CONTAMINATED AREA
AVOID CONTACT WITH
SOIL AND WATER
OR INFORMATION CAM
f -404'562-87QO
The EPA Needs to Improve
Institutional Controls at the
American Creosote Works
Superfund Site in Pensacola,
Florida, to Protect Public
Health and IIJA-Funded
Remediation
April 15, 2024 | Report No. 24-E-0032
v
PRO
tal
-------
Report Contributors
Dawn Christian
Lindsay K. Clarke Brubaker
Kimberley Lake de Pulla
Sargun Saluja
Sara Temme
Erin Trainor
Abbreviations
ACW American Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola Plant)
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office
IIJA Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
NWFWMD Northwest Florida Water Management District
OIG Office of Inspector General
OU Operable Unit
RPM Remedial Project Manager
Key Definitions
Institutional Controls Legal and administrative tools that help minimize the potential for human
exposure to contamination and protect the integrity of the engineered remedy
by limiting land or resource use and guiding human behavior.
Cover Image
Signage on the fence around the former wood-treatment facility at the American Creosote Works Inc.
(Pensacola Plant) Superfund site. (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.Hotlineffiepa.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.epaoiq.gov
Subscribe to our Email Updates.
Follow us on X (formerly Twitter) @EPAoiq.
Send us your Project Suggestions.
-------
. ^sPEcr0
At a Gla
24-E-0032
April 15, 2024
The EPA Needs to Improve Institutional Controls at the American
Creosote Works Superfund Site in Pensacola, Florida, to Protect
Public Health and IIJA-Funded Remediation
Why We Did This Evaluation
To accomplish this objective:
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Office of Inspector General
conducted this evaluation to
determine whether the EPA's
oversight and implementation of
institutional controls will support
effective use of Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act funding at
the American Creosote Works Inc.
(Pensacola Plant) Superfund site in
Pensacola, Florida. The EPA
allocated approximately $40 million in
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act funds for the final remediation of
this site.
Institutional controls are legal and
administrative tools that help
minimize the potential for human
exposure to contamination and
protect the integrity of the engineered
remedy by limiting land or resource
use and guiding human behavior.
Examples of institutional controls
include deed notices, restrictive
covenants, land-use zoning, and
informational mailers.
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
The institutional controls that the EPA has established at the American Creosote Works
Inc. (Pensacola Plant) Superfund site in Pensacola, Florida, related to contaminated
groundwater and soil are not sufficient to prevent potential exposure to contamination. For
contaminated groundwater, the institutional control that the EPA relied on did not prevent
well drilling or require groundwater well plugging and abandonment. The EPA also did not
plan to secure permission from private property owners to plug and abandon any wells that
the EPA encountered during remediation, potentially wasting at least $1.3 million in
remediation funds from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, or IIJA. For
contaminated soil, the EPA did not implement institutional controls to prevent potential
exposure to off-facility parcel contamination or to inform the wider public of the extent of
contamination. Further, the EPA does not plan to implement institutional controls on these
parcels after remediation to prevent the disturbance of unremediated soil, potentially
wasting $5.4 million in IIJA funds allocated for the parcels' remediation.
The EPA is also missing opportunities to communicate the risks associated with off-facility
impacted parcels to the public using the public-facing site profile webpage. Off-facility
impacted parcels is the phrase used to refer to dioxin-contaminated soil on surrounding
neighborhood parcels of land outside of the former facility's boundaries. Information
included in the physical record repository and published on the site profile webpage about
site contamination and remedial activities, institutional controls, site boundaries, and public
responsibilities is inaccurate, difficult to find and understand, or vague.
Without strong institutional controls and effective communication, the
public remains at risk of exposure to residual contamination in the
groundwater and soil from the ACW Superfund site.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We make eight recommendations to the regional administrator for Region 4 and one to the
assistant administrator for Land and Emergency Management to improve the institutional
controls at the American Creosote Works Superfund site. The EPA agreed with
Recommendations 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9, which are resolved with corrective actions pending.
The EPA did not agree with Recommendations 3, 4, and 6, which remain unresolved.
Noteworthy Achievements
The site's remedial project manager of 14 years demonstrated meaningful engagement
with the associated community and local stakeholders, positively influencing the
relationship between the EPA and the public. This engagement has allowed the project
manager to guide community behavior, find creative solutions, and facilitate remedial goals.
List of OIG reports.
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
April 15, 2024
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: The EPA Needs to Improve Institutional Controls at the American Creosote Works
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.
The Office of Land and Emergency Management and Region 4 have 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 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 and 9. These recommendations are resolved. A final 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 3, 4, and 6 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
Superfund Site in Pensacola, Florida, to Protect Public Health and IIJA-Funded
Remediation
Report No. 24-E-0032
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
To report potential fraud, waste, abuse, misconduct, or mismanagement, contact the OIG Hotline at (888) 546-8740 or OIG.Hotline@epa.gov.
-------
response contains such data, you should identify the data for redaction or removal along with
corresponding justification.
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
EPA Authority to Require the Cleanup of Contaminated Sites 1
Contamination and the Cleanup at the ACW Superfund Site in Pensacola 2
Land-Use Controls 3
IIJA Investment and Future Remediation Plans at the ACW Superfund Site 4
Responsible Offices 5
Noteworthy Achievements 5
Scope and Methodology 6
Prior Reports 6
Results 7
Institutional Controls to Prevent Potential Exposure to Contamination Were Insufficient or
Unimplemented 8
The EPA Is Missing Opportunities to Communicate the Risks Associated with Off-Facility
Impacted Areas to the Public 14
The Complete Administrative Record Is Not Available for Inspection 15
Conclusions 17
Recommendations 17
Agency Response and OIG Assessment 19
Status of Recommendations 22
A Superfund Funding Sources 23
B Agency Response to the Draft Report 24
C Distribution 32
-------
Purpose
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General initiated this 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. (Pensacola Plant), or ACW, Superfund site in Pensacola, Florida. The IIJA, Pub. L. 117-58 (2021), was
signed into law on November 15, 2021.
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
Primer on the ACW Superfund Site
• The site is a former wood-treatment facility in Pensacola.
• The site operated from 1902 to 1981.
• The site was added to the National Priorities List in 1983 because of contamination from creosote. Further
investigation identified polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and dioxins in the soil, sediment, and groundwater.
• Dioxins can cause cancer, affect reproductive systems, and cause developmental problems. Dioxins can also
damage the immune system and interfere with hormones.
• The planned IIJA-funded remediation includes excavating and replacing contaminated soil in the
neighborhood near the former facility, installing a permanent cap over contaminated soil at the former
facility, installing an underground wall to isolate the contaminated soil and groundwater at the former facility,
and treating the contaminated groundwater.
• The proposed remediation timeline is from late 2023 through early 2027.
EPA Authority to Require the Cleanup of Contaminated Sites
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA, authorizes the
EPA to require property owners and other potentially responsible parties to clean up contaminated sites.1
The EPA maintains a list of sites that are considered priorities for cleanup based on the relative threat to
human health and the environment posed by each site's contamination. This list is called the National
Priorities List. CERCLA created a trust fund, commonly referred to as the Superfund, to enable the EPA to
1A potentially responsible party is a person or persons who may be liable for certain contamination response
costs under CERCLA. A potentially responsible party could be a current or former owner or operator of a facility or
vessel; those who arrange for transport, disposal, or treatment of hazardous substances; or those who accept
hazardous substances for transport or disposal or select a disposal site from which there is a spill or release of
hazardous substances that triggers a response under CERCLA.
1
-------
pay for response and cleanup costs at contaminated sites in certain contexts. Appendix A contains more
information on the Superfund.
To address contamination more efficiently, the EPA divides some Superfund sites into distinct areas called
operable units, or OUs. The EPA uses a site's geographic areas, specific contaminants of concern, or
contaminated media—for example, groundwater or soil—requiring unique actions 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. As a cleanup progresses, the EPA may redefine the OUs and update official site documents.
Contamination and the Cleanup at the ACW Superfund Site in Pensacola
The ACW Superfund site is a former wood-treatment facility in Pensacola that operated from 1902 until
1981. It declared bankruptcy in 1982 and was listed on the National Priorities List in 1983 because of
residual contamination from creosote. Further investigations identified polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons and dioxins in the soil, sediment, and groundwater. According to the EPA, dioxins are
extremely persistent and highly toxic. They can cause cancer, as well as reproductive and developmental
problems. They can also damage the immune system and interfere with hormones.
Contamination from the site of the former wood-treatment facility spread to nearby properties in
multiple spillage events. Many of these nearby properties are private residences. The ACW Superfund
site has three OUs. OU-1 comprises the former facility, which is the source of the contamination, and its
drainage ditches. OU-2 includes the creosote and carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon-contaminated groundwater plume under the former facility, which extends beyond the
geographic boundary of the former facility. OU-3 consists of the soil contaminated with dioxins and
other organic compounds on surrounding neighborhood parcels of land outside the former facility's
boundaries, which we refer to as off-facility impacted parcels. Figure 1 illustrates the ACW Superfund
site boundaries.
Figure 1: Map of the ACW former facility and surrounding neighborhood parcels
S'
Legend
— Rad L*»e
Former Structures
252 Spillage Area
SQ9 Evaporation Area
Former Ponds
I Escambia County Parcel
Sonj*_s»._
No i»©
A *—I
Note: This map shows the
boundary of the former facility
(yellow outline) and the parcel
boundaries for the site and
surrounding neighborhood
parcels. The EPAincludes most
of the neighborhood parcels
south of the facility and north of
Cypress Street in OU-3 after soil
testing identified high dioxin
levels.
Source: 2017 Record of Decision for the ACW Superfund site. (EPA and EPA OIG image)
2
-------
The EPA collaborated with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers to plan and complete various remedial actions at the ACW Superfund site. As of May 2023,
these actions have included removing soil, sludge, and sediment from drainage ditches outside the
facility; installing a temporary cap over the contaminated materials; implementing a groundwater
treatment and monitoring system to address contamination in OU-2; and installing land-use controls to
prevent site access and protect human health.
Land-Use Controls
The EPA uses a combination of land-use controls, including engineering controls and institutional
controls, to protect human health and the environment and the integrity of the remedial actions by
limiting land or resource use and guiding human behavior. Engineering controls are physical structures,
such as containment systems and fences. Institutional controls are administrative and legal controls,
such as zoning, public advisories about contamination at a site, and restrictions on permitted uses of
private property. Table 1 summarizes these types of land-use controls.
Table 1: Types of land-use controls
Type
Definition
Examples
Engineering
controls
Engineered or physical barriers to prevent
access to contaminated areas.
Fences, engineered caps, and security
measures.
Institutional
controls:
proprietary
controls
Controls on private land or single parcels
that can prohibit or restrict activities or use.
The EPA or another stakeholder, such as a
state, tribe, or potentially responsible party,
can make agreements with the property
owner and enforcement authority.
Restrictive covenants and easements.
Institutional
controls:
governmental
controls
Restrictions imposed on resource or land
use by the authority of a governmental entity.
Zoning, building codes, groundwater-use
regulations or restrictions, and fishing
restrictions.
Institutional
controls:
informational
controls
Information and notifications provided to
local communities, site users, or other
interested persons that indicate residual
contamination remains on site. These
typically do not establish legal duties or
prohibitions.
State registries of contaminated sites, deed
notices, tracking systems, fish- and
shellfish-consumption advisories, and
signage.
Institutional
controls:
enforcement and
permit tool
controls
Legal tools that limit site activities or require
performance of specific activities.
Federal facility agreements and consent
decrees.
Source: OIG analysis of CERCLA implementing regulations (40 C.F.R. part 300) and EPA institutional control
guidance. (EPA OIG table)
The EPA implements institutional controls, as appropriate, upon discovery of contamination and during
the cleanup process. It also implements such controls when residual contamination remains in place at a
level that does not allow for unlimited use of the land or resources. The EPA may implement the
following institutional controls individually or in combination at a site:
3
-------
• Proprietary controls: The EPA may work with a private property owner and the local
governmental entity to restrict digging past a certain soil depth to protect prior remediation
activities or to prevent human exposure to health hazards. These controls affect individual
parcels.
• Governmental controls: The EPA may work with a state, tribal, or local government to
implement land-use or zoning restrictions on a property. These restrictions may prohibit future
residential use of a remediated property in perpetuity. Government entities responsible for
overseeing these controls have enforcement authority.
• Informational controls: The EPA may send informational mailers to private property owners to
inform them of contamination on their property or of a contaminated site near their property,
advising them not to consume groundwater or bring contaminated soil into their homes. The
EPA may also post information on physical signage at a site or an impacted area. However,
unlike proprietary and governmental controls, there is no enforcement mechanism included
with these types of controls. The EPA relies on members of the public to comply with the advice
to protect their health against contaminant exposure and does not pursue enforcement action
against individuals failing to adjust their behavior in response to informational controls.
• Enforcement and permit tools: In some instances, these tools are negotiated, such as by a
consent decree, which is an order issued by a judge with the consent of the EPA and the other
parties covered by the decree. In other instances, these tools are not negotiated, such as with
an administrative order in which the EPA directs a party potentially responsible for
contamination to clean up a site or cease certain activities.
IIJA Investment and Future Remediation Plans at the ACW Superfund Site
The IIJA appropriated over $60 billion to the EPA to implement infrastructure-related environmental
programs. Of this, approximately $3.5 billion was appropriated to clean up Superfund sites. The ACW
Superfund site is one of 116 National Priorities List sites to which the EPA allocated approximately
$1 billion in fiscal year 2022 IIJA funds to initiate or make progress on delayed Superfund cleanup
projects. The last engineered remedial action at the ACW Superfund site was in 2016. Since 2016, the
EPA paused remedial actions while awaiting additional funding to address the remaining contamination
in the soil and groundwater. The EPA allocated approximately $40 million in IIJA funds for the final
remediation of the ACW Superfund site. The planned IIJA-funded remediation will include approximately
$5.4 million for excavating and replacing soil in privately owned off-facility impacted parcels in OU-3.
The EPA will excavate soil around large trees; hard surfaces, such as driveways; and existing structures,
such as houses and foundations. Remediation will also include installing a permanent cap over
contaminated soil in OU-1, engineering an underground wall to isolate the contaminated soil and
groundwater at the facility, and treating the groundwater using thermal extraction to remove the
creosote in OU-2.
4
-------
Responsible Offices
EPA Region 4 delegates site-management responsibilities to the remedial project manager, or RPM, and
a site attorney from its Office of Regional Counsel. The RPM directs and coordinates all cleanup efforts
and works with the site attorney to implement and oversee institutional controls at a site.
The EPA's Office of Land and Emergency Management and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance are responsible for providing guidance regarding and oversight of Superfund activities. The
Office of Land and Emergency Management supports the ten EPA regions by developing policy and
program management for Superfund sites through all phases of remediation. The Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance supports the Office of Land and Emergency Management by assisting in
resolving corrective actions, developing institutional control training and guidance documents, providing
case support to EPA regional offices, developing model language for settlement agreements, and finding
ways to reduce barriers to institutional control implementation. The Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance also issues guidance describing how to use state cooperative agreements, such as
grants, to implement and manage institutional controls.
In fiscal year 2023, the Office of Land and Emergency Management's budget from annual appropriations
legislation was approximately $1.4 billion, and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's
budget was approximately $608.6 million. These figures do not include amounts from supplemental
appropriations legislation, such as the IIJA and the Inflation Reduction Act.
Noteworthy Achievements
Based on our interviews with private property owners adjacent to the site, the ACW Superfund site's
RPM of 14 years demonstrated meaningful engagement with the affected community. Members of the
community credited the RPM with proactively encouraging their involvement in cleanup plans for the
site. They considered the RPM their main source of valuable information and described calling the RPM
directly if they observed any concerning conditions related to the ACW Superfund site. The RPM's
communication efforts sufficiently informed the community of remedial actions and institutional
controls. The RPM's engagement with the local government also allowed the RPM to innovate within
unique circumstances. Specifically, in Florida's Escambia County, Superfund sites can be purchased by
any member of the public through the delinquent tax-collection process. Accordingly, Escambia County
sold some parcels of the former wood-treatment facility at auction more than once. The RPM
established a relationship with the Escambia County Tax Collector to implement a custom "Superfund"
notification for the former wood treatment facility's parcels. This alert allowed the RPM to communicate
with prospective buyers and discuss the responsibilities associated with owning property on a Superfund
site, which resulted in most prospective buyers choosing not to purchase the affected parcels. This
effort allowed the RPM to ensure that IIJA-funded remedial actions could proceed unimpeded.
5
-------
Scope and Methodology
We conducted this evaluation from March 2023 to January 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.
We reviewed site documents and conducted interviews with relevant stakeholders. To obtain an
understanding of site history, contaminants of concern, remedial objectives, and historical
implementation of institutional controls, we reviewed Records of Decision; Five-Year Review reports;2
the EPA's "American Creosote Works, Inc. (Pensacola Plant) Pensacola, FL" site profile webpage
(hereafter referred to as the EPA's ACW webpage); and the EPA's "Cleanups in My Community"
geographic information system database.3 We also reviewed well-survey reports and other site
documentation containing groundwater well information from 1994 through 2021 for 322 individual
private properties to understand well proliferation in the groundwater delineation area.4
We conducted interviews and a site visit to understand partnerships, practices, and policies related to
implementing, monitoring, and enforcing institutional controls at the ACW Superfund site. We
interviewed 36 stakeholders, including private property owners, impacted by the site's contamination
and remediation activities; staff members from the EPA Office of Land and Emergency Management,
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Region 4; and representatives from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Department of Health,
Escambia County Tax Collector, and City of Pensacola.
Prior Reports
We reviewed the reports from the EPA OIG and the U.S. Government Accountability Office, or GAO,
related to Superfund site management and institutional controls, including:
• EPA OIG Report No. 08-P-0169, Hazardous Waste Sites: Improved Controls Would Reduce
Superfund Backlogs, issued June 2, 2008, which recognized issues with Superfund
site-remediation tracking and the need for improved internal controls and communication
2 A Five-Year Review is an evaluation of remedial actions at a site-including institutional controls-to ensure they
remain protective of human health and the environment. These evaluations take place every five years and are
required by CERCLA and implementing regulations when hazardous substances, contaminants, or pollutants are
left on a site and prevent unlimited use of the resources at the site or could potentially cause exposure to the
public.
3 A geographic information system is a computer system that allows users to perform analyses of data associated
with specific locations and create and display results on a map. The system can help users quickly make
connections and identify patterns. For example, a user may be able to compare mapped locations of irrigation
wells with mapped boundaries of public water service areas to determine whether homeowners with access to
public water still install groundwater wells.
4 A groundwater delineation area is an area of land under which the groundwater is either contaminated or
vulnerable to contamination.
6
-------
between site stakeholders to avoid delays in the cleanup process. The report made
four recommendations related to the assignment of responsibilities to EPA and state
stakeholder staff, the establishment of criteria for monitoring progress, the assumption of the
lead agency role by the EPA for the 14 sites reviewed in the report, and the updating of EPA
Superfund site profile webpages to better communicate site cleanup progress to the public.
• GAO Report GAQ-05-163. Hazardous Waste Sites: Improved Effectiveness of Controls at Sites
Could Better Protect the Public, published January 28, 2005, which found that the EPA should
incorporate more detailed information about controls in decision documents to aid in the
planning, monitoring, and evaluating of land-use controls at Superfund sites. The GAO also
recognized the need for a comprehensive institutional control tracking system within the Agency
to facilitate these activities. It made four recommendations related to clarifying Agency
guidance so that staff better understand the function and use of institutional controls; providing
more detailed consideration in planning, monitoring, and enforcing institutional controls;
evaluating the sufficiency of controls put in place during site closeout; and accurately tracking
controls.
The EPA concurred with all recommendations from these reports and implemented corrective
actions to address them.
Results
In accordance with CERCLA regulations, institutional controls chosen as part of a response should be
adequate and reliable to manage exposure to residual contamination.5 However, the EPA is not
implementing adequate or reliable institutional controls at the ACW Superfund site, leaving the public at
risk for exposure to contaminated groundwater and soil. The institutional control that the EPA has
historically relied on to prevent potential exposure to residual contamination in the groundwater at the
ACW Superfund site, namely a groundwater delineation area, did not work as intended to prevent well
drilling or to require groundwater well plugging and abandonment. Therefore, private property owners
were able to drill new wells, and existing wells persisted. Although the Florida and Pensacola
governments did not have laws or regulations that the EPA could have leveraged as institutional controls
to restrict soil-disturbing activities at privately owned off-facility impacted parcels, the EPA could have
established other types of institutional controls. For example, the Agency could have established
proprietary or informational controls to reduce potential exposure to off-facility contamination or to
inform the wider public of the extent of contamination and to protect existing and planned investments
in remediation at the site. The EPA missed the opportunity to identify and correct these issues because
it did not use the tools and agreements for documenting and tracking institutional controls that were
available. Furthermore, while the EPA's remediation plans include institutional controls for the former
facility, they do not include institutional controls to safeguard $5.4 million of the IIJA funds that are
allocated for the remediation of privately owned off-facility impacted parcels. Given that remediation
5 40 C.F.R. § 300.430.
7
-------
can take years, implementing effective institutional controls is important for protecting public health
until remediation is complete or in case the site cannot be fully restored for unrestricted use.
We also found that the EPA does not use all available tools to communicate the risks of certain activities
near the ACW Superfund site. According to federal law and guidance, information that the EPA provides
to the public should be authoritative, clear, and reliable. However, the EPA's information about ACW
site contamination and remedial activities, institutional controls, site boundaries, and public
responsibilities is inaccurate, difficult to find and understand, or vague. For example, the EPA's ACW
webpage generally defines institutional controls, rather than describing what the specific controls
implemented at the ACW Superfund site are, how the public can responsibly comply with the controls,
and how the implemented institutional controls could protect public health. Further, CERCLA regulations
require that the administrative record be available for public inspection.6 However, neither the physical
nor the electronic records related to the ACW Superfund site are complete. Without proper and
accurate communication of the risks at the site, interested stakeholders may not have the information
they need to understand the history of decision-making at the site or to adjust their behavior to comply
with restrictions and to protect their health.
Institutional Controls to Prevent Potential Exposure to Contamination Were
Insufficient or Unimplemented
For the ACW Superfund site, the institutional controls related to contaminated groundwater are not
sufficient to reduce the potential of exposure to contamination. The governmental control that the EPA
relied on to prevent groundwater use did not prevent well drilling or require groundwater well plugging
and abandonment. Further, the EPA did not implement proprietary or informational controls related to
contaminated soil to prevent potential exposure to off-facility contamination or to inform the wider
public of the extent of the contamination. The EPA did not identify these issues and ensure that
institutional controls were sufficiently reliable and enforceable because it did not use the tools and
agreements for documenting and tracking institutional controls that were available.
Regarding Contaminated Groundwater, Governmental Controls Were Not Sufficient to
Prevent Potential Exposure to Contamination
Institutional controls chosen as part of a response should be adequate and reliable to manage exposure
to untreated or residual contamination. The EPA worked with the Northwest Florida Water
Management District, or NWFWMD, to establish governmental controls at the ACW Superfund site to
meet this purpose and to prevent potential human exposure to groundwater contaminants. Specifically,
when developing the original Record of Decision for OU-2 in 1994, the EPA noted that the NWFWMD
was implementing a groundwater delineation area around the ACW Superfund site. In the Record of
Decision, the EPA described the groundwater delineation area as a device to deny permits for new
groundwater wells and claimed that the EPA would plug and abandon existing wells with written
6 40 C.F.R. § 300.805.
8
-------
consent of the private property owners. The EPA also expressed confidence in the NWFWMD's ability to
enforce a ban on well installation.
Wells Installed Despite Permit Restrictions
In 1994, the EPA worked with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the NWFWMD to
implement a groundwater delineation area that was intended to prevent groundwater use and exposure by
denying any permit applications to install groundwater wells. However, because groundwater delineation areas
do not prohibit well installation, one private facility successfully obtained permits for groundwater irrigation
wells connected to the contaminated groundwater supply in 1997 and 2004.
The same private facility applied for a third well permit in 2015. After various exchanges between the
EPA's RPM and the private facility on liability concerns related to groundwater use, the private facility withdrew
its permit application. The following year, in 2016, the EPA excavated over 4,000 cubic yards of contaminated
soil from a parcel adjacent to this private facility, replacing the soil with clean fill. However, the EPA never
decommissioned the wells that were installed on the property in 1997 and 2004, and the wells were still in use
by the private facility as of our site visit in May 2023.
The EPA is not responsible for sampling these private wells for contaminants and had not done so at the time of
our fieldwork. While the private facility owner could request assistance from county health officials in
determining any health concerns related to the use of the wells, the RPM did not know whether the owner
pursued this avenue and sampled the wells. It is important to note that, to our knowledge, the private facility
owner followed appropriate processes to obtain permits for the wells on the owner's property. The
groundwater delineation area functioned as designed, but not as the EPA intended. Using the groundwater
delineation area as a governmental control to prevent groundwater use is a deterrent to many private property
owners, but not all.
A well on the private facility's property within the
delineation area. The brown staining is indicative of
groundwater use in that area. (EPA OIG image)
The groundwater delineation area did not reliably prevent groundwater use as the EPA intended.
Groundwater delineation areas do not ban or prevent well permitting. Rather, NWFWMD officials
explained that they provide information to the permit applicant that typically results in the applicant
9
-------
choosing to withdraw the application. Nevertheless, as detailed in the green box above, we identified
permits issued for groundwater irrigation wells at a single private property in 1997 and 2004, after the
implementation of the groundwater delineation area. Further, the groundwater delineation area
designation alone does not force the plugging and abandonment of existing groundwater wells on
privately owned parcels. NWFWMD officials explained that they do not systematically survey private
properties for new or existing wells. Instead, the NWFWMD relies on communication from the EPA or
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection when a permit for well plugging and abandonment
is necessary.
Public comments in the 1994 Record of Decision for OU-2 provided early signals that the groundwater
delineation area was not sufficient to prevent well installation. One commenter stated that the
NWFWMD would not be able to enforce a "ban on the installation of bootleg wells," or unpermitted
wells, near the site. In response, the EPA said that it would conduct well surveys as part of its Five-Year
Reviews to identify any unpermitted wells and would work with private property owners to plug and
abandon any existing wells with the owner's consent. However, surveyors for the EPA inconsistently
implemented the well surveys; thus, the associated survey reports may not accurately reflect the
proliferation of groundwater wells on properties within the groundwater delineation area.
Based on our review of groundwater well-survey reports and other information, the EPA did not conduct
well surveys between 2002 and 2013. Further, surveys included only 61 percent of the properties listed
inside the groundwater delineation area. Surveyors were also subject to the inherent limitations of
conducting surveys without access to private properties. At 81, or roughly 33 percent, of the
248 properties where the surveyor determined there was no well, surveyors made determinations
based on what they could see without accessing the property. For another 33, or about 13 percent, of
these 248 properties, the surveyors relied on neighboring resident testimony to determine the existence
or use of wells. While the testimony is better than a lack of any basis for well existence data, it is less
reliable than direct observation because neighbors, tenants, or owners may be misinformed or may
knowingly withhold information. This is particularly troubling when testimony conflicts with prior
observations. For example, surveyors in 2021 reported that no well infrastructure existed at
seven properties based solely on resident testimony; however, previous surveys confirmed the presence
of well infrastructure at the same addresses.
A public commenter to the 1994 Record of Decision for OU-2 asked whether the EPA would force people
to plug and abandon their private wells. In response, the EPA encouraged private property owners to
voluntarily allow the Agency to plug and abandon the wells since the water would likely never be fit for
consumption and stated that it would investigate "other means to effect well closure if necessary."
However, when the EPA identified groundwater irrigation wells during Five-Year Review surveys, the
EPA did not take steps to plug and abandon the wells, claiming funding deficiencies.
As of May 2023, the EPA did not plan to require residents to plug and abandon any wells encountered
during the upcoming remediation of OU-3. During our site visit, we observed well infrastructure on nine,
or roughly 14 percent, of the 66 properties in OU-3 slated for soil remediation. Five of these appeared to
10
-------
be in use. We also observed an additional four properties that potentially had well infrastructure. At
three of these properties, the well infrastructure appeared to be in use. Given the inability to reliably
identify groundwater wells based on surveys, the EPA has a unique opportunity during remediation to
both identify wells and properly plug and abandon them. Allowing the persistence of groundwater wells
increases the potential for direct exposure to contaminated groundwater and could waste the
approximately $1.3 million that the EPA allocated for the IIJA-funded remediation efforts at these
properties because contaminated groundwater could recontaminate the soil.
Regarding Contaminated Soil, the EPA Did Not Implement Proprietary or Informational
Controls to Prevent Potential Exposure at Off-Facility Impacted Parcels
The relevant state and local governments did not have laws or regulations that the EPA could leverage
as governmental controls to restrict soil-disturbing activities at privately owned off-facility impacted
parcels in OU-3. Restrictive covenants, which are a type of proprietary control, are the best way to
restrict soil movement at such locations. However, according to the ACW Superfund site's RPM, the EPA
did not pursue restrictive covenants with private property owners of these off-facility impacted parcels
because of the effort required to establish them and the potential negative effect they could have on
the EPA's relationship with the community. Instead, the EPA relied on the community to distribute
information and the RPM's verbal direction to private property owners to guide the owners' land-use
choices.
Furthermore, the EPA missed opportunities to implement informational controls to inform the public of
soil contamination on OU-3's private parcels. As the community's real estate turns over, new private
property owners take possession of parcels, and increased construction activity takes place as property
owners renovate or demolish structures, there will be a gap in the knowledge related to contamination
around the former facility. Without continuous risk communication, the potential for exposure to
contaminated soil in OU-3 increases. However, other than the RPM's engagement with the community,
the EPA did not implement informational controls regarding the soil contamination in OU-3. The Florida
Department of Environmental Protection sent an initial notice of contamination to property owners in
2008 as required after notification from the EPA. These informational mailers ceased in 2012, and the
EPA did not subsequently adopt this institutional control.7 While the RPM explained that the EPA
provided results to property owners after it conducted sampling for the 2017 Record of Decision, this
was a static communication regarding contamination-related risks, and the EPA has not sent mailers to
parties that have joined the community since then.
7 Officials from the City of Pensacola also did not adopt this informational control because they said they did not
want to give the impression that the city was leading the remediation efforts.
11
-------
Soil of unclear origin or contamination status outside the
perimeter fence of the ACW Superfund site. Several community
members stated the soil is from an area resident who removed the
soil from the resident's yard for a home improvement
project and deposited it here, making it possibly contaminated..
The EPA contests this, stating the soil was deposited here
for road repairs and is not contaminated. (EPA OIG image)
A system indicator, such as an alert triggered within the City of Pensacola's construction permitting
department when a party applies for a permit in the neighborhood surrounding the former facility,
would also act as an informational control to prevent soil contamination from spreading outside of
OU-3. A city official explained that a system indicator would inform contractors or other construction
permit applicants of soil contamination and health hazards from contact with site soil at parcels in OU-3.
Construction activities by property owners may include structural or landscape renovations, installation
of in-ground pools, and removal of a dwelling to build a new structure. Such activities can cause
contaminated soil to spread outside the original site's boundaries without the EPA's knowledge or any
state or local mechanism for tracking this contaminated soil or ensuring its proper disposal. As of May
2023, those who submit construction permit applications do not encounter any alerts for the parcel to
inform them of soil contamination, further complicating the tracking and disposal of contaminated soil
from impacted parcels. Members of the public, including the individuals who perform construction
activities and people at locations where contaminated soil may be transported or deposited, remain at
risk of exposure to contamination.
12
-------
Although the 2017 Record of Decision for the ACW Superfund site suggested restrictive covenants as a
possible institutional control to complement engineering controls to protect the planned remedy for
OU-1, the EPA does not plan to pursue implementation of restrictive covenants or other institutional
controls for private parcels in OU-3 after remediation. The remediation plan for OU-3 provides for the
excavation and replacement of soil that is not covered by structures or hard surfaces, such as driveways
or patios, on private parcels. In the absence of restrictive covenants for parcels remediated in OU-3, it is
unclear how the EPA will ensure that the remaining 11,400 cubic yards of soil underneath buildings and
other hard surfaces will remain undisturbed to prevent any recontamination through soil spreading or
exposure by removal of these structures or hardscaping. Disturbance of such soil could recontaminate
remediated soil, waste up to $5.4 million in IIJA funds to be spent on soil remediation at these
properties, and expose the public to potential health risks.
The EPA Did Not Use the Tools Available for Documenting and Tracking
Institutional Controls
There is no documentation of a common understanding between the EPA and state and local
stakeholders regarding oversight of institutional controls related to contaminated groundwater from the
ACW Superfund site. The lack of formal agreements between the EPA and stakeholders hinders the
oversight and enforcement of groundwater-use restrictions. Specifically, the EPA does not have a
memorandum of agreement with the NWFWMD, the entity that issues well permits and enforces well
plugging and abandonment for the groundwater delineation area. While the EPA believed that the
NWFWMD would deny permits based on the existence of a delineation area, this did not always occur
because the presence of groundwater delineation areas does not require the NWFWMD to do so. If the
EPA was depending on the NWFWMD to deny permits as an institutional control, a memorandum of
agreement would have made the EPA's expectations and the NWFWMD's commitments clear.
The EPA also did not use available tools to help oversee institutional controls and to ensure available
institutional controls were as enforceable and protective as possible. Specifically, the EPA did not create
an Institutional Control Implementation and Assurance Plan for the ACW Superfund site. An
Institutional Control Implementation and Assurance Plan is an EPA document that outlines the details
of a site's institutional controls and the parties responsible for monitoring and enforcing those controls.
The document also provides an opportunity to clarify the objectives of established institutional controls;
to identify any gaps in various controls; and to help the EPA identify, establish, and track the appropriate
agreements. EPA staff involved in providing guidance and assistance to RPMs on institutional controls
assert that Institutional Control Implementation and Assurance Plans are most beneficial at complex
sites with multiple stakeholders and private property owners or where the EPA is not the enforcement
entity, which is characteristic of the ACW Superfund site. However, the EPA does not require RPMs to
create Institutional Control Implementation and Assurance Plans for the Superfund sites that they
manage, including complex sites. An Institutional Control Implementation and Assurance Plan could
have clarified the EPA's expectations about how the groundwater delineation area would work and
identified more reliable mechanisms to ensure wells did not persist or proliferate. It also could have
13
-------
made it clear that there was no control over the soil movement and detailed the risks associated with
this condition.
There are also no detailed entries describing the ACW site's institutional controls in the "Institutional
Controls" module of the EPA's Superfund Enterprise Management System, which is the EPA's records
repository for Superfund site information. Instead, disparate documents in the management system
contain information about the site's institutional controls. EPA staff noted that Five-Year Review reports
released since 2017 include summary tables of their sites' institutional controls. While this is a step in
the right direction, a detailed description of all institutional control information in one document in the
system could facilitate implementation and oversight, reduce the opportunity for error, allow for
continuity and more effective review and tracking by various EPA RPMs, and aid in identifying any gaps
in institutional controls as remedial actions progress.
The EPA Is Missing Opportunities to Communicate the Risks Associated with
Off-Facility Impacted Areas to the Public
According to Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-17-06, Policies for Federal Agency
Public Websites and Digital Services, "information disseminated from Federal Government websites,"
which includes the EPA's websites, "is expected to be authoritative and reliable."8 However, the
EPA's geographic information system database file for the ACW Superfund site does not accurately
represent the extent of site contamination. The database only includes a polygon that represents the
former facility's boundary, incorrectly indicating that the contamination is limited to OU-1. The polygon
does not include the boundary for OU-3's off-facility impacted parcels. This inaccuracy may mislead
interested parties, such as parcel owners, real estate agents, and contractors, causing them to believe
that there is no soil contamination to be addressed outside OU-1. State and local agencies, such as the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and water management districts like the NWFWMD,
also rely on the EPA's geographic information system database to make determinations for permitting,
resulting in possible inadvertent exposure to site contamination through inaccurate data. Interested
stakeholders may not know about the contamination, the risks of exposure associated with certain
activities, and the associated health effects. They also may not know how to adjust their behavior to
comply with restrictions or to protect their health.
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 requires federal agencies to use writing that is "clear, concise, well
organized, and follows other best practices appropriate to the ... intended audience."9 Further, when
using a federal website, the Federal Plain Language Guidelines, which was developed to assist agencies
in complying with the Plain Writing Act, advises agencies that their content is not clear unless users can
"[f]ind what they need, [understand what they find, [and] [u]se what they find to meet their needs."10
Accordingly, information on what the risks associated with the ACW Superfund site are and how
8 Office of Management and Budget memorandum M-17-06, Policies for Federal Agency Public Websites and
Digital Services, November 8, 2016.
9 Pub. L 111-274 (2010).
10 Plain Language Action and Information Network, Federal Plain Language Guidelines, Section IV(d), "Write web
content," March 2011, Revision 1, May 2011.
14
-------
members of the public should adjust their behavior to protect their health should be easy to find and
understand. However, interested members of the public seeking this information may not find what
they need. In the section regarding institutional controls on the EPA's ACW webpage called "Activity and
Use Limitations/' the EPA generally defines institutional controls and provides a link to more information
about what institutional controls are. It does not, however, provide specific information about any
institutional controls at the site. Instead, it provides one sentence with information specific to the ACW
Superfund site, stating that there is fencing around the former facility to prevent access to
contaminated soil. The webpage's "Activity and Use Limitations" section does not provide more detailed
information about the activity or use limitations at or near the former facility. It also does not describe
the groundwater delineation area or advise the public not to disturb the soil in off-facility impacted
parcels. While the public can access decision documents, such as Records of Decision, on the EPA's ACW
webpage, these are long, technical documents unsuitable for public risk communication because the
public is unlikely to understand or read lengthy, complex, and technical documentation.
The Complete Administrative Record Is Not Available for Inspection
CERCLA regulations require the EPA to maintain a copy of a site's administrative record "at or near" the
site for public inspection.11 A site's administrative record contains the documents, such as verified
sampling data, public health evaluations, guidance on risk or exposure assessments that may have
formed the basis for selecting a certain remedy, community relations plans, and Records of Decision,
that support the rationale for selecting a response. The administrative record also typically includes an
index of documents contained in the record to facilitate finding specific information.12
The ACW Superfund site has both physical and electronic documents available for public inspection.
However, neither set of documents contains a complete administrative record. The EPA's ACW webpage
directs the public to the John C. Pace Library at the University of West Florida to view the repository
containing the physical administrative record. However, as of May 2023, this record was incomplete and
did not contain Records of Decision or other decision documents.
11 40 C.F.R. § 300.805(a).
12 40 C.F.R. § 300.810(a)(6).
15
-------
The ACW Superfund site's physical administrative record at
the University of West Florida John C. Pace Library archive.
(EPA OIG image)
While the ACW Superfund site's repository contained a 2018 Community Involvement Plan, it did not
contain documents demonstrating historical public participation in the different remedy decisions. The
EPA's Revised Guidance on Compiling Administrative Records for CERCLA Response Actions states that
the administrative record should "tell the story of a response action selection decision" and should
include documents that collectively explain why the EPA chose the response actions at that site and that
demonstrate public participation in those cleanup decisions. The ACW Superfund site's repository did
not contain documents showing public participation in remedy decisions. The EPA did not include an
index in the repository, which would have been beneficial in this instance because the information was
not organized and catalogued,, and the library database did not list the records it received from the EPA
in the searchable inventory. Instead, as shown in the photograph, the documents were in the library's
basement archive in various boxes that required the assistance of staff to retrieve and review.
Additionally, the EPA's ACW webpage does not contain a set of documents that could be considered a
complete administrative record. First, at the time of our fieldwork, the EPA's ACW webpage stated that
there was no published administrative record available for the ACW Superfund site. The webpage did
contain an electronic repository of documents under the "Reports and Documents" section. However,
collectively these documents also do not compose a complete administrative record because they do
not include all the Records of Decision or the assessments, investigations, or feasibility studies on which
the EPA based its remedial decisions. The EPA's ACW webpage also did not include an index, and the
electronic repository does not include documents demonstrating public involvement in the remedial
decisions. The documents on the EPA's ACW webpage were generally newer and did not, in line with
16
-------
EPA guidance, "tell the story" of the full scope of decisions and remedial actions at the ACW Superfund
site. EPA resources also direct the public to conflicting and sometimes inaccurate locations for site
information. While the webpage correctly identifies the location of the local repository, the Community
Involvement Plan in that repository identified the location of the records as the Pensacola Public Library.
The archivist at the University of West Florida John C. Pace Library explained that the archive
department receives information from other libraries around Pensacola that do not wish to store old
documents. The archivist also suggested that we might find more updated records at the Pensacola
Public Library. However, when we went to the Pensacola Public Library, the librarians had no
information about the ACW Superfund site on record. They directed us to the EPA's ACW webpage
which, as already discussed, does not contain a complete administrative record for review. Furthermore,
while regulations do not define "near," the repository at the John C. Pace Library containing the physical
administrative record is approximately 15 miles away from the site. In contrast, the Pensacola Public
Library is approximately two miles from the neighborhood surrounding the ACW Superfund site. For the
impacted private property owners on or near the site, particularly those without transportation, the
distance to the site repository could be a barrier. The EPA has an opportunity to serve those private
property owners by ensuring its electronic information repository also contains a complete
administrative record.
Conclusions
Institutional controls are important components of the EPA's response at Superfund sites because they
protect the engineered remedies and reduce the potential for any residual contamination harming
human health or the environment. Institutional controls can be challenging to implement, monitor, and
enforce because each Superfund site exists in a unique regulatory and social context. Furthermore, the
EPA often relies on state and local government partners for implementation and enforcement. However,
these challenges do not negate the EPA's responsibility to establish appropriate institutional controls
and to monitor them to ensure that they function as intended. Strong oversight and management of
these sites' institutional controls in all phases of remediation will safeguard IIJA-funded investments in
remedial actions and help to protect public health and the communities impacted by Superfund sites.
Recommendations
We recommend the regional administrator for Region 4:
1. Seek to secure permission from private property owners to plug and abandon groundwater
wells encountered during remediation of Operable Unit 3 of the American Creosote Works Inc.
(Pensacola Plant) Superfund site to help protect the $1.3 million in Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act funding allocated for remediation. In the instances in which a private property
owner does not grant permission to plug and abandon a well, provide documentation to the
property owner that makes clear that the property owner received an explanation of the
property owner's responsibilities regarding any future potential contamination at the property.
17
-------
2. Work with the City of Pensacola in Florida to establish a system indicator to identify
contaminated areas during the construction permitting process for properties in Operable Unit 3
of the American Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola Plant) Superfund site. This indicator would not
prevent a permit nor would it be publicly viewable, but it would provide contractors with the
information necessary to protect their employees and to appropriately dispose of any
contaminated soil.
3. Identify and work with amenable private property owners within Operable Unit 3 of the
American Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola Plant) Superfund site and appropriate local
governments to establish restrictive covenants on contaminated private parcels to prevent the
disturbance and removal of impacted soil. Restrictive covenants not only would protect the
public but also could protect the $5.4 million Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act-funded
remediation by keeping hard surfaces and foundations in place over unremediated soil.
4. Seek to establish formal agreements with state and local government stakeholders to
implement and oversee institutional controls for the American Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola
Plant) Superfund site, documenting a shared understanding of the intent of any interim and
permanent institutional controls. The documentation should also define the roles and oversight
responsibilities of the EPA and other stakeholders for the site.
5. Use a tracking or accountability tool, like an Institutional Control Implementation and Assurance
Plan or the "Institutional Controls" module in the Superfund Enterprise Management System, to
clarify the purpose and evaluate the performance of institutional controls at the American
Creosote Works, Inc. (Pensacola Plant) Superfund site.
6. As required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
implementing regulations and EPA guidance, ensure the physical administrative record for the
American Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola Plant) Superfund site is complete. Include an index in
the record at both the physical information repository and in the "Administrative Records"
section of the EPA's site profile webpage.
7. Update the American Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola Plant) Superfund site's Community
Involvement Plan to accurately communicate the location of the local repository for the physical
administrative record.
8. Prominently display the American Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola Plant) Superfund site's
institutional control information on the EPA's site profile webpage so that the information is
thorough and consistent and clearly articulates public risk associated with the site.
18
-------
We recommend the assistant administrator for Land and Emergency Management:
9. Update the Superfund geographic information system database site file for the American
Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola Plant) Superfund site to accurately reflect the extent of
contamination and the Operable Unit 3 boundaries.
Agency Response and OIG Assessment
Appendix B contains the Office of Land and Emergency Management's and Region 4's consolidated
response to our draft report. They also provided technical comments, which we reviewed and used to
make appropriate changes to the final report. The Office of Land and Emergency Management and
Region 4 agreed with Recommendations 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9 and described corrective actions responsive
to the recommendations. These recommendations are resolved with corrective actions pending.
Region 4 did not agree with Recommendation 3, which originally recommended that the EPA work with
property owners and appropriate local governments to establish restrictive covenants before
remediation began to prevent the disturbance of soil on impacted properties. The intent of this
recommendation was not only to protect the public before remediation begins but also to reduce the
risk of recontamination by keeping hard surfaces and foundations in place over unremediated soil. In its
response, Region 4 stated that, because typical restrictive covenants take eight to 12 months to
implement, establishing them before cleanup would delay remediation and increase the time residents
may potentially be exposed to contamination. The region added that required amendments to the
Record of Decision would further delay remediation. Instead of restrictive covenants, Region 4 said it
provided detailed information in a presentation to community members in a January 2024 public
meeting, discussed how to limit exposure until the EPA has addressed the contamination on their
properties, mailed a fact sheet to community members that showed impacted and unimpacted
properties, and made both the presentation and the fact sheet available on the EPA's ACW webpage.
Based on these actions, the region believes individual restrictive covenants are not needed to protect
the public before remediation begins. Region 4 also stated that the selected remedy is designed to result
in unlimited use and unrestricted exposure and does not require any post remedy restrictions. In its
technical comments, the region further explained that, based on the Site Conceptual Model,13
contamination from the site was transported off-site by overland flow or dust from vehicular traffic from
the ACW Superfund site after most of the houses and hard surfaces were present. Therefore, Region 4
said widespread contamination is not expected to be found under houses or large structures.
Recommendation 3's original language sought to address our concerns about exposure before
remediation, as well as contamination that may remain in place under hard surfaces and foundations
after remediation. We acknowledged the potential delays that establishing restrictive covenants with
individual homeowners may create and updated the original recommendation to remove references to
13 A Site Conceptual Model, or a Conceptual Site Model, is a representation of a site that summarizes chemical,
geologic, hydrogeologic, historical and other information to help clean-up teams better understand the
contamination at a site, identify and implement appropriate and protective remedies, and limit the negative
impacts of clean-up activities.
19
-------
the restrictive covenants being in place before remediation begins. However, the documentation that
Region 4 provided us does not match the risk communication efforts described in the formal response,
and we could not locate the information that the region said it had shared with the community and the
wider public on the EPA's ACW webpage. Region 4 also provided additional documentation to support
the statement that the houses and hard surfaces in place at the time of our review were in place when
contamination was transported off-site. We updated the original recommendation to have Region 4
focus its efforts on property owners who are willing to establish the restrictive covenants and facilitate
that process. We also suggested that Region 4 limit its scope to properties with hard surfaces or large
structures that were built or expanded after contamination was transported off-site based on its Site
Conceptual Model. This recommendation remains unresolved. We anticipate reaching resolution of this
recommendation pending receipt of additional documentation of the region's risk communication
efforts, as well as evidence of the region's efforts to identify and work with amenable property owners
to ensure potential residual contamination remains in place.
Region 4 did not agree with Recommendation 4, which recommended that the region establish formal
agreements with state and local government stakeholders regarding institutional controls. In its
response and discussions with our team after receiving the draft report, Region 4 described efforts to
work with local stakeholders to implement agreements. Although the region was unable to provide a
time frame for finalizing the agreements, the region stated that the Institutional Control Implementation
and Assurance Plan, which will be completed in the third quarter of 2024, will address the agreements.
This recommendation remains unresolved. We anticipate reaching resolution pending completion of the
Institutional Control Implementation and Assurance Plan and additional description of efforts with local
stakeholders to implement formal agreements.
Region 4 did not agree with Recommendation 6, which recommended that the region ensure the
existence of a complete physical administrative record. In March 2013, the EPA published a final rule
updating the CERCLA implementing regulations, namely the National Contingency Plan, adding a
provision that states, "[t]he lead agency may make the administrative record file available to the public
in microform, computer telecommunications, or other electronic means."14 The region pointed to this
rule to assert that the provision was meant "to broaden the technology, to include computer
telecommunications or other electronic means, that the lead agency is permitted to use to make the
administrative record file available to the public." Therefore, instead of maintaining current and
complete physical administrative records at the repositories, Region 4 opted to inform the former
repositories of the existence of the EPA's ACW webpage and ensure physical repository locations have
public access to the internet. The region stated that it provided a copy of the administrative record to
the West Florida Genealogy Branch Library in September 2017. It is important to note that this library is
not the repository listed in the 2018 Community Involvement Plan nor is it the repository location listed
on the public-facing EPA ACW webpage. The region also stated that it provided the library with a letter
directing interested stakeholders to EPA's ACW webpage and noted that the libraries provide computers
14 40 C.F.R. § 300.805(c). See National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; Revision to
Increase Public Availability of the Administrative Record File, 78 Fed. Reg. 16,612 (March 18, 2013).
20
-------
and web access, ensuring accessibility to all interested parties. While we acknowledge that the
electronic availability of the administrative record improves public access to the information, we are still
concerned that the approach taken by the region is inconsistent with the intent of the rule updating the
regulations and allowing the Agency to use electronic means to provide the public access to
administrative records. While the updated National Contingency Plan allows the EPA to provide the
administrative record electronically, the regulatory text is far from clear in conveying whether doing so
supplants the requirement to provide the administrative record physically. For example, 40 C.F.R.
§ 300.805(a) provides that the lead Agency "shall establish" a copy of the administrative record at a
permissible physical location. That provision contains five exceptions, none of which involve providing
the administrative record electronically. By contrast, 40 C.F.R. § 300.805(c) provides that lead agency
"may" make the administrative record file available by electronic means, and it makes no mention as to
whether doing so would impact the requirement at 40 C.F.R. § 300.805(a). Even accepting that providing
the administrative record electronically supplants the need to provide a physical copy, the final rule
states that the format for providing the administrative record should be based on a process assessing
the preferences of the community and the lead agency's assessment of the site-specific situation.15 The
region has not provided evidence that it conducted such an assessment nor asserted that it conducted
one. Further, it is not clear that it is appropriate to make such a broad assessment for an entire region
since the final rule describes this process as a site-specific determination. Given that this site-specific
language is used in the final rule to address a comment on how the EPA will determine community
preferences, the region's approach to provide an electronic-only administrative record is inconsistent
with the assurances provided during the rulemaking process. The recommendation remains unresolved.
Using this same rationale, the region reiterated that, while it agreed with Recommendation 7 and was
updating the Community Involvement Plan, it no longer maintains a physical administrative record at
site repositories. This recommendation is resolved with corrective actions pending. However, to the
extent that the region intends to use this Community Involvement Plan update to inform the community
that there is no complete and current physical administrative record, we strongly urge the region to be
transparent on how it determined this was the community's preference.
15 78 Fed. Reg. 16612, 16613 (Mar. 18, 2013).
21
-------
Status of Recommendations
Rec. No. Page No.
Recommendation
Status*
Action Official
Planned
Completion Date
-| Yi Seek to secure permission from private property owners to plug and abandon
groundwater wells encountered during remediation of Operable Unit 3 of the
American Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola Plant) Superfund site to help protect
the $1.3 million in Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funding allocated for
remediation. In the instances in which a private property owner does not grant
permission to plug and abandon a well, provide documentation to the property
owner that makes clear that the property owner received an explanation of the
property owner's responsibilities regarding any future potential contamination at the
property.
2 i g Work with the City of Pensacola in Florida to establish a system indicator to
identify contaminated areas during the construction permitting process for
properties in Operable Unit 3 of the American Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola
Plant) Superfund site. This indicator would not prevent a permit nor would it be
publicly viewable, but it would provide contractors with the information
necessary to protect their employees and to appropriately dispose of any
contaminated soil.
3 i g Identify and work with amenable private property owners within Operable Unit 3 of
the American Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola Plant) Superfund site and
appropriate local governments to establish restrictive covenants on contaminated
private parcels to prevent the disturbance and removal of impacted soil. Restrictive
covenants not only would protect the public but also could protect the $5.4 million
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act-funded remediation by keeping hard
surfaces and foundations in place over unremediated soil.
4 -|g Seek to establish formal agreements with state and local government
stakeholders to implement and oversee institutional controls for the American
Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola Plant) Superfund site, documenting a shared
understanding of the intent of any interim and permanent institutional controls.
The documentation should also define the roles and oversight responsibilities of
the EPA and other stakeholders for the site.
5 -|g Use a tracking or accountability tool, like an Institutional Control Implementation
and Assurance Plan or the Institutional Controls" module in the Superfund
Enterprise Management System, to clarify the purpose and evaluate the
performance of institutional controls at the American Creosote Works Inc.
(Pensacola Plant) Superfund site.
g -|g As required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act implementing regulations and EPA guidance, ensure the
physical administrative record for the American Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola
Plant) Superfund site is complete. Include an index in the record at both the
physical information repository and in the "Administrative Records" section of
the EPA's site profile webpage.
7 -|g Update the American Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola Plant) Superfund site's
Community Involvement Plan to accurately communicate the location of the
local repository for the physical administrative record.
g -|g Prominently display the American Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola Plant)
Superfund site's institutional control information on the EPA's site profile
webpage so that the information is thorough and consistent and clearly
articulates public risk associated with the site.
g -|g Update the Superfund geographic information system database site file for the
American Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola Plant). Superfund site to accurately
reflect the extent of contamination and the Operable Unit 3 boundaries.
Regional Administrator
for Region 4
Regional Administrator
for Region 4
Regional Administrator
for Region 4
Regional Administrator
for Region 4
Regional Administrator
for Region 4
Regional Administrator
for Region 4
Regional Administrator
for Region 4
Regional Administrator
for Region 4
Assistant Administrator
for Land and Emergency
Management
6/30//24
6/30/24
6/30/24
6/30/24
6/30/24
6/30/24
* C = Corrective action completed.
R = Recommendation resolved with corrective action pending.
U = Recommendation unresolved with resolution efforts in progress
22
-------
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 up the sites. The tax revenues are put in
a trust fund, also known as 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, the funding for the
Superfund 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 GAO 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 those of 2009 by $253 million and $414 million,
respectively. Furthermore, the report stated that the costs were likely underestimated. The report also
noted that, of the 75 nonfederal National Priorities List sites (at that time) 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.
Recent 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, the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which provided $3.5 billion to remediate and close out
Superfund sites on the National Priorities List, was enacted. Additionally, the Inflation Reduction Act,
enacted in 2022, permanently reinstated the taxes on the chemical and oil industries.
23
-------
Appendix B
Agency Response to the Draft Report
^DSTA%
REGION 4 ADMINISTRATOR
ATLANTA, GA 30303
February 15, 2024
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report No. OSRE-FY23-0054 The EPA
Needs to Improve Institutional Controls at the American Creosote Works Superfund Site
in Pensacola, Florida, to Protect Public Health and IIJA-Funded Remediation, Dated
January 16, 2024
Jeaneanne M. Gettle
Acting Regional Administrator
J E AN EAN N E Di9itally si9r>ed by
GETTLE
JEANEANNE GETTLE
Date: 2024.02.15
17:48:47 -05W
TO:
Sean W. O'Donnell, Inspector General
Office of Inspector General
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) and includes responses to OIG recommendations
from both the Region and OLEM. A summary of our overall response, along with a response on
each of the report recommendations directed to Region 4 and the Office of Land and Emergency
Management (OLEM) Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator is provided below. For those report
recommendations with which the Region4/OLEM agrees (Recommendations 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 and 9), we
have provided high-level intended corrective actions and estimated completion dates. For those
report recommendations with which the Region4/OLEM does not agree (Recommendations 3, 4 and
6), we have provided explanations for our position and have proposed alternatives to the OIG's
recommendations in those instances. For your consideration, we have also included a Draft Report
Technical Comments Attachment to supplement this response that includes input from the Region
and OLEM.
24
-------
OVERALL POSITION
Region4/OLEM agrees with the substance of most of the recommendations of the OIG report. The
report provides a detailed view of institutional controls (ICs) at the site and provides suggested
recommendations for improvements. Region 4 is aware of the need for some of these improvements
and is working to implement them. Region 4 will tak2e all necessary steps to ensure appropriate ICs are
in place where needed. As noted in the OIG draft report, the Region works closely with the city
government and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to share information
about the site with our stakeholders, including the impacted community, to maintain awareness of the
risks posed by the contaminants at the site. In addition, the Region is currently developing an
Institutional Control Implementation and Assurance Plan (ICIAP) for this site to track all contaminated
parcels and the ICs or other controls placed on those contaminated parcels. The ICIAP document will
be shared with all the involved parties. This document will be kept up to date so that it is a living
document that is accessible to all stakeholders.
The Region/OLEM appreciates the input of the OIG on how to best protect and leverage the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) funds used to implement the remedy at this site, once
the remedy has been implemented. Please see the Region's and OLEM'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
Seek to secure permission from
private property owners to plug
and abandon groundwater
wells encountered during
remediation of Operable Unit 3
of the American Creosote
Works Inc. Superfund site to
help protect the $1.3 million in
Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act funding allocated for
remediation. In the instances in
which a private property owner
does not grant permission to
plug and abandon a well,
provide documentation to the
property owner that makes
clear that the property owner
received an explanation of the
property owner's
responsibilities regarding any
future potential contamination
at the property.
Region 4 agrees with this recommendation.
The Region will begin the Remedial Action of
Operable Unit 3 of the American Creosote
Works Inc. Superfund site in the Summer of
2024. The first action will include abandoning
the monitoring wells onsite and removal of a
debris pile in the middle of the site. As part of
these initial activities, the Region will contact
property owners with irrigation or other
private wells in and near the contaminated
areas and offer to abandon their wells. Formal
documentation will be made for any
properties who refuse well abandonment
3rd Quarter
2024
25
-------
#2
Work with the City of Pensacola
in Florida to establish a system
indicator to identify
contaminated areas during the
construction permitting process
for properties in Operable Unit
3 of the American Creosote
Works Inc. Superfund site. This
indicator would not prevent a
permit, nor would it be publicly
viewable, but it would provide
contractors with the
information necessary to
protect their employees and to
appropriately dispose of any
contaminated soil.
Region 4 agrees with this recommendation.
The Region is currently drafting an
Institutional Control Implementation and
Assurance Plan (ICIAP) for this site, which
should be finalized and implemented in the
first half of 2024. The EPA will work with its
local and state partners, City of Pensacola
and FDEP to keep this document up to date
and active. The ICIAP will establish a system
to identify contaminated areas as part of the
city's permitting process that will provide
contractors with the information necessary
to protect their employees and the public.
3rd Quarter
2024
#5
Use a tracking or accountability
tool, like an Institutional
Control Implementation and
Assurance Plan or the
"Institutional Controls" module
in the Superfund Enterprise
Management System, to clarify
the purpose and evaluate the
performance of institutional
controls at the American
Creosote Works Inc. Superfund
site.
Region 4 agrees with this recommendation. An
Institutional Control Implementation and
Assurance Plan (ICIAP) is currently being
drafted by Region 4 for this site. Additionally,
any institutional controls that are put in place
for the site will be added to and tracked in the
Institutional Controls module of SEMS.
Site-Specific
ICIAP will be
completed in
3rd Quarter
2024
#7
Update the American Creosote
Works Inc. Superfund Site's
Community Involvement Plan to
accurately communicate the
location of the local repository
for the physical administrative
record.
Region 4 agrees with this recommendation.
The Community Involvement Plan (CIP) was
last updated in 2017 and is currently being
updated. The revised CIP will be uploaded to
the ACW Pensacola's website when complete.
It should be noted that Region 4 no longer
keeps a hard copy of documents at Site
Repositories opting instead to inform the
former repositories of the existence of the
Site website and to ensure repositories have
public access to the internet. The National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) was revised in 2013 to
add language to broaden the technology, to
include computer telecommunications or
other electronic means, that the lead Agency
is permitted to use to make the administrative
record file available to the public, including
3rd Quarter
2024
26
-------
the use of electronic Administrative Records
(see NCP- 40 CFR 300.805(c)). Additional
information about this revision can be found
in the federal register (FR) notice at:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-
2013-03-18/pdf/2013-06189.pdf.
The Revised Guidance on Compiling
Administrative Records for CERCLA Response
Actions (2010) includes a note in the
beginning acknowledging the change to the
NCP and allowance of electronic means of
making the AR available to the public at:
(https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2013-
11/documents/admin-record-mem-rev.pdf).
#8
Prominently display the
American Creosote Works Inc.
Superfund site's institutional
control information on the
EPA's site profile webpage so
that the information is
thorough and consistent and
clearly articulates public risk
associated with the site.
Region 4 agrees with this recommendation.
Once the ICIAP is finalized, a copy will be
posted on the ACW website.
3rd Quarter
2024
#9
Update the Superfund
geographic information system
database site file for the
American Creosote Works Inc.
Superfund site to accurately
reflect the extent of
contamination and the
Operable Unit 3 boundaries.
OLEM agrees with this recommendation.
Region 4 will provide updated polygon
information that OLEM can publish with the
Cleanups In My Community (CIMC)
application.
3rd Quarter
2024
27
-------
No.
Recommendation
Disagreements:
Agency Explanation/Response
Proposed
Alternative
#3
Work with property owners
within Operable Unit 3 of
the American Creosote
Works Inc. Superfund site
and appropriate local
governments to establish
restrictive covenants on
contaminated private
parcels to prevent the
disturbance and removal of
impacted soil before
remedial actions take
place. Restrictive covenants
not only would protect the
public before remediation
is complete but also could
protect the $5.4 million
Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act-funded
remediation by keeping
hard surfaces and
foundations in place over
unremediated soil.
Region 4 does not agree with this
recommendation. The residential soil removal
activities will likely begin in the fall of 2024.
Region 4 held a public meeting on January 18,
2024, to inform residents of what to expect
with respect to the forthcoming remedial
activities in the community and to discuss
allowable uses of their properties both before
and after excavation. Atypical restrictive
covenant takes 8-12 months to implement. A
delay in beginning remediation increases the
time residents may be potentially exposed.
Imposing institutional controls on these
private residential properties might also
require amending the Record of Decision to
be consistent with the remedy selection
process outlined in CERCLA and the NCP,
which would further delay the
implementation of the remedy, allowing
additional time for potential exposures to
occur. The EPA guidance Institutional
Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing,
Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional
Controls at Contaminated Sites (EPA 2012,
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/fil
es/documents/final pime guidance
The remedy for
this site will likely
start in Fall 2024
and will include
excavation of the
residential yards.
After this portion
of the RA is
finished,
restrictive
covenants should
not be required.
december 2012.pdf) states "ICs should be
carefully evaluated, selected, and narrowly
tailored to meet the cleanup objectives for
the site in a manner that does not
unnecessarily restrict the reasonably
anticipated future land use or resources."1
The Selected remedy is designed to result in
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure
(UU/UE) and not require post remedy
restriction. In the January 2024 public
meeting, the Region provided detailed
information to the community including a
presentation discussing how to limit their
exposure until EPA has addressed the
contamination on their properties.
Also, a fact sheet providing the location of
28
-------
impacted and unimpacted properties was
mailed to community members. Both the fact
sheet and the presentation slides are
available to the public via the ACW Pensacola
website. Given the above, the Region does not
believe that individual restrictive covenants
are needed, and pursuing such covenants
could substantially delay remedial actions at
the site. Therefore, Region 4 is confident that
its current approach is appropriate according
to EPA policy and guidance and consistent
with sound engineering and scientific
practices.
Region 4 believes that, once the remedy is
implemented, the controls put in place
following the remedial action will protect the
substantial investment of IIJA funds made in
the cleanup.
#4
Seek to establish formal
agreements with state and
local government
stakeholders to implement
and oversee institutional
controls for the American
Creosote Works Inc.
Superfund site,
documenting a shared
understanding of the intent
of any interim and
permanent institutional
controls. The
documentation should also
define the roles and
oversight responsibilities of
the EPA and other
stakeholders for the site.
Region 4 works closely with the City of
Pensacola to inform stakeholders about
remedial activities at the site and the status of
contamination in the surrounding soil and
groundwater. The Region has also informed
the city of the locations of contaminated soil
in residential yards and the groundwater
plume. The Region has offered assistance to
the city in setting up a formal system to reject
permits for new buildings, swimming pools
and tree removals in designated areas. A
formal agreement has not yet been accepted
or implemented. The Region believes that,
once implemented, the ICIAP will address
many of the recommended items.
EPA has tasked its
contractor to draft
an Institutional
Control
Implementation
and Assurance
Plan. The Remedial
Project Manager
reviewed a
preliminary ICIAP
in December 2023.
This document
should be finished
and implemented
by the 3rd Quarter
of 2024. EPA will
work with its
partners to keep
this document up
to date and active.
29
-------
#6 As required by the
Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and
Liability Act implementing
regulations and EPA
guidance, ensure the
physical administrative
record for the American
Creosote Works Inc.
Superfund site is
complete. Include an
index in the record at both
the physical information
repository and in the
"Administrative Records"
section of the EPA's site
profile webpage.
Region 4 believes that this recommendation
does not reflect current Agency guidance and
general practice regarding Administrative
Record availability. The Region no longer
maintains or updates the collection of
physical documents at the site repository.
(See response to Recommendation 7 above).
The Region provided a copy of the
Administrative Record (AR), including the
Record of Decision (ROD) to the West Florida
Genealogy Branch Library following the
signing of the document in September 2017.
A letter directing interested stakeholders to
the website was provided to the library.
The libraries also provide computers and web
access, which ensures accessibility to all
interested parties.
The entire AR,
including an index,
can now be found
online on the ACW
Pensacola website.
1 The guidance further notes that "establishing ICs with non-source property owners (or property owners who
did not cause or contribute to the contamination on their property) can be difficult and may trigger the need for
more complex negotiations with landowners to implement proprietary controls. In some cases, it may be
appropriate to obtain agreement with affected landowners on ICs other than proprietary controls, such as
informational devices or governmental controls, on an interim or final basis."
30
-------
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. Aliciaffiepa.gov or (801) 678-6168, or the Office of Land and Emergency
Management Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Kecia Thornton at Thornton.Keciaffiepa.gov or (202) 566-1913.
Attachment
cc: Barry Breen, OLEM
Cliff Villa, OLEM
Rick Kessler, OLEM
Lindsay Clarke Brubaker, OIG
Kimberley Lake De Pulla, OIG
Caroline Freeman, Region 4
Randall Chaffins, Region 4
Alicia Sterk, Region 4
Kecia Thornton, OLEM
Gwendolyn Spriggs, OECA
31
-------
Appendix C
Distribution
The Administrator
Deputy Administrator
Chief of Staff, Office of the Administrator
Deputy Chief of Staff for Management, Office of the Administrator
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Assistant Administrator for Land and Emergency Management
Regional Administrator, Region 4
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Principal Deputy Administrator for Land and Emergency Management
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Land and Emergency Management
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 4
Director, Office of Regional Operations
Principal Deputy Assistance Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Director, Office of Continuous Improvement, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
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 Coordinators, Region 4
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
32
-------
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
-§rg- Web: epaoig.gov
Follow us:
X (formerly Twitter): (5)epaoig
Linkedln: linkedin.com/company/epa-oig
you I uDe: youtupe.com/epaoig
[0] Instagram: {5)epa.ig.on.ig
------- |