I
\
.0*
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Evaluation Report
EPA Needs an Agency-Wide Plan
to Provide Tribal Solid Waste
Management Capacity Assistance
Report No. 11-P-0171
March 21, 2011
-------
Report Contributors:
Ganesa Curley
Jeffrey Harris
Rebecca Matichuk
Thane Thompson
Abbreviations
AIEO American Indian Environmental Office
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FTE Full-time equivalent
FY Fiscal year
GAP Indian General Assistance Program
GPRA Government Performance and Results Act
IHS Indian Health Service
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OIG Office of Inspector General
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
w/STARS Web Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System
Cover photos: from left: A typical dump site usually found in remote forested areas within
reservation boundaries; an open dump site on tribal lands in California; a
reservation open dump site that has caught fire. (EPA photos)
-------
.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
11-P-0171
March 21, 2011
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Review
We conducted this evaluation
to determine whether the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) tribal solid
waste management activities
are helping tribes develop the
capacity they need to eliminate
open dumps.
EPA Needs an Agency-Wide Plan to Provide Tribal
Solid Waste Management Capacity Assistance
Background
Illegal dumping of solid waste
poses significant health and
environmental risks to the
members of 564 federally
recognized Indian tribes
throughout the country.
Currently, there are nearly
4,000 reported open dumps
located on tribal lands. EPA
has been working for over
25 years to help tribes develop
the capacity to manage solid
waste and enforce against
illegal dumping. This work is
facilitated through the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, and the American
Indian Environmental Office.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional, Public Affairs
and Management at
(202)566-2391.
The full report is at:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/20117
20110321-11-P-0171.pdf
What We Found
EPA cannot determine whether its efforts are assisting tribal governments in
developing the capacity to manage solid waste or reduce the risks of open dumps
in Indian country. EPA's performance measures do not assess whether the
Agency's efforts are effective in building solid waste management capacity in
Indian country. EPA also lacks internal data controls to track the status of open
dumps.
EPA does not have an Agency-wide plan that defines the roles and responsibilities
of the EPA program offices and regions. EPA also lacks internal controls that
hold these offices accountable for providing consistent solid waste management
assistance to tribes. The lack of a single, Agency-wide plan results in poor
coordination and limited oversight, and may lead to an ineffective use of resources.
As a result, EPA cannot (1) ensure that consistent solid waste management
assistance is provided, (2) accurately determine the risks of open dumps, or
(3) determine whether efforts are effective nationwide.
What We Recommend
We recommend that the EPA Deputy Administrator develop an Agency-wide
plan to implement consistent and effective tribal solid waste management
capacity assistance. We recommend that this single plan outlines the roles and
responsibilities of EPA program offices and regions, and identifies the Agency
resources required for these activities. The plan should also implement output and
outcome measures that track how consistently and effectively EPA activities are
provided for tribes. Further, this plan should include (1) internal controls to
ensure consistent data collection, (2) a process to ensure coordination between
EPA program offices and regions, and (3) a timeline specifying when the
activities and outcomes outlined in the plan are expected to be accomplished.
The Agency did not agree with our conclusion or most of the recommendations
in the report. The Agency did not agree to develop a national plan to manage and
implement tribal solid waste management capacity assistance. EPA did agree to
identify resources required for providing solid waste assistance and to improve
program office coordination. However, EPA rejected recommendations aimed at
improving data collection, outcome measures, and internal management controls.
These recommendations will remain unresolved until such time as the Office of
Inspector General and EPA can reach agreement on required actions.
-------
.
(Si)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
March 21,2011
EPA Needs an Agency-Wide Plan to Provide Tribal Solid Waste
Management Capacity Assistance
Report No. ll-P-0171
Arthur A. Elkins, Jr.
Inspector General
Bob Perciasepe
Deputy Administrator
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 direct labor and travel costs for this report are $364,610.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this
report within 90 calendar days. You are also required to submit a corrective action plan for
agreed-upon actions, including milestone dates, within 120 calendar days. The OIG may report
recommendations left unresolved after 180 days to Congress in our Semiannual Report, as
authorized by Office of Management and Budget Circular A-50. Your response will be posted
on the OIG's public website, along with our memorandum commenting on your response.
Your response should be provided as an Adobe PDF file that complies with the accessibility
requirements of section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The final response
should not contain data that you do not want to be released to the public; if your response
contains such data, you should identify the data for redaction or removal. We have no
objections to the further release of this report to the public. We will post this report to our
website at http://www.epa.gov/oig.
If you or your staff have any questions, please contact Wade Najjum at (202) 566-0832 or
najjum.wade@epa.gov, or Jeffrey Harris at (202) 560-0831 or harris.jeffrey@epa.gov.
-------
EPA Needs an Agency-Wide Plan to Provide Tribal
Solid Waste Management Capacity Assistance
11-P-0171
Table of Contents
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Prior Audit Reports 4
Noteworthy Achievements 4
Scope and Methodology 5
2 EPA Cannot Determine Whether Solid Waste Management
Activities Are Effective 7
EPA Measures Are Not Sufficient to Determine Whether Tribes Are
Receiving Consistent and Effective Capacity Assistance 7
EPA Cannot Accurately Track the Status of Open Dumps 10
EPA Does Not Have an Agency-Wide Plan to Provide
Solid Waste Management Capacity Assistance 13
Conclusions 14
Recommendations 15
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 15
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 16
Appendices
A Agency Comments and OIG Assessment 17
B Distribution 25
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
The overall objective of this review was to determine whether the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) tribal solid waste management
activities are helping tribes develop the management and enforcement capacity
they need to eliminate open dumps.
Background
Open dumping is the depositing of solid waste anywhere (on land or in water)
other than an approved solid waste facility. Open dumping may pose significant
health and environmental risks to the members of 564 federally recognized Indian
tribes1 throughout the country. Public health and environmental concerns from
open dumping of solid waste may include the degradation of tribal resources, an
increased incidence of disease, food and drinking water contamination, and air
pollution. The number of reported open dumps located throughout Indian country
has grown from approximately 600 in 1994 to nearly 4,000 in 2010.2
Tribal governments, as well as the federal government, are responsible for
regulating the environment and protecting the health, welfare, and resources of
tribal members on reservations and other tribal lands. However, tribal
governments frequently lack the infrastructure, management capacity, or
economic means to sustain private or public waste-removal services. Open
dumping can come from people who reside outside the tribal community and
dispose of their waste on tribal lands to avoid regulated dumping fees.
Additionally, the "checkerboard" land status of many reservations and tribal lands
can impact whether a tribe can manage waste or enforce against illegal dumping.
For example, EPA states that tribes often find it difficult to regulate the waste
management activities on lands owned by nonmembers within the tribal
community. This inability to manage waste or enforce against illegal dumping
could result in open dumps.
1 For the purposes of this report only, the terms "tribal government(s)" and "tribe(s)" refer to federally recognized
tribal governments within the contiguous United States. Tribal governments are recognized by the U.S. Department
of the Interior (73 Federal Register 18553 (April 4, 2008)).
2 This report refers to "Indian country" as defined in 18 U.S.C. §1151, meaning: (a) all land within the limits of any
Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and
including rights-of-way running through the reservation; (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of
the United States, whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or
without the limits of a state; and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished,
including rights-of-way running through the same. Various federal statutes may use or define other terms (e.g.,
reservations) that will control the applicability of a particular statute in Indian country.
11-P-0171
-------
Solid Waste Regulatory Authority in Indian Country
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), amending the
Solid Waste Act, established programs governing the disposal of solid and
hazardous waste. Under RCRA Subtitle D (Solid Waste), EPA established
national standards for solid waste disposal and the operation of solid waste
landfills. Facilities not meeting federal standards are considered open dumps and
should be closed or upgraded using regulatory authorities. However, EPA is not
authorized under RCRA to implement solid waste programs for states or tribes.
States are responsible for permitting and monitoring municipal and nonhazardous
waste landfills. States have also developed EPA-reviewed programs that apply to
all operators of sites within the state. However, EPA explained that state programs
generally do not apply in Indian country. According to EPA, RCRA defines tribes
as "municipalities"; therefore, tribal governments are ineligible to be treated as
states. As a result, EPA has no authority to require, operate, or enforce solid waste
programs for tribes; EPA can only assist tribes in developing solid waste
programs under their own tribal sovereignty.
RCRA does provide EPA with two enforcement authorities to address open
dumps. Section 7003 authorizes EPA to abate specific conditions found at a site
that may pose an imminent and substantial endangerment. Section 4005 (c)(2)
allows EPA to enforce solid waste regulations at facilities with household
hazardous waste or small quantity generator waste in any state that has not
adopted an adequate program.
EPA's Tribal Solid Waste Management Activities
As discussed above, EPA does not have the authority to implement or enforce
solid waste programs in Indian country. As a result, the Agency can only assist
tribal governments in developing integrated solid waste management programs.
EPA can also pursue direct enforcement to address specific incidences of open
dumping. Within EPA, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER), the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), and
the American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) assist EPA regions in
implementing these programmatic activities provided for tribal clients.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OSWER provides technical assistance to help tribes develop solid waste
programs. This technical assistance includes training, outreach materials,
and educational resources. OSWER also supports regional EPA staff in
addressing the development of tribal solid waste programs. EPA informed
us that 7.5 full-time equivalents (FTEs) have been allocated nationally to
the regions since fiscal year (FY) 1999. The 7.5 FTEs have been divided
among the regions to close open dumps, help tribes develop integrated
11-P-0171
-------
waste management plans, provide regulatory and program assistance, and
make site-specific flexibility requests for proposed tribal lands. Further,
OSWER facilitates cross-program and federal agency partnership efforts
to integrate activities, provide grant funding, and leverage resources to
address solid waste management in Indian country.
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OECA provides compliance and technical assistance to help tribal
governments meet federal environmental regulations. Assistance focuses
on waste enforcement capacity, including solid waste code development
and enforcement training. OECA also pursues enforcement for specific
dumping incidences when a responsible party is identified. From FY 2008
through FY 2010, OECA issued the National Indian Country Compliance
Assurance and Enforcement Priority: Illegal Dumping focus area (OECA
Indian Priority). Under this priority, regions provide compliance assistance
to improve the enforcement capacity of tribes and pursue enforcement
options to reduce risks from open dumps.
American Indian Environmental Office
AIEO oversees the Indian General Assistance Program (GAP). GAP
provides tribes with grant funding for planning, developing, and
establishing environmental protection programs. GAP is the primary and
most significant source of EPA funding to support solid waste activities in
Indian country. In particular, GAP can be used to implement solid and
hazardous waste programs on tribal lands. In FY 2009, GAP received
about $62 million to assist the 564 federally recognized tribes. On
average, each tribe receives about $110,000 per year to build management
capacity across multimedia environmental programs. With respect to GAP
grants, in most cases tribes give priority to capacity building for drinking
water and wastewater activities, rather than solid waste management.
EPA's Responsibilities Under the Indian Lands Open Dump Cleanup
Act of 1994
The Indian Lands Open Dump Cleanup Act of 1994 (Open Dump Act) directed
the Indian Health Service (MS) to (1) identify the location of open dumps on
Indian and Alaska Native lands, (2) assess the relative health and environmental
hazards posed by such dumps, and (3) provide financial and technical assistance
to Indian tribal governments and Alaska Native entities to close such dumps in
compliance with applicable federal or Indian tribal government standards and
regulations. The act also directed IHS to work cooperatively with EPA in the
study and inventory of open dumps on Indian and Alaska Native lands. This work
includes listing the geographic location of all open dumps, evaluating the contents
of each dump, and assessing the relative severity of the threat to public health and
11-P-0171
-------
the environment posed by each dump. In 1994, Congress found at least 600 open
dumps on Indian and Alaska Native lands.
Prior Audit Reports
Prior EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports have evaluated Agency
waste management and capacity development efforts in Indian country. In Report
No. 2004-P-00003, Immediate Action Needed to Address Weaknesses in EPA
Efforts to Identify Hazardous Waste Sites in Indian Country, issued January 30,
2004, we found that the Agency's efforts to inventory hazardous waste sites on
tribal lands needed immediate action. Specifically, the Agency's efforts had been
substantially delayed due to project mismanagement issues. Inventory-related
information needed to manage its Superfund activities in Indian country had not
been defined. The Agency also had not developed a detailed plan for validating,
managing, storing, or updating the baseline inventory. OSWER concurred with
our recommendations to provide oversight, define specific program needs, and
develop a detailed plan for the maintenance of its inventory.
In Report No. 2007-P-00022, Promoting Tribal Success in EPA Programs, issued
May 3, 2007, we noted that innovative practices maximize the effectiveness of
tribal environmental programs. We recommended that the EPA Assistant
Administrator for Water work with tribes to promote innovative practices. The
recommended practices included collaboration and partnerships, accessible
education and outreach materials, and identification of economic resources and
funding alternatives. The Agency agreed that the recommendations we outlined
would lead to an improved level of tribal successes.
In Report No. 08-P-0083, Framework for Developing Tribal Capacity Needed in
the Indian General Assistance Program, issued February 19, 2008, we found that
many tribes had not developed long-term plans describing how they would use
GAP funding to build environmental program capacity. Further, we found that
EPA had not tracked the progress of the plans that were in place. EPA also did not
consider tribes' capacity needs and prior progress when allocating funding. We
recommended that the EPA Assistant Administrator for Water develop and
implement an overall framework for achieving capacity, require regions to work
with tribes to develop environmental plans that reflect intermediate and long-term
goals, and revise the manner in which GAP funding was distributed to tribes. EPA
concurred with these recommendations.
Noteworthy Achievements
EPA facilitates the Tribal Solid Waste Interagency Workgroup3 to coordinate
federal agency assistance. This assistance helps tribes to comply with solid waste
3 The workgroup also includes representatives from the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs;
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service; the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Rural Development; the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; and the U. S. Department of Defense.
11-P-0171
-------
regulations, establish integrated waste management programs, and close open
dumps. Federal assistance is provided through the Tribal Solid Waste
Management Assistance Project in the form of grants, cooperative agreements,
loans, technical assistance, and use of equipment. Since FY 1999, the workgroup
has funded over 187 projects valued at approximately $23 million.
EPA Regions 5, 8, and 9 help tribes by leveraging technical assistance and
funding across EPA programs and other federal agencies. EPA Regions 5, 8, and
9 have also developed innovative resources and tools to help tribes develop and
implement solid waste programs. For example, a Region 5 resource guide
identifies federal funding and technical assistance available to support
construction of waste collection and disposal infrastructure on tribal lands.4 The
Region 8 Sustainability Evaluation Tool helps tribes assess the long-term capacity
of their solid waste programs. The Region 9 Tribal Solid Waste Costing Tool
workbook helps tribes determine the economic feasibility and costs/user fees
associated with tribally operated collection services, transfer stations, and
landfills.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted this performance evaluation in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the evaluation to obtain sufficient, 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 upon our objectives. We conducted this evaluation from
November 2009 to September 2010.
The scope of this evaluation is limited to the authorities and responsibilities
delegated to EPA through RCRA, the Open Dump Act, and GAP.
To address our objectives, we reviewed relevant regulations, policies, strategies,
and guidance. These documents outline the federal government's trust
responsibility to tribal governments, solid waste enforcement and funding
authorities, strategic measures, interagency agreements, and solid waste
management and enforcement activities in Indian country. We also reviewed
relevant open dump data, compliance assurance and enforcement data, and budget
information.
During this evaluation, we interviewed tribal solid waste program and
enforcement managers and staff in OSWER, OECA, AIEO, and EPA Regions 5,
8, and 9. We conducted roundtable discussions with environmental department
staff from tribes located within these regions. We also interviewed the associate
director of the Division of Sanitation Facilities Construction from IHS.
1 EPA does not have the authority to fund construction or capital expenditures for tribes.
11-P-0171
-------
We selected three EPA regions for this evaluation because it was not feasible to
meet with all regions and federally recognized tribes. It was also not feasible to
include Alaska Native Villages because of their unique environmental and solid
waste management challenges, as well as their remote location. We selected EPA
Regions 5, 8, and 9 because they represent a cross-section of urban, suburban, and
rural dumping issues. The tribes in these regions are in varying stages of solid
waste program development. More than 200 federally recognized tribes reside
within EPA Regions 5 (35 tribes), 8 (27 tribes), and 9 (147 tribes). These three
regions account for over 80 percent of all tribal lands within Indian country.
11-P-0171
-------
Chapter 2
EPA Cannot Determine Whether Solid Waste
Management Activities Are Effective
EPA cannot determine whether its activities are consistently or effectively
assisting tribal governments to develop solid waste management capacity. EPA
does not have sufficient performance measures that track whether tribes receive
assistance that focuses on all the elements of a successful tribal solid waste
program, or measures that assess whether the Agency's efforts are improving
tribes' waste management capacity. EPA also cannot accurately determine the
universe of open dumps or their associated risks. Finally, EPA does not have an
Agency-wide plan that defines the roles and responsibilities of EPA program
offices and EPA regions, and EPA has no internal controls that hold these offices
accountable for providing consistent solid waste management assistance to tribes.
As a result, EPA is unable to determine whether its efforts are reducing the
environmental and human health risks posed by open dumps in Indian country.
EPA Measures Are Not Sufficient to Determine Whether Tribes
Are Receiving Consistent and Effective Capacity Assistance
EPA has identified five elements5 of a successful tribal integrated solid waste
management program:
1. Solid waste management plans
2. Solid waste codes, ordinances, or regulations
3. Enforcement mechani sm s
4. Viable solid waste disposal options
5. Community outreach and education
According to EPA, the degree to which these elements are implemented typically
indicates a tribe's capacity to manage solid waste. However, EPA does not have
measures to support and track tribes' development and use of each program
element. OSWER only monitors the solid waste management plan element, and
OECA's measures cannot determine whether compliance assistance is helping
tribes develop solid waste codes and enforcement mechanisms. Without measures
linked to each element, EPA cannot determine whether its efforts are improving
solid waste management capacity in Indian country.
5 EPA's Tribal Decision-Maker's Guide to Solid Waste Management discusses the five capacity elements in more
detail.
11-P-0171
-------
OSWER Strategic Targets Do Not Adequately Measure Tribes' Solid
Waste Management Capacity
Under Goal 3 of EPA's FY 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, OSWER is expected to
achieve the following tribal solid waste targets by FY 2011 over the FY 2006
baseline:
1. Increase by 118 the number of tribes covered by an integrated waste
management plan.
2. Close, clean up, or upgrade 138 open dumps in Indian country and on
other tribal lands.
OSWER's current strategic targets only include output measures that track the
level of activity that will be provided over a period of time, and do not connect to
outcome measures that track the intended results of carrying out its program or
activities.6 For instance, OSWER's first target counts the number of solid waste
management plans adopted by tribes, regardless of whether the plans have been
implemented. Even though having a plan is the first capacity element of a
successful solid waste management program, this target neither determines
whether the Agency's efforts are consistent and effective in developing successful
plans nor tracks whether the plans are effective tools for managing solid waste
after they are implemented by tribes.
OSWER's second target focuses on closing or upgrading dumps. However, this
target does not determine whether tribes have developed the management capacity
to prevent new open dumps from occurring or to prevent former dumps from
reappearing on tribal lands. This target is also not aligned with the Agency's
resources and authority. EPA's primary source of funding for solid waste
activities in Indian country is GAP. However, GAP provides tribes with grant
funding for planning, developing, and implementing solid and hazardous waste
programs on tribal lands. Further, the Open Dump Act directed IHS to be the lead
federal agency to provide financial and technical assistance to close these sites,
while directing EPA to assist IHS in the study and inventory of open dump sites
on tribal lands. Although closing and upgrading open dumps reduces the
environmental and health risks, OSWER's primary responsibility is to provide
technical assistance to help tribes develop solid waste programs.
One of the regions we interviewed suggested additional measures to OSWER to
assess tribal capacity, but these measures have yet to be adopted. Another region
we interviewed told us that OSWER's goal of increasing the number of tribes
covered by a plan would be difficult because the measure is outside the control of
6 The 1993 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) specifically defines performance measures as
indicators, statistics, or metrics used to gauge program performance. GPRA also describes outcome measures as the
intended result of carrying out a program or activity and output measures as the level of activity that will be
provided over a period of time, including a description of the characteristics (e.g., timeliness) established as
standards for the activity.
11-P-0171
-------
the regional staff. While regional staff can encourage tribes to develop integrated
waste management plans, the staff stated that the plans are not required and must
be voluntarily developed by each tribe. According to OSWER, the current
strategic targets were created because the results can be quantified. However,
without measures that track all the elements of a waste management program and
the results of the Agency's efforts, OSWER cannot determine whether EPA's
efforts are effectively developing solid waste management capacity on tribal
lands.
OECA Measures Cannot Determine Tribal Enforcement Capacity or
Environmental Outcomes
The OECA FY 2008-2010 Indian Priority directed regions to use compliance
assistance to improve the solid waste enforcement capacity of tribes and
enforcement to reduce open dump risks. To meet these goals, OECA established
two performance measures:
1. Provide solid and/or hazardous waste compliance/technical assistance to
20 percent of tribes each year in FYs 2008, 2009, and 2010.
2. By the end of each fiscal year, EPA will conduct 10 enforcement
investigations to determine the appropriateness of enforcement actions to
address specific incidents of illegal open dumping in Indian country.
Regions provide compliance and technical assistance to emphasize tribes'
development of waste management plans with solid waste codes and enforcement
programs. In FYs 2008 and 2009, 239 and 234 tribes, respectively, received solid
or hazardous waste compliance or technical assistance on one or more occasions.
However, OECA's assistance measure only tracks the number of tribes
"reached."7 This output measure does not track how many of these tribes actually
achieved the goal of developing codes or enforcement programs. This measure
also does not identify the compliance activities, tools, or technical assistance
regions should provide to help tribes achieve this goal. As a result, OECA cannot
determine which activities are successful and use its resources to support the most
effective compliance activities.
Waste investigations help EPA work with tribes to identify open dumps,
responsible parties, and enforcement options. From FY 2008 through FY 2009,
EPA regions conducted 20 waste investigations.8 Like the OSWER measures,
7 The OECA Guide for Addressing Environmental Problems: Using an Integrated Strategic Approach (March 2007)
states that both outcome and output measures should be established for any priority area. The guide defines outputs
as product or service delivery targets that can include the number of tools developed, clients reached, and activities
conducted. Outcome measures assess changes in understanding, behavior, or environmental condition resulting from
outputs. Outcome measures serve as the primary indicator of progress toward achieving the goal.
8 "Investigation" was defined as region outreach to tribes to identify dumping incidents in which there may be
responsible parties. Based on the type of waste and media potentially affected, regions were to consider enforcement
options to accomplish waste removal.
11-P-0171
-------
OECA's output measure only counts the number of waste investigations
conducted. OECA does not measure any resulting improvements in the ability of
tribes to enforce against illegal dumping, compliance, or environmental
conditions. Our review of the outcomes of EPA waste investigations conducted
during FYs 2008-2009 found that:
• Six investigations did not provide sufficient information for EPA to
pursue a waste investigation for illegal dumping or open dump sites for
which there may be a responsible party.
• Two investigations conducted could not identify or locate responsible
parties for the purposes of analyzing enforcement options.
• Six investigations resulted in site compliance or cleanup without EPA
enforcement. As a result of these investigations, four tribal governments
were able to initiate or work directly with responsible federal agencies
and other parties for waste removal or disposal.
• Four investigations analyzed EPA enforcement options and resulted in
the cleanup of one dump site by a tribal government.
• Two investigations yielded both a responsible party and sufficient
evidence for EPA to take direct enforcement actions under
environmental statutes. Of these, EPA enforcement action resulted in the
elimination of 12,678 cubic yards of annual solid waste discharge.
In addition to output measures, EPA needs outcome measures to determine
whether its assistance is developing the necessary solid waste management
capacity in Indian country to prevent and reduce the risks from open dumps.
Currently, EPA is relying on output measures as proxies for outcomes to
determine whether its activities are effective. However, OSWER and OECA
output measures cannot determine whether EPA's tribal solid waste management
efforts are effective. Further, OSWER's measures do not capture or track how
OECA compliance and enforcement activities directly contribute to waste
management plans and open dump closures. Unless EPA improves its measures,
the Agency cannot ensure that resources are used to provide consistent and
effective assistance for tribes.
EPA Cannot Accurately Track the Status of Open Dumps
The Open Dump Act directed EPA to work cooperatively with IHS to study and
inventory open dump sites on Indian lands. EPA has partnered with IHS to
maintain the web Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System (w/STARS)9 for
collecting and archiving open dump data.10 EPA uses this database to track
progress toward meeting its strategic target of closing, cleaning up, or upgrading
open dump sites in Indian country. As of April 2010, the w/STARS database
9 The Operation and Maintenance Data System module of w/STARS archives the open dump data.
10 Open dump data include (1) location of dump sites, (2) status (i.e., closed, cleaned up, remediated, open, and
active), and (3) health hazard information.
11-P-0171 10
-------
reported 3,884 sites. The distribution of the open dump universe across the EPA
regions is shown in figure 1.
Figure 1: Distribution of w/STARS open dump sites across EPA regions
Unspecified Region 2
131 "A 20
Region 10
677
Region 6
516
Region 7
65
Region 8
396
Region 9
1876
Source: IMS w/STARS database, as of April 2010. The "Unspecified" category represents
missing information. Regions 1 and 3 do not have any reported open dumps.
The w/STARS database also has the capability to track health hazard information
for each of the reported open dump sites in Indian country. Health hazard
information includes the characteristics of each dump site, such as rainfall, site
drainage, frequency of burning, controlled access, public concern, vertical
distance to drinking water aquifer, and horizontal distance to surface water bodies
or homes. This information is used to calculate a site's health threat score and
designate a health threat level (i.e., low, moderate, or high) in w/STARS. As of
April 2010, 207 active open dump sites, or 9 percent of the active open dump
universe, had "high" health threat levels. The distribution of health threat levels
for active sites across the EPA regions is shown in table 1 below.
11-P-0171
11
-------
Table 1: Health threat levels at active sites from the w/STARS database
EPA region
Unspecified0
1
2
3C
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
High
19
0
3
n/a
0
0
58
4
40
17
66
207
Moderate
40
0
12
n/a
0
0
85
8
75
33
95
348
Low
3
0
2
n/a
1
162
144
13
59
1,224
162
1,770
Total sites
with health threat
62
0
17
n/a
1
162
287
25
174
1,274
323
2,325
Unknown3
27
0
0
n/a
0
5
41
4
127
48
1
253
Source: IHS w/STARS database, as of April 2010.
a The "Unknown" category includes open dump sites without health threat scores.
b The "Unspecified" category includes open dump sites that have not been associated
to an EPA region within the w/STARS database because of missing information.
c Region 3 does not have any federally recognized tribes.
EPA is using the incomplete w/STARS database to track progress toward meeting
its open dump target. As shown in figure 1, about 3 percent of the reported sites in
w/STARS had not been associated to an EPA region because of missing
information. Further, table 1 shows that about 10 percent of the active open dump
sites (253 sites) do not have a designated health threat level. Regions 5, 8, and 9
stated they have completed their initial open dump inventories. However, these
regions stated that not all the health hazard information is complete or accurate.
The regional and tribal environmental department staff we interviewed also stated
that they lack the resources to conduct thorough field assessments or open dump
activities tied to this target.
EPA also lacks sufficient controls11 to ensure the quality, objectivity, utility, and
integrity of open dump data information. For instance, EPA lacks Agency-specific
guidance outlining how regions should gather, manage, and utilize these data. The
regions we interviewed use IHS guidance to collect and input data into the
w/STARS database. However, EPA has not developed its own guidance outlining
when the IHS data collection forms should be filled out and updated, who should
fill out the forms, which data fields are necessary to collect for EPA's tracking
11 The Office of Management and Budget defines internal controls as an integral component of an organization's
management that provides reasonable assurance that the following three objectives are achieved: (1) effectiveness
and efficiency of operations, (2) reliability of financial reporting, and (3) compliance with applicable laws and
regulations. Internal controls also include the plan of organization; methods and procedures adopted by management
to meet its goals; and processes for planning, organizing, directing, controlling, and reporting on agency operations
(see Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-123).
11-P-0171
12
-------
purposes, and how the Agency should prioritize its open dump efforts given its
limited resources. Further, the staff we interviewed stated that the Agency lacks a
clear national definition of what constitutes an "open dump," which has resulted
in the regions having different methods for collecting and reporting open dump
information.
EPA does not have a complete database and sufficient internal data controls to
accurately track the status of open dumps. As a result, the Agency cannot
determine whether it is collecting open dump data consistently and effectively
across the regions, whether cleanup efforts are effective, or whether it is using
open dump data to prioritize work and leverage its limited resources. Without
accurate and complete open dump information, EPA will be unable to determine
the relative environmental and human health risks.
EPA Does Not Have an Agency-Wide Plan to Provide Solid Waste
Management Capacity Assistance
EPA's role is to help tribal governments develop solid waste management
programs and pursue enforcement for specific incidences of illegal dumping. To
do this, the Agency provides technical assistance, grant funding, and solid waste
management assistance. These activities are provided by EPA regions at the
direction of three separate program offices. We found that EPA does not have a
national-level process to ensure that program offices and regions are accountable
for providing consistent and effective solid waste management assistance for
tribes.
OSWER's guidance and strategies12 outline how regions should reach EPA's
strategic plan targets. However, the guidance and strategies do not provide
sufficient detail to help regions track and prioritize solid waste work. Moreover,
OSWER's approach does not provide requirements for the way in which EPA
should coordinate efforts across program offices or with other federal agencies.
Further, OSWER does not have an effective and standardized process to collect
and disseminate outreach documents, evaluation tools, and national pilot
programs. As a result, EPA has no assurance that it can avoid duplicating efforts
or wasting its limited resources.
OECA's Indian Priority directs regions to use compliance assistance to improve
the solid waste enforcement capacity of tribes and enforcement to reduce risks
from open dumps. However, OECA's performance measures do not provide
regions with guidance on how and when to use specific compliance and
enforcement assistance tools and resources to meet these goals. These measures
12 OSWER has the OSWER Tribal Strategy, issued in 2008; and the Office of Solid Waste and Regional Tribal
Integrated Waste Management Strategy, issued in September 2007. In 2009, the Office of Solid Waste became the
Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, which is located within OSWER.
11-P-0171 13
-------
only hold regions responsible for the number of activities conducted. OECA does
not have any outcome measures to hold regions accountable for achieving results.
Varying levels of staff technical expertise or resources to analyze and pursue
enforcement options may further impact the consistency of waste investigations
and results. As a result, OECA cannot ensure that tribes have the opportunity to
access a consistent and effective range of assistance across regions.
While most of EPA's tribal solid waste program activities are provided by
OSWER, AIEO, through GAP, manages the primary source of EPA funding for
tribal capacity building. However, AIEO does not have sufficient guidance13 and
systems in place to ensure that GAP funding is consistently and effectively used
among the regions for building solid waste capacity. For instance, AIEO lacks
sufficient guidance for how GAP staff should coordinate with OSWER program
staff to ensure that resources are used consistently and effectively to achieve
Agency targets. Further, the staff we interviewed stated that AIEO follows the
Annual Commitment System dates, but AIEO does not have the responsibility of
setting or projecting targets for solid waste activities. Without sufficient oversight
and internal controls, EPA cannot determine whether the GAP funding used for
solid waste activities is effective in developing solid waste management capacity
in Indian country.
Without an Agency-wide plan, EPA's efforts will continue to result in poor
coordination and limited oversight, and may lead to an inefficient use of
resources. Lack of internal management controls further limits the Agency's
ability to hold specific program offices accountable for achieving and tracking
outcomes. Until EPA develops an Agency-wide plan to provide solid waste
management activities, the Agency cannot ensure its efforts are consistent or
effective.
Conclusions
Incomplete measures prevent EPA from determining whether its efforts are
developing the necessary solid waste management capacity to prevent open
dumps in Indian country. EPA's lack of internal data controls prevents the
Agency from effectively tracking and prioritizing open dumps with the highest
environmental and health risks. Finally, EPA does not have a single Agency-wide
plan that collectively defines the implementation roles and oversight
responsibilities of the EPA program offices and regions. As a result, EPA cannot
determine whether it is providing consistent or effective solid waste management
assistance activities in Indian country to reduce the public health and
environmental risks posed by open dumps.
13 AIEO has issued the following GAP guidance to headquarters and regional solid waste and tribal staff and the
National Indian Work Group: (1) Implementation of Solid and Hazardous Waste Activities under the Indian
Environmental General Assistance Program, issued June 2001; (2) National Program Recommendations for Use of
GAP Funds for Implementation Activities, issued June 2001; and (3) Indian General Assistance Program 2006
Grant Administration, issued February 2006.
11-P-0171 14
-------
Recommendations
We recommend that the Deputy Administrator:
1. Develop and implement an Agency-wide plan for providing consistent
and effective tribal solid waste management capacity assistance that is
within the scope of EPA's authority and responsibility.
2. Require that the Agency-specific plan include:
a. Descriptions of the roles and responsibilities for the EPA
program offices and EPA regions conducting solid waste
management capacity assistance activities in Indian country.
b. Identification of the Agency resources required for providing
solid waste management assistance activities.
c. Performance measures, including both output and outcome
measures, to track whether its assistance is consistent and
effective in developing solid waste management capacity and
reducing risks from open dumps in Indian country.
d. Internal controls to ensure consistent data collection and
consistent provision of waste management capacity assistance
to tribal clients nationwide.
e. A process to ensure coordination between EPA program offices
and regions.
f. A timeline specifying when the activities and outcomes
outlined in the plan are expected to be accomplished.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency disagreed with our first recommendation. EPA stated that the OIG
had assessed the Agency's programs in isolation from the significant efforts
conducted by the IHS. EPA said IHS has the primary authority and significant
responsibilities to assess and close open dumps. We agree that IHS is considered
the lead federal agency under the Open Dump Act. However, the Agency
misinterpreted our conclusion and recommendation. We have reworded the
recommendation, requesting that EPA develop an Agency-wide plan that falls
within the scope of EPA's authority and responsibility.
The Agency also rejected all but two of the actions listed in our second
recommendation. EPA agreed to identify resources required for providing solid
waste assistance (subpart b), and agreed to improve program office coordination
as necessary (subpart e). However, EPA rejected recommendations aimed at
improving data collection, outcome measures, and internal management controls.
These recommendations will remain unresolved until the OIG and EPA can reach
agreement. The Agency's detailed response with the OIG's evaluation is provided
at Appendix A.
11-P-0171 15
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
Rec. Page
No. No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion
Date
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (in SOOOs)
Claimed Agreed To
Amount Amount
15 Develop and implement an Agency-wide plan for U
providing consistent and effective tribal solid waste
management capacity assistance that is within the
scope of EPA's authority and responsibility.
15 Require that the Agency-specific plan include:
a. Descriptions of the roles and
responsibilities for the EPA program
offices and EPA regions conducting solid
waste management capacity assistance
activities in Indian country.
b. Identification of the Agency resources
required for providing solid waste
management assistance activities.
c. Performance measures, including both
output and outcome measures, to track
whether its assistance is consistent and
effective in developing solid waste
management capacity and reducing risks
from open dumps in Indian country.
d. Internal controls to ensure consistent data
collection and consistent provision of
waste management capacity assistance to
tribal clients nationwide.
e. A process to ensure coordination between
EPA program offices and regions.
f. A timeline specifying when the activities
and outcomes outlined in the plan are
expected to be accomplished.
U
Deputy Administrator
Deputy Administrator
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
11-P-0171
16
-------
Appendix A
Agency Comments and OIG Assessment
December 6, 2010
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to the Office of Inspector General Draft Evaluation Report: "EPA
Needs an Agency-Wide Plan to Provide Consistent Tribal Solid Waste
Management Capacity Assistance," Project No. OPE-10-0002
FROM: Robert Perciasepe
Deputy Administrator
TO: Jeffrey K. Harris
Director for Program Evaluation, Cross Media Issues
Office of Program Evaluation
Office of Inspector General
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft evaluation report of September
24, 2010, entitled "EPA Needs an Agency-Wide Plan to Provide Consistent Tribal Solid Waste
Management Capacity Assistance," Project No. OPE-10-0002 ("Draft Evaluation"). On behalf of
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency), I want to thank the Office of Inspector
General (OIG) for its suggestions for improving the Agency's efforts regarding tribal solid waste
management programs, including compliance assurance and enforcement activities.
We appreciate the attention that the OIG has placed on evaluating the Agency's current
solid waste management and compliance assurance and enforcement programs in Indian country.
The Draft Evaluation correctly notes the numerous waste management challenges that tribes
face, including the lack of waste management infrastructure and the economic resources to
sustain adequate waste collection and removal programs. Thus, many tribes have experienced
significant open dumping issues.
It is important to take note of the fact that EPA has in place a strategy for improving
waste management in Indian country (Office of Solid Waste (OSW) and Regional Tribal
Integrated Waste Management Strategy, September 10, 2007.) To supplement that strategy, we
agree that the Agency's efforts would benefit from additional, specific, planning activities that
are national in scope to ensure programmatic consistency and effectiveness. However, we have
an overarching concern that the Draft Evaluation has examined EPA's efforts and responsibilities
regarding tribal solid waste management programs in isolation from the significant efforts of
other federal agencies. In particular, the Indian Health Service (IHS) has authority and
significant responsibilities to assess and close open dumps, and to assist in funding the
construction and operation of solid waste facilities. Although EPA has provided valuable
technical assistance to tribes through grants for integrated waste management planning, hosting
national and regional meetings to provide training and hired circuit riders who provide on-site
11-P-0171 17
-------
advice, the Agency does not have similar broad authorities for assisting construction and
operation of solid waste facilities in its support role to IHS, and has limited funding and
enforcement authorities for closing open dumps. This consequently constrains the Agency's
efforts in this area. Thus, we believe it would be helpful for the OIG to more fully describe and
consider the complexities that exist as these programs are implemented. The Agency also
commits to identify and clarify EPA authorities for implementing solid waste management
programs in Indian country. We have responded to the specific recommendations below. We
have also included an attachment intended to correct and clarify certain elements of the Draft
Evaluation.
OIG Response: The objective and scope of our review was to determine the effectiveness of
EPA activities to develop tribal solid waste management capacity and eliminate open dumps.
We evaluated EPA's responsibilities under RCRA and GAP, as well as the specific efforts
and responsibilities that support IHS under the Open Dump Act. Our report recommends
actions that will improve EPA's contributions to the significant efforts of other federal
agencies.
lumps.
orts
ds
OIG Recommendation 1: "Designate a program office to develop a national plan for
providing consistent and effective tribal solid waste management and enforcement
services."
Response: Because we have an important role with respect to solid waste issues in Indian
country, EPA commits to: 1) continue to implement its strategy (as noted earlier) for improving
waste management in Indian country and 2) initiate the national planning activities discussed in
this memorandum that are within its purview, taking into consideration the resources that are
available to build tribal solid waste program capacity and enforce federal environmental laws in
Indian country. Given the complex nature of the legal and jurisdictional issues arising among
federal, tribal, and state entities, the focus of the Agency's national planning activities will be on
the evaluation of established measures, internal controls, internal Agency coordination, and
clarification of funding authority under the Indian General Assistance Program (GAP). These
activities are distinct from the actions of federally recognized Indian tribes (tribes), tribal
members, non-tribal members and other federal agencies, particularly IHS. The Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) and the Office of International and Tribal Affairs
(OITA) will be the lead program offices for coordinating these national planning activities
among OSWER, OITA, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), other
EPA offices, the Regions, and other federal agencies.
While we recognize the benefits of developing a national plan that would address solid
waste management and enforcement activities in Indian country, we do not concur with the Draft
Evaluation's recommendation that EPA develop a national plan that would include the actions
listed in the other recommendations. Although EPA recognizes that it has an important role in
supporting the resolution of solid waste issues, EPA is not the lead Federal Agency for the issue
of unaddressed solid waste problems in Indian country and cannot accept the responsibility for
completion of a comprehensive national plan to address those issues. Specifically, IHS, pursuant
to the Indian Lands Open Dump Cleanup Act of 1994 (Open Dump Act), has specific authority
to provide financial and technical assistance to Indian tribes and Alaska Native entities to close
11-P-0171 18
-------
open dumps ; currently the IHS database shows that there are approximately 3,400 open dumps
nationwide. In addition, the Open Dump Act requires IHS to develop an inventory of all open
dump sites on Indian lands and Alaska Native lands, and report to Congress annually on the level
of funding needed to effectively close or bring into compliance all such open dumps. (See 25
U.S.C. § 3903(4)(b).) Furthermore, under the Indian Sanitation Facilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §
2004(a), IHS is authorized to construct solid waste sanitation facilities, establish utility
organizations, and fund the operation and maintenance of solid waste facilities. EPA's role
regarding these activities is more limited and is primarily to assist IHS in their efforts in the
assessment of open dumps. Thus, if a national plan were to be produced regarding the provision
of tribal solid waste management services, we believe that it should be through an interagency
effort led by IHS with EPA as a participant and contributor. We will engage further with IHS, as
well as other federal agencies, and will convene an interagency senior level meeting to discuss
how EPA and the other federal agencies can work in concert to address solid waste issues on
Indian lands.
OIG Response: The Agency interpreted our recommendation to develop a "national plan"
as being outside the scope of EPA's authority and responsibility. We believe the Agency
interpreted this recommendation as meaning that EPA should take the primary responsibility
to create a national plan that all federal agencies would abide by when addressing solid
waste issues in Indian country. This recommendation was intended to be specific to EPA and
within the scope of EPA's authority. We are recommending that EPA develop and
implement a unified agency plan that would apply to all EPA program offices and EPA
regions responsible for solid waste management capacity and enforcement in Indian country.
We believe EPA is responsible for addressing this recommendation because EPA has
developed Agency strategies and priorities for waste management and compliance
assistance. EPA also reports achievements under GPRA goals for the variety of activities
provided to tribes that lead to dump closure. RCRA Subtitle D also provides EPA with two
enforcement authorities to address open dumps, and the Agency can assist tribes in
developing solid waste programs under their own tribal sovereignty. Further, EPA provides
tribes with funding to develop and implement solid and hazardous waste programs under
GAP.
OIG Recommendation 2a: "Implement a national plan that includes resources required to
provide solid waste management and enforcement services and designate the source of
those resources."
Response: The Agency will identify the resources available within EPA, and the sources of
these resources to build tribal solid waste program capacity and enforce federal environmental
laws within RCRA's statutory framework. This effort will be conducted in parallel to the
ongoing efforts of OITA to revise the GAP guidance and distribution process to place more
emphasis on tribes' prior progress, environmental capacity needs, and long-term goals. (See
"Framework for Developing Tribal Capacity Needed in the Indian General Assistance Program
Report," No. 08-P-0083, February 19, 2008.) The Agency recognizes that tribes receiving GAP
funds are given the ability to spend these funds on capacity building that can include solid and
11-P-0171 19
-------
hazardous waste activities specific to their individual environmental priorities. Further, as the
authorizing statute allowed, tribes may use GAP funds for purposes or programs that "include
the development and implementation of solid and hazardous waste programs for Indian lands."
Under Report No. 08-P-0083, the Agency is revising the GAP Administration Guidance and
intends to include additional guidance specifying the solid waste management activities that can
be funded.
OIG Recommendation 2b: "Implement a national plan that includes output and outcome
measures linked to intended results."
Response: The Agency agrees that the tribal program performance measures should be linked to
the intended results and believes that the existing measures are consistent with this goal. The
Agency, however, will evaluate and analyze the current measures to see if any additional or
different measures are needed in this regard.
The Agency, however, disagrees with certain elements in the Draft Evaluation's finding
leading up to this recommendation, because we believe the current Indian country measures are
linked to the intended results and do show results. For example, OECA's Indian Country Priority
compliance/technical assistance measure is a capacity development outcome measure. Activities
underlying this measure emphasize two things: (1) compliance and technical assistance for
developing tribal integrated waste management plans with enforceable codes aimed at deterring
illegal dumping and open burning of wastes; and (2) helping tribes understand how to comply
with RCRA. Likewise, assistance to tribes from OSWER and OITA for the development of
integrated waste management plans also is a capacity development function. An increase in the
number of tribes with integrated waste management plans, as reported through the Annual
Commitments System, is evidence that EPA's assistance is achieving its intended results.
Through the end of FY 2010, 117 tribes have established integrated waste management plans
which meet the Agency's definition under the GPRA goal. Moreover, the current EPA guidance
regarding this measure generally addresses the tribal program areas which the Draft Evaluation
highlights as aspects of a successful tribal program.
Also, we would note that EPA's enforcement actions are not intended to build tribal
capacity, but to compel clean-up or closure as necessary at a specific facility. By definition,
hazards are reduced when open dumps are upgraded or closed, whether or not the hazard or
exposure reduction is quantified. The cost to calculate reduced hazard and exposure for each site
cleaned up, closed or upgraded would divert limited resources from enforcement actions that
actually address open dumps. EPA believes that the number of cleaned up, closed or upgraded
open dumps is a useful and appropriate proxy for quantification of reduced hazard (under the
current GPRA goal, 565 open dumps have been reported as cleaned up, closed or upgraded since
the beginning of FY 2007). The Agency developed its current measures recognizing the
limitations of its authority. The further analysis of measures also will recognize these limitations,
as well as the need to ensure the measures and goals are quantifiable, measurable, and within
EPA's control.
11-P-0171 20
-------
OIG Response: To determine the achievement of Agency goals, EPA needs outcome
measures to track whether EPA's assistance is effectively developing the necessary solid
waste management capacity in Indian country to prevent and reduce the risks from open
dumps. Based on the Agency's response, EPA is currently relying on output measures as
proxies for outcome measures to determine whether its efforts are effective. We found little
connection between the outputs provided and the outcomes claimed by the Agency. For
example, OSWER is counting the number of waste management plans adopted by tribes,
regardless of how effectively the tribes are implementing those plans. The Agency states that
this OSWER measure is also sufficient to capture how compliance assistance contributes to
tribes' development of enforceable codes, which is just one element of a waste management
plan. However, OECA output measures only count the number of tribes "reached" through
compliance assistance and the number of enforcement investigations (defined as outreach to
tribes) conducted. Without additional outcome measures, it is unclear how the Agency can
determine that compliance assistance leads to enforceable codes, or determine what portion
of the achievements claimed under OSWER's plan measure are actually attributable to
OECA's efforts.
OSWER also counts the number of cleaned up, closed, or upgraded open dumps without
determining whether tribes have developed the management capacity to prevent new open
dumps from occurring or prevent former dumps from reappearing. The Agency believes that
OSWER's open dump closure measure is a sufficient proxy for quantification of reduced
hazard as a result of enforcement. However, OSWER's measure does not capture how
OECA investigations and enforcement actions directly contribute to or are linked to open
dump closures.
The Open Dump Act directed EPA to work cooperatively with IHS in maintaining the open
dump database (i.e., w/STARS), which should be instrumental in quantifying the open dump
problem in Indian country. We do not believe, however, that OSWER's open dump closure
measure ensures that these efforts are building solid waste management capacity in Indian
country or that these efforts are aligned with the Agency's resources. As a result, we
continue to believe that EPA needs to reevaluate and develop appropriate measures that are
in alignment with the Agency's authority, activities, and resources.
OIG Recommendation 2c: "Implement a national plan that includes internal controls to
ensure consistent data collection and services to tribal clients nationwide.
Response: The Agency agrees with the Draft Evaluation's statement that internal controls are
important, and commits to determining whether additional internal controls are necessary. For
example, EPA will determine whether any additional information is needed beyond the existing
IHS protocols and the detailed survey form used to assess open dumps and enter data regarding
open dumps into the IHS data system. We believe that the concern underlying this
recommendation is that the assessment of open dumps is ongoing and incomplete. For example,
many open dumps that are listed in the database have not received a full assessment or had an
assessment prior to the development of the current database and the associated protocols. In both
cases, the data pertaining to those sites will remain incomplete pending a new assessment. MS,
in cooperation with EPA, is responsible for conducting these assessments. However, the Agency
11-P-0171 21
-------
also will provide clarification on what constitutes an open dump for the purpose of EPA's entries
into the IHS data system and the strategic measure.
EPA disagrees, however, with the specific references to inconsistent data collection
pertaining to open dumps. The inventory of open dumps maintained by IHS includes specific
guidance for analyzing and inputting data based on multiple risk factors. EPA, through a
cooperative agreement with IHS, assists with data input and does so according to the IHS
guidance. The Agency will continue its efforts to work with IHS and individual tribes to conduct
assessments of open dumps in Indian country, and to collect the associated data.
An example of where the Agency's current internal controls are in place is within OECA.
OECA sets national policies for, and establishes measures related to providing compliance
assistance, conducting compliance monitoring (e.g., investigations), and pursuing appropriate
enforcement in Indian country. Under the solid waste focus area of EPA's National Compliance
Assurance and Enforcement Priority, OECA developed compliance assistance and investigation
measures as benchmarks for undertaking specific activities to improve compliance with RCRA,
build tribal solid waste capacity, and identify whether an enforcement action is the appropriate
approach to addressing specific incidents of illegal dumping. At midyear and end of year from
fiscal year (FY) 2008 - 2010, OECA received a report from each Region containing results for
each measure.
EPA also does not agree that either the Draft Evaluation's background information or its
recommendations support the conclusion that the lack of "national internal controls" has led to
"poor conditions" in Indian country, "limited oversight" by Agency officials, or the "ineffective
use of resources." In fact, the Draft Evaluation does not make a finding that the Agency's use of
resources has been ineffective in improving a tribe's waste management capacity or reducing the
risks posed by open dumps.
OIG Response: The Agency lacks internal controls that include (1) an Agency-wide plan
that defines missions and responsibilities, goals, and objectives; (2) processes for planning,
organizing, directing, and controlling program operations; and (3) systems for measuring,
reporting, and monitoring program performance.
EPA is using the incomplete w/STARS database to track the Agency's open dump closure
measure. While we recognize that the database is not static, our primary concern underlying
this recommendation is that the Agency lacks plans, processes, systems, or other related
internal controls to manage these data. EPA needs specific procedures outlining when the IHS
data collection forms should be filled out and updated, who should fill out the forms, which
data fields are necessary to collect for EPA's tracking purposes, and how the Agency should
prioritize its open dump efforts given its limited resources. EPA does not have these controls
in place and cannot determine whether it is using its resources to collect the open dump data
consistently and effectively nationwide. Without this information, EPA cannot ensure its
efforts are developing solid waste management capacity and reducing risks in Indian country.
11-P-0171 22
-------
In addition, OECA's national policies lack the internal controls to ensure regional
accountability for providing access to a consistent range of solid waste codes and enforcement
assistance. For instance, the varying technical expertise of EPA staff and resources across the
EPA regions impacts the availability of assistance provided to tribes. Further, OECA's
measures cannot be used as sufficient internal controls. Specifically, OECA's assistance
measures only hold the Agency responsible for counting the number of tribes "reached" and
the number of waste investigations conducted by the Agency. However, these measures do
not provide the Agency with a plan, processes, or systems for how the Agency should provide
consistent and effective compliance and enforcement assistance to achieve the intended
results.
Finally, we did not report that "the lack of 'national internal controls' has led to 'poor
conditions' (emphasis added) in Indian country. Our "At a Glance" section states, "The lack
of a single plan results in poor coordination (emphasis added) and limited oversight, and
may lead to an ineffective use of resources." With regard to oversight and efficiency, we refer
to the body of this response above to support EPA's need for more effective measures and
internal controls (i.e., oversight methods). Further, if EPA does not have effective measures
and internal controls in place, the Agency cannot assure that it is using its resources as
effectively as possible.
OIG Recommendation 2d: "Implement a national plan that includes a process to ensure
coordination between EPA program offices and regions."
Response: The Agency believes that the numerous existing coordination activities, including
regular meetings, conference calls and personal contacts, are effective. However, we also believe
that improvements always can be made, and as a component of these planning activities, the
Agency will examine its existing internal coordination efforts and make any necessary changes
and improvements.
11-P-0171 23
-------
OIG Recommendation 2e: "Implement a national plan that includes a specific timeline
within which outcomes are expected to be accomplished.
Response: The Agency proposes the following timeline:
Consistent with the Agency's response outlined above,
OSWER and OITA will be the lead program offices for
coordinating the national planning activities to:
1 . Identify and clarify EPA authorities for implementing
solid waste management programs in Indian country.
2. Identify the internal EPA resources and their respective
sources available to build tribal solid waste program
capacity and enforce federal environmental laws within
RCRA' s statutory framework;
3. Review the ongoing GAP Administration Guidance
revision effort to insure correlation with the national
planning activity efforts described in this response;
4. Analyze EPA's current performance measures and
evaluate the need for additional or different
performance measures to ensure linkage to the desired
results;
5. Re-examine the existing internal EPA controls to ensure
consistent data collection and provide additional
information to the Regions regarding the assessment of
open dumps which have not received an assessment
under the recent IHS protocols;
6. Clarify what constitutes an open dump for the purpose
of EPA's entries into the IHS data system and the
strategic measure; and
7. Examine EPA's existing internal coordination efforts
and make any necessary changes and improvements.
The Agency will implement the results of these national
planning activities as necessary.
FY 201 1-2012
FY 2012 -2013
OIG Response: EPA's corrective action plan will need to commit to an Agency-specific
national-level plan with the elements and internal controls outlined in the recommendations,
as well as a timeline for its design and implementation.
11-P-0171
24
-------
Appendix B
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator for International and Tribal Affairs
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 5
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9
Agency Followup Official (the CFO)
Agency Followup Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for External Affairs and Environmental Education
Director, American Indian Environmental Office
Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of the Administrator
11-P-0171 25
------- |