Scan this mobile 

code to learn more 

about the EPA OIG.

EPA Needs to Improve Its 

Process for Accurately 

Designating Land as Clean

and Protective for Reuse

Report No. 14-P-0364 September 29, 2014

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Report Contributors: Christina Lovingood

Patrick Milligan

Chad Kincheloe

Anne Bavuso

Bakari Baker

Kate Robinson

Roopa Batni-Mulchandani

Abbreviations

ACRES Assessment, Cleanup, and Redevelopment Exchange System

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

CPRM Cross-Program Revitalization Measures

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FY Fiscal Year

OIG Office of Inspector General

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

PFP Protective for People

RAU Ready for Anticipated Use

RCRA CA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action

RCRAInfo RCRA’s database

UST Underground Storage Tank

Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an

EPA program?

EPA Inspector General Hotline 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)

Washington, DC 20460

(888) 546-8740

(202) 566-2599 (fax)

OIG_Hotline@epa.gov

More information at www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.html.

EPA Office of Inspector General

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 566-2391

www.epa.gov/oig

Subscribe to our Email Updates

Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig

Send us your Project Suggestions
 

 14-P-0364

September 29, 2014

Why We Did This Review

The purpose of this evaluation 

was to determine whether the 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA’s) designation 

of sites that have achieved the 

“protective for people” and/or 

“ready for anticipated use”

(RAU) performance measures 

include effective controls to 

ensure long-term protection to 

human health and the 

environment.

A primary goal of the EPA’s 

Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response 

(OSWER) is to ensure that the 

cleanup of contaminated sites 

is protective of human health 

and the environment. OSWER 

developed the Cross-Program 

Revitalization Measures 

(CPRM) to promote and 

communicate its cleanup 

accomplishments and benefits 

of restoring contaminated 

properties to environmental and 

economic vitality.

This report addresses the 

following EPA goal or 

cross-agency strategy:

 Cleaning up communities 

and advancing sustainable 

development.

Send all inquiries to our public

affairs office at (202) 566-2391

or visit www.epa.gov/oig.

The full report is at:

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/ 

20140929-14-P-0364.pdf

 

EPA Needs to Improve Its Process for Accurately 

Designating Land as Clean and Protective for Reuse

 What We Found

The EPA has limited controls for verifying or 

testing the accuracy of CPRM information that 

states and grantees provide to show sites are 

protective for people and RAU. The EPA also 

does not have adequate controls to verify that 

these designations continue to be valid and the 

sites remain protective in the long term.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action (RCRA CA)

program does not require documentation to support the designations. The EPA 

could not obtain supporting documentation for six of the 16 reuse designations

we reviewed. While the Brownfields program does receive the supporting 

documentation, it does not sufficiently review the documentation to verify 

accuracy. We could not verify the accuracy of the reuse designation for 10 of 32 

Brownfields sites we examined. Three of these Brownfields sites were 

prematurely designated as RAU. These sites had asbestos contamination 

cleaned up after they were designated as RAU.

The Underground Storage Tank (UST) program has the fewest EPA controls for 

accurate RAU site designations, even though UST sites represent 99 percent of 

the more than 400,000 sites the EPA has designated as RAU. States submit the 

number of UST RAU sites to EPA, but not names or supporting documentation. 

Further, states do not provide information on whether institutional controls are 

needed at the sites, but the EPA’s definition of RAU indicates it is improper to 

provide an RAU designation without knowing if institutional controls are needed. 

Given that nearly all the EPA’s RAU designations are at UST sites and that the 

EPA inaccurately designated sites as RAU or failed to support some of the 

Brownfields and RCRA CA designations, the reliability and value of the RAU 

measure are marginal. This creates the risk that the designations may not be 

sufficiently protective of human health, which is even more important when 

considering some of these sites may be reused as playgrounds, schools or child 

care facilities. Also, the EPA’s public reports may contain unreliable information

on site conditions.

 Recommendations and Agency Corrective Actions

We recommend that the OSWER Assistant Administrator improve controls over 

its guidance, review and reporting of the CPRM measures. The agency agreed 

with two recommendations but disagreed with the remaining three

recommendations, and resolution efforts are in progress.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Inspector General

At a Glance

The EPA’s lack of controls 

over designating sites as 

protective and ready for reuse 

calls into question the 

reliability and value of the 

designations for protecting 

human health.
September 29, 2014

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: EPA Needs to Improve Its Process for Accurately Designating Land as 

Clean and Protective for Reuse

Report No. 14-P-0364

FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.

TO: Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the problems 

the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of 

the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in 

this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.

Action Required

In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this report 

within 60 calendar days. You should include planned corrective actions and completion dates for all 

unresolved recommendations. Your response will be posted on the OIG’s public website, along with our 

memorandum commenting on your response. Your response should be provided as an Adobe PDF file 

that complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended. The final response should not contain data that you do not want to be released to the public; 

if your response contains such data, you should identify the data for redaction or removal along with 

corresponding justification. 

We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
EPA Needs to Improve Its Process for Accurately 14-P-0364

Designating Land as Clean and Protective for Reuse

Table of Contents

Chapters

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1

Purpose ..................................................................................................... 1

Background................................................................................................ 1

Scope and Methodology ............................................................................ 5

2 EPA’s Performance Measures for Some Cleanup Programs Missing

Needed Controls to Ensure Long-Term Protection of Human Health ............. 7

EPA Has Limited Controls to Assure Accurate 

 Initial Site Designations as PFP and RAU........................................... 8

EPA Has Limited Controls for Identifying Changes in 

 Site Conditions and Uses in the Long Term ........................................ 10

EPA Can Improve Controls by Finalizing CPRM Interim Guidance ............ 13

Conclusions ............................................................................................... 14

Recommendations..................................................................................... 14

Summary of Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation.......... 15

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits ............................. 16

 A Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation ................................. 17

 B Distribution ....................................................................................................... 25

Appendices
14-P-0364 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Purpose

We sought to determine whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA’s) designation of assessed and cleaned-up sites that have achieved the 

“ready for anticipated use” (RAU) and/or “protective for people” (PFP) 

performance measures include effective controls to ensure long-term protection to 

human health and the environment. 

Background

Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123, Management’s Responsibility 

for Internal Controls, states that management has a fundamental responsibility to 

develop and maintain effective internal control and that organization, policies and 

procedures are tools to help program managers achieve results and safeguard the 

integrity of their programs. The Government Performance and Results Act of 

1993, amended in 2010, requires the EPA to clearly describe the goals and 

objectives of its programs, identify resources and actions needed to accomplish 

these goals and objectives, develop a means of measuring their progress, and 

regularly report on achievements.

The primary objective the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

(OSWER) cleanup program is to ensure that the cleanup of contaminated sites is 

protective of human health and the environment. In 2006, OSWER issued interim 

guidance for reporting performance measures, including site reuse measures. 

OSWER describes the measures as “a first step toward reporting data as a common 

set of measures.” The guidance describes the reuse measures’ benefits to society as 

helping reassure interested parties (property owners, workers, investors, potential 

buyers or developers, etc.) that the sites are protective not only for the current use 

but for reuse in the reasonably anticipated future. OSWER indicated the reuse 

measures help communicate broader cross-programmatic, regional and national 

progress in getting properties through the cleanup process.

Cross-Program Revitalization Measures (CPRM) include sites from a range of 

OSWER programs:

 Superfund.

 Brownfields.

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action (RCRA CA).

 Underground Storage Tank (UST). 
14-P-0364 2

The PFP performance measure is the number of sites and acres at which there is 

no complete pathway for human exposures to unacceptable levels of 

contamination based on current site conditions, and is achieved through:

 Environmental investigations.

 Response actions that treat, contain or remove contaminated media that 

make it protective for current use/conditions.

 Solutions that limit or restrict human use and associated exposures through 

engineering controls such as caps or institutional controls such as notices 

and easements. 

The RAU performance measure is the number of acres and sites at which all three 

of the following are achieved:

 There are no complete pathways for human exposure to unacceptable 

levels of contamination based on current site conditions.

 All cleanup goals have been achieved for media that may affect current 

and reasonably anticipated future land uses of the acres or sites so that 

there are no unacceptable risks.

 All institutional or other controls identified as part of the response action 

to help ensure long-term protections have been put in place.

There are also two voluntary indicators used to promote the collection of 

information needed to help describe revitalization accomplishments—the 

Status of Use and Type of Use indicators. The Status of Use indicator captures 

information about whether a site is being used; sites and acres will be classified as 

unused, in continued use, reused or planned reuse. The Type of Use indicator

describes how the acres at a site are being used when the site reuse determinations

are made. There are six categories of Type of Use Indicators:

 Commercial and Public Service.

 Green Space.

 Industrial.

 Military and Other Federal.

 Mixed.

 Residential.

Implementation of CPRM Performance Measures 

As shown in Table 1, between the adoption of guidance for the reuse performance 

measures in 2006 and the end of fiscal year (FY) 2013, OSWER designated over 

400,000 reuse sites, the majority of which are UST sites. 
14-P-0364 3

Table 1: Total number of RAU sites as of September 30, 2013

Program Number of RAU sites

Superfund 662

RCRA CA 904

Brownfields 1,694

UST 437,914

 Total 441,174

Sources: OSWER’s programs for FY 2011 data and OSWER’s

FYs 2012 and 2013 accomplishment reports.

The EPA reported these sites in its FYs 2010, 2012 and 2013 accomplishment 

reports to the public. The sites are reported cumulatively, beginning in 2008 when 

the EPA first began measuring site reuse progress. 

EPA maintains oversight authority over all states whether delegated or not. But, 

for delegated programs (RCRA CA and UST) - - and for the Brownfields

program, states have primary authority. For those states where the program is 

delegated, the agency establishes a Memorandum of Agreement with the state that 

promotes coordination and clarifies the general roles and responsibilities between 

the EPA and the states. As a result, the EPA relies primarily on the states to 

ensure these cleanup programs are effectively implemented. States are required to 

report information confirming effective implementation into the EPA’s 

Brownfields and RCRA CA databases, and the EPA regions review the 

information to determine whether the required data were submitted and that sites 

were cleaned up and met the PFP and RAU criteria. Table 2 provides a 

description of how RAU designations are made.

Table 2: How RAU designations are made

Program How RAU designations are made

Superfund EPA regions determine when a site has achieved the reuse 

measures. The regions complete a checklist and enter the data in the

EPA’s Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 

Liability Information System. 

RCRA CA EPA regions determine when a site has achieved the reuse 

measures. States enter the information into OSWER’s RCRA CA 

database to indicate that a site meets OSWER’s reuse definition.

Brownfields EPA regions determine when a site has achieved the reuse 

measures. Grantees enter the information into OSWER’s Brownfields 

database to indicate that a site meets OSWER’s reuse definition.

UST EPA regions determine when a site has achieved the reuse 

measures. States determine when sites are cleaned up and report 

the number of sites that meet OSWER’s reuse definition.

Source: OIG analysis of each program’s process for designating sites RAU.
14-P-0364 4

Responsible Offices

The Immediate Office within OSWER has overall responsibility for the CPRM. 

Within OSWER, the following offices have responsibilities related to the 

performance measures. 

Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation 

EPA regions determine when a site has achieved the reuse measures. The 

regions complete a checklist and enter the data in the EPA’s Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System. 

The checklist also documents information for the two voluntary indicators 

(Status of Use and Type of Use). A Five-Year Review is required for sites 

where hazardous substances remain onsite above levels which permit 

unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, and provides an opportunity to 

evaluate the implementation of a remedy to determine whether it remains 

protective of human health and the environment. The federal Superfund 

program is not delegated to the states, although some sites are state-led.

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Although the EPA is ultimately responsible for the RCRA CA cleanup 

program, it has delegated the program to most states. As a result, those 

states determine when sites achieve the reuse performance measures using 

the agency’s definitions of PFP and RAU. The regions check the program 

database to verify that the performance measure data have been input.

Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization 

The Brownfields program uses a Property Profile Form, which grantees 

access and update in the Brownfields database—the Assessment, Cleanup, 

and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES). States oversee a phase 1 

assessment of the site to determine whether a cleanup is necessary. If 

further assessment and/or a cleanup and institutional controls are not 

required, the site meets the RAU definition. If a cleanup is needed, the site 

receives the reuse designation after the cleanup is completed and no 

further action is necessary. Once the site meets the reuse criteria, OSWER, 

through ACRES, designates the site as RAU. 

Office of Underground Storage Tanks 

The reuse measures for the UST program are achieved when a state cleanup 

of a confirmed release is completed. The state determines when these sites 

are cleaned up and reports the number of cleaned-up sites to its regional EPA 

office. Regional offices then submit these numbers to EPA headquarters, 

which reports these sites as RAU in EPA accomplishment reports.
14-P-0364 5

Scope and Methodology

We performed our work from April 2012 to July 2014. We conducted this 

performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives. 

Included in our evaluation was OSWER’s implementation of two CPRMs—

PFP and RAU. We reviewed these two reuse measures for three OSWER 

programs—Brownfields, RCRA CA and UST. We did not include Superfund sites 

because we issued a report1on OSWER’s management controls to ensure 

Superfund Five-Year Reviews are thorough, meet policy, and lead to wellsupported determinations that accurately report how well cleanup remedies 

protect human health and the environment.

We reviewed information supporting OSWER’s site reuse determinations for 

90 sites in the RCRA CA, Brownfields and UST programs. The sites are located 

in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New Mexico, South Carolina and Texas, and 

represented 29 RCRA CA sites, 32 Brownfields sites and 29 UST sites. All states 

we reviewed were delegated for RCRA CA and UST. We selected sites based on

the age of the site, number of acres designated PFP or RAU, the type of facility,

and the proximity of sites to each other. For the RAU sites, we requested 

supporting documentation from OSWER. We compared the supporting 

documentation with the information in the database to test the accuracy of the 

databases and determine whether the site reuse designations were adequately 

supported.

To accomplish our objective, we interviewed EPA managers and staff in the 

following OSWER Offices: Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, 

Resource Conservation and Recovery, Underground Storage Tanks, and 

Brownfields and Land Revitalization. We also interviewed managers and staff in 

Regions 4 and 6 for each of the four OSWER programs. 

We reviewed key documents, including: Interim Guidance for OSWER CrossProgram Revitalization Measures, Guidance for Documenting and Reporting 

Performance in Achieving Land Revitalization, Guidance for Documenting and 

Reporting RCRA CA Land Revitalization Indicators and Performance Measures,

Guidance for Preparing Superfund Ready for Reuse Determinations, Superfund 

Five-Year Review Guidance, OSWER’s December 2010 Cross-Program 

Revitalization Measures report and FYs 2011 and 2013 accomplishment reports,

 

1 EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report No. 12-P-0251, Stronger Management Controls Will Improve EPA 

Five-Year Reviews of Superfund Sites, issued February 6, 2012.
14-P-0364 6

FY 2013 National Program Manager’s Guidance, and UST Performance 

Measures Definitions. 

We reviewed how EPA Regions 4 and 6 oversee measurement and tracking of 

sites that achieve the reuse performance measures. We reviewed the 

Memorandums of Agreement between regions and states. We reviewed 

No Further Action letters, Completion Letters, and Site Rehabilitation Completion 

Orders. We reviewed RCRA CA facility permits, RAU documentation forms, and 

Institutional Controls Tracking Information forms. We reviewed Brownfields 

Property Profile forms, State Certificates of Completions, site assessment reports, 

and technical documents related to the selected sites. We also reviewed UST

Closure Reports.
14-P-0364 7

Chapter 2

EPA’s Performance Measures for 

Some Cleanup Programs Missing Needed Controls

to Ensure Long-Term Protection of Human Health

OSWER does not have adequate procedures to verify the accuracy of sites that 

have been designated PFP and RAU. Due to ineffective oversight controls:

 The RCRA CA program does not always require documentation to support 

designations. Region 4 was unable to provide supporting documentation 

for six of the 16 RCRA CA reuse designations we sampled.

 Although the Brownfields program receives supporting documentation, it

does not sufficiently review the documentation to verify accuracy. We 

could not verify the reuse designation for 10 of the 32 Brownfields sites 

we sampled. OSWER was unaware that three of the 10 sites were 

designated RAU but were later remediated for asbestos contamination. 

 The UST program, which represents 99 percent of the 441,174 RAU sites, 

has the least controls; states do not provide site specific information or 

supporting documentation for the designations. States with delegated 

authority submit the number of UST RAU sites, but do not provide the 

names of those sites or documentation to support RAU designations.

Further, OSWER qualifies in public reports that it is unable to identify 

whether any institutional controls, if needed, are in place at UST reuse 

sites. OSWER acknowledges that this is a limitation in meeting the 

definition of RAU. The regions were able to obtain adequate RAU support 

from the states for the 29 RAU designations we sampled, but we were 

only able to verify designations where states made the lists of cleaned-up 

UST sites publicly available.

The lack of details and support for information provided to the EPA causes

questions about the value of the RAU measure, and OSWER’s public reports may 

contain unreliable information. Human health and environmental risks may occur 

if sites are prematurely designated as protective and ready for use.
14-P-0364 8

EPA Has Limited Controls to Assure Accurate Initial Site Designations 

as PFP and RAU

Our review of Brownfields, RCRA CA and UST sites found that OSWER 

prematurely designated some sites as PFP and RAU. Also, OSWER was unable to 

provide support for other sites, and some regional staff were not aware of 

OSWER’s tracking and reporting of contaminated sites achieving reuse 

performance measures. These weaknesses occurred because OSWER senior 

management over-relied on delegated states and grantees and focused on 

reporting the accomplishments. We found the following for each program 

reviewed.

Brownfields Program

The EPA incorrectly reported 10 of the 32 Brownfields sites we reviewed, or 

31 percent, as RAU before ensuring that the requirements for sites achieving 

RAU status were fulfilled. The sites were reported incorrectly because guidance 

did not require EPA Brownfields staff to review the documents submitted by the 

grantees to verify the accuracy of the reported RAU.

Currently, the EPA relies primarily on the Brownfields grantees and states to 

provide site information needed to verify that the site meets the conditions for 

achieving OSWER’s reuse performance measures. OSWER’s Office of 

Brownfields and Land Revitalization staff said Brownfields grantees enter site 

information into the EPA’s Brownfields database—ACRES. They also said that 

the EPA Regional Project Officer reviews that information to ensure the database 

contains the information needed for OSWER to accurately make site reuse 

designations. As part of the grant agreement, grantees are asked to complete a 

Property Profile Form. The form includes data on environmental assessments, 

cleanup activities, contaminants found at the site, institutional and engineering 

controls, and basic geographic information. The grantee completes the form,

which is located in ACRES. According to the Brownfields staff, the EPA reviews 

the database to determine whether the required fields that meet the site reuse 

definition are completed.

Although EPA regional offices receive site assessment and site cleanup reports—

which include information on site conditions, contaminants found and cleanup 

remedies used—the regions do not regularly review these reports to verify the 

accuracy of the database. Region 4 staff said this was because there are too many 

documents to review. When the assessment grant is awarded, the grantee 

performs an assessment of the site and reports on what it finds. The assessment 

report either recommends that there are no “Recognized Environmental

Concerns,” in which case it makes a No Further Assessment recommendation, or 

that further assessment and cleanup is needed. After the site has been cleaned up, 

the state would issue a No Further Action notification. 
14-P-0364 9

According to the EPA’s interim CPRM guidance, when no cleanup is required the 

site is considered PFP, and because no cleanup is required the site is also 

considered RAU. CPRM guidance does not require the EPA to read these reports.

EPA regional staff did not review the state’s assessment reports to ensure sites 

were entirely cleaned up and ready for reuse. EPA regional staff were unaware 

that three of the 10 Brownfields sites were remediated for asbestos contamination 

after the sites had received the RAU designation. If region staff had reviewed the 

assessment reports, they would have identified the presence of asbestos and 

accurately determined that the sites should not be considered RAU. 

RCRA CA Program

The RCRA CA CPRM guidance requires state project managers to document on 

the RAU determination form when a facility has met the criteria for the RAU

performance measure. States with delegated RCRA CA authority submit the 

determination forms to the EPA and the EPA enters the information into the 

EPA’s RCRA CA’s database, called RCRAInfo. Both Regions 4 and 6 use the 

data to verify that sites have met the criteria to meet the reuse performance 

measures. In addition, a Region 6 manager stated that the region uses an RAU 

checklist to compare to RCRAInfo, and that other support for information entered 

into RCRAInfo is maintained at the state. 

Region 6 provided us with RAU determination forms for the 13 sites in the region

reviewed, and the forms were adequate support for the reuse determinations.

However, when we requested from Region 4 supporting documentation for the 

16 RAU sites reviewed for that region, the region needed to contact the states for 

the information. The states provided a mix of documentation, providing adequate 

support for 10 initial reuse designations but not for the remaining six. Region 4 

managers said the region does not keep the supporting documents (RAU 

determination forms and institutional control documents) because they review the 

information used to support the initial RAU designations in RCRAInfo at the end 

of each fiscal year. This review, however, does not verify that sufficient 

documentation exists to justify the states’ reuse designations, which could result 

in the EPA wrongly designating sites as PFP and RAU. 

UST Program

Despite the fact that the UST sites comprise over 99 percent of the reuse sites 

reported through the end of FY 2013, the EPA receives and reviews the least 

information for those sites. At the end of FY 2013, we found that 437,914 of the 

441,174 RAU sites were UST sites. Considering this large number, it would not be 

feasible or practical for the EPA to receive and review site-specific documentation 

for all of the UST sites. However, obtaining supporting documents for a sampling 

of sites would enable the EPA to test the accuracy and completeness of the 

information used to support the reuse designations.
14-P-0364 10

The UST program is delegated to 38 of the 50 states. The delegated states are not 

required to submit information to the EPA supporting cleanups, and they provide 

limited information. States send the EPA regional offices reports on the number 

of sites that have been cleaned up without a list of site names or verification of 

state-reported information. These submittals are done quarterly in Region 4 and 

semiannually in Region 6. Some states in Regions 4 and 6 had publicly available 

lists of cleaned-up UST sites while other states did not. As a result, to verify reuse 

status, we had to alter our sample to select states that had the cleaned-up site lists. 

OSWER reports the number of cleaned-up sites as the number of sites achieving 

reuse status in annual accomplishment reports. For Regions 4 and 6, we requested 

the supporting documents for 34 sites designated as RAU. The information

provided, which the regions needed to request from the states, showed evidence 

that the sites were cleaned to the level of meeting the definition of the reuse 

performance measures. 

EPA Has Limited Controls for Identifying Changes in Site Conditions 

and Uses in the Long Term 

After sites have been designated PFP and RAU, OSWER has limited controls to 

verify that the designations continue to be valid and the sites remain protective of 

human health and the environment. While agency guidance states that the PFP 

measure has to be accomplished for a site to be RAU, the PFP is only good for the

“point in time” in which the determination is made. However, the EPA 

cumulatively reports the RAU sites, without qualifying that it is a “point in time”

or without citing limitations on the continued validity of the measures reported.

The accuracy of the PFP measure is needed in order for EPA to help reassure 

interested parties, including communities, that there is no current complete 

pathway for human exposures to unacceptable levels of contamination. 

Brownfields, RCRA CA and UST managers at both headquarters and the regions

stated that their programs do not include mechanisms that require an additional 

review to verify that sites remain protective of human health and the environment 

after the initial designation is made. This is consistent with the CPRM interim

guidance, which does not require an additional review to confirm that sites remain 

protective.

The EPA’s CPRM interim guidance does not require states to track the status and 

type of reuse of remediated sites after they are determined to be RAU. The 

interim CPRM guidance lists benefits for tracking reuses of cleaned-up sites, but 

most of the listed benefits involve identifying trends in uses and prioritizing sites, 

not on ensuring whether sites remain protective for human health. Further, 

investors could rely on potentially inaccurate information to make business 

decisions about a site based on outdated or incorrect information in the EPA’s 

publicly available databases. Tracking and monitoring revitalized sites that are 

reused as intended by the cleanup and remediation plan would help better ensure 
14-P-0364 11

that the reused sites are used properly as intended. We found the following for the 

three programs reviewed.

Brownfields Program

For Brownfields sites, there is minimal contact between the state and EPA after 

the cleanup has been accomplished, and changes in site conditions or site use may 

go undetected by the EPA. The Brownfields program maintains that under the 

Brownfields amendment to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), it does not have the authority to 

conduct long-term oversight at Brownfields sites. EPA Office of Brownfields and 

Land Revitalization officials maintain that the Brownfields program is a grants 

management program that provides seed money for funding site assessments and 

cleanups that the states perform, not the EPA. Those EPA officials added that 

when the grant period ends, they cannot require grantees to report changes in site 

conditions or reuse to the EPA.

We do not agree with the EPA position. Although the cleanup is managed by the 

states and the EPA does not participate in cleanups, the OIG found that under 

CERCLA, the EPA has the authority to add reporting requirements to the grant 

agreement as deemed necessary and should do so to meet the intent of CERCLA. 

For the length of the grant agreement, the EPA requires the grantee to add and 

update information in the agency’s database when appropriate. Since site use can 

change, the EPA should either build in controls to better assure that site 

conditions remain safe, or publicly disclose that the CPRM determinations may 

not remain accurate over time. 

We found that for all states in our review, Brownfields database information 

included past uses of each site but only a few sites had information in the database 

regarding the reuse of properties, whether it was planned or actual reuse. Region 4 

managers said that their knowledge of site reuse of developed Brownfields sites is 

“hit or miss.” They added that they would like to track reuse but there were 

resource issues. Some grantees submit Return on Investment Reports, but regional 

managers said that this is more of the exception and not the rule.

Brownfields officials acknowledged that the reuse of cleaned-up sites could 

change from the intended uses, and one Brownfields official said “hopefully states 

are monitoring the uses, especially when there are uses that should not occur.”

RCRA CA Program

Many RCRA CA sites have ongoing operations and, therefore, there is some 

opportunity for the EPA to track changes because of periodic interaction between 

the state and EPA. However, the communications between states and the EPA do 

not encompass effective controls for reporting changes at RCRA CA sites. 

RCRA CA headquarters managers said that once the RAU designation is made 
14-P-0364 12

there is no requirement for states and regions to periodically reevaluate the reuse

determination to verify its continued validity. 

The EPA relies on the state project managers to update the Ready for Anticipated 

Use Determination form and send it to the EPA region if changes occur, at which 

point the region should enter the information into RCRAInfo. A RCRA CA

headquarters manager said the form is a one-time submittal and there is no 

requirement for the state to periodically verify that the reuse designation remains 

valid. However, these forms are not normally checked by the regional EPA staff 

after a site is RAU. Further, when the states do not submit the determination form 

or do not inform the region of a change in site status, EPA Region 4 can only 

identify the site changes through RCRAInfo. Without the form, EPA has no 

information on how the site use or site conditions have changed and their impact,

which could result in EPA reporting erroneous site information to the public. 

Also, the site may no longer be protective of human health and the environment. 

State oversight of RCRA CA sites extends beyond the time a site is initially 

designated RAU. Therefore, the EPA and the states should track changes in site 

conditions and use. Most sites receive RCRA CA permits to ensure the site is 

being operated properly. The EPA incorporates corrective action into a facility’s 

permit. According to a Region 6 RCRA CA manager, the permits are not used to 

verify the accuracy of sites’ long-term RAU status. The EPA should include 

conditions in the permit that require the state to revise the determination form to 

show that changes in site use or conditions have occurred and whether the RAU 

designation should be removed. The permit should further stipulate that these 

revised determination forms be submitted to the EPA. EPA review of submitted 

forms would help it and the states better ensure that sites remain protective of 

human health and the environment.

Region 4 RCRA CA staff stated they are not aware of the CPRM voluntary 

indicators (status and type of reuse) and believed site reuse information is relevant 

information the EPA needs to know. Receiving this information will provide the 

controls needed for the EPA to continue to verify that site conditions and site use 

remain PFP and RAU.

UST Program

EPA headquarters and regional managers informed us that there are no controls in 

the UST program to ensure sites continue to be protective of human health long

term. EPA headquarters managers also said that after a site has been cleaned up, 

the state generates a “No Further Action” letter for each site and maintains sitespecific information but does not submit that information to the EPA. States 

report cumulative site cleanup numbers to EPA regions, which then provide these 

totals to the OSWER Office of Underground Storage Tanks. However, states do 

not provide the names of the RAU sites or the documentation that supports the 

reuse designations. OSWER also noted in its 2010 CPRM report that it is unable 
14-P-0364 13

to identify whether any institutional controls, if needed, are in place at UST reuse 

sites, and acknowledges that this limitation is an inconsistency with the RAU

definition. A similar qualification exists in the 2013 Accomplishments report. 

Having institutional controls in place is one of the requirements for a site to meet 

the criteria for reuse. Because the majority of RAU sites are UST, not knowing 

the status of institutional controls calls into question the validity of the reuse 

designation for most of OSWER’s RAU sites.

The EPA’s regional UST managers and staff said they were unfamiliar with the 

CPRM performance measures. They said they report the total number of 

cleaned-up sites to EPA headquarters, and headquarters then reports the sites as 

achieving reuse status. States are not required to report when site use or 

conditions change. As a result, the EPA may be unaware when such changes 

occur. If the use of a site changes, or the conditions change, the site may no 

longer be protective of human health and the environment.

EPA Can Improve Controls by Finalizing CPRM Interim Guidance 

The EPA issued its CPRM interim guidance in 2006,

2

but the guidance is still not 

final. The agency stated in the 2007 Guidance for Documenting and Reporting 

Performance in Achieving Land Revitalization that the CPRM interim guidance 

established the overarching framework for these measures, but directed each of 

the individual OSWER programs to develop companion guidance outlining 

program-specific implementation. The Superfund/Federal Facilities cleanup 

program and the RCRA CA program did develop specific guidance for its 

respective programs, while the Brownfields and UST programs did not.

During our review of the CPRM, we learned that some of the Brownfields and 

UST program regional staff are not aware of the CPRM measure or how states’ 

hazardous waste cleanup information is used by EPA headquarters to report 

CPRM performance measure accomplishments. EPA regional cleanup program 

staff are not reviewing the state cleanup reports to verify whether the data input 

by Brownfields, RCRA CA and UST grantees is correct. Reviewing state reports 

for accuracy in the programs’ databases is important, as the cleanups are reported 

by OSWER as RAU and PFP in public reports and websites. Further, some 

Brownfields and UST program staff do not know the relationship between their 

respective state site cleanups and the CPRM. Region 6 Brownfields staff informed 

us that ready for anticipated use “is not a Brownfields assessment grant term and 

therefore does not apply to a Brownfields assessment grant award commitments

or accomplishments.” The EPA has the opportunity to finalize its interim CPRM 

guidance and address the issues described above.

 

2

Interim Guidance for OSWER Cross-Program Revitalization Measures, October 2006.
14-P-0364 14

Conclusions

The EPA has limited controls for verifying or testing the accuracy of information

that states and grantees are providing to show sites are PFP and RAU. Through its 

accomplishment reports, EPA has reported to the public that over 400,000 sites 

nationwide that were once contaminated or believed to be contaminated are now

RAU. However, the EPA is relying on states and grantees to voluntarily submit 

accurate site information, and has minimal controls to be sure sites are RAU and 

will remain that way. The results of our review demonstrate the usefulness of 

reviewing supporting documentation for PFP and RAU designations, and the need 

for the EPA to require states to routinely submit this support. The EPA should 

revise the interim CPRM guidance to include the controls needed for ensuring 

sites are accurately designated PFP and RAU. 

The EPA’s reporting of site reuse accomplishments is inaccurate because the 

agency does not report limitations on the validity of the reuse designations and the 

agency does not have controls to verify the accuracy of the initial or continued 

validity of those designations. As a result, the EPA may be inaccurately 

representing the benefits of its measures. This greatly diminishes the value and 

meaning of the EPA’s RAU performance measure. Further, in 2010, 2012 and 

2013 the EPA reported the total and cumulative number of reuse sites for the 

Brownfields, RCRA CA, UST and Superfund programs since 2008 without 

qualifying that the designations were at a “point in time.” Without specifying that 

the number of reuse sites are at a “point-in-time,” the reporting of these sites 

suggests that the reuse determination continues to be valid over time when this 

may not be the case. Therefore, the agency should reconsider whether it should 

use the CPRM measures or it should qualify the information as appropriate.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response: 

1. Improve controls of the CPRM measures by revising the CPRM guidance 

to require:

a. Grantees to track and report the status and type of reuse at RAU 

sites, instead of voluntary reporting.

b. Brownfields and RCRA CA staff to obtain and review grantees’ 

supporting documentation for sites designated PFP and RAU and 

verify that the grantees provide information in the appropriate 

OSWER databases. 

c. UST staff to obtain and review grantees’ supporting documentation 

for a selected sample of sites designated PFP and RAU and verify 

that the grantees provided information in the appropriate OSWER 

databases.
14-P-0364 15

2. After CPRM interim guidance is revised, provide training to regional 

OSWER staff responsible for verifying states’ PFP and RAU designations 

to ensure staff are informed of the guidance and what is required.

3. Stipulate the following in the grant agreements for each program:

a. For Brownfields, require grantees to track the status and type of 

reuse of remediated sites and report that information to OSWER.

b. For RCRA CA, whenever there is a change in site conditions or 

site use, require states to revise the RCRA CA determination form 

to reflect the changes and have states re-submit the form to 

OSWER.

c. For UST, require states to submit to OSWER and make publicly 

available site-specific information, including site name.

4. Correct designations for sites identified as not PFP or RAU.

5. Appropriately qualify the validity, uses and reliability of the CPRM data 

reporting in OSWER’s publicly available information systems.

Summary of Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation

We received comments on the draft report from the Assistant Administrator for 

OSWER on August 25, 2014. We held an exit meeting with OSWER staff on 

September 24, 2014. 

The agency disagreed with Recommendations 1, 2 and 3 and resolution efforts are 

in progress. We continue to believe these recommendations are valid and their 

implementation would improve the integrity and value of the RAU measures.

The agency agreed with Recommendations 4 and that recommendation is open 

with agreed-to actions pending. The agency also agreed with Recommendation 5 

and, as a result of the agency subsequently providing us with a milestone date, 

that recommendation is also open with agreed-to actions pending.

The agency also suggested changes to the report and we made changes where 

appropriate.

Appendix A contains the agency’s complete response and well as OIG comments 

on that response.
14-P-0364 16

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits

RECOMMENDATIONS

POTENTIAL 

MONETARY 

BENEFITS (in $000s)

Rec. 

No.

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official

Planned 

Completion 

Date

Claimed 

Amount

AgreedTo 

Amount

1 11.4 Improve controls of the CPRM measures by 

revising the CPRM guidance to require:

a. Grantees to track and report the status and 

type of reuse at RAU sites, instead of 

voluntary reporting.

b. Brownfields and RCRA CA staff to obtain 

and review grantees’ supporting 

documentation for sites designated PFP 

and RAU and verify that the grantees

provide information in the appropriate 

OSWER databases. 

c. UST staff to obtain and review grantees’ 

supporting documentation for a selected 

sample of sites designated PFP and RAU 

and verify that the grantees provided 

information in the appropriate OSWER 

databases.

U Assistant Administrator 

for Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response

2 15 After CPRM interim guidance is revised, provide 

training to regional OSWER staff responsible for 

verifying states’ PFP and RAU designations to 

ensure staff are informed of the guidance and 

what is required.

U Assistant Administrator 

for Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response

3 15 Stipulate the following in the grant agreements for 

each program:

a. For Brownfields, require grantees to track 

the status and type of reuse of remediated 

sites and report that information to 

OSWER.

b. For RCRA CA, whenever there is a change 

in site conditions or site use, require states 

to revise the RCRA CA determination form 

to reflect the changes and have states 

re-submit the form to OSWER.

c. For UST, require states to submit to 

OSWER and make publicly available sitespecific information, including site name.

U Assistant Administrator 

for Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response

4 15 Correct designations for sites identified as not 

PFP or RAU.

O Assistant Administrator 

for Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response

10/12/14

5 15 Appropriately qualify the validity, uses and 

reliability of the CPRM data reporting in 

OSWER’s publicly available information systems.

O Assistant Administrator 

for Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response

03/31/15

1 O = Recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending.

C = Recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed.

U = Recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
14-P-0364 17

Appendix A 

Agency Response to Draft Report

and OIG Evaluation

August 25, 2014

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report EPA Needs to Improve Its 

Process for Accurately Designating Land as Clean and Protective for Reuse Project 

No. OPE-FY12-0016

FROM: Mathy Stanislaus

Assistant Administrator

TO: Arthur A. Elkins, Jr.

Inspector General

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues and recommendations in the subject audit 

report. Following is a summary of the agency’s overall position, along with its position on each 

of the report recommendations. For those report recommendations with which the agency agrees, 

we have provided high-level intended corrective actions and estimated completion dates to the 

extent we can. For those report recommendations with which the agency does not agree, we have 

explained our position, and proposed alternatives to the recommendations. We would appreciate 

the opportunity to meet with you if you do not plan to accept these changes. 

AGENCY’S OVERALL POSITION

The Agency works collaboratively with states, tribes, local government, and other stakeholders 

to achieve its mission of assessing, cleaning up and restoring contaminated sites to set the stage 

for redevelopment or facilitate the continued use of the facility. For the Superfund Program, EPA 

directly oversees the cleanup activities. Other EPA programs were designed by Congress to be 

delegated or authorized to states (e.g., RCRA Corrective Action, Underground Storage Tanks) or 

established as a grant program (Brownfields). In fact, the majority of site-specific cleanup 

decisions are made by the state-run or state-delegated programs, including decisions about 

protectiveness. These roles and oversight are inaccurately portrayed in various parts of the draft 

OIG report. 

OIG Response 1: The OIG has made revisions where appropriate. 
14-P-0364 18

For example, there are no Brownfield specific regulatory authorities governing the cleanup of 

brownfields delegated to the states. The EPA does not have statutory authority to require state 

oversight of Brownfields cleanups.

The various roles, responsibilities, and relationships between EPA, states, tribes, and grantees 

must be taken into consideration when designing and establishing an effective performance 

reporting system. When a program is delegated or authorized to a state or is implemented 

through a grant program, EPA relies on that entity to document and report results. These entities 

are best placed to address site-specific problems as they arise on a day-to- day basis. EPA works 

to strengthen and assist them and has established requirements for data reporting. Any data 

reported for the performance measures should adhere to EPA’s quality information policies.

OIG Response 2: We agree that any data reported for the performance measures should 

adhere to EPA’s quality information policies. As cited in EPA’s Executive Order CIO 2105.0, 

Policy and Program Requirements for the Mandatory Agency-Wide Quality System, Section 6 

(a) (8), assessment of existing data, when used to support agency decisions or other secondary 

purposes, must verify that the data is of sufficient quantity and adequate quality for their 

intended use. As we have demonstrated in our report, OSWER does not have sufficient 

controls and procedures to ensure that the CPRM data meets the quality standards cited in the 

Executive Order.

In that way, the data used to report performance data are reliable and as complete as possible 

given the structure of these programs. 

The Cross-Program Revitalization Measures (CPRM), including the Ready for Anticipated Use 

(RAU) measure, are a few of the numerous performance measures EPA uses to help manage the 

program and gauge progress of sites along the cleanup continuum. The OIG inaccurately refers 

to these measures as a “CPRM program”. 

OIG Response 3: As cited in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11, the 

Government Accountability Office defines a program as an organized set of activities directed 

toward a common purpose or goal that an agency undertakes or proposes to carry out its 

responsibilities. Therefore, the CPRM is a program. However, the term is not needed to make 

our point and has been removed from the report.

Four EPA cleanup programs report the RAU measure which allows us to better manage and 

communicate at an OSWER level our collective cleanup and reuse related activities and 

accomplishments3. The four cleanup programs are facilitated to work together to identify lessons 

learned, potential efficiencies, and opportunities to advance site cleanup. EPA is then able to 

look at this information collectively across programs and Regions, and gauge overall progress 

cleaning up contaminated sites. 

The RAU is not a reporting of site-specific risk. The RAU determination by the appropriate 

entity is based on information at the time that the determination is made. It may change if the 

 

3 The RAU is actually made up of specific performance measures from the Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, 

Brownfields, and Underground Storage Tank Programs. 
14-P-0364 19

site’s conditions change or if new or additional information is discovered regarding the 

contamination or conditions at the site. Thus, the Agency publicly reports the RAU information 

at a program level for the state-run or grant programs, not at a site- specific level with the names 

of sites; therefore, it is not available to be used to make decisions on site reuse. The one 

exception is the Brownfields program, at this time. The Brownfields program is removing the 

RAU information from the public information system. 

OIG Response 4: We do not agree that site-specific RAU information is only available to the 

public for Brownfields sites. As can be found at 

http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0301376, site-specific RAU 

information is also available for the Superfund program. Instead of removing the site-specific 

RAU information, EPA could qualify this data as recommended in OIG Recommendation 5.

Parties interested in finding out what uses would be protective for a particular property will rely 

on site-specific cleanup documents and site-specific institutional controls and contact the 

appropriate regulatory agency for more information.4 

We plan to improve our communication materials to better explain the use of CPRM, the 

conditions under which a RAU determination is made, and that the measures represent a point in 

time. We have already begun to do this and will continue to explore ways to better explain the 

measures to the public. 

 

4 We recognize that the lack of data on institutional controls (ICs) for the underground storage tanks program is not 

consistent with the definition of the RAU performance measure and we are working with the states to develop a 

baseline of current practices related to long-term protectiveness and whether the IC data can be made available. 

Nonetheless, we believe the LUST measure is a good indicator of sites ready for anticipate use, given the states’

determination that no further action is currently necessary to protect human health and the environment. 
14-P-0364 20

AGENCY’S RESPONSE TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

AGREEMENTSs

No. Recommendation High-Level Intended Corrective Action(s) Estimated Completion 

by Quarter and FY

4 Correct designations for 

sites identified as not PFP 

or RAU

Once the IG provides EPA with the list of 10 brownfields sites that it 

believes have been mistakenly identified as either PFP or RAU then EPA 

will review the information in the ACRES database to determine if the 

IG’s findings are correct and make any necessary changes to the PFP 

and/or RAU status of the sites. 

(In addition, all our programs will continue to work with regions and states 

to correct any inaccuracies as they are identified.) . 

Within 30 days of 

receiving the list of 

sites from the IG. 

5 Appropriately qualify the 

validity, uses, and 

reliability of the CPRM 

data reporting in OSWER’s 

publicly available 

information systems.

EPA will remove the RAU indicator for Brownfields sites from the 

Cleanup In My Community database. The CPRM is not intended to be 

used as a site-specific indicator for brownfields properties, rather it is 

intended to be a measure of progress across the universe of brownfield 

sites receiving EPA funding. 

Furthermore, we are exploring ways to better explain RAU to the public. 

As appropriate, EPA will include in its public communication materials 

that the PFP and RAU measures represents a point in time and will include 

information about conditions under which a RAU is made to explain 

potential ICs and ECs may be required. 

1

st

 qtr FY15

On-going. EPA is 

adding clarifying 

language to reports 

and other 

communication 

materials about the 

CPRM. 

DISAGREEMENTS 

No

.

Recommendation Agency Explanation/Response Proposed Alternative 

1 Improve Controls of the CPRM measures by finalizing the interim guidance to require 1a, 1b, and 1c. 

(Please note, the use of the term “interim” in the OSWER CPRM guidance did not mean draft. It met an interim step. The final 

step was for program offices to develop their own program specific guidances. The draft CPRM guidance was sent for comment in 

April 2006 and finalized October 2006. ) 
14-P-0364 21

1a States to track 

and report the 

status and type of 

reuse at RAU 

sites, instead of 

voluntary 

reporting.

See responses to 3a, 3b, 3c.

1b Brownfields and 

RCRA CA staff 

to obtain and 

review grantees’ 

supporting 

documentation 

for sites 

designated PFP 

and RAU 

and verify that 

the grantees 

provide 

information in the 

appropriate 

OSWER 

databases

The RCRA Corrective Action program will remind Regions that these forms need to 

be filled out for PFP and RAU and they should work with their states to verify that 

these forms are filled out for future RAU and PFP determinations entered into RCRA 

Info ( EPA's RCRA corrective action national database.)

The Brownfields Program’s existing Assessment, Cleanup, and Redevelopment 

Exchange System (ACRES) system is designed and structured to collect brownfield 

grantee reported information. Under the grant terms and conditions of the 

Assessment, Cleanup, Revolving Loan Fund, and State and Tribal Response Program 

grants, grant recipients are required to complete an OMB approved Property Profile 

Form in ACRES for each property where grant funding is expended. As Brownfields 

grants awarded prior to 2003 do not have a requirement to complete the Property 

Profile Form under their grant conditions, they are not included in the reporting of 

CPRM measures. The Ready for Anticipated Use (RAU) performance measure for 

properties where federal brownfields funding has been expended is based on 

information entered by the grantee on the Property Profile Form. An RAU 

designation depends on documenting that a property meets the three criteria in the 

RAU definition. As part of grant oversight and monitoring activities, EPA Regional 

staff assist grantees, providing guidance on the completion of forms, ensuring timely 

submission of forms, and completing quality assurance reviews of Property Profile 

Form data. EPA collects property information via ACRES throughout the grant 

period of performance, however, EPA cannot require grantees to enter information 

about site activities after the close-out of the Brownfields grant or beyond that 

approved by our existing information collection request approved under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act by OMB. 

Brownfields and 

RCRA CA should 

work with states to 

improve 

communication about 

the CPRM and to 

verify that the 

appropriate forms are 

completed. 

(1st qtr FY15)
14-P-0364 22

1c UST staff to 

obtain and review 

grantees’ 

supporting 

documentation 

for a selected 

sample of sites 

designated PFP 

and RAU and 

verify that the 

grantees provided 

information in the 

appropriate 

OSWER 

databases.

Congress has designed and funded the UST program for state implementation 

primarily. States make site-specific cleanup decisions, including determining when a 

site is clean enough to be closed. EPA works with state partners to provide 

regulations, guidance, policy, and funding resources to support the infrastructure of 

state UST program so that the private and state resources can directly finance the 

fieldwork necessary to clean up releases from federally regulated tanks releases.

UST staff should work 

with states to properly 

submit data into 

OSWER’s data system 

and perform 

appropriate QA/QC 

checks. 

(1st qtr FY15)

2. After CPRM 

interim guidance 

is finalized, 

provide training 

to regional 

OSWER staff 

responsible for 

verifying states’ 

PFP and RAU 

designations to 

ensure staff are 

informed of the 

guidance and 

what is required

As noted earlier, the draft’s authors may have misunderstood the context for the 

“interim” nature of the CPRM guidance. Nonetheless, OSWER will improve 

communications with the EPA regions on the CPRM tracking and reporting of 

contaminated sites by issuing a memo from the Assistant Administrator to the regions 

providing additional information on the measures, how they are used, and 

expectations for reporting. 

OSWER AA should 

issue a memo to the 

regions to ensure staff 

are informed of the 

CPRM guidance, how 

the measures are used, 

and what is required. 

(1st qtr FY15)

3. Stipulate the following in the grant agreements for each program: 

3a For Brownfields, 

require states to 

track the status 

The Federal Brownfields program, in accordance with the Brownfield amendments to 

CERCLA, is a national competitive grant program. It is not a regulatory or statedelegated program. In keeping with this grant authority, Brownfields property 

OBLR should expand 

ACRES training to 

place greater emphasis 
14-P-0364 23

and type of reuse 

of remediated 

sites and report 

that information 

to OSWER.

cleanups are managed by the grant recipient and assessment and cleanup activities are 

reported at a point in time to document grant funded activities. Moreover, while EPA 

brownfield grants fund assessment or cleanup, but not redevelopment, property 

specific reuse information often is not available at grant closure to report. Finally, 

the internal CPRM measures are a snapshot in time and are not meant to track the 

changing conditions at a site. As mentioned earlier, EPA cannot require grantees to 

enter information about site activities after the close-out of a Brownfields 

grant. Specific details about the scope of state VCP programs can be found in the 

State Brownfields and Voluntary Response Program report, available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/state_tribal/pubs.htm.

on grantee reporting 

and enrollment of 

property cleanups in 

State and Tribal VCP 

programs, where 

feasible. 

(1st qtr FY15 -

ongoing)

3b For RCRA CA, 

whenever there is 

a change in site 

conditions or site 

use, require states 

to revise the 

RCRA CA 

determination 

form to reflect the 

changes and have 

states re-submit 

the form to 

OSWER.

For the delegated CA states, cleanup decisions are made by states, EPA’s recognition 

of such cleanup decisions are based on these state decisions, and that the RAU is 

simple a cumulative sum of these state cleanup decisions.

ORCR should 

continue to 

recommend that when 

Regions or States 

become aware of a 

change in site 

conditions or site use 

that impacts the status 

of PFP or RAU, they 

should revise the PFP 

and RAU 

determination and 

revise the forms.

3c For UST, require 

states to submit to 

OSWER and 

make publicly 

available sitespecific 

information, 

including site 

name.

States are the primary implementing agencies and make site-specific cleanup 

decisions, including determining when a site is clean enough to be closed. EPA 

works with state partners to provide regulations, guidance, policy, and funding 

resources to support the infrastructure of state UST program so that the private and 

state resources can directly finance the fieldwork necessary to clean up releases from 

federally regulated tanks releases.

This recommendation 

does not match the 

nature of the UST 

program and should be 

deleted. 
14-P-0364 24

CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Brigid Lowery, Director, 

OSWER Center for Program Analysis on 202-566-0198.
14-P-0364 25

Appendix B 

Distribution

Office of the Administrator 

Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO) 

Agency Follow-Up Coordinator 

General Counsel 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for Public Affairs

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Director, Center for Program Analysis, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response