type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b" U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION\n AGENCY\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n\n EPA Needs to Improve Its\n Process for Accurately\n Designating Land as Clean\n and Protective for Reuse\n Report No. 14-P-0364 September 29, 2014\n\n\n\n\nScan this mobile\ncode to learn more\nabout the EPA OIG.\n\x0cReport Contributors: Christina Lovingood\n Patrick Milligan\n Chad Kincheloe\n Anne Bavuso\n Bakari Baker\n Kate Robinson\n Roopa Batni-Mulchandani\n\n\n\n\nAbbreviations\n\nACRES Assessment, Cleanup, and Redevelopment Exchange System\nCERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act\nCPRM Cross-Program Revitalization Measures\nEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency\nFY Fiscal Year\nOIG Office of Inspector General\nOSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response\nPFP Protective for People\nRAU Ready for Anticipated Use\nRCRA CA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action\nRCRAInfo RCRA\xe2\x80\x99s database\nUST Underground Storage Tank\n\n\n Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an EPA Office of Inspector General\n EPA program? 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)\n Washington, DC 20460\n EPA Inspector General Hotline (202) 566-2391\n 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T) www.epa.gov/oig\n Washington, DC 20460\n (888) 546-8740\n (202) 566-2599 (fax)\n OIG_Hotline@epa.gov Subscribe to our Email Updates\n Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig\n More information at www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.html. Send us your Project Suggestions\n\x0c U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 14-P-0364\n September 29, 2014\n Office of Inspector General\n\n\n At a Glance\nWhy We Did This Review EPA Needs to Improve Its Process for Accurately\n Designating Land as Clean and Protective for Reuse\nThe purpose of this evaluation\nwas to determine whether the\nU.S. Environmental Protection What We Found\nAgency\xe2\x80\x99s (EPA\xe2\x80\x99s) designation\nof sites that have achieved the The EPA has limited controls for verifying or The EPA\xe2\x80\x99s lack of controls\n\xe2\x80\x9cprotective for people\xe2\x80\x9d and/or testing the accuracy of CPRM information that over designating sites as\n\xe2\x80\x9cready for anticipated use\xe2\x80\x9d states and grantees provide to show sites are protective and ready for reuse\n protective for people and RAU. The EPA also calls into question the\n(RAU) performance measures\n does not have adequate controls to verify that reliability and value of the\ninclude effective controls to designations for protecting\nensure long-term protection to these designations continue to be valid and the\n human health.\nhuman health and the sites remain protective in the long term.\nenvironment.\n The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action (RCRA CA)\nA primary goal of the EPA\xe2\x80\x99s program does not require documentation to support the designations. The EPA\nOffice of Solid Waste and could not obtain supporting documentation for six of the 16 reuse designations\nEmergency Response we reviewed. While the Brownfields program does receive the supporting\n(OSWER) is to ensure that the documentation, it does not sufficiently review the documentation to verify\ncleanup of contaminated sites accuracy. We could not verify the accuracy of the reuse designation for 10 of 32\nis protective of human health Brownfields sites we examined. Three of these Brownfields sites were\nand the environment. OSWER prematurely designated as RAU. These sites had asbestos contamination\ndeveloped the Cross-Program cleaned up after they were designated as RAU.\nRevitalization Measures\n(CPRM) to promote and The Underground Storage Tank (UST) program has the fewest EPA controls for\ncommunicate its cleanup accurate RAU site designations, even though UST sites represent 99 percent of\naccomplishments and benefits the more than 400,000 sites the EPA has designated as RAU. States submit the\nof restoring contaminated number of UST RAU sites to EPA, but not names or supporting documentation.\nproperties to environmental and Further, states do not provide information on whether institutional controls are\neconomic vitality. needed at the sites, but the EPA\xe2\x80\x99s definition of RAU indicates it is improper to\n provide an RAU designation without knowing if institutional controls are needed.\nThis report addresses the\nfollowing EPA goal or Given that nearly all the EPA\xe2\x80\x99s RAU designations are at UST sites and that the\ncross-agency strategy: EPA inaccurately designated sites as RAU or failed to support some of the\n Brownfields and RCRA CA designations, the reliability and value of the RAU\n \xef\x82\xb7 Cleaning up communities measure are marginal. This creates the risk that the designations may not be\n and advancing sustainable sufficiently protective of human health, which is even more important when\n development. considering some of these sites may be reused as playgrounds, schools or child\n care facilities. Also, the EPA\xe2\x80\x99s public reports may contain unreliable information\nSend all inquiries to our public on site conditions.\naffairs office at (202) 566-2391\nor visit www.epa.gov/oig. Recommendations and Agency Corrective Actions\nThe full report is at: We recommend that the OSWER Assistant Administrator improve controls over\nwww.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/\n its guidance, review and reporting of the CPRM measures. The agency agreed\n20140929-14-P-0364.pdf\n with two recommendations but disagreed with the remaining three\n recommendations, and resolution efforts are in progress.\n\x0c UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY\n WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460\n\n\n THE INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n\n September 29, 2014\n\nMEMORANDUM\n\nSUBJECT: EPA Needs to Improve Its Process for Accurately Designating Land as\n Clean and Protective for Reuse\n Report No. 14-P-0364\n\nFROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.\n\nTO: Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator\n Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response\n\nThis is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the\nU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the problems\nthe OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of\nthe OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in\nthis report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.\n\nAction Required\n\nIn accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this report\nwithin 60 calendar days. You should include planned corrective actions and completion dates for all\nunresolved recommendations. Your response will be posted on the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s public website, along with our\nmemorandum commenting on your response. Your response should be provided as an Adobe PDF file\nthat complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as\namended. The final response should not contain data that you do not want to be released to the public;\nif your response contains such data, you should identify the data for redaction or removal along with\ncorresponding justification.\n\nWe will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig.\n\x0cEPA Needs to Improve Its Process for Accurately 14-P-0364\nDesignating Land as Clean and Protective for Reuse\n\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\n\n Chapters\n 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1\n\n Purpose ..................................................................................................... 1\n Background................................................................................................ 1\n Scope and Methodology ............................................................................ 5\n\n 2 EPA\xe2\x80\x99s Performance Measures for Some Cleanup Programs Missing\n Needed Controls to Ensure Long-Term Protection of Human Health ............. 7\n\n EPA Has Limited Controls to Assure Accurate\n Initial Site Designations as PFP and RAU ........................................... 8\n EPA Has Limited Controls for Identifying Changes in\n Site Conditions and Uses in the Long Term ........................................ 10\n EPA Can Improve Controls by Finalizing CPRM Interim Guidance ............ 13\n Conclusions ............................................................................................... 14\n Recommendations ..................................................................................... 14\n Summary of Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation .......... 15\n\n Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits ............................. 16\n\n\n\nAppendices\n A Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation ................................. 17\n\n B Distribution ....................................................................................................... 25\n\x0c Chapter 1\n Introduction\nPurpose\n We sought to determine whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency\xe2\x80\x99s\n (EPA\xe2\x80\x99s) designation of assessed and cleaned-up sites that have achieved the\n \xe2\x80\x9cready for anticipated use\xe2\x80\x9d (RAU) and/or \xe2\x80\x9cprotective for people\xe2\x80\x9d (PFP)\n performance measures include effective controls to ensure long-term protection to\n human health and the environment.\n\nBackground\n\n Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123, Management\xe2\x80\x99s Responsibility\n for Internal Controls, states that management has a fundamental responsibility to\n develop and maintain effective internal control and that organization, policies and\n procedures are tools to help program managers achieve results and safeguard the\n integrity of their programs. The Government Performance and Results Act of\n 1993, amended in 2010, requires the EPA to clearly describe the goals and\n objectives of its programs, identify resources and actions needed to accomplish\n these goals and objectives, develop a means of measuring their progress, and\n regularly report on achievements.\n\n The primary objective the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response\n (OSWER) cleanup program is to ensure that the cleanup of contaminated sites is\n protective of human health and the environment. In 2006, OSWER issued interim\n guidance for reporting performance measures, including site reuse measures.\n OSWER describes the measures as \xe2\x80\x9ca first step toward reporting data as a common\n set of measures.\xe2\x80\x9d The guidance describes the reuse measures\xe2\x80\x99 benefits to society as\n helping reassure interested parties (property owners, workers, investors, potential\n buyers or developers, etc.) that the sites are protective not only for the current use\n but for reuse in the reasonably anticipated future. OSWER indicated the reuse\n measures help communicate broader cross-programmatic, regional and national\n progress in getting properties through the cleanup process.\n\n Cross-Program Revitalization Measures (CPRM) include sites from a range of\n OSWER programs:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Superfund.\n \xef\x82\xb7 Brownfields.\n \xef\x82\xb7 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action (RCRA CA).\n \xef\x82\xb7 Underground Storage Tank (UST).\n\n\n\n14-P-0364 1\n\x0c The PFP performance measure is the number of sites and acres at which there is\n no complete pathway for human exposures to unacceptable levels of\n contamination based on current site conditions, and is achieved through:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Environmental investigations.\n \xef\x82\xb7 Response actions that treat, contain or remove contaminated media that\n make it protective for current use/conditions.\n \xef\x82\xb7 Solutions that limit or restrict human use and associated exposures through\n engineering controls such as caps or institutional controls such as notices\n and easements.\n\n The RAU performance measure is the number of acres and sites at which all three\n of the following are achieved:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 There are no complete pathways for human exposure to unacceptable\n levels of contamination based on current site conditions.\n \xef\x82\xb7 All cleanup goals have been achieved for media that may affect current\n and reasonably anticipated future land uses of the acres or sites so that\n there are no unacceptable risks.\n \xef\x82\xb7 All institutional or other controls identified as part of the response action\n to help ensure long-term protections have been put in place.\n\n There are also two voluntary indicators used to promote the collection of\n information needed to help describe revitalization accomplishments\xe2\x80\x94the\n Status of Use and Type of Use indicators. The Status of Use indicator captures\n information about whether a site is being used; sites and acres will be classified as\n unused, in continued use, reused or planned reuse. The Type of Use indicator\n describes how the acres at a site are being used when the site reuse determinations\n are made. There are six categories of Type of Use Indicators:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Commercial and Public Service.\n \xef\x82\xb7 Green Space.\n \xef\x82\xb7 Industrial.\n \xef\x82\xb7 Military and Other Federal.\n \xef\x82\xb7 Mixed.\n \xef\x82\xb7 Residential.\n\n Implementation of CPRM Performance Measures\n\n As shown in Table 1, between the adoption of guidance for the reuse performance\n measures in 2006 and the end of fiscal year (FY) 2013, OSWER designated over\n 400,000 reuse sites, the majority of which are UST sites.\n\n\n\n\n14-P-0364 2\n\x0c Table 1: Total number of RAU sites as of September 30, 2013\n Program Number of RAU sites\n Superfund 662\n RCRA CA 904\n Brownfields 1,694\n UST 437,914\n Total 441,174\n Sources: OSWER\xe2\x80\x99s programs for FY 2011 data and OSWER\xe2\x80\x99s\n FYs 2012 and 2013 accomplishment reports.\n\n\n The EPA reported these sites in its FYs 2010, 2012 and 2013 accomplishment\n reports to the public. The sites are reported cumulatively, beginning in 2008 when\n the EPA first began measuring site reuse progress.\n\n EPA maintains oversight authority over all states whether delegated or not. But,\n for delegated programs (RCRA CA and UST) - - and for the Brownfields\n program, states have primary authority. For those states where the program is\n delegated, the agency establishes a Memorandum of Agreement with the state that\n promotes coordination and clarifies the general roles and responsibilities between\n the EPA and the states. As a result, the EPA relies primarily on the states to\n ensure these cleanup programs are effectively implemented. States are required to\n report information confirming effective implementation into the EPA\xe2\x80\x99s\n Brownfields and RCRA CA databases, and the EPA regions review the\n information to determine whether the required data were submitted and that sites\n were cleaned up and met the PFP and RAU criteria. Table 2 provides a\n description of how RAU designations are made.\n\n Table 2: How RAU designations are made\n Program How RAU designations are made\n Superfund EPA regions determine when a site has achieved the reuse\n measures. The regions complete a checklist and enter the data in the\n EPA\xe2\x80\x99s Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and\n Liability Information System.\n RCRA CA EPA regions determine when a site has achieved the reuse\n measures. States enter the information into OSWER\xe2\x80\x99s RCRA CA\n database to indicate that a site meets OSWER\xe2\x80\x99s reuse definition.\n Brownfields EPA regions determine when a site has achieved the reuse\n measures. Grantees enter the information into OSWER\xe2\x80\x99s Brownfields\n database to indicate that a site meets OSWER\xe2\x80\x99s reuse definition.\n UST EPA regions determine when a site has achieved the reuse\n measures. States determine when sites are cleaned up and report\n the number of sites that meet OSWER\xe2\x80\x99s reuse definition.\n Source: OIG analysis of each program\xe2\x80\x99s process for designating sites RAU.\n\n\n\n\n14-P-0364 3\n\x0c Responsible Offices\n\n The Immediate Office within OSWER has overall responsibility for the CPRM.\n Within OSWER, the following offices have responsibilities related to the\n performance measures.\n\n Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation\n\n EPA regions determine when a site has achieved the reuse measures. The\n regions complete a checklist and enter the data in the EPA\xe2\x80\x99s Comprehensive\n Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System.\n The checklist also documents information for the two voluntary indicators\n (Status of Use and Type of Use). A Five-Year Review is required for sites\n where hazardous substances remain onsite above levels which permit\n unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, and provides an opportunity to\n evaluate the implementation of a remedy to determine whether it remains\n protective of human health and the environment. The federal Superfund\n program is not delegated to the states, although some sites are state-led.\n\n Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery\n\n Although the EPA is ultimately responsible for the RCRA CA cleanup\n program, it has delegated the program to most states. As a result, those\n states determine when sites achieve the reuse performance measures using\n the agency\xe2\x80\x99s definitions of PFP and RAU. The regions check the program\n database to verify that the performance measure data have been input.\n\n Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization\n\n The Brownfields program uses a Property Profile Form, which grantees\n access and update in the Brownfields database\xe2\x80\x94the Assessment, Cleanup,\n and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES). States oversee a phase 1\n assessment of the site to determine whether a cleanup is necessary. If\n further assessment and/or a cleanup and institutional controls are not\n required, the site meets the RAU definition. If a cleanup is needed, the site\n receives the reuse designation after the cleanup is completed and no\n further action is necessary. Once the site meets the reuse criteria, OSWER,\n through ACRES, designates the site as RAU.\n\n Office of Underground Storage Tanks\n\n The reuse measures for the UST program are achieved when a state cleanup\n of a confirmed release is completed. The state determines when these sites\n are cleaned up and reports the number of cleaned-up sites to its regional EPA\n office. Regional offices then submit these numbers to EPA headquarters,\n which reports these sites as RAU in EPA accomplishment reports.\n\n\n\n14-P-0364 4\n\x0cScope and Methodology\n We performed our work from April 2012 to July 2014. We conducted this\n performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing\n standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain\n sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and\n conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained\n provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit\n objectives.\n\n Included in our evaluation was OSWER\xe2\x80\x99s implementation of two CPRMs\xe2\x80\x94\n PFP and RAU. We reviewed these two reuse measures for three OSWER\n programs\xe2\x80\x94Brownfields, RCRA CA and UST. We did not include Superfund sites\n because we issued a report1 on OSWER\xe2\x80\x99s management controls to ensure\n Superfund Five-Year Reviews are thorough, meet policy, and lead to well-\n supported determinations that accurately report how well cleanup remedies\n protect human health and the environment.\n\n We reviewed information supporting OSWER\xe2\x80\x99s site reuse determinations for\n 90 sites in the RCRA CA, Brownfields and UST programs. The sites are located\n in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New Mexico, South Carolina and Texas, and\n represented 29 RCRA CA sites, 32 Brownfields sites and 29 UST sites. All states\n we reviewed were delegated for RCRA CA and UST. We selected sites based on\n the age of the site, number of acres designated PFP or RAU, the type of facility,\n and the proximity of sites to each other. For the RAU sites, we requested\n supporting documentation from OSWER. We compared the supporting\n documentation with the information in the database to test the accuracy of the\n databases and determine whether the site reuse designations were adequately\n supported.\n\n To accomplish our objective, we interviewed EPA managers and staff in the\n following OSWER Offices: Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation,\n Resource Conservation and Recovery, Underground Storage Tanks, and\n Brownfields and Land Revitalization. We also interviewed managers and staff in\n Regions 4 and 6 for each of the four OSWER programs.\n\n We reviewed key documents, including: Interim Guidance for OSWER Cross-\n Program Revitalization Measures, Guidance for Documenting and Reporting\n Performance in Achieving Land Revitalization, Guidance for Documenting and\n Reporting RCRA CA Land Revitalization Indicators and Performance Measures,\n Guidance for Preparing Superfund Ready for Reuse Determinations, Superfund\n Five-Year Review Guidance, OSWER\xe2\x80\x99s December 2010 Cross-Program\n Revitalization Measures report and FYs 2011 and 2013 accomplishment reports,\n\n\n1\n EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report No. 12-P-0251, Stronger Management Controls Will Improve EPA\nFive-Year Reviews of Superfund Sites, issued February 6, 2012.\n\n\n14-P-0364 5\n\x0c FY 2013 National Program Manager\xe2\x80\x99s Guidance, and UST Performance\n Measures Definitions.\n\n We reviewed how EPA Regions 4 and 6 oversee measurement and tracking of\n sites that achieve the reuse performance measures. We reviewed the\n Memorandums of Agreement between regions and states. We reviewed\n No Further Action letters, Completion Letters, and Site Rehabilitation Completion\n Orders. We reviewed RCRA CA facility permits, RAU documentation forms, and\n Institutional Controls Tracking Information forms. We reviewed Brownfields\n Property Profile forms, State Certificates of Completions, site assessment reports,\n and technical documents related to the selected sites. We also reviewed UST\n Closure Reports.\n\n\n\n\n14-P-0364 6\n\x0c Chapter 2\n EPA\xe2\x80\x99s Performance Measures for\n Some Cleanup Programs Missing Needed Controls\n to Ensure Long-Term Protection of Human Health\n OSWER does not have adequate procedures to verify the accuracy of sites that\n have been designated PFP and RAU. Due to ineffective oversight controls:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 The RCRA CA program does not always require documentation to support\n designations. Region 4 was unable to provide supporting documentation\n for six of the 16 RCRA CA reuse designations we sampled.\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Although the Brownfields program receives supporting documentation, it\n does not sufficiently review the documentation to verify accuracy. We\n could not verify the reuse designation for 10 of the 32 Brownfields sites\n we sampled. OSWER was unaware that three of the 10 sites were\n designated RAU but were later remediated for asbestos contamination.\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 The UST program, which represents 99 percent of the 441,174 RAU sites,\n has the least controls; states do not provide site specific information or\n supporting documentation for the designations. States with delegated\n authority submit the number of UST RAU sites, but do not provide the\n names of those sites or documentation to support RAU designations.\n Further, OSWER qualifies in public reports that it is unable to identify\n whether any institutional controls, if needed, are in place at UST reuse\n sites. OSWER acknowledges that this is a limitation in meeting the\n definition of RAU. The regions were able to obtain adequate RAU support\n from the states for the 29 RAU designations we sampled, but we were\n only able to verify designations where states made the lists of cleaned-up\n UST sites publicly available.\n\n The lack of details and support for information provided to the EPA causes\n questions about the value of the RAU measure, and OSWER\xe2\x80\x99s public reports may\n contain unreliable information. Human health and environmental risks may occur\n if sites are prematurely designated as protective and ready for use.\n\n\n\n\n14-P-0364 7\n\x0cEPA Has Limited Controls to Assure Accurate Initial Site Designations\nas PFP and RAU\n Our review of Brownfields, RCRA CA and UST sites found that OSWER\n prematurely designated some sites as PFP and RAU. Also, OSWER was unable to\n provide support for other sites, and some regional staff were not aware of\n OSWER\xe2\x80\x99s tracking and reporting of contaminated sites achieving reuse\n performance measures. These weaknesses occurred because OSWER senior\n management over-relied on delegated states and grantees and focused on\n reporting the accomplishments. We found the following for each program\n reviewed.\n\n Brownfields Program\n\n The EPA incorrectly reported 10 of the 32 Brownfields sites we reviewed, or\n 31 percent, as RAU before ensuring that the requirements for sites achieving\n RAU status were fulfilled. The sites were reported incorrectly because guidance\n did not require EPA Brownfields staff to review the documents submitted by the\n grantees to verify the accuracy of the reported RAU.\n\n Currently, the EPA relies primarily on the Brownfields grantees and states to\n provide site information needed to verify that the site meets the conditions for\n achieving OSWER\xe2\x80\x99s reuse performance measures. OSWER\xe2\x80\x99s Office of\n Brownfields and Land Revitalization staff said Brownfields grantees enter site\n information into the EPA\xe2\x80\x99s Brownfields database\xe2\x80\x94ACRES. They also said that\n the EPA Regional Project Officer reviews that information to ensure the database\n contains the information needed for OSWER to accurately make site reuse\n designations. As part of the grant agreement, grantees are asked to complete a\n Property Profile Form. The form includes data on environmental assessments,\n cleanup activities, contaminants found at the site, institutional and engineering\n controls, and basic geographic information. The grantee completes the form,\n which is located in ACRES. According to the Brownfields staff, the EPA reviews\n the database to determine whether the required fields that meet the site reuse\n definition are completed.\n\n Although EPA regional offices receive site assessment and site cleanup reports\xe2\x80\x94\n which include information on site conditions, contaminants found and cleanup\n remedies used\xe2\x80\x94the regions do not regularly review these reports to verify the\n accuracy of the database. Region 4 staff said this was because there are too many\n documents to review. When the assessment grant is awarded, the grantee\n performs an assessment of the site and reports on what it finds. The assessment\n report either recommends that there are no \xe2\x80\x9cRecognized Environmental\n Concerns,\xe2\x80\x9d in which case it makes a No Further Assessment recommendation, or\n that further assessment and cleanup is needed. After the site has been cleaned up,\n the state would issue a No Further Action notification.\n\n\n\n14-P-0364 8\n\x0c According to the EPA\xe2\x80\x99s interim CPRM guidance, when no cleanup is required the\n site is considered PFP, and because no cleanup is required the site is also\n considered RAU. CPRM guidance does not require the EPA to read these reports.\n EPA regional staff did not review the state\xe2\x80\x99s assessment reports to ensure sites\n were entirely cleaned up and ready for reuse. EPA regional staff were unaware\n that three of the 10 Brownfields sites were remediated for asbestos contamination\n after the sites had received the RAU designation. If region staff had reviewed the\n assessment reports, they would have identified the presence of asbestos and\n accurately determined that the sites should not be considered RAU.\n\n RCRA CA Program\n\n The RCRA CA CPRM guidance requires state project managers to document on\n the RAU determination form when a facility has met the criteria for the RAU\n performance measure. States with delegated RCRA CA authority submit the\n determination forms to the EPA and the EPA enters the information into the\n EPA\xe2\x80\x99s RCRA CA\xe2\x80\x99s database, called RCRAInfo. Both Regions 4 and 6 use the\n data to verify that sites have met the criteria to meet the reuse performance\n measures. In addition, a Region 6 manager stated that the region uses an RAU\n checklist to compare to RCRAInfo, and that other support for information entered\n into RCRAInfo is maintained at the state.\n\n Region 6 provided us with RAU determination forms for the 13 sites in the region\n reviewed, and the forms were adequate support for the reuse determinations.\n However, when we requested from Region 4 supporting documentation for the\n 16 RAU sites reviewed for that region, the region needed to contact the states for\n the information. The states provided a mix of documentation, providing adequate\n support for 10 initial reuse designations but not for the remaining six. Region 4\n managers said the region does not keep the supporting documents (RAU\n determination forms and institutional control documents) because they review the\n information used to support the initial RAU designations in RCRAInfo at the end\n of each fiscal year. This review, however, does not verify that sufficient\n documentation exists to justify the states\xe2\x80\x99 reuse designations, which could result\n in the EPA wrongly designating sites as PFP and RAU.\n\n UST Program\n\n Despite the fact that the UST sites comprise over 99 percent of the reuse sites\n reported through the end of FY 2013, the EPA receives and reviews the least\n information for those sites. At the end of FY 2013, we found that 437,914 of the\n 441,174 RAU sites were UST sites. Considering this large number, it would not be\n feasible or practical for the EPA to receive and review site-specific documentation\n for all of the UST sites. However, obtaining supporting documents for a sampling\n of sites would enable the EPA to test the accuracy and completeness of the\n information used to support the reuse designations.\n\n\n\n\n14-P-0364 9\n\x0c The UST program is delegated to 38 of the 50 states. The delegated states are not\n required to submit information to the EPA supporting cleanups, and they provide\n limited information. States send the EPA regional offices reports on the number\n of sites that have been cleaned up without a list of site names or verification of\n state-reported information. These submittals are done quarterly in Region 4 and\n semiannually in Region 6. Some states in Regions 4 and 6 had publicly available\n lists of cleaned-up UST sites while other states did not. As a result, to verify reuse\n status, we had to alter our sample to select states that had the cleaned-up site lists.\n\n OSWER reports the number of cleaned-up sites as the number of sites achieving\n reuse status in annual accomplishment reports. For Regions 4 and 6, we requested\n the supporting documents for 34 sites designated as RAU. The information\n provided, which the regions needed to request from the states, showed evidence\n that the sites were cleaned to the level of meeting the definition of the reuse\n performance measures.\n\nEPA Has Limited Controls for Identifying Changes in Site Conditions\nand Uses in the Long Term\n After sites have been designated PFP and RAU, OSWER has limited controls to\n verify that the designations continue to be valid and the sites remain protective of\n human health and the environment. While agency guidance states that the PFP\n measure has to be accomplished for a site to be RAU, the PFP is only good for the\n \xe2\x80\x9cpoint in time\xe2\x80\x9d in which the determination is made. However, the EPA\n cumulatively reports the RAU sites, without qualifying that it is a \xe2\x80\x9cpoint in time\xe2\x80\x9d\n or without citing limitations on the continued validity of the measures reported.\n The accuracy of the PFP measure is needed in order for EPA to help reassure\n interested parties, including communities, that there is no current complete\n pathway for human exposures to unacceptable levels of contamination.\n\n Brownfields, RCRA CA and UST managers at both headquarters and the regions\n stated that their programs do not include mechanisms that require an additional\n review to verify that sites remain protective of human health and the environment\n after the initial designation is made. This is consistent with the CPRM interim\n guidance, which does not require an additional review to confirm that sites remain\n protective.\n\n The EPA\xe2\x80\x99s CPRM interim guidance does not require states to track the status and\n type of reuse of remediated sites after they are determined to be RAU. The\n interim CPRM guidance lists benefits for tracking reuses of cleaned-up sites, but\n most of the listed benefits involve identifying trends in uses and prioritizing sites,\n not on ensuring whether sites remain protective for human health. Further,\n investors could rely on potentially inaccurate information to make business\n decisions about a site based on outdated or incorrect information in the EPA\xe2\x80\x99s\n publicly available databases. Tracking and monitoring revitalized sites that are\n reused as intended by the cleanup and remediation plan would help better ensure\n\n\n14-P-0364 10\n\x0c that the reused sites are used properly as intended. We found the following for the\n three programs reviewed.\n\n Brownfields Program\n\n For Brownfields sites, there is minimal contact between the state and EPA after\n the cleanup has been accomplished, and changes in site conditions or site use may\n go undetected by the EPA. The Brownfields program maintains that under the\n Brownfields amendment to the Comprehensive Environmental Response,\n Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), it does not have the authority to\n conduct long-term oversight at Brownfields sites. EPA Office of Brownfields and\n Land Revitalization officials maintain that the Brownfields program is a grants\n management program that provides seed money for funding site assessments and\n cleanups that the states perform, not the EPA. Those EPA officials added that\n when the grant period ends, they cannot require grantees to report changes in site\n conditions or reuse to the EPA.\n\n We do not agree with the EPA position. Although the cleanup is managed by the\n states and the EPA does not participate in cleanups, the OIG found that under\n CERCLA, the EPA has the authority to add reporting requirements to the grant\n agreement as deemed necessary and should do so to meet the intent of CERCLA.\n For the length of the grant agreement, the EPA requires the grantee to add and\n update information in the agency\xe2\x80\x99s database when appropriate. Since site use can\n change, the EPA should either build in controls to better assure that site\n conditions remain safe, or publicly disclose that the CPRM determinations may\n not remain accurate over time.\n\n We found that for all states in our review, Brownfields database information\n included past uses of each site but only a few sites had information in the database\n regarding the reuse of properties, whether it was planned or actual reuse. Region 4\n managers said that their knowledge of site reuse of developed Brownfields sites is\n \xe2\x80\x9chit or miss.\xe2\x80\x9d They added that they would like to track reuse but there were\n resource issues. Some grantees submit Return on Investment Reports, but regional\n managers said that this is more of the exception and not the rule.\n\n Brownfields officials acknowledged that the reuse of cleaned-up sites could\n change from the intended uses, and one Brownfields official said \xe2\x80\x9chopefully states\n are monitoring the uses, especially when there are uses that should not occur.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n RCRA CA Program\n\n Many RCRA CA sites have ongoing operations and, therefore, there is some\n opportunity for the EPA to track changes because of periodic interaction between\n the state and EPA. However, the communications between states and the EPA do\n not encompass effective controls for reporting changes at RCRA CA sites.\n RCRA CA headquarters managers said that once the RAU designation is made\n\n\n\n14-P-0364 11\n\x0c there is no requirement for states and regions to periodically reevaluate the reuse\n determination to verify its continued validity.\n\n The EPA relies on the state project managers to update the Ready for Anticipated\n Use Determination form and send it to the EPA region if changes occur, at which\n point the region should enter the information into RCRAInfo. A RCRA CA\n headquarters manager said the form is a one-time submittal and there is no\n requirement for the state to periodically verify that the reuse designation remains\n valid. However, these forms are not normally checked by the regional EPA staff\n after a site is RAU. Further, when the states do not submit the determination form\n or do not inform the region of a change in site status, EPA Region 4 can only\n identify the site changes through RCRAInfo. Without the form, EPA has no\n information on how the site use or site conditions have changed and their impact,\n which could result in EPA reporting erroneous site information to the public.\n Also, the site may no longer be protective of human health and the environment.\n\n State oversight of RCRA CA sites extends beyond the time a site is initially\n designated RAU. Therefore, the EPA and the states should track changes in site\n conditions and use. Most sites receive RCRA CA permits to ensure the site is\n being operated properly. The EPA incorporates corrective action into a facility\xe2\x80\x99s\n permit. According to a Region 6 RCRA CA manager, the permits are not used to\n verify the accuracy of sites\xe2\x80\x99 long-term RAU status. The EPA should include\n conditions in the permit that require the state to revise the determination form to\n show that changes in site use or conditions have occurred and whether the RAU\n designation should be removed. The permit should further stipulate that these\n revised determination forms be submitted to the EPA. EPA review of submitted\n forms would help it and the states better ensure that sites remain protective of\n human health and the environment.\n\n Region 4 RCRA CA staff stated they are not aware of the CPRM voluntary\n indicators (status and type of reuse) and believed site reuse information is relevant\n information the EPA needs to know. Receiving this information will provide the\n controls needed for the EPA to continue to verify that site conditions and site use\n remain PFP and RAU.\n\n UST Program\n\n EPA headquarters and regional managers informed us that there are no controls in\n the UST program to ensure sites continue to be protective of human health long\n term. EPA headquarters managers also said that after a site has been cleaned up,\n the state generates a \xe2\x80\x9cNo Further Action\xe2\x80\x9d letter for each site and maintains site-\n specific information but does not submit that information to the EPA. States\n report cumulative site cleanup numbers to EPA regions, which then provide these\n totals to the OSWER Office of Underground Storage Tanks. However, states do\n not provide the names of the RAU sites or the documentation that supports the\n reuse designations. OSWER also noted in its 2010 CPRM report that it is unable\n\n\n\n14-P-0364 12\n\x0c to identify whether any institutional controls, if needed, are in place at UST reuse\n sites, and acknowledges that this limitation is an inconsistency with the RAU\n definition. A similar qualification exists in the 2013 Accomplishments report.\n Having institutional controls in place is one of the requirements for a site to meet\n the criteria for reuse. Because the majority of RAU sites are UST, not knowing\n the status of institutional controls calls into question the validity of the reuse\n designation for most of OSWER\xe2\x80\x99s RAU sites.\n\n The EPA\xe2\x80\x99s regional UST managers and staff said they were unfamiliar with the\n CPRM performance measures. They said they report the total number of\n cleaned-up sites to EPA headquarters, and headquarters then reports the sites as\n achieving reuse status. States are not required to report when site use or\n conditions change. As a result, the EPA may be unaware when such changes\n occur. If the use of a site changes, or the conditions change, the site may no\n longer be protective of human health and the environment.\n\nEPA Can Improve Controls by Finalizing CPRM Interim Guidance\n The EPA issued its CPRM interim guidance in 2006,2 but the guidance is still not\n final. The agency stated in the 2007 Guidance for Documenting and Reporting\n Performance in Achieving Land Revitalization that the CPRM interim guidance\n established the overarching framework for these measures, but directed each of\n the individual OSWER programs to develop companion guidance outlining\n program-specific implementation. The Superfund/Federal Facilities cleanup\n program and the RCRA CA program did develop specific guidance for its\n respective programs, while the Brownfields and UST programs did not.\n\n During our review of the CPRM, we learned that some of the Brownfields and\n UST program regional staff are not aware of the CPRM measure or how states\xe2\x80\x99\n hazardous waste cleanup information is used by EPA headquarters to report\n CPRM performance measure accomplishments. EPA regional cleanup program\n staff are not reviewing the state cleanup reports to verify whether the data input\n by Brownfields, RCRA CA and UST grantees is correct. Reviewing state reports\n for accuracy in the programs\xe2\x80\x99 databases is important, as the cleanups are reported\n by OSWER as RAU and PFP in public reports and websites. Further, some\n Brownfields and UST program staff do not know the relationship between their\n respective state site cleanups and the CPRM. Region 6 Brownfields staff informed\n us that ready for anticipated use \xe2\x80\x9cis not a Brownfields assessment grant term and\n therefore does not apply to a Brownfields assessment grant award commitments\n or accomplishments.\xe2\x80\x9d The EPA has the opportunity to finalize its interim CPRM\n guidance and address the issues described above.\n\n\n\n\n2\n Interim Guidance for OSWER Cross-Program Revitalization Measures, October 2006.\n\n\n14-P-0364 13\n\x0cConclusions\n The EPA has limited controls for verifying or testing the accuracy of information\n that states and grantees are providing to show sites are PFP and RAU. Through its\n accomplishment reports, EPA has reported to the public that over 400,000 sites\n nationwide that were once contaminated or believed to be contaminated are now\n RAU. However, the EPA is relying on states and grantees to voluntarily submit\n accurate site information, and has minimal controls to be sure sites are RAU and\n will remain that way. The results of our review demonstrate the usefulness of\n reviewing supporting documentation for PFP and RAU designations, and the need\n for the EPA to require states to routinely submit this support. The EPA should\n revise the interim CPRM guidance to include the controls needed for ensuring\n sites are accurately designated PFP and RAU.\n\n The EPA\xe2\x80\x99s reporting of site reuse accomplishments is inaccurate because the\n agency does not report limitations on the validity of the reuse designations and the\n agency does not have controls to verify the accuracy of the initial or continued\n validity of those designations. As a result, the EPA may be inaccurately\n representing the benefits of its measures. This greatly diminishes the value and\n meaning of the EPA\xe2\x80\x99s RAU performance measure. Further, in 2010, 2012 and\n 2013 the EPA reported the total and cumulative number of reuse sites for the\n Brownfields, RCRA CA, UST and Superfund programs since 2008 without\n qualifying that the designations were at a \xe2\x80\x9cpoint in time.\xe2\x80\x9d Without specifying that\n the number of reuse sites are at a \xe2\x80\x9cpoint-in-time,\xe2\x80\x9d the reporting of these sites\n suggests that the reuse determination continues to be valid over time when this\n may not be the case. Therefore, the agency should reconsider whether it should\n use the CPRM measures or it should qualify the information as appropriate.\n\nRecommendations\n We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency\n Response:\n\n 1. Improve controls of the CPRM measures by revising the CPRM guidance\n to require:\n a. Grantees to track and report the status and type of reuse at RAU\n sites, instead of voluntary reporting.\n b. Brownfields and RCRA CA staff to obtain and review grantees\xe2\x80\x99\n supporting documentation for sites designated PFP and RAU and\n verify that the grantees provide information in the appropriate\n OSWER databases.\n c. UST staff to obtain and review grantees\xe2\x80\x99 supporting documentation\n for a selected sample of sites designated PFP and RAU and verify\n that the grantees provided information in the appropriate OSWER\n databases.\n\n\n14-P-0364 14\n\x0c 2. After CPRM interim guidance is revised, provide training to regional\n OSWER staff responsible for verifying states\xe2\x80\x99 PFP and RAU designations\n to ensure staff are informed of the guidance and what is required.\n\n 3. Stipulate the following in the grant agreements for each program:\n a. For Brownfields, require grantees to track the status and type of\n reuse of remediated sites and report that information to OSWER.\n b. For RCRA CA, whenever there is a change in site conditions or\n site use, require states to revise the RCRA CA determination form\n to reflect the changes and have states re-submit the form to\n OSWER.\n c. For UST, require states to submit to OSWER and make publicly\n available site-specific information, including site name.\n\n 4. Correct designations for sites identified as not PFP or RAU.\n\n 5. Appropriately qualify the validity, uses and reliability of the CPRM data\n reporting in OSWER\xe2\x80\x99s publicly available information systems.\n\nSummary of Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation\n\n We received comments on the draft report from the Assistant Administrator for\n OSWER on August 25, 2014. We held an exit meeting with OSWER staff on\n September 24, 2014.\n\n The agency disagreed with Recommendations 1, 2 and 3 and resolution efforts are\n in progress. We continue to believe these recommendations are valid and their\n implementation would improve the integrity and value of the RAU measures.\n\n The agency agreed with Recommendations 4 and that recommendation is open\n with agreed-to actions pending. The agency also agreed with Recommendation 5\n and, as a result of the agency subsequently providing us with a milestone date,\n that recommendation is also open with agreed-to actions pending.\n\n The agency also suggested changes to the report and we made changes where\n appropriate.\n\n Appendix A contains the agency\xe2\x80\x99s complete response and well as OIG comments\n on that response.\n\n\n\n\n14-P-0364 15\n\x0c Status of Recommendations and\n Potential Monetary Benefits\n POTENTIAL\n MONETARY\n RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s)\n\n Planned Agreed-\n Rec. Page Completion Claimed To\n No. No. Subject Status1 Action Official Date Amount Amount\n\n 1 14\n 1. Improve controls of the CPRM measures by U Assistant Administrator\n revising the CPRM guidance to require: for Solid Waste and\n a. Grantees to track and report the status and Emergency Response\n type of reuse at RAU sites, instead of\n voluntary reporting.\n b. Brownfields and RCRA CA staff to obtain\n and review grantees\xe2\x80\x99 supporting\n documentation for sites designated PFP\n and RAU and verify that the grantees\n provide information in the appropriate\n OSWER databases.\n c. UST staff to obtain and review grantees\xe2\x80\x99\n supporting documentation for a selected\n sample of sites designated PFP and RAU\n and verify that the grantees provided\n information in the appropriate OSWER\n databases.\n\n 2 15 After CPRM interim guidance is revised, provide U Assistant Administrator\n training to regional OSWER staff responsible for for Solid Waste and\n verifying states\xe2\x80\x99 PFP and RAU designations to Emergency Response\n ensure staff are informed of the guidance and\n what is required.\n\n 3 15 Stipulate the following in the grant agreements for U Assistant Administrator\n each program: for Solid Waste and\n a. For Brownfields, require grantees to track Emergency Response\n the status and type of reuse of remediated\n sites and report that information to\n OSWER.\n b. For RCRA CA, whenever there is a change\n in site conditions or site use, require states\n to revise the RCRA CA determination form\n to reflect the changes and have states\n re-submit the form to OSWER.\n c. For UST, require states to submit to\n OSWER and make publicly available site-\n specific information, including site name.\n\n 4 15 Correct designations for sites identified as not O Assistant Administrator 10/12/14\n PFP or RAU. for Solid Waste and\n Emergency Response\n\n 5 15 Appropriately qualify the validity, uses and O Assistant Administrator 03/31/15\n reliability of the CPRM data reporting in for Solid Waste and\n OSWER\xe2\x80\x99s publicly available information systems. Emergency Response\n\n\n1 O = Recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending.\n C = Recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed.\n U = Recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.\n\n\n\n\n 14-P-0364 16\n\x0c Appendix A\n\n Agency Response to Draft Report\n and OIG Evaluation\n\n\n August 25, 2014\n\n\n\n\nMEMORANDUM\n\nSUBJECT: Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report EPA Needs to Improve Its\n Process for Accurately Designating Land as Clean and Protective for Reuse Project\n No. OPE-FY12-0016\n\nFROM: Mathy Stanislaus\n Assistant Administrator\n\nTO: Arthur A. Elkins, Jr.\n Inspector General\n\nThank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues and recommendations in the subject audit\nreport. Following is a summary of the agency\xe2\x80\x99s overall position, along with its position on each\nof the report recommendations. For those report recommendations with which the agency agrees,\nwe have provided high-level intended corrective actions and estimated completion dates to the\nextent we can. For those report recommendations with which the agency does not agree, we have\nexplained our position, and proposed alternatives to the recommendations. We would appreciate\nthe opportunity to meet with you if you do not plan to accept these changes.\n\nAGENCY\xe2\x80\x99S OVERALL POSITION\nThe Agency works collaboratively with states, tribes, local government, and other stakeholders\nto achieve its mission of assessing, cleaning up and restoring contaminated sites to set the stage\nfor redevelopment or facilitate the continued use of the facility. For the Superfund Program, EPA\ndirectly oversees the cleanup activities. Other EPA programs were designed by Congress to be\ndelegated or authorized to states (e.g., RCRA Corrective Action, Underground Storage Tanks) or\nestablished as a grant program (Brownfields). In fact, the majority of site-specific cleanup\ndecisions are made by the state-run or state-delegated programs, including decisions about\nprotectiveness. These roles and oversight are inaccurately portrayed in various parts of the draft\nOIG report.\n\n OIG Response 1: The OIG has made revisions where appropriate.\n\n\n\n14-P-0364 17\n\x0cFor example, there are no Brownfield specific regulatory authorities governing the cleanup of\nbrownfields delegated to the states. The EPA does not have statutory authority to require state\noversight of Brownfields cleanups.\n\nThe various roles, responsibilities, and relationships between EPA, states, tribes, and grantees\nmust be taken into consideration when designing and establishing an effective performance\nreporting system. When a program is delegated or authorized to a state or is implemented\nthrough a grant program, EPA relies on that entity to document and report results. These entities\nare best placed to address site-specific problems as they arise on a day-to- day basis. EPA works\nto strengthen and assist them and has established requirements for data reporting. Any data\nreported for the performance measures should adhere to EPA\xe2\x80\x99s quality information policies.\n\n OIG Response 2: We agree that any data reported for the performance measures should\n adhere to EPA\xe2\x80\x99s quality information policies. As cited in EPA\xe2\x80\x99s Executive Order CIO 2105.0,\n Policy and Program Requirements for the Mandatory Agency-Wide Quality System, Section 6\n (a) (8), assessment of existing data, when used to support agency decisions or other secondary\n purposes, must verify that the data is of sufficient quantity and adequate quality for their\n intended use. As we have demonstrated in our report, OSWER does not have sufficient\n controls and procedures to ensure that the CPRM data meets the quality standards cited in the\n Executive Order.\n\nIn that way, the data used to report performance data are reliable and as complete as possible\ngiven the structure of these programs.\n\nThe Cross-Program Revitalization Measures (CPRM), including the Ready for Anticipated Use\n(RAU) measure, are a few of the numerous performance measures EPA uses to help manage the\nprogram and gauge progress of sites along the cleanup continuum. The OIG inaccurately refers\nto these measures as a \xe2\x80\x9cCPRM program\xe2\x80\x9d.\n\n OIG Response 3: As cited in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11, the\n Government Accountability Office defines a program as an organized set of activities directed\n toward a common purpose or goal that an agency undertakes or proposes to carry out its\n responsibilities. Therefore, the CPRM is a program. However, the term is not needed to make\n our point and has been removed from the report.\n\nFour EPA cleanup programs report the RAU measure which allows us to better manage and\ncommunicate at an OSWER level our collective cleanup and reuse related activities and\naccomplishments3. The four cleanup programs are facilitated to work together to identify lessons\nlearned, potential efficiencies, and opportunities to advance site cleanup. EPA is then able to\nlook at this information collectively across programs and Regions, and gauge overall progress\ncleaning up contaminated sites.\n\nThe RAU is not a reporting of site-specific risk. The RAU determination by the appropriate\nentity is based on information at the time that the determination is made. It may change if the\n\n3\n The RAU is actually made up of specific performance measures from the Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action,\nBrownfields, and Underground Storage Tank Programs.\n\n 14-P-0364 18\n\x0csite\xe2\x80\x99s conditions change or if new or additional information is discovered regarding the\ncontamination or conditions at the site. Thus, the Agency publicly reports the RAU information\nat a program level for the state-run or grant programs, not at a site- specific level with the names\nof sites; therefore, it is not available to be used to make decisions on site reuse. The one\nexception is the Brownfields program, at this time. The Brownfields program is removing the\nRAU information from the public information system.\n\n OIG Response 4: We do not agree that site-specific RAU information is only available to the\n public for Brownfields sites. As can be found at\n http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0301376, site-specific RAU\n information is also available for the Superfund program. Instead of removing the site-specific\n RAU information, EPA could qualify this data as recommended in OIG Recommendation 5.\n\nParties interested in finding out what uses would be protective for a particular property will rely\non site-specific cleanup documents and site-specific institutional controls and contact the\nappropriate regulatory agency for more information.4\n\nWe plan to improve our communication materials to better explain the use of CPRM, the\nconditions under which a RAU determination is made, and that the measures represent a point in\ntime. We have already begun to do this and will continue to explore ways to better explain the\nmeasures to the public.\n\n\n\n\n4\n We recognize that the lack of data on institutional controls (ICs) for the underground storage tanks program is not\nconsistent with the definition of the RAU performance measure and we are working with the states to develop a\nbaseline of current practices related to long-term protectiveness and whether the IC data can be made available.\nNonetheless, we believe the LUST measure is a good indicator of sites ready for anticipate use, given the states\xe2\x80\x99\ndetermination that no further action is currently necessary to protect human health and the environment.\n\n\n 14-P-0364 19\n\x0c AGENCY\xe2\x80\x99S RESPONSE TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS\n AGREEMENTSs\nNo. Recommendation High-Level Intended Corrective Action(s) Estimated Completion\n by Quarter and FY\n4 Correct designations for Once the IG provides EPA with the list of 10 brownfields sites that it Within 30 days of\n sites identified as not PFP believes have been mistakenly identified as either PFP or RAU then EPA receiving the list of\n or RAU will review the information in the ACRES database to determine if the sites from the IG.\n IG\xe2\x80\x99s findings are correct and make any necessary changes to the PFP\n and/or RAU status of the sites.\n (In addition, all our programs will continue to work with regions and states\n to correct any inaccuracies as they are identified.) .\n5 Appropriately qualify the EPA will remove the RAU indicator for Brownfields sites from the 1st qtr FY15\n validity, uses, and Cleanup In My Community database. The CPRM is not intended to be\n reliability of the CPRM used as a site-specific indicator for brownfields properties, rather it is\n data reporting in OSWER\xe2\x80\x99s intended to be a measure of progress across the universe of brownfield\n publicly available sites receiving EPA funding.\n information systems. On-going. EPA is\n Furthermore, we are exploring ways to better explain RAU to the public. adding clarifying\n As appropriate, EPA will include in its public communication materials language to reports\n and other\n that the PFP and RAU measures represents a point in time and will include\n communication\n information about conditions under which a RAU is made to explain materials about the\n potential ICs and ECs may be required. CPRM.\n\n\n DISAGREEMENTS\nNo Recommendation Agency Explanation/Response Proposed Alternative\n.\n1 Improve Controls of the CPRM measures by finalizing the interim guidance to require 1a, 1b, and 1c.\n (Please note, the use of the term \xe2\x80\x9cinterim\xe2\x80\x9d in the OSWER CPRM guidance did not mean draft. It met an interim step. The final\n step was for program offices to develop their own program specific guidances. The draft CPRM guidance was sent for comment in\n April 2006 and finalized October 2006. )\n\n\n\n 14-P-0364 20\n\x0c1a States to track See responses to 3a, 3b, 3c.\n and report the\n status and type of\n reuse at RAU\n sites, instead of\n voluntary\n reporting.\n1b Brownfields and The RCRA Corrective Action program will remind Regions that these forms need to Brownfields and\n RCRA CA staff be filled out for PFP and RAU and they should work with their states to verify that RCRA CA should\n to obtain and these forms are filled out for future RAU and PFP determinations entered into RCRA work with states to\n review grantees\xe2\x80\x99 Info ( EPA's RCRA corrective action national database.) improve\n supporting communication about\n documentation The Brownfields Program\xe2\x80\x99s existing Assessment, Cleanup, and Redevelopment the CPRM and to\n for sites Exchange System (ACRES) system is designed and structured to collect brownfield verify that the\n designated PFP grantee reported information. Under the grant terms and conditions of the appropriate forms are\n and RAU Assessment, Cleanup, Revolving Loan Fund, and State and Tribal Response Program completed.\n and verify that grants, grant recipients are required to complete an OMB approved Property Profile (1st qtr FY15)\n the grantees Form in ACRES for each property where grant funding is expended. As Brownfields\n provide grants awarded prior to 2003 do not have a requirement to complete the Property\n information in the Profile Form under their grant conditions, they are not included in the reporting of\n appropriate CPRM measures. The Ready for Anticipated Use (RAU) performance measure for\n OSWER properties where federal brownfields funding has been expended is based on\n databases information entered by the grantee on the Property Profile Form. An RAU\n designation depends on documenting that a property meets the three criteria in the\n RAU definition. As part of grant oversight and monitoring activities, EPA Regional\n staff assist grantees, providing guidance on the completion of forms, ensuring timely\n submission of forms, and completing quality assurance reviews of Property Profile\n Form data. EPA collects property information via ACRES throughout the grant\n period of performance, however, EPA cannot require grantees to enter information\n about site activities after the close-out of the Brownfields grant or beyond that\n approved by our existing information collection request approved under the\n Paperwork Reduction Act by OMB.\n\n\n\n 14-P-0364 21\n\x0c1c UST staff to Congress has designed and funded the UST program for state implementation UST staff should work\n obtain and review primarily. States make site-specific cleanup decisions, including determining when a with states to properly\n grantees\xe2\x80\x99 site is clean enough to be closed. EPA works with state partners to provide submit data into\n supporting regulations, guidance, policy, and funding resources to support the infrastructure of OSWER\xe2\x80\x99s data system\n documentation state UST program so that the private and state resources can directly finance the and perform\n for a selected fieldwork necessary to clean up releases from federally regulated tanks releases. appropriate QA/QC\n sample of sites checks.\n designated PFP (1st qtr FY15)\n and RAU and\n verify that the\n grantees provided\n information in the\n appropriate\n OSWER\n databases.\n2. After CPRM As noted earlier, the draft\xe2\x80\x99s authors may have misunderstood the context for the OSWER AA should\n interim guidance \xe2\x80\x9cinterim\xe2\x80\x9d nature of the CPRM guidance. Nonetheless, OSWER will improve issue a memo to the\n is finalized, communications with the EPA regions on the CPRM tracking and reporting of regions to ensure staff\n provide training contaminated sites by issuing a memo from the Assistant Administrator to the regions are informed of the\n to regional providing additional information on the measures, how they are used, and CPRM guidance, how\n OSWER staff expectations for reporting. the measures are used,\n responsible for and what is required.\n verifying states\xe2\x80\x99 (1st qtr FY15)\n PFP and RAU\n designations to\n ensure staff are\n informed of the\n guidance and\n what is required\n3. Stipulate the following in the grant agreements for each program:\n3a For Brownfields, The Federal Brownfields program, in accordance with the Brownfield amendments to OBLR should expand\n require states to CERCLA, is a national competitive grant program. It is not a regulatory or state- ACRES training to\n track the status delegated program. In keeping with this grant authority, Brownfields property place greater emphasis\n\n 14-P-0364 22\n\x0c and type of reuse cleanups are managed by the grant recipient and assessment and cleanup activities are on grantee reporting\n of remediated reported at a point in time to document grant funded activities. Moreover, while EPA and enrollment of\n sites and report brownfield grants fund assessment or cleanup, but not redevelopment, property property cleanups in\n that information specific reuse information often is not available at grant closure to report. Finally, State and Tribal VCP\n to OSWER. the internal CPRM measures are a snapshot in time and are not meant to track the programs, where\n changing conditions at a site. As mentioned earlier, EPA cannot require grantees to feasible.\n enter information about site activities after the close-out of a Brownfields (1st qtr FY15 -\n grant. Specific details about the scope of state VCP programs can be found in the ongoing)\n State Brownfields and Voluntary Response Program report, available online at\n http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/state_tribal/pubs.htm.\n3b For RCRA CA, For the delegated CA states, cleanup decisions are made by states, EPA\xe2\x80\x99s recognition ORCR should\n whenever there is of such cleanup decisions are based on these state decisions, and that the RAU is continue to\n a change in site simple a cumulative sum of these state cleanup decisions. recommend that when\n conditions or site Regions or States\n use, require states become aware of a\n to revise the change in site\n RCRA CA conditions or site use\n determination that impacts the status\n form to reflect the of PFP or RAU, they\n changes and have should revise the PFP\n states re-submit and RAU\n the form to determination and\n OSWER. revise the forms.\n3c For UST, require States are the primary implementing agencies and make site-specific cleanup This recommendation\n states to submit to decisions, including determining when a site is clean enough to be closed. EPA does not match the\n OSWER and works with state partners to provide regulations, guidance, policy, and funding nature of the UST\n make publicly resources to support the infrastructure of state UST program so that the private and program and should be\n available site- state resources can directly finance the fieldwork necessary to clean up releases from deleted.\n specific federally regulated tanks releases.\n information,\n including site\n name.\n\n\n 14-P-0364 23\n\x0cCONTACT INFORMATION\nIf you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Brigid Lowery, Director,\nOSWER Center for Program Analysis on 202-566-0198.\n\n\n\n\n 14-P-0364 24\n\x0c Appendix B\n\n Distribution\nOffice of the Administrator\nAssistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response\nAgency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)\nAgency Follow-Up Coordinator\nGeneral Counsel\nAssociate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations\nAssociate Administrator for Public Affairs\nDeputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response\nDirector, Center for Program Analysis, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response\nAudit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response\n\n\n\n\n 14-P-0364 25\n\x0c"


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 3.9.2011
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 228/11
 REGULAMENTUL DE PUNERE ÎN APLICARE (UE) NR. 882/2011 AL COMISIEI
 din 2 septembrie 2011
 de stabilire a valorilor forfetare de import pentru fixarea prețului de intrare pentru anumite fructe și legume
 COMISIA EUROPEANĂ,
 având în vedere Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene,
 având în vedere Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1234/2007 al Consiliului din 22 octombrie 2007 de instituire a unei organizări comune a piețelor agricole și privind dispoziții specifice referitoare la anumite produse agricole (Regulamentul unic OCP) (1),
 având în vedere Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 543/2011 al Comisiei din 7 iunie 2011 de stabilire a normelor de aplicare a Regulamentului (CE) nr. 1234/2007 al Consiliului în sectorul fructelor și legumelor și în sectorul fructelor și legumelor procesate (2), în special articolul 136 alineatul (1),
 întrucât:
 Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 543/2011 prevede, ca urmare a rezultatelor negocierilor comerciale multilaterale din cadrul Rundei Uruguay, criteriile pentru stabilirea de către Comisie a valorilor forfetare de import din țări terțe pentru produsele și perioadele menționate în partea A din anexa XVI la regulamentul respectiv,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTUL REGULAMENT:
 Articolul 1
 Valorile forfetare de import prevăzute la articolul 136 din Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 543/2011 sunt stabilite în anexa la prezentul regulament.
 Articolul 2
 Prezentul regulament intră în vigoare la 3 septembrie 2011.
 Prezentul regulament este obligatoriu în toate elementele sale și se aplică direct în toate statele membre.
 Adoptat la Bruxelles, 2 septembrie 2011.
 Pentru Comisie, pentru președinte
 José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ
 Director general pentru agricultură și dezvoltare rurală
 (1) JO L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.
 (2) JO L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
 ANEXĂ
 Valorile forfetare de import pentru determinarea prețului de intrare pentru anumite fructe și legume
 (EUR/100 kg)
 Cod NC
 Codul țărilor terțe (1)
 Valoare forfetară de import
 0702 00 00
 EC
 32,6
 ZZ
 32,6
 0707 00 05
 TR
 130,3
 ZZ
 130,3
 0709 90 70
 AR
 40,2
 TR
 123,3
 ZZ
 81,8
 0805 50 10
 AR
 70,5
 CL
 75,3
 MX
 39,8
 PY
 33,5
 TR
 65,0
 UY
 50,7
 ZA
 79,1
 ZZ
 59,1
 0806 10 10
 EG
 149,9
 IL
 80,3
 MA
 175,2
 TR
 125,8
 ZA
 59,8
 ZZ
 118,2
 0808 10 80
 AR
 118,9
 CL
 110,0
 CN
 50,3
 NZ
 100,3
 ZA
 90,5
 ZZ
 94,0
 0808 20 50
 CI
 48,9
 CN
 42,6
 TR
 124,7
 ZA
 92,2
 ZZ
 77,1
 0809 03
 TR
 129,5
 ZZ
 129,5
 0809 40 05
 BA
 41,6
 ZZ
 41,6
 (1) Nomenclatorul țărilor, astfel cum este stabilit prin Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1833/2006 al Comisiei (JO L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Codul „ZZ” reprezintă „alte origini”.


text:
 113 S753 RS: To provide for national security benefits for White Sands Missile Range and Fort Bliss.
 U.S. Senate
 2013-04-17
 text/xml
 EN
 Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.
 IICalendar No. 376113th CONGRESS2d SessionS. 753[Report No. 113–159]IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATESApril 17, 2013Mr. Heinrich (for himself, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, and Mr. Cornyn) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural ResourcesMay 14, 2014Reported by Ms. Landrieu, with an amendmentOmit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italicA BILLTo provide for national security benefits for White Sands Missile Range and Fort Bliss.1.White sands missile range and
 fort bliss(a)Withdrawal(1)In
 generalSubject to valid existing rights and paragraph (3), the
 Federal land described in paragraph (2) is withdrawn from—(A)entry,
 appropriation, and disposal under the public land laws;(B)location, entry,
 and patent under the mining laws; and(C)operation of the
 mineral leasing, mineral materials, and geothermal leasing laws.(2)Description of
 Federal landThe Federal land referred to in paragraph (1)
 consists of—(A)the approximately
 5,100 acres of land depicted as Parcel 1 on the map entitled
 White Sands Missile Range/Fort Bliss/BLM Land Transfer and
 Withdrawal and dated April 3, 2012 (referred to in this section as the
 map);(B)the approximately
 37,600 acres of land depicted as Parcel 2, Parcel
 3, and Parcel 4 on the map; and(C)any land or
 interest in land that is acquired by the United States within the
 boundaries of
 the parcels described in subparagraph (B).(3)LimitationNotwithstanding
 paragraph (1), the land depicted as Parcel 4 on the map is not
 withdrawn for purposes of the issuance of oil and gas pipeline
 rights-of-way.(b)ReservationThe
 Federal land described in subsection (a)(2)(A) is reserved for use by the
 Secretary of the Army for military purposes in accordance with Public Land
 Order 833, dated May 21, 1952 (17 Fed. Reg. 4822).(c)Transfer of
 administrative jurisdictionEffective on the date of enactment of
 this Act, administrative jurisdiction over the approximately 2,050 acres
 of
 land generally depicted as Parcel 2 on the map—(1)is transferred
 from the Secretary of the Army to the Secretary of the Interior (acting
 through
 the Director of the Bureau of Land Management); and(2)shall be managed
 in accordance with—(A)the Federal Land
 Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and(B)any other
 applicable laws.(c)Revocation of withdrawal; managementEffective on the date of enactment of this Act—(1)Public Land Order 833, dated May 21, 1952 (17 Fed. Reg. 4822), is revoked with respect to the
 approximately 2,050 acres of land generally depicted as Parcel 2 on the map; and(2)the land described in paragraph (1) shall be managed by the Secretary of the Interior as public
 land, in accordance with—(A)the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and(B)any other applicable laws.(d)Legal
 description(1)In
 generalAs soon as practicable after the date of enactment of
 this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal
 Register a
 legal description of the Federal land withdrawn by subsection (a).(2)Force of
 lawThe legal description published under paragraph (1) shall
 have the same force and effect as if included in this Act, except that the
 Secretary of the Interior may correct errors in the legal description.(3)Reimbursement
 of costsThe Secretary of the Army shall reimburse the Secretary
 of the Interior for any costs incurred by the Secretary of the Interior in
 implementing this subsection with regard to the Federal land described in
 subsection (a)(2)(A).May 14, 2014Reported with an amendment


type: wikipedia

text:
 Události
 založen rakouský cisterciácký klášter Heiligenkreuz
 založen německý cisterciácký klášter Waldsassen
 započata stavba Exeterské katedrály
 dokončena stavba Durhamské katedrály
 Narození
 5. března – Jindřich II. Plantagenet, anglický král († 6. července 1189)
 13. května – Hónen, japonský buddhistický mnich († 29. února 1212)
 ? – Sigurd II. Norský, norský král († 10. června 1155)
 Úmrtí
 ? – Klementina Burgundská, hraběnka z Lovaně, flanderská a vévodkyně dolnolotrinská (* 1078)
 Hlavy států
 České knížectví – Soběslav I.
 Svatá říše římská – Lothar III.
 Papež – Inocenc II. (protipapež: Anaklet II.)
 Anglické království – Jindřich I. Anglický
 Francouzské království – Ludvík VI. Francouzský
 Polské knížectví – Boleslav III. Křivoústý
 Uherské království – Béla II. Uherský
 Kastilské království – Alfonso VII. Císař
 Byzantská říše – Jan II. Komnenos
 Externí odkazy
 12. století