# o %
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Results and Benefits
Information Is Needed to
Support Impacts of EPA's
Superfund Removal Program
March 11, 2013
Report No. 13-P-0176
Scan this mobile code
to learn more about
the EPA OIG.
-------
Report Contributors: Carolyn Copper
Steve Hanna
Roopa Batni
Tapati Bhattacharyya
Brooke Shull
Chad Kincheloe
Abbreviations
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GAO
U.S. Government Accountability Office
GPRA
Government Performance and Results Act
NPL
National Priorities List
OEM
Office of Emergency Management
OIG
Office of Inspector General
ORCR
Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
OSC
On-Scene Coordinator
OSWER
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
POLREP
Pollution Report
PRP
Potentially Responsible Party
SPIM
Superfund Program Implementation Manual
Cover photo: The River Road Drum Site, a 2010 Superfund emergency removal in
Morgantown, West Virginia. (EPA photo)
Hotline
To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact us through one of the following methods:
e-mail: OIG Hotline@epa.gov write: EPA Inspector General Hotline
phone: 1-888-546-8740 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
fax: 202-566-2599 Mailcode 2431T
online: http://www.epa.gov/oiq/hotline.htm Washington, DC 20460
-------
x^ed Sr^
*. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 13-P-0176
£ U ro Office of Inspector General March 11,2013
I W/ °
At a Glance
Why We Did This Review
We conducted this review to
determine the environmental
benefits and impact of the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Superfund
removal program, and the
Agency's plan to achieve its
future program goal. Superfund
removals are used to respond
to emergencies or accidental
releases of hazardous
substances and mitigate
damage to the public or the
environment from hazardous
substance releases. EPA has
established an annual
Superfund removal goal of 170
EPA-lead and 170 potentially
responsible party-lead
removals each fiscal year
through 2015.
This report addresses the
following EPA Goal or
Cross-Cutting Strategy:
Cleaning up communities
and advancing sustainable
development.
Results and Benefits Information Is Needed to Support
Impacts of EPA's Superfund Removal Program
For further information, contact
our Office of Congressional and
Public Affairs at (202) 566-2391.
What We Found
EPA does not measure the environmental impact and benefits of the Superfund
removal program. The goals of the program are measured by determining the
number of removals completed rather than how removals protect human health and
the environment. This measurement limitation can diminish the perceived value of the
program and be an obstacle to a management focus on how removals contribute to
protection of human health and the environment. Information on removal program
impacts will allow EPA to better inform the public on the benefits of the program and
provide a strong foundation for budget requests. EPA's current numeric removal goal
appears to be attainable based on past performance, although reductions in funding
or changes in state needs or capabilities may impact EPA's ability to meet its goal.
EPA's information on removalssuch as the type of removal, start and completion
dates, contaminant, and volumeis maintained in the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). However,
EPA's system controls do not adequately monitor the completion of required removal
actions in CERCLIS. For example, an action memo should be completed within
5 business days of each removal start, but these were missing or late for about half of
all removals completed in 2007-2011. Further, CERCLIS does not monitor approval
of the required exemptions to ensure EPA is in compliance with Superfund law. Much
of the missing or inaccurate CERCLIS data may be in pollution reports that track
removal actions. However, although EPA staff said they were working on a process
to ensure that pollution report data are accurately transferred to CERCLIS, no such
process currently exists. Accurate CERCLIS information is needed to ensure removal
actions are justified, completed on time, and address threats to human health and the
environment.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We recommend that EPA identify environmental results and benefits of the removal
program, communicate those results along with existing program results, and
implement system controls to ensure required CERCLIS data are entered and
completed. EPA agreed with the recommendations and provided acceptable
corrective actions to enhance communications of program accomplishments and to
control removals data integrity. CERCLIS is expected to be integrated into the
Superfund Enterprise Management System by September 2013.
The full report is at:
www.epa.aov/oia/reports/2013/
20130311-13-P-0176.pdf
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
March 11, 2013
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Results and Benefits Information Is Needed to Support Impacts of EPA's
Superfund Removal Program
Report No. 13-P-0176
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.
Action Required
In responding to the draft report, the Agency provided a corrective action plan for addressing the
recommendations with milestone dates. Because you have provided a corrective action plan with
milestone dates, you are not required to provide a written response to this final report. Should
you choose to provide a response, your response will be posted on the OIG's public website,
along with our memorandum commenting on your response. The Agency should track corrective
actions not yet fully implemented in the Management Audit Tracking System. We have no
objections to the further release of this report to the public. This report will be available at
http://www.epa.gov/oig.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Carolyn Copper at
(202) 566-0829 or copper.carolyn@epa.gov, or Tina Lovingood at (202) 566-2906 or
lovingood.tina@epa.gov.
FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.
TO:
Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
-------
Results and Benefits Information Is Needed to
Support Impacts of EPA's Superfund Removal Program
13-P-0176
Table of C
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Scope and Methodology 2
Prior Evaluation Coverage 3
2 Removal Goal Appears Attainable But Does Not
Communicate Environmental Results and Benefits 4
EPA's Removal Goal Appears Attainable If Resources Are Maintained 4
Environmental Results and Benefits Are Not Communicated by Goal 7
Conclusions 7
Recommendation 8
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation 8
3 System Controls Do Not Monitor Required Removal Information 9
Missing or Inaccurate Removal Information Is Not Corrected 9
Conclusions 13
Recommendation 13
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation 14
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 15
Appendices
A Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Comment 16
B Distribution 19
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this review was to determine whether there are opportunities for
improved management in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
Superfund removal program, and whether resources could be better directed to
meet the current program goal. We asked the following questions:
What are the environmental results and benefits achieved through
Superfund removals?
What is EPA's plan to maintain its targeted level of Superfund removals
through 2015?
Background
The Superfund removal program provides responses to immediate threats to
public health and the environment from releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants. The program is authorized under the 1980
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA). CERCLA was reauthorized in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act. Superfund removal actions are guided by the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, commonly referred to
as the National Contingency Plan.
Superfund removals are intended to prevent, minimize, or mitigate damage to the
public or the environment at sites where hazardous substances have been released
or are threatened to be released. If a site presents a relatively time-sensitive,
non-complex problem that should be addressed inexpensively, EPA will normally
address the problem by use of removal authority. However, even expensive and
complex response actions may be removal action candidates if they are relatively
time-sensitive. Removals are characterized as either fund-lead or potentially
responsible party (PRP)-lead actions. Fund-lead removals are paid for by EPA,
while PRP-lead removals are paid for by PRPs.
To make a clear distinction between long-term remedial actions and removals,
Congress placed limits on the time and money available to conduct a removal
response. An EPA-lead (i.e., "fund-lead") removal may not exceed $2 million in
spending or 12 months in duration. The limits may be extended if required to
address an emergency that will cause an immediate risk to public health or the
environment. The limits may also be extended if the removal is consistent with
remedial actions taken at proposed or final NPL sites. A regional administrator
13-P-0176
1
-------
must approve fund-lead removals that exceed the statutory limits of $2 million or
12 months. Fund-lead removal actions exceeding $6 million must be approved by
the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER).
Removals are placed in one of three categories:
Classic emergencies - Action required within minutes or hours.
Time-critical - Less than 6 months available before the removal action
must be initiated. Specific community relations and administrative record
actions are required.
Non-time-critical - A planning period of more than 6 months is available
before removal actions must begin. An engineering analysis and cost
evaluation are required.
Classic emergencies and time-critical removals are managed by OSWER's Office
of Emergency Management (OEM). Non-time-critical removals are managed by
OSWER's Office of Superfund Remediation Technology and Innovation. OEM's
top priority is to eliminate any danger to the public and the environment posed by
hazardous substance releases and oil spills. OEM provides funding to EPA
regional offices for management of removals. Regional on-scene coordinators
(OSCs) document the status of removals in pollution reports (POLREPs).
Information on removals, such as the type of removal, start and completion dates,
contaminant, and volume, is captured and maintained in the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS). According to the 2012 Superfund Program Implementation Manual
(SPIM), CERCLIS will be integrated into the Superfund Enterprise Management
System by September 2013.
EPA has developed a national goal of 170 fund-lead removals and 170 PRP-lead
removals each fiscal year through 2015.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted our work from March 2012 to November 2012 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that
we plan and perform the evaluation to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to
provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our
objectives. We believe the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based upon our objectives.
We interviewed OSWER staff, including staff in OEM and the Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation; and staff of EPA Regions 3,
4, 5, and 9. Regions selected included those with both high and low numbers of
removals per year.
13-P-0176
2
-------
We reviewed EPA programs, regulations, and guidance documents related to
removals including relevant sections of CERCLA, the National Contingency Plan,
SPIM, OSC website guidance documents, and OEM's Strategic Direction for
Emergency Management Programs Fiscal Years 2010-2014. We also reviewed
performance goals and program measures of the OEM removal program.
Our review focused on fund-lead removals. We reviewed removals data from
CERCLIS for all 10 EPA regions to assess how program requirements are
tracked. We also reviewed POLREPs for selected removal sites to compare
information with CERCLIS and to review data not available in CERCLIS.
Prior Evaluation Coverage
The following Office of Inspector General (OIG) and U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) reports addressed issues related to the scope of our
review:
OIG Report No. 09-P-0144. EPA Needs to Improve Internal Controls to
Increase Cost Recovery, April 27, 2009.
GAO Report No. GAO-08-841R, Superfund: Funding and Reported Costs
of Enforcement and Administration Activities, July 18, 2008.
OIG Report No. 2006-P-00013, EPA Can Better Manage Superfund
Resources, February 28, 2006.
13-P-0176
3
-------
Chapter 2
Removal Goal Appears Attainable But Does Not
Communicate Environmental Results and Benefits
OEM's annual Superfund removal goal appears to be attainable based on past
performance. However, there are factors that can impact EPA's ability to achieve
its goal, such as possible decreases in program funding or changes in state
capabilities to respond to removals. In addition, the goal does not demonstrate the
environmental results and benefits of the removal program. The goal simply
counts removal completions and thus does not reflect the impact of removal
actions. Consequently, the environmental results and benefits of EPA's Superfund
removal program are not measured or communicated, which could diminish the
perceived value of the program and be an obstacle to effective management
focused on program results and impact.
EPA's Removal Goal Appears Attainable If Resources Are Maintained
EPA's 2011-2015 Strategic Plan establishes a Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) goal to complete 1,700 removals by 2015. Annual targets are
170 each for fund-lead and PRP-lead removal completions. EPA reported that it
has exceeded its removal goal since fiscal year 2007 (figure 1). The goal of 170
fund-lead and 170 PRP-lead removals began in 2010 and was met in fiscal years
2010 and 2011. Therefore, EPA's ability to maintain this goal through 2015
appears attainable. However, staff in one regional office expressed concern about
the long-term viability of the goal. Staff stated that state removal response
capabilities in the region had improved, so EPA assistance was only requested for
larger and more expensive removals.1
Figure 1: Removals - target goal and actual
Fund-lead Removal Goal
PRP-lead Removal Goal
¦Actual
I Actual
FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY 2009 FY20JO FY 2011
Source: EPA 2013 budget justification
1 Results and benefits from fewer EPA removals cannot yet be measured.
13-P-0176
4
-------
We identified issues that could impact EPA's ability to continue to meet the fund-
lead removal goal:
1. Basing the goal on historical trends - EPA's removal goal is based on
past trends in removal actions conducted. Because removals are responses
to immediate threats, an estimate of the number that will occur in future
years may be inaccurate.
2. Decreases in program funding - Annual funding for the emergency
response and removal program has historically been about $200 million.
However, in recent years funding for removals has declined (figure 2). If
program funding continues to decrease, the Agency's ability to respond to
both emergency and long-term, expensive removals may be impacted.
Figure 2: EPA removals budget
EPA Removals Budget
{$ millions)
$205
$200
$195
$190
$185
$180
H
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Source: OEM. (Note - numbers represent the enacted budget for each year
except 2013, which represents the projected amount.)
3. Changes in state capabilities or funding - If a state's capacity to
respond to removals diminishes due to funding reductions or other impacts
on resources, this could create an increased demand for EPA's response
resources. On the other hand, if state response capabilities improve and
EPA's assistance is needed less, EPA could have fewer removals to count
toward itsgoal.
4. Impact of large removals - EPA recognizes that some removals require
more resources or time than others. EPA's Fiscal Year 2013 Justification
of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations states,
"In recent years, emergency response and removal activities have grown
more complicated, such as large lead and asbestos cleanups, requiring
13-P-0176
5
-------
more resources and time to complete." Examples of such removals
include:
Lead - One removal in Alabama required more than $6 million
and 4 years, from 2002-2006. The contaminants were lead and
polychlorinated biphenyls present in residential yards. EPA
sampled more than 2,000 properties and removed soil from 175 of
them.
Asbestos - This time-critical removal in New York cost more than
$8 million and lasted about 16 months in 2010-2011. EPA
determined that the 14.5-acre site contained asbestos and
hazardous materials that presented direct contact threats to the
public. EPA removed 14,500 tons of asbestos-contaminated
demolition debris from the site.
Fund-lead removals that exceed the statutory limits of $2 million in
removal costs or 12 months duration represent a significant amount of
removal resources. OIG analysis of data on removals completed from
2007 through 2011 indicates that sites exceeding these limits account for
approximately 72 percent of the funding obligations (figure 3). In contrast,
these sites represent only 15 percent of the total sites, indicating that a
relatively small number of sites represents a large portion of the costs
during the time period we reviewed. The i mpact of these removals is not
reflected in the current goal that simply counts the total number of
removals. For example, the two removals described above would count the
same as small removals requiring only a few days and several thousand
dollars. Because removals such as these require more resources and time
than other removals, they could affect EPA's ability to meet its current
numeric goals.
Figure 3: Obligations for sites exceeding statutory removal limits
Removals > $2 million or 12 months
2007- 2011
25%
'7 ¦NF'L limits
¦ Non-NPL> limits
¦ N on-N PL within limits
35%
Source: OIG analysis of CERCLIS data..
13-P-0176
6
-------
Environmental Results and Benefits Are Not Communicated by Goal
OEM's overall mission is the protection of human health and the environment
from exposure to accidental releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants. Various strategic planning, annual performance planning, guidance,
and budget documents reflect the importance of the removal program to protect
the public from exposure to accidental releases of harmful substances. The current
removal goal of conducting 170 fund-lead and 170 PRP-lead removals each fiscal
year does not reflect this mission and does not describe the removal program's
environmental results and benefits.
In response to a 2005 Office of Management and Budget assessment of the
removal program's performance, OEM committed to developing measures that
track the program's impact on human health and the environment. OEM
management stated that they have attempted to develop a goal more directly
related to their mission but acknowledged that they have not yet succeeded. This
was attributed to the GPRA requirement for a goal that could be easily counted,
resulting in the existing goal that tallies all removal completions irrespective of
their impact, duration, or cost.
In the past, OEM provided information on the impact of removals in annual
reports, but it no longer reports this information. For example, in a 2009 report,
OEM stated that EPA removals prevented an estimated 1,900,000 human
exposures, identified the major contaminants, and provided additional detail on
3 large removals. This type of information can convey the impact and benefits of
the Superfund removal program, but this type of information is not included in the
Agency's removal goals.
Conclusions
The effectiveness, impact, and value of EPA's removal program is not measured
or communicated. Although EPA's numeric removal goal appears to be attainable
based on past performance, changes in funding or state needs or capabilities may
impact EPA's ability to meet its goal. EPA's Superfund removal program appears
likely to provide significant environmental benefits and human health protection.
However, the program's inability to convey those benefits could diminish the
perceived value of the removal program and impede management that is focused
on program results and impact.
13-P-0176
7
-------
Recommendation
We recommend the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response:
1. Define environmental results and benefits of the removal program,
and communicate these results and outcomes with the existing
removal goal outcomes.
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
OSWER agreed with our recommendation and provided a corrective action plan
with goals and milestone dates. The plan includes reporting on the top 10
contaminants of concern each fiscal year, reporting on total contaminant volumes
for removals, highlighting program accomplishments in OSWER publications
such as the annual OSWER Accomplishments Report, and working with EPA
regions to document success stories. OSWER has also committed to continue
working with the regions to better define the environmental results and benefits of
the removal program. Based on the Agency's response, this recommendation is
open with corrective actions underway. Appendix A contains OSWER's response
to our draft report and planned actions to address our recommendation. We
reviewed OSWER's technical comments and made revisions to the report as
appropriate.
13-P-0176
8
-------
Chapter 3
System Controls Do Not Monitor
Required Removal Information
CERCLIS - EPA's Superfund performance accomplishment planning and
tracking system - does not adequately track key data that EPA has determined to
be a requirement for removals. While CERCLIS contains almost all data elements
necessary, data were missing or incomplete in approximately half of the removals
we reviewed. Interviews with EPA regional staff confirmed that data were
available in POLREPs but had not been entered into CERCLIS. However, in
some instances statutory exemptions were not met. Without consistent and
complete data, EPA cannot effectively monitor removals to ensure all removal
actions are justified and approved, are completed on time, and address the threat
to public health and the environment.
Missing or Inaccurate Removal Information Is Not Corrected
Specific Data Required by EPA
CERCLIS is the Superfund program's data management system.2 EPA uses
CERCLIS data to track, manage, and report on program performance. Data are
entered into CERCLIS by EPA regional staff. CERCLIS data entry requirements
are specified in the annual SPIM and are implemented through data entry control
plans established by each EPA region.
The fiscal year 2012 SPIM includes specific planning and reporting requirements.
For example, it requires that "Upon completion of a removal, an action qualifier
must be recorded to identify whether the removal resulted in the site being
Cleaned Up or Stabilized. This is both a Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA) annual performance goal and GPRA measure." In addition, it
required the following removal program data elements to be entered into
CERCLIS; if these fields are left blank the removal will not count toward the
GPRA annual performance goal:
2 According to the 2012 SPIM, CERCLIS will be integrated into the Superfund Enterprise Management System by
September 2013.
13-P-0176
9
-------
Removal Action Name
Removal Lead
Removal Action Critical
Media Name
Media Type
NPL/Non-NPL
Site Type
Volume (estimate)
Contaminant
Contaminant of Concern
Indicator
Action Qualifier
Start Date
Completion Date
In addition to these requirements, we have identified other requirements for
removals specified in Superfund statutes, regulations, or guidance documents.
These additional requirements include:
Action memorandum - An action memo should be completed as soon as
practicable or within 5 business days of a removal start date. EPA's
September 2009 action memo guidance illustrates the importance of the
action memo for a removal. According to this guidance, the action memo
is the primary decision document that:
- Determines the need for a CERCLA removal action.
- Authorizes the removal action.
- Identifies the applicable action and cleanup levels.
- Explains the rationale for the removal response.
12 month or $2 million exemption - An exemption approved by a
regional administrator is required for fund-lead removals exceeding
$2 million or 12 months.
$6 million exemption - An exemption approved by the OSWER assistant
administrator is required for fund-lead removals exceeding $6 million.
Community involvement - EPA's 1992 "Public Participation Guidance
for On-Scene Coordinators: Community Relations and the Administrative
Record" specifies community involvement requirements for all removals,
and additional requirements for removals longer than 120 days.
POLREP - A POLREP is required at the start (initial POLREP) and
completion (final POLREP) of a removal action. In some instances,
response activities require only one POLREP, which serves as both an
initial and final POLREP.
Entry of Required CERCLIS Data Not Monitored
We reviewed CERCLIS data for 1,079 fund-lead removals in all regions
completed from 2007 through 2011. We identified the following problems with
required data:
Removal completion -We found completed removal actions in
CERCLIS that appeared to be incomplete simply because staff had not
entered the completion date into CERCLIS.
13-P-0176
10
-------
Action memo completion - Approximately 26 percent of the removals
we reviewed had no action memo associated with the removal in
CERCLIS (figure 4). An additional 23 percent had late action memos.3
Figure 4: Completion of action memos in CERCLIS
Source: OIG analysis of CERCLIS data.
Exemption approval for fund-lead removals longer than 12 months or
more than $2 million - CERCLIS contains specific flags to identify
approval of each exemption, but the flags are not routinely used.
CERCLIS could readily be used to monitor the completion of the
exemption approvals using the existing flags, and generate reports to
inform EPA management and staff of the need for the exemption
approvals. Without such monitoring there is no assurance that the
exemption approvals are being completed as required by statute.
Completion of the exemption approvals is important for EPA compliance
with Superfund law, and also ensures EPA management is aware of large
expenditures that account for well over half of the removal costs.
Exemption approval for fund-lead removals more than $6 million -
CERCLIS does not utilize any reporting mechanisms to monitor the
completion of the exemption approvals. Regions we interviewed
confirmed that these exemption approvals were obtained as appropriate.
Start of time-critical removals within 6 months - We found 33
removals identified as time-critical that had not begun within 6 months.
A time-critical removal is defined as a removal that needs to be started
within 6 months, as measured from the date of the initial action memo. We
also observed some CERCLIS entries for time-critical removals that had
3 "Late" action memos were identified as more than 7 calendar days from the removal start, to account for the
requirement for completion of the initial action memo as soon as practicable or within 5 business days.
Action Memo Completion
Timely
51%
Missing
26%
13-P-0176.
11
-------
not yet started with planned start dates either more than 6 months in the
future or more than 6 months in the past. These observations raise the
question of why these are classified as time-critical removals instead of
non-time-critical.
Missing data - We found three removals that did not have an entry to
indicate if the removal was emergency, time-critical, or non-time-critical.
We also found one instance of a removal that was completed, based on the
presence of a completion date, but was missing a removal start date. While
these represent a small portion of the removals, they demonstrate the
absence of system controls to require the entry of mandatory data.
Based on the above issues, we believe CERCLIS is not being adequately utilized
by EPA to monitor removals. These data entry issues identify problems with
monitoring the completion of required entries for removals, and indicate missing
controls that could readily identify possible issues as they occur. Following
interviews with the regions, we requested additional information on the
completion of 17 specific 12-month or $2-million exemptions. The responses
indicated that 4 of the 17 exemptions had not been completed. This emphasizes
the need to use CERCLIS as a management control to ensure that time-sensitive
actions are completed as required. Reports from CERCLIS could identify time-
sensitive actions that are overdue, such as the start of time-critical removals.
Reports could also identify time-sensitive actions that are pending in the near
future to provide assistance to program managers.
Regional staff we interviewed generally expressed frustration about the
difficulties with using CERCLIS, which could explain some of the missing or
incorrect data we observed. This may be addressed by the pending redesign of
CERCLIS. According to the 2012 SPIM, CERCLIS will be integrated into the
Superfund Enterprise Management System by September 2013.
Data Entered in POLREPs May Not Be Consistent with CERCLIS
The National Contingency Plan requires the OSC to submit pollution reports to
the Regional Response Team and other appropriate agencies as significant
developments occur during response operations. OSCs prepare POLREPs at the
initiation and completion of a removal action and at regular intervals in between.
The POLREP serves as the OSC's record of response actions, notifications, and
decisions made to support the response action. POLREPs address:
The source and circumstances of the release.
The identity of PRPs.
The removal activities performed.
The costs incurred for the removal activities.
The impact and potential impact of the release on public health and
welfare, and on the environment.
13-P-0176.
12
-------
The final POLREP documents that all proposed tasks have been completed as
outlined in the action memo, thereby establishing the completion date for the
removal. The final POLREP also summarizes the results achieved by the removal
or response action, including a summary of the wastes disposed of throughout the
course of the response or cleanup, as well as providing the basis for information
needed by EPA to measure the progress of the removal program.
Regional OSCs use POLREPs as the primary tool to document removal response
actions occurring at a site. Information regarding sites is also entered into the
CERCLIS database. Both POLREPs and CERCLIS can be accessed by OEM to
track removal response actions at sites; therefore, information from the two data
sources should be accurate, updated, and consistent.
During our review of regional removal sites we identified information, such as
removal completion dates, that was present in POLREPs but not CERCLIS. As a
result, the data entered may be inaccurate or missing in CERCLIS but accurate
and included in the site POLREP. The inconsistencies in data entry and
transmission between POLREPs and the CERCLIS database present a problem by
allowing differing data to reside in two locations. This could lead to incorrect
conclusions about the status of removals. During our discussions with OEM and
OSWER-CERCLIS staff, we were informed that CERCLIS staff, with OEM and
regional staff participation, are creating a mechanism to synchronize the
information documented in POLREPs with CERCLIS.
Conclusions
A review of removals data in CERCLIS showed that system controls were
missing. As a result, information requirements - such as removal completion
dates, action memos, timely start of time-critical removals, and exemptions for
removal duration and cost - were not met for some removals. We also found that
information entered by OSCs in POLREPs may differ or be absent from
CERCLIS. Accurate information is necessary to assure removals are justified and
are monitored for timely completion. Timely completion of removal actions is
critical to provide assurance that the public and environment are protected from
exposure to harmful substances.
Recommendation
We recommend the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response:
2. Implement system controls to:
a. Ensure required CERCLIS data are entered and completed.
b. Synchronize data between POLREPs and CERCLIS.
13-P-0176.
13
-------
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
OSWER agreed with the recommendation and provided a corrective action plan
with goals and milestone dates. OSWER is working to develop a report to inform
managers as to which removals need additional data in CERCLIS. OSWER is
also working to connect the final POLREP with CERCLIS in the implementation
of the Superfund Enterprise Management System, which is expected to replace
CERCLIS in fiscal year 2014. Based on the Agency's response, this
recommendation is open with corrective actions underway. Appendix A contains
OSWER's response to our draft report and planned actions to address our
recommendation. We reviewed OSWER's technical comments and made
revisions to the report as appropriate.
13-P-0176.
14
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (In $000s)
Rec.
No.
Page
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
8 Define environmental results and benefits of the
removal program, and communicate these results
and outcomes with the existing removal goal
outcomes.
13 Implement system controls to:
a. Ensure required CERCLIS data are entered
and completed.
b. Synchronize data between POLREPs and
CERCLIS.
Planned
Completion
Date
Claimed
Amount
Ag reed-To
Amount
Assistant Administrator 9/30/2014
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Assistant Administrator 9/30/2013
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
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
13-P-0176.
15
-------
Appendix A
Agency Response to Draft Report
and OIG Comment
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to OIG's draft report entitled: "Results and Benefits Information Is
Needed to Support Impacts of EPA's Superfund Removals Program." Project No.
OPE-FY12-0012, dated November 28, 2012
FROM: Mathy Stanislaus
Assistant Administrator
TO: Carolyn Copper
Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation
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 views, along with its views on each of the
report recommendations. The agency generally agrees with the report recommendations which
parallel efforts we have been addressing. Accordingly, we have provided high-level intended
corrective actions and estimated completion dates. For your consideration, we have included a
Technical Comments Attachment to supplement this response.
AGENCY'S OVERALL VIEWS
In response to the OIG's Draft Report, "Results and Benefits Information Is Needed to Support
Impacts of EPA's Superfund Removals Program," EPA generally agrees with the
recommendations in this report and describes our efforts as discussed with your staff. With
respect to Chapter 3, System Controls Do Not Monitor Required Removals Information, we are
primarily concerned that the draft report does not truly take into account discussions about
moving away from CERCLIS towards the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS).
For example, we will not be adding a data element to track the $6 million exemption or any other
enhancements; those will not be implemented in CERCLIS, but could be added to SEMS
requirements, if the program determines those elements are needed in the database.
In addition, there are areas of the report that need clarification. Those areas are specifically
described in the Technical Comments Attachment.
13-P-0176.
16
-------
Agreements
No.
Recommendation
High-Level Intended
Estimated Completion by
Corrective Action(s)
Quarter and FY
1
Define environmental results and
a. OEM will continue to
a. FY13 and ongoing
benefits of the removals
report the top ten
program, and communicate these
contaminants of
results and outcomes with the
concern each fiscal
existing removals goal outcomes.
year, and will begin
reporting on total
volume for removals
beginning FY13.
b. OEM will continue to
b. Ongoing
highlight program
accomplishments in
OSWER publications,
including the annual
OSWER
Accompli shments
Report.
c. OEM will continue to
c. Beginning FY 13 and
work with the Regions
once per quarter
and Special Teams to
throughout the fiscal
build a repository of
year
removal success
stories, which we will
use to communicate
program benefits on
the EPA web site and
other channels.
d. OEM will continue
d. Complete by 4th
looking into
quarter FY2014
delineating different
types of removal
completions to
communicate impacts
2
Implement system controls to:
a. OEM will notify the
a. Ongoing
a. Ensure required
Region(s) of any
CERCLIS data are
discrepancies in
entered and completed.
CERCLIS.
b. 4th Quarter FY2013
b. Synchronize data
b. Synchronize data
between POLREPs and
fields in the final
CERCLIS.
POLREP to fields in
the Superfund
Enterprise
Management System
13-P-0176.
17
-------
(SEMS). SEMS will
replace CERCLIS in
FY 2014.
Disagreements
While OSWER generally agrees with the recommendations, there are some nuances (for
example, the program needs to determine whether all data elements need to be synched between
POLREPS and SEMS, the replacement for CERCLIS) and ongoing efforts as well as technical
corrections that are provided in the attached technical comments.
OIG Response: The OIG acknowledges the ongoing efforts of OSWER to address the
synchronization of the appropriate data elements between POLREPS and SEMS. The OIG
reviewed the technical comments and made revisions to the report as appropriate.
Should you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please contact Dana Tulis, Deputy
Director, Office of Emergency Management at 202-564-8600.
13-P-0176.
18
-------
Appendix B
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Deputy 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 External Affairs and Environmental Education
Director, Office of Emergency Management, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
13-P-0176.
19
------- |