£
<
33
O
\
Mi.
O
¦z
LLi
CD
PRO^C
-------
Report Contributors:
Christina Lovingood
Jill Trynosky
Jenny Drzewiecki
Roopa Mulchandani
Abbreviations
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPAct
Energy Policy Act of 2005
LUST
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
OIG
Office of Inspector General
OLEM
Office of Land and Emergency Management
OUST
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
RSO
Regional Strategic Overview
U.S.C.
United States Code
UST
Underground Storage Tank
Cover photo: Examples of underground storage tanks being removed. (EPA photos)
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
Learn more about our OIG Hotline.
EPA Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-2391
www.epa.gov/oiq
Subscribe to our Email Updates
Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig
Send us your Project Suggestions
-------
>\iED sr/]^
* _<-i_ *- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 17-P-011«
March 6, 2017
. u.o. tiiviiuiimeiucM riuicuu
% Office of Inspector General
® *
IW-!
At a Glance
Why We Did This Review
We conducted this review to
evaluate the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's)
prioritization of releases from
underground storage tanks
(USTs), and to determine
whether the backlog has been
reduced for UST cleanups, in
Indian country.
An UST is one or more tanks,
and any underground piping
connected to the tanks, that has
at least 10 percent of their
combined volume underground.
The EPA's federal UST
regulation requires that leaking
UST (or LUST) sites must be
cleaned up. For example,
petroleum released from a
LUST, such as at a service
station, can contaminate
groundwater.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005,
Section 1529, requires the EPA
to prioritize releases from
LUSTs that present the greatest
threat to human health or the
environment. The EPA is
responsible for directly
implementing the UST program
in Indian country across the
United States.
This report addresses the
following EPA goal or
cross-agency strategy:
• Cleaning up communities
and advancing sustainable
development.
Send all inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391
or visit www.epa.gov/oia.
Listing of OIG reports.
Backlog of Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Cleanups in Indian Country Has Been Reduced, but EPA
Needs to Demonstrate Compliance With Requirements
Without documentation
and controls for the
prioritization of UST
cleanups in Indian
country, the sites with
the greatest health and
environmental risks
may not be addressed.
What We Found
The EPA is unable to demonstrate how it is
complying with the requirements of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 to give priority to releases from
LUST sites in Indian country that present the
greatest threats to human health or the environment.
The EPA can describe the prioritization process it
uses to make annual funding decisions. However,
this process is minimally documented, relies on
inconsistent regional criteria, and lacks
transparency. As a result, we do not have evidence that the EPA's process for
selecting and funding sites for cleanup actions gives priority to those sites that
present the greatest threat to human health or the environment. The absence of
clear priorities could lead to lower-risk sites being addressed while cleanups for
higher-risk sites are delayed. Delays in cleanups could create the potential for
prolonged exposure to hazardous contaminants, such as gasoline leaks
contaminating groundwater.
The EPA agreed to improve its documentation process and transparency, and
clarify how funding decisions are made. The EPA is also making progress in
reducing the backlog of cleanup sites in Indian country. Over the past 5 years, the
number of cleanups remaining has decreased from 299 to 271. However, several
challenges impede greater progress. These challenges include reliance on other
parties for cleanup funds, a lengthy process to approve cleanups that cost more
than $250,000 (action memo approval), and the complexity of some remaining
sites.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Land and Emergency
Management document how the process and criteria the EPA uses to prioritize
sites comply with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and communicate the process
and criteria to the regions. We also recommend that the Assistant Administrator
develop a nationwide tracking tool for LUST sites in Indian country based on the
prioritization criteria, and establish a panel to review funding decisions for
UST/LUST sites in Indian country. In addition, we recommend the establishment
of a time period for action memo review comments from the Assistant
Administrator, and identification of opportunities to strengthen staff awareness and
adherence to the expectations for action memos.
The agency provided acceptable corrective actions and milestone dates for the
recommendations, and all recommendations are resolved.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
March 6, 2017
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Backlog of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cleanups in Indian Country
Has Been Reduced, but EPA Needs to Demonstrate Compliance With Requirements
Report No. 17-P-0118
This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The project number for this evaluation was
OPE-FY16-0013. 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.
Because all recommendations are agreed to and resolved, you are not required to respond to this report.
However, if you submit a response, it 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 along with
corresponding justification.
We will post this report to our website at www.epa.gov/oig.
FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.
TO:
Barry Breen, Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Land and Emergency Management
-------
Backlog of Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Cleanups in Indian Country Has Been Reduced,
but EPA Needs to Demonstrate Compliance With Requirements
17-P-0118
Table of C
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Responsible Office 6
Scope and Methodology 6
2 EPA Faces Multiple Challenges in Cleaning Up
Tribal Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 7
EPA Cannot Demonstrate How Sites Are Prioritized to
Meet EPAct Requirements 7
Number of LUSTs in Indian Country Needing Cleanup
Has Been Reduced 12
Conclusion 16
Recommendations 16
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation 17
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 18
Appendices
A Agency Response to Draft Report 19
B Revised Corrective Actions Plan 23
C Distribution 25
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Inspector
General (OIG) evaluated the EPA's work related to the Underground Storage
Tank (UST) program in Indian country. We addressed the following questions:
• Do the EPA's 2006 Tribal Strategy and 2015 revised UST regulations
prioritize and address releases from USTs that present the greatest threat
to human health or the environment?
• Has the EPA reduced the overall backlog of UST cleanups in Indian country?
Background
An UST is one or more tanks, and any underground piping connected to the tanks,
that has at least 10 percent of their combined volume underground. The EPA's
federal regulations1 require that released contamination from leaking UST (or
LUST) sites must be cleaned up to restore and protect groundwater resources and
create a safe environment for those who live or work around these sites. The
federal UST regulation applies only to USTs storing petroleum, petroleum
blended with biofuels, and certain other hazardous substances. Nearly all USTs
regulated by the UST requirement contain petroleum. There were 560,872 active
USTs as of September 2016 (at approximately 202,000 sites) regulated by the
EPA's UST program. Of the active USTs, approximately 2,600 are on tribal2 land.
Potential Human Health and Environmental Impacts
Until the mid-1980s, the majority of USTs were constructed from bare steel,
which can corrode and cause the contents to be released. Faulty installation or
inadequate operating and maintenance procedures can also cause USTs to release
their contents into the environment. UST systems contain petroleum or other
hazardous substances. Leaks from USTs threaten America's groundwater and
land resources as well as human health. Specific pollutants of concern from
LUSTs include methyl tert-butyl ether, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and
xylenes. Exposure to these contaminants poses a significant public health risk, as
1 Not all USTs are federally regulated, such as a tank used for storing heating oil for consumptive use on the
premises where stored, a septic tank, or a stormwater or waste water collection system. For a list of criteria,
see federal regulations at 40 CFR Part 280.
2 "Tribe" or "Indian tribe" means an Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village or community that
the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian
Tribe List Act of 1944, 25 U.S.C. 479a.
17-P-0118
1
-------
some are known to cause cancer. For example, according to the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, excessive exposure to benzene can cause
leukemia.
Severity and Magnitude of Gasoline Leaks
Gasoline or diesel fuel leaking from service
stations is one of the most common sources for
polluting groundwater—the drinking water source
for nearly half of all Americans Gasoline is a
complex manufactured mixture typically
containing more than 150 chemicals. Once a tank
develops a leak, its contents can migrate through
the soil and reach the groundwater, and any
nearby river or stream can also become polluted
by the groundwater. Even a small release can
contaminate groundwater; for example, 12 ounces
of gasoline (the volume of a can of soda) can
contaminate about 40,000 gallons of water.
Additionally, one pin-prick-sized hole in an UST
can leak 400 gallons of fuel a year.
Nearly 700,000 people rely on safe drinking water provided by 750 community
water systems owned by tribes. Many of these tribal systems have seen treatment
costs increase over the past 20 years, and contaminant threats continue to increase
as old USTs deteriorate. For example, one of the Region 8 LUST sites we
visited—the Pine Ridge Oil site—had over 4,000 gallons of mixed gasoline and
water recovered, and the cleanup is still underway.
Tribal citizens experience unique risks because of their traditional lifestyle and
use of natural resources. Tribal communities often follow traditional diets that
include an abundance of freshwater fish and seafood. Water-—
considered sacred—plays an important role in tribal cultural and
spiritual practices, including sacred springs or drinking water
sources. For example, the Nez Perce Tribe, located in Idaho, gets
nearly 100 percent of the drinking water on the reservation from
groundwater wells. Also, the tribe is historically a fishing culture,
with the majority of its diet provided by the threatened and
endangered anadromous steelhead and salmon, which spawn on
the Nez Perce Reservation. Because of tribes' reliance on natural
resources to maintain traditional diets, life ways, customs and
languages, there is a unique need for tribal-focused research to
identify risks, as well as to inform decisions to reduce health risks
in these areas.
A 1930s-1940s-era gas pump on
Navajo Nation land. (EPA photo)
Traditional diet items such as
fish can be contaminated by
LUSTs. (EPA photo)
17-P-0118
2
-------
EPA Oversight of USTs and LUSTs in Indian Country
The EPA is responsible for directly implementing the UST program in Indian
country across the United States. As shown in Figure 1, Indian country lands are
widely dispersed, although a large concentration is in the west and southwest
parts of the country.
Figure 1. Map of Indian country lands3
INDIAN LANDS
ILUHOIS l|K»AK*|
'MGtOQ
'uaiKUtf* I
Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 2014.
EPA implementation and oversight is accomplished in part by providing technical
and financial support to tribal governments to prevent and clean up releases from
USTs. The EPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) partners with
the EPA's regional offices to facilitate implementation of the UST program in
Indian country. OUST provides technical and financial support to tribal
governments to prevent and clean up petroleum releases from USTs. In cases
when the state, with the permission of the tribe, is overseeing existing cleanups or
agrees to oversee future cleanups, EPA regions will monitor state oversight of
these corrective actions.
According to the EPA's Tribal Program Report, Accomplishments and Activities
2014, the EPA's UST program works with about 190 tribes to prevent releases at
2,516 USTs (about 900 facilities) in Indian country. Owners and operators of
3 The map does not show trust lands where the EPA also implements the Tribal UST program.
17-P-0118
3
-------
USTs in Indian country must comply with the federal UST regulations. In
addition, owners and operators must report the existence of new UST systems,
suspected releases and UST system closures; and keep records of operation and
maintenance. The responsibility for conducting and paying for cleanups lies with
owners and operators in Indian country. However, those owners can find it
difficult to initiate and complete cleanups due to the high cost. Although the EPA
estimates the average cleanup costs to be about $125,000, a release with
significant groundwater contamination can cost more than $1 million to clean up.
Tribal UST Prioritization Requirements and Policy
The EPA must prioritize UST releases that present the greatest threat to human
health or the environment. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), Section
1529,4 directs the EPA to develop and implement, in coordination with Indian
tribes, a strategy that includes:
(1) [GJiving priority to releases that present the greatest threat to
human health or the environment, to take necessary corrective
action in response to releases from leaking underground storage
tanks located wholly within the boundaries of—
(A) an Indian reservation; or
(B) any other area under the jurisdiction of an Indian
tribe; and
(2) [T]o implement and enforce requirements concerning underground
storage tanks located wholly within the boundaries of—
(A) an Indian reservation; or
(B) any other area under the jurisdiction of an Indian
tribe.
In 2006, the EPA issued a strategy5 to address the 2005 EPAct requirements. The
strategy referenced and restated the EPAct requirements, but did not include how
the agency gives priority to releases presenting the greatest threat to human health
and the environment. In 2015, the EPA issued revised UST requirements6 that
included requirements for operator training, maintenance, containment,
prevention and detection techniques. The revised UST requirements were created
to ensure owners and operators properly operated and maintained their UST
systems.
4 Section 1529 of the EPAct of 2005 amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act by establishing a new Section 9013
regarding USTs in Indian country.
5 Strategy for An EPA/Tribal Partnership To Implement Section 1529 Of The Energy Policy Act Of2005,
EPA-510-R-06-005, August 2006.
6 40 CFR Parts 280 and 281, Revising Underground Storage Tank Regulations, Revisions to Existing Requirements
and New Requirements for Secondary Containment and Operator Training; Final Rule (2015 Revised UST
Regulations).
17-P-0118
4
-------
EPA Responsibility for Internal Controls in Indian Country
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 agency objectives are met. As the EPA is responsible for implementing
the UST program in Indian country, and adhering to the requirements within the
EPAct, internal controls are expected to be in place to ensure compliance.
Funding for UST Program in Indian Country
The EPA's overall UST Indian country budget for fiscal years 2012 through 2016
was estimated at an average of $4.6 million per year. Of that, only a portion—an
estimated average of $2.4 million per year—was for cleanup. The program receives
three types of federal funding to manage different parts of the tribal UST program:
• Environmental Programs and Management funds, which
support the EPA's Indian country UST prevention
program.
• LUST Trust Fund prevention funding for Indian country
tribal assistance agreements (grants) to prevent releases.
• LUST Trust Fund cleanup funding to support the EPA's
Indian country cleanup program and tribal cleanup
cooperative agreements.
Additionally, the EPA's Brownfields program can provide
cleanup grants to address sites contaminated by relatively
low-risk petroleum and hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants (including hazardous substances commingled
with petroleum).
Separate from federal funding, some states have state trust funds supported by a
gas tax or environmental impact fee. According to OUST, some states with funds
allow owners or operators of UST systems in Indian country to buy in to the state
fund. Therefore, if there is a cleanup, state funds can be used. Most LUST
cleanups are paid for either by the LUST Trust Fund, state funds or insurance.
Backlog and Current Cleanups in Indian Country
Over the course of the program, OUST has
confirmed 1,409 releases from LUSTs in Indian
country. As of September 2016, there were
271 cleanups remaining in Indian country.
These sites are part of the national backlog.
What is the LUST Trust Fund?
Congress created the LUST
Trust Fund to address petroleum
releases from federally
regulated USTs. This fund is
financed by a 0.1-cent tax on
each gallon of motor fuel sold
nationwide, and is used to
oversee corrective actions by
responsible parties and cleanup
sites that require prompt action
to protect human health and the
environment and/or where the
responsible party is unknown,
unwilling or unable to perform
the cleanup.
What is the National Backlog?
The backlog is the number of
releases from underground
storage tanks remaining to be
cleaned up nationwide. The EPA
maintains a backlog for sites in
Indian country and nationwide.
17-P-0118
5
-------
In fiscal year 2016, a total of 30 cleanups were
completed in Indian country, using funding from
owners and operators, state funds, and the EPA. The
EPA completed four of the 30 cleanups using LUST
Trust Fund money. The four sites are on land located
within the boundaries or exterior boundaries of the
Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in Utah, the
Navajo Nation in New Mexico, the Quinault Indian
Nation in Washington, and the Yakama Nation in
Washington. In addition, EPA provided funding to
advance progress at 27 additional cleanup sites in
Indian country in fiscal year 2016.
Responsible Office
The EPA's OUST, in the Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM),
is responsible for implementation of the UST program in Indian country.7
Scope and Methodology
We conducted our work from March to November 2016. 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
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 the OLEM Assistant Administrator, EPA staff in OLEM/OUST,
and EPA staff in the Office of International and Tribal Affairs. We interviewed
regional staff in Regions 5, 6, 8 and 9. We visited and interviewed environmental
staff involved in the active remediation of two tribal underground storage tank sites
at the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. We spoke with representatives from
a tribal consortium in Region 6. Our review of Indian country UST releases,
cleanup and funding amounts focused primarily on the past 5 years, from 2012 to
2016. We also reviewed relevant laws, regulations, guidance and policy, including
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle I, the EPAct, Fiscal Year 2017
Justifications of Appropriation, UST regulations,8 the U.S. Government
Accountability Office's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123. Further, we reviewed the
EPA's 2007 report to Congress on tribal USTs.
7 For more information on the UST program, visit: https://www.epa.gov/ust.
8 The 2015 Revised UST Regulations are included in the objective questions. However, after reviewing the
regulations, it was determined that the requirements were created to ensure owners and operators properly operated
and maintained their UST systems, and were not directly related to the agency's prioritization process. Therefore,
the regulations are not included in the scope of this evaluation.
Monitoring well installation, Pine Ridge Oil
Company (Pine Ridge Indian Reservation,
South Dakota, Ogiala Sioux Tribe). During
fiscal year 2016, EPA funding was used to
remove contamination at two sites. (EPA photo)
17-P-0118
6
-------
Chapter 2
EPA Faces Multiple Challenges in Cleaning Up
Tribal Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
The EPA is unable to demonstrate how it is complying with requirements of the
EPAct of 2005 to give priority to releases from LUST sites in Indian country that
present the greatest threats to human health or the environment. The EPA can
describe the prioritization process it uses to make annual funding decisions.
However, this process is:
• Minimally documented.
• Relies on inconsistent regional criteria.
• Lacks transparency.
As a result, we do not have evidence that the EPA's process for selecting and
funding sites for cleanup actions gives priority to those sites that present the
greatest threat to human health or the environment. The absence of clear priorities
could lead to lower-risk sites being addressed while higher-risk sites are delayed,
thus creating the potential for prolonged exposure to hazardous contaminants,
such as gasoline leaks contaminating groundwater. The EPA agrees to improve its
documentation process and transparency, and clarify how funding decisions are
made. The EPA is making progress in reducing the backlog of cleanup sites in
Indian country; over the past 5 years, the number of cleanups remaining has
decreased from 299 to 271. However, several challenges impede greater progress,
including reliance on other parties for cleanup funds, a lengthy action memo
approval process, and the complexity of some remaining sites.
EPA Cannot Demonstrate How Sites Are Prioritized to Meet
EPAct Requirements
While the EPA's cleanup funds are intended to address UST releases that present
threats to human health and the environment, the EPA cannot demonstrate that
releases are being prioritized and addressed based on the greatest threat to human
health or the environment. The EPA's 2006 Tribal Strategy, created in response to
the EPAct, includes reference to the EPAct's requirement but does not include a
written process for how to prioritize releases. Also, EPA headquarters program
management described—but were unable to provide us with—documentation,
including consistent national criteria to evaluate and prioritize funding decisions.
EPA's Process for Prioritizing Cleanup Activities Needs Improved
Documentation
The EPA, through OUST, described its risk-based prioritization process for
addressing LUSTs through its regional strategic overview (RSO) calls. OUST
17-P-0118
7
-------
typically receives requests from the regions for more underground storage tank
cleanup activities in Indian Country than it can fund. The EPA's RSO process,
described in Figure 2, is used to make annual funding decisions nationwide. The
process consists of regions submitting a spreadsheet to OUST stating their funding
requests by source (e.g., LUST prevention, LUST cleanup) per site and the
expected benefits per site. Next, each region discusses with OUST management
and its tribal team, via the RSO calls, the requests for funding. OUST does not set
site priorities during annual RSO calls. Then, OUST leadership (including
headquarters management and the tribal team) discuss the information gathered
from the regions. After these discussions, the OUST Director makes the final
funding decisions and sends emails to each region informing them of the funds they
will receive, and suggestions for the use of the funds.
Figure 2: Regional strategic overview process
Regions submit spreadsheet with funding requests to
headquarters.
Each region discusses funding requests with
headquarters via annual calls.
OUST Director has discussions with headquarters
leadership and regions to make funding decisions.
OUST Director makes final funding decisions.
Email sent to regions with funding decisions. Regions
have the discretion to determine how to use the funds,
but are requested to report back to OUST.
Source: OIG-created image based on information gathered from OUST, regional interviews and
document requests.
*
*
At the end of the funding selection process, it is unclear how the sites selected
will meet the requirements of the EPAct. Emails stating funding amounts
allocated to each region may be shared with regional program managers.
However, these emails do not include details on how priority was given to sites
that present the greatest threats nationwide or how funds were allocated amongst
the regions consistent with the EPAct requirements. After the OUST Director
makes a decision, regions have the discretion on how the funds received will be
used, but are requested to report back to headquarters.
OUST stated that the requests for funding are different each year, so the regional
funding level from year to year is not consistent. Additionally, the Indian country
UST program budget has generally been reduced in recent years and funding
requests outpace funding available. We found that there was a significant gap
17-P-0118
8
-------
between the amount of funds requested by the three regions we met and the funds
allocated. For example, one region requested $830,000 for fiscal year 2016 for
LUST cleanup activities and received $320,000; the region noted the significant
difference between the funding received versus requested can cause the region to
need to reevaluate its plans for cleanup activities. The gap between the regional
funding requests and allocations makes the OUST prioritization process critical.
Regional Prioritization Processes Vary
The RSO process involves each region separately, and the regions do not apply the
same criteria to regional site prioritization. Regions can and do have their own
process and tools for documenting prioritization or risk ranking of sites. However,
these processes and tools are not consistent.
Table 1: How OUST and select regions prioritize sites
Office/
region
Prioritization process
OUST
• Annual regional strategic overview calls.
• RSO calls lead to decisions for which cleanups to fund.
Region 5
• Focus on sites that have been inherited from predecessors determined as high risk and
any new sites considered high risk.
• Qualitative process.
Region 6
• No ranking. Currently, there are only two sites in this region and both are being
cleaned up by the responsible party, according to OUST.
• Sites are looked at when they become known because there are so few sites.
• Qualitative process.
Region 8
• Uses ranking criteria from 1-100 modeled after the state of Colorado.
• Prioritization based on ranking criteria for each site.
• Combination of knowledge and judgement based on factors, including, but not limited
to, exposure pathways, proximity to wells, and more remote locations.
• Quantitative and qualitative process.
Region 9
• Developed a semi-quantitative ranking consisting of 5 tiers (0-5, 5 being lowest threat).
• Highest threats are emergency responses or sites where risks are
uncertain/unknown—the higher the ranking, the higher the prioritization.
• Sites can be re-ranked as needed.
• Ranking includes professional judgement and data based on factors, including, but not
limited to, exposure pathways, contamination, future use, and uncertainty of impacts.
• Quantitative and qualitative process.
Source: OIG-created table generated based on information gathered from OUST, regional interviews and document
requests. Selected regions represent the regions we met during our evaluation.
As shown in Table 1, while one region approaches OUST with a list of cleanup
sites ranked according to qualitative and quantitative factors, other regions only
provide anecdotal information on sites of concern, while still others provide a
ranking based on separate factors. As a result, regions apply criteria inconsistently.
Another impediment to the prioritization process is that not all regions have
prioritized all sites; this further complicates the EPA's ability to benchmark
threats/risks from sites nationwide. In addition, some funds are requested for a
specific site while other requests are for broader support, including lab support or
17-P-0118
9
-------
senior environmental employment program grantees, which are not site-specific. As
a result, the lack of a consistent process nationwide to prioritize sites makes it
difficult for regions, tribes and the public to understand how one region receives
more funding for cleanups than another.
Lack of Transparency in EPA's Funding Decisions
There is no standard or consistent identification of risk or threat to human health
or the environment during the national review of tribal LUST sites for funding.
The cleanup funding decision process is based on professional judgment and is
minimally documented. As a result, the cleanup funding decision process is not
transparent, and cleanup funding decisions can appear to be subjective. A few
factors contribute to the lack of transparency in the decision process, including:
• Funding decisions are minimally documented: Regions document their
funding requests to headquarters, and headquarters documents its funding
decisions with suggestions for use of funds. According to OUST, a
number of factors are considered in the funding decision process. OUST
noted these factors have included the potential threat to human health and
the environment and how much funding is available. However, there is
minimal documentation to evidence how the agency is meeting its
requirements per the EPAct, such as how sites are compared or
benchmarked on a national scale to determine which sites present the
greatest health threats and, therefore, should be given priority.
• Regions lack access to information on nationwide site and cleanup
activity information: According to some regional managers and staff we
met, the regions are not collectively aware of, nor have access to, the
specific documentation that other regions submit to OUST for the
annual calls, and the discussions that occur during the calls. OUST
management said that because each site is unique, they cannot have a
checklist or other guidance document to outline how and what should be
reviewed when making prioritization and funding decisions.
• Funding decisions are made by an individual rather than a panel:
While conversations with headquarters leadership and regions occur
during the decision-making and prioritization process, the final
decision on funding had previously been left to one person—the
OUST Director. In contrast, other EPA programs—such as
Superfund—use technical panels, which include regional staff, to
review components of Superfund remedial investigations or cleanup
plans. This allows increased transparency and objectivity.
• Regions have funding execution discretion: After OUST funding
amounts are provided, regions have the discretion to choose how to
use the funds. The regions are to inform OUST on how the funds will
17-P-0118
10
-------
be spent, but the regions have flexibility to make changes. Regions
with sites funded by the LUST Trust Fund set priorities for those sites
within their region. One region noted having this flexibility is
beneficial, but this creates risks that (1) funds are not used consistent
with the requirements of the EPAct, and (2) site risks that resulted in
OUST funding decisions are not addressed.
• Link between supporting activities and EPAct requirements minimally
documented: LUST funds are not only used for site-specific cleanup
activities. Funds can be used as support for cleanup and remediation of
LUST-eligible sites in Indian country and grants for tribes to oversee
cleanups in Indian country or perform site assessments and remediation
on LUST-eligible sites. LUST funds can also support the EPA's Senior
Environmental Employee Program9 grants for implementation of the
LUST program in Indian country (e.g., corrective action oversight). For
example, at the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, some funds
allocated to the region are used to cover the tribal grantee's salary and
work supporting cleanup activities. Further, in a funding decision email
provided to one region for fiscal year 2016, OUST recommended that
allocated funds be used toward the region's Senior Environmental
Employees, site assessment and cleanup activities. According to OUST,
much of the work of the grantees and Senior Environmental Employees
is focused on addressing high-priority sites, consistent with the EPAct
requirements. However, while LUST funds can be used in this way, the
link between the grantee and employee activities and this outcome is not
documented in OUST funding decisions, and could appear inappropriate
or inconsistent when viewed with EPAct requirements.
• Internal controls, including standard criteria, operating procedures or
guidance, are missing: Current EPA resources covering USTs/LUSTs
in Indian country do not include criteria or methods for how to prioritize
sites based on greatest threats. Without standard operating procedures,
guidance, or other types of documentation available for prioritized risks,
it is unclear how the institutional knowledge needed to make funding
decisions based on sites that present the greatest threats would be
transferred if staff leave or vacate their posts. Other programs, such as
the Superfund program, use a hazard ranking system to evaluate
potential or confirmed releases of hazardous substances that can pose a
threat to human health or the environment. The hazard ranking system
consists of documented criteria used to guide the process of Superfund
site assessments. Having such criteria documented and available to all
parties involved in that program's process allows the institutional
knowledge associated with Superfund site assessments to maintain
9 The EPA's Senior Environmental Employee Program provides an opportunity for retired and unemployed
Americans age 55 and over to share their expertise with the EPA, remaining active using their matured skills in
meaningful tasks that support a wide variety of environmental programs.
17-P-0118
11
-------
consistency. In this case, internal controls are missing. Per Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-123, internal controls should be in
place to ensure compliance and help ensure that agency objectives are
met. In addition, according to the U.S. Government Accountability
Office's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
documentation of the internal control system also provides a means to
retain organizational knowledge and mitigate the risk of having that
knowledge limited to a few personnel, as well as a means to
communicate that knowledge as needed to external parties, such as
external auditors. Absent documentation, the EPA cannot demonstrate
its compliance with the EPAct requirements.
Efforts to Make Improvements Are Underway
Under the guidance of OUST, Region 9 is leading an effort to create a national
database for prioritizing UST/LUST sites. Region 9 is currently in the initial
scoping phase, and is exploring the feasibility of nationwide use. According to
Region 9, the goal of the national database is to increase transparency of site data,
improve data quality, and provide a comparable repository for tracking sites
nationwide.
Also, the EPA plans to make changes to the OUST funding process for UST
cleanups in Indian country as early as 2017. OUST plans to use a panel for future
funding decisions, which can help improve transparency and efficiency. In
addition, OUST is considering increasing the involvement of all regions in the
review of sites and cleanup activities. These changes are in the early stages, and
implementation plans have not been finalized.
Number of LUSTs in Indian Country Needing Cleanup Has Been
Reduced
The EPA has been tracking progress toward addressing the backlog of LUST sites
needing cleanup for years. Although more sites have been added, the total number
of sites, including the overall number in Indian country, has been reduced.
Tribal LUST Cleanups and Backlog
As of 2016, there had been about 1,400 UST releases confirmed in Indian country.
Table 2 shows the backlog for the previous fiscal years 2012-2016. LUSTs are
added to the backlog as they are discovered and, therefore, the backlog or number
of cleanups remaining can increase from a previous year despite cleanups
completed; this occurred in fiscal year 2013, when the number of cleanups
remaining was greater than the number of cleanups remaining for fiscal year 2012.
The table also shows that while the number of cleanups remaining can fluctuate
year to year, the agency was able to reduce the backlog in 4 of the 5 years we
17-P-0118
12
-------
reviewed. There was a net reduction of 28 sites in the backlog between fiscal years
2012 and 2016.
Table 2: Indian country backlog of LUSTs
LUSTs
Fiscal
added to
Cleanups
Cleanups
year
backlog
completed
remaining
2012
23
47
299
2013
23
18
304
2014
20
26
298
2015
25
32
291
2016
10
30
271
Source: OIG-created table generated with EPA data.
Factors Impacting Reduction of LUST Backlog in Indian Country
A number of factors impact the EPA's ability to address the LUST backlog in
Indian country, including:
• The EPA's reliance on other parties to conduct the majority of cleanups.
• LUST sites with low risk can remain on the backlog.
• The action memorandum approval process is lengthy.
• Some LUSTs need more complex and costly cleanups.
Reducing the backlog is important to reducing potential exposure to harmful
contaminants that are detrimental to the health of the public and the environment.
Details on the four factors noted above follow.
EPA's Reliance on Other Parties to Conduct Majority of Cleanups
The EPA is responsible for implementing the UST
program in Indian country. However, funding and
cleanup actions can be performed by states and
responsible parties as well as the EPA. Due to
cleanups of LUSTs by other parties, the EPA is not
solely addressing the backlog.
According to OUST data, most of the 271 sites in
the backlog will not be cleaned up using the LUST
Trust Fund. An EPA report from 2014 notes that
state funds were responsible for funding 41 percent
of the UST releases in Indian country, and
responsible parties were to clean up 32 percent of
the sites. The LUST Trust Fund was to be used for 15 percent of the cleanups, and
the remaining cleanups fell into other categories, such as unknown funding
sources and transfers to other cleanup programs (see Figure 3).
Tank removal at Batesland store (former Mobil Oil
and gas station), Pine Ridge Reservation, South
Dakota. Batesland is on the national backlog, and
the EPA is performing cleanup actions at the site.
EPA photo)
17-P-0118
13
-------
Figure 3: 2014 Funding of UST Releases in
Indian Country
12%
15%
32%
41%
¦ LUST Trust Fund ¦ Responsible Party Funded ¦ State Funded "Other
Source: OIG-created chart with EPA data.
In situations when the state, with the permission of the tribe, is overseeing
cleanups, the regions will monitor state oversight of these corrective actions. As
the EPA is responsible for implementing the UST program in Indian country,
according to OUST, the agency will check as to whether the completed cleanup
was appropriate. The reduction of the backlog is largely contingent on state funds
and responsible parties conducting and completing work at many LUST sites.
LUST Sites With Low Risk Can Remain on Backlog
Some LUSTs have remained on the backlog for a decade or more. In 2014 the
EPA reported that 66 percent of the backlog was 15 years old or older. This
includes LUSTs the EPA considers "impractical" to clean (those with low risk
and high cost to clean). This also includes a small number of LUSTs cleaned to
EPA but not tribal standards. In Region 9, staff estimated that three sites do not
meet tribal standards and, therefore, are still on the backlog.
Action Memorandum Approval Process Is Lengthy
EPA regional offices must request funding approval through an action
memorandum (action memo) to use LUST Trust Fund money to finance a cleanup.
Regions justify a site's priority for corrective action (and the other LUST statutory
requirements) in action memos. Action memo funding requests over $250,000 are
reviewed and approved by the OUST Director but also require the OLEM Assistant
Administrator's approval. For these memos, the OLEM Assistant Administrator is
personally involved in the review and provides comments to the regions. If
additional funds are needed to complete work at a site, multiple action memos will
be needed, and the Assistant Administrator's approval will be required for each
action memo requesting funds over $250,000. The three regions we interviewed
suggested the approval process is a lengthy one and the review period can vary,
17-P-0118
14
-------
taking a few months to a year for non-emergency approval needs. The lengthy
approval process, in conjunction with the need to reissue task orders for different
contract periods and weather constraints, can delay the cleanup and other work,
such as outreach or field work activities. This, in turn, can prolong exposure to
harmful contaminants.
According to the OLEM Assistant Administrator, a rigorous review process is a
necessary step to ensure cleanup activities are optimized. He added that the tribal
work is very complex, from a government-to-government standpoint, and the
tribal views of the cleanup remedies can alter the strategy the EPA takes. The
Assistant Administrator wants the project managers to consider the tribal views
before funding is requested. He further explained that he applies the same amount
of rigor to the review of the tribal UST action memos as for the Superfund
removal action memos.
In May 2016, the OLEM Assistant Administrator released a memorandum,
Improving Action Memos for Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
Cleanup Activities in Indian Country. This document was created to clarify
requirements for action memos authorizing the use of LUST Trust Funds, in
addition to streamlining the process and strengthening justification for using the
LUST Trust Funds. As stated in the document:
Action memos provide information to meet our statutory obligation
for why a site qualifies for LUST Trust Funds, explains what has
been done at the site, what still needs to be done, and how much it
will cost. The most complete action memos also provide, when
applicable, information about:
• The remedial strategy, goals and exit plan
• Maximizing performance and reducing cost
(e.g., optimizing corrective action)
• Tribal government and affected community perspectives
• Efforts to mitigate risk and reduce uncertainty
• Your [UST/LUST Regional Division Directors] confidence
in the likelihood the proposed approach will succeed
• What would trigger the need for additional authorization in
the future
According to one region we interviewed after the release of the May 2016 memo,
the staff stated they still do not know what is expected, and there are times when
the level of detail wanted is unknown and some questions (asked to address in the
action memo) are too far in advance to have the answers. For example, the site in
question may be in an investigative phase, yet there are already questions on a
remedial exit strategy. Additional feedback from a different regional manager of
the UST program noted that the technical hurdles placed before those requesting
17-P-0118 15
-------
funds are inconsistent with the site assessment and cleanup process, and the intent
of the action memos.
The action memo approval process is an important senior official oversight tool to
ensure that use of public funds is adequately justified. However, the time it takes
for the senior official's review can vary, and there is no established time period
for the review. A process that is unclear, lengthy or not well understood by those
responsible for completing and preparing documentation provides OLEM with a
further opportunity for review and possible improvement.
LUSTs Needing More Complex and Costly Cleanups
According to an EPA report from 2016, sites have been more complex and,
therefore, more expensive. This has resulted in longer-term cleanups than in the
past. While there are difficult and costly LUST sites with substantial releases in
Indian country, the EPA has become more vigilant about optimizing remediation
plans. According to the EPA, increased scrutiny adds time and more steps to the
process, such as a need for more action memos, but, according to the EPA, will
lead to more cost-effective and efficient cleanups in the future.
Conclusion
Without a documented and transparent funding decision process nationwide with
consistent regional criteria, it is difficult to determine the extent to which
UST/LUST sites with the greatest threat to human health and the environment are
prioritized and receive funding. The EPA has plans that, when implemented, can
enhance the transparency and effectiveness of the funding decision process,
through the use of a panel and additional regional involvement. Although the EPA
has reduced the backlog in Indian country, factors—such as sites remaining on the
backlog for more than a decade or a lengthy action memo approval process—can
impede the agency's ability to effectively reduce or eliminate backlog sites. While
all UST sites present some degree of risk, when sites are not prioritized for
threats, there is a potential public health concern of prolonged exposure to more
hazardous contaminants.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Land and Emergency
Management:
1. Document how the process and criteria the EPA uses to give priority to
those Leaking Underground Storage Tank releases that present the greatest
threat to human health and the environment comply with the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, Section 1529, including how funding decisions for
cleanup activities prioritize these releases, and communicate this with the
regions.
17-P-0118
16
-------
2. Once a process and criteria for prioritizing are documented, develop a tool
or mechanism to track each Leaking Underground Storage Tank site in
Indian country according to the EPA's prioritization criteria.
3. As other EPA cleanup programs have done, establish a panel, including
headquarters and regional staff, to review annual funding decisions for
Underground Storage Tank/Leaking Underground Storage Tank sites in
Indian country.
4. Establish a standard time period (in days) for the Assistant Administrator
and Office of Land and Emergency Management headquarters' offices to
provide comments to the regions on submitted action memos.
5. Assess staff understanding of the May 2016 guidance and identify
opportunities to strengthen staff awareness and adherence to the
expectations for action memos.
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
The EPA stated it is in full compliance with an EPAct requirement to give priority
to releases from LUST sites in Indian country presenting the greatest threats to
human health or the environment. The EPA believes its program is robust given
the staff and financial resources appropriated by Congress. The EPA agrees it
could do more to document the funding decision-making process in a more
transparent way, and provide opportunities for cross-regional participation when
allocating Indian country funding. We agree that the EPA is working to address
threats to human health and the environment at LUST sites in Indian country.
However, due to the absence of a transparent prioritization effort and the lack of
documentation for funding decisions, we cannot confirm that the requirement is
fully met.
The EPA agreed with all recommendations. Based on discussions during a
January 2017 meeting with EPA managers and our review of written comments,
we made changes to the report where appropriate. In addition, we requested that
the EPA make changes to its corrective actions plan, and it did so. All
recommendations are resolved. The agency's response is in Appendix A, and its
revised corrective actions plan is in Appendix B.
17-P-0118 17
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
Potential
Planned
Monetary
Rec.
Page
Completion
Benefits
No.
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Date
(in $000s)
16 Document how the process and criteria the EPA uses to give
priority to those Leaking Underground Storage Tank releases
that present the greatest threat to human health and the
environment comply with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section
1529, including how funding decisions for cleanup activities
prioritize these releases, and communicate this with the regions.
17 Once a process and criteria for prioritizing are documented,
develop a tool or mechanism to track each Leaking Underground
Storage Tank site in Indian country according to the EPA's
prioritization criteria.
17 As other EPA cleanup programs have done, establish a panel,
including headquarters and regional staff, to review annual
funding decisions for Underground Storage Tank/Leaking
Underground Storage Tank sites in Indian country.
17 Establish a standard time period (in days) for the Assistant
Administrator and Office of Land and Emergency Management
headquarters' offices to provide comments to the regions on
submitted action memos.
17 Assess staff understanding of the May 2016 guidance and
identify opportunities to strengthen staff awareness and
adherence to the expectations for action memos.
Assistant Administrator for 9/30/17
Land and Emergency
Management
Assistant Administrator for 9/30/18
Land and Emergency
Management
Assistant Administrator for 12/31 /17
Land and Emergency
Management
Assistant Administrator for 6/30/18
Land and Emergency
Management
Assistant Administrator for 6/30/17
Land and Emergency
Management
1 C = Corrective action completed.
R = Recommendation resolved with corrective action pending.
U = Recommendation unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
17-P-0118
18
-------
Appendix A
Agency Response to Draft Report
¦p
z
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
"'f PRO"^
DEC 2 0 2015
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
NOW THE
OFFICE OF LAND AND
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report No. OPE-FY16-0013
"Backlog of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cleanups in Indian Country Has Been
Reduced, but EPA Needs to Strengthen Requirements," November 22, 2016
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues and recommendations in the subject audit
report. Following is a summary of the agency's overall position, along with its position on each
of the report recommendations. For those report recommendations with which the agency agrees,
we have provided high-level intended corrective actions and estimated completion dates to the
extent we can. For your consideration, we have included a Technical Comments attachment to
supplement this response.
AGENCY'S OVERALL POSITION
The EPA's Underground Storage Tank Program believes it is in full compliance with the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) requirement for giving priority to releases from Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites in Indian country that present the greatest threats to
human health or the environment. The EPA also believes that we have a robust program given
the staff and financial resources appropriated to us by Congress. We agree we could do more to
document our funding decision-making process in a more transparent way and provide
opportunities for cross-regional participation allocating Indian country funding. The statutory
structure of the LUST program, which requires UST owners and operators to pay for cleanups
FROM: Mathy Stanislaus
Assistant Administrator
Office of Land and Emergency Response
TO:
Arthur A. Elkins, Jr.
Inspector General
17-P-0118
19
-------
and uses federal funds for critical situations not covered by other funding, can be complex but is
appropriate, effective, and results in significant backlog reduction. We also believe it is
important to implement the LUST corrective action program in Indian country in a manner that
is consistent with our guidelines for states, where applicable. This includes having an approach
to LUST Trust funded site priority setting that gives priority to sites that pose the greatest risk to
human health and the environment while ensuring all sites move forward. It necessitates
adhering to the statutory structure of the program which relies on several, complementary
funding mechanisms and on investing time and money in program management and support
activities (such as, Senior Environmental Employees, training, database management, adequate
and timely action memo justification authorizing the use of LUST Trust Funds, grants and
contracts management) in addition to direct site cleanup to ensure effective protection of human
health and the environment.
AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Agreements
No.
Recommendation
High-Level Intended Corrective
Action(s)
Estimated
Completion by
Quarter and FY
1
Document how the process
and criteria the EPA uses to
give priority to those
Leaking Underground
Storage Tank releases that
present the greatest threat to
human health and the
environment comply with the
Energy Policy Act of 2005,
Section 1529, including how
funding decisions for
cleanup activities prioritize
these releases, and
communicate this with the
regions.
The EPA will document the
process and criteria it uses to give
priority to those Leaking
Underground Storage Tank
(LUST) releases that present the
greatest threat to human health and
the environment in Indian country
by issuing a memo to the regions.
The memo will consider input
from the FY17 pilot regional-
headquarters funding panel and
explain how releases are
prioritized when making funding
decisions for LUST Trust Funded
site cleanup.
4nd Quarter FY
FY17
2.
Once a process and criteria
for prioritizing are
documented, develop a tool
or mechanism to track each
Leaking Underground
Storage Tank site in Indian
country according to the
EPA's prioritization criteria.
1.1 The EPA will track the LUST
Trust Funded sites through the
documents developed for the
funding panel.
2nd Quarter
FY17
17-P-0118
20
-------
1.2 The EPA will consider
whether there are use the new
tribal database we are developing
to assist in this tracking.
4th Quarter
FY17
3.
As other EPA cleanup
programs have done,
establish a panel, including
headquarters and regional
staff, to review annual
funding decisions for
Underground Storage
Tank/Leaking Underground
Storage Tank sites in Indian
country.
The EPA will establish a regional-
headquarters pilot panel to
consider FY17 funding requests
and make funding
recommendations.
EPA headquarters and regions
UST program will assess the pilot
panel approach and make
adjustments to improve the
effectiveness of future Indian
country cleanup funding decisions.
2nd Quarter
FY17
1st Quarter
FY18
4.
Establish a standard time
period (in days) for the
Assistant Administrator and
OLEM headquarters' offices
to provide comments to the
regions on submitted action
memos.
The EPA will establish a standard
period of one month for the
Assistant Administrator and
OLEM headquarters' offices to
provide comments to the regions
on submitted action memos.
3 rd Quarter
FY18
5.
Assess staff understanding of
the May 2016 guidance and
identify opportunities to
strengthen staff awareness
and adherence to the
expectations for action
memos.
The EPA will assess staff
understanding of the May 2016
guidance and identify
opportunities to strengthen staff
awareness and adherence to the
expectations for action memos.
3nd Quarter
FY17
Disagreements
None
CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Lela Hagan, Program Analyst
of the Office of Underground Storage Tanks on (202) 564-0659 or Kecia Thornton,
Organizational Management and Integrity Staff, OLEM on (202) 566-1913.
Attachment: Technical Comments
17-P-0118
21
-------
cc: Barry Breen
Nitin Natarajan
Carolyn Hoskinson
Mark Barolo
Will Anderson
Judy Barrows
Lei a Hagan
Kecia Thornton
17-P-0118
22
-------
Appendix B
Revised Corrective Actions Plan
The revised corrective actions plan below was submitted by OLEM in February 2017. It
represents the position of the action official and has been agreed to by the OIG. Corrective
actions with changes from the original submission are shown in blue. All recommendations are
agreed to and resolved.
No.
Recommendation
High-Level Intended Corrective
Action(s)
Estimated
Completion by
Quarter and FY
1
Document how the process
and criteria the EPA uses to
give priority to those
Leaking Underground
Storage Tank releases that
present the greatest threat to
human health and the
environment comply with the
Energy Policy Act of 2005,
Section 1529, including how
funding decisions for
cleanup activities prioritize
these releases, and
communicate this with the
regions.
The EPA will document the
process and criteria it uses to give
priority to those Leaking
Underground Storage Tank
(LUST) releases that present the
greatest threat to human health and
the environment in Indian country
by issuing a memo to the regions.
The memo will use, where
applicable, input from the FY17
pilot regional-headquarters
funding panel and explain how
releases are prioritized when
making funding decisions for
LUST Trust Funded site cleanup.
4nd Quarter FY
FY17
2.
Once a process and criteria
for prioritizing are
documented, develop a tool
or mechanism to track each
Leaking Underground
Storage Tank site in Indian
country according to the
EPA's prioritization criteria.
2.1 The EPA will track the LUST
Trust Funded sites through the
documents developed for the
funding panel.
2nd Quarter
FY17
2.2 As part of the development of
the new database for the UST sites
in Indian country, EPA will
evaluate options to determine
whether it is feasible and
affordable to track the funding
decisions for LUST Trust funded
sites.
4th Quarter
FY17
17-P-0118
23
-------
2.3 If EPA determines that it is not
feasible or affordable to use the
database for this purpose, EPA
will develop an alternative method
to track the funding decisions for
LUST Trust funded sites.
4th Quarter
FY18
3.
As other EPA cleanup
programs have done,
establish a panel, including
headquarters and regional
staff, to review annual
funding decisions for
3.1 The EPA will establish a
regional-headquarters pilot panel
to evaluate FY 17 funding requests
and make funding
recommendations.
2nd Quarter
FY17
Underground Storage
Tank/Leaking Underground
Storage Tank sites in Indian
country.
3.2 EPA headquarters and regions
UST program will assess the pilot
panel approach and make
adjustments to improve the
effectiveness of future Indian
country cleanup funding decisions,
through continued panels or
alternative approaches determined
to be more effective.
1st Quarter
FY18
4.
Establish a standard time
period (in days) for the
Assistant Administrator and
OLEM headquarters' offices
to provide comments to the
regions on submitted action
memos.
The EPA will establish a standard
period of one month for the
Assistant Administrator and
OLEM headquarters' offices to
provide comments to the regions
on submitted action memos.
3 rd Quarter
FY18
5.
Assess staff understanding of
the May 2016 guidance and
identify opportunities to
strengthen staff awareness
and adherence to the
expectations for action
memos.
The EPA will assess staff
understanding of the May 2016
guidance and identify
opportunities to strengthen staff
awareness and adherence to the
expectations for action memos.
3nd Quarter
FY17
17-P-0118
24
-------
Appendix C
Distribution
The Administrator
Assistant Administrator for Land and Emergency Management
Assistant Administrator for International and Tribal Affairs
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, Office of Land and Emergency Management
Director, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Office of Land and Emergency Management
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of the Administrator
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Land and Emergency Management
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of International and Tribal Affairs
17-P-0118
25
------- |