establishes scores based on type of waste and actual or potential impact to
soil/bedrock, surface water, ground water, and air. Human exposure pathways are primary factors
considered by the State's scoring system. In establishing funding priorities, the State designates
emergency priority status for sites where drinking water supplies are impacted or the potential exists for
direct contact to highly contaminated soil, waste, or ground water.
Washington's ranking model estimates the relative potential risk posed by the site to human health and
the environment Score calculations consider air, ground water, and surface water migration pathways;
human and nonhuman exposure targets; properties of the substances present; and the interaction of
these variables. In establishing funding priorities, the State also considers other factors such as:
potentially liable parties ability to pay, public concern, and economic factors (e.g., will create substantial
jobs and feasibility of cleanup).
Pennsylvania uses the Hazardous Ranking System to score sites in its hazardous waste cleanup
program Unlike most States, Pennsylvania does not score sites as part of its assessment process;
rather, sites are scored for listing on the State's priority list for funding. State statute requires that
remedial activities for State-funded cleanups with estimated costs in excess of $2 million be scored and
placed on the State's priority list for funding. Scoring and listing on the priority list is contingent upon
availability of funds. In establishing funding priorities, Pennsylvania has taken die position to only
expend funds on sites where public health is at risk and where reuse efforts exist in communities that
benefit the State. Sites exhibiting only environmental risk are either referred to EPA for listing on the
NPL or deferred until funding is available to address identified risks.
40
-------
Appendix D
Memorandum to Region 3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Apnl 14, 2004
(DIG Findings on Review of Pennsylvania Landfill Remedy
Carolyn Copper /signed/
Director for Program Evaluation: Hazardous Waste Issues
Office of Program Evaluation
Donald S. Welsh
Region 3 Administrator
During fieldwork for an ongoing Office of Inspector General evaluation, we identified an issue in the state
of Pennsylvania that we are forwarding for your review and action. As part of our study of five State
cleanup programs (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, Kansas and Washington) and the management
of their State-lead NFL -caliber sites, we found that the Adam's Sanitation Company (ADSCO) Landfill in
Pennsylvania has a final selected remedy that has not been evaluated through a formal process. As a
result, assurance cannot be provided that the selected remedy will eliminate potential direct contact
exposure pathways, contain landfill waste over the long term, minimize surface water infiltration through
the waste and leachate generation, and minimize contaminated groundwater migration off-site. In addition,
we have concerns about the quality of the information used in the remedy selection decision process. We
are recommending that Region 3:
» Review Pennsylvania's decision process for the site to determine whether the remedial decision is
supported by appropriate data and analysis and provides reasonable assurance that the remedy will
eliminate potential direct contact exposure pathways, contain landfill waste over the long term,
minimize surface water infiltration through the waste and leachate generation, and minimize
contaminated groundwater migration off-site, and
» If the remedial decision is not adequately supported, take appropriate action to ensure that the
remedial decision is reevaluated using data and analysis that provides reasonable assurance that the
selected remedy will provide effective protection to human health and the environment.
41
-------
If Region 3 authority limits actions you can take on these matters we request that you forward this letter
to the proper authorities. Information on the site and our findings follow.
Background
The ADSCO landfill is an inactive municipal and industrial waste landfill located along Cranberry Road
near Aspers, Pennsylvania. According to Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP),
this site is a State-led, NPL-caliber site managed under Pennsylvania's Hazardous Sites Cleanup
Program. The site is located on a farm property consisting of 108 acres of which more than 23 acres are
landfilled. The site consists of three areas filled during three different time periods. These areas include:
"very old fill area": an unpermitted dumping site in the 1940?s-19607s located at the southern
portion of the site. The boundaries are not defined.
> "old fill area": consisting of 13 acres landfilled from 1977-1983 located in the northcentral portion
of the site.
» "new fill area": Keystone Sanitation Company leased 30 acres north of the old fill area, and
operating as ADSCO, landfilled eight acres. The landfill closed in approximately 1989.
> The old and new fill areas operated with a leachate collection system, aeration lagoon and two
settling lagoons under an NPDES permit. The very old fill area is an unlined dump. There is no
indication that similar engineering controls are in place at the very old fill area.
* The area surrounding the site consists mostly of agricultural lands. There is one onsite residence
and there is limited residential development adjacent to the site. There are approximately 65
domestic wells serving approximately 3,700 people within a three-mile radius of the site.
Aquifer C?ntfltnina*'nn a|*d DEP Response
Operations at the ADSCO landfill have resulted in contamination of a spring and aquifer beneath and
surrounding the site at levels exceeding medium-specific cleanup standards and Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs). The aquifer supplies domestic wells in the area. In 1985 volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) were detected in the spring serving as the water supply for the onsite residence. Subsequent
sampling of the spring and bedrock drinking water aquifer has detected VOCs in excess of MCLs.
Several subsurface investigations have occurred, including a Preliminary Assessment conducted by EPA
in 1989. The site was judged, "No Further Remedial Action Planned" (under CERCLA) and was
archived in CERCLIS in 1990. A Focused Feasibility Study presented remedial alternatives. The site is
currently in "design phase" that incorporates elements of the initially selected remedy.
Alternative remedies were evaluated and the selected remedy was presented for public comment. The
remedy would comply with ARARs and included:
» Installation of a synthetic cap on the "old" and "new" fill areas in accordance with Pennsylvania
regulations for municipal waste landfills. No plans exist to cap the "very old" fill area south of
Cranberry Road as it is not considered by DEP to be a significant contributor to groundwater
contamination. This ARAR would be waived on the basis of cost effectiveness.
Installation of an active combustor gas venting system.
f Upgrade of a leachate collection and treatment system.
» Natural attenuation of two surface water (spring) discharges by collection in a lagoon.
42
-------
> Maintenance of a point-of-entry treatment system for the onsite residential water supply. This
was addressed as a prompt interim response and the source spring water will continue to be
treated.
» Implementation of a long-term monitoring program to assess plume migration and to protect
downgradient receptors (i.e., streams).
Portions of the remedial action alternative were chosen based on cost-effectiveness considerations.
Groundwater modeling has shown that landfill capping is more effective at reducing contaminant
concentrations in groundwater than pumping and treating over a twenty-year period,
DEP documents supporting the initially selected remedy alternative indicate that it would be effective in
eliminating potential direct contact exposure pathways, in containing landfill waste over the long term, in
minimizing surface water infiltration through waste and subsequent leachate generation and, in minimizing
contaminated groundwater migration off-site. The remedy would meet surface water quality discharge
limits for VOCs for leachate treatment and the spring discharge and would complies with landfill closure
regulations concerning capping the old and new fill areas.
QIC Concerns Related to Remedy Selection
* The approved remedy has been modified from its original presentation. The installation of
a cap on the old and new landfill areas is considered integral to the success of supporting remedial
technologies and overall remediation of the site. The approved remedy consisting of a synthetic
cap and supporting technologies was presented for public comment. However, the subsequent
Statement of Decision is contradictory and appears misleading. It states concurrence with the
approved remedy, but concludes that installation of the cap (the cornerstone of the combined
selected remedy) would be retained as a contingent component of the remedy. The modified, and
final remedy consists of many of the supporting remedial technologies of the cap, without the cap.
Thus, the final selected remedy is not an alternative that has been evaluated through a formal
process. The public has not been informed of this change in the remedy. Importantly, the
environmental and public health that the publicly presented remedy was designed to protect
cannot be assured under the final remedy.
According to Pennsylvania state officials, budget cuts resulted in the synthetic cap becoming a
contingent component of the remedy. We do not have information to determine whether budget
cuts were the primary reason for the change in remedy.
* Decisions based on site characterization data, including those related to risk, and
remedy selection, may have been based on unreliable data because the site
characterization is incomplete.
> The VOC plume in the bedrock aquifer is over Yi mile in length and 1,000 feet wide
downgradient (south) and has not been adequately delineated to the north, southwest and
southeast. VOCs were not detected from the testing of several domestic wells in 1999
and 2000, however, the migration potential of the plume has not been evaluated and it is
unknown whether the plume will reach sensitive receptors over time. The receptors
potentially include small streams and domestic wells.
> The groundwater monitoring well network is inadequate to evaluate groundwater
chiiracteristics and contaminant distribution in the aquifer. It is possible that two separate
43
-------
sources of PCE and two separate plumes are present at the site including one from the
new fill area and one from the old fill area. Data collected to date has not confirmed,
verified, or refuted this situation. The new and old fill areas are the primary sources of
groundwater contamination, although the lateral extent of significant in the waste has not
been delineated. Although VOCs were detected in soil gas samples collected from the
very old fill area south of Cranberry road the extent to which contamination from this
area has contributed to the overall groundwater plume is unknown because only one soil
boring has been advanced.
» Hot spots in the source area have not been conclusively identified.
» The Focused Feasibility Study was based on data obtained from incomplete site
characterization.
We have spoken with EPA and Region 3 officials about the site, and were informed that Region 3 has not
been involved with it since it was archived in 1990.
We did not identify concerns at other sites in Pennsylvania we looked at as part of our ongoing review.
We will contact your office within two weeks of the date of this letter to answer questions or discuss this
matter further. In the meantime, I can be reached at 202-566-0829, or Steven Textoris, the lead staff on
this issue, can be reached at 202-566-1033.
Kirby Biggs-OSWER-Assessment and Remediation Division
Kwai Chan-OIG
Eileen McMahon-OIG
Michael Owen-OIG
Abraham Ferdas-Region 3, Superfund Division Director
Jim Mccreary-Region 3, Chief, Brownfields Assessment Section
Cornelius Carr-Region 3, Audit Liaison
44
-------
Appendix E
Superfund NPL LIRA Sites Pending State
Assumption Over 10-Year Period (2004-2013)
State
New Jersey
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Kansas
Washington
Sites
Bog Creek
Lang Property
Higgins Property
S, Jersey Clothing/Garden State
Vineland Chemical
Ellis Property
Lipairi Landfill
U.S. Aviex
Duel! & Gardner LF
Ott/Story /Cordova
Wash King Laundry
Peerless Plating
Berks Sand Pit
Cray don TCE
Hellertown Manufacture
North Penn-Area 1
Cryochem, Inc
Eutz Landfill
AIW Frank/Mid-County
Raymark OU 1 , OU2, OU3
Havertown PCP
57lhand Broadway
Ace Services
Commencement Bay
Total Cost
Turnover
Date
08/2005"
09/2007
10/2009
09/2010
06/2011
09/2012
12/2012
03/2004
09/2004
09/2010
03/201 1
06/2012
06/2004
1 1 /2005
09/2007
09/2008
05/2008
09/2010
09/2011
09/201 1
03/2013
09/2012
09/2013
12/2005
Estimated
O&MCost
$ 460,000
$ 700,000
$ 1,000,000
$ 500,000
$ 4,000,000
N/A
$ 2,500,000
$ 300,000
$ 70,000
$ 2,400,000
$ 75,000
$ 400,000
$ 150,000
$ 200,000
$ 50,000
$ 100,000
$ 125,000
$ 250,000
$ 180,000
$ 155,711
$ 1.000,000
$ 81 ,200
$ 325,000
$ 300,000
$15,321,911
Optimization
Study
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
"Estimated Costs are in current year dollars.
'The Bog Creek site is currently undergoing additional remedial action based on an optimization study,
therefore the turnover date will have to be adjusted. A new date has not been set.
45
-------
46
-------
Appendix F
Agency's Comments to Draft Evaluation Report
47
-------
48
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
July 30, 2004
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: OSWER Response to OIG Draft Evaluation Report "States May Not Meet Future
Superfund Cleanup Requirements and Some Current Cleanup Needs Cannot Be
Addressed" Assignment No. 2003-000118
FROM: Barry N. Breen /s/
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator
TO: Carolyn Copper
Director of Program Evaluation: Hazardous Waste Issues
Office of Program Evaluation
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response is providing its response to the Office of
Inspector General (OIG) findings and recommendations contained in the above-referenced draft
assignment. We thank the OIG for its analysis of State hazardous waste site cleanup programs; Iheir
capacity to undertake future actions at sites lhat are either eligible for or listed on the National Priorities
List ((NPL) and to conduct future operation and maintenance (O&M) funding requirements for NPL
sites; and for providing recommendations for program improvements.
OSWER will address each of your study findings and recommendations.
OIG Objective
Have Hie States established processes that identify, assess, and prioritize cleanups to ensure
that sites with the greatest threats to public health and the environment are being addressed promptly?
49
-------
QIC Recommendation
OIG recommends that the Agency work with States to determine Ihe key reasons for the
backlogs in completing site assessments and in scoring sites.
QSWER Response
While you noted that the five States reviewed (New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Kansas,
and Washington) have all implemented processes for identifying, assessing, investigating, and prioritizing
hazardous waste sites that are similar to EPA's remedial process for the Superfund program, we are
concerned that you found the States have backlogs in sites requiring assessment and scoring. You
further state that until these backlogs are eliminated, the States cannot assure that sites posing the
greatest threat to human health and the environment are promptly addressed, and further, that the
backlog may limit the States' capacity to address future hazardous waste sites, including sites on the
NPL. Since all five of the States studied have backlogs, we will follow your recommendation that the
Agency, working with States, determine the key reasons for the backlogs.
QIC Objective
Are cleanup standards and remedies used by the States based on risk and sound science and
do they provide long-term protection for public health and the environment?
OIG Recommendation
EPA should consider streamlining the Superfund remediation process to provide States more
flexibility in the application of baseline risk assessments and in their remedy selection processes.
OSWER Response
We are pleased with your finding that the five States reviewed have cleanup standards that are
based on risk and sound science and are intended to be protective of human health and the
environment, that the processes used by these States to characterize contamination, assess risks, and
make remedy decisions generally incorporate sound scientific analysis and are similar to EPA's remedy
decision process for Superfund, and that the States' decision processes for NPL-caliber sites generally
provide remedies that are designed to be protective of human health and the environment
The observations in this draft report merit additional evaluation. The Agency will be examining
State contributions to the federal Superfund program in the coming year, particularly as it relates to
State-lead cleanups. We will refer to your findings as we develop this evaluation. It is our intent to
share the lessons learned as a result of this with States and other interested parties.
-------
PIG Objective
Are States able to support impending operation and maintenance responsibilities?
QIC Recommendation
OIG recommends that EPA work with the States to explore viable funding and staffing options
to support their O&M responsibilities for LTRAs atNPL sites, and complete guidance on optimization
of LTRAs at NPL sites,
OSWER Response
Your third study objective was to evaluate the States' capacity to assume O&M responsibilities
for long-term response actions (LTRAs) at NPL sites. Your findings were that the States may lack the
resources to undertake these future obligations due to declining budgets, States are concerned with the
performance of the LTRAs, and the lack of EPA optimization studies of all of the systems.
Consequently, States may be unable to maintain the integrity of remedies and ensure protection of
human health and Ihe environment Further, inadequate LTRAs may result in the States incurring
unanticipated costs which may impact other cleanup priorities.
We agree with your recommendation that EPA work with States to explore viable funding and
staffing options to support their O&M responsibilities for LTRAs atNPL sites. We will, through our
Regions, work with the States to jointly assess their O&M funding strategies and identify possible
solutions.
In response to your recommendation that EPA complete guidance on optimization of LTRAs at
NPL sites to include an action plan that establishes funding and a schedule, below is a description of
activities underway and our timetable for completion of the optimization guidance.
Upon completion of the pilot phase of the optimization initiative, the Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation initiated development of the "Action Plan for Ground Water
Remedy Optimization." The Action Plan is intended to apply important lessons learned in order to fully
integrate optimization into the Superfund cleanup process. On May 7, 2004, we circulated a draft
Action Plan to the Regions, other OSWER offices, and OSRE for comments. We expect to finalize the
guidance by September 30, 2004. The plan provides details on the following activities, which will help
foster routine optimization at LTRA sites:
conduct additional optimization reviews at high priority, Fund-lead sites
(at a rate of 5-8 sites per year);
provide priority funding for the implementation of recommended system changes;
monitor implementation progress in the Regions;
develop appropriate guidance and training tools;
coordinate with State counterparts and responsible parties (RPs); and,
51
-------
establish a network of Regional Optimization Liaisons.
Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft report. Your focused recommendations will
assist us in enhancing the role of States as co-implementers of the Superfund program. If you have any
questions, please contact Kirby Biggs at (703) 308-8506 or Johnsie Webster, OSWER Audit Liaison,
at (202) 566-1912.
52
-------
Appendix G
New Jersey's Comments to Draft Evaluation Report
53
-------
54
-------
July 30, 2004
Ms. Carolyn Copper, Director
Program Evaluation: Hazardous Waste Issues
Office of Program Evaluation
USEPA Office of the Inspector General
1200 6th Avenue (OICH95)
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Ms. Copper:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report, States May Not Meet
Future Superfund Cleanup Requirements and Some Current Cleanup Needs Cannot Be
Addressed.
Generally, the report is accurate as it relates to the OIG visit to our offices, and we
generally agree with the report's conclusions and recommendations. Enclosed are some
specific comments and clarifications that we request be incorporated into the report, the
most notable is a clarification on the backlog in the site assessment process. The report is
correct in that cases currently awaiting the PA/SI process often result from Immediate
Environmental Concern (IEC) cases. However, the report fails to indicate that the
referenced cases are "Unknown Source" cases, and more important the receptor exposure
has been previously remedied. The cases awaiting the PA/SI, are efforts to determine the
source(s) of contamination that caused the IEC. Preventing any exposure to the
contamination is our utmost priority. You are correct in your conclusion that the backlog
is, at least in part, a function of the reduced funding in the PA/SI grant.
Some of the comments provided require a response from your team before we can assess
the accuracy of the information. Please contact Edward Putnam, Assistant Director for
Remedial Response, at 609-984-3074 to discuss those issues.
Sincerely
Joseph J. Seebode, Assistant Commissioner
Site Remediation & Waste Management
c. George Pavlou, Director OERR, Region II
55
-------
Comments
OIG Draft Report
States May Not Meet Future Superfund Cleanup Requirements
And Some Current Cleanup Needs Cannot Be Addressed
June 28,2004
Executive Summary
- In the results paragraph and throughout the summary the phrase "flexible remedy
decision processes...." Or the word flexible is used to describe the state's process. It
is unclear what this means, and the use of the word flexible implies that decisions are
not consistently applied. Please consider another word that doesn't imply
inconsistency.
In the Backlog paragraph it seems far reaching to suggest that the backlog of Site
Assessment cases may limit the states ability to address NPL sites. If this is attributed
to a statement by some state official then it should be attributed to that official. New
Jerseys future ability to respond at NPL sites is not effected by the cases awaiting site
assessments.
- In the O&M paragraph, declining state budgets are mentioned. Although at the time
of your visit this was true, since then New Jersey has increased the revenue from the
corporate business tax and funding of our future obligation for O&M seems secure
for planning purposes. This needs to be qualified with a statement that New Jersey
also believes that the statute needs to be amended to include ALL O&M as a 90/10
cost share so that state funds can used effectively used on non-NPL sites. Although
we will be able to meet our obligations New Jersey would rather use those funds for
our obligations at other sites.
Chapter 1
- No specific comments
Chapter 2
Page 6. Assessment and Investigation- It is unclear if the language in this section is
referring only to the work performed by BEMSA under the PA/SI grant or a more general
statement about investigations in the entire program. PA/SI deliverables under the grant
are entirely federally funded while a combination of state and federal funds are used for
publicly funded remedial program areas.
- Page 7. Backlogs- The 52 cases backlogged represent Unknown Source Ground
Water Investigations that are the basis for conducting Preliminary Assessments and Site
Inspections (PA/SI's) under the grant. In most cases, BEMSA will perform multiple
PA's and Si's as part of the process utilized to investigate each site and to identify
potential responsible parties.
56
-------
We concur that our annual grant award has been cut in half since 2001. The direct impact
of this funding reduction will be a correlating extension of the timeframe needed to
perform PA/SI's associated with our backlog of Unknown Source Investigations.
Of particular concern in this section is the implication that these backlogged sites still
pose an immediate risk. The sentence that's missing and needs to be added is the
explanation that these case ALL have had the actual exposure to humans remedied. These
sites that require a PA/SI are for the unknown source aspects of the case.
Chapter 3
Pagel2, cleanup standards- Officially New Jersey has groundwater cleanup standards,
but only soil "criteria". Therefore we recommend that " and criteria" be added
wherever standards is used.
Chapter 4
- Page 17, first paragraph, the current fiscal year budget is no longer declining.
Page 20, Recommendations- New Jersey would like to suggest an additional
recommendation to have the OIG suggest the agency support the States efforts to
have the O&M funding changed to a 90/10 ration for ALL O&M.
Details on New Jersey's Programs
Page 25, first paragraph- The citation is NJAC 7:26E.
- Page 25, first paragraph- It is unclear where the numbers of cases came from please
contact us and discuss the source of these numbers. The Site Remediation Program is
handling significantly more case that 1,035, and it should be specified that NPL
caliber equates to C3 and D cases and therefore 562 seems low also. New Jersey
cannot confirm these numbers without additional information on how they were
derived.
Page 25, Standards- Again "and criteria" needs to be added.
Appendix C
It might be worth noting that the PA/SI grant sites are also scored using the HRS and
HRS pre-score.
Appendix E
- Bog Creek is currently undergoing additional remedial actbn based on an
optimization study, so the takeover date will have to be adjusted. A new date has not
been set.
57
-------
Williams Property is currently not operating and is being monitored so the cost listed
to operating the site would only apply if monitoring indicates the system has to be
turned back on.
58
-------
Appendix H
Michigan's Comments to Draft Evaluation Report
59
-------
60
-------
STAT?. w M
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
!...«. KStJKJ
July 28, 2004
Mr. Michael Owen
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1200 6th Avenue (OIG-195)
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Mr. Owen:
SUBJECT: Draft Report, States May Not Meet Future Superfund Cleanup
Requirements and Some Current Cleanup Needs Cannot Be Addressed
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above-subject draft report. The Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality, Remediation and Redevelopment Division (RRD),
has reviewed the draft report and have provided the attached comments.
In general, the title of the evaluation report is somewhat misleading, especially after one
has read the report. The text of the report seems to indicate that the evaluated states
run cleanup programs that while different from the strict Superfund process, are equally
able to identify and address risks in a sound, scientific manner. In addition, the use of
the term "hazardous waste" throughout the report seems inappropriate as hazardous
waste sites are addressed throug h the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, as opposed to the Superfund Program, which is the focus of the report.
The Executive Summary indicates that the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA) is considering the future direction of the Superfund Program. The
audit report; however, does not attempt to take the information gleaned from the five
state reviews to determine if there are aspects of some successful state programs that
can be suggested for the federal Superfund Program. This is unfortunate, as the states
are often the laboratories for discovering new, more efficient and effective methods to
address environmental problems.
We strongly support the Recommendations as stated in the Executive Summary of the
draft report and would enjoy the opportunity to find mechanisms for the states to
assume greater responsibility in the Superfund Program.
61
-------
Mr. Michael Owen
July 28,2004
Specific comments on the body of the report can be found attached to this letter. If you
need further information or have any questions relative to our comments you may
contact Mr. Andrew W. Hogarth, Chief, RRD, at 517-335-1104 or you may contact me.
An electronic version will also be provided to your attention as requested in the June 28,
2004, letter.
Sincerely,
Steven E. Chester
Director
517-373-7917
cc: Mr. Jim Sygo, Deputy Director, MDEQ
Ms. JoAnn Merrick, MDEQ
Mr. Andrew W. Hogarth, MDEQ
Ms. Elizabeth M. Browne, MDEQ
62
-------
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Comments
Draft Report
Sfates May Not Meet Future Superfund Cleanup Requirements and Some Current
Needs Cannot be Addressed
Chapter 2, pages 7 and 8.
The draft report indicates that the auditors were unable to verify the lack of backlog for
site assessments due to insufficient inventory data. All National Priorities List-caliber
sites in Michigan have been scored and assessed at least once. Due to recent
regulatory changes the state has to update all site scores based on new criteria. In
most cases, this is a re-scoring, and not the initial evaluation. The only requirement to
score a site historically has been to enable the site to receive state funding. This being
the case, sites with identified active responsible parties may not have been a high
priority for scoring. This issue is also raised in Appendix A, page 22.
Information as to the source of the problem experienced by the auditors would need to
be provided to enable a more specific response to this concern.
Chapters, page 13.
The draft report does not acknowledge the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality's (MDEQ's) approach to sediment criteria. Although most of Michigan's cleanup
criteria are promulgated in rules which include look-up tables, the mechanism to
address contaminated sediments can be found in Rule 730 of Part 201, Environmental
Remediation, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451,
as amended (Part 201). Issues that need to be addressed in establishing specific
sediment criteria include impacts to fish and wildlife (either directly or as a food source);
degradation of the benthos; restrictions on use; beach closings; habitat loss; and
unacceptable risk through human contact.
Chapters, page 14.
Permanence is identified as a factor in evaluating remedial options as can be found in
Section 18(4) of Part 201. Section 18(4) states in part, "...remedies that permanently
and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances
are to be preferred."
Chapters, page 15, Recommendation 3-1.
This recommendation does not give credence to the current risk evaluation processes
utilized by states. By only recommending that ways be found to provide flexibility where
possible and appropriate, this falls far short of providing any real advancement in
efficiency in the Superfund Program. The MDEQ, like many state environmental
agencies across the country has successfully demonstrated to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency the ability to address site remediation under the
hazardous waste and leaking underground storage tank programs. Why then, cannot a
stronger recommendation be made to look at updating the Superfund Program to allow
a similar delegation authority as those found in the hazardous waste and tank
63
-------
programs? By recommending that Superfund be updated to allow state authorization or
delegation, many of the time sinks and duplication of efforts inherent in the Superfund
Program could be eliminated. State run cleanup programs, and state authorized
hazardous waste and tank remediation programs often address sites as large and/or
complex as many Superfund sites. States have shown that they are capable of
handling sites of this magnitude.
Chapter 4, pages 19 and 20.
It is agreed that with decreasing budgets, at both the federal and state level, the state's
ability to address long-term remedial action (LIRA) at sites will be stretched. This being
said, it should be noted that the MDEQ has been evaluating the LIRA needs for sites
where we will assume the financial responsibility for long-term operation and
maintenance of these systems, and intends to continue to work to meet those
obligations. We strongly support the efforts to conduct optimization studies and urge
that the report strongly recommend that these studies be conducted on a priority basis
at sites where the transfer of responsibility to the state is imminent, or where project
managers have raised concerns about the effectiveness of a current system.
Recommendation 4-2 should suggest an aggressive time line for the completion of the
guidance on optimization of LTRAs.
Appendix 1, page 22.
Please see the comments relative to Chapter 2, pages 7 and 8.
Appendix B, page 25.
The reference to the staffing levels is misleading due to a restructuring of the MDEQ
which took place in 2002. Hiring freezes and the inability to replace staff who took an
"early-out" retirement package in 2004 have reduced the number of staff working in the
Remediation and Redevelopment Division (RRD) cleanup program. The 2002
restructuring that created the RRD also added the leaking underground storage tank
responsibilities to the cleanup program, thus potentially masking staffing reductions with
additional program duties.
Appendix B, page 26.
As stated earlier, the MDEQ does have a mechanism to address contaminated
sediments in Part 201 (see comment under Chapter 3, page 13). In addition, the MDEQ
also has criteria for evaluation of the Groundwater/Surface Water Interface, or GSI.
This criterion is used to evaluate the impact that contaminated groundwater may have
on a surface water body into which it discharges. The evaluation is modeled on the
process used to evaluate point source discharges under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System, and is an Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirement under Superfund.
Appendix E
We are not aware of an optimization study having been performed at the U.S. Aviex
site.
64
-------
Appendix I
Pennsylvania's Comments to Draft Evaluation Report
65
-------
66
-------
Rachel Carson State Office Building
P.O. Box 8471
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8471
Land Recycling and Cleanup Program 717-783-7816
Mr. Michael Owen
Assignment Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of the Inspector General
1200 6th Avenue (OIG-195)
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Mr. Owen:
We have reviewed the draft report, States May Not Meet Future Superfund Cleanup
Requirements and Some Current Cleanup Needs Cannot Be Addressed, and concur with your
findings, but would like the following comments included in the final report:
1. The reference to Pennsylvania's backlog (Page 7, Paragraph 2) of approximately 90
sites requiring assessment and incomplete inventory data needs additional
clarification. The State and EPA Region III utilize a work share database, maintained
by the EPA Region, that tracks the state or federal agency lead for the assessment and
cleanup of National Priorities List (NPL) Caliber priority sites. The inventory data
maintenance and updates are a function of EPA Region III with input from
Pennsylvania's six Regional DEP Offices. The work share status of the NPL caliber
sites is not a reflection of the state inventory data, but a separate inventory maintained
by EPA Region III.
2. The report text (Page 14, Paragraph 3) and the Appendix D Memo regarding the
remedy selection for the ADSCO Site State-led cleanup requires additional language
to conclude remedy protectiveness. The original remedy selected for the site was re-
evaluated due to cost effectiveness brought on by state budget restraints. The re-
evaluation resulted in a modified remedy considering cost effectiveness with
additional monitoring to assure protectiveness of human health and the environment.
The original remedy selection was retained as a contingency if the modified remedy
proved not to be protective. The public notification process was satisfied according
to state requirements due to the modified remedy being one of the alternatives
considered throughout the remedy selection process. This selection process was
discussed in detail with the Office of Inspector General staff and the EPA Region III
Site Assessment Program.
67
-------
Mr. Michael Owen
-2-
August 3, 2004
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the report. If you have further
questions, please contact me at (717) 783-7816 or tfidler@state.pa.us.
Sincerely,
Thomas K. Fidler
Manager
cc: Kathleen A. McGinty, Secretary
Nicholas A. DiPasquale, Deputy Secretary for Air, Recycling and Radiation Protection
Eugene A. DePasquale, Deputy Secretary for Community Revitalization & Local
Government Support
Michael G. Forebeck, Acting Director for the Bureau of Land Recycling and Waste
Management
Patricia L. Renwick, Chief for the Division of Remediation Services
Charles Swokel, Acting Chief for the Division of Storage Tanks
-------
Appendix J
Kansas' Comments to Draft Evaluation Report
69
-------
70
-------
KANSAS
RODERICK L. BREMBY, SECRETARY KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
July 26, 2004
EPA Office of Inspector General
Attn: Michael Owen
1200 6th Avenue (OIG-195)
Seattle, Washington 98101
RE: Assignment Number 2003-000118
Dear Mr. Owen:
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) appreciates the opportunity to
provide comment on the draft report titled, "States May Not Meet Future Superfund Cleanup
Requirements and Some Current Cleanup Needs Cannot Be Addressed." The report presents an
evaluation of the effectiveness of State hazardous waste cleanup programs conducted by the Office of
Inspector General. The report evaluates five state programs and makes general conclusions and
recommendations based on cumulative findings.
KDHE is concerned the title ofthe report is too generic and therefore may misrepresent the actual
findings in a particular state. KDHE believes, that each state is unique in their organizational structure and
capabilities to address contaminated sites. Strengths and weaknesses vary from state to state, as do each
state's needs. KDHE can not represent the interests of the other states, nor can the other states represent
KDHE opinions. A global statement indicating states may not meet future requirements and cleanup needs
may misrepresent a specific state program.
KDHE agrees that there are global concerns with funding. In particular, federal and state funding
in Kansas has been consistently reduced over the last few years. These reductions are leading to
assessment backlogs as discussed in the audit report, but more importantly the reductions in funding is
leading to orphan sites that can not be addressed following assessment One ofthe objectives of the
assessment program in the State of Kansas is to identify potentially responsible parties (PRPs). If PRPs
are identified the site is transferred to an appropriate state response program (Voluntary Cleanup, State
Cooperative, Enforcement, Dry Cleaning, Tanks, etc.) forfuture work. These sites are generally addressed
in a cooperative manner between the PRP and the state.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENT
Bureau of Environmental Remediation
CURTIS STATE OFFICE BUILDING, 1000 SW JACKSON ST., STE. 410, TOPEKA, KS 66612-1367
Voice 785-296-1660 Fax 785-296-1686 http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/
71
-------
Mr. Michael Owen
Page 2
Thousands of sites are currently being managed by these state response programs. Unfortunately, there
are also sites where a PRP can not be identified or is no longer a viable entity (i.e., bankruptcy,
defunct, etc.). These sites must be addressed using available state and federal funding. These sites still
need to be addressed by an appropriate program whether they are classified as a "Superfund" site or not
When state and federal funding is reduced these sites do not get worked and as a result there may be
threats or risks to human health and the environment that are not being addressed by states and federal
programs.
Reducing the funding available for any given phase (assessment, investigation, removal, remedial)
will create backlogs of sites within that phase, which ultimately means that sites are not
being adequately addressed. Reducing funding for assessments will result in less new sites, citizens
complaints, etc. being assessed to determine if a problem exists, and if so the priority of the problem.
Reducing funding for remediation means less resources will exist to perform corrective action at sites. In
any case there will be an increase in the potential risks to public health and the environment due to funding
reductions. Historically, federal funding has made a difference in the state's ability to develop programs
to address thousands of sites across the nation. The number of sites being addressed collectively by
KDHE's state response programs, and the manner in which they are being addressed is an unquestionable
positive outcome for die citizens of our state. Obviously without such funding the ability of Kansas, and
the other states to address such sites will decrease.
This letter outlines KDHE's comments which identify concerns specific to the state of Kansas.
Comments are defined by chapter and page number followed by the statement in the report.
Executive Summary Comments:
I. Executive Summary, page i - "However, the Stales' abilities to meet current and future
responsibilities for the Superfund program as well as their own cleanup programs are limited "
Comment - As previously stated, this statement is global in nature and may not accurately represent the
findings in the individual states. Individual state programs are unique and their successes or limitations can
not be summarized in one simplified statement that may misrepresent a state or program. A global
statement that 'less sites can be addressed by the states and federal government because of toe continued
decrease in available funding," may be more representative.
2. Executive Summary, page i - "Specifically, we found that the States have backlogs in addressing
hazardous wastesites, use flexible remedy decision processes that are not equivalent to Superfund's
process, and appear to be significantly challenged in their ability to meet their required, and
impending, obligations at current Superfund sites. "
-------
Mr. Michael Owen
Page 3
Comment - Again ihis is a generalized statement that may not represent the findings of each state. To
clarify ihis statement for Kansas: KDHE has a backlog of what we believe are low priority sites lhat need
to be assessed; KDHE uses flexible remedy decision processes that meet the public
notification processes and the cleanup criteria of one in a million to one in ten thousand as defined
by the NCP, and KDHE is financially challenged in our ability to meet the required 10% match at
Superfund fund-lead sites and the 100% operation and maintenance requirements following ten years of
operation at those sites.
3. Executive Summary, page ii - "Until these backlogs are eliminated, the States cannot assure
that sites posing the greatest threat to human health and the environment are being addressed
promptly, and the backlog may limit the States' capacity to address fiiture hazardous waste sites,
including sites on the NPL."
Comment - KDHE is averaging five to seven new sites per month. These sites are screened to determine
the sites with the greatest risk. Sites posing the greatest threat to human health and the environment are
being addressed promptly by the state of Kansas. Sites that are believed to be low priority remain on the
list of sites to be assessed. KDHE believes that for the state of Kansas, the statement "States cannot
assure that sites posing the greatest threat to human health and the environment are being addressed...."
is not accurate. Currently, KDHE believes that all sites with known human health and environmental risks
are being addressed by either the state or EPA Region VII. We are unaware of any known site with a
moderate to high risk that is not being addressed. However, Ihis may not be the case in the future if there
is a continual decrease in state and federal funding.
There are known sites with low risk to humanhealth and the environment that have been identified but, are
not currently being addressed because of limited resources. The concept of addressing the worst sites first
has always been implemented by the state of Kansas; however, following assessment many lower priority
sites are being addressed by KDHE when there is a progressive, cooperative responsible party.
4. Executive Summary, page ii - "Therefore, if EPA wants the States to assume a larger role in
addressing NPL sites, it should consider giving the States greater flexibility in their remedy selection
process."
Comment - KDHE agrees with this statement.
Chapter 1 Comments:
No comments.
73
-------
Mr. Michael Owen
Page 4
Chapter 2 Comments:
5. Page 8: The statement, "Kansas has a backlog of 122 sites pending assessment under its
cooperative agreement with EPA." is not a factual statement
Comment: KDHE's cooperative agreement with EPA outlines a specific number of assessments that
KDHE can complete given the annual (state and federal) funding and staff resources. The agreement
identifies that KDHE complete a certain, specific number of assessments at unnamed sites
in the state. Sites are unnamed at the time of the grant, to give the state the flexibility to assess higher
priority sites that are identified duringthe grant year as opposed to be restricted to assessing specific sites
whichmay be alower priority. KDHE has always met or exceeded the target numbers in the grant Grants
and commitments are negotiated annual by KDHE and EPA Region VII. The highest priority sites are
assessed under the grant for that year. Remaining sites that have not been
assessed by the federal site assessment program may carry over to the next grant or may be worked by
another state program. Therefore, there are not 122 sites pending assessment under our cooperative
agreement with EPA At the time of the audit there were 122 sites that needed assessed
by KDHE either with state or federal funding. The backlog of sites is directly related to the reductions in
state and federal funding as previously discussed and not a failure to meet grant commitments.
6. Page 8: The statement, "Over 50 percent of these sites have been in the State's inventory for
more than 5 years" is misleading.
Comment: Sites that have been in the system for an extended period of time have been screened and
deemed as a low priority, low risk site that will be assessed once higher priority sites have been assessed.
The screening takes into account the geographical location of the site (i.e., aquifer, water use, etc.),
potential receptors, known contaminant levels, type of contaminants, etc. While the term backlog would
imply that no action has been taken, the fact is that a desk-top evaluationhas been performed to insure that
those sites remaining on the inventory are truly low priority.
7. Page 8: The statement, "...the State has a backlog of 30 sites pending priority scoring for
remediation. " is inaccurate.. ".
Comment: In Kansas, sites are not scored for remediation but, are scored for further investigation
following assessment. Following the identification of a new site, sites are screened to determine relative
priority based on the factors identified in previous comments. Sites that are screened as higher priority are
assessed by the Site Assessment Program under the cooperative agreement. Sites that go through the
traditional federal site assessment process are pre-scored. Some sites are assigned to Ihe State Water Plan
Program (state funding) where they are scored as required by the program. The sites assigned for
assessment with state funding are generally sites with non-hazardous
74
-------
Mr. Michael Owen
PageS
substances or sites that will require a more extensive assessment due to their geographical location (i.e.,
deep drilling). No site is ever scored for remediation, as so stated.
8. Page 8: The statement, "State finding limitations precluded the State from scoring more sites"
is inaccurate.
Comment: There are no funding limitations associated wilh scoring a site. A site can be scored at any time
following assessment. Sites that are assessed and referred to the State Water Plan program are scored
prior to further work in that program The statement should refer to tie funding limitations regarding
cleaning up orphan sites in the State Water Plan Program once sites are scored.
9. Page 9: The statement, "States cannot assure that sites posing the greatest threat to human
health and the environment are being addressed promptly, and the backlog may limit the States'
capacity to address fature hazardous waste sites, including sites on the NPL." is misleading.
Comment: In Kansas, all newly identified sites are screened to determine their relative priority. Thosesites
with a "moderate to high priority" are assigned for site assessment Sites with "low priority" may not be
assessed until all moderate to high priority sites have been assessed. These low priority sites do not
represent a known risk to human health and/or the environment. In the State of
Kansas, sites posing the greatest threat to human health and the environment are being assessed. However,
if after assessment a site is determined to be an orphan site, there may not be enough federal or state
funding to address the problem.
Comment on Recommendation: The limitations of conducting assessments are two-fold: 1) The federal
government has not realized that new sites are identified on a daily basis through citizen's complaints, local
government referrals, private site assessments, etc. KDHE has documented that the number of new sites
has remained fairly constant (for example in 2000 a total of 51 new sites were identified and in 2003 a total
of 63 new sites were identified) each year. Note: these numbers do not include new sites entering into the
KDHE's Voluntary Cleanup Program, 2) Although the rate of newly identified sites is constant, the amount
of federal funding for the site assessment programhas declined annually. State funding has also decreased
at 5-10 percent annually. The backlog of sites is directly attributable to the reduction of funding at both
the federal and state level, not the amount of sites scored. As previously stated, the continued reduction
of state and federal funds also limits the actions that can be taken on orphan sites following assessment.
KDHE concurs with the recommendation that additional funding is needed to maintain or meet current
assessment needs. Federal site assessment funding has been reduced by the Region on an annual basis;
however, the number of new sites that need assessed per year is not decreasing.
75
-------
Michael Owen
Page 6
Chapter 3 Comments:
No comments.
KDHE concurs with the recommendation that their should be flexibility in the use and application of
baseline risk assessments to streamline the process.
Chapter 4 Comments:
10. Page 18: Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1, need to be revised to reflect the O&M costs associated with ihe
Ace Superfund Site. KDHE will be assuming O&M responsibility for this site in September of 2013 with
an estimated cost of $325,000 per year.
11. Page 20: KDHE would like you to consider the following recommendation:
4-3. EPA should consider performing a system optimization study during the LTRA and
a minimum of 1) for the five year review period and, 2) prior to the ten year review.
These studies should be performed jointly with the states,
EPA should develop training for their project managers to create a philosophy of continuous system
evaluation and optimization. EPA should seek project managers with strong technical background in site
remediation and empower those managers to perform system evaluations as data is generated. Contracts
for site remediation should have performance criteria that must be met or a vendor can be replaced.
System review should not be limited to a five year process. When EPA is spending millions of dollars a
year on site remediation, project managers should be providing extensive oversight to insure that systems
are effective.
Appendix B:
Page 26, Clarification of the following statement, "The State does not require a risk assessment because
Tier 2 cleanup standards are applied to most NPL-Caliber sites. "
In Kansas, Tier 2 standards are the default standards and are established at 10J which is within the
protective range of 104 to 101* as defined by the NCP. For groundwater sites the federal MCL is also
used as default standards. A baseline risk assessment is only required for sites when the responsible parry
must follow the National Contingency Plan for future liability protection. This determination is generally
made by the responsible party. Tier 3 also can include a risk analysis using site-specific data in the existing
Tier 2 formulas or a baseline risk assessment.
76
-------
Mr. Michael Owen
Page?
Appendix C:
Page 27, Table - It is difficult, if not impossible to compare the scoring system in Kansas to the national
HRS scoring system The range provided in the table of 30-100 for anNPL-caliber range site is arbitrary.
KDHE does not have a range or a specific score in it's scoring system to designate a site as an "NPL-
caliber site."
Appendix E: See Comment 10.
KDHE would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on this report If you have any
questions regarding our comments please call me at 785-296-1662.
Respectfully,
Gary Blackburn, Director
Bureau of Environmental Remediation
cc: Rick Bean
LeoHenning
77
-------
78
-------
Appendix K
Washington's Comments to Draft Evaluation Report
79
-------
80
-------
July 28, 2004
Mr. Michael Owen
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1200 5th Avenue, O1G-195
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Owen:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report, States May Not Meet Future Super fund
Cleanup Requirements and Some Current Needs Cannot Be Addressed. We appreciate this
opportunity and hope that our comments will be useful to the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
as this report is finalized.
General Comments
As an overall comment, and distinguishable from the body of the report, we are concerned that
there is a disconnect between the title of the report, the Executive Summary, and report findings.
Readers of this report will be lead to believe that each of the five state programs reviewed have
deficiencies. We believe this not to be the case.
Toward that end, we believe the real issue is declining federal superfund resources and grant
funding to state programs. Many states including Washington, have more comprehensive and
efficiently run programs than those at the federal level. Furthermore, the breadth of sites that
states manage is more expansive by number and type of contaminant addressed than those at the
federal level. The draft report accurately describes the substantive equivalency nature of state
programs to the federal program and the derived benefits of efficiency, flexibility, and cost-
savings of these programs.
Hence, language in the report should more directly link how declining federal funding impacts
state programs. This can be accomplished by rewording the title of the report and the headings
in the Executive Summary to reflect federal program and funding shortfalls. As example, on
page ii, replace States Need to Address Backlogs in Site Assessments and Scoring with 'The
Decline in Federal Funding has Increased Backlogs in Site Assessments and Scoring." This
rewording more accurately represents the findings and the actual recommendations.
81
-------
Mr. Michael Owen
July 28, 2004
Page 2
Specific Comments
1. Executive Summary, page ii, first full paragraph, last sentence, regarding backlogs (Note -
the following two points commented on immediately below are also found at the end of the first
paragraph, page 5; and in the paragraph ending at the top of page 9):
Statement: "Until these backlogs are eliminated, the States cannot assure that sites posing
the greatest threat to human health and the environment are being addressed promptly,
and the backlog may limit the States' capacity to address future hazardous waste sites,
including sites on the NPL "
Comment: First, it is important to recognize that the backlog of unassessed sites
represents a dynamic process, with new sites being continually added at the same time
other sites are removed due to assessments being completed. Consequently, there will
generally always be a backlog, unless limitations in funding precludes further "site
discovery" to continue to add new sites to the list.
Second, in Washington State, while it is true these "backlogged" sites have not been
formally ranked, they have been subjected to an "initial investigation". This includes a
records review, site inspection, and, usually, limited sampling. Any imminent risks are
identified and addressed as part of this process, and higher risk sites are prioritized for
ranking. Thus, this backlog represents lower risk sites, and we believe does not impede
our ability to take on higher risk sites if one is identified.
2. Page 8, regarding the backlog in Washington State:
The statement "According to program officials, this backlog is primarily attributable to
an increase in its site inventory resulting from the deferral of CERCLIS sites from EPA,
and funding limitations." is not entirely true.
Ecology has to date addressed at least 82% of the 500-pIus sites referred by EPA for
further action, with only 34 sites (6% of total) currently awaiting assessment. In
Washington State most detailed site assessments and rankings are being done by local
health districts with funding provided through state grants. The overall State backlog is
due to a combination of factors: Some sites are ineligible to be assessed by local
government due to a potential conflict of interest; many of the backlogged sites are low
risk, and assessments are instead done on those sites perceived to be of a higher risk
regardless of time of entry into the backlog; and lack of state funding/staffing limits
assessments being conducted by the state in those counties not funded at the local level.
82
-------
Mr. Michael Owen
July 28, 2004
Page 3
3. Page 25, Appendix B, third paragraph, first sentence:
"The State Toxic ..." should read "The State Toxics ..."
4. Page 26, Appendix C, second paragraph, third sentence:
"... assigned scores do not establish priorities or the absolute order ..." should read "...
assigned scores do not establish absolute priorities or the order ..."
5. Page 26, Appendix C, second paragraph, fourth sentence:
"Instead, the scores provide a general ranking of sites ..." should read "Instead, the
scores provide a relative ranking of sites..."
6. Page 27, last paragraph, last sentence:
"... the State also considers other factor such ..." should read "...the State also considers
other factors such ..."
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (360) 407-7226.
Sincerely,
Tim Nord
Headquarters Section Manager
Toxics Cleanup Program
TN:cp
cc: Linda Hoffman, Ecology Director
83
-------
84
-------
Appendix L
Distribution
Office of foe Administrator (1101 A)
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5103)
Director, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology (5201G)
Comptroller (2731 A)
Agency Followup Official (2710A)
Agency Followup Coordinator (2724A)
Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5103)
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (1301 A)
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs (1101 A)
Inspector General (2410)
85
-------
U.S EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3404T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
202-566-0556
------- |