<
33
\
^t0SrX
&
V PRO^4-0
o
2
Lll
o
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
2007-P-00026
June 6, 2007
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Review
We evaluated the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Superfund
Alternative (SA) sites
approach. This approach is
designed to help achieve
EPA's strategic goal of
cleaning up hazardous waste
sites.
Background
Since the 1980s, EPA has used
variations of the SA approach
to clean up Superfund
National Priorities List (NPL)
equivalent hazardous waste
sites. The SA approach is an
alternative to listing sites on
the NPL. The NPL is a list of
the Nation's highest priority
Superfund sites. Recent
reviews have reported
problems in EPA's managing
and implementing the SA
approach.
EPA Needs to Take More Action in
Implementing Alternative Approaches to
Superfund Cleanups
What We Found
EPA has not implemented effective management tools or controls for the SA
approach. For example, (1) EPA has not finalized the universe of SA sites, (2) it
does not have controls over designating SA sites in Superfund information
systems or documenting hazard assessments for SA sites, and (3) it only measures
results at SA sites for one of six Superfund cleanup measures. Until EPA
addresses these limits in management controls and makes these controls more
transparent, it cannot demonstrate outcomes and results of the SA approach.
These limits impede EPA's ability to make informed decisions about the merits
of, or need for, the approach. EPA also has not provided the public reasonable
assurance that SA sites rise to the level of NPL sites.
In the recent past, EPA has been criticized for mismanaging the SA approach.
External parties (including parties that participate in the SA approach) and an
internal EPA study report problems with the approach. These problems are likely
to continue until EPA addresses internal Agency recommendations to improve the
consistency and transparency of the approach. It is also likely to continue until
EPA addresses other management control weaknesses and develops a
communication strategy. This strategy should inform the public about SA sites,
the benefits of the SA approach, and community involvement opportunities at SA
sites. EPA had recognized improvements were necessary and is working to make
the approach more transparent and consistent.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional and Public
Liaison at (202) 566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2007/
20070606-2007-P-00026.pdf
What We Recommend
We recommend EPA track and report cleanup progress at SA sites, and improve
its communications, information, and transparency about the SA approach. EPA
generally concurred with the majority of the recommendations. However, it did
not provide sufficient information to describe how or when it would implement
them. The Agency will need to provide sufficient information on its actions to
address OIG recommendations within 90 days.

-------