* g% \
iS 3
V pR0^°
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Sustainable Development
Benefits of EPA Initiative to
Promote Renewable Energy
on Contaminated Lands
Have Not Been Established
Report No. 15-P-0198
July 16, 2015
Scan this mobile
code to learn more
about the EPA OIG.
-------
Report Contributors: Jenny Drzewiecki
Chad Kincheloe
Tina Lovingood
Roopa Mulchandani
Kate Robinson
Jill Trynosky
Abbreviations
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
OIG Office of Inspector General
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Cover photo: Ground-mounted solar photovoltaic system installed at the
Frontier Fertilizer Superfund Site, Davis, California. (EPA photo)
Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an
EPA program?
EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)
Washington, DC 20460
(888) 546-8740
(202) 566-2599 (fax)
OIG Hotline@epa.gov
More information at www.epa.gov/oiq/hotline.html.
EPA Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (241OT)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-2391
www.epa.gov/oig
Subscribe to our Email Updates
Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig
Send us your Project Suggestions
-------
.tftD s7/w 15-P-0198
* — * U.S. Environmental Protection Agency July 16,2015
sS?
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
Why We Did This Review
We evaluated how the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) set and
measured specific goals for its
activities related to siting
renewable energy on potentially
contaminated land and mine
sites (hereafter referred to as
contaminated lands), such as
economic and environmental
return on investment, and
whether siting efforts ensure
short- and long-term health and
environmental protection on
these contaminated sites.
In 2008, the EPA's Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response launched the
RE-Powering America's Land
Initiative, through which the EPA
encourages renewable energy
development on contaminated
lands. Renewable energy is
energy obtained from sources
that can be continually
replenished, such as solar, wind
and biomass.
This report addresses the
following EPA goal or
cross-agency strategy:
• Cleaning up communities
and advancing sustainable
development.
For further information,
contact our public affairs office
at (202) 566-2391.
The full report is at:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2015/
20150716-15-P-0198.pdf
Benefits of EPA Initiative to Promote Renewable Energy
on Contaminated Lands Have Not Been Established
What We Found
The EPA sets specific goals for its program
activities related to promoting and providing
education and outreach for siting renewable
energy on contaminated lands through its
RE-Powering America's Land Initiative. However,
the EPA does not have a mechanism to measure
the outcomes of accomplishing initiative goals,
nor does it have information on the return on
investment realized for the activities completed or
resources the agency stated it has invested.
EPA does not know the
benefits realized from its
efforts to promote siting
renewable energy on
contaminated lands. As a
result, the agency is unable
to demonstrate benefits
realized for the $4 million it
stated it has invested in
these efforts since 2008.
Regarding the return on investment, the EPA stated it has invested $4 million in the
initiative, including just over $2.5 million to support more than 40 feasibility studies
that provide site owners and communities with a technical and economic assessment
of installing renewable energy on a given site, and development of initiative tools.
Seventy-six percent of the studies completed showed some potential for siting
renewable energy on contaminated lands. However, the EPA was aware of only two
sites with renewable energy that benefitted from feasibility studies. Consumer
awareness or use of initiative tools could also be an indicator of return on investment.
Four of seven external parties involved with siting renewable energy on contaminated
lands with whom we spoke were unaware of the initiative or did not use the tools it
provides. Without benefits information and consumer awareness or utility, the EPA is
unable to demonstrate results of the initiative and support continuing the program.
The EPA's RE-Powering America's Land Initiative does not address human health
and environmental protection issues when renewable energy is sited on
contaminated lands. However, the initiative could refer to guidance from other EPA
programs that have such controls, including periodic reviews or monitoring, to
maintain protectiveness.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We recommend that the EPA determine whether the benefits from its renewable
energy promotion efforts demonstrate the value of the RE-Powering initiative. If
benefits cannot be demonstrated, the EPA should modify or terminate the program.
If the EPA continues with this initiative, it should establish management controls to
measure and report on progress, use available data to track and report on economic
and environmental benefits realized, and refer participants to EPA guidance covering
human health and environmental protection. The agency provided sufficient planned
corrective actions and estimated completion dates for all of our recommendations. All
recommendations are considered resolved and open with corrective actions ongoing.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
July 16,2015
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Benefits of EPA Initiative to Promote Renewable Energy on Contaminated Lands
Have Not Been Established
Report No. 15-P-019"
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 EPA office having primary responsibility over the issues discussed in this report is the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response's Center for Program Analysis.
Action Required
You are not required to provide a written response to this report because you provided agreed-to
corrective actions and planned completion dates for the report recommendations. The OIG may make
periodic inquiries on your progress in implementing these corrective actions. Should you choose to
make a final response, we will post your response on the OIG's public website, along with our
memorandum commenting on your response. You should provide your response as an Adobe PDF file
that complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended.
We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig.
FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.
TO:
Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
-------
Benefits of EPA Initiative to Promote Renewable Energy
on Contaminated Lands Have Not Been Established
15-P-0198
Table of C
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Responsible Office 2
Scope and Methodology 2
2 EPA Needs to Determine Program Value
and Improve Its Program Website 4
EPA Lacks a Mechanism to Systematically Track Program Goals
and Measure Program Benefits 4
Initiative Does Not Clearly Address Human Health and
Environmental Protection 8
Conclusions 9
Recommendations 9
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 10
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 11
Appendices
A Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Comments 12
B Distribution 20
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this evaluation was to answer the following questions:
• Does the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set and measure
specific goals for its program activities related to siting renewable energy
on potentially contaminated land and mine sites,1 including, for example,
economic or environmental return on investment?
• Do the EPA's efforts to promote siting renewable energy on potentially
contaminated land and mine sites ensure short- and long-term human
health and environmental protection on these contaminated sites?
Background
In 2008, the EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
launched the RE-Powering America's Land Initiative. Through this initiative, the
EPA has encouraged renewable energy development on current and formerly
contaminated lands, landfills and mine sites (referred to hereafter as contaminated
lands). According to the EPA, the siting of renewable energy on contaminated
lands can reduce the demand for development on agricultural land, which protects
watersheds and wetlands and provides habitat as well as raw resources and food.
Some examples of expected benefits or return on investment of siting renewable
energy on contaminated lands include: reduction of remediation costs, avoidance
of air emissions for the energy provided, a solar farm at a landfill that will
generate electricity equivalent to powering 365 homes year-round, a solar
installation where some of the construction jobs to erect the solar array were to go
to residents of local affordable housing units, and a solar array that is expected to
save a township about $13 million in energy costs over 15 years.
Renewable energy is obtained from sources that can be continually replenished,
such as solar, wind and biomass. Contaminated lands considered for renewable
energy potential include sites in the EPA's Brownfields, Resource Conservation
and Recovery, Superfund, Landfill Methane Outreach and Abandoned Mine
Lands cleanup programs.
1 The EPA's RE-Powering America's Land website references both "siting renewable energy on potentially
contaminated lands, landfills, and mine sites" and "encouraging renewable energy development on current and
formerly contaminated lands, landfills, and mine sites." The phrases "potentially contaminated lands, landfills, and
mine sites" and "current and formerly contaminated lands, landfills, and mine sites" are used interchangeably in this
report.
15-P-0198
1
-------
Contaminated land and mine sites can threaten human health and the
environment. For example, contaminated soils can leach toxic chemicals into
nearby ground or surface waters, where these materials can be taken up by plants
and animals, contaminate a human drinking water supply, or volatilize and
contaminate the indoor air in overlying buildings. Contaminants at mine sites
could include arsenic, cadmium, lead, zinc, asbestos or nickel.2 Further, some
mine sites pose the threat of radiation exposure to humans.
The initiative's efforts to promote renewable energy on contaminated lands are
focused on encouraging future projects as well as providing educational materials
on its website3 and conducting outreach to developers, landowners and other
stakeholders. Some of these educational online tools include a list that provides
information for over 66,000 sites screened for renewable energy potential, a
finance fact sheet, best practice documents and success stories. Initiative outreach
activities include attending conferences, hosting webinars, soliciting stakeholder
feedback and responding to stakeholder inquiries.
According to initiative staff, approximately 21 people work on the initiative and
the EPA's renewable energy efforts. This group includes approximately two full-
time staff in EPA headquarters and 19 staff who assist with EPA renewable
energy efforts in conjunction with their primary job duties. The 19 staff are
located in the 10 EPA regions and in EPA offices, including: Federal Facilities,
Brownfields, Enforcement, Resource Conservation and Recovery, Superfund
Redevelopment Initiative, Abandoned Mine Lands and Underground Storage
Tanks. In addition, according to initiative staff, since 2008 the EPA has funded,
on average, $240,000 per year for contract support, and an additional $2.5 million
to the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) for conducting studies on the feasibility of renewable energy production
on contaminated lands. The initiative staff is working to implement management
plans, and periodically updates a tracking matrix that tracks renewable energy that
has been sited on contaminated lands.
Responsible Office
OSWER's Center for Program Analysis is responsible for implementing the
RE-Powering America's Land Initiative.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted our work from July 2014 to April 2015. We conducted this
performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
2 Superfund Information Systems, Contaminants of Concern at Annapolis Lead Mine & Atlas Asbestos Mine,
http://cumulis.epa. gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Contams&id=0702917 and
http://cumulis.epa. gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Contams&id=0901736.
3 RE-Powering America's Land: http://www.epa.gov/oswercpa/.
15-P-0198
2
-------
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained
provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
We interviewed EPA staff and management in the following OSWER offices or
initiatives:
• RE-Powering America's Land Initiative.
• Green Remediation.
• Abandoned Mine Lands Team.
• Brownfields.
• Resource Conservation and Recovery.
• Superfund Redevelopment Initiative.
In addition, we interviewed EPA staff in Regions 1, 2, 5, 8 and 9.
We reviewed statutes, executive orders and guidance related to siting renewable
energy on contaminated lands and EPA land cleanup programs. We also reviewed
documentation relating to the initiative, including stakeholder feedback and an
evaluation scoping study example. In addition, we reviewed initiative
management plans to identify what goals have been set and how the EPA
measures completion of those goals, including outcomes generated by
accomplishing the goals. We conducted visits at two Superfund sites in Region 9
to gain a better understanding of how siting renewable energy on contaminated
lands works. Further, we interviewed external parties involved with siting
renewable energy on contaminated lands, including industry engineers and
developers, staff from the state of Massachusetts' Department of Environmental
Protection, the U.S. Department of Energy's NREL, and a city director for a wind
and solar renewable energy site.
15-P-0198
3
-------
Chapter 2
EPA Needs to Determine Program Value
and Improve Its Program Website
The EPA sets specific goals for its program activities related to the promotion,
education and outreach of siting renewable energy on potentially contaminated
lands through its RE-Powering America's Land Initiative Management Plan.
According to EPA staff, the agency has made staff and monetary investments of
at least $4 million since 2008 for its initiative activities. However, the EPA does
not have a mechanism to measure benefits (or return on investment) realized from
accomplishing goals in its Management Plan or from the resources invested. As a
result, the EPA does not have information on benefits and is unable to
demonstrate benefits realized for the $4 million the agency stated it has invested
in these efforts. Further, the initiative website does not include a section
addressing human health and environmental protection issues when renewable
energy is sited on contaminated lands.
EPA Lacks a Mechanism to Systematically Track Program Goals and
Measure Program Benefits
Management Action Plans are Close to Complete, But Key Action
Supporting Results Determination Is Incomplete
The EPA used Management Plans to set initiative goals. The initiative's
Management Plans are periodically developed and outline activities the initiative
plans to pursue over a period of 2 years. First issued was the 2010 Management
Plan, and more recently a 2014 Action Plan (issued October 2014). For the
purposes of our evaluation, we reviewed the 2010 Management Plan to measure
the initiative's progress in completing its goals, since the 2014 plan is still
ongoing. The 2010 plan had three goals (see box
at left.) Each goal had corresponding action
items, and 19 of the 20 actions have been
completed. Completed actions included
developing guidance for siting renewable energy
on landfills, enhanced outreach to tribes, and
developing case studies.
Although initiative staff were able to provide us
information on actions completed from the
EPA's 2010 Management Plan, the EPA has not
addressed how these completed actions
systematically track the accomplishment of goals
outlined in the same document, or the outcomes
Goals From EPA's 2010
Management Plan
s Goal 1: Provide Incentives and Technical
Assistance for Siting Renewable Energy on
Contaminated Land
s Goal 2: Create Unified Federal Approach to
Promote Siting of Renewable Energy on
Contaminated Land
s Goal 3: Improve Communication and
Sharing of Data on Siting Renewable
Energy on Contaminated Land to Enable
Stakeholders to Successfully Reuse Sites
for Renewable Energy
15-P-0198
4
-------
generated by accomplishing its goals. Staff informed us that they have put in
place processes and procedures to check progress against established milestones,
including weekly updates, bi-weekly or monthly meetings, regular review and
reporting of financials associated with the initiative, and employee accountability
through performance standards. However, these controls did not measure progress
toward the initiative's goals so management or oversight bodies could determine
whether they had been met. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123
defines management's responsibility for internal controls in federal agencies,
including control activities. Control activities include policies, procedures and
mechanisms in place to help ensure that the agency objectives are met.
~
~
~
According to the EPA, the one action not
completed from the 2010 Management
Plan is to "Evaluate the Effectiveness of
RE-Powering Initiative." This action was
carried over to the 2014 plan (see box at
right) under Goal 2 and has a projected
completion date of winter 2015.
Completing this action could help
determine the return on investment of the
initiative. Some progress on this action
item has been made. An evaluation
scoping assessment, which was completed on April 16, 2015, was a study
designed to identify existing data that could be used to conduct an outcome
evaluation, and identify any new data that would be required to evaluate the
program's outcomes. Initiative staff stated that once the evaluation scoping
assessment was completed, another evaluation study would be conducted to
address how initiative activities are linked to outcomes (see Figure 1). Slow
progress in completing the evaluation studies has resulted in a delay in
determining the effectiveness of the initiative.
Goals From EPA's 2014
Management Plan
Goal 1: Provide Technical and
Programmatic Assistance
Goal 2: Promote Policies and Best
Practices That Encourage Renewable
Energy on Contaminated Lands
Goal 3: Partner with Stakeholders
and Leverage Agency Efforts
Figure 1: EPA steps to evaluate effectiveness of RE-Powering Initiative
Not Completed
2010 Managment
Plan
Includes Action:
Evaluate the
Effectiveness of
RE-Powering
Initiative
Not Completed
2014 Management
Plan
Includes Action:
Evaluate the
Effectiveness of
RE-Powering
Initiative
Completed
Evaluation
Scoping
Assessment
To Determine
Data Sets
Available and
New Data
Required to
Assess Outcomes
Not Completed
Outcome
Evaluation Study
Source: OIG analysis of EPA documentation.
To Determine
Effectiveness of
Initiative
15-P-0198
5
-------
An action item in the 2010 Management Plan that will assist the EPA in
determining benefits is to "Track Renewable Energy on Contaminated Lands
Projects and Collect Specific Data That Can be Used to Measure Progress and
Environmental Benefits." According to initiative staff, the action is complete.
The initiative tracks renewable energy on contaminated lands through its
RE-Powering Tracking Matrix (latest version April 2015). The Tracking Matrix
from April 2015 lists 151 renewable energy installations, and includes examples
of environmental and/or economic benefits expected or realized at contaminated
sites with renewable energy installations recorded. The initiative also maintains
an internal document that tracks economic benefits, and the EPA relies on
developers to voluntarily report in publicly available sources—such as newspaper
articles—for approximately half of the installations in the Tracking Matrix. The
information in the Tracking Matrix is therefore not comprehensive or verified and
tested for accuracy.
EPA Lacks Return on Investment Information
Despite some accomplishments reported, the EPA does not report the benefits
realized from the initiative's accomplished goals, objectives or actions and,
therefore, does not demonstrate the value of the program.
Initiative staff report program accomplishments through OSWER and Initiative
Accomplishments Reports. The reports included limited details on accomplished
goals, objectives or actions, and lacked information on benefits realized from
efforts. The 2012 OSWER Accomplishments Report included a brief mention of
three initiative tools released: Screening Sites for Solar PV Potential, Screening
Sites for Wind Energy Potential and Handbook on Siting Renewable Energy
Projects While Addressing Environmental Issues. The 2013 OSWER
Accomplishments Report provided background information on the initiative. The
April 2013 Initiative Accomplishments Report (the first and latest version)
included accomplishments for some—but not all—goals, objectives or actions as
outlined in the 2010 Management Plan. For example:
• The goal to provide technical assistance was accomplished by developing
the Handbook on Siting Renewable Energy Projects While Addressing
Environmental Issues.
• The goal of assisting communities was accomplished by developing fact
sheets and screening sites for the interactive tool that maps potential
renewable energy sites.
• The goal of enhanced coordination and collaboration was accomplished by
working with federal agencies on specific sites and opportunities to model
the land reuse and renewable energy development the initiative seeks.
15-P-0198
6
-------
To better understand potential benefits offered by the EPA's promotional tools,
we asked external parties about their familiarity and usage of the initiative's
website and tools. We interviewed seven external stakeholders, who provided
mixed feedback. Three of the seven were familiar with initiative tools and
provided positive feedback, but the other four were unaware of or did not use the
tools. Main reasons for the stakeholders' lack of awareness or use was that they
were involved with siting renewable energy projects prior to the start of the
initiative in 2008, the tools were outdated for their use, or the stakeholders had
limited interaction with the EPA for siting renewable energy projects.
Funding for the initiative has included support for contractors and an interagency
agreement with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). According to
EPA staff, contract support has averaged $240,000 per year, and the EPA has
funded NREL just over $2.5 million since 2008. NREL conducted studies that
evaluated the feasibility of developing renewable energy production on Superfund,
brovvnfields, and former landfill or mining sites. Examples of information included
in feasibility studies are: technical and economic opportunities and challenges at a
site, preliminary analysis of the viability of a site, renewable energy resource
availability, possible renewable energy system size and location, and economics of
installing the proposed renewable energy system.
NREL has completed 42 feasibility studies for the initiative, and 32 of the completed
studies concluded renewable energy development was feasible or suitable. Of the 42
studies completed, one study was completed for a few regions of the country and two
studies were completed for one site. According to NREL, approximately five
feasibility studies are planned for the future. Studies have varying start times, and a
single study could take as long as a year and a half to complete. NREL informed us
that costs to have a feasibility study conducted depend on the technology, the
specific site characteristics and any potential issues at the site. An estimate for
determining the feasibility of solar development on a site can range from $7,500 to
$30,000, while costs for a feasibility study of wind development can range from
$30,000 to $75,000.
Once NREL completes a feasibility study, it provides the study to the EPA and
the agency posts it to the initiative's website. According to initiative staff, studies
serve as a means to engage communities and developers in possible renewable
energy projects. Initiative staff stated that there is a time lag between when a
study is completed and when renewable energy may be sited. Initiative staff were
aware of only two sites that had renewable energy developments that benefitted
from feasibility studies.
The EPA's staff investment includes approximately two full-time individuals in
headquarters and 19 who work on the initiative or EPA renewable energy efforts
in conjunction with their primary duties, including representation in each of the
EPA's 10 regions. According to the EPA, there are no separate time reporting
codes to track time spent working on the initiative or renewable energy-related
15-P-0198
7
-------
work. Regional staff interviewed indicated they spent an average of 10 percent of
their time on initiative or renewable energy-related activities.
Despite the staff and funding invested by the EPA, the agency does not have
information on benefits of its program activities related to the promotion of siting
renewable energy on contaminated lands. Its action item to evaluate the
effectiveness of the initiative began in 2010 and is not set to be completed until
winter 2015. The EPA has not made substantial progress in measuring benefits
resulting from its investment in initiative efforts.
Initiative Does Not Clearly Address Human Health and Environmental
Protection
Initiative Does Not Communicate Human Health and Environmental
Protection Issues
The initiative's website does not feature a section related to human health and
environmental protection issues as they relate to siting renewable energy on
contaminated lands. There are some educational materials on the initiative
website that include human health and environmental protection issues for
developers to consider when siting renewable energy on contaminated lands
(see sidebar below for example). However, absent a designated section identifying
resources available that address protectiveness issues when siting, it could be
difficult for a user of the website—such as a developer or other external
stakeholder—to locate these types of resources.
The Handbook on Siting Renewable Energy Projects While Addressing
Environmental Issues describes addressing environmental site issues.
For example:
• "Renewable energy development must be designed to accommodate any
engineered (e.g., landfill cap) or ICs [institutional controls] (e.g., restrictive
covenants) implemented as part of the cleanup to ensure there is no risk to
human health or the environment."
• "If groundwater treatment is complete but monitoring is ongoing, renewable
energy development may also occur as long as monitoring wells remain
accessible and undisturbed."
Initiative Not Designed to Ensure Protectiveness, But EPA Has
Controls to Maintain Protectiveness at Contaminated Sites
According to initiative staff, contaminated sites with renewable energy
development on them are treated in the same manner as contaminated sites with
any other reuse development. There are follow-up requirements to monitor the
impact or potential impact of siting a renewable energy system—such as solar or
wind—on a contaminated site. The EPA has controls designed to protect human
health and the environment at contaminated sites with or without renewable
15-P-0198
8
-------
energy, including: Superfund 5-year reviews, institutional and/or engineering
controls, or operations and maintenance checks.
The EPA is not required to conduct follow-up activities to determine whether a
renewable energy system has impacted human health or environmental protection
at a site unless the renewable energy system affects the integrity of the cleanup
remedy. Since the initiative's promotion efforts focus on education and outreach,
the EPA is less involved in the decision to site renewable energy and, therefore,
less involved once siting occurs. Site-specific monitoring can be performed by the
oversight authority, which could be the EPA or a state.
According to the EPA, the initiative was not designed to ensure human health and
environmental protectiveness. Its efforts focus on promotion, education and
outreach regarding siting renewable energy on contaminated lands. However,
some OSWER programs have monitoring in place to ensure and maintain
protectiveness at contaminated sites.
Conclusions
EPA staff and funding have been invested in the RE-Powering America's Land
Initiative since 2008, but actions to evaluate the effectiveness of the initiative have
been delayed and are incomplete. While there are benefits from renewable energy
and potential benefits from siting renewable energy on contaminated lands, the EPA
has not assessed the value of its efforts to support these endeavors. Four of seven
external parties surveyed involved with siting renewable energy on contaminated
lands have shown limited awareness or use of the information and tools that the EPA
provides on siting renewable energy on contaminated lands. EPA documents include
human health and environmental factors to consider when siting renewable energy
on contaminated lands, but the initiative's website did not include a listing of which
documents contain these factors. Identifying these documents supports efforts to
protect human health and the environment in decisions to site renewable energy on
contaminated lands. The EPA needs to determine benefits from the initiative. Doing
so will better inform decision makers—including EPA management—on the
continued need for or redesign of the initiative. The EPA already has invested more
than $4 million on the entire initiative effort since 2008.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response:
1. Determine whether benefits from its investment of program resources in
renewable energy promotion, education and outreach efforts outlined in
the Management Plan demonstrate the value of the RE-Powering
America's Land Initiative. If benefits cannot be demonstrated for the
initiative, the EPA should modify or terminate the program.
15-P-0198
9
-------
If the EPA chooses to continue with the initiative in its current or modified form,
we recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response:
2. Establish management controls to measure progress and publicly report
how the EPA is accomplishing its goals, objectives and actions for its
renewable energy promotion, education and outreach efforts, as outlined
in the EPA's current and future versions of the RE-Powering America's
Land Initiative Management Plan.
3. Use available data from sites that have had renewable energy development
and are under EPA oversight to track and publicly report on economic and
environmental benefits realized at sites.
4. Include on the RE-Powering America's Land Initiative website a section
covering human health and environmental protection as they relate to
siting renewable energy on potentially contaminated lands, landfills and
mine sites. Include, at a minimum, references to information such as:
a. EPA controls for ensuring and maintaining protectiveness at
contaminated sites, including landowner and oversight authority
roles.
b. Engineering design considerations.
c. Frequently asked questions and answers on how to report or seek
assistance for human health or environmental protection issues
when siting.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The agency disagreed with the wording of Recommendations 1 and 2, but
provided corrective actions and estimated completion dates that meet the intent of
the recommendations. The agency agreed with Recommendations 3 and 4, and
provided corrective actions and estimated completion dates that meet the intent of
the recommendations. All four recommendations are considered resolved and
open with corrective actions ongoing. The agency's response to our draft report
and our comments are in Appendix A. We have incorporated agency comments,
where appropriate, into our report.
15-P-0198
10
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (In $000s)
Rec.
No.
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion
Date
Claimed
Amount
Ag reed-To
Amount
9 Determine whether benefits from its investment of
program resources in renewable energy promotion,
education and outreach efforts outlined in the
Management Plan demonstrate the value of the
RE-Powering America's Land Initiative. If benefits
cannot be demonstrated for the initiative, the EPA
should modify or terminate the program.
10 If the EPA chooses to continue with the initiative in
its current or modified form, establish management
controls to measure progress and publicly report
how the EPA is accomplishing its goals, objectives
and actions for its renewable energy promotion,
education, and outreach efforts, as outlined in the
EPA's current and future versions of the
RE-Powering America's Land Initiative
Management Plan.
10 If the EPA chooses to continue with the initiative in
its current or modified form, use available data from
sites that have had renewable energy development
and are under EPA oversight to track and publicly
report on economic and environmental benefits
realized at sites.
10 If the EPA chooses to continue with the initiative in
its current or modified form, include on the
RE-Powering America's Land Initiative website a
section covering human health and environmental
protection as they relate to siting renewable energy
on potentially contaminated lands, landfills and
mine sites. Include, at a minimum, references to
information such as:
a. EPA controls for ensuring and maintaining
protectiveness at contaminated sites,
including landowner and oversight authority
roles.
b. Engineering design considerations.
c. Frequently-asked questions and answers on
how to report or seek assistance for human
health or environmental protection issues
when siting.
Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
3/31/16
12/31/15
Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
3/31/16
12/31/15
1 0 = Recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending.
C = Recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed.
U = Recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress
15-P-0198
11
-------
Appendix A
Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Comments
The text of the EPA response, along with our analysis, is provided below.
May 5, 2015
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report Benefits of EPA Initiative to
Promote Renewable Energy on Contaminated Lands Have Not Been Established
No. OPE-FY14-0043
FROM: Mathy Stanislaus/s/
Assistant Administrator
TO: Arthur A. Elkins, Jr.
Inspector General
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues and recommendations in the subject
evaluation report. Following is a summary of our overall position and perspective on some of
the issues raised in this draft evaluation. In addition, we provide our position on each of the
report recommendations. For those report recommendations with which we agree, we have
provided high-level intended corrective actions and estimated completion dates to the extent we
can. For those report recommendations with which we do not agree, we have explained our
position, and propose alternatives to the recommendations. We would appreciate the opportunity
to meet with you if you do not plan to accept these changes.
OIG Response 1: During the exit conference with the agency, we discussed the draft report
recommendations. For Recommendations 1 and 2, the agency disagreed with the wording of the
recommendations and proposed alternatives. We do not agree with the wording of the agency's "Proposed
Alternative." However, we agreed that each "Proposed Alternative" and "action" identified by the agency
meets the intent of the OIG recommendations. The agency agreed with Recommendations 3 and 4.
Overall Position
EPA's RE-Powering America's Land Initiative provides a means to transform community
liabilities into assets. Since RE-Powering's inception, 151 renewable energy installations on 144
contaminated lands, landfills and mine sites have been established. These sites are in 35 states
and territories, representing a combined 1,046 MW of capacity and providing numerous benefits
15-P-0198
12
-------
to their communities. EPA has collected anecdotal information reporting millions of dollars in
cost savings for communities from reduced energy costs over several years, as well as, creating
construction jobs and providing property tax revenue. In addition to the 151 sites already
developed, EPA is aware of many more sites being developed.
As a tenet of its implementation, RE-Powering America's Land solicits and responds to the input
and perspective of a diverse set of stakeholders and thereby directly and indirectly influences the
cleanup of contaminated properties and encourages the pursuit of renewable energy. The
Management Plan and associated products and materials are a result of the stakeholder feedback:
When stakeholders sought assistance in expanding the screening of potential
contaminated properties, the Initiative expanded the mapping tool which currently
identifies over 66,000 sites on over 35 million acres and fostered a collaborative
partnership with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to provide initial
screening for these sites;
When stakeholders expressed concerns about the potential liability from reusing formerly
contaminated sites, OSWER partnered with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA) to clarify existing guidance and develop new guidance tailored to the
kind of tenant relationships often used in renewable energy development;
When stakeholders sought advice in pursuing such projects, the Initiative created a
network of professionals across its headquarters and regional offices (the RE-Powering
Response Team);
When stakeholders sought specific technical assistance regarding implementation on
landfills and siting renewable energy while cleanup is ongoing, the Initiative developed
two handbooks to integrate the cleanup process with renewable energy development and,
provide best practices on the installation of solar photovoltaics on landfills; and
When stakeholders sought assurance and education regarding the opportunity that RE-
Powering might bring to contaminated properties in their communities, the Initiative
partnered with NREL to assess potential at specific sites, developed communications
materials to enhance the consideration of this reuse option, tracked and highlighted
successful installations across the country through its semi-annual tracking matrix, and
published case studies to explore how particular projects encountered and overcame
obstacles.
Over the course of six years, with its modest staff4 and funding5, the RE-Powering America's
Land Initiative has been responsive and brought value to its stakeholders. RE-Powering's
influence and visibility continues to grow among an increasing diversity of stakeholders:
Provisions related to such development were included in the President's 2013 Memorandum on
Federal Leadership on Energy Management, the state of New Jersey included contaminated sites
4
Over the course of the six years, there has been from 1 -2 full-time EPA employees assigned to Re-Powering. This FTE is supported by a
regional network of approximately 12 staff persons who work about 10% of their time, along with their other responsibilities. In addition, the
Initiative is supported by approximately 7 identified staff members in OECA and the other OSWER programs.
5 Over the course of the six years, the Initiative has expended an average of $240,000 per year on contractor support and funded $2.5 million of
support to NREL (approximately $1.9 million of which funded feasibility studies for communities).
15-P-0198
13
-------
in its solar legislation in 2012; several utilities include contaminated lands as a criterion in their
requests for renewable energy sites, states have asked to have their sites in EPA's mapping tool;
and the Bureau of Land Management now highlights contaminated properties in their review of
right-of-way application approval processes. A Google search for "RE-Powering America's
Land" returned over 380,000 results, ranging from the newspaper and journal articles to
academic papers, blogs, presentations, and social media.
Our experience with the OIG and the findings and recommendations contained in this draft
report have reinforced a need to communicate aspects of the Initiative in better ways and to
pursue already planned efforts with respect to evaluation. At the same time, the draft report
identifies weaknesses in ways that stem more from misunderstandings of the effort than from
demonstrated deficiencies with the Initiative.
OIG Response 2: We agree that the report reinforces a need to communicate aspects of the initiative in
better ways, but do not agree that the weaknesses stem from misunderstandings. The report identifies that the
initiative needs to pursue efforts to determine the benefits and value of the initiative. We acknowledge the
agency's efforts to be responsive to stakeholders and the outputs the agency describes, including stakeholder
interest and anecdotal information on projected cost savings associated with the initiative.
We elaborate below along the following themes:
• The OIG Report Does Not Fully Capture the Purpose of the RE-Powering America's Land
Initiative
• The OIG's Limited Outreach to Stakeholders Distorts the Perception and Recognition of the
RE-Powering Initiative
• OSWER has Management Controls in Place to Track Progress Towards Accomplishing RE-
Powering's Goals and Objectives
• OSWER Acknowledges the Need to Complete Its Evaluation Efforts and to Better
Communicate Impacts
• OSWER has Controls in Place to Ensure Protectiveness
Discussion of Issues Raised in Draft Report
The OIG Report Does Not Fully Capture the Purpose of the RE-Powering America's Land
Initiative
The RE-Powering America's Land Initiative is a non-regulatory effort to facilitate the cleanup of
contaminated lands by integrating reuse planning, specifically renewable energy development,
into federal, state, local, tribal and voluntary cleanups. The Initiative does not site projects.
Siting and decisions about reuse are pursued by site owners, renewable energy developers and
other such entities. Nor is the Initiative a grant program that provides funding to assess, cleanup
or develop sites. The Initiative, consistent with OSWER's brownfields and other land cleanup
programs, seeks to incentivize the assessment, cleanup and sustainable reuse of contaminated
lands, landfills and mine sites by creating awareness of renewable energy as a land reuse
opportunity, by demonstrating its potential, and assisting in implementation. The OIG Report
15-P-0198
14
-------
focuses on the communication aspects of the Initiative ("the promotion, education and outreach
of siting renewable energy on contaminated lands") and understates the connections the Initiative
has to Agency remediation and reuse programs.
OIG Response 3: One of the objectives of the evaluation included the EPA's promotion efforts of siting
renewable energy, and, as such, our report focuses more on promotion, education and outreach efforts. We do,
however, mention other aspects of the initiative throughout our report, including, among other tilings, initiative
efforts as stated on the initiative's website, how the initiative relies on partnerships to complete and report on
renewable energy on contaminated lands, and that the initiative works with other agency remediation and reuse
programs.
The OIG's Limited Outreach to Stakeholders Distorts the Perception and Recognition of the
RE-Powering Initiative
The OIG reports "mixed feedback" from stakeholders about their familiarity and usage of the
Initiative's website and tools based on interviews with seven external customers. The OIG
reports that three of the seven were familiar with Initiative tools and provided positive feedback,
but the other four were unaware of or did not use the tools. The small sample of anonymous
stakeholders and the characterization of such feedback as "mixed" distorts what the Office has
experienced as very positive and encouraging feedback from its stakeholders. The sentence
within the Conclusions section on page nine would be accurate if written as "Further, four of
seven external parties surveyed that are involved in siting renewable energy on contaminated
lands ..." OSWER references the following examples:
• Recognition by Harvard University as a top 25 Innovation in American Government
(5/2013);
• Testimonials from site developers and communities:
o "EPA Region 3' s support letter and general advocacy for the proj ect were
instrumental in providing comfort to all financing parties involved"
(Owner/Developer of Dupont Solar Farm as reported in RE-Powering Newsletter
3/2014)
o "Then, the idea of exploring the use of the landfill emerged when city officials
were at a federal environmental Protection Agency brownfields conference earlier
this year." (Article describing Sandford, ME solar project efforts (Journal Tribune
7/2013))
o "The Aval on Solar project was born out of an Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) program established with the objective of siting renewable energy projects
on disturbed lands, including mine sites." (Pima Mine Road Fact Sheet, Avalon
Solar 2014)
o "Early on, we had a conference call with the EPA to understand their
process...The fact that EPA was enthusiastic and confident the project could be
built was a huge X factor." (Maywood Solar Farm developer relating interaction
with EPA Regional office in Solar Industry Magazine, May 1, 2014).
o "We have discussed the RE-Powering Initiative with EPA since its proposal, and
are very supportive of the pragmatic way EPA has proceeded with this program.
15-P-0198
15
-------
The Agency's approach, relying on partnerships and easily accessible development
tools, successfully builds support for these projects while providing the flexibility
needed because the projects are highly dependent on energy markets, state
incentive programs, community acceptance and the logistics of providing power to
the grid, an individual customer or a fuel pipeline." (Excerpt from Waste
Management Inc.'s comments on the draft Action Plan 2.0 (May 2014))
OIG Response 4: As discussed in the report, we interviewed seven external stakeholders. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, to obtain perspectives from 10 or more persons, an Office of Management and
Budget-approved information collection request is required. The views of stakeholders are not material to this
review and, therefore, the OIG did not invest in preparing an information collection request. We believe the
seven stakeholders we interviewed provided valid feedback.
OSWER has Management Controls in Place to Track Progress Towards Accomplishing RE-
Powering's Goals and Objectives.
The OIG Draft Report faults the Initiative for not having "implemented a control to
systematically track how the Initiative is accomplishing its goals, objectives and actions as
outlined in its Management Plan, or the outcomes generated by accomplishing its goals." The
OIG notes in the draft report that control activities include policies, procedures, and mechanisms
to help ensure that Agency objectives are met, and OMB Circular A-123 states there is a "range
of tools at the disposal of agency managers to achieve desired program results."6 OMB Circular
A-123 also discusses how programs should put in place "systematic and proactive measures to
develop and implement appropriate, cost-effective internal control for results-oriented
management."
OSWER does have controls in place to track how the Initiative is accomplishing its goals,
objectives, and actions. Management has put in place processes and procedures to check
progress against established milestones including weekly updates, bi-weekly or monthly
meetings, regular review and reporting of financial s associated with the Initiative, and employee
accountability through performance standards. We believe that such management review and
the procedures and processes in place provide systematic and proactive measures to achieve the
objectives of effective operations and are consistent with OMB Circular A-123.
OIG Response 5: We have revised our report to include details on examples of processes and procedures
the agency lias identified that were put in place to check progress against established milestones. Although the
agency lias provided examples of processes and procedures it uses to check progress, the agency has not
addressed how these various processes and procedures systematically track how the initiative is accomplishing
its goals and objectives as outlined in its Management Plan, or the outcomes generated by accomplishing its
goals.
6 OMB Circular A-123 - Management's Responsibility for Internal Control
(https://www.wliitehouse.gov/omb/circulars a!23 rev/)
15-P-0198
16
-------
As the OIG has recognized in the draft report, we were able to articulate the status of the
Initiative's efforts, the accounting of funds spent and able to provide information on the actions
completed from the 2010 Management Plan. We believe that funds were both responsibly and
efficaciously spent to develop outputs for the Initiative and are concerned that the report suggests
otherwise. With less than 3 FTE and $4 million dollars over the 6 years of the Initiative, the
effort has produced a host of outputs and engaged and influenced a wide variety of stakeholders
through presentations, conferences, webinars, stakeholder meetings and the development of the
two Management / Action Plans.
OIG Response 6: Our report does not state that the agency is not "responsibly and efficaciously" spending
funds to develop outputs for the initiative. Rather, our report identifies that work remains to be completed to
communicate benefits and determine the outcomes of the program.
OSWER Acknowledges the Need to Complete Its Evaluation Efforts and to Better
Communicate Impacts
From the start of our discussions with the OIG, Initiative staff acknowledged its continued
interest but delay in pursuing more detailed measures and an evaluation of the Initiative.
Evaluation has always been considered an important part of the Initiative and has been included
in both the Initiative's Management and Action Plans. To date, stakeholder interaction has
helped guide and provide feedback to the Initiative. The Initiative is following through with a
more formal approach, having just recently published the first stage of these evaluation efforts -
an evaluation scoping assessment. This assessment articulates a new logic model for the
Initiative, poses questions of interest and explores methods and data that would be used to
answer such questions. The Initiative plans to pursue in the coming year various analyses
suggested by the scoping study.
Although more work is needed, we believe that the Initiative has developed and shared
information associated with the impacts of siting renewable energy on contaminated lands,
landfills and mine sites. The program maintains a tracking matrix of completed installations to
track outcomes, demonstrating the viability of such redevelopment and providing stakeholders
information on as many projects as possible. Such information is gathered from publicly
available sources. While we seek to be as comprehensive as possible, the tracking matrix does
not include every site with renewable energy on contaminated lands, since this is a voluntary
program and people are not required to report the information to us. The omission of a few
sites, though, does not detract from the matrix's value. The Initiative believes that the tracking
matrix reflects most as well as the variety of RE-Powering projects pursued and therefore,
requests that the report change "not representative" on page 5 to "not comprehensive."
OIG Response 7: Our report acknowledges that the agency has developed and shared information
associated with the impacts of siting renewable energy, such as through the tracking matrix, and agree that
more work is needed. Changes to the report were made as appropriate.
15-P-0198
17
-------
We also believe that the matrix in conjunction with the newsletter and other RE-Powering
communications materials provide stakeholders information on the impacts of these programs
and some insight on EPA's involvement and indicate millions of dollars in cost savings, revenue
from property taxes, and creation of construction jobs. For example, as previously shared with
the OIG, those sites where EPA oversaw the cleanup (i.e., Superfund sites, RCRA Corrective
Action sites) benefitted from EPA involvement (32 sites as submitted to the OIG last August).
Recent efforts have collected the reporting of economic information. We agree with the OIG
(page 5) that these materials do not represent the complete efforts of the Initiative, and OSWER
recognizes there is an opportunity to more expansively communicate impacts associated with
RE-Powering projects.
OIG Response 8: In response to our request for a list of completed renewable energy projects on
contaminated or potentially contaminated sites nationwide where EPA has had or will have a direct role, the
agency provided us with a list of 32 sites. The list of 32 sites provided were, according to initiative staff, sites
where EPA oversaw the cleanup (i.e., Superfund sites. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective
Action sites) and the renewable energy installations benefitted from EPA involvement. The information
provided to us did not include details on how the renewable energy installations on these sites benefitted from
EPA involvement. Therefore, we could not report on how renewable energy installations at these sites
benefitted from EPA involvement.
OSWER Has Controls in Place to Ensure Protectiveness
As far as protectiveness is concerned, there is no issue regarding protectiveness. Since it is not
found to be lacking, there is and should be limited commentary that the Initiative itself would
provide on protectiveness. OSWER, more broadly, and the waste management programs it
oversees work extensively on these protectiveness issues and the Initiative is willing to work
with such programs to communicate and reference the ways the Agency and its state and tribal
partners ensure protectiveness on contaminated properties. Consistent with the OIG
recommendation, we will supplement the Initiative's website accordingly.
15-P-0198
18
-------
Response to Report Recommendations
No,
Recommendation
Agree or
Disagree
Explanation / Response
Proposed Alternative
Action
Estimated
Completion
Date
i
Determine whether benefits from its
investment of program resources in
renewable energy promotion,
education and outreach efforts
outlined in the Management Plan
demonstrate the value of RE-Powering
America's Land Initiative, if benefits
cannot be demonstrated for the
Initiative, the EPA should modify or
terminate the program.
Disagree
The Initiative has a history of
regular engagement of its
stakeholders and "listening
sessions" to guide and adjust
its agenda. The development
of its Action Plan defines such
goals, objectives »nd activities
and makes them transparent
to the public. Such efforts wit!
continue.
Enhance articulation and
quantification of benefits, as feasible,
to improve public communication on
benefits realized at sites
Publicly share information on economic or
environmental benefits realized at sites
Q2FY16
2
If the EPA chooses to continue with
the Initiative in its current or modified
form, establish management controls
to measure progress and publicaily
report how the EPA is accomplishing
its goafs, objectives and actions for its
renewable energy promotion,
education, and outreach efforts, ss
outlined in the EPA's current and
future versions of the RE-Powering
America's Land initiative Management
Plan.
Disagree
Management controls are in
place. The discussion with the
016 has focused on format
rather than the presence and
effectiveness of such controls.
Periodica'ly report to the public the
progress associated with how the
Initiative Is accomplishing its goals,
objectives, and actions as outlined in
EPA's current and future versions of
the Initiative's Management / Action
Plan.
Establish accomplishments section of
website providing on-going updates.
Q1FY16
3
If the EPA chooses to continue with
the initiative in its current or modified
form, use available data from sstes
that have had renewable energy
development and that are under EPA
oversight to track and- publicly report
on economic or environmental
benefits realized at sites.
Agree
Publicly share information on economic or
environmental benefits realized at sites
Q2FY16
4
If the EPA chooses to continue with
the initiative in its current or modified
form, include on the RE-Powering
America's Land Initiative website a
section covering human, health and
the environmental protection as they
relate siting renewable energy on
potentially contaminated lands,
landfills and mine (Additional detail
follows in recommendation!
Agree
The OIG didn't find an issue
with site protectiveness. The
decisions on protectiveness
are made by the applicable
programs at a site specific
level. To ensure that
consistent information is
provided, the RE-Powering
web site will link to the
app'.rcabie program web sites.
Include within revised Initiative website,
section that references human health and
the environment as they relate to siting
renewable energy on potentially
contaminated lands, landfills and mine sites.
Q1FYI6
15-P-0198
19
-------
Appendix B
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Director, Center for Program Analysis, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
15-P-0198
20
------- |