Scan this mobile 

code to learn more 

about the EPA OIG.

EPA Has Made Progress in 

Assessing Historical

Lead Smelter Sites But Needs 

to Strengthen Procedures

Report No. 14-P-0302 June 17, 2014

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Report Contributors: Tina Lovingood

Jill Trynosky

Jenny Drzewiecki

Jim Kohler

Kate Robinson

Abbreviations

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Information System

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FOIA Freedom of Information Act

NPL National Priorities List

OIG Office of Inspector General

OSRTI Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

PA Preliminary assessment 

ppm parts per million

SEMS Superfund Enterprise Management System

SI Site inspection

Cover photo: EPA removal action at the former Loewenthal Metals Corp. lead smelter in 

Chicago, Illinois. (EPA photo)

Hotline Suggestions for Audits or Evaluations

To report fraud, waste or abuse, contact us 

through one of the following methods:

To make suggestions for audits or evaluations, 

contact us through one of the following methods:

email:

phone:

fax:

online:

write:

OIG_Hotline@epa.gov

1-888-546-8740

1-202-566-2599

http://www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.htm

EPA Inspector General Hotline 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mailcode 2431T

Washington, DC 20460

email:

phone:

fax:

online:

write:

OIG_WEBCOMMENTS@epa.gov

1-202-566-2391

1-202-566-2599

http://www.epa.gov/oig/contact.html#Full_Info

EPA Inspector General 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mailcode 2410T

Washington, DC 20460
 

 14-P-0302

June 17, 2014

Why We Did This Review

We conducted this review to 

determine how the U.S. 

Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) has addressed

the sites in its August 2012

Lead Smelter Strategy. The

2012 Strategy focuses on 464

historical lead smelter sites

identified in 2001, also known

as “Eckel sites.” We also

examined the actions the EPA

has taken to inform

communities near the Eckel 

sites of potential lead 

contamination.

The Eckel sites are located 

across the country, primarily in 

urban areas. The EPA’s

Superfund site assessment

process, used to assess sites 

like the Eckel sites, was

designed to evaluate potential 

hazardous waste sites that may

pose a threat to human health

and the environment and to 

determine if a site may warrant 

cleanup attention. The EPA 

developed its 2012 Lead 

Smelter Strategy to ensure that 

all Eckel sites would be 

assessed.

This report addresses the 

following EPA goal or

cross-agency strategy:

 Cleaning up communities 

and advancing sustainable 

development. 

For further information, 

contact our public affairs office 

at (202) 566-2391.

The full report is at:

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

20140617-14-P-0302.pdf

 

EPA Has Made Progress in Assessing 

Historical Lead Smelter Sites But Needs to 

Strengthen Procedures

 What We Found

It took the EPA more than 12 years to 

complete the preliminary site assessment 

work at the 464 Eckel sites. According to the 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response, when the EPA learned of the 

Eckel sites in 2001, it distributed the list to

regional offices for informational purposes 

only. Because the Eckel sites were not 

submitted to the EPA through the public petition process, there were no

acceptance criteria or time limits for screening and assessment of the sites. The 

EPA’s ability to work on the Eckel sites was also impacted by an existing backlog 

of over 2,200 potentially contaminated sites. As a result, the EPA’s regional 

efforts to assess the Eckel sites were inconsistent. The overall absence of a 

process for the Eckel sites and other non-petitioned sites, as well as a lack of 

initial direction from the EPA, led to the inefficient use of agency resources. 

In addition, we found that the EPA lacked sufficient tracking, transparency and 

guidance on technical aspects of addressing the Eckel sites. Further, the EPA did 

not effectively convey to the public the details concerning its lengthy efforts and 

the challenges it faced in addressing the Eckel sites. Although the EPA has made 

progress in addressing the Eckel sites, the EPA’s breakdown in applying 

standard, transparent criteria and guidance for assessing the sites resulted in 

inefficiencies in the site assessment process and impacted the EPA’s credibility 

regarding its management of the Eckel sites. Specifically, improvements in 

guidance and procedures for managing contaminated sites could result in more 

efficient and effective use of limited resources, as well as have public health and 

economic benefits.

 Recommendations and Corrective Actions

We recommend that the EPA establish a clear process for handling potentially 

contaminated sites not referred to the EPA by a public petition, and that the EPA

re-evaluate guidance to ensure that regions are able to efficiently spend 

resources addressing the highest priority sites. To increase transparency and 

public awareness of the EPA’s efforts, we recommend the publication of the 

EPA’s 2012 strategy document and any subsequent findings. The EPA agreed 

with our recommendations and provided acceptable corrective actions. The 

recommendations are resolved with corrective actions underway.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Inspector General

At a Glance

Improvements in guidance and 

procedures for managing 

contaminated sites could result 

in more efficient and effective 

use of limited resources and 

result in public health and 

economic benefits.
June 17, 2014

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: EPA Has Made Progress in Assessing Historical Lead Smelter Sites

But Needs to Strengthen Procedures

Report No. 14-P-0302

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. 

The EPA office having primary responsibility for implementing the audit recommendations in this report 

is the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation located in the Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency Response.

Action Required 

In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, your offices provided acceptable and complete corrective actions 

or planned corrective actions in response to OIG recommendations. All recommendations are resolved 

and no final response to this report is required. We will post this report to our website at 

http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

Should you have any questions, please contact Carolyn Copper, Assistant Inspector General for Program 

Evaluation, at (202) 566-0829 or copper.carolyn@epa.gov; or Tina Lovingood, Director, Land Cleanup 

and Waste Management Evaluations, at (202) 566-2906 or lovingood.tina@epa.gov. 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
EPA Has Made Progress in Assessing Historical 14-P-0302

Lead Smelter Sites But Needs to Strengthen Procedures 

Table of Contents

Chapters

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

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

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

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

2 Site Assessment Process, Guidance Does Not Fully Address

Some Issues Encountered at Eckel Sites ....................................................... 7

EPA Does Not Have Criteria or a Time Limit for Reviewing and 

 Assessing All Potentially Contaminated Sites...................................... 7

Internal EPA Strategy Created to Address Eckel Sites............................... 9

Existing Backlog, Resources Impacted Earlier Attempts to

 Address Eckel Sites ............................................................................ 11

Delay in Addressing Contamination Can Reduce

 Projected Economic Benefits to Society.............................................. 12

OIG Review of Selected Eckel Site Documents Identified a Site 

 Needing Further Assessment.............................................................. 13

Additional Challenges Faced by EPA in Implementing 2012 Strategy........ 13

EPA Did Not Fully Communicate or Publicize Overall Strategy Efforts....... 15

Conclusions ............................................................................................... 16

Recommendations..................................................................................... 17

Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation.............................. 18

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits ............................. 20

Appendices

A Agency Response to Draft Report................................................................... 21

B Distribution ....................................................................................................... 27
14-P-0302 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Purpose

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) evaluated the EPA’s response to contamination by historical lead smelters. 

Specifically, we focused our review on sites included in the EPA’s 2012 “Strategy 

for Addressing 464 Lead Smelter Sites.” We addressed the following questions: 

 What has the EPA done to address the sites in its August 2012 

Lead Smelter Strategy? 

 What actions has the EPA taken to inform communities of the potential 

lead contamination in order to reduce the potential of exposure to lead? 

Background

In April 2001, the American Journal of Public Health published “Discovering 

Unrecognized Lead Smelting Sites by Historical Methods.”1 This study, also 

known as the Eckel study, claimed that 464 former lead smelter sites2 were 

unknown to federal and state authorities. The study also stated that sampling 

results taken from 10 sites indicated that nine of the sites may pose a threat to 

public health.

In April 2012, USA Today reported that the EPA had known about the issue of 

residential contamination caused by these smelters since 2001, yet claimed the 

EPA had not acted to address the contamination and left many neighborhoods 

exposed to health risks. In May 2012, a group of U.S. Senators called on the EPA 

to take immediate action to review unassessed sites to determine priority locations 

for remediation, such as those near schools or playgrounds. In August 2012, the 

EPA created a document outlining its strategy for addressing these former smelter 

sites. 

The EPA developed the 2012 Strategy to ensure successful completion of any 

remaining Superfund site assessment work at the 464 historical smelter sites. In 

the strategy, the EPA stated it would consider prioritization of assessments and, as 

necessary, cleanups for sites under certain circumstances, including sites near 

where children may gather, sites with potential environmental justice issues, and 

 

1 Eckel, W., Rabinowitz, M., and Foster, G., 2001, Discovering Unrecognized Lead-Smelting Sites by Historical 

Methods, American Journal of Public Health, v.91 (4): 625-627.

2 The list of smelter sites is informally referred to as the “Eckel list” or “Eckel sites” after William Eckel, who was 

the primary author of the 2001 journal article identifying these sites. The smelter list in the Eckel study identified 

approximately 430 sites and the number of sites was later updated to include 464.
14-P-0302 2

sites with sample results indicating contamination above risk-based screening 

levels and background.

Secondary Lead Smelting

The Eckel study used historical sources to identify sites in the United States 

where secondary lead smelting was done from 1931 to 1964. Historical sources 

included the Standard Metal Directory and Year Book of the American Bureau of 

Metal Statistics. Secondary lead smelters produce elemental lead and lead alloys 

from lead-bearing scrap material. The smelters were often small operations 

located in urban areas close to the source of scrap, such as automobiles.

Secondary lead smelting includes three major operations: scrap pretreatment, 

smelting and refining. Scrap pretreatment is the partial removal of metal and 

nonmetal contaminants from lead-bearing scrap and residue. Smelting produces 

lead by melting and separating the lead from metal and nonmetallic contaminants 

and by reducing oxides to elemental lead. The crude lead is then refined in 

furnaces.

Health Risks from Lead

The smelter pollution at the sites targeted for review in the EPA’s August 2012 

“Strategy for Addressing 464 Lead Smelter Sites” is lead and possibly other 

heavy metals that contributed to environmental contamination in soil or dust.

According to the EPA, lead is a naturally occurring element that can be harmful to

humans when ingested or inhaled, particularly children under the age of six. Lead

poisoning can cause a number of adverse human health effects, but is particularly

detrimental to the neurological development of children. The EPA classifies lead 

as a probable human carcinogen and a cumulative toxicant. A 2007 Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry lead fact sheet states that exposure to high 

lead levels can severely damage the brain and kidneys in adults or children and 

ultimately cause death. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry, the effects of lead are the same whether it enters the body 

through breathing or swallowing. Lead can affect almost every organ and system 

in the body. 

EPA Program to Address Contamination

Under the 1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA) and related laws, the EPA’s Superfund program 

identifies, investigates and cleans up America’s most contaminated hazardous 

waste sites. Superfund cleanup data are stored in the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System 

(CERCLIS) database. CERCLIS is the official repository for site- and non-site-
14-P-0302 3

specific Superfund data.

3 According to the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response (OSWER), CERCLIS contains information on hazardous waste site 

assessment and remediation from 1980 to the present.

The Superfund cleanup process has steps to assess sites, place them on a National 

Priorities List (NPL), and establish and implement appropriate cleanup plans. This 

is a long-term cleanup process. Sites that score at or above an established level 

qualify for cleanup under Superfund and are proposed for listing on the NPL, a 

list of the most serious sites identified for long-term cleanup and eligible for fundfinanced remedial action. 

In addition, under CERCLA, the agency has the authority to:

 Conduct removal action where immediate action needs to be taken.

 Enforce against potential responsible parties.

 Ensure community involvement.

 Involve states.

 Ensure long-term protectiveness.

Petition Process for the Public to Notify EPA of Potential 

Contamination

The Superfund site assessment process begins with site discovery or notification to 

the EPA of possible releases4of hazardous substances. The EPA may be notified of 

a potentially contaminated site through various mechanisms, including receipt of a 

public petition; referrals from other EPA programs; and referrals or notifications 

from states, tribes and other federal agencies. The process for the public to notify 

the EPA of suspected releases—including lead-contaminated sites—is the petition 

process, created via CERCLA Section 105(d). EPA requires these petitions to meet 

certain criteria and contain specific information about the possible release or 

releases. Within 12 months of receipt, the EPA is expected to review the public

referral or petition, approve or return the petition, and conduct a preliminary 

assessment if the petition is approved. EPA headquarters estimates that about 10 to 

20 sites of the approximately 200 new sites brought to the EPA’s attention each 

year are based on petitions. For potentially contaminated sites brought to the 

agency’s attention through means other than the petition process, there is currently 

no acceptance criteria or timeframe for conducting a pre-CERCLIS screening 

assessment. 

 

3 According to an EPA website, the Superfund program is in the process of deploying a new information system—

the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS)—which is replacing CERCLIS. SEMS will include the same 

data and content as CERCLIS.

4 EPA preliminary assessment guidance defines the term “release” to include any means by which a substance could 

be exposed to the environment, such as spilling, leaking, discharging, dumping, injecting and escaping.
14-P-0302 4

EPA Process to Assess Sites With Potential Contamination

The Superfund site assessment process includes multiple phases. Community 

involvement can occur at any point in the process. The first phase—the process of 

reviewing data on a potential site to determine whether it should be entered into the 

CERCLIS active site inventory for further evaluation—is referred to as 

pre-CERLIS screening. Some examples of why a site would not receive further 

evaluation for an EPA cleanup action include:

 It is currently in CERCLIS or has been removed from CERCLIS and no 

new data warrants re-entry into CERCLIS.

 The site and some contaminants found on the site are subject to certain 

limitations based on CERCLA definitions.

 A state or tribal remediation program is involved in response at the site 

and it is in the process of a final cleanup.

 The hazardous substance release at the site is regulated under a statutory 

exclusion (e.g., petroleum, natural gas).

 The hazardous substance release at the site is deferred to another authority.

 Site data are insufficient (i.e., based on potentially unreliable sources or 

with no information to support the presence of hazardous substances or 

CERCLA-eligible pollutants or contaminants). 

 Documentation clearly demonstrates that there is no potential for a release 

that could cause adverse environmental or human health impacts.

As demonstrated in the site assessment flow chart in figure 1, if a site moves past 

the pre-CERCLIS screening, the next phase is the preliminary assessment (PA). 

The PA involves gathering ownership history and other available information 

about site conditions to evaluate whether the site poses a threat to human health 

and the environment and/or further investigation is needed. The site inspection

(SI) tests air, water and soil at the site to determine what hazardous substances are 

present. The SI looks at the substances present and determines whether they are 

migrating to the environment and are a threat to human health. Information 

collected in the PA/SI phase helps the EPA evaluate the risks posed by the site 

using its Hazard Ranking System. 
14-P-0302 5

Figure 1

Source: EPA.

Responsible Office

OSWER’s Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI)

is the EPA headquarter office primarily responsible for the Eckel sites.

Scope and Methodology

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. We conducted our work from 

July 2013 to March 2014.

We interviewed OSWER staff—including staff in OSRTI—as well as staff in EPA 

Regions 2, 3 and 5. These three EPA regions were selected because they had the 

highest number of Eckel sites. We also interviewed staff from outside the EPA, 

including the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency, and the Pennsylvania Department of Health. 

Field visits were also conducted at multiple smelter sites in Regions 3 and 5.

In addition to the EPA’s August 2012 “Strategy for Addressing 464 Lead Smelter 

Sites,” we reviewed EPA programs, regulations and guidance documents related 

to the discovery and assessment of Superfund sites. Those documents included 

relevant sections of CERCLA, the National Contingency Plan, the December 

2012 Superfund Implementation Manual, OSRTI website guidance, the October 

2002 Preliminary Assessment Petition Guidance, the Superfund Community 
14-P-0302 6

Involvement Handbook and the Superfund Lead-Contaminated Residential Sites 

Handbook. 

We reviewed the available documentation for a sample of 42 historical smelter 

sites from the Eckel list. We identified 22 of these sites from counties with the 

highest number of Eckel smelter sites and counties in states with the highest 

number of children with elevated blood lead levels.5 Random selection was used 

to select the other 20 sites (two sites from each of the 10 EPA regions). 

Documentation was compared with the data available in CERCLIS and was also 

reviewed for completeness and whether it supported the assessment decision.

The scope of our review included actions the EPA took to assess contamination at 

the Eckel sites before, during and after the development of the 2012 Strategy. We 

also estimated the total cost to conduct assessment work at the Eckel sites based 

on the average national historical cost data provided by OSRTI. Additionally, we 

monetized the human health benefits of reducing lead exposure from the smelter 

sites and other sources. 

 

5

Information is based on U.S. Center for Disease Control data from 2009.
14-P-0302 7

Chapter 2

Site Assessment Process, Guidance Does Not Fully 

Address Some Issues Encountered at Eckel Sites

It took the EPA more than 12 years to complete preliminary site assessment work 

at the Eckel sites. This occurred because there was a lack of EPA criteria for

determining whether to accept or reject a non-petitioned site, an absence of target 

completion dates for assessing potentially contaminated sites, an existing backlog 

of other sites needing assessment work, and limitations in guidance on how to 

address urban lead contamination. Further, while the EPA stated it communicated 

with the public on a site-by-site basis where it determined a need, it did not 

publicize its August 2012 Lead Smelter Strategy. Communicating the 2012 

Strategy publicly and sharing results of its implementation could better serve 

communities and other stakeholders who may have questions about sites near 

them. The development of the 2012 Strategy appeared to be driven by Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) requests, congressional interest and media coverage.

Improvements in guidance and procedures for managing potentially contaminated 

sites could result in more efficient and effective use of limited resources as well as 

public health and economic benefits.

EPA Does Not Have Criteria or a Time Limit for Reviewing and 

Assessing All Potentially Contaminated Sites

A scientific journal listed the Eckel sites. The site list was not brought to the EPA 

as a petition, nor did the EPA consider it a petition. For the list to be considered a 

petition, it would need to meet the criteria identified in table 1. Since the Eckel list 

was not a CERCLA 105(d) petition, the EPA was not bound by the statutory6

12-month review period. According to EPA guidance, if it receives and acts on 

petitions that are general, unclear or do not have enough information, or are without 

clear impact to the petitioner, valuable time and resources are taken away from 

more serious problems. The EPA further states in its guidance that petitions without 

the required information will be returned to the petitioner.

The EPA processed the sites on the Eckel list as it would any site that enters the site 

assessment process under CERCLA. No criteria exists for determining whether the 

EPA should accept or decline to pursue pre-CERCLIS screening work at nonpetition sites. Further, if additional work is conducted, no EPA requirements or 

guidance exist for identifying a reasonable timeframe for conducting pre-CERCLIS 

screenings or setting target dates for future site assessments at non-petitioned sites. 

 

6 When the EPA is alerted to potentially contaminated sites by a public petition submitted under CERCLA 105(d), 

the EPA has a 12-month timeframe to review and assess the site or explain why the assessment is not appropriate.
14-P-0302 8

Table 1. EPA’s criteria for accepting petition under CERCLA compared to Eckel list

Criteria for petition Attributes of 464 Eckel list sites 

Contains the full name, address, 

telephone number and signature of the 

person submitting the petition.

List not submitted by the journal author as 

a petition to the EPA; therefore, no 

submitter contact information or signature 

included.

Includes a description of how the 

petitioner is, or may be, affected by the 

actual/potential release. Concerns a 

release that affects the petitioner.

List did not include description of how the

journal author was, or could be, affected by 

the actual/potential release at each site. 

Contains the location of the actual/

potential release. 

Location of the actual/potential release was 

insufficient for 78 sites.

Source: OIG analysis of EPA 9200.5-330FS guidance document and the EPA's 2007 Headquarters

Lead Smelter Site Project Report.

Using the EPA’s criteria above, had the Eckel list been submitted as a petition, it 

should have been returned. The Eckel list did not contain enough information 

about all of the 464 sites to allow the EPA to take action without expending 

additional resources. As an alternative to returning the entire list, the EPA could 

have made the determination to reject or not pursue additional work at the sites on 

the list with missing information. Instead, according to OSWER, the Eckel list 

was distributed to regional offices in 2001 for informational purposes only. 

No direction was provided on whether and when the sites should be reviewed. 

According to OSRTI staff, no assessment requirements were established because 

of the limited site information in the Eckel list. As a result, some regional offices 

pursued work on the Eckel list sites while some did not.

From 2001 to 2012, EPA regions assessed between two and 38 Eckel list sites per 

year. According to a January 2007 internal EPA document, OSRTI implemented a 

site identification project from January 2005 to November 2006 focused on 

identification of any unreported sites posing high human health risks. The OSRTI 

project concentrated on a sample of 31 Eckel sites. The project concluded that 

OSRTI’s role should be limited to managing the refinement and regional 

distribution of any large volume site listings submitted to the EPA for potential 

federal Superfund attention; EPA regions can then incorporate and prioritize these 

sites as appropriate within existing site assessment workloads. 

Once the untracked Eckel sites became part of the EPA’s workload, the EPA used 

pre-CERCLIS screening forms at most of the remaining sites to determine whether 

further site assessment work was needed. The completion of pre-CERCLIS 

screening forms for even the ineligible Eckel sites took time because the EPA had 

incomplete information for some sites.

7 EPA staff we spoke with told us that in 

some cases they spent more time reviewing historical documents to find site 

locations and boundaries than is usual for a pre-CERCLIS screening. Some sites 

 

7 Pre-CERCLIS checklist information not readily available or incomplete for some Eckel sites included site location 

and information on the release at the site. Sites that do not meet the pre-CERCLIS screening form criteria may be 

ineligible under CERCLA, which means they do not qualify for further assessment.
14-P-0302 9

had been paved over for many years or contained large office buildings where no 

public exposure route was present. For example, according to the EPA, the Wrigley 

Building in Chicago, Illinois, is at an Eckel site. The EPA stated in a January 2007 

internal report that, given the age of the Wrigley Building, it is probable that the 

offices, not the smelter for the Michigan Smelting and Refining Company, were 

located at the site and the site does not appear to pose a risk to humans.

Internal EPA Strategy Created to Address Eckel Sites

In July 2012, the EPA developed a CERCLIS tracking report to monitor progress 

at the Eckel sites. The EPA created the Lead Smelter Strategy in August 2012 to 

ensure successful completion of the remaining Superfund site assessment work at 

the 464 smelters. The 2012 Strategy purpose also stated it was necessary to 

determine the extent to which new information recently made available to the 

EPA could affect planned, ongoing and completed assessments and identify 

smelters that may pose a health threat requiring further assessment and, as 

necessary, cleanup. 

In addition, OSRTI staff told us the 2012 Strategy was created to establish a 

framework for completing and documenting the EPA’s work on the Eckel sites in 

the midst of continuing FOIA and media requests, congressional interest and 

awareness of new sampling data. According to OSRTI staff, in late 2010, the EPA 

began receiving multiple FOIA requests, many from the news media, for 

information about the current status of the Eckel sites. One region we interviewed 

estimated that it received 13 FOIA requests. In addition to information requests, 

USA Today conducted sampling at some Eckel sites. Although the EPA was 

unable to review the sampling details, USA Today’s test results identified high 

levels of lead in the soil, sparking concern and prompting the EPA to reassess 

some sites. 

The EPA did not have a cost estimate for the 2012 strategy, nor did it track the 

personnel costs associated with implementing it. In the last few years of its work 

on the Eckel list sites, we estimate the EPA spent a substantially larger portion of 

money on site assessment work. As of 2013 the Eckel site assessment cost was 

estimated to be $14.7 million,8 while since 2012 we estimate the EPA spent 

$9.2 million9or more on the Eckel site assessments. The EPA staff we spoke with 

in three regions said that the 2012 Strategy involved a more extensive process,

and site assessments were more resource intensive compared to other sites 

brought to the EPA for review.

 

8 Estimates are based only on the average cost to complete assessment activities (considering contractor and EPA 

costs). The site status covers all Eckel site assessment work conducted by the EPA through November 2013.

9 The estimate is based on data from February 2012 to November 2013. OSWER’s CERCLIS tracking report for the 

Eckel smelter sites provides February 2012 as a baseline starting point for the 2012 Strategy.
14-P-0302 10

2012 Strategy Resulted in Completion of All Site Screenings 

The 2012 Strategy stated that the EPA would consider prioritizing Eckel sites for 

assessment and, as necessary, cleanup. Circumstances the EPA would consider in 

its prioritization efforts included:

 Sites where sampling results indicate the presence of lead or other heavy 

metals attributable to past smelter operations and above risk-based 

screening levels and background.

 Sites located near where children may gather or be active (e.g., residential 

areas, day care centers and schools).

 Sites where population density is high (e.g., population within a 

quarter-mile of the listed address).

 Sites with potential environmental justice issues.

We found that these factors and the prioritization effort had a limited impact on 

the completion of site assessments. For over 216 of the 464 sites, EPA regions 

had already conducted site assessments before the 2012 Strategy was 

implemented. Because the regions were planning to assess all remaining sites 

within a 14-month timeframe, one region we spoke with told us the order in 

which the sites were assessed was influenced by other factors, including 

proximity to EPA and state offices. The EPA’s estimated timeline for smelterrelated activities in the 2012 Strategy included the completion, to the maximum 

extent practicable, of preliminary assessments for all 464 sites by October 31, 

2013. Pre-CERCLIS screenings and/or preliminary assessments were completed 

by the end of November 2013 for all Eckel sites.

Example of EPA removal action at former Loewenthal Metals Corp. 

lead smelter—an Eckel site in Chicago, Illinois. (EPA OIG photo)

Figure 2 on the following page shows the rate at which site assessments for the 

Eckel list sites were completed and entered into CERCLIS as of November 2013. 

The number of assessments rose sharply in 2012. We attribute this to

implementation of the 2012 Strategy. Figure 2 shows that 50 percent of all Eckel 
14-P-0302 11

sites were assessed in just the last 2 years. The figure only includes those sites for 

which a site assessment has been completed. Of the 464 Eckel list sites, figure 2 

includes 440 of the sites. For the remaining 24 sites not shown, 19 were duplicates

and further assessment is still needed at five sites.

Figure 2: History of Eckel sites marked “assessment complete” in CERCLIS,

November 2013

Source: OIG analysis of 2013 EPA CERCLIS data using non-NPL date or proposed 

NPL date assigned. The (*) next to 2012 highlights the year in which the EPA’s Strategy 

was developed.

As of November 2013, the EPA had determined that of the 464 Eckel list sites, 

approximately 290 sites (over 60 percent of the total sites) were determined to be 

invalid and therefore did not qualify for further assessment under CERCLA. In 

contrast, 50 of the 464 sites qualified for potential cleanup actions due to human 

health and environmental risks, according to OSWER’s tracking reports. Of those

50 sites, 32 were referred to the removal program, seven were proposed to be 

placed on or were placed on the final NPL, one is listed as part of an NPL site, 

three were deferred to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act program, 

six were being cleaned up by states or private parties, and one has not yet had the 

cleanup program determined. Five of the seven sites that were proposed to be 

placed on or were placed on the NPL were proposed to the NPL prior to 2001.

Existing Backlog, Resources Impacted Earlier Attempts to Address 

Eckel Sites

The EPA had a site assessment backlog of about 5,100 sites in the active site 

inventory in 2001. According to OSWER, this backlog currently stands at about 

2,200 sites. The backlog consists of sites that have completed pre-CERCLIS 

screening and are subsequently added to the active site inventory. It does not 
14-P-0302 12

include sites that the EPA has determined require an initial pre-CERCLIS 

screening because EPA headquarters does not formally track this category. While 

some Eckel sites were on the assessment backlog because they had already been 

screened and found to be CERCLA eligible, others remained on the untracked, 

screening backlog. We found that the volume of these sites and the existing 

assessment backlog, as well as a lack of information on many, caused some 

regions to put a lower priority on the Eckel sites relative to their existing 

workload. 

During the implementation of the 2012 Strategy, the EPA identified certain 

factors that could be used to prioritize assessment of the Eckel sites, as noted 

earlier. However, some regional site assessment managers had difficulty applying 

these factors and comparing these sites to those already in the backlog before 

initial screening. Once screening is completed and more site-specific information 

is gathered, the EPA could then use site-specific factors to assign each site a 

qualifier (e.g., “high priority” and “low priority”). These qualifiers are already 

defined and available within the CERCLIS program. The EPA could better use 

these qualifiers to determine whether time is being spent addressing sites that are 

of the highest priority, and to communicate to outside stakeholders the basis for 

determining the agency’s priorities and timeline for site assessment. The delay in 

addressing Eckel sites may be justified if the risk from other sites in the backlog 

was greater than the risk posed by the Eckel sites, but the EPA did not formally 

conduct such an analysis.

Delay in Addressing Contamination Can Reduce Projected Economic 

Benefits to Society 

The delay in addressing lead contamination is not insignificant. For the Eckel list 

sites, 50 were referred to cleanup programs because they had the potential to 

impact public health. While protecting human health is the EPA’s primary 

mission, resources spent to remove and remediate lead contamination can also 

result in projected economic benefits to society. According to a 2011 study,10

lead poisoning for children in the United States cost $50.9 billion (in 2008

U.S. dollars) in lost economic productivity resulting from reduced cognitive 

potential from preventable childhood lead exposure and an additional $5.9 million 

in medical care costs. A 2009 study11 suggests that each IQ point loss represents a 

loss of $17,815 in discounted value of lifetime earnings (in 2006 U.S. dollars).

Another study from 200212 estimated an economic gain of $2,350 to $5,500 in 

increased lifetime earnings per child for each microgram per deciliter blood lead 

 

10 Trasande L., and Liu Y. (2011) “Reducing the Staggering Costs of Environmental Disease in Children, Estimated 

at $76.6 Billion in 2008.” Health Affairs, Volume 30, No. 5:863-870.

11 Gould, E. (2009) “Childhood Lead Poisoning: Conservative Estimates of the Social and Economic Benefits of 

Lead Hazard Control.” Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 117:1162–1167.

12 Grosse S., Matte T., Schwartz J., Jackson R. (2002) “Economic Gains Resulting from the Reduction in Children’s 

Exposure to Lead in the United States.” Environmental Health Perspectives. Volume 110, No. 6:563-569.
14-P-0302 13

reduction (in 2000 U.S. dollars). Furthermore, a 2013 study13 estimated the 

benefits from cleanup under the Superfund program and found that, by analyzing 

census tract-level data within a 3-mile radius, the median home values increase by 

20.8 percent after cleanup. Backlogs in site assessment activities can delay 

cleanup actions that lead to these economic benefits.

OIG Review of Selected Eckel Site Documents Identified a Site 

Needing Further Assessment

In addition to our review of EPA activities related to the Eckel sites, we 

conducted a review of the site-specific documentation for a sample of 42 Eckel 

sites across all 10 EPA regions. Our goal was to confirm that EPA actions at these 

Eckel sites were currently supported by documentation. We found the EPA was 

initially missing documentation for one of the 42 sites. Subsequent pre-CERCLIS 

screening activities showed that additional assessment to ensure protection of the 

nearby residents and community was needed. Assessment activities, including 

sampling, were necessary because of the site’s location in a residential area in 

close proximity to a school. The assessment activities will also include 

community outreach and reporting. 

Additional Challenges Faced by EPA in Implementing 2012 Strategy 

The EPA had additional challenges in using the CERCLA statutory framework to

efficiently implement the 2012 Strategy. These include:

 Delineating and cleaning up sites, including those in and around urban 

areas where the background levels of lead are high. 

 Linking the source of lead contamination to the historical former lead 

smelters.

 Determining potential impact on communities when data on health 

impacts, including blood lead level data, are unavailable.

According to EPA guidance, CERCLA response actions are undertaken to address 

a release or threat of release of a hazardous substance such as lead into the 

environment. In certain cases, such as the secondary former lead smelters on the 

Eckel list, it may be appropriate to use CERCLA authorities to conduct sampling 

and site characterization activities to determine the source of the lead 

contamination and to differentiate between various site-related sources. However, 

one region that we visited stated that it found overarching difficulties in tracking 

and managing lead issues. The regional contacts we spoke with questioned 

whether CERCLA was the appropriate statute to address areas with lead 

contamination since it does not specifically address cleanup in circumstances 

when the background levels of contamination are equal to or higher than the site 

 

13 Gamper-Rabindran S., and Timmins C. (2013) “Does cleanup of hazardous waste sites raise housing values? 

Evidence of spatially localized benefits.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. Volume 65, 

Issue 3, Pages 345-360.
14-P-0302 14

under review. Both regions we visited and OSRTI managers stated that it is 

difficult to identify the various sources of lead in urban environments.

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, Section 403, the EPA defines a soil lead 

hazard as bare soil on residential property, or on property of a child-occupied 

facility, that contains concentrations of lead equal to or exceeding 400 parts per 

million (ppm) in the play area or an average of 1,200 ppm in the rest of the yard.

The Superfund program uses a 400 ppm screening level for residential 

properties.14 In addition to the soil lead concentration, the potential for a health 

concern is related to several other factors, including the age of the person exposed

as well as the level and duration of exposure. 

The EPA conducted sampling at some of the sites we reviewed and identified lead 

levels in excess of 1,500 ppm both at the site and in surrounding areas. 

Background15 levels of lead in urban areas can be high. Generally, the CERCLA 

program does not clean up sites to concentrations below natural or anthropogenic 

background levels. It is therefore difficult for regions to delineate sites and clean 

up contaminated property in many urban environments. Nonetheless, the 

contamination still exists and presents a potential risk to public health. For these 

cases, engineering controls (such as creating reliable barriers to mitigate the risk 

of lead exposure) as well as non-engineering controls (such as education and 

health intervention programs) can be appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA. However, because such non-engineering controls are not permanent, 

these actions may not be preferred remedies. 

In addition to the complications of determining where and how to focus cleanup 

efforts in highly contaminated environments, EPA assessment managers we spoke 

with experienced challenges in linking lead contamination directly to the former 

smelter sites. Lead releases in soil can come from multiple sources, including 

paint and car exhaust. Lead from historical smelter sites may have degraded over 

time. One of the regions we visited conducted a pilot study to identify the source 

of lead through speciation.

16 However, this method can be time consuming and 

costly and, therefore, may not be widely used. Given the potentially broad 

statutory authority CERCLA provides to the EPA to conduct a removal and/or 

remedial action, the agency should determine whether and where it is necessary to 

use limited assessment resources to link contamination to a source.

According to regional interviews, the EPA does not have definitive guidance on 

source confirmation or cleanup decisions in areas with high background lead 

levels. Generally, there is a lack of blood lead level data available to inform 

 

14 Screening levels are defined as a level of contamination above which there may be enough concern to warrant 

site-specific study of risks. 

15 For the CERCLA cleanup program, EPA policy defines “background” as constituents or locations that are not 

influenced by the releases from a site and are usually described as naturally occurring or anthropogenic.

16 Speciation is a technique used to identify the specific type of lead that can be used to distinguish smelter lead from 

other lead sources. 
14-P-0302 15

assessment decisions. Often, data most widely available is at the county level, 

which is not detailed enough to link blood lead levels to a source. EPA Region 3 

is planning voluntary testing of community members for blood lead levels near a 

smelter site to determine whether there are potential health impacts from the site. 

Linking soil contamination at historical secondary lead smelter sites to current 

public health issues and environmental conditions is further complicated by high 

levels of lead in urban environments and the historical nature of the pollution. 

Additionally, according to OSWER, health impacts like community-wide blood 

level data cannot be incorporated into the current pre-remedial Hazard Ranking 

System scoring process.

Based on our regional interviews, review of the CERCLA statute, and existing 

guidance, the extent that resources should be expended to link contamination to a 

site to then utilize CERCLA funds for cleanup is unclear. In February 2013, 

OSRTI developed an internal discussion draft which outlined considerations and 

challenges associated with evaluating Eckel list sites for placement on the NPL. 

The internal document identified challenges evaluating Eckel sites, including 

where there were background levels of contamination and distinguishing between 

lead smelter and other sources of pollution in urban areas, but it did not address 

all circumstances or constitute formal program guidance. The lack of information 

and clear guidance on assessing lead at former smelter sites created uncertainty 

for the site assessment managers we spoke with. For sites where the level of 

cleanup, source of contamination and potential health impact were uncertain and 

guidance was not clear, EPA actions could be inconsistently and inefficiently 

applied. This could result in differences in the level of protection and cleanup 

from one community to another as well as potential delays in addressing sites that 

could impact public health. 

EPA Did Not Fully Communicate or Publicize Overall Strategy Efforts

The August 2012 Lead Smelter Strategy outreach and coordination section noted 

that EPA headquarters would explore the development of a “boilerplate” 

communications strategy to help regions proactively respond to concerns raised 

by the public. The EPA considered, but did not develop, any boilerplate 

communications for the regions. According to regional staff, there were relatively 

few public inquiries received on the sites and, where inquiries were received, 

regional staff developed site-specific responses. Regions were in regular 

communication with EPA headquarters on progress made assessing the Eckel list 

sites. Progress was tracked and reported on a quarterly basis for the number of 

sites assessed and monthly conference calls were held. No metrics, milestones or 

consistent information on the type of communication used at sites was included in 

the quarterly reports or otherwise tracked. As a result, we were unable to 

determine the full extent of the EPA’s communication and outreach efforts and 

any overall impacts on public health and community awareness. 
14-P-0302 16

With the exception of access agreements for sampling, no requirements exist for 

communicating with the public during either the PA or SI phase. According to 

EPA guidance, the agency does involve the community at sites that garner public 

interest and at sites during the PA/SI phases. The regions we visited—Regions 3 

and 5—were both involved with community outreach during the PA stage. 

Region 3 had prepared a draft outreach document on lead smelters, lead 

contamination, exposure and prevention for residents in case of inquiry. 

The EPA has not made its August 2012 Lead Smelter Strategy available to the 

public on its website. An OSRTI manager explained that it was OSRTI’s decision 

to use the 2012 Strategy as an internal planning and management tool rather than 

to publicize it. Nonetheless, a news organization obtained the document through a 

FOIA request in September 2012 and posted it to a public website. EPA took no 

subsequent actions to release the strategy document. 

The EPA’s decision not to publish its strategy for assessing the Eckel list sites 

may result in reduced public awareness of its efforts and time spent to address 

these sites. The EPA generally did not emphasize in communications with the 

public and media that it received minimal details for many of the sites, nor did it 

disclose that the Eckel list was not submitted as a petition and was being 

addressed through the EPA’s cleanup process. In addition, EPA senior officials 

were quoted in news articles about the Eckel list, but the agency’s actions and 

process for addressing the Eckel sites were not included in the article and the EPA 

did not follow up with this information on its own website or an EPA press 

release.

Conclusions

The EPA’s pre-CERCLIS screenings and site assessments for Eckel list sites, 

tracked under the 2012 lead strategy, were completed more than 12 years after the 

EPA received and distributed the list. The EPA does not have decision criteria or 

required timeframes for screening and assessing potentially contaminated sites 

that come to its attention outside the petition process. By distributing the Eckel 

list to regional offices in 2001 for informational purposes only, the EPA created 

an awareness of the sites without a clear expectation for action. Without criteria 

and initial direction for assessing these 464 sites, agency resources in some cases 

were inconsistently and inefficiently used. The EPA spent time reviewing sites 

where the locations and existence of historical smelters were unclear. Moreover, it 

initially overlooked some sites that were later found to need clean-up actions. 

Establishing a clear process that includes decision criteria for accepting a nonpetitioned site as well as target dates for screening and assessment may improve 

the timeliness in which sites are addressed. In addition, the application of criteria 

can increase consistency in decisions made across EPA regions.

The EPA has a site assessment backlog of over 2,200 sites. These sites compete

for a limited amount of EPA resources. The EPA currently has no requirement to 
14-P-0302 17

prioritize new sites with existing sites in its backlog. Additional limitations 

include some EPA regional uncertainty about the extent that resources should be 

spent to link contamination to a source that would then enable the EPA to address 

a site under CERCLA. Also, EPA regions lack definitive guidance to prioritize 

site assessments in areas with high background levels of lead contamination.

Regions also need instruction on determining actual or potential site-related health 

impacts, particularly in areas where data of this type are unavailable or 

incomplete. Existing guidance should be re-evaluated to ensure that regions are 

able to efficiently spend future resources addressing the highest priority sites.

Better communicating EPA efforts to address the Eckel sites may increase public 

awareness of how the EPA is taking steps to mitigate risk to public health. 

Improved communication may also help to reduce the resources used to respond 

to FOIAs and media inquiries and help to sustain EPA credibility in this area. 

Recommendations

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response:

1. Establish criteria for determining upfront whether to expend resources to 

conduct a pre-CERCLIS screening and/or add a non-petitioned site 

referred to the EPA Superfund site assessment program to the EPA’s 

existing workload. Document and communicate decisions made in EPA 

records.

2. Refine the process for tracking non-petitioned sites referred to the EPA 

Superfund site assessment program, including:

a. Definition of a reasonable timeframe that pre-CERCLIS screenings 

and site assessments should be conducted. If needed, a discovery 

date should be entered as well as target dates for future 

assessments.

b. Establishment of a tracking mechanism for any backlog of 

pre-CERCLIS screenings.

c. Periodic reviews to ensure that sites in the assessment backlog 

have appropriate qualifiers that indicate priority level for further 

assessment. 

3. Assess existing EPA guidance for addressing lead contamination in soil

within the Superfund site assessment process and obtain input from the 

regions to determine whether any updates are needed and revise as 

appropriate. Include the following issues in the assessment:

a. Amount of resources, level of effort and methods used to link lead 

contamination to a source.
14-P-0302 18

b. Cleanup or other actions needed at sites when background 

contamination levels are above screening levels, including those in 

urban areas.

c. Determination of actual and/or potential health impact on 

communities, including whether a referral to another agency or 

program for further review or health-based testing is necessary. 

4. Clearly post the August 2012 lead smelter strategy document on the 

EPA’s website. 

5. Following completion of the 2012 Strategy, create and post a summary of 

the results of the EPA’s efforts to address sites included in the strategy 

and, as applicable, any findings and recommendations on the EPA’s 

website.

Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation 

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

OSWER (appendix A). In its response, OSWER stated that it uses its limited 

Superfund site assessment resources to address a wide variety of sites brought to 

its attention by various public and private entities using a “worst sites first” 

philosophy to guide the prioritization of site assessment work. OSWER expressed 

concern over the description of the EPA’s initial response to the Eckel sites and 

noted that it distributed the list to its regional offices for informational purposes 

only. According to OSWER, it required the regions to assess a small number of 

the Eckel sites following a 2007 EPA site identification project. However, 

OSWER stated it did not require the addition of any remaining Eckel list sites to 

the workload until the 2012 strategy was developed.

We reviewed additional supporting information provided by OSWER in its 

response to the draft report. The information did not show that OSWER explicitly 

stated that the Eckel list sites were to be viewed for informational purposes only, 

nor did the information show that OSWER provided any specific direction to 

regional offices regarding the Eckel list. We clarified our portrayal of the EPA’s 

initial response based on this information. The agency’s response also included 

some technical comments, which were incorporated into the final report as 

appropriate.

The agency agreed with all recommendations and provided a corrective action 

plan as well as estimated completion dates. The plan provided steps the agency 

would take to address the recommendations, including many actions already in 

the planning stages. In a subsequent communication, OSWER confirmed that its 

corrective actions for recommendation 2a would include entry of discovery dates, 

if needed, and explained that it will use a new project management software 

component of SEMS to track this element. In addition, OSWER clarified that it 

will include all aspects of recommendation 3 (3a, 3b and 3c) in its assessment of 
14-P-0302 19

existing guidance. Based on the proposed corrective actions and subsequent 

communication with OSWER, the OIG believes the agency’s actions, when 

implemented, should address all recommendations.
14-P-0302 20

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

Agreed-To 

Amount

1 17 Establish criteria for determining upfront whether to 

expend resources to conduct a pre-CERCLIS 

screening and/or add a non-petitioned site referred to 

the EPA Superfund site assessment program to the 

EPA’s existing workload. Document and communicate 

decisions made in EPA records

O Assistant Administrator 

for Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response

9/30/14

2 17 Refine the process for tracking non-petitioned sites 

referred to the EPA Superfund site assessment 

program, including:

a. Definition of a reasonable timeframe that 

pre-CERCLIS screenings and site assessments 

should be conducted. If needed, a discovery date 

should be entered as well as target dates for 

future assessments.

b. Establishment of a tracking mechanism for any 

backlog of pre-CERCLIS screenings.

c. Periodic reviews to ensure that sites in the 

assessment backlog have appropriate qualifiers 

that indicate priority level for further assessment.

O Assistant Administrator 

for Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response

9/30/14

(for all parts, 

a-c)

3 17 Assess existing EPA guidance for addressing lead 

contamination in soil within the Superfund siteassessment process and obtain input from the regions 

to determine whether any updates are needed and 

revise as appropriate. Include the following issues in 

the assessment:

a. Amount of resources, level of effort and methods 

used to link lead contamination to a source.

b. Cleanup or other actions needed at sites when 

background contamination levels are above 

screening levels, including those in urban areas.

c. Determination of actual and/or potential health 

impact on communities, including whether a 

referral to another agency or program for further 

review or health-based testing is necessary.

O Assistant Administrator 

for Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response

9/30/16

(for all parts, 

a-c)

4 18 Clearly post the August 2012 lead smelter strategy 

document on the EPA’s website.

O Assistant Administrator 

for Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response

6/30/14

5 18 Following completion of the 2012 Strategy, create and 

post a summary of the results of the EPA’s efforts to 

address sites included in the strategy and, as 

applicable, any findings and recommendations on the 

EPA’s website.

O Assistant Administrator 

for Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response

12/31/15

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-0302 21

Appendix A 

Agency Response to Draft Report

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. There are no report recommendations with which the agency does not agree. For 

your consideration, we have included a Technical Comments Attachment to supplement this 

response.

AGENCY’S OVERALL POSITION

 We concur with all of the OIG’s proposed recommendations and, as specified in the 

attached chart, have initiated or planned corrective actions.

 Every year, EPA uses its limited Superfund site assessment resources to address a wide 

variety of sites brought to our attention by various public and private entities. EPA 

regions work with their state and tribal partners to determine which sites will be 

evaluated. Historically, EPA applies the philosophy of “worst sites first” to guide the 

prioritization of site assessment work.
14-P-0302 22

 We are concerned about statements describing when the 464 Eckel sites were added to 

EPA’s existing workload since they may imply an expectation to complete this work 

dating back to 2001. 

 While EPA became aware of the list of potential sites in 2001, the list generally lacked 

sufficient site detail to add them to the workload. EPA distributed the list to its regional 

offices for informational purposes only. Our Regional offices did add some of these sites 

to the existing workload and conducted assessments based on their research of this list. 

EPA’s site identification project completed in 2007 focused on those sites from the 2001 

list that had not already been added to the existing workload. At that time, OSWER 

required the regions to assess a small number of these sites based on certain key criteria. 

The results of these assessments concluded that the newly assessed sites from the 2001 

list generally did not pose sufficient contamination needing response under the Federal 

Superfund program. Thus, no additional requirements were made to add any remaining 

sites to the workload. However, in early 2012, EPA learned of new sampling results from 

media reports suggesting some of the 464 sites with no planned EPA involvement had 

soil lead contamination above health-based benchmarks. That is when EPA decided to 

develop the 2012 lead strategy ensuring remaining sites were added to the workload and 

assessed as necessary. 

AGENCY’S RESPONSE TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

No. Recommendation High-Level Intended 

Corrective Action(s)

Estimated Completion by 

Quarter and FY

1 Establish criteria for 

determining upfront 

whether to expend 

resources to conduct a preCERCLIS screening and/or 

add a non-petitioned site 

referred to the EPA 

Superfund site assessment 

program to the EPA’s 

existing workload. 

Document and 

communicate decisions 

made in EPA records. 

OSWER agrees with this 

recommendation. OSWER is 

currently revising the October 

1999 Pre-CERCLIS Screening 

Assessments fact sheet as an 

action item under the 

Superfund Remedial Program 

Review Action Plan dated 

November 26, 2013. OSWER 

expects the revision will 

address the components of 

this recommendation, 

including establishing criteria 

for determining whether prescreening is warranted, 

identifying the point at which 

potential sites should be added 

to the existing workload, and 

describing records 

management and 

communication requirements.

4

th Quarter FY 2014
14-P-0302 23

2-a Refine the process for 

tracking non-petitioned 

sites referred to the EPA 

Superfund site assessment 

program, including: 

a. Definition of a 

reasonable timeframe that 

pre-CERCLIS screenings 

and site assessments 

should be conducted. If 

needed, a discovery date 

should be entered as well 

as target dates for future 

assessments.

OSWER agrees with this 

recommendation. 

OSWER’s corrective action 

applies to sites that pass the 

criteria to be developed in 

response to Recommendation 

#1 (i.e., sites determined by 

EPA to need completion of a 

pre-screening report). 

OSWER plans to define an 

average expected timeframe 

for performing pre-screenings 

in the revised pre-screening 

fact sheet and/or EPA’s 

Superfund Program 

Implementation Manual 

(SPIM). 

In addition, EPA’s Superfund 

Enterprise Management 

System (SEMS) became

operational in December, 

2013 and subsumed EPA’s 

CERCLIS database. SEMS 

includes a new project 

management software 

component that uses default 

durations to develop a draft 

site project schedule. Default 

durations for site assessment 

activities have been 

programmed into the project 

management software thereby 

establishing target dates for 

future assessments when new 

sites are added to the SEMS 

active site inventory. 

4

th Quarter FY 2014

2-b Establishment of a tracking 

mechanism for any 

backlog of pre-CERCLIS 

screenings.

OSWER agrees with this 

recommendation. 

OSWER’s corrective action 

applies to sites that pass the 

criteria to be developed in 

response to Recommendation 

4

th Quarter FY 2014
14-P-0302 24

#1 (i.e., sites determined by 

EPA to need completion of a 

pre-screening report). 

SEMS provides the ability to 

add a new site record when a 

determination has been made 

that pre-screening is 

warranted. SEMS users can 

add site name and location 

data along with planned and 

actual start and completion 

dates for pre-screening work. 

OSWER plans to develop a 

computer tracking report 

displaying new sites added to 

SEMS which need prescreening work completed.

2-c Periodic reviews to ensure 

that sites in the assessment 

backlog have appropriate 

qualifiers that indicate 

priority level for further 

assessment.

OSWER agrees with this 

recommendation. The 

Superfund Program 

Implementation Manual 

(SPIM) describes appropriate 

qualifiers that indicate priority 

level for further assessment 

beginning with the 

Preliminary Assessment and a 

SEMS data quality report 

exists showing missing action 

qualifiers. OSWER will add 

an instruction to the SPIM 

requiring review of the data 

quality report on an annual 

basis. OSWER will explore 

the benefit of adding 

qualifiers to pre-screening and 

remedial site discovery 

activities in SEMS and update 

the SPIM as necessary.

4

th Quarter FY 2014

3 Assess existing EPA 

guidance for addressing 

lead contamination in soil 

within the Superfund site 

assessment process and 

obtain input from the 

OSWER agrees with this 

recommendation. OSWER 

plans to work with regional 

offices in assessing existing 

guidance relating to the 

Superfund site assessment 

Guidance Assessment:

2

nd Quarter FY 2015

Revised Guidance (if 

necessary):

4

th Quarter FY 2016
14-P-0302 25

regions to determine 

whether any updates are 

needed and revise as 

appropriate. Include the 

following issues in the 

assessment: 

a. Amount of resources, 

level of effort and methods 

used to link lead 

contamination to a source. 

b. Cleanup or other actions 

needed at sites when 

background contamination 

levels are above screening 

levels, including those in 

urban areas. 

c. Determination of actual 

and/or potential health 

impact on communities, 

including whether a 

referral to another agency 

or program for further 

review or health-based 

testing is necessary.

process to determine if 

updates are warranted with 

respect to addressing lead 

contamination in soil.

OSWER’s assessment will 

include consideration of the 

elements described in parts 

3a, 3b, and 3c of the OIG’s 

recommendation. 

OSWER will revise guidance 

or issue new guidance as 

necessary based on the 

outcome of the guidance 

assessment.

4 Clearly post the August 

2012 lead smelter strategy 

document on the EPA’s 

website. 

OSWER agrees with this 

recommendation. OSWER 

will post the 2012 lead 

smelter strategy on an Agency 

web page.

3

rd Quarter FY 2014

5 Following completion of 

the 2012 Strategy, create 

and post a summary of the 

results of the EPA’s efforts 

to address sites included in 

the strategy and, as 

applicable, any findings 

and recommendations on 

the EPA’s website.

OSWER agrees with this 

recommendation. OSWER 

plans to develop a summary 

of results based on EPA’s 

implementation of the 2012 

lead strategy, including 

applicable findings and 

recommendations. OSWER 

will post the summary on an 

Agency web page.

1

st Quarter FY 2015

CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Doug Ammon, Site Assessment 

and Remedy Decisions Branch Chief in the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology 

Innovation on (703) 347-8925. 

Attachments 
14-P-0302 26

cc: Barry Breen, OSWER

James Woolford, OSWER/OSRTI

Dana Stalcup, OSWER/OSRTI

Doug Ammon, OSWER/OSRTI

Randy Hippen, OSWER/OSRTI

Tina Lovingood, OIG

Jill Trynosky, OIG
14-P-0302 27

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 External Affairs and Environmental Education

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Director, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

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