CUSTOMER SERVICE * INTEGRITY ~ ACCOUNTABILITY
Cleaning up and revitalizing land
The Coronavirus Pandemic
Caused Schedule Delays,
Human Health Impacts, and
Limited Oversight at
Superfund National
Priorities List Sites
Report No. 22-E-0049
June 23, 2022
-------
Report Contributors:
Ben Beeson
Dwayne Crawford
Tina Lovingood
Brenda Vazquez-Fuentes
Bruce Woods
Abbreviations:
C.F.R.
Code of Federal Regulations
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NPL
National Priorities List
OIG
Office of Inspector General
RPM
Remedial Project Manager
U.S.C.
United States Code
Cover Image: The SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes the COVID-19 disease. The coronavirus
pandemic prolonged human health and environmental exposure to
contaminated sites. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention image)
Are you aware of fraud, waste, or abuse in an
EPA program?
EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)
Washington, D.C. 20460
(888) 546-8740
(202) 566-2599 (fax)
OIG Hotline@epa.gov
Learn more about our OIG Hotline.
EPA Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 566-2391
www.epa.gov/oiq
Subscribe to our Email Updates.
Follow us on Twitter @EPAoiq.
Send us your Project Suggestions.
-------
Office of Inspector General
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
At a Glance
22-E-0049
June 23, 2022
Why We Did This Evaluation
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of
Inspector General conducted this
evaluation in an effort to
determine the impact of the
coronavirus pandemic—that is,
the SARS-CoV-2 virus and
resultant COVID-19 disease—on
long-term cleanups at Superfund
National Priorities List sites. We
sent surveys to 457 remedial
project managers in
February 2021 and received
279 responses, a 61-percent
response rate. We also
interviewed EPA regional
Superfund and Emergency
Management Division directors,
as well as directors from EPA
headquarters.
The Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act,
informally called Superfund,
authorizes the EPA to oversee
the cleanup of contaminated
sites. The National Priorities List
identifies the worst hazardous
waste sites that warrant further
investigation and cleanup.
This evaluation supports an
EPA mission-related effort:
• Cleaning up and revitalizing land.
This evaluation addresses a top
EPA management challenge:
• Integrating and leading
environmental justice, including
communicating risks.
Address inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391 or
OIG WEBCOMMENTS@epa.gov.
List of OIG reports.
The Coronavirus Pandemic Caused Schedule Delays,
Human Health Impacts, and Limited Oversight at
Superfund National Priorities List Sites
Coronavirus pandemic restrictions
delayed work and limited on-site
oversight, with disproportionate
impacts to some communities.
What We Found
The coronavirus pandemic caused
schedule delays and changed or
extended the exposure of human health
and ecological receptors to hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants
at 31 Superfund National Priorities List, or NPL, sites. The pandemic also
prolonged such human health and environmental exposures, as well as
contributed to disproportionate impacts on some communities. Furthermore,
some communities that do not use or cannot access electronic communications
were unable to participate in community-involvement activities. Conversely, the
pandemic did steer some positive changes, such as improved health and safety
protocols, increased community participation in virtual meetings, and reduced
EPA travel costs. Also, as of our February 2021 survey, there were no known
impacts to cleanup costs at a large majority of Superfund NPL sites.
The remedial project managers, or RPMs, responding to our survey said that
their oversight of Superfund NPL site work was limited, in part, by the EPA's
pandemic-related restrictions, even while some contractors and other parties
responsible for cleanup were able to continue work. Further, some regional
managers were unable to deploy RPMs to perform nonemergency yet
mission-critical work without undergoing a burdensome, undocumented process
to obtain headquarters approval for the provision of coronavirus testing and
supplies. RPMs were deployed to assist with emergency responses, however.
Most pandemic impacts we identified were caused by social-distancing
requirements and site-access limitations, such as EPA travel restrictions and
local stay-at-home orders. Other impacts were caused by the EPA's change to
virtual modes of communication. Also, at the time of our regional management
interviews, the EPA lacked updated guidance that was consistent with an
executive order related to providing coronavirus testing and vaccines.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We made three recommendations to improve community involvement,
Superfund site oversight, and safe deployment of RPMs during a pandemic or
other emergency. Based on additional information provided by the Agency in its
response to the draft report, we revised Recommendation 1. We agreed with the
Agency's proposed corrective action for Recommendation 3, which is resolved.
Recommendations 1 and 2 are unresolved with resolution efforts underway. We
updated our report as appropriate based on the EPA's technical comments.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
June 23, 2022
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: The Coronavirus Pandemic Caused Schedule Delays, Human Health Impacts, and
This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The project number for this evaluation was QE-FY21-0050. This
report contains findings that describe the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG
recommends. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance
with established audit resolution procedures.
Multiple offices share responsibility for the issues raised in our report, including the Office of Land and
Emergency Management; the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance; the Office of Mission
Support; the Office of the Administrator; and the Office of Environmental Justice, which is within the
Office of the Administrator.
The findings in this report are not binding in any enforcement proceeding brought by the EPA or the
U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act.
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, your office provided an acceptable planned corrective action and
estimated milestone date in response to Recommendation 3. This recommendation is resolved with
corrective action pending.
Action Required
Recommendations 1 and 2 are unresolved. EPA Manual 2750 requires that recommendations be resolved
promptly. Therefore, we request that the EPA provide us within 60 days its responses concerning specific
actions in process or alternative corrective actions proposed on the recommendations. Your response will
be posted on the OIG's website, along with our memorandum commenting on your response. Your
response should be provided as an Adobe PDF file that complies with the accessibility requirements of
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The final response should not contain data
that you do not want to be released to the public; if your response contains such data, you should identify
the data for redaction or removal along with corresponding justification. The Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended, requires that we report in our semiannual reports to Congress on each audit or
evaluation report for which we receive no Agency response within 60 calendar days.
Limited Oversight at Superfund National Priorities List Sites
Report No. 22-E-0049
FROM: Sean W. O'Donnell
TO:
Janet McCabe, Deputy Administrator
Barry Breen, Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Land and Emergency Management
We will post this report to our website at www.epa.gov/oig.
-------
The Coronavirus Pandemic Caused Schedule
Delays, Human Health Impacts, and Limited
Oversight at Superfund National Priorities List Sites
22-E-0049
Table of C
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Responsible Offices 5
Scope and Methodology 6
Prior Report 7
2 The Coronavirus Pandemic Impacted Long-Term Cleanups at Superfund Sites 8
The Coronavirus Pandemic Caused Schedule Delays at Superfund Sites 8
The Coronavirus Pandemic Impacted 31 Superfund Sites by Changing
or Extending Human Health and Ecological Exposures 10
The Coronavirus Pandemic Disproportionately Impacted Some Communities 11
The Coronavirus Pandemic Had Limited Impact on Known Cleanup Costs 12
Although Some Work Continued, the EPA's Response to the Coronavirus
Pandemic Curbed Oversight at Superfund Sites 12
Conclusions 17
Recommendations 17
Agency Response and OIG Assessment 18
Status of Recommendations 19
Appendixes
A Superfund RPM Survey 20
B Agency Response to OIG Draft Report 27
C Distribution 31
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Inspector General initiated this evaluation to
determine the impact of the coronavirus pandemic—that is, the SARS-CoV-2 virus and resultant
COVID-19 disease—on long-term cleanup activities at Superfund National Priorities List, or NPL, sites.
This evaluation involved a survey of remedial project managers, or RPMs, as well as interviews with
regional management and headquarters management from the EPA's Office of Land and Emergency
Management and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
Top Management Challenge Addressed
This evaluation addresses the following top management challenge for the Agency, as identified in OIG
Report No. 22-N-0004. EPA's Fiscal Year 2022 Top Management Challenges, issued November 12, 2022:
• Integrating and leading environmental justice, including communicating risks.
Background
The Coronavirus Pandemic
Since it emerged in December 2019, the coronavirus has caused millions of deaths worldwide, as well as
lasting health problems in some who have survived the disease. The coronavirus can be spread from
person to person and is diagnosed with a laboratory or at-home test. Coronavirus vaccines have been
authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and vaccination programs have been established
across the United States. According to the Johns Hopkins Medicine "What Is Coronavirus" webpage,
prevention involves physical distancing, wearing masks, washing hands, and staying away from others if
one feels ill.
The EPA's Superfund Program
Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act in 1980.
Informally called Superfund, this Act authorizes the EPA to oversee the cleanup of contaminated sites. It
also authorizes the EPA to compel the parties responsible for the contamination to either perform the
cleanups or reimburse the government for EPA-led cleanup work. When there is no viable responsible
party, Superfund gives the EPA the funds and authority to clean up contaminated sites.
The EPA's Superfund program is responsible for cleaning up some of the nation's most contaminated
land and responding to environmental emergencies, oil spills, and natural disasters. Superfund
authorizes cleanup activities, including:
• Short-term removal actions to address releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances
requiring prompt response.
22-E-0049
1
-------
• Long-term remedial actions to permanently and significantly reduce the dangers associated with
releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances that are serious but not immediately
life-threatening. EPA-led remedial actions can be conducted only at sites listed on the NPL, which
identifies the sites of national priority among the known releases or threatened releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The NPL is primarily an information resource
that lists the worst hazardous waste sites that warrant further investigation and cleanup.
During the cleanup process, a Superfund site can be divided into several distinct subareas, called
operable units, to make the response more efficient. Operable units may be organized based on
geography, specific site problems, or areas requiring specific action. As directed by 40 C.F.R. § 300.120,
the EPA's RPMs are responsible for managing cleanup activities at Superfund NPL sites. The RPM
coordinates, directs, and reviews the work of all parties involved in the cleanup—including the EPA,
state and local governments, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and any other agencies and
contractors—to make sure they comply with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan regulations.
Per 42 U.S.C. § 9617, Superfund requires the EPA to solicit public participation in the long-term cleanup
process by publishing a notice and brief analysis of a proposed remedial action plan, as well as allowing
for the submission of written and oral comments and the opportunity for a public meeting on the
proposed plan. Cleanup activities cannot proceed until certain community-involvement activities are
completed. The EPA has established policy objectives for "community relations" to inform and
encourage public participation in the Superfund process and to respond to community concerns.1 In
addition, the EPA's Superfund Community Involvement
Handbook, dated March 2020, states that the EPA
should conduct early, frequent, and meaningful
community involvement as a way to keep the public
well-informed of ongoing and planned activities;
encourage and enable the public to get involved;
consider changing planned actions after deliberation
of public comments or concerns; and explain EPA
decisions to community members.
During a crisis event like the coronavirus pandemic,
oversight of long-term cleanup actions at Superfund
NPL sites may be impacted, and work may be delayed,
especially if EPA or contractor personnel cannot travel
to sites. This lack of site access may not only result in a
delayed response to emergencies, such as a failed
pump-and-treat system or disrupted engineering
controls for a drinking water supply, but may also
impact other oversight activities. For example, it could
hinder community notification of emergencies,
potentially leading to or prolonging human exposure
to contaminants.
Community Relations
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan requires that certain community-
relations activities be accomplished prior to
commencing fieldwork or remedial investigations,
including:
• Conducting interviews with local officials,
community residents, public interest groups, or
other interested or affected parties, as
appropriate, to solicit their concerns and
information needs, as well as to learn how and
when citizens would like to be involved in the
Superfund process.
• Preparing a formal community relations plan,
based on the community interviews and other
relevant information, which specifies
the community-relations activities expected to
be undertaken during the remedial response.
• Establishing at least one local information
repository at or near the location of
the response action.
• Informing the community of the availability of
technical assistance grants.
— National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(c)(2)
140 C.F.R. § 300.5, National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. See green sidebar for a
description of community relations requirements.
22-E-0049
2
-------
Executive Orders and Federal Guidance
As depicted in Figure 1, executive orders and EPA guidance documents have guided Superfund cleanup
work during the coronavirus pandemic.2
Figure 1: Federal directives assisting Superfund cleanup work, March 2020-December 2021
- MAR
c
- APR
n
- MAY
I
JUNE
¦ I
° - JULY
8 I '
- AUG
I
- SEPT
I
OCT
I
NOV
I
- DEC
I
JAN
I
-• March 9, 2020: EPA headquarters and regions begin maximum telework.
-• March 26, 2020: The EPA issues COVID-19 Implications for EPA's
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program memorandum.
"I * April 10, 2020: The EPA publishes Interim Guidance on Site Field
Work Decisions Due to Impacts of COVID-19 memorandum.
DEC
-• April 21, 2020: The EPA publishes Interim Health and Safety
Guidelines Related to COVID-19 for Conducting Superfund Site Work.
July 6, 2020: The EPA publishes Interim EPA COVID-19 Health and Safety Guidance
for Field Activities.
January 20, 2021: President Biden signs Executive Order on Protecting the
Federal Workforce and Requiring Mask-Wearing and Executive Order on
Organizing and Mobilizing the United States Government to Provide a Unified
and Effective Response to Combat COVID-19 and to Provide United States
Leadership on Global Health and Security.
February 2021: The EPA COVID-19 Workplace Safety Plan is issued.
December 15, 2021: The EPA COVID-19 Workplace Safety Plan is revised.
Source: OIG summary of executive orders and EPA policies. (EPA OIG image)
Executive Orders and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guidance
On January 20, 2021, President Joseph R. Biden Jr. issued two executive orders relating to the federal
workforce's response to the coronavirus pandemic:
• Executive Order on Organizing and Mobilizing the United States Government to Provide a Unified and
Effective Response to Combat COVID-19 and to Provide United States Leadership on Global Health
and Security, which provided for "coordinating the Federal Government's efforts to produce,
supply, and distribute personal protective equipment, vaccines, tests, and other supplies for the
Additional executive orders and federal guidance responding to the coronavirus pandemic continued to be
released and updated. Several executive orders were incorporated in the EPA COVID-19 Workplace Safety Plan,
revised December 2021.
22-E-0049
3
-------
Nation's COVID-19 response, including through the use of the Defense Production Act, as
amended."
• Executive Order on Protecting the Federal Workforce and Requiring Mask-Wearing, which states:
The heads of executive departments and agencies ... shall immediately take
action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to require
compliance with CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidelines
with respect to wearing masks, maintaining physical distance, and other
public health measures by: on-duty or on-site Federal employees; on-site
Federal contractors; and all persons in Federal buildings or on Federal lands.
In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provided guidance for domestic travel during
the coronavirus pandemic. It revised this guidance on April 27, 2021, to address unvaccinated people.
This guidance recommends pre- and posttravel coronavirus testing.
EPA Guidance
The EPA issued multiple guidance documents to facilitate Superfund cleanup work, including guidance on
the oversight of cleanups and guidance on health, safety, and fieldwork during the coronavirus pandemic:
• COVID-19 Implications for EPA's Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program memorandum.
dated March 26, 2020, which stated that under certain conditions the EPA will exercise
enforcement discretion for noncompliance resulting from the coronavirus pandemic. For example,
the EPA was not expecting:
[T]o seek penalties for violations of routine compliance monitoring, integrity
testing, sampling, laboratory analysis, training, and reporting or certification
obligations in situations where the EPA agrees that COVID-19 was the cause of
the noncompliance and the entity provides supporting documentation to the
EPA upon request.
This memorandum was retroactively applied and effective from March 13 through August 31,
2020.
• Interim Guidance on Site Field Work Decisions Due to Impacts of COVID-19, dated April 10, 2020,
to help management determine whether to pause or continue work at Superfund sites.
• Interim Health and Safety Guidelines Related to COVID-19 for Conducting Superfund Site Work,
dated April 21, 2020, to address the protection of RPMs, including medical clearance;
deployment considerations; site safety; recording workplace exposure to the coronavirus;
travel-related issues; and other considerations, such as reducing exposure by avoiding groups
and practicing social distancing by maintaining a 6-foot distance from other individuals.
• Interim EPA COVID-19 Health and Safety Guidance for Field Activities, dated July 6, 2020, to
further address the protection of RPMs, including respiratory protection, safety training,
medical clearance for field activities, and pretravel considerations.
• EPA COVID-19 Workplace Safety Plan, originally dated February 2021 and revised in
December 2021, to outline the EPA's plan for managing the coronavirus pandemic. This plan
provides a framework to ensure that the EPA's policies and practices are in line with guidance
22-E-0049
4
-------
issued by the Office of Management and Budget, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
and other federal agencies. The plan addresses telework, the use of face masks, coronavirus
testing, travel for mission-critical work, contact tracing, potential exposure while on temporary
duty, symptom monitoring, quarantine and isolation, confidentiality, and workplace operations.
According to the EPA's Interim Guidance on Site Field Work Decisions Due to Impacts of COVID-19, the
EPA makes decisions about on-site activities on a case-by-case basis, with the following priorities:
• Protecting the health and safety of the public, as well as maintaining the health and safety of
EPA staff and cleanup partners. Integral to the protection of health and safety is the adherence
to any federal, state, tribal, or local health declarations and restrictions, to the extent possible.
• Maintaining the EPA's ability to prevent and respond to environmental emergencies or any
situation necessary to protect public health and welfare and the environment.
Responsible Offices
Multiple offices share responsibility for the issues raised in our report:
• The Office of Land and Emergency Management manages the EPA's Superfund program.
Regional Superfund and Emergency Management Divisions identify, investigate, and clean up
contaminated sites and protect public health and the environment from releases of hazardous
substances.
• The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance addresses pollution problems that impact
American communities through civil and criminal enforcement that targets the most serious
water, air, and chemical hazards. The office advances environmental justice by protecting those
communities most vulnerable to pollution. The office works with EPA regional offices, as well as
in partnership with state and tribal governments and other federal agencies, to enforce the
nation's environmental laws.
• The Office of Mission Support provides critical resources, tools, solutions, and support services
that enable the EPA to protect human health and the environment. This office also provides
health and safety management for the EPA workforce.
• The Office of the Administrator provides executive and logistical support for the EPA
administrator and supports the leadership of the EPA's programs and activities to protect
human health and the environment. The administrator is responsible for implementing the
executive orders discussed in this report.
• The Office of Environmental Justice, within the Office of the Administrator, coordinates the
EPA's efforts to address the needs of vulnerable populations by decreasing environmental
burdens; increasing environmental benefits; and working collaboratively to build healthy,
sustainable communities. This office provides financial and technical assistance to communities
working constructively and collaboratively to address environmental justice issues. The Office of
Environmental Justice works with local, state, and federal governments; tribal governments;
community organizations; business and industry; and academia to establish partnerships
seeking to achieve protection from environmental and health hazards for all people regardless
22-E-0049
5
-------
of race, color, national origin, or income. Some of these responsibilities intersect with the
findings in this report.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted this evaluation from January 2021 through March 2022, in accordance with the Quality
Standards for Inspection and Evaluation published in January 2012 by the Council of the Inspectors
General on Integrity and Efficiency. Those standards require that we plan and perform the evaluation to
obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations based on our review objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
To answer our objective, we reviewed EPA remedial actions, documents, regulations, executive orders,
and guidance from March 2020 through July 2021. We sent a survey to 457 RPMs, whose names we
obtained from staff in the Office of Land and Emergency Management. The survey was open from
February 5 through February 24, 2021. Appendix A presents the text of the survey. We received
279 responses, a 61-percent response rate.3 The RPM responses addressed up to 479 different operable
units at 343 Superfund sites. Not all RPMs who responded to our survey answered all the questions for
all the operable units they oversee, and not every question received the same number of responses.
Rather, RPMs focused on the operable units they oversee that were impacted by the coronavirus
pandemic.
As shown in Table 1, we received survey responses involving 343 Superfund sites, including 298 sites that
were listed on the NPL, one of which was identified to us as being on the NPL after we administered our
survey; six sites that were proposed for the NPL; 28 sites that were previously listed on but have since
been deleted from the NPL; and 11 other sites. The 11 "other" sites were identified as being NPL-caliber—
in other words, they were not on the NPL but have similar risks and complexities as sites on the NPL. Some
of these 11 sites were being addressed under EPA enforcement actions. Interview responses also
encompassed some contaminated sites that were NPL-caliber but not on the Superfund NPL. For the
purposes of this report, however, we refer to all of these sites collectively as Superfund NPL sites.
Table 1: NPL status of sites addressed in survey responses
Site was:
Number of sites
Listed on NPL
298
Proposed for NPL
6
Previously listed but since deleted from NPL
28
Either NPL-caliber but not listed on NPL
or under EPA enforcement action
11
Total
343
Source: OIG analysis of NPL data. (EPA OIG table)
We interviewed Superfund and Emergency Management Division directors and other management from
all EPA regions except Regions 1 and 3. For the purposes of this report, we refer to these directors and
managers collectively as regional management or regional managers. We also interviewed managers
and staff from EPA headquarters in the Office of Land and Emergency Management's Office of
3 We received survey responses from 277 RPMs and two other EPA staff. For simplicity, however, we hereafter
refer to the survey responses as being from RPMs.
22-E-0049
6
-------
Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, and the Office of Mission Support about their perspectives on the impacts of the coronavirus
pandemic on long-term cleanup efforts at Superfund sites.
While our survey was conducted in February 2021, the Agency's management of safety protocols has
continued to evolve throughout the pandemic. We have done our best to reflect this rapidly changing
environment in our report, specifically as it relates to our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
Also, this report may not reflect the full impact of the pandemic on the Superfund program, as not all
RPMs responded to the survey.
Prior Report
OIG Report No. 20-E-0332, EPA Has Sufficiently Managed Emergency Responses During the Pandemic
but Needs to Procure More Supplies and Clarify Guidance, issued September 28, 2020, found that EPA
regions sufficiently protected human health and the environment by responding to emergencies or
assisting in emergency responses during the coronavirus pandemic. In addition, the Agency took some
initial measures to protect its on-scene coordinators. However, the on-scene coordinators who
responded to an OIG survey conducted for that evaluation expressed concerns that the EPA did not
provide sufficient protective measures or effectively manage its emergency responses. We
recommended that the EPA implement a strategy to provide necessary personal protective equipment
and cleaning supplies to on-scene coordinators, including N95 masks; develop communications
mechanisms to address the safety concerns of on-scene coordinators; clarify its coronavirus pandemic
guidance; and provide COVID-19 tests to on-scene coordinators being deployed. As of May 9, 2022,
three of the report's four recommendations were closed with corrective actions completed, while one
recommendation was resolved with corrective actions pending.
22-E-0049
7
-------
Chapter 2
The Coronavirus Pandemic Impacted
Long-Term Cleanups at Superfund Sites
The coronavirus pandemic caused schedule delays and changed or extended exposures of human health
and ecological receptors to hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants at 31 Superfund NPL
sites.4 In addition, the pandemic prolonged such human health and environmental exposures, as well as
contributed to disproportionate impacts on some communities. Furthermore, some communities that
do not use or cannot access electronic communications were unable to participate in
community-involvement activities. Conversely, the pandemic did steer some positive changes, such as
improvements to health and safety protocols; increases in participation in virtual community meetings;
and savings in EPA travel costs. Also, as of our February 2021 survey, there were no known impacts to
cleanup costs at a large majority of Superfund NPL sites.
The RPMs who responded to our survey said that their oversight of work at Superfund NPL sites was
limited, in part, by the EPA's pandemic-related restrictions, even while some contractors and other
parties responsible for cleanup were able to continue work. For example, some regional managers were
unable to deploy RPMs to perform nonemergency yet mission-critical work without undergoing a
burdensome, undocumented process each time to obtain headquarters approval for the provision of
coronavirus testing and supplies.
Most pandemic impacts we identified were caused by social-distancing requirements and site-access
limitations, such as EPA travel restrictions, local stay-at-home orders and quarantine restrictions, or a
lack of permission from local or tribal governments for the EPA to access areas to conduct needed work.
Other impacts were caused by the EPA's change to virtual modes of communication and, at the time of
our regional management interviews, the EPA's lack of updated guidance consistent with an executive
order to provide coronavirus testing and vaccines for RPMs to conduct mission-critical work.
The Coronavirus Pandemic Caused Schedule Delays at Superfund Sites
RPMs reported that the coronavirus pandemic caused schedule delays at Superfund NPL sites. As Figure 2
shows, RPMs reported that 31 percent (147 of 479) of operable units experienced schedule delays of
greater than one month because of travel restrictions alone. Figure 2 also lists other pandemic-related
factors that impacted the work schedules for Superfund cleanups. In early April 2020, the Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation began tracking delays in remedial activities and
reductions in construction activity at Superfund sites. The office reported that the maximum number of
delays or reductions occurred in April 2020, with 110 across 81 sites. The number of delays and reduced
construction activity then subsided, with the office reporting just 14 across ten sites in January 2021
(Figure 3).
4 A human health receptor is either an individual with the potential to be exposed to a chemical in environmental
media or a specific organ or group of cells interacting with a delivered dose of an agent within the body. Per EPA
540-R-97-006, Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological
Risk Assessments, dated June 1997 (interim final), ecological receptors are "plant and animal populations and
communities, habitats, and sensitive environments."
22-E-0049
8
-------
Figure 2: Impact of coronavirus pandemic on cleanup schedules for Superfund operable units
157
251 B Delays greater than one month
Delayed contractor access to site
Travel restrictions precluded access to site
50
147
282
Delays less than one month
i No schedule changes
Social distancing restrictions " 36
Other reasons for delay B 14
50
46
Labs closed or delayed 37
¦ 13
Tested positive for COVID-19 j 44
10
COVID-19 testing not available 7
367
415
396
422
462
Insufficient personal protective equipment 7
1
Lack of access to sanitizers 2
465
476
Source: OIG analysis of RPM survey responses by operable unit. (EPA OIG image)
Figure 3: Delayed or reduced remedial actions at Superfund sites, April 2020-January 2021
120
100
¦o
a)
£
a
<_
"D
-
(U
80
60
40
^ 20
"D
_Q
E
3
OJ > >
IS fl! ID
olrJoJiNrjfNOJrJfN
C C C C ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
< < <
r-* -sT
T-l 00
oJ r-J
fO rl 03 m
(N <71 ro
rj m U)
J psj I T—I OJ
9 9
tH 00
oJ (N cni rJ
> c c
o ro cd
Source: OIG analysis of Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation data. (EPA OIG image)
+ After October 15, 2020, regions were asked to submit data only when a status changed.
22-E-0049
9
-------
The schedule delays were a result of decisions made by headquarters and regional managers, who had
to balance the risks of sending RPMs to Superfund sites during a pandemic with the risks to surrounding
communities if the pace of Superfund cleanup work slowed. Managers often decided to scale back travel
to address only critical needs. In addition, managers focused on on-site construction and chose to
accomplish other activities remotely, such as design work and meetings. Regional and headquarters
management also emphasized a risk-balancing approach to address the safety of community members
and staff, and indoor work was often delayed to avoid potentially exposing RPMs and community
members to the coronavirus. For example, one region delayed indoor plumbing hookups that would
provide potable water to replace contaminated water sources. Another region stated that entering
houses to sample vapor intrusion was difficult to justify given the pandemic-related risks, reporting that
vapor-intrusion evaluations at a federal facility were delayed because the facility's occupants did not
feel safe.
Regional management weighed other factors when considering whether to deploy RPMs, including local
travel restrictions, local hospital room availability, local hotel and restaurant availability, and the risk of
RPMs spreading the coronavirus from their departure locations to the Superfund sites and vice versa.
Regional management noted that local travel restrictions and local government orders often required
everyone to stay home and closed all but essential businesses. Limitations on travel, however, did result
in cost savings for the EPA since travel funds were often not spent.
The Coronavirus Pandemic Impacted 31 Superfund Sites by Changing
or Extending Human Health and Ecological Exposures
RPMs reported that the coronavirus pandemic changed or extended exposures of human health and
ecological receptors to hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants at 38 operable units across
31 Superfund sites. Specifically, RPMs reported that 26 operable units experienced changes or
extensions of only human health impacts, seven operable units experienced changes or extensions to
both human health and ecological impacts, and five operable units experienced changes or extensions
to only ecological impacts (Figure 4). For example, delaying indoor activities such as vapor-intrusion
monitoring, water sampling, or lead-dust cleanup could lead to prolonged exposure of residents to
hazardous chemicals at some sites.
Figure 4: Sites experienced human and ecological impacts
38 operable
units
at 31 Superfund sites
had human health and
ecological impacts due
to the coronavirus
pandemic.
I
26 operable units had human health impacts /i
7 operable units had both human health and
ecological impacts
5 operable units had ecological impacts AI
Source: OIG analysis of RPM survey data. (EPA OIG image)
22-E-0049
10
-------
The Coronavirus Pandemic Disproportionately Impacted Some
Communities
Regional management and RPMs also provided evidence that some communities faced disproportionate
impacts related to the COVID-19 disease, communication methods, and cultural or religious practices.
The choice of communication methods affected required community-involvement activities. An analysis
of data reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggested that American Indian and
Alaska Native people have suffered a disproportionate burden of COVID-19 illnesses during the
pandemic—3.5 times the cumulative incidence among non-Hispanic White persons.5 One regional
manager reported observing the severe health impact
on these communities and said that some tribes
closed their borders to address the crisis. Without
access to sites on tribal lands, the EPA and tribes had
little choice but to stop cleanup work at sites. Also,
because of local stay-at-home orders and a cessation
of in-person community-involvement activities, tribes
often could not participate in the Superfund cleanup
process. Without community participation, the
cleanup work could not proceed. For example, the
EPA and the community were ready to discuss the
remedy to clean up the abandoned uranium mines on
Navajo Nation tribal lands when the coronavirus
pandemic began. As a result, that work halted.
Other remote, nontribal communities did not want
EPA contractors to visit during the pandemic, which
postponed Superfund work. In addition, communities
that do not use or cannot access electronic communication methods for religious, cultural, or geographic
reasons—such as tribal, Amish, Mennonite, and rural communities—were disproportionately impacted
by the pandemic. Communities without sufficient internet access or with language barriers were
impacted as well. These communities could not participate in the cleanup process because they were
unable to participate in the community-involvement process activities, which moved to virtual platforms
as a result of the pandemic. This lack of community involvement delayed cleanup work.
In their survey responses, the majority (149 of 208) of RPMs confirmed that they were able to conduct
the community-involvement activities required by Superfund and the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; however, 59 RPMs reported that community involvement for
sites they oversee was impacted. These RPMs reported that meetings were delayed and that the
transition to virtual meetings diminished communication with communities that had limited access to
virtual tools.
The exact health and ecological impacts on communities because of the coronavirus pandemic are
unknown. Regional management provided information that some communities experienced changed or
extended exposures to human health and ecological impacts because of the coronavirus pandemic, as
described in the previous section. According to the Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping tool,
5 Hatcher SM, Agnew-Brune C, Anderson M, et al. "COVID-19 Among American Indian and Alaska Native Persons —
23 States, January 31-July 3, 2020," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. August 28, 2020; 69:1166-1169.
Environmental Justice
According to the EPA, environmental justice is the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement of all people
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income,
with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. Within this context, some minority,
low-income, tribal, or indigenous populations or
geographic locations potentially experience
disproportionate environmental harms and risks. This
disproportionality can result from greater vulnerability
to environmental hazards, lack of opportunity for
public participation, or other factors. Increased
vulnerability may be attributable to an accumulation of
negative or a lack of positive environmental, health,
economic, or social conditions within these
populations or places. In these cases, multiple factors
may cumulatively affect health and the environment,
contributing to disparities.
22-E-0049
11
-------
some of these communities have high-minority or low-income populations. Other communities are
located on tribal lands that restricted site access. For sites that were in the earlier stages of the cleanup
process, it would be premature to determine whether the coronavirus pandemic impacted human health
or the environment at a site. Where an emergency response was required, regional management said that
a response was implemented. For example, RPMs were deployed to assist with emergencies, as necessary.
The Coronavirus Pandemic Had Limited Impact on Known Cleanup
Costs
RPM survey responses showed that the cost impacts of the coronavirus pandemic were low. For most
operable units, RPMs reported no cost changes. Specifically, RPMs reported that 447 operable units at
316 sites had no equipment cost changes, 434 operable units at 305 sites had no personnel cost
changes, and 442 operable units at 314 sites had no laboratory cost changes.
RPMs did report that 127 operable units experienced changes related to contractor costs, laboratory
costs, and other costs. These cost changes were less than $10,000 at 86 operable units and greater than
$10,000 at 41 operable units.
While the survey-reported cost impacts were low, regional managers expressed concerns that the cost
impacts of the pandemic were not yet fully known. For example, these managers said that they did not
yet know the full cost impact of schedule delays or work shutdowns. Delayed schedules may drive future
changes to contractor costs. Regional managers said that they could not yet determine whether the
savings from reduced travel and use of virtual technologies for meetings would offset any increased
costs, such as higher costs for building materials.
Although Some Work Continued, the EPA's Response to the
Coronavirus Pandemic Curbed Oversight at Superfund Sites
The EPA's Travel Restrictions Limited Oversight, but Virtual Tools and Telework
Enabled Some Work to Continue
The EPA imposed travel restrictions in response to the
coronavirus pandemic. These travel restrictions limited
RPMs' on-site oversight of cleanup work and
community-involvement activities. In their survey
responses, 186 (76 percent) of 245 RPMs reported that the
coronavirus pandemic negatively impacted their ability to
conduct site visits or other oversight (Figure 5).
Instead of being in the office or traveling to sites, RPMs
began teleworking full-time and using virtual tools to
work, including meeting with contractors and potentially
responsible parties; engaging with the public; and
performing contractor-related tasks, such as conducting
the site tours needed to prepare bids and verify that work
was completed.
Figure 5: The coronavirus pandemic
impacted site visits and oversight
Source: OIG analysis of RPM survey data.
(EPA OIG image)
22-E-0049
12
-------
RPMs shared with us various lessons learned about operating in a virtual environment:
• Photo logs and video logs were critical to continuing work.
• Virtual meetings and webinars increased the ability of communities to participate in
community-involvement activities.
RPMs also reported a number of limitations to the virtual environment:
• RPMs made cleanup decisions without completely understanding site conditions because
fieldwork was done via photographs or teleconference. Teleconferencing did not adequately
allow RPMs to view the sites.
• Virtual meetings replaced most site visits. Because some sites limited the number of visitors to
meet the 6-foot social distancing requirements, oversight could not be conducted in person.
• Travel limitations reduced oversight. Travel to sites was often limited to mission-critical tasks.
For example, because a five-year review inspection was not considered mission-critical, RPMs
were unable to perform direct oversight of the work at Superfund sites. One RPM reported that
contractors or potentially responsible parties were asked to photo-document the site on the
EPA's behalf or use a drone to view the site as a workaround. Some sites were anticipated to go
more than a year-and-a-half without in-person RPM oversight.
Changes to Community-Involvement Activities Impacted Participation and
Relationships
Community involvement in the Superfund cleanup process was impacted as the modes of
communication changed. While most RPMs (130 of 208, or 63 percent) reported changes to
community-involvement activities, the majority (149 of 208, or 72 percent) responded that they were
still able to conduct required activities (Figure 6).
RPMs reported in their survey
responses that the activities related to
community meetings changed. For
example, meetings were rescheduled
and shifted to virtual platforms, site
visits to communities were curtailed,
and interviews were conducted by
phone or other virtual means. RPMs
also reported the following changes to
community-involvement activities:
• Blood sampling and indoor dust
monitoring for lead were
canceled.
• Soil sampling and written
reports about sample results
were delayed.
Figure 6: RPM perspectives on whether the coronavirus
pandemic impacted community-involvement activities
¦ Yes «No
149
130
Pandemic
impacted community
involvement activities
59
Pandemic impacted ability
to conduct required community
involvement activities
Source: OIG analysis of survey data. (EPA OIG image)
22-E-0049
13
-------
• Risk communication, such as presentations about the results of private well drinking water
sampling for contaminants, was delayed. Well owners received test results by mail instead.
Further, RPMs reported that printed documents, such as public notices about the deletion of sites from
the NPL and announcements related to community-involvement activities, were no longer being placed
in public repositories, such as local libraries, because they were closed. Instead, these documents were
posted to websites or mailed to community members. RPMs commented that their inability to conduct
required community-involvement activities and to interact with the community in face-to-face meetings
caused some delays during the cleanup process, especially in communities that lack or have limited
internet access.
Though some cleanup and meeting delays may have occurred, regional managers said that, overall,
community participation increased as a result of virtual meetings. One regional manager described the
use of virtual tools as a positive outgrowth and reported that these tools often allowed site work to
proceed, such as by conducting virtual site tours and confirming that work was completed. Other
regional managers recognized the challenge presented by cultural differences in the use of technology
and said that, while larger cities seamlessly transitioned to using virtual tools, rural and tribal areas had
more difficulties because of limited internet connections and cultural factors. These challenges affected
the EPA's ability to conduct cleanup activities in those areas.
EPA Guidance and Protocols Evolved, but Improvements Are Still Needed
According to the majority of RPMs who responded to our survey, the EPA's guidance on conducting site
fieldwork decisions during the coronavirus pandemic adequately addressed their needs when
conducting site work. Specifically, 85 percent (213 of 252) of RPMs reported that they were aware of the
EPA's Interim Guidance on Site Field Work Decisions Due to Impacts of COVID-19, while 89 percent
(190 of 213) said that the guidance adequately addressed their needs when performing remedial
activities at NPL sites during the pandemic. However, in their survey responses, RPMs did outline some
needed improvements, recommending that the guidance:
• Be more specific about what protections should be established for on-site RPMs and contractors.
• Provide for adequate oversight of contractors, who are considered essential and are on-site,
even though RPMs overseeing contractor work were not allowed to travel.
• Specify when it is acceptable to return to work after a pause in work was required.
• Provide clarification on what can and cannot be done to provide flexibility for RPMs to travel to
sites, as well as on how to complete statutorily required activity that involves travel—such as
site inspections—if all travel for RPMs is stopped.
• Address indemnification of EPA decision-makers from potential coronavirus liabilities when
deciding to deploy staff for site work.
• Specify how to protect staff and site workers, as well as where to obtain the resources-
including coronavirus testing and personal protective equipment—to protect these individuals.
From March 2020 through February 2021, the EPA's health and safety guidance and protocols did evolve
to enable site work to continue. A regional manager told us that potentially responsible parties wanted
to continue site work. Some regional managers said they partnered with state employees or other
22-E-0049
14
-------
federal agency employees who could access sites that the EPA could not travel to. In some cases, work
was delayed while health and safety programs were adjusted or while local coronavirus cases subsided.
An EPA headquarters manager observed that contractors and the EPA regions improved their health and
safety plans and standard operating procedures to address biohazards in general. For example,
according to the manager, cases of seasonal influenza declined during the pandemic, and Office of Land
and Emergency Management staff said that there is now more awareness about sanitizing hands, which
may help reduce the number of influenza cases.
Problems persisted, however. For example, headquarters managers:
• Identified health and safety issues related to sites in states that had restrictions on individuals,
such as testing and quarantining requirements before work could start. For example, one state
required contractors crossing its borders to test and quarantine for two weeks before they
could report to work.
• Stated that the Office of Mission Support had not, at the time we conducted our interviews,
developed plans for or supported provisioning of testing and vaccination.
• Reported that, because of the lack of Office of Mission Support plans, they spent a significant
amount of time researching safety concerns, such as hospitals, because they are responsible for
their staff, contractors, and support workers.
The EPA Did Not Sufficiently Develop Policy to Protect RPMs During
Mission-Critical Work
While some of the EPA's health and safety protocols evolved during the pandemic, the EPA did not
sufficiently address the need for the provisioning of pre- and posttravel coronavirus testing and vaccines
to protect RPMs. As a result, some regional managers were not able to obtain approval from EPA
headquarters to deploy RPMs, except to assist with emergency responses. In addition, regions had to
follow an undocumented, case-by-case process to obtain headquarters approval for the
coronavirus-related testing and supplies required to deploy RPMs safely.
During our interviews, regional managers told us that they interpreted the January 2021 executive
orders related to the federal response to the pandemic to mean that the Agency should immediately
provide testing and vaccinations to protect RPMs, who perform mission-critical work. As of June 2021,
five months after the executive orders were issued, regional managers confirmed that RPMs still lacked
access to these services. Furthermore, the EPA did not develop policy to implement the directive of the
January 2021 executive orders. The absence of such policy led to gaps in contractor oversight;
contractors could travel and work, while those charged with oversight could not. Such policy is also
needed in advance of construction seasons. The importance of developing policy and provisioning the
needed tests and supplies is underscored by the RPM survey responses, which indicated that only 7.7
percent (19 of 247) of RPMs had been tested for the coronavirus in their official capacity (Figure 7).
By not provisioning RPMs with testing and vaccinations, which would allow them more latitude to travel,
the EPA had:
• Impeded its ability to address public health and environmental risks needing prompt action.
• Caused some sites to go without in-person RPM oversight for long periods of time.
22-E-0049
15
-------
As a result, some Superfund sites with remedies
needing prompt in-person attention may have
deteriorated into conditions requiring emergency
responses. For example, regional managers stated
that:
• The Iron Mountain site in Redding, Northern
California, had a pit containing sludge from
treated acid mine drainage that was nearing
capacity. Action was needed to prevent the
acid mine drainage from contaminating the
drinking water supply for 20 percent of
Californians. Unless the pit was expanded, off-
site transport of toxic sludge would have been
required, which would create additional risks
of traffic accidents, fatalities, and spills, as well
as significantly increase the greenhouse gas
contribution associated with the site. It would
also increase the potential for exposure to
COVID-19 for site personnel, drivers, and landfill operators at the destination facilities. Because
of these deteriorating conditions, regional management believed it had to seek approval from
headquarters on a case-by-case basis for the provision of coronavirus testing and supplies
before it could send any RPM to the site.
• At the Brown and Bryant site in Arvin, California, untreated extracted groundwater being stored
at the site exceeded the normal on-site storage capacity. Once the normal storage capacity is
reached, either the treatment system must be shut down or large volumes of contaminated
water must be stored in temporary holding tanks or drums, increasing the chance of spills.
Shutting down the treatment system could result in contaminated groundwater migrating into
the deeper drinking water aquifers, including the aquifer that supplies water to Arvin, which is a
94-percent minority community. A time-critical removal action was completed to mitigate
threats to human health and the environment. This action targeted contaminated groundwater,
which was extracted, stored in six above-ground containers, and then shipped off-site for
disposal in an incinerator. An RPM and other supporting staff were needed at this site to ensure
groundwater treatment system operation during construction, provide community-involvement
activities, and complete documents needed for remedy optimization and contract procurement.
Regional management believed it had to seek approval from headquarters for the provision of
coronavirus testing and supplies before deploying the RPM and other support staff to the site.
Though the EPA developed and published interim guidance related to operations during the coronavirus
pandemic, headquarters managers noted that the EPA did not "immediately" update the interim
guidance or develop policy to reflect the directives in the executive orders because it did not want to
conflict with anticipated governmentwide guidance. According to some regional managers, they were
unable to deploy RPMs to sites to perform nonemergency yet mission-critical work without undergoing
a burdensome, undocumented process to obtain approval from headquarters.
Figure 7: RPM COVID-19 testing
Source: OIG analysis of RPM survey data.
(EPA OIG image)
22-E-0049
16
-------
Conclusions
The lack of updated EPA guidance and policy magnified delays and gaps in oversight of site work. If the
EPA does not keep pace with the need to protect its RPMs during this pandemic or future crises,
foreseeable impacts include delayed and prolonged cleanups; increased costs; prolonged human health
and ecological exposures; and delayed remedial actions, which may lead to an increase in situations
requiring immediate, emergency responses. These impacts may also add to the cumulative and
disproportionate impacts that some communities—including communities with environmental justice
concerns—already suffer. Updated EPA guidance regarding the provision of coronavirus testing and
supplies was critical to timely cleanups at Superfund NPL sites and would have been consistent with
presidential executive orders. Without this guidance, delays would likely have continued, especially if EPA
regions needed to obtain headquarters approval on a case-by-case basis for the provision of testing and
supplies. Such guidance would have protected not only the RPMs but also the communities they serve.
The Office of Land and Emergency Management must weigh the cost of community relationship-building
via in-person meetings against the benefits of increased participation via virtual meetings, as well as
determine how to use virtual tools in a post-pandemic environment. Communities that do not have
adequate internet access or whose religious or cultural practices are inconsistent with the use of
electronic resources have been particularly affected by the RPMs' inability to travel. The EPA should
issue guidance on the continued use of virtual technologies, including alternatives for overcoming the
identified challenges related to holding public meetings, such as when to embed a
community-involvement coordinator in a community or when to have outdoor meetings with
appropriate social distancing. Without such guidance, communities that lack internet access may be
prevented from participating in the cleanup process and may suffer prolonged and disproportionate
environmental effects, since cleanup activities cannot proceed if the required community-involvement
activities are not conducted.
In addition, because of EPA restrictions, RPMs have been unable to travel, while EPA contractors and other
stakeholders have continued work on-site. At the time of our survey, some sites had lacked on-site RPM
oversight for one year or longer. In some cases, the EPA has had to rely on state or contractor staff to
conduct oversight on its behalf. It is uncertain whether and for how long it is appropriate to have others
perform oversight duties for the RPMs.
Recommendations
We recommend that the assistant administrator for Land and Emergency Management:
1. Develop and implement a plan to conduct outreach meetings in the communities where
meetings did not occur during the pandemic because they either lacked or do not use virtual
technologies.
2. Promptly develop and implement guidance regarding how oversight should be conducted for
Superfund sites when travel or site access is limited.
22-E-0049
17
-------
We recommend that the deputy administrator, in coordination with the assistant administrator for
Mission Support and the assistant administrator for Land and Emergency Management:
3. Promptly develop and implement a policy to provide the necessary tools—such as appropriate
testing, vaccination, and supplies—to safely deploy remedial project managers during a
pandemic or other emergency.
Agency Response and OIG Assessment
The Agency provided a response to the draft report and included technical comments, which we
considered and incorporated into the report as appropriate. Overall, the Agency agreed with
Recommendations 1 and 3 and offered alternative language for Recommendation 2.
In the draft report, Recommendation 1 said that the Agency should:
Promptly develop and implement guidance addressing the use of virtual technologies
for public meetings and other community involvement activities. This guidance
should address how to conduct such meetings and activities with communities that
lack adequate internet service or whose cultural or religious practices prohibit using
electronic communication methods.
To address Recommendation 1, the Agency provided guidance issued in 2017, 2020, and 2021, which it
had not previously provided to us. The guidance addresses the need to plan for communications with
those who may not have access or may have limited access to virtual technologies. However, as we
identified in our report, the Agency still did not meet with some communities. We accordingly modified
Recommendation 1 to focus on conducting the needed meetings for those communities. The Agency will
need to propose a corrective action and estimated completion date for the revised recommendation,
which is unresolved.
The Agency disagreed with Recommendation 2 and offered an alternative recommendation to develop a
lessons-learned document on oversight conducted at Superfund sites when travel or site access is
limited by a pandemic. While conducting a lessons-learned review is important in the aftermath of this
pandemic, such a review and document may not sufficiently prepare the EPA for future events that may
demand a more robust response capability for mission-critical or essential tasks. Per 40 C.F.R. § 300.120,
RPMs are tasked with providing oversight of Superfund site work by coordinating, directing, and
reviewing the cleanup work to assure compliance with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan, which is an inherently governmental function. As such, we maintain that the
EPA should develop guidance that offers a flexible set of principles to guide and empower its regions
and managers in making oversight decisions that support Agency goals and objectives during events that
limit travel or site access. This oversight guidance should clearly explain how RPMs are to comply with
statutory and existing contract oversight requirements when site visits are not allowed. This
recommendation is unresolved.
The Agency agreed with Recommendation 3 and provided an acceptable proposed corrective action and
estimated completion date. The deputy administrator affirmed the Agency's response in subsequent
communication. This recommendation is resolved, with corrective actions pending.
Appendix B includes the Agency's response to our draft report.
22-E-0049
18
-------
Status of Recommendations
RECOMMENDATIONS
Planned
Rec.
Page
Completion
No.
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Date
17 Develop and implement a plan to conduct outreach meetings in
the communities where meetings did not occur during the
pandemic because they either lacked or do not use virtual
technologies.
Assistant Administrator for
Land and Emergency
Management
17 Promptly develop and implement guidance regarding how
oversight should be conducted for Superfund sites when travel or
site access is limited.
18 In coordination with the assistant administrator for Mission
Support and the assistant administrator for Land and Emergency
Management, promptly develop and implement a policy to
provide the necessary tools—such as appropriate testing,
vaccination, and supplies—to safely deploy remedial project
managers during a pandemic or other emergency.
Assistant Administrator for
Land and Emergency
Management
Deputy Administrator
4/30/23
1 C = Corrective action completed.
R = Recommendation resolved with corrective action pending.
U = Recommendation unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
22-E-0049
-------
Appendix A
Superfund RPM Survey
We distributed an electronic survey to 457 RPMs on February 5, 2021, whose names we obtained from staff in the Office of Land and Emergency
Management, and asked them to respond within two weeks. We received 279 responses, a 61-percent response rate. Not all respondents
answered every question or completed the survey. The results included two respondents who were on the RPM email lists but said in the survey
that they were not RPMs. The survey requested RPMs to consider all parts of the Superfund cleanup process at Superfund sites that the RPMs
oversaw from March 15, 2020, until the day they took the survey. The RPM responses addressed up to 479 different operable units at
343 Superfund sites, which comprised 298 sites that were on the NPL, 11 sites that were NPL-caliber sites but not listed on the NPL or being
addressed under enforcement action, six sites that were proposed for the NPL, and 28 sites that were previously on the NPL but have since been
deleted.
Source: The OIG survey information is the source for all the tables presented in this appendix. These tables were created by the EPA OIG.
Legend: AROD = Amended Record of Decision; ESD = Explanation of Significant Decisions; PPE = Personal Protective Equipment;
PRP = Potentially Responsible Party; ROD = Record of Decision; SSID = Site Spill Identification Code.
RPM demographics questions
Are you a Remedial
Project Manager?
Yes
No
Total
277
2
279
How long have you been
an RPM?
Five years or less
Greater than five
years, but less than
ten years
Greater than
ten years to less than
15 years
Greater than 15 years
to less than 20 years
Greater than 20 years
to less than 25 years
Greater than 25 years
100
33
41
24
21
58
Please select the
regional office you work
for.
Region 1
| Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5 |
17
46
41
25
36
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
Region 10
Total |
16
17
13
40
26
277
22-E-0049
20
-------
1: Was the Continuity of Operations Plan used for risk responses for long
term cleanups at any Superfund NPL sites?
2: Were any preplanned actions taken to address the risks from a pandemic:
a. In place for long term cleanups at Superfund NPL sites?
b. Effective for long term cleanups at Superfund NPL sites?
3: If preplanned actions were not effective, please explain why.
Guidance questions
| Yes **[
4: Are you familiar with the EPA's
Interim Guidance on Site Field
Work Decisions Due to Impacts of
COVID-19 dated April 10, 2020?
5: (If Yes to Question 4) In your
opinion, does the guidance
adequately address the needs of
the RPMs to perform remedial
activities at NPL sites during the
pandemic?
6: What changes would you
suggest? (For "No" responses to
Question 5)
7: Are you familiar with the EPA's
Interim EPA COVID-19 Health &
Safety Guidelines for Field
Activities - July 6, 2020?
8: (If "Yes" to Question 7) In your
opinion, do the guidelines
adequately protect RPMs?
9: What changes would you
suggest? (For "No" responses to
Question 8)
10: In your opinion, are
headquarters and regional
213
190
217
206
224
22-E-0049
Yes I No I Total
125 140 265
76 41 117
83 34 117
39 252
23 213
35 252
11 217
24
248
-------
Guidance questions
| Yes
managers applying the COVID-19
policies and guidance properly?
11: If No to Question 10, please
explain.
12 Have you or any of your
contractors encountered any
difficulties applying the guidance
to remedial work activities?
28
13 Does your region or office
provide additional COVID-19
guidance for RPMs in addition to
those discussed above?
172
14: In your official capacity, have
you been tested for COVID-19
since March 15, 2020?
19
General questions
15: Has COVID-19 impacted your ability to conduct site visits or other
oversight?
16: If yes to Question 15, then describe that impact.
17: Did the Agency lose the ability to recover costs due to the statute of
limitations expiring during the COVID-19 pandemic?
18: If yes to Question 17, please explain. Include the site name and SSID.
19: Was a settlement agreement, consent decree, or another similar
document modified due to COVID-19?
20: If yes, to Question 19 please explain. Include the site name and SSID.
21 Is there any additional information you would like to provide?
22: If yes to Question 21, please add that information in the box below.
22-E-0049
No
Total
220 248
76 248
228 247
186 59 245
6 239 245
6 239 245
22
-------
General questions
I Yes
I No
I Total 1
23: Has COVID-19 impacted caused any changes in Community Involvement
Activities?
130
78
208
24: If yes to Question 23, please provide a brief explanation in the text box.
25: Has COVID-19 impacted your ability to conduct required Community
Involvement Activities?
59
149
208
26: If yes to Question 25, please provide a brief explanation in the text box.
27: Has COVID-19 affected the amount of site-specific time you have been
able to charge in timekeeping systems?
38
207
245
28: If yes to Question 27, please provide a brief explanation in the text box.
Region setup questions
1
Site ID/OU Count |
29: How many sites and operable units do you oversee that have
COVID-19 impacts? (Enter a number)
743
30: For your site name/ID and operable unit(s), please choose the site
name and operable unit from the list and answer the following
questions.
31: Please enter the site name that is missing from the pick list here.
Questions 32-39 were repeated for each site and operable unit identified in Question 29-31.
Feasibility
study
Focused
feasibility
study
Remedial
design
Remedial
investigation
Five-year
review
Removal
Action
Remedial
Action
Other not
listed
Total
32: Please choose the type of action taking place at
site and operable unit. (Please add a brief
description in the text box.)
33
13
60
100
103
32
183
118
642
22-E-0049
23
-------
EPA
enforcement
lead
PRP lead
Fund or EPA
lead
Federal
facility lead
State lead
Superfund
alternative
lead
Other not
listed
33: What type of lead is the site? Choose 1. (Please
add a brief description in the text box, or NA if not
applicable.)
13
170
138
119
25
4
18
34: Did you make any of the following changes for your site and operable
unit? If yes, select all that apply
Count
1. Reduction or increase in scope of work.
4
2. Suspension in response action work.
14
3. Used enforcement discretion such as a party requested and received
any flexibility, mutual assent, or force majeure accommodation.
6
4. Changes in lead, such as EPA lead, Responsible Party lead, State or
Tribal lead, enforcement lead, etc.
1
5. Changes to remedy in a decision document (ROD, AROD, ESD).
2
6. Extra time allotted to critical milestones in the planned schedule for
investigation, design, or cleanup.
64
7. Personnel limitations on site due to social distance requirements.
29
8. Routine site maintenance practices changed.
10
9. Other changes not listed here. (Please add a brief explanation.)
32
10. No changes were needed for the cleanup plan.
156
35: Were there any actual impacts to schedules at your site and operable
unit that have occurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
No schedule
changes.
Schedule
changes were
less than
one week.
Schedule
changes were
greater than
one week and
less than one
month.
Schedule
changes were
greater than
one month and
less than
six months.
Schedule
changes were
greater than
six months.
1. Contractors access to the site was delayed.
251
17
54
104
53
2. Labs were closed or delayed, and samples could not get analyzed as
scheduled.
396
8
29
34
12
3. Social distancing restrictions limiting the number of personnel on site
such as 50% capacity limit drove schedule changes.
367
13
23
45
31
4. Personnel tested positive or were sick with COVID-19 and not available
to work.
422
13
31
12
1
22-E-0049
24
-------
35: Were there any actual impacts to schedules at your site and operable
unit that have occurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
5. Cleanup teams did not have access to sanitizers (spray bottle?) to
clean equipment.
6. Insufficient PPE.
7. Travel restrictions precluded access to site.
8. COVID-19 testing was not available and resulted in schedule delays.
9. Other not listed here. (Please add a brief explanation or select "No
Schedule Changes" and enter "NA" in the text box.)
36: Were there any actual impacts to costs at your site and operable
unit that have occurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
1. The site is a PRP lead or a Federal Facility and we do not know the cost
impact.
2. Contractor costs changed due to COVID-19.
3. Labs costs changed due to COVID-19.
4. Personnel costs changed due to COVID-19.
5. Equipment costs changed due to COVID-19.
6. PPE costs changed.
7. Travel costs changed.
8. COVID-19 testing costs changed.
9. Other costs changed not listed here. (Please add a brief explanation or
select "No Cost Changes" and enter "NA" in the text box.)
22-E-0049
Schedule Schedule
changes were changes were
Schedule greater than greater than Schedule
changes were one week and one month and changes were
No schedule less than less than one less than greater than
changes. one week. month. six months. six months.
476 1 1 1 0
465 5 2 5 2
282 14 36 84 63
462 6 1 5 5
415 4 10 20 30
Cost Cost Cost Cost impact is not
changes changes changes known or is not
Cost were greater were greater were knowable
changes than $1,000 than $10,000 greater (for example, site is a
No cost were less and less than and less than than PRP or another
changes than $1,000 $10,000 $100,000 $100,000 Agency lead)
438 6 6 9 7 13
400 18 22 21 5 13
442 9 12 4 0 12
434 7 18 5 2 13
447 6 7 6 1 12
418 34 10 3 2 12
408 33 22 5 1 10
461 2 2 1 0 13
431 19 6 5 6 12
25
-------
37: Were exposures to the human or ecological receptors changed or
extended at your site and operable unit due to the COVID-19 pandemic? If
yes, select all that apply:
Human Exposure.
Ecological Exposure.
Both.
No changes to Human or Ecological Exposures.
38: (If selected in Question 37) Please briefly describe any changes to
Human or Ecological Exposure due to COVID-19.
39: Were there changes to any of the following standards for cleanup or
work related to your site and operable unit due to COVID-19? Select all
that apply
No standards were impacted. (Select this only for no impacts.)
Cleanup standards in the record of decision were changed. (Please
briefly explain in the text box.)
Changes were made in the Quality Assurance Project Plan. (Please
briefly explain in the text box.)
A waiver was issued due to COVID-19. (Please briefly explain in the text
box.)
A technical impracticability was issued due to COVID-19. (Please briefly
explain in the text box.)
Changes were made to other cleanup quality standards. (Please briefly
explain in the text box.)
40: Do you have any other comments that you would like to add?
22-E-0049
Count
26
5
7
441
Count
438
0
9
0
0
2
26
-------
Appendix B
Agency Response to OIG Draft Report
|> 4rm UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I | WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
\
MEMO RANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report No. OE-FY21-0050
"Coronavirus Pandemic Caused Schedule Delays, Human Health Impacts, and
Limited Oversight at Superfund National Priority List Sites," dated March 15,
2022
FRO M B arry N. Br e en g A, R RY
Acting Assistant Administrator BREEN
Office of Land and Emergency Management
Kimberly Y. Patn ck Kl MBERLY
Pri n cip al D eputy A s si st ant Adrn mi strat or PATRICK
Office of Mission Support
D fcjfa IV t Iqi ed by
BARRY BREEN
Date: 3122 US.Di
EBDi:D5 -QiW
Dlgltatv flgied by
HUB ERLY PATRICK
Date: 2322 AS.02
1T :1t:1T -Qi'DW
TO:
Sean W. O'Donnell, Inspector General
Office of Inspector General
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues and recommendations in the subject audit
report. Following is a summary of the agency's overall position, along with its position on each
of the report recommendations. The agency agrees with recommendations 1 and 3 and does not
agree with recommendation 2 but has provided a different approach to the recommendation. We
have provided high-level intended corrective actions and estimated completion dates below. We
have also included a Technical Comments Attachment to supplement this response.
AGENCY'S OVERALL POSITION
Agency staff worked tirelessly to adapt to the ongoing impacts of the COVID 19 pandemic, as
evidenced by the adjustments made to managing Superfund sites among varying state and local
restrictions and delays and limitations on COVID supplies, testing and vaccinations. Our
response to your recommendations reflects the efforts that the agency made, including updating
22-E-0Q49
27
-------
community involvement guidance, providing information on how to operate in a COVID
environment and juggling the many iterations of Federal COVID safety protocols.
Prior to the pandemic, EPA developed guidance on the use of virtual technology as a community
engagement tool. In 2017, the EPA's Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center (CPRC) and
Superfund Community Involvement and Program Initiatives Branch (CIPIB) developed the
"Long Distance Engagement (LDE) Guide" to help EPA Superfund Community Involvement
Coordinators (CICs) better use collaborative technologies to engage with communities when
travel is not an option. This guide provides CICs with information to help decide when
technology (such as online meetings, social media or teleconferencing) might be useful with their
community engagement work and includes tools to help plan and conduct those engagements.
In 2020, with the advance of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, EPA
updated the LDE guide to reflect tools and techniques used to conduct community involvement
during this unprecedented event. The shelter-in-place orders, social distancing requirements and
prohibitions on large gatherings resulting from the pandemic prevented CICs from conducting
in-person community outreach (2020 CERCLA Interim Guidance on Public Engagement Daring
COVID-19). Specific changes made included updating the List of Technologies section, which
EPA updated to provide more in-depth information on all tools and technologies, specifically
online meeting platforms and information on conducting outreach to communities without
technological access was added.
The agency continues to update the guide in 2022. This ongoing revision reflects the latest
agency practices and available technologies (e.g., ZoomGov). Additionally, EPA has developed
the Transcription Support Services Pre-Check - Public Comments Submitted as Voice Messages
document, which provides a transcription services process when public comments are submitted
as voicemail messages. This capability enables/enabled community members to submit public
comments when they lack internet access and/or library access due to COVID-19. Two site
examples where EPA successfully used this technology was the Milford Contaminated Aquifer
(Milford, Ohio) proposed plan open public comment period (December 2021/January 2022) and
the USS Lead (East Chicago, Indiana) partial deletion open public comment period (July 2020).
EPA disagrees with the recommendation regarding guidance for conducting oversight of
Superfund sites when travel or site access is limited. Due to the dynamic nature of the pandemic
and variable local conditions within each state and region, implementing blanket guidance would
undermine the regions' flexibility to respond or provide effective oversight considering local
conditions. Instead, EPA recommends drafting and disseminating a "lessons-learned" document
on oversight during a pandemic.
EPA agrees with the recommendation to develop a policy to provide the necessary tools - such as
appropriate testing, vaccination, and supplies - to safely deploy remedial project managers during
a pandemic or other emergency. The government's response to the coronavirus pandemic evolved
rapidly as the United States' needs changed; the health and safety protocols in place at the
pandemic's start were substantially changed by February 2021, the time the RPM survey was
conducted; protocols continue to evolve substantially, up to the present. The Office of Mission
Support (OMS) has prepared many COVID related safety and health protocols, guidance and
procedures to help ensure the ongoing safety and health of EPA employees. This preparation
22-E-0049
28
-------
includes drafting specific testing programs for large-scale emergency response deployments, large
vessel work and other mission critical work conditions. Currently OMS, in coordination with the
EPA COVID-19 Coordination Team, is finalizing the agency's national testing program. This
program covers all anticipated testing needs, including those of the emergency response
workforce. The agency's labor union partners have undertaken a lengthy review of the testing
program.
In the interim, while the national testing program was in development, OMS established and
implemented various COVID guidelines and met the requirements of the Safer Federal Workforce
Task Force safety principals. EPA's response to the safety principals is addressed in EPA's
Workplace Safety Plan. Requirements for screening testing programs were announced by the
Office of Management and Budget and by the Safter Federal Workforce Task Force in January of
2022. Since that time, EPA's COVID-19 Coordination Team has worked continuously to develop
a screening testing program. Prior to January of 2022, OMS investigated a number of alternatives
for creating a more comprehensive COVID-19 testing program, such as through coordinating
vaccination efforts under our Interagency Agreement with Federal Occupational Health.
Ultimately, OMS successfully requested state assistance to vaccinate our emergency responders.
After an initial national disinfection supply order, required by the CARES Act, OMS transferred
supply procurement responsibilities to the regions and programs moving forward.
Agreements
No.
Recommendation
High-Level Intended
Corrective Action(s)
Estimated Completion by Quarter and
FY
1
Develop and
implement guidance
addressing the use of
virtual technologies for
public meetings and
other community
involvement activities.
(OLEM)
Documents provided in
2017 and updated in
2020 to specifically
address COVID,
including the use of
virtual technologies for
public meetings.
Attachment A - COVID Virtual
Headings (April 16, 2020)
Attachment B - 2020 CERCLA
Interim Guidance on Public
Engagement During COVID-19
(March 28, 2020)
Attachment C - EPA Long Distance
Engagement Guidebook (updated
August 4, 2021)
Attachment D - Initial OLEM/OPA
Guidance on Drafting
Communications with
Communities/Stakeholders at SF
Sites (March 23, 2020)
Attachment E - Hosting Virtual
Meeting Room Events (March 2020)
3
Develop and
implement a policy to
provide the necessary
tools - such as
appropriate testing,
vaccination, and
supplies - to safely
Develop and
implement a policy
regarding safe
deployment of remedial
project managers
during a pandemic or
other emergency.
April 30, 2023 (3rd Quarter FY 23)
22-E-0049
29
-------
deploy remedial project
managers during a
pandemic or other
emergency.
(OMS, OLEM)
Disagreements
No.
Recommendation
Agency
Explanation/Response
Proposed Alternative
2
Develop and implement
guidance regarding
how oversight should
be conducted at
Superfund sites when
travel or site access is
limited. (OLEM)
Rather than a formal
guidance OSRTI
recommends developing a
lessons learned document
on oversight conducted at
Superfund sites when
travel or site access is
limited by a pandemic.
2nd Quarter FY23
CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Kecia Thornton (OLEM) at
Thornton.Kecia@epa.gov or 202-566-1913, Michael Benton (OA) at Benton.Michael@epa.gov
or 202-564-2860 and Marilyn Armstrong (OMS) at Armstrong.Marilyn@epa.gov or 202-564-
1876.
Attachments
cc: Carlton Waterhouse, OLEM
Wes Carpenter, OA
Katherine Trimble, OIG
Tina Lovingood, OIG
Dwayne Crawford, OIG
Larry Douchand, OLEM
Dana Stalcup, OLEM
Yvette Jackson, OMS
Dave Gibson, OMS
Skip Weisberg, OMS
Lenee Mornina, OMS
Marilyn Braxton, OMS
Dan Coogan, OMS
Jan Jablonski, OMS
Marilyn Armstrong, OMS
Daniela Wojtelewicz, OMS
Afreeka Wilson, OMS
Michael Benton, OA
Kecia Thornton, OLEM
22-E-0049
30
-------
Appendix C
Distribution
The Administrator
Deputy Administrator
Chief of Staff, Office of the Administrator
Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Administrator
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
Assistant Administrator for Land and Emergency Management
Assistant Administrator for Mission Support
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Land and Emergency Management
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mission Support
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Land and Emergency Management
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mission Support
Director, Office of Continuous Improvement, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, Office of Land and
Emergency Management
Director, Office of Resources and Business Operations, Office of Mission Support
Director, Office of Regional Operations
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of the Administrator
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Land and Emergency Management
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Mission Support
Audit Follow-Up Coordinators, Regions 1-10
22-E-0049
31
------- |