>\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.

-------