-f
I
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Evaluation Report
EPA Can Better Implement
Its Strategy for Managing
Contaminated Sediments
Report No. 2006-P-00016
March 15, 2006
-------
Report Contributors:
Carolyn Copper
Patrick Milhgan
Alicia Mariscal
Madeline Mullen
Michael Owen
Abbreviations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
NSQS National Sediment Quality Survey
OIG Office of Inspector General
OPPTS Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
ORD Office of Research and Development
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OW Office of Water
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Cover photo: Fish advisory posted next to Duwamish River where tribal salmon fishermen
are in a boat, Seattle, Washington (EPA OIG photo)
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
2006-P-00016
March 15, 2006
Why We Did This Review
effectiveness anonjth>§i
Eovkoatneatal Proleetioa
Mmagemeitt Storafegp*
and resouree$ provided
eS&ettve so&Uoa,$r;att
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
TO:
March 15, 2006
EPA Can Better Implement Its Strategy for Managing
Contaminated Sediments
Report No. 2006-P-00016
Marcus Peacock
Deputy Administrator
Susan Bodine
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Benjamin Grumbles
Assistant Administrator for Water
George Gray, Ph.D.
Assistant Administrator for Research and Development
This is the final report on our evaluation of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy. This report contains findings that describe the
problems the Office of Inspector General (OIG) identified and corrective actions the OIG
recommends. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and the findings in this report do not
necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determination on matters in the report will be
made by EPA managers in accordance with established resolution procedures. We received
EPA's written comments on our draft report on January 9, 2006, and a revised response to one
recommendation on February 10, 2006.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this
report within 90 days of the date of this report. You should include a corrective action plan for
agreed upon actions, including milestone dates. We have no objections to the further release of
this report to the public. If you or your staff have questions regarding this report, please contact
me at (202) 566-0847 or Carolyn Copper, Acting Assistant Inspector General for Program
Evaluation, at (202) 566-0829.
Acting Inspector General
-------
Table of Contents
At a Glance
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Scope and Methodology 4
2 EPA Has Not Fully Implemented Its Contaminated Sediment Strategy 5
EPA Has Made Progress in Managing Contaminated Sediments 5
Management Strategy Not Fully Implemented 6
National Sediment Inventory Generally Not Used for
Decision Making 6
Activities Not Fully Coordinated Across Program Offices 7
National Sediment Q uality Criteria Not Established 8
ORD Has Not Completely Met Priority Research Needs and
Could Enhance Coordination on Research Needs 9
Performance Measures for Sediment Management Incomplete 11
Primary Causes for Not Implementing Strategy 13
Partial Implementation of Strategy May Limit Agency's Effectiveness 13
Other Opportunities Exist to Improve Contaminated Sediment Efforts 14
Recommendations 15
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 16
3 EPA Has Not Completely Assessed Extent and
Severity of Nation's Sediment Contamination 19
National Assessment Not Complete 19
Assessment Incomplete Because Adequate Design Not Developed 20
Recommendations 21
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 22
Appendices
A Details on Scope and Methodology 24
B Agency Response to Draft Report 27
C Map Overlay of Areas of Probable Concern and Fish Advisories 38
D Distribution 39
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
This report focuses on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
efforts to manage and address contaminated sediments. Overall, we sought to
determine the effectiveness and outcomes achieved from EPA's Contaminated
Sediment Management Strategy. We addressed three specific questions:
• Do available Federal authorities and resources provide effective solutions to
the challenges of contaminated sediments?
• How does EPA measure the effectiveness of its management strategy for
contaminated sediments and what outcomes have been achieved?
• Has EPA completely assessed the extent and severity of sediment
contamination in the United States?
Background
Contaminated sediments are a national problem with serious implications for
human health and the environment. EPA defines contaminated sediments as the
soils, sand, organic matter, or minerals that accumulate on the bottom of a water
body and contain toxic or hazardous materials that may adversely affect human
health or the environment. EPA has studied data from 1,372 of the 2,111
watersheds in the continental United States, and has identified 96 watersheds that
contain "areas of probable concern." These represent areas where probable
adverse effects of sediment contamination are more likely to be found.
EPA has not fully assessed the extent and severity of sediment contamination in
the United States. Although the extent of sediment contamination remains
uncertain, the Agency has estimated that approximately 10 percent of the
sediment underlying our Nation's surface water is sufficiently contaminated with
toxic pollutants to pose potential risks to fish through the aquatic food chain, as
well as humans and wildlife that eat fish. Fish consumption represents the most
significant route of human exposure to many metals and organic compounds.
Many surface waters have fish consumption advisories or fishing bans in place
because of high concentrations of poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury,
dioxin, and other contaminants in sediments. As of 2004, there were 3,221 fish
consumption advisories in place in the United States covering 24 percent of the
Nation's river miles and 35 percent of its lake acres.
In 1998, EPA established the Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy to
promote and ensure consistent consideration of risks posed by contaminated
-------
sediments. The Strategy summarizes EPA's understanding of the extent and
severity of sediment contamination in the Nation's watersheds and establishes
four strategic goals:
^ :i;: ':':
!»;^:: Reducelhe:volume bf:e^ :-:^^:;:-:;:::::: ••;'•'' :
• Ensure that sediment dredging and dredged material disposal are managed in an
environmentally sound manner.
• Develop scientifically sound sediment management tools for use in pollution
prevention, source control, remediation, and dredged material management.
In addition, the Strategy establishes a cross-program policy framework. The
Strategy emphasizes the importance of coordination among EPA program offices
and with other agencies for successful implementation.
EPA has authority under several statutes to address contaminated sediment issues.
The primary statutes include:
Table 1.2:
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
Cfean Water Act
Water Resources Development
Act
Great Lakes Legacy Act
Statutes and Authorities
The "Superfund" Act provides EPA authority to
conduct or compel remedial actions for
contaminated sediments.
Provides EPA authority to address sources of
contaminated sediments through regulation of
water pollutant discharges.
Requires EPA to conduct a comprehensive and
continuing program to assess aquatic sediment
quality in the United States.
Provides EPA specific authority to remediate
contaminated sediment in the Great Lakes.
EPA does not have sufficient information to provide accurate national estimates
on the volume of contaminated sediments and their remediation costs. However,
where data exist for specific sites, the cost to address the contamination will be in
the billions of dollars. For example:
• Superfund Records of Decision for 55 Tier 1 contaminated sediment sites
indicate that approximately $2.9 billion will be required to remediate the sites.
These sites have a minimum of 10,000 cubic yards, or 5 acres, of
contamination. The estimate does not include sites with contaminated
sediments on the National Priorities List where cleanup decisions have not yet
-------
been made. As of 2005, there were approximately 60 additional sites without
Records of Decision that may be classified as Tier 1 sites in the future.
Although Superfund money is (or will be) required to pay for the remediation
of some of these sites, responsible parties are (or will be) required to pay for
remediation for the majority of these sites.
• EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office estimates that a total volume of
76,505,439 cubic yards of contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes require
remediation at an approximate cost of $1.6 to $4.4 billion. The Great Lakes
Legacy Act provides EPA $270 million over 5 years, beginning in Fiscal Year
2004, to address contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes.
The Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy established roles for several
EPA offices involved with contaminated sediments, including:
.3: Pritoary EPA Program Offices involved
wiitt Contaminated 5©a&m«& and Their Rotes
Office of Water (OW)
Coordinate implementation of the Strategy and
prevent and control sediment contamination
through the Clean Water Act.
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response ^OSWER)
Remediate contaminated sediments that
adversely affect the Nation's waterbodies in
order to limit serious risks to human health and
the environment.
Office of Prevention^ Pesticides,
and Toxic Substances {OPPTS}
Use new and existing chemical registration
programs to reduce the potential of sediment
contamination from pesticides and toxic
substances.
Office of Research and
Development (ORD)
Conduct comprehensive and coordinated
research on contaminated sediment, and support
EPA program offices.
The Strategy also outlines the roles of several other Federal agencies m managing
contaminated sediments, including:
U;;S::!Army!Cor!ps!of Engineers!!!!!!!!!!
•!!!;;;!Natipnal!OGeaniG!and:A^
-------
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Geological Survey, and Department of the Navy provided
estimated information indicating that they budgeted approximately $69 million
for contaminated sediment activities during Fiscal Years 2002 through 2005.
(Budget information was not available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.)
Some of the funding occurred through interagency agreements with EPA. Most
of the budget information provided by these agencies relates to research. In
addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issues permits for and conducts
dredging of navigable waters, which can involve contaminated sediment removal.
Also, the Department of the Navy conducts remedial actions on contaminated
sediments as a responsible party. Other Federal agencies, such as the Department
of Energy and Department of the Army, also devote resources to contaminated
sediments.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted our evaluation from September 2004 to August 2005. We
performed our evaluation in accordance with Government Auditing Standards,
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. We considered the
findings of prior Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Government
Accountability Office reports related to contaminated sediment issues.
To evaluate the effectiveness and outcomes achieved from EPA's Strategy, we
reviewed documents and records related to the management of contaminated
sediments, including databases and Internet Web sites, and interviewed EPA
officials from OSWER, OW, OPPTS, and ORD. We also interviewed EPA
officials from the Great Lakes National Program Office and four regions. In
addition, we interviewed officials from various other Federal agencies, from six
States and from the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials.
Appendix A provides further details on our scope and methodology.
-------
Chapter 2
EPA Has Not Fylly Implemented Its
Contaminated Sediment Strategy
Although EPA made some progress in managing contaminated sediments, it did
not fully implement its Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy. Program
offices involved with addressing contaminated sediments did not:
• Use National Sediment Inventory data for decision making;
• Fully coordinate their activities;
• Develop sediment quality criteria;
• Fully meet research needs or coordinate research with other Federal agencies;
and/or
• Establish adequate performance measures.
Also, EPA could enhance remediation efforts by increasing the use of the
watershed approach and the Water Resources Development Act. The conditions
primarily occurred because no program office assumed responsibility for
oversight and overall coordination of the Strategy, and EPA has not updated the
Strategy since implementation. Due to incomplete Strategy implementation, EPA
cannot assure that resources devoted to addressing contaminated sediments
provide the most effective and efficient solutions for reducing the environmental
and human health risks posed by this national problem.
EPA Has Made Progress in Managing Contaminated Sediments
Various EPA program offices made some progress regarding the Strategy's goals
and the management of contaminated sediments. For example:
• OW published the 1997 and 2004 National Sediment Quality Survey (NSQS)
reports for Congress and issued guidance documents regarding sediment
assessments.
• OSWER established the Contaminated Sediments Technical Advisory Group
to oversee work at complex Superfund sediment sites, and the Superfund
Sediment Resource Center to assist EPA staff on technical issues regarding
sediment site cleanup. OSWER provided two important guidance documents
- the Principles for Managing Contaminated Sediment Risks at Hazardous
Waste Sites (2002), and the Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance
for Hazardous Waste Sites (2005) - to help remedial project managers make
scientifically sound and nationally consistent risk management decisions.
OSWER also sponsored or co-sponsored several national meetings on
-------
characterizing and managing contaminated sediment. In addition, OSWER
provided Federal and State officials training on Sediment Remediation:
Technical Considerations for Evaluating and Implementing Dredging and
Capping Remedies.
ORD conducted research on issues such as site characterization, ecological
and human health risk, and remedy development and evaluation. ORD also
held national meetings and workshops on the management and treatment of
contaminated sediments.
OPPTS created a Draft National Action Plan in 2000 with links to fish
advisories for Level 1 Pesticides and a 1998 Multimedia Strategy for Priority
Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Pollutants. In addition, OPPTS
developed technical guidance documents on pesticides to evaluate their
potential to run off or leach into surface waters, or accumulate in sediment.
Management Strategy Not Fully Implemented
Although EPA made some progress in managing and addressing contaminated
sediments, it did not fully implement its Strategy. Areas where EPA did not
sufficiently implement the Strategy include: (1) using National Sediment
Inventory data for decision making, (2) coordinating activities, (3) developing
sediment quality criteria, (4) meeting research needs, and (5) measuring
performance. Details follow.
National Sediment Inventory Generally Not Used for Decision Making
EPA program offices generally did not use National Sediment Inventory data as
part of the decision process for assessment, pollution prevention, and remediation
activities as outlined in the Strategy. Under the Strategy, the Agency intended to
use the inventory for several purposes, including those noted in Table 2.1.
: Furposes for fta&at&t s&dtm&ttf tat&mory
Identify sediment sites for consideration for assessment under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
Identify problem pesticides and toxic substances that may require further regulation
or evaluation for possible enforcement action.
Identify impaired waters for National Water Quality Inventory reports or possible
Total Maximum Daily Load development.
Select industries for effluent guidelines development.
Identify chemicals of concern for sediment criteria development and evaluate the
effectiveness of technology-based effluent guidelines, water quality-based permit
limits, and Total Maximum Daily Loads.
The National Sediment Inventory, most recently updated in 2004, is the most
comprehensive source of information on the extent of contaminated sediments in
-------
the United States. The inventory includes 4.6 million records of sediment
chemistry, tissue residue, and toxicity data, for more than 50,000 monitoring
stations across the country. EPA obtained this information from various data
storage systems and monitoring programs of the Agency and other entities. In
1997 and again in 2004, OW identified 96 watersheds containing areas of
probable concern through an analysis of data in the National Sediment Inventory.
These areas represented watersheds where sampling data indicated contamination
levels that may pose threats to organisms at the bottom of waterbodies and
resident fish. EPA reported the results of these analyses in its 1997 and 2004
NSQS reports. Both NSQS reports disclosed that further analysis should be
conducted to determine the extent of contamination and appropriate and cost-
effective actions.
According to OW and OSWER officials, their offices generally have not used the
National Sediment Inventory and NSQS reports as part of assessment, pollution
prevention, and/or remediation activities and decisions for contaminated
sediments. The Strategy indicates the inventory and NSQS reports should be used
to assist EPA program offices with making regulatory decisions for contaminated
sediment issues. However, OW and OSWER based their decisions primarily on
data specific to their individual programs. As a result, most of the Agency's
decisions for managing and addressing human health and ecological risks within
these areas of probable concern may not have considered data available from
other sources included in the National Sediment Inventory. In 2004, OW did
consider using National Sediment Inventory data in its plan for determining the
industrial categories for which to develop effluent guidelines.
The National Sediment Inventory and NSQS reports, as appropriate, should
complement other sources of information used by EPA program offices for
making decisions. For example, we overlaid the data for the 96 areas of probable
concern identified in the 2004 NSQS report with the data in OW's 2004 National
Listing of Fish Advisories, using Geographic Information System software. We
provide the overlay of the two data sets in Appendix C. The overlay shows that
most of the areas of probable concern either had fish advisories or were adjacent
to waterbodies with them. Using the NSQS data in this way provides additional,
although qualified, information on potential human health and ecological risks in
surface waters across the country.
Activities NotFutly Coordinated Across Program Offices
The Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy, as well as EPA's
Contaminated Sediments Action Plan that supplements the Strategy, established a
framework and actions intended to enhance cross-program coordination and
collaboration in addressing contaminated sediments. The Strategy notes that
implementation of statutory requirements has created inconsistencies in
addressing contaminated sediments. However, EPA's program offices did not
-------
coordinate most of their contaminated sediment activities, and the Agency's
primary focus has been limited to remediation activities.
Our interviews with OW, OSWER, and OPPTS officials disclosed that the offices
generally did not collaborate and coordinate on the majority of their activities
involving the assessment, prevention, control, and remediation of contaminated
sediments. Since at least 2002, EPA has primarily focused on addressing
contaminated sediment issues through Superfund remedial actions. EPA has
placed little emphasis on the prevention and source control aspects of
contaminated sediments. Further, EPA's activities have been fragmented and
"stovepiped" within program offices. For example, OW has not coordinated
source control programs, such as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permitting, with OSWER's remediation activities for sites with
contaminated sediments at the national level.
Although EPA generally did not coordinate activities across programs, OW,
OSWER, and ORD did collaborate and coordinate on some activities related to
contaminated sediments. For example, these offices coordinated in the
development and release of the Contaminated Sediments Action Plan in 2002.
This plan reflected the goals of the Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy
and served as a tool for EPA senior managers to clearly coordinate cross-program
contaminated sediment activities. OW, OSWER, ORD, and the Great Lakes
National Program Office also collaborated in 2004 on the development of the
Agency's Contaminated Sediment Science Priorities, which establish Agency-
wide science activities that affect contaminated sediments.
EPA's inability to complete the Contaminated Sediment Assessment Pilot as
outlined by the Contaminated Sediments Action Plan further illustrates the need
for improvements in coordination and collaboration between program offices.
EPA planned to begin the Pilot in the fall of 2002 and facilitate cross-program
coordination between remedial investigation/feasibility study evaluations and
Total Maximum Daily Load modeling. However, EPA stopped the project after
OW staff selected potential sites for the Pilot because OSWER and OW were not
able to successfully coordinate and collaborate on the project design.
Officials from two States also said EPA could improve its coordination between
its program offices as well as with States. For example, one State official said
that some EPA Regional Superfund Program remedial project managers do not
consider various Clean Water Act requirements when overlapping programs
perform work at contaminated sediment sites.
National Sediment Quality Criteria Not Established
EPA did not develop and implement numerical sediment quality criteria as
specified by the Strategy. EPA established this requirement to ensure the
comparability of data gathered to assess sediment contamination and its effects.
-------
Although not intended as mandatory standards, EPA expected the criteria to assist
in the ranking of sites needing further assessment, target hot spots within an area
for remediation, and serve as a partial basis for the development of State sediment
quality standards.
The Strategy assigned OW the responsibility for developing the criteria. OW
officials said that they did not develop criteria because of scientific and policy
disagreements within and outside the Agency. Instead, the Agency produced
equilibrium partitioning sediment benchmark documents - for dieldrin, endrin,
metal mixtures, and poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbon mixtures - for voluntary use
by its program offices. The Agency presented these benchmarks as complements
to numerous existing sediment assessment tools developed by EPA and others.
As a result, EPA has no assurance that regulatory decisions made within and
outside the Agency are based on comparable criteria and are consistent.
Although EPA has not developed and implemented criteria, the Agency could
develop standards or guidelines as one State and Canada have done. Washington
represents the only State that has developed legally enforceable water and
sediment quality marine standards. According to a Washington State official, the
standards have helped in the Superfund process because they provide authority
and consistency for remedy decisions. Likewise, Canada developed Sediment
Quality Guidelines based on scientifically derived sediment quality targets, and
EPA could also consider that approach. Canada's guidelines are not regarded as
blanket values for national sediment quality and may be modified according to
local conditions. Interviewed officials from OSWER, the Association of State
and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, and three States said they
believed that some form of national sediment standards or screening criteria could
help to speed projects toward cleanup. Officials from OSWER and the
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials said
criteria would make assessment and cleanup easier, faster, and less expensive.
ORD Has Not Completely Met Priority Research Needs and Could
Enhance Coordination on Research Needs
ORD has not fully addressed OSWER's high priority research needs for
contaminated sediments. OSWER officials said that one of their highest priorities
for research on contaminated sediments is remediation alternatives for the top
three remedies (dredging, capping, and monitored natural recovery). OSWER
officials said this research is important to better understand where and how each
type of approach can be most effective. However, for Fiscal Years 2002-2005,
only about 10 percent of ORD's contaminated sediment publications focused on
remediation alternatives; the majority of completed research addressed
contaminant characteristics. According to OSWER officials, they could not
determine whether ORD met its priorities prior to 2005 because OSWER and
ORD had not established an effective communication process. In 2005, OSWER
-------
and ORD formed the Contaminated Sediment Regional Research Advisory
Workgroup to enhance communication on research needs.
Opportunities also exist for ORD to make its completed research more readily
accessible to OSWER and the regions. For example, until recently, OSWER
officials could not obtain a monitored natural recovery document from ORD even
though ORD completed the document a year earlier. ORD usually informs
OSWER of completed research products through periodic distribution of research
lists and e-mails, and ORD posts most of these research products in different
formats on ORD's main Web page and three laboratory Web sites. This does not
provide adequate visibility; OSWER officials said ORD could improve access by
developing a set of easily accessible, media-specific Web sites. However,
OSWER and ORD expect the recently formed Contaminated Sediment Regional
Research Advisory Workgroup to improve communications about completed
ORD research.
Further, opportunities exist for ORD to better coordinate its research activities
with other Federal agencies that conduct research addressing contaminated
sediment issues. EPA's Science Advisory Board, officials from other Federal
agencies, and our own review disclosed that ORD needs to enhance such
coordination. In its review of the 2002 Draft Contaminated Sediments Science
Plan to establish research priorities, the Science Advisory Board cited the absence
of information on research conducted on sediments outside of the Agency as a
critical weakness. In 2004, EPA revised the plan and disclosed that it considered
research by other Federal agencies as part of the plan's development. However,
officials from the other agencies we interviewed said ORD did not routinely
coordinate with their agencies on research and did not consider all their research
addressing contaminated sediments.
Our review of research for contaminated sediments completed by ORD and
selected other Federal agencies during Fiscal Years 2002 through 2005 showed
that the other agencies conducted a substantial amount of the research (as shown
in Figure 2.1 below). The other agencies included the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Department of the Navy. The
combined research products of the selected Federal agencies for most topics on
contaminated sediments exceeded EPA's research on the topics. This clearly
suggests that EPA and other agencies could enhance Federally-funded research
through improved coordination and collaboration. For example, EPA and the
other agencies may achieve cost efficiencies through specialization on research
topics.
10
-------
Figure 2.1: Contaminated sediment research publication totals by topic
EPA & Selected Other Federal Agency Contaminated
Sediment Research FY2002-2005
100
75
50
25
) : ,m i ill i iiiiiipiiliiiiii II-._ li; 11: i
Topics
According to EPA and other Federal agency officials, EPA recently made some
progress collaborating with other Federal agencies on research. They cited as an
example a research collaboration meeting that took place in September 2005 in
Rhode Island with participation by EPA, Department of the Navy, and U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers officials.
Performance Measures for Sediment Management Incomplete
EPA did not establish cross-program performance measures that fully evaluate the
effectiveness of actions taken as part of the Contaminated Sediment Management
Strategy.
The Government Performance and Results Act holds Federal agencies
accountable for using resources wisely and achieving program results. The Act
requires agencies to develop plans for what they intend to accomplish, measure
how well they do, make appropriate decisions based on that information, and
communicate performance information to Congress and the public.
As discussed in Chapters 1 through 3, EPA has devoted resources toward
managing contaminated sediments. However, OW, OSWER, and other program
offices with responsibilities for contaminated sediments have not adequately
established performance measures for activities conducted under the Strategy's
11
-------
four goals. EPA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan includes measures related to
contaminated sediments that partially cover two of the four goals:
Subobjective 2.1.2, "Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat," provides partial coverage
of the Strategy's goals for preventing and reducing the volume of existing
contaminated sediment by measuring reductions in the number of fish
advisories.
Subobjective 4.3.3, "Improve the Health of Great Lakes Ecosystems,"
provides some coverage of the Strategy's goals of preventing an increase and
reducing the volume of existing contaminated sediment by measuring the
reduction of PCBs in fish and the volume of contaminated sediments in the
Great Lakes. This measure does not cover Agency activities outside the Great
Lakes.
However, these measures do not address the Strategy's other two goals of
(1) dredging and dredged material disposal and (2) scientifically sound sediment
management.
OSWER has recognized the need for better measures for contaminated sediment
remediation activities to help measure overall remedy effectiveness. As a result,
OSWER has taken three important steps toward establishing performance
measures for the remediation of contaminated sediments at Superfund sites.
• OSWER's Principles for Managing Contaminated Sediment Risks at
Hazardous Waste Sites (2002) specifies the use of post-remediation
monitoring data to measure ecological outcomes from remediation activities.
The principles state that although it is generally more practical to use
measures such as contaminant concentrations in sediment to identify areas to
be remediated, other measures should be used to assess whether human health
and/or ecological risk reduction goals are being met. For example, using
measured concentrations of PCBs in fish is suggested as the most relevant
means of measuring exposure to PCBs in contaminated sediments.
• OSWER's Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous
Waste Sites (2005) provides additional guidance to help remedial project
managers develop meaningful measures based on outcomes. The guidance
includes steps such as identifying monitoring objectives and designing the
monitoring plan while considering a combination of physical, chemical, and
biological methods to determine potential concerns.
• OSWER implemented the Contaminated Sediment Site Tracking Tool to
evaluate the overall effectiveness of remedies for long-term risk reduction.
OSWER developed the tool to facilitate evaluation of remedy effectiveness at
Superfund contaminated sediment sites. Although OSWER implemented the
tool in 2004, data is missing for many sites. OSWER is working to obtain
12
-------
complete performance data, and OSWER officials said they plan to evaluate
effectiveness of remedial actions at contaminated sediment sites after the tool
includes the necessary data. The analysis should assist the Agency with
measuring the effectiveness of its activities under the Strategy's remediation
goal.
Primary Causes for Not Implementing Strategy
We noted two primary causes for EPA's program offices not implementing the
Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy: (1) no program office has
assumed responsibility for oversight and overall coordination of the Strategy; and
(2) EPA has not updated the Strategy since implementation.
There has been no overall oversight of the Strategy since at least 2002. EPA's
Strategy specifies that OWs Office of Science and Technology has responsibility
for coordinating the implementation of the Strategy and that the Agency-wide
Sediment Steering Committee provides oversight. However, as of 2002, the
Office of Science and Technology and the Sediment Steering Committee stopped
their coordination and oversight activities. OW officials said the Office of
Science and Technology stopped its oversight because OW made a decision to
focus on other higher priority issues. Although the Strategy required OW and
OSWER to participate in the Sediment Steering Committee, officials from these
offices could not explain why the Committee has not continued to perform its
oversight role.
EPA has not updated the Strategy since implementing it in 1998. Although EPA
has made some progress toward managing contaminated sediments, the Agency
did not revise the Strategy to reflect these accomplishments or establish additional
actions that may be necessary based on lessons learned since 1998. For example,
the 1998 Strategy does not: (1) include the roles and responsibilities of the
Contaminated Sediment Technical Advisory Group and Superfund Sediment
Resource Center; (2) reflect the remediation approach outlined by OSWER's
Principles for Managing Contaminated Sediment Risks at Hazardous Waste Sites
document, and (3) consider additional actions necessary to prevent and control
contaminated sediments. In 2002, the Agency issued the Contaminated Sediments
Action Plan that outlines additional actions consistent with the intent of the
Strategy. However, the Action Plan does not completely update the Strategy
because it primarily focuses on remediation activities and provides minimal
coverage for contaminated sediment prevention and control activities.
Partial Implementation of Strategy May Limit Agency's Effectiveness
EPA's current focus on addressing contaminated sediments through the
Superfund Program and the lack of coordination among program offices will not
enable it to sufficiently address the contaminated sediments problem.
Contaminated sediments are multi-media, cross-program, issues. EPA cannot
13
-------
assure that resources it expends on contaminated sediments provide the most
effective and efficient solutions for reducing the environmental and human health
risks posed by this national problem. Currently, EPA cannot assure that it bases
decisions for managing and remediating contaminated sediments on all available
information because program offices have not used the National Sediment
Inventory and NSQS reports. Without cross-program coordination and prescribed
national sediment criteria, the Agency has limited assurance that it consistently
and effectively assesses risks posed by contaminated sediments. EPA's primary
focus on addressing contaminated sediments through the Superfund Program,
rather than a more comprehensive and integrated approach, limits the Agency's
ability to prevent future sites and to ensure the application of consistent
assessment standards. EPA also needs to improve its internal research efforts and
better coordinate research efforts with other Federal agencies to avoid duplication
and gain the maximum benefit from research dollars.
Other Opportunities Exist to Improve Contaminated Sediment Efforts
EPA could enhance its contaminated sediments efforts through the watershed
approach, which the Agency has already used at selected sites. The premise of
the watershed approach is that EPA can best solve many water quality and
ecosystem problems at the watershed level rather than the individual waterbody or
discharger level. This approach requires cross-program coordination, targeting
priority problems, promoting stakeholder involvement, integrating multiple
agencies' expertise and authority, and measuring success.
OSWER's Urban Rivers Restoration Initiative uses the watershed approach to
address contaminated sediments at eight pilot sites, including two on the National
Priorities List. The initiative intends to bring about increased coordination and
cooperation within EPA and with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to restore
degraded urban rivers. OSWER expects the eight pilot projects to result in less
duplication of effort; faster and cheaper assessment and cleanup; leveraging and
more effective use of funds; and better targeted, holistic remedies. However,
although EPA has used the watershed approach for selected sites involving
contaminated sediments, it has not yet pursued the approach to deal with
contaminated sediment issues on a national scale.
EPA can also enhance contaminated sediment efforts by increasing the use of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Water Resources Development Act authority.
The Act authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to remove contaminated
sediments adjacent to navigation channels, but these removal actions require
specific appropriations from Congress and funding matches by State or local
sponsors. The Act authorizes additional funding and added a mechanism for
more comprehensive evaluation and resolution of sediment issues. The Act has
been used to remove contaminated sediments adjacent to two sites on the National
Priorities List. According to OSWER officials, a number of other sediment sites
could potentially benefit from the Act's funding, but liability and funding issues
14
-------
have prevented farther use of the authority. OSWER recently held a meeting with
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and formed a workgroup to resolve those
issues and consider increased use of the Water Resources Development Act
authority at more contaminated sediment sites.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Deputy Administrator:
2-1 Establish a committee or designate an office to assume responsibility for
the oversight and evaluation of the Agency's Contaminated Sediment
Management Strategy. The designated office or committee should:
a. Ensure program offices with responsibilities for managing and
addressing contaminated sediment issues use the National Sediment
Inventory as part of their decision making processes.
b. Ensure contaminated sediment issues are managed and addressed
through a cross-program approach, as intended by the Strategy, that
places emphasis on prevention and control of contaminated sediments.
c. Update the Strategy to reflect accomplishments made on managing
and addressing contaminated sediments and incorporate additional
actions that Agency program offices should take.
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water and the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response:
2-2 Collaborate with other program offices with responsibilities under the
Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy to develop and implement
comprehensive and coordinated performance measures for preventing,
assessing, and remediating contaminated sediment issues.
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water:
2-3 Evaluate and report on the need to develop numerical sediment quality
criteria to assist in the ranking of sites needing farther assessment, target
hot spots within an area for remediation, and serve as a partial basis for the
development of State sediment quality standards.
We recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response:
2-4 Use the watershed approach, including concepts from the Urban Rivers
Restoration Initiative, at contaminated sediment National Priorities List
sites in high priority watersheds.
15
-------
2-5 Continue working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to expand the
use of Water Resources Development Act funding for additional
contaminated sediments adjacent to National Priorities List sites to
provide more comprehensive evaluations and resolutions of contaminated
sediment issues.
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development:
2-6 Work with the Assistant Administrator for OSWER to continue improving
communication between the offices on contaminated sediment research
priorities and status of research products. In addition, develop a system
that provides OSWER and other potential users with easy access to all
completed contaminated sediment research projects.
2-7 Continue to enhance collaboration and coordination between EPA and
other Federal agencies on research activities. At a minimum, the
coordinated activities should ensure that research is not duplicated by the
agencies and that Federal resources are leveraged through coordinated
research efforts that meet the needs of multiple agencies.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
EPA generally agreed with the recommendations in the draft report. The Agency
will need to provide further details on its plans to address OIG recommendations
within 90 days. The Agency also provided suggested revisions to some details in
the report and the recommendations, and we made revisions as appropriate.
Regarding Recommendation 2-1, the Agency agreed to establish an OW-led intra-
agency committee by March 17, 2006 to determine the next steps and develop an
initial workplan. Also, the Agency said it would revisit the 1998 Strategy to
assess the degree to which EPA's actions achieved the Strategy's goals. The
Agency also believes that it should focus attention on emerging contaminants due
to their potential to adversely affect human health and the environment. The
Agency did not comment on whether it agreed with the cross-program approach
or whether it would use the National Sediment Inventory as part of its decision
making processes, as suggested by the recommendation.
The Agency's planned action appears to generally meet the intent of
Recommendation 2-1. In the Agency's response to our final report, it will need to
specify the office or committee that will assume responsibility for oversight and
evaluation of the Strategy. The Agency will also need to describe the actions
taken or planned to ensure that the Agency uses the National Sediment Inventory
as part of EPA's decision-making, contaminated sediment issues are managed and
addressed through a cross-program approach, and the Strategy is updated. In
addition, the Agency needs to provide milestones for completing each of these
actions.
16
-------
Regarding Recommendation 2-2, the Agency agreed to look at performance
measures as part of developing a new Strategic Plan, but stated that it already has
indicators reflecting the integration of all stressors, including sediments. The
Agency cited Subobjective 2.2.1 from EPA's current Strategic Plan as an example
of an indicator meeting the overall goal of preventing ecological and human
health impairment by increasing the number of watersheds where water quality
standards are met. We acknowledge that EPA has some indicators that partially
cover contaminated sediment activities. However, Subobjective 2.2.1 and the
other measures evaluated do not provide comprehensive measures that assess the
effectiveness of all Agency program activities under the Contaminated Sediment
Management Strategy, and such comprehensive measures are needed. In its
response to the final report, the Agency must describe actions taken or planned to
develop and implement comprehensive performance measures for managing and
addressing contaminated sediments. Also, the Agency will need to provide
milestones for completing these actions.
In responding to Recommendation 2-3 the Agency provided formal written
comments followed up by clarifying remarks that generally meet the intent of our
recommendation. Specifically, we were told that the Agency published several
chemical-specific sediment benchmarks to provide guidance to regions, States and
the regulated community in assessing risk to aquatic organisms from sediment
contamination. We were told EPA supports the use of these benchmarks by the
States and Tribes and will continue to evaluate the need for additional sediment
management tools such as these within the context of its review of the
achievements of the 1998 Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy. Inks
90-day response, the Agency will need to describe specific actions taken or
planned to evaluate and report on the need for numerical sediment quality criteria.
Also, the Agency needs to provide milestones for completing these actions.
The Agency suggested that we make Recommendation 2-4 more specific and
address National Priorities List sites with contaminated sediments in priority
watersheds. The Agency said it endorses the cross-programmatic watershed
approach at selected high priority sites. The Agency also said it has drafted the
guidance, Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds and
intends to train regional staff on using the guidance. We agree that the watershed
approach should focus on priority watersheds and, as a result, revised
Recommendation 2-4 to reflect this focus. While EPA agreed to provide
guidance and training on watershed approaches, the Agency will need to describe
in its response to the final report the specific actions taken or planned to apply the
watershed approach at contaminated sediment National Priorities List sites in
priority watersheds. Also, the Agency must provide milestones for completing
these actions.
The Agency generally agreed with Recommendation 2-5 and said it convened a
workgroup to resolve some of the issues associated with the use of the Water
Resources Development Act at contaminated sediment sites. However, the
17
-------
response did not disclose whether the workgroup intended to resolve all major
issues associated with use of the Act. The Agency will need to describe in its
response to the final report how it plans to resolve all the major issues to increase
the use of the Water Resources Development Act funding for contaminated
sediments adjacent to National Priorities List sites. Also, the Agency needs to
provide a milestone for completing this action.
EPA partially agreed with Recommendation 2-6, and asserted that ORD has an
effective process in place for OSWER to communicate research priorities. The
Agency indicated ORD has created avenues for OSWER to communicate its
research needs through teams, progress reviews, and meetings. The Agency
agreed that communicating on research products specific to contaminated
sediments and providing access to those products is important, and will attempt to
improve communications and access. We modified Recommendation 2-6 to
reflect recent communication enhancements. We are pleased that the Agency
plans to enhance communication on the status of research projects and access to
completed research projects. In the Agency's response to the final report, it will
need to describe specific actions it plans to take to improve communication
between ORD and OSWER regarding contaminated sediment research priorities
and status of research products. Also, the Agency will need to describe specific
actions taken or planned to improve access to research products. The Agency will
also need to provide milestones for completing these actions.
The Agency requested that we revise Recommendation 2-7 to recognize ongoing
collaboration activities with other Federal agencies. The Agency also described
recent actions taken and planned that meet the intent of the recommendation.
These actions include working with OSWER on a Memorandum of
Understanding with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the
Navy, and workgroup and task force activities with various Federal agencies. We
revised Recommendation 2-7 to reflect ORD's ongoing coordination activities.
The Agency's taken and planned actions meet the intent of our recommendation.
However, in its response to the final report, the Agency will need to provide
milestones for completing these actions.
The Agency's complete response is in Appendix B.
18
-------
Chapter 3
EPA Has Hot Completely Assessed Extent and
Severity of Nation's Sediment Contamination
EPA's 2004 NSQS report did not provide a complete assessment of the extent and
severity of sediment contamination across the Nation, nor did it fully meet the
requirements of the Water Resources Development Act. This reporting issue
occurred because OW relied on known data sources and did not design a method
to acquire and compile data and address data limitation issues. As a result, EPA
cannot accurately estimate the volume and risks posed by contaminated sediments
on a national scale. Such a national assessment would better enable EPA to
ensure that it devotes resources to contaminated sediment issues that pose the
greatest risks to human health and the environment.
National Assessment Not Complete
EPA spent over $600,000 to acquire, compile, and assess the data in the 2004
NSQS report. OW issued the NSQS report primarily to address requirements
under Section 503 of the Water Resources Development Act and assist EPA
program offices, States, and tribes with decision making. The report identified
locations where available sampling data indicated a high probability that direct or
indirect exposure to sediments could be associated with adverse effects to aquatic
and/or human health. OW based the report on contaminated sediment sampling
data obtained from OW's National Sediment Inventory, which was comprised of
readily available sampling data principally obtained from other Federal agencies
and States covering the 10-year period from 1990 through 1999.
Despite EPA's efforts, the 2004 report did not provide a complete assessment of
the extent and severity of sediment contamination across the Nation. Also, it did
not fully meet the requirements of Section 503 of the Water Resources
Development Act, which requires EPA to: (1) work with the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a
comprehensive national survey of existing sediment data; (2) biennially report to
Congress on findings, conclusions, and recommendations; and (3) conduct a
comprehensive and continuing program to assess sediment quality.
Although the Water Resources Development Act required a comprehensive
national survey of existing contaminated sediment data and a comprehensive
monitoring program, the 2004 NSQS report did not include all available sampling
data nor provide national coverage of contaminated sediments. For example, the
report did not include contaminated sediment data from the Great Lakes and from
Superfund sites. In addition, approximately 68 percent of the data in the NSQS
report only covered 10 States (Washington, Virginia, California, Illinois, Florida,
19
-------
Wisconsin, New York, Texas, Oregon, and South Carolina), or 20 percent, of the
50 States. Further, the NSQS did not cover approximately 91 percent of river
reaches (the length between two major tributaries ranging from 1 to 10 miles) in
the contiguous United States and about 46 percent of watersheds nationally. EPA
recognized these data limitations and designated the NSQS report as a screening-
level assessment of contaminated sediments.
The 2004 NSQS report also did not meet the biennial reporting requirement
specified by the Water Resources Development Act. The 2004 report represents
an update to the NSQS report EPA issued in 1997. EPA issued the 2004 NSQS
report approximately 5 years overdue, since the Water Resources Development
Act required EPA to update the 1997 report in 2 years time.
Assessment Incomplete Because Adequate Design Not Developed
After interviewing OW officials and reviewing a development document
supporting the National Sediment Inventory and 2004 NSQS report, we found the
report incomplete because OW had not developed and implemented a
methodology and plan for acquiring and compiling data necessary for a national
assessment. Instead, OW acquired most of the data from databases previously
known to OW. OW did not establish a formal coordination process for acquiring
data from all major sources within and outside EPA. In addition, the lack of a
methodology and plan led to the continued existence of the following key
limitations from the 1997 NSQS report:
• Non-random design. OW collected a maj ority of the data based on a biased
sampling design. OW collected the data through monitoring programs
targeting contaminated or potentially contaminated areas. Without the use of
a statistical sampling methodology, there is no assurance that both
contaminated and uncontaminated sediments are accurately represented in a
national assessment of the extent and severity of the contamination. A
statistical sampling methodology such as EPA's Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program would provide OW with an unbiased national
assessment of sediment contamination that would help provide identifiable
trends. OW could use this program to develop the tools necessary to monitor
and assess the status and trends of national ecological resources. OW may
also integrate random sampling results with existing data, thus reducing the
cost. For example, existing sediment data generated by statistical approaches,
such as the recent Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
National Coastal Assessment, would reduce the amount of additional
statistically valid data necessary for the national assessment. The 2005
version of this report includes results from over 50,000 samples taken from
over 1,500 randomly selected sites.
• Critical Data Lacking. Data lacked sample location information (metadata),
quality assurance/quality control information, and key assessment parameters.
20
-------
Although sample location data is critical, some of this data was not included
in the NSQS report because the data was missing or incomplete. Also, key
assessment parameters, such as Total Organic Carbon and Acid-Volatile
Sulfide data, were not always available; these parameters are critical to predict
bioavailability of sediment contaminants. The NSQS report also excluded
quality assurance/quality control data because information was limited; this
information is critical because it provides detection limits and other
parameters necessary for determining the quality of the data.
• Hard Copy Data Excluded. Large amounts of data were maintained in paper
format and thus excluded from the National Sediment Inventory. OW
officials said this data was not readily available in computerized format and it
would have been labor-intensive to input manually.
According to OW, it is working on revisions for the next NSQS report. OW plans
to perform a data gap analysis between statistically-needed sampling locations
and existing data as part of the methodology. In addition, OW plans to broadly
advertise its data needs by conducting national meetings, workshops, and outreach
to improve national coverage and data quality. However, at the time we
completed our field work, OW did not have a written plan for the next NSQS
report, and we could not assess whether OW preliminary planning will provide a
more complete national assessment.
OW officials also said that they do not plan on issuing the NSQS report every
2 years as required by the Water Resources Development Act. They cited two
primary reasons: (1) sediment contamination does not change that frequently; and
(2) the public comment and Agency review processes for the report make it
impossible to meet the timeframe. Even if OW's position has merit, the reporting
requirement is mandatory, so the Agency should disclose to Congress that the
reporting frequency cannot be met and is too frequent to evaluate trends if that is
the case. EPA has not made such a disclosure. Further, if EPA believes a change
in reporting frequency is needed, it should indicate the reporting frequency it
believes is appropriate.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water:
3-1 Develop and implement a plan for future NSQS reports that, consistent
with the Water Resources Development Act, provides a comprehensive
national assessment of the extent and severity of contaminated sediments.
At a minimum the design should:
a. Use a statistical sampling approach as the basis for collecting data
from EPA and other sources and assessing the national extent and
severity of contaminated sediments. As a cost savings alternative,
21
-------
consider using statistical sampling in conjunction with existing data
for the national assessment. Improve the completeness and availability
of sample location information (metadata), quality assurance/quality
control information, and assessment parameters for future NSQS
reports.
b. Ensure that the National Sediment Inventory and future NSQS reports
include contaminated sediment data from all major sources, including
the Great Lakes National Program Office and Superfund program. At
a minimum, establish a formal coordination process for acquiring
contaminated sediment data from EPA program offices and applicable
agencies and organizations outside EPA. Also, consider cost-effective
options for acquiring and compiling contaminated sediment data
maintained in paper format.
3-2 Determine a reporting frequency for the NSQS report that is both useful
for decision makers and achievable for EPA, disclose to Congress that
EPA cannot meet the current biennial reporting requirement specified by
Section 503 of the Water Resources Development Act, and provide
Congress an alternative reporting schedule for consideration.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
EPA generally agreed with the recommendations. The Agency also provided
suggested revisions to some details in the chapter and one of the
recommendations, and we made revisions as appropriate.
The Agency generally agreed with Recommendation 3-1 and described three
projects in OW's 2006 workplan intended to improve the next NSQS report.
OW plans to hold two workshops to get stakeholder input, have an outreach
program encouraging other entities to provide data, and work with OSWER on a
formal process to convert Superfund data to an electronic format. The Agency
also suggested that we revise Recommendation 3-1 to reflect data collection
rather than sampling because OW does not interpret Section 503(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 to require EPA to sample sediments. The
Agency does see the merit in developing a statistically-based study design and has
agreed to work with ORD to determine if it can develop such a design.
The Agency's actions under OW's 2006 workplan partially address
Recommendation 3-1, but the actions will not provide a comprehensive national
assessment of the extent and severity of contaminated sediments. We
acknowledge that Section 503(b) does not specifically require EPA to conduct
sampling. However, Section 503(b) does require the Agency to conduct a
comprehensive and continuing program to assess sediment quality and establish
minimum requirements for the program. The minimum requirements outlined by
Section 503(b) do not restrict EPA from establishing a comprehensive program
22
-------
based on a statistical sampling approach. EPA cannot meet these minimum
requirements unless it bases its continuing program to assess sediment quality on
a statistical sampling design coordinated with EPA program offices, other Federal
agencies, and States. Our recommendation does not specifically require that EPA
conduct the sampling (although EPA programs such as Superfund do conduct
sediment sampling). Instead, the recommendation requires that EPA develop and
implement a plan that uses a statistical sampling approach for acquiring the data
necessary to assess the Nation's sediment quality. We revised the
recommendation to clarify that EPA is not required to sample sediments, but
should develop and implement a plan consistent with the Water Resources
Development Act.
In the Agency's response to the final report, it will need to describe specific
actions it has taken or plans to take to develop a statistical sampling approach as
the basis for collecting data from EPA and other sources, to resolve data quality
issues, and to ensure that contaminated sediment data from all major sources are
included. The Agency's description should include the results of the three
projects in OW's 2006 workplan intended to improve the next NSQS report. If
the Agency cannot complete a comprehensive national assessment that is based
on a statistical sampling methodology, it should disclose to Congress that the
national assessment is not possible and that the funds used to generate this report
should be reprogrammed to fund other program activities. The Agency also will
need to provide in its response milestones for completing these actions.
The Agency agreed with Recommendation 3-2. The Agency said that OW plans
to discuss the factors that affect how fast sediment contaminants change, consult
with ORD fate and transport experts, and develop a reporting frequency that is
more consistent with anticipated changes in sediment contaminant levels. The
Agency's planned actions meet the intent of our recommendation. In the
Agency's response to the final report, the Agency will need to specify milestones
for completing these actions and provide an alternative reporting schedule to
Congress for consideration.
The Agency's complete response is in Appendix B.
23
-------
Appendix A
Details on Scope and Methodology
We conducted our evaluation from September 2004 to August 2005 in accordance with
Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.
Our scope included contaminated sediment activities performed by EPA, other Federal agencies,
and selected States. Early in our review, we determined the EPA offices and Federal agencies
involved in the universe of contaminated sediments. We determined the universe of
contaminated sediment sites through a review of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System and listings provided by OSWER. We did not
independently verify the accuracy of data obtained from Agency sources, but obtained input on
the accuracy from Agency officials.
We evaluated management controls covering Fiscal Year 2002 through 2005 (second quarter).
We generally considered whether the organization, policies, and procedures ensure that
(1) intended results were achieved; (2) resources were used consistent with the Agency mission;
(3) programs and resources were protected from waste, fraud, and mismanagement; (4) laws and
regulations were followed; and (5) reliable and timely information was obtained, maintained,
reported, and used for decision making. We focused on the effectiveness of EPA's program
offices regarding implementation of the Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy.
We found that EPA has not put sufficient effort into implementing the Strategy and had
insufficient measures to evaluate the Strategy's success.
We took into account the findings of a prior EPA OIG report, Water: EPA's Great Lakes
Program (Report No. 99P00212, dated September 1,1999), and the following Government
Accountability Office reports that addressed sediment issues:
Report Title
Water Resources - Future Needs for Confining
Contaminated Sediment in the Great Lakes Region
Superfund - Information Regarding EPA's Cleanup
Decision Process on the Hudson River Site
Great Lakes - EPA Needs to Define Organizational
Responsibilities Better for Effective Oversight and
Cleanup of Contaminated Areas
Great Lakes - An Overall Strategy and Indicators for
Measuring Progress Are Needed to Better Achieve
Restoration Goals
Great Lakes - Organizational Leadership and
Restoration Goals Need to Be Better Defined for
Monitoring Restoration Progress
Report NQ*
GAO/RCED-92-89
GAO/RCED-00-193
GAO-02-563
GAO-03-515
GAO-04-1024
Oate
July 1992
September 2000
May 2002
April 2003
September 2004
We interviewed officials from various EPA offices, other Federal agencies, and six States. We
judgmentally selected the six States based on recommendations from OSWER and the
24
-------
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials. The following table lists
the EPA offices and other entities from which we interviewed officials.
|:|t|l;|l:lll^
j:if$6ijft^
EPA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Water
Office of Research and Development
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
Great Lakes National Program Office
Region 2
Region 5
Region 9
Region 10
Other Federal Agencies
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Department of the Navy
States
California
Kansas
New Jersey
Ohio
Virginia
Washington
Other
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
To evaluate whether available Federal authorities and resources provide effective solutions to the
challenges of contaminated sediments, we:
• Interviewed EPA officials to gain an understanding of national and regional office
activities regarding contaminated sediments; and contacted other Federal agencies, the
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, and State
officials to gain an understanding of their activities and coordination with EPA.
• Obtained and reviewed the Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy (1998),
Contaminated Sediments Action Plan (2002), OSWER's Contaminated Sediment
Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites (2005), OSWER's Principles for
Managing Contaminated Sediment Risks at Hazardous Waste Sites (2002), and
ORD's Contaminated Sites Multi-Year Research Plan.
• Reviewed interagency agreements, research lists, budget spreadsheets, EPA's National
Listing of Fish Advisory database, and Geographic Information System shapefiles.
• Requested and received lists of research project titles completed during Fiscal Years
2002-2005 from EPA and the other Federal agencies included in our review. We also
25
-------
conducted an online Web site search for research projects by the same agencies. We then
compiled and categorized a list of contaminated sediment research titles completed by
EPA and other Federal agencies during Fiscal Years 2002-2005.
• Judgmentally selected 13 Superfund and Superfund Alternative Sites from the
contaminated sediment sites in Regions 2, 5, and 9, and 1 Water Resources Development
Act site from each of the 3 regions. For each site, we reviewed site files and interviewed
remedial project managers regarding contaminated sediment activities to determine their
knowledge of the Strategy and their application of Agency guidance.
• Overlaid Geographic Information System shapefiles created from the National Sediment
Inventory and National Listing of Fish Advisory databases and analyzed the information
to determine any visual connections between the data We did not independently verify
the data we obtained from the two databases, and thus did not draw definitive conclusions
from the data.
To evaluate how EPA measures the effectiveness of the Strategy and what outcomes EPA has
achieved, we:
• Interviewed EPA officials to gain an understanding of measures used to evaluate the
effectiveness of contaminated sediment work.
• Reviewed EPA's Strategic Plan and Performance Reports.
• Obtained EPA's Contaminated Sediment Site Tracking Tool database and spreadsheets
and evaluated the information for completeness and potential to evaluate remedy
effectiveness.
To evaluate whether EPA has completely assessed the extent and severity of sediment
contamination in the United States, we:
• Interviewed OW staff to gain an understanding of processes and procedures used for the
National Sediment Inventory and the NSQS reports.
• Reviewed the 1997 and 2004 NSQS reports and the 1994 Framework for the
Development of the National Sediment Inventory.
• Identified major data gaps and the causes for gaps in the 2004 NSQS report.
• Evaluated the data acquisition process used for the 2004 NSQS report, but did not verify
the accuracy of the data used for the National Sediment Inventory and NSQS reports.
Our focus was to determine causes for reported coverage and quality issues with the data.
• Discussed EPA's plans to obtain an accurate assessment of the extent and severity of
contamination in the United States.
26
-------
Appendix B
Agency Response to Draft Report
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
'Pf:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Draft Evaluation Report: EPA Can Better Implement Its Strategy for Managing
Contaminated Sediments
Marcus Peacock
Carolyn Copper
Acting Assistant Inspector General
Office of Program Evaluation
Office of Inspector General
We appreciate the opportunity to farther respond to the draft report on the subject
evaluation, No. 2004-01 322. Specifically, we have added to our response to Recommendation 1
of the draft report.
Recommendation 1 (Report Recommendation 2-1): The Deputy Administrator
establishes a committee or designates an office to assume responsibility for the oversight and
evaluation of the Agency 's contaminated sediment management strategy. The designated office
or committee should ensure program offices with responsibilities for managing and addressing
contaminated sediment issues use the National Sediment Inventory as part of their decision
making processes, and ensure contaminated sediment issues are managed and addressed
through a cross~program approach, as intended by the Strategy, that places emphasis on
prevention and control of contaminated sediments. The designated office or committee should
update the Strategy to reflect accomplishments made on managing and addressing contaminated
sediments and incorporate additional actions that Agency program offices should take.
EPA intends to establish an intra-agency committee, by March 17, 2006, with the Office
of Water in the lead, to determine next steps on preventing and managing contaminated
sediments, and to develop an initial workplan within two months after the committee's
establishment. Further, we agree that it is time to revisit the 1998 Contaminated Sediment
Management Strategy. The Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy laid out a process for
preventing ecological and human health impairment by abating and controlling sources of
sediment contamination and remediating currently contaminated sediments. Since the time when
the Strategy was published, EPA has undertaken a number of actions to measure, control and
reduce discharges and emissions of contaminants to the environment. One measure of our
success in addressing this issue is with state-issued fish advisories. The great majority of these
advisories are due to either mercury, which we are now regulating both the direct discharge into
27
-------
water and the deposition from air sources, or chemicals that we have banned. Another measure
is in the tons of toxic pollutants that have been removed from the environment through both
technological and water quality-based controls instituted through the NPDES permit program.
As a result, we believe we should first assess the degree to which EPA's actions have achieved
the goal of the Strategy before restarting activities that were covered under the Strategy. In
addition, we believe we should focus attention on emerging contaminants which are now
becoming of concern due to their potential to adversely affect human health and the
environment In this way, EPA can work more effectively to prevent new contamination of me
environment, including sediments.
If your staff would like to discuss these additions, please have them contact Doreen Vetter (202-
564-1509) in the Office of the Administrator.
28
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
DSfiinY ADMINISTRATOR
JAN 09 2005
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Draft Evaluation Report: EPA Can Better Implement Its Strategy for Managing
Contaminated Sediments
FROM: Marcus Peacock
TOi Carolyn Copper
Acting Assistant Inspector General
Office of Program Evaluation
Office of Inspector General
Thank you for your memo dated November 17,2005, transmitting the draft report on the
subject evaluation, No. 2004-01322. We appreciate your careful and thoughtful study of EPA's
actions regarding contaminated sediments, specifically with respect to implementing the 1998
Contaminated Sediments Strategy, and we appreciate the opportunity to respond to the draft
report's specific recommendations. In addition, we suggest some additional clarifications to the
draft report in an attachment to this memo.
Recommendation 1 (Report Recommendation 2-1): The Deputy Administrator
establishes a committee or designates an office to assume responsibility for the oversight and
evaluation of the Agency's contaminated sediment management strategy. The designated office
or committee should ensure program offices with responsibilities for managing and addressing
contaminated sediment issues use the National Sediment Inventory as part of their decision
making processes, and ensure contaminated sediment issues are managed and addressed
through a cross-program approach, as intended by the Strategy, that places emphasis on
prevention and control of contaminated sediments.
We believe that it is time to revisit the!998 Contaminated Sediment Management
Strategy. The Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy laid out a process for preventing
ecological and human health impairment by abating and controlling sources of sediment
contamination and remediating currently contaminated sediments. Since the time when the
Strategy was published, EPA has undertaken a number of actions to measure, control and reduce
discharges and emissions of contaminants to the environment. One measure of our success in
addressing this issue is with state-issued fish advisories. The great majority of these advisories
are due to either mercury, which we are now regulating both the direct discharge into water and
the deposition from air sources, or chemicals that we have banned. Another measure is in the
tons of toxic pollutants that have been removed from the environment through both technological
and water quality-based controls instituted through the NPDES permit program. As a result, we
29
-------
believe we should first assess the degree to which EPA's actions have achieved the goal of the
Strategy before restarting activities that were covered under the Strategy. In addition, we believe
we should focus attention on emerging contaminants which are now becoming of concern due to
their potential to adversely affect human health and the environment. In this way, EPA can work
more effectively to prevent new contamination of the environment, including sediments.
Recommendation 2 (Report Recommendation 2-2): The Assistant Administrator for
Water and the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response collaborate
with other program offices with responsibilities under the Contaminated Sediment Management
Strategy to develop and implement comprehensive and coordinated performance measures for
preventing, assessing, and remediating contaminated sediment issues.
We agree to look at our performance measures with respect to contaminated sediments as
part of developing a new Agency Strategic Plan. The overall goal of EPA's current strategic
plan is to prevent ecological and human health impairment. We do have indicators for meeting
this overall goal that reflect the integration of all stressors, including sediments. For example,
the current strategic plan includes sub-objective 2.2.1 which aligns pollution prevention and
restoration approaches to increase the number of watersheds where water quality standards are
met in at least 80% of the assessed water segments. To the extent that contaminated sediments
impair water quality standards, this sub-objective provides an integrated measure of achieving
the overall objective for addressing contaminated sediments, which is preventing ecological and
human health impairments.
Recommendation 3 (Report Recommendation 2-3): The Assistant Administrator for
Water evaluates and reports on the need to develop numerical sediment quality criteria to assist
in the ranking of sites needing further assessment, target hot spots within an area for
remediation, and serve as a partial basis for the development of State sediment quality
standards.
In response to EPA's previous Contaminated Sediments Management Strategy developed
in 1994, EPA published several chemical-specific sediment benchmarks to provide guidance to
Regions, States and the regulated community in assessing risk to aquatic organisms from
sediment contamination. These are called the Equilibrium-partitioning Sediment Benchmarks
(ESBs) and are available for the following chemicals or chemical mixtures: 1) Non-ionic
organics; 2) Dieldrin; 3) Endrin; 4) Metal mixtures (Cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, silver, and
zinc); and 5) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) mixtures.
EPA supports the use of these ESBs to characterize the extent of sediment contamination
in a particular area. The 1998 Strategy included the development of sediment criteria and EPA
will continue to evaluate the need for additional sediment assessment measurements, such as
ESBs and criteria, within the context of competing priorities and available resources.
Recommendation 4 (Report Recommendation 2-4): The Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response uses the watershed approach, including concepts from the
30
-------
Urban Rivers Restoration Initiative, at National Priorities List sites with contaminated sediments
where appropriate.
We recommend that the recommendation be revised to say "consider using" rather that
"use." We endorse the cross-programmatic watershed approach as an effective means to
evaluate, remediate and restore impacted watersheds at some selected sites that are of high
priority. This approach has not been widely used at NPL sites to date but does show merit at
some locations. However, due to the resources needed to implement this approach, it cannot be
adopted readily at most NPL sites at this time. The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) has worked with the Office of Water (OW) and Region 8 to draft a new
guidance: Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds. This manual provides
guidance on how to integrate assessment and cleanup activities across programs in order to
optimize available toots and resources that can be used to restore and/or remediate contaminated
waterbodies efficiently and effectively. OSWER and OW are also working together to develop
training for Regional staff that may be involved in watershed cleanups. This training should
facilitate the development and use of many of the approaches and tools described in the manual
such as Watershed Cleanup Project Manager and the Comprehensive Preliminary Watershed
Assessment. The use of this approach in priority watersheds should result in significant
opportunities for streamlining and reducing the final cost of cleanup, restoration, and
redevelopment, resulting in cleaner watersheds for beneficial use.
Recommendation 5 (Report Recommendation 2-5): The Assistant Administrator far
Solid Waste and Emergency Response continues working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
to expand the use of Water Resources Development Act funding for additional contaminated
sediment National Priorities List sites to provide more comprehensive evaluations and
resolutions of contaminated sediment issues.
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, and Region 5 have set up a workgroup to resolve some of the issues
concerning the use of Water Resources Development Act funding to facilitate the evaluation and
remediation of contaminated sediments. Workgroup members have met with U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers staff several times and will continue to do so until the key issues are resolved.
Recommendation 6 (Report Recommendation 2-6): The Assistant Administrator for
Research and Development -works -with the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response to develop and Implement a process that ensures effective communication
between the offices on contaminated sediment research priorities and status of research
products. In addition, develop a system that provides the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response and other potential users with easy access to all completed contaminated sediment
research projects.
We believe that the Office of Research and Development (ORD) has an effective process in
place for OSWER to communicate research priorities. Through the Land Research Coordination
Team activities, annual progress reviews with OSWER, meetings with OSWER staff on specific
31
-------
research activities, and meetings between ORD and OSWER Deputy Assistant Administrators,
ORD has created avenues for OSWER to communicate its research needs. A recent example of
ORD responsiveness to OSWER's highest priority research needs occurred during 2005. ORD
received OSWER's research priorities at the March 2005 progress review, and input from the
regional workgroup was received in September 2005. Five regional workgroups were formed to
review research needs and the current ORD research program. The regional workgroup for
sediments, which included an OSWER representative, concluded that ORD is addressing the
highest priority research needs identified by the regional workgroup.
The recommendation concerning the communication of research products specific to
contaminated sediments is an important point, and we will discuss ways to address this need.
The issue of easy access to completed projects is also an important one, for contaminated
sediments and other research projects, that is currently being discussed with the ORD
communication team.
Recommendation 7 (Report Recommendation 2-7); The Assistant Administrator for
Research and Development, in coordination with other affected Federal agencies, develops and
implements a plan thai ensures collaboration and coordination between EPA and other Federal
agencies on research activities. At a minimum, the plan should ensure that research is not
duplicated by the agencies and that Federal resources are leveraged through coordinated
research efforts that meet the needs of multiple agencies.
We request this recommendation be changed as follows: "Continue collaboration and
communication efforts with other federal agencies to ensure: (1) coordination of research
activities; (2) research is not duplicated by other agencies; and (3) federal resources are
leveraged through coordinated research efforts that meet the needs of multiple agencies."
These voluntary activities will be accomplished through the following:
- Collaborate with the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
(SERDP) Council, Executive Working Group, and various technical panels to identify
research needs and evaluate proposals;
- Finalize the Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and the U.S. Navy (USN);
- Work with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and the Technical Advisory Committee for National Sediment
Inventory on planning and review of inventory-led activities;
• Collaborate with USAGE, NOAA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW), states, and
the Contaminated Aquatic Sediment Remedial Guidance Workgroup to develop EPA
guidance;
- Partner with states, USN, USACE, and the Industry on Interstate Technology and
Research Council (ITRC) to develop state guidance; and
- Collaborate with USACE, NOAA, the State of South Carolina, private firms, the
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, and the State of California Sediment
32
-------
Quality Objective Scientific Steering Committee to advise the state in the development of
sediment guidelines."
ORD is working with OSWER on a Memorandum of Understanding with the US Army
Corps of Engineers and US Navy to address issues in this recommendation. ORD has more than
ten workgroup and task force level activities with various Federal agencies on aspects of
contaminated sediments. ORD would be interested in further discussions with the Office of
Inspector General on their search of federal agency publications on sediments to evaluate
agencies involved in research on sediments in addition to those performing biological surveys.
Recommendation 8 (Report Recommendation 3-1): The Assistant Administrator for
Water develops and implements a plan for future NSQS reports that, consistent with the Water
Resources Development Act, provides a comprehensive national assessment of the extent and
severity of contaminated sediments. At a minimum the design should:
a. Use a statistical sampling approach as the basis for assessing the national extent and
severity of contaminated sediments. Statistical sampling may be used in conjunction
with existing data for the national assessment as a cost savings alternative.
b. Improve the completeness and availability of sample location information
(metadata), quality assurance/quality control information, and assessment
parameters for future NSQS reports.
c. Ensure that contaminated sediment data from all major sources, including the Great
Lakes National Program Office and Superfundprogram, are included in the
National Sediment Inventory and used for future NSQS reports. At a minimum,
establish a formal coordination process for acquiring contaminated sediment data
from EPA program offices and applicable agencies and organizations outside EPA.
Also, consider cost-effective options for acquiring and compiling contaminated
sediment data that is maintained in paper format.
We appreciate this recommendation. The Office of Water had conducted its own post-
report assessment of the 2004 National Sediment Quality Survey, and came to similar findings.
OW has included three projects in its 2006 work plan that addresses in part these findings. The
first is two workshops to be held to obtain input from stakeholders regarding the 2004 National
Sediment Quality Survey. These sessions are designed to gather ideas on how to improve the
next National Sediment Inventory data collection and analysis. The second is an outreach
program to encourage other entities with contaminated sediment data to enter that information
into STORET, which is OW's repository for water quality and sediment information. STORET
is also designed to store the metadata supporting contaminant measurements. By making better
use of STORET, OW will be able to improve the completeness of quality assurance metadata. In
addition, the outreach program is designed to obtain more information for the next National
Sediment Inventory. The third is to convert data from Superfund paper files into an electronic
format for inclusion in the next National Sediment Inventory. Under this project we will be
developing with OSWER a formal process for acquiring Superfund contaminated sediment data.
33
-------
We suggest, however, that the first sub-bullet in this recommendation be revised to
reflect data collection rather than sampling. OW does not interpret section 503(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (WRDA) to require EPA to sample sediments. The WRDA
requires EPA to conduct a comprehensive and continuing program to assess aquatic sediment
quality with specific minimum elements, but does not require sampling. We do see the merit in
developing a statistically-based study design to identify the waters where EPA should look for
available data, and if such data are available, EPA would be able to develop a statistically-based
national assessment of sediment contamination. OW will work with ORD to determine if such a
design can be developed.
Recommendation 9 (Report Recommendation 3-2): The Assistant Administrator for
Water determines a reporting frequency for the NSQS report that is both useful for decision
makers and achievable for EPA, discloses to Congress that EPA cannot meet the current
biennial reporting requirement specified by Section 503 of the Water Resources Development
Act, and provides Congress an alternative reporting schedule for consideration.
We appreciate this recommendation. As part of the workshops described above, OW
plans to discuss the factors that affect how fast one might expect sediment contaminants to
change given historical pollution abatement controls and natural chemical and physical
processes. From this information and consultation with ORD fate and transport experts, OW
expects to be able to develop a reporting frequency that is more in line with anticipated changes
in sediment contaminant levels. With this information, OW will be able to develop an
alternative schedule for publishing the next report to Congress on sediment contamination.
Clarifications
The draft report covered a range of subjects related to implementation of programs to
address contaminated sediments. We identified and attached some clarifications that we ask you
to consider before issuing the report in final form. If your staff would like to review or discuss
these clarifications, please ask them to contact Jim Pendergast (202/566-0398) in the Office of
Science and Technology, Randy Wentsel (202/564-3214) in the Office of Research and
Development, or Steven Els (703-603-8822) in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response.
Attachment
34
-------
ATTACHMENT
Clarifications to Draft Report
At the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3, the report should state that EPA has issued
Records of Decisions (RODs) for 60 Tier 1 sites, and clarify that we have not estimated the cost
for any of the ten Tier 2 sites, as no remedies have been proposed for these sites, There are
approximately 50 additional sites without RODs that may be classified as Tier 1 sites in the
future. We don't think the report needs to talk specifically about the Tier 2 CSTAG sites; they
are a subset of the other potential 50 Tier 1 sites.
ChapterZ
The second bullet on page 5 implies that program offices did not coordinate any of their
activities. There has been some coordination at the headquarters level and substantial
coordination in the Regions at some Superfund sites. This statement should be modified to
reflect this.
The last bullet on page 5 lists the Draft Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for
Hazardous Waste Sites. The guidance was finalized so the text should be changed to reflect the
final guidance.
The following two bullets should be added to the bottom of page 5 to reflect additional efforts
that OSWCR has taken to make progress in managing contaminated sediments:
• OSWER sponsored or co-sponsored several national meetings on characterizing and
managing contaminated sediment.
• OSWER developed and delivered the training course Sediment Remediation: Technical
Considerations for Evaluating and Implementing Dredging and Capping Remedies to
Federal and State personnel in four EPA Regional Offices.
Table 2.1, on page 6, implies that the Superfund program intended to use the National Sediment
Inventory (NSI) to identify sediment sites for consideration for remedial action. The following is
the actual language on page 26 of the Strategy:
OERR [now OSRTFJ intends to identify sites with contaminated sediments so that they
can be added to the NSI, and to review high priority contamination sites identified in the
inventory. These sites can become candidates for assessment under CERCLA. This
assessment may include evaluation with the Hazardous Ranking System, which is used to
identify sites that may warrant long-term clean-up under the Superfund program."
The OIG report should be revised to clarify that it was never the Superfund program's intent to
use the NSI data as a stand alone tool to identify those sites that may need to be remediated.
35
-------
Typically, our state partners identify potential Superfund sites to EPA for further evaluation.
EPA then screens these sites using the Hazard Ranking System (MRS). The HRS is a National
Contingency Plan (NCP) regulatory process specifically designed to evaluate the relative
potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances to pose a threat. If the HSR evaluation indicates
a she is eligible for listing, EPA must go through a rule-making to add the site to the NPL. All
these steps in the process are required before a site can be remediated under CERCLA.
On page 7, first fall paragraph, we suggest changing the sentence to state that at least one activity
used the National Sediment Inventory. In the 2004 Clean Water Act section 304(m) plan for
determining for which industrial categories to develop effluent guidelines, the Office of Water
did consider the then draft National Sediment Quality Survey and final 1997 National Sediment
Contaminant Point Source Inventory. See http://epa.gQy/guide/304rn/FactQrl .pdf. This is one
use of the contaminated sediment information as envisioned by the Contaminated Sediment
Management Strategy.
On page 8, second paragraph under the "Activities Not Coordinated" heading, first sentence, we
suggest changing the sentence to state that some related activities were collaborated upon or
coordinated. For example, OW, ORD and OSWER did coordinate in the development and
release of the Contaminated Sediments Action Plan in June 2002. This plan reflected the goals
of the 1998 Contaminated Sediments Management Strategy and the 2001 National Academy of
Sciences recommendations, and laid out how EPA would report on our current activities and
accomplishments regarding contaminated sediments, and to serve as a tool for EPA senior
managers to closely coordinate our cross-program activities in the future. The actions by each
office to carryout the Action Plan reflect collaboration and coordination, as did the actions each
office took to carryout its part of the Management Strategy.
Also, OW, OSWER and ORD collaborated in 2004 on a draft Contaminated Sediments Science
Plan to develop and coordinate Agency office- and region-wide science activities that affect
contaminated sediments. This draft plan identifies a number of instances where the offices
coordinated. This plan is another example of where the offices collaborated and coordinated on
a range of contaminated sediments issues. We suggest that the language on page 8 reflect these
activities.
On page 9, the heading states "ORD Has Not Met High Priority Research Needs or Effectively
Coordinated Research." We request the heading be changed to: "Communication and
Coordination Can Be Improved." ORD believes that it has been responsive to OSWER's highest
priority research needs, as described the response to recommendation 2-6.
On page 9, paragraph 1, the first line, the draft report states that "ORD's research activities have
not fully met OSWER's needs for contaminated sediments." We request this sentence be
deleted. ORD believes that OSWER's needs have been met, as described the response to
recommendation 2-6.
36
-------
On page 9, paragraph 1, last line, the draft report states that "In addition, OS WER officials said
they could not determine whether their priorities were being met by ORD [sic] because an
effective communication process had not been established between the two offices." We request
this sentence be deleted While perhaps the opinion of some OS WER officials, ORD believes
this statement is not supported by factual evidence. Throughout the year, OS WER has several
opportunities to determine whether priorities are being met and to discuss changes in the research
program. Progress on current research occurs through seminars, involvement in laboratory
implementation plans, planning meetings at the laboratories, and the annual progress review.
Additional opportunities for interaction occur through the Land Research Coordination Team
and the meeting of the OS WER and ORD Deputy Assistant Administrators.
On page 9, paragraph 3, first line, the draft report states that "Also, ORD's completed research is
not readily accessible to OSWER and the regions." We request the following change to this
portion of the draft report: "Opportunities exist for ORD to make its completed research more
readily accessible to OSWER and the regions." ORD agrees that improvement opportunities
exist for developing a set of easily accessible, media-specific web sites. We are already
beginning work to make our completed research more accessible.
On page 9, paragraph 4, First line, the draft report states that "Further, ORD has not fully
coordinated its research activities with other Federal agencies that conduct research addressing
contaminated sediment issues." We request the following change to this portion of the draft
report: "Further, opportunities exist for ORD to better coordinate its research activities with
other Federal agencies that conduct research addressing contaminated sediment issues." A
previous comment describes ongoing coordination and collaboration with other Federal agencies.
Development of the Memorandum of Understanding cited above will make coordination more
formal and visible.
On page 12, second paragraph under the "Primary Causes" heading, third sentence, please
change the 2001 date to 2002. The last meeting of the Steering Committee occurred in the fall of
2002.
On page 17, first bullet, paragraph under the "Assessment Incomplete" heading, we suggest
changing the characterization of the bullet to "non-random data collection." OW does not
interpret section 503(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (WRDA) to require
EPA to sample sediments. The WRDA requires EPA to conduct a comprehensive and
continuing program to assess aquatic sediment quality with specific minimum elements. As
such, we suggest that the text of this bullet be revised to reflect collection of information rather
than sampling.
On pages 17 and 18, we suggest changing the statements about excluding metadata to statements
that say metadata was not included. OW did not decide to exclude metadata. Rather, OW did
not include metadata because OW was not able to obtain alt metadata from all sources.
37
-------
»sr •%&<.:•*: •• • * •«.•'%' f -" * • ••?
S K2*¥f^| .f!f|
NX '-" O '^i^^y^if^-i?'''''''^^-
-;-^..:,:^,, >3^ - r"T:ii|^
••':;. . :. .._. ., *x .- ,-'.X-'i ..sS f-i \/'' '^J^- '^'i'' "T'^"S
;,,,.. I :^Sf M|P"^":^'•'-%'
"••- I...., _,"'s YV, « WyyJ!-/ "V-Xj > .,..**,.
X'T rFZf&rfr • x• ^fflste
Vv, < 1*^?: .,:•>;.-:> * ^ , -/^
(•*%•>:•!•:•:•
..«J '••
Legend
|| Areas of Probable Concern
— Fish Advisories
/; Statewide Fish Advisories
N
.J^E
300
600 Miles
I
Map compiled by EPA OIG in October 2005
from data obtained from the 2004 NSI and
National Listing of Fish Advisories.
I
c/>' 3
3- a>
^
-------
Appendix D
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Deputy Administrator
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Assistant Administrator for Water
Assistant Administrator for Research and Development
Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
Agency Followup Official
Agency Followup Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of the Administrator
Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Water
Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Research and Development
Acting Inspector General
39
------- |