x-^tD sT/\f.
*	> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	20-P-0011
i?	Y0	nf Incna^nr	October 24, 2019
.	u.o. CMViiuiiiiiciiidi riuieuu
	 \ Office of Inspector General
® I
At a Glance
Why We Did This Project
We evaluated whether the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) enforced
Potentially Responsible Parties'
(PRPs') compliance with EPA
Superfund Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) Response
Settlements and Unilateral
Response Orders.
Under its CERCLA authority,
the EPA can employ Superfund
enforcement instruments to
require PRPs to address
environmental contamination at
Superfund sites. The EPA is
responsible for enforcing the
terms specified in enforcement
instruments and for taking
action when violations occur.
The EPA monitors violations of
enforcement instruments when
the violations amount to
Substantial Noncompliance
(SNC).
This report addresses the
following:
• Cleaning up and
revitalizing land.
While EPA Regions Enforce at Six Superfund Sites Reviewed,
Four of Those Sites Remain in Significant Noncompliance, and
Nationwide Reporting and Tracking Can Be Improved
Address inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391 at
OIG WEBPOSTINGS@epa.gov.
List of OIG reports.
What We Found
EPA regions we reviewed were enforcing for
all six of our sampled sites. However, four of
those sites remained in significant
noncompliance. Additionally, the EPA's
ineffective tracking of SNC for Superfund
enforcement instruments limited headquarters'
ability to measure whether, and how well, the
regions were addressing noncompliance at
sites.
The effectiveness of EPA
headquarters' oversight of
enforcement at Superfund
sites was limited as
headquarters was not aware
of all SNCs and thus could
not assess adequacy of
regional actions.
As of May 2018, there were 1,625 active Superfund enforcement instruments
nationwide. The EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance was
aware of 50 enforcement instruments in SNC, which represented 3 percent of
active enforcement instruments, suggesting that 97 percent were in compliance.
However, that level of compliance for our sample was overstated, as four of the
six enforcement instruments we reviewed were erroneously coded as "Not in
SNC" when they should have been coded as "In SNC." We found that the
guidance for tracking and monitoring noncompliance allows for overly subjective
determinations of SNCs, and EPA headquarters did not use the compliance
reports to thoroughly monitor compliance with enforcement instruments
nationally.
Headquarters oversight is critical in cases where PRPs have liabilities in more
than one region. Without appropriate oversight, headquarters' awareness of all
PRP liabilities and possible inabilities to pay for cleanup is limited. This situation
could lead to increased expenditures from the Superfund trust fund to pay for
cleanups, resulting in less Superfund money being available for other sites.
Cleanups can also be delayed when negotiations slow or stall, thereby extending
human health exposures.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance revise guidance on the tracking and monitoring of SNC
to better define "In SNC" and "Not in SNC"; require correction of SNC status
where designations are inaccurate; communicate to regions the clarified
guidance on proper designations of SNC and how to report them; remind regions
to correct and update compliance data as appropriate for all active enforcement
instruments; and develop, document and assign the roles and responsibilities of
headquarters staff for oversight of monitoring noncompliance with Superfund
enforcement instruments. The agency agreed with the recommendations, which
are resolved with corrective actions pending.

-------