EPA Should Improve Oversight of Physical Access and Institutional Controls at the Escambia Wood Superfund Site


The EPA Should Improve
Oversight of Physical Access
and Institutional Controls
at the Escambia Wood
Superfund Site

June 12, 2024 | Report No. 24-E-0046

-------
Report Contributors

Dawn Christian
Lindsay K. Clarke Brubaker
Kimberley Lake de Pulla
Sargun Saluja
Sara Temme
Erin Trainor

Abbreviations

CERCLA	Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

EPA	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FDEP	Florida Department of Environmental Protection

IIJA	Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

O&M	Operation and Maintenance

OIG	Office of Inspector General

OU	Operable Unit

Key Definitions

Engineering Controls
Institutional Controls

Operation and Maintenance
Physical Access Controls

Engineered components to support the remedy or physical barriers to
prevent access to contaminated areas.

Legal and administrative tools that help minimize the potential for
human exposure to contamination and protect the integrity of the
selected engineered cleanup method by limiting land or resource use
and guiding human behavior.

Measures required to maintain the effectiveness of response actions.
Physical barriers to prevent access to contaminated areas.

Cover Image

A camp set up at the Escambia Wood Superfund site in May 2023. (EPA OIG 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 (241OT)
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 566-2391
www.epaoiq.gov

Subscribe to our Email Updates.

Follow us on X (formerly Twitter) @EPAoiq.
Send us your Project Suggestions.

-------
At a Gla

24-E-0046
June 12, 2024

The EPA Should Improve Oversight of Physical Access and Institutional Controls at
the Escambia Wood Superfund Site

Why We Did This Evaluation

To accomplish this objective:

While conducting an evaluation of
American Creosote Works Inc. in
Pensacola, Florida, to determine
whether the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency implements and
oversees institutional controls, we
noted the proximity of the Escambia
Wood Treating Company, another
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act-
funded Superfund site. To optimize the
value of our site visit, we drove past
this site and observed insufficient
engineering controls and poorly
enforced institutional controls.

Engineering controls comprise both
physical structures, such as
containment systems, and physical
access controls, such as fences.
Institutional controls are legal and
administrative tools that help minimize
the potential for human exposure to
contamination and protect the integrity
of the selected engineered cleanup
method by limiting land or resource use
and guiding human behavior. Examples
include restrictive covenants and
land-use zoning.

To support these EPA
mission-related efforts:

• Cleaning up and revitalizing land.

• Partnering with states and other
stakeholders.

To address this top EPA
management challenge:

• Managing grants, contracts, and
data systems.

Address inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391 or
OIG.PublicAffairs@epa.gov.

What We Found

Engineering controls at the Escambia Wood Superfund site, specifically the physical
access controls, such as fencing and signage, were in poor condition or missing. In
addition, the site's institutional controls, including restrictive covenants established in 2013
that prohibit residential or recreational use of the land, were not being enforced.

Specifically, there were encampments of homeless persons at the site. Further, site fencing
was overgrown with vegetation and missing in at least one section, signage was faded and
illegible, there were signs of trespassing, and a gate meant to prevent access to the site
was latched loosely so that an adult could pass through.

The EPA is not providing sufficient oversight of the maintenance of engineering controls,
specifically physical access controls, and institutional controls to protect human health and
the remedy addressing soil contamination at the site. A remedy refers to long-term cleanup
actions taken to prevent or minimize the release of hazardous substances. According to
site documents, camping and trespassing have been ongoing issues since at least
March 2007. However, the EPA did not work with state and local partners to enforce the
established institutional controls or take administrative action to ensure this unauthorized
use did not continue even though the protectiveness of the remedy depends on it. It is the
site's remedial project manager's opinion that encampments of homeless persons at the
site do not pose an unacceptable risk despite the site's restrictive covenants. This opinion
conflicts with the EPA's official site decision documentation. Further, the poorly maintained
physical access controls and conflicting zoning enable continued camping and trespassing.

Insufficient oversight of soil-related institutional controls at the site
raises concerns that the EPA could potentially harm the
protectiveness of the remedy on which the Agency has already spent
$140 million. The planned groundwater remediation, for which the EPA
has allocated an additional $40 million in Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act funds, will be at risk if these deficiencies continue.

Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions

We make four recommendations to Region 4, including enforcing the existing institutional
controls to ensure that there is no residential or recreational use of the site in accordance
with the restrictive covenants; ensuring proper maintenance of engineering controls,
specifically physical access controls; and developing and executing a plan to determine
whether to implement additional engineering and physical access controls and whether the
existing institutional controls are effective. We also recommend documenting changes from
official site decision documents and working with the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection to amend the associated institutional controls, if applicable. The EPA agreed
with Recommendations 1, 2, and 4. Recommendations 2 and 4 are resolved with corrective
actions pending. The EPA's proposed corrective actions for Recommendation 1 did not
meet our intent, so that recommendation remains unresolved. The EPA did not agree with
Recommendation 3, which also remains unresolved.

List of OIG reports.

-------
',«sPEcr0,

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

June 12, 2024

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: The EPA Should Improve Oversight of Physical Access and Institutional Controls at the Escambia
Wood Superfund Site
Report No. 24-E-0046

FROM: Sean W. O'Donnell, Inspector General '/' <

TO: Jeaneanne Gettle, Acting Regional Administrator

Region 4

Barry Breen, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Land and Emergency Management

This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Inspector General. The project number for this evaluation was QSRE-FY23-0054. 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.

Region 4 has the primary responsibility for the issues discussed in this report.

In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, your office provided acceptable planned corrective actions for
Recommendations 2 and 4. These recommendations are resolved with corrective actions pending. Afinal response
pertaining to these recommendations is not required; however, if you submit a response, it will be posted on the
OIG's website, along with our memorandum commenting on your response.

Action Required

Recommendations 1 and 3 are unresolved. EPA Manual 2750 requires that recommendations be resolved
promptly. Therefore, we request that the EPA provide us within 60 days its response concerning specific actions
in process or alternative corrective actions proposed on the recommendation. 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.

We will post this report to our website at www.epaoig.gov.

To report potential fraud, waste, abuse, misconduct, or mismanagement, contact the OIG Hotline at (888) 546-8740 or OIG.Hotline@epa.gov.

-------
Table of Contents

Purpose	1

Background	1

The EPA's Authority to Require the Cleanup of Contaminated Sites	1

The Escambia Wood Superfund Site	2

Response Actions and Established Controls at the Escambia Wood Superfund Site	3

Responsible Offices	5

Scope and Methodology	6

Prior Reports	6

Results	7

The EPA Is Not Ensuring that State and Local Partners Enforce Institutional Controls	7

The EPA's Insufficient Oversight Allowed Conditions to Persist that Enable Camping and

Trespassing at the Escambia Wood Superfund Site	9

Recommendations	11

Agency Response and OIG Assessment	12

Status of Recommendations	14

A Superfund Funding Sources	15

B EPA Five-Year Review Findings at the Escambia Wood Superfund Site	16

C Observed Encampments at the Escambia Wood Superfund Site	17

D Agency Response	18

E Distribution	22

-------
Purpose

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General initiated an evaluation to
determine whether the EPA's oversight and implementation of institutional controls will support
effective use of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, or IIJA, funding at the American Creosote Works
Inc. Superfund site in Pensacola, Florida. While conducting this evaluation, we noted the proximity of
another IIJA-funded Superfund site—the Escambia Wood Superfund site. To optimize the value of our
site visit, we chose to examine the Escambia site as well. We drove around the perimeter of this site and
observed insufficient engineering controls and poorly enforced institutional controls, which led us to
evaluate the conditions further.

Top Management Challenge Addressed

This evaluation addresses the following top management challenge for the Agency, as identified
in the OIG's U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2024 Top Management Challenges
report, issued November 15, 2023:

• Managing grants, contracts, and data systems.

Background

The EPA's Authority to Require the Cleanup of Contaminated Sites

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, orCERCLA, authorizes
the EPA to require property owners and other responsible parties to clean up contaminated sites. The
EPA maintains the National Priorities List, a list of sites that are considered priorities for cleanup based
on the relative threat to human health and the environment posed by the sites' contamination. The Act,
commonly referred to as Superfund, also created a trust fund to enable the EPA to pay for response and
cleanup costs at contaminated sites, referred to as Superfund sites, in certain contexts. Appendix A
includes additional information on Superfund funding sources.

Superfund response actions are categorized as either removal or remedial actions, also called remedies. The terms are
defined below:

• A removal action refers to "the cleanup or removal of released hazardous substances from the environment" and
may include other actions "necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare or
to the environment, which may otherwise result from a release or threat of release," according to 42 U.S.C.

§ 9601(23). A removal action is generally a short-term cleanup action intended to address an imminent threat to
human health or the environment.

• A remedial action or remedy refers to actions "taken instead of or in addition to removal actions in the event of a
release or threatened release of a hazardous substance into the environment, to prevent or minimize the release
of hazardous substances so that they do not migrate to cause substantial danger to present or future public
health or welfare or the environment," according to 42 U.S.C. § 9601(24). Remedies are generally longer-term
cleanup actions where releases are not immediately threatening to human health or the environment.

-------
To address contamination more efficiently, the EPA divides some Superfund sites into distinct areas
called operable units, or OUs. The EPA considers a site's geographic areas; specific contaminants of
concern; or contaminated media, such as groundwater or soil, to determine the number and scope of
OUs. The EPA documents these OUs in a Record of Decision, which is the plan for the cleanup of a
site. Once the EPA-financed remedy to clean up contamination at a Superfund site is functioning
properly, CERCLA requires the state in which the site is located to assume responsibility for operation
and maintenance, or O&M, of the remedy. Further, when contamination at a site remains above levels
that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, CERCLA requires the EPA to review the site every
five years to ensure the remedy remains effective.1

As part of the remediation process, the EPA often uses a combination of treatment methods and
land-use controls, including engineering and institutional controls, to protect human health and the
environment. Engineering controls include physical structures, such as containment systems, and
physical access controls, such as fences. Institutional controls are administrative and legal controls
intended to minimize the potential for human exposure by limiting land or resource use and to guide
human behavior, such as zoning; water-use restrictions; and restrictive covenants, which are private
agreements that restrict the use or occupancy of property. Often, the EPA must work with state and
local stakeholders and property owners to implement institutional controls at a site.

The Escambia Wood Superfund Site

The Escambia Wood Superfund site, located in Pensacola, Florida, is a former wood treatment facility
that was put on the National Priorities List in 1994 because of contaminated soil and groundwater from
wood treatment operations. The site encompasses approximately 32 acres of the former facility and an
additional 70 acres of former residential areas. Over 400 households were permanently relocated from
the on-site residential neighborhoods as part of one of the largest permanent relocations in Superfund
history. The primary contaminants of concern are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and dioxin. These
contaminants are carcinogens and reproductive toxins, and can affect fetal development, immunity, and
hormones. They are extremely persistent and break down very slowly. In December 2021, the EPA
announced a $1 billion investment from the IIJA to help clean up Superfund sites, including the Escambia
Wood Superfund site, which received $40 million in IIJA funds. The Escambia Wood Superfund site is in
EPA Region 4, and Figure 1 shows the site boundaries.

1 CERCLA § 121(c), 42 U.S.C. § 9621(c), requires the EPA to conduct five-year reviews at sites where hazardous
substances remain in place once a remedial action has been initiated.

-------
Figure 1: Map of the Escambia Wood Superfund site

1,000

2,000

4,000
^¦1 Feet

Sourcos: Esri, DeLorme, AND, Tula Alios. First American, UNEP-WCMC, USGS,
DigitalGlobe. Geo Eye, Earthstar Geographies. CNES/Airbus DS. USDA. AEX,
Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN. IGP swisstopo, the GIS User Community and the 2012 FYR.

Legend

y^V* Former Neighborhoods
^ I Former ETC Facility

^Skeo" O

Kir^DTL

NORTH

Escambia Wood - Pensacola Superfund Site

City of Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida

Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is not
a survey. The map is for informational purposes only regarding the EPA's response actions at the site and is not
intended for any other purpose.

Source: The EPA's Ready for Reuse Determination Escambia Wood - Pensacola Superfund Site, Escambia County,
Florida document. (EPA image)

Response Actions and Established Controls at the Escambia Wood Superfund Site

Site investigations and cleanup activities at the Escambia Wood Superfund site have been divided into
two OUs: Operable Unit 1 (OU-1), which addresses the soil contamination, and Operable Unit 2 (OU-2),
which received liJA funding in 2021 to address groundwater contamination. Under the OU-1 soil-related
remediation efforts, the EPA permanently relocated over 400 households from the on-site residential
areas; placed contaminated soil in an on-site containment cell; and implemented engineering controls,
including physical access controls, such as fences, manhole covers, vaults, and monitoring well locks. The
EPA also established institutional controls in the form of two separate restrictive covenants that would
limit the site to industrial and commercial uses when the site was determined to be ready for reuse.

Both restrictive covenants became effective on April 2, 2013, and explicitly forbid residential use,

-------
including campgrounds. One restrictive covenant prohibits actions that would damage or interfere with
the OU-1 soil containment cell.

Under CERCLA, for EPA-financed containment remedies, once remedial action objectives have been
achieved in the construction phase and the remedy is deemed "operational and functional/' the state
assumes responsibility for the associated O&M activities in the post-construction phase.2 The EPA and
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, or FDEP, completed the final joint inspection of
remedial construction activities for OU-1 on February 28, 2012. The EPA required ongoing O&M because
waste materials would remain on site. In 2012, the EPA developed the Operation, Maintenance, and
Monitoring Plan, or O&M Plan, detailing the O&M requirements for OU-1, including inspections for
physical site security and institutional controls. The O&M Plan states that these "O&M activities [are]
required for the ETC [Escambia Wood Treating Company] OU1 site remedy." According to the O&M
Plan, inspections should be conducted weekly during construction, quarterly for the first year, and
semiannually thereafter. The FDEP began O&M on most of the OU-1 remedy on March 1, 2013.

According to the Escambia Wood Superfund site Ready for Reuse Determination document, the EPA
determined that the site was ready for commercial and industrial uses in December 2018. This
determination did not include an approval for residential uses. A Ready for Reuse Determination
document summarizes information about the site to support the determination that all or a portion of a
property at a site can support specified types of uses, such as commercial, industrial, or residential,
while remaining protective of human health and the environment. The EPA based this determination on
the 2006 Record of Decision Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection Escambia Wood Superfund Site
Operable Unit 01 (Soil), the O&M Plan, and the two restrictive covenants.

The EPA began addressing groundwater contamination at the site in September 2023. The planned
remedial actions for the contaminated groundwater in OU-2, which will be funded by IIJA
appropriations, include a combination of extraction and underground treatment technologies, which will
rely on short-term institutional controls until remedial goals are met. The institutional controls include a
local ordinance requiring that future site occupants be connected to the public water supply and
incorporating the site into an existing state-established groundwater delineation area, which is an area
of land under which the groundwater is either contaminated or vulnerable to contamination.

2 Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 300.435(f)(1), "A state must provide its assurance to assume responsibility for O&M,
including, where appropriate, requirements for maintaining institutional controls, under § 300.510(c)." Pursuant to
40 C.F.R. § 300.435(f)(2), "A remedy becomes 'operational and functional' either one year after construction is
complete or when the remedy is determined concurrently by the EPA and the state to be functioning properly and
is performing as designed, whichever is earlier. The EPA may grant extensions to the one-year period, as
appropriate."

-------
Responsible Offices

According to the Superfund State Contract between the State of Florida and the EPA,3 once the remedial
action is complete, Florida assumes responsibility for completing O&M activities outlined in the O&M
Plan. The FDEP began O&M activities on most of the OU-1 remedy on March 1, 2013. As part of O&M
activities for the site, the FDEP is responsible for monitoring, retaining, and enforcing institutional
controls, as well as conducting quarterly site inspections for physical security and compliance with
institutional controls.

In 2017, Escambia County entered into a memorandum of agreement with the FDEP in which the county
accepted responsibility for performing and documenting O&M activities, although the state is ultimately
responsible for completing O&M activities. The agreement became effective in May 2021. The county is
also the zoning authority for approximately half the site, while the City of Pensacola is the zoning
authority for the other half. Each entity is responsible for enforcing appropriate land uses in its
established zoning districts.

The EPA is responsible for overseeing and ensuring the completion of O&M activities. The EPA delegates
site management and oversight responsibilities to the site's remedial project manager. The party
responsible for O&M activities at a site submits O&M reports to the remedial project manager on a
recurring basis. The EPA also reviews the site every five years.

The remedial project manager uses information in
the O&M reports to determine the effectiveness of
the remedy as part of the five-year review process.
Based on report routing information received from
Region 4, the Region 4 Superfund and Emergency
Management Division and Office of Regional Counsel,
as well as the EPA Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation within the Office of Land
and Emergency Management, are part of the review
process for the resulting report.4

3 Superfund State Contract between the State of Florida and the EPA, Region 4 Soil Remedial Action - Operable
Unit 1 at the Escambia Wood Treating Company Superfund Site (SSC HW 542), was effective May 2, 2007, and
amended on June 16, 2009; December 30, 2009; September 7, 2010; and April 12, 2012. A Superfund State
Contract is a joint, legally binding agreement between the EPA and the state and is required before an EPA-led
remedial action. 40 C.F.R. § 35.6015(a). The Superfund State Contract contains, among other elements, assurances
about the state assuming responsibility for O&M activities, the nature and frequency of reports between the state
and the EPA, and sanctions for failing to comply with the terms of the contract. 40 C.F.R. § 35.6805(i)(l) and (o); 40
C.F.R. § 35.6815(c)(1).

4 Region 4 staff explained that the Five-Year Review report is routed through five levels of review within the EPA
and involves a minimum of nine different reviewers, including regional and headquarters staff.

A five-year review is an evaluation of the
implementation and performance of remedies at
a site, including institutional controls, to
determine whether they are or will be protective
of human health and the environment. These
evaluations take place every five years. CERCLA
requires these evaluations when hazardous
substances, contaminants, or pollutants are left
on a site and prevent unrestricted use of the site
or the resources at the site because of the risk of
exposure to the public.

-------
Scope and Methodology

We conducted this evaluation from May 2023 through February 2024 in accordance with the Quality
Standards for Inspection and Evaluation published in December 2020 by the Council of the Inspectors
General on Integrity and Efficiency. Those standards require that we perform the evaluation to obtain
sufficient and appropriate evidence to support our findings.

On May 4, 2023, we drove around the perimeter of the site and saw that physical access controls, such
as fencing and signage, were in poor condition or missing, and that encampments of homeless persons
were established around the site. We also observed evidence of trespassing and a missing segment of
fencing. These observations led us to pursue this matter in more depth, focusing on the institutional and
physical access controls in place at the site.

In addition to the unannounced inspection of the site perimeter that prompted this report, we reviewed
imagery of the site on publicly accessible mapping software and official site documents from 2002
through 2022, including Five-Year Review reports, Records of Decision, and the O&M Plan, to understand
the contaminants of concern, remedial plans and objectives, and associated O&M activities and
institutional controls related to protecting the remedy and public health. We interviewed the site's
remedial project manager to gauge the EPA's awareness of the observed conditions and to understand
any barriers that may exist in maintaining and enforcing physical access controls and institutional
controls. We compared our observations, as well as those documented in the Five-Year Review reports
and O&M reports, against criteria in CERCLA, EPA regulations, the Superfund State Contract, the
restrictive covenants, and the site's O&M Plan.

Prior Reports

OIG Report No. 20-E-0169, EPA Oversight Provided Reasonable Controls to Deter and Minimize
Trespassing at the Fort Ord Superfund Site, issued May 14, 2020, evaluated whether the EPA's
Superfund institutional controls achieve their stated goal of preventing human exposure at the
Superfund site. The team evaluated institutional controls at Fort Ord, located in California, from
October 2019 through March 2020. The team evaluated whether the site properly controlled access
through fencing and signage, which were confirmed to be in good condition. The team made no
recommendations in this report.

OIG Report No. 21-P-0223. EPA's Office of Land and Emergency Management Lacked a Nationally
Consistent Strategy for Communicating Health Risks at Contaminated Sites, issued September 9, 2021,
found that the EPA did not consistently communicate human health risks at select sites in a manner that
allowed impacted communities to decide how to manage their risks of exposure to harmful
contaminants. The team recommended implementing internal controls to achieve and monitor
nationally consistent risk communication as well as providing communities with information to manage
their risks. All the recommendations are resolved, and corrective actions are completed.

-------
Results

The EPA is not sufficiently overseeing O&M activities for the soil-related remediation at the Escambia
Wood Superfund site, which includes both physical access and institutional controls established to
protect human health and the remedy there. Despite restrictive covenants that prohibit residential use
of the site, it is the remedial project manager's opinion that homeless persons encamped at the site are
not at risk of contamination exposure. Because of this opinion, the remedial project manager is not
ensuring that state and local partners enforce the established institutional controls. Further, poorly
maintained physical access controls and conflicting zoning for the site enable camping and trespassing at
the site. According to Five-Year Review reports and O&M reports, camping and trespassing have been
ongoing issues at this site since at least March 2007. However, the EPA has not taken sufficient action to
ensure that this unauthorized use does not continue even though the protectiveness of the remedy
depends on it. Given its insufficient oversight and enforcement of the Superfund State Contract, the EPA
risks allowing a reduction in the protectiveness of the remedy on which it has already spent
$140 million. We are also concerned that the planned groundwater remediation, for which the EPA has
allocated an additional $40 million in IIJA funds, will be at risk if these deficiencies continue.

The EPA Is Not Ensuring that State and Local Partners Enforce Institutional Controls

Contrary to requirements outlined in site documents,
we observed encampments of homeless persons
around the site. We also observed evidence of
trespassing, including items dumped on the site.
According to the Ready for Reuse Determination
document for the Escambia Wood Superfund site, "the
Site's remedy will remain protective of human health
and the environment, subject to O&M of the remedy
and the limitations as specified in the RODs [Records of
Decision] and the implemented and planned restrictive
covenants." The land-use restrictions include "using the
property solely for commercial, industrial, or
manufacturing purposes and forbidding the use of the
property for any temporary or permanent housing of
individuals, campgrounds, recreational facilities, and
mining or agricultural purposes." The Ready for Reuse
Determination document also states that O&M
activities include proper use of the property and
monitoring of institutional controls.

Encampment observed at the Escambia Wood

Superfund site.

Source: EPAOIG image.

-------
Additionally, past site inspection documentation shows that trespassing has been an ongoing condition
at the site. Appendix B contains more details about the EPA's findings on encampments of homeless
persons at the site.

While the state is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the institutional controls are monitored,
retained, and enforced and that physical access controls are in place as part of O&M activities for this
site, the EPA is responsible for determining whether and when specific O&M activities are complete.
Based on our observations and document review, the county, which is under agreement to conduct
O&M activities on behalf of the state, has not enforced the institutional controls to prevent potential
exposure to contamination. The EPA's Five-Year Review report from January 2022 states that the FDEP
and Escambia County are "managing the issue" of homeless persons camping at the site without
providing further details. Our observations in May 2023 indicate that the situation was not effectively
managed, and the condition persisted.

We asked the remedial project manager why the institutional controls at the site were not being
enforced. The remedial project manager said that other than notifying the county that the controls need
to be enforced, there was little that the EPA could do. However, the EPA could have pursued additional
actions. The Superfund State Contract requires the state to complete required O&M activities
established in the O&M Plan, which includes routine monitoring and enforcement of institutional
controls. If the state fails to comply with the terms of the Superfund State Contract, CERCLA authorizes
the EPA to bring suit in federal court to enforce the contract. However, the EPA did not take such action
or pursue an effective administrative remedy to ensure that the state adhered to the Superfund State
Contract, including provisions pertaining to implementation of the O&M Plan, even though camping and
trespassing had been ongoing issues at this site for over 16 years.

The remedial project manager also explained that
administrative action was not taken because of the
remedial project manager's opinion that there is no risk to
the homeless persons and that the institutional controls
are overly restrictive. According to the remedial project
manager, the soil at the site was remediated to meet
Florida's commercial and industrial use standards, which
are more stringent than the EPA's acceptable cancer risk
regional screening levels for resident soil. According to the
EPA, the FDEP commercial cleanup standards were within
the acceptable risk range for the homeless persons
camping at the site based on a risk assessment using the
Regional Screening Levels calculator.

This opinion conflicts with the EPA's official site decision documentation, the Ready for Reuse
Determination document, and the restrictive covenants, which clearly outline that the site is not
intended for residential use. The OU-1 remedy itself, as stated in the Record of Decision, involved the

Regional screening levels are risk-based
concentrations of substances that are protective
of human health over the course of a lifetime,
calculated using the latest toxicity values,
default exposure assumptions, and physical and
chemical properties. Regional screening levels
are not the same as cleanup standards. Rather,
they are used in initial screening of sites to
determine areas that require further federal
attention. On the other hand, cleanup goals,
which are site-specific and documented in the
site's Record of Decision, may be based on
additional information, such as applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements and
site-specific risk-based goals.

-------
permanent relocation of 400 households from the site. The EPA has not amended the Record of Decision
or published an Explanation of Significant Differences to reflect such a deviation from the OU-1 remedy,5
nor did it amend the restrictive covenants or Ready for Reuse Determination document. Further, while
the EPA's 2017 Fourth Five-Year Review Report and the 2022 Fifth Five-Year Review Report both state
that the risk of exposure to contamination was within the acceptable range, they also state that
enforcement of the institutional controls is required for long-term protectiveness of the remedy. Given
that the EPA is not fulfilling its obligation to ensure that the agreed-upon remedy for the site remains in
place and effective, and the documentation provides conflicting determinations about the safety of
current site uses, the homeless persons camping at the site may be at risk of exposure to contamination
and the OU-1 remedy may be at risk of damage.

The EPA's Insufficient Oversight Allowed Conditions to Persist that Enable
Camping and Trespassing at the Escambia Wood Superfund Site

Fence overgrown with vegetation. The
vegetation is also covering a faded sign
meant to warn the public about contaminated
soil and groundwater at the site.

Source: EPAOIG image.

Camping and trespassing at the Escambia Wood site may
expose individuals to contamination and risk damage to the
OU-1 remedy. These activities were enabled by the EPA's poor
oversight of the fencing and signage around the site. Although
the Record of Decision for OU-1 does not specifically describe
site security measures for the site, it does indicate that clear
lines of responsibility for implementation and enforcement of
O&M requirements will be included in the O&M Plan.
According to the O&M Plan, site security inspections are
required quarterly for the first year of O&M activities and may
decrease to semiannually thereafter, inspections must
document any significant events or problems encountered,
and these observations and their resolutions should be
summarized in an O&M report. As part of its oversight of
O&M activities at the site, the remedial project manager had
access to O&M reports from the state outlining its site
inspection activities and findings.

The state's O&M inspection reports did not demonstrate
compliance with the O&M Plan. Several inspections were
missing from the reports over the years, and the amount of
detail included in the reports varied significantly. For example,
some O&M reports did not include an inspection log
documenting observations at the site.

5 The EPA prepares an Explanation of Significant Differences when changes to the remedy selected in the Record of
Decision are significant but do not fundamentally alter the remedy with respect to scope, performance, or cost.

-------
The O&M reports from June 2013 through April 2022 documented fence damage, trespassing,
vandalism, and homeless persons camping at the site. Most O&M reports documented fence repair
activities and illegal dumping resolutions, but none included actions taken to address the encampments
of homeless persons, even though the EPA also observed them during its five-year review inspections in
2007, 2017, and 2022. The remedial project manager was aware of these deficiencies and regional and
headquarters staff should also have been aware because, according to Region 4 staff, the EPA's review
process for Five-Year Review reports includes five levels of review and approval.

Despite these O&M Plan requirements that the state inspect and maintain physical access controls, we
observed that physical access controls, such as fencing and signage, were in poor condition or missing.
Signage was faded and illegible. Fencing was overgrown with vegetation, which may impact the ability
for it to be properly inspected, and a portion of the fence was missing. A gate meant to prevent access
to the site was latched loosely so that an adult could pass through it. We spoke with another remedial
project manager in the same city and county who also encountered issues with homeless persons
camping at a site the individual managed. The remedial project manager said that the EPA deterred
camping by ensuring that the site was not overgrown and that the fence was in good shape and not
covered in vegetation. While states are generally responsible for implementing and funding O&M
activities, the EPA could deter camping at the site by ensuring that state and local partners conduct
O&M activities as required through effective oversight in accordance with the Superfund State Contract.

From left to right: Locked gate with a gap large enough to enter the site. Portion of fence missing at the site.
Source: EPAOIG images.

The O&M Plan also specifies that O&M activities include monitoring zoning changes to ensure that they
comply with institutional controls. However, the zoning in the northern half of the Escambia Wood
Superfund site conflicts with the restrictive covenants established in 2013. Specifically, some parcels of

-------
the site are zoned by Escambia County as suitable for residential and recreational use, conflicting with
the state's restrictive covenants. Further, the remedial project manager told us that Escambia County
staff expressed an interest in allowing encampments at the site to manage the county's homeless
population. Without zoning that restricts residential uses or effective institutional controls, the county
may have difficulty prohibiting encampments. In contrast, in the portions of the site where Pensacola is
responsible for zoning, the city's zoning does not conflict with the state's restrictive covenants, thereby
authorizing the city to halt residential or recreational use on that half of the site if necessary. We did not
observe encampments in portions of the site controlled by Pensacola. Appendix C shows the locations of
encampments that we observed on publicly accessible mapping software or in person.

Encampments of homeless persons persist at the site because of insufficient EPA oversight of O&M
activities and conflicting land zoning. The remedial project manager stated that during the IIJA-funded
remediation of OU-2, the EPA would likely implement 24-hour security and enhanced fencing. However,
given that the EPA has yet to ensure that its state and local partners consistently maintain and enforce
physical access and institutional controls at this site, the EPA should begin working to ensure that this
pattern does not continue into the OU-2 post-construction phase. Further, by reducing the long-term
presence of homeless persons camping at the site, the EPA will also reduce the potential for exposure to
contaminated soil and secure the remedy for both OU-1 and OU-2. In the absence of such action, the
EPA cannot ensure that the $140 million for OU-1 and $40 million for OU-2 will provide lasting benefits
and not waste congressionally appropriated funds under the IIJA.

Recommendations

We recommend that the regional administrator for Region 4, in coordination with the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection and Escambia County:

1.	Ensure state and local partners implement and enforce existing institutional controls at the
Escambia Wood Superfund site, including institutional controls prohibiting residential or
recreational use of site parcels. This action will reduce the potential for exposure to
contaminated soil, protect the remedy the EPA has already spent $140 million on, and create
conditions to ensure effective use of the $40 million in Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
funding for groundwater remediation.

2.	Determine whether it is appropriate for the Escambia Wood Superfund site to be used for
recreational or residential purposes and whether institutional controls documented in the
Record of Decision and Ready for Reuse Determination are no longer needed. Document this
change in remedial decision documents and, if applicable, work with appropriate stakeholders
to amend the associated institutional controls.

3.	Ensure that the appropriate parties perform adequate operation and maintenance of the
remedy consistent with the Operations and Maintenance Plan, including inspection,
maintenance, and repair of fencing.

11

-------
4. Develop and execute a plan to determine whether to implement additional engineering controls
to support site security and the effectiveness of existing institutional controls.

Agency Response and OIG Assessment

Appendix D includes the EPA's consolidated response to our draft report. Region 4 and the Office of
Land and Emergency Management also provided technical comments, which we reviewed and used to
make appropriate changes to the final report. Region 4 agreed with Recommendations 1, 2, and 4 and
described corrective actions to address the recommendations.

In its response and technical comments, Region 4 emphasized that it has worked closely with its state
and local partners over the years to address the issue of encampments of homeless persons at the site.
In its technical comments, the Office of Land and Emergency Management expressed concern that we
were suggesting that the EPA sue the state to ensure compliance with the terms of the State Superfund
Contract. We are not suggesting that the region has failed to work with its partners over the years, nor
are we suggesting that the EPA sue the state. Rather, we are expressing our concern that the region's
efforts to work with state and local partners have not resulted in the maintenance and enforcement of
institutional controls that all parties agreed were necessary for the safe use of the site. Given (1) the
length of time these conditions persisted; (2) the language in the Five-Year Review reports, which
indicated that the state and county were managing the issue; and (3) the remedial project manager's
position that there was nothing else that the EPA could do about conditions at the site, we are
concerned that the region may have reached an impasse in ensuring that the institutional controls were
implemented and enforced for this site. The region stated that it will use our report as an opportunity to
reengage with state and local partners to address this situation. We welcome such an approach.

Region 4 agreed with Recommendation 1, which recommended that the EPA ensure that state and local
partners implement and enforce existing institutional controls at the Escambia Wood Superfund site,
including institutional controls that prohibit residential or recreational use of site parcels. In its
response, Region 4 agreed with the recommendation and stated that the institutional controls should be
enforced or updated to reflect current site conditions and risks. The region plans to work with the FDEP
to identify where institutional controls may be overly protective and determine whether the controls
should be updated based on current site conditions. The region also plans to update the O&M Plan
accordingly. The region stated that it has worked closely with the FDEP and Escambia County to address
the issue of "unhoused campers" and that it will continue to take all necessary steps to ensure that
appropriate institutional controls are in place and enforced where needed in coordination with the city
and county governments and the FDEP. However, it remains unclear what these necessary steps are and
how they will be accomplished. Furthermore, it is unclear how Region 4 will ensure that the institutional
controls are enforced if state and local governments do not concur with revising the institutional
controls. Therefore, Recommendation 1 remains unresolved until the region describes its plans to
ensure that state and local partners implement and enforce existing institutional controls. The
recommendation may also be resolved if the institutional controls are amended, negating the need for
implementation and enforcement of these controls.

-------
Region 4 did not agree with Recommendation 3, which recommended that the EPA ensure adequate
O&M of the remedy by clearing vegetation from fences, replacing any missing segment of the fence,
securing any large gaps in the fence gate, and ensuring legible and sufficient signage. The region
disagreed with this recommendation because fences and signage are not remedial components required
by the OU-1 Record of Decision or by the restrictive covenants. The region contends that fences and
signage are not needed to protect human health and the environment and that the fences were left in
place after construction was finished. The region asserted that the O&M Plan "is unclear on the role of
fence inspections," and that the region will amend the O&M Plan after it addresses Recommendations 1
and 2. Additionally, the region contended that these requested actions are not required as part of the
site's institutional controls.

The intent of Recommendation 3 was not only to have the EPA ensure that the appropriate parties
conducted sufficient O&M for the site, but also to address the conditions that enable trespassing and
camping at the site. Ultimately, this recommendation aims to reduce the potential for human exposure
to contaminated soil and to protect the remedy. According to the Record of Decision, O&M
requirements for ensuring the long-term protectiveness of the remedy would be developed during the
remedial design of the remedy. The Record of Decision further states that an O&M Plan outlining clear
lines of responsibility for both implementation and enforcement of O&M requirements will be
developed when the remedy is installed. The O&M Plan states that "physical security of the Site shall be
inspected quarterly and will include checking for vandalism and checking the integrity of all security
fences, manhole covers, and monitoring well locks." The preamble to this section of the O&M Plan
states that these "O&M activities [are] required for the ETC OU1 site remedy."

Based on the information above, it is our understanding that the purpose of the fence is to ensure
physical security of the site and that the listed O&M activities are required for the OU-1 remedy. While
the Record of Decision does not specify that a fence is required as part of the remedy, the O&M Plan,
which was created in accordance with the Record of Decision, expressly refers to ensuring the integrity
of certain physical security measures, including security fences, as a component of the OU-1 remedy.
Furthermore, O&M inspections over the years and the region's own five-year review inspections
included inspecting and reporting on fence conditions. Given the long-standing issues with trespassing
and encampments and contamination in the soil at levels that do not allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure, we question the region's contention that the site does not need fences and
signage to protect human health. Recommendation 3 remains unresolved until the conditions that
enable trespassing and camping are addressed or the O&M Plan is amended.

We adjusted Recommendation 3 in response to the Office of Land and Emergency Management's request
for the recommendation to be consistent with CERCLA and to clearly reflect the fact that the EPA does
not conduct O&M activities. We also adjusted Recommendation 3 to clarify that the requirements
pertaining to fencing are outlined in the O&M Plan. The recommendation now suggests that the EPA
ensure appropriate parties conduct adequate O&M of the remedy consistent with the O&M Plan.

13

-------
Status of Recommendations

Rec.
No.

Page
No.

Recommendation

Status*

Action Official

Planned
Completion
Date

In coordination with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Escambia
County, ensure state and local partners implement and enforce existing institutional
controls at the Escambia Wood Superfund site, including institutional controls prohibiting
residential or recreational use of site parcels. This action will reduce the potential for
exposure to contaminated soil, protect the remedy the EPA has already spent $140
million on, and create conditions to ensure effective use of the $40 million in
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funding for groundwater remediation.

Regional Administrator
for Region 4

In coordination with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Escambia
County, determine whether it is appropriate for the Escambia Wood Superfund site to be
used for recreational or residential purposes and whether institutional controls
documented in the Record of Decision and Ready for Reuse Determination are no
longer needed. Document this change in remedial decision documents and, if
applicable, work with appropriate stakeholders to amend the associated institutional
controls.

Regional Administrator
for Region 4

9/30/24

In coordination with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Escambia
County, ensure that the appropriate parties perform adequate operation and
maintenance of the remedy consistent with the Operations and Maintenance Plan,
including inspection, maintenance, and repair of fencing.

Regional Administrator
for Region 4

In coordination with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Escambia
County, develop and execute a plan to determine whether to implement additional
engineering controls to support site security and the effectiveness of existing institutional
controls.

Regional Administrator for
Region 4

9/30/24

* C = Corrective action completed.

R = Recommendation resolved with corrective action pending.
U = Recommendation unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.

-------
Appendix A

Superfund Funding Sources

Congress established CERCLA in 1980 in response to highly publicized hazardous waste incidents that
occurred in the 1970s. CERCLA instituted a tax on the chemical and oil industries and authorized the EPA
to require owners and operators of contaminated sites to clean them up. The tax revenues are put in
the Superfund to pay for emergency responses and site cleanup when the EPA cannot identify
responsible parties. Tax revenues collected in the first five years after CERCLA was enacted resulted in
approximately $1.6 billion for the Superfund. The tax on the oil and chemical industries expired on
September 30, 1985. In 1986, Congress enacted the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act,
which reinstated and expanded the scope of taxes on the oil and chemical industries from 1987 through
1991. In 1990, taxes to support the Superfund were extended once again until 1995 by the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. By the end of 1995, Superfund funding was being provided by general
revenues from Congress.

Historically, Superfund funding has been insufficient to support the large amount of remediation that
needs to occur at the hundreds of Superfund sites nationwide. A 2010 Government Accountability Office
report, GAQ-10-380, Superfund: EPA's Estimated Costs to Remediate Existing Sites Exceed Current
Funding Levels and More Sites Are Expected to Be Added to the National Priorities List, documented that
by 2009 the Superfund balance had decreased to $137 million. The report also described how the
annual cost estimates for Superfund remediation for 2011 and 2012 exceeded costs allocated for 2009
by $253 million and $414 million, respectively. Further, the report stated that the costs were likely
underestimated. The report also noted that, of the 75 nonfederal National Priorities List sites in 2009
where human exposure was still unacceptable, 65 percent of them had either all or more than half of
the remediation still incomplete because of insufficient funding.

Special appropriations have injected funding into the Superfund. In 2009, Congress enacted the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which provided $600 million for the Superfund. In 2021,
Congress enacted the IIJA, which provided $3.5 billion to initiate cleanup and clear the backlog of
previously unfunded Superfund sites and accelerate cleanup at many other sites across the country.
Additionally, the Inflation Reduction Act, enacted in 2022, permanently reinstated the taxes on the
chemical and oil industries.

-------
Appendix B

EPA Five-Year Review Findings at the Escambia Wood

Superfund Site

During the March 13, 2007 site inspection, which the EPA conducted as part of the site's second five-
year review, the EPA found evidence that trespassing and theft were occuring at the Escambia Wood
Superfund site on a frequent basis and that undemolished vacated residences were occupied by
trespassers. The associated report described evidence of all-terrain vehicle tire tracks, bike tracks,
footprints, and slide marks on a soil stockpile cover, indicating that the public was accessing the site for
recreational purposes. The Five-Year Review report concluded that more regular inspection and
maintenance of the physical access controls and increased coordination with the local government were
necessary for the interim remedy to be protective in the long term.

As a result of the findings of the 2007 five-year review, an EPA contractor maintained a regular presence
on the site and regularly inspected and maintained the perimeter fencing. The contractor hired a
subcontractor to provide security at the site, including the former residential areas, during nonworking
hours. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA asked the Escambia County Sheriffs Office to
increase patrols in the area. The contractor secured vacant structures and kept the grass cut. The EPA's
inspection conducted as part of the subsequent five-year review in 2012 noted that the fencing around
the site and the former neighborhood were in good condition and that all gates were properly locked
and secured.

However, a site inspection that the EPA conducted on December 14, 2016, found several people
camping in the wooded portions of all but one of the former neighborhood areas as well as on
non-EPA-owned property. According to the 2017 Five-Year Review report, which included this site visit
information, the EPA did not have a mechanism to enforce the restrictive covenants or to conduct O&M
activities at the site. The report noted camping to be a chronic issue at the site and recommended that
the FDEP implement additional engineering controls to limit physical access and increase enforcement
of institutional controls by the local government and police department by March 27, 2018. The 2017
Five-Year Review report also noted complaints from neighboring property owners about excessive
vegetation growth, trespassers, and theft.

The EPA's January 26, 2022 site inspection, conducted as part of the site's fifth five-year review, also
found several camps of homeless persons in the wooded parts of the former neighborhood areas. The
report stated that the FDEP and Escambia County were "managing the issue," but the report did not
provide further details. The report also noted a need for fencing repairs and evidence of trespassing.

-------
Appendix C

Observed Encampments at the Escambia Wood Superfund Site

•Source: Publicly available geographic information system street view imagery, Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Contamination Locator Mag with the "National Priorities List Superfund Site Boundaries (EPA Public 2022)" layer and the "Florida
Institutional Controls Registry" layer overlays, and EPA OIG images.

Driving route

Encampments observed during Site drive-through
^ Encampments observed using online mapping tools
Site boundary

Institutional control boundary

17

-------
Agency Response

Appendix D

^£DSX

r Mm T>

PRO"^

REGION 4 ADMINISTRATOR

ATLANTA, CA 30303

March 25, 2024

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report No. OSRE-FY23-0054 The EPA
Can Improve Oversight of Physical Access and Institutional Controls at the Escambia
Wood Treating Company Superfund Site, Dated February 22, 2024

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the recommendations and issues raised in the subject
Office of Inspector General (OIG) draft audit report. This response has been coordinated with the Office
of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM). Given that the recommendations in this report are
directed to Region 4, OLEM has deferred to the Region on this formal response.

A summary of the Region's overall position, along with its position on each of the report
recommendations directed to Region 4 is provided below. For those report recommendations with
which the Region agrees (Recommendations 1, 2, and 4), we have provided high-level intended
corrective actions and estimated completion dates. For those report recommendations with which the
Region does not agree (Recommendation 3), we have provided an explanation for the Region's position
and have proposed alternatives to the OIG's recommendations for your consideration. We have
attached a Draft Report Technical Comments form to supplement this response that includes input from
the Region and OLEM.

FROM:	J eaneanne M. Gettle	jcmincm

Acting Regional Administrator GETTLE

IFAMFAMMF Digitally signed by
JCnlNCMININl .ifanfanwfoft

JEANEANNE GETTLE
Date: 2024.03.25
17:33:20 -04*00'

TO:

Sean W. O'Donnell, Inspector General
Office of Inspector General

18

-------
REGION'S OVERALL POSITION

The Region agrees with the substance of the recommendations of the OIG report. The report provides a
review of institutional controls at the site and provides recommendations for improvements. There are
two restrictive covenant documents in place for about 70 acres of the Site. One is for the former
Rosewood Terrace Subdivision, which is south of Hickory Street and includes restrictions to protect the
OU1 containment cell (instrument number 2014029668). The other is for the former Oak Park, Escambia
Arms (which includes areas north of Beggs Lane), Clarinda Triangle and Herman & Pearl neighborhoods,
(instrument number 2014029669). Both restrictive covenants limit property uses to commercial,
industrial, or manufacturing uses, and exclude businesses that house people temporarily or
permanently. The restrictive covenants also forbid the following uses: residential use, including mobile
homes, hotels, motels, apartments, dormitories, campgrounds, group homes, retirement communities
or temporary shelters; day-care centers, kindergartens, or elementary or secondary schools;
playgrounds, athletic fields, or camps; and mining or agricultural purposes, including community gardens
and forestry. The EPA and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) developed the
specific land use limitations in the restrictive covenants, which are intended to prevent uses that may
lead to unacceptable exposure unless FDEP grants prior approval with EPA's written consent. As was the
practice at the time, the restrictive covenants apply the land use restrictions across the entire legal
description and provide a mechanism to reduce restrictions if the FDEP and EPA concur. EPA's Five-Year
Reviews (FYR) have determined that the camping in the former Oak Park and Escambia Arms
neighborhoods does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health. However, EPA's FYRs do not
constitute EPA concurrence with a change in the land use restrictions. Thus, EPA FYR note the FDEP and
County's responsibility to enforce the restrictive covenants.

The Region notes the OIG's concern with potential exposure to the unhoused campers at the site. We
have evaluated that concern through our FYR process and determined that the unhoused campers are
not at risk. We can provide supporting information to the OIG if needed. Similarly, the Region believes
that there will be no impact on the site remedy implemented at OU1 and the forthcoming remedy at
OU2 and can provide supporting documentation to the OIG if needed.

Nevertheless, Region 4 agrees with the need to either better enforce the restrictive covenants as
written or to modify the restrictive covenants to reflect current site conditions and risks. The Region will
use this report as an opportunity to reengage with state and local partners to address this situation.

Region 4 has worked closely with our State and local partners over the years to address the issue of
unhoused campers, and we will continue to take all necessary steps to ensure appropriate institutional
controls are in place and enforced where needed in coordination with the city and county governments
and the FDEP. The EPA is currently discussing the restrictive covenants for this site with FDEP to
determine where they are overly protective and whether they should be updated based on current site
conditions.

The Region appreciates the input of the OIG on how to best protect and leverage Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act funds used to implement the remedy at this site. Please see the Region's
responses to the specific OIG recommendations below with additional information in the Technical
Comments Attachment.

-------
RESPONSE TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

No.

Recommendation

Agreements:

High-Level Intended Corrective Action(s)

Estimated
Completion
Quarter & FY

#1

Ensure state and local partners
implement and enforce existing
institutional controls at the
Escambia Wood Superfund site,
including institutional controls
prohibiting residential or
recreational use of site parcels.
This action will reduce the
potential for exposure to
contaminated soil, protect the
remedy the EPA has already spent
$140 million on, and create
conditions to ensure effective use
of the $40 million in Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act funding
for groundwater remediation.

The Region agrees with this recommendation. The
institutional controls should be enforced, or they
should be updated to reflect current site conditions
and risks.

The Region identified through the FYR process that
some land use restrictions are not needed to
ensure protectiveness of the remedy. The Region
has communicated the process to revise the land
use controls to the State and the property owner
(Escambia County). As a result of this
recommendation, the Region will work with the
implementing State Agency to determine the
extent of the institutional controlsthat are needed.

The Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Plan will
also be amended based on the observations in the
report and, if needed, after the institutional
controls are changed.

Determine
whether
restrictive
covenants
should be
amended:
September 30,
2024

Update O&M
Plan:

September 30,
2024

#2

Determine whether it is
appropriate for the Escambia
Wood Superfund site to be used
for recreational or residential
purposes and whether
institutional controls documented
in the Record of Decision and
Ready for Reuse determinations
are no longer needed. Document
this change in remedial decision
documents and, if applicable,
work with appropriate
stakeholders to amend the
associated institutional controls.

The Region agrees with this recommendation.
The Region has already determined that the
current use is protective of human health and the
environment in the 2017 and 2022 FYRs. The
Region has initiated a review of the institutional
controls in coordination with FDEP and we will
amend the institutional controls as needed. The
Region's position is that the Record of Decision
may not need to be amended to allow some
changes in land use and that the Restrictive
Covenants are intentionally flexible. The Region
may adjust the Ready for Reuse document as
well.

Determine
whether
restrictive
covenants
should be
amended:
September 30,
2024

#4

Develop and execute a plan to
determine whether to implement
additional engineering controls to
support site security and the
effectiveness of existing
institutional controls.

The Region agrees with this recommendation.
We do not anticipate that additional engineering
controls are needed at the site. The O&M Plan is
unclear on the role offence inspections and will
be amended based on the observations in the
report.

Update O&M
Plan:

September 30,
2024

20

-------
No.

Recommendation

Agreements:

High-Level Intended Corrective Action(s)

Estimated
Completion
Quarter & FY

The effectiveness of institutional controls and
improved enforcement of institutional controls
will be addressed by recommendations 1 and 2, in
coordination with FDEP. The Region is currently
working with FDEP to "right size" the institutional
controls.

Ensure adequate operation and
maintenance of the site by
clearing vegetation from fences,
replacing any missing segment of
the fence, securing any large gaps
in the fence gate, and ensuring
legible and sufficient signage to
discourage trespassing and
camping.

The Region disagrees with this recommendation
because fences and signage are not remedial
components required by the 0U1 Record of
Decision or by the restrictive covenants. Fences
and signage are not needed to protect human
health and the environment. Fences were left in
place after construction was finished. The O&M
Plan is unclear on the role offence inspections, so
the O&M Plan will be amended after
recommendations 1 and 2 are addressed.

Additionally, these requested actions are not
required as part of the site institutional controls.
Further detail is noted in the technical comments.

The O&M plan
will be amended
after

recommendatio
ns 1 and 2 are
addressed.

CONTACT INFORMATION

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this response, please contact the Region 4 Audit
Follow-Up Coordinator, Alicia Sterk, at Sterk.Alicia@epa.gov or (801) 678-6168, or the Office of Land
and Emergency Management Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Kecia Thornton at
Thornton.Kecia@epa.gov or (202) 566-1913.

Attachments:

Draft Report Technical Comments

cc: Barry Breen, OLEM

Lindsay Clarke Brubaker, OIG
Kimberley Lake De Pulla, OIG
Gwendolyn Spriggs, OECA

-------
Appendix E

Distribution

The Administrator

Deputy Administrator

Chief of Staff, Office of the Administrator

Deputy Chief of Staff for Management, Office of the Administrator

Assistant Administrator for Land and Emergency Management

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Land and Emergency Management

Regional Administrator for Region 4

Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)

Agency Follow-Up Coordinators

General Counsel

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Office of Land and Emergency Management
Deputy Regional Administrator for Region 4

Director, Office of Continuous Improvement, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Office of Regional Operations
Office of Policy OIG Liaison
Office of Policy GAO Liaison

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of the Administrator

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Land and Emergency Management

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 4

22

-------
Whistleblower Protection

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The whistleblower protection coordinator's role
is to educate Agency employees about
prohibitions against retaliation for protected
disclosures and the rights and remedies against
retaliation. For more information, please visit
the OIG's whistleblower protection webpage.

Contact us:

Congressional Inquiries: OIG.CoiwessionalAffairs(53epa.gov

Media Inquiries: OIG,PublicAffairs@epa.gov
line EPA OIG Hotline: OIG.Hotline@epa.gov

w Web: epaoig.gov

Follow us:

X (formerly Twitter): (5)epaoig

Linkedln: linkedin.com/companv/epa-oig

line) YouTube: youtube.com/epaoig

0] Instagram: ffepa.ig.on.ig

-------