U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Evaluation Report
EPA Needs a Cohesive Plan
to Clean Up the Great Lakes
Areas of Concern
Report No. 09-P-0231
September 14, 2009
-------
Report Contributors:
Daniel Carroll
Jill Ferguson
Natalie Hanson
Jeffrey Harris
Thane Thompson
Abbreviations
AOC Area of Concern
BUI Beneficial Use Impairment
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY Fiscal Year
GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office
MCY Million Cubic Yards
OIG Office of Inspector General
Cover photo: Great Lakes National Program Office's R/V Mudpuppy sampling in the
Buffalo River near the Smith Street habitat restoration site, Buffalo, New York,
August 2005 (photo from EPA Website).
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
09-P-0231
September 14, 2009
Why We Did This Review
I We conducted this evaluation
to determine how effectively
the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has
fulfilled its role for managing
Great Lakes Areas of Concern
(AOCs) clean-ups, particularly
I for remediating contaminated
sediments. We examined the
results of EPA's Great Lakes
AOC effort and assessed
whether EPA has an effective
strategy to meet its goals.
Background
Thirty-one AOCs have been
I identified around the U.S.
border of the Great Lakes.
All but one are polluted with
contaminated sediments. To
provide a funding source for
sediment remediation,
Congress passed the Great
Lakes Legacy Act (Legacy
Act) in 2002. EPA, through
the Great Lakes National
Program Office, is
responsible for working with
the States, localities, and
other stakeholders to remove
this contaminated sediment.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional, Public Affairs
and Management at
(202)566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2009/
20090914-09-P-0231.pdf
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
EPA Needs a Cohesive Plan to Clean Up the
Great Lakes Areas of Concern
What We Found
Since 2004, EPA has completed five Legacy Act-funded contaminated sediment
clean-ups and remediated approximately 800,000 cubic yards of contaminated
sediment. However, EPA is challenged by the overall extent of the
contaminated sediment problem in the Great Lakes AOCs. EPA is the
designated lead Agency for the clean-ups; however, we found EPA does not
have a regime for coordinating remediation activities across its program offices
as well as with States, localities, and other stakeholders. While some results
have been achieved in cleaning up individual sediment sites, EPA has not
developed or implemented a coordinated approach to manage clean-ups.
EPA does not know the full extent of the contaminated sediment problem.
Accurate sediment estimates for more than 30 percent of the remediation sites
remain unknown. Potential Great Lakes Legacy Act clean-up sites have an
estimated federal cost of $2.25 billion. Local partners will have to come up
with a total of $ 1.21 billion in non-federal matching funds before Legacy Act
assistance is provided. We estimate that at the current rate of progress, it may
take more than 77 years to complete all of these clean-ups. Moreover,
remediation will be conducted in the order that individual local governments
and stakeholders can afford, rather than with regard to the risks posed to human
health or the environment. Without improved management, coordination, and
accountability, EPA will not succeed in achieving the results intended for the
AOC program.
What We Recommend
We recommend that the Great Lakes National Program Manager: (1) establish
an AOC management plan that includes written designations of authority and
responsibility for each EPA program office with regard to remediating
contaminated sediment; (2) assign a lead EPA office to each Sediment
Remediation Site and determine the volume of contaminated sediment at each
site; and (3) annually measure and publish estimates of Sediment Remediation
Site sediment volumes, clean-up costs, and stakeholder progress for each site.
EPA concurred with developing a limited management plan (but not designating
site-specific leadership authorities), and proposed that this management plan
would also be updated to include annual reporting on Sediment Remediation
Sites. However, these actions are insufficient and do not meet the intent of the
recommendations. The recommendations are unresolved.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
September 14, 2009
EPA Needs a Cohesive Plan to Clean Up the
Great Lakes Areas of Concern
Report No. 09-P-0231
Wade T. Najjum
Assistant Inspector General, Office of Program Evaluation
Bharat Mathur
Acting Great Lakes National Program Manager
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. 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 audit 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 $381,379.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this
report within 90 calendar days. You should include a corrective actions plan for agreed upon
actions, including milestone dates. However, as discussed in the report, we do not believe your
planned actions meet the intent of the recommendations and all recommendations are
unresolved. We ask that you review our comments and reconsider your responses. 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 has any questions regarding this report, please contact me at 202-566-0827 or
najjum.wade@epa.gov: Jeffrey Harris, Director, at 202-566-0831 or harris.jeffrev@epa.gov: or
Jill Ferguson, Project Manager, at 202-566-2718 or ferguson.jill@epa.gov.
-------
EPA Needs a Cohesive Plan to Clean Up 09-P-0231
the Great Lakes Areas of Concern
Table of Contents
Chapters
1 Background 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Noteworthy Achievements 3
Scope and Methodology 4
2 Current EPA Approach Not Effective for Extent of Sediment Problem 5
EPA Lacks Strategy for Coordinating AOC Clean-ups 5
Size and Responsibility for Clean-ups Undetermined 6
Current Fund Management Impacts Clean-up Progress 7
Conclusions 8
Recommendations 8
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 9
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 10
Appendices
A List of Beneficial Use Impairments 11
B Agency Comments on Draft Report and OIG Responses 12
C Distribution 16
-------
09-P-0231
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this evaluation was to determine whether the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), through the Great Lakes National Program Office
(GLNPO), was fulfilling its assigned role to effectively address the Great Lakes
Areas of Concern (AOCs), and whether these efforts achieved the expected
results. Our specific objectives were to determine:
1. How effectively is GLNPO fulfilling its assigned role for managing
contaminated sediment clean-ups in the AOCs?
2. How effectively does GLNPO coordinate AOC clean-ups within EPA, with
States, and with non-federal stakeholders?
3. How effective is GLNPO's strategy in meeting its goals?
Background
The Great Lakes watershed is the largest freshwater lake basin in the world. The
five lakes (Erie, Huron, Michigan, Ontario, and Superior) cover 94,000 square
miles and hold 5,500 cubic miles (18 percent) of the Earth's fresh water supply.
The Great Lakes border two countries, nine U.S. States, and the Province of
Ontario. The U.S. Government first engaged in Great Lakes management by
signing the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty with Canada.
In 1972 and 1978,1 the United States and Canada signed the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (the "Agreement") to help reduce pollution in the Great
Lakes. In 1987, amendments to the Agreement defined an AOC as "a geographic
area that fails to meet the General or Specific Objectives of the Agreement where
such failure has caused or is likely to cause impairment of beneficial use or of the
area's ability to support aquatic life." The AOC requirements of the Agreement
were included in the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act. At that point, the
Act became the controlling authority over the AOC requirements. The
Agreement signatories, using the Beneficial Use Impairment (BUI) criteria from
the Agreement, identified 43 AOCs: 26 located entirely within the United States,
12 located wholly within Canada, and 5 that are shared by both countries (see
Figure 1.1 for AOC locations).
In 2002, Congress enacted the Great Lakes Legacy Act (Legacy Act) to provide a
funding source for cleaning up sites with contaminated sediment that did not fall
under the jurisdiction of other environmental statutes. Through the Act, when a
1 The United States and Canada renewed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1978.
1
-------
09-P-0231
State or local sponsor commits 35 percent or more of the clean-up cost, the
remaining amount (up to 65 percent) is provided in federal funds. The Legacy
Act was reauthorized in 2008, extending funding through Fiscal Year (FY) 2010.
Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes -
St. Lawrence River Basin
°n Bay Jackd&ti Bay
• •PWsns J»
Thunder Bay — Hartxjw
Si. Lawrence flivef
V <<
X_. 09*-
iflhlMin
iagsra Riv^f (Nov. York)
ilfsio Rive*
Figure 1.1: Geographic location of U.S. and Canadian AOCs
Source: GLNPO Website
In addition to the Clean Water Act and Legacy Act, federal environmental statutes
that impact the remediation of AOCs include the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund) and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. In AOC clean-ups where these other funding
sources or mechanisms are available, the Legacy Act requires GLNPO to
coordinate with applicable regulatory or enforcement activities to ensure that
Legacy Act funds are used in a way that adds value and maximizes environmental
benefits. In addition to these statutory overlaps, three separate EPA regions (2, 3,
and 5) contain AOCs within their geographic boundaries.
The AOCs are managed by the GLNPO, which reports directly to EPA's Region 5
Administrator. The Region 5 Administrator is also the Great Lakes National
Program Manager. GLNPO monitors the Great Lakes ecosystem indicators,
manages and provides public access to Great Lakes data, and provides assistance
for community-based Remedial Action Plans for AOCs. GLNPO's role is to
-------
09-P-0231
coordinate with stakeholders and encourage non-federal partners to initiate
clean-ups in the AOCs.
AOCs range in size from less than 1 square mile to hundreds of square miles. All
but 1 of the 31 U.S. AOCs have some volume of contaminated sediments. The
remaining AOC, Oswego River, was impaired for restrictions on fish and wildlife
consumption, degradation offish and wildlife populations, and loss offish and
wildlife habitat. It has since been delisted.
Based on the most recent State estimates, the AOCs have 68 Sediment
Remediation Sites that contain more than 76 million cubic yards (MCY) of
contaminated sediment. Because they are located along rivers or harbors that feed
into the Great Lakes, AOCs act as a source of contaminated sediment to the body
of the lakes. In a few cases an AOC is managed as a single Sediment
Remediation Site, but in most cases several Sediment Remediation Sites are
within each AOC.
GLNPO's role is to assist States in developing the community-based remedial
action plans for each AOC. These plans outline the scope of the problems in the
AOCs and determine which of the Beneficial Uses are impaired. In addition, the
plans identify what work needs to be completed to allow for those impairments,
and ultimately the entire AOC to be cleaned up and "delisted." States must
demonstrate that all 14 specific BUIs are restored to get an area removed from the
"list" (see Appendix A for a description of the impairment). Eleven of the 14
impairments can be caused by contaminated sediment, and no AOC with
contaminated sediment has been delisted.
The Clean Water Act requires the EPA Administrator to enter into agreements
with the other agencies involved in Great Lakes clean-up activities. Internally,
EPA leadership is responsible for assigning the duties and responsibilities of each
program office and region. With respect to the Great Lakes, EPA management
assigns the time periods and resources committed to accomplish assigned duties
and responsibilities.
Noteworthy Achievements
GLNPO has completed five Legacy Act-funded contaminated sediment removals
and another three projects are in the development phase. The five completed
clean-up projects have removed approximately 800,000 cubic yards of
contaminated sediment. To date, GLNPO has delisted one AOC (without
contaminated sediments), delisted 11 BUIs, and has assisted States in developing
more than 250 BUI delisting targets. GLNPO has also provided staff liaisons that
help to facilitate each AOC's Remedial Action Plan. The role of the Remedial
Action Plan Liaisons is to work with other EPA offices, as well as States and local
stakeholders, to clean up the AOCs. Those other EPA offices include the Office
-------
09-P-0231
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; Office of Water; and Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances.
Scope and Methodology
This evaluation focused on managing contaminated sediment in the Great Lakes
AOCs. The AOC requirements of the Clean Water Act include other factors
besides contaminated sediment, many of which are beyond the scope of the data
collected for this evaluation. We understand that the entire ecological recovery
and restoration of the Great Lakes is a complex and lengthy process whereby
measurable success will be difficult to expedite. However, contaminated
sediment is a primary concern in AOC management, as EPA has determined that
as many as 11 of the 14 BUIs can be caused by contaminated sediment. Large
amounts of contaminated sediments are across the Great Lakes; we evaluated
EPA efforts to remove and remediate those sediments in AOCs.
During field work, we conducted numerous interviews with a wide variety of
EPA and State staff. These included GLNPO staff; staff from EPA Regions 2 and
5; Headquarters staff in the Office of Water; and State staff responsible for AOC
clean-ups in Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
The OIG reviewed the Clean Water Act; the Legacy Act and its 2008
reauthorizing language; and Executive Order 13340, which established the Great
Lakes Interagency Task Force. We reviewed information presented by the Great
Lakes Regional Collaboration and the International Joint Commission, which
facilitates the official AOC relationships between the United States and Canada.
We collected sediment volume and remediation cost estimates from GLNPO. We
also reviewed the EPA Strategic Plan and identified the annual and strategic
targets for AOC clean-ups.
We performed our evaluation between October 2008 and July 2009 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards issued by the Comptroller
General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
-------
09-P-0231
Chapter 2
Current EPA Approach Not Effective for
Extent of Sediment Problem
At the current rate of progress, it may take more than 77 years to complete
estimated work at all Great Lakes Legacy Act clean-up sites. However, EPA does
not know the full extent of the contaminated sediment problem. Accurate
sediment estimates for more than 30 percent of the remediation sites remain
unknown. EPA has not established a regime or systematic process to manage
remediation activities across its program offices. EPA has not defined
responsibilities and authorities over site clean-up among the program offices;
remediation efforts are not conducted in a coordinated approach. Consequently,
the results intended from the AOC program will not be achieved.
EPA Lacks Strategy for Coordinating AOC Clean-ups
GLNPO has not developed an effective management framework to address
cleaning up contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes AOCs. It is further
challenged by the number of overlapping federal environmental statutes that have
jurisdiction over the AOC sediment clean-ups. EPA has not assigned a lead
program office for half of the remediation sites located in the AOCs. Currently,
the programs responsible for these overlapping statues coordinate within the
AOCs informally. Complexities related to the overlapping statues include:
• Superfund jurisdiction over numerous sites within the AOCs,
• Clean Water Act enforcement actions that are pending,
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act contamination removal, and
• Statutory limitation of Legacy Act funds to remediate a site that is being
cleaned up using Superfund money.
The Clean Water Act requires EPA to develop coordinated planning processes
and ensure the implementation of State Remedial Action Plans. It also requires
EPA to ensure related programs within the Agency (Water, Superfund, and any
EPA Program Office involved in the clean-up) enter into agreements for work to
be completed. EPA is also required to delineate duties, timelines, and resources
committed to AOC work among its Program Offices and regions as well as other
stakeholders.
To date, the Great Lakes National Program Manager has not established a formal
strategy for how GLNPO will coordinate and plan efforts with the States.
GLNPO told us that it engages in regular dialogue with States and other potential
sponsors on project submittals. GLNPO staff said that they prefer this informal
-------
09-P-0231
management approach and will continue to use it, rather than a more structured
strategy, to address all sediment issues.
Overlapping program responsibilities and unclear lines of authority between EPA
program offices and others, combined with a lack of accountability, result in an
ineffective program for AOC clean-up. EPA has not determined its likely course
of action for each AOC and Sediment Remediation Site. GLNPO has focused its
efforts on an informal approach, engaging in dialogue with stakeholders, but has
not developed specific coordination regimes. Many Sediment Remediation Sites
remain unassessed, impacting the accuracy of cost, volume and completion date
estimates. Consequently, the true extent of sediment contamination and scope of
work at each site is unknown.
In the absence of coordinated planning, costs can escalate, resources are wasted,
and risks to human health and the environment increase due to delays in site
clean-ups. Regardless of the amount of funding available, it is unlikely that
EPA's efforts to clean up these sites will be successful until EPA assigns
responsibility and accountability for each Sediment Remediation Site to a specific
program office.
Size and Responsibility for Clean-ups Undetermined
In 2005, the GLNPO asked States to provide estimates for the volume and cost of
remediating contaminated sediment in the AOCs. The States estimated that
approximately 76 MCY of contaminated sediment need to be managed across 68
Sediment Remediation Sites. However, States did not provide sediment volume
estimates for 23 of these sites. Therefore, the 76 MCY estimate does not describe
the total amount of sediment in the AOCs.
As discussed above, authority for remediation of AOC sediments can vary
between Superfund, other environmental statutes, and the Legacy Act. While the
2005 sediment estimates are not complete, they are the only data available.
Figure 2.1 on page 7 represents a GLNPO representative's predictions of site
designation. Authority over and management of these estimated sediment
volumes depend on the designation of each Sediment Remediation Site. There
are 22 sites, comprising approximately 27.9 MCY of sediment, that are on the
Superfund National Priorities List. GLNPO expects them to be managed by
Superfund because they are on the National Priorities List. EPA decided two sites
comprising approximately 33 MCY of contaminated sediment will be left in place
and undisturbed, referred to as natural attenuation.2 GLNPO, through the Legacy
Act, will potentially be responsible for at least 15.2 MCY of sediment in sites
where estimates are available, but could ultimately be responsible for significantly
more sediment.
2 In natural attenuation, the contaminated sediment is left in place and until it is covered with clean sediment or
degraded through natural processes.
-------
09-P-0231
Figure 2.1: Distribution of Contaminated Sediments in AOCs by
GLNPO-Anticipated Site Lead (in MCY)
Natural
Attenuation
33.0 MCY
Superfund
27.9 MCY
Other
0.4 MCY
Legacy Act
15.2 MCY
Source: GLNPO
Current Fund Management Impacts Clean-up Progress
After receiving the State estimate data, the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration,3
in 2005, estimated that it would take a total of $3.46 billion to clean up Legacy
Act sediment. The Regional Collaboration recommended that Congress
appropriate $2.25 billion of funding (or $150 million per year over 15 years) to
fund the federal portion of these clean-ups.
The complexity in accomplishing clean-ups is compounded by the Legacy Act
requirement that each sediment remediation project have a non-federal sponsor.
Such a sponsor must contribute at least 35 percent of the cost of the remediation,
either in cash or through in-kind assistance before work begins. Using the
$3.46 billion cost estimate from the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, the
non-federal share of these clean-ups would total approximately $1.21 billion.
These remediation projects depend upon local funds and support to produce the
non-federal share. Remediation projects are not approved and site-specific
planning does not begin until EPA is assured of the funding match.
Consequently, the clean-ups are conducted in the order that individual local
governments and stakeholders can afford them, rather than with regard to the risks
posed to human health or the environment. As a result, this requirement creates
an obstacle to progress, especially when local governments and partners are under
3 In 2004, the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration of National Significance was created with members from federal,
State, and local governments; tribes; and other stakeholders. In accordance with Executive Order 13340, a strategic
plan for the Great Lakes was developed.
-------
09-P-0231
financial stress. To date, at least four potential sediment remediation projects
have been postponed because the non-federal partners were unable to reach the
35-percent match.
The average amount of Legacy Act funding between FYs 2005 and 2008 was
$29 million. Based on the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration estimated funding
need and the average annual funding, we estimate that cleaning up the
contaminated sediment sites through the Legacy Act will take over 77 years to
complete. Moreover, restoring specific impairments may not occur for many
years following sediment remediation, making the timeframe for complete
recovery even longer.
Conclusions
Cleaning up the contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes AOCs is a large,
complex, and expensive undertaking; the full scope of the resources required
remains unknown. EPA has not developed the specific strategies or management
control processes necessary to implement a successful sediment remediation
effort of that magnitude. Further, EPA has not conducted site assessments to
determine the full scope of the sediment contamination, which prevents accurately
estimating resources needed to complete sediment clean-ups. EPA has also not
formally designated which Program Offices will be responsible for each clean-up.
This informal AOC management approach results in a lack of accountability for
achieving results. Resource challenges at both the federal and local levels will
impact the clean-up progress. While EPA has made progress cleaning up some
Sediment Remediation Sites, the program could be more effective by
implementing management processes and completing site assessments to
determine the extent of resources needed to manage the AOC sediment problem.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Great Lakes National Program Manager:
2-1 Establish an AOC management plan that includes written designations of
authority and responsibility for each EPA program office with regard to
remediating contaminated sediment.
2-2 Assign a lead EPA office to each Sediment Remediation Site, responsible
for developing a site-specific action plan, completing site assessments if
needed, and determining the clean-up timeframes and resource needs of the
project.
2-3 Annually measure and publish estimates of Sediment Remediation Site
sediment volumes, clean-up costs, and stakeholder progress for each
Sediment Remediation Site.
-------
09-P-0231
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
GLNPO responded to our draft report by stating that the Great Lakes Legacy Act
program is being strategically and effectively managed, and is producing
environmental results while working within the resource limitations and
programmatic structure and requirements provided by the Act. EPA disagreed it
had not developed an effective management framework to address cleaning up
contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes AOCs. Further, EPA stated that it
believes the type of management framework which is recommended in the draft
report would not result in greater progress for achieving contaminated sediment
remediation goals.
We outline our findings, as well as descriptions of a lack of strategy and
coordination and the undetermined size and responsibility of the clean-ups, in
Chapter 2. GLNPO has acknowledged a need to understand the "full scope" of
the sediment contamination by conducting additional site assessments.
Nevertheless, there is no formal process or Agency policy document at the
regional and National Program Management level that specifically defines the
roles, responsibilities, and authorities required to conduct assessment and
planning at each Sediment Remediation Site.
Further, as noted in Chapter 1, since the AOCs were first designated in 1987, only
one AOC has been delisted, and that AOC did not require the removal of
contaminated sediments. EPA has yet to exercise all of its authorities to ensure
that available resources are optimally allocated and program effectiveness is
maximized. After 5 years, EPA has not conducted all of the site assessments
necessary to determine the full scope of sediment contamination and cannot
accurately estimate the resources needed to complete sediment clean-ups. We
believe making informed decisions about spending public funds requires realistic
plans based on facts with progress measured against specific baselines.
See Appendix B for a copy of the Agency response and OIG comments.
-------
09-P-0231
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
POTENTIAL MONETARY
RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $OOOs)2
Planned
Rec. Page Completion Claimed Agreed To
No. No. Subject Status1 Action Official Date Amount Amount
2-1 8 Establish an AOC management plan that includes U Great Lakes National
written designations of authority and responsibility Program Manager
for each EPA program office with regard to
remediating contaminated sediment.
2-2 8 Assign a lead EPA office to each Sediment U Great Lakes National
Remediation Site, responsible for developing a Program Manager
site-specific action plan, completing site
assessments if needed, and determining the
clean-up timeframes and resource needs of the
project.
2-3 8 Annually measure and publish estimates of U Great Lakes National
Sediment Remediation Site sediment volumes, Program Manager
clean-up costs, and stakeholder progress for each
Sediment Remediation Site.
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
2 Identification of potential monetary benefits was not an objective of this evaluation
10
-------
09-P-0231
Appendix A
List of Beneficial Use Impairments
Impairment of beneficial use(s) means a change in the chemical, physical, or biological integrity
of the Great Lakes System sufficient to cause any of the following:
1. restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption;
2. tainting of fish and wildlife flavor;
3. degradation of fish wildlife populations;
4. fish tumors or other deformities;
5. bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems;
6. degradation of benthos;
7. restrictions on dredging activities;
8. eutrophication or undesirable algae;
9. restrictions on drinking water consumption, or taste and odor problems;
10. beach closings;
11. degradation of aesthetics;
12. added costs to agriculture or industry;
13. degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations; and
14. loss of fish and wildlife habitat.
Source: Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended, 1987.
11
-------
09-P-0231
Appendix B
Agency Comments on Draft Report
and OIG Responses
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 04, 2009
SUBJECT: Great Lakes National Program Office response to Office of Inspector General
(OIG) draft report entitled "EPA Needs a Cohesive Plan to Clean Up the Great
Lakes Area of Concern; Assignment No: 2008-00600"
FROM: Bharat Mathur
Acting Great Lakes National Program Manager
TO: Jeffrey Harris, Director for Program Evaluation, Cross Media Issues
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the draft report entitled,
"EPA Needs a Cohesive Plan to Clean Up the Great Lakes Areas of Concern; Assignment No:
2008-00600." Please consider this as our official response in accordance with EPA Manual
2750. Below are some general comments and the Program's response to the proposed
recommendations.
Overall, it is our belief that the Great Lakes Legacy Act ("Act") program is strategically and
effectively managed, and is producing environmental results while working within the resource
limitations and programmatic structure and requirements provided by the Act. We believe that
EPA has developed an effective management framework to address contaminated sediments in
the Great Lakes Areas of Concern ("AOCs"). However, we have outlined below some actions
that we plan to take that we believe are responsive to your recommendations, and should enhance
the transparency of the Program.
Recommendation 2-1 in the draft report states that the Great Lakes National Program Manager,
"establish an AOC management plan that includes written designations of authority and
responsibility for each EPA program office with regard to remediating contaminated sediment."
We concur in part with this recommendation. We will develop a management plan that will
describe the overall processes by which contaminated sediment remediation projects are
developed by various programs. Much of the information recommended for inclusion in an
AOC management plan exists and is publicly available. This information can be assembled into
one consolidated report and will be made available to the public. This report will outline our
approach for how the Program will address the contaminated sediment problem in the Great
Lakes AOCs. The report will describe the nature of the sediment problem in the Great Lakes
AOCs; our current authorities for managing contaminated sediments; and how we coordinate
with other EPA program offices as well as other entities involved in remediating contaminated
12
-------
09-P-0231
sediments in the Great Lakes. It will also provide a compilation of all known contaminated
sediment sites in the Great Lakes and provide information for each of these sites on: estimated
volumes; current authorities being used at each site; and status of work as currently known. The
report will document both what is being addressed by all programs including the Legacy Act
Program, and all known sites that are not currently being addressed. This report will not include
predictions of which program will address which site in the future, since EPA: a) does not have
control over which non-Federal partner will amass sufficient cost-sharing funds for Legacy Act
projects; b) does not know or have control over which state governors will request listing of
Superfund sites in the future; or, c) cannot predict future Congressional actions giving
authorization and funding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to undertake contaminated
sediment projects. The report will provide a summary of all the sediment remediation work that
has been done to date in the Great Lakes AOCs since 1997 including volumes remediated as well
as average clean-up costs. This report, which we will update regularly, will provide the public
with information on the status and planned actions for Great Lakes contaminated sediment sites.
It will also chronicle progress as results are achieved. We would like you to consider modifying
this recommendation to eliminate the part of the management plan requiring the site by site
determinations of responsibility for each EPA program office. We believe that this would not be
helpful in remediating contaminated sediment sites in Great Lakes AOCs. As will be explained
further under the following recommendation, EPA has an approach to track sites that are actively
being worked on or are in some stage of development (along with the office responsible for this
work) along with an approach to keep abreast of the status of sediment remediation activities in
the remaining sites throughout the AOCs.
OIG Response: GLNPO's development of a management plan to address Great Lakes
AOCs is a reasonable first step. However, we do not believe that simply reporting
GLNPO's "current authorities," "coordination processes," and the "status of work as
currently known" is sufficient to address this recommendation. We concluded that the
current management strategy was ineffective. Our findings and descriptions of the lack of
strategy and formal coordination, and the undetermined size and responsibility of the
clean-ups, are explained in Chapter 2. The Clean Water Act provides that the Administrator
shall ensure that GLNPO enters into agreements, not merely coordinate, with the various
organizational elements of the Agency. We recommend that a management plan designate
the leadership authority for each of the remaining Sediment Remediation Sites. Informal
coordination between GLNPO and other EPA Program Offices does not constitute effective
oversight. Due to the differences between GLNPO's remedy and the OIG's outlined
expectations in Recommendation 2-1, we consider this Recommendation to be unresolved.
Recommendation 2-2 in the draft report states that the Great Lakes National Program Manager,
"assign a lead EPA office to each Sediment Remediation Site, responsible for developing a site-
specific action plan, completing site assessments if needed, and determining the cleanup
timeframes and resource needs of the project." We concur in part with this recommendation.
We will go through the list of sites actively being worked on and identify the program
responsible for the work (i.e., Superfund or GLLA). For the remaining sites, the staff serving as
liaisons for each of the U.S. AOCs will report through their respective management chains to the
Great Lakes National Program Office Director on the status of needed sediment
assessment/remediation activities within their respective AOCs. This will keep the sediment
13
-------
09-P-0231
remediation program informed of progress being made and allow EPA management to assign
staff to sites when it becomes appropriate. Additionally, we agree that it is valuable to complete
additional site characterizations. We believe that in the Great Lakes region we have a good
understanding, in general terms, of the nature and extent of contaminated sediments, based upon
the work we have done in conjunction with the states and others over the past 15 years.
However, we will be utilizing a new provision under the reauthorized Legacy Act (October 8,
2008) to assist us in gathering additional information. This new provision states that, "The
Administrator, in consultation with any affected State or unit of local government, shall carry out
at Federal expense the site characterization of a project under this paragraph for the remediation
of contaminated sediment." This will allow us to increase our understanding of the "full scope"
of the sediment contamination at particular sites. As newer information is generated from this
site characterization work, we will be able to update our site information in the report generated
in recommendation 2-1. We have recently conducted conference calls with the Great Lakes
states to help us in our selection of our first round of sites under this provision (Federal - State
AOC Coordinating Committee - FEDSTACC) and we expect to begin these assessments in the
next few months. This is not only going to provide us more information on the magnitude and
extent of sediment contamination, it will allow us to potentially move sites closer to a co-funded
GLLA project and let the non-federal sponsor work to raise the required amount of funds for the
active remediation of these sites. We believe this will be an effective tool in the development of
additional projects under the Legacy Act. Staff assigned to individual projects undertaken by all
programs will be identified in the report described in the preceding paragraph. We would like
you to consider modifying this recommendation to eliminate the need for site-specific plans for
sites not currently in the Superfund or GLLA programs. For the reasons stated, we believe our
resources would be better spent on the activities outlined above.
OIG Response: Additional site assessments are needed; however, we do not believe that
the remedy outlined meets the intent of Recommendation 2-2. GLNPO's response does not
address the assignment of a lead EPA Office to each Sediment Remediation Site, the
development of a site-specific action plan or the determination of the clean-up timeframes,
and resources needed to complete each project. The Clean Water Act provides that the
Administrator shall ensure that GLNPO enters into agreements, not merely coordinate, with
the various organizational elements of the Agency. We recommend that GLNPO assign
leadership responsibilities for each Sediment Remediation Site to a specific EPA Program
Office. Further, we recommend that an "action plan," list the actions necessary to take each
respective site from its current condition through to clean-up. If there is insufficient
information or other reasons not to develop a site plan; the lead office should be accountable
for that decision and its review. Due to the differences between GLNPO's planned actions
and the intent of Recommendation 2-2, we consider this recommendation to be unresolved.
Recommendation 2-3 in the draft report states that the Great Lakes National Program Manager,
"Annually measure and publish estimates of Sediment Remediation Site sediment volumes,
cleanup costs, and stakeholder progress for each Sediment Remediation Site." We concur with
this recommendation. We agree that transparency is a critical component in the work we
conduct at these contaminated sediment sites. An efficient way to provide annual reporting on
sites is to update the report generated for recommendation 2-1. We will coordinate with other
14
-------
09-P-0231
EPA Program Offices to update the necessary site statistics for all sediment activities in AOCs
and incorporate that information into the report. Additionally, having greater transparency on
sites and having this information available to the public may help the Program identify new
sources of non-federal match.
OIG Response: GLNPO's publishing of an annual report that provides regular updates
regarding the status and conditions of each Sediment Remediation Site will be useful.
However, we believe that the Program's customers would be better served by receiving a
report that was separate from the internal management plan, and that should be the outcome
of Recommendation 2-1 above.
With respect to the suggestion that planning and coordination limits the rate at which we clean
up contaminated sediment sites, it is our perspective that the main factors affecting the pace of
sediment remediation in Great Lakes AOCs are the level of funding appropriated under the Act,
and the availability of the non-federal share. Despite the financial challenges, to date the
Program has effectively utilized, or has plans to effectively utilize, all of the funds appropriated
by Congress.
OIG Response: While the OIG recognizes that AOC clean-up projects are dependent upon
appropriated federal funding and non-federal cost-share funds, we believe that if GLNPO
would implement the management improvements as recommended, the Program Office
would be better able to address the current AOC conditions when federal and non-federal
funds do become available.
We appreciate the time and effort the Office of the Inspector General has invested to date and
would like to work collaboratively to ensure that the recommendations provided in the final
report will provide a strong basis for assistance in our collective goal of remediating
contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes. Any questions regarding this response can be
directed to Gary Gulezian, the Great Lakes National Program Office Director at 312-886-5870,
or me at 312-886-3000.
cc: Peter S. Silva, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water
George Pavlou, Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 2
Gary V. Gulezian, Director, Great Lakes National Program Office
Tinka Hyde, Director, Water Division, U.S. EPA Region 5
Robert A. Kaplan, Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA Region 5
Eric Levy, Region 5 Audit Coordinator
15
-------
09-P-0231
Appendix C
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Assistant Administrator for Water
Acting Great Lakes National Program Manager
(also the Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 5)
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 2
Director, Great Lakes National Program Office
Director for Water, EPA Region 5
Director for Superfund, EPA Region 5
Regional Counsel, EPA Region 5
Agency Follow-up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-up Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Water
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, EPA Region 5
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, EPA Region 2
Acting Inspector General
16
------- |