Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Inspector
General
Evaluation Report
EPA Needs to Take More Action in
Implementing Alternative
Approaches
To Superfund Cleanups
Report No. 2007-P-00026
June 6, 2007

-------
^tDsrx
* && \
Wj
P»0^°
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Evaluation Report
EPA Needs to Take More Action in
Implementing Alternative Approaches
to Superfund Cleanups
Report No. 2007-P-00026
June 6, 2007

-------
Report Contributors:	Carolyn Copper
Tina Lovingood
Barry Parker
Katherine Beam
Kalpana Ramakrishnan
Abbreviations
CERCLIS	Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System, also known as the "Superfund Information System"
EPA	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GPRA	Government Performance and Results Act
HRS	Hazard Ranking System
NACEPT	National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy,and Technology
NAM	National Association of Manufacturers
NPL	National Priorities List
NRD	Natural Resources Damages
OCPL	Office of Congressional and Public Liaison
OECA	Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OGC	Office of General Counsel
OIG	Office of Inspector General
OMB	Office of Management and Budget
OPE	Office of Program Evaluation
OSRE	Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
OSRTI	Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
OSWER	Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PRP	Potentially Responsible Party
RSD	Regional Support Division
SA	Superfund Alternative
SAS	Superfund Alternative Sites
SPIM	Superfund Program Implementation Manual
SSP	Superfund Settlements Project
TAP	Technical Assistance Plan
Cover photo: The Tremont City Landfill is located near Springfield, Ohio, and includes a
barrel fill area of about 50,000 buried drums which contain a variety of
industrial wastes, bulk liquids, and sludges. Several companies have agreed to
clean up the site under EPA's Superfund Alternative Sites approach.
Pictured are workers conducting Phase I remedial investigation activities.
Photo courtesy of EPA Region 5, taken by Ohio EPA and CH2M Hill, Inc.

-------
vSt;
rAN
PRO"^
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
2007-P-00026
June 6, 2007
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Review
We evaluated the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Superfund
Alternative (SA) sites
approach. This approach is
designed to help achieve
EPA's strategic goal of
cleaning up hazardous waste
sites.
Background
Since the 1980s, EPA has used
variations of the SA approach
to clean up Superfund
National Priorities List (NPL)
equivalent hazardous waste
sites. The SA approach is an
alternative to listing sites on
the NPL. The NPL is a list of
the Nation's highest priority
Superfund sites. Recent
reviews have reported
problems in EPA's managing
and implementing the SA
approach.
EPA Needs to Take More Action in
implementing Alternative Approaches to
Superfund Cleanups
What We Found
EPA has not implemented effective management tools or controls for the SA
approach. For example, (1) EPA has not finalized the universe of SA sites, (2) it
does not have controls over designating SA sites in Superfund information
systems or documenting hazard assessments for SA sites, and (3) it only measures
results at SA sites for one of six Superfund cleanup measures. Until EPA
addresses these limits in management controls and makes these controls more
transparent, it cannot demonstrate outcomes and results of the SA approach.
These limits impede EPA's ability to make informed decisions about the merits
of, or need for, the approach. EPA also has not provided the public reasonable
assurance that SA sites rise to the level of NPL sites.
In the recent past, EPA has been criticized for mismanaging the SA approach.
External parties (including parties that participate in the SA approach) and an
internal EPA study report problems with the approach. These problems are likely
to continue until EPA addresses internal Agency recommendations to improve the
consistency and transparency of the approach. It is also likely to continue until
EPA addresses other management control weaknesses and develops a
communication strategy. This strategy should inform the public about SA sites,
the benefits of the SA approach, and community involvement opportunities at SA
sites. EPA had recognized improvements were necessary and is working to make
the approach more transparent and consistent.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional and Public
Liaison at (202) 566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2007/
20070606-2007-P-00026.pdf
What We Recommend
We recommend EPA track and report cleanup progress at SA sites, and improve
its communications, information, and transparency about the SA approach. EPA
generally concurred with the majority of the recommendations. However, it did
not provide sufficient information to describe how or when it would implement
them. The Agency will need to provide sufficient information on its actions to
address OIG recommendations within 90 days.

-------
^tosrx
PROl*-
&	\	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
»	S	WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
V "
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
June 6, 2007
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
EPA Needs to Take More Action in Implementing Alternative Approaches
to Superfund Cleanups
Report No. 2007-P-00026
/
/
Wade T. Najjum ''	*
Assistant Inspector General y0
Office of Program Evaluation
TO:
Granta Nakayama
Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Susan Parker Bodine
Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe
the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. The OIG
responded to the Agency's draft report comments by making changes to the report and providing
responses to EPA, as appropriate. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not
necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this report will
be made by EPA managers in accordance with established resolution procedures.
The estimated cost of this report - calculated by multiplying the project's staff days by the
applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time - is $580,283.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this
report within 90 calendar days. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance should
coordinate EPA comments on this report and provide a consolidated response. Your response
should include a corrective action plan including milestone dates. Please email an electronic

-------
version of your response that complies with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act to Tina
Lovingood at lovingood.tina@epa.gov. We have no objections to the further release of this
report to the public. This report will be available at http://www.epa.gov/oig.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Carolyn Copper,
Director for Program Evaluation, Hazardous Waste Issues, at 202-566-0829 or
conper.carolvn@cna.gov: or Tina Lovingood, Project Manager, at 202-566-2906 or
lovingood.tina@epa.gov.

-------
EPA Needs to Take More Action in Implementing
Alternative Approaches to Superfund Cleanups
Table of Contents
Chapters
1	Introduction		1
Purpose		1
Background		1
Scope and Methodology		3
Prior and Ongoing Reviews		3
Noteworthy Achievements		3
2	EPA Lacks Reliable Information on the
Superfund Alternative (SA) Sites Approach		5
EPA Does Not Have a Baseline Universe		5
EPA Lacks Specific Guidance on Designating Superfund Alternative
(SA) Sites in the Superfund Information System		5
EPA Has No Guidance That Defines Criteria for "Adequate"
Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation		5
Recommendations		6
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation		7
3	EPA Is Inconsistent in Measuring Results		8
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
Does Not Track and Report All Cleanup Measures at SA Sites		8
Recommendations				10
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation		10
4	EPA Has Not Addressed Inconsistencies in Implementing the
SA Approach		11
EPA Has Not Taken Action on Sharing Site Assessment and
HRS Information		11
Recommendations		12
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation		13
5	EPA Has No Communication Strategy on the SA Approach		14
Public Information on the SA Approach Is Limited and Inconsistent		14
Recommendations		15
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation		16
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits		17

-------
EPA Needs to Take More Action in Implementing
Alternative Approaches to Superfund Cleanups
A	Hazard Ranking System (HRS) 				18
B	Details on Scope and Methodology			19
C	The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and
Superfund Performance Measures		20
D	Additional Perspectives on the SA Approach	 		21
E	Agency Comments on Draft Report and OIG Evaluation			23
F	Distribution		38

-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
We sought to determine whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has created an alternative process within the Superfund program that
achieves EPA's strategic objectives of cleaning up hazardous waste sites. We
addressed the following questions:
•	Does EPA have reliable management information (such as a published
universe of sites that meet Superfund Alternative Sites (SAS) criteria and
have verifiable Hazard Ranking System (HRS) scores) to measure the
progress of SAS cleanups and that is easily understood by the public and
other interested stakeholders? (See Chapter 2.)
•	What strategic goals do SAS activities help EPA accomplish? Do SAS
activities meet EPA objective 3.2.2 (cleanup and reuse contaminated land)
or objective 3.2.3 (maximize Potentially Responsible Party (PRP)
participation at Superfund sites), or both? Does EPA have metrics to
measure progress on SAS activities? If so, what are the measures? (See
Chapter 3.)
•	What activities or issues did the 120-Day Study team identify as
"inconsistent" among regions using the SA approach? What is EPA doing
to address these issues? (See Chapter 4.)
•	Has EPA communicated to the public, participants, and other stakeholders
a clear and consistent message defining the SA approach and the expected
benefits of using the SA approach? (See Chapter 5.)
Background
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
established the Superfund program in 1980. Superfund is the Federal
Government's program to clean up the Nation's uncontrolled and/or abandoned
hazardous waste sites. EPA addresses the highest priority sites by listing them on
the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). The primary method for listing
sites on the NPL is with the HRS. The HRS is a screening tool that uses
information from limited investigations to assess the relative potential of sites to
pose a threat to human health or the environment (see Appendix A for more HRS
information).
1

-------
Since the 1980s, the Superfund program has been using alternative approaches to
clean up hazardous waste sites that had the potential to be listed on the NPL, but
were not listed. Prior to 2002, EPA called these sites NPL equivalent. In the late
1990s, or early 2000, the Agency started designating more than 200 sites as NPL
equivalent in Superfund information systems. EPA first issued guidance on
Superfund alternative cleanup approaches in 2002. The 2002 guidance changed
the name of NPL equivalent sites to Superfund Alternative (SA) sites. EPA
issued revised SAS guidance in 2004. Although EPA has not released a list of
final SA sites, an April 2004 National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy
and Technology (NACEPT) report indicated that 109 SA sites accounted for $227
million in Superfund expenditures between Fiscal Years (FY) 1983 and 2003.1
Current EPA guidance identifies several characteristics of SA sites. They include:
•	Sites that meet the criteria to be listed on the NPL.
•	Sites where viable and agreeable PRPs enter into enforceable agreements
with EPA to perform site studies and/or cleanup work.
•	Sites that are treated in accordance with the practices normally followed at
NPL sites.
•	Sites with agreements that contain one or more of the following
provisions:
o PRP-funded technical assistance for the community;
o Financial assurance mechanisms to protect work continuity and
assure completion of site work;
o An agreement not to challenge NPL listing after partial cleanup;
and
o An agreement of the applicable statute of limitations for Natural
Resource Damages (NRD) claims.
Over the last 3 years, multiple recommendations have been made to improve or
terminate the SA approach.
•	The April 2004 NACEPT report recommended that the SA approach
remain a small pilot program until EPA gathered a broad range of
perspectives on the value and limitations of the approach. The Council
also recommended that an independent body produce, for public review
and comment, a report describing the extent and performance of the SA
approach and its compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
1 NACEPT, Final Report, April 12, 2004. According to EPA staff, the S227 million includes expenditures before
the SAS guidance was issued and removal expenditures, which are not covered under the SAS guidance. It also
includes some expenditures on non-SAS portions of sites. However, because EPA issued the first SAS guidance in
June 2002, and expended S13 million on 109 SA sites in FY 2003, FY 2003 expenditures were made during a period
where guidance on SAS existed.
2

-------
•	An April 2004 internal EPA report (120-Day Study) recommended
improvements in the consistency of implementing the SA approach. It
also recommended that EPA prioritize SA sites along with NPL sites.2
•	As reported by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in their
2004 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal
Regulations, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
recommended that EPA terminate the SA approach.3
In response to recommendations and comments on the SA approach, the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) is now completing an internal
study to define a universe of sites, evaluate outcomes and implementation of this
approach, and study concerns raised by stakeholders. OSWER and OECA
coauthored the relevant guidance documents and share responsibilities for
implementing the SA approach. OECA helps regions with settlement negotiation
issues and evaluates the SA approach. OSWER maintains EPA's database and
performs the same functions for SA sites as for NPL sites. These functions
include reviewing cleanup documents and performing 5-year reviews.
Scope and Methodology
We complied with the Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller
General of the United States. We performed our fieldwork from June 2005
through July 2006. See Appendix B for additional details on Scope and
Methodology.
Prior and Ongoing Reviews
We reviewed the three reports that address aspects of the implementation and
effectiveness of the SA approach.4 We also regularly coordinated with OECA to
determine progress on their ongoing internal review.
Noteworthy Achievements
In response to recommendations and comments on the SA approach, OECA is
completing an internal study to define a universe of SA sites, evaluate outcomes
and implementation of the SA approach, and study concerns raised by
stakeholders. EPA has also recognized the need and is working to improve the
SA approach to make it more transparent and consistent. During our review,
some PRPs we spoke with reported on their positive experiences with the SA
approach. These experiences include reduced overhead and oversight costs due to
2	EPA, Superfund: Building on the Past, Looking into the Future, April 22, 2004. This study is also referred to as the
120-Day Study.
3	OMB, Progress in Regulatory Reform: 2004 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations
and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities, 2004. NAM is an organization of federally regulated
companies, some of which are PRPs at Superfund sites and are potentially impacted by Superfund regulations or
SAS practices.
4	(1) EPA, 120-Day Study, (2) OMB, Progress in Regulatory Reform', and (3) NACEPT, Final Report.
3

-------
the streamlined process, and knowledgeable and flexible EPA staff. See
Appendix D for details.
4

-------
Chapter 2
EPA Lacks Reliable Information on the Superfund
	Alternative (SA) Sites Approach	
EPA lacks reliable management information because it has not managed this
approach with the necessary controls required to achieve desired outcomes.
Without a baseline universe of sites or consistent procedures for identifying sites
in CERCLIS5, EPA has not been able to generally assess progress or demonstrate
benefits of the SA approach. Consequently, EPA has also not been able to
communicate results to the public or make informed decisions about the full
merits of the approach. Without guidance on documenting "adequate" SAS
hazard ranking scores, EPA does not have controls to prevent the use of
potentially incorrect scoring methods. The lack of these controls can lead to
waste or inappropriate use of Superfund resources, and can lead some PRPs and
other stakeholders to question the SA approach.
EPA Does Not Have a Baseline Universe
Since April 2005, EPA has been attempting to determine the universe of SA sites
that meets eligibility criteria. However, it has not yet finalized or released the
universe. Knowing the baseline is key to determining costs of SA sites, tracking
their progress, and measuring and communicating results to the public. These
activities allow EPA to make informed decisions about the merits of the approach.
EPA Lacks Specific Guidance on Designating Superfund Alternative (SA) Sites in
the Superfund Information System
EPA lacks specific guidance on when to designate (flag) SA sites in the
Superfund information system (CERCLIS). Consequently, according to EPA's
SAS evaluation Team Leader: "...all regions handle it [designation of SA sites in
CERCLIS] differently." Lack of guidance and unilateral decisionmaking can
result in designations that are inconsistent with guidance and generate poor
quality data on the SAS universe. EPA's SAS evaluation Team Leader
acknowledges that flagging a SA site in CERCLIS is a "major issue." The Team
Leader is looking at this issue as part of its ongoing evaluation of the SA
approach. In response to our draft report, EPA stated its evaluation report will
recommend flagging specific SA agreements.
EPA Has No Guidance That Defines Criteria for "Adequate" Hazard Ranking
System (HRS) Documentation
According to current SAS guidance, if it becomes necessary to propose an SA site
to the NPL, EPA should have "adequate documentation" supporting an HRS score
5 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System.
5

-------
of 28.5 or higher. However, the guidance lacks definitions or criteria for
"adequate." OECA has recognized this lack as a problem. During its ongoing
internal review, OECA discovered that 13 SA sites initially designated by regions
do not score 28.5 or higher. OECA determined this situation was due to
inconsistent regional HRS scoring methods that were not equally reliable because
of the level of detail needed for some but not others. In addition, the Agency has
not designated a consistent scoring method that is acceptable and reliable for
designating a SA site. Consistent and reliable documentation of HRS scores at SA
sites is an internal control to ensure compliance with the SAS guidance and
approach.
In the recent past, some PRPs have criticized EPA for wrongly designating SA
sites because they were not believed to meet the hazard ranking criteria. If EPA
does not define "adequate documentation" using a consistent method to support
SAS HRS scores, it does not have control over the use of potentially less reliable
scoring methods. Where less, reliable scoring methods are used, it can lead to
waste or inappropriate use of Superfund resources. EPA cannot address
transparency concerns that led to the SA approach being characterized as "subject
to abuse." It also cannot assure PRPs that SA sites rise to the level of an NPL
site.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance and the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response collaborate to:
2-1 Publish a universe of SA sites that meets the SAS eligibility
criteria and are designated SA sites and regularly update the list as
the universe changes.
2-2 Develop specific instructions on when to use the SA designation
(e.g., for sites or agreements) and update the Superfund Program
Implementation Manual (SPIM) accordingly. The instructions
should include provisions that state the SAS flag should not be
removed even if the site is deleted, cleaned up, or proposed for the
NPL, so that controls over documentation of SA sites are
maintained.
2-3 Establish and direct Regions to use a consistent HRS scoring
method that is acceptable and reliable for designating a Superfund
Alternative site. At minimum, documentation on the score should
be verifiable.
6

-------
Agency Comments and OiG Evaluation
The OIG made changes to the report based on the Agency's comments where
appropriate. Appendix E provides the full text of the Agency comments and OIG
response.
The Agency partially concurred with Recommendations 2-1 and 2-2. However,
the proposed actions are not acceptable because EPA did not provide details to
describe how and when it will implement the recommendations. Within 90 days,
the Agency needs to provide details (as described in Appendix E) on these actions
as well as milestones for completing corrective actions.
The Agency disagreed with Recommendation 2-3, claiming that no actions were
necessary since criteria in "40 CFR Part 300 Appendix A" were sufficient. We do
not believe the Agency's position addresses the causes underlying the OIG
recommendation because EPA has not implemented controls to prevent the use of
potentially less reliable scoring methods by the regions. We consider the
recommendation unresolved. The OIG found that regions were using various,
sometimes unreliable, methods for generating HRS scores, at a time when "40
CFR Part 300 Appendix A" criteria existed. Therefore, past EPA experience
indicates that simple awareness of the CFR criteria is not sufficient to ensure that
regions use a reliable, acceptable, and verifiable HRS scoring method.
During its internal evaluation, OECA removed the SA designation from 13 sites
that did not score 28.5 or above and determined this removal was due to
inconsistent regional scoring methods. (Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
(OSRE) staff told us some of the methods regions used are more reliable than
others.) In response to our discussion draft, Agency staff stated that "The score
(while not necessarily exact prior to a full package) is verifiable with the basic
information that is fed into Quickscore, the pre-scoring tool supported by EPA
OSRTI [Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation] and
primarily used by EPA Regions today." Furthermore, EPA promotes the use of
Quickscore for use by PRPs in response to our draft report Recommendation 4-1.
Based on the Agency's comments, we revised the recommendation. Within 90
days, EPA will need to consider the revised Recommendation 2-3, provide details
(as described in Appendix E) on its actions to implement the recommendation,
and provide milestones for completing the actions.
7

-------
Chapter 3
EPA Is Inconsistent in Measuring Results
OSWER and OECA inconsistently measure results for SA sites. OSWER tracks
and reports only one of six cleanup activities or Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) measures at SA sites that it routinely reports for NPL sites.
In contrast, OECA tracks and reports all of the enforcement-related GPRA
measures at SA sites that it normally does at NPL sites. EPA's current SAS
guidance states that practices followed at SA sites should generally be the same as
those followed at NPL sites. Because OSWER decided not to track all cleanup
measures at SA sites, it is missing opportunities to demonstrate, or determine,
how SAS accomplishments contribute to Superfund strategic goals.
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Does Not Track
and Report All Cleanup Measures at SA Sites
OSWER only measures site assessments and final assessment decisions at SA
sites. OECA tracks and reports all relevant GPRA enforcement measures at SA
sites. Table 3-1 shows the GPRA measures that OSWER and OECA track and
report for SA and NPL sites (see Appendix C for details on GPRA and Superfund
performance measures). OSWER is contemplating measuring construction
completions at SA sites.
Table 3-1: GPRA Measures Tracked and Reported for NPL and SA Sites in FY 2007
Cleanup Measures (OSWER)
NPL Sites
SA Sites
Site assessments and final site
assessment decisions
s
~
Final remedy selection
s

Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse (new in FY
2007)
s

Construction complete
s

Human exposure under control
s

Contaminated groundwater migration
under control
s

Enforcement Measures (OECA)
NPL Sites
SA Sites
Reach settlement or take enforcement
action at 95% of sites with viable, liable
PRPs
S
~
Statute of limitations cases with
unaddressed past total costs > $200,000
s

Source: EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) analysis of EPA data.
8

-------
In FY 2004, the SPIM noted the importance of tracking results at SA sites.6 That
year, EPA added information to the SPIM about SA sites to ensure "accurate
reporting of work and appropriate credit to EPA regions for cleanup of non-NPL
sites [such as SA sites] as well as NPL sites." EPA's 120-Day Study also
encouraged program offices to track and report all cleanup progress at SA sites so
that all program accomplishments can be communicated to the public and
Congress.
We asked the Director of the Superfund Assessment and Remediation Division
why OSWER was not measuring all Superfund results at SA sites. The Director
referred us to a Superfund Team Leader who provided these reasons:
1)	Concerns about efficiency in tracking measures at SA sites;
2)	NACEPT concerns [NACEPT recommended EPA not integrate
performance data from SA sites when reporting progress at NPL sites7];
and
3)	Guidance from OMB which indicated fewer performance measures are
better.
In response to these concerns, we noted the following:
1)	EPA's SAS evaluation leader does not expect the SA approach to
become a big program. Therefore, tracking performance measures for a
small number of sites would not be burdensome. In addition, OSWER
does not have to implement new information systems to track
performance at SA sites. It already has the ability to track and report
Superfund performance measures through CERCLIS.
2)	EPA could generate separate performance reports for NPL and SA sites.
3)	Measuring the performance and outcomes at SA sites does not involve
more measures. Rather, it involves measuring the same activities that
EPA currently measures for NPL sites.
According to the OECA evaluation lead, the former Assistant Administrator for
OSWER committed to tracking construction completions at SA sites. However,
EPA has not updated the SPIM to indicate that regions should track and report
construction completion at SA sites. As of October 16, 2006, no SA sites had
achieved construction completion. By measuring and tracking all standard
cleanup measures at SA sites, OSWER can demonstrate the outcomes of
Superfund investments and provide an incentive to regions by more thoroughly
accounting for their performance.
6	The SPIM provides guidance and direction on how to achieve Superfund program goals and targets.
7	The Superfund Team Leader told us that NACEPT recommended EPA focus on NPL sites, when in fact NACEPT
stated that EPA should continue to expand its tracking system to other sites receiving Superfund dollars, and used
SA sites as an example.
9

-------
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response:
3-1 Track and report all Superfund GPRA measures at SA sites. This
includes construction completions, final remedy selection, human
exposure under control, migration of contaminated groundwater
under control, and sitewide ready-for-reuse. Report GPRA
measures at SA sites separately from GPRA measures at NPL
sites.
3-2 Revise applicable guidance, manuals, or directives to reflect that
these performance measures will be tracked and reported for SA
sites.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The OIG made changes to the report based on the Agency's comments where
appropriate. Appendix E provides the full text of the Agency comments and OIG
response.
The Agency generally concurred with Recommendation 3-1 and offered an
alternative for Recommendation 3-2, which we accept. However, EPA did not
provide sufficient information to describe how and when it would implement the
recommendations. Within 90 days, the Agency will need to provide details (as
described in Appendix E) on these actions as well as milestones for completing
the actions.
10

-------
Chapter 4
EPA Has Not Addressed Inconsistencies in
	implementing the SA Approach	'
EPA has not addressed the regional inconsistencies in implementing the SA
approach raised in the Agency's 120-Day Study. The study reported that regions
did not provide PRPs with consistent SAS criteria and transparent site assessment
information. These problems contributed to perceptions and allegations from
120-Day Study interviewees that the SA approach is "subject to abuse."
Continued inaction is likely to exacerbate concerns about EPA's fairness and
authority in implementing the SA approach. Some PRPs question EPA's
authority to request provisions in SAS. PRPs, and other stakeholders, may
continue to question the SA approach until EPA implements key management
controls to improve transparency.
EPA Has Not Taken Action on Sharing Site Assessment and HRS Information
OIG analysis shows that EPA's actions to address the 120-Day Study's
recommendation to share site assessment information have not been implemented
and, at best, are in progress. However, in June 2006, EPA reported that its actions
were complete. Table 4-1 shows the recommendation and EPA's response.
Table 4-1: 120-Day Study Recommendation on SA Approach and EPA's Response
120-Day Study Report, April 22, 2004
120-Day Study Action Plan Status, June 2006
Recommendation 25: "OSWER should
revise the Superfund Alternative Site
policy to ensure that criteria for being a
Superfund Alternative Site are uniform and
that the Regions provide the PRPs and
other interested parties with transparent
site assessment and pre-scoring
information. (Near term)"
"The revised SAS Guidance (signed 6/17/04)
clarifies the criteria that SAS agreements and
cleanups must meet, and encourages regions to
discuss the SA approach with PRPs prior to the
start of negotiations. The transmittal memo for the
revised SAS guidance commits to improving the
transparency of the SAS approach. We
(OSRE/OSRTI) [Office of Site Remediation and
Enforcement and the Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation] will be
working with the Regions on ways to enhance the
transparency of SAS designations. For example, a
model general notice letter was developed to send
to PRPs explaining the SA approach and the listing '
approach, and inviting them to participate as a SA
site. We are also working on improving the quality
of the SAS data in CERCLIS. In addition, the
forthcoming guidance on Technical Assistance
Plans (TAPs) includes ways to ensure that affected
communities are adequately informed about SA
site designations and opportunities for technical
assistance. Status: Complete"
Source: EPA, 120-Day Study, and June 2006 Action Plan Status.
11

-------
According to EPA, it issued the 2004 guidance and the January 2005 SAS general
notice letter template to address Recommendation 25. However, neither of these
documents addresses sharing HRS score documentation and site assessment
information. The letter contains only one sentence about the eligibility criteria for
SA approach: "EPA Region X believes the site qualifies for the SA approach."
In addition, the 2004 SAS guidance does not indicate how or what site assessment
information is to be shared with PRPs.
In June 2006, members of NAM and the Superfund Settlements Project (SSP)8
told us they were unaware of any changes that addressed the concerns about the
lack of transparency on SAS site assessments and HRS scores (see Appendix D
for more details). Specifically, two members confirmed that EPA had not
provided access to HRS scoring documents. Access to this information would
have allowed the PRP to assess site conditions, their potential liability, and
eligibility for SAS. Four of six SSP members did not believe their sites met the
eligibility criteria for listing on the NPL. In the absence of site assessment
information, they questioned whether their sites were appropriate for the SA
approach. Further, NAM recommended EPA terminate the SA approach. NAM
believes regions pursue site cleanups without regard to risk or a company's
accountability.
Some PRPs also raised some concerns about implementing the SA approach
which they characterized as due process issues. For example, NAM members
stated that the financial assurance requirements in the current guidance were more
stringent than for PRPs cleaning up NPL sites. According to NAM members, the
SAS community involvement requirements are greater than the NPL process.
NAM members also believe the provisions not to challenge NPL listing after
partial cleanup and to waive any time limitations defense for Natural Resource
Damages (NRD) claims are due process rights they have to give up under the SA
approach. The Agency provided documentation that it has the authority to request
the SAS provisions related to NPL listing, financial assurance, community
involvement, and waiver of NRD claims. Ln addition, the Agency's position is
that there is no requirement to have all of these provisions in a settlement
agreement and that private parties are not forced to sign agreements they find
unacceptable.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance and the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response collaborate, as needed, to:
4-1 Determine the complete list of site assessment information regions
can share with PRPs during SA site negotiations.
8 The Superfund Settlements Project is a group of companies representing various sectors of American industry
whose stated purpose is to improve the Superfund program. Some of these companies are also members of NAM.
12

-------
4-2 Revise the SAS general notice letter to include specific details
about how site assessment information should be shared with PRPs
during SA site negotiations. The revisions should include the
complete list of site assessment information (see recommendation
4-1).
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The OIG made changes to the report based on the Agency's comments where
appropriate. Appendix TTprovides the full text of the Agency comments and OIG
response.
The Agency partially disagreed with Recommendation 4-1 by stating that it had
taken action to address this recommendation. We disagreed that its action met the
intent of the recommendation to increase transparency and revised the
recommendation based on the Agency's response. EPA states ".. .Regions can
provide PRPs with site assessment reports, such as the PA, SI, and ESI reports."
This response indicates that other site assessment information can be made
available to PRPs. We consider the recommendation open andunresolved.
Within 90 days, EPA will need to consider the revised recommendation, provide
details (as described in Appendix E) on how it will implement the
recommendation, and provide milestones for completing it.
The Agency disagreed with Recommendation 4-2, but noted that it would
partially implement it. The proposed action does not meet the intent of the
recommendation, which we revised to be consistent with recommendation 4-1.
We consider the recommendation open and unresolved. Within 90 days, EPA
will need to consider the revised recommendation and provide details (as
described in Appendix E) on its actions to implement recommendation 4-2 and
provide milestones for completing the actions.
13

-------
Chapter 5
EPA Has No Communication Strategy
	on the SA Approach	
EPA has not developed a communication and outreach strategy to inform the
public about SA sites in their communities, the benefits of the SA approach, and
community involvement opportunities at SA sites. EPA did not develop this
strategy because it believed its guidance was sufficient. In contrast, an abundance
of communication and outreach information is available to the public on NPL
sites. Of the limited public information about SA sites, some is inconsistent with
Agency guidance or internal Agency information. The lack of a communication
and outreach strategy to address limitations in public information and awareness
of the SA approach impedes Agency transparency and public awareness. It also
impedes EPA's ability to implement this cleanup process in a credible and
effective manner.
Public Information on the SA Approach Is Limited and Inconsistent
EPA does not have information on its Websites, or in its guidance document, that
explains how a site becomes an SA site. EPA also has not communicated the
benefits of this approach or opportunities for community involvement. All of this
information is available online for NPL sites. Furthermore, regional Websites
contain limited information about the SA approach that is inconsistent with
current guidance and internal Agency information on SA sites.
According to EPA staff, the Agency's communications tool for the SA approach
is its guidance documents. However, the current guidance document does not
explain how a site becomes an SA site or the value of the SA approach. In
addition, the guidance does not provide site-specific details that would facilitate
community involvement in the cleanup process.
The current SAS guidance does not mention any benefits of the SA approach.
However, during the course of this review, OECA's Regional Support Division
Director and OSWER's Assessment and Remediation Division Director proposed
several benefits, including:
1)	Cost savings: PRPs generally perform.cleanup for less money than EPA.
Both EPA and PRPs may incur fewer or no litigation costs. EPA and the
PRPs can save the cost of listing the site on the NPL.
2)	Resource efficiencies: EPA can use resources at other sites that do not
have PRPs to fund cleanup.
3)	More timely cleanups: Without time taken to list the site, cleanups can
start sooner.9
9 EPA did not provide any plans for documenting and communicating these benefits to the public or other
stakeholders.
14

-------
Current SAS guidance also does not provide information on how to implement
technical assistance plans for communities. The guidance calls for SAS
agreements to include a Technical Assistance Plan (TAP) for communities.
However, EPA has not finalized the additional guidance needed for this plan.
TAPs are supposed to ensure the same type of community technical assistance
opportunities at SA sites, which exist at NPL sites.
Finally, the limited online information about SA sites is incomplete or
inconsistent with current guidance. NPL sites have Site Progress Profiles. These
contain information on cleanup progress, site location, contamination and
exposure data, and progress toward meeting GPRA goals. Although Site Progress
Profiles are publicly available online for all NPL sites, they exist for only 7 of 23
sites that meet SAS eligibility criteria.
Some of the regional site information does not match internal Agency
information, or is inconsistent with guidance. For example, Region 5 has a
Website on Superfund Alternative Sites which includes a list of SA sites and fact
sheets for each site. However, the Region's list of SA sites does not match
OECA's list. Other regions have online information that is inconsistent with
current guidance. Specifically, Region 4 uses the terms NPL caliber and NPL
equivalent on its Website, and Region 10 uses the term NPL equivalent. These
are former terms and labels for SA sites and are not consistent with the current
guidance. The other seven regional Websites have no information about SA sites
available.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance and the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response collaborate, as needed, to:
5-1 Develop, and release to the public, a communication and outreach
strategy, to include information on how a site becomes an SA site,
the benefits of the SA approach, and SA site progress profiles.
5-2 Direct regions to discontinue use of terms such as NPL caliber and
NPL equivalent to describe the status of SA sites, or the SA
approach.
5-3 Finalize, and release to the public, the TAP guidance for SA sites.
15

-------
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The OIG made changes to the report based on the Agency's comments where
appropriate. Appendix E provides the full text of the Agency comments and OIG
response.
The Agency concurred with Recommendations 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3. The Agency
stated that "OSWER/OECA agrees that improvements can be made in the
consistency and transparency of the SA approach and plans to act on the
recommendations in Chapter 5."
While the Agency agreed to implement Recommendations 5-1 and 5-2, it did not
provide details on how it would implement them and when. Within 90 days, the
Agency needs to provide details on its planned actions (as described in
Appendix E) and milestones for completing them. The Agency's response to
Recommendation 5-3 meets the intent of the recommendation, is acceptable, and
we consider Recommendation 5-3 closed.
16

-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (in $000s)
Rec.
No.
Page
No.
2-1
2-2
2-3
3-1
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion
Date
Claimed
Amount
Agreed To
Amount
10
Publish a universe of SA sites that meets the SAS
eligibility criteria and are designated SA sites and
regularly update the list as the universe changes.
Develop specific instructions on when to use the SA
designation (e.g., for sites or agreements) and update
the Superfund Program Implementation Manual
(SPIM) accordingly. The instructions should include
provisions that state the SAS flag should not be
removed even if the site is deleted, cleaned up, or
proposed for the NPL, so that controls over
documentation of SA sites are maintained.
Establish and direct Regions to use a consistent MRS
scoring method that is acceptable and reliable for
designating a Superfund Alternative site. At minimum,
documentation should be verifiable.
Track and report all Superfund GPRA measures at SA
sites. This includes construction completions, final
remedy selection, human exposure under control,
migration of contaminated groundwater under control,
and sitewide ready-for-reuse. Report GPRA
measures at SA sites separately from GPRA
measures at NPL sites.
Assistant Administrators Unspecified
OECAand OSWER
Assistant Administrators
OECAand OSWER
Assistant Administrators
OECA and OSWER
Assistant Administrator
OSWER
Unspecified
3-2	10 Revise applicable guidance, manuals, or directives to U
reflect that these performance measures will be
tracked and reported for SA sites.
4-1	12 Determine the complete list of site assessment	U
information regions can share with PRPs during SA
site negotiations.
4-2	13 Revise the SAS general notice letter to include specific 0
details about how site assessment information should
be shared with PRPs during SA site negotiations. The
revisions should include the complete list of site
assessment information (see recommendation 4-1).
5-1	15 Develop, and release to the public, a communication 0
and outreach strategy, to include information on how a
site becomes an SA site, the benefits of the SA
approach, and SA site progress profiles.
5-2 15 Direct regions to discontinue use of terms such as 0
NPL caliber and NPL equivalent to describe the status
of SA sites, or the SA approach.
5-3 15 Finalize, and release to the public, the TAP guidance 0
for SA sites.
Assistant Administrator
OSWER
Assistant Administrators
OECAand OSWER
Assistant Administrators Unspecified
OECAand OSWER
Assistant Administrators Unspecified
OECA and OSWER
Assistant Administrators Unspecified
OECA and OSWER
Assistant Administrators 9/30/07
OECA and OSWER
1 0 = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending
C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed
U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress
17

-------
Appendix A
Hazard Ranking System (HRS)
The HRS is the scoring system used by EPA's Superfund program to assess the relative potential
threat associated with the actual or potential releases of hazardous substances. The HRS is the
primary screening tool for determining whether a site is to be included on the NPL. The HRS
score for a site is determined by evaluating four pathways of potential human exposure:
•	Ground water migration (drinking water);
•	Surface water migration (drinking water, human food chain, and environmental);
•	Soil exposure (resident population and nearby population); and
•	Air migration (population, sensitive environments).
Any site scoring 28.5 or above is eligible for the NPL. All information used in scoring must be
recorded in the HRS documentation record. The documentation record is the central element of
the HRS package, and contains all of the information upon which a site score is based. For sites
proposed to the NPL, the documentation record and references are available for public review.
All HRS scoring packages developed by States and EPA contractors are subject to quality
control review by EPA regional site assessment staff. After regional quality control is complete,
packages undergo an in-depth quality assurance review at EPA Headquarters. EPA
Headquarters does not require HRS scoring packages for SA sites, unless the site is proposed to
the NPL.
18

-------
Appendix B
Details on Scope and Methodology
In answering our questions, we reviewed EPA's 2002 and 2004 SAS guidance, EPA's Superfund
Program Implementation Manual (SPIM) for FY 2002 through FY 2007, EPA's 120-Day Study,
and the NACEPT and OMB reports. We supplemented our review of documents by
interviewing Superfund program managers and staff. Additional and specific steps we took to
review internal controls and answer each question follow.
To determine how SA sites contribute to EPA's strategic goals, we reviewed the requirements of
the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, EPA's strategic plans, and
annual performance plans and reports (see Appendix C).
To determine how EPA has communicated the SA approach to the public, participants and other
stakeholders, we reviewed EPA's methods for communicating how the SAS process works and
how cleanups at SA sites are progressing. We examined EPA's Superfund Websites, including
the Superfund Community Involvement Toolkit, regional Websites, and Site Progress Profiles.
We compared how EPA communicates the SA approach to its public communications and
information on the NPL process.
We obtained interviews and testimonial evidence from OECA and OSWER staff and
representatives of NAM, Superfund Settlements Project (SSP) and other PRPs that had
experience with the SA approach. Because feedback from NACEPT, NAM, and EPA's 120-Day
Study was generally negative, we asked EPA if it was aware of any PRPs that had positive ¦
experiences. EPA provided us with PRP contacts it thought viewed the SA approach positively.
We sent a short questionnaire to seven PRPs to assess their general views and experiences with
the SA approach (see Appendix D). We selected the seven PRPs because they were associated
with currently designated SA sites; EPA had not contacted them during the course of their
internal evaluation; and they were not members of SSP, who had already provided us feedback.
To determine what the 120-Day Study authors found inconsistent about the SA approach, we
queried the study leader (the Deputy Assistant Director for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation).
Because the study leader did not have several of the records needed, where possible, we went
directly to the sources of the study's findings, including the Director and staff of the Emergency
and Remedial Response Division in Region 2, and Director and staff of the Superfund Division
in Region 9 (to determine why these regions do not use the SA approach) and representatives of
NAM and SSP (to obtain information about EPA's practices in sharing site assessment and HRS
information).
To determine whether EPA has reliable management information on the SA approach, we
considered and reviewed information and documents gathered in answering our previous
questions on how EPA communicates and determines the benefits of the SA approach. We
reviewed OECA's analysis and progress in identifying a universe of SA sites.
19

-------
Appendix C
The Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) and Superfund Performance Measures
GPRA requires Federal agencies to prepare performance plans with annual performance goals
and measures to help move them toward managing for results. Performance measurement is the
monitoring and reporting of program accomplishments, particularly progress toward pre-
established goals. Performance measures address the type of program activities conducted, the
direct products and services delivered by a program (outputs), and the results of those products
and services (outcomes). Effective performance measurement enables an agency to establish
baselines; identify and prioritize problems; and evaluate, manage, and improve programs. To
meet GPRA requirements, EPA's strategic plan outlines the Agency's five long-term goals and
guides in establishing the annual goals that EPA must meet along the way. To fulfill its five
strategic goals, the plan includes a series of more specific objectives and sub-objectives. Each of
the objectives has performance measures designed to demonstrate progress in achieving the
objective and, eventually, the strategic goal.
In EPA's current 2006—2011 Strategic Plan, the Superfund program is under Goal 3, Land
Preservation and Restoration. Under Goal 3, "By 2011, [EPA will] control the risks to human
health and the environment by mitigating the impact of accidental or intentional releases by
cleaning up and restoring contaminated sites or properties to appropriate levels." Specific
Superfund activities are under Objective 3.2: Restore Land. This objective includes three sub-
objectives: (1) prepare for and respond to releases, (2) clean up and reuse land, and (3) maximize
PRP participation at Superfund sites. In FY 2007, the Superfund cleanup program is measuring
its progress on these sub-objectives through six strategic targets:
•	Performing site assessments and making final assessment decisions;
•	Selecting final remedies designed to clean up contamination to risk levels that protect
human health and the environment and are appropriate for anticipated future land use;
•	Completing construction of selected remedies;
•	Protecting the public from the health effects of exposure to contamination;
•	Controlling the migration of contaminated groundwater; and
•	Achieving the designation "Sitewide Ready for Reuse" at construction complete NPL
sites.
In FY 2007, the Superfund enforcement program is measuring its progress by applying the
Enforcement First strategy and by recovering costs. Specifically, EPA will:
•	Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action before the start of a remedial action at
95 percent of Superfund sites having viable, liable responsible parties; and
•	Address all statute of limitations cases for Superfund sites with unaddressed total past
costs equal to or greater than $200,000.
20

-------
Appendix D
Additional Perspectives on the SA Approach
During our evaluation, we met with members of the National Association of Manufacturers
(NAM) and the Superfund Settlements Project (SSP) and surveyed seven other PRPs to gather
additional perspectives on the SA approach. Most of the feedback from NAM and SSP was
negative. Therefore, we asked EPA to provide us with PRPs it thought viewed the SA approach
positively. We surveyed seven of these PRPs. The following is a summary of information
gathered from the seven PRPs we surveyed, and of information provided by NAM and SSP
members.
OIG Survey of PRPs
We sent a short questionnaire to seven PRPs to obtain their general views and experiences with
the SA approach. Six of the seven PRPs provided responses to our questionnaire. Four of six
PRPs stated that they had generally positive overall experiences with the SA approach. Some of
the key reasons that PRPs had positive experiences were:
•	Overhead and oversights costs were reduced because the SA approach was streamlined.
® EPA staff were professional, reasonable, knowledgeable, and flexible.
•	The region has more decisionmaking authority during the SA approach than during the
NPL process.
However, some PRPs made suggestions regarding the SA approach:
o Regions need maximum flexibility to facilitate timely remediation and the SA approach
needs more streamlining.
•	EPA needs to reduce document review time and oversight.
•	EPA needs to reduce negotiation time.
•	EPA needs to be more cooperative when deciding deadlines and goals with PRPs.
NAM and SSP Perspectives
We interviewed NAM members after we became aware of their recommendation to OMB to
terminate the SA approach. NAM believed the SAS guidance encourages regional offices to
evade the requirements of the NPL and to clean up sites without regard to risk or PRP
accountability for the site. Members of SSP were also present during our interviews with NAM;
some SSP members are NAM members. We posed followup questions to SSP about concerns
we heard during our interviews, to determine whether EPA had responded to their concerns.
Below we summarize the key concerns.
•	Some PRPs criticized and challenged EPA for not sharing site assessment or HRS
scoring information with participants; and
21

-------
• Some PRPs believed due process rights are compromised because SA site cleanups can
involve different requirements, and in some cases more stringent requirements, than
cleanups conducted under the NPL process.
As discussed in Chapter 4, we did not find evidence that EPA has directly and effectively
addressed these concerns. Furthermore, a 2004 Supreme Court ruling (Cooper Industries, Inc. v.
Aviall Services Inc.) has left some PRPs questioning their ability to seek cost recovery from other
liable parties for voluntarily conducted cleanups, such as those EPA conducts under its SA
approach.
22

-------
Appendix E
Agency Comments on Draft Report
and OIG Evaluation
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Comments on the Office of Inspector General's March 19, 2007 Draft Evaluation
Report, "EPA Needs to Take More Action in Implementing Alternative
Approaches to Superfund Cleanups"
FROM: Granta Y. Nakayama, Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement Compliance Assurance (OECA)
Susan P. Bodine, Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
TO:	Carolyn Copper, Director for Program Evaluation
Hazardous Waste Issues
Office of Inspector General (OIG)
On March 19, 2007, OECA and OSWER received OIG's draft evaluation report, "EPA
Needs to Take More Action in Implementing Alternative Approaches to Superfund Cleanups."
As you know, OECA's Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) and OSWER's Office
of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) jointly developed the relevant
guidance documents10 on the Superfund Alternative approach and have overseen its
implementation.
OSWER/OECA offers three categories of comments on the draft report: (1) general
comments and major concerns (below); (2) specific comments to report recommendations (see
Attachment 1, with a Supplemental Response on Recommendation 4-3); and (3) detailed
comments on the draft report that are not specifically tied to particular draft recommendations
(see Attachment 2).
10 June 24, 2002, "Response Selection and Settlement Approach for Superfund Alternative Sites" (SAS Guidance);
June 17, 2004, "Revised Response Selection and Settlement Approach for Superfund Alternative Sites" (Revised
SAS Guidance).
23

-------
GENERAL COMMENTS
o We concur with some of OIG's proposed recommendations and, as specified in the
attached chart, have initiated or planned corrective actions as part of our own evaluation
of the SA approach.
•	Notably, OSWER/OECA agrees that continued integration of accurate SA approach data
and outcomes into current Superfund systems is appropriate. OSWER/OECA will weigh
the pros and cons and the difficulty/resource intensiveness of tracking all GPRA
measures at sites following the SA approach (Recommendations 2-1, 2-2).
•	OSWER/OECA also agrees that improvements can be made in the consistency and
transparency of the SA approach and plans to act on the recommendations in Chapter 5.
MAJOR CONCERNS
« The draft report states that "OECA is the lead on the SAS approach, and [OSWER]
provides support," and, repeatedly through the report, suggests that OECA is the lead on
the SA approach. As stated above, OSWER and OECA co-authored the relevant
guidance documents and share responsibilities for implementing the SA approach. We
ask that this partnership be reflected accurately in the OIG evaluation report.
OIG response:
Prior to receiving the Agency's April 16, 2007 response, OSRE staff told us that, "OSRE is
considered the lead on the SAS initiative with support from OSRTI." However, we have
revised the final report based on the official, and current Agency view that, OECA and
OSWER share duties in implementing the SA approach.
• With Recommendation 4-3, OIG recommends that the SAS guidance and general notice
letter be revised to include language from an EPA legal opinion stating EPA's legal
authority to request certain provisions in SA agreements and that no due process
violations are associated with these provisions. OSWER/OECA disagrees with OIG's
recommendation. OECA developed the model language and documents (including the
four SA provisions) with the advice of the Office of General Counsel (OGC) and in
consultation with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). OGC has reviewed OIG's draft
report, and continues to believe that EPA has the legal authority to enter into agreements
that include the SA provisions and that negotiating and entering such agreements does
not deprive potentially responsible parties (PRPs) of due process. In these circumstances,
we do not think it is appropriate to suggest that there are doubts about legal authority or
due process by amending the guidance to specifically deny that EPA lacks legal authority
or has denied PRPs due process.
OIG response:
We removed this recommendation from the final report because the Agency provided
documentation on its authority to include the provisions.
24

-------
If you have questions about OSWER/OECA's response, please contact Ken Patterson in
OSRE or Elizabeth Southerland in OSRTI. We look forward to continuing the discussion of
your draft report with you.
Attachments
cc:
Barry Breen, OSWER
Lynn Buhl, OECA
Mary Kay Lynch, OGC
Earl Salo, OGC
Susan Bromm, OSRE
James Woolford, OSRTI
25

-------
ATTACHMENT 1
EPA/OIG Evaluation Draft Report: EPA Needs to Take More Action in Implementing
Alternative Approaches to Superfund Cleanups (3/19/07)
Rec
#
EPA/OIG Recommendation
OSWER/OECA Response to
Recommendation
OIG Response
2-1
Finalize and release a universe
of SA sites that meets the SAS
eligibility criteria.
OSWER/OECA agrees with this
Agency partially agrees but does not
commit to implementation; no
milestone dates provided.
The OIG is aware that the SA universe
is "dynamic." However, EPA has not
committed to releasing site-specific
information for each SA site (beyond a
number total) nor provided milestone
dates. That is the intent of the
recommendation. We have revised the
final recommendation accordingly.
For the OIG to close this
recommendation, in its response to the
final report, EPA will need to:
(1)	Consider the revised
recommendation.
(2)	Describe completed or planned
actions to release site-specific
information on all sites that meet the SA
criteria, at that time. The site-specific
information should include, as
applicable, the same categories and
fields of information contained in
publicly accessible Superfund Site
Progress Profiles.
(3)	Provide milestone dates for
completion.
recommendation, with a
clarification. The SA universe is
dynamic and any data or list of
sites following the SA approach
is just a snapshot.
OSWER/OECA's own internal
evaluation of the SA approach
closely examined available data
on sites flagged in CERCLIS as
SA. Our evaluation report — now
in the final stages of review - will
identify the number of sites
actively using the SA approach
(i.e., non-NPL sites with an
agreement for RI/FS, RD, RA, or
NTCRA finalized after the June
2002 SAS Guidance was issued).
Sites where the SA approach is
being used may also have other
approaches being used
concurrently. OSWER/OECA
will consider including this
information in end-of-year
reports.
2-2
Develop and issue guidance for
when to flag SA sites in
CERCLIS. For final SA sites,
the guidance should include
provisions that state the SAS
flag should not be removed
even if the site is deleted,
cleaned up, or proposed for the
NPL, so that controls over
OSWER/OECA agrees in part,
and disagrees in Dart, with this
Agency partially agrees and partially
disagrees; no milestone dates provided.
The changes made to the SPIM for FY
08/09, which is not effective until
October 1, 2007, do not address the
timing of the SA designation. We
revised our final recommendation to
ensure that the Agency updates the
recommendation.
OSWER/OECA disagrees with
OIG's implicit suggestion that
there is no current guidance for
when to flag SA sites in
CERCLIS. The Superfund
Program Implementation Manual
26

-------
Rec
#
EPA/OIG Recommendation
OSWER/OECA Response to
Recommendation
OIG Response

documentation of SAS are
maintained.
(SPIM) currently provides
guidance for when to flag in
CERCLIS sites using the SA
approach. As appropriate,
OSWER/OECA will update the
SPIM when our internal SA
evaluation is finalized. (For
example, our evaluation report
will recommend flagging specific
SA agreements.)
OSWER/OECA agrees with OIG
that once the SA approach is used
at a site (that is, EPA has entered
an enforceable SA agreement
with a potentially responsible
party (PRP)), the SA flag (or an
equivalent indicator) attached to
that agreement should remain
even if the site ultimately is
cleaned up under an approach
other than SA (e.g., the site is
later listed on the NPL).
SPIM to address the timing of the SA
designation.
EPA indicated its upcoming evaluation
report will recommend flagging specific
SA agreements and we revised the
report to reflect this. We revised the
final report to reflect that EPA's
guidance on SA sites does not include
specific information on when to
designate a site or agreement as SA.
For the OIG to close this
recommendation, in its response to the
final report, EPA will need to:
(1)	Consider the revised
recommendation.
(2)	Describe completed or planned
actions to define the point in time and
the criteria that need to be met for the
SAS flag to be inserted in EPA's
Superfiind Information System, i.e.,
when an agreement consistent with SAS
guidance is signed.
(3)	Provide milestone dates for
completion.
2-3
Identify and communicate to
the regions which of the HRS
scoring methods are acceptable
and reliable for designating a
Superfiind Alternative site, e.g.
Quickscore. At minimum, the
documentation should be
verifiable.
OSWER/OECA disagrees with
this recommendation because we
have alreadv accomplished this.
The Regions are responsible for
ensuring the score is greater than
or equal to 28.5 for a site being
considered for the SA approach.
OSWER has queried the Regions
about how they score sites when
deciding to use the SA approach
at a particular site and how they
document the scoring process for
future references and verification.
The Regions use the same scoring
process to score sites using the
SA approach as they use to
prepare an HRS package for
listing a site on the NPL - the
HRS scoring process (and tools
that facilitate this process). These
requirements are described in 40
Agency disagrees and will not
implement.
EPA has not implemented controls to
prevent the use of potentially less
reliable scoring methods by the regions.
During its internal evaluation, OECA
removed the SA designation from 13
sites that did not score 28.5 or above
and determined the removal was due to
inconsistent regional scoring methods.
(OSRE staff told us some of the
methods regions used are more reliable
than others.) According to the
Agency's guidance documents, these
sites were to be "NPL equivalent" or
were to score 28.5.
In response to our discussion draft,
Agency staff stated that "The score
(while not necessarily exact prior to a
27

-------
Rec
#
EPA/OIG Recommendation
OSWER/OECA Response to
Recommendation
OIG Response


CFR Part 300 Appendix A. In
addition, 40 CFR Part 300
Appendix A provides a set of
score sheets to assist in
appropriate site scoring.
full package) is verifiable with the basic
information that is fed into Quickscore,
the pre-scoring tool supported by EPA
OSRTI and primarily used by EPA
regions today." Furthermore, EPA
promotes the use of Quickscore for use
by PRPs in response to recommendation
4-1. We revised the recommendation to
read "Establish and direct regions to use
a consistent HRS scoring method that is
acceptable and reliable for designating a
Superfund Alternative site. At
minimum, documentation on the score
should be verifiable."
For the OIG to close this
recommendation, in its response to the
final report, EPA will need to:
(1)	Consider the revised
recommendation.
(2)	Describe completed or planned
actions to specify a consistent scoring
method with verifiable documentation
that will result in regional HRS scores
that are acceptable and reliable for
designating a SA site. The method
should be the same as that which can be
used by PRPs to verify HRS scores.
(3)	Provide milestone dates for
completion.
3-1
Track and report all Superfund
GPRA measures at SA sites.
This includes construction
completions, final remedy
selection, human exposure
under control, and site-wide
ready-for-reuse. Report GPRA
measures at SA sites separately
from GPRA measures at NPL
sites.
OSWER/OECA generally aerees
with this recommendation, with
certain clarifications. Currently,
the only Superfund GPRA
measure that includes sites with
SA agreements is the measure for
Final Assessment Decisions
(FADs). (Note that "final remedy
selection" is no longer a GPRA
measure.) The current GPRA
measures that do not include SA
sites are "Human Health Under
Control," "Ground Water
Migration Under Control,"
"Sitewide Ready for Anticipated
Use," and "Construction
Completions." On an operable
Agency generally agrees but does not
commit to implementation; no
milestone dates provided.
The Agency is incorrect that "final
remedy selection is no longer a GPRA
measure." The SPIM for FY 06/07
(dated November 6, 2006, Appendix G,
page G-2) states:
"In FY 2007, the Superfund Remedial
Program will measure its progress in
achieving environmental results through
six key strategic targets. These six
strategic targets include: (1) performing
site assessments and making final
assessment decisions, (2) selecting final
28

-------
Rec
#
EPA/OIG Recommendation
OSWER/OECA Response to
Recommendation
OIG Response


unit (OU) basis, information on
SA sites is gathered as part of a
new, larger "Ready for
Anticipated Use (RAU)" measure
that is not a GPRA measure.
OSWER will examine the pros
and cons and the
difficulty/resource intensiveness
of tracking SA sites under
additional GPRA measures. Such
tracking may become easier once
OSWER/OECA issues its
evaluation report and clarifies
expectations for flagging SA
agreements in CERCLIS.
In the meantime, OECA will
continue tracking and reporting
GPRA enforcement measures at
sites using the SA approach, and
OSWER/OECA also can track
and report GPRA measures at
sites with SA agreements using
an ad-hoc, end-of-the-year report.
remedies designed to clean up
contamination to risk levels that are
protective of human health and the
environment and appropriate for
reasonably anticipatedfuture land use,
(3) completing construction of the
selected remedies, (4) protecting the
public from the health effects of
exposure to contamination, (5)
controlling the migration of
contaminated groundwater, and (6)
achieving the designation "Sitewide
Ready for Reuse" at construction
complete NPL sites. Each strategic
target represents an important milestone
in achieving risk reduction; no one
measure can itself adequately capture
the total environmental benefits derived
from the Superfund program. Strategic
targets (1) and (3), above, have been in
place for several years. Strategic target
(2) was implemented for the first time in
FY 2004 and will be phased out
beginning in FY 2008. Strategic target
(6) is new for FY 2007." [emphasis
added]
The SPIM can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/pr
ocess/spim06.htm .
In its response, EPA has not committed
to tracking and reporting all Superfund
GPRA measures at SA sites. For OIG
to close this recommendation, in its
response to the final report, EPA will
need to (1) Reconsider the
recommendation and (2) Provide
specific planned actions and milestone
dates for completion.
3-2
1
Revise applicable guidance,
manuals, or directives to reflect
that these performance
measures will be tracked and.
reported for SA sites.
OSWER/OECA disagrees with
this recommendation but suggests
an alternate action. As
appropriate, OSWER/OECA will
consider the need to revise
applicable guidance, manuals, or
directives once our own SA
evaluation is complete. The
Agency disagrees but offers to study
alternatives with no commitment to
implement; no milestone dates
provided.
When EPA implements GPRA
measures for SA sites (i.e., OIG
recommendation 3-1), it will have to
29

-------
Rec
#
EPA/OIG Recommendation
OSWER/OECA Response to
Recommendation
OIG Response


Superfund Program
Implementation Manual (SP1M)
currently provides guidance for
when to flag in CERCLIS sites
using the SA approach. As
appropriate, OSWER/OECA will
update the SPIM when our
internal SA evaluation is
finalized. At this time,
OSWER/OECA does not see a
need to update other documents.
OSWER/OECA also will
consider the most appropriate
way to educate Regions on the
necessary data input for sites with
SA agreements so that these sites
can be tracked in the ad hoc, end-
of-year report described in our
response to draft
Recommendation 3-1.
update some Agency guidance and
manuals to reflect new tracking
measures. Therefore, for the OIG to
close this recommendation, in its
response to the final report, EPA will
need to (1) Reconsider the
recommendation and (2) Provide
specific planned actions and milestone
dates for completion.
4-1
Determine what site assessment
and SAS HRS scores regions
can share with PRPs during SA
site negotiations.
OSWER/OECA disagrees with
this recommendation because the
end goal of the recommendation
has been accomplished. The
Regions can, and do provide
appropriate site information to
PRPs.
At sites proposed to the NPL, but
currently using the SA approach,
EPA Regions provide HRS
scores, and PRPs can obtain HRS
documentation from the EPA
docket.
Prior to proposing a site to the
NPL, HRS scores are pre-
decisional and, therefore,
consistent with EPA policy, not
releasable. Therefore, at sites
using the SA approach that have
not been proposed to the NPL,
Regions can provide PRPs with
site assessment reports, such as
the PA, SI, and ESI reports. Data
from these reports can be input
Agency partially disagrees,
recommendation revised.
We recognize EPA's policy that HRS
scores are pre-decisional and not
releasable. However, EPA states
".. .Regions can provide PRPs with site
assessment reports, such as the PA, SI,
and ESI reports." This response
indicates that other site assessment
information can be made available to
PRPs. We have revised the
recommendation based on this response.
For the OIG to close this
recommendation, in its response to the
final report, EPA will need to (1)
Consider the revised recommendation
and (2) Provide specific planned actions
and milestone dates for completion.
30

-------
I Rec
#
EPA/OIG Recommendation
OSWER/OECA Response to
Recommendation
OIG Response


into "Quick Score" (developed by
EPA and available on the
internet) to calculate a
preliminary HRS score.

4-2
Revise the SAS guidance and
SAS general notice letter, as
appropriate, to include specific
details about how site
assessment information should
be shared with PRPs during SA
site negotiations.
OSWER/OECA generally aerees
with this recommendation.
OSWER/OECA is committed to
developing ways to improve the
transparency of the SA approach
and will revise the sample general
notice letter to include more
specific information about site
assessment information.
OSWER/OECA's forthcoming
evaluation report will clarify that,
at sites using the SA approach,
Regions can provide PRPs with
site assessment reports, such as
the PA, SI, and ESI reports. (As
discussed above in reference to
Recommendation 4-1, a PRP can
calculate the HRS score for a site
using data from these reports.)
Moreover, OSWER/OECA
intends to continue educating
EPA Regions about
implementation of the SA
approach, including appropriate
communications with PRPs.
Agency partially agrees to implement
recommendation; no milestone dates
provided.
EPA has agreed to implement the
recommendation by revising the sample
general notice letter. Because the
sample general notice letter is a
companion to the current SAS
guidance, we removed the
recommendation to revise the SAS
guidance. In order to increase
transparency of the SA approach, we
also revised the recommendation to
require that the general notice letter
include references to the complete list
of site assessment information PRPs can
have.
For the OIG to close this
recommendation, in its response to the
final report, EPA will need to provide
specific planned actions and milestone
dates for completion.
4-3
Revise the SAS guidance and
the SAS special notice letter, as
appropriate, to include language
from an EPA legal opinion that
states EPA has the authority to
include each of the four
provisions (community
involvement, financial
assurance, NRD claims, and
NPL listing) in SAS
agreements. The opinion
should include a statement that
no due process violations are
associated with these
provisions.
OSWER/OECA disaerees with
this recommendation. See
Supplemental Response.
See response below.
31

-------
Rec
#
EPA/OIG Recommendation
OSWER/OECA Response to
Recommendation
OIG Response
5-1
Develop, and release to the
public, a communication and
outreach strategy, to include
information on how a site
becomes an SA site, the
benefits of the SAS approach,
and SA site progress profiles.
OSWER/OECA generally agrees
with this recommendation.
OSWER/OECA is committed to
improving the transparency of the
SA approach and is already
developing communication tools
to share such information with
stakeholders. We will consider
the need to develop a
communication and outreach
strategy, or other public education
documents or methods, specific to
the SA approach.
Agency agrees, but does not commit to
implement; no milestone dates
provided.
EPA did not commit to implementing
the recommendation. For the OIG to
close this recommendation, in its
response to the final report, EPA will
need to reconsider the recommendation,
which includes agreement to do the
following:
(1)	Preparing and releasing to the
public, SA site progress profiles.
(2)	A public explanation of the benefits
of the SA approach.
(3)	Information on how a site becomes
an SA site.
(4)	Provide milestone dates for
completion.
5-2
Direct regions to discontinue
the use of terms such as NPL
caliber and NPL equivalent to
describe the status of SA sites,
or the SAS approach.
OSWER/OECA agrees with this •
recommendation to use consistent
terminology. As we understand
OIG's concern, some Regions
refer to sites following the SA
approach as "NPL caliber" or
"NPL equivalent."
OSWER/OECA agrees to address
this issue as part of its efforts to
improve consistency and
transparency. As described above
in our comment on
Recommendation 4-2,
OSWER/OECA intends to
continue educating EPA Regions
about implementation of the SA
approach, including appropriate
communications with PRPs.
Agency agrees, but did not provide
specific actions or milestone dates for
implementation.
For the OIG to close this
recommendation, in its response to the
final report, EPA will need to (1)
Reconsider the recommendation and (2)
Provide specific planned actions on how
it will "educate Regions" and provide
milestone dates for completion.
5-3
Finalize, and release to the
public, the TAP guidance for
SA sites (as appropriate, after
OSWER and OECA address
recommendation 4-3).
OSWER/OECA agrees with this
recommendation. We anticipate
issuing this guidance by the end
of this fiscal year.
Agency agrees and provided a
milestone date.
32

-------
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE ON RECOMMENDATION 4-3
OIG 3/19/07 Draft Recommendation 4-3: Revise the SAS guidance and the SASgeneral notice
letter, as appropriate, to include language from an EPA legal opinion that states EPA has the
authority to include each of the four provisions (community involvement, financial assurance,
NRD claims, and NPL listing) in SAS agreements. The opinion should include a statement that
no due process violations are associated with these provisions.
OSWER/OECA disagrees with this recommendation.
EPA's principal authority for administrative agreements and consent decrees is CERCLA §122,
which gives EPA very broad authority to enter into settlements that are in the public interest.
OECA has developed model language and documents (including the four SA provisions) with
the advice of Office of General Counsel (OGC) and in consultation with the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ). This process with OGC and DOJ is intended to assure that the actions proposed
in the guidance are within our legal authority. OGC has reviewed OIG's draft report, and
continues to advise us that EPA has the legal authority to enter into agreements that include the
SA provisions and that negotiating and entering such agreements does not deprive potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) of due process. In these circumstances, we do not think it is
appropriate to suggest that there are doubts about legal authority or due process, by amending the
guidance.
When EPA has PRPs clean up sites, it starts negotiations using standardized model agreements
to help ensure that public health and the environment are protected. OGC and DOJ review and
concur on the model language and documents. As discussed in the 2004 Revised SAS Guidance,
the four model SA provisions are narrowly drawn and intended to put EPA, the community, and
natural resource trustees in equivalent positions to their positions at NPL sites.
Following is an explanation of each SA provision and how it ensures equivalent protections for
sites using the SA approach as for sites listed on the NPL.
•	Technical Assistance Plan (TAP) provision. At sites proposed to or listed on the NPL,
Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) are available to qualified community groups to
allow them access to independent technical assistance. Generally, TAG funds are used
by the community groups to hire a technical advisor who can then help them understand
the cleanup at the site. The TAP provision in SA agreements gives community groups
the same opportunity to have independent technical assistance. Because TAGs are not
awarded at every NPL site, the model TAP provision is contingent on demonstrated
community interest, and the PRP has no TAP responsibilities until a qualified community
group comes forward. This provision can be omitted if the site is already proposed for
listing on the NPL or if an alternative source of independent technical assistance is
available to the community.
•	Financial Assurance. EPA requests that PRPs agree to provide financial assurance in
consent decrees at NPL-sites and at sites using the SA approach for the estimated costs of
the RA. Because of limitations on accessing the Trust Fund at sites not listed on the
NPL, Regions request that PRPs provide some amount of that financial assurance through
a liquid instrument(s). Generally, the amount of liquid financial assurance should be
33

-------
equal to the costs that would be needed to keep cleanup work going through the listing
process. The SA financial assurance provision does not ask for any additional financial
assurance - it asks for a part of the standard financial assurance to be established in an
immediately accessible form.
•	"Agreement not to challenge listing" provision. This provision puts EPA in the same
position as if the site has been proposed to the NPL, as the site would be proposed based
on conditions prior to the PRPs beginning work. With this provision, PRPs agree not to
challenge the listing of the site based on changed site conditions due to partial cleanup.
This puts EPA in an equivalent position to a site already listed on the NPL if a PRP does
just enough work so that the site will no longer score high enough for listing, and then
stops work. In that scenario, a PRP that has agreed to this provision cannot challenge
EPA's listing the site on the NPL based on having performed a partial cleanup. This
provision is quite narrowly drawn; a PRP retains their right to challenge the listing on
other grounds. This provision is not needed at sites already proposed for listing on the
NPL.
•	Natural Resources Damages provision. This provision protects Federal Trustee interests
to the same degree these interests are protected at NPL sites. The provision clarifies that
the applicable statute of limitations is CERCLA Section 113(g)(1), which is the
applicable statute of limitations for NPL sites or facilities at which an RA is scheduled.
EPA anticipates an RA will be performed at sites using the SA approach. This provision
can be omitted when DOJ agrees (on behalf of the trustees) that there are no natural
resource damage issues at stake at a site.
The SA approach is appropriate at sites where PRPs are able and willing to perform the
necessary cleanup. PRPs may choose not to enter into any agreement with EPA if they do not
like the terms of the agreement. Just as with other settlement negotiations, PRPs can assert that a
provision is not necessary or appropriate for a specific site. As set forth in the Revised SAS
Guidance, EPA regions may omit or modify SA provisions with approval from OS WER/OECA
and/or DOJ. Indeed, OSWER/OECA has approved such requests from EPA regions when
omission or revision of the SA provisions is appropriate based on specific site circumstances.
Notably, similar negotiation issues arise at many Superfund sites, not just those using the SA
approach. In settlement negotiations, all parties have the ability to make their needs known and
understood and to elect to accept or reject the stated needs of the other parties. Negotiating
parties may decide it is in their best interest to accept a provision that they do not like in order to
reach settlement; this situation occurs on both sides of the table. Ultimately, EPA cannot force
negotiating parties to sign a settlement agreement.
OIG response:
We removed this recommendation from the final report because the Agency provided
documentation on its authority to include the provisions.
34

-------
ATTACHMENT 2
OIG Evaluation Draft Report: EPA Needs to Take More Action in Implementing
Alternative Approaches to Superfund Cleanups (3/19/07)
Detailed Comments Not Tied to Particular Recommendations
At a Glance
® OSWER/OECA typically references the "SA approach" rather than the "SAS approach."
We feel this distinction recognizes that use of the SA approach may not define a site;
there may be more than one approach being used at a site.
• Here, and in other places in the draft report, OIG discusses the need to "finalize the
universe of [SA] sites." We suggest that more accurate wording would either be to
"finalize the criteria for flagging in CERCLIS a site using the SA approach." The SA
"universe" will be dynamic.
OIG response:
The OIG is aware that the universe may be dynamic. The issue of flagging sites in
CERCLIS is different than EPA deciding and finally releasing the list of "dynamic" SA
sites. No change made to report.
• We recognize that OIG has spoken with external parties recently about their views on the
SA approach. However, references to comments made by internal and external parties in
2004 (e.g., the 120 Day Study, the NACEPT Subcommittee report) no longer seem
"recent" to us.
OIG response:
The OIG disagrees. Within the last year, many of the same concerns external parties
made during the 120-Day Study were also communicated to us. We are unaware that the
external parties have rescinded their prior comments. No changes made to report.
•	In the sidebar and under the heading "What We Found," OIG characterizes external
parties as "reporting] problems" with the SA approach. OSWER/OECA suggests it
would be more accurate to say that the external parties "raised questions or concerns."
Chapter 1
•	The SA approach is used at sites where PRPs are viable and willing to enter into
agreements. (See second bullet on page 2.)
OIG response:
Report revised to include: "viable and agreeable PRPs" as the 2004 Revised SAS
guidance indicates.
35

-------
® There is no one type of agreement that would include all four SA provisions. Therefore,
it may be more accurate to say "agreements that contain one or more of the following
provisions." (See fourth bullet on page 2.)
OiG response:
Report revised to state "Sites with agreements that contain one or more of the following
provisions."
• In describing the Natural Resource Damages (NRD) provision, it may be more accurate
to say "an agreement of the applicable statute of limitations'' for NRD claims.
OIG response:
Report revised to state "An agreement of the applicable statute of limitations for Natural
Resource Damages (NRD) claims."
« In the first full paragraph on page 3, and throughout the report, OIG refers to OECA as
the lead on the SA approach, with OSWER providing support. As noted in our general
comments, OSRE and OSRTI share responsibilities for implementing the SA approach
and ask that this partnership be accurately reflected.
Chapter 2
® We appreciate that OIG now generally refers to the SA "approach" rather than
"program." However, in several places, OIG still suggests that the SA "program" is not
being managed appropriately. The SA approach is not a program, just one alternative
available for cleaning up a Superfund site.
OIG response:
The OIG acknowledges the Agency's position. However, by considering these activities as
a program better ensures that the Agency will implement appropriate management controls
to protect against fraud waste and abuse. We revised the sentence to read "EPA lacks
reliable management information because it has not managed this approach with the
necessary controls required to achieve desired outcomes."
• On page 4, OIG states that "[d]uring its internal review, OECA discovered that many SA
sites initially designated by regions do not score 28.5 or higher." OSWER/OECA
believes that this statement needs additional context to be accurate. As you know, our
internal review included a QA/QC of CERCLIS data on sites following the SA approach.
We found that there were a number of sites where the SA flag should be removed. There
were many reasons why these sites should not be flagged "SA": some were proposed for
36

-------
listing on the NPL and not following the SA approach; some were going to be addressed
by the state; some were removal-only sites; and some did not score 28.5 or higher.
OIG response:
We made no change to the report. This statement refers to 13 sites EPA initially
designated as SA sites that were later removed from the list of SA sites because they did
not score 28.5 or higher. We recognize there are-other reasons that EPA removed the SA
designation from other sites, but this comment is not relevant to the discussion in Chapter
2.
Chapter ^
•	Table 3-1 needs to be updated to reflect current GPRA measures. For example, "Final
Remedy Selection" is no longer an OSWER GPRA measure.
Chapter 4
® The OIG references feedback from its discissions with NAM. We request that the report
reflect that NAM has not met with OSWER/OECA on this topic.
Appendix D
® OSWER/OECA appreciates the effort to include more detail about its discussions with
external parties and asks OIG to consider moving some or all of this discussion into
Chapter 4 because it reflects some positive feedback on the SA approach from external
parties.
•	OSWER/OECA suggests OIG remove the last sentence referencing the Supreme Court
ruling in Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc. Aviall-related issues are not
unique to sites using the'SA approach.
37

-------
Appendix F
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Assistant Administrator, OSWER
Assistant Administrator, OECA
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, OSWER
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, OECA
Deputy Assistant Administrator, OECA
Agency Followup Official (the CFO)
Agency Followup Coordinator
Director, Office of Site Remediation Enforcement, OECA
Deputy Director, Office of Site Remediation Enforcement, OECA
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation
Director, OSRTI, OSWER
Director, Assessment and Remediation Division, OSRTI, OSWER
Office of General Counsel
Assistant General Counsel (CERCLA), Solid Waste & Emergency Response
Law Office, OGC
Director, Regional Support Division, OECA
Deputy Division Director, RSD, OECA
Assistant Branch Chief, State and Tribal Site Identification Branch, OSWER
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
OSWER Audit Followup Coordinator
OECA Audit Followup Coordinator
Acting Inspector General
38

-------