£
<
3J
\
S7X
Ml
\
Lii
o
'-tv s?
PRO"^
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Evaluation Report
Superfund's Board of Directors
Needs to Evaluate Actions to
Improve the Superfund Program
Report No. 2007-P-00029
August "\, 2007
-------
Report Contributors:
Carolyn Copper
Tina Lovingood
Chad Kincheloe
Steve Hanna
Anne Emory
Jayne Lilienfeld-Jones
Mike Wagg
Abbreviations
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY
Fiscal Year
NPL
National Priorities List
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
TSD
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facility
-------
<
73
\
r"
^ PRCf**"
T>
2
UJ
a
-------
^1tDsrx
$ iJ-si, \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
| WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
August l, 2007
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Superfund's Board of Directors Needs to Evaluate Actions to Improve
the Superfund Program
Report No. 2007-P-00029
FROM:
Wade T. Najjum " ^ c 'J '
Assistant Inspector General
Office of Program Evaluation
/In.
nj
TO:
Susan Parker Bodine
Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Granta Nakayama
Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe
the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. The OIG
responded to the Agency's draft report comments by making changes to the report and providing
responses to EPA, as appropriate. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not
necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this report will
be made by EPA managers in accordance with established resolution procedures.
The estimated cost of this report - calculated by multiplying the project's staff days by the
applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time - is $246,015.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this
report within 90 calendar days. The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response should
coordinate EPA comments on this report and provide a consolidated response. Your response
-------
should include a corrective action plan including milestone dates. Please email an electronic
version of your response that complies with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act to Tina
Lovingood at lovingood.tina@epa.gov. We have no objections to the further release of this
report to the public. This report will be available at http://www.epa.gov/oig.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Carolyn Copper,
Director for Program Evaluation, Hazardous Waste Issues, at 202-566-0829 or
copper.carolyn@epa.gov; or Tina Lovingood, Project Manager, at 202-566-2906 or
lovingood.tina@epa.gov.
-------
Purpose
The purpose of this evaluation was to follow up on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) progress in responding to recommendations in its April 2004 report on the Superfund
program, Superfund: Building on the Past, Looking to the Future, known generally as the 120-
Day Study. Our evaluation followed up on three of the report's recommendations:
~ Recommendation 10: "OSWER [Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response]
should evaluate the history of NPL [National Priorities List] listings and removal actions
to determine what percentage] were RCRA [Resource Conservation and Recovery Act]
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities [TSDs] or hazardous waste generators and to
what extent these facilities present a continuing burden to the Superfund program."
~ Recommendation 11: "If the evaluation confirms a high correlation with RCRA-
regulated facilities, OSWER and OECA [Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance] should examine different approaches to financial assurance under the RCRA
program to reduce the likelihood of RCRA-regulated facilities becoming part of the
future Superfund universe."
~ Recommendation 12: "For facilities not covered under RCRA, OSWER should study
whether promulgating new regulations under CERCLA's [Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act's] broad financial assurance authorities could
reduce the future needs of the Superfund program."
We also followed up on Agency progress in responding to OIG Recommendation 4.1 from our
September 2005 report on RCRA financial assurance.1 The recommendation is closely related to
Recommendation 11 in the 120-Day Study. We recommended that OSWER develop and
communicate the EPA plan to address concerns with RCRA financial assurance regulations.
Background
The 120-Day Study (the Study) was an EPA-conducted review of the Superfund program. The
overall objective of the Study was to identify ways to make the Superfund program more
efficient so that the Agency could fund more cleanups with current resources. The Study was
requested by then Acting Deputy EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson. The final report made
102 recommendations for improving the Superfund program. In response to the Study, the
Acting Deputy EPA Administrator created the Superfund Board of Directors (the Board). The
Board's role is to prepare, coordinate, and execute action plans to address the report's
recommendations. The Assistant Administrators for OSWER and OECA co-chair the Board.
Scope and Methodology
We addressed the following questions. The questions address work that the Agency was to
complete in responding to Study Recommendations 10, 11, and 12.
1 Continued EPA Leadership Will Support State Needs for Information and Guidance on RCRA Financial
Assurance, Report Number 2005-P-00026, September 26, 2005.
1
-------
1. What progress and findings has the Agency made in compiling and analyzing information
on RCRA referrals to the Superfund program, to include those that have become NPL
sites? (Recommendation 10)
2. Where it has occurred, what are the causes for RCRA referrals to the Superfund
program? Do causes include inadequacies in RCRA financial assurance regulations, and
what is the status of EPA actions to correct these inadequacies? (Recommendation 11
from the Study and Recommendation 4.1 from the September 2005 OIG RCRA financial
assurance report)
3. What is the origin (e.g., non-RCRA Brownfield sites, previously unregulated private
party abandoned sites) of the sites on the NPL and what proportion is represented by
RCRA referrals? (Recommendation 12)
We performed preliminary research from June 2006 to November 2006. We applied
Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, to areas
within the scope of this review. We evaluated EPA's management controls over completing
recommendations 10, 11, and 12. We also evaluated EPA's reporting of selected other
recommendations. To address our objectives, we reviewed and analyzed financial assurance
regulations, documents, reports, and data. We conducted our work at EPA Headquarters.
Prior Evaluation Coverage
The OIG issued a report entitled Continued EPA Leadership Will Support State Needs for
Information and Guidance on RCRA Financial Assurance, Report Number 2005-P-00026, on
September 26, 2005. This report stated that:
• EPA does not have adequate data on financial assurance at hazardous waste TSDs regulated
under RCRA.
• State and EPA financial assurance officials need to improve communication mechanisms to
share financial assurance information.
• EPA needs to update guidance and needs to uniformly oversee State programs.
• States and EPA staff expressed concerns with aspects of the financial test and other financial
assurance mechanisms.
The OIG recommended (among other actions) that OSWER develop and communicate EPA's
plan for addressing concerns with financial assurance. EPA generally agreed with the OIG
recommendations. In October 2006, EPA provided us its plan.
Noteworthy Achievements
EPA has begun implementing its financial assurance plan. And, according to EPA, it has
accomplished 89 percent of the Study recommendations.2
2 According to the Agency it has completed 89 percent of 108 Study recommendations as of 1/31/07. Its action plan
contains 102 recommendations from the Study, including the 102 recommendations, and 6 additional "optional"
recommendations.
2
-------
Agency Progress in Addressing Recommendation 10
The Agency has completed its work on Recommendation 10. EPA evaluated the history of NPL
listings and removal actions to identify RCRA facilities and the extent to which these facilities
pose a continuing burden to the Superfund program. To determine this burden, OSWER staff
analyzed Superfund expenditure data from Fiscal Year (FY) 1981 through FY 2005.
The staff estimated that RCRA facilities account for 27 percent, or about $2.8 billion, of the NPL
site cleanup costs between FY 1981 and FY 2005. OSWER staff stated that these expenditures
are "not insignificant." The staff also studied the history of 40 TSDs proposed for listing to the
NPL after 1990.3 The staff wanted to determine the reasons for proposal and whether similar
types of facilities would be proposed to the NPL in the future. The staff concluded that the
environmental damage at most of these sites generally occurred before EPA began to regulate
TSDs. The sites' proposed listing to the NPL was not due to the failure of the RCRA regulatory
program. Rather, the proposed sites were marginal RCRA TSD facilities that were forced to
cease operations due to their inability to comply with RCRA requirements.
During fieldwork, we found that EPA had not completed the portion of Recommendation 10 that
directed EPA to analyze the history of Superfund removal actions to determine what percentage
were RCRA TSDs and to what extent these sites present a continuing burden to the Superfund
program. That EPA had not performed this analysis may have been due in part to the fact that
the last three action plans submitted by the Board (March and June 2006, and January 2007) did
not contain the actual language from Recommendation 10 to conduct this work. Subsequent to
issuing our draft report, the Agency provided documentation showing it had modified
Recommendation 10 in its tracking system to contain the language. The Agency also told us that
it did not interpret Recommendation 10 to require a separate analysis of removal action costs.
Despite that, and in response to OIG requests, EPA provided documentation to show that it had
conducted analysis of the potential costs of Superfund removal actions at TSDs. The Agency
concluded that removal action costs were small in comparison to NPL costs, and that its work
was complete on Recommendation 10.
Agency Progress in Addressing Recommendation 11
EPA's work on Recommendation 11 is complete. Recommendation 11 stated that if EPA found
a high correlation with RCRA-regulated facilities, EPA should examine approaches to RCRA
financial assurance to reduce the likelihood of the facilities becoming future Superfund sites. To
satisfy Recommendation 11, and OIG recommendation 4.1 in the 2005 OIG report on RCRA
financial assurance, OSWER provided the OIG with a detailed financial assurance action plan.
OSWER's plan comprehensively addresses the OIG recommendation and will be used by EPA
to perform followup activities to address RCRA financial assurance for Recommendation 11.
3 EPA selected the 40 sites because it believed these facilities would be good predictors of the types of RCRA
facilities that could be listed on the NPL in the future. By 1990, most of the significant 1984 Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments regulations were in place. The Superfund deferrals policy, which governs the types of RCRA
facilities proposed for the NPL, has not changed significantly since 1990.
3
-------
Agency Progress in Addressing Recommendation 12
The Agency is working to complete Recommendation 12. This recommendation stated that, for
non-RCRA facilities, EPA should study whether new regulations under CERCLA's financial
assurance authorities could reduce future Superfund resource needs. OSWER staff concluded
that obtaining accurate information for NPL sites would be resource-intensive. OSWER's
estimate to complete this recommendation is December 2007.
A necessary first step to address this recommendation would be to examine the origin and history
of Superfund sites. We attempted to do so by reviewing internal databases. However, without
further review of EPA files, the search failed to provide the information needed to answer our
objective. Therefore, we were unable to independently determine site origins.
Superfund Board of Directors Oversight of Action on 120-Day Study
Recommendations
We found that the Superfund Board of Directors had management controls to implement and
complete most Study recommendations. Some of the controls include a system that tracks the
progress on the recommendations and weekly management review of the progress. The Office
of Site Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) and OECA also include Study projects
and the completion milestones in performance standards for senior managers, where appropriate.
However, during fieldwork, we found that the Board lacked management controls4 to ensure
implementing and completing the Study recommendations. Management controls will ensure
that milestones are met or updated on a regular basis and completed work addresses the
recommendations.
The Board issued action plans for responding to the Study recommendations in September 2005,
and March and June 2006. The plans included completion dates, lead offices, and status of
actions for each recommendation. During our fieldwork, the completion dates for
Recommendations 11 and 12 in the June 2006 action plan had passed. We brought this point to
the attention of a Board representative and asked how the Board monitors planned completion
dates, follows up on missed completion dates, and when the action plan would be updated next.
We also asked for updated completion dates for Recommendations 11 and 12. The response
stated that the Board uses action plan updates to track the progress in completing the
recommendations and that, at that time, 82 percent of the recommendations had been completed.
We were told that changes in planned completion dates should be expected over time. We were
also told that the next update of the action plan would coincide with the next Board meeting.
The Board believed Recommendation 11 was complete and that Recommendation 12 would not
be completed until March 2007 (and as of this report date, December 2007). OSWER and
4 Examples of management controls include actions such as (1) verifying that the action plans correctly state the
Study recommendations, (2) regular progress updates on completing the action plans, (3) updating action plan
milestones when needed, (4) briefings to the Board on the specific actions or analysis taken to complete the
recommendations, and (5) confirmation of the completeness and responsiveness of the actions to the original Study
recommendation(s).
4
-------
OECA also told us EPA would update the action plan to correctly state Recommendation 10. In
January 2007, OSWER staff provided us an updated action plan. However, the recommendation
language had not been corrected.
After we issued our draft report, the Agency provided documentation showing it had modified
Recommendation 10 language in its tracking system. It also provided details on its "internal
checks and balances", or controls for completing Study recommendations.
Some Inconsistencies Between Agency Action Pians and Study
Recommendations
Because we initially found a difference between the way the Agency characterized
Recommendation 10 in its action plans, and the way it appeared in the Study, we compared how
the Agency characterized other Study recommendations. We found several instances in the
Agency's action plans where the recommendations were rephrased and key actions the Agency
was supposed to take were omitted. Examples include recommendations 35, 48, 51, 52, 92, and
93. Rephrasing the Study recommendations can modify the intent of the recommendation, the
Agency's action, and the results obtained.
Recommendations
We recommend the Superfund Board of Directors:
1. In coordination with appropriate lead offices, modify the Study Action Plan to correctly
state Recommendation 10 as it appears in the final Study.
2. In fiscal year 2008, review a sample of completed actions on the Study recommendations
to confirm that actions are complete and responsive to the original Study
recommendation(s). The sample should include recommendations 35, 48, 51, 52, 92,
and 93.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The OIG made changes to the report based on the Agency's comments where appropriate.
Appendix A provides the full text of the Agency comments and OIG response.
The agency agreed with recommendation 1 and completed corrective action. We consider
recommendation 1 closed in the Inspector General Operations and Reporting System. The
agency provided comments to recommendation 2 but did not agree or disagree. We revised
recommendation 2 to reflect the agency comments. In response to our final report, the Agency
will need to comment on the revised recommendation 2. We consider recommendation 2 open
and unresolved.
5
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (In $000s)
Rec.
No.
Page
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
In coordination with appropriate lead offices, modify
the Study Action Plan to correctly state
Recommendation 10 as it appears in the final
Study.
In fiscal year 2008, review a sample of completed
actions on the Study recommendations to confirm
that the actions are complete and responsive to the
original Study recommendation(s). The sample
should include recommendations 35,48, 51, 52,
92, and 93.
Superfund Board of
Directors
Superfund Board of
Directors
Planned
Completion
Date
Claimed
Amount
Agreed To
Amount
07/09/07
1 O = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending
C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed
U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress
6
-------
Appendix A
Agency Comments on Draft Report
and OIG Evaluation
May 21, 2006
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to OIG Evaluation Report "Superfund's Board of Directors Needs to
Better Oversee Completing Superfund Improvements" (April 20, 2007)
Assignment Number 2006-1413
FROM: Susan Parker Bodine/s/
Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Granta Nakayama/s/
Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
TO: Bill Roderick
Acting Assistant Inspector General
Office of the Inspector General
We appreciate the opportunity to respond to recommendations on your draft report
"Superfund's Board of Directors Needs to Better Oversee Completing Superfund
Improvements." This draft report was submitted to us on April 20, 2007. Comments were
provided on an earlier draft of that report on January 19, 2007.
Several areas of concern with the report's results and recommendations remain. First, we
have concluded that the analyses called for in the 120-Day Study Recommendations 10 and 11
are complete. We have included removal actions in our evaluation; however, we believe that
there is nothing to be gained from separating out costs associated with removal actions from
other activities. In addition, the Superfund Board of Directors has been overseeing the
completion of Superfund improvements. Specifically, the Board has been given progress
updates on the 120-Day Study in briefings and board members use their existing management
systems to oversee progress on implementing the 120 Day Study recommendations. Our specific
responses to the OIG recommendations are included in the attachment.
Attachment
7
-------
Response to OIG Evaluation Report "Superfund's Board of Directors Needs to Better
Oversee Completing Superfund Improvements" (April 20, 2007)
(Inserted into the table below by the OIG)
Table 1: EPA comments on OIG recommendations and OIG response
OIG Recommendation
OSRE or OSRTI Response
and/or Alternative
OIG Evaluation of Agency
Comments
The Superfund Board of
Directors in coordination
with appropriate lead
offices:
1. Modify the Study
Action Plan to
correctly state
Recommendation 10
as it appears in the
final Study.
The 120 Day Study, SUPERFUND:
Building on the Past, Looking to the
Future (April 2004) and the OSWER
120-Day Study Action Plan
(February 2005) have the same
language regarding
Recommendation 10. However,
OSWER's periodic 120-Day Study
Action Plan Status Reports do not.
We are planning to develop another
status report for a Superfund Board
of Director's meeting in June and we
will ensure the language in the next
120 Day Study status report contains
the same language that was used in
the original 120 Day Study
regarding Recommendation 10.
EPA agreed and completed this
action. We are closing this
recommendation upon final report
issuance in the Inspector General
Operations and Reporting System.
The Superfund Board of
Directors in coordination
with appropriate lead
offices:
2. Develop new
milestones to
complete work on
Recommendation 10
and 11; specifically,
the Board should
complete the
evaluation of the
history of Superfund
removal actions that
have occurred at
RCRA facilities.
The analysis conducted in response to
Recommendations 10 and 11 of the
120-Day Study is complete. Therefore,
we see no reason to update the
analysis, schedules, or milestones.
Specifically, Recommendation 10 of
the 120-Day Study asked OSWER to
"evaluate the history of National
Priorities List (NPL) listings and
removal actions to determine what
percent were RCRA treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities (TSDs) or
hazardous waste generators and to what
extent these facilities present a
continuing burden to the Superfund
program." OSWER evaluated sites in
two categories: Non-NPL and NPL.
The historical record of Superfund
removal actions have been assessed as
part of both of these categories.
OSWER concluded that 2.3% of the
The Agency disagreed with our
recommendation. It had interpreted
the Study differently than the OIG.
The Agency could have verified the
intent of the Study recommendation
with the Study leader. However, to
address our concerns, the Agency
provided some documentation to
show that it had conducted an
analysis of removal action
obligations, as expenditure data were
not available. Although the
obligations data has limited
applicability, the Agency said it is
the best data they could provide.
We are withdrawing this
recommendation from the final
report.
8
-------
Table 1: EPA comments on OIG recommendations and OIG response
OIG Recommendation
OSRE or OSRTI Response
and/or Alternative
OIG Evaluation of Agency
Comments
total universe of Non-NPL sites (which
includes non-NPL removal sites) were
potential TSDs. The costs associated
with these potential TSDs were $111
million, or 5.6% of the total Superfund
site-specific expenditures at Non-NPL
sites. In addition, EPA found that
5.1% of Non-NPL sites were identified
as hazardous waste generators; these
generators represent 9.5% of the total
Superfund site-specific expenditures at
Non-NPL sites. We note that dollar
figures in the Non-NPL category
include all site-specific expenditures at
all Non-NPL sites where removal
actions have occurred. Furthermore, as
noted below, removal costs at sites
proposed to, listed on, or deleted from
the NPL were included as part of the
analysis of the NPL category. Thus,
OSWER has fully captured site
information and all site-specific costs
associated with Superfund sites where
removal actions took place.
The analysis of site-specific
expenditures for NPL sites also
included both remedial and removal
actions. Specifically, our analysis
determined that 143 potential TSDs
were NPL sites, or 9% of the universe
of 1,562 final and deleted NPL sites.
Superfund site-specific expenditures at
these sites totaled $1.03 billion, or
9.8% of the $10.6 billion spent on NPL
sites (FY05 expenditure figures). The
analysis did not break out removal
actions/costs within the NPL site
summaries. This was not an omission.
Our reading of Recommendation 10
was to identify the number of sites and
costs associated with site-specific
Superfund work. Site work is often
9
-------
Table 1: EPA comments on OIG recommendations and OIG response
OIG Recommendation
OSRE or OSRTI Response
and/or Alternative
OIG Evaluation of Agency
Comments
conducted using a combination of both
remedial and removal actions. Because
remedial and removal actions are both
used to support actions at NPL sites,
distinguishing between them for NPL
sites neither inform decisions on nor
change conclusions drawn on the need
for financial assurance. Moreover,
combining remedial and removal
actions for NPL sites provides for a
more straightforward presentation of
results.
EPA did conduct a more detailed
analysis of 40 RCRA TSDs that were
listed or proposed for the NPL, but it
did not conduct a comparable analysis
of TSDs subject to removal actions
(except where those facilities were
within the NPL category). This more
detailed analysis did not address non-
NPL TSDs or hazardous waste
generators that underwent Removal
Actions, or hazardous waste generators
proposed to, listed on, or deleted from
the NPL. We noted this order of
magnitude difference in expenditures:
• The Superfund site-specific
expenditures associated with
potential RCRA TSDs and
hazardous waste generators that
became Non-NPL sites totaled
$298 million (combined);
• The Superfund expenditures
associated with potential former
TSDs and hazardous waste
generators that were proposed
to, listed on, or deleted from the
NPL totaled $2.84 billion
(combined).
Given the much larger amount spent at
10
-------
Table 1: EPA comments on OIG recommendations and OIG response
OIG Recommendation
OSRE or OSRTI Response
and/or Alternative
OIG Evaluation of Agency
Comments
NPL sites, we chose to focus on those
sites in order to evaluate the most
contaminated, costly group of TSD
sites (i.e., the NPL TSD sites). We do
not believe that analyzing an additional
set of lower cost facilities would
change our conclusion that the majority
of these Superfund expenditures were
used to address contamination that was
historical (pre-RCRA) in nature.
We believe that it makes more sense at
this time to put our resources into
implementing our financial assurance
plan. For example, on March 30, 2007,
the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER)
decided to initiate the Agency's Action
Development Process (ADP) to
determine whether regulatory changes
need to be made to the current RCRA
Subtitle C financial test regulations.
By starting this process, we will be
closely evaluating the current financial
test. During the initial exploratory
phase, we will develop and analyze a
full range of options, including
addressing the concerns that have been
raised through implementation
assistance.
The Superfund Board of
Directors in coordination
with appropriate lead
offices:
3. Develop and
implement
management controls
such as: a quarterly
schedule to receive
progress updates on
the completion of the
Study Action Plan,
As stated in previous correspondence,
OSWER and the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA), the Co-Chairs of
the Superfund Board of Directors,
disagree with the OIG's statement that
the "Superfund Board of Directors
lacks management controls to ensure
implementation and completion of the
120-Day Study recommendations."
Implementation of the 120-Day Study
recommendations is built upon the
EPA disagrees with this
recommendation, because the Agency
believes it has internal checks and
balances to assure accountability for
Study recommendations. At the exit
conference to discuss the draft report,
the Director for the Assessment and
Remediation Division, OSRTI, and the
Deputy Director for the Office of Site
Remediation and Enforcement and
their staffs provided details on the
"Internal checks and balances". Some
11
-------
Table 1: EPA comments on OIG recommendations and OIG response
OIG Recommendation
OSRE or OSRTI Response
and/or Alternative
OIG Evaluation of Agency
Comments
and requirements to
update action plan
milestones when
needed. Progress
updates should
include briefings to
the Board on the
specific actions or
analysis taken to
complete the
recommendations as
stated in the Study.
Agency's performance management
and accountability systems.
Responsibility for each
recommendation rests with one or more
Agency office with a single office
designated as the lead. The Board and
its Working Group (consisting of
senior managers of the organizations
represented by Board members)
comprise the major Superfund resource
stakeholders across the Agency.
Internal checks and balances to assure
accountability for Study
recommendations are provided through
the respective management chains of
the Working Group and Board of
Directors. The Board meets
periodically and is briefed on progress
against planned completion dates. As
you have stated in the draft report, 82
percent of the 102 recommendations
were completed by June 2006. A
January 2007 Update (attached), that
was reviewed by the Superfund Board
of Directors during a briefing on 5
February, indicates that 89 percent of
the recommendations were complete.
of the controls include a system that
tracks the progress on the
recommendations and weekly
management review of the progress.
OSRTI and OECA also include Study
projects and the completion milestones
in performance standards, where
appropriate. Staff briefs management
on progress so management can give
appropriate direction. We are
withdrawing this recommendation from
the final report.
The Superfund Board of
Directors in coordination
with appropriate lead
offices:
4. Select a sample of
completed actions on
the Study
recommendations to
confirm that the
actions are complete
and responsive to the
original Study
rec ommendation( s).
The sample should
include the examples
cited in the report.
We will present this recommendation
to the Superfund Board of Directors at
their next meeting in June 2007 and
discuss how the Agency should
approach this recommendation.
The Agency did not agree or disagree
with the recommendation, but indicated
that it will present the recommendation
to the Superfund Board of Directors
and discuss how the Agency should
approach this recommendation. In our
exit conference with the Agency, the
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
OEC A told us that the Board had
decided not to act on the OIG's
recommendation, due to resource
issues, until all the recommendations
from the Study are completed. The
Agency's January 31, 2007 action plan
indicates that all but one
recommendation will be completed at
12
-------
Table 1: EPA comments on OIG recommendations and OIG response
OIG Recommendation
OSRE or OSRTI Response
and/or Alternative
OIG Evaluation of Agency
Comments
the end of 2007. Therefore, we have
modified the recommendation to
address the Agency's resource concern.
In the Agency response to the final
report, the Agency will need to
consider the revised recommendation,
and develop an action plan, with
completion milestones, for this
recommendation.
13
-------
Appendix B
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Agency Followup Official (the CFO)
Agency Followup Coordinator
Director, Office of Site Remediation Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Deputy Director, Office of Site Remediation Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation
Director, Office of Site Remediation and Technology Innovation, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
Director, Office of Solid Waste, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Director, Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Site Remediation and
Technology Innovation, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Director, Regional Support Division, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Deputy Division Director, Regional Support Division, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Assistant Branch Chief, State and Tribal Site Identification Branch, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Acting Inspector General
14
------- |