UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 30
OFFICE OF
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Follow-up Audit of Superfund Five-Year Review Program
Audit Report No. 1999-P-218
FROM: Michael Simmons |^\A.cV\a*\ _S\vv\irA^v\>_
Deputy Assistant Inspector General
for Internal Audits
TO: Timothy Fields, Jr.
Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Our follow-up audit report on the five-year review program is attached.
Generally, we found that (1) the backlog of overdue reviews has significantly increased
since the time of our prior audit, (2) review reports need to be more informative, and (3)
the Agency needs to more effectively communicate the results of reviews. We note
your decision to declare the backlog of five-year reviews as an Agency level weakness
under FMFIA and to include the completion of the reviews as a target under the
Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan. We also recommend that you
determine, in consultation with the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, whether a
Government Performance and Results Act measure for five-year reviews should be
established.
In accordance with EPA Order 2750, please provide this office a written
response to the report within 90 days of the report date. For corrective actions planned
but not yet completed by your response date, reference to specific milestone dates will
assist us in deciding whether to close this report.
This audit report contains findings and corrective actions the OIG recommends
to help improve the five-year review program. As such, it represents the opinion of the
OIG. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in
accordance with established audit resolution procedures. Accordingly, the issues
contained in this report do not represent the final EPA position, and are not binding
upon EPA in any enforcement proceeding brought by EPA or the Department of
Justice.
Rccyetadffteeycbfal* Printed wtth VegeUfcte OĞ Based lute on 100% Ftecyded Papw (40% Postconsumer)
-------
We would like to thank your staff for their cooperation. Should your staff have
any questions about this report, please have them contact John T. Walsh, Divisional
Inspector General, Headquarters Audit Division, at (202) 260-5113, or Bill Samuel of my
staff at (202) 260-3189.
Attachment
-2-
_i
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVES
Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of
1986, requires that remedial actions, where
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
remain on-site, be reviewed every five years to
assure that human health and the environment
continue to be protected. The statute also requires
that the President (delegated to the EPA
Administrator) report to the Congress a list of facilities
for which reviews are required, the results of all
reviews, and any actions taken as a result of the
reviews.
On March 24, 1995, the Office of Inspector General
(OIG) issued a report, "Backlog Warrants Higher
Priority for Five-Year Reviews." The report noted that
a substantial number of five-year reviews had not
been performed due largely to the low priority given
them by Agency management and included several
recommendations for improving the program. Agency
management agreed to implement the
recommendations or take other actions to address the
issues.
The objectives of this follow-up audit were to evaluate
program progress since the issuance of our prior
report, and determine if (1) the Agency has
implemented an effective program for reviewing sites
every five years to ensure that containment remedies
remain protective, and (2) the public and Congress
are receiving timely information from five-year reviews
about the effectiveness of remedial actions.
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
RESULTS IN BRIEF
As of March 31, 1999, 143 five-year reviews were
overdue. The average overdue period was 17
months. The backlog of reviews is now nearly three
times larger than at the time of our audit four years
ago. Residents in affected communities and
Congress have not been receiving timely information
regarding the protectiveness of many site remedies.
The percentage of Records of Decision (RODs)
specifying containment remedies has been increasing
since 1992 and a growing number of sites will require
five-year reviews. Therefore, it becomes increasingly
important for EPA to conduct timely reviews. To
effectively address the existing backlog of reviews,
the Agency may need to spend an additional $1
million per year for the next three years.
Nine of the 32 five-year reports we reviewed did not
include a conclusion on the protectiveness of site
remedies or did not adequately support the
conclusions made. Fifty percent of reports reviewed
which contained recommendations lacked sufficient
information for recommended corrective actions.
Adequate and supportable conclusions, along with
complete information for implementing corrective
actions, are essential for ensuring that the public and
Congress are effectively informed of the status of site
containment remedies and the specific actions
needed to maintain or provide their protectiveness.
Of 356 required reports issued since the inception of
the five-year review program, 63 percent were issued
late. The late reports were issued an average of 17
months after required due dates. As a result, EPA
has not timely informed those in affected communities
or the Congress about the effectiveness of
containment remedies. Reviews have identified
weaknesses in containment remedies which required
corrective action. For example, the report on a
uranium mill site in New Mexico noted that little
progress had been made towards reaching the
cleanup levels in the ROD after seven years of
remedial activities and that some extraction wells
were not providing an effective hydraulic barrier for
ii Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
AGENCY COMMENTS
preventing migration of contaminants. Consequently,
it is important to complete five-year reviews in a
timely manner so that EPA can promptly identify and,
if necessary, correct problems with site remedies.
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response include the
backlog of five-year review reports as a weakness
under the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act,
and determine, in consultation with the Office of the
Chief Financial Officer, whether a Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measure for
five-year reviews should be established.
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator
ensure that five-year review reports (1) contain a
statement of protect!veness which is adequately
supported by the report, and (2) include milestone
dates for implementing report recommendations,
designate parties responsible for performing required
corrective actions, and specify the organization
responsible for overseeing performance of corrective
actions.
We also recommend that the Assistant Administrator
ensure that communities are timely informed of the
results of five-year reviews.
The Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response generally agreed with the
findings in the draft report. The Assistant
Administrator suggested that we add information to
indicate that while the number of overdue five-year
reviews has increased, the Agency has made
progress in reducing the percentage of overdue
reviews during the last four years from 66 percent to
30 percent of the universe of required reviews.
The Assistant Administrator disagreed with our
recommendation to establish a GPRA performance
measure at this time, but indicated that completion of
five-year reviews would be included as a target under
in
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
the Agency's Superfund Comprehensive
Accomplishments Plan (SCAP) beginning in fiscal
2000.
We considered the Agency's comments and revised
the report appropriately. We have included the full
text of the Assistant Administrator's comments and
the OIG evaluation of the comments as Appendix 6.
!V
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER 1 1
Introduction 1
Objectives 1
Background 1
Scope and Methodology 4
Positive Developments 5
CHAPTER 2 6
Backlog of Overdue Reviews Grows 6
Reviews Valuable In Identifying Remedy Shortfalls 7
Competing Priorities and Lack Of
Emphasis Contribute To Backlog 8
EPA Beginning Efforts To Address Backlog 9
Public and Congress Lack Timely
Assurance On Remedy Protectiveness 10
Need To Increase Priority Of Five-Year Review Program 10
Recommendations 11
CHAPTERS 12
Five-Year Reports Should Be More Informative 12
Guidance Requires Sufficient Information
for Implementing Corrective Actions 12
Missing Or Inadequately Supported
Statements Of Protectiveness 12
Details Lacking For Implementing Corrective Actions 14
Need to Improve Reviews by Regional Management 15
Recommendations 15
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
CHAPTER 4 17
Agency Needs To More Effectively Communicate
Results Of Five-Year Reviews 17
EPA Needs To Improve Reporting Of Results To Congress - 17
Agency Does Not Typically Communicate
Review Results to Communities 18
Some RPMs Effectively Communicated
Results Of Five-Year Reviews 19
Need to Better Communicate Results 19
Recommendations 20
APPENDIX 1 21
Scope and Methodology 21
Prior Audit Coverage : 21
Results of Contractor's Analysis 22
APPENDIX 2 24
Sites Visited 24
APPENDIX 3 25
Fiscal 1998 Five-Year Review Reports Examined 25
APPENDIX 4 26
Reports With Inadequately Supported
or Missing Protectiveness Statements 26
APPENDIX 5 29
Reports Lacking Adequate Information
for Implementing Recommendations 29
APPENDIX 6 30
Agency Response and DIG Evaluation 30
APPENDIX 7 35
Distribution 35
VI
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVES
BACKGROUND
On March 24, 1995, the Office of Inspector General
(OIG) issued a report, "Backlog Warrants Higher
Priority for Five-Year Reviews." The report included
several recommendations for improving the
Superfund five-year review program. Agency
management agreed to implement the
recommendations or take other actions to address the
issues.
The objectives of this follow-up audit were to
determine program progress since the issuance of
our prior report, and determine if:
(1) the Agency has implemented an effective
program for reviewing sites every five years to
ensure that containment remedies remain
protective, and
(2) the public and Congress are receiving timely
information from five-year reviews about the
effectiveness of remedial actions.
Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of
1986, requires that remedial actions, where
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
remain on-site, be reviewed every five years to
assure that human health and the environment
continue to be protected. The statute also requires
that the President (delegated to the EPA
Administrator) report to the Congress a list of facilities
for which reviews are required, the results of all
reviews, and any actions taken as a result of the
reviews.
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
Within EPA, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) is responsible for implementing
the five-year review program. OSWER developed the
following guidance documents:
Structure and Components of Five-Year
Reviews (OSWER Directive 9355-7.02, May
23,1991) provided guidance for planning and
conducting reviews, including information on
triggering dates, responsibilities and funding,
and reporting results. The guidance also
required that the Agency notify communities of
on-site five-year review activities, actions
proposed on the basis of reviews, and the
locations where five-year review reports were
to be filed.
Supplemental Five- Year Review Guidance
(OSWER Directive 9355.7-02A, July 26, 1994)
provided clarifications to the 1991 guidance
and a method for streamlining the review
process. The guidance included a prioritization
plan for conducting reviews when regions
could not complete all required reviews,
clarified responsibility for conducting reviews at
Federal facilities, and introduced a streamlined
review for evaluating sites where construction
is ongoing.
Second Supplemental Five-Year Review
Guidance (OSWER Directive 9355.7-03A,
December 21, 1995) was issued largely in
response to the findings and recommendations
in our prior report. In addition to requiring a
conclusion on remedy protectiveness, the
guidance stated that the review report should
indicate the measures to correct any
deficiencies, who is responsible for correcting
such deficiencies, milestones for the
corrections, and who has oversight authority.
The guidance also noted that the most
important determination which should result
from a five-year review is whether the remedy
2 Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
remains protective of human health and the
environment. The directive states that five-
year reviews should include a signed
determination by the appropriate division
director that the remedy is or is not protective,
or would be protective if certain specified steps
were taken.
In addition to the above criteria, Agency guidance
provides information regarding the purpose of the
reviews, sites at which reviews will be conducted,
timing and termination1 of the reviews, funding, public
participation, and model report language.
Based on the legislation and Agency guidance, EPA
established two types of five-year reviews - statutory
and policy reviews. Statutory reviews were to be
conducted for sites where a post-SARA remedy will
not allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
Policy reviews were to be conducted at sites where
the pre-SARA remedy will not allow unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure. Other designated sites, such
as long-term remedial sites and previously deleted
sites, were to be considered for policy reviews.
During our 1995 audit, we found that a substantial
number of five-year reviews had not been performed
due largely to the low priority given them by Agency
management. In August 1997, one of OSWER's
support contractors issued a report on the five-year
review program, as part of a separate Agency effort to
evaluate the program. The contractor's report
identified a number of issues, several of which are
similar to those identified during our current audit,
such as weaknesses in assessing remedy
protectiveness and establishing milestone dates for
corrective actions. Further information on the results
of these reports is included in Appendix 1.
'The Agency's initial five-year review guidance (Structure and Components of Five-Year
Reviews; OSWER Directive 9355.7-02; May 23,1991) states that EPA may terminate statutory five-year
reviews when no hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above levels that
allow for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure.
3 Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
We conducted this audit from January 1999 through
July 1999. To accomplish our objectives, we
conducted field work in EPA Headquarters and in
Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10. We also visited
seven Superfund sites subject to five-year reviews
(see Appendix 2 for list of sites visited). We reviewed
the legislative requirements; OSWER five-year review
guidance; other relevant Superfund policies,
guidance, and reference materials; and the
documentation supporting our prior report.
We used Interactive Data Extraction and Analysis
(IDEA) software to sample and analyze information
retrieved from EPA Headquarters' Five-Year Review
Program Implementation and Management System
(FYR-PIMS). We examined a random statistical
sample of fiscal 1998 five-year review reports with the
assistance of the OIG's Engineering and Science
Staff to determine if they satisfied congressional and
Agency requirements (see Appendix 3). However, we
did not audit the system or validate the data, except
as it related to the cases in our sample. We also
interviewed Headquarters and regional five-year
review coordinators and Remedial Project Managers
(RPMs) responsible for overseeing or performing the
reviews. Appendix 1 presents additional information
on our scope and methodology.
We performed our audit in accordance with the U.S.
General Accounting Office's Government Auditing
Standards (1994 Revision), issued by the Comptroller
General of the United States. We also reviewed
OSWER's Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
reports for fiscal years 1997 and 1998. The reports
did not identify any material weaknesses or
vulnerabilities related to the five-year review program.
Except for the conditions discussed in this report, no
matters within the scope of this review warranted our
attention.
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS
We observed several positive developments within
the five-year review program. For example:
The latest five-year review guidance, currently
in draft, provides a mechanism for tracking the
status of recommendations and corrective
actions. The guidance includes a site
inspection checklist and a report template
which should prove useful to those performing
five-year reviews.
Agency actions initiated before or during our
audit field work which should help address the
backlog of reviews include:
- developing model statements of work
for reviews conducted by outside
parties;
using states, tribes, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE), Remedial Action
Contractors (RACs), and Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs) for
conducting many reviews; and
- establishing post-construction groups in
some regions (e.g., Regions 5 and 7) for
more effectively addressing "end of
pipeline" issues, including five-year
reviews.
Our visits to seven sites, which basically consisted of
a visual inspection of conditions and brief discussions
with Knowledgeable officials, did not identify issues of
concern.
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
CHAPTER 2
BACKLOG OF OVERDUE REVIEWS GROWS
As of March 31, 1999, 143 five-year reviews were
overdue based on EPA's Five-Year Review Program
Implementation and Management System (FYR-
PIMS) data. The average overdue period was 17
months. The issue of overdue reviews was
previously identified in our March 1995 report. The
present backlog of reviews is nearly three times larger
than at the time of our audit four years ago.
Consequently, residents in affected communities and
Congress have not been receiving timely information
regarding the protectiveness of many site remedies.
As the percentage of containment remedies
increases2, it becomes increasingly important for EPA
to conduct timely reviews. EPA may need to spend
an additional $1 million per year for the next three
years to effectively address the existing backlog of
reviews.
As can be seen in the chart on the next page, the
number of overdue reviews has increased steadily
and substantially since the issuance of our prior
report in March 1995.
2ln FY 1997, the percentage of Records of Decision (RODs) specifying on-site
containment/disposal was 42 percent, an increase from 22 percent in 1992.
(Source: Treatment Technologies Annual Status Report. Ninth Edition, Summer 1998).
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
o
o
i_
o>
OVERDUE REVIEWS BY FISCAL YEAR
160
i
| 140
Q)
o 120
3
"S
100
80
60
40
143
_52
1995
1996
1997
Fiscal Year
1998
1999
Number for FY95 represents overdue reviews as of 3/31/95 (time of prior report.)
Number for FY99 represents overdue reviews as of 3/31/99.
(Source: OSWER's FYR-PIMS.)
REVIEWS VALUABLE IN
IDENTIFYING REMEDY
SHORTFALLS
OSWER officials noted that while the number of
overdue reviews has increased, the Agency has
made progress in reducing the percentage of overdue
reviews during the last four years from 66 percent to
30 percent of the universe.
Many five-year reviews have identified weaknesses in
containment remedies which required corrective
action to ensure continued protection of human health
and the environment. For example:
The five-year report on a landfill site in
Connecticut identified concerns with a buildup
of bacteria and/or iron precipitation in the
leachate collection and transportation pipelines
which could result in the release of leachate to
piping overflows or pipe failures. The report
also noted that new leachate seeps had
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
COMPETING PRIORITIES
AND LACK OF EMPHASIS
CONTRIBUTE TO BACKLOG
occurred down gradient3 of the landfill. These
seeps needed to be sampled for contaminants,
which could pose a risk to human health and
the environment. The report was issued about
nine months late.
The report on a uranium mill site in New
Mexico noted that little progress had been
made towards reaching the cleanup levels in
the ROD after seven years of remedial
activities and that some extraction wells were
not providing an effective hydraulic barrier for
preventing migration of contaminants. The
report was issued four years late.
The report on a landfill site in Kentucky noted
weaknesses in several areas which needed to
be corrected, including a lack of fencing
between the site and adjacent residential
property, potential for storm water infiltration in
larger areas of subsidence, heavy vegetative
growth around well heads, and a need for
proper balancing and maintenance of the gas
collection system. The report was issued
about 4 months late.
Because five-year review reports can identify
problems that require corrective actions, it is essential
that the Agency complete five-year reviews in a timely
manner to identify and expeditiously address
weaknesses in containment remedies.
Several factors contributed to the Agency's backlog of
overdue five-year reviews. Historically, the Agency
has placed a higher priority on completing activities
which are included as targets in the annual Superfund
3Down gradient refers to the direction that ground water flows, similar to downstream for surface
water.
8
Report Afo. 1999-P-218
-------
EPA BEGINNING EFFORTS
TO ADDRESS BACKLOG
Fiscal Year
1999
2000
2001
2002
Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan4 relative to
other program activities. Some existing targets under
SCAP include Records of Decision, construction
completions, and remedial action completions, but
none relate to five-year reviews. One regional five-
year review coordinator said that the only way that
five-year reviews would receive the necessary
emphasis to ensure their timely completion would be
to establish them as SCAP targets. Other factors
contributing to the backlog of five-year reviews
include Agency efforts to address sites which do not
yet have remedies in place and limited staff
resources. The Agency cited many of these same
factors for not conducting timely reviews during our
previous audit in 1995.
Before and during our field work, EPA initiated efforts
to address the backlog of overdue five-year reviews
as discussed in Chapter 1. EPA's Five-Year Review
Coordinator indicated that the Agency planned to
complete approximately 40 to 50 percent more
reviews beyond those that are due each year for the
next three years to address the backlog. Many of the
additional reviews would be accomplished by non-
EPA personnel via interagency agreements or
contracts. If the additional reviews are conducted as
planned, the current and future review workload
would be:
Potential Workload to Address Backlog
105 reviews due
157 reviews (110 due plus 47 backlogged reviews)
152 reviews (104 due plus 48 backlogged reviews)
157 reviews (109 due plus 48 backlogged reviews)
4The Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP) is the mechanism used by the
Superfund program to plan, budget, track, and evaluate progress toward site cleanup. A SCAP target is
a pre-determined numerical goal that is negotiated by Headquarters and the Regions prior to the fiscal
year to ensure that designated activities will occur.
9 Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
PUBLIC AND CONGRESS
LACK TIMELY ASSURANCE
ON REMEDY
PROTECTIVENESS
NEED TO INCREASE
PRIORITY OF FIVE-YEAR
REVIEW PROGRAM
EPA, however, has not yet committed the funds
necessary for accomplishing this work. The costs of
conducting five-year reviews through interagency
agreement or contract typically range from $20,000 to
$25,000 per site. If EPA plans to complete an
additional 48 reviews per year for the next three
years, the Agency may need to spend approximately
$1 million above the current spending level each year
to eliminate the backlog. At the conclusion of our
field work, Headquarters was still working with the
regions to identify future program needs, both
resources and priorities.
As a result of the large backlog of reviews, residents
in affected communities have not been receiving
timely assurance that remedies in place are
protective. In cases where remedies are not
protective, residents may be exposed to contaminants
for a longer period of time and necessary corrective
actions are delayed. In addition, Congress is not
provided information on the status of remedies in
accordance with statutorily required time frames at a
large number of Superfund sites. The Agency is
initiating efforts to begin to address the backlog of
reviews; however, additional steps are necessary to
promptly and effectively accomplish all required five-
year reviews.
The increasing use of containment remedies, the
growing backlog of five-year reviews, and the need to
devote additional resources to address the backlog
warrants EPA's formal recognition of the importance
of the five-year review program. While we recognize
that OSWER has many responsibilities, the growing
backlog and the repeat nature of many of the findings
discussed in this report point to the need to formally
recognize program weaknesses and establish the
necessary corrective actions as priority action items.
Accordingly, we believe that OSWER should
recognize the backlog as a weakness under the
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act. Doing so
will provide a means for OSWER management to
monitor progress in addressing the backlog. In
10
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
addition, establishing a Government Performance and
Results Act performance measure for five-year
reviews will further demonstrate the importance of the
issue and require EPA to identify the resources
necessary for conducting timely, effective reviews.
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response:
2-1 Include the backlog of five-year review reports
as a weakness under the Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act.
2-2 Determine, in consultation with the Office of
the Chief Financial Officer, whether a
Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) measure for five-year reviews should
be established.
11
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
CHAPTER 3
FIVE-YEAR REPORTS SHOULD BE MORE INFORMATIVE
GUIDANCE REQUIRES
SUFFICIENT INFORMATION
FOR IMPLEMENTING
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
MISSING OR INADEQUATELY
SUPPORTED STATEMENTS
OF PROTECTIVENESS
Twenty-eight percent of the five-year reports (9 of 32)
we reviewed did not include a conclusion on the
protectiveness of site remedies or did not adequately
support the conclusions made. Fifty percent of
reports reviewed which contained recommendations
(10 of 20) lacked sufficient information for
recommended corrective actions. Adequate and
supportable conclusions along with complete
information for implementing corrective actions are
essential for ensuring that the public and Congress
are appropriately informed of the status of site
containment remedies and the specific actions
needed to maintain their protectiveness.
Largely in response to the findings and
recommendations contained in our prior audit report,
the Agency issued supplemental five-year review
guidance in December 1995. In addition to requiring
a conclusion on remedy protectiveness, the guidance
states that the review report should prescribe
measures to correct any deficiencies, describe who is
responsible for implementing measures to correct
such deficiencies, note milestones of performance for
such corrections, and note who has oversight
authority.
Twenty-eight percent of the fiscal 1998 five-year
reports included in our random statistical sample
either did not contain a protectiveness statement, the
statement did not comment on present site
conditions, or the statement was not effectively
supported by information in the report (see Appendix
4). When projected to the universe, 32 of the 115
fiscal 1998 five-year review reports completed may
lack adequate conclusions. Reports lacking
statements of protectiveness were an issue in our
12
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
March 1995 audit report. Some examples of
inadequately supported protectiveness statements
noted during the current audit follow:
One report on a quarry site in Ohio stated that
the remedy was protective. The report also
concluded, however, that the site continued to
pose moderate on-site chemical contamination
risks, physical risks were present, groundwater
consumption carried unacceptable risk in
residential use, and the existing perimeter
fence no longer prevented trespassers from
entering the property. The report indicated that
there were many signs of extensive
recreational activity within the site boundaries.
A report on a manufacturing site in Minnesota
concluded that the site remedy was protective.
The report also noted, however, that
concentrations of contaminants were stabilized
above the Minnesota Health Risk Limit, which
is a relevant and applicable requirement
(ARAR) for the site. This contradicted the
statement of protectiveness, since the
concentrations were not likely to diminish to
the point where the risk would be deemed
acceptable by State standards.
* Another report on a municipal drinking water
well site in the State of Washington concluded
that the remedy selected for the site remained
protective, but that the current remedy would
never meet the cleanup goals in the ROD. The
statement appeared to be self-contradictory.
EPA planned to reevaluate the remedy during
the next year to determine what modifications
were needed.
Reports which lack, or inadequately support,
conclusions on the protectiveness of remedies hinder
the Agency from accurately informing the public and
the Congress regarding actual site conditions.
13
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
DETAILS LACKING FOR
IMPLEMENTING
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
The recommendations in 10 of 20 five-year reports
which contained recommendations lacked milestone
dates, did not specify who was to perform each
recommendation, or did not indicate who had
oversight authority for implementing the
recommendations (see Appendix 5). Projecting the
results of our sample, we believe that about 50
percent of fiscal 1998 reports which contain
recommendations lack sufficient detail for corrective
actions. These issues were previously identified in
our March 1995 report. During the current audit we
found that:
A report on a landfill site in Louisiana
recommended monitoring the site for methane
gas migration and that an alternative sampling
method be considered for more effectively
measuring methane concentrations. No
milestones were included in the report,
however, for accomplishing this work.
A report on a disposal site in Michigan
recommended continued operation and
maintenance of the clay cap, re-vegetated
area, leachate extraction system, and the
ground water and slurry wall monitoring system.
The report, however, did not clearly specify
who was to take these actions.
The report on a quarry site in Ohio included
several recommendations for maintaining the
protectiveness of the remedy, such as (1)
restoring a perimeter fence to functional
condition, (2) reposting warning signs, (3)
conducting monthly inspections of the fence to
detect and repair vandalism, and (4)
performing groundwater monitoring until the
site can be delisted. The report, however, did
not clearly indicate the party responsible for
overseeing the implementation of
recommendations.
14
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
NEED TO IMPROVE
REVIEWS BY REGIONAL
MANAGEMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
Regional management is not thoroughly reviewing all
reports before approving them to identify
weaknesses or problems with the statements of
protectiveness and information needed for effectively
describing corrective actions, including milestone
dates, parties responsible for corrective actions, and
parties responsible for oversight. Five-year review
reports are typically prepared by, or conducted under
contract or interagency agreement for, the regional
RPMs. Before issuance, the reports are reviewed by
the appropriate regional section chief, branch chief,
and division director. In some regions, the regional
five-year review coordinator also reviews the reports
before they are submitted to the division director.
Under the 1995 supplemental guidance referred to
above, the relevant EPA division director, as the
approval official, is ultimately responsible for ensuring
that the five-year review reports contain a statement
of protectiveness and information describing
corrective actions.
We believe it is essential that the appropriate regional
division director more closely examine reports before
approval to ensure that (1) information on the
protectiveness of site remedies is accurate and
supportable, and (2) sufficient information including
the accomplishment of corrective actions is included.
Doing so will enable EPA to better inform the public
and Congress about the status of site containment
remedies and the specific actions required to maintain
or provide protectiveness.
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response ensure that
five-year review reports:
3-1 contain a statement of protectiveness which is
adequately supported by the report, and
3-2 include milestone dates for implementing
report recommendations, designate parties
15
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
responsible for performing required corrective
actions, and specify the organization
responsible for overseeing performance of
corrective actions.
16
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
CHAPTER 4
AGENCY NEEDS TO MORE EFFECTIVELY
COMMUNICATE RESULTS OF FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS
Of 356 required reports issued since the inception of
the five-year review program, 225, or 63 percent;
were issued late. The late reviews were issued an
average of 17 months late. As a result, the Agency
has not timely informed those in affected communities
or the Congress about the effectiveness of
containment remedies. Moreover, when reviews are
not issued according to legislatively mandated time
frames, the Agency is technically in violation of
CERCLA121(c).
This issue regarding timeliness of five-year review
reporting will become more critical in the future, since,
as noted in Chapter 2, the percentage of RODs
specifying on-site containment remedies has been
increasing since 1992. As a result, an increasing
number of sites will require five-year reviews. In
addition, reviews have identified weaknesses in
containment remedies which required corrective
action to ensure continued protection of human health
and the environment. Thus, it is important to
complete the reviews in a timely manner so that EPA
can promptly identify and, if necessary, correct
problems with site remedies.
EPA NEEDS TO IMPROVE
REPORTING OF RESULTS
TO CONGRESS
The Agency reports the results of five-year reviews
through the Superfund Annual Report to Congress
(SARC). As of the end of our field work, the 1995,
1996, and 1997 SARCs had not been distributed.
The SARCs have not generally been timely and may
be discontinued after the FY 1998 report is issued.
Untimely issuance of the SARC reports has been
largely due to the volume of information included in
the reports on many aspects of the Superfund
program and the challenges in obtaining and
consolidating the data. Moreover, the Agency's
17
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
AGENCY DOES NOT
TYPICALLY COMMUNICATE
REVIEW RESULTS TO
COMMUNITIES
SARC reports for FY 1995-1997 presented the
number of reviews completed, not a list of required
reviews as mandated by CERCLA 121(c). if the
SARCs are discontinued, the results of five-year
reviews will need to be provided to the Congress
through another Agency reporting mechanism.
OSWER Directive 9355.7-02, Structure and
Components of Five-Year Reviews, issued in May
1991, requires the Agency to notify communities of
on-site five-year review activities, actions proposed
on the basis of the review, and the location where the
review report is to be filed.
Many RPMs we interviewed believed that the five-
year reviews were a useful way to keep communities
informed of the status of site remedies. In actual
practice, however, there was generally a lack of
communication with local communities on the results
of the reviews (26 of 29 RPMs interviewed). For
example, one RPM we interviewed in Region 5 said
that he did not contact the local community and
believed that there was no requirement to do so.
Another RPM in Region 4 indicated that he was
unaware of any Agency requirement to notify the
public. RPMs from various regions said that they did
not communicate with communities regarding five-
year reviews due to a low level of community interest
or because remedies are still being built and there is
an active EPA or state presence at the site.
Residents new to communities may be unaware of
the existence of nearby Superfund sites or the need
for five-year reviews. Other longer-term residents
may still be interested in the status of site
containment remedies, but may be unaware of
planned or completed five-year reviews. For
example, during a meeting with local community
members regarding a landfill site in northern Florida,
residents were unfamiliar with the five-year review
process and were unaware of an upcoming review
planned for the site.
18
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
I
Some RPMs Effectively
Communicated Results of
Five-Year Reviews
NEED TO BETTER
COMMUNICATE RESULTS
In addition to the requirements of the statute and
Agency guidance, the EPA Administrator emphasizes
free and open communication with the public and
community right-to-know regarding environmental
issues. The Administrator also stresses consistent
treatment of community residents living near
Superfund sites.
As an example of a desirable practice, one RPM in
Region 6 who conducted a five-year review of the
United Nuclear Corporation site located in Gallup,
NM, placed a notice in the local newspaper and
arranged for radio announcements inviting the public
to a meeting where clean-up activities at the site
would be discussed. The newspaper notice
mentioned that a five-year review was completed
earlier in the year and had resulted in several
recommendations on the clean-up strategy. EPA,
state, and other representatives planned to be
available to discuss site issues. EPA also distributed
a fact sheet which summarized information from the
five-year review, including specific report
recommendations. The fact sheet also included the
names and telephone numbers of EPA and state
contacts for the site as well as the location of the site
repositories.
As another example, an RPM in Region 4 who
reviewed the Dubose Oil Products site located in
Cantonment, FL, distributed a fact sheet to local
residents regarding the planned review, its purpose,
what it entailed, and how the report would be made
available to the community. The RPM also
interviewed community members by telephone. She
provided a copy of the fact sheet and five-year review
report to the local site repository.
The purpose of the five-year review report - an
evaluation of the effectiveness of the containment
remedy -- indicates its importance and the need for
timely communication of results. As more and more
sites require five-year reviews, this responsibility
becomes increasingly more important. Five-year
19
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
review reports have identified weaknesses in some
site containment remedies which required corrective
actions; consequently, timely issuance of reports is
critical for prompt identification and correction of
problems. Late reporting could result in unnecessary
prolonged exposure to site contaminants for nearby
residents. Finally, once reports are issued, RPMs
should timely communicate the results to affected
communities. One relatively low cost option is to
publish a notice of results in local newspapers,
describing the results, how the report can be
obtained, and a contact point for questions.
The Agency needs to improve the timeliness of
reporting results to the Congress and in doing so
should add to the information already provided:
a list of required reviews per CERCLA 121 (c);
and
a list of the number of overdue reviews and the
average length of time such reviews are
overdue.
Given that our findings in this report are largely repeat
findings, providing such information will enable the
Agency to more fully portray the status of the five-
year review program.
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response:
4-1 Improve the timeliness of communicating five-
year review report information to the Congress.
4-2 Include the following information when
annually reporting to the Congress - a list of
required reviews; the number of overdue
reviews; and average length of time the
reviews are overdue.
4-3 Ensure that communities are timely informed of
the results of five-year reviews.
20
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
APPENDIX 1
SCOPE, METHODOLOGY, AND PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE
Scope and Methodology
We conducted this audit from January 1999 through July 1999. To accomplish
our objectives, we conducted field work in EPA Headquarters and in Regions 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, and 10. We also visited seven Superfund sites subject to five-year reviews (see
Appendix 2 for list of sites visited). We reviewed the legislative requirements; OSWER
five-year review guidance; other relevant Superfund policies, guidance, and reference
materials; and the documentation supporting our prior report.
We used Interactive Data Extraction and Analysis (IDEA) software to sample and
analyze information retrieved from EPA Headquarters' Five-Year Review Program
Implementation and Management System (FYR-PIMS). We examined a random
statistical sample of 32 five-year review reports (see Appendix 3) from a universe of 111
fiscal 1998 reports with the assistance of the OIG's Engineering and Science Staff to
determine if they satisfied congressional and Agency requirements. However, we did
not audit the system or validate the data, except as it related to the cases in our
sample. We interviewed Headquarters and regional five-year review coordinators and
Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) responsible for overseeing or performing the
reviews. We also met with state and responsible party representatives during our site
visits to discuss the status of containment remedies.
We performed our audit in accordance with the U.S. General Accounting Office's
Government Auditing Standards (1994 Revision), issued by the Comptroller General of
the United States. We also reviewed OSWER's Federal Managers' Financial Integrity
Act reports for fiscal years 1997 and 1998. The reports did not identify any material
weaknesses or vulnerabilities related to the five-year review program. Except for the
conditions discussed in this report, no matters within the scope of this review warranted
our attention.
Prior Audit Coverage
The OIG conducted an audit of the five-year review program during fiscal 1994.
In our report (Backlog Warrants Higher Priority For Five-Year Reviews, March 24, 1995,
audit report no. 5100229), we noted that a substantial number of reviews had not been
performed due largely to the low priority given them by EPA management.
21 Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response:
(1) increase the priority for performing the reviews by making the five-year r-eviews a
Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP) target and direct
OSWER to amend its guidance to include (a) final determinations in five-year
review reports, (b) available milestones for implementing report
recommendations, (c) a description of who has oversight authority, and (d) a
description of who would perform each recommendation, and
(2) clarify guidance on the use of Type "la" five-year reviews5 and ensure that the
guidance includes a requirement for sufficient information, including technical
data, to support the conclusions. Specific items that should be added are: a
review of pertinent operations and maintenance costs; a description of pertinent
site visits; and a description of what has happened to the site since the ROD.
Agency officials disagreed with our recommendation to make five-year reviews a
SCAP target, choosing to retain the reviews as a SCAP measure. In addition, the
Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, issued a memorandum to the
regions listing sites that required reviews and requesting regions to set timetables for
completing the reviews. OSWER agreed to amend their guidance to include adequate
information for implementing report recommendations and to reemphasize prior
guidance requiring a clear determination of the protectiveness of remedies.
Regarding our second recommendation, OSWER agreed to supplement its
guidance to clarify "ongoing presence" at a site and recency of visits for Type la
reviews. OSWER agreed that sufficient data should support conclusions and that
reviews should include a description of what has happened at the site since the ROD,
but contended that existing guidance already discussed this issue.
Results of Contractor's Analysis
In 1997, OSWER tasked one of its contractors to provide pertinent information
on the Agency's five-year review program and more broadly identify current issues in
conducting reviews and reporting review information. To accomplish this, the contractor
reviewed Agency five-year review requirements, evaluated and compared information
from 100 five-year review reports (from varying fiscal years), and examined trends in
specified areas. The contractor reported that a high number of reports did not contain
5EPA introduced a Type la review in its Supplement Five-Year Review Guidance dated July 26,
1994 to streamline the process at sites where remedial action is ongoing and to reduce resource needs
for such reviews. The Type la review emphasizes only relevant protectiveness factors, analyzed at a
standard of review appropriate for sites where response is ongoing.
22
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
all required information required by Agency guidance. The report noted non-
compliance in several areas:
determining whether the remedy is protective of human health and the -
environment and explicitly stating this determination;
obtaining the proper EPA signature;
making report recommendations; and
establishing milestones.
OSWER used the results of the contractor's analysis to draff revised five-year
review guidance.
23
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
APPENDIX 2
SITES VISITED
Region Site
1 Beacon Heights Landfill
Old Springfield Landfill
3 Heleva Landfill
Moyers Landfill
Location
EPA ID No.
Beacon Falls, CT CTD072122062
Springfield, VT VTD000860239
No. Whitehall, PA PAD980537716
Eagleville, PA PAD980508766
Pickettville Road Landfill Jacksonville, FL FLD980556351
Sherwood Medical Industries Deland. FL FLD043861392
Zellwood Groundwater Site
Zellwood, FL
FLD049985302
24
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
APPENDIX 3
FISCAL 1998 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORTS EXAMINED
(selected by random statistical sample)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)
(32)
Site Name
Nutting Truck and Caster Co.
Smith's Farm Brooks
Dubose Oil Products
Sealand Restoration
Mason County Landfill
John Deere (Dubuque Works)
Yaworski Waste Lagoon
Onalaska Municipal Landfill
Gulf Coast Vacuum Services
Cleve Reber
Picciilo Farm
Pollution Abatement Services
Queen City Farms
Old Springfield Landfill
Flowood Site
Republic Steel Quarry
United Nuclear Corp.
Commencement Bay (So. Tacoma)
Tabernacle Drum Dump
Tri-City Industrial Disposal
Clothier Disposal
Liquid Disposal Inc.
Aidex Corp.
Beacon Heights Landfill
Western Processing Company
Lee's Lane Landfill
Dixie Oil Processors, Inc.
AT & SF (Clovis)
Mottolo Pig Farm
Vestal Water Supply 1-1
Suffern Village Well Field
Distler Farm
EPA ID Number
MND006154017
KYD097267413
FLD000833368
NYD980535181
MID980794465
IAD005269527
CTD009774969
W1D980821656
LAD980750137
LAD980501456
RID980579056
NYD000511659
WAD980511745
VTD000860239
MSD980710941
OHD980903447
NMD030443303
WAD980726301
NJD980761357
KYD981 028350
NYD000511576
MID067340711
IAD042581256
CTD0721 22062
WAD009487513
KYD980557052
TXD089793046
NMD0431 58591
NHD980503361
NYD980763767
NYD980780878
KYD980601975
25
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
APPENDIX 4
REPORTS WITH INADEQUATELY SUPPORTED OR MISSING
PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENTS
(1) Nutting Truck and Caster Company. Faribault. MN (EPA ID: MND006154017)
The report stated that contaminant concentrations were stabilized above the Minnesota
Health Risk Limit. This contradicts the statement of protectiveness, since the
concentrations are not likely to diminish to a point where the risk would be deemed
acceptable by state standards.
(2) Onalaska Municipal Landfill. Onalaska. Wl (EPA ID: WID980821656)
The report lacked specific information to support the conclusions made. Sampling
information was presented in terms of "certain metals, wells, and one or two VOCs."
The report should be more specific (e.g., Which metals? Which VOCs? Where are the
wells? What are levels exceeded?). The report stated that water level data showed
that wetlands were not impacted, but the state's extent of draw-down could not be
accurately estimated without turning the pumps off. The report needed to include
information on what water level data were used and how it was interpreted to support
the conclusions made.
(3) Piccillo Farm. Coventry. Rl (EPA ID: RID980579056)
The statement of protectiveness in the report is misleading. The containment remedy is
still in the design phase and only exists on paper. The remedy cannot be deemed a
success or a failure until it has been implemented.
(4) Old Springfield Landfill. Springfield. VT (EPA ID: VTD000860239)
The report did not include a statement of protectiveness regarding the containment
remedy.
(5) Commencement Bay (South Tacoma ChanneD.Tacoma. WA
(EPA ID: WAD980726301)
The statement of protectiveness concludes that the remedy selected for the site
remains protective, but that the current remedy will not meet the cleanup goals in the
26
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
ROD. The statement is self-contradictory. EPA planned to reevaluate the remedy
during the next year to determine what modifications were needed.
(6) Beacon Heights Landfill. Beacon Falls. CT (EPA ID: CTD072122062)
The report did not include sufficient information to justify the statement that the remedy
remains protective. The report noted that the leachate collection system may have
been compromised in two areas: (1) buildup of bacteria and/or iron precipitation,
causing backup in the leachate flow; and (2) new leachate seeps down gradient of the
landfill. It is unclear from the report whether the buildups had already occurred or that
the reviewer feared they would occur. The report did not clarify whether the new
leachate seeps were being captured by the leachate collection system. At a minimum,
the discussion should have been specific enough to make these points clear.
(7) Lee's Lane Landfill. Louisville. KY (EPA ID: KYD980557052)
The statement of protectiveness was very weakly supported. The statement indicated
that action should be taken on only one of eight recommendations regarding the
remedy that were included in the body of the report. It appears that the other seven
recommendations were ignored when developing the protectiveness statement.
(8) Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1. Vestal. NY (EPA ID: NYD980763767)
The statement of protectiveness is not properly written and is misleading. The 1995
guidance states:
"The most important determination which should result from the Five-Year Review is
whether the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment...The
determination should be that: (1) the remedy is protective; (2) it is not protective; or, (3)
it would be protective if certain measures were taken."
The statement in this report reads: "Based on monitoring results and site inspections,
EPA has determined the selected remedy will be protective of human health and the
environment and will allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure." The
requirement of the guidance is to report the present condition, not predict the future
condition unless the report specifies conditions under which the remedy will become
protective. It seems probable from the information in the report that the remedy is
proceeding on schedule and, so far, is successful in reducing contaminant
concentrations as planned in the RI/FS. This progress, however, is not reflected in the
statement.
27 Report A'o. 1999-P-218
-------
(9) Republic Steel Quarry Site. Elvria. OH (EPA ID: OHD980903447)
The report stated that the remedy was protective. The report also concluded, however,
that the site continued to pose moderate on-site chemical contamination risks, physical
risks were present, groundwater consumption carried unacceptable risk in residential
use, and the existing perimeter fence no longer prevented trespassers from entering
the property. The report indicated that there were many signs of extensive recreational
activity within the site boundaries.
28
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
APPENDIX 5
REPORTS LACKING ADEQUATE INFORMATION FOR
IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS
Site Name
Nutting Truck & Caster
Onalaska Landfill
Cleve Reber
Piccillo Farm
Republic Steel Quarry
United Nuclear Corp.
Liquid Disposal
Beacon Hgts. Landfill
Western Processing
Lee's Lane Landfill
Location
Faribault, MN
Onalaska, Wl
Sorrento, LA
Coventry, Rl
Elyria. OH
McKinley County, NM
Shelby Township, Ml
Beacon Falls, CT
Kent. WA
Louisville. KY
Milestones not
Included for
implementing
recommendations
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
No clear indication
who is to perform
each
recommendation
X
X
X
X
X
No clear indication
who has oversight
authority for
corrective actions
X
X
X
X
X
X
29
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
APPENDIX 6
AGENCY RESPONSE AND OIG EVALUATION
September 27, 1999
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Follow-up Audit of Superfund Five-Year Review Program Draft Report
99P-000272
FROM: Timothy Fields, Jr. /s/
Assistant Administrator
TO: Michael Simmons
Deputy Assistant Inspector General For Internal Audits
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the OIG Draft "Follow-up Audit of the
Superfund Five-Year Review Program." We also appreciate the meetings with your
office to discuss your findings prior to issuance of the draft report.
Our response includes comments on the findings, agreement/disagreement with the
recommendations, a summary of our recent accomplishments and planned corrective
actions, and an action plan for implementing the recommendations.
Findings Discussion
We are in general agreement with the findings of the draft report. Our comments are as
follows:
PAGE COMMENT
5 Please add information to reflect number of reviews overdue as a
percentage of the total due and overdue. While 30% or 53 of 176 reviews
were completed at the time of the FY 95 Audit, a total of 66% or 275 of
418 reviews were completed by the end of FY 98. The percentage of
completed reports more accurately reflects the progress in eliminating
overdue reports while the program is expanding.
30
ReportNo. 1999-P-218
-------
We recommend removing the FY 2002 Potential Workload Estimate or
substituting a number five percent greater than FY 01. The number
currently shown for FY 02 is greater than we actually expect because our
tracking system contains early trigger dates (such as a ROD signature
date) for reports that are actually due later.
Recommendations and Milestones Discussion
2-1 Include the backlog of five-year review reports as a weakness under the
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
OSWER agrees with this recommendation and will declare Five-Year Reviews as an
Agency level weakness under the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act. A
corrective action strategy and proposed milestone dates will be included in OSWER's
1999 Annual Assurance Letter. Some of our recent accomplishments and planned
corrective actions include:
1) Five-year reviews have been designated a Superfund Comprehensive
Accomplishments Plan (SCAP) target starting in FY2000. OERR will target
completion of all statutory reviews due in the fiscal year, plus at least one-third of
the backlog of statutory reviews, in order to eliminate the backlog of statutory
reviews by the end of FY2002.
2) In FY1999, OERR issued draft Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance
which provides clarification and updated guidance on five-year reviews. Regions
and the OIG reviewed the draft, and comments are currently being addressed.
The revised draft will be redistributed during the first quarter of FY2000, and final
guidance will be issued during third quarter FY2000.
3) Five-Year Review training will be scheduled in each Region immediately
following the release of the Consolidated Five-Year Review Guidance to quickly
increase the quality of five-year review reports.
4) OERR has finalized a Model Statement of Work to assist the Regions in
obtaining assistance with five-year reviews using Response Action Contracts. A
similar Work Authorization Form has been prepared to allow Regions to obtain
assistance from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE).
5) In FY2000, OERR will ensure that resources necessary to complete targeted
five-year reviews are made available. Five-year reviews are "ongoing" activities,
31 ReportNo. 1999-P-218
-------
and funding is a high priority.
6) Community Involvement fact sheets in the Five-year process have been
developed and are in draft form. These will be piloted at select sites during first
quarter FY2000, and final fact sheets will be issued concurrently with the
guidance.
7) In FY2000, a new report will be developed to report to Congress the progress
under the Five-year review program.
2-2 Establish a Government Performance and Results Act performance
measure for five-year reviews.
We disagree with this recommendation based on our recent accomplishments and
planned corrective actions and request the following alternate recommendation:
2-2 Establish a Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP)
target for five-year reviews.
We have established the following milestones to implement our Recommendation 2-2.
DATE MILESTONE
Completed Issue Annual Work Planning memorandum requesting that Regions
provide targets for five-year reviews in FY 2000.
9/30/99 Provide planning information to Regions for October 1999 work planning
meetings.
10/31/99 Hold Regional work planning meetings, and establish SCAP targets for
FY2000.
11/30/99 Make model Statements of Work available to Regions, along with
availability of funding to contract out reviews.
Ongoing Monitor progress toward achieving targets.
3-1 Ensure that five-year review reports contain a statement of protectiveness
which is adequately supported by the report.
3-2 Include milestone dates for implementing report recommendations,
designate parties responsible for performing required corrective actions,
32 Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
and specify the organization responsible for overseeing performance of
corrective actions.
We agree with these recommendations and have identified the following milestones to
achieve them.
DATE MILESTONE
10/30/99 Provide Regional five-year review coordinators a copy of the final OIG
audit report, highlighting these recommendations.
5/30/99 Conduct Regional training on procedures and requirements for conducting
and documenting five-year reviews.
4/30/00 Issue Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance to the Regions.
Ongoing Review completed five-year review reports and provide feedback to
Regions.
OERR is responsible for the implementation and monitoring of the milestones identified
above.
4-1 Improve the timeliness of communicating five-year review report
information to the Congress.
4-2 Include the following information when annually reporting to the Congress
- a list of required reviews; the number of overdue reviews; and average
length of time the reviews are overdue.
We agree with these recommendations. We are developing a new report which will be
used to report to Congress on progress of the Five-Year Review Program, the
protectiveness of remedies and status of recommendations which affect protectiveness.
The report will also include a list of required reviews, the number of overdue reviews,
and average length of time the reviews are overdue, as requested in recommendation
4-2.
4-3 Ensure that communities are timely informed of the results of five-year
reviews.
We agree with this recommendation and have identified the following milestones to
achieve them.
33
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
DATE MILESTONE
12/31/99 Pilot draft community involvement fact sheet for sites with five-year
reviews scheduled for fall 1999.
3/30/00 Issue community involvement fact sheet for use by Regions.
4/30/00 Issue Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance to the Regions that
describes community involvement requirements.
OSWER appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft report. If you have any
questions regarding this memorandum, please contact Carrie Hawkins at 260-0137.
cc: Mike Shapiro
Dev Barnes
Johnsie Webster
Barbara Braddock
Carol Bass
Tracy Hopkins
Rafael Gonzalez
Carrie Hawkins
Fran Tafer
Bill Samuel
PIG EVALUATION
As requested, we added language to the report to reflect the number of five-year
reviews overdue as a percentage of the total universe of required reviews. We also
modified the potential workload estimate for fiscal 2002 to indicate a five percent
increase in the five-year review workload from fiscal 2001.
We modified our recommendation regarding the establishment of a GPRA measure for
five-year reviews, requesting that the Assistant Administrator determine, in consultation
with the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, whether a Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) measure for five-year reviews should be established.
We concur with the Assistant Administrator's decision to declare the backlog of five-
year reviews as an Agency level weakness under FMFIA and to include a corrective
action strategy in OSWER's 1999 Annual Assurance Letter. We appreciate the
inclusion of milestone dates for all planned corrective actions.
34
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
1
APPENDIX 7
DISTRIBUTION
Office of inspector General
Inspector General
Assistant Inspector General for Audit
Deputy Inspector General for Internal Audits
Divisional Inspectors General
EPA Headquarters Offices
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response (SE360)
Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (5201G)
Comptroller (2731)
Agency Followup Official (M2710)
Agency Followup Coordinator (2724)
OSWER Audit Liaison (5103)
Director, Regions 1/9 Accelerated Response Center (5204G)
Director, Planning Staff, Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability, OCFO (2723)
Headquarters Five-Year Review Coordinator (5204G)
Associate Administrator for Regional Operations and State/Local Relations (1501)
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Legislative Affairs (1301)
Associate Administrator for Communications, Education, and Public Affairs (1701)
EPA Regional Offices
Regional Administrators
Regional Public Affairs Offices
Regional Five-Year Review Coordinators
35
Report No. 1999-P-218
-------
-------
DATE DUE
Uol
. ,}
DEMCO, INC. 38-2931
-------
------- |