# \
.,SE2:
%
^ PrO^
Office of Inspector General
Audit Report
RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION
RCRA Corrective Action Focuses on Interim Priorities
Better Integration with Final Goals Needed
2000-P-0028
September 29, 2000
-------
Inspector General Division(s)
Conducting the Audit
Contributors
Region(s) covered
Program Office(s) Involved
Headquarters Audit Division
Washington, DC
Christina Lovingood
Sheila May
Mike Prater
Regions 4, 5, and 6
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response:
Office of Solid Waste
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance:
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
-------
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RCRA Corrective Action Focuses on Interim Priorities
Better Integration with Final Goals Needed
Audit Report No. 2000-P-0028
FROM: Mike Prater, Audit Manager
Headquarters Audit Division
TO: Timothy Fields, Jr.
Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Steven A. Herman
Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Attached is the subject audit report for our review of RCRA corrective action permits and
orders used to achieve environmental indicators. We issued our draft report on August 10, 2000.
The draft was entitled "RCRA Corrective Action Focuses on Interim Results, Broader
Implementation of GPRA Needed." The response to the draft is included in Appendix 7 of the
attached report, which contains findings that describe problems the Office of Inspector General
(OIG) has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This audit report represents the
opinion of the OIG and the findings contained in this audit report do not necessarily represent the
final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this audit report will be made by EPA
managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures. Accordingly, the findings
described in the audit report are not binding upon EPA in any enforcement proceeding brought by
EPA or the Department of Justice.
We would appreciate a response to the report within 90 days of the report date. The
response should include an action plan with milestone dates for corrective actions planned but not
completed. Should you or your staffs have any questions, please contact Christina (Tina)
Lovingood or Sheila May of the Headquarters Audit Division on (202) 260-5105 and
(202) 260-5115, respectively; or Carol Jacobson, OIG Audit Liaison, on (202) 260-7604.
Attachment
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Corrective Action (CA) Program's goal is to minimize the
federal cleanup burden by having current operating facilities
clean up their hazardous waste contamination, thereby
preventing the RCRA facilities that pose the greatest risk
from becoming Superfund sites. Past and present activities
at RCRA facilities have sometimes resulted in releases of
hazardous substances into soil, groundwater, surface water,
and air. In the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA, Congress directed EPA to
require CA for all releases of hazardous waste and
hazardous constituents at facilities seeking RCRA permits.
Although the CA program has been in effect since 1984,
concerns have been raised that companies are not cleaning
up their facilities quickly enough, therefore posing risks to
public health and the environment.
As part of the process to formulate EPA goals to achieve
outcomes under the Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA), CA officials identified 1,712 high priority
baseline facilities needing CA as of April 1999. (As of
January 2000, the baseline consisted of 1,714 facilities.
However, we sampled from the universe of 1,712 facilities
and will be referring to the 1,712 facilities throughout this
report.) The current focus of the CA program is to achieve
two environmental indicators (EI) by 2005: (1) current
human exposures under control and (2) migration of
contaminated groundwater under control. These EI are
intermediate outcomes of progress made toward the
ultimate EPA GPRA goal of restoration. To initiate
progress toward the achievement of EI, the Agency requires
CA through permits and orders that should include
schedules for the CA. In February 1999, the then Acting
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency response (OSWER) emphasized the need to
achieve the newly established GPRA goal and made CA his
highest priority for the RCRA program.
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
OBJECTIVES
Our objectives were to answer the following questions.
1. Could the overall implementation of GPRA for the CA
program be improved?
2. Have the high priority facilities initiated CA or have
states or EPA compelled CA in permits, orders, etc., and
are the actions effective (have the EI been achieved)?
3. Do states encounter obstacles to effective CA? Are
those obstacles different from EPA's?
4. Have states or EPA planned for sufficient resources to
achieve the GPRA goal of 2005 and the intermediate goals?
5. Is EPA receiving timely and accurate information
necessary for monitoring progress made toward the GPRA
goal?
RESULTS IN BRIEF The CA program currently focuses on interim environmental
results, but broader implementation of GPRA is necessary.
By 2005, the CA program plans to have current human
exposures and contaminated groundwater migration under
control at 95% and 70%, respectively, of the 1,712 high
priority baseline facilities. To achieve the interim goals,
EPA has issued guidance on how to support the
accomplishment of the EI, provided training for CA officials
to emphasize a more flexible approach in the cleanup
process, and monitors progress made toward achieving the
EI. Although the EI are good interim measures of progress,
the ultimate GPRA goal of the CA program is to restore
sites to uses appropriate for surrounding communities. CA
officials interpret restore in this context to mean that
cleanup goals for final remedies have been achieved.
The CA program could more effectively achieve GPRA
outcomes by: providing a clearer definition of restoration in
the context of site cleanup, developing an EI for final
remedies that addresses ecological protection, emphasizing
the need for an effective reference and rationale for each EI
determination, making the EI documentation available to
11
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
other regulators and the public, and providing guidance on
how the EI determinations should be reevaluated.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
System (RCRIS) indicates that CA began at a majority of
the baseline facilities when EPA required (imposed) the
RCRA facility investigation (RFI) in permits or orders. (For
the three regions we visited, we reviewed the
documentation supporting the RFI imposition. Even though
the dates did not always match, the documentation generally
supported the fact that the RFI had been imposed.) The
baseline facilities are a list of hazardous waste facilities that
will be used to measure the environmental progress of the
CA program. Where CA has not begun, Agency and
authorized state officials are developing site-specific plans
to do so. However, some regional and state officials are
concerned that several obstacles may prevent EPA from
achieving the EI, and potential risk to human health and the
environment may continue to exist. Early actions to
mitigate the obstacles that EPA can control will be key in
achieving the EI by 2005.
CA officials believe they have sufficient resources to
address the CA baseline sites, but state resources appear to
be limited. In addition, EPA has not specifically aligned its
existing grants allocation formula with its GPRA initiatives.
Therefore, authorized states that need the resources may
not be receiving them. Also, because the resources may not
be distributed properly, EPA may not be able to rely on the
states' ability to achieve the EI, and thus meet the GPRA
cleanup goal of restoration for CA. However, CA officials
are expecting an increase in grant funding beginning in fiscal
year 2001. This new funding is planned to be allocated
according to the number of baseline facilities.
EPA needs to closely monitor the GPRA progress reported
in RCRIS because the system does not indicate the date(s)
when EI determinations are entered to reflect current and
complete EI determinations. Also, the dates EI were
accomplished were not always accurately reflected in
RCRIS, nor was the EI documentation always available.
Because EPA cannot determine the timeliness of the data
111
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
reported, and because of the inaccurate or unsupported EI
information in RCRIS, EPA or CA officials may not be able
to rely on RCRIS for monitoring progress toward the
GPRA goal.
RECOMMENDATIONS We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response initiate actions to:
clarify the GPRA goal of restoration, develop an EI for
final remedies that addresses ecological protection;
share EI documentation with regulators and the public;
clearly document an effective EI reference and rationale;
develop guidance for periodically reevaluating EI;
minimize obstacles to achieving the EI goal for 2005;
address resource concerns by routinely evaluating
whether states have sufficient resources for implementing
the CA program; and,
improve the reporting of data into RCRIS.
AGENCY RESPONSE We received the Agency's response on September 28, 2000,
to our draft report. The OSWER officials agreed with all of
our recommendations.
iv
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
BIF
Boiler and Industrial Furnace
BYP
Beginning-of-the-Year Plan
CA
Corrective Action
CAWL
Corrective Action Workload
DoD
Department of Defense
DoE
Department of Energy
EI
Environmental Indicator
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
FMFIA
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
GAO
General Accounting Office
GPRA
Government Performance and Results Act
HSWA
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
NCAPS
National Corrective Action Priority System
NRC
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
OECA
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OIG
Office of Inspector General
OSWER
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRIS
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System
RFI
RCRA Facility Investigation
SWMU
Solid Waste Management Unit
v
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
VI Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
ABBREVIATIONS v
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
OBJECTIVES 1
BACKGROUND 2
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 7
CHAPTER 2: CA FOCUSES ON INTERIM ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS;
BROADER IMPLEMENTATION OF GPRA NEEDED 9
EI ARE GOOD MEASURES OF THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 9
IMPROVED EI DOCUMENTATION COULD STRENGTHEN CA CREDIBILITY . 12
RECOMMENDATIONS 18
CHAPTER 3: CA COMPELLED IN PERMITS OR ORDERS AT MOST SITES, BUT
CONCERNS FOR ACHIEVING THE GPRA GOAL REMAIN 21
CA INITIATED AT MOST BASELINE FACILITIES 21
RCRIS INDICATES THAT CA PROGRAM CURRENTLY ON TRACK TO
ACCOMPLISH THE EI; SOME ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS TAKEN . . 22
OBSTACLES MAY PREVENT ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE EI 24
RECOMMENDATIONS 29
CHAPTER 4: EPA OFFICIALS BELIEVE RESOURCES ARE GENERALLY SUFFICIENT,
BUT STATE RESOURCES MAY BE LIMITED 31
SOME STATE RESOURCES MAY BE LIMITED 31
OUTDATED GRANTS ALLOCATION FORMULA MAY BE CAUSING
RESOURCES TO BE MISALLOCATED 34
RECOMMENDATIONS 36
CHAPTER 5: CLOSER MONITORING OF GPRA PROGRESS NEEDED 39
RCRIS DOES NOT INDICATE WHEN EI ENTERED; TIMELINESS
UNDETERMINABLE 39
EI INFORMATION IN RCRIS NOT ALWAYS RELIABLE 40
RECOMMENDATIONS 42
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 -
45
Appendix 2 -
Appendix 3 -
Appendix 4 -
Appendix 5 -
Appendix 6 -
Appendix 7 -
87
Appendix 8 -
89
Report No. 2000-P-0028
Scope, Methodology and Prior Audit Coverage
Examples of Acceptable Reference and Rationale 50
Examples of Unacceptable Reference and Rationale 63
Accuracy of Region 4 Positive EI Determinations 79
Accuracy of Region 5 Positive EI Determinations 83
Accuracy of Region 6 Positive EI Determinations 85
Agency Response
Distribution List
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The goal of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) Corrective Action (CA) Program is to minimize
the federal cleanup burden by requiring current operating
facilities to clean up their hazardous waste contamination,
thereby preventing the RCRA facilities that pose the
greatest risk from becoming Superfund sites. The
companies that perform cleanups under the CA program
include, among others, chemical manufacturers and waste
disposal companies. Past and present activities at RCRA
facilities have sometimes resulted in releases of hazardous
substances into soil, groundwater, surface water, and air.
As part of the process to formulate EPA goals to achieve
outcomes under the Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA), RCRA officials identified 1,712 high priority
baseline facilities that need CA. The current focus of the
CA program is to achieve two environmental indicators
(EI) at the 1,712 baseline facilities by 2005: (1) current
human exposures under control and (2) migration of
contaminated groundwater under control. The EI are
interim outcomes of progress toward the ultimate GPRA
goal of restoring the baseline facilities. To initiate progress
toward the achievement of the EI, EPA or authorized
states can require CA through permits or orders which
should include schedules for CA.
OBJECTIVES In response to a request from the EPA Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), we
performed this review to determine whether the EI are
being achieved timely.
Specifically, we sought to answer to answer the following
questions.
1. Could the overall implementation of GPRA for the CA
program be improved?
1
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
2. Have the high priority facilities initiated CA or have
states or EPA compelled CA in permits, orders, etc., and
are the actions effective (have the environmental indicators
been achieved)?
3. Do states encounter obstacles to effective CA? Are
those obstacles different from EPA's?
4. Have states or EPA planned for sufficient resources to
achieve the GPRA goal of 2005 and the interim goals?
5. Is EPA receiving timely and accurate information
necessary for monitoring progress made toward the GPRA
goal?
We developed the objectives based on discussions with
OECA and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) officials.
BACKGROUND
Purpose of the CA Program In the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA) to RCRA, Congress directed EPA to require CA
for all releases of hazardous waste and hazardous
constituents from solid waste management units (SWMU)
at facilities seeking RCRA permits. Congress also
expanded EPA's authority to address cleanup at permitted
RCRA hazardous waste management facilities for releases
beyond facility boundaries. Although the CA program has
been in effect since 1984, concerns have been raised that
companies are not cleaning up their facilities quickly
enough and that properties remain contaminated, posing
risks to public health and the environment. Since fiscal
year (FY) 1996, EPA has provided about $16 million
annually in grants to states and tribes for the oversight of
cleanup at RCRA facilities. EPA has also supplemented
this figure with an additional $8.8 million annually bringing
the total amount of grant funding (for RCRA cleanups) to
states and tribes for the past four years (since FY96) to
about $100 million.
2
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
EPA's Early Attempts to
Speed Up CA, GPRA, and
the Development of the CA
EI
RCRA Implementation Study
and the Stabilization Initiative
RCRA conducted the RCRA Implementation Study and
issued a report in July 1990. The report recommended that
the RCRA CA program use more frequent interim actions
to achieve near term environmental results at facilities with
the most serious problems. While final cleanup was the
long term goal for the CA program, the study emphasized
the importance of controlling releases and stabilizing sites
to prevent further spread of contamination as the first
phase of CA. Stabilization means that the CA program
would take whatever action was necessary at as many
facilities as possible to address actual exposures (imminent
risks) and to prevent the further spread of contamination.
In 1991, the Agency established the Stabilization Initiative
as one of the primary objectives for the CA program. The
goal of the Stabilization Initiative was to increase the rate
of CA by focusing on near term activities to control or
abate threats to human health and the environment and to
prevent or minimize the further spread of contamination.
Controlling exposures or the migration of a release may
have stabilized facilities, but this stabilization would not
necessarily mean that facilities were completely cleaned up.
Stabilization actions were intended to be a component of,
or at lease consistent with final remedies.
GPRA Requirements and the In 1993, Congress passed GPRA, which required the
Goal for CA federal government to establish measurable and
quantitative goals and objectives to clearly define outputs
or outcomes. To achieve its mission, EPA's Strategic Plan
lists 10 goals. The restoration of contaminated waste sites
is addressed within Goal 5 and applies to EPA's cleanup
programs including Superfund, RCRA, and the
Underground Storage Tank Program. Goal 5 stresses the
need for continued work to clean up polluted sites,
restoring them to uses appropriate for surrounding
communities and responding to and preventing waste
related-industrial accidents. Improper hazardous waste
3
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
disposal could result in the contamination of groundwater
and can be harmful to people who live in nearby
communities. EPA's effort for all of its cleanup programs
to achieve Goal 5 is centered on protecting human health
and the environment by applying the fastest, most effective
waste management and cleanup methods available.
However, EPA has emphasized a flexible, facility-specific
approach to RCRA CA which is needed to account for the
variety of CA facilities.
RCRA CA officials believe the ultimate goal for CA is to
achieve final remedies appropriate for reasonably
anticipated future land use. Officials also believe that the
term restoration may not be appropriate for the RCRA CA
program because many RCRA facilities will be operating
waste management facilities that will continue into the
foreseeable future. CA officials plan to work with
OSWER's and OECA's Strategic Plan liaisons to examine
the term restoration as it applies to CA. For the purpose
of this report, we will continue to use the term restoration
as the ultimate goal for the CA program because it is not
the role of the OIG to define restoration for any of
OSWER's programs.
Early Development of EI Stakeholders continued to raise concerns that the CA
program focused on the processes of cleaning up sites
instead of environmental outcomes. Therefore, because of
GPRA requirements and based on EPA's work on the
Stabilization Initiative, in 1994, EPA moved the CA
program from focusing on steps in the cleanup process to
the achievement of environmental outcomes, or the EI.
The RCRA CA program developed two specific EI: (1)
human exposures controlled determination, and (2)
groundwater releases controlled determination. The
human exposures controlled EI is attained when there is no
unacceptable risk to humans due to releases of
contaminants at or from a facility subject to CA. The
groundwater releases controlled EI is attained when the
migration of groundwater contamination at or from a
facility is controlled across its designated boundaries.
These EI were not tied to specific program activities or
paperwork deliverables. To support the EI, EPA or state
program managers were to prepare a document signed by a
Branch Chief or above and enter it into the administrative
4
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
file for the facility. The document should state that human
exposures or groundwater releases controlled
determination had been made, or that a previous
determination was no longer applicable, and provide a
basis for the determination.
Current EI In February 1999, the then Acting Assistant Administrator
for OSWER emphasized the need to achieve GPRA cleanup
Goal 5, and made CA his highest priority for the RCRA
program. Concurrently, EPA issued new guidance on EI to
help focus program activities on observable, near- term
improvements in environmental conditions (outcomes) that
were site-wide. The priority and guidance de-emphasized
procedural, document-based, or partial-facility milestones of
program progress, such as the RCRA facility investigation
report (RFI). The RFI (part of the CA process which is
contained in RCRIS) is an assessment of potential releases
of hazardous waste and can be required from EPA or an
authorized state either through a permit or an order.
EPA defined two new EI and created forms to document
the accomplishment of EI. The two EI are: (1) current
human exposures under control and (2) migration of
contaminated groundwater under control. When EPA or
authorized state officials complete an EI evaluation, they are
to enter the results in the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act Information System (RCRIS). Because EI
focus on results, they serve as outcome performance
measures for remedial activities. These EI are also designed
to aid RCRA site decision makers by clearly showing where
risk reduction is necessary, thereby helping regulators and
facility owners/operators reach an earlier agreement on
measures needed to stabilize a facility. RCRA CA officials
believe that the current EI demonstrate EPA's, "flexibility in
working with the state partners rather than pushing states
directly toward the ultimate goal of final cleanup."
EPA developed the GPRA baseline of hazardous waste
facilities to meet the CA program's GPRA goal. This list of
facilities will be used to measure the environmental progress
of the CA program. The baseline was developed from the
National RCRA CA Priorities Initiative and each facility
was given an initial ranking with input from the states.
Most facilities were ranked based on information in the
Development of CA GPRA
Baseline
5
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
RCRA Facility Assessment report. The ranking tool took
into account (1) type and design of waste management unit,
(2) volume of waste, (3) waste toxicity, and (4) likelihood
of releases to the environment. Other factors included (1)
depth to groundwater, (2) groundwater use, (3) distance to
surface water, (4) nearest drinking water intake, (5) nearest
sensitive environment, and (6) nearby pollution.
The baseline is comprised of facilities in the CA workload
universe (a list of facilities that were actively seeking a
permit to operate as a treatment, storage, or disposal facility
or sites that were undergoing cleanup) which have, or had
at one time, a high National CA Priority System (NCAPS)
ranking. Optional facilities were added to the baseline for
the purpose of measuring program progress and may have
included facilities that were not ranked high at the time the
baseline was created, but were identified as high NCAPS in
the past. Officials believed these facilities best show the
improvement due to CA activities and should not be left out
of the GPRA baseline. The individually named high-priority
baseline facilities are expected to remain on the baseline
through 2005 and will not change unless absolutely
necessary. EPA officials allowed states to add additional
facilities, up to 15% of their total GPRA baseline, as
another example of EPA's flexibility with respect to
recognizing state interests and EPA's longstanding policy of
partnering with states to address RCRA CA." The added
facilities were to be priorities for the states and regions due
to significant reasons, such as environmental justice,
brownfields, etc. The CA GPRA baseline was finalized and
published on July 8, 1999, as part of EPA's RCRA Cleanup
Reforms Initiative.
RCRA Cleanup Reforms In July 1999, the CA program focused on cleanup reforms,
which are designed to achieve faster, more flexible cleanups
at RCRA facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous
waste and have potential environmental contamination. The
RCRA Cleanup Reforms are EPA's comprehensive effort to
address the key impediments to cleanups, maximize
program flexibility, and spur progress toward a set of
ambitious national cleanup goals. The national cleanup
goals focus on the 1,712 RCRA baseline facilities that
warrant attention over the next several years because of the
6
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
potential for unacceptable exposure to pollutants and/or for
groundwater contamination.
To speed cleanup, EPA also developed alternatives to help
facilitate a results-based approach so that the EI can be
achieved sooner than if the traditional CA process had been
used. For example, EPA has recently begun to enter into
voluntary agreements with facilities. Rather than going
through what can be a multi-year process of obtaining a
permit and then beginning cleanup, EPA is encouraging
facilities to perform cleanup with minimal oversight. With
signed voluntary agreements, facilities can begin cleanup
more promptly than they would have if they had obtained a
permit. EPA retains the right to order CA, should the
facilities become unwilling or unable to complete the CA.
Another alternative to the CA process has been States' use
of state Superfund-like authorities to clean up RCRA
facilities.
SCOPE AND We conducted this review from August 1999 to May 2000.
METHODOLOGY To accomplish our objectives, we conducted fieldwork in
Headquarters OECA and OSWER and in Regions 4, 5, and
6. During the accomplishment of our objectives, we
considered the overall implementation of GPRA for the CA
program. The examination of the overall implementation
included: the GPRA goal, the EI, obstacles to successful
achievement of the EI, source documentation, RCRIS data
accuracy (for the EI), resources allocated to achieve the EI,
and management oversight.
We performed our review in accordance with the U.S.
General Accounting Office (GAO) Government Auditing
Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United
States (1994 Revision.) Appendix 1 presents additional
information on the scope, methodology, and prior audit
coverage.
7
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
CHAPTER 2
CA FOCUSES ON INTERIM ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS;
BROADER IMPLEMENTATION OF GPRA NEEDED
By 2005, the CA program plans to have current human
exposures and contaminated groundwater migration under
control at 95% and 70%, respectively, of the 1,712 high
priority baseline facilities. Accomplishing these EI is the
highest priority for the RCRA program. Overall, the CA
program has underscored this priority by: (1) providing
guidance on how to support the accomplishment of the EI,
(2) conducting training in each region and its plans to adapt
the training to be available to all stakeholders via interactive
Internet, (3) following up on the training with regional and
state visits, and (4) encouraging flexibility in the cleanup
process through its cleanup reforms. In addition,
Headquarters officials are closely monitoring continued
progress toward the accomplishment of the indicators.
While the EI are good interim measures of progress, the
ultimate GPRA goal of the CA program is, "Restoration of
Contaminated Waste Sites...to uses appropriate for the
surrounding communities." The CA program could more
effectively achieve GPRA outcomes by: providing a clearer
definition of restoration to stakeholders, developing an EI
for final remedies that addresses ecological protection,
emphasizing the need for an effective reference and
rationale for each EI determination, making the EI
documentation available to other regulators and the public,
and providing guidance on how often the EI determinations
should be reevaluated. Chapters 3 through 5 will also
discuss ways GPRA could be more effectively implemented.
EI ARE GOOD CA officials have developed two good interim EI that
MEASURES OF THE measure the current state of the environment at RCRA
STATE OF THE facilities: (1) current human exposures under control and (2)
ENVIRONMENT current contaminated groundwater migration under control.
Unlike other EPA programs which, have performance
measures that are process-oriented and measure the
completion of an output or step in a process, CA measures
9
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
environmental results or status. In fact, the U.S. General
Accounting Office (GAO) credits the CA program for using
outcome performance measures where other EPA programs
use output measures. Also, Congressional officials expect
other EPA programs, such as the Superfund program,
which uses process-oriented measures, to emulate the CA
program by implementing similar risk-based EI.
The CA program has been working since 1994 to develop
EI that are designed to measure the environmental status of
facilities undergoing CA. Through the use of the EI - -
human exposures controlled and groundwater releases
controlled - - the program could report on actual
environmental accomplishments of cleanup activities rather
than focusing strictly on process events. In February 1999,
EPA refined its definition of the environmental indicators
and created new forms to document achievement of the
indicators.
To help achieve CA goals, CA officials conducted a series
of training events called the RCRA CA Workshop to
emphasize a more flexible cleanup approach that will allow
timely completion of the EI and to instruct regional, state,
and responsible party officials on how to use the new EI
guidance to evaluate and document whether or not current
human exposures and migration of contaminated
groundwater are under control. To underscore the training,
Headquarters officials are also visiting regions and states to
emphasize the importance of achieving the EI. CA officials
will also place a priority on authorizing additional states to
implement CA or enhancing work sharing arrangements
with states that are not authorized for the program. Finally,
Headquarters and regional officials are emphasizing that the
EI are only an interim step toward the ultimate GPRA goal
of "restoring" each site.
Goal of "Restoration" While CA program officials are emphasizing that the two EI
Needs to Be Clarified are only interim steps toward the goal of restoration, they
(and Superfund officials) could improve implementation of
GPRA by clarifying the ultimate goal of "Restoration."
While we commend Agency officials for their efforts to
achieve the interim EI, and their emphasis on final cleanup,
we are concerned that the GPRA goal of "restoration of
contaminated sites" may not be clear. Restoration could
10
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
mean (1) cleanup so that unrestricted access and unlimited
use is allowed, (2) limiting access with institutional controls,
(3) completion of work specified in an order or agreement,
or (4) redevelopment of property or reuse of land for
beneficial purposes, such as a golf course. Without a clear
definition of what restoration means or an indicator to mark
restoration, and the emphasis on the interim step of EI
accomplishment, some stakeholders may be interpreting the
message that the final remedy is not the ultimate goal. For
example, to accomplish the EI at one facility, officials in one
region suspended review of corrective measures studies or
other reports to further the cleanup process at another
facility. As another example, when a RCRA facility
investigation would be performed, the investigation may be
suspended and resources directed to determine whether
humans were exposed at the facility so that the EI could be
accomplished. The short-term goal of achieving the EI was
the focus instead of restoration.
By clarifying and emphasizing the ultimate goal of
restoration, EPA would help motivate facility owners and
operators (or responsible parties) to complete cleanup by
knowing when they will be finished with the CA or cleanup
process.
Addition of An Ecological In addition to clearly defining restoration, we believe that an
Environmental Indicator ecological environmental indicator is needed to more fully
balance and measure progress toward the ultimate goal of
restoring RCRA facilities. An ecological environmental
indicator is a measure that characterizes an ecosystem or
one of its critical elements. The officials believed it was
ironic that the current interim EI were called
"environmental" indicators when the environment (other
than groundwater or surface water affected by
groundwater) was not considered. For example, the
guidance does not address effects on non-human receptors
that might be affected by contamination, but does indicate
that an environmental indicator for these receptors will be
developed in the future. Regional officials believed that the
reason ecological environmental indicators were not
considered was because ecological indicators take too much
time to address.
11
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
EPA managers agreed that an ecological indicator is
needed, and have created a task force to discuss the
development of an ecological indicator. However, the task
force has no firm plans to develop the ecological indicator
at this time. We recognize the complexity of the
development of an ecological indicator, and do not intend
that its development detract from the achievement of the
current EI by 2005. However, we agree that an ecological
indicator needs to be developed to more fully balance
progress toward the goal of restoration.
IMPROVED EI To complement improvements to the GPRA goal of
DOCUMENTATION restoration and the EI, CA officials could strengthen the
COULD STRENGTHEN credibility of the EI determinations. RCRA officials could:
CA CREDIBILITY (1) clarify the EI guidance and make the EI documentation
available to regulators and the public, (2) emphasize the
need for an effective reference and rationale for each
environmental indicator determination, and (3) emphasize in
new guidance, training, and routine interactions that EI
determinations are meant to reflect current conditions. By
improving the EI documentation and sharing it, EPA
officials will be held more accountable for the decisions that
are made and the documentation may be more consistent
nationwide. EPA officials will also be able to provide
congressional customers and other stakeholders with more
reliable support for the environmental results it has achieved
while working to restore sites.
Share EI Determinations Our first concern about the EI documentation is that it was
Internally and Publicly not always available because state officials were reluctant to
share the documentation. Some officials were
uncomfortable with their understanding of the guidance and
not all of the state officials attended the CA workshop
training. As a result, Agency officials may not be able to
account for all of the environmental results they have
achieved while working toward the GPRA goal, and EI
documentation may not be consistent. By sharing the EI
documentation internally, EPA and authorized state officials
could benefit from each other's technical expertise. Also,
sharing the EI forms publicly could encourage more activity
by regulators and industry officials and would also be
consistent with the Agency's efforts to enhance public
access to EPA documents to which the public is entitled.
12
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
EI documentation was not always available because state
project managers were reluctant to share the information
since they were not comfortable with how the EI forms
should be completed, or they were using interpretations not
in the guidance. One of the reasons state managers were
reluctant to provide the EI documentation was because of a
lack of training. Some state officials did not have the
opportunity to attend the CA workshop training. EPA was
able to pay for three officials from each state to attend the
course.
Training notwithstanding, some state project managers are
having difficulty understanding EPA's definitions and do not
understand the CA guidance. As a result, state officials are
completing the forms inconsistently or using interpretations
not in the guidance. For example, some state officials are
uncomfortable in making "current" determinations. When
EI determinations are made, they should remain in RCRIS
only as long as they remain true (i.e., the determinations
must be changed in RCRIS when the regulatory authorities
become aware of contrary information). Other state
officials have indicated they will only complete the EI
documentation when the determination for the
environmental indicator is final.
Since February 1999, the Agency has been stressing the
importance of completing the EI. Because this commitment
is relatively new, and because EPA officials recognize that
the learning curve for fully understanding and completing
the EI documentation is high, Headquarters officials are not
asking state officials to go back and complete
documentation for the EI that were accomplished prior to
the guidance in February 1999. However, Headquarters
officials do expect states to complete the EI documentation
when they reevaluate each EI determination.
To help state officials better learn how to complete the EI
evaluation forms and understand the guidance, regional staff
are clarifying guidance during visits with state officials.
Regional officials plan to use these visits as an educational
opportunity so that regions and states consistently complete
EI documentation. In addition, CA officials held an EI
Forum to discuss in detail EI guidance. EPA could help
clarify the EI guidance by developing a list of frequently
13
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
Emphasize Importance of
Effective Reference and
Rationale
asked questions and answers about the guidance. Another
way state officials could also make the completion of the EI
forms consistent would be to share the completed forms
electronically. Since EPA intended in its guidance to
facilitate more consistent determinations across the regions
and states, and with the GPRA deadline of 2005 fast
approaching, sharing the EI forms early will be crucial in
helping the Agency meet its GPRA goal. Sharing the
completed EI forms internally and with authorized states
would also strengthen accountability because project
managers may be more careful in completing the forms
knowing that the forms were available to other technical
experts.
After more consistency in completing the EI forms has been
established, EPA may also share the EI forms publicly. One
regional official believes that the EI forms were not
intended to be public documents because the forms may
require technical assistance to be understood. However,
because achievement of EI is a GPRA commitment and
Congress relies on the information in each EI determination,
the public has the right to know and easily understand the
rationale for the decisions made by EPA or authorized
states.
Our second concern about EI documentation was that some
of the EI documents we reviewed contained insufficient
references or unclear explanations of how the EI
determinations were made because the guidance is not
specific about the details needed for a reference and does
not emphasize the need for a rationale. Rather, the
"Rationale" portion of the forms can be [emphasis added]
filled in to explain unique situations to any length necessary.
In its guidance, EPA required the minimal level of
documentation to ensure that the determinations will be
verifiable. However, without an effective reference and
rationale, a reader is not able to clearly understand how the
EPA or state project manager came to the conclusion that
current human exposures or contaminated groundwater
migration were under control. Understanding how the
determinations for the EI were made is crucial for verifying
the accomplishments made toward achieving the GPRA
goal.
14
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
In addition, some EI documentation included incomplete or
technical references and rationale to support the project
managers' conclusions. For example, documentation for
one EI said, "RCRA Facility Investigation [RFI] Report" in
the reference and rationale portion and did not explain how
EPA determined that the human exposures were under
control. The documentation did not explain how EPA
determined that the pathways (groundwater, indoor air,
surface soil, surface water, sediment subsurface soil, or air)
were not contaminated. In addition, the reference to the
RFI report did not include a date or page number(s) so that
one could easily review the reference document and
understand how the determination was made. See
Appendix 2 for two examples of EI determinations (CA725
and CA750) that have an effective reference and rationale
section and Appendix 3 for two examples of those that we
considered lacking.
Because the EI determinations are public documents used to
support the GPRA goal, the documents should always be
clear enough for the general public to understand. We
recognize that the EI documents are technical documents.
However, some of the documents contained abbreviations
or technical language or acronyms which the general public
may not fully understand. For example, on one of the
forms, the reference and rationale(s) stated "VOCs above
MCLs, see draft Phase I RFI report." While EPA and state
employees may understand that this rationale means
"volatile organic compounds above maximum contaminant
levels," the average citizen may not understand these
technical terms. Again, the draft Phase I RFI report did not
contain a date or a page number for someone to easily
verify the information in the determination.
In his June 1, 1998, Memorandum to Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies, President Clinton stated that,
The Federal Government's writing must be in plain
language. By using plain language, we send a clear
message about what the Government is doing, what
it requires, and what services it offers.
It also requires that all documents explain how to comply
with a requirement that EPA and authorized states
15
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
administer or enforce. If such plain language were included
in the reference and rationale portion of EI document to
support the determination, we believe the average reader
should be able to clearly understand how the determination
was made, and EPA would be able to easily account for its
EI accomplishments.
Because the EI guidance did not specify the type of
reference needed, nor did it strongly emphasize the need for
a rationale, project managers did not always include an
effective reference or rationale. Therefore, an average
reader may not be able to understand how the project
manager concluded that current human exposure and
groundwater determinations were under control. In
addition, Agency officials may not be able to account for the
accomplished EI determination because of insufficient
support for the decisions made.
Develop Guidance for Lastly, the CA program could improve overall GPRA
Reevaluating EI outcomes by developing guidance on reevaluating the
Determinations determinations made in the EI documentation. The EI
guidance currently provides that the determinations remain
in RCRIS as long as they remain true. Regulatory
authorities must change RCRIS codes when they become
aware of contrary information. However, EPA program
managers indicated that the guidance was not available.
EPA project managers asked whether guidance would be
provided as to how often the EI should be revisited or
updated. Without guidance on updating the EI
determinations, RCRIS may become inaccurate, and
potential human exposures or migration of groundwater
contamination may go unnoticed.
EPA does not have sufficient guidance on reevaluating the
EI, because CA officials focused on completing its initial EI
evaluations of the RCRA baseline facilities. They also
trained regional and state officials on completing the EI
evaluations so that they could achieve their GPRA goal in
the short time frame allowed. In addition, Headquarters
CA officials do not want to specify a specific interval for
reevaluation because they want program managers to make
sure that the information remains current. Headquarters
officials commented that program managers are
continuously receiving information regarding a facility, and
16
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
that information should allow program managers the ability
to continuously determine whether the EI status should
change. Headquarters officials "never saw the reevaluations
leading to new dates in RCRIS." Headquarters officials
have empowered regional officials to make those
determinations as needed. Headquarters officials also
suggested that their oversight role would be key in making
sure the EI information in the RCRA information system
remains current.
When CA officials perform periodic reevaluations, the
accuracy of the date in RCRIS may be key for determining
when the reevaluations might be needed. Chapter 5 details
concerns about the accuracy of RCRIS data that EPA may
want to address to ensure that managers rely on accurate
data to make reevaluations more timely.
Because hazardous waste may remain at a facility, and
conditions may change after an EI determination has been
made, EPA needs to periodically review prior EI
determinations. If EPA does not reevaluate prior
determinations, they may become outdated and inaccurate
in RCRIS. In fact, some of the EI documents were
completed in 1996 and in 1997. Furthermore, potential
risks to human health and the environment could go
unnoticed. By reevaluating EI determinations, EPA may
prevent the risk of exposure to humans and migration of
contaminated groundwater. To make sure that the EI
evaluations remain accurate and to plan for resources to
accomplish them, EPA needs to develop guidance for
reevaluating its EI determinations.
Conversely, where hazardous waste is not left at facilities
after clean up, reevaluations may no longer be needed. CA
management may want to consider adding a code in RCRIS
indicating that a reevaluation is not necessary. Therefore,
stakeholders will be able understand why the original EI
accomplishment date in RCRIS may not appear to be
current.
RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response:
17
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
2-1 Facilitate achievement of OSWER's ultimate GPRA
goal by providing a clear definition of restoration in
the context of site cleanup, or clarify the strategic
goal as it applies to RCRA CA.
2-2 Emphasize in guidance, training and routine
interactions with stakeholders, that the Migration of
Contaminated Groundwater Under Control
environmental indicator has a significant ecological
component with regard to surface water ecosystem
protection for situations where contaminated
groundwater enters surface water. Also, develop an
ecological environmental indicator for final remedies
to be achieved before, or concurrent, with the
ultimate goal of restoration, which includes an
ecological protection component. (CA officials
interpret restoration in this context to mean that
cleanup goals for final remedies have been
achieved.)
2-3 Develop a list of frequently asked questions and
answers about the EI guidance, and share the EI
evaluation forms electronically, first to EPA and
state regulators internally, and then publicly.
2-4 Emphasize the need for a clear and effective
reference and rationale for each EI determination.
2-5 a) During your annual planning process, commit to
maintaining current information on EI in RCRIS.
b) Emphasize in new guidance, training and routine
interactions that EI determinations are meant to
reflect current conditions. As such, regulators
should modify EI determinations when warranted
based on information (e.g., monitoring, inspections,
site visits, etc.) obtained during the course of
carrying out their oversight responsibilities.
c) Devote special attention to making sure that the
EI determinations made prior to the February 1999,
guidance, or those that do not have the new EI
documentation supporting them, are reevaluated and
have the proper documentation to support RCRIS.
18
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
20 Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
CHAPTER 3
CA COMPELLED IN PERMITS OR ORDERS AT MOST SITES, BUT
CONCERNS FOR ACHIEVING THE GPRA GOAL REMAIN
According to RCRIS, CA has been initiated in permits or
orders at a majority of the baseline facilities. (For the three
regions we visited, we reviewed the documentation
supporting the RFI imposition. Even though the dates did
not always match, the documentation generally supported
the fact that the RFI had been imposed.) Where CA has not
been initiated, Agency or authorized state officials in
Regions 4, 5, and 6, have or are developing detailed site-
specific plans to compel CA. However, regional and state
officials had concerns about achieving the EI goals for
2005. Several obstacles may prevent EPA from achieving
the EI and from restoring sites, and potential risk to human
health and the environment may still exist.
CA INITIATED AT MOST EPA or authorized states began CA when they required
BASELINE FACILITIES (imposed) the RFI in permits or orders at 1,287 (75%) of
the 1,712 RCRA baseline facilities as of April 1999. Where
CA has not been initiated, Agency or authorized state
officials in Regions 4, 5, and 6, have or are developing
detailed site-specific plans to compel CA. For example,
Region 4 has imposed CA at 238 (84%) of the 285 baseline
facilities in its region. Region 4 officials have begun to
develop a strategy using site specific schedules to achieve
the EI. Region 4 officials asked their authorized states to
complete two-page site summaries explaining the status of
CA. The site summaries will be used by the regional staff to
negotiate CA and EI completion with facility owners. For
the states that are not authorized, EPA is developing in-
house schedules for EI accomplishments. Also, the
beginning-of-the-year plan (BYP) that the Region
negotiated with its states for FY 2000, included site-specific
schedules for completion of the EI.
Region 5 or state officials imposed CA at 202 (71%) of the
286 baseline facilities in the region. For facilities that the
Region has the lead and has not imposed CA, officials
21
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
RCRIS INDICATES THAT
CA PROGRAM
CURRENTLY ON TRACK
TO ACCOMPLISH THE
EI; SOME
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTIONS TAKEN
developed a plan in September 1999, to address the
facilities.
Region 5 management is closely monitoring the progress of
EI by holding quarterly meetings with individual project
managers. Region 5 officials are also concerned about the
amount of work at state lead sites they may have to do
themselves. Region 5 officials have begun to implement
innovative tools to move more quickly towards cleanup and
are including language which requires facilities to achieve
EI by specific dates. For example, on October 28, 1999,
EPA and the Hoover Company established a voluntary CA
agreement to work independently to clean up releases of
hazardous waste or hazardous constituents at the Hoover
facility located in North Canton, Ohio. The parties believe
that Hoover will appropriately and effectively investigate
and remediate the facility on an accelerated basis. EPA and
Hoover are to achieve the EI by September 2001. As
another example, EPA and General Motors signed a CA
order on August 30, 1999, which required completion of
the EI by September 2001.
Region 6 or state officials imposed CA at 136 (74%) of the
184 baseline facilities in the region. For facilities where the
Region has not imposed CA, Regional officials asked state
officials for the status of baseline facilities. Two states in
the Region that contain the vast majority of the baseline
facilities and for which it is critical for the Region to
accomplish the GPRA goal - - Texas and Louisiana - - sent
environmental questionnaires to each of their baseline
facilities. Regional officials believe that the information will
help state officials accomplish the EI. Region 6 officials are
also including EI accomplishments in their grant agreements
with states to encourage accomplishment of the EI.
The actions the regions have taken thus far appear to be
effective since the EI are being achieved in accordance with
the plans. As of January 2000, when we last queried
RCRIS, it indicated that the CA program is on track to
accomplish the EI. Agency officials planned to have under
control current human exposures at 344 facilities and
migration of contaminated groundwater at 256 facilities by
the end of FY 2000. According to RCRIS, the Agency
exceeded its expectations by 110 and 120 EI, respectively.
22
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
However, we had concerns about the accuracy of some of
the EI data entered in RCRIS, which will be discussed in
Chapter 5.
We also considered the effectiveness of the positive EI
determinations that were claimed. EPA or an authorized
state official makes a positive determination when there are
no "unacceptable" human exposures to "contamination"
that can be reasonably expected under current land and
groundwater use conditions and enters code CA725 in
RCRIS. Code CA750 should also be entered in RCRIS
when an EPA or authorized state official determines that the
migration of "contaminated" groundwater has stabilized,
and that monitoring will be conducted to confirm that the
contaminated groundwater remains within the original "area
of contaminated groundwater." These codes are to remain
in RCRIS as long as they remain true (i.e., RCRIS codes
must be changed when the regulatory authorities become
aware of contrary information.) For the purpose of this
report, a positive EI will also include those facilities where
EPA or states determined that no control measures were
needed or that there were no releases to groundwater.
We received 62 positive EI determinations from Regions 4,
5, and 6. Based on our review of the EI documents, we
concluded that for a little more than half (36 of 62) of the
positive EI determinations, owners/operators took some
environmental action to accomplish the EI. Some examples
of the environmental actions taken included installation of
groundwater systems to treat or hydraulically contain
groundwater, removal of contaminated soil, or capping of
contaminated areas. No environmental action, except for
institutional controls, was needed to accomplish about one-
third (20 of 62) of the positive EI determinations.
Examples of institutional controls included the construction
of a fence, restriction on drinking water wells, or residents
being provided with alternate drinking water sources.
(Note: The Agency is currently refining its definition of
institutional controls.) Finally, for the six remaining positive
EI, the documentation did not clearly explain whether any
action was taken in the reference or rationale sections of the
EI documentation. The details of the positive EI
documentation are summarized in Table 3-1.
23
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
Table 3-1
Summary of Environmental Actions Taken as Described in Positive EI Documentation
EI Code
Number of
Positive EI
Received
Environmental
Action Taken
No Action Taken
Except For
Institutional
Controls
Action Taken
Unclear
CA725
Human
Exposures
32
15
13
4
CA750
Contaminated
Ground Water
28
19
7
2
Totals
60
34
20
6
OBSTACLES MAY EPA appears to be on track to achieve the EI by 2005, and
PREVENT has efforts underway to speed cleanup. However, regional
ACCOMPLISHMENT OF officials expressed concerns that the goal may not be
THE EI achieved because of several obstacles. Most of the
following obstacles were the same for states as for EPA.
Some of the obstacles are out of EPA's or states' control
while others are not. The following obstacles can be
compounded by the fact that some regional officials believe
that action has been completed at the "easy" facilities first,
and that this will result in an even greater challenge to
accomplish the remaining EI at the most complex facilities.
The table above supports this belief because approximately
one-third of the EI accomplished thus far required only
institutional controls for achievement of the EI.
Another obstacle, which will be discussed in Chapter 4, was
the lack of resources for some states.
The obstacle that may be the hardest to overcome was that
many of the facilities were large and complex federal
facilities that have numerous SWMU. For example,
approximately 40 (14%) of the 287 Region 4 facilities
requiring EI completion are federal facilities. According to
Regional officials, the federal facilities are large, have a lot
of SWMU, and will require a significant amount of work.
Region 4 officials indicated they may not meet the EI goals
Federal Facilities' Size,
Complexity, and Funding
Present an Obstacle
24
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
for federal facilities. However, regional officials are
meeting with the Air Force and Department of Defense
(DoD) to begin partnering and creating teams with EPA,
state, and federal representatives.
Region 5 officials expressed similar concerns about federal
facilities. While they indicated that federal agencies in their
region were cooperative, they said that the agencies do not
always have the funding necessary to initiate or complete
CA. Facilities have to compete with each other to get
funding and the fastest way to get funding is to do quick
fixes such as removal actions.
One state official also indicated that the ability of the federal
government to clean up federal facilities sets precedent for
private facilities and creates a credibility problem. Some
facilities have commented to the state officials that if the
government is not doing its job to clean up facilities, why
should they. Addressing federal facilities seemed especially
important for these officials.
Finally, Headquarters and state officials also mentioned that
some federal agencies' GPRA goals are not the same as
EPA's. RCRA officials are meeting with relevant federal
agency officials to address these obstacles.
Grants Did Not Encourage Though recently changed in at least Regions 5 and 6, the
Accomplishment of EI grant process was not designed to encourage
accomplishment of El because the grants were awarded
based on the achievement of EI instead of the CA process.
To try to make the cleanup process performance based,
some of the regions have changed their grants in FY 2000
to require EI completion. Region 6 officials have initiated a
"best practice" and have been able to encourage states to
accomplish EI by requiring their completion in the grants
and providing funding based on the completion of the EI.
The Region no longer provides funding for accomplishment
of the CA process steps. This best practice appears to be a
technique that other regions may emulate and implement to
help achieve the EI.
As another example, in Region 5, states' priorities are often
enforcement and inspections, and may differ from district to
district, state to state, or from EPA's priorities. As a result,
25
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
EI May Not Be
Accomplished at Bankrupt
Facilities or Facilities with
Limited Funding
Regional officials have changed their grant agreements with
states to require states to focus on achieving the EI instead
of the CA process steps.
Region 4 officials are concerned that a number of facilities
in their Region may be bankrupt facilities. They estimate
that as many as ten percent of their baseline facilities may be
bankrupt. Some of these facilities may be high priority and
may be addressed by the Superfund program. For example,
one facility in our sample was deferred to the Superfund
program because the company became insolvent. For
similar facilities, RCRA officials will have to coordinate
closely with Superfund officials who may not be
emphasizing accomplishment of EI at RCRA facilities.
Regional officials are also concerned about the facilities that
might not be ranked high enough for Superfund to address.
Because the facilities may not have the funding and they are
not ranked high enough for Superfund to address, officials
are calling these sites "gap" sites. At sone of these sites, the
only way EI may be accomplished is if states have the
authority and the resources to clean up the facilities.
Headquarters and regional officials expressed concern about
facilities that have limited funding. The concern of limited
funding is important, and this issue was discussed at the
RCRA Senior Policy Management Meeting in May 2000.
One Headquarters official told us that several facilities in
each region are economically strained, and the Agency is
concerned that putting these facilities on a tight schedule to
achieve the EI by the GPRA deadline may cause the
facilities to go into bankruptcy. However, if the cleanup
cost is marginal, EPA will attempt to collect money up front
from facility owners so that Superfund would not have to
pay as much to clean up the facility. Because of the
importance of this issue, the Assistant Administrator for
OSWER directed his staff to develop guidance to address
various tools used to speed up the cleanup process. In
addition, regulators could also use Superfund removal
authorities to speed up the cleanup process.
In response to the draft report, Region 6 officials indicated
that the obstacle related to "gap" sites does not appear to
exist in Region 6.
26
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
Complexity and Size of Region 6 officials commented that the complexities in
Sites Region 6 involve large industrial sites. Region 6 facilities
may be comprised of many acres. Region 6 is the largest
generator of waste and the largest disposer of waste, with
Texas ranking first and Louisiana second for the entire
United States. Texas also has the fourth largest number
(93) of baseline facilities in the country where EI must be
accomplished by 2005.
Region 5 officials also described similar obstacles. For
example, they described one site that had 107 SWMU. This
facility was being contaminated by various types of
pollution from yet another facility. Another similar
complexity was exhibited at a facility that is listed as a
Superfund site and has overlapping Superfund concerns.
Indoor Air Recent studies from RCRA remediation sites show that
buildings located above a contaminated groundwater plume
contain gases from volatile pollutants in the contaminated
groundwater, exposing the residents to unacceptably high
levels of possible carcinogens. The resulting high indoor air
concentrations in these homes exceeded Superfund
program's cancer risk cleanup standard. As a result of this
concern, one Headquarters official instructed regional
officials not to make positive EI determinations until they
have considered indoor air along with other potentially
contaminated media and exposure pathways. The additional
work that may be required to review the indoor air concern
may prevent accomplishments of the EI at these sites by
2005.
Other Obstacles Regional or state officials cited other obstacles that may
prevent them from achieving the EI by 2005.
Litigation: Both regional and state officials
commented that once a facility litigates,
chances for completing EI by 2005 decrease.
State Buy-in and Understanding of EI:
Region 5 officials commented that states
may not be fully aware of GPRA goals or
understand the purpose of the EI documents.
Two of the regions have limited resources.
Officials also commented that some state
27
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
officials may see the GPRA goal as an EPA
mandate, not a state goal. See Chapter 4 for
more information on state resources.
Other State Priorities: One state official
commented that it has a large state universe
of RCRA facilities and that the baseline
facilities in the state make up less than ten
percent of the facilities the state oversees.
Also, most of the baseline facilities are big
facilities and resources will be stretched in
addressing these facilities. Another state's
official commented that the state's other
priorities are the voluntary cleanup program
and working on the state inventory of
hazardous waste facilities.
Many Facilities Are in the Early Stages of
Cleanup: Region 5 officials indicated in
their BYP that their biggest obstacle is that
so many CA projects are in the early stages
of the cleanup process. Region 5
management will address this obstacle by
working with project managers and facilities.
Also, management plans to reinforce the EI
priority by conducting quarterly meetings
with each project manager to ensure all
possible progress is made at each facility.
Other GPRA Priorities: State officials also
mentioned that they have other EPA GPRA
goals they are trying to meet for other
RCRA programs, Superfund, etc. Even
though the CA EI are the highest RCRA
priority for RCRA, one state official believed
that all GPRA goals had equal priority.
Groundwater-Surface water interaction:
Some regional officials reported that many
GPRA baseline facilities are located adjacent
or very close to surface water bodies. To
meet the migration of contaminated
groundwater under control EI at such
facilities (according to the February 5, 1999,
28
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
Agency guidance), regulators need to
document whether or not contaminated
groundwater is discharging into surface
water, and if it is, whether or not that
discharge is causing impacts to surface
water, sediments or ecosystems that should
not be allowed until a final remedy decision
is made and implemented. Regulators
described that meeting the EI goals at these
facilities may be difficult due to the lack of
detailed Agency guidance on assessing
groundwater/surface water interaction, and
that such assessments often warrant eco-risk
experts who are not always available.
Agency officials are working hard to accomplish EI.
However, as a result of the many obstacles, it is possible
that regions may not accomplish the EI goals for 2005.
Early actions to mitigate the obstacles that EPA can control
may be key in achieving the EI by 2005. But because the
deadline is short, facilities may be forced into insolvency,
and the Superfund Trust Fund may have to absorb the cost
of cleanup. To try to address this concern, Agency
management is developing guidance to help facilities with
the cleanup process.
RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response:
3-1 Minimize obstacles to achieving the EI goals for
2005. More specifically, work with other federal
agency management officials, such as DoD,
Department of Energy, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, etc., to minimize obstacles to achieving
the EI, including developing consistent
environmental goals.
3-2 Encourage the use and transfer of the best practices
that regions are developing through the use of
regular communication calls, meetings, bulletins, or
newsletters.
29
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
3-3 Instruct RCRA and Superfund officials to
coordinate work that Superfund is completing on
the baseline facilities so that the EI can be achieved.
3-4 Work with states and EPA regions to identify
potential "gap" facilities (from the 1,712 GPRA
baseline) and provide guidance on the variety of
tools (e.g., state cleanup authorities, EPA Superfund
removal authorities, etc.) available to help states and
EPA regions meet the CA programs' GPRA EI
objectives at these facilities.
3-5 Develop guidance on groundwater/surface water
interaction which identifies situations where
ecological risk experts would typically be needed for
making EI determinations, and assist regions in
locating the sources of this expertise.
30
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
CHAPTER 4
EPA OFFICIALS BELIEVE RESOURCES ARE GENERALLY
SUFFICIENT, BUT STATE RESOURCES MAY BE LIMITED
While the CA employees generally believe they have
adequate resources to address the CA baseline facilities,
state resources may be limited. Also, EPA has not aligned
its grants allocation formula with its priorities for achieving
the EI. As a result, authorized states that need resources
may not be receiving them. EPA and state program
managers may experience additional pressure to accomplish
the GPRA goal, particularly as the goal date draws nearer.
In order to achieve the GPRA goal, EPA has already begun
to take on a share of authorized states' workload.
In May 2000, we presented an analysis of the grants
allocation formula to Headquarters officials who reviewed it
and used it to develop options for updating the formula.
Officials told us they reviewed the data, and because the
cost of the disruption was not worth the benefit of aligning
the funding with the new priorities, and because the
changes would result in too much disruption, they
concluded that the grant allocation would not be changed.
However, CA officials are expecting an increase in grant
funding beginning in fiscal year 2001. This new funding is
planned to be allocated according to the number of baseline
facilities.
SOME STATE The resources dedicated by some authorized states to
RESOURCES MAY BE achieving the EI appear to be limited due to the existing
LIMITED heavy workload; differing state management priorities; the
lack of training of state staff about the EI; state personnel
rules that prevent certain states from hiring at all (hiring
freezes), hiring experienced staff who can assume greater
responsibilities for the state, or from hiring replacement
employees when others leave; and increased pressure to
meet the GPRA 2005 deadline. As a result, some states
initially had difficulty supporting EPA in its quest to achieve
its GPRA goal, and EPA has had to assume some of the
authorized states' workload. (Some of this work sharing,
31
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
however, can also occur because of technical or policy
reasons or because the states have asked for a Federal
presence at a facility.)
Existing Heavy State Regional officials believe that some states are especially
Workload overworked and overwhelmed, and lack experience and
expertise, especially in the area of assessing risk. They are
responsible for conducting inspections, issuing permits,
remedial actions, enforcement, CA, closures, etc. For
example, one state's responsibilities include permit renewals
and modifications, post closure reviews to determine which
facilities have controls in place, closure plan reviews, and
significant non-complier enforcement. In addition to the
GPRA goal for CA, EPA has assigned other GPRA goals
for which the state is responsible to achieve. State officials
believe that all EPA GPRA goals have equal priority. To
compound matters, EPA has now imposed a deadline for
the GPRA goals, including CA EI, to be achieved by 2005,
without yet providing any additional resources. However, if
the requested budget is approved by Congress, beginning in
fiscal year 2001, EPA will supplement the CA program
funding with an additional $8 million in grant funding to
states and tribes.
An official from another state indicated concerns about the
addition of the GPRA goal to their existing workload,
which includes the oversight of cleanup at facilities in the
state inventory as well as the implementation of RCRA at
the CA baseline facilities. Some state officials may perceive
the requirement to achieve the GPRA goal as a federal
responsibility and not a state responsibility. State officials
are already responsible for implementing other parts of
RCRA. One state official told us that they are also
responsible for conducting site assessments and inspections
of currently operating facilities, issuing permits and permit
modifications, providing technical assistance to facilities,
and overseeing closure and post-closure of facilities. In the
same state, there was a significant backlog of documents,
such as corrective measures studies, that state officials
needed to review. At one time, about 2,000 documents
needed to be reviewed; the backlog has been reduced to
approximately 800. The priorities EPA imposes put
constraints on state resources and the state has to channel
its resources from other areas to address EPA's priorities.
32
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
Differing Management
Priorities and Increased
Pressure to Meet GPRA
Deadlines
In addition to the existing heavy workload, states have other
priorities that may conflict with EPA priorities. Regional
officials recognize the states' differing priorities. For
example, one state is working to implement new risk
reduction rules to address facilities in the state inventory as
well as EPA's. In the past there were no time lines to
complete cleanup; now the project managers are pressured
to achieve the GPRA goal by the deadline of 2005. While
GPRA baseline sites make up less than 10% of the state's
universe of sites, the pressure on this state's project
managers may be greater than those of other states because
this state has a proportionately large share of baseline sites.
Increasing Regulatory
Responsibilities
In addition to the heavy workload and other state priorities,
states have increasing regulatory responsibilities, but the
staffing level is kept the same or decreased. For example, in
Regions 5 and 6, Regional officials indicated that the
authorized states have been delegated the regulations for
boilers and industrial furnaces (BIF). Region 6 has a very
significant BIF and incinerator universe. As a result,
combustion and associated risk assessment are a priority.
To address the universe, Region 6 officials have entered
into a work sharing arrangement with one state and are
involved with many combustion facilities in the Region.
Region 4 also provides significant technical support to the
states on certain regulations.
Another state officials expressed concern that in addition to
other competing non-GPRA goals for which they are
responsible, they have other state priorities, such as the
state's voluntary cleanup program and other state sites
which they need to address. The state also has to ensure
compliance, issue permits, and still achieve the EI by 2005.
EI Training As discussed in Chapter 2, only a few state employees in
each region were able to attend the RCRA CA workshop
regarding EI. Regional officials are visiting states and
working with state officials to teach them how to apply the
EI guidance and complete the EI forms. In addition, one
state in Region 5 has only been authorized for CA for about
3 years so it has less program experience. Six other states
may also be experiencing a similar learning curve as they
were authorized for CA at about the same time or later.
33
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
Again, EPA held the EI forum in August 2000, to discuss
the EI guidance.
State Personnel Rules
One state official said that his state has a hiring freeze. In
addition, the state's policy requires that entry level staff,
instead of experienced staff, be hired. Officials have four
months to backfill any positions, and if they are not filled in
that time frame, the state loses the position. Also,
remaining state employees have increased responsibilities
because, in addition to their own jobs, senior project
managers must train new entry-level staff, or must assume
departing employees' responsibilities.
OUTDATED GRANTS
ALLOCATION
FORMULA MAY BE
CAUSING RESOURCES
TO BE MISALLOCATED
EPA offers grants to states to assist them in developing or
implementing authorized hazardous waste management
programs. Each EPA regional office receives an allotment
based on a formula that considers multiple factors, such as
population and the amounts and types of hazardous waste
generated in each region. States then submit proposed
work plans that outline planned activities in the upcoming
year, including CA, permitting, enforcement, and program
management. EPA regions then negotiate with each state
about the specific work to be accomplished with these
grants.
To compound the limited state resources, EPA has not
recently updated the data used in the formula, nor the
formula itself, to allocate grant resources among states and
tribes. The grant allocation formula has not been updated
since May 25, 1995. The data used to calculate grant
resources allocated to each region has not been updated
since FY 1996. Neither the formula, nor the data, has been
changed because some states would have received more
funding and some less, and these changes in the allocation
would have caused too much disruption. Also, the budget
has remained the same since FY 1996, the staff member that
developed the formula left the program, other resources
have not been available for the potentially resource-
intensive effort of changing the formula and updating the
data, and there is no consensus among the regions on how
the formula should change. However, the priorities, and the
related data that should be used in allocating resources for
the program, have changed. As a result: (1) EPA's
resources may not be aligned with its priorities, and
34
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
accomplishing EI may be more challenging; (2) some of the
states may not be receiving funding they need, and may find
it more difficult to contribute to the accomplishment of EI;
and (3) EPA may potentially be wasting resources when it
provides more funding than necessary to some states.
Since FY 1996, RCRA has had an annual budget of
approximately $98.6 million to allocate to states and tribes.
Approximately $11.7 million of the budget was allocated to
special initiatives called geographic and combustion
initiatives, such as the Great Lakes Initiative. The
remaining budget of $86.9 million was distributed to states
and tribes for enforcement, permitting, CA, and other
activities. The CA program has had a steady budget
allocation of approximately $25 million in state and tribal
grants since FY 1996. The allocations for CA for the states
and tribes were based on the number of CA workload
(CAWL) facilities in each region. As mentioned earlier, the
CAWL is a list of facilities that were actively seeking a
permit to operate as a treatment, storage, or disposal
facilities or sites that were undergoing cleanup. In FY
1996, the CAWL was comprised of 4,910 facilities. In July
1999, the CA program changed its priorities and focused its
efforts on achieving EI and the overall GPRA goal of
restoring sites. To measure its progress toward the GPRA
goal, in July 1999, CA officials finalized a list of 1,712
facilities called the GPRA baseline.
Based on the concerns we heard about limited state
resources, we believed some analysis of how the state and
tribal grant resources were allocated was needed.
Headquarters officials provided us with the best available
CAWL data that they believed was used for the FY 1996
grant allocation. We compared the GPRA baseline and
CAWL data. The number of baseline sites in each region
was not always proportionately similar to the number of CA
workload sites in each region.
In May 2000, we presented an analysis to Headquarters
officials who reviewed it and used it to develop options for
updating the formula. Officials told us they reviewed the
data, and because the cost of the disruption was not worth
the benefit of aligning the funding with the new priorities,
35
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
and because the changes would result in too much
disruption, they concluded that the grant allocation would
not be changed. However, CA officials are expecting an
increase in grant funding beginning in fiscal year 2001. This
new funding is planned to be allocated according to the
number of baseline facilities.
Increased Grant Resources While the increase of grant funding to some states may in
May Not Solve All fact be needed, the provision of additional grants may not
Concerns solve all of the resource concerns, because EPA may not be
assured that the additional funding will be spent on
achieving EI for CA. EPA provides funds to states using
performance partnership agreements or cooperative
agreements. However, under performance partnership
agreements, states may commit to a number of sites to be
addressed, but they do not have to provide site-specific
details on the grant funding spent, nor do states have to
specify that the grant funding was spent on CA. Therefore,
before providing additional grant resources, EPA needs to
hold the states accountable for achieving the CA work for
which the additional grant resources are intended.
One thing EPA officials could do to best prepare themselves
and state officials to achieve the GPRA goal would be to
examine the states' ability to meet the demands EPA is
placing on states. In BYPs that regions prepared for FY
2000, only one indicated that the region had evaluated the
states' capability for the delegated work. Some regional
officials indicated that they remain constantly aware of
states' capability. However, BYPs for many of these same
regions indicated that they were sharing more work with the
states. To help accomplish the EI goal by 2005, EPA may
have to assume a greater share of authorized states' work.
RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response:
4-1 Routinely evaluate whether the states have sufficient
resources, technical capabilities, and legal authority
(consistent with RCRA CA) to ensure EI goals are
met by using numerous existing mechanisms (e.g.,
state visits, annual work planning/work sharing
discussions) for assessing and enhancing
performance of authorized states. Where issues are
identified which would significantly impact a state's
ability to meet EI goals, Regional officials should
36
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
document those issues and develop a written plan to
work aggressively with that state to resolve those
issues and ensure that progress continues towards
meeting those goals. Additionally, regions should
continue to share work with states where needed.
Monitor states' accomplishments achieved with EPA
funds so that states are held accountable for
achieving the CA work for which the additional
grant resources are intended.
37
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
38 Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
CHAPTER 5
CLOSER MONITORING OF GPRA PROGRESS NEEDED
RCRIS DOES NOT
INDICATE WHEN EI
ENTERED; TIMELINESS
UNDETERMINABLE
EPA needs to more closely monitor the GPRA progress
reported in RCRIS because the system (RCRIS) does not
indicate the date(s) when EI determinations are entered to
reflect current and complete EI determinations. Also,
RCRIS did not always accurately reflect dates that EI were
accomplished, and EI documentation was not always
available. Because EPA cannot determine the timeliness of
the data reported, and because of the inaccurate or
unsupported EI information in RCRIS, EPA or
Congressional officials may not be able to rely on RCRIS
for monitoring progress toward the GPRA goal.
RCRIS does not allow RCRA officials to determine whether
or not EPA is receiving timely information from authorized
states regarding the accomplishment of EI. The OSWER
FY 2000-2001 Consolidated Guidance states that RCRIS
should accurately reflect program progress and that
important milestones, including EI accomplishments, must
be entered. State officials did tell us that they enter EI
accomplishments as they are achieved. RCRIS does reflect
some EI accomplishments (dates EI documentation is
signed), but it does not indicate when the accomplishments
were entered into RCRIS. Therefore, EPA officials are
unable to determine whether they are receiving timely EI
information.
Even though RCRIS does not indicate when EI are entered,
regional officials say they are able to monitor EI progress.
Regional officials told us that they are able to monitor the
progress made by state officials by holding periodic (semi-
annual) meetings with officials from authorized states.
During these meetings they discuss progress toward
achieving goals set in the BYPs. Communication on
progress also occurs when regional officials work with
authorized state officials who are gathering information
from facilities to develop strategies for accomplishing EI.
39
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
EI INFORMATION IN
RCRIS NOT ALWAYS
RELIABLE
CA officials told us that a new information system called
RCRAInfo will be implemented on or about October 1,
2000. However, this new system will not track the dates
when the EI accomplishments were entered so that
timeliness can be determined.
RCRIS was not accurate because EI data quality may only
be reviewed twice annually and because supporting
documentation was not made available by states. As a
result, CA officials may not be able to rely on the data for
monitoring progress and may not be able to rely on the EI
accomplishment dates in RCRIS for the purpose of knowing
when potential reevaluations may be needed. Also,
Congress may not be able to rely on the RCRIS data in the
Agency's annual performance report.
EPA and authorized states are required to work together to
achieve results for the success of the program. In order for
the RCRIS database to accurately reflect program progress,
complete information on actions to initiate CA, stabilization,
or cleanups, and the EI determinations must be entered into
RCRIS. State officials indicated that the primary means of
communicating progress to EPA is via RCRIS. When we
asked state officials how they ensure accuracy of the data
that they enter in RCRIS, one official told us that his state
meets twice each year - - at mid-year and year-end - - with
EPA officials. Another state's official indicated that the
state were responsible for data accuracy. The person that
completes an EI report provides the report to the supervisor
who reviews and approves it. However, the official did not
think RCRIS would ever give an accurate date of
accomplishment. Because the date does give EPA and state
management the information on how "current" the EI
determinations are, the EI date may be critical to making
sure that the EI determinations in RCRIS remain valid and
that data presented to Congress and the public is reliable.
Regional officials in Regions 4, 5, and 6 provided 39, 17,
and 4 positive EI, respectively. Only 23 (38%) of the 60
positive EI were accurate (the date the EI document was
signed matched date of accomplishment in RCRIS); less
than half of the documentation accurately supported the
information in RCRIS (the date the EI document was signed
did not match the date of accomplishment in RCRIS). Also,
40
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
eight of the EI were incomplete because they were not
dated or because an accurate conclusion was not selected
on the EI form. In this case, regional officials are making
conclusions about the facility using a previous definition for
EI specified in EI guidance issued in 1994. Twenty-four
documents had dates that varied from RCRIS, from two
days up to one year. Five of the positive determinations
were not included in RCRIS as of January 2000, even
though they were accomplished in March 1999. (When we
spoke with Region 5 officials about some of these sites, they
provided documentation that showed that they had entered
the accomplishment dates in RCRIS as of May 2000.) In
total, 37 of the EI determinations were different than, did
not support, or were not included in RCRIS. Table 5-1
below summarizes the data quality for the positive EI
determinations. Appendices 4, 5, and 6 list the site specific
data for the determinations.
TABLE 5-1
Analysis of Positive EI Determinations in RCRIS
Regions
Number of
Positive EI
Documents
Received for
Sampled
Facilities
Accurate
(Documentation
Matches
Database)
Incomplete
Determination
Inaccurate
Date in
Database
Not in
Database
4
41
17
7
15
2
5
17
8
1
5
3
6
4
0
0
4
0
Totals
62
25
8
24
5
Also, Regional officials were not always able to provide
documentation supporting the EI determinations. Regional
officials in Regions 5 and 6, where all of the states are
authorized for CA, told us they would only provide
supporting documentation for EI determinations made after
February 1999 (when the guidance was issued), or after FY
1999, respectively. For those completed prior to the
February 1999 guidance, EPA Headquarters officials are
41
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
requiring the EI evaluation forms to be completed upon
reevaluation of the facilities' status.
Since RCRIS does not indicate when EI determinations are
entered into the system, and even though regional officials
say they are able to monitor progress made by state
officials, EPA CA officials may need to establish additional
procedures to ensure that the Agency is able to verify when
EI determinations are accomplished so that it can effectively
monitor progress toward the GPRA goal. Unless these
procedures are in place, Agency officials may not be able to
properly account for the number of EI accomplished. In
addition, Congress may not be able to rely on the EI data in
EPA's annual performance reports. Because EPA is
ultimately responsible for the data it presents in its annual
performance report to Congress, EPA officials may want to
perform periodic data quality reviews of the EI
documentation that states provide.
RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response:
5-1 Emphasize the importance of entering each EI
accomplishment date in the RCRA information
system concurrent with the date the EI
documentation is signed by the approving official.
Also, add a code in the RCRA information system to
track the dates EI accomplishments are entered into
the system.
5-2 Establish additional procedures to periodically
reconcile EI accomplishments during meetings with
state officials or at least annually to verify the
accuracy of EI determinations in RCRIS.
Additionally, ensure that all EI changes are
documented on EI forms and are reflected in the
RCRA information system on at least an annual
basis.
5-3 Reemphasize the need that all EI accomplishments
entered in the RCRA information system should be
supported by documentation.
42
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
44 Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 1
Scope. Methodology, and Prior Audit Coverage
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
We conducted this review from August 1999 to May 2000. To accomplish our objectives, we
conducted field work in the Headquarters Offices of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and in Regions 4, 5, and 6. We reviewed various
background documentation and attended the CA Workshop training that instructs regional and
state officials how to accomplish and document the EI.
We reviewed OSWER's 1999 Report on Management Controls required by the Federal
Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA). The report identified concerns that OSWER officials
had with: the RCRA Listings Program, organizational assessment, GPRA Implementation, human
resources management, financial resources management, data information management,
contract/assistance agreement resources management and OIG audits. The report also discusses
GAO and OIG proposed material weaknesses candidates, including RCRA CA. GAO proposed
that the Agency declare CA a material weakness under the Agency management integrity process.
Based on substantial action already taken to address the speed of CA cleanups, including the
RCRA reforms, OSWER declared CA as an Agency-level weakness rather than a material
weakness.
We also reviewed OECA's FY 1999 Integrity Act Annual Assurance Letter to comply with
FMFIA. The assurance letter identified a weakness in the area of environmental data quality in its
information systems, including RCRIS. To address this weakness, OECA planned to evaluate
RCRIS and 4 other information systems it uses. Along with other efforts, OECA also conducted
a baseline data quality audit of RCRIS and plans to continue efforts to address this weakness.
We considered the overall implementation of GPRA for the CA program. The examination of the
overall implementation included: the GPRA goal of restoration of sites, the EI, obstacles to a
successful achievement of the EI, source documentation, RCRIS data accuracy for the EI,
resources allocated to achieve the EI, and management oversight.
OSWER CA officials provided us with the universe of 1,712 (as of April, 1999) high priority
facilities against which the progress toward the GPRA goal of restoring sites will be measured.
From this RCRIS universe, we selected Regions 4, 5, and 6 primarily based on the total number of
high priority baseline facilities, when compared with the total number of baseline facilities in the
other regions, and based on whether or not states were authorized for CA in each region.
However, we did not verify the accuracy of the baseline, nor did we visit facilities to confirm how
the EI determinations were made.
45
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 1
Scope. Methodology, and Prior Audit Coverage
Because we believed most of the EI would be accomplished at facilities where an RFI was
imposed and we wanted to increase our chances of selecting facilities where EI were
accomplished, we divided the GPRA universe in each region into two universes: RFI imposed
and no RFI imposed. We selected random samples from each of the two universes in each region.
After learning from our review in Region 4 that only the most recent permits or orders may
contain EI language, we also selected a judgmental sample of facilities in Regions 5 and 6, where
an RFI was imposed after the February 1999 EI guidance was issued, to determine whether any
orders or permits issued after this date contained language which required the EI to be
accomplished.
To accomplish objective 1 (Could the overall implementation of GPRA for the CA program be
improved?), we interviewed regional and headquarters officials. We also reviewed the GPRA
goal of restoration to determine how the EI supported the achievement of the goal.
To accomplish objective 2 (Have the high priority facilities initiated CA or have states or EPA
compelled CA in permits, orders, etc., and are these actions effective?), we analyzed the
information provided by OSWER. We searched the data to determine whether an RFI was
imposed, whether or not each site was in a state that was authorized for CA, and whether at least
one EI had been accomplished. We conducted file reviews and obtained source EI documentation
for our sampled facilities. We also conducted a data quality review of the RFI imposed for the
purposes of supporting our sampling methodology. We interviewed regional and state officials to
discuss their plans for accomplishing the GPRA goals by 2005, including the innovative steps they
were taking to accomplish the EI. We also obtained corroborating documentation, including
BYPs, and analyzed the EI documentation to determine what environmental effect occurred as a
result of the achievement of the EI.
To accomplish objective 3 (Do states encounter obstacles to effective CA? Are those obstacles
different from EPA's?), we interviewed EPA officials and state officials from Georgia, Ohio, and
Texas.
To accomplish objective 4 (Have states or EPA planned for sufficient resources to achieve the
GPRA goal of 2005 and the intermediate goals?), we conducted fieldwork in Regions 4, 5, and 6,
which included interviews of regional and state officials. We also obtained limited resource
information from regions and states. We conducted a limited analysis of grant allocation
information, including the grant allocation formula and related data.
To accomplish objective 5 (Is EPA receiving timely and accurate information necessary for
monitoring progress made toward the GPRA goal?), we spoke to a key headquarters official
about whether the dates EI accomplishments were entered in RCRIS were available. We also
interviewed state officials about how they communicate progress to EPA and how they make sure
46
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 1
Scope. Methodology, and Prior Audit Coverage
the data they provide EPA in RCRIS is accurate. We also analyzed the EI documentation to
determine whether it was accurately reflected in RCRIS.
PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE
No other audits regarding the CA program's implementation of GPRA have been performed.
However, some reviews of related subjects have been performed. On May 2, 2000, GAO
delivered testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on the
"Collaborative EPA-State Effort Needed to Improve [the] Performance Partnership System." In
the testimony, GAO discussed long-standing issues that affect the EPA-State working
relationship. First, EPA regions are inconsistent in their oversight of states. Second, EPA
sometimes micro manages programs. Third, EPA does not provide sufficient technical support
for the increasingly complex requirements of the states' programs. Finally, EPA often does not
adequately consult the states before making key decisions affecting them. To address these
concerns, EPA developed performance partnership agreements to increase flexibility, enhance
accountability and reduce federal oversight. However, GAO found limited participation with the
performance partnership agreements, and has found that reduced federal oversight has only been
realized to a limited degree. GAO also found that EPA and states have agreed on improved core
performance measures and have also improved the ability to try innovative or unique projects. In
response to the testimony, EPA and the Environmental Council of States agreed to conduct a
joint evaluation.
GAO issued an audit report in October 1997, entitled, "Progress Under the Corrective Action
Program Is Limited, but New Initiatives May Accelerate Cleanups" (GAO/RCED-98-3). This
report evaluated the cleanup completions of the CA workload in the RCRA program. This report
concluded that, "the step by step process for cleanup is drawn out and cumbersome, and the cost
of implementing it discourages companies from initiating more cleanups. Protracted
disagreements among EPA, the states, and affected companies over the cleanup standards to be
met and the methods used to meet them have also delayed cleanups. Both of these factors can
contribute to the economic disincentives that companies face in performing cleanups.
Furthermore, these two problems are exacerbated by the limited resources EPA and the states
have for implementing the [Corrective Action] program." GAO generally recommended that EPA
reform the program to make it more streamlined and consistent nationwide. EPA generally
agreed to these recommendations.
In September, 1996, EPA OIG issued a report entitled, "RCRA Corrective Action Oversight"
(Report Number E1DSB6-11-0006-6300036), which stated that tiered (a type of limited)
oversight was being used by the regions. However, formal decisions on tiered oversight were not
documented as was required in the cases reviewed. The report also summarized some of the
factors program managers consider when deciding on the level of oversight to be applied,
47
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 1
Scope. Methodology, and Prior Audit Coverage
including the NCAPS ranking a facility had or the activity being conducted at the site. It also
summarized some of the problems and contradictions with the theory of tiered oversight. No
response to the report was required of the Agency.
According to an October 1997 GAO report, under the requirements of the CA program, the
nearly 3,700 non-federal facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste in the United
States could spend about $16 billion to clean up their properties contaminated by hazardous
substances. The CA program attempts to minimize the federal cleanup burden by having current
operating facilities clean up their hazardous waste contamination. The companies that perform
cleanups under the program include chemical manufacturers and waste disposal companies. Past
and present activities at RCRA facilities have sometimes resulted in releases of hazardous
substances into soil, groundwater, surface water, and air. Although the CA program has been in
effect since 1984, concerns have been raised that companies are not cleaning up their facilities
quickly enough and that properties remain contaminated, posing risks to public health and the
environment.
48
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 2
Examples of Acceptable Reference and Rationale
Documentation of Environmental Indicator Determination
Interim Final 2/5/99
RCRA Corrective Action
Environmental Indicator (El) RCRIS code (CA725)
Current Human Exposures Under Control
Facility Name:
Facility Address:
Facility EPA ID #:
1. Has all available relevant/significant information on known and reasonably suspected releases to
soil, groundwater, surface water/sediments, and air, subject to RCRA Corrective Action (e g from
Solid Waste Management Units (SWMU), Regulated Units (RU), and Areas of Concern (AOC)),
been considered in this El determination?
X If yes - check here and continue with #2 below.
If no - re-evaluate existing data, or
if data are not available skip to #6 and enter"IN" (more information needed) status code.
BACKGROUND
Definition of Environmental Indicators ffor the RCRA Corrective Action)
Environmental Indicators (El) are measures being used by the RCRA Corrective Action program to go
beyond programmatic activity measures (e.g., reports received and approved, etc.) to track changes in the
quality of the environment. The two El developed to-date indicate the quality of the environment in relation
to current human exposures to contamination and the migration of contaminated groundwater. An El for
non-human (ecological) receptors is intended to be developed in the future.
Definition of "Current Human Exposures Under Control" El
A positive "Current Human Exposures Under Control" El determination ("YE" status code) indicates that
there are no "unacceptable" human exposures to "contamination" (i.e., contaminants in concentrations in
excess of appropriate risk-based levels) that can be reasonably expected under current land- and
groundwater-use conditions (for all "contamination" subject to RCRA corrective action at or from the
identified facility (i.e., site-wide)).
Relationship of El to Final Remedies
While Final remedies remain the long-term objective of the RCRA Corrective Action program the El are
near-term objectives which are currently being used as Program measures for the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993, GPRA). The "Current Human Exposures Under Control" El are for
reasonably expected human exposures undercurrent land- and groundwater-use conditions ONLY, and
do not consider potential future land- or groundwater-use conditions or ecological receptors. The RCRA
Corrective Action program's overall mission to protect human health and the environment requires that
Final remedies address these issues (i.e., potential future human exposure scenarios, future land and
groundwater uses, and ecological receptors).
Duration I Applicability of El Determinations
El Determinations status codes should remain in RCRIS national database ONLY as long as they remain
true (i.e., RCRIS status codes must be changed when the regulatory authorities become aware of contrary
information).
49
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 2
Examples of Acceptable Reference and Rationale
Current Human Exposures Under Control
Environmental Indicator (El) RCRIS code (CA725)
Page 2
2. Are groundwater, soil, surface water, sediments, or air media known or reasonably suspected to be
"contaminated"1 above appropriately protective risk-based "levels" (applicable promulgated
standards, as well as other appropriate standards, guidelines, guidance, or criteria) from releases
subject to RCRA Corrective Action (from SWMUs, RUs or AOCs)?
Groundwater
Air (indoors)2
Surface Soil (e.g., <2 ft)
Surface Water
Sediment
Subsurf. Soil (e.g., >2 ft)
Air (outdoors)
X If no (for all media) - skip to #6, and enter "YE," status code after providing or citing
appropriate "levels," and referencing sufficient supporting documentation demonstrating
that these "levels" are not exceeded.
If yes (for any media) - continue after identifying key contaminants in each "contaminated"
medium, citing appropriate "levels" (or provide an explanation for the determination that
the medium could pose an unacceptable risk), and referencing supporting documentation.
If unknown (for any media) - skip to #6 and enter "IN" status code.
Rationale and Reference(s): This facility is permitted as a municipal solid waste landfill. The
landfill contains a closed hazardous waste disposal cell within its boundaries for which the closure
certification was accepted. The cell is subject to post-closure care, including ground water
monitoring. The monitoring system for the closed cell encircles it. The leachate collection system
for the closed cell is part of the cell's design.
The facility's ground water monitoring system is currently in compliance with the applicable rules.
The facility is currently implementing its ground water indicator evaluation program as no releases to
ground water have been detected. This confirms that there are no uncontrolled exposures to
humans through the ground water pathway resulting from the past disposal activity at the facility.
As the closed disposal cell is the only other unit at the facility, beyond the operating solid waste
landfill which is subject to equivalent of the Subtitle D regulations, including ground water
monitoring, a RCRA Facility Investigation continues to be unnecessary.
Footnotes:
1 "Contamination" and "contaminated" describes media containing contaminants (in any form, NAPL
and/or dissolved, vapors, or solids, that are subject to RCRA) in concentrations in excess of
appropriately protective risk-based "levels" (for the media, that identify risks within the acceptable
risk range).
2 Recent evidence (from the Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment, and others) suggest
that unacceptable indoor air concentrations are more common in structures above groundwater with
volatile contaminants than previously believed. This is a rapidly developing field and reviewers are
encouraged to look to the latest guidance for the appropriate methods and scale of demonstration
necessary to be reasonably certain that indoor air (in structures located above (and adjacent to)
groundwater with volatile contaminants) does not present unacceptable risks.
Yes No ? Rationale / Key Contaminants
_X_
NA
_X_
_X_
_x_
__ _x_ _
x
50
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 2
Examples of Acceptable Reference and Rationale
Current Human Exposures Under Control
Environmental Indicator (El) RCRIS code (CA725)
Page 3
Are there complete pathways between "contamination" and human receptors such that exposures
can be reasonably expected under the current (land- and groundwater-use) conditions?
Summary Exposure Pathway Fvahiation Table
Potential Human Receptors (Under Current Conditions)
"Contaminated" Media Residents Workers Day-Care Construction Trespassers Recreation Food3
Groundwater
Air (indoors)
Soil (surface, e.g., <2 ft)
Surface Water
Sediment
Soil (subsurface e.g., >2 ft)
Air (outdoors) '
Instructions for Summary Exposure Pathway Fvaluation Table:
1. Strike-out specific Media including Human Receptors' spaces for Media which are not
"contaminated") as identified in #2 above.
2. enter "yes" or "no" for potential "completeness" under each "Contaminated" Media - Human
Receptor combination (Pathway).
Note: In order to focus the evaluation to the most probable combinations some potential
"Contaminated" Media - Human Receptor combinations (Pathways) do not have check spaces
(" "). While these combinations may not be probable in most situations they may be possible in
some settings and should be added as necessary.
If no (pathways are not complete for any contaminated media-receptor combination) -
skip to #6, and enter YE status code, after explaining and/or referencing condition(s) in-
place, whether natural or man-made, preventing a complete exposure pathway from each
contaminated medium (e.g., use optional Pathway Evaluation Work Rhppt to analyze
major pathways).
If yes (pathways are complete for any "Contaminated" Media - Human Receptor
combination) - continue after providing supporting explanation.
If unknown (for any "Contaminated" Media - Human Receptor combination) - skip to #6
and enter "IN" status code
Rationale and
Reference(s):
3 Indirect Pathway/Receptor (e.g., vegetables, fruits, crops, meat and dairy products, fish shellfish
etc.) ' '
51
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 2
Examples of Acceptable Reference and Rationale
Current Human Exposures Under Control
Environmental Indicator (El) RCRIS code (CA725)
Page 4
4 Can the exposures from any of the complete pathways identified in #3 be reasonably expected to
be "significant"4 (i.e., potentially "unacceptable" because exposures can be reasonably expected
to be: 1) greater in magnitude (intensity, frequency and/or duration) than assumed in the derivation
of the acceptable "levels" (used to identify the "contamination"); or 2) the combination of exposure
magnitude (perhaps even though low) and contaminant concentrations (which may be substantially
above the acceptable "levels") could result in greater than acceptable risks)?
If no (exposures can not be reasonably expected to be significant (i.e., potentially
"unacceptable") for any complete exposure pathway) - skip to #6 and enter "YE" status
code after explaining and/or referencing documentation justifying why the exposures
(from each of the complete pathways) to "contamination" (identified in #3) are not
expected to be "significant."
If yes (exposures could be reasonably expected to be "significant" (i.e., potentially
"unacceptable") for any complete exposure pathway) - continue after providing a
description (of each potentially "unacceptable" exposure pathway) and explaining and/or
referencing documentation justifying why the exposures (from each of the remaining
complete pathways) to "contamination" (identified in #3) are not expected to be
"significant."
If unknown (for any complete pathway) - skip to #6 and enter "IN" status code
Rationale and
Reference(s):
4 If there is any question on whether the identified exposures are "significant" (i.e., potentially
"unacceptable") consult a human health Risk Assessment specialist with appropriate education,
training and experience.
52
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 2
Examples of Acceptable Reference and Rationale
Current Human Exposures Under Control
Environmental Indicator (El) RCRIS code (CA725)
Page 5
Can the "significant" exposures (identified in #4) be shown to be within acceptable limits?
If yes (all "significant" exposures have been shown to be within acceptable limits) -
continue and enter "YE" after summarizing and referencing documentation justifying why
all "significant" exposures to "contamination" are within acceptable limits (eg a site-
specific Human Health Risk Assessment).
If no (there are current exposures that can be reasonably expected to be "unacceptable")-
continue and enter "NO" status code after providing a description of each potentially
"unacceptable" exposure.
If unknown (for any potentially "unacceptable" exposure) - continue and enter "IN" status
code
Rationale and
Reference(s):
53
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 2
Examples of Acceptable Reference and Rationale
Current Human Exposures Under Control
Environmental Indicator (El) RCRIS code (CA725)
Page 6
6. Check the appropriate RCRIS status codes for the Current Human Exposures Under Control El
event code (CA725), and obtain Supervisor (or appropriate Manager) signature and date on the El
determination below (and attach appropriate supporting documentation as well as a map of the
facility):
X YE - Yes, "Current Human Exposures Under Control" has been verified. Based on a
review of the information contained in this El Determination, "Current Human Exposures"
are expected to be "Under Control" at the Landfill facility, EPA ID
H located at under current and
reasonably expected conditions. This determination will be re-evaluated when the
Agency/State becomes aware of significant changes at the facility.
NO - "Current Human Exposures" are NOT "Under Control."
IN - More information is needed to make a determination.
Completed by fsionatur
(print)
ftitlet
Supervisor (signature1) Date
(print)
ftitlel
CEPA Region or Statel
Locations where References may be found: Hard copy files in Ohio EPA, Division of Hazardous
Waste Management's Central Office, Columbus, and the same files located in the division's
Northwest District Office, located in Bowling Green, Ohio.
Contact telephone and e-mail numbers
(name)
(phone #)_
(e-mail)
final Note: The Human Exposures El is a Qualitative Screening of exposures and the
DETERMINATIONS WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT SHOULD NOT BE USED AS THE SOLE BASIS FOR RESTRICTING THE SCOPE
OF MORE DETAILED (E.G., SITE-SPECIFIC) ASSESSMENTS OF RISK.
54
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 2
Examples of Acceptable Reference and Rationale
Documentation of Environmental Indicator Determination
Interim Final 2/5/99
RCRA Corrective Action
Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS code (CA750)
Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control
Facility Name:
Facility Address:
Facility EPA ID #:
1. Has all available relevant/significant information on known and reasonably suspected releases to the
groundwater media, subject to RCRA Corrective Action (e.g., from Solid Waste Management Units
(SWMU), Regulated Units (RU), and Areas of Concern (AOC)), been considered in this El determination?
X If yes - check here and continue with #2 below.
If no - re-evaluate existing data, or
if data are not available skip to #6 and enter"IN" (more information needed) status code.
BACKGROUND
Definition of Environmental Indicators (for the RCRA Corrective Action)
Environmental Indicators (EI) arc measures being used by the RCRA Corrective Action program to go beyond
programmatic activity measures (e.g.. reports received and approved, etc.) to track changes in the quality of the
environment. The two EI developed to-date indicate the quality of the environment in relation to current human
exposures to contamination and the migration of contaminated groundwater. An EI for non-human (ecological)
receptors is intended to be developed in the future.
Definition of "Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control" EI
A positive "Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control" EI determination ("YE" status code) indicates
that the migration of "contaminated" groundwater has stabilized, and that monitoring will be conducted to confirm
that contaminated groundwater remains within the original "area of contaminated groundwater" (for all groundwater
"contamination" subject to RCRA corrective action at or from the identified facility (i.e., site-wide)).
Relationship of EI to Final Remedies
While Final remedies remain the long-term objective of the RCRA Corrective Action program the El arc near-term
objectives which are currently being used as Program measures for the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993, GPRA). The ' Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control" EI pertains ONLY to the physical
migration (i.e., further spread) of contaminated ground water and contaminants within groundwater (e.g., non-
aqueous phase liquids or NAPLs). Achieving this EI does not substitute for achieving other stabilization or final
remedy requirements and expectations associated with sources of contamination and the need to restore, wherever
practicable, contaminated groundwater to be suitable for its designated current and future uses.
Duration / Applicability of EI Determinations
EI Determinations status codes should remain in RCRIS national database ONLY as long as they remain true (i.e.,
55
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 2
Examples of Acceptable Reference and Rationale
RCR1S status codes must be changed when the regulatory authorities become aware of contrary information).
Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control
Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS code (CA750)
Page 2
2. Is groundwater known or reasonably suspected to be "contaminated"1 above appropriately protective
"levels" (i.e., applicable promulgated standards, as well as other appropriate standards, guidelines,
guidance, or criteria) from releases subject to RCRA Corrective Action, anywhere at, or from, the facility?
X If yes - continue after identifying key contaminants, citing appropriate "levels," and
referencing supporting documentation.
If no - skip to #8 and enter "YE" status code, after citing appropriate "levels," and
referencing supporting documentation to demonstrate that groundwater is not
"contaminated."
If unknown - skip to #8 and enter "IN" status code.
Rationale and Reference(s):
The June 1996 RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) Report (revised in October 1996), the August 1997 Corrective
Measures Study (CMS), and the December 1997 Statement of Basis document the presence of contaminant levels
above Federal guidelines in groundwater. Highest on-site concentration of contaminants found in groundwater
identified in the RFI: Trichlorethane (TCA) at 51,000 parts per billion (ppb); 1,1 Dichloroethene (DCE) at 4500
ppb; Trichlorocthcne (TCE) at 960 ppb; Tetrachloroethene (PCE) at 940 ppb. Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for TCA, DCE, TCE and PCE are 200 ppb, 7 ppb, 5 ppb and 5 ppb, respectively.
Highest off-site groundwater concentrations were: TCA = 1900 ppb; DCE = 180 ppb; TCE = 1100 ppb; PCE = 150
ppb.
Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control
Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS code (CA750)
Page 3
Footnotes:
'"Contamination" aiid "contaminated" describes media containing contaminants (in any form, NAPL and/or
dissolved, vapors, or solids, that are subject to RCRA) in concentrations in excess of appropriate "levels"
(appropriate for the protection of the groundwater resource and its beneficial uses).
3. Has the migration of contaminated groundwater stabilized (such that contaminated groundwater is
expected to remain within "existing area of contaminated groundwater"2 as defined by the monitoring
locations designated at the time of this determination)?
56
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 2
Examples of Acceptable Reference and Rationale
X If yes - continue, after presenting or referencing the physical evidence (e.g., groundwater
sampling/measurement/migration barrier data) and rationale why contaminated
groundwater is expected to remain within the (horizontal or vertical) dimensions of the
"existing area of groundwater contamination"2).
If no (contaminated groundwater is observed or expected to migrate beyond the
designated locations defining the "existing area of groundwater contamination"2) - skip to
#8 and enter "NO" status code, after providing an explanation.
If unknown - skip to #8 and enter "IN" status code.
Rationale and Reference(s):
The RCRA Facility Investigation Report (RFI) (June 1996; rev. Oct. 1996) reports elevated volatile and semivolatile
organic compounds in groundwater beneath the facility. The RFI also reports extensive offsitc migration
of contaminants in groundwater. To provide protection to downgradient groundwater users, two interim corrective
measures have been employed. The first, a private well sampling program, was initiated in 1993. Semi-annual
sampling of downgradient private wells provide residential users with information concerning their wells. If
contaminant levels exceed regulatory guidelines (i.e., Maximum Contaminant Levels, or MCLs) at the well, users
will be provided, at expense, with either connection to the municipal well system or installation of a
filtering system on the user's well. The Administrative Consent Order for the implementation of the corrective
measures (CMI Order), dated September 30, 1999, calls for quarterly groundwater sampling for the first year, and
semi-annual residential well sampling thereafter, provided groundwater concentrations remain below MCLs. The
most recent sampling event (January 1999) indicated no contaminant levels greater than the MCLs at the residential
wells. A second interim measure involved the design and construction of a groundwater recovery system (pump &
treat system). This system consists of two high production recovery wells - the first of which was operational in
December 1996, the second in November 1998) which serve to draw in contaminated groundwater from the furthest
boundary of the migrating contaminated groundwater (i.e., perimeter of plume). The "inward hydraulic gradient"
thereby produced by the extraction wells serves as a protective "barrier" which prevents the contaminants from
traveling further and further away, toward either other residents or the River. As part of the final
remedy, will install and operate an above-ground groundwater treatment system, which will remove
contaminants in groundwater to safe levels. Organic contaminants in the unsaturated zone will be treated by a soil
vapor extraction system. Contaminated soils (containing inetals) will be stabilized and capped, thereby providing a
significant reduction in future leaching of contaminants into the groundwater. In summary, current groundwater
containment measures are protective of downgradient private well users and the nearby surface water body. Future
corrective action measures, coupled with natural attenuation processes, will provide, in the long term, restoration of
57
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 2
Examples of Acceptable Reference and Rationale
Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control
Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS code (CA750)
Page 4
the aquifer.
2 "existing area of contaminated groundwater" is an area (with horizontal and vertical dimensions) that has
been verifiably demonstrated to contain all relevant groundwater contamination for this determination, and
is defined by designated (monitoring) locations proximate to the outer perimeter of "contamination" that
can and will be sampled/tested in the future to physically verify that all "contaminated" groundwater
remains within this area, and that the further migration of "contaminated" groundwater is not occurring.
Reasonable allowances in the proximity of the monitoring locations are permissible to incorporate formal
remedy decisions (i.e., including public participation) allowing a limited area for natural attenuation.
4. Does "contaminated" groundwater discharge into surface water bodies?
If yes - continue after identifying potentially affected surface water bodies.
X If no - skip to #7 (and enter a "YE" status code in #8, if #7 = yes) after providing an
explanation and/or referencing documentation supporting that groundwater
"contamination" does not enter surface water bodies.
If unknown - skip to #8 and enter "IN" status code.
Rationale and Rcference(s):
Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control
Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS code (CA750)
Page 5
Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control
Environmental Indicator (El) RCRIS code (CA750)
Page 6
5. Is the discharge of "contaminated" groundwater into surface water likely to be "insignificant" (i.e., the
maximum concentration3 of each contaminant discharging into surface water is less than 10 times their
appropriate groundwater "level," and there arc no other conditions (e.g., the nature, and number, of
discharging contaminants, or environmental setting), which significantly increase the potential for
unacceptable impacts to surface water, sediments, or cco-systems at these concentrations)?
58
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 2
Examples of Acceptable Reference and Rationale
If yes - skip to #7 (find enter "YE" status code in #8 if #7 = yes), after documenting: 1)
the maximum known or reasonably suspected concentration3 of key contaminants
discharged above their groundwater "level," the value of the appropriate "level(s)," and if
there is evidence that the concentrations are increasing; and 2) provide a statement of
professional judgement/explanation (or reference documentation) supporting that the
discharge of groundwater contaminants into the surface water is not anticipated to have
unacceptable impacts to the receiving surface water, sediments, or eco-system.
If no - (the discharge of "contaminated" groundwater into surface water is potentially
significant) - continue after documenting: 1) the maximum known or reasonably
suspected concentration3 of each contaminant discharged above its groundwater "level,"
the value of the appropriate "level(s)," and if there is evidence that the concentrations are
increasing; and 2) for any contaminants discharging into surface water in concentrations3
greater than 100 times their appropriate groundwater "levels," the estimated total amount
(mass in kg/yr) of each of these contaminants that are being discharged (loaded) into the
surface water body (at the time of the determination), and identify if there is evidence
that the amount of discharging contaminants is increasing.
If unknown - enter "IN" status code in #8.
Rationale and Rcference(s):
3 As measured in groundwater prior to entry to the groundwater-surface water/sediment interaction (e.g.,
hyporheic) zone.
Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control
Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS code (CA750)
Page 7
6. Can the discharge of "contaminated" groundwater into surface water be shown to be "currently
acceptable" (i.e., not cause impacts to surface water, sediments or eco-systems that should not be allowed
to continue until a final remedy decision can be made and implemented4)?
If yes - continue after either: 1) identifying the Final Remedy decision incorporating
these conditions, or other site-specific criteria (developed for the protection of the site's
surface water, sediments, and eco-systems), and referencing supporting documentation
demonstrating that these criteria are not exceeded by the discharging groundwater; OR
2) providing or referencing an interim-assessment,5 appropriate to the potential for
impact, that shows the discharge of groundwater contaminants into the surface water is
(in the opinion of a trained specialists, including ecologist) adequately protective of
receiving surface water, sediments, and eco-systems, until such time when a full
assessment and final remedy decision can be made. Factors which should be considered
in the interim-assessment (where appropriate to help identify the impact associated with
discharging groundwater) include: surface water body size, flow,
use/classification/habitats and contaminant loading limits, other sources of surface
water/sediment contamination, surface water and sediment sample results and
comparisons to available and appropriate surface water and sediment "levels," as well as
any other factors, such as effects on ecological receptors (e.g., via bio-assays/benthic
surveys or site-specific ecological Risk Assessments), that the overseeing regulatory
agency would deem appropriate for making the EI determination.
59
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 2
Examples of Acceptable Reference and Rationale
If no - (the discharge of "contaminated" groundwater can not be shown to be "currently
acceptable") - skip to #8 and enter "NO" status code, after documenting the currently
unacceptable impacts to the surface water body, sediments, and/or cco-systems.
If unknown - skip to 8 and enter "IN" status code.
Rationale and Reference(s):
4 Note, because areas of inflowing groundwater can be critical habitats (e.g., nurseries or thermal refugia)
for many species, appropriate specialist (e.g., ecologist) should be included in management decisions that
could eliminate these areas by significantly altering or reversing groundwater flow pathways near surface
water bodies.
5 The understanding of the impacts of contaminated groundwater discharges into surface water bodies is a
rapidly developing field and reviewers are encouraged to look to the latest guidance for the appropriate
methods and scale of demonstration to be reasonably certain that discharges are not causing currently
Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control
Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS code (CA750)
Page 8
unacceptable impacts to the surface waters, sediments or eco-systems.
7. Will groundwater monitoring / measurement data (and surface water/sediment/ecological data, as
necessary) be collected in the future to verily that contaminated groundwater has remained within the
horizontal (or vertical, as necessary) dimensions of the "existing area of contaminated groundwater?"
X If yes - continue after providing or citing documentation for planned activities or future
sampling/measurement events. Specifically identify the well/measurement locations
which will be tested in the future to verify the expectation (identified in #3) that
groundwater contamination will not be migrating horizontally (or vertically, as
necessary) beyond the "existing area of groundwater contamination."
If no - enter "NO" status code in #8.
If unknown - enter "IN" status code in #8.
Rationale and Reference(s):
The CMI Order requires to continue the private well sampling program on a quarterly basis for one year.
Subsequent years will be reduced to a semi-annual basis if the first year indicates no increased contaminant
concentrations. The CMI Order also requires to continue, for 30 years, its groundwater pump & treat
system.
60
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 2
Examples of Acceptable Reference and Rationale
Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control
Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS code (CA750)
Page 9
K.
Check the appropriate RCRIS staLus codes for the Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control
EI (event code CA750), and obtain Supervisor (or appropriate Manager) signature and date on the EI
determination below (attach appropriate supporting documentation as well as a map of the facility).
X YE - Yes, "Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control" has been
verified. Based on a review of the information contained in this EI
determination, it has been determined that the "Migration of Contaminated
Groundwater" is "Under Control" at the
facility . EPA ID #
. located at
. Specifically, this determination indicates
that the migration of "contaminated" groundwater is under control, and that
monitoring will be conducted to confirm that contaminated groundwater
remains within the "existing area of contaminated groundwater" This
determination will be re-evaluated when the Agency becomes aware of
significant changes at the facility.
NO - Unacceptable migration of contaminated groundwater is observed or expected.
IN - More information is needed to make a determination.
Cc * " "
Su
Locations where References maybe found:
EPA Files at EPA offices in
Contact telephone and e-mail numbers
61
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
62
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 3
Examples of Unacceptable Reference and Rationale
Documentation of Environmental Indicator Determination
Interim Final 2/5/99
RCRA Corrective Action
Environmental Indicator (El) RCRIS code (CA725)
Current Hy*~*n Exposures Under Control
Facility Name:
Facility Address:
Facility EPA ID #: ~~
1. Has all available relevant/significant information on known and reasonably suspected releases to soil,
groundwater, surface water/sediments, and air, subject to RCRA Corrective Action (e.g., from Solid Waste
Management Units (SWMU), Regulated Units (RU), and Areas of Concern (AOC)), been considered in
this HI determination?
If yes - check here and continue with #2 below.
If no - re-evaluate existing data, or
if data are not available skip to #6 and enter"IN" (more information needed) status code.
BACKGROUND
Definition nf Environmental Indicators ffor the RCRA Corrective Actionl
Knvironmental Indicators (EI) are measures being used by the RCRA Corrective Action program to go beyond
programmatic activity measures (e.g., reports received and approved, etc.) to track changes in the quality of the
environment. The two EI developed to-date indicate the quality of the environment in relation to current human
exposures to contamination and the migration of contaminated groundwater. An EI for non-human (ecological)
receptors is intended to be developed in the future.
Definition of "Current Human Exposures Under Control" El
A positive "Current Human Exposures Under Control" EI determination ("YE" status code) indicates that there are
no "unacceptable" human exposures to "contamination" (i.e., contaminants in concentrations in excess of
appropriate risk-based levels) that can be reasonably expected under current land- and groundwater-use conditions
(for all "contamination" subject to RCRA corrective action at or from the identified facility (i.e., site-wide)).
Relationship of El to Final Remedies
While Final remedies remain the long-term objective of the RCRA Corrective Action program the EI are near-term
objectives which are currently being used as Program measures for the Government Performance and Results Act of
I 993, GPRA). The "Current Human Exposures Under Control" EI are for reasonably expected human exposures
under current land- and groundwater-use conditions ONLY, and do not consider potential future land- or
groundwater-use conditions or ecological receptors. The RCRA Corrective Action program's overall mission to
protect human health and the environment requires that Final remedies address these issues (i.e., potential future
human exposure scenarios, future land and groundwater uses, and ecological receptors).
Duration / Applicability of El Determinations
HI Determinations status codes should remain in RCRIS national database ONLY as long as they remain true (i.e..
RCRIS status codes must be changed when the regulatory authorities become aware of contrary information).
63
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 3
Examples of Unacceptable Reference and Rationale
Current Human Exposures Under Control
Environmental Indicator (El) RCRIS code (CA725)
Page 2
Are groundwater, soil, surface water, sediments, or air media known or reasonably suspected to be
"contaminated"1 above appropriately protective risk-based "levels" (applicable promulgated standards, as
well as other appropriaie standards, guidelines, guidance, or criteria) from releases subject to RCRA
Corrective Action (from SWMUs, RUs or AOCs)?
? Rationale / Kev Contaminants
Yes
No
Groundwater
Air (indoors)2
Surface Soil (e.g., <2 ft)
Surface Water
Sediment
1/
Subsurf. Soil (e.g., >2 ft)
Air (outdoors)
If no (for all media) - skip to #6, and enter "YE," status code after providing or citing
appropriate "levels," and referencing sufficient supporting documentation demonstrating
that these "levels" are not exceeded.
If yes (for any media) - continue after identifying key contaminants in each
"contaminated" medium, citing appropriate "levels" (or provide an explanation for the
determination that the medium could pose an unacceptable risk), and referencing
supporting documentation.
If unknown (for any media) - skif) to #6 and enter "IN" status code.
Rationale and Reference(s):_
1 "Contamination" and "contaminated" describes media containing contaminants (in any form, NAPL
and/or dissolved, vapors, or solids, that are subject to RCRA) in concentrations in excess of appropriately
protective risk-based "levels" (for the media, that identify risks within the acceptable risk range).
2 Recent evidence (from the Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment, and others) suggest that
unacceptable indoor air concentrations are more common in structures above groundwater with volatile
contaminants than previously believed. This is a rapidly developing field and reviewers are encouraged to
look to the latest guidance for the appropriate methods and scale of demonstration necessary to be
reasonably certain that indoor air (in structures located above (and adjacent to) groundwater with volatile
contaminants) does not present unacceptable risks.
64
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 3
Examples of Unacceptable Reference and Rationale
Current Human Exposures Under Control
Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS code (CA725)
Page 3
3. Are there complete pathways between "contamination" and human receptors such that exposures can be
reasonably expected under the current (land- and groundwater-use) conditions?
Summary Exposure Pathway Evaluation Table
Potential Human Receptors (Under Current Conditions)
"Contaminated" Media Residents Workers Day-Care Construction Trespassers Recreation
Food3 s
Groundwater
Air (indoors)
Soil (surface, e.g., <2 ft)
Surface Water
Sediment
Soil (subsurface e.g., >2 ft)
Air (outdoors)
Instructions for Summary Exposure Pathway Evaluation Table:
1. Strike-out specific Media including Human Receptors' spaces for Media which are not
"contaminated") as identified in #2 above.
2. enter "yes" or "no" for potential "completeness" under each "Contaminated" Media Human
Receptor combination (Pathway).
Note: In order to focus the evaluation to the most probable combinations some potential "Contaminated"
Media - Human Receptor combinations (Pathways) do not have check spaces (" "). While these
combinations may not be probable in most situations they may be possible in some settings and should be
added as necessary.
If no (pathways are not complete for any contaminated media-receptor combination) -
skip to #6, and enter "YE" status code, after explaining and/or referencing condition(s)
in-place, whether natural or man-made, preventing a complete exposure pathway from
each contaminated medium (e.g., use optional Pathway Evaluation Work Sheet to
analyze major pathways).
If yes (pathways are complete for any "Contaminated" Media - Human Receptor
combination) - continue after providing supporting explanation.
If unknown (for any "Contaminated" Media - Human Receptor combination) - skip to #6
and enter "IN" status code
Rationale and Reference(s):
' Indirect Pathway/Receptor (e.g., vegetables, fruits, crops, meat and dairy products, fish, shellfish, etc.)
65
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 3
Examples of Unacceptable Reference and Rationale
Current Human Exposures Under Control
Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS code (CA725)
Page 4
4 Can the exposures from any of the complete pathways identified in #3 be reasonably expected to be
"significant"4 (i.e., potentially "unacceptable" because exposures can be reasonably expected to be: 1)
greater in magnitude (intensity, frequency and/or duration) than assumed in the derivation of the acceptable
"levels" (used to identify the "contamination"); or 2) the combination of exposure magnitude (perhaps even
though low) and contaminant concentrations (which may be substantially above the acceptable "levels")
could result in greater than acceptable risks)?
If no (exposures can not be reasonably expected to be significant (i.e., potentially
"unacceptable") for any complete exposure pathway) - skip to #6 and enter "YE" status
code after explaining and/or referencing documentation justifying why the exposures
(from each of the complete pathways) to "contamination" (identified in #3) are not
expected to be "significant."
If yes (exposures could be reasonably expected to be "significant" (i.e., potentially
"unacceptable") for any complete exposure pathway) - continue after providing a
description (of each potentially "unacceptable" exposure pathway) and explaining and/or
referencing documentation justifying why the exposures (from each of the remaining
complete pathways) to "contamination" (identified in #3) arc not expected to be
"significant."
If unknown (for any complete pathway) - skip to #6 and enter "IN" status code
Rationale and Reference(s):
4 If there is any question on whether the identified exposures are "significant" (i.e., potentially
"unacceptable") consult a human health Risk Assessment specialist with appropriate education, training
and experience.
66
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 3
Examples of Unacceptable Reference and Rationale
Current Human Exposures Under Control
Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS code (CA725)
Page 5
5 Can the "significant" exposures (identified in #4) be shown to be within acceptable limits?
If yes (all "significant" exposures have been shown to be within acceptable limits) -
continue and enter "YE" after summarizing and referencing documentation justifying
why all "significant" exposures to "contamination" are within acceptable limits (e.g., a
site-specific Human Health Risk Assessment).
If no (there are current exposures that can be reasonably expected to be "unacceptable")-
continue and enter "NO" status code after providing a description of each potentially
"unacceptable" exposure.
If unknown (for any potentially "unacceptable" exposure) - continue and enter "IN"
status code
Rationale and Reference(s):
67
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 3
Examples of Unacceptable Reference and Rationale
Current Human Exposures Under Control
Environmental Indicator (EI) RCR1S code (CA725)
Page 6
Check the appropriate RCRIS status codes for the Current Human Exposures Under Control El event code
(CA725), and obtain Supervisor (or appropriate Manager) signature and date on the EI determination
below (and attach appropriate supporting documentation as well as a map of the facility):
V* YE - Yes, "Current Human Exposures Under Control" has been verified. Based on a
review of the information contained in this EI Determination, "Curwjnt Human
Exposures" are expected to be "Under Control" at the
facility, EPA ID # , located at
under current and reasonably expected conditions. This
determination will be re-evaluated when the Agency/State becomes aware of significant
changes at the facility.
NO - "Current Human Exposures" are NOT "Under Control."
IN - More information is needed to make a determination.
Completed by (s
Ģe
Supervisor
(2
(tin
(EPA Region or State)
Locations where References m**' ^ ~>ŧ"ŦŦ*
Contact telephone and e-mail numbers
(name)_
(phone;
(e-mail)
i in a i. No IK: Tiii; Human Exposures EI is a Qualitative Screening ok exposures and the
I)E I ERMINATIONS WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT SHOULD NOT BE USED AS THE SOLE IIANIS I OR RESTRICTING Till:
S< Ol'E OK MORE DETAILED (E.CJ., SITE-SPEC! KI<:) ASSESSMENTS OK RISK.
68
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 3
Examples of Unacceptable Reference and Rationale
Documentation of Environmental Indicator Determination
Interim Final 2/5/99
RCRA Corrective Action
Environmental Indicator (El) RCRIS code (CA725)
Current Hy*~*n Exposures Under Control
Facility Name:
Facility Address:
Facility EPA ID #: ~~
1. Has all available relevant/significant information on known and reasonably suspected releases to soil,
groundwater, surface water/sediments, and air, subject to RCRA Corrective Action (e.g., from Solid Waste
Management Units (SWMU), Regulated Units (RU), and Areas of Concern (AOC)), been considered in
this HI determination?
If yes - check here and continue with #2 below.
If no - re-evaluate existing data, or
if data are not available skip to #6 and enter"IN" (more information needed) status code.
BACKGROUND
Definition nf Environmental Indicators ffor the RCRA Corrective Actionl
Knvironmental Indicators (EI) are measures being used by the RCRA Corrective Action program to go beyond
programmatic activity measures (e.g., reports received and approved, etc.) to track changes in the quality of the
environment. The two EI developed to-date indicate the quality of the environment in relation to current human
exposures to contamination and the migration of contaminated groundwater. An EI for non-human (ecological)
receptors is intended to be developed in the future.
Definition of "Current Human Exposures Under Control" El
A positive "Current Human Exposures Under Control" EI determination ("YE" status code) indicates that there are
no "unacceptable" human exposures to "contamination" (i.e., contaminants in concentrations in excess of
appropriate risk-based levels) that can be reasonably expected under current land- and groundwater-use conditions
(for all "contamination" subject to RCRA corrective action at or from the identified facility (i.e., site-wide)).
Relationship of El to Final Remedies
While Final remedies remain the long-term objective of the RCRA Corrective Action program the EI are near-term
objectives which are currently being used as Program measures for the Government Performance and Results Act of
I 993, GPRA). The "Current Human Exposures Under Control" EI are for reasonably expected human exposures
under current land- and groundwater-use conditions ONLY, and do not consider potential future land- or
groundwater-use conditions or ecological receptors. The RCRA Corrective Action program's overall mission to
protect human health and the environment requires that Final remedies address these issues (i.e., potential future
human exposure scenarios, future land and groundwater uses, and ecological receptors).
Duration / Applicability of El Determinations
HI Determinations status codes should remain in RCRIS national database ONLY as long as they remain true (i.e..
RCRIS status codes must be changed when the regulatory authorities become aware of contrary information).
69
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 3
Examples of Unacceptable Reference and Rationale
Documentation of Environmental Indicator Determination
Interim Final 2/5/99
RCRA Corrective Action
Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS code (CA750)
Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control
Facility Name:
Facility Address:
Facility EPA ID U:
Has all available relevant/significant information on known and reasonably suspected releases to the
groundwater media, subject to RCRA Corrective Action (e.g., from Solid Waste Management Units
(SWMU), Regulated Units (RU), and Areas of Concern (AOC)), been considered in this EI determination?
BACKGROUND
Definition of Environmental Indicators ffor the RCRA Corrective Action^
Environmental Indicators (EI) are measures being used by the RCRA Corrective Action program to go beyond
programmatic activity measures (e.g., reports received and approved, etc.) to track changes in the quality of the
environment. The two EI developed to-date indicate the quality of the environment in relation to current human
exposures to contamination and the migration of contaminated groundwater. An EI for non-human (ecological)
receptors is intended to be developed in the future.
Definition of "Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control" EI
A positive "Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control" EI determination ("YE" status code) indicates
that the migration of "contaminated" groundwater has stabilized, and that monitoring will be conducted to confirm
that contaminated groundwater remains within the original "area of contaminated groundwater" (for all groundwater
"contamination" subject to RCRA corrective action at or from the identified facility (i.e., site-wide)).
Relationship of EI to Final Remedies
While Final remedies remain the long-term objective of the RCRA Corrective Action program the El are near-term
objectives which are currently being used as Program measures for the Government Performance and Results Act of
I 993, CiPKA). The "Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control" EI pertains ONLY to the physical
migration (i.e., further spread) of contaminated ground water and contaminants within groundwater (e.g., non-
aqueous phase liquids or NAPLs). Achieving this EI does not substitute for achieving other stabilization or final
remedy requirements and expectations associated with sources of contamination and the need to restore, wherever
practicable, contaminated groundwater to be suitable for its designated current and future uses.
Duration / Applicability of El Determinations
I I Determinations status codes should remain in RCRIS national database ONLY as long as they remain true (i.e..
RCRIS status codes must be changed when the regulatory authorities become aware of contrary information).
If yes - check here and continue with #2 below.
If no - re-evaluate existing data, or
if data are not available, skip to #8 and enter"IN" (more information needed) status code.
70
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 3
Examples of Unacceptable Reference and Rationale
Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control
Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS code (CA750)
Page 2
Is groundwater known or reasonably suspected to be "contaminated'" above appropriately protective
"levels" (i.e., applicablepromulgated standards, as well as other appropriate standards, guidelines,
guidance, or criteria) from releases subject to RCRA Corrective Action, anywhere at, or from, the facility?
If yes - continue after identifying key contaminants, citing appropriate "levels," and
referencing supporting documentation.
It no - skip to #8 and enter "YE" status code, after citing appropriate "levels," and
referencing supporting documentation to demonstrate that groundwater is not
"contaminated."
If unknown - skip to #8 and enter "IN" status code.
Rationale and
Reference(s):_
Footnotes:
'"Contamination" and "contaminated" describes media containing contaminants (in any form, NAPL and/or
dissolved, vapors, or solids, that are subject to RCRA) in concentrations in excess of appropriate "levels"
(appropriate for the protection of the groundwater resource and its beneficial uses).
71
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 3
Examples of Unacceptable Reference and Rationale
Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control
Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS code (CA750)
Page 3
Has the migration of contaminated groundwater stabilized (such that contaminated groundwater is
expected to remain within "existing area of contaminated groundwater"2 as defined by the monitoring
locations designated at the time of this determination)?
If yes - continue, after presenting or referencing the physical evidence (e.g., groundwater
sampling/measurement/migration barrier data) and rationale why contaminated
groundwater is expected to remain within the (horizontal or vertical) dimensions of the
"existing area of groundwater contamination"2).
If no (contaminated groundwater is observed or expected to migrate beyond the
designated locations defining the "existing area of groundwater contamination"2) - skip to
#8 and enter "NO" status code, after providing an explanation.
If unknown - skip to #8 and enter "IN" status code.
Rationale and Reference(s):
2 "existing area of contaminated groundwater" is an area (with horizontal and vertical dimensions) that has
been verifiably demonstrated to contain all relevant groundwater contamination for this determination, and
is defined by designated (monitoring) locations proximate to the outer perimeter of "contamination" that
can and will be sampled/tested in the future to physically verify that all "contaminated" groundwater
remains within this area, and that the further migration of "contaminated" groundwater is not occurring.
Reasonable allowances in the proximity of the monitoring locations are permissible to incorporate formal
remedy decisions (i.e., including public participation) allowing a limited area for natural attenuation.
72
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 3
Examples of Unacceptable Reference and Rationale
Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control
Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS code (CA750)
Page 4
4 Does "contaminated" groundwater discharge into surface water bodies?
If yes - continue after identifying potentially affected surface water bodies.
If no - skip to #7 (and enter a "YE" status code in #8, if #7 = yes) after providing an
explanation and/or referencing documentation supporting that groundwater
"contamination" does not enter surface water bodies.
If unknown - skip to #8 and enter "IN" status code.
Rationale and Reference(s):
73
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 3
Examples of Unacceptable Reference and Rationale
Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control
Environmental Indicator (El) RCRIS code (CA7S0)
Page 5
Is the discharge of "contaminated" groundwater into surface water likely to be "insignificant" (i.e., the
maximum concentration3 of each contaminant discharging into surface water is less than 10 times their
appropriate groundwater "level," and there are no other conditions (e.g., the nature, and number, of
discharging contaminants, or environmental setting), which significantly increase the potential for
unacceptable impacts to surface water, sediments, or eco-systems at these concentrations)?
If yes - skip to #7 (and enter "YE" status code in #8 if #7 ^ yes), after documenting: 1)
the maximum known or reasonably suspected concentration1 of key contaminants
discharged above their groundwater "level," the value of the appropriate -,level(s)," and if
there is evidence that the concentrations arc increasing; and 2) provide a statement of
professional judgement/explanation (or reference documentation) supporting that the
discharge of groundwater contaminants into the surface water is not anticipated to have
unacceptable impacts to the receiving surface water, sediments, or eco-system.
Ķ f
If no - (the discharge of "contaminated" groundwater into surface water is potentially
significant) - continue after documenting: 1) the maximum known or reasonably
suspected concentration' of each contaminant discharged above its groundwater "level,"
the value of the appropriate "level(s)," and if there is evidence that the concentrations are
increasing; and 2) for any contaminants discharging into surface water in concentrations'
greater than 100 times their appropriate groundwater "levels," the estimated total amount
(mass in kg/yr) of each of these contaminants that are being discharged (loaded) into the
surface water body (at the time of the determination), and identify if there is evidence
that the amount of discharging contaminants is increasing.
If unknown - enter "IN" status code in #8.
Rationale and Reference(s):
' As measured in groundwater prior to entry to the groundwater-surface water/sediment interaction (e.g.
hyporheic) /.one.
74
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 3
Examples of Unacceptable Reference and Rationale
Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control
Environmental Indicator (El) RCRIS code (CA750)
Page 6
Can the discharge of "contaminated" groundwater into surface water be shown to be "currently
acceptable" (i.e., not cause impacts to surface water, sediments or eco-systems that should not be allowed
to continue until a final remedy decision can be made and implemented4)?
If yes - continue after either: 1) identifying the Final Remedy decision incorporating
these conditions, or other site-specific criteria (developed for the protection of the site's
surface water, sediments, and eco-systems), and referencing supporting documentation
demonstrating that these criteria are not exceeded by the discharging groundwater; OR
2) providing or referencing an interim-assessment,5 appropriate to the potential for
impact, that shows the discharge of groundwater contaminants into the surface water is
(in the opinion of a trained specialists, including ecologist) adequately protective of
receiving surface water, sediments, and eco-systems, until such time when a full
assessment and final remedy decision can be made. Factors which should be considered
in the interim-assessment (where appropriate to help identify the impact associated with
discharging groundwater) include: surface water body size, flow,
use/classiflcation/habitats and contaminant loading limits, other sources of surface
water/sediment contamination, surface water and sediment sample results and
comparisons to available and appropriate surface water and sediment "levels," as well as
any other factors, such as effects on ecological receptors (e.g., via bio-assays/benthic
surveys or site-specific ecological Risk Assessments), that the overseeing regulatory
agency would deem appropriate for making the EI determination.
If no - (the discharge of "contaminated" groundwater can not be shown to be "currently
acceptable") - skip to #8 and enter "NO" status code, after documenting the currently
unacceptable impacts to the surface water body, sediments, and/or eco-systems.
If unknown - skip to 8 and enter "IN" status code.
Rationale and Reference(s):
4 Note, because areas of inflowing groundwater can be critical habitats (e.g., nurseries or thermal refugia)
for many species, appropriate specialist (e.g., ecologist) should be included in management decisions thai
could eliminate these areas by significantly altering or reversing groundwater flow pathways near surface
water bodies.
I he understanding of the impacts of contaminated groundwater discharges into surface water bodies is a
rapidly developing field and reviewers are encouraged to look to the latest guidance for the appropriate
methods and scale ot demonstration to be reasonably certain that discharges are not causing currently
unacceptable impacts to the surface waters, sediments or eco-systems.
75
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 3
Examples of Unacceptable Reference and Rationale
Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control
Environmental Indicator (El) RCRIS code (CA750)
Page 7
7. Will groundwater monitoring / measurement data (and surface water/sedimenl/ecological data, as
necessary) be collected in the future to verify that contaminated groundwater has remained within the
horizontal (or vertical, as necessary) dimensions of the "existing area of contaminated groundwater?"
If yes - continue after providing or citing documentation for planned activities or future
sampling/measurement events. Specifically identify the well/measurement locations
which will be tested in the future to verify the expectation (identified in #3) that
groundwater contamination will not be migrating horizontally (or vertically, as
necessary) beyond the "existing area of groundwater contamination."
If no- enter "NO" status code in #8.
If unknown - enter "IN" status code in #8.
Rationale and Reference(s):
76
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 3
Examples of Unacceptable Reference and Rationale
Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control
Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS code (CA750)
Page 8
Check the appropriate RCRIS status codes for the Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control
EI (event code CA750), and obtain Supervisor (or appropriate Manager) signature and date on the EI
determination below (attach appropriate supporting documentation as well as a map of the facility).
1/
YE - Yes, "Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control" has been
verified. Based on a review of the information contained in this EI
determination, it has been determined that the "Migration of Contaminated
Groundwater" is "Under Control" at the
facility , EPA ID # , located
at . Specifically, this determination
indicates that the migration of "contaminated" groundwater is under control, and
that monitoring will be conducted to confirm that contaminated groundwater
remains within the "existing area of contaminated groundwater" This
determination will be re-evaluated when the ^gency becomes aware of
significant changes at the facility.
NO - Unacceptable migration of contaminated groundwater is observed or expected.
IN - More information is needed to make a determination.
Completed by
fsienatu
(print)
(title) i
Supervisor
(sianatu
(print)
(title)
(EPA Region or State)
Locations where References may be found:
Contact telephone and e-mail numbers
(natni
(phon
(e-ma
77
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
78
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 4
Accuracy of Region 4 Positive EI Determinations
(Sampled Facilities Only)
EI
Code
Facility ID
Number
Accurate
(Documentation
Matches RCRIS)
Invalid
Determination
Inaccurate
Date in
RCRIS
EI Not in
RCRIS as
of January
2000
CA750
FLD980799050
X
R 9/30/98
D 9/30/98
CA725
FLD980799050
X
R 9/30/98
D 9/30/98
CA750
GAD67560870
X
R 9/30/99
D 10/4/99
CA725
GAD67560870
X
Not Signed
CA750
GAD010103232
X
R 9/22/97
D 7/16/97
CA725
GAD010103232
X
R 9/22/97
D 7/16/97
CA750
GAD003326477
X
CA750
GAR000000901
X
R 9/30/99
D 9/30/99
CA725
GAD981224942
X
R 4/11/95
D 4/11/96
CA725
GAD041007063
X
R 9/30/97
D 9/30/97
CA725
GAD093380814
X
79
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 4
Accuracy of Region 4 Positive EI Determinations
(Sampled Facilities Only)
EI
Code
Facility ID
Number
Accurate
(Documentation
Matches RCRIS)
Invalid
Determination
Inaccurate
Date in
RCRIS
EI Not in
RCRIS as
of January
2000
CA725
No ID on EI
Documentation for
Chemical
Specialties - RFI
date did match.
X
R 4/24/96
D 8/24/96
CA750
No ID on EI
Documentation for
Chemical
Specialties - RFI
date did match.
X
R 4/24/96
D 8/24/96
CA725
ALD031490501
X
R 8/19/99
D 8/30/99
CA750
ALD031490501
X
R 8/19/99
D 8/30/99
CA725
ALD079127635
X
R 9/30/99
D 9/30/99
CA750
ALD079127635
X
R 9/30/99
D 9/30/99
CA750
ALD004019048
X
R 9/20/99
D 9/20/99
CA725
NCD981476955
X
R 9/24/98
D 10/1/98
CA750
NCD981476955
X
R 9/24/98
D 10/1/98
CA750
SCD044442333
X
Not Signed
80
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 4
Accuracy of Region 4 Positive EI Determinations
(Sampled Facilities Only)
EI
Code
Facility ID
Number
Accurate
(Documentation
Matches RCRIS)
Invalid
Determination
Inaccurate
Date in
RCRIS
EI Not in
RCRIS as
of January
2000
CA725
TND003337292
X
Not Signed
CA750
TND003337292
X
Not Signed
CA750
TND047025589
X- *
CA750
TND047025589
X- *
CA725
TND003095635
X
R 9/11/96
D 9/11/96
CA750
KYD062951801
X
R 7/17/96
D 8/19/96
CA725
KYD062951801
X
R 7/17/96
D 8/19/96
CA750 /
NR
KYD980600043
X
R 8/24/98
D 8/26/98
CA725
KYD980600043
X
R 8/24/98
D 8/26/98
CA750
KYD006373922
X
R 6/7/96
D 6/7/96
CA750
MSD990866329
X
R 7/2/97
D 7/2/97
81
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 4
Accuracy of Region 4 Positive EI Determinations
(Sampled Facilities Only)
EI
Code
Facility ID
Number
Accurate
(Documentation
Matches RCRIS)
Invalid
Determination
Inaccurate
Date in
RCRIS
EI Not in
RCRIS as
of January
2000
CA750 /
NR
MSD065462517
X
R 9/30/97
D 9/30/97
CA725 /
NC
MSD065462517
X
R 9/30/97
D 9/30/97
CA725
FLD004104105
X
R 8/16/96
D 8/14/96
CA725
FLD083200998
X
R 8/24/96
D 8/24/96
CA725
FLD061993606
X
Not Signed
or Dated
CA725
FL6570024582
X
R 9/16/96
D 9/16/96
CA725
FLD004088258
X
R 9/30/97
D 9/30/97
R = RCRIS as of January 2000
D = EI document date
NR = No releases
NC = No control measures necessary
* The January 2000 database indicated that an EI was accomplished on 9/30/99, but the
supporting EI document is still in draft form as of 10/12/99 and not signed on 9/30/99.
82
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 5
Accuracy of Region 5 Positive EI Determinations
(Sampled Sites Only)
EI
Code
Facility ID
Number
Accurate
(Documentation
Matches
RCRIS)
Invalid
Determination
Inaccurate
Date in
RCRIS
EI Not in
RCRIS as
of January
2000
CA750 /
NR
OHD004461711
X
Valid Code Not
Selected
CA725
OHD004461711
X
R 5/13/99
D 5/13/99
CA750
OHD042157644
X
R 9/30/98
D 3/18/99
CA725
OHD042157644
X
R 9/30/98
D 3/18/99
CA750
OHD981529688
X
R 1/6/99
D 3/18/99
CA725
OHD981529688
X
R 1/6/99
D 3/18/99
CA750
OHD004282158
X
D 3/5/99
CA725
OHD004282158
X
R 3/5/99
D 3/5/99
CA750
OHD052859170
X
D 3/5/99
CA725
OHD052859170
X
R 3/5/99
D 3/5/99
CA750
OHD068111327
X
D 3/8/99
83
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 5
Accuracy of Region 5 Positive EI Determinations
(Sampled Sites Only)
EI
Code
Facility ID
Number
Accurate
(Documentation
Matches
RCRIS)
Invalid
Determination
Inaccurate
Date in
RCRIS
EI Not in
RCRIS as
of January
2000
CA725
OHD068111327
X
R 3/5/99
D 3/8/99
CA750
IND072040348
X
R 5/12/99
D 5/12/99
CA725
IND072040348
X
R 5/11/99
D 5/11/99
CA725
IND984894527
X
R 11/12/99
D 11/12/99
CA725
ILD006278170
X
R 9/23/99
D 9/23/99
CA750
ILD005178975
X
R 9/30/99
D 9/30/99
R = RCRIS as of January 2000
D = EI document date
NR = No releases
84
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
APPENDIX 6
Accuracy of Region 6 Positive EI Determinations
(Sampled Sites Only)
EI
Code
Facility ID
Number
Accurate
(Documentation
Matches
RCRIS)
Invalid
Determination
Inaccurate
Date in
RCRIS
EI Not in
RCRIS as
of January
2000
CA750
TXD008113441
X
R 7/28/98
D 11/8/99
CA725
TXD008113441
X
R 7/28/98
D 11/8/99
CA750
TXD007333800
X
R 9/13/96
D 11/9/99
CA725
TXD007333800
X
R 9/13/96
D 11/9/99
R = RCRIS as of January 2000
D = EI document date
85
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
86 Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
Agency Response
APPENDIX 7
September 28, 2000
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: OIG Draft Report, "RCRA Corrective Action Focuses on Interim Results -
Improvements In Documentation and Future Focus on Final Cleanup Needed"
FROM: Timothy Fields, Jr. /s/
Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
TO: John T. Walsh
Divisional Inspector General for Audit
Office of Inspector General
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) has reviewed the subject
Office of Inspector General (OIG) report and the recommendations contained therein. The
purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with our feedback on the report. In general, we
find that the report accurately reflects the RCRA Corrective Action Program's current strategy of
focusing short-term implementation on two environmental indicators while still emphasizing the
ultimate goal of achieving final cleanups. Furthermore, we agree with all of the report's
recommendations, including those concerning documentation of environmental indicators and the
need to develop a "final cleanup" indicator with an ecological component.
OSWER would like to convey our appreciation for the significant effort the OIG staff put
into gathering information, developing findings and providing recommendations. Additionally, we
sincerely appreciate the time the OIG staff spent with us discussing early drafts and the significant
changes they incorporated based on our verbal suggestions. We have no additional comments on
this draft report, and we look forward to receiving the final report.
If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Robert Hall at (703)
308-8432.
cc: Anne Andrews
Robert Hall
Steve Heare
Tina Lovingood
87
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
88 Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
Report Distribution
APPENDIX 8
Inspector General
Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Internal Audits
Headquarters Audit Liaison (Dick Hall)
Headquarters Audit Liaison (Carol Jacobson)
Divisional Inspector Generals for Audit ( and sub-offices)
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Comptroller
Agency Follow-up Official
Agency Follow-up Coordinator
OECA Followup Coordinator (Greg Marion)
OSWER Followup Coordinator (Johnsie Webster)
Region 4 Audit Coordinator (Linda Barret)
Region 5 Audit Coordinator (Howard Levin)
Region 5 Audit Coordinator (Eric Levy)
Region 6 Audit Coordinator (Diane Taheri)
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Communications, Education, and Media Relations
Associate Administrator for Regional Operations
Steve Heare, OSWER (5303W)
Bob Hall, OSWER (5303W)
Henry Schuver, OSWER (5303W)
Linda Boornazian, OECA (2273A)
Paul Connor, OECA (2273A)
Neilima Senjalia, OECA (2273A)
Peter Neves, OECA (2273A)
Narindar Kumar, Region 4
Jeffrey Pallas, Region 4
Anna Torgrimson, Region 4
Gerald Phillips, Region 5
Hak Cho, Region 5
Karl Bremer, Region 5
George Hamper, Region 5
Stephen Gilrein, Region 6
Mark Potts, Region 6
William (Bill) Gallagher, Region 6
David Neleigh, Region 6
Laurie King, Region 6
Cathy Gilmore, Region 6
89
Report No. 2000-P-0028
-------
Report No. 2000-P-0028
------- |